Open letter to President-elect Obama

We look foward to a change of heart in the White House

Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 005 November 2008

First of all, let me congratulate you on your historic election to the high office of President of the United States of America.

I would also like to congratulate the American voters for making history by electing you as the first African-American to occupy the position of president of the United States.

As you are well aware, your election comes at a time when the world economy is shrinking and America is fighting a controversial and illegal war in Iraq.

You may also be aware that the international community, and the African continent in particular, has welcomed your election with the hope that the imminent change of leadership in the White House will bring about a change in the manner in which America has related with friends and foes abroad.

Because of your history as a descendent of the Kenyan people, we Africans see you as one of us. We therefore look forward not only to a change of leadership at the White House, but also a change of heart in the manner in which America relates with Africa.

In your victory speech, you mentioned that change has come to America. We in Africa would also appreciate it if the winds of change blowing in America could also blow towards our continent – which is also your ancestral home.

I am particularly keenly waiting to see what will guide your foreign policy towards Africa, your ancestral home and therefore your continent as well. Up to now, American foreign policy towards Africa has been guided mainly by self-interest, selective justice and double standards.

For example:

(a) In America, funding of political parties by foreigners is prohibited. However, America funds opposition political parties in African countries. The most obvious example is Zimbabwe.

(b) America preaches freedom and equality internationally, but the same America and her allies reject efforts to democratise the United Nations (UN), particularly the UN Security Council.

No other continent has as many members at the UN as Africa. Yet, Africa is the only continent without a permanent seat at the powerful UN Security Council.

(c) America is a fervent advocate of peace, security and prosperity. Yet, at a time when the world’s poor are getting poorer and hungrier, America continues to spend trillions of American taxpayers’ money buying weapons.

(d) Africa is rich in natural resources, ranging from minerals to agricultural products. However, America and her allies at the World Trade Organisation and other international gatherings continue to negotiate unfair trade deals favoring the rich and powerful over the poor and vulnerable countries, most of which are African.

(e) The American constitution emphasises justice and equality as being amongst the basic tenets of freedom. Yet, in practice, America and her allies have sponsored efforts to apply selective justice at the International Criminal Court and other juristic bodies.

Your soon-to-be predecessor, President George W. Bush, has damaged America’s reputation internationally with his “war on terror” – arming the troops with weapons to fight an ideology oversees.

We in Africa are now elated that a man we can easily associate with has been elected to the high office of the President of the United States of America. We therefore look forward to change – change of leadership style and change of heart in the White House.

Under your able leadership, we in Africa – your ancestral home – look forward to a US that not only preaches but also practices freedom, equality, peace, security and justice at home and abroad.

We forget Prof. Mphahlele at our own peril

Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 29 October 2008

The silence of our country’s academics, political leaders and the intellectual community at large following the recent death of Prof. Eskia Mphahlele is regrettable for a variety of reasons.

Firstly, our silence suggests that we do not value our intellectuals and ambassadors of goodwill. We do not seem to have placed any significant value in the wealth of knowledge and talent that Prof. Mphahlele possessed.

Worse still, we are bound to forget not only the man himself and his personal struggles in pursuit of political and intellectual freedom for the African people; we are also bound to forget his wise counsel and his vision.

Knowledge, as they say, is power; and when we ignore the power of the likes of Prof. Mphahlele’s knowledge, we voluntarily submit ourselves to amnesia. Who, then, will our heroes be?

Mphahlele deserves, at the very least, a provincial funeral and, for future purposes, the channeling of more resources to the Eskia Institute and other memorials in his honour to allow for the transfer of his knowledge to younger generations.

Letter to New African magazine

By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 22 August 2008

I picked up a copy of New African for the first time in August 2004 at the Johannesburg International Airport (now OR Tambo International) in South Africa on my way to the United States to attend the 2004 National Republican Convention in New York City as part of a group of Southern African university students. Since then, I never missed a copy. And, every single month, New African never disappoints.

I therefore consider myself a member of the New African family and, as a result, I take it as my responsibility to join New African in its search for the truth. I am particularly pressed to respond to two recent (and much related) issues as covered in New African’s June/July and July/August issues: one about Western media bias and another about the outbreak of xenophobic attacks in South Africa .

For a very long time now, the media in South Africa has been engaged in a campaign to degrade immigrants of African decent and Africans in general, including Africans from the diasbora and black South Africans themselves. In particular, Nigerians, Zimbabweans and Mozambicans have (and continue) to be the biggest targets.

Like other nationals, Nigerians are not saints, but their indiscriminate portrayal as drug lords is extremely unfair. There is no evidence that Nigerians are solely responsible for drug trafficking. In fact, some of the biggest drug busts at the OR Tambo International and other points of entry into South Africa did not involve Nigerians. It is only when an African is involved in an alleged criminal offence that the nationality of suspects becomes an issue.

Very recently, in mid-August, a popular (and apparently ‘black’) South African daily newspaper carried the story of a black female suspected of having orchestrated the murder of her husband. The article ridiculed the “cheap” and “fake Nigerian” clothes that the woman wears on her court appearances.

We also have people wearing cheap Chinese, Indian and even second-hand European clothes, but don’t expect the newspaper to pour the same scorn on non-Africans. It’s seemingly not on their agenda.

It is extremely unfortunate that black newspaper editors are contributing to what Dr. Edward Rhymes called “the continuing miseducation of the Negro”. Dr. Rhymes decries “our disturbing tendency to demonize ourselves” and our willingness as a race to accept derogatory titles; yet, today, in 2008, we are still promoting negative perceptions about Africans and their products and, in the process, fuelling xenophobia/Afro-phobia.

We have no shoulder to lean on because some of the people who are supposed to promote peace, reconciliation and African brotherhood – our fellow black newspapers editors – seem to be on the other side of the battle line, throwing missiles at their own people. How are we going to do away with xenophobia when people are taught, through the media, on a daily basis, that we must not wear clothes made by Nigerians because they are fake and cheap?

Some Africans amongst us are doing exactly what Franz Fanon warned against some decades ago, in 1961. Fanon cautioned in his seminal book, The Wretched of the Earth: “It so happens that the unpreparedness of the educated classes, the lack of practical links between them and the mass of the people, their laziness, and, let it be said, their cowardice at the decisive moment of the struggle, will give rise to tragic mishaps.” Today, in South Africa , we are witnessing one of those “tragic mishaps” (the alarming rate of xenophobia/Afro-phobia). The educated and the powerful amongst us are playing a very destructive role.

Will a black politician advance white interests?

By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 20 August 2008

In Polokwane, where I live, the Democratic Alliance (DA) has distributed what appear to be early election posters declaring "war on drugs", "war on crime", etc on major streets.

Even in my small home town of Jane Furse, the DA's election campaign is already in full swing. Posters are visible throughout the major streets.

The DA has not yet officially revealed their theme for the 2009 general elections, but - based on the posters already hung up on lamp posts around cities and towns - one gets a feeling that the opposition party will set its theme around the need to protect South Africa's constitutional democracy by defending the independence of the judiciary.

With complicated court cases involving its president, Jacob Zuma, the ruling African National Congress (ANC) may focus mainly on broader access to economic opportunities, better access to education and more social relief for the poor.

The other smaller parties will find it difficult to make their policies known to the electorate due to various reasons, such as lack of financial resources, poor organisational planning and internal power struggles. Such parties include the Pan-Africanist Congress (PAC) and the Azanian People's Organisation (AZAPO).

As in previous democratic elections, to most of the voters, the elections next year will be an either/or affair; either the ruling ANC or the opposition DA. The minority will vote for the smaller opposition parties, but that is not necessarily a waste.

Because we still vote along racial lines, it is already generally accepted that the ANC will emerge victorious. Since democracy means majority rule, and since, in our country, we still associate along racial lines, the majority will always triumph over the minorities regardless of policy positions or the credibility of those in political leadership.

In its current makeup, the DA and its members and supporters will have to live with majority rule for decades to come. I do not see why blacks would entrust a white person (regardless of policies) with the power to rule South Africa. The memories of racism under apartheid are still fresh in their minds.

The DA will only succeed in wooing black voters if it can groom a black leader who is ready to advance white interests as is the case in the United States, where Barack Obama is being supported by whites, mainly because of his seemingly pro-white choices, such as his support for Israel.

The question now is: who amongst South Africa's emerging black politicians will be willing to oppose Black Economic Empowerment, Affirmative Action and African solidarity? Who is willing to be seen as a "sell out"?

Tourism industry violates workers' rights

By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 11 August 2008

We have less than 24 months before the start of the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa; and the local tourism industry will undoubtedly be the biggest beneficiary of this historic event. Hotels, guest houses, bed-and-breakfast outlets and travel agencies will pocket the biggest share of the profit generated through the event.

Speaking in Germany during a ceremony to unveil the emblem for South Africa's 2010 FIFA World Cup in July 2006, President Thabo Mbeki invited “football fans of the world to journey to a tourist paradise across our magnificent continent of Africa”, adding that the World Cup “will stand out as a unique event that celebrates Africa in all its magnificent splendour, richness, vibrancy, diversity and glory.”

As a witness to tireless efforts by ordinary South Africans to ensure that the World Cup succeeds, I have no doubt about our ability as a country to host a successful event come 2010. South African workers around the country work literally around the clock to ensure that our stadiums, roads, water, electricity systems meet FIFA and the world’s high expectations.

My biggest fear, however, is that some in the tourism industry will use the historic 2010 FIFA World Cup as a get-rich-quick scheme at the expense of their hard-working employees, most of whom are poor African women. To these exploited workers, 2010 will mean longer working hours because of the high volume of tourists. At the end of it all, they will remain poor whilst their employers become richer.

During my recent stay at a popular resort in the North West province, I witnessed some shameful exploitation of workers in the tourism industry. One worker told me how he works from 6am till 10pm everyday, six days a week. That is a 16-hour working day – two times the average 8-hour day! For this, he gets a R1500 per month salary. No medical aid; no pension fund; no overtime compensation, no trade union affiliation.

Under these circumstances, government needs to intervene by conducting a massive audit to check compliance to labour law in the tourism industry. In our hotels, guest houses, lodges and other tourism outlets, the audit will uncover unprecedented violations of the rights of South African workers. Government would then blackmail wrongdoers so that they do not benefit from the 2010 FIFA World Cup.

As a country, we cannot continue to pride ourselves of being “a tourist paradise” whilst this paradise triumphs at the expense of our fellow poor South Africans.

The likes of Mugabe impede 'Imperial Grand Strategy'

Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 04 August 2008

In one of his brilliant books, Hegemony or Survival: America’s quest for global dominance, author Noam Chomsky exposes America’s “grand imperial strategy”, which, he says, is aimed at ensuring America’s permanent dominance of the global political and economic landscape.

Chomsky says the aim of the “imperial grand strategy”, designed in 2002, is to “seek to construct a world system open to US economic penetration and political control, tolerating no rivals or threats.”

According to Chomsky: “A crucial corollary [of the strategy] is vigilance to block any moves toward independent development that might become a ‘virus infecting others’.” In other words, efforts by small or poor countries to inspire economic independence from the US must be blocked.

Another dominant player in global politics and economics is Europe , which had its equivalent to the “imperial grand strategy” in the form of the slave trade during the early years of the colonial period.

Walter Rodney, in his book, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, details Europe ’s power to make unilateral decisions within the international trading system. “An excellent illustration of that,” writes Rodney, “is the fact that the so-called international law which governed the conduct of nations on the high seas was nothing else but European law.”

Rodney notes that: “Africans did not participate in [the] making [of this international law], and in many instances African people were simply the victims, for the law recognised them only as transportable merchandise.”

Things should be different today because the whole of Africa is independent; but, unfortunately, Africa ’s political freedom has not brought much change to ordinary Africans. In many instances, Africans are poorer than they were in the colonial period.

Some will blame Africa ’s present-day socio-economic situation on corruption by the political elite, forgetting that, in every corrupt transaction, there is the corruptor and the corrupted. Not much is said about the fact that many of Africa’s stolen assets are stored in foreign banks in so-called modern democratic states, mostly in Europe .

It is only when they refuse to cooperate in campaigns aimed at advancing the “imperial grand strategy” that members of Africa ’s political elite invite upon themselves the heavy hand of the self-appointed guardians of “international law.”

The Zimbabwean situation is hard to ignore. President Robert Mugabe was the darling of the West when he ensured that former Prime Minister Ian Smith is not prosecuted for previous atrocities committed under his leadership and when he made sure that white farmers maintain property rights to Zimbabwean land.

It is only when he started to roll out the controversial land reform policy that Mugabe irked the West. Before the land reform programme, no one seemed to demand justice for the victims of the Matebeleland massacre. The West was too busy conferring unsolicited honourary degrees and doctorates to the Zimbabwean leader.

Zim stalemate: Fanon was (and still is) right

Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 29 July 2008

In his preface to Franz Fanon’s book, The Wretched of the Earth, Jean Paul-Sartre says, amongst other critical things, that, during the colonial period the colonial powers were satisfied to keep some feudal rulers in their pay in an attempt to divide-and-rule African communities.

“There, dividing and ruling [the colonisers have] created a native bourgeoisie, sham from beginning to end; elsewhere [the colonisers have] played a double game: the colony is planted with settlers and exploited at the same time. Thus Europe has multiplied divisions and opposing groups, has fashioned classes and sometimes even racial prejudices, and has endeavoured by every means to bring about and intensify the stratification of colonized societies,” writes Paul-Sartre.

First published in 1961, Fanon’s book makes so much relevance today it could have been published for the first time this year. Reading the book whilst comparing Fanon’s views against what is happening in Zimbabwe at the moment would raise your emotions (if you are a genuine and patriotic African).

Various national and international media have carried stories today indicating that the negotiations between various Zimbabwean political players have stalled.

Details of the reported stalemate are not available due to the media’s lack of access to the talks, but unnamed sources are quoted as saying that the talks have stalled due to Zanu-PF’s insistence that Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) leader Morgan Tsvangirai should be given an inferior position (such as second vice-president) in a transitional government.

The stalemate, if there really is a stalemate, is regrettable. However, regretting alone will not help. The parties must be encouraged by all, including the mediator/facilitator, President Thabo Mbeki, and international institutions such as the United Nations.

The Zimbabwean leaders taking part in the talks should avoid outside interference, especially from British and the United States diplomats and politicians.

The interests of these so-called Western powers is to ensure that the talks collapse so that they can get their man (President Robert Mugabe) out of office in a manner so dramatic that it will scare off other African leaders from attempting to grab land from white farmers.

The US and Britain seems to be hoping that the talks would collapse completely so that the further sanctions they are imposing on Mugabe and “his cronies” will ultimately pit the hungry Zimbabwean citizenry against Mugabe’s government in a street revolution.

The revolution would then necessitate the involvement of the undemocratic UN Security Council in ensuring that the Western powers send in troops to oust Mugabe, thus sending a clear message to other African leaders: that you are damned if you try to threaten the unfair economic dominance of the African community by people historically and emotionally aligned to the West.

Fanon was right is 1961 regarding the destructive role that Africa’s former colonial master were playing across the continent; and he is still right today about the same powerful donour states. Yes, they give us aid, but the value of the aid does not even amount to a quarter of the value of the mineral resources their mega companies get from Africa.

As Africans we have three choices in relation to the current international political and economic system. Firstly, we can oblige and remain permanently beholden to our former colonisers. Secondly, we can resist their interference as individual countries and have the whole of Africa become a present-day Zimbabwe. Thirdly, acting as a united collective, the African continent can break rank with the powerful donor states and become a Cuba.

Western meddling will derail Zim talks

Further sanctions will harden Mugabe's attitude towards the talks and work in favour of his anti-imperialist rhetoric

By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 23 July 2008

As Zimbabwean political parties begin talks – hopefully towards a negotiated settlement – it is opportune that we evaluate the likely outcomes of this very crucial process.

President Robert Mugabe’s Zanu-PF and the two factions of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) have put it in writing that they are committed to finding a genuine and lasting solution to the crisis in their country.

Despite the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding that saw the Zimbabwean parties agreeing on a framework for talks, I remain sceptical that the MDC will walk the talk and show real commitment to finding a solution.

The biggest obstacle to the talks is external meddling from so-called Western powers, led by Britain and the United States. Both countries have stated upfront that they will not recognise any leader except Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the bigger faction of the MDC.

When coupled with the MDC-Tsvangirai’s submissiveness, British and American interference in the Zimbabwean political negotiations is likely to derail any progress, thus threatening to lead to the collapse of the talks.

After having failed to push for sanctions against Zimbabwe through the United Nations (UN) Security Council, the US and the European Union are considering imposing further “targeted” sanctions against Mugabe and his allies.

Although punitive in nature, the sanctions will not deliver a lasting solution to the political and economic problems besieging Zimbabwe. In the contrary, the sanctions will work in favour of Mugabe’s anti-imperialist rhetoric.

The arrogance of the US and its allies is best described by comments attributed to the White House spokesman, Sean McCormack, who is said to have described China and Russia (both opposed to sanctions against Zimbabwe) as being “on the wrong side of history.”

The African Union (AU) must send a clear message to the US and the EU: that their interference in the political process in Zimbabwe will achieve nothing more than hardening Mugabe’s attitude towards the talks, thus making him unwilling to make significant compromises.

The AU must also make it clear to the Western powers that it is not for them (the Western powers) to choose who must lead a transitional government in Zimbabwe. It is up to the parties involved in the negotiations to decide on an appropriate model of a transitional government and delegate an appropriate leadership collective.

• See responses to this article on the following link on News24 website:
• http://www.news24.com/News24/MyNews24/Your_story/0,,2-2127-2128_2363106,00.html

Both Zanu-PF and MDC have failed Zimbabwe

By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 27 June 2008

With every passing day, the political and economic crisis in Zimbabwe goes from bad to worse. It is obvious that President Robert Mugabe is the problem; and it is also clear that Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) leader Morgan Tsvangirai is not the answer.

The MDC and its allies in the international Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) sector believe in problem-solving through the media. They will not succeed in their efforts to find a solution to the crisis if they continue to pump money into expensive newspaper and other media advertisements, hoping that this will swing public opinion in their favour.

Having observed the MDC’s media campaign in South Africa over the last couple of weeks, it has emerged that, in an average week, there are at least eight full-page newspaper advertisements in the newspapers, all trying to discredit Mugabe.

Discrediting Mugabe through the media is a total waste of time, energy and money. The 84-year-old discredits himself with every public appearance he makes. The MDC and its allies must instead channel their money (and they seem to have it in abundance) into more strategic political campaigns.

Whilst Mugabe proves everyday that his time has passed, the MDC, under Morgan Tsvangirai, does not seem to be ready to govern. The MDC is not an authentic African opposition party. It is not comparable, in any way, with, for example, Raila Odinga’s Orange Democratic Movement in Kenya.

The MDC has more political allies in Europe and the United States than it has in the entire Africa. This at times gives credence to Mugabe’s hollow claims that the MDC are agents of imperialism. Zanu-PF terrorises the very nation it leberated from colonialism. The MDC fails to prove that it is a credible alternative. Zimbabwe is in a dilemma.

Perhaps it is time for both Mugabe and Tsvangirai to step aside and allow a new crop of leadership, preferably under a government of national unity, to take Zimbabwe out of the political and economic crisis that it now finds itself in. Simba Makoni could be suitable to lead such a transitional government.

Book review: Legacies of Power

Book Title: Legacies of Power: leadership Change and Former Presidents in African Politics
Editors: Roger Southall and Henning Melber
ISBN: 91-7106-558-X
Reviewed by: Nelson Kgwete

One of South Africa’s biggest knowledge centres, the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) Press, has published an insightful book on the role of former African heads of states.

Entitled “Legacies of Power: Leadership Change and Former Presidents in African Politics”, the book is a compilation of scholarly articles by various notable authors.

The book critically evaluates the roles, both positive and negative, that former presidents such as Nelson Mandela of South Africa, Sam Nujoma of Nabibia, Charles Taylor of Liberia and others play after their terms of office expire.

There is also a chapter on Zimbabwe; but, here, the authors focus not on former Prime Minister Ian Smith. Rather, and perhaps quite fittingly, the focus is on President Robert Mugabe.

Titled “When I am a century old: why Robert Mugabe won’t go”, the chapter on Mugabe instantly pulls one’s attention, particularly in view of the current volatile political and economic situation in that country.

The writer of the chapter on Mugabe, David Moore, explains why the 84-year-old president won’t leave office. Moore quotes Mugabe as having told a rally as far back as July 1977 that: “The Zanu axe must continue to fall upon the necks of rebels when we find it no longer possible to persuade them into the harmony that binds us all.”

In the chapter, “Politics and presidential term limits in Uganda”, author Roger Tangri begins with a quote by Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni during his January 1986 swearing-in address when he said: “The problem of Africa in general and Uganda in particular is not the people but leaders who want to overstay in power”.

Curiously, Museveni is still in power today, 22 years after making that bold statement. Tangri outlines two reasons why Museveni, previously in favour of change of political leadership, has joined the ranks of those leaders “who want to overstay in power”.

Firstly, it is argued that, being the dominant political figure he is in Ugandan politics, Museveni does not see anyone else filling his shoes. Related to that, Tangri says there are some in Museveni’s so-called inner circle who want him to stay so they can continue to enjoy proximity to political power.

Secondly, Tangri argues that Museveni wants to stay on as President because he fears that a new political administration will uncover corruption committed by him or close allies under his leadership. Museveni “fears that his erstwhile political allies, now leading the political opposition, could attain political power and seek to settle old scores,” writes Tangri.

Not surprisingly, the chapter on Mandela is full of praises, except for the assertion that Mandela was not quite as effective in his mediation efforts in Africa as many would have thought. Mandela’s failed bid to stop then Nigerian President Sani Abacha from killing critic Ken Saro Wiwa is cited as an example.

Other chapters are no less enlightening. The writers rely on thorough research and their writing ranks amongst the highest in their academic quality.

Why Helen Zille's idea will not materialise

By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 13 June 2008

The leader of the Democratic Alliance (DA), Helen Zille, was quoted in the media recently suggesting that opposition parties such as her own, the DA, the United Democratic Movement (UDM) and the Independent Democrats (ID) form a formidable coalition to challenge the African National Congress's dominance of the South African political landscape.

In response to the idea, the leader of the UDM, Bantu Holomisa, did not reject the idea, saying there was a need to explore ways of uniting South Africa's opposition political parties. ID leader Patricia De Lille said she would not comment on whether her party will be willing to join such a coalition. De Lille said it was up to members of her party to decide.

Holomisa seemed to have looked at Zille's idea innocently and, as a result, he seems to have overlooked some critical factors that will hinder the success of any coalition of united opposition parties. There are at least two critical reasons why Zille's idea will most likely not materialise any time soon.

Firstly, any coalition of opposition parties will have to deal with the question of leadership. And, here, at issue will be the racial group to which the leader belongs. Realistically, the majority of black people opposed to the ANC's rule may be reluctant to accept a white person as their leader. The same may apply to white people: they may not trust a black leader to represent their interests.

We are now 14 years into our democracy, but, despite talk of a "Rainbow Nation", we still have two South Africas - one white and another black. President Thabo Mbeki was criticised for pointing to this reality in the early years of his presidency, but the fact remains: South Africans are still divided along racial lines.

Secondly, the idea of the coalition may be seen as a plot by the DA to swallow the smaller opposition political parties in the same way that its predecessor, the Democratic Party, tried to swallow the now-defunct Nation Party. DA supporters, both black and white, seem to be having very little confidence in the ability of black people to lead an effective government.

The combination of hostile race relations and power mongering will make Zille?s dream of a united opposition movement remain just that - a dream. South Africans of different racial groupings and varied interests must respect and trust each other before attempting to jump into a political coalition.

Financial Mail punches below the belt

By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 29 May 2008

Carol Paton’s provocative, premature and one-sided tribute to President Thabo Mbeki’s presidency is so biased it conspicuously screams for a response.

Masquerading as an objective summary of Mbeki’s presidency, the article, “Things fall apart” (FM, 23 May 2008), is actually an unoriginal opinion piece.

Paton recycles well-known criticism of the president (made popular by the likes of William Mervin Gumede and Xolela Mangcu) and parades the criticism as her own.

The only time Paton finds it necessary to refer to a source is in the fourteenth paragraph; and, even here, she refers only to unspecified “figures in Western diplomatic and financial circles”.

Mbeki might have erred in his judgements over a number of key issues, including his approach to the crisis in Zimbabwe and the way he handled the HIV and Aids debacle, but Paton’s overly negative summary is somewhat a punch below the belt.

It is a pity some of Mbeki’s greatest victories are being overshadowed by a few (real and perceived) misjudgements. The victories include the president’s tireless efforts in ensuring that:

• South Africa occupies a prominent role in continental and global affairs through the occupation of influential positions in the African Union, the United Nations and other international organisation;
• South Africa becomes the first African country to host the 2010 FIFA World Cup, which, even before kick-off, has already contributed hugely to the country’s economy; and that
• The black middle class triumphs despite persistent traditional barriers, such as the refusal by the predominantly white business sector to transform qualitatively;

Just like other presidents around the world, Mbeki has not perfected every aspect of his leadership. Had he done so, South Africa would have become the first country to have a saint as a president.

Even charismatic leaders such as former president Nelson Mandela and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair made mistakes both at party and state level.

Mbeki should be given a chance to complete his remaining presidential term as duly mandated by parliament, itself acting on the mandate of the electorate.

Quiet Diplomacy III

At long last, someone has the guts to point out the other culprits responsible for lengthening the economic and political crisis in Zimbabwe

By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 13 May 2008

I would like to congratulate Cunningham Ngcukana for daring, so convincingly, to contextualise the Zimbabwe situation in his article, “Mbeki is on the right track in his Zimbabwe mediation” (City Press, 11 May 2008). The truth, as it is often said, shall set us free.

The position he has adopted may not be the most popular one; but, if we are to understand the situation in our neighbouring country, it is important that we understand both and all sides of the story. In this regard, I would also like to congratulate City Press for providing Ngcukana the space to express his opinion.

Now, on the contents of Ngcukana’s article, I found it very relevant that he fearlessly unmasks one of the culprits responsible for lengthening the economic and political crisis in Zimbabwe – the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC).

Ngcukana was actually mild when he mentioned that the MDC’s formation was funded by “the British, the Americans and the Zimbabwean farmers.” In fact, the MDC was conceptualised, formed and funded by those powers emanating from outside the borders of the African continent.

In an interview with one Pan-African magazine, President Robert Mugabe named the founders of the MDC as the three British political parties: the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal-Democrats, on the strength of a special fund called the Westminster Foundation Fund.

We (Africans) must not assume that this sudden generosity of the British was premised on advancing the lives of the Zimbabweans. On the contrary, the generosity, as is always the practice in foreign policy, must have been influenced by the British national interest, which is to maintain economic control over former colonies.

Because the British may be trying to maintain their grip on their former colonies, one may ask what then becomes the Americans’ role and interest. Well, because the British supported them in justifying an illegal war in Iraq, the Americans are paying back by supporting British efforts to effect regime change in Zimbabwe.

And, if one considers the actions of the US and the British governments in pressurising Mugabe out of power, it is clear the Americans are working at an operational level whilst Britain rallies more of its allies, such as Australia, to join the push.

Although they maintain that the economic and political sanctions they have imposed on Zimbabwe are targeted at individuals close to the Harare regime, the Americans have in fact adopted a law – the Zimbabwe Economic Recovery Act – that effectively legalised external meddling in the affairs of a sovereign state.

It was not surprising, therefore, that, on 21 June last year, the then US ambassador to Zimbabwe, Christopher Dell, predicted that Zimbabwe’s inflation rate would rocket to 1.5 million percent before the end of the year 2007. How he came to such a figure remains a mystery. But, not surprisingly, his prediction came to naught.

Not to be outdone, one British newspaper, infamous for its right-wing approach, noted in a deceiving editorial comment that: “[Africa’s] exclusion from rising global prosperity, its disadvantages in the competitive environment of international trade, its burden of crippling debt are no longer just laments of African governments and aid organisations.”

The newspaper said these and other problems holding back development in Africa are now “rightly seen as matters of concern for the whole world.” Only the gullible will believe that.

To understand where most of Africa’s problems emanate from, one needs to firstly read Walter Rodney in his classic book, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Amongst other key observations, Rodney writes: “When Cecil Rhodes sent in his agents to rob and steal in Zimbabwe, they and other Europeans marvelled at the surviving ruins of the Zimbabwe culture, and automatically assumed that it had been built by white people.”

Rodney argues that: “Even today, there is still a tendency to consider the achievements with a sense of wonder rather than with the calm acceptance that it was a perfectly logical outgrowth of human social development within Africa, as part of the universal process by which man’s labour opened up new horizons.”

To fully understand the approach of the Western governments (particularly the US and Britain) in Zimbabwe, it is important to observe how they deal with other governments accused of offences similar or worse than those seen under Mugabe’s leadership in Zimbabwe. Ngcukana mentioned some of these, but a further elaboration is important.

Take, for example, a country such as Sudan. The president, Omar el-Bashir, firstly came to power through a coup, overthrowing a democratically elected government. He has presided over Africa’s biggest humanitarian catastrophe, Dafur.

Again, take, for example, a country such as Nigeria. The president, Umaru Yar’adua, came to power through a controversial election that saw over 200 civilians dead due to election-related violence. The European Union itself said the elections were marred by irregularities and vote rigging.

President Omar Bongo of the west African country, Gabon, has been in power since 1976. After his disputed re-election in 2005, he is even reported to have said that he will run for president again in 2011.

If Britain and the US are so concerned about democracy and good governance in Zimbabwe, we must ask why they are not equally concerned about the same in countries such as Sudan, Nigeria, Chad, Swaziland, etc. We must see the likes of the MDC for what they truly are: “agents of imperialism,” as aptly put by Ngcukana.

Africans said this, the 21st Century, is an African Century. Until we take charge of our own political and economic future by exposing “agents of imperialism”, our hands will remain tied. We’ll have the cake (our abundant material resources) but we will not be able to eat it.

The battle for Zim's future must not end with Mugabe's rule

Britain’s so-called rescue package, prepared in anticipation of Mugabe’s exit, seems to be aimed at remote-controlling the next leader from 10 Downing Street

By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 04 April 2008

Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe is caught up in a corner, trying to delay the announcement of election results that have already seen the opposition Movement for Democratic Change ahead of the ruling Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF).

Most commentators, as well as international observers and other interested parties, have predicted long before the first vote is cast that Mugabe will try to rig the election in order to extend his 28-year-old rule.

But, given a key constitutional amendment compelling the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) to publish preliminary results outside polling stations, Mugabe, even if he had the intention to rig the election, would not have found it easy to apply the trick.

What is seldom acknowledged, though, is the fact that this key constitutional amendment is a result of South African President Thabo Mbeki’s African Union-sanctioned mediation efforts. After a long while, Mbeki’s widely-criticised “quite diplomacy” is finally bearing fruits. Mugabe is finally caught up in a corner.

Given the MDC’s victory over the ruling ZANU-PF in the parliamentary poll, Mugabe will most certainly never recover from this defeat. The blow seems too severe for the 84-year-old president, who’s been at the helm since independence from Britain.

Though Mbeki’s “quite diplomacy” seems to be paying off, the next president of South Africa may need to carry on the battle over Zimbabwe’s economic future. Already, in anticipation of Mugabe’s defeat, Britain has announced a planned one-billion-euro-a-year package for Zimbabwe.

According to the British newspaper, The Guardian, Mugabe had previously rejected the package because of the conditions attached to it.

Britain’s new efforts to bring back the rejected package should be viewed with suspicion as the main intention behind the new offer seems to be intended to ensure that a new Zimbabwean leader is remote-controlled from 10 Downing Street.

South Africa, working closely with the AU, must continue to play a central role in Zimbabwe even if Mugabe’s 28-year-old rule does come to an end. Mbeki’s quite diplomacy must be carried on to the future to ensure continuity in the battle for Zimbabwe’s economic recovery.

Big dictators get away with murder as AU targets little Comoros

By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 26 March 2007

Heads of States of the African Union adopted the African Union Charter on Democracy, Elections and Good Governance last year in January at a summit held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Amongst the African leaders present at the summit were Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe and his counterparts from Libya (Colonel Muammar AlGhattafi) and Sudan (Omar el Bashir).

The list of undemocratic African rulers is long. Bear in mind the likes of King Mswati of Swaziland, Theodore Nguema of Equatorial Guinea and Paul Biya of Cameroon. Biya, for example, has been in power since 1982. He’s still sitting over there today.

Currently, AU forces are pushing a self-appointed president of the Comoros out of power. Mohamed Bacar, a French-trained former soldier, is said to have stubbornly clung on to power after an illegal election last year, 2007.

When the AU leaders adopted the Charter on Democracy, Elections and Good Governance, they said they were doing so because they were seeking to entrench in Africa “a political culture of change of power based on the holding of regular, free, fair and transparent elections conducted by competent, independent and impartial national electoral bodies.”

It may be too soon to rate African countries’ compliance with the charter, but, judging by the way preparations have been going in Zimbabwe ahead of Saturday’s election, one can say it is business as usual despite the adoption of the charter. Today does not seem any better than yesterday.

The Comoros is a soft target for the AU forces. Other undemocratic leaders know that they will not face similar action even if they defy the AU. Even worse is the fact that the AU forces overthrowing Bacar are supported by undemocratic countries.

Sudan has deployed its forces to join the overthrow of Bacar, but the Sudanese President himself, Omar el-Bashir, not only has the Dafur genocide in his backyard, but he himself also came to power through undemocratic means.

According to various historical sources, el-Bashir came to power in June 1989 through a military coup against the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Sadiq al-Mahdi. The irony is glaring.

The AU, by targeting the Comoros whilst ignoring bigger tyrants, has started to turn the Charter on Democracy, Elections and Good Governance into another useless paper. The undemocratic cycle goes round and round unabated.

If the African political elite are genuinely interested in democracy and good governance on the continent, the AU must treat all states as equal partners and treat undemocratic rulers similarly. The same should apply to the European Union: sanctions against undemocratic African governments must not border on hypocrisy and selective justice.

The Mystery of Capital

Book Review: The Mystery of Capital – Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else
Author: Hernando de Soto
ISBN: 0-552-99923-7
Reviewed by: Nelson Kgwete

What distinguishes Peruvian author and economist Hernado de Soto from the rest is the intensity of his research and the wealth of experience he boasts.

De Soto puts both qualities to good use in his book, “The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West And Fails Everywhere Else”.

In the groundbreaking book, De Soto explains in detail the pitfalls of Western-style capitalism in developing countries and what needs to be done to change the fortunes of poor countries and former communist nations.

He attributes much of the problems afflicting poor countries to bureaucratic inefficiency, something government officials and those who rely on government services will easily identify with.

In Egypt, for example, the author says his research team has established that: “To build a legal dwelling on former agricultural land would require six 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] have already overtaken government efforts to provide housing for migrants and the poor”.

South Africans will bear testimony to this statement. Just last year during the Limpopo Housing Indaba, commentator after another emphasised the need to prioritise planning instead of occupying land, building and then planning afterwards. Everyone agreed that proper planning is crucial.

To get an idea of how difficult the life of migrants is in cities and other urban environments, De Soto said he and his team decided to open a small garment workshop on the outskirts of Lima, the capital city of Peru, with the aim of creating a new and perfectly legal business.

“The team then began filling out the forms, standing in the queues and making the bus trips into central Lima to get all the certifications required to operate, according to the letter of the law, a small business in Peru,” writes De Soto.

And what did they experience? Well, as the author puts it: “They spent six hours a day at it and finally registered the business – 289 days later.” And, “although the garment workshop was geared to operating with only one worker, the cost of legal registration was $1, 231 – thirty-one times the monthly minimum wage”!

De Soto says many governments in developing countries do not keep credible data of the people and their economic status. In plain terms, De Soto blames governments for not having enough information about the people they are supposed to serve.

To illustrate this, the Peruvian refers to a good example: “In Brazil,” he says, “the construction industry reported a mere 0.1 percent growth in 1995; yet cement sales during the first six months of 1996 soared by nearly 20 percent.”

“The reason for the apparent anomaly, according to a Dutch Morgan Grenfell, was that 60 to 70 percent of the region’s construction never makes it into the records,” writes De Soto in the chapter, The Mystery of Political Awareness.

The author uses numerous examples to show how failure to rapidly legalise small businesses and speed up government processes leads to lawlessness in many developing countries.

De Soto does not condone lawlessness though. Instead, he urges developing countries and former communist nations to stop copying Western laws without due consideration given to unique local realities.

Most South Africans will identify easily with the problems identified by De Soto in his book. If you’re looking for a stimulating read full of new and interesting ideas, De Soto’s groundbreaking offering should come handy.

Brendan Boyle is wrong about Mbeki

The writer fails to support his arguments with convincing facts

By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 10 March 2008

There are various half-truths in Brendan Boyle’s article, “Civil society must seize the moment to recreate debate” (Sunday Times, 09 March), but I’d like to draw his attention to only two of those.

Firstly, Boyle says, amongst other things, that: “The Native Club used its own uncertain definitions to ensure that only those who held similar views to Mbeki would be admitted to that influential talk shop.”

If it is true that the Native Club admits people with similar views to those of Mbeki, maybe Boyle would explain how known critics of Mbeki, such as Prof. Sipho Seepe, got admitted to the club.

Having attended almost all meetings of the Native Club last year, I know it as a matter of fact that not only are critics of the President welcome at the club; even non-blacks are invited to take part.

In one of the debates focussing on name-changes in the country, Kalie Kriel, spokesperson of the Afrikaner group, Afri Forum, was invited as a panellist. He came with several whites.

At the end of the debate, Native Club member Ngila Muendane invited Kriel to join the club in an effort to encourage a culture of debate in the country, especially amongst members of different racial groups.

Not surprisingly, Kriel turned away the invitation, not because he was inadmissible on the basis of his differences with Mbeki’s government or because of his skin complexion, but because he chose not to associate himself with the club.

Secondly, Boyle uses the controversy surrounding the re-launch of the Forum for Black Journalists (FBJ) as an example to illustrate how Mbeki’s legacy as ANC president is tainted by “intellectual tyranny”, which, in simple terms, means stifled debate.

Interestingly, the said FBJ controversy involved new ANC president Jacob Zuma, who delivered an exclusive address to the forum’s controversial meeting, where white journalists were barred and sympathetic black colleagues labelled coconuts.

Boyle thus fails to support his arguments with convincing facts. And that’s typical South African journalism/political analysis: no research and, consequently, poor arguments supported by half-truths. The readers deserve better.

Give the Forum for Black Journalists a chance

Why is it that critics of the FBJ keep mum about the existance of other racially exclusive groups, such as the Afkikaners-only community of Orania?

By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 28 February 2008

Pity the chairperson of the re-launched Forum for Black Journalists (FBJ) and political editor of the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC), Eddie Makue.

The poor Makue found himself and his organisation at the receiving end of criticism following the exclusion of white journalists from the meeting of the FBJ where African National Congress (ANC) president Jacob Zuma was to deliver an exclusive address.

The choir of critics, made mostly by white journalists and members of the black media elite, have criticised the re-launch of the FBJ at a time when the country is supposed to be consolidating the gains made in racial tolerance.

Interviewed on SAfm recently, Makue apologised for the exclusion of white journalists from the said controversial meeting, saying he does not condone the alleged racial behaviour by members of his organisation, directed at white journalists at the beginning of the meeting.

The most influential voices in our media, including the likes of Max Du Preez and several newspaper editors, seem to agree that the country does not need a racially exclusive club of journalists. There are two main arguments against such a club.

Firstly, it is argued, as Du Preez does in his article, “Welcome the world’s first jellyfish president” (The Star, 28 February), that the club will promote “racial exclusion”.

Du Preez dismissed the FBJ on the grounds that its members “feel so insecure and inferior about their own abilities that they have to go and seek solace in a racially exclusive little club.” Other critics of the FBJ share similar views.

The second argument upon which the FBJ is criticised is that its members, by allowing Zuma to deliver an exclusive address to them, have voluntarily submitted themselves for political indoctrination.

Both arguments against the re-launch of the FBJ ignore the fact that other racially-exclusive clubs are allowed to operate without condemnation. Such clubs include the Jewish Board of Deputies, the Afri Forum and the Black Lawyers’ Association.

Members of the FBJ, including its chairperson Makue, must learn to stand their ground and continue to build the club so that the matters it was formed to focus on are given necessary attention.

Racism against black people is a global phenomenon and black people must organise themselves to tackle this. Blacks may be the majority in Africa, but, on a global scale, the black race is a minority race. The black race is also an underdog race.

Anywhere you go, from the United States, Britain, France, Germany, New Zealand, Australia, black people find themselves having to assert the fact that they too are human beings and deserve to live under conditions similar to those accorded to other races.

South Africa must give the FBJ a chance to re-launch and concentrate on matters that its members believe are of particular concern to its members.

In the free country we live in, no one stops white journalists from forming their own Forum for White Journalists, as proposed by Cliff Saunders in his letter, “Forum for White Journalists has much to talk about” (The Star, 27 February).

I’d like the critics of the FBJ to explain why the country must reject the blacks-only forum whilst the same country remains silent about (and at times even celebrate) the Afrikaners-only community of Orania.

Fairness must pravail when analysing Mbeki

By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 27 February 2008

In his letter, “Bye Mbeki, it’s time to admit defeat,” (The Star, February 20, 2008), Dr. Lucan Ntyintyane makes a number of unfounded generalisations that should not go without some rebuffing.

According to Dr. Tyintyane, “in the eyes of the public, [President Thabo Mbeki] has lost all credibility”.

Mbeki may have lost some credibility over the years, but Dr. Ntyintyane elevates doom-saying to new heights when he refers to President Mbeki’s loss of “all credibility”.

Ntyintyane goes on to claim that “South Africa is in a state of paralysis and confusion.” You wonder what paralysis the good doctor is talking about.

The country may be going through tough times, particularly in view of the recent power outrages; but talk of the country being in “a state of paralysis” is dishonest.

It is wrong for Dr. Ntyintyane to call for President Mbeki “to say goodbye” just a year before the country elects a new government, including a new president.

It’s not clear whether Dr. Ntyintyane is a medical doctor, a PhD or a traditional doctor, but his sweeping generalisations, most of which are baseless, cheapens the doctor title attached to his name.

Much as we’d like to review Mbeki’s legacy in his final months in office, we must also acknowledge the many achievements the country has seen under his stewardship.

• An edited copy of this article appeared in The Star newspaper on 26 February 2008 under the headline, "'Discredited' Mbeki not all that bad'.

Complacency behind our failure in Ghana

By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 03 February 2008

It is easy to blame the team of soccer players and administrators for the pathetic performance that Bafana Bafana displayed at the MTN Africa Cup of Nations in Ghana. A deeper analysis of possible reasons why our national soccer team fails may reveal interesting points.

Firstly, we (and “we” refers to South Africans in general, not just Bafana Bafana) lack a sense of patriotism. We don’t seem to care about national pride. Only a handful of us seem to have some pride in our country.

South Africa is the biggest economy on the African continent and, since 1994 up to this day, remains arguably the most politically stable African country. The overall performance of our economy makes South Africa almost incomparable to any country in Africa.

South Africa is the shining light in a continent plagued by political instabilities, hunger, diseases, etc. Even the gravest of our concerns, such as the high crime wave and the spread of the HIV and Aids pandemic, seem to be nothing as compared to the many other challenges facing fellow Africans outside our borders.

You’d expect a country that is so successful to provide leadership even in the field of sports. But how do our national sports teams, with the exception of rugby and cricket (which are predominantly white sports) fare as compared to other national teams from the rest of Africa? Pathetic!

Do we not have the talent? I think we have. Do we not have the facilities to develop such talent? Of course we do have. The only thing we do not have is a competitive attitude and pride in our country. Complacency is the root cause of our failure.

Capitalist Nigger - The Road to Success

Book review: Capitalist Nigger – The Road to Success
Author: Chika Onyeani
ISBN: 0-9678460-9-9
Reviewed by: Madibeng Kgwete

Controversial Nigerian Author Chika Onyeani, who is currently based in the United States, knew that the title of his book – Capitalist Nigger – would offend some black people. He also knew that a greater number of Africans would be even more offended by the contents of the book; but he went ahead and published the book whose release was greeted with as much condemnation as ululation.

Onyeani himself concedes in the introduction to his book that his observations are bound to infuriate a lot of his people, the black race. The author correctly predicted that many people will be angry when he questions the intelligence of Africans as compared to others who attained independence at the same time as most African countries.

Wiseman Khuzwayo, writing in the Business Report last year after Onyeani’s keynote address to the annual conference of the Black Management Forum, said the author “is universally regarded as the scourge of the black capitalist and as one who uses every available opportunity to fire off missiles.”

When the Mail & Guardian newspaper asked Onyeani what hampers blacks from progressing economically, the author pointed out: “Inferiority complex. I met a man who says he is from a village somewhere here [in South Africa]. He told me that the people in his village have lost all their stores to the Pakistanis.

“Why is that? It is because we are not willing to put in the same amount of time. It is because the Pakistanis are willing to work hard; they are prepared to work 25 hours a day and eight days a week. Blacks are not willing to work hard. They think that once you have a shop, you have arrived.”

In the book, Onyeani lambasts blacks all over the world for a variety reasons, including their alleged dependence on other races for their survival, for being “economic slaves” and having a “short attention span” in a long list of accusations.

The chapter, “Blacks illusions of success”, is particularly scathing. In it, Onyeani says, amongst other things, that: “The Black race has a very short attention span. When something happens, we holler and kick, organize demonstrations and rallies. In less that the time it takes to say Jack Daniel, we have already forgotten the cause or point of our anger. We are back in bed with our oppressors.”

Onyeani rarely minces his words when condemning the attitudes of African people. “Africans live for today,” he says. “Let tomorrow take care of itself and be damned.”

The author challenges the notion of African independence. “We are a conquered race and it is utterly foolish for us to believe that we are independent. The black race depends on other communities for its culture, its language, its feeding and its clothing.”

Perhaps the greatest condemnation of the black race in Onyeani’s book is reserved for the chapter, “Detour to the Promised Land: Intellectual bankruptcy”. In this chapter, the author opines: “We have a very short burst of energy which easily extinguishes in the face of impediment. We prefer to be parasites of a culture we had no part in creating”.

Onyeani loves controversy. In fact, he seems to adore controversial people. In one of the chapters in the book where he criticizes African scholars, he writes: “You cannot point to any research that they [African scholars] have come up with which has elicited comment which could be regarded as controversial.”

The author claims that Africans are regarded so lowly in Western countries that “no African scholar in America is called upon as an expert on matters affecting Africa in all the major television networks”.

Onyeani’s biggest frustration is Africa’s continuing dependence on other continents for its survival. The frustration is shared by many African leaders and scholars. Many of Onyeani’s critics lament his outright language as opposed to the bottom line of his arguments, which is black inaction in areas that matter the most: the economy and culture.

One of Africa’s most illustrious academics, Dr. Ali Mazrui, has described Capitalist Nigger as “a passionate sense of anger and collective self-reproach.”

Depending on individuals’ reaction to criticism (harsh criticism in the case of Capitalist Nigger), some will find Onyeani’s book to be completely outrageous. Others will share his frustrations and decide to change.