IS IT not paradoxical that liberal democracy is constantly derided by Africa’s political elites as western and liberal while at the same time the western and liberal notion of the rule of law finds a receptive audience among the continent’s state and non-state actors?
In evaluating whether the rule of law is good for Africa, one needs a working agreement on the definition of the rule of law.
The rule of law is one of the most abused concepts that have occupied the African mind both in the colonial and post-colonial eras.
The noted English jurist A.V. Dicey summarised the rule of law under three heads: (i) Primarily...No man could be punished or lawfully interfered with by the authorities except for breaches of law. In other words, all government actions must be authorised by law. (ii) Secondarily...No man is above the law and everyone, regardless of rank, is subject to the ordinary laws of the land. (iii) Finally...There is no need for a bill of rights because the general principle of the constitution is the result of judicial decisions determining the rights of the private person.
The assumption that legal institutions are part of a wider package of markets is implicit in the relentless advocacy for the rule of law in Africa. The colonial state was informed by a causal connection between markets, liberal politics and the rule of law albeit fashioned along racial lines. The link between capitalism and the rule of law was evident in the colonial state while the connection between the rule of law and state power in a post-colonial state is an area that requires interrogation.
It is important that we attempt to locate the development of institutions, especially legal institutions in colonial and post colonial Africa in the context of state building by exploring the connection between the development of market forces and the emergency of the rule of law.
Do we as Africans have a common set of shared normative understanding of the purpose and function of state power and governance (stateness)? Does a form of managed and negotiated capitalism generically referred to as the developmental state suit the unique challenges of a post-colonial Africa? Is Socialism the most optimum ideology to drive the African agenda? The need to locate the ideological choices that Africa must make in the context of the rule of law doctrine cannot be overstated.
When we talk of rule of law in Africa we tend to describe a key component of the social and political orders generally found in Western liberal societies of our time. In other words, by rule of law we generally mean a western tradition that can be traced back to the Roman republics and characterised by legal domination and constitutionalism. The contestation of power during the colonial and post colonial periods has tended to focus on civil and constitutional issues to the extent that legal scholars and academics have dominated the debate on Africa’s future.
It is critical that we appreciate the liberal understanding of the rule of law. Such an understanding makes the following important assumptions: (i) that society is composed of individuals and voluntary associations; (ii) that the purpose of law is to adjudicate between private conflicts among the members of the society; (iii) that public officials are guided by law not personalism or other extra-legal considerations; and (iv) that the law has legitimacy and is widely understood and obeyed.
At the core of these liberal assumptions is the notion that the development of the rule of law can occur only at the expense of a weakening of governmental or public power.
The concept of the rule of law as framed by liberal societies should at face value be a friendly one for any post colonial state and yet the post colonial experience has demonstrated that the rule of law can serve to entrench and consolidate public or state power.
A critical element of the argument that I seek to advance is that notions of the rule of law need to be understood in the context of notions of political authority and rule embedded in the womb of the state.
In much of Africa, the post colonial state was trapped in the repertoire of political rule established by the undemocratic colonial state. Is it not strange that there are similarities in the use of the law by the colonial and post colonial states? In particular, the ideological notions of security and order are an inheritance of the colonial state and the former victims of colonial tyranny seem to voluntarily adopt the same strategies and tactics used by the colonial state to entrench and consolidate state power.
It might be useful to understand that in both the colonial and post-colonial states, laws are seen in terms of their capacity to produce accurate outcomes that reflect substantial state and not citizen objectives and interests.
Conceptions of stateness in both the colonial and post-colonial period have been conceived in terms of an enterprise association in which the validity of rules springs not from citizens themselves but from ends or purposes of the ruling elites.
The relevance or otherwise of borrowed notions from western liberal societies like the rule of law in informing the choices for Africa can only be determined by the continent’s citizens. There are many of us in Africa who have accepted the notion that the state is a person with super rights.
If any, the post colonial experience has demonstrated that the real danger in Africa lies less in mistaken notions of relentless attacks by neo-liberal and imperialist machinations but in the benign acceptance by citizens that rule by law practised by blacks is more friendly and patriotic.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Capitalism may challenge the poor, but it gives them hope
THROUGHOUT human history, the road out of poverty has been built not by aid from developed states but by economic growth, and yet in Africa there is a prevailing logic that the rich have a responsibility to lift the poor.
Post-colonial Africa has largely emerged from the womb of a race-based capitalist construction to make capitalism a contested ideology for nation building.
In evaluating whether capitalism is good for Africa to the extent that poverty and Africa seem to be great friends, therefore, the question to be answered is whether the institutions that characterise capitalist economies are effective in promoting economic growth.
To begin a systematic analysis of whether capitalism is good for Africa requires a working agreement on precisely what capitalism is. Capitalism is an abused term universally and the prevailing image of a capitalist may be an Anglo-Saxon protestant.
Like poverty, capitalism has many faces but typically an American face has come to symbolise what a capitalist is. The standard definition of capitalism is “a market economy in which the means of production are privately owned” in contrast to communist, socialist or fascists systems and yet even in countries that are perceived to be capitalist, not all the means of production are under private hands.
The traditional conception of systems that incorporate the political and governmental characteristics of nation states does not address the economic institutional framework that is more relevant in addressing the question of whether capitalism as an economic model is good for Africa.
For the purpose of this article, I will use an institutional definition of capitalism so as to avoid the problems of a one-size-fits-all definition. Capitalist economic models share an identifying set of institutions whose different manifestations in practice have a similar foundation. The cornerstone of any capitalist system is the existence of a particular set of institutions governing the production and exchange of goods and services.
Is there a relationship between capitalism and poverty? There is a prevailing belief that capitalism oppresses the poor and packs its benefits for the rich. Equally, there are many who believe that you can strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. Using this construction, it is then argued that Africa, with a majority poor, cannot afford to pursue capitalist policies. Instead, the state is also then generally perceived to be a more acceptable face of capitalism than non-state actors.
After the demise of communist/socialist models in Eastern Europe and the emergence of an ideologically ambiguous China, the evidence informed by the economic growth in non-socialist/communist nations suggests that there may be a causal and direct relationship between capitalism and economic progress.
All progressive nations promote economic growth by incorporating incentives and not threats or blackmail that encourages production, exchange and creativity. Such economies operate through an institutional framework underpinned by the rule of law and not rule by law, secure property rights and open and transparent markets in which competition is encouraged.
The economic growth that raises standards of living results from investment, the foregoing of current consumption in anticipation of future benefit. Investment is generally risky and, therefore, the importance of clearly defined property rights, secured by the rule of law, in reducing risk and encouraging investment cannot be overstated. Even the poor who may want to ascend the economic ladder of opportunities, secure property rights is one of the most fundamental foundational institution.
The lack of secure property rights condemns Africa’s poor to a nightmare existence in which hard work brings more of the same or less. The majority of Africans, notwithstanding the promise of independence, are still enslaved to a system in which they trade their time for money. Even in countries where they boast of transferring land to the poor, the poor end up being condemned to own land without any rights to assign, transfer or sell to third parties. In such countries where land has been nationalised, the institutional framework created in which state actors decide who should own what land, poverty is entrenched not by the actions of the rich by the design of state bureaucrats.
Someone who is a beneficiary of a 99 year lease is not going to see the lease through and there will come a time when the land will have to be transferred to another party and yet the construction of land reform programs is such that land cannot be freely transferred. Whose land is it after a person has been granted a lease? Many African governments would like to believe that the land belongs to the state. In such an environment, is it reasonable to expect that poverty can be meaningfully reduced when current owners of land have no clue about what will happen when they die?
Any system that ignores the human spirit and enlightened self interest is bound to fail. How many of Africa’s state actors think that they know better than their citizens? Imagine a country where nobody can identify who owns what, addresses cannot easily be verified, people cannot be made to pay their debts, resources cannot be turned into money, ownership cannot be divided into shares, descriptions of assets are not standardised and cannot be easily compared, and the rules that govern property vary from village to village. This is the environment that the people in many African states have been condemned to, in the name of nationalism and sovereignty.
In many countries laws of inheritance are not clear and wealth cannot be easily transferred from one generation to the next. In such an atmosphere, investment dwindles, and the probability of eradicating poverty diminishes. As Africans, we have no choice but to critically examine how property rights can affect the ability of the poor to allocate their labour and how they can shape incentives for investments in human and physical capital.
How many of us are engaged in conversations that are frank and focused on the real prize for Africa? Case studies in Chindia illustrate how policies that target institutions tend to be more successful in reducing poverty than policies that target people.
Africa is continent whose time is yet to come. Rule of law is one of the much said but little understood concepts in popular press and daily conversations in Africa today. What is rule of law? What is its significance in advancing the African agenda? What is the cultural content and context of the rule of law in Africa? What are the institutional conditions required for a constitutional order that supports the rule of law in Africa? How does Africa achieve the rule of law? I intend to tackle these questions in future articles.
However, I close this one by suggesting that Africa may not need to look backwards to go forwards. In the absence of any better system, capitalism may offer a better and less risky roadmap for Africa than any other model known to mankind. Even the poor can take comfort from the fact that the rich cannot take their wealth to their graves. Capitalism may challenge the poor but at least it gives them hope that the sky is the limit.
Post-colonial Africa has largely emerged from the womb of a race-based capitalist construction to make capitalism a contested ideology for nation building.
In evaluating whether capitalism is good for Africa to the extent that poverty and Africa seem to be great friends, therefore, the question to be answered is whether the institutions that characterise capitalist economies are effective in promoting economic growth.
To begin a systematic analysis of whether capitalism is good for Africa requires a working agreement on precisely what capitalism is. Capitalism is an abused term universally and the prevailing image of a capitalist may be an Anglo-Saxon protestant.
Like poverty, capitalism has many faces but typically an American face has come to symbolise what a capitalist is. The standard definition of capitalism is “a market economy in which the means of production are privately owned” in contrast to communist, socialist or fascists systems and yet even in countries that are perceived to be capitalist, not all the means of production are under private hands.
The traditional conception of systems that incorporate the political and governmental characteristics of nation states does not address the economic institutional framework that is more relevant in addressing the question of whether capitalism as an economic model is good for Africa.
For the purpose of this article, I will use an institutional definition of capitalism so as to avoid the problems of a one-size-fits-all definition. Capitalist economic models share an identifying set of institutions whose different manifestations in practice have a similar foundation. The cornerstone of any capitalist system is the existence of a particular set of institutions governing the production and exchange of goods and services.
Is there a relationship between capitalism and poverty? There is a prevailing belief that capitalism oppresses the poor and packs its benefits for the rich. Equally, there are many who believe that you can strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. Using this construction, it is then argued that Africa, with a majority poor, cannot afford to pursue capitalist policies. Instead, the state is also then generally perceived to be a more acceptable face of capitalism than non-state actors.
After the demise of communist/socialist models in Eastern Europe and the emergence of an ideologically ambiguous China, the evidence informed by the economic growth in non-socialist/communist nations suggests that there may be a causal and direct relationship between capitalism and economic progress.
All progressive nations promote economic growth by incorporating incentives and not threats or blackmail that encourages production, exchange and creativity. Such economies operate through an institutional framework underpinned by the rule of law and not rule by law, secure property rights and open and transparent markets in which competition is encouraged.
The economic growth that raises standards of living results from investment, the foregoing of current consumption in anticipation of future benefit. Investment is generally risky and, therefore, the importance of clearly defined property rights, secured by the rule of law, in reducing risk and encouraging investment cannot be overstated. Even the poor who may want to ascend the economic ladder of opportunities, secure property rights is one of the most fundamental foundational institution.
The lack of secure property rights condemns Africa’s poor to a nightmare existence in which hard work brings more of the same or less. The majority of Africans, notwithstanding the promise of independence, are still enslaved to a system in which they trade their time for money. Even in countries where they boast of transferring land to the poor, the poor end up being condemned to own land without any rights to assign, transfer or sell to third parties. In such countries where land has been nationalised, the institutional framework created in which state actors decide who should own what land, poverty is entrenched not by the actions of the rich by the design of state bureaucrats.
Someone who is a beneficiary of a 99 year lease is not going to see the lease through and there will come a time when the land will have to be transferred to another party and yet the construction of land reform programs is such that land cannot be freely transferred. Whose land is it after a person has been granted a lease? Many African governments would like to believe that the land belongs to the state. In such an environment, is it reasonable to expect that poverty can be meaningfully reduced when current owners of land have no clue about what will happen when they die?
Any system that ignores the human spirit and enlightened self interest is bound to fail. How many of Africa’s state actors think that they know better than their citizens? Imagine a country where nobody can identify who owns what, addresses cannot easily be verified, people cannot be made to pay their debts, resources cannot be turned into money, ownership cannot be divided into shares, descriptions of assets are not standardised and cannot be easily compared, and the rules that govern property vary from village to village. This is the environment that the people in many African states have been condemned to, in the name of nationalism and sovereignty.
In many countries laws of inheritance are not clear and wealth cannot be easily transferred from one generation to the next. In such an atmosphere, investment dwindles, and the probability of eradicating poverty diminishes. As Africans, we have no choice but to critically examine how property rights can affect the ability of the poor to allocate their labour and how they can shape incentives for investments in human and physical capital.
How many of us are engaged in conversations that are frank and focused on the real prize for Africa? Case studies in Chindia illustrate how policies that target institutions tend to be more successful in reducing poverty than policies that target people.
Africa is continent whose time is yet to come. Rule of law is one of the much said but little understood concepts in popular press and daily conversations in Africa today. What is rule of law? What is its significance in advancing the African agenda? What is the cultural content and context of the rule of law in Africa? What are the institutional conditions required for a constitutional order that supports the rule of law in Africa? How does Africa achieve the rule of law? I intend to tackle these questions in future articles.
However, I close this one by suggesting that Africa may not need to look backwards to go forwards. In the absence of any better system, capitalism may offer a better and less risky roadmap for Africa than any other model known to mankind. Even the poor can take comfort from the fact that the rich cannot take their wealth to their graves. Capitalism may challenge the poor but at least it gives them hope that the sky is the limit.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
The Africa we want: out of time?
WE FIND ourselves relevant as free Africans at this historic moment to help define and shape the Africa we want. History has bestowed upon this generation -- fortunate enough to share the same sunshine with Africa’s greatest liberation heroes -- a responsibility of building a better Africa that can live up to the promise of all its peoples.
We all have a valid stake in Africa’s future and yet we must never forget the words of Mahatma Ghandi who said: “Be the change that you want to see”. History has taught us that you can never trust a third party to invest in the change you want to see.
The Africa we have today is a product of many Africans who died in its fields, valleys and mountains; who died hanging from trees, who died in the cells of their jailers, who died with unfulfilled dreams and hopes, and who traded their valuable personal time for the fight against race-based economic and political systems.
The cornerstone on which the Africa we want has to be constructed is the legacy of the great men and women of the continent who refused to accept the proposition that change can occur on its own, but who accepted the responsibility that history imposed on them to transform the despised, oppressed, economically disenfranchised to become the foundation and builders of a new Africa.
We find ourselves, some 51 years after Sudan’s independence, a divided, fractured and challenged generation filled with fear, envy and distrust. Many of us including Africa’s leaders, teachers, pastors, businesspersons, workers and students are still under the control mechanism of our former colonial masters and their successors to know what time it is.
We are forced by the magnitude of what we see today to accept the responsibility that history has placed on our generation to advance the cause of Africa and its people in an increasingly complex and globalised environment that is hungry for what lies in the continent’s belly i.e. mineral and other resources.
We must rise above the narrow restrictions of the divisions that have been imposed upon us by ethnicity, race, religion, class, and status. We should, therefore, not see ourselves through the narrow eye of the limitation of the boundaries of our own individual, family and country spaces. We cannot call ourselves Africans and yet act in a manner that undermines or tears down Africa. It is all we have and the majority of us can never be, for example, Korean in as much as Koreans can be African.
For some of us, we are keenly aware that thinking global is desirable but many progressive nations act locally. There can never be a wrong time to do the right thing and I strongly believe that it is our time to make Africa live to the promise of its people.
We know, for example, how difficult it is for many black Africans to be European and be accepted as such and the implications of doing business with people who hold you and your people in low esteem and yet surprisingly black Africans find themselves challenged in doing business with their own governments and fellow citizens.
We now call ourselves free Africans and many of us never pose to think and reflect on the meaning of freedom. Yes we are free but we are also freed from the means to be free. If you live in someone’s house, you can never be free. Freedom is latent and expensive for you need the means to enjoy it.
A few of us have gained scholarship that should ideally be a potent weapon for enhancing power, wisdom, knowledge and understanding but how many of us use this scholarship to change the realities of African life and civilisation?
Some 295 years ago, this is what Willie Lynch said about what is required to control a slave in perpetuity: "In my bag I have a fool proof method of controlling black slaves. I guarantee everyone of you, if installed correctly, it will control the slaves for at least 300 years. My method is simple. Any member of your family or your overseer can use it. I have outlined a number of differences among the slaves and I take these differences and I make them bigger. I use fear, distrust, and envy for control purposes."
We find ourselves wondering whether many of our leaders in Africa today are disciples of Lynch or there exists a uniquely African way of governing that is divisive and seeks to pit brother against brother, rich against poor, educated against uneducated, businesspeople against those who don’t know anything about business, those who are young and those who are old, believers against non-believers.
Many of us are still slaves trading money for time day-in-and-day-out until death. Without selling time for money, many of us would perish. The few who have escaped the trap become targets of the political elites whose control of Africa is premised on fear, envy and distrust and yet a poor man’s dream is to be rich one day.
There are many Africans who believe that being rich is necessarily evil and anti-poor and yet I have yet to see a graveyard with ATM machines where the rich dead souls can access their wealth. Even the rich still have to die and they leave their so-called loot on this earth for other living people to inherit.
I have often argued that an equal society has no hope in as much as one cannot expect to have children in one family being the same. The poor need the rich in as much as the rich need the poor. Life ultimately is a nuisance of time and the only legacy that we live is what we do with the time that God has given us. Death is the ultimate equaliser and it is true that the rich have the same time that is accessible to the poor notwithstanding the fact that the time is differently priced in the market. A poor person gets less per hour than a rich person for instance. However, what makes civilisation interesting is that rich or poor, the sun shines on all.
Do we really want an Africa with no rich people? If all the rich were to be eliminated from Africa, would Africa live up to its promise better? Do we need an Africa where only black people are defined as Africans? If European civilisation and values had not visited Africa, where would Africa be? Do we want an Africa in which the state is the exclusive engine of growth and transformation? Do we want an Africa where the value of time is the same irrespective of education, responsibility and quality and content of work input?
We all have a valid stake in Africa’s future and yet we must never forget the words of Mahatma Ghandi who said: “Be the change that you want to see”. History has taught us that you can never trust a third party to invest in the change you want to see.
The Africa we have today is a product of many Africans who died in its fields, valleys and mountains; who died hanging from trees, who died in the cells of their jailers, who died with unfulfilled dreams and hopes, and who traded their valuable personal time for the fight against race-based economic and political systems.
The cornerstone on which the Africa we want has to be constructed is the legacy of the great men and women of the continent who refused to accept the proposition that change can occur on its own, but who accepted the responsibility that history imposed on them to transform the despised, oppressed, economically disenfranchised to become the foundation and builders of a new Africa.
We find ourselves, some 51 years after Sudan’s independence, a divided, fractured and challenged generation filled with fear, envy and distrust. Many of us including Africa’s leaders, teachers, pastors, businesspersons, workers and students are still under the control mechanism of our former colonial masters and their successors to know what time it is.
We are forced by the magnitude of what we see today to accept the responsibility that history has placed on our generation to advance the cause of Africa and its people in an increasingly complex and globalised environment that is hungry for what lies in the continent’s belly i.e. mineral and other resources.
We must rise above the narrow restrictions of the divisions that have been imposed upon us by ethnicity, race, religion, class, and status. We should, therefore, not see ourselves through the narrow eye of the limitation of the boundaries of our own individual, family and country spaces. We cannot call ourselves Africans and yet act in a manner that undermines or tears down Africa. It is all we have and the majority of us can never be, for example, Korean in as much as Koreans can be African.
For some of us, we are keenly aware that thinking global is desirable but many progressive nations act locally. There can never be a wrong time to do the right thing and I strongly believe that it is our time to make Africa live to the promise of its people.
We know, for example, how difficult it is for many black Africans to be European and be accepted as such and the implications of doing business with people who hold you and your people in low esteem and yet surprisingly black Africans find themselves challenged in doing business with their own governments and fellow citizens.
We now call ourselves free Africans and many of us never pose to think and reflect on the meaning of freedom. Yes we are free but we are also freed from the means to be free. If you live in someone’s house, you can never be free. Freedom is latent and expensive for you need the means to enjoy it.
A few of us have gained scholarship that should ideally be a potent weapon for enhancing power, wisdom, knowledge and understanding but how many of us use this scholarship to change the realities of African life and civilisation?
Some 295 years ago, this is what Willie Lynch said about what is required to control a slave in perpetuity: "In my bag I have a fool proof method of controlling black slaves. I guarantee everyone of you, if installed correctly, it will control the slaves for at least 300 years. My method is simple. Any member of your family or your overseer can use it. I have outlined a number of differences among the slaves and I take these differences and I make them bigger. I use fear, distrust, and envy for control purposes."
We find ourselves wondering whether many of our leaders in Africa today are disciples of Lynch or there exists a uniquely African way of governing that is divisive and seeks to pit brother against brother, rich against poor, educated against uneducated, businesspeople against those who don’t know anything about business, those who are young and those who are old, believers against non-believers.
Many of us are still slaves trading money for time day-in-and-day-out until death. Without selling time for money, many of us would perish. The few who have escaped the trap become targets of the political elites whose control of Africa is premised on fear, envy and distrust and yet a poor man’s dream is to be rich one day.
There are many Africans who believe that being rich is necessarily evil and anti-poor and yet I have yet to see a graveyard with ATM machines where the rich dead souls can access their wealth. Even the rich still have to die and they leave their so-called loot on this earth for other living people to inherit.
I have often argued that an equal society has no hope in as much as one cannot expect to have children in one family being the same. The poor need the rich in as much as the rich need the poor. Life ultimately is a nuisance of time and the only legacy that we live is what we do with the time that God has given us. Death is the ultimate equaliser and it is true that the rich have the same time that is accessible to the poor notwithstanding the fact that the time is differently priced in the market. A poor person gets less per hour than a rich person for instance. However, what makes civilisation interesting is that rich or poor, the sun shines on all.
Do we really want an Africa with no rich people? If all the rich were to be eliminated from Africa, would Africa live up to its promise better? Do we need an Africa where only black people are defined as Africans? If European civilisation and values had not visited Africa, where would Africa be? Do we want an Africa in which the state is the exclusive engine of growth and transformation? Do we want an Africa where the value of time is the same irrespective of education, responsibility and quality and content of work input?
Monday, October 8, 2007
Africa: From Berlin to Lisbon
AS AFRICA prepares to attend the forthcoming EU/Africa summit in Portugal, it is important to locate the summit in a historical context and examine the progress made, if any, in the last 123 years since the Berlin Conference in redefining the relationship between the beneficiaries of the scramble for Africa and their victims.
The Berlin Conference of 1884-85 sought to regulate European colonisation of and trade in Africa during the New Imperialism period and coincided with Germany’s sudden emergence as an imperial power.
Like the forthcoming Lisbon summit, the Berlin conference was called by Portugal and organised by Bismarck, the first Chancellor of Germany. Little did Bismarck know that 123 years later, his successor, Chancellor Merkel would be carrying the imperial torch and prosecuting an imperial agenda with the unanimous support of black African heads of state and government!
While the outcome of the Berlin Conference, the General Act of the Berlin Conference, is regarded in history as the formalisation of the Scramble for Africa, I am confident that the outcome of the Lisbon summit would lead to an increase of European interests in the continent at a time when Africa has not yet defined what kind of value system and interests should inform its own agenda.
What has changed between 1884 and 2007 is that in 1884, Europe’s hegemony over Africa was not contested by non-Europeans as it is today. Only last year, China hosted about 48 African heads of state and government (less than the number expected in Lisbon) in Beijing with no different objectives than the sponsors of the Berlin and Lisbon summits i.e. to access Africa’s resources in an organised manner with Africa playing a marginal if not supportive role in the resource transfer project.
The outcome of the Sino-China summit of November 2006 was the emergence of Sino Imperialism in Africa underpinned by an ideological subservience of Africa and condemnation of the Eurocentric imperialist model. The role of China and its apparent acceptance as an acceptable face of the new imperialism is a natural threat to Europe’s historically determined control of Africa’s rich mineral resources.
Against the background of the rising Asian economic storm in the form of Chindia, Europe’s leverage over Africa has been dented leading to the lack of cohesion about what values ought to inform Europe’s engagement with Africa. The new imperialist era was supported by an evangelical Anglo Saxon protestant ethic in which European values and interests were paramount with no African participation. China’s model is less informed by concerns about Africa’s alleged corruption, bad governance, and failure to respect human rights, failure to observe the rule of law and failure to stick to democratic principles than by purely resource access issues.
China’s state-led capitalist model appears to be the preferred African model. The set of core values and principles that Europe stands for, are not necessarily of importance to Africa and its new imperial Chinese partners. It would be unthinkable for China to condemn any human and property rights violations in any host African country when it is common cause that Chinese people have no title to their own residential houses.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown is proud to say that he is a conviction politician and there is no better case to expose the ideological confusion that has visited Europe than the case of Zimbabwe’s participation in the Lisbon Summit. While the United Kingdom government and the rest of the EU may share the same heritage and value system, it appears that the German-led new scramble for Africa is less concerned about human and property rights issues than staking a claim on Africa’s rich and untapped resources.
Colonialism was less informed by moral considerations about civil rights but was an economic project to advance defined interests. Some argue that if Europe in 1884 was not occupied with the interests of native Africans, it is hypocritical that one of the architects and beneficiaries of imperialism, the United Kingdom, should now claim a higher moral ground raising concern about democracy, respect for the rule of law, human and property rights as a condition for President Mugabe’s participation at the summit.
It is clear that nothing much has changed from 1884 when the scramble for Africa was driven by commercial and not human rights issues to 2007 when there appears to be no champion from Africa espousing what the continent stands for in terms of defining human rights and governance questions.
If Africa is united that Zimbabwe is not an issue in as much as the continent as not enthusiastically embraced Nepad’s guiding governance principles, it would not be fair for Zimbabwean and African human rights activists to expect resource challenged Europe to come to the rescue.
It would be naïve to expect Europe to be a friend of Africa on questions of democracy not only because civil rights of non-Europeans have never been a policy objective of European imperialism but an informed and financially literate Africa threatens European interests in the continent in as much as the Asian brand of imperialism is a real threat to entrenched European interests. Africans should not expect Europe or China to invest in the change they want to see.
What is ironic is that even the most outspoken critics of European imperialism do not want to be left out of the Lisbon guest list. Why would any confident African head of state or government be concerned about being invited to a house of people he despises unless such a leader is cynically hypocritical?
It is instructive that while African leaders have no problem with participating in the beauty pageant in Lisbon, there is consensus that no African leader or contestant must be left behind. Rarely have we seen Africans speaking with one voice than on the issue of the invitation list to Lisbon. This leads us to ask what is in it for Africa in Lisbon? Whose interests are being advanced by the new engagement between Europe and Africa?
What kind of Africa do Africans want? An Africa that is a football ground for competing imperial interests or an Africa deeply rooted in African values and principles? The last fifth of the 19th century starting in 1880 saw the transition from the so called “informal” imperialism of control through military influence and economic dominance to that of direct rule. Attempts to mediate imperial competition such as the Berlin Conference between Britain, France and Germany failed to establish definitely the competing powers’ claims.In 2007, the competition between Britain (embedded in American policy) and a France/Germany-led European Union is obvious and Gordon Brown’s threat not to attend the Lisbon summit may have little to do with Zimbabwe than the strategic political and economic challenges facing a divided EU.
Gordon Brown may have more to gain by not attending the Lisbon summit and in so doing put on a humanitarian façade that Europeans took in 1884 when they discussed what they perceived to be the African problem by condemning the slave trade, prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages and firearms in certain regions and by expressing concerns for missionary activities. The diplomats who attended the Berlin conference laid down the rules of competition by which the great powers were to be guided in seeking colonies.
No colonial power has ever compensated its victims. The law of conquest has always operated and yet in the case of Zimbabwe, Britain’s former allies at the Berlin Conference appear to want to distance themselves from the craftily presented argument that victims of colonialism must not compensate colonisers and that black Africans must own their own resources.
If Mugabe’s argument is relevant and appropriate, is it not the case that South Africa, Namibia, Kenya and other African countries may be persuaded to raise the same argument in advancing the interests of their democratic revolutions. What would Germany and France’s response be to such a question?
As the countdown to the Lisbon summit gathers steam, Mugabe has raised an issue that has defined the post-apartheid economic construction i.e. that of black economic empowerment. South Africa, like Zimbabwe, inherited a skewed and dualistic economic system itself a consequence of the outcome of the Berlin conference.
In the face of a democratic dispensation, the response by South Africa’s business leaders has been to embrace the previously disadvantaged groups through economic empowerment in a manner that has not been seen before in the rest of the continent. It is argued that if European companies have accepted that it is okay for South Africa to pass legislation that seeks to transfer economic power to natives, then surely Mugabe’s land and indigenisation policies should be acceptable to the world.
The colonial project was not only informed by national interests but by commercial interests of entrepreneurs who eventually sought protection from their governments through the Berlin conference. If it is accepted that European governments had a role in creating an enabling environment for the penetration of European capitalism, it is now also being argued that African governments have a role in creating an enabling environment for the participation of indigenous Africans.
The arguments advanced by Mugabe on resource ownership and power distribution in a post colonial state appear to be supported unanimously by African leaders. He is now the undisputed African spokesman for Black Economic Empowerment and yet he finds himself with an economy badly damaged by a combination of bad policies and colonial legacy to the extent that there may not be any benefit for his people from the rhetoric.
Countries that are on a growth path in Africa would benefit a lot by having Mugabe in their company in Lisbon because they can use the case study of Zimbabwe to negotiate a new and better deal for their countries on the question of land and resource ownership.
The recent acquisition by Lonrho of two companies in Zimbabwe and its increasing profile as a new instrument for post-colonial control of African resources exposes the lack of seriousness in Africa about repositioning the African brand from its colonially conditioned one. Post Lisbon, Africa will have a new framework with Europe whereby African governments will continue to pontificate about economic democracy while in reality become passive and supportive enablers for post-colonial imperialism. Europe will continue to be a friend of Africa’s resources and not necessarily its people.
In as much as China has been described as too closed a society but disciplined and totalitarian with the worst human rights record whose mission in Africa is to access African resources at a least cost while supporting, funding, and protecting African dictators, Europe’s mission may not be any different. If America and Britain can support their own dictators and corrupt elites, why should Europe not also pick and choose its own accomplices, so the argument goes?
As African leaders plan to land in Lisbon, they should be acutely aware of the landmines that await them. Yes Europe may be divided on the Zimbabwean question but fundamentally Europe recognises that a preoccupation on human and property rights and governance issues will compromise its colonial legacy by creating a window for new ideologically acceptable colonial powers like China and India. Europe’s imperial frontiers are receding and Lisbon is more to do with reasserting the fact that Europeans interests can be best advanced through dialogue and acceptance that values and principles take a secondary role.
The Berlin Conference of 1884-85 sought to regulate European colonisation of and trade in Africa during the New Imperialism period and coincided with Germany’s sudden emergence as an imperial power.
Like the forthcoming Lisbon summit, the Berlin conference was called by Portugal and organised by Bismarck, the first Chancellor of Germany. Little did Bismarck know that 123 years later, his successor, Chancellor Merkel would be carrying the imperial torch and prosecuting an imperial agenda with the unanimous support of black African heads of state and government!
While the outcome of the Berlin Conference, the General Act of the Berlin Conference, is regarded in history as the formalisation of the Scramble for Africa, I am confident that the outcome of the Lisbon summit would lead to an increase of European interests in the continent at a time when Africa has not yet defined what kind of value system and interests should inform its own agenda.
What has changed between 1884 and 2007 is that in 1884, Europe’s hegemony over Africa was not contested by non-Europeans as it is today. Only last year, China hosted about 48 African heads of state and government (less than the number expected in Lisbon) in Beijing with no different objectives than the sponsors of the Berlin and Lisbon summits i.e. to access Africa’s resources in an organised manner with Africa playing a marginal if not supportive role in the resource transfer project.
The outcome of the Sino-China summit of November 2006 was the emergence of Sino Imperialism in Africa underpinned by an ideological subservience of Africa and condemnation of the Eurocentric imperialist model. The role of China and its apparent acceptance as an acceptable face of the new imperialism is a natural threat to Europe’s historically determined control of Africa’s rich mineral resources.
Against the background of the rising Asian economic storm in the form of Chindia, Europe’s leverage over Africa has been dented leading to the lack of cohesion about what values ought to inform Europe’s engagement with Africa. The new imperialist era was supported by an evangelical Anglo Saxon protestant ethic in which European values and interests were paramount with no African participation. China’s model is less informed by concerns about Africa’s alleged corruption, bad governance, and failure to respect human rights, failure to observe the rule of law and failure to stick to democratic principles than by purely resource access issues.
China’s state-led capitalist model appears to be the preferred African model. The set of core values and principles that Europe stands for, are not necessarily of importance to Africa and its new imperial Chinese partners. It would be unthinkable for China to condemn any human and property rights violations in any host African country when it is common cause that Chinese people have no title to their own residential houses.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown is proud to say that he is a conviction politician and there is no better case to expose the ideological confusion that has visited Europe than the case of Zimbabwe’s participation in the Lisbon Summit. While the United Kingdom government and the rest of the EU may share the same heritage and value system, it appears that the German-led new scramble for Africa is less concerned about human and property rights issues than staking a claim on Africa’s rich and untapped resources.
Colonialism was less informed by moral considerations about civil rights but was an economic project to advance defined interests. Some argue that if Europe in 1884 was not occupied with the interests of native Africans, it is hypocritical that one of the architects and beneficiaries of imperialism, the United Kingdom, should now claim a higher moral ground raising concern about democracy, respect for the rule of law, human and property rights as a condition for President Mugabe’s participation at the summit.
It is clear that nothing much has changed from 1884 when the scramble for Africa was driven by commercial and not human rights issues to 2007 when there appears to be no champion from Africa espousing what the continent stands for in terms of defining human rights and governance questions.
If Africa is united that Zimbabwe is not an issue in as much as the continent as not enthusiastically embraced Nepad’s guiding governance principles, it would not be fair for Zimbabwean and African human rights activists to expect resource challenged Europe to come to the rescue.
It would be naïve to expect Europe to be a friend of Africa on questions of democracy not only because civil rights of non-Europeans have never been a policy objective of European imperialism but an informed and financially literate Africa threatens European interests in the continent in as much as the Asian brand of imperialism is a real threat to entrenched European interests. Africans should not expect Europe or China to invest in the change they want to see.
What is ironic is that even the most outspoken critics of European imperialism do not want to be left out of the Lisbon guest list. Why would any confident African head of state or government be concerned about being invited to a house of people he despises unless such a leader is cynically hypocritical?
It is instructive that while African leaders have no problem with participating in the beauty pageant in Lisbon, there is consensus that no African leader or contestant must be left behind. Rarely have we seen Africans speaking with one voice than on the issue of the invitation list to Lisbon. This leads us to ask what is in it for Africa in Lisbon? Whose interests are being advanced by the new engagement between Europe and Africa?
What kind of Africa do Africans want? An Africa that is a football ground for competing imperial interests or an Africa deeply rooted in African values and principles? The last fifth of the 19th century starting in 1880 saw the transition from the so called “informal” imperialism of control through military influence and economic dominance to that of direct rule. Attempts to mediate imperial competition such as the Berlin Conference between Britain, France and Germany failed to establish definitely the competing powers’ claims.In 2007, the competition between Britain (embedded in American policy) and a France/Germany-led European Union is obvious and Gordon Brown’s threat not to attend the Lisbon summit may have little to do with Zimbabwe than the strategic political and economic challenges facing a divided EU.
Gordon Brown may have more to gain by not attending the Lisbon summit and in so doing put on a humanitarian façade that Europeans took in 1884 when they discussed what they perceived to be the African problem by condemning the slave trade, prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages and firearms in certain regions and by expressing concerns for missionary activities. The diplomats who attended the Berlin conference laid down the rules of competition by which the great powers were to be guided in seeking colonies.
No colonial power has ever compensated its victims. The law of conquest has always operated and yet in the case of Zimbabwe, Britain’s former allies at the Berlin Conference appear to want to distance themselves from the craftily presented argument that victims of colonialism must not compensate colonisers and that black Africans must own their own resources.
If Mugabe’s argument is relevant and appropriate, is it not the case that South Africa, Namibia, Kenya and other African countries may be persuaded to raise the same argument in advancing the interests of their democratic revolutions. What would Germany and France’s response be to such a question?
As the countdown to the Lisbon summit gathers steam, Mugabe has raised an issue that has defined the post-apartheid economic construction i.e. that of black economic empowerment. South Africa, like Zimbabwe, inherited a skewed and dualistic economic system itself a consequence of the outcome of the Berlin conference.
In the face of a democratic dispensation, the response by South Africa’s business leaders has been to embrace the previously disadvantaged groups through economic empowerment in a manner that has not been seen before in the rest of the continent. It is argued that if European companies have accepted that it is okay for South Africa to pass legislation that seeks to transfer economic power to natives, then surely Mugabe’s land and indigenisation policies should be acceptable to the world.
The colonial project was not only informed by national interests but by commercial interests of entrepreneurs who eventually sought protection from their governments through the Berlin conference. If it is accepted that European governments had a role in creating an enabling environment for the penetration of European capitalism, it is now also being argued that African governments have a role in creating an enabling environment for the participation of indigenous Africans.
The arguments advanced by Mugabe on resource ownership and power distribution in a post colonial state appear to be supported unanimously by African leaders. He is now the undisputed African spokesman for Black Economic Empowerment and yet he finds himself with an economy badly damaged by a combination of bad policies and colonial legacy to the extent that there may not be any benefit for his people from the rhetoric.
Countries that are on a growth path in Africa would benefit a lot by having Mugabe in their company in Lisbon because they can use the case study of Zimbabwe to negotiate a new and better deal for their countries on the question of land and resource ownership.
The recent acquisition by Lonrho of two companies in Zimbabwe and its increasing profile as a new instrument for post-colonial control of African resources exposes the lack of seriousness in Africa about repositioning the African brand from its colonially conditioned one. Post Lisbon, Africa will have a new framework with Europe whereby African governments will continue to pontificate about economic democracy while in reality become passive and supportive enablers for post-colonial imperialism. Europe will continue to be a friend of Africa’s resources and not necessarily its people.
In as much as China has been described as too closed a society but disciplined and totalitarian with the worst human rights record whose mission in Africa is to access African resources at a least cost while supporting, funding, and protecting African dictators, Europe’s mission may not be any different. If America and Britain can support their own dictators and corrupt elites, why should Europe not also pick and choose its own accomplices, so the argument goes?
As African leaders plan to land in Lisbon, they should be acutely aware of the landmines that await them. Yes Europe may be divided on the Zimbabwean question but fundamentally Europe recognises that a preoccupation on human and property rights and governance issues will compromise its colonial legacy by creating a window for new ideologically acceptable colonial powers like China and India. Europe’s imperial frontiers are receding and Lisbon is more to do with reasserting the fact that Europeans interests can be best advanced through dialogue and acceptance that values and principles take a secondary role.
Monday, October 1, 2007
The turning point that never was
LAST week, I wrote an article entitled: ‘Zimbabwe’s Turning Point’ in which I advanced the argument that September 20, 2007, being the day the House of Assembly unanimously passed the Constitution of Zimbabwe Bill 18 represented a turning point in Zimbabwean politics and heralded the end of President Mugabe’s era.
In advancing this argument, I relied upon Vice President Joseph Msika’s reported statement that it was time for him to depart as well as an analytical framework informed by the unexplained rationale for both formations of MDC to become passengers of a ship whose captain they have consistently vilified and questioned his legitimacy.
The premise of my argument that Vice President Msika was on his way out and using deductive logic that President Mugabe was also on his way out has now been rebutted by Vice President Msika in an article entitled: “VP Msika to remain in active politics” that was published by the Herald’s sister publication, the Chronicle, on September 28, 2007.
Addressing delegates after donating money and equipment to various institutions that was sourced by Mimosa Mine in Zvishavane, VP Msika said: “I will soldier on until the day I am buried in my grave. I will never renege on the duties and tasks that the people of Zimbabwe have mandated me to do and as long as you continue to support me I will be there.”
He urged Zimbabweans to remain patriotic and soldier on despite the economic difficulties the country is going through.
He also said: “We do not have to lose morale but we should be more patriotic and revolutionary than our leaders such as Nkomo (Joshua), Chinamano (Josiah) and Mugabe (the President). These people did their part and it is up to us now to do even better than what they have done.
“We must stop going to the diaspora. Takabva nako kumhunga haukuna ipwa (There is nothing special outside). Instead, those people will make us feel even more inferior if we flock to their countries. We know that there is no bread but who cares? Ngatinwei tea yacho nembambaira tisiyane nechingwa chavo (Let’s eat sweet potatoes and keep away from alien foods).
“I cannot be bought. We must refuse those monies from the Americans if it has conditions. Even here we do not like people who get positions through buying. Never! We must work for the positions as our leaders did.”
While forgetting that Mimosa, the host, is wholly owned by Mimosa Investments Limited, a Mauritius-based company held by Implats of South Africa and Aquarius Platinum Limited of Australia (Aquarius) in a 50:50 joint-venture, he then went on to castigate people who were being lured by money from Western countries, saying this was tantamount to selling the country’s heritage.
VP Msika praised Mimosa Mining Company for ploughing back to the local community while President Mugabe in New York was castigating the West for seeking to maintain hegemony over Zimbabwean resources saying: “The West still negates our sovereignties by way of control of our resources, in the process making us mere chattels in our own lands, mere minders of its trans-national interests.”
If VP Msika will only move from office to the Heroes Acre then surely the same applies to President Mugabe. Using this logic, the Presidium of Zanu PF will remain the same until the 2009 Congress at which point the party may then elect new office bearers and it is now evident that the real turning point will only be then, assuming that President Mugabe and VP Msika change their minds about their indispensability to Zimbabwean politics.
If the two retire, then the provisions of Amendment 18 will kick in and allow the party to nominate through parliament the successor to President Mugabe without exposing such a person to the risk of facing the voters directly. The contest in March 2008 will then pit President Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai and judging from past experience and given the context and content of Zanu PF’s election strategy and manifesto, a win by Tsvangirai will mean a negation of the struggle and such an outcome will be deemed to undermine the sovereignty of the nation given the alleged role of the opposition in manufacturing the so-called regime change agenda linked to the economic crisis.Based on the above, it is clear that the destination of the process mediated by SADC through President Mbeki is not known for anyone to have a sense of optimism that the political and economic crisis facing Zimbabwe will come to an end in the foreseeable future.
However, President Mugabe clarified the position in respect of the date of the election in his speech at the UN when he said: “In that vein, I wish to express my country's gratitude to President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa who, on behalf of SADC, successfully facilitated the dialogue between the Ruling Party and the Opposition Parties, which yielded the agreement that has now resulted in the constitutional provisions being finally adopted. Consequently, we will be holding multiple democratic elections in March 2008. Indeed we have always had timeous general and presidential elections since our independence.”
What the negotiations appear to have achieved so far is for the MDC to accept that the government of President Mugabe is legitimate and that the parliament of Zimbabwe has the mandate to amend the constitution without any involvement of non-state actors or third parties.
While it is clear that Amendment 18 could have been passed without the assistance of the MDC, we are now made to believe that Zanu PF will only listen to MDC’s suggestions through the intervention of a third party in the form of President Mbeki. Through the negotiations, it appears that MDC has managed to have its voice heard by Zanu PF in return for accepting the futility of engaging in opposition politics in a vacuum.
In these premises, it is obvious that the negotiations have nothing to do with the fate of President Mugabe and, therefore, the purpose of the forthcoming Extraordinary Congress of Zanu PF may be merely to formally endorse President Mugabe as the candidate for the general elections which point was made last year at the Goromonzi conference, despite Professor Jonathan Moyo and others advancing the notion that President Mugabe would not prevail as an undisputed candidate of Zanu PF due to factionalism.
It is now clear that President Mugabe has not only been vindicated by his own party whose structures have already nominated him as the candidate but by the opposition that what he wants will happen.
It is now evident that any notion that there is a causal link between the economic and political crisis facing Zimbabwe and President Mugabe has been rejected unanimously by representatives of Zanu PF, MDC and Professor Moyo. If one accepts that the Parliament of Zimbabwe as presently constituted is the legitimate expression of the people of Zimbabwe then it is obvious that any talk of a new constitution before the elections can only be relevant if it is in the interests of Zanu PF. So far, Zanu PF has exhausted its appetite for constitutional reforms having made the necessary adjustments to protect its interests to remain in power and be the sole revolutionary custodian of the country’s sovereignty.
Having accepted that the analytical basis on which I came to the conclusion that President Mugabe may exit in December is wrong, it is important that we analyse the implications of his continued incumbency as the head of state and government. One of the motivations for Zanu PF to enter into dialogue with the MDC must have been the allegation that the economic crisis is causally related to the targeted sanctions that were imposed by the West at the alleged instigation of the MDC. To this end, an agreement with MDC would naturally lead to the end of sanctions and the reintegration of Zimbabwe into the very imperialist system that President Mugabe purports to be against.
From the events that unfolded at the UN last week, in which President Mugabe and George Bush exchanged harsh words, it is evident that the MDC has no leverage on the West to remove the targeted sanctions. It appears that the notion that sanctions were imposed to assist the MDC to seize power unconstitutionally may be politically plausible but empirically not substantiated.
As Gordon Brown confessed at last week’s Labour Conference, he is a “conviction politician” who is guided by defined values and world view. What President Mugabe and his government stand for is diametrically opposed to what the West stands for to suggest that an accommodation can be reached without any embarrassing policy reversals on the part of the government of Zimbabwe.
What remains to be seen is whether President Mugabe has what it takes to reverse the slide of the economy without the assistance of his western enemies. It is instructive that even the AU has accepted that there is need for an engagement with the EU in as much as the Chinese, for self interest, are engaging with Africa but the underlying operative ideology that informs the EU and all progressive nations is inimical to what President Mugabe stands for. Will President Mugabe change his value system and world view if he gets a new mandate?
Some say that in need, freedom is latent, and if you stay in someone’s house you can never be free. Although President Mugabe’s speech resonates with the views of the majority in the developing world, it is not the case that Zimbabwe can feed itself today without the assistance of the imperialist forces or it can continue as a pariah state with no international support. While President Mugabe was castigating President Bush, President Mbeki was visiting the New York Stock Exchange for obvious reasons.
If the ‘Look East’ policy had the answers, I am not sure whether the AU would even bother attending the Lisbon Summit while making the condition that no one must be left behind. If Zimbabwe can do it alone, then it does not make sense for President Mugabe to even want to be a guest of his arch imperialist enemies.
In conclusion, we can only pray to the almighty in whose hands the fate of Zimbabwe is and locate the negotiations in the context of a complex power play. To the extent that the opposition has now accepted to be constructive passengers of a bus going nowhere fast, being fuelled by hyperinflation, it is frightening to think where Zimbabwe will be in March and how many more lives will be sacrificed for political expediency.
In advancing this argument, I relied upon Vice President Joseph Msika’s reported statement that it was time for him to depart as well as an analytical framework informed by the unexplained rationale for both formations of MDC to become passengers of a ship whose captain they have consistently vilified and questioned his legitimacy.
The premise of my argument that Vice President Msika was on his way out and using deductive logic that President Mugabe was also on his way out has now been rebutted by Vice President Msika in an article entitled: “VP Msika to remain in active politics” that was published by the Herald’s sister publication, the Chronicle, on September 28, 2007.
Addressing delegates after donating money and equipment to various institutions that was sourced by Mimosa Mine in Zvishavane, VP Msika said: “I will soldier on until the day I am buried in my grave. I will never renege on the duties and tasks that the people of Zimbabwe have mandated me to do and as long as you continue to support me I will be there.”
He urged Zimbabweans to remain patriotic and soldier on despite the economic difficulties the country is going through.
He also said: “We do not have to lose morale but we should be more patriotic and revolutionary than our leaders such as Nkomo (Joshua), Chinamano (Josiah) and Mugabe (the President). These people did their part and it is up to us now to do even better than what they have done.
“We must stop going to the diaspora. Takabva nako kumhunga haukuna ipwa (There is nothing special outside). Instead, those people will make us feel even more inferior if we flock to their countries. We know that there is no bread but who cares? Ngatinwei tea yacho nembambaira tisiyane nechingwa chavo (Let’s eat sweet potatoes and keep away from alien foods).
“I cannot be bought. We must refuse those monies from the Americans if it has conditions. Even here we do not like people who get positions through buying. Never! We must work for the positions as our leaders did.”
While forgetting that Mimosa, the host, is wholly owned by Mimosa Investments Limited, a Mauritius-based company held by Implats of South Africa and Aquarius Platinum Limited of Australia (Aquarius) in a 50:50 joint-venture, he then went on to castigate people who were being lured by money from Western countries, saying this was tantamount to selling the country’s heritage.
VP Msika praised Mimosa Mining Company for ploughing back to the local community while President Mugabe in New York was castigating the West for seeking to maintain hegemony over Zimbabwean resources saying: “The West still negates our sovereignties by way of control of our resources, in the process making us mere chattels in our own lands, mere minders of its trans-national interests.”
If VP Msika will only move from office to the Heroes Acre then surely the same applies to President Mugabe. Using this logic, the Presidium of Zanu PF will remain the same until the 2009 Congress at which point the party may then elect new office bearers and it is now evident that the real turning point will only be then, assuming that President Mugabe and VP Msika change their minds about their indispensability to Zimbabwean politics.
If the two retire, then the provisions of Amendment 18 will kick in and allow the party to nominate through parliament the successor to President Mugabe without exposing such a person to the risk of facing the voters directly. The contest in March 2008 will then pit President Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai and judging from past experience and given the context and content of Zanu PF’s election strategy and manifesto, a win by Tsvangirai will mean a negation of the struggle and such an outcome will be deemed to undermine the sovereignty of the nation given the alleged role of the opposition in manufacturing the so-called regime change agenda linked to the economic crisis.Based on the above, it is clear that the destination of the process mediated by SADC through President Mbeki is not known for anyone to have a sense of optimism that the political and economic crisis facing Zimbabwe will come to an end in the foreseeable future.
However, President Mugabe clarified the position in respect of the date of the election in his speech at the UN when he said: “In that vein, I wish to express my country's gratitude to President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa who, on behalf of SADC, successfully facilitated the dialogue between the Ruling Party and the Opposition Parties, which yielded the agreement that has now resulted in the constitutional provisions being finally adopted. Consequently, we will be holding multiple democratic elections in March 2008. Indeed we have always had timeous general and presidential elections since our independence.”
What the negotiations appear to have achieved so far is for the MDC to accept that the government of President Mugabe is legitimate and that the parliament of Zimbabwe has the mandate to amend the constitution without any involvement of non-state actors or third parties.
While it is clear that Amendment 18 could have been passed without the assistance of the MDC, we are now made to believe that Zanu PF will only listen to MDC’s suggestions through the intervention of a third party in the form of President Mbeki. Through the negotiations, it appears that MDC has managed to have its voice heard by Zanu PF in return for accepting the futility of engaging in opposition politics in a vacuum.
In these premises, it is obvious that the negotiations have nothing to do with the fate of President Mugabe and, therefore, the purpose of the forthcoming Extraordinary Congress of Zanu PF may be merely to formally endorse President Mugabe as the candidate for the general elections which point was made last year at the Goromonzi conference, despite Professor Jonathan Moyo and others advancing the notion that President Mugabe would not prevail as an undisputed candidate of Zanu PF due to factionalism.
It is now clear that President Mugabe has not only been vindicated by his own party whose structures have already nominated him as the candidate but by the opposition that what he wants will happen.
It is now evident that any notion that there is a causal link between the economic and political crisis facing Zimbabwe and President Mugabe has been rejected unanimously by representatives of Zanu PF, MDC and Professor Moyo. If one accepts that the Parliament of Zimbabwe as presently constituted is the legitimate expression of the people of Zimbabwe then it is obvious that any talk of a new constitution before the elections can only be relevant if it is in the interests of Zanu PF. So far, Zanu PF has exhausted its appetite for constitutional reforms having made the necessary adjustments to protect its interests to remain in power and be the sole revolutionary custodian of the country’s sovereignty.
Having accepted that the analytical basis on which I came to the conclusion that President Mugabe may exit in December is wrong, it is important that we analyse the implications of his continued incumbency as the head of state and government. One of the motivations for Zanu PF to enter into dialogue with the MDC must have been the allegation that the economic crisis is causally related to the targeted sanctions that were imposed by the West at the alleged instigation of the MDC. To this end, an agreement with MDC would naturally lead to the end of sanctions and the reintegration of Zimbabwe into the very imperialist system that President Mugabe purports to be against.
From the events that unfolded at the UN last week, in which President Mugabe and George Bush exchanged harsh words, it is evident that the MDC has no leverage on the West to remove the targeted sanctions. It appears that the notion that sanctions were imposed to assist the MDC to seize power unconstitutionally may be politically plausible but empirically not substantiated.
As Gordon Brown confessed at last week’s Labour Conference, he is a “conviction politician” who is guided by defined values and world view. What President Mugabe and his government stand for is diametrically opposed to what the West stands for to suggest that an accommodation can be reached without any embarrassing policy reversals on the part of the government of Zimbabwe.
What remains to be seen is whether President Mugabe has what it takes to reverse the slide of the economy without the assistance of his western enemies. It is instructive that even the AU has accepted that there is need for an engagement with the EU in as much as the Chinese, for self interest, are engaging with Africa but the underlying operative ideology that informs the EU and all progressive nations is inimical to what President Mugabe stands for. Will President Mugabe change his value system and world view if he gets a new mandate?
Some say that in need, freedom is latent, and if you stay in someone’s house you can never be free. Although President Mugabe’s speech resonates with the views of the majority in the developing world, it is not the case that Zimbabwe can feed itself today without the assistance of the imperialist forces or it can continue as a pariah state with no international support. While President Mugabe was castigating President Bush, President Mbeki was visiting the New York Stock Exchange for obvious reasons.
If the ‘Look East’ policy had the answers, I am not sure whether the AU would even bother attending the Lisbon Summit while making the condition that no one must be left behind. If Zimbabwe can do it alone, then it does not make sense for President Mugabe to even want to be a guest of his arch imperialist enemies.
In conclusion, we can only pray to the almighty in whose hands the fate of Zimbabwe is and locate the negotiations in the context of a complex power play. To the extent that the opposition has now accepted to be constructive passengers of a bus going nowhere fast, being fuelled by hyperinflation, it is frightening to think where Zimbabwe will be in March and how many more lives will be sacrificed for political expediency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
