Is Zimbabwe a victim of western imperialism?

AS ZIMBABWE approaches its 27th birthday, I have no doubt that many Zimbabweans like President Mugabe are looking into themselves, looking at themselves, delving into the assumptions they had at the beginning of the liberation struggle and at independence, and in so doing reflect on the economic and political quagmire that the country finds itself today.
Judging by the disproportionate interest taken by the media and the Western countries on the developments in Zimbabwe, one cannot help but reflect on the kind of strategic issues that inform the interest and what implications the spotlight has on the broader issues regarding the deepening of democracy in Africa.
What began in limited measure as a drive to remove colonialism and naked racism in Africa in the post-Second World War era and replace it with an accountable and responsible democratic dispensation, has ended up in the replacement of a race-based exclusive governance architecture with an equally exclusive post-colonial governance system dominated by the founding fathers in the mould of Kwame Nkrumah.
I do not think that even the most enthusiastic anti-colonial and anti-imperialist advocates would agree in 2007 that the 1st revolution of Zimbabwe has produced a positive outcome that is in line with the expectations of all those Africans who have made the sacrifices to eradicate the artificial man made colonial distortions.
The issues that seem to occupy many regarding the crisis in Zimbabwe are no different from the kind of issues that occupied the pioneers of the decolonisation struggle as is to suggest that the passage of time under self rule was a non event during which no one should be accountable. In the case of Zimbabwe, the architects of the independence project still would want to argue that they were never in control of what President Mwanawasa described as a “sinking Titanic” and choosing to rightly or wrongly assign the blame on the machinations of relentless imperialist forces.
In advancing this persuasive argument, they benefit from the global atmosphere created by the conduct of Bush/Blair on global issues including Iraq. A unipolar world in which western values are projected as the only acceptable values to inform global opinion seems discredited to an extent that even the most unacceptable dictators find sanctuary in responding to criticisms about their own disastrous policies and programs by claiming to be victims of an imperialist conspiracy.
Having watched the reporting by CNN and other western media about the events in Zimbabwe during the last two weeks, it is important that a platform for a new conversation be created in order to clearly articulate a Zimbabwean agenda in any regime change discussion. It would appear at face value that the regime change agenda is owned by non-Zimbabweans and, for that matter, non-Africans given the reluctance of African governments to join what they perceive to be a Western-inspired conspiracy whose real motive is to reverse the gains of independence and, in particular, the land reform initiative. Under this construction, any critic of Mugabe is easily labeled as a puppet or surrogate of imperialist forces and in so doing disable such persons from contributing and participating in the any change process.
When the media is polluted with pictures of badly damaged faces and bodies of those who choose to fight for a new dispensation, the debate takes a new twist if such persons are then labeled as sell-outs and agents of imperialism. It is then argued that any serious African government should at best not respond to grievances of imperialists disguising themselves as opposition players when in truth and fact such persons are deemed to be devoid of any mind of their own but just instruments of other people’s agendas and at worst should inflict the maximum bodily harm on them so that their masters can come to the fore for a real engagement. Last week, I had the privilege of visiting China and met with a number of leading Chinese companies in the electronics and information technology industries. What was striking is that all of these actors whether they represented the state or non-state players, they all shared an optimism about the future of the country in as much as they were mindful of the threat of a unipolar world. I first visited China in 1982 as a student leader and I must confess that every time I visit the country I am encouraged by the progress and the positive attitude to life by the average Chinese.
The Chinese are the first to admit that they have benefited from the West in terms of technology and access to markets. They also acknowledge that the Cultural Revolution was a major set back. I was startled to learn from a Chinese company that supplied goods and services to Zimbabwe recently on the strength of an escrow account that was established in Hong Kong and Mauritius to route Zimbabwe’s pledged tobacco exports for debt service. The representatives of this company could not disguise their anger at the attitude of the RBZ when the escrow account was closed and the security evaporated since June 2004.
Although the company is owned by the government of China, it did not have pleasant words to say about Zimbabwe. After listening to the Chinese horror story, I was comforted that after all no one is allergic to good policies and even the Chinese are commercial in outlook. In fact, they reminded our delegation that China is different country from the China that was not informed by strategic and commercial interests. If China can come of age, why is it that African countries never seem to grow up and their leaders take responsibility for their actions?
As I watched the coverage on Zimbabwe by CNN, I could not help but reflect what would have happened to China had Chairman Mao been still alive and in power. Would he not have retreated to the easy corner of blaming third parties for the country’s problems? Can you imagine that even Singapore with a population of only 4 million was formerly a colony and it was only in 1965 that it gained independence with the same per capita income as that of Ghana under Nkrumah? However, Singapore was fortunate to have leaders who took responsibility for the country’s destiny and proceeded to put in place institutions and policies that were friendly to the growth of the country. Even the rulers of Dubai have managed to demonstrate that it is possible in one generation to change the possibilities of a nation through good policies.
The world has now many examples of former colonial states that have transformed themselves into developed states in a generation. What is striking about these nations is that their leaders took charge and did not dwell on what the colonial powers thought of them but what their citizens deserved. Could it then be that bad leaders need imperialism to sustain themselves in power? One can argue that even if Blair agreed to help finance Zimbabwe’s land reform program, the country would not be any better off than it is. It is important for historians to critically examine the condition of the Zimbabwean economy before the formation of the MDC and the implementation of the land reform program and after the alleged intrusion of an unpatriotic party into the sovereign affairs of the country for and on behalf of imperialist forces.
While in China, I received an email commenting on my article on Kwame Nkrumah that I thought I should share with you. The email read as follows:
“It is better to misgovern ourselves that to be governed well by others” Kwame Nkrumah once said. I found your article on Kwame very enlightening. I have several colleagues that hail from Ghana and they don’t think very highly of Kwame because they are directly/indirectly victims of his policies. They, however, think highly of Mugabe, they see him as a hero of the common African, while I obviously don’t agree with this view because I am a victim of his policies. Are we as Africans so ignorant that we accept anyone who criticizes the West as our saviour; it would be interesting if you write an article debunking this myth.
It is true that there are many Africans who share Nkrumah’s observation that it is better for Africans to misgovern themselves than be governed well by others (meaning white colonialists). The observation by Nkrumah is shared by a number of African leaders who genuinely take the view that Africa is for Africans in as much as Europe is for Europeans. Such people are encouraged when they see white faces defending the rights of black victims into believing that Africa is on the right path if it has leaders who can defend sovereignty more than satisfying the appetites of the governed. When Bush and Blair take their time to defend the rights of a person like Tsvangirai, this is seen as a demonstration that the purported injuries claimed are not genuine but a mere reflection of the wishes of the masters who lack the courage and moral strength to come out in the open.
In as much as Mugabe has critics, he has many admirers in an increasingly complex world characterised by a value system that lacks universal application. Many think rightly or wrongly that Mugabe is a custodian of the values that informed the independence struggle and that are at the epicenter of the unfinished economic revolution. As long as victims of Mugabe are whites, the verdict is predictable. What is problematic and rarely covered by the Western media is the victimisation of blacks who do not subscribe to their agendas. When the primary focus is regime change, then you are sure to get a combative Mugabe supported by well meaning individuals who have problems with Eurocentric values and the ideological framework within which the regime change is propagated. In this context, many take the attitudes that better the devil you know than a devil you fought against and are still in your midst through alleged proxies.
Unless the opposition parties that seek to dethrone a leader like Mugabe understand the context in which he is seemingly reluctant to relinquish power, they are unlikely to succeed in any regime change. In fact, it is ironic that even Mugabe’s worst adversaries are praying for the disintegration of Zanu PF as the only salvation for the country rather than change coming out of the popular will of the governed. In such an environment, it is incumbent upon not only the opposition forces to rethink about the agenda for action but to critically develop an ideology that captures the imagination of the governed.

Surely, the reincarnation of Ian Smith is not the desired outcome for Zimbabwe notwithstanding the economic condition of the country. A desired outcome should not appear to be dictated by the same forces that a leader like Mugabe takes pride in defeating. Whether we like it or not, Mugabe will always be remembered as the first post-colonial leader of Zimbabwe irrespective of whether through his policies Zimbabwe was turned into a Rhodesian ruins or not. Even in the best of times, a leader who believes that he is the saviour of a nation and a people that appear incapable of coherently expressing themselves will not voluntarily varnish. In fact, the appearance of Western intrusion into the domestic affairs of Zimbabwe, gives a leader like Mugabe another lifeline.
In the face of what appears to Mugabe as Western inspired regime change propaganda, the harmonisation project has been redefined now to mean Presidential and Parliamentary elections in 2008. Given the fate of Tsvangirai and his comrades, it is unthinkable that any rational Zanu PF leader would dare stand in the way of Mugabe now more than ever before. Such an idiot would face the same wrath as that which visited Tsvangirai and any prospect of dissent among the Zanu PF comrades as has been talked and written about is non-existent. Rather, what is expected is that Mugabe who is in any event the only candidate of the party until 2009, will stand for the Presidential elections even if he is well aware that winning such an election will not be in the national interest. When confronted by a spirited and determined opposition, you can count on Mugabe rising to the occasion no matter how many corpses he has to leave behind.
Some cynics would argue that Mugabe who might have entertained the prospect of retiring in 2010 has been given a new lifeline by the opposition that seems to be misguided by wrong analytical constructions by the likes of Prof Jonathan Moyo regarding the real climate within Zanu PF. The apparent investment by the opposition in transforming Zanu PF into a faction-ridden enterprise may backfire to the detriment of the country that is in urgent need of salvation.
In as much as Zimbabweans are yearning for change, the historical context of colonialism and the undying wounds it seems to have inflicted on the country’s leadership, the battle lines may have been inadvertently drawn by parties that help to confuse the conversation about change and criterion for selecting Mugabe’s successor. The open wounds of colonial injustice are evident in the psyche of many Africans to allow change in Zimbabwe to be influenced by neighboring African states. Even Chiluba and Kaunda may share the same sentiments with Mugabe about the role of Western powers in removing them from the gravy train and may find in Mugabe the courage they never mustered in defending their regimes.
Even those who expect much from South Africa are setting themselves for a big disappointment. The racial wounds have not even begun to heal to allow President Mbeki to become an accomplice for any regime change agenda inspired by forces that want to entrench white economic supremacy. While they call on President Mbeki to intervene in the seemingly ill-defined Zimbabwean crisis, no attempt is made to locate such intervention in the context of international law. Where would President Mbeki get the locus standi to intervene in as much as he may find some of the policies of the government of Zimbabwe objectionable? The South African government’s position on regime change is well known to give its critics a better perspective in terms of judging its actions on the Zimbabwean question.
While the opposition parties may hold the view that the current government of Zimbabwe is not legitimate, the South African government has a different opinion that has informed its response on calls for a new constitution and a transitional authority to supervise the next Zimbabwean election. If President Mbeki is being encouraged to do what would be unconstitutional under the Constitution of South Africa, then it becomes difficult for him to establish the legal and political basis within which he can intervene.
In conclusion, I think the question of whether Zimbabwe is a victim of colonialism and imperialism will and should continue to occupy the minds of Zimbabweans and Africans in general as they try to map out a strategy to lift the sinking titanic whose captain is still to be convinced of his culpability in helping kill the hope that ignited the struggle for emancipation.
Zimbabwe will continue to be on autopilot, in a stalemate, and in deep crisis unless its citizens find a better way of communicating with its leaders that the world has changed and if change in the manner in which the country is governed does not take place, then the blame must be placed squarely at citizens for allowing themselves to be used as a football by leaders whose interests may have little to do with their future.
Africa’s heritage must be owned by citizens and not monopolised by their agents who in many cases end up abusing their rights while conveniently blaming others for their obvious misguided policies and programs.

Africa's destiny unpacked

SUDAN may have been the first African country to gain independence but Ghana has historically been credited as the first black African country in Africa to gain independence not least because of President Nkrumah but because events that followed Ghana’s independence had far reaching implications on the decolonization of the continent.
To the extent that Ghana was a torch bearer for the anti-colonial struggle, we have no choice but to draw lessons from its experience.
I have been humbled and encouraged by the response I have been getting from the readers of my articles. Ultimately, it is not words that make history but our actions. Can you imagine what would have happened to the history of Africa if Nkrumah had decided to pursue his doctorate at the London School of Economics as he had planned when he left the USA? While we may have different views about Nkrumah’s place in Ghana and Africa’s history, it would be foolhardy for anyone to refuse to recognize that Africa’s destiny was shaped by the actions of the continent’s heroes and heroines.
Many of us have the privilege to look back on the events that have shaped the continent’s history and cannot escape asking why poverty becomes the best friend of post-independent Africa. Even in the case of Ethiopia, a country that was never colonized, has not demonstrated a capacity to escape the poverty that pervades many of the post-colonial African economies. How then do we find it easy to blame colonialism for all the ills of Africa when even the countries that were not colonised have nothing to show for it? One cannot, therefore, avoid asking the question of whether poverty, corruption and bad governance are an integral part of Africa’s destiny. Destiny refers to a predetermined course of events. Are Africans inherently incapable of organizing their affairs or is it a combination of colonialism, neo-colonialism or imperialism that has collectively combined to psychologically damage Africa’s capacity to address its own challenges?
The post-colonial experience of African countries seems to follow the same fixture with seemingly inevitable and unchangeable outcomes. Whether the central player and founding father is Nkrumah, Nujoma, Mandela, Lumumba or Mugabe, the end game is as predicable as the demise of colonialism. The values, norms and traditions that inform post-colonial Africans states seem to have the same text in the rest of the continent. The contagion effect even on the countries that were never colonised is evident to undermine the hypothesis that if Africa was never colonized then poverty may never have visited Africa with such predictability and ferocity.
This article was inspired by someone whose name I will keep confidential who wrote the following email to me: “Greetings boss my name is xxxx, I worked as a producer for Alotta Current Affairs and Entertainment programs for ZTV and MNET but I am now based in the UK where I am a recording artist and TV producer. I hope you find the time to read mine. I fully understand the power of the media from a business point and the social political aspect views such as yours to reach a wider population as you say in your lifetime you love to see Africa shine in its lifetime and I share the same dream and you have sparked an idea maybe we need to start learning from the mistakes our leaders have made just as you question Kwame, I question Nelson Mandela did South Africa and Africa really benefit from his term as president or the dream go sour? Africa aint no better place after all the heroes that we had came and went maybe the better man never wins what if Tongogara had lived to rule what if Steve Biko had lived we just need to address these issues.”
I thought that the observations of the author of the email deserve to be incorporated in the kind of conversations that should inform Africans as they try to change the tide that has condemned the majority of its citizens to a lesser standard of life than what independence promised. On the question of Mandela, some have observed that the ultimate benefactors of South Africa’s independence were not any different from the very parties that were apartheid’s beneficiaries. I have often said that freedom is expensive because you need the means to enjoy it.
Yes, South Africa got independence through a negotiated settlement but the people who were victims of apartheid gained civil rights but not silver, gold, diamond or platinum rights. Some have said cynically that Mandela was only freed when the architects and beneficiaries of apartheid were confident that he would not pose any threat to the status quo ante and even if he did try, his mental and physical state would not permit him to be actively engaged in the transformation process. Mandela’s role like any bridge platform was, therefore, to provide a moral umbrella and compass for the majority South Africans to take ownership of their destiny.
One cannot argue that Mandela symbolised the quest for independence and his place in the history of South Africa has already been cast in stone. Mandela did not behave like many founding fathers who despite economic and social indicators going downwards would want to cling to power. From the outset, Mandela’s national unity government was structured to allow President Mbeki to assume executive responsibilities while Mandela provided the framework for healing a nation that had been torn apart by the disastrous apartheid policies and programs. Unlike Nkrumah, Mandela recognised that the executive administration of the state necessarily required different skills from the tactics and strategies used to fight against apartheid.
While it may be easy to criticise Mandela for not behaving like many African heads of states who when they assume power, then becomes intoxicated with such power that they see in themselves as invincible and irreplaceable, it is important that we carefully and critically examine the legacy of Mandela in a holistic and comprehensive manner. In as much as it is cheap politics to suggest that there can ever be a time when cash can be classified as black or white cash, it does not help the African cause for African leaders to continue to use the race card to explain their failure to make the rights decisions and provide leadership.
The difference between developed and so-called civilised societies and the developing countries, is that in the former citizens elect governments and in between elections interest groups hijack the organs of the state in the pursuit of their interests while in the latter the poor elect governments and the people they elect become the interest groups that crowd them out of the process.
In the final analysis, it does not take Africa any further to complain about colonialism. Nothing will change to the better just because we choose to use our words as the raw materials for progress. If after 50 years of independence, Sub-Saharan Africa’s oldest child has nothing to show for it in terms of the covenant that informed the independence struggle, should we lay the blame on colonialism or on our inability to take ownership of our destinies.
Many would agree that heroes like Mandela were only meant to open doors for Africans who hitherto were not allowed to participate in nation building because they did not have the right pigmentation. The resolution of the political question in Africa, if anything, must inform the assessment of the benefits attributed to Africa’s founding fathers. As an African businessman, I am acutely aware that were it not for the selfless struggles of people like Mandela and others to fight against a race based society that denied the majority the right to determine their destiny, I would not have been a businessman of the stature that I enjoy in the continent.
The real challenge for Africa lies in the transformation of the civil rights movement into a platinum rights struggle. The heroes and heroines of the economic struggle in Africa do not necessarily have to be the same players who informed the political struggle. What have happened in Africa is that with the exception of Mandela, Chissano, Nujoma, Nyerere, and others, many of Africa’s leaders who many never have seen a profit and loss statement, cash flow statement and a balance sheet prior to their assumption of office are then expected to become the best custodians of enterprise Africa. I submit that even if Steve Biko and Tongogara were still alive the African condition may not change for the better. We are all to aware that the red card given to Nkrumah did not leave Ghana any better than what it was under Nkrumah.
The platinum rights struggle that African leaders have consistently failed to appreciate and locate their roles in the battle formation still has to be prosecuted with vigor. In as much as black Africans carry the same heritage with the stigma it confers to them, the need for them to appreciate the economic staying power of the minority white and Asian tribes of Africa even when they cease to control the organs of the state, cannot be overstated.
Why is it that whites despite the numerical presence in Africa have managed to retain economic power under black regimes with such efficiency and efficacy while the people elected to run the affairs of the state continue to complain that they are not in power? How would you explain that Africans are in charge and yet free themselves from the responsibility to govern and end up blaming the spectators for losing a game? Africa will have limited capacity to rise to the challenge for as long as its citizens take the easy road to blame someone for their own inadequacies.
It is a truism that people get the governments they deserve. Even if Africa’s despots were removed from office there is no evidence that Africa’s fortune will dramatically change for the better. It is common cause that most of the post-colonial governments have been very good to the former colonizers particularly in the economic arena. The platinum struggle requires planning and an ideology that respects the rule of law, human and property rights. On the ingredients required for Africa to be a winning continent, lessons are many from the experiences of other newly industrialised countries.

Lessons from Kwame Nkrumah's Ghana

BLACK Africa’s first decolonisation product, Ghana, celebrated its golden jubilee last week.
The celebrations were witnesses by about 20 African heads of state and governments. After 50 years of uhuru, we can look back and reflect on the lessons, if any; black Africa’s first born has for its brothers in the continent. The role and place of Ghana’s founder and first president, Kwame Nkrumah, is well acknowledged.
He remains one of the most influential Pan Africanists of the 20th century. It is in his role as a nation builder that I thought would be a useful intervention for me to generate a new context for an urgently needed conversation about Africa’s future in this century that has been dubbed the “African century”.
The 20th century was dominated by the quest for political sovereignty and Kwame Nkrumah was a pioneering leader in the struggle for the total emancipation of the continent. The century ended with Nkrumah’s dream fulfilled in so far as the eradication of race-based unconstitutional governments in the continent.
Nkrumah’s personal journey is as controversial as it is instructive of how Africa’s founding fathers failed to provide the required leadership in building sustainable institutions and viable economic models to deliver make good on citizens’ expectations. The story of Nkrumah has been repeated in many Africans states confirming the notion that it is difficult to learn from other people’s mistakes.
Was Nkrumah a good role model for Africans? In addressing this question, I am fully mindful that many Africans are blinded by Nkrumah’s contribution in destroying the hegemony of the remote British Empire than by his record as the leader of a sovereign nation to the extent that they would dare venture into critically evaluating the true cost of his blunders to Ghana and, indeed, many other African states whose leaders have followed in his footsteps with disastrous consequences.
Nkrumah spent about 12 years in the diaspora like many Africans. He was influenced by the civil rights movement in the US and by ascendancy of the US as a major superpower that espoused values of equality, liberty and justice. He became Prime Minister in 1952 and within 9 years of his release from prison, he became an Executive President of Ghana. In 1954, he won the independence vote and in 1957, Ghana became an independent state with Nkrumah as the first black Prime Minister. In 1960, Ghana became a republic with Nkrumah. Ghana was declared a one party state with Nkrumah as the Life President in 1964 and was subsequently overthrown in 1966.
The ideology that informed Nkrumah’s policies was socialist and he believed in the state as an instrument for transforming the inherited dualistic economic infrastructure. He used the state as a vehicle for investing in infrastructure and like many African heads of state, did not trust the market system as a rational and reliable instrument for allocating resources efficiently. The first years of Nkrumah witnessed a massive investment in social and physical infrastructure. The state was transformed into a new personality with Nkrumah as the overarching individual with all the wisdom and a monopoly of the vision of where the country should go.
Barely a year after independence, the Nkrumah government started to restrict the freedom of citizens by passing two pieces of legislation i.e. Trade Union Act and Prevention Detention Act. Organized labor as well as perceived enemies of the state was targeted.
The road followed by Nkrumah to a one party state is no different from what other African founding fathers have emulated. Like Nkrumah the one party state was justified on the grounds of national unity and cohesion. The role of the state in the economy was also justified on the grounds that at the core of the colonial regime was a capitalist ideology whose adverse impact on the majority poor could not be accepted by a post colonial administration. In the pursuit of an industrial policy, the farmers were penalized with low producer prices to facilitate resources being diverted to Nkrumah’s pet projects.
I am cognizant of the fact that notwithstanding the dismal record of socialism, there are many who still believe like Nkrumah that the state knows it all and the head of state is a repository of wisdom. In this construction, it is difficult to generate a new conversation that seeks to separate the liberation tactics from nation building strategies and program of action. It is true that a person who has been accustomed to be anti to everything is a difficult candidate for progressive and constructive thinking. I submit that the quality of a good general is not demonstrated by the mutiny of his troops against him but by their pursuit of the enemy.
It is true that Nkrumah was a victim of his own lieutenants exposing the fragility of the institutional framework he had built to support the democratic process. In saying this, I am also mindful of the view that Nkrumah was a victim of the regime change agenda of imperialist countries during the height of the cold war. There are many who would argue that Nkrumah’s term was interrupted not because of the cost his policies imposed on the people of Ghana but because of the conspiracy of the usual suspects i.e. America and its transatlantic allies.
A good builder is not judged by the cracks that characterizes his structures but by the absence of such manifestation of bad architecture, structural deficiencies and bad workmanship. Was Nkrumah a good builder if his regime was succeeded by unelected military governments? The lasting legacy of any leader is ultimately measured by the quality of men and women who inherit the baton and take it to great heights on the back of the wisdom of the father. When you see succeeding leaders try to distance themselves from the policies of the founder then you know there is trouble.
Equally, when the leader is deposed, the people he thought were on his side start to celebrate his/her demise then you know that such a leader was never really a leader. How many African leaders can confidently predict how their closest lieutenants would behave when they are out of power is a question that many leaders should ask. It is important that Africans begin to openly discuss and evaluate the question of whether Nkrumah was pushed out or he pushed himself into irrelevance because of implementing policies and programs that were not in tune with the wishes of the majority of the citizens.
When Nkrumah proclaimed Ghana as a one party state with a Life President, it was evident that the only mechanism left for citizens to display their quest for change was through a military solution. Imagine a towering figure in African politics being replaced by the military as opposed to an intellectual. What does this tell us about the quality of Nkrumah’s leadership? Ultimately, many when a leader ceases to represent the wishes of citizens his claim to a respectable legacy becomes compromised to the extent that succession becomes a playfield for political prostitutes at the expense of national progress. Could it be the case that Nkrumah unknowingly condemned Ghana to a lower standard of living by pursuing misguided policies and in actual fact was the real stimuli for the coup of 1966?
What is it about power that it makes even the most gifted Africans to end up with the brains of a soldier? Many have observed in history that the best soldier has his brains in his/her shoes so that when he/she is told to jump they immediately ask how high. Soldiers are good at taking instructions and generals should be good at fighting battles before committing soldiers to battle. When you see soldiers turning against their generals then it means they generals have failed to plan. In many African countries, the generals are the heads of state and yet they collectively seem unprepared for the battle to improve the quality of life in their countries and in the continent in general. Some have inherited functional administrative systems and yet invest in undermining such institutions and replacing them with confusion.
How many of the African heads of state who attended the celebrations in Ghana are guilty of Nkrumah’s conduct and yet are genuinely ignorant of the costs that they impose on their countries by denying citizens the right to objectively choose who should govern them? How long can African leaders project themselves as victims of third party interventions when they should be the generals of the African battle against poverty?
On the question of poverty, it is a general observation that independence and affluence are soon parted. In post colonial Africa, poverty seems to be an enduring friend of the citizens of the continent while its leaders continue to imagine and manufacture new external enemies each day while citizens invest in the faith business hoping for a better life after death having given up hope on life on earth because they do not have any options to remove the generals who never planned for the battle to integrate Africa into the commonwealth of nations. Some have observed that the only thing common in the Commonwealth is not the wealth.
I listened to President Kufuor who lamented that Africa continues to export its human capital to the developed world even after 50 years of independence. In as much as the African diaspora responded like Nkrumah to the call to return to Africa to reclaim their African heritage and provide leadership in the decolonization period, the systematic and consistent hijacking of the post colonial state by an unaccountable cabal does not provide a conducive environment for human capital nourishment in Africa.
A continent whose leadership is allergic to alternative views cannot be an attractive destination for globally competitive skills. I submit that the heads of state in Africa many represent the biggest stumbling blocks to the reversal of the brain drain in the continent than anything else. If it took Nkrumah only a year to recognize that the rule of law, respect for human and property rights was not important for the new state, how can Africa expect long term commitment from its mobile assets without a corresponding investment in tolerance and mutual respect?
I do hope that in my lifetime, Africans will go beyond the personalities that seek higher political office underpinned by a drought of ideas on what it takes to create winning nation states and a continent allergic to poverty. History will not judge our generations by what we did not do but what we did. Equally, Nkrumah stands judged today not because he was a coward but because he dared to be engaged. He may have been a poison pill for his people but no one can doubt that without him Africa will not be where it is.
Yes, some may argue convincingly that it is better to be poor and sovereign than be rich and be in bondage. Africans are not the first to be colonized and lessons are available on how other nationalities have risen from the ashes of destruction and the womb of colonization into vibrant and successful nations. The lessons we learn from Nkrumah are many but the enduring one is that leaders ought to know when to liberate their countries by not over bearing on their people to the extent that the military or pedestrian options become the only viable solutions for reclaiming their future.

Mugabe's power game: abdication or delegation?

PRESIDENT Robert Mugabe has celebrated his 83rd birthday and now Zimbabwe awaits its 27th, and many Zimbabweans find little to celebrate in 2007 than when the country was born.
The reasons for the current political and economic quagmire that Zimbabwe finds itself in are as varied as they are confusing depending on whom you talk to.
When Zimbabwe gained independence in 1980, the ownership of the country was transferred to none but the people of Zimbabwe alone.
Therefore, the expectation was rightly that all the powers that had to be exercised over the last 27 years had to be exercised on behalf of the people of Zimbabwe and yet the experience suggests otherwise.
Sovereignty
When the President took his oath by stating publicly that: "I,............do solemnly affirm that I will faithfully execute the office of President of Zimbabwe and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the law and that I will devote myself to the service and well being of the people of Zimbabwe" the rational expectation was that because the ownership of the country vests only with the people of Zimbabwe, all the powers exercised by the President must necessarily be exercised on behalf of the people of Zimbabwe and on behalf of none else even the majority party in parliament.
Under this construction, if the ownership of Zimbabwe vests in none else than the people of Zimbabwe, how then can the harmonization project which is to be located in the parliament of Zimbabwe be accommodated in the republican constitution.
The constitutional discourse in post-independent Zimbabwe has to be understood in the general quest by Zimbabweans to create and sustain a type of government that is responsive to their needs and suitable to the country. With almost 20 years of an American-type of government with an Executive President, many Zimbabweans including President Mugabe have come to the inescapable conclusion that the current constitutional democracy is not suitable to them.
The powers and functions of the President should have the place as if they are the powers and functions of the sovereign people being exercised by the Chief Executive of the State. President Mugabe should have been a Chief Executive for the country with clearly defined powers that should have been exercisable in accordance with the Constitution.
President Mugabe was a creature of the constitution and should ideally have been working under the constitution. However, in practice, even President Mugabe would agree that he is supra-Constitution and he behaves as if he has an ownership interest in the Republic.
As Zimbabwe approaches its 27th birthday, I have no doubt that people will reflect and indeed even President Mugabe will be reflecting on whether Zimbabweans got a government they deserve. The concept of sovereignty has to be understood in being able to assess the effectiveness of the constitution in giving Zimbabweans control of their destiny. We must define as to who is the representative of the people so far as sovereignty Zimbabwe is concerned. Does sovereignty reside in state house, parliament or the people? Does President Mugabe represent the sovereignty of the people?
I think that no one would argue that President Mugabe, assuming there is consensus that he was duly elected by the people of Zimbabwe, must represent the sovereignty of the people. After all, how otherwise will the people express themselves? I submit that no government in democratic countries can ever claim to be fully representative of the people as a whole.
The government of Zimbabwe with a President and a majority Zanu PF parliament, although they may claim to represent the ambitions and aspirations of the people, and even though they may claim that they are the most popular people in the country, it cannot be said that they are the representatives of the total population of Zimbabwe; they cannot be considered to be the representatives of the whole people because they have a party bias and a party manifesto on which they were been elected. I submit that the government must as a rule represent the majority party in the country.
A government cannot therefore be the true spokesman of the whole people. There must be some unit, some authority, some person in whom sovereignty should be vested, in whom the prerogatives of the people should be vested. I, therefore, submit that even President Mugabe notwithstanding the fact that he was elected directly by the people has often acted not only as an Executive Head of the State (where only the views of Zanu PF are paramount) but also a symbol of the sovereignty of Zanu PF and not the people of Zimbabwe.
In this article, I wish to make a distinction between the people of Zimbabwe and the State. The State has always the bias of administration. In the problem of the governed and the governor, whether it be democracy or any other cracy, the State governs and the people are governed. It is therefore necessary that in a democratic State full chance of expression should be given to the minorities or opposition. Sovereignty lies in the people; but how will it express itself? It cannot be expressed by the government, because the government is not the total people.
Sometimes, it may be majority of only fifty one per cent and it may also be possible that a forty-nine per cent minority may go unrepresented altogether. If the parliament of Zimbabwe agrees to vest the paramountcy and all prerogative and sovereignty in the people, then there must be some authority wherefrom the sovereignty should flow and express itself. If this argument is accepted, then a President of Zimbabwe has no right to suggest an amendment of the constitution through the parliament when sovereignty is vested in the people.
Although I have argued before that there is nothing wrong in a legitimate parliament changing a constitution but the unusual circumstances in Zimbabwe compels even the President to address the issue of sovereignty and where it should reside. One can, therefore, not argue that sovereignty that resided in the Presidency under a Presidential system can be delegated without the consent of the people to parliament when Zimbabwe does not have a Parliamentary system of government.
While President Mugabe was elected to be the head of the executive, it was always understood that he was to be guided by a cabinet of ministers who are also members of parliament and not by Gono. The expectation was that although the President is the symbol; of sovereignty, he has to rely on the advice of his Ministers whose advice should be binding upon him in all actions that he is supposed to take under the power given to him by the Constitution. He is not supposed to be the absolute supreme head and uncontrolled by the advice of anybody except Gono. Yes, Gono like any other citizen can advise the President but the President is not bound to accept such advice. This is why the President should ideally be described as the Chief Head of the Executive.
Events of the last few years starting with the conduct of Professor Moyo and now Gono compel Zimbabweans to take stock of the democratic experiment in Zimbabwe to properly assess whether President Mugabe has abdicated and should not be considered as the symbol of sovereignty or whether the power conferred on an elected President can be delegated to other parties. Zimbabwe adopted the Presidential system with an Executive President and a cabinet of ministers who are not alienated from the legislature as under the American system. Zimbabwe has adopted this system and it makes it obligatory upon the President to act upon the advice of his Ministers. If it is the case that the President should not be bound by the advice of his cabinet, then, of course, sovereignty has to be restored to the people and ordinarily an effective parliament impeach a President who abdicates.
I would, therefore, suggest that the powers and functions of the President should have the place as if they were the powers and functions of the sovereign people being exercised by the Chief Executive of the State and in President Truman’s words the buck must stop in his office.
Based on the above, should Zimbabweans trust the legislature to protect their interests particularly in the proposed constitutional changes? The architecture of the parliament of Zimbabwe is well known and the outcomes are as predictable as summer coming on the back of winter. Political parties are mundane, dealing with mundane things, and as such they are bound to attach much more importance to considerations of the moment, to merely transitory ideas, to importance of personalities like President Mugabe, by which the people should not be affected when their rights are at stake.
It is of the utmost importance that the parliament must be trusted and legitimate and, therefore, out of or above any contamination by a strong personality determined to make himself a super citizen with the monopoly of wisdom. For the parliament of Zimbabwe to have credibility in participating in the harmonization project, it must necessarily be above contamination by political prejudices that are already evident when the President who is not in the legislature can motivate by his own admission the amendment of the constitution to locate sovereignty in a theatre that is partisan and not national i.e. the parliament of Zimbabwe.
The whole doctrine that "President Mugabe can do no wrong" loses its import if the doctrine of ministerial advice and ministerial responsibility is not there. Having observed that the use of quasi-fiscal activities by the RBZ, is not only constitutional but exposes the bankruptcy and irrelevance of the current form of government that Zimbabweans have to accept, I submit that it is important to shift the debate from the examination of whether President Mugabe will get the necessary votes to change the constitution to a critical evaluation of whether the President by allowing Gono to act outside the scope of the constitution, he has violated the Constitution and undermined the institutional arrangements put in place to give meaning to a Presidential style of government. Are the actions of President in line supreme law of the country and is he operating on the advice of his ministers? If not, is the extension of the Presidential term the remedy?
Can Zimbabweans harmonise the doctrine of ministerial responsibility with the position of President Mugabe as the head of the State and Chief Executive? Can Zimbabweans harmonize as is being proposed by President Mugabe the powers of the RBZ Governor with the doctrine of constitutional democracy?
Abdication or delegation?
To locate what needs to be fixed urgently in Zimbabwe, I had no better example than the events that unfolded last week in Zimbabwe.
Tuesday, 27 February 2007Reserve Bank governor Gideon Gono gave oral evidence before the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee and Home Affairs to consider a request by the Zimbabwe Republic Police, Registrar-General’s Office and Airforce of Zimbabwe to be provided with foreign currency for various pressing needs.
CommentUnder what construction would a Governor of the Reserve Bank appear before a legislature to give evidence on requests by government departments when such requests should be motivated by the responsible Ministers who through cabinet must agree on priorities for the country in line with the mandate given to them by the people? Surely, the parliamentary committee that has opposition representatives must know its obligations and responsibilities under a constitutional democracy. The only vehicle through which the resources of the people should be allocated should be through the budget.
However, by committee asking Gono to appear before it, one must accept that the oversight role of the parliament of Zimbabwe is confused. Now we turn to the requests considered by the committee.
Surely, how can a parliamentary committee of Zimbabwe consider requests for foreign currency when it is common cause that the currency of the country is Z$? Should it not be the case that the committee should consider the requests in local currency and also address the exchange rate issues inherent in such requests? What ought to happen is that each department should motivate its requests through the relevant ministries who then should prepare cabinet presentations for consideration by cabinet where President Mugabe ought to be the Chairman. The cabinet would only consider the requests in Z$ in as much as the parliamentary committee should also be looking at resource allocation in the local currency. After all the source of government revenues is mainly Z$ and not foreign currency.
Even parliament appears to have accepted that Gono has now assumed powers that should be reserved for Ministers. Surprisingly, no one in parliament bothered to question the locus standi of Gono at the committee. It is such behavior that confirms that the problem in Zimbabwe may not necessarily reside in the statehouse. Surely, the opposition should have known better.
Wednesday, 28 February 2004The Herald, a newspaper owned by the state, published an article reporting on the committee hearing. The article was entitled: “Gono blasts lazy farmers”. On what basis would Gono blast lazy farmers and what locus standi does he have to comment on farmers? The quotations attributed to Gono in the article help to expose the point I made above that the President may have already abdicated and, therefore, disqualified himself by design or default from an extension of his term to 2010.
This is what Gono is alleged to have said:
“For us to import food in a country that has had a land reform programme is a shame. Everyone who got land must produce. All these people that were given farms, call on them and see what they are doing. There are some people who have become professional land occupiers, vandalizing equipment and moving from one farm to another."
Surely Gono should have known from his principals that land reform was about restoration of stolen property rights and if the land reform was predicated on productivity, then commercial farmers would not have been stripped of their properties. Who is Gono to pronounce government policy? Where is the responsible Minister? Why would Gono remain part of the government that clearly allocated farms not on the basis of means but other criterion? Would anyone other than Gono be allowed to ridicule Zanu PF policies in this manner without being labeled a puppet of imperialists? What makes Gono so special that he can appear before a multi-party committee with Zanu PF as the majority and criticize the disastrous land policies and consequences without fear? Could it be that Gono has already filled the power vacuum and the President has surrendered power to him?
Do you remember the campaign slogans: “Land is the economy, the economy is the land” and “Ngombe mbiri nemadongi mashanu sevenza nhamo ichauya" (Two cows and five donkeys work but poverty will visit you)? Is it not ironic that what Gono is now saying was what Professor Jonathan Moyo predicted in the propaganda messages and yet no one noticed the contradiction presented by the land reform? Should Gono not go further and hold the architects of land reform culpable and liable for the mess? After all who is the symbol of Zimbabwe’s sovereignty? Where should the buck stop? Should the target of Gono be beneficiaries or the benefactors? Whose agenda is Gono pursuing?
Then Gono went further to say:
“If we were talking about local currency, I would say: “Mr. Chairman, don’t worry. In the next 30 minutes we will print money. The list goes on and on and I can wail where you are crying. About 14 million Zimbabweans, we can appoint everyone of us Governor every day but nothing will improve unless we become serious. The turnaround can only be achieved when there is discipline and law and order and tearing of each other apart.
"While the roles of the different organisations that required foreign currency were critical, other pressing needs had to be catered for by the same resources. I seek your understanding and indulgence for me to come back to you in about three months. I acknowledge the work being done by Members of Parliament and Senators. Please be advised that the RBZ has allocated US$1.2 million for the purchase of your vehicles."
The above words are not coming from President Mugabe who ultimately was elected to do what Gono is now claiming to be responsible for. Printing money is not a problem and yet Zimbabweans wonder what mind informs the hyperinflationary environment. The link between printing money and inflation is evident and yet Gono has no problem with stealing the future of Zimbabwe for short term political expediency. If it was Mugabe making the statements then one would understand.
Could it be the case that the link between inflation and money supply has not been revealed to Zanu PF leadership and even to Gono? The governor makes the mistake of suggesting that the Governor is appointed by the 14 million Zimbabweans. The truth is that the Governor is appointed by the President and not by the people. He is not accountable to the people but to the President who in turn should be accountable to the people. How can Gono interpose himself between the people and the President unless the President has abdicated? Who is Gono to determine the priorities of a government that ought to be accountable to the people? Why is it that the legislatures can be spectators to this unlawful and constitutional conduct? Could it be that they are also beneficiaries of the gravy train as Gono reminded them that he had allocated US$1.2 million to them? I guess even the opposition has no ammunition to challenge Gono when they are jumping the national queue of foreign currency seekers? Surely, the legislature in a democratic assembly should be influenced not selfish interests but by reasons of principle.
Thursday, 1 March 2007On 28 February, Gono like a typical politician was on the road. The Herald reported the story in the article entitled: “Do not abuse State Inputs, Gono warns beneficiaries” that appeared on 1 March 2007.
It was reported that Gono warned administrators and beneficiaries of Operation Maguta against abusing inputs and government facilities saying that stern action would be taken against them. He made the remarks during a briefing with Acting Chief of Operation Maguta Brigadier General Douglas Nyikayaramba and Mashonaland West Governor and Resident Minister Nelson Samkange in Chinhoyi. It was reported that he was in the province to assess the crop situation and progress of the operation.
This is what Gono said:
“Disciplinary action would be taken against those who abuse inputs and government facilities. So we want to assure our people that these people would be punished. I urge you to come forward and report such corrupt practices which are negatively impacting on Zimbabwe’s economy.
"I know that there are some officials from financial institutions who are demanding kick backs from farmers in order for the banks to grant loans. So we want to call upon our people to come forward and report such practices and we assure them that the culprits would be dealt with. We want Mashonaland West to become our greater source of the country’s food requirements.”
Who has doubted that all the operations including Operation Murambatsvina came from one author? You judge for yourself who believes in arresting challenges. Under what construction would Gono speak on behalf of the government unless he is aware that the President has abdicated? Surely, is it the role of government to give people land and then threaten them with eviction because they have not behaved as dictated by the governors? Under the land reform program, who does the land belong to?
It appears from Gono that the security of tenure is based on production and the property rights are subject to the interpretation of the state more appropriately him? Are the statements made by Gono consistent with his role as the Governor of an agency of the government? What does Gono know about the government that everyone else doesn’t know? Why would the Governor be the inspector of land reform while at the same time try to speak on behalf of the government? Where are the responsible Ministers? Why is the media not picking up the dangerous signs?
How safe is it for an entrepreneur to live in the fear of the state being the judge, jury and executioner. Should the Governor be the judge of the performance of land owners? Imagine you borrow money from a bank to buy a house in the knowledge that the bank may deprive you of the house without due process. Does this inspire confidence? If it does not, who is culpable for non-performance? Should the RBZ not trust other intermediaries to intervene rather than become the policeman, banker and politician?
Friday, 2 March 2007
The week ended with an editorial from the Herald entitled: ”Farmers must shape up or ship out”. Not surprisingly, the editor had this to say: “To this end, we back the Reserve Bank Governor (and not the President) Dr. Gideon Gono’s assertions that the fiscus cannot continue using scarce foreign currency to import food when we could not only be producing it, but actually exporting it to boost our foreign currency reserves. Some of these farmers are going into their seventh season this year, and if they have not yet put a significant portion of their land into production, they should lose it immediately.
The government should not accept any excuses because A2 farmers stated on their applications that they had resources to produce for the nation. What is now required is to weed out bad apples, and leave only those with the soil at the heart of the farms. Farming is a full time business that has no room for part timers (The President and his cabinet are all part time farmers). The nation cannot continue suffering the depredations and indulgence of a few misguided farmers, when so many people are willing to get on with the business of farming only if they could lay their hands on a farm.”
It is clear from the above that the editorial was authored by the RBZ. Many may remember that Gono has repeatedly said that he respects the rule of law, human and property rights yet it is evident that only performers must be entitled to property rights. For many land owners who benefited from the land reform, they should be concerned as any property owner ought to be concerned about the above implications of Gono’s statements.
The above leads me to ask: Whose land is it anyway? Would Gono go after the President if he is not utilizing the land productively? If the standard for land ownership is productivity, then surely should the government not invite the white farmers back? What is Gono trying to communicate and who is he trying to confuse? The obvious manipulation of the public through the media would be evident from any casual observer and yet many have been fooled by these antics.The above represents what happened in Gono’s week. I am sure you will agree with me that his actions and conduct confirms the worst fears that the President may have abdicated and Gono may have stolen the Presidency by design or by default. Citizens deserve better than being governed by proxy and must locate the succession debate in the context of a palace coup that even the President may not be fully aware of. I would argue that if the President is fully aware of the machinations of Gono then it is incomprehensible why he would want to remain in office when the system of government has been sufficiently undermined to render it useless.
Even the opposition parties appear to have accepted the transfer of power to Gono who has now decided to unilaterally warehouse all the quasi-fiscal transactions in an opaque company called Fiscorp. With Herbert Murerwa gone, I am sure that there is a sigh of relief among the many beneficiaries including parliamentarians of Gono’s generosity using the people’s funds with impunity. What if there are bad apples in the portfolio taken over by Fiscorp, we will never know. Strange things happen when strange people steal your future and have the courage of insulting you through your elected representatives.
In the circumstances, the need for Zimbabweans to appreciate the dangers that have visited the republic is more urgent today than never. Who would have expected that only after 27 years of independence, the government would be outsourced to a Godfather while the elected head of state and one of the founding fathers being a cheer leader? An abdication can never be rewarded by an extension of term but by citizens taking ownership of the Republic.
If the President has delegated his authority to Gono, then he should give way to him rather than continue with the hypocrisy. Maybe Gono will then learn to be consistent in deed and action, lest many casualties like Murerwa and many other Gono corpses become common litter on Samora Machel Avenue.