INDIA will turn 60 this year while Ghana will turn 50.
Africa has distinguished itself as a source of involuntary human capital movement and its citizens are now found in many of the world’s civilisations.
Being credited as the cradle of human civilisation, Africa has a rich heritage that unfortunately has not been translated into human progress. India being only 10 years older than Ghana has made tremendous strides to live up to the expectations of its citizens particularly in the last 16 years and already the global village is feeling the Indian factor in commerce and industry.
As world political and economic leaders meet in Davos for the World Economic Forum (WEF) what is noticeable is that Africans are missing in the defining debates and dialogues about the continent’s future and a few unelected individuals and celebrities have now become the ambassadors of Africa in the First Life. Indeed, Gates and Blair now have something in common and that is Africa and equally Bono and many world leaders can share the same platform and all this is due to our inability to take ownership of our own problems. Yes, Africa needs partners and indeed it needs more Gates, Bono, Jolie, Pitt, Winfrey and others.
If in the First Life, Africans are challenged by their collective inability to respond to their challenges, what prospects if any exist for Africans to make a mark in the Second Life? Yes, Africa is at the bottom end of the digital world and yet Africans in the continent and the diaspora constitute a critical mass that can sustain an investment in the Second Life. The question is whether Africans can invest in this virtual life and through their collective behaviour distinguish themselves in the commercial, social and political spheres. The question we need to ask is what is Second Life and how important is it to Africa with 53 boundaries and with more of its peoples scattered in the global village.
Second Life has been defined as an internet-based virtual world developed by Linden Lab, a downloadable client program that enables users to interact with each other through motional avatars thereby providing an advanced level of a social network service combined with general aspects of a metaverse. It is a virtual world built and owned by residents or users.
This second life is a digital continent without borders and citizenship and through this medium you can team up with people who may share your passion, experiences and more importantly whom a common thread of shared values can connect. Africans now have an opportunity of creating their own reality in the virtual space and yet when you scan the virtual world, what is striking is that the few Africans who are connected are not organised into a family of serious and forward looking citizens.
There is no government to stop Africans from trading with each other in the Second Life and yet any organised African group does not support the virtual marketplace. Among the millions of US$ in monthly transactions that are taking place in the virtual space, a small percentage has an African identity.As a regular contributor to the virtual world through my weekly column, I have been surprised by the reach of my personal reflections on a number of topics including those I am least qualified to make a contribution on i.e. politics to the extent that I thought there exists a distinct possibility that we can use the same medium to shift the debate from nation specific topics to broader issues that resonate with many people who call themselves African. Yes, I am African not because I am black but because I am a believer in the quest for an African identity.
I am acutely aware that it is difficult to take nationalism out of many Africans but the Second Life offers us an opportunity to go beyond the confines of where one is born to the reality that through others a better Africa is a not a pipe dream. Yes, there are many networking sites in the virtual space and it is not too late for Africans to invest in their own. The first stage should naturally involve giving ourselves a new birth certificate in the Second Life i.e. an email address and the next is to invest in content. Yes, we need to know each other and can you imagine how much power a million people who share one identity can have in the global market place. Many have observed that the African American economy in the US is probably bigger than even South Africa, a country recognised as the engine of Africa, with 47 million people and yet there is no visible connection between this economy and the rest of Africa for the world to notice.
Imagine everyone of us who are privileged to be connected could use our contacts and share them with our virtual friends in this Second Life and all of us can know each other through other people, how long will it take for us to create a social networking virtual space that we can collectively use to negotiate a better life for us and those connected to us. Can you imagine that the classified section of many newspapers is the key revenue generator and all it takes is that is for us to create our own virtual classified newspaper in the Second Life that can have the same functionality as the newspaper in this First Life. It can be done and it is already being done.
I am a member of http://www.myzimspace.com/, http://www.myafrispace.com/ and http://www.myjozi.com/ and all it takes is the discipline among the users to encourage their friends to join. May be in our lifetime we will host an African Economic Forum where Africans can speak their minds about poverty, governance and business without fear of losing citizenship or their lives.
If one were to count how many Africans of European origin are still in the continent, I am not sure whether the number would exceed 10,000,000 and yet this relatively small population accounts for a substantial claim on Africa’s resources. Many would attribute the relationship between Europeans who chose to be African and money to the colonial past and yet after 50 years of Uhuru, even Africa’s most senior decolonised state has not been able to define a clear relationship between its citizens and money. Africa’s brand unfortunately is not defined in terms of wealth but in terms of debilitating human problems.
I am convinced that more than 10,000,000 people who call themselves African live in the Second World and yet have not been able to establish a connectivity that is empowering. Yes, Africans have distinguished themselves in fighting against apartheid but have not been able to harvest. If 10,000,000 people can be so organised as to undermine the sovereignty that Africans fought so hard to gain, why is it not possible for Africans to organise themselves in the Second World and create their own world without borders but with the compassion of Bono and the selflessness of Oprah?
Monday, January 29, 2007
Monday, January 22, 2007
Year for decisive action, for whose benefit?
THE debate that has generated from the publication of Edgar Tekere’s autobiography, A Lifetime of Struggle, and the historic link between its publication and the debate on Zimbabwe’s constitutional options demonstrates the lack of depth and maturity that is systemic in many developing countries in general and Africa in particular.
With respect to Robert Mugabe and politics, we are now being told that he was a reluctant politician who had no mind of his own without any explanation as to what and how a person like Mugabe should have behaved in the face of an ivory tower created leadership vacuum in Zanu PF.
One needs to understand and appreciate the views of those who seek to describe Mugabe as a coward on democracy and leadership and how any person who respects institutions and the role of the governed in selecting a leader of their choice ought to have behaved in the face of what should properly be described as an illegal and unconstitutional removal of Ndabaningi Sithole from the party that he helped found.
Yes, Zimbabwe is worse off today than it was at independence and yet that should not encourage political opportunism and a rewriting of history by those privileged to have been part of the country’s history making. Zimbabweans are at risk and vulnerable to attacks by political vultures now more than ever given the political transition challenges that face not only Zanu PF, the ruling club, but the country in general.
The conversations on Zimbabwe in the post colonial era are pregnant with testimonials that the state of health of Zanu PF is symptomatic of the general state of health of the country and as such the Zanufication of Zimbabwean politics seems to have been crystallised to an extent that there appears to be no life or discussion beyond the party’s leader and the institution. If one carefully examines Tekere’s statements that have been echoed by Enos Nkala, it becomes evident that after all Mugabe may possess the very misunderstood democratic values that the country appears to be in search of.
It is for this reason that I read with interest Professor Jonathan Moyo’s opinion piece entitled: “Hysterical reaction to Tekere belies fear” in which he makes a number of observations that need to be interrogated in the interests of elevating the conversations that are necessary to better inform change in Zimbabwe and the kind of leadership values that should be expected of anyone seeking the highest office in the country. In addition, history may not judge our generation appropriately if we gloss over some historical events and subjectively record other people’s stories in the interests of political expediency.
The fact that Mugabe has remained in power for the entire post colonial period and that he is a towering figure in the politics of Africa should ordinarily inform us that we should avoid any intellectual dishonesty in our evaluation of the reasons underpinning his hegemony over the political landscape.
This is what Professor Jonathan Moyo had to say about the reactions from a number of archived politicians and political observers to Tekere’s book. He observes that Tekere’s autobiography makes three history-marking disclosures about how Mugabe rose into and remained in power to the point of becoming a terrible liability to Zimbabwe today. The Prof targets what he terms Mugabe’s propagandists for attack by alleging that their interventions by providing their own recollections of the events described by Tekere is an abuse of the public media as if to suggest that if he were still the propagandist of Mugabe he would have shut them.
I have always believed in conversations as a way of better understanding my friends and adversaries alike and believe that it is important that history is informed by both sides of the story. It may be true that Mugabe is an embattled leader but that should never be used as an excuse of frustrating debate. In saying this, I am reminded that Zimbabweans should find a way of disagreeing with each other without being disagreeable to one another.
In as much as Tekere is entitled to narrate the story of his lifetime of struggle in his own words through his own memory, I think the Prof and many of those who have joined the debate should allow the archived George Rutanhires and the Commissioner of Police, Augustine Chihuri, to give their own narrations without labelling or targeting them.
Intellectual intimidation is no different from the political hooliganism that people accuse the Zanu PF government of engaging in. It is important, therefore, that those who purport to seek genuine change try to exhibit different values from those they seek to remove otherwise the prospect of Zimbabwe, the patient; ever waking up from this long sleep will be doomed.
It is instructive that the Prof has suddenly become the defender of Tekere as if he needs one. When the Prof was occupying the position of chief propagandist of the government, he never saw merit in giving Tekere the same space to make disclosures that would have been seen as tarnishing Mugabe’s reputation and legacy.
The disclosures in Tekere’s book that the Professor feels have annoyed Mugabe’s cronies are set out below:
Disclosure OneThat Tekere played a leading role in paving the way for Mugabe’s rise to the leadership of Zanu PF.
It is difficult to reconcile this disclosure with the kind of values that should have informed the selection of leaders in any democratic club. I would have thought that the Prof as a learned gentlemen would have prefaced his analysis with an acknowledgment that it is wrong for any individual belonging to a club to claim that his/her rights are superior to the general rights of members to decide who should lead them. I have no doubt that if the Prof had been placed in Mugabe’s shoes he would not have seen any problem in a scenario where a few individuals decided to co-opt Mugabe in the club without any consent from the general membership, and then forty four years later to then be reminded that it was not the people who selected you but you were a product of the decision of a few wise people!
In trying to understand the history of ZANU as a democratic force that was established to fight against political and economic hegemony of a race-based cabal of wise persons, it is important that we critically analyse the actions of those who want their versions of history to be the only ones in relation to how leaders in Africa ought to be selected. We need to ask critical questions that naturally should flow from the disclosure by people Zimbabweans should look up to like Tekere, Nkala, and others with a view to better understanding what values they seek to impart to contemporary Africa.
Should leaders of political organisations be elected by members? Should citizens have the right to choose who should lead them? How should citizens or members of political clubs select their leaders? Is it fair and just for citizens to surrender their sovereign right to choose their own government to an incumbent President? Should Zimbabwe be a dynasty or a republic? What are the obligations of a republic on leaders who believe that they should manufacture a President?
I share the sentiment that George Rutanhire in seeking to advance this own version should not have insulted Tekere by alleging that he "went mad and formed his own party (Zum) in the past". It is this kind of attitude that limits the progress and altitude of not only the country but the continent. Yes, Tekere should have an opportunity to express his own views without fear or prejudice in as much as Zimbabweans must invest in an institutional framework that will prevent individuals above the people from claiming credit for manufacturing political leaders. If Mugabe has overstayed then surely Zimbabweans are culpable because we do not have any record of Mugabe being comfortable as a beneficiary of an opaque selection process or seeking to avoid elections.
Yes, we can argue whether elections have been free and fair but no one can allege that Zimbabwe has missed an election because Mugabe or his lieutenants were afraid of the vote. It is important that history is properly recorded. If Zimbabweans now find Mugabe objectionable after electing him, then it is important for intellectuals like the Prof to suggest in what way the country should respond while respecting the fundamental position that leaders must come from the people.
Having read what has been written about Mugabe by Tekere, it occurs to me that Mugabe’s values have been consistent from the outset. According to the Prof, Tekere recalls in his autobiography that: “Mugabe’s road to power started after his return to Zimbabwe from Ghana, when he was approached and incorporated into the nationalist leadership under the NDP. To attract his incorporation, Mugabe had not demonstrated any notable leadership qualities besides his impressive proficiency in pronouncing English words with an acquired if not exaggerated accent that leaves the uncanny impression that he is a highly learned person when he is not.
As to how and when Mugabe came to head Zanu, Tekere’s autobiography recalls a fact, which has been corroborated by various independent sources, that he was elevated after the Kwekwe prison sacking of Sithole by his fellow leaders in mid-1974 in a vote spiritedly moved by Tekere and supported by Enos Nkala and Maurice Nyagumbo but opposed by Sithole himself with a cowardly abstention from Mugabe while Moton Malianga did not vote as he chaired the meeting to sack Sithole from the leadership of Zanu.
About this Tekere recalls that "the votes were cast with three in favour of the sacking, one against (Sithole), and one abstention — Mugabe. Once more Mugabe did not want to "break" with his leader. His abstention was total. He sat silently in the meeting and did not raise a finger. This is when he was appointed to head the party. For the structure was clear on this. Since the Vice-President, Leopard Takawira, had died, Mugabe, as secretary-general of the party, was the next in line.
Sithole’s dismissal from the presidency of Zanu by his colleagues in prison was communicated to all party structures, especially guerilla fighters, within and outside the country. Therefore subsequent seemingly landmark events, including the December 1974 "Nhari Rebellion", Chitepo’s assassination in March 1975, the crossing into Mozambique by Tekere and Mugabe in April 1975, the October 1975 Mgagao Declaration and the letter of January 24, 1976, from the Dare reChimurenga signed by Josiah Tongogara, Kumbirai Kangai and Rugare Gumbo, were footnotes to the sacking of Sithole and his replacement by Mugabe through an indubitably courageous motion that was moved by Tekere in the presence of both Sithole and Mugabe.
As such, only those who have been blinded by the whims and caprices of Mugabe’s personality cult and who because of that have become either malicious or sycophantic can deny that Tekere "was instrumental in catapulting Mugabe to the helm of Zanu PF". The supporting evidence is unimpeachable. In any event, it is clear from the public record that the October 1975 Mgagao Declaration sought to make Mugabe, who had already crossed into Mozambique with Tekere, only a spokesman and caretaker leader pending the release from prison in Zambia of Dare reChimurenga members who had been accused of murdering Chitepo and who were seen by the comrades in Mgagao as the real true leaders of the armed struggle who had inspired their declaration. That is why the Mgagao Declaration referred to Mugabe as the "…only person who can act as a middleman". The difference between a middleman and a leader is like that of night and day.”
Any student of democracy would agree that the behaviour of Mugabe appears to be consistent with anyone who believes in democracy. To argue that Mugabe should have been at the forefront of a coup de etat against Sithole and then proceed to criticise Mugabe for being a dictator can be best described as intellectual dishonesty. If the architects of Zimbabwe’s democracy are themselves guilty of setting a wrong foundation then history may never know that out of all the characters that have come to symbolise the struggle, Mugabe may be the most misunderstood leader by his own friends and countrymen. One would have thought with the passage of time, people like Tekere would understand Mugabe and the values that inform his choices.
In as much as the Prof has never understood the animal called Zanu PF despite having been a member of its structure in the party and the government, it appears that Mugabe’s values may not be in sync with the values of any power hungry person who has no respect for the will of the people. One has to recognise that in seeking to promote and entrench democratic values, Mugabe may have alienated himself from his colleagues who believe in democratic centralism as the guiding force.
For me coming from the private sector, I do appreciate where Tekere, Moyo and Nkala may be coming from given that leaders of commerce and industry are rarely chosen by shareholders. Shareholders typically are never involved in the selection of executives and in the case of directors it is typical that directors co-opt their friends and not enemies and all shareholders have to do is to ratify the choices made. Zimbabweans should make the choice of whether they want leaders to come from directors or themselves as shareholders.
Disclosure TwoThat, because Mugabe is basically an insecure heartless person given to brutal vengeance, he has over the years used the political power he got with a whole lot of help from his senior nationalist colleagues to marginalise and ostracise those very same colleagues who helped him rise to the helm of Zanu PF in the first place. This is what accounts for the political misfortunes of the likes of Zanu stalwarts such as Nkala, Nyagumbo, Eddison Zvobgo and Tekere himself not to mention similar misfortunes of many others in Zapu including the late Vice-President Joshua Nkomo who was humiliated by Mugabe into submitting to a treacherous unity accord. In the circumstances, Mugabe has come to be surrounded by dodgy political characters along with other bureaucratic and media sycophants who are known for their malice and incompetence.
It is being argued that since Mugabe’s legitimacy as a leader was a manufactured one, he should be eternally grateful to his principals and not the people who eventually elected his party at independence as a governing party. It is not clear from the Prof’s comments, how Mugabe should have behaved in relation to his so-called principals particularly given that a President of a country should act in the interests of the nation rather than partisan interests. In provoking discussion on Mugabe’s legacy, I believe that it is important that Zimbabweans rise above personal issues and debate issues in an objective manner.
I would like to believe that if Prof Moyo had been allowed to participate in the last election as a Zanu PF candidate, he would not object to other people calling him names as shown above. Is it fair and just to keep reminding Zimbabweans of the undemocratic values that informed the liberation struggle without providing any insight into what kind of institutional framework is required by Zimbabwe to provide checks and balances to the kind of mess that is described in Tekere’s book.
In as much as the Prof wants us to believe that it was wrong for Mugabe to ditch his principals, would it also not be fair to use the same analogy for him in that he used the Zanu PF party and government platform to ascend to power, albeit as an legislator for Tsholotsho? Would it be fair and just for the Prof to criticise the hand that profitably fed him? If the Prof was Mugabe what should he have done in relation to the Zanu PF stalwarts is a question that should occupy our conversations. Yes, Tekere’s life in many ways demonstrates the other side of Mugabe.
It is important to draw lessons from Zimbabwe’s rich political history and understand that when Nkala and others disagreed with ZAPU leadership, they proceeded to set up their own institutions to compete for political space without seeking to unseat Nkomo in ZAPU. They did not behave like what we have seen in the recent past where opposition parties have sought to disagree and then proceed to remain divided in the same party with two leaders without any courage to set up their own institutions.
Tekere set up his own political organisations as it should be and was allowed by the same Mugabe to compete for national political space and the rest is history. If Mugabe is as evil as we want him to be then surely Zimbabweans must be honest with themselves and take responsibility for their own inadequacies. It is wrong and naïve to blame Mugabe while congratulating each other on historical obfuscation. The crisis in Zimbabwe deserves better and Africa needs a Zimbabwe that is more intelligent than our intellectual and political leaders are displaying.
I have written previously on Imperial Presidency and having read Professor Moyo’s article, I have had to change my thinking on the Zimbabwean crisis. The crisis may ultimately be located in the minds of those who seek to confuse and rewrite history for self serving ends.
Disclosure ThreeThat the blame for 90% of Zimbabwe’s ills should go to Mugabe, not the much touted economic sanctions, and that there is now a critical and urgent need for bold leadership within Zanu PF with courage to tell Mugabe that he is now a liability to Zimbabwe and that he should retire and pass the baton to a younger and more imaginative leader.
Having read the articles on Tekere’s book and the interest that it has aroused, I am now convinced that the governance crisis in Zimbabwe will take longer to resolve because it is patently evident that the foundation of the liberation struggle particularly in terms of political leadership and democracy is fundamentally flawed. This is not a problem unique to Zimbabwe but to the extent that Tekere has opened the can of worms it is incumbent upon Africans to take ownership of the problem in a holistic manner with a view to establishing a consensus on whether leaders should be help culpable while their followers allow themselves to rewrite history in a manner that perpetuates the crisis by misleading citizens into believing that they should not have a say on who governs them but the right should be reserved for self appointed godfathers. If we seek to argue that Mugabe is the only problem, we should also seek to critically examine to what extent we have also personally and collectively contributed to the crisis.
I am persuaded to agree that even if Zimbabwe was not under any sanctions, the crisis would still be evident. Just to demonstrate the gravity of the Zimbabwean crisis and its location beyond the confines of Mugabe, I thought that it would be beneficial to step back and reflect on the following New Year messages for 2007 that were published on New Zimbabwe.com. I have picked on three individuals in an attempt to show that there may be many realities in Zimbabwe that may escape our attention in an attempt to target Mugabe for political and not national interest expediency.
Reserve Bank Governor Dr Gideon Gono: 'I aim to redouble my efforts this year. 2006 was a challenging year, but I am committed to the task at hand and challenge all Zimbabweans to help steer our country out of the current situation. This, we will do only if we are guided by honour, sincerity, integrity and purity.'
The questions we need to ask ourselves is whether the Governor is himself an honourable person, a man of sincerity and integrity, and finally whether he is pure. Yes, he wants every Zimbabwean to make suboptimal choices by buying the cheapest cars while he allows himself to enjoy the ultimate mobile luxury. We are told that the board of the RBZ allocated him an S500 top of the range Mercedes Benz as a company car.
He then proposed that the same car be provided to him as a loan, effectively taking the asset out of the balance sheet of the Bank. We are not told whether the policy of the bank was changed to allow all eligible staff members to have the same dispensation. We are then told that the car was then imported into the country and the Governor then decided to swap the car for an S600 that happened to be available in the market. No one attempts to explain why the board of the RBZ that is chaired by Gono would approve an S500 when it is evident that Gono was of the opinion that an S600 was the appropriate vehicle. We are also not told of who was the supplier of the vehicle. Could it be someone who had benefited from the opaque fertiliser or wheat deals that have now become the order of the day?
Then we read from the Standard that Gono was living large with the most expensive car in town. The story is then rebutted by the RBZ using institutional money. We are now told that the real car is the S600 with a V12 engine.
When one reads stories like this against a background of an economic crisis, one is tempted to believe that it cannot be Mugabe alone who is the problem. What has sanctions got to do with this kind of story? It is clear that even if Gono cannot go to Germany, Germany will come to him in form of an S600 luxury car.
I strongly believe that Moyo would not have a problem with a public officer of a state institution like Gono appropriating himself a luxury car with no evidence of Mugabe approving such a deal. Can you imagine how many lives would be saved if Gono and the RBZ had decided to sacrifice his personal comfort to buy a car that requires foreign currency to purchase and maintain for better health care? However, we are told that we should hold Mugabe culpable for the actions, tastes and appetites of people like Gono.
Property magnate and former Chinhoyi MP Phillip Chiyangwa: 'My resolution is to get stinking rich and blow the minds of my detractors apart. The more money I make, the bigger the distance between me and them.'
When you read the above resolution, you may be confused about the state of the Zimbabwean crisis. While many occupy their minds with the challenges of putting the next meal on the table others in the same country are thinking of getting stinking rich and blowing the minds of the poor. Who ever said that Zimbabwe was in a crisis when the velocity of primitive accumulation becomes the clarion call?
What would the Professor and Tekere say about the 2007 resolution and what should be the message to the increasing number of vulnerable Zimbabweans? When you read the above statement would you be wrong in saying that Mugabe is not the problem for I do not believe that any 83 year old person would have the capacity and energy to know what the time is as they say. Even if Mugabe was not there, the problem may be in the appetite and attitudes that are difficult to change even with a change of government.
Yes, Chiyangwa represents a different reality but how many other Zimbabweans have been victimised for doing what he may be doing for personal interest? Yes, Gono who lectures about patriotism and nationalism is evidently silent on Chiyangwa begging the question of selective and self serving treatment of business persons.
Tsholotsho MP Professor Jonathan Moyo: 'For me 2007 is a year for action and more action of the decisive kind not only within my personal sphere but also and even more importantly in national terms.'
No one needs to remind Professor Moyo that 2007 is only a year for action by Zanu PF and no significant national event is in the political calendar except decisions that have to be made by the ruling party for its own survival. I am not sure why the Prof is of the view that Zimbabweans should expect better and significant developments during this year. If the Prof was wrong on Tsholotsho, can anyone seriously expect him to be right on 2007? Only time will tell.
Yes, the Prof got into political leadership as a nominated legislator by the same Mugabe and yet he did not have the courage to say no and prove himself without the umbrella of patronage that he now seeks to condemn. Maybe the Prof would see no problem if Mugabe appoints the future President of the country and the dangers of investing in appointed leaders are all too evident from the Prof’s own short but remarkable record as the ultimate spin doctor and what many have described as the axis of evil.
I have previously observed that the only power people who do not have power is the power to be organised and not confused by simplistic messages. The air is pregnant with bad news about bad people making wrong decisions about the future of the country and yet there is no attempt to broaden the analytical and conceptual framework from the politics of the struggle to the politics of nation building.
Yes, political machinations may have been acceptable during the liberation struggle but a nation that builds a future on conspiracy projects ultimately undermines itself than promote its strategic interests. The real enemies of Zimbabwe may not be the nations that have imposed ineffective targeted sanctions but Zimbabweans themselves who rightly or wrongly may have invested in values that are allergic to progress and transformation.
With respect to Robert Mugabe and politics, we are now being told that he was a reluctant politician who had no mind of his own without any explanation as to what and how a person like Mugabe should have behaved in the face of an ivory tower created leadership vacuum in Zanu PF.
One needs to understand and appreciate the views of those who seek to describe Mugabe as a coward on democracy and leadership and how any person who respects institutions and the role of the governed in selecting a leader of their choice ought to have behaved in the face of what should properly be described as an illegal and unconstitutional removal of Ndabaningi Sithole from the party that he helped found.
Yes, Zimbabwe is worse off today than it was at independence and yet that should not encourage political opportunism and a rewriting of history by those privileged to have been part of the country’s history making. Zimbabweans are at risk and vulnerable to attacks by political vultures now more than ever given the political transition challenges that face not only Zanu PF, the ruling club, but the country in general.
The conversations on Zimbabwe in the post colonial era are pregnant with testimonials that the state of health of Zanu PF is symptomatic of the general state of health of the country and as such the Zanufication of Zimbabwean politics seems to have been crystallised to an extent that there appears to be no life or discussion beyond the party’s leader and the institution. If one carefully examines Tekere’s statements that have been echoed by Enos Nkala, it becomes evident that after all Mugabe may possess the very misunderstood democratic values that the country appears to be in search of.
It is for this reason that I read with interest Professor Jonathan Moyo’s opinion piece entitled: “Hysterical reaction to Tekere belies fear” in which he makes a number of observations that need to be interrogated in the interests of elevating the conversations that are necessary to better inform change in Zimbabwe and the kind of leadership values that should be expected of anyone seeking the highest office in the country. In addition, history may not judge our generation appropriately if we gloss over some historical events and subjectively record other people’s stories in the interests of political expediency.
The fact that Mugabe has remained in power for the entire post colonial period and that he is a towering figure in the politics of Africa should ordinarily inform us that we should avoid any intellectual dishonesty in our evaluation of the reasons underpinning his hegemony over the political landscape.
This is what Professor Jonathan Moyo had to say about the reactions from a number of archived politicians and political observers to Tekere’s book. He observes that Tekere’s autobiography makes three history-marking disclosures about how Mugabe rose into and remained in power to the point of becoming a terrible liability to Zimbabwe today. The Prof targets what he terms Mugabe’s propagandists for attack by alleging that their interventions by providing their own recollections of the events described by Tekere is an abuse of the public media as if to suggest that if he were still the propagandist of Mugabe he would have shut them.
I have always believed in conversations as a way of better understanding my friends and adversaries alike and believe that it is important that history is informed by both sides of the story. It may be true that Mugabe is an embattled leader but that should never be used as an excuse of frustrating debate. In saying this, I am reminded that Zimbabweans should find a way of disagreeing with each other without being disagreeable to one another.
In as much as Tekere is entitled to narrate the story of his lifetime of struggle in his own words through his own memory, I think the Prof and many of those who have joined the debate should allow the archived George Rutanhires and the Commissioner of Police, Augustine Chihuri, to give their own narrations without labelling or targeting them.
Intellectual intimidation is no different from the political hooliganism that people accuse the Zanu PF government of engaging in. It is important, therefore, that those who purport to seek genuine change try to exhibit different values from those they seek to remove otherwise the prospect of Zimbabwe, the patient; ever waking up from this long sleep will be doomed.
It is instructive that the Prof has suddenly become the defender of Tekere as if he needs one. When the Prof was occupying the position of chief propagandist of the government, he never saw merit in giving Tekere the same space to make disclosures that would have been seen as tarnishing Mugabe’s reputation and legacy.
The disclosures in Tekere’s book that the Professor feels have annoyed Mugabe’s cronies are set out below:
Disclosure OneThat Tekere played a leading role in paving the way for Mugabe’s rise to the leadership of Zanu PF.
It is difficult to reconcile this disclosure with the kind of values that should have informed the selection of leaders in any democratic club. I would have thought that the Prof as a learned gentlemen would have prefaced his analysis with an acknowledgment that it is wrong for any individual belonging to a club to claim that his/her rights are superior to the general rights of members to decide who should lead them. I have no doubt that if the Prof had been placed in Mugabe’s shoes he would not have seen any problem in a scenario where a few individuals decided to co-opt Mugabe in the club without any consent from the general membership, and then forty four years later to then be reminded that it was not the people who selected you but you were a product of the decision of a few wise people!
In trying to understand the history of ZANU as a democratic force that was established to fight against political and economic hegemony of a race-based cabal of wise persons, it is important that we critically analyse the actions of those who want their versions of history to be the only ones in relation to how leaders in Africa ought to be selected. We need to ask critical questions that naturally should flow from the disclosure by people Zimbabweans should look up to like Tekere, Nkala, and others with a view to better understanding what values they seek to impart to contemporary Africa.
Should leaders of political organisations be elected by members? Should citizens have the right to choose who should lead them? How should citizens or members of political clubs select their leaders? Is it fair and just for citizens to surrender their sovereign right to choose their own government to an incumbent President? Should Zimbabwe be a dynasty or a republic? What are the obligations of a republic on leaders who believe that they should manufacture a President?
I share the sentiment that George Rutanhire in seeking to advance this own version should not have insulted Tekere by alleging that he "went mad and formed his own party (Zum) in the past". It is this kind of attitude that limits the progress and altitude of not only the country but the continent. Yes, Tekere should have an opportunity to express his own views without fear or prejudice in as much as Zimbabweans must invest in an institutional framework that will prevent individuals above the people from claiming credit for manufacturing political leaders. If Mugabe has overstayed then surely Zimbabweans are culpable because we do not have any record of Mugabe being comfortable as a beneficiary of an opaque selection process or seeking to avoid elections.
Yes, we can argue whether elections have been free and fair but no one can allege that Zimbabwe has missed an election because Mugabe or his lieutenants were afraid of the vote. It is important that history is properly recorded. If Zimbabweans now find Mugabe objectionable after electing him, then it is important for intellectuals like the Prof to suggest in what way the country should respond while respecting the fundamental position that leaders must come from the people.
Having read what has been written about Mugabe by Tekere, it occurs to me that Mugabe’s values have been consistent from the outset. According to the Prof, Tekere recalls in his autobiography that: “Mugabe’s road to power started after his return to Zimbabwe from Ghana, when he was approached and incorporated into the nationalist leadership under the NDP. To attract his incorporation, Mugabe had not demonstrated any notable leadership qualities besides his impressive proficiency in pronouncing English words with an acquired if not exaggerated accent that leaves the uncanny impression that he is a highly learned person when he is not.
As to how and when Mugabe came to head Zanu, Tekere’s autobiography recalls a fact, which has been corroborated by various independent sources, that he was elevated after the Kwekwe prison sacking of Sithole by his fellow leaders in mid-1974 in a vote spiritedly moved by Tekere and supported by Enos Nkala and Maurice Nyagumbo but opposed by Sithole himself with a cowardly abstention from Mugabe while Moton Malianga did not vote as he chaired the meeting to sack Sithole from the leadership of Zanu.
About this Tekere recalls that "the votes were cast with three in favour of the sacking, one against (Sithole), and one abstention — Mugabe. Once more Mugabe did not want to "break" with his leader. His abstention was total. He sat silently in the meeting and did not raise a finger. This is when he was appointed to head the party. For the structure was clear on this. Since the Vice-President, Leopard Takawira, had died, Mugabe, as secretary-general of the party, was the next in line.
Sithole’s dismissal from the presidency of Zanu by his colleagues in prison was communicated to all party structures, especially guerilla fighters, within and outside the country. Therefore subsequent seemingly landmark events, including the December 1974 "Nhari Rebellion", Chitepo’s assassination in March 1975, the crossing into Mozambique by Tekere and Mugabe in April 1975, the October 1975 Mgagao Declaration and the letter of January 24, 1976, from the Dare reChimurenga signed by Josiah Tongogara, Kumbirai Kangai and Rugare Gumbo, were footnotes to the sacking of Sithole and his replacement by Mugabe through an indubitably courageous motion that was moved by Tekere in the presence of both Sithole and Mugabe.
As such, only those who have been blinded by the whims and caprices of Mugabe’s personality cult and who because of that have become either malicious or sycophantic can deny that Tekere "was instrumental in catapulting Mugabe to the helm of Zanu PF". The supporting evidence is unimpeachable. In any event, it is clear from the public record that the October 1975 Mgagao Declaration sought to make Mugabe, who had already crossed into Mozambique with Tekere, only a spokesman and caretaker leader pending the release from prison in Zambia of Dare reChimurenga members who had been accused of murdering Chitepo and who were seen by the comrades in Mgagao as the real true leaders of the armed struggle who had inspired their declaration. That is why the Mgagao Declaration referred to Mugabe as the "…only person who can act as a middleman". The difference between a middleman and a leader is like that of night and day.”
Any student of democracy would agree that the behaviour of Mugabe appears to be consistent with anyone who believes in democracy. To argue that Mugabe should have been at the forefront of a coup de etat against Sithole and then proceed to criticise Mugabe for being a dictator can be best described as intellectual dishonesty. If the architects of Zimbabwe’s democracy are themselves guilty of setting a wrong foundation then history may never know that out of all the characters that have come to symbolise the struggle, Mugabe may be the most misunderstood leader by his own friends and countrymen. One would have thought with the passage of time, people like Tekere would understand Mugabe and the values that inform his choices.
In as much as the Prof has never understood the animal called Zanu PF despite having been a member of its structure in the party and the government, it appears that Mugabe’s values may not be in sync with the values of any power hungry person who has no respect for the will of the people. One has to recognise that in seeking to promote and entrench democratic values, Mugabe may have alienated himself from his colleagues who believe in democratic centralism as the guiding force.
For me coming from the private sector, I do appreciate where Tekere, Moyo and Nkala may be coming from given that leaders of commerce and industry are rarely chosen by shareholders. Shareholders typically are never involved in the selection of executives and in the case of directors it is typical that directors co-opt their friends and not enemies and all shareholders have to do is to ratify the choices made. Zimbabweans should make the choice of whether they want leaders to come from directors or themselves as shareholders.
Disclosure TwoThat, because Mugabe is basically an insecure heartless person given to brutal vengeance, he has over the years used the political power he got with a whole lot of help from his senior nationalist colleagues to marginalise and ostracise those very same colleagues who helped him rise to the helm of Zanu PF in the first place. This is what accounts for the political misfortunes of the likes of Zanu stalwarts such as Nkala, Nyagumbo, Eddison Zvobgo and Tekere himself not to mention similar misfortunes of many others in Zapu including the late Vice-President Joshua Nkomo who was humiliated by Mugabe into submitting to a treacherous unity accord. In the circumstances, Mugabe has come to be surrounded by dodgy political characters along with other bureaucratic and media sycophants who are known for their malice and incompetence.
It is being argued that since Mugabe’s legitimacy as a leader was a manufactured one, he should be eternally grateful to his principals and not the people who eventually elected his party at independence as a governing party. It is not clear from the Prof’s comments, how Mugabe should have behaved in relation to his so-called principals particularly given that a President of a country should act in the interests of the nation rather than partisan interests. In provoking discussion on Mugabe’s legacy, I believe that it is important that Zimbabweans rise above personal issues and debate issues in an objective manner.
I would like to believe that if Prof Moyo had been allowed to participate in the last election as a Zanu PF candidate, he would not object to other people calling him names as shown above. Is it fair and just to keep reminding Zimbabweans of the undemocratic values that informed the liberation struggle without providing any insight into what kind of institutional framework is required by Zimbabwe to provide checks and balances to the kind of mess that is described in Tekere’s book.
In as much as the Prof wants us to believe that it was wrong for Mugabe to ditch his principals, would it also not be fair to use the same analogy for him in that he used the Zanu PF party and government platform to ascend to power, albeit as an legislator for Tsholotsho? Would it be fair and just for the Prof to criticise the hand that profitably fed him? If the Prof was Mugabe what should he have done in relation to the Zanu PF stalwarts is a question that should occupy our conversations. Yes, Tekere’s life in many ways demonstrates the other side of Mugabe.
It is important to draw lessons from Zimbabwe’s rich political history and understand that when Nkala and others disagreed with ZAPU leadership, they proceeded to set up their own institutions to compete for political space without seeking to unseat Nkomo in ZAPU. They did not behave like what we have seen in the recent past where opposition parties have sought to disagree and then proceed to remain divided in the same party with two leaders without any courage to set up their own institutions.
Tekere set up his own political organisations as it should be and was allowed by the same Mugabe to compete for national political space and the rest is history. If Mugabe is as evil as we want him to be then surely Zimbabweans must be honest with themselves and take responsibility for their own inadequacies. It is wrong and naïve to blame Mugabe while congratulating each other on historical obfuscation. The crisis in Zimbabwe deserves better and Africa needs a Zimbabwe that is more intelligent than our intellectual and political leaders are displaying.
I have written previously on Imperial Presidency and having read Professor Moyo’s article, I have had to change my thinking on the Zimbabwean crisis. The crisis may ultimately be located in the minds of those who seek to confuse and rewrite history for self serving ends.
Disclosure ThreeThat the blame for 90% of Zimbabwe’s ills should go to Mugabe, not the much touted economic sanctions, and that there is now a critical and urgent need for bold leadership within Zanu PF with courage to tell Mugabe that he is now a liability to Zimbabwe and that he should retire and pass the baton to a younger and more imaginative leader.
Having read the articles on Tekere’s book and the interest that it has aroused, I am now convinced that the governance crisis in Zimbabwe will take longer to resolve because it is patently evident that the foundation of the liberation struggle particularly in terms of political leadership and democracy is fundamentally flawed. This is not a problem unique to Zimbabwe but to the extent that Tekere has opened the can of worms it is incumbent upon Africans to take ownership of the problem in a holistic manner with a view to establishing a consensus on whether leaders should be help culpable while their followers allow themselves to rewrite history in a manner that perpetuates the crisis by misleading citizens into believing that they should not have a say on who governs them but the right should be reserved for self appointed godfathers. If we seek to argue that Mugabe is the only problem, we should also seek to critically examine to what extent we have also personally and collectively contributed to the crisis.
I am persuaded to agree that even if Zimbabwe was not under any sanctions, the crisis would still be evident. Just to demonstrate the gravity of the Zimbabwean crisis and its location beyond the confines of Mugabe, I thought that it would be beneficial to step back and reflect on the following New Year messages for 2007 that were published on New Zimbabwe.com. I have picked on three individuals in an attempt to show that there may be many realities in Zimbabwe that may escape our attention in an attempt to target Mugabe for political and not national interest expediency.
Reserve Bank Governor Dr Gideon Gono: 'I aim to redouble my efforts this year. 2006 was a challenging year, but I am committed to the task at hand and challenge all Zimbabweans to help steer our country out of the current situation. This, we will do only if we are guided by honour, sincerity, integrity and purity.'
The questions we need to ask ourselves is whether the Governor is himself an honourable person, a man of sincerity and integrity, and finally whether he is pure. Yes, he wants every Zimbabwean to make suboptimal choices by buying the cheapest cars while he allows himself to enjoy the ultimate mobile luxury. We are told that the board of the RBZ allocated him an S500 top of the range Mercedes Benz as a company car.
He then proposed that the same car be provided to him as a loan, effectively taking the asset out of the balance sheet of the Bank. We are not told whether the policy of the bank was changed to allow all eligible staff members to have the same dispensation. We are then told that the car was then imported into the country and the Governor then decided to swap the car for an S600 that happened to be available in the market. No one attempts to explain why the board of the RBZ that is chaired by Gono would approve an S500 when it is evident that Gono was of the opinion that an S600 was the appropriate vehicle. We are also not told of who was the supplier of the vehicle. Could it be someone who had benefited from the opaque fertiliser or wheat deals that have now become the order of the day?
Then we read from the Standard that Gono was living large with the most expensive car in town. The story is then rebutted by the RBZ using institutional money. We are now told that the real car is the S600 with a V12 engine.
When one reads stories like this against a background of an economic crisis, one is tempted to believe that it cannot be Mugabe alone who is the problem. What has sanctions got to do with this kind of story? It is clear that even if Gono cannot go to Germany, Germany will come to him in form of an S600 luxury car.
I strongly believe that Moyo would not have a problem with a public officer of a state institution like Gono appropriating himself a luxury car with no evidence of Mugabe approving such a deal. Can you imagine how many lives would be saved if Gono and the RBZ had decided to sacrifice his personal comfort to buy a car that requires foreign currency to purchase and maintain for better health care? However, we are told that we should hold Mugabe culpable for the actions, tastes and appetites of people like Gono.
Property magnate and former Chinhoyi MP Phillip Chiyangwa: 'My resolution is to get stinking rich and blow the minds of my detractors apart. The more money I make, the bigger the distance between me and them.'
When you read the above resolution, you may be confused about the state of the Zimbabwean crisis. While many occupy their minds with the challenges of putting the next meal on the table others in the same country are thinking of getting stinking rich and blowing the minds of the poor. Who ever said that Zimbabwe was in a crisis when the velocity of primitive accumulation becomes the clarion call?
What would the Professor and Tekere say about the 2007 resolution and what should be the message to the increasing number of vulnerable Zimbabweans? When you read the above statement would you be wrong in saying that Mugabe is not the problem for I do not believe that any 83 year old person would have the capacity and energy to know what the time is as they say. Even if Mugabe was not there, the problem may be in the appetite and attitudes that are difficult to change even with a change of government.
Yes, Chiyangwa represents a different reality but how many other Zimbabweans have been victimised for doing what he may be doing for personal interest? Yes, Gono who lectures about patriotism and nationalism is evidently silent on Chiyangwa begging the question of selective and self serving treatment of business persons.
Tsholotsho MP Professor Jonathan Moyo: 'For me 2007 is a year for action and more action of the decisive kind not only within my personal sphere but also and even more importantly in national terms.'
No one needs to remind Professor Moyo that 2007 is only a year for action by Zanu PF and no significant national event is in the political calendar except decisions that have to be made by the ruling party for its own survival. I am not sure why the Prof is of the view that Zimbabweans should expect better and significant developments during this year. If the Prof was wrong on Tsholotsho, can anyone seriously expect him to be right on 2007? Only time will tell.
Yes, the Prof got into political leadership as a nominated legislator by the same Mugabe and yet he did not have the courage to say no and prove himself without the umbrella of patronage that he now seeks to condemn. Maybe the Prof would see no problem if Mugabe appoints the future President of the country and the dangers of investing in appointed leaders are all too evident from the Prof’s own short but remarkable record as the ultimate spin doctor and what many have described as the axis of evil.
I have previously observed that the only power people who do not have power is the power to be organised and not confused by simplistic messages. The air is pregnant with bad news about bad people making wrong decisions about the future of the country and yet there is no attempt to broaden the analytical and conceptual framework from the politics of the struggle to the politics of nation building.
Yes, political machinations may have been acceptable during the liberation struggle but a nation that builds a future on conspiracy projects ultimately undermines itself than promote its strategic interests. The real enemies of Zimbabwe may not be the nations that have imposed ineffective targeted sanctions but Zimbabweans themselves who rightly or wrongly may have invested in values that are allergic to progress and transformation.
Monday, January 15, 2007
The myth of political leadership
THE role and importance of leadership in a society’s development and transformation has historically been overplayed to an extent that any blame about lack of development in any country is necessarily targeted at the person who has the misfortune of being the leader while the citizens who in any event are responsible for electing or succumbing to the whims of the leader never take the time to reflect on their culpability.
Many societies get the monsters they actually deserve. One can hardly think of a worse fate for any society than to be led into the future by a political class of dictators, gangsters, looters, marauders, and liars. It is generally accepted that Africa has been the beneficiary of this kind of fate and even the most honest and well-intended among its leaders appear powerless to improve the continent in any way except by diminishing rather than increasing their power.
This year marks the 50th anniversary of the independence of Ghana, an event that not only marked the foundation of the modern day post-colonial Africa but was critical in engendering a renewed sense of a common destiny for the continent. A lot has happened over the last 50 years and post-colonial Africa can now boast of half a century of institutional memory of African leadership and its challenges and promises.
While it is generally accepted that leaders should come from the people, Africa has been a football ground of externally imposed leaders. A critical assessment of the people who have come to lead the continent will show that most of them were invited by political institutions that were not capable of organically creating their own leaders.
To a large extent, the more articulate and educate the would be aspirant was the more likely he/she was perceived to be a good leader. Most of the pioneer African leaders were educated in the very imperialist countries that they sought to demonize using the language and skills acquired from the colonial countries. Yes, some of the leaders in Africa never used a colonial address but their minds and appetites were no different from what they regarded as the oppressors.
As a consequence, Africa is well endowed with educated leaders and yet the poverty trap remains a defining feature of the continent. Yes, some may say that good leaders are made not born but it appears that Africa has not been capable of creating an atmosphere and environment conducive of accountable and responsive leaders. The old adage that says if you have the desire and willpower, you can become an effective leader does not necessarily work in our continent.
Good leaders should develop through a never-ending process of self-study, education, training, and experience and yet many of Africa’s deputy President and Prime Ministers are easily excluded from succession debates as if to suggest that the closer you are to the incumbent, the less qualified you are. In as much as the best leaders are continually working and studying to improve their leadership skills, it has been accepted by African analysts and observers that experience that has been acquired by Africans as Ministers or Vice Presidents is not necessarily sufficient for them to be successors.
In fact, a culture has been created where incumbents are expected to unconstitutionally announce their successors are a measure of good governance thereby undermining their own political organisation and paralyzing their own administrations by creating lame duck leaders.
I think it is important that we enhance our conversations by attempting to examine and critically analyze the multifaceted phenomenon known as "political leadership". While sharing a number of traits with leadership in any aspect of life, exercising leadership in politics has widely been acknowledged as an art and a skill all on its own.
In as much as citizens are generally sceptical of politicians, it is important for us to invest in a better understanding of the kind of arts and skills required by politicians and then attempt to assess their proper role in a democratic political system. The tensions between democracy and leadership should be central themes discussed by Africans. A good leader is not necessarily democratic and yet many have attempted to create a causal link between democracy and good leadership.
Many of us who come from the private sector know fully well that there are few CEOs who willingly give up power in preference to other people even when they know that their continued presence in the organisation may be detrimental to the health and success of the organisation. I believe that it is important that we focus on the kind of questions that African leaders must face across political systems, and the varied answers that the continent needs to hear. There exists a number of conflicting theories of effective leadership, and learning about leadership, like leadership itself, should not be a passive process; we need to approach it critically in the knowledge that there are no easy answers.
In many African countries even those that purport to be democratic, leaders are not often subjected to any interrogation with respect to their record, capabilities and trustworthiness but the decision about who should be a leader ends up being taken by a cabal of individuals who see in the candidate an instrument to perpetuate and sustain their interests that many be in conflict with the interests of the nation. Most leaders end up being lonely in power because they invariably will be surrounded by self serving cowards who cannot stand their own ground even if given an opportunity.
I always laugh when I read and listen from well informed African analysts and journalists who have a limited understanding of leadership and the extent of the culpability of the governed in creating systems that produce leaders who appear to be unaccountable and a law unto themselves. Some have made it the habit to target individuals who are leaders while seeking to ignore the institutional base where they originate from. We need to go beyond individuals and seek to interrogate the proposition that many of these institutions i.e. political parties have not lived up to the ideals on which they were founded and remained responsive to the aspirations of people as well as those of the continent.
In seeking to isolate leaders and ask them to identify and select their successor, is there no risk that Africa may be shooting itself in the foot. Should we not focus on creating a framework in Africa that allows average citizens to be Presidents underpinned by a smart culture, conventions and programs informed by a value system that respects human and property rights? Should Africa not focus about policies of political institutions than leaders who owe their legitimacy from the same institutions? Yes, ultimately the leader must accept responsibility but I submit that it is dangerous for citizens to believe in democracy and appear leaders to be appointed by the same people that we daily demonise.
In the case of South Africa, Zimbabwe and Nigeria, we have seen wasted energy being devoted to succession matters and in many of the African countries it is customary to discuss the issue while ignoring the structures of the parties the leadership comes from. Most if not all the African parties have deputy Presidents and yet we have come to accept that succession debate must be located outside the aspirations of these people.
We have also come to accept for instance that the same leaders who remain silent when property and human rights are being undermined by their Presidents will miraculously emerge after the death or overthrow of the disgraced leader as good successors. In the case of Zimbabwe, if it is accepted that Zanu PF policies are unacceptable and its leader must go, then surely it falls to reason that anyone in the leadership of the party must be excluded from succession at the national and not party level.
Many societies get the monsters they actually deserve. One can hardly think of a worse fate for any society than to be led into the future by a political class of dictators, gangsters, looters, marauders, and liars. It is generally accepted that Africa has been the beneficiary of this kind of fate and even the most honest and well-intended among its leaders appear powerless to improve the continent in any way except by diminishing rather than increasing their power.
This year marks the 50th anniversary of the independence of Ghana, an event that not only marked the foundation of the modern day post-colonial Africa but was critical in engendering a renewed sense of a common destiny for the continent. A lot has happened over the last 50 years and post-colonial Africa can now boast of half a century of institutional memory of African leadership and its challenges and promises.
While it is generally accepted that leaders should come from the people, Africa has been a football ground of externally imposed leaders. A critical assessment of the people who have come to lead the continent will show that most of them were invited by political institutions that were not capable of organically creating their own leaders.
To a large extent, the more articulate and educate the would be aspirant was the more likely he/she was perceived to be a good leader. Most of the pioneer African leaders were educated in the very imperialist countries that they sought to demonize using the language and skills acquired from the colonial countries. Yes, some of the leaders in Africa never used a colonial address but their minds and appetites were no different from what they regarded as the oppressors.
As a consequence, Africa is well endowed with educated leaders and yet the poverty trap remains a defining feature of the continent. Yes, some may say that good leaders are made not born but it appears that Africa has not been capable of creating an atmosphere and environment conducive of accountable and responsive leaders. The old adage that says if you have the desire and willpower, you can become an effective leader does not necessarily work in our continent.
Good leaders should develop through a never-ending process of self-study, education, training, and experience and yet many of Africa’s deputy President and Prime Ministers are easily excluded from succession debates as if to suggest that the closer you are to the incumbent, the less qualified you are. In as much as the best leaders are continually working and studying to improve their leadership skills, it has been accepted by African analysts and observers that experience that has been acquired by Africans as Ministers or Vice Presidents is not necessarily sufficient for them to be successors.
In fact, a culture has been created where incumbents are expected to unconstitutionally announce their successors are a measure of good governance thereby undermining their own political organisation and paralyzing their own administrations by creating lame duck leaders.
I think it is important that we enhance our conversations by attempting to examine and critically analyze the multifaceted phenomenon known as "political leadership". While sharing a number of traits with leadership in any aspect of life, exercising leadership in politics has widely been acknowledged as an art and a skill all on its own.
In as much as citizens are generally sceptical of politicians, it is important for us to invest in a better understanding of the kind of arts and skills required by politicians and then attempt to assess their proper role in a democratic political system. The tensions between democracy and leadership should be central themes discussed by Africans. A good leader is not necessarily democratic and yet many have attempted to create a causal link between democracy and good leadership.
Many of us who come from the private sector know fully well that there are few CEOs who willingly give up power in preference to other people even when they know that their continued presence in the organisation may be detrimental to the health and success of the organisation. I believe that it is important that we focus on the kind of questions that African leaders must face across political systems, and the varied answers that the continent needs to hear. There exists a number of conflicting theories of effective leadership, and learning about leadership, like leadership itself, should not be a passive process; we need to approach it critically in the knowledge that there are no easy answers.
In many African countries even those that purport to be democratic, leaders are not often subjected to any interrogation with respect to their record, capabilities and trustworthiness but the decision about who should be a leader ends up being taken by a cabal of individuals who see in the candidate an instrument to perpetuate and sustain their interests that many be in conflict with the interests of the nation. Most leaders end up being lonely in power because they invariably will be surrounded by self serving cowards who cannot stand their own ground even if given an opportunity.
I always laugh when I read and listen from well informed African analysts and journalists who have a limited understanding of leadership and the extent of the culpability of the governed in creating systems that produce leaders who appear to be unaccountable and a law unto themselves. Some have made it the habit to target individuals who are leaders while seeking to ignore the institutional base where they originate from. We need to go beyond individuals and seek to interrogate the proposition that many of these institutions i.e. political parties have not lived up to the ideals on which they were founded and remained responsive to the aspirations of people as well as those of the continent.
In seeking to isolate leaders and ask them to identify and select their successor, is there no risk that Africa may be shooting itself in the foot. Should we not focus on creating a framework in Africa that allows average citizens to be Presidents underpinned by a smart culture, conventions and programs informed by a value system that respects human and property rights? Should Africa not focus about policies of political institutions than leaders who owe their legitimacy from the same institutions? Yes, ultimately the leader must accept responsibility but I submit that it is dangerous for citizens to believe in democracy and appear leaders to be appointed by the same people that we daily demonise.
In the case of South Africa, Zimbabwe and Nigeria, we have seen wasted energy being devoted to succession matters and in many of the African countries it is customary to discuss the issue while ignoring the structures of the parties the leadership comes from. Most if not all the African parties have deputy Presidents and yet we have come to accept that succession debate must be located outside the aspirations of these people.
We have also come to accept for instance that the same leaders who remain silent when property and human rights are being undermined by their Presidents will miraculously emerge after the death or overthrow of the disgraced leader as good successors. In the case of Zimbabwe, if it is accepted that Zanu PF policies are unacceptable and its leader must go, then surely it falls to reason that anyone in the leadership of the party must be excluded from succession at the national and not party level.
Friday, January 5, 2007
Decision year for Zimbabwe, Nigeria and South Africa
AT LAST, 2006 is history and for Africa in general and Zimbabwe in particular 2007 promises to be decision year in many fundamental respects including the fate of its Executive Presidency as well as the end of Prime Minister Blair’s tenure and the transformation of President Bush into a lame duck head of state and government.
For Nigeria, South Africa and Zimbabwe, 2007 brings with it political transitional challenges pregnant with far reaching implications for the continent.
The Zimbabwean situation will continue to receive not only Africa’s attention but global interest not only because of the underlying colonial legacy issues like land reform and sanctions regime that has a regime change flavor and character but because the country faces transitional political and economic challenges that will have to be addressed in the near term.
The debate about the required constitutional reforms that will need to be implemented during the year in Zimbabwe to harmonise the Presidential and Parliamentary elections as well as provide for the election of a transitional President for the period 2008 through 2010 and set the stage for a permanent model of government thereafter.
As we begin the year, I am of the view that it is important that the literacy about constitutional and legal issues in Africa and Zimbabwe be elevated to a stage where serious debate can begin to take place about the best way in which the country ought to be governed.
Yes, the Zimbabwe situation is extraordinarily complex but the actions of key political actors who citizens have surrendered their collective interest in change have not helped and to some extent have exacerbated the situation with debilitating consequences to the economy and quality of life for the country.
The world is at pains to understand the key underlying factors sustaining the Zimbabwean economy under an unfriendly external environment. Some have characterized Zanu PF as a “titanic” that is about to sink in an ocean of an impoverished populace and the opposition as life boats with no life in them to encourage the passengers in the titanic to have the courage to jump ship.
Indeed, unlike South Africa and Nigeria where the ruling parties are facing internal challenges, there has been no visible and authenticated internal Zanu PF factionalism other than the abortive Tsholotsho episode to give a sense that real change in Zimbabwe will be determined outside the titanic.
was flattered to read Nathaniel Manheru's column in the Herald last week where he concurred with my observation that it would be naïve for anyone to expect a ruling party to invest in its own demise or to put in place measures that will assist the opposition to unseat it. Those who have read Manheru’s columns will agree that they eloquently present arguments as seen from the ruling party.
The clarity of thought and style of presentation of Manheru provides important lessons to those who may disagree with Zanu PF to work harder in clarifying their intellectual and conceptual appreciation of the defining issues that confront Zimbabwe.
It is disappointing that Professor Jonathan Moyo, who through association with Manheru should have learnt more about the soul of Zanu PF, appears to have left the party with no understanding of the animal that fed him. While it is accepted that Professor Moyo is still of the view that Zanu PF will disintegrate into irreconcilable factions on the back of the impending constitutional reforms, he fails to explain why the ruling party has remained intact even after his departure. Some have argued that the Moyo thesis that the titanic is about to sink is supported by the fact that he is the only independent legislator in the parliament of Zimbabwe.
Equally some have argued that Professor Moyo would not have won the election if he had not poured state resources into his constituency. In advancing his third way thesis that is premised on the observation that the current opposition parties lack the vision and leadership to unseat the ruling party, Prof. Moyo makes the argument that it is only through unity of all the opposition forces that the hegemony of Zanu PF can be defeated and that such unity must include progressive elements from Zanu PF.
Against this background, the expectations of Zanu PF not endorsing the constitutional reforms discussed at the conference are then exaggerated to a point where real issues are then obscured by a self centered analytical approach whose sole mission appears to justify an outcome even in the face of glaring facts that suggest that such an outcome is impossible to achieve under the current constitutional and governance matrix.
In as much as Manheru may not agree with everything that comes from my analysis, I am gratified and encouraged that he finds it in himself to acknowledge a well argued point. It is important that the Zimbabwean debate also creates a space for disagreements on principles and not on speculative and self serving approaches that have condemned Zimbabwe to lesser standard of living. Indeed, even the rationale and effectiveness of targeted international sanctions against Zimbabwe needs to be reviewed in relation to their original objectives. Yes, there is a sanctions regime against Zimbabwe whose effectiveness is even doubted by its authors and yet they still persist in such futile endeavors. I have no doubt that there is consensus among all political actors that the current sanctions regime will not yield the kind of changes that they seek to provide.
Rather, like misguided missiles, the world has been intimidated to accept that a package of measures, albeit ineffective, should symbolically remain in place until God strikes while the people of Zimbabwe continue to be exposed to a confused environment where wrong policies and corrupt state actors can hide behind the cover of sanctions fighters to impose more severe penalties on the people of Zimbabwe through wrong and misguided policies than the sanctions themselves.
It is ironic that many have taken advantage of the anti-imperialistic language used by the President against sanctions to primitively accumulate wealth using opaque and unorthodox methods. I have no doubt that the President has now been convinced that the end justifies the means and in the face of what is widely accepted as an ineffective sanctions regime, some within the party and government have seen the power vacuum created by the departure of Prof. Moyo to position themselves to loot. If the looting is politically motivated and the titanic has been visited by looters, I have no doubt that the thesis advanced by Prof. Moyo that Zanu PF will be fragmented will be supported by such looters who face the prospect of starvation if they jumped ship and joined the opposition life boats without the resources to attract such characters.
Indeed, these economic rent seekers would prefer President Mugabe to continue in office because the likelihood of being exposed is remote. I am sure that most would agree that President Mugabe does not have the capacity anymore than Vice President Msika to supervise the looters in the titanic not only because of the magnitude of the task at hand but advanced age has its own limitations. In fact, for the characters at the RBZ who now appear to be the inheritors of the nationalistic rhetoric and patriotic slogans would like President Mugabe to continue in office in the real fear that if another President were to take control the risk of being exposed cannot be managed.
In fact, I am convinced that there exists a black book at the RBZ where all the list of beneficiaries of quasi-fiscal activities are kept and such information would provide a better deterrent for anyone who may think that it is not in the national interest for the President to continue in office.
The arguments for the harmonisation of the Presidential and Parliamentary elections are well grounded and deserve consideration. It is important that we provide some background to the constitutional challenges that confront Zimbabwe so that discourse can be more informed and meaningful to the participants. Some may argue that I have no competency to comment on constitutional and legal matters particularly given that a body of opinion exists that says that only politicians are qualified to make such comments. Equally, a businessman like me risks being misunderstood when he attempts to encroach into territories that are often considered taboo to non-political actors.
Although it is universally accepted that no politician writes a competency examination prior to an election, in Africa and indeed in many places, some politicians have carved out a niche for themselves that places them on a higher pedestal than ordinary citizens and often want to remain in politics for life on the mistaken belief that they alone know what is good for the country. In this world where career politicians exist one has to be very careful in the choice of subjects to discuss. However, it is apparent that Zimbabweans have done themselves a disservice by choosing a change agenda without a destination. Some have said that if you do not know where you are going any road takes you there. It is important to recognize that there is a parallel between politics and business in terms of governance. Being a shareholder in many companies, I have come to accept that the concept of corporate governance is generally misunderstood in as much as political governance.
In the corporate civilisation, shareholders are like the voters who elect directors who are then responsible for running the company. In the political world, the executive branch of government is either elected by popular vote or through parliament. The President is like an Executive Chairman of a company. Ordinarily, such executives can be fired by the shareholders but in practice it is not easy. Many of the executives would like to remain in power until death and in fact some of them end up regarding the companies they work for as if they actually own them. The attachment between the company and the CEO has to be understood and any failure by the company would be seen as a personal indictment on the individual in as much as President often would not want to leave office if the perception is that they are responsible for the country’s failure.
Most of the shareholders like voters have found themselves powerless against their own companies and the battle for control of companies has occupied the minds of many. In as much as directors are created by shareholders once they are so appointed they cease to represent the interests of the creators of their power but owe their fiduciary responsibility to the company. Often this is not understood and many people assume that the directors of companies are mere puppets of shareholders when in truth and fact they are sovereign in their own right.
Equally, a President created by the voters invariably ends up owing allegiance to the government and not the voters. It would be impractical for the President to check with the voters before taking any decision in as much as shareholders cannot shadow their directors and executive management.
We have to accept that our institutions are not set up to allow voters to take control of their political executives other than through interest groups. Mature democracies have well developed interest groups who constantly are occupied with ensuring that their interests are protected and promoted by government action. It does not take much to realize that even at Goromonzi, Zanu PF was not organised around interest groups rather it was organised around provincial groups. Issues like harmonisation and extension of Presidential terms would necessarily invoke interests among the governed in as much as term limits would give those who have no access to their leaders an opportunity to create a new power base with a change of government. Term limits in the absence of interest groups have no relevance. It is important to appreciate that any leader whether in the private or public sectors who stays long in power risks alienating the majority of the people and end up being surrounded by praise singers. Those opposed to such a leader will not enjoy the fruits of citizenship and hence the quest in many countries to limit the term of office of a President.
Constitution and Parliamentary System
Zimbabwe’s post colonial constitution was a negotiated one in as much as the South African constitution was similarly negotiated among the political actors. It provided for a non-executive President as Head of State with a Prime Minister as Head of Government. The first President was the late Rev. Canaan Banana with Robert Mugabe as Prime Minister. In 1987, the Constitution was amended to provide for an Executive President and the office of Prime Minister was abolished. The constitutional changes came into effect on 1 January 1988 with Robert Mugabe as President.
The Parliament was bicameral, with the House of Assembly being directly elected and the Senate consisting of indirectly elected and nominated members, including tribal chiefs. Under the Constitution, there were two separate voters rolls, one for the black African majority, who had 80 % of the seats in Parliament and the other for whites and other ethnic minorities, such as Coloureds (people of mixed race) and Asians, who held 20 %. In 1986, the Constitution was amended by Parliament to scrap this system, replacing the white seats in with seats filled by nominated members. Some will recall that many white MPs joined Zanu, which then reappointed them. In 1990, the Senate was abolished, and the House of Assembly's membership was increased to include members nominated by the President. Since independence, Zimbabwe has had six elections for the House of Assembly i.e. as follows: 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000, and 2005. The first senate election was held in 2005.
In response to pressure largely from outside Parliament by non-state actors, on May 21, 1999 President Mugabe announced the convening of a Constitutional Convention to draft new constitution fit for a soverreign country. The chairman of the 396 member commission including all 150 members of the House of Assembly; some previous opponents of the government were included among the 246 other members, such as Prof. Jonathan Moyo.was a Chief Justice, Godfrey Chidyausiku. Over August and September the Convention held more than 5,000 meetings with local people and groups in Zimbabwe, with many seeing concerns voiced over granting of more powers to the executive Presidency.
At the Convention's final meeting on November 29, Justice Chidyausiku announced that the proposed constitution had been adopted "by acclamation" and did not call for a vote. There was some dissent within the room particularly regarding issues such as Presidential powers. The Zimbabwe Constitution Referendum of February 12-13, 2000 saw the defeat of a proposed new Constitution of Zimbabwe which had been drafted by a Constitutional Convention the previous year. It is important to note that the issues that sorrounded the draft constitution are no different to the underlying concerns about the proposed constitutional reforms.
In as much as the opposition sought to argue from 1997 that the Parliament of Zimbabwe was not the credible authority to make the amendements to the constitution, it is now beingt argued that a Zanu PF dominated house should not be trusted to make any constitutional changes. While the argument may make sense, the implications on democracy are quite severe. In the composition of the Commission, the members of parliament were an integral part of the process presumably out of a desire to ensure that a precedent was not set where the consitution would be rendered useless in so far as the role of parliament in changing the supreme law of the land.
If one accepts that an institution called the Parliament of Zimbabwe exists at law and is an organ of the Republic then it is critical that those who seek to undermine the parliament’s role in amending the constitution provide an alternative that meets the constitutional tests. To seek to argue that the parliament in which the opposition is represented and duly constituted does not have the authority to amend the constitution does not take the debate any further. Yes, people may argue about the fairness of the elections and whether the result represent the wishes of the majority of Zimbabweans but the starting point of the debate must necessarily be the same for everyone.
The question is does Zimbabwe have a constitution and does it have a duly elected House of Assembly. To the extent that there are parliamentarians receiving salaries from the people, one can safely conclude that the institution does exist. If it does, and knowing the configuration of the incumbents, it is common cause that anything that Zanu PF wants will be done. In as much as the opposition may not agree with any legislative proposals, there is nothing they can do to stop such changes. The country does not need Mr. Manheru (night) to shed light on this. Yes, people may not like the architecture but it is incumbent upon them to locate their displeasure in some legal and rationale context.
The current House of Assembly, formed following elections held on 31 March 2005, has a total of 150 members. 120 members are directly elected in single member constituencies using the simple majority (or First-past-the-post) system. The President appoints 12 additional members and 8 provincial governors who hold reserved seats in the House. The remaining 10 seats are held by traditional chiefs who are chosen by their peers. All members serve five-year terms. The results of the March 2005 elections are set out below:
Summary of the 31 March 2005 House of Assembly of Zimbabwe election results
Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front1,569,867 (59.6%) [78 Seats]
Movement for Democratic Change1,041,292 votes (39.5%) [41 Seats]
Independents16,223 votes (0.6%) [1 Seat]
Others7,263 votes (0.3%) -
Presidential appointees 20
Ex-officio members (Chiefs) 10
Total (turnout 47.7%) 2,634,645 votes (100.0%) [150 Seats]
Registered voters 5,658,624
Total votes cast 2,696,670
Invalid votes 62,025
Source: African Elections Database
From the above, it is clear that the people of Zimbabwe did not give Zanu PF a two thirds majority at the election. However, with the inclusion of the non-constituency members of parliament, the two thirds majority is evident. It may be argued that the term of office of the parliamentarians appointed by the President should end in 2008 but unfortunately the law does not work that way. Once appointed, the parliamentarians have the same right as any other parliamentarian and as such are entitled to vote on any proposal before the house. An apatheid type structure where appointed parliamentarians would have different rights would not be consistent with the constitution.
Executive Presidency
At the core of the debate on constitutional reforms is the fate of President Mugabe. In as much as many expected the 2000 Constitution to remove him from office, there is an expecation that 2008 should be the last year in office of President Mugabe. Accordingly, it is then argued that any credible constitional reform must remove President Mugabe from office irrespective of the legal facts on the ground. Within Zanu PF, I suspect there is also concern about the powers vested in the president and how such powers can be reduced in the context of the proposed reforms.
Equally, President Mugabe must be concerned about his own legacy and what kind of heritage he lives for his party and country. It is clear that the President will have to be under Parliament from 2008. Some within Zanu PF may legitimately argue that any proposed constitutional amendment must seek to strengthen democracy by abolishing the executive presidency and replacing it with a cabinet and parliamentary form of government. Some within Zanu PF may agree with the opposition that the introduction of an Executive President in 1987 as a presidential dictatorship covered with the cloth of democracy.
It may not be surprising that even President Mugabe may be against an Executive Presidency and may not have any objection to any proposal that can strengthen Zanu PF at a time when the market perception is that he is a liability. Given the dynamics in Zimbabwe at the present moment, I am not confident that anyone in Zanu PF would have the courage to challenge President Mugabe. The fate of Iraq and Saddam Hussein and the implications on international law and the sincerity of President Mugabe’s international adversaries will no doubt be issues that cannot be ignored in any discussion about the future of Zimbabwe.
In as much as Manheru makes eloquent arguments about the status quo it is important that those who are persuaded otherwise sharpen their intellectual capacity and provide reasons why a widely acknowledged and unacceptable global architecture driven by undemocratic and often illegal values can have supremacy over Zanu PF values. The regime change practitioners owe it to Zimbabwe to use 2007 to clarify their agenda and locate it within the larger African and global context. So far no African government has been presented with a convincing case of why change in Zimbabwe should have promoters who are condemned for undermining international law by the UN.
At independence, Zimbabwe had a titular president. Executive power resided with the Prime Minister. The 1987 constitution moved from a Westminster-based political system into unique Zimbabwe Zimbabwean model with a President directly by the people with a longer term and independence from Parliament was created. Although modelled along the lines of the French system, in practice, Zimbabwean presidency is much more powerful than the President of France. French presidents traditionally deal only with defense and foreign policy, leaving domestic affairs to the Prime Minister.
A Zimbabwean president has no Prime Minister and is concerned with every aspect of government. Even his Vice Presidents have no universal mandate and they serve at the pleasure of the President unlike the Nigerian version where the Vice President is elected together with the President and has his own legitimacy. A Zimbabwean President has very little constraints on his/her power; he cannot be impeached easily and cannot be taken to court. He can place the country in a state of emergency, under which he can override any law passed by Parliament and promulgate any regulation without needing legislative approval. The considerable power of the President has often been blamed for the decline of democracy in Zimbabwe and hence the preoccupation on the fate of President Mugabe after 2008.
The abuse of the state of emergency not necessarily by the President but by crafty individuals like Prof. Moyo and Gono has been highlighted as one of the unacceptable outcomes of the centralisation of power. Some will recall with nostalgia the weekly Prime Minister’s question time in Zimbabwe where President Mugabe gave the opportunity to citizens through their parliamentarians to ask direct questions. However, with the advent of the Executive Presidency, the opportunity is no longer there and it would be curious to establish what kind of relationship will exist between the President and his new bosses in Parliament.
Perhaps Zimbabweans will get from Zanu PF constitutional changes that the opposition has been fighting for in vain. As stated above, Nigeria despite its age is going through its own democratic growing pains. It appears that President Obasanjo who tried to intervene in the Zimbabwean issue under the Commonwealth umbrella may end up behaving the same way that President Mugabe is being criticised for. Unlike President Mugabe, President Obesanjo has invested in dividing his own party and even externalising his own Deputy who according to him has spent the last three years in office but doing nothing. Imagine a Vice President being paid by the people for doing nothing just because the President does not like him. Having ensured that he would not get a nomination from his party, the Vice President with the support of the courts managed to get another party to adopt him only to be fired from his post for accepting the position. He has challenged the dismissal and the saga continues.
South Africa has another challenge. The President of South Africa is not elected by the people but by Parliament. The succession debate is taking place against a backdrop of a divided party with two centers of power. There exists two Deputy Presidents to President Mbeki and if he were to die to day (God fobid), there would be a constitutional crisis as the party may have to choose between the two. The South African system has a party list from which the party allocates constituencies. In as much as the opposition in Zimbabwe expects President Mbeki who has a full domestic plate to intervene in Zimbabwe, they should try someone else.
Africa will continue to be challenged by a combination of internally and externally generated problems and its ability to rise to its responsibilities to its citizens will largely depend on the creation of interest groups that are not blinded by race, tribe, religion and political affiliation. Equally, as we have observed in Zimbabwe the opposition may have seen the promised land but they should be rest assured that the storm is not over till its over. Many promised lands have ended up being illusions in the mind. The titanic may be sinking but the passengers may be enjoying the ride in the comfort that in the long term we are all dead anyway. It would be naïve to assume that a ship that is sinking signifies that it has no captain. The captain determines the speed and not the passengers and it would be foolhardy that a captain that has been warned that even the life boat could condemn him to the Saddam fate will abdicate and vanish.
For Nigeria, South Africa and Zimbabwe, 2007 brings with it political transitional challenges pregnant with far reaching implications for the continent.
The Zimbabwean situation will continue to receive not only Africa’s attention but global interest not only because of the underlying colonial legacy issues like land reform and sanctions regime that has a regime change flavor and character but because the country faces transitional political and economic challenges that will have to be addressed in the near term.
The debate about the required constitutional reforms that will need to be implemented during the year in Zimbabwe to harmonise the Presidential and Parliamentary elections as well as provide for the election of a transitional President for the period 2008 through 2010 and set the stage for a permanent model of government thereafter.
As we begin the year, I am of the view that it is important that the literacy about constitutional and legal issues in Africa and Zimbabwe be elevated to a stage where serious debate can begin to take place about the best way in which the country ought to be governed.
Yes, the Zimbabwe situation is extraordinarily complex but the actions of key political actors who citizens have surrendered their collective interest in change have not helped and to some extent have exacerbated the situation with debilitating consequences to the economy and quality of life for the country.
The world is at pains to understand the key underlying factors sustaining the Zimbabwean economy under an unfriendly external environment. Some have characterized Zanu PF as a “titanic” that is about to sink in an ocean of an impoverished populace and the opposition as life boats with no life in them to encourage the passengers in the titanic to have the courage to jump ship.
Indeed, unlike South Africa and Nigeria where the ruling parties are facing internal challenges, there has been no visible and authenticated internal Zanu PF factionalism other than the abortive Tsholotsho episode to give a sense that real change in Zimbabwe will be determined outside the titanic.
was flattered to read Nathaniel Manheru's column in the Herald last week where he concurred with my observation that it would be naïve for anyone to expect a ruling party to invest in its own demise or to put in place measures that will assist the opposition to unseat it. Those who have read Manheru’s columns will agree that they eloquently present arguments as seen from the ruling party.
The clarity of thought and style of presentation of Manheru provides important lessons to those who may disagree with Zanu PF to work harder in clarifying their intellectual and conceptual appreciation of the defining issues that confront Zimbabwe.
It is disappointing that Professor Jonathan Moyo, who through association with Manheru should have learnt more about the soul of Zanu PF, appears to have left the party with no understanding of the animal that fed him. While it is accepted that Professor Moyo is still of the view that Zanu PF will disintegrate into irreconcilable factions on the back of the impending constitutional reforms, he fails to explain why the ruling party has remained intact even after his departure. Some have argued that the Moyo thesis that the titanic is about to sink is supported by the fact that he is the only independent legislator in the parliament of Zimbabwe.
Equally some have argued that Professor Moyo would not have won the election if he had not poured state resources into his constituency. In advancing his third way thesis that is premised on the observation that the current opposition parties lack the vision and leadership to unseat the ruling party, Prof. Moyo makes the argument that it is only through unity of all the opposition forces that the hegemony of Zanu PF can be defeated and that such unity must include progressive elements from Zanu PF.
Against this background, the expectations of Zanu PF not endorsing the constitutional reforms discussed at the conference are then exaggerated to a point where real issues are then obscured by a self centered analytical approach whose sole mission appears to justify an outcome even in the face of glaring facts that suggest that such an outcome is impossible to achieve under the current constitutional and governance matrix.
In as much as Manheru may not agree with everything that comes from my analysis, I am gratified and encouraged that he finds it in himself to acknowledge a well argued point. It is important that the Zimbabwean debate also creates a space for disagreements on principles and not on speculative and self serving approaches that have condemned Zimbabwe to lesser standard of living. Indeed, even the rationale and effectiveness of targeted international sanctions against Zimbabwe needs to be reviewed in relation to their original objectives. Yes, there is a sanctions regime against Zimbabwe whose effectiveness is even doubted by its authors and yet they still persist in such futile endeavors. I have no doubt that there is consensus among all political actors that the current sanctions regime will not yield the kind of changes that they seek to provide.
Rather, like misguided missiles, the world has been intimidated to accept that a package of measures, albeit ineffective, should symbolically remain in place until God strikes while the people of Zimbabwe continue to be exposed to a confused environment where wrong policies and corrupt state actors can hide behind the cover of sanctions fighters to impose more severe penalties on the people of Zimbabwe through wrong and misguided policies than the sanctions themselves.
It is ironic that many have taken advantage of the anti-imperialistic language used by the President against sanctions to primitively accumulate wealth using opaque and unorthodox methods. I have no doubt that the President has now been convinced that the end justifies the means and in the face of what is widely accepted as an ineffective sanctions regime, some within the party and government have seen the power vacuum created by the departure of Prof. Moyo to position themselves to loot. If the looting is politically motivated and the titanic has been visited by looters, I have no doubt that the thesis advanced by Prof. Moyo that Zanu PF will be fragmented will be supported by such looters who face the prospect of starvation if they jumped ship and joined the opposition life boats without the resources to attract such characters.
Indeed, these economic rent seekers would prefer President Mugabe to continue in office because the likelihood of being exposed is remote. I am sure that most would agree that President Mugabe does not have the capacity anymore than Vice President Msika to supervise the looters in the titanic not only because of the magnitude of the task at hand but advanced age has its own limitations. In fact, for the characters at the RBZ who now appear to be the inheritors of the nationalistic rhetoric and patriotic slogans would like President Mugabe to continue in office in the real fear that if another President were to take control the risk of being exposed cannot be managed.
In fact, I am convinced that there exists a black book at the RBZ where all the list of beneficiaries of quasi-fiscal activities are kept and such information would provide a better deterrent for anyone who may think that it is not in the national interest for the President to continue in office.
The arguments for the harmonisation of the Presidential and Parliamentary elections are well grounded and deserve consideration. It is important that we provide some background to the constitutional challenges that confront Zimbabwe so that discourse can be more informed and meaningful to the participants. Some may argue that I have no competency to comment on constitutional and legal matters particularly given that a body of opinion exists that says that only politicians are qualified to make such comments. Equally, a businessman like me risks being misunderstood when he attempts to encroach into territories that are often considered taboo to non-political actors.
Although it is universally accepted that no politician writes a competency examination prior to an election, in Africa and indeed in many places, some politicians have carved out a niche for themselves that places them on a higher pedestal than ordinary citizens and often want to remain in politics for life on the mistaken belief that they alone know what is good for the country. In this world where career politicians exist one has to be very careful in the choice of subjects to discuss. However, it is apparent that Zimbabweans have done themselves a disservice by choosing a change agenda without a destination. Some have said that if you do not know where you are going any road takes you there. It is important to recognize that there is a parallel between politics and business in terms of governance. Being a shareholder in many companies, I have come to accept that the concept of corporate governance is generally misunderstood in as much as political governance.
In the corporate civilisation, shareholders are like the voters who elect directors who are then responsible for running the company. In the political world, the executive branch of government is either elected by popular vote or through parliament. The President is like an Executive Chairman of a company. Ordinarily, such executives can be fired by the shareholders but in practice it is not easy. Many of the executives would like to remain in power until death and in fact some of them end up regarding the companies they work for as if they actually own them. The attachment between the company and the CEO has to be understood and any failure by the company would be seen as a personal indictment on the individual in as much as President often would not want to leave office if the perception is that they are responsible for the country’s failure.
Most of the shareholders like voters have found themselves powerless against their own companies and the battle for control of companies has occupied the minds of many. In as much as directors are created by shareholders once they are so appointed they cease to represent the interests of the creators of their power but owe their fiduciary responsibility to the company. Often this is not understood and many people assume that the directors of companies are mere puppets of shareholders when in truth and fact they are sovereign in their own right.
Equally, a President created by the voters invariably ends up owing allegiance to the government and not the voters. It would be impractical for the President to check with the voters before taking any decision in as much as shareholders cannot shadow their directors and executive management.
We have to accept that our institutions are not set up to allow voters to take control of their political executives other than through interest groups. Mature democracies have well developed interest groups who constantly are occupied with ensuring that their interests are protected and promoted by government action. It does not take much to realize that even at Goromonzi, Zanu PF was not organised around interest groups rather it was organised around provincial groups. Issues like harmonisation and extension of Presidential terms would necessarily invoke interests among the governed in as much as term limits would give those who have no access to their leaders an opportunity to create a new power base with a change of government. Term limits in the absence of interest groups have no relevance. It is important to appreciate that any leader whether in the private or public sectors who stays long in power risks alienating the majority of the people and end up being surrounded by praise singers. Those opposed to such a leader will not enjoy the fruits of citizenship and hence the quest in many countries to limit the term of office of a President.
Constitution and Parliamentary System
Zimbabwe’s post colonial constitution was a negotiated one in as much as the South African constitution was similarly negotiated among the political actors. It provided for a non-executive President as Head of State with a Prime Minister as Head of Government. The first President was the late Rev. Canaan Banana with Robert Mugabe as Prime Minister. In 1987, the Constitution was amended to provide for an Executive President and the office of Prime Minister was abolished. The constitutional changes came into effect on 1 January 1988 with Robert Mugabe as President.
The Parliament was bicameral, with the House of Assembly being directly elected and the Senate consisting of indirectly elected and nominated members, including tribal chiefs. Under the Constitution, there were two separate voters rolls, one for the black African majority, who had 80 % of the seats in Parliament and the other for whites and other ethnic minorities, such as Coloureds (people of mixed race) and Asians, who held 20 %. In 1986, the Constitution was amended by Parliament to scrap this system, replacing the white seats in with seats filled by nominated members. Some will recall that many white MPs joined Zanu, which then reappointed them. In 1990, the Senate was abolished, and the House of Assembly's membership was increased to include members nominated by the President. Since independence, Zimbabwe has had six elections for the House of Assembly i.e. as follows: 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000, and 2005. The first senate election was held in 2005.
In response to pressure largely from outside Parliament by non-state actors, on May 21, 1999 President Mugabe announced the convening of a Constitutional Convention to draft new constitution fit for a soverreign country. The chairman of the 396 member commission including all 150 members of the House of Assembly; some previous opponents of the government were included among the 246 other members, such as Prof. Jonathan Moyo.was a Chief Justice, Godfrey Chidyausiku. Over August and September the Convention held more than 5,000 meetings with local people and groups in Zimbabwe, with many seeing concerns voiced over granting of more powers to the executive Presidency.
At the Convention's final meeting on November 29, Justice Chidyausiku announced that the proposed constitution had been adopted "by acclamation" and did not call for a vote. There was some dissent within the room particularly regarding issues such as Presidential powers. The Zimbabwe Constitution Referendum of February 12-13, 2000 saw the defeat of a proposed new Constitution of Zimbabwe which had been drafted by a Constitutional Convention the previous year. It is important to note that the issues that sorrounded the draft constitution are no different to the underlying concerns about the proposed constitutional reforms.
In as much as the opposition sought to argue from 1997 that the Parliament of Zimbabwe was not the credible authority to make the amendements to the constitution, it is now beingt argued that a Zanu PF dominated house should not be trusted to make any constitutional changes. While the argument may make sense, the implications on democracy are quite severe. In the composition of the Commission, the members of parliament were an integral part of the process presumably out of a desire to ensure that a precedent was not set where the consitution would be rendered useless in so far as the role of parliament in changing the supreme law of the land.
If one accepts that an institution called the Parliament of Zimbabwe exists at law and is an organ of the Republic then it is critical that those who seek to undermine the parliament’s role in amending the constitution provide an alternative that meets the constitutional tests. To seek to argue that the parliament in which the opposition is represented and duly constituted does not have the authority to amend the constitution does not take the debate any further. Yes, people may argue about the fairness of the elections and whether the result represent the wishes of the majority of Zimbabweans but the starting point of the debate must necessarily be the same for everyone.
The question is does Zimbabwe have a constitution and does it have a duly elected House of Assembly. To the extent that there are parliamentarians receiving salaries from the people, one can safely conclude that the institution does exist. If it does, and knowing the configuration of the incumbents, it is common cause that anything that Zanu PF wants will be done. In as much as the opposition may not agree with any legislative proposals, there is nothing they can do to stop such changes. The country does not need Mr. Manheru (night) to shed light on this. Yes, people may not like the architecture but it is incumbent upon them to locate their displeasure in some legal and rationale context.
The current House of Assembly, formed following elections held on 31 March 2005, has a total of 150 members. 120 members are directly elected in single member constituencies using the simple majority (or First-past-the-post) system. The President appoints 12 additional members and 8 provincial governors who hold reserved seats in the House. The remaining 10 seats are held by traditional chiefs who are chosen by their peers. All members serve five-year terms. The results of the March 2005 elections are set out below:
Summary of the 31 March 2005 House of Assembly of Zimbabwe election results
Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front1,569,867 (59.6%) [78 Seats]
Movement for Democratic Change1,041,292 votes (39.5%) [41 Seats]
Independents16,223 votes (0.6%) [1 Seat]
Others7,263 votes (0.3%) -
Presidential appointees 20
Ex-officio members (Chiefs) 10
Total (turnout 47.7%) 2,634,645 votes (100.0%) [150 Seats]
Registered voters 5,658,624
Total votes cast 2,696,670
Invalid votes 62,025
Source: African Elections Database
From the above, it is clear that the people of Zimbabwe did not give Zanu PF a two thirds majority at the election. However, with the inclusion of the non-constituency members of parliament, the two thirds majority is evident. It may be argued that the term of office of the parliamentarians appointed by the President should end in 2008 but unfortunately the law does not work that way. Once appointed, the parliamentarians have the same right as any other parliamentarian and as such are entitled to vote on any proposal before the house. An apatheid type structure where appointed parliamentarians would have different rights would not be consistent with the constitution.
Executive Presidency
At the core of the debate on constitutional reforms is the fate of President Mugabe. In as much as many expected the 2000 Constitution to remove him from office, there is an expecation that 2008 should be the last year in office of President Mugabe. Accordingly, it is then argued that any credible constitional reform must remove President Mugabe from office irrespective of the legal facts on the ground. Within Zanu PF, I suspect there is also concern about the powers vested in the president and how such powers can be reduced in the context of the proposed reforms.
Equally, President Mugabe must be concerned about his own legacy and what kind of heritage he lives for his party and country. It is clear that the President will have to be under Parliament from 2008. Some within Zanu PF may legitimately argue that any proposed constitutional amendment must seek to strengthen democracy by abolishing the executive presidency and replacing it with a cabinet and parliamentary form of government. Some within Zanu PF may agree with the opposition that the introduction of an Executive President in 1987 as a presidential dictatorship covered with the cloth of democracy.
It may not be surprising that even President Mugabe may be against an Executive Presidency and may not have any objection to any proposal that can strengthen Zanu PF at a time when the market perception is that he is a liability. Given the dynamics in Zimbabwe at the present moment, I am not confident that anyone in Zanu PF would have the courage to challenge President Mugabe. The fate of Iraq and Saddam Hussein and the implications on international law and the sincerity of President Mugabe’s international adversaries will no doubt be issues that cannot be ignored in any discussion about the future of Zimbabwe.
In as much as Manheru makes eloquent arguments about the status quo it is important that those who are persuaded otherwise sharpen their intellectual capacity and provide reasons why a widely acknowledged and unacceptable global architecture driven by undemocratic and often illegal values can have supremacy over Zanu PF values. The regime change practitioners owe it to Zimbabwe to use 2007 to clarify their agenda and locate it within the larger African and global context. So far no African government has been presented with a convincing case of why change in Zimbabwe should have promoters who are condemned for undermining international law by the UN.
At independence, Zimbabwe had a titular president. Executive power resided with the Prime Minister. The 1987 constitution moved from a Westminster-based political system into unique Zimbabwe Zimbabwean model with a President directly by the people with a longer term and independence from Parliament was created. Although modelled along the lines of the French system, in practice, Zimbabwean presidency is much more powerful than the President of France. French presidents traditionally deal only with defense and foreign policy, leaving domestic affairs to the Prime Minister.
A Zimbabwean president has no Prime Minister and is concerned with every aspect of government. Even his Vice Presidents have no universal mandate and they serve at the pleasure of the President unlike the Nigerian version where the Vice President is elected together with the President and has his own legitimacy. A Zimbabwean President has very little constraints on his/her power; he cannot be impeached easily and cannot be taken to court. He can place the country in a state of emergency, under which he can override any law passed by Parliament and promulgate any regulation without needing legislative approval. The considerable power of the President has often been blamed for the decline of democracy in Zimbabwe and hence the preoccupation on the fate of President Mugabe after 2008.
The abuse of the state of emergency not necessarily by the President but by crafty individuals like Prof. Moyo and Gono has been highlighted as one of the unacceptable outcomes of the centralisation of power. Some will recall with nostalgia the weekly Prime Minister’s question time in Zimbabwe where President Mugabe gave the opportunity to citizens through their parliamentarians to ask direct questions. However, with the advent of the Executive Presidency, the opportunity is no longer there and it would be curious to establish what kind of relationship will exist between the President and his new bosses in Parliament.
Perhaps Zimbabweans will get from Zanu PF constitutional changes that the opposition has been fighting for in vain. As stated above, Nigeria despite its age is going through its own democratic growing pains. It appears that President Obasanjo who tried to intervene in the Zimbabwean issue under the Commonwealth umbrella may end up behaving the same way that President Mugabe is being criticised for. Unlike President Mugabe, President Obesanjo has invested in dividing his own party and even externalising his own Deputy who according to him has spent the last three years in office but doing nothing. Imagine a Vice President being paid by the people for doing nothing just because the President does not like him. Having ensured that he would not get a nomination from his party, the Vice President with the support of the courts managed to get another party to adopt him only to be fired from his post for accepting the position. He has challenged the dismissal and the saga continues.
South Africa has another challenge. The President of South Africa is not elected by the people but by Parliament. The succession debate is taking place against a backdrop of a divided party with two centers of power. There exists two Deputy Presidents to President Mbeki and if he were to die to day (God fobid), there would be a constitutional crisis as the party may have to choose between the two. The South African system has a party list from which the party allocates constituencies. In as much as the opposition in Zimbabwe expects President Mbeki who has a full domestic plate to intervene in Zimbabwe, they should try someone else.
Africa will continue to be challenged by a combination of internally and externally generated problems and its ability to rise to its responsibilities to its citizens will largely depend on the creation of interest groups that are not blinded by race, tribe, religion and political affiliation. Equally, as we have observed in Zimbabwe the opposition may have seen the promised land but they should be rest assured that the storm is not over till its over. Many promised lands have ended up being illusions in the mind. The titanic may be sinking but the passengers may be enjoying the ride in the comfort that in the long term we are all dead anyway. It would be naïve to assume that a ship that is sinking signifies that it has no captain. The captain determines the speed and not the passengers and it would be foolhardy that a captain that has been warned that even the life boat could condemn him to the Saddam fate will abdicate and vanish.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
