By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 26 July 2007
In his article, “Imagine if Madiba turned evil” (Opinion & Analysis, 26 July 2007), Alister Sparks says he is amazed that “so many Africans, including South Africans, continue to admire Robert Mugabe”.
Well, I hope that, after reading this letter, he and many like him will no longer be amazed. I hope this letter clarifies the so-called “admiration” for Mugabe and that such clarification leads to sober, future debates on Zimbabwe .
First of all, the growing opposition for the West’s involvement in Third World countries should not be confused with support for those who are in disagreement with the West.
Simply put, those who oppose Britain and the United States ’ punitive actions against Zimbabwe mustn’t be thought to be Mugabe loyalists.
The most contentious issue about Zimbabwe at the moment shouldn’t be whether or not there are severe problems in Zimbabwe . That is too obvious. The question is: who, between Africa and the West, should be trusted with bringing the situation back to normality?
And my take is that a Western solution to the problems in Zimbabwe will not benefit the people of Zimbabwe . It has been said on many occasions by various analysts that Britain and the US ’s foreign policies are dictated by their powerful corporations.
We as Africans must continue to oppose any business solution to the political problems in Zimbabwe , and that must not be confused with support for any dictatorship. The problems our continent faces are bigger than individual leaders, no matter how powerful they may be thought to be.
Secondly, we must ask (and answer soberly) where Zimbabwe went wrong. Were the controversies that marred the 2002 presidential elections the scapegoats for a regime change in Zimbabwe ?
Is the problem rooted in the land reform programme and, if yes, does the seizure of land belonging to a few (not even a hundred) white farmers warrant the onslaught we have seen unleashed against Zimbabwe, a country of no less than 12 million people?
With regard to the 2002 elections, the recent SADC Extra-Ordinary Summit of the Heads of State and Government, held in Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania, in March, noted that “free, fair and democratic presidential election were held in 2002 in Zimbabwe”.
On the land issue, the Summit “reaffirmed its solidarity with the government and people of Zimbabwe ” and further “reiterated the appeal to Britain to honour its compensation obligations with regards to land reform made at the Lancaster House”.
So, the message should be clear to Sparks , the West and everyone else: the Western countries, whose cupboards are so full of skeletons, cannot be trusted to bring a solution to the problems in Zimbabwe . You only need to look at where they have tried their regime-change menu to agree that they shouldn’t be trusted.
As for Sparks ’ conclusion that the elite “will start feeling the pinch – and they will turn against [Mugabe]” because of the collapsing economy there, well, that is a symptom of a well orchestrated regime-change.
The elite-vs-government scenario follows logic (if no remedy is found soon) and should not be seen as an intellectual argument.
An edited copy of this letter was published in The Star newsaper on 01 August 2007 under the headline, "West can't be entrusted with solving Zim crisis". The edited copy is accessible on http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3961373
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Book Review: Eats, shoots and leaves
Book: Eats, Shoots and Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation
Author: Lynne Truss
ISBN: 1-86197-612-7
Reviewer: Madibeng Kgwete
Posted on 24 July 2007
On the same day that I got Lynne Truss’ book, Eats, shoots and leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation, as a present, a former schoolmate e-mailed me and several others the resolutions of the South African Communist Party’s [SACP’s] 12th National Congress.
On the first page of the resolutions was a sentence I found to be objectionable. In bold, capital letters, the sentence read: “COMMUNISTS TO THE FRONT FOR A BETTER SOCIALIST WORLD”.
I found the sentence vague, so I replied to the sender, thanking him for the information before I put it to him that: “Truthfully speaking, there is no ‘Socialist World’”.
As I paged through the book, with particular attention to the chapter that emphases the importance of using commas when writing sentences, I realised that, had the writer of the SACP statement put a comma between the words “better” and “socialist”, the meaning would have been different.
The sentence would have read: “COMMUNISTS TO THE FRONT FOR A BETTER, SOCIALIST WORLD”. A “better socialist world” is a completely different thing from a “better, socialist world” – and I believe the SACP meant the latter in their bold statement.
You firstly need to have a “socialist world” if you want to build a better one. Which is why I found the “better socialist statement” vague because, in reality, there is no socialist world at the moment.
Let’s say, for example, that we have two people: one wants to build “a better socialist world” whilst another wants to build a “better, communist world”.
These two people will have two different objectives. The former already lives in a socialist world and wants to improve it. The latter wants to build a world that is better and that is socialist.
Had the writer of the SACP resolutions heeded the many calls made in the book about punctuations and how necessary they are, I would not have had the argument with my schoolmate who, knowing very well that I like reading, sent me the SACP resolutions.
Author: Lynne Truss
ISBN: 1-86197-612-7
Reviewer: Madibeng Kgwete
Posted on 24 July 2007
On the same day that I got Lynne Truss’ book, Eats, shoots and leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation, as a present, a former schoolmate e-mailed me and several others the resolutions of the South African Communist Party’s [SACP’s] 12th National Congress.
On the first page of the resolutions was a sentence I found to be objectionable. In bold, capital letters, the sentence read: “COMMUNISTS TO THE FRONT FOR A BETTER SOCIALIST WORLD”.
I found the sentence vague, so I replied to the sender, thanking him for the information before I put it to him that: “Truthfully speaking, there is no ‘Socialist World’”.
As I paged through the book, with particular attention to the chapter that emphases the importance of using commas when writing sentences, I realised that, had the writer of the SACP statement put a comma between the words “better” and “socialist”, the meaning would have been different.
The sentence would have read: “COMMUNISTS TO THE FRONT FOR A BETTER, SOCIALIST WORLD”. A “better socialist world” is a completely different thing from a “better, socialist world” – and I believe the SACP meant the latter in their bold statement.
You firstly need to have a “socialist world” if you want to build a better one. Which is why I found the “better socialist statement” vague because, in reality, there is no socialist world at the moment.
Let’s say, for example, that we have two people: one wants to build “a better socialist world” whilst another wants to build a “better, communist world”.
These two people will have two different objectives. The former already lives in a socialist world and wants to improve it. The latter wants to build a world that is better and that is socialist.
Had the writer of the SACP resolutions heeded the many calls made in the book about punctuations and how necessary they are, I would not have had the argument with my schoolmate who, knowing very well that I like reading, sent me the SACP resolutions.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
The economic costs of African unity
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 11 July 2007
Those who support the immediate formation of a union government for the entire African continent argue that their position is premised on the view that political unity is a prerequisite for economic developlemnt – that there cannot be any economic development if political unity is not forged.
Those arguing in favour of this view may well be labelled Nkrumahists, for it was the former Ghanaian leader who famously said: “Seek ye first political wisdom, and all else shall follow”.
On the other hand, there are those arguing that Africa must firstly strengthen its regional institutions, such as the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the East Community of West African States (ECOWAS).
Delivering a speech at a Ghanaian university after he was honoured with a doctorate, President Thabo Mbeki said those arguing for the immediate formation of a United States of Africa are failing to realise that you cannot start building with a roof – that the key to Africa’s political unity is in the viability of its regional institutions.
A variety of political arguments have been exhausted, but very few have calculated the monetary costs of merging African states under one union government to enable faster cross-border trade.
In 2002, when South Africa’s population was still standing at around 43.6million citizens, there were, for example, nine African states the combination of whose populations was slightly above a half of South Africa’s population; and the combination of their economies could not even account to a quarter of South Africa’s economy.
These countries are Burundi, Comoros, Gambia, Lesotho, Mauritius, Rwanda, Togo, Seychelles and Swaziland.
The combination of the populations of Gambia (01, 455 842) Comoros (614, 382) and Mauritius (01, 200 206) was slightly higher than the population of the South African city Johannesburg (03 000 000).
In 2002, South Africa’s GDP was worth about US$255 155, which is 836 times more than the GDP of the West African country of Guinea Bissau. If the country experienced an annual growth rate of say 06% in its GDP, it would take it 139 years to be where South Africa was in 2002.
Some countries in Africa are so poor that a single rich US$ billionaire can run them using his own money.
Sources:
(1) Wikipedia; List of African countries by population density.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African_countries_by_population_density
(2) Wikipedia; List of African countries by GDP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African_countries_by_GDP
Those who support the immediate formation of a union government for the entire African continent argue that their position is premised on the view that political unity is a prerequisite for economic developlemnt – that there cannot be any economic development if political unity is not forged.
Those arguing in favour of this view may well be labelled Nkrumahists, for it was the former Ghanaian leader who famously said: “Seek ye first political wisdom, and all else shall follow”.
On the other hand, there are those arguing that Africa must firstly strengthen its regional institutions, such as the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the East Community of West African States (ECOWAS).
Delivering a speech at a Ghanaian university after he was honoured with a doctorate, President Thabo Mbeki said those arguing for the immediate formation of a United States of Africa are failing to realise that you cannot start building with a roof – that the key to Africa’s political unity is in the viability of its regional institutions.
A variety of political arguments have been exhausted, but very few have calculated the monetary costs of merging African states under one union government to enable faster cross-border trade.
In 2002, when South Africa’s population was still standing at around 43.6million citizens, there were, for example, nine African states the combination of whose populations was slightly above a half of South Africa’s population; and the combination of their economies could not even account to a quarter of South Africa’s economy.
These countries are Burundi, Comoros, Gambia, Lesotho, Mauritius, Rwanda, Togo, Seychelles and Swaziland.
The combination of the populations of Gambia (01, 455 842) Comoros (614, 382) and Mauritius (01, 200 206) was slightly higher than the population of the South African city Johannesburg (03 000 000).
In 2002, South Africa’s GDP was worth about US$255 155, which is 836 times more than the GDP of the West African country of Guinea Bissau. If the country experienced an annual growth rate of say 06% in its GDP, it would take it 139 years to be where South Africa was in 2002.
Some countries in Africa are so poor that a single rich US$ billionaire can run them using his own money.
Sources:
(1) Wikipedia; List of African countries by population density.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African_countries_by_population_density
(2) Wikipedia; List of African countries by GDP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African_countries_by_GDP
Friday, July 6, 2007
What does Charles Taylor’s trial mean for Africa?
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 06 July 2007
As the Summit of the African Union (AU) Heads of State and Government came to an end on 03 July 2007 in Accra, Ghana, one of the former colleagues of the heads of African states, former Liberian president Charles Taylor, appeared for the first time in court at The Hague, facing criminal charges ranging from murder to rape.
As the United States publication, the Los Angeles Times, put it: “Taylor pleaded not guilty to 11 charges that he controlled and armed rebels who killed, raped, mutilated and enslaved civilians during Sierra Leone's civil war, which ended in 2002”.
Taylor’s trial raises serious questions that the people of African decent, both at home and across the diaspora, need to grabble with, for the trial itself of the former Liberian leader suffers from two serious deficiencies.
Firstly, the trial is premised on selective justice. One need not to be a historian or a legal expert to realise that, up to so far, only heads of poor states are held accountable for war and related crimes. The rich and the powerful seem immune from this law.
Considering the recent wars in Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan etc, one wonders whether or not there are no sufficient legal grounds to charge United States President George W. Bush and his ally, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, of war and related crimes.
If yes there are sufficient legal grounds to charge the two, the question then is who, of all the nations of the world, is capable of standing up to power? It is clear that those who bankroll many of the nations of the world in the name of aid are immune from the sort of justice unleashed against Taylor.
Secondly, the authoriries (whoever they are) at the United Nations-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone, were politically smart in choosing presiding officers, with the judge being a black woman.
The selection of the judge raises questions as to whether the decision of the authorities at The Hague was informed by an attempt to hide the extend of Western pressure in what seemed like a near-abduction of Taylor from his country.
The details of the pseudo-abduction were later related by Libyan leader Muammar AlGhattafi in a speech welcoming the election of new Liberian leader Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, at a dinner during the latter’s official visit to Libya.
AlGhattafi told Johnson-Sirleaf that he considers Taylor “as having sacrificed [his residency] for the sake of Liberia, because on 11 August 2003 he voluntarily gave u power in favour of his deputy and he went into exile in Nigeria, ending a civil war that lasted 14 years”.
AlGhattafi expressed his opposition to Taylor’s trial, adding that: “Our brother, [former Nigerian President] Olusegun Obasanjo, offered asylum to Taylor in Nigeria, and Taylor, accordingly, handed power over to his deputy”.
AlGhattafi correctly pointed out that the violation of Taylor’s asylum “represents a dangerous precedent like that of Hissene Habre, the former president of Chad, who is under threat of being handed over to an international court”.
The circumstances surrounding Taylor’s transfer to The Hague are as controversial and unsatisfactory as is the legal team defending him.
There should be no question about the need to hold war criminals accountable for their actions, but if this applies only to leaders of poor countries, then the world in general and poor countries in particular, must oppose this selective justice.
The sooner Africa unites and forms institutions of governance, including her own continental courts of law, the better the chances of having a truly independent bloc of African states under the envisaged United States of Africa.
As the Summit of the African Union (AU) Heads of State and Government came to an end on 03 July 2007 in Accra, Ghana, one of the former colleagues of the heads of African states, former Liberian president Charles Taylor, appeared for the first time in court at The Hague, facing criminal charges ranging from murder to rape.
As the United States publication, the Los Angeles Times, put it: “Taylor pleaded not guilty to 11 charges that he controlled and armed rebels who killed, raped, mutilated and enslaved civilians during Sierra Leone's civil war, which ended in 2002”.
Taylor’s trial raises serious questions that the people of African decent, both at home and across the diaspora, need to grabble with, for the trial itself of the former Liberian leader suffers from two serious deficiencies.
Firstly, the trial is premised on selective justice. One need not to be a historian or a legal expert to realise that, up to so far, only heads of poor states are held accountable for war and related crimes. The rich and the powerful seem immune from this law.
Considering the recent wars in Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan etc, one wonders whether or not there are no sufficient legal grounds to charge United States President George W. Bush and his ally, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, of war and related crimes.
If yes there are sufficient legal grounds to charge the two, the question then is who, of all the nations of the world, is capable of standing up to power? It is clear that those who bankroll many of the nations of the world in the name of aid are immune from the sort of justice unleashed against Taylor.
Secondly, the authoriries (whoever they are) at the United Nations-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone, were politically smart in choosing presiding officers, with the judge being a black woman.
The selection of the judge raises questions as to whether the decision of the authorities at The Hague was informed by an attempt to hide the extend of Western pressure in what seemed like a near-abduction of Taylor from his country.
The details of the pseudo-abduction were later related by Libyan leader Muammar AlGhattafi in a speech welcoming the election of new Liberian leader Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, at a dinner during the latter’s official visit to Libya.
AlGhattafi told Johnson-Sirleaf that he considers Taylor “as having sacrificed [his residency] for the sake of Liberia, because on 11 August 2003 he voluntarily gave u power in favour of his deputy and he went into exile in Nigeria, ending a civil war that lasted 14 years”.
AlGhattafi expressed his opposition to Taylor’s trial, adding that: “Our brother, [former Nigerian President] Olusegun Obasanjo, offered asylum to Taylor in Nigeria, and Taylor, accordingly, handed power over to his deputy”.
AlGhattafi correctly pointed out that the violation of Taylor’s asylum “represents a dangerous precedent like that of Hissene Habre, the former president of Chad, who is under threat of being handed over to an international court”.
The circumstances surrounding Taylor’s transfer to The Hague are as controversial and unsatisfactory as is the legal team defending him.
There should be no question about the need to hold war criminals accountable for their actions, but if this applies only to leaders of poor countries, then the world in general and poor countries in particular, must oppose this selective justice.
The sooner Africa unites and forms institutions of governance, including her own continental courts of law, the better the chances of having a truly independent bloc of African states under the envisaged United States of Africa.
Book Review: The Mystery of Capital
Book: The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else
Author: Hernado de Soto
ISBN: 0-552-99923-7
Reviewer: Madibeng Kgwete
What distinguishes Peruvian author and economist Hernado de Soto from the rest is the intensity of his research and the wealth of personal experience he boasts.
De Soto puts these two qualities to good use in his book, “The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else”.
The author blames, amongst other things, red tape in the public sector, lack of information and the inability by poor “Third World” countries to bring what he calls “dead capital” into the mainstream economy.
In Egypt, for example, the author says his research has established that: “To build a legal dwelling on former agricultural land would require 6 to 11 years of bureaucratic wrangling, maybe longer”!
This, according to De Soto, “explains why 4.7 million Egyptians have chosen to build their dwellings illegally. If, after building his home, a settler decides he would like to be a law-abiding citizen and purchase the rights to his dwelling, he risks having it demolished, paying a steep fine and serving up to ten years in prison”.
On growing urbanisation and why many developing countries struggle to cope, De Soto says “extralegal ventures [such as illegal occupations of land, unregistered small businesses in the inner cities, etc; reviewer’s own example] have already overtaken government efforts to provide housing for migrants and the poor”.
The book is quite fascinating, more so when one tries to compare the examples the author uses to the situation here in South Africa.
Author: Hernado de Soto
ISBN: 0-552-99923-7
Reviewer: Madibeng Kgwete
What distinguishes Peruvian author and economist Hernado de Soto from the rest is the intensity of his research and the wealth of personal experience he boasts.
De Soto puts these two qualities to good use in his book, “The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else”.
The author blames, amongst other things, red tape in the public sector, lack of information and the inability by poor “Third World” countries to bring what he calls “dead capital” into the mainstream economy.
In Egypt, for example, the author says his research has established that: “To build a legal dwelling on former agricultural land would require 6 to 11 years of bureaucratic wrangling, maybe longer”!
This, according to De Soto, “explains why 4.7 million Egyptians have chosen to build their dwellings illegally. If, after building his home, a settler decides he would like to be a law-abiding citizen and purchase the rights to his dwelling, he risks having it demolished, paying a steep fine and serving up to ten years in prison”.
On growing urbanisation and why many developing countries struggle to cope, De Soto says “extralegal ventures [such as illegal occupations of land, unregistered small businesses in the inner cities, etc; reviewer’s own example] have already overtaken government efforts to provide housing for migrants and the poor”.
The book is quite fascinating, more so when one tries to compare the examples the author uses to the situation here in South Africa.
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
The idea of the US of Africa is not al-Ghattafi’s
By Madibeng Kgwete: Posted on 04 July 2007
There are two problematic issues emanating from the media’s coverage of the recent African Union summit, which took place in Accra, Ghana, from 01 to 03 July 2007.
Firstly, there is a generally false notion doing the rounds regarding the idea of the United States of Africa. It is widely reported that African leaders have “rejected Libyan leader Muammar al-Ghattafi’s proposal for the formation of a union government for the African continent”.
The idea of the United States of Africa is not al-Ghattafi’s. As the online encyclopaedia, Wikipedia, correctly puts it: “The phrase ‘United States of Africa’, was mentioned first by Marcus Gavey in his poem 'Hail, United States of Africa' in 1924”.
“Garvey's ideas”, according to Wikipedia’s correct version of events, “deeply influenced the birth of the Pan-Africanist movement which culminated in 1945 with the Fifth Pan-African Congress in Manchester, England, attended by W.E.B. Du Bois, Patrice Lumumba, George Padmore, Jomo Kenyatta and Kwame Nkrumah”.
It is therefore incorrect to keep saying that the idea of the US of Africa is “al-Ghattafi’s”. Ironically, even Wikipedia contradicts itself by saying: “The latest meeting of the African Union, which began on July 1, 2007 [in Accra], was called with a purpose of discussing Gaddafi's idea [own emphasis] of a federation of African states”.
The second problematic issue is the notion that, by disagreeing on al-Ghattafi’s push for the urgent formation of the union government, African leaders have effectively “rejected” the idea. That is not accurate, as the resolutions of the summit suggest.
Amongst other things, the Accra summit resolved to “rationalise and strengthen the Regional Economic Communities, and harmonise their activities”, “conduct immediately, an Audit of the Executive Council”, “establish a ministerial Committee to examine the contents of the Union Government concept and its relations with national governments”, etc.
There are two problematic issues emanating from the media’s coverage of the recent African Union summit, which took place in Accra, Ghana, from 01 to 03 July 2007.
Firstly, there is a generally false notion doing the rounds regarding the idea of the United States of Africa. It is widely reported that African leaders have “rejected Libyan leader Muammar al-Ghattafi’s proposal for the formation of a union government for the African continent”.
The idea of the United States of Africa is not al-Ghattafi’s. As the online encyclopaedia, Wikipedia, correctly puts it: “The phrase ‘United States of Africa’, was mentioned first by Marcus Gavey in his poem 'Hail, United States of Africa' in 1924”.
“Garvey's ideas”, according to Wikipedia’s correct version of events, “deeply influenced the birth of the Pan-Africanist movement which culminated in 1945 with the Fifth Pan-African Congress in Manchester, England, attended by W.E.B. Du Bois, Patrice Lumumba, George Padmore, Jomo Kenyatta and Kwame Nkrumah”.
It is therefore incorrect to keep saying that the idea of the US of Africa is “al-Ghattafi’s”. Ironically, even Wikipedia contradicts itself by saying: “The latest meeting of the African Union, which began on July 1, 2007 [in Accra], was called with a purpose of discussing Gaddafi's idea [own emphasis] of a federation of African states”.
The second problematic issue is the notion that, by disagreeing on al-Ghattafi’s push for the urgent formation of the union government, African leaders have effectively “rejected” the idea. That is not accurate, as the resolutions of the summit suggest.
Amongst other things, the Accra summit resolved to “rationalise and strengthen the Regional Economic Communities, and harmonise their activities”, “conduct immediately, an Audit of the Executive Council”, “establish a ministerial Committee to examine the contents of the Union Government concept and its relations with national governments”, etc.
Monday, July 2, 2007
Quiet Diplomacy
Why South Africa refuses to take tough action against its neighbour, Zimbabwe
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 02 July 2007
This is the first in a series of articles focussing on the rarely explained reasons behind South Africa's reluctance to take tough action against Zimbabwe, a country the United States Secretary of State Condolezza Rice once described as "an outpost of tyranny".
The finished work will be included in one comprehensive essay, titled "QUIET DIPLOCAY: Why South Africa Refuses to Take Tough Action Against Zimbabwe". This article focuses on "The role of the colonial master", which will form part of a chapter in the finished work.
South Africa and Zimbabwe are bound not only physically by borders. The two Southern African countries are bound also by a common colonial history, a common struggle for independence and freedom from colonial Britain and, quite significantly, by the fact that whatever difficulties that face one affect the other.
The story of the two countries, penned down in great but not absolute detail in this book, is much more complex than what many analysts and critics seem to believe. Even more complex are the turning points at each of the two countries’ paths to independence, freedom and democracy.
South Africa gained its independence from Britain on 31 May 1961. Zimbabwe gained independence from the same colonial master almost twenty years later, on 18 April 1980. However, South Africa’s earlier independence was more of a blow to the majority black population that a victory. Confirmation of this is contained in the fact that the new democratic South Africa does not celebrate independance day.
Whilst the end of British rule in Zimbabwe marked the beginning of self-governance and the emergence of freedom, with Robert Mugabe elected as the first indigenous leader, the end of Britain’s colonial administration in South Africa signalled no positive change for the country’s black majority population.
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 02 July 2007
This is the first in a series of articles focussing on the rarely explained reasons behind South Africa's reluctance to take tough action against Zimbabwe, a country the United States Secretary of State Condolezza Rice once described as "an outpost of tyranny".
The finished work will be included in one comprehensive essay, titled "QUIET DIPLOCAY: Why South Africa Refuses to Take Tough Action Against Zimbabwe". This article focuses on "The role of the colonial master", which will form part of a chapter in the finished work.
South Africa and Zimbabwe are bound not only physically by borders. The two Southern African countries are bound also by a common colonial history, a common struggle for independence and freedom from colonial Britain and, quite significantly, by the fact that whatever difficulties that face one affect the other.
The story of the two countries, penned down in great but not absolute detail in this book, is much more complex than what many analysts and critics seem to believe. Even more complex are the turning points at each of the two countries’ paths to independence, freedom and democracy.
South Africa gained its independence from Britain on 31 May 1961. Zimbabwe gained independence from the same colonial master almost twenty years later, on 18 April 1980. However, South Africa’s earlier independence was more of a blow to the majority black population that a victory. Confirmation of this is contained in the fact that the new democratic South Africa does not celebrate independance day.
Whilst the end of British rule in Zimbabwe marked the beginning of self-governance and the emergence of freedom, with Robert Mugabe elected as the first indigenous leader, the end of Britain’s colonial administration in South Africa signalled no positive change for the country’s black majority population.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
