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.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Monday, May 12, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, March 10, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
