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.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Friday, June 20, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
