Will this be the year?

I am not very excited about 2010, mostly for selfish reasons. I would like the clock to stand still so I can take care of some unfinished business. I am fed up of watching the years accumulate without a corresponding increase in the bank balances!

That petty thought having been aired, there are some things that we know about 2010. Nobody expects the world to end in 2010, that honor being reserved for 2012. There will be the football world finals in South Africa during the southern hemisphere winter of 2010 and an African team is not expected to win the so-called World Cup.

There will be congressional elections in the United States towards the end of 2010. The Democratic Party will face a whipping at the polls, perhaps not enough to overturn their majorities in congress but enough to slow down Barack Obama's increasingly unpopular agenda!

There will be more black babies born to single mothers than at any time ever in the history of the world. Black men will continue to be slightly less than half of the US prison population despite blacks being only about 12% of the overall population.

High school graduation rates in inner city neighborhoods in the US will stay well below 50%. Black unemployment will continue to exceed the national average in Barack Obama's America. The Afghan war will accelerate, even as the US footprint in Iraq diminishes.

Across the central Atlantic, on the expansive continent of Africa, many questions will remain unanswered. Will this be the year when Zimbabwe's immortal leader finally realizes that he is mostly flesh and blood with a little conceit to weld it all together? I would not bet my old tennis shoes on it.
Can we expect any surprises in 2010? As a SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) volunteer, I am always cautiously optimistic that we might be able to detect a signal from deep space that is consistent with transmission by an intelligent species!

Now that would be something worth blogging and bragging about!

Can we do math?

I am somewhat skeptical about this whole festive season fever! That may be because I think that the whole year ought to be a festive one. There should not be people who have to wait for the festive season to have a decent meal or a new pair of shoes and whatever else one may associate with the season of giving.
Here is a conversation which one might expect between two aliens approaching our planet at close to the speed of light as they try to break the galactic crossing record.
AlienX: We shall soon be whizzing by that blue planet which is mostly water and tiny bits of land. But many people there die of thirst!
AlienY: I heard that they are a relatively smart species-obviously not in the league of galactic wayfarers like us- but smart enough to get a rickety rocket to ferry some of them to their moon and back!
AlienX: Here is another fascinating fact about them: about half of them die of over-eating, while similar numbers die of under-eating!
AlienY: So they can build rudimentary space craft but they can't figure out how to divide up the food amongst themselves?
AlienX: Precisely, but if you asked them, Im sure they would say it's more complicated than math! There is something called politics, which is not very respectful of the laws of mathematics.
For example, it might make more political sense to dump bananas in the ocean than to bring down the price of bananas at the market.
AlienY: That reminds me of something which my "granny to the power of ten" told me used to happen on our planet.
AlienX: Will they ever learn?
AlienY: Only truly smart species can learn from their experiences. Why do you think there are no earthlings on this galactic race?
AlienX: I was thinking we might slow down and take a look at the Victoria Falls but I have lost my appetite for all earthly delights!
AlienY:I have a suggestion. Why don't we stop over Harare, Zimbabwe? At least they know what a hundred trillion miles might feel like.

Mugabe's thin Zimbabwean roots!

When Robert Mugabe, the leader of Zimbabwe's former ruling party, ZANU-PF, says that Zimbabwe is for Zimbabweans, he is technically correct.
What he does not tell you is what he really means by this seemingly innocent claim. Just in case you missed it, let me expound for a second on what I know to be the true meaning of his assertion. Remember this is the same fellow who once urged Britain's Tony Blair to "keep your Britain and I will keep my Zimbabwe".
At another time he uttered a statement which remains unexplained to this very day: "Zimbabwe is mine", he claimed, leaving out, somewhat strangely, "says the Lord", as some of his lieutenants have said.Mugabe's claims to ownership of Zimbabwe are deeply ironical given his own clan's thin Zimbabwean roots. After all, this is a fellow whose own ancestors reportedly arrived in Zimbabwe towards the end of the 19th century (irony of all ironies) as human mules to the colonizing white settlers who he now claims to detest!
I do not think that it matters where one's ancestors came from or when they arrived on our fair plateau of Zimbabwe, but the hypocrisy of Mugabe's assertions is difficult to ignore.
Sadly, when Mugabe says Zimbabwe is his and things of that nature, he is saying the bare naked truth. If you are a member of his family, "up to the fourth generation", Zimbabwe indeed, is yours. You get to choose and pick a few farms, plushy jobs in the civil service and lucrative government contracts.
Mugabe's control of the nation's resources is not seriously in question, regardless of the valiant efforts of finance minister Tendayi Biti.Still the question refuses to go away: can the evils of settler colonialism be washed away by simply transferring the settlers' allegedly ill-gotten assets into the hands of one family and its political hangers-on?
I think not.
Posted by allen at 6:05 AM

In-fighting in MDC USA

It appears that there is an escalating struggle for control of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) 's affairs in North America, particularly in the United States. For the avoidance of doubt, this has nothing to do with the historical schism of October 2005 which resulted in the two MDC formations now known as MDC (T) (hereinafter referred to as the MDC) and MDC (M).

It would be accurate to say, at this juncture, that the MDC in the USA is in a state of civil war. On the one hand, there is a group calling themselves MDC-North America province, who claim control of the party's affairs in Canada and the USA; on the other a group calling itself MDC-USA, which is apparently favored by the party authorities in Harare.

Even as we speak, either group is trying to line up as many so-called branches of the party behind it, including (allegedly) one man branches being created all across the US for the sake of inflating political territory. Sources inside the movement suggest that the in-fighting has paralysed the party's operations, leaving no clear channels of communication between the rank and file and the party leadership. Other sources say the struggle is less about the soul of the party and more about the hunger for power by those leading the two factions.

As an independent observer, one may wonder why the party authorities in Harare have essentially chosen to remain uninvolved in this matter. Granted, the fortunes of the party do not depend upon the fate of an external branch, even one based in the world's richest and most powerful country. However, the on-going chaos reinforces the impression that the MDC is a group of rank amateurs motivated solely by the lust for power.

It seems to me that the MDC structures in the West would be well-served by adopting some of the practices of political parties in their respective countries. In the United States, for example, the Democratic and Republican parties are highly de-centralized coalitions of strongly motivated members driven by a commonality of issues - unlikely to result in the personality clashes that seem to dominate the MDC's affairs here.

In the same vein, the party authorities in Harare should be flexible enough to not impose the sort of structural puritanism that may be suitable in Zimbabwe to a more liberal political environment such as exists in the United States.

This may seem like a double standard to some, but the reality is that the party's supporters in the Diaspora have been exposed to issue-based approaches to political organizing and seem to like it that way. By de-emphasizing the authority of some of these national and trans-national super-structures, the movement might be better able to listen to the true voices of its members.

For now, unfortunately, the political greed of a few people seems to hold sway in North America.

Obama's big blunder

President Barack Obama will soon lay out his plans for future US involvement in Afghanistan. He is expected to announce an enhanced US role in that part of the world, including a significant troop build up, perhaps in the region of some 30-40 thousand combat troops. In other words, when all is said and done, Obama will have more than doubled the numbers of US troops in Afghanistan since becoming commander-in-chief last January.
During his campaign for the presidency, Obama oversold the Afghan war in order to shore up his national security credentials by arguing that it was the "right" war as opposed to the "dump" war in Iraq. After hammering George Bush for taking his eye off the ball on Afghanistan, Obama has little room to manoeuvre. His liberal support base is up in arms over this seemingly open-ended commitment of military resources. His conservative critics are looking for an opportunity to label him weak on national security and he does not seem eager to give them that opening. His own words are coming back to bite Obama.
So Obama is doing the safe thing: follow the generals' lead and increase troops while arguing that the end is within sight. Those of us on Obama's left tend to think that he is making a huge strategic blunder, both politically and in foreign policy terms. The transition from a conservative to a progressive administration should have provided the opportunity (excuse, if you are cynical) to radically change course by offering a more rational approach to the Afghan question, not entirely driven by the political exigencies of 911.
Such a new approach would have been based on the recognition that September 11 was largely a fluke which was enabled by the fact that America was innocent at that moment in time. No one thought it could happen here and so no steps were taken to prepare for such an assault on the country's sense of confidence in its own ability to protect its people at home. In other words, we do not believe that what happens in the Afghan desert makes Americans any safer than what happens on the streets of New York. The Israeli model would seem to bear this argument out.
This is not to say that Obama should take his eye off the ball with respect to the violent extremism represented by the Al Quaidas and Talibans of this world, but to point out that expanding this protracted war does not impress us as a judicious application of both human and material resources.
Ultimately, the United States cannot determine what kind of government Afghans have without permanently occupying that country. The question ought to be: could it be that the US can achieve more with the threat of force than with real force by making anyone in charge of Afghanistan understand that the US will not hesitate to use force if necessary?

Bashing Mugabe, with a pinch of salt

Imagine that you had to find something good to say about Robert Mugabe, the ZANU-PF leader, with the proviso that it could not be something from his past, thus eliminating his purported leadership of the liberation struggle which (by the way) he only assumed right at the end of the struggle in the late 1970s. You would not be able to talk about how he managed to lull the world into a false sense of optimism about the future of Zimbabwe by preaching reconciliation at independence- clearly designed with one purpose in mind -to consolidate his shaky hold on the reins of power.
If you could not talk about his exaggerated influence in the anti-apartheid struggle (Zimbabwe did not make the economic sacrifices that Mozambique for instance, suffered by shutting Rhodesian access to the ports of Beira and Maputo during our own war of independence). On the contrary, trade between Zimbabwe and apartheid South African actually grew, even as Mugabe made a lot of noise about the need for sanctions. In more recent years, if Mugabe had retained a small portion of the pragmatism that he showed in his handling of the apartheid regime , Zimbabwe might have been spared much of its current pains.
What good is there to be said on behalf of this fellow? I can only think of one but it may not be recognized for generations hence. Mugabe is a good student of history. He understands that those who shy away from exercising their power will be ignored by history (Barack Obama take note). Like it or not, history is made by those who understand that fortune tends to favor the brave, which explains why all my readers are probably reasonably fluent in a foreign language -English.
Mugabe obviously knows that in the ever turning mill of history, brute force is often rewarded. It does not matter in the end how the west was one. Does anyone truly regret that some of the world's supposedly great countries (the United States, Mexico, Australia, South Africa) were founded on the genocidal rape, murder and decimation of native tribes in proportions that would shock modern consciences?
Recently, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd allegedly called on those asking Australia to be more accommodating towards the sensitivities of its new immigrants to leave if they did not like that country as it was. Clearly, Rudd has conveniently forgotten that his is a country founded by means of a murderous assault on the indigenous populations, some of who were kept in captivity as circus exhibits barely a hundred years ago. Who cares?
Fast forward a hundred years. Who is to say that another generation of Zimbabweans might not have a different take on the events of our own hapless one? It's worth repeating here: one day Mugabe may indeed be seen to have been the true genius that he has always wanted to be.

Talking forever

It has been widely reported that talks between the Movement for Democratic and ZANU-PF have resumed. As many of my readers might know, some form of formal talking has been going on between these two parties for a very long time, perhaps close on eight years. Even the talks that resulted in the new South Africa lasted for no more than about three years and we all know what their results were.
What have our lengthy talks yielded? A shaky agreement which needs to be re-negotiated every so often that one must wonder if these talks are anything but an end in themselves. I realize that I am beginning to sound like a cynic but what else am I to make of these talks upon talks upon talks? I know that the evil genius behind the Zimbabwean crisis, one Robert Mugabe (and his cohorts) stand to benefit from protracted talks.
As I have suggested in these columns before, he needs to buy time so that he can fulfil his desire to die in office, a prospect whose plausibility gained some traction recently when a would-be returning Mugabe henchman, Jonathan Moyo, made it almost official.
Talking to Mugabe is unlikely to yield national reconciliation and renewal anytime soon. These talks will enable the region to enjoy a semblance of quiet for about a year so that South Africa can host the football World Cup. Any tangible results from the current round of negotiations, such as a new constitution for Zimbabwe and fresh elections, will not be allowed to dominate the regional political calendar until the soccer showpiece is out of the way.
Hell may break loose thereafter, unless nature intervenes. Hoza 2011!

The way forward!

Even under the best of circumstances, going into a coalition government is a dicey proposition fraught with dangers for the uninitiated. Most coalition governments do not last for very long because they are, by definition, a marriage of convenience at best and in the case of the MDC and ZANU-PF, a forced one. If one partner in such an arrangement is an evil genius, such as Robert Mugabe, the stakes for the other party are even more daunting. No doubt this experience continues to provide plenty of learning opportunities for the MDC.
Going forward, the MDC must guard against Mugabe's manipulative machinations. The cases of the attorney general and the governor of the central bank will be milked by ZANU-PF not only to buy time but also to divide the opposition between those who view these cases as red herrings and those who see a political victory if Mugabe is forced to eat humble pie and fire these two unilateral appointments. For some in the movement, such a development would be the equivalent of the proverbial slippery slope, which would mark the beginning of the descent of Mugabe into oblivion.
I would rather be more pessimistic because I suspect there will be a face-saving agreement which will cost the people of Zimbabwe a lot of money, with multiple offices being created to accommodate these loyal Mugabe henchmen, not least among them ambassadorships.
After all, the real attorney general in Zimbabwe is Mugabe himself. Johannes Tomana cannot reasonably be thought of as a man of his own mind. Central bank governor Gideon Gono has largely been sidelined and rendered irrelevant by finance minister Tendayi Biti.
Our friends in the movement should be thinking about building institutions, practices and traditions that will be the bedrock of any long term settlement of our national troubles, as opposed to getting bogged down in the sterile political maneuvering which has been the hallmark of ZANU-PF politics for thirty years and for which the people of Zimbabwe are now paying a heavy price.
Easier said than done? That may be the case, but if I were a politician of any colour, I would not bet against the collective wisdom of the people of Zimbabwe who will, ultimately, be the final arbiters in all these matters.

Suffer fools gladly!

Does Robert Mugabe, the ZANU-PF leader, not see the naked irony in "the verbosity of his own rigmarole"? If not, then he needs to get himself examined for age-induced dementia or another ailment that seems to abound among men of his advanced years - falling victim to the prolixity of their own imaginations.
Does he honestly not realize that when he quotes, from the wisdom of ancient Shona, the proverbial equivalent of "suffering fools gladly", most Zimbabweans might turn their heads towards the person next to them and laugh, instantly recognizing the real fool amongst them: the utterer of these very same words?
It is not an exaggeration to say that this generation of Zimbabweans believes that Mugabe and his ZANU-PF have been the worst thing to happen to the country in the last three decades. Suffering fools gladly is considered a virtue in most societies, because fools are a part of the rich and varied tapestry of human diversity. However, in most post-feudal societies, suffering fools gladly is not a legal requirement. In Zimbabwe, the situation is entirely medieval, at least with respect to one man, who happens to be -Mugabe.
Zimbabwean law requires us to suffer a presidential fool gladly. He cannot be criticized in private or in public, on pain of jail or death. Citizens are required to withhold expressing their judgment of this man's performance in office, unless it is to say something positive.
If you think that he has been an unmitigated disaster for the country, which most Zimbabweans do, you will be jailed for saying so. If you think he is too old too run the country, you could be arrested for saying so. If you think he could not possibly afford a multi-million dollar mansion without looting public coffers, you had better hold that thought forever!
So broadly is the law to protect the president's reputation crafted that one could get arrested for virtually any critical comment made against him within earshot of thousands of intelligence agents and their informers.
How appropriate that this same man would teach us about suffering fools gladly!

Political Posturing

The political posturing by both sides in the so-called inclusive Zimbabwe government is approaching farcical proportions. One could swear that the surface dissonance we are witnessing must be the prelude to another episode of an epic comedy. Alas, real lives and livelihoods are at stake in this tragic-comic drama of distortions, accusations and counter-accusations, lies and outright pranks.
In the past week, we have witnessed the spectacle of prime minister Morgan Tsvangirai hitch-hiking to every SADC capital, including of all places, Kinshasa and Luanda, in the hope of salvaging what most independent observers know to be a thoroughly flawed agreement whose real purpose is subject and open to interpretation by all parties to it, including SADC.
For SADC, the agreement was an exercise in self-congratulation, demonstrating the ability of the regional body to resolve crises in member states. They may be expected to feebly resist anything that seriously detracts from that sense of being in ultimate control of regional affairs. And of course the up-coming World Cup makes it likely that South African president Jacob Zuma may have no choice but to flex his muscles.
For the Zimbabwe Movement for Democratic Change(MDC), it was as much forced down their throat by both SADC and Robert Mugabe's ZANU-PF as it was by their own short-sighted view that it represented the proverbial "foot in the tent" opportunity without which the movement would be decimated by brutal force. It was as if the movement for once doubted the morality and legitimacy of its decade long fight against ZANU-PF.
In the case of ZANU-PF, it was clearly an opportunity to take a breather in the fight to maintain their hold on political power and its attendant benefits. By all accounts, ZANU-PF feels somewhat energized. As long as Mugabe is still around, ZANU-PF will probably be just fine but nature is constantly calling and their failure to seize the opportunity to regroup and renew the party could yet prove to be the final undoing of a party which will clearly not be able to survive its leader's inevitable demise.
Our friends in the movement do not have many options: they are where they are not because they chose to be there but because they thought they had run out of options, which left them open to the schemings of SADC and ZANU-PF. There is nowhere to run: they must stand their ground and fight, and win.

Blundering along!

I have neither the desire to nor any interest in, overstating the fact that our friends in the leadership of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) seem to be trying to feel the bottom of the pond with their feet while trying to wade across it.
The events of the past few days with regards to Roy Bennett seem to confirm this suspicion. It was as if they were caught completely by surprise when Bennet was indicted to the High Court and temporarily lost his freedom. Those of us who have been observing the Zimbabwean scene for three decades now surely were not be surprised that the state would opt to charge with the highest offence that the alleged facts could possibly support in a non-evidentiary hearing?
As I understand it, the switch from regional to high court occurs quite frequently in Zimbabwean prosecutions (persecutions, if you like) and if the Zimbabwe government had an opportunity to exercise "judge shopping", what sane person would be astonished at such a development?
Clearly, the outrage of the MDC leadership was an exercise in damage control because I cannot persuade myself that they were caught unawares by these developments, unless rumours that they are a bunch of rank amateurs are to be believed. At the risk of sounding cynical, it seems to me that the MDC fell "hook, line and sinker" for a ZANU-PF ruse aimed at creating the impression that the latter had made a concession by allowing Bennett to be free again pending trial. But the idea that the ordeal of one person, who happens to be white, sparks almost unprecedented outrage by the leadership, leaves them open to manipulation by the opposition.
After all, Bennett still has his life while thousands of Zimbabweans have lost theirs resisting ZANU-PF repression.

Crossing a flooded river

When I was younger, much younger than today, I used to cross flooded rivers from time to time. Sometimes I would cross two flooded rivers twice the same day and a swift stream to cap it all. So I can honestly say that I know how to cross a flooded river.
The safest way was to hold on to the tail of a bull and hang on for dear life. Another was to swim diagonally across by allowing the current to take one to a point on the other side which would always be a little farther downstream than one had hoped.
The least safe was to feel the river bed with a stick while taking tiny steps at a time and hoping that your head stayed above the water, and that the current below would not sweep one's feet away, in which case one would quickly switch to the diagonal swim.
It was always advisable not to attempt to cross a flooded river alone or with your enemy, unless you were using the first method described above. If the practice of politics may be analogized to crossing a flooded river, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) is crossing the river of change with a known enemy: ZANU-PF. Unfortunately, there are no bulls to haul the two enemies across the chooppy waters of Zimbabwean politics. Swimming appears to be something which neither party seems to be able or willing to do for fear of being swept away to the Indian ocean and into oblivion.
The only option is to feel the depth of the river with a stick and wade across. However, as I learned in my youth, in doing so one reaches a point of no return, where the chances of making it to the other side or drowning are equal. The MDC and ZANU-PF have reached such a point now, except that one of them appears to have run out of stick length. We do not know who, but we just have to hope that it is not the MDC!

Mincing words

If the Zimbabwe Independent is to be believed, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC)has embraced some potentially progressive positions. I like the party's proposals with regards to citizenship, capital punishment, elections and gender equality.
However, I think that the incestuous relationship between the executive and parliament should be terminated by mandating the complete separation of the executive and the legislature.
A bicameral legislature seems like an extravagant proposition for a country reeling from decades of economic mismanagement and corruption under Robert Mugabe and ZANU-PF.
I would be willing to support a senate if that legislative body is accorded actual powers, especially the responsibility to advise and consent with regards to the appointment of appointments to cabinet, ambassadorships, the judiciary and senior public servants, thus serving as a check on the tendency by politicians to build patronage bases.
Above all, I like the MDC's proposal to give women "preferences over their own bodies". It is time to acknowledge that with regards to the issue of abortion, Zimbabwe might as well be in the Middle Ages. Every single one of us knows at least one person who has had an abortion, which is illegal in Zimbabwe. Doctors make a killing performing abortions. We cannot continue to bury our heads in the sand. Women need to have the option and freedom to decide if they want to carry a pregnancy through to birth.
The MDC will be pilloried by religious conservatives and traditionalists over this proposal but I hope they stand their ground. Indeed, I hope they realize that they may pay a huge political price for this stance. Now, I honestly hope that every woman who gets pregnant by design or accident, gives birth to a beautiful child. I also know, somehow, that it is not for me to tell an adult woman how to handle their bodies.
As a matter of fact, I feel the same about adults of any sex deciding to marry. I may not like it, but it is none of my business. And by the way, I don't like it when babies are baptized or when parents force their children to attend Sunday school, but I stay out of harm's way by watching from the sidelines!

Move the capital!

In my previous post, I suggested that it might be time to allow Harare suburbs to incorporate as satellite localities in the same way that Norton, Chitungwiza and Ruwa are.
Today, I want to go as far as to say that the nation's capital must be moved out of Harare to some place else, probably in the central Midlands. I am no urban planner but I suspect that many of my readers will realize that the City of Harare has grown beyond the wildest dreams of its founders. Apart from being poorly managed partly because of its sheer size (but mainly due to the interfering hand of a corrupting, national political establishment), the city is basically falling apart at its very seams.
Harare is crowded like a bee-hive, except that this is not an appropriate analogy, because bees do indeed, seem to thrive in their habitat. Harare, on the other hand, seems to suffocate everything and everyone, allowing only the most well connected to thrive. For example, although the current shortage of water is primarily due to mismanagement by the city council and the national water authority, the deeper truth is that in the long term, the city will be short of water for the simple fact that the sources of water will not be able to provide enough for the burgeoning population.
Any future government which takes over after the prevailing fiasco must commission a study to honestly examine the viability of Harare remaining simultaneously the nation's political and commercial capital. I suspect such a study will show that the people of Zimbabwe would benefit from a major national project which would showcase genuinely Zimbabwean architectural, urban planning and engineering prowess. Such a massive project would take at least two decades to complete and would focus the nation's energy in a positive direction as the country recovers from the nightmarish malaise of the past three decades.

Break up Harare!

It is obvious that Harare has grown too large to be managed as a single entity. The city fathers have neither the skills nor the resources to provide tolerably efficient services to the residents, whose numbers, one might add, are a matter of guesswork.
The city of Harare is arguably among the most corrupt and poorly run city in southern Africa. Garbage still goes uncollected, water rarely runs continuously for a more than a few hours once every so often. If a city cannot provide running water to its residents, it loses its status and must revert to some other lower, less glamorous group of urban communities.
In the meantime, the city's huge bureaucracy gobbles up most of the city funds, rendering the council incapable of delivering on much of its promises to ratepayers. Contracts, including such things as vending stalls, are corruptly awarded.
I believe it is time to allow suburbia to incorporate into separate entities, much like Chitungwiza, with a measure of control over local affairs. Such a move would not only increase accountability in local governance, but would probably cut the cost of services and save ratepayers scarce financial resources, if not immediately, but perhaps in the long term.
Incorporation of suburbia need not be done in a way as to introduce a new form of apartheid by insisting that each new entity provide a diversity of housing opportunities for lower, middle and upper income groups. It is time to think outside the cage for a solution to the seemingly endless crisis of local governance in the nation's capital. Breaking up Harare might be a good starting point.

Cut the army!

The true size of the Zimbabwe security forces is probably a state secret, but we can intelligently guess based on some figures that have been released in the past. It was reported in the mid-1990s that the defence forces were to be cut to about 41 000 personnel from about 50 000. However, given the increasing reliance of Robert Mugabe's regime on the security forces for its sustenance in recent years, I am unpersuaded that there has been a 20% reduction in the numbers of those in the military. If there have been any reductions at all, they have been more than compensated for by increased recruitment into the CIO(Central Intelligence Organisation) and the so-called youth brigades. Police numbers are believed to be a little under 25 000 and should be maintained or even increased. The CIO's ranks have been boosted significantly in recent years to a figure in the region of 4000, up from about 1200 in the mid-nineties, presenting easy opportunities for budget cutters.
Even if we were to assume a figure of 40 000 in the army and the airforce, no credible argument can be made that Zimbabwe needs such a large standing defence force. While Zimbabwe may have needed a large force to serve as a deterrent in the eighties (the current numbers are partly a legacy of the apartheid era in neighbouring South Africa), she no longer has any real enemies in the region. Zimbabwe should not be preparing to fight anyone. On the contrary, Zimbabwe should be re-directing the scarce resources that she now spends on an unneeded military force towards improving social services for future generations.
Zimbabwe simply cannot afford this large security apparatus in the current economic environment. It makes sense to allow the military to trim its ranks not only by attrition but also by initiating a planned force reduction exercise in order to cut defense spending to about 5% of annual government outlays.
A fierce, lean, well-equipped fighting force of about 10 000 men and women, augmented as needed by a military service program for volunteers, would be more in keeping with the nation's resources in these challenging times.

IMF cash

It appears that there may be in-fighting within the Zimbabwe government regarding the IMF stimulus money. On the one hand, we have the state media triumphantly announcing the arrival of the money, so to speak; on the other, the minister of Finance, Tendayi Biti, casting doubt on the wisdom of accepting this loan.
As I have suggested in these pages before, the best way to achieve sustainable long term expansion of the Zimbabwean economy is by growing the economy from the bottom up. In other words, instead of rushing abroad to "beg, borrow and spend", the government should proceed on the basis that Zimbabwe is now a poor country and that hard work will be required to get the economy in reasonable shape again. Inevitably, this means less government spending.
I suggest as a starting point, that we should cut defence and intelligence spending by at least 50% (more on this in my next instalment). Loans like this latest one from the IMF simply boost the already bloated appetite for spending by those whose job it is to procure weapons, luxury cars and other politically expedient goods and services.
I am not suggesting that the government should reject this offer; however, I think that this loan, in its entirety, should be made available to the private sector to acquire machinery and materials required to restore the country to its former glory as a major manufacturing country in Africa. Certainly, the Reserve bank should not be responsible for its disbursement. One does not need to be a genius to know that otherwise, this money will end up being siphoned away to the foreign bank accounts of those who have been in the business of looting the nation's meagre pickings for the past three decades.

Zuma and direct diplomacy

Given South African President Jacob Zuma's reputation for "cash talk", it has been speculated that he might be more amenable to engaging in direct diplomacy with Robert Mugabe and his ZANU-PF, using more sticks than carrots in helping end the impasse in the so-called inclusive government.
It remains to be seen how much of this new approach Zuma may have applied in his negotiations with Mugabe during his recent visit to Zimbabwe. However, if press reports are anything to go by, there has not been a significant departure from the "softly softly" approach taken by Zuma's predecessor, the much despised Thabo Mbeki. I suspect that Zuma quickly learned that Mugabe will not yield his political kingdom as easily as Mbeki did under the onslaught of Zuma and his supporters last year.
Far from being his own man any longer, Mugabe embodies the inertia that has crept into Zimbabwean politics in recent years. Even if Mugabe wanted to leave office today, he would not be allowed to do so by the system that put him there because ZANU-PF will collapse under the overwhelming gravity of its own decadence.
If Zuma came away with a better sense of the tremendous amount of work that still needs to be done to get things moving in the right direction in Zimbabwe, then his trip was well worth the effort and expense.
Mark my word though: Mugabe will not leave his ill-gotten power on the negotiating table. He would rather die in office and something inside me tells me that this will be the case, regardless of any new diplomatic offensive by Zuma.

Of city fathers and feathers

If the mayor of any city finds it demeaning to use the best form of public transport available in that city to travel to and from the office every day, then they should not be mayor of that city. Across the globe, mayors of major cities use the subway, taxis and buses to get to the office. Why? Well, they are virtually guaranteed to get to work using the same means that ordinary folk use every single day to get to their divers workplaces.
There cannot be a greater manifestation of lack of confidence in a city's transportation system and in the city's very character than when the mayor of a city will not use any form of public transit. Some might say that the spectacle of the mayor of Harare riding in a mini van might not be a very eclectic one, to which I say amen, while pointing out, in the same breath, the circularity of such an argument: as long as the mayor and other city dignitaries, cabinet ministers and senior civil servants do not use public transit because taxpayers and ratepayers provide them with the most expensive super-sized sedans Daimler Benz has ever assembled, the public transportation systems will stay stuck in the mid-twentieth century.
There will be no major investment in improving the road and rail systems that take people to work if neither the city fathers nor their families use them on a regular basis.
Harare needs a mayor who can set an example for the rest of the country's cities to follow in these difficult times. The same applies to those in the so-called inclusive government who wallow in luxury at the expense of the poor.

MDC: Movement for Disquieting Compromise

MDC:Movement for Disquieting Compromise?
There is little doubt that a lot of wheeling and dealing is going on in the so-called inclusive government in Zimbabwe. Politicians hidden away in the proverbial smoke filled rooms are making decisions that will not only have far-reaching implications for the future of all Zimbabweans, at home and abroad, but also on the career prospects of many of the politicians making these deals.
Zimbabweans must begin to realize that these backroom deals are an assault on the democratic process; they are nothing more than an attempt by ZANU-PF to hold on to ill-gotten political positions and wealth by making it possible for the MDC formations to swallow the bitter pill of electoral theft administered by Robert Mugabe.
We are now told that the service chiefs may be willing to salute Tsvangirai, as if the whole country had been waiting with baited breath for that development. In fact, I suspect that the rest of us have been waiting for the service chiefs to do what they promised a few short years ago: that they would rather resign than salute Tsvangirai.
We need a new crop of police and military leaders to take charge of the security services and lead these forces out of the dungeon of despair into the sunshine of accountability.
It is fair to ask just what is in these deals for the MDC. What are they hoping to achieve by virtually re-baptizing themselves as the Movement for Disquieting Compromise? I suspect that a lot of wishful thinking is going on but I also know that this once gallant movement could emerge unrecognisable from this give and take with the forces of darkness.

Till death do us part!

Zimbabwean politicians do not retire, they die in office. In fact, even if they think about retiring, as Joseph Msika reportedly did, they risk being marginalized for admitting that they were frail, old, tired, dead wood. If it is true, as I suspect it is, that Msika wanted to retire several years ago but was told to sit tight for the good of the party, one can begin to make sense of Robert Mugabe's retirement plans, of which there are none, unless to die in office counts as one.
Zimbabweans are expected to buy the nonsense of the indispensability of Robert Mugabe! We are all married to Robert Mugabe: till death do us part; divorce is not an option!
In fact, we are all married to ZANU-PF politicians. In the entire history of this murderous coalition which has stalked our land for three decades of lack-lustre governance, only one person has ever come close to retiring honorably, one Nathan Shamuyarira, who nevertheless continues to haunt us with the occasional outburst from Chibuku house.
Some people in the MDC may be day-dreaming about a time in the near future when the political thugs who make up ZANU-PF will peacefully retire to enjoy their loot and plunder. I am not nearly as optimistic as some of my friends in the MDC that ZANU-PF is willing to compete fairly for power and give up its most favored status at election time; not for as long as Mugabe is still among us.
In a recent interview, Thabo Mbeki said he had suggested, during negotiations that led to the so-called inclusive government, that Mugabe became ceremonial president. I am persuaded that Mbeki was hinting at what a future Zimbabwe government might look like, if Barack Obama can be made to buy a ceremonial Mugabe presidency, believing it to be more palatable than the current arrangement, thus unlocking the spigots of Western aid.
Under this scenario, Mugabe can be expected to continue to have some official role in our national affairs, for his biological life!

Tsvangirai shakes hands with murderers

Morgan Tsvangirai must be a very brave man. Thursday, he met face to face and shook the hands of those who executed Robert Mugabe's murderous campaign spanning three decades.

One can only imagine what was discussed during this meeting but no amount of smooth-talking or smoke-screening will change the fact that these so-called security chiefs have the blood of innocent Zimbabweans on their hands. Talking to Tsvangirai after receiving instructions from South African president Jacob Zuma does not mean that these men will stop conspiring to destroyTsvangirai.

They should be held accountable for their actions. Clearly, if they are going to face justice, the people of Zimbabwe should insist on it because Tsvangirai does not seem to be willing to demand it, probably calculating that that may derail his own plans to succeed Mugabe. To suggest that financial compensation should be given to victims is hardly a solution: why should the people of Zimbabwe have to pay for the sins of their persecutors? Compensation yes, but justice first.

Now, it may be that the people of Zimbabwe could be willing to forgive these murderers if they accepted responsibility for their actions and resigned from their positions so that they can be replaced by more professional people. I do not think that these are the kind of people who would do such an honorable thing mainly because they have been hardened by tasting blood too many times. They think they can get away with anything, including murder. They yet may, unless we demand justice now!

What now, Nigeria?

About one out of every four Africans is Nigerian, if one believes that Nigeria's population is 140 million and the continent's is 600 million.It may not be exactly true that when Nigeria catches a fever, Africa catches influenza; that saying may be true in the case of South Africa, four thousand miles to the south. Nevertheless, what is happening in Nigeria is of tremendous significance for the stability of the West African region and other parts of the continent where there are significant Islamic populations.It appears at this stage that what is happening in northern Nigeria is not religious strife in the classic sense of the word, pitting one religion against another. We seem to have a challenge to secularism as represented by the Abuja government. In fact, we understand that economic grievances are a better explanation for the current violence.One can only hope that other Islamic populations elsewhere in Africa are not moved to get involved in this crisis, otherwise we would have to brace up for a regional conflagration which will inevitably lead to inter-religious strife.So far, the Nigerian government does not seem to be doing a good job of handling this matter, judging by reports of executions and indiscriminate shootings.Barely a decade after emerging from military rule, Nigeria must not be allowed to stray from its already meandering route towards towards a more prosperous future for all its peoples through the actions of an inept federal government.

Making peace with murderers

A spade is a spade is a spade is a spade. Let there be no doubt: Morgan Tsvangirai and the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) are trying to make peace with murderers. They may, yet, succeed mainly because history is on their side. Robert Mugabe and his ZANU-PF have made a living for three decades by murdering innocent people, sometimes on a genocidal scale.
Among some plateau Bantu tribes, such as the Mashona, murder is a serious matter for which full compensation is required. The murderer and the survivors of an innocent victim will sit down and talk, talk, talk until they reach an appropriate compensation agreement. It is believed, rightly or wrongly, that failure to pay will result in massive vengeance by the spirit of the deceased.
Now, since I do not think that the dead know that they are dead, I suggest that it is up to the surviving victims to seek and obtain justice. ZANU-PF will try to pretend that nothing has happened that needs to be addressed in a more comprehensive manner than declaring a few days of national healing. One gets the impression that the government is trying to pull wool over the people's eyes using an empty so-called national healing process. Will the victims of Mugabe's crimes be lulled to sleep like babies or will they demand more substantial justice for the perpetrators of a murderous purge lasting thirty years?
Zimbabweans should demand justice for Gift Tandare, Tichaona Chiminya, Talent Mabika and countless known and unknown victims of Mugabe's murderous venture.

Nothing wrong with a diaspora

While it may be viable for politicians to preach to the dispersed urging them to return to rebuild Zimbabwe, those of us in the diaspora should not be naive about this complex matter.
We will never know exactly why our Bantu ancestors dispersed south-eastwards from West Africa. They could have been escaping conflict of sorts or a degrading environment exacerbated by an encroaching Sahara. What we do know for sure, is that they did not return to West Africa. Instead, they went on to populate much of sub-Saharan Africa, even founding one of the most celebrated civilizations of ancient Africa at Great Zimbabwe.
Two thousand later, we have followed in their footsteps, so to speak, in divergent directions across the globe. It may be that some of us will return to the beloved land of our birth and upbringing. Should most of us, as I suspect, remain in our adopted homelands, that should not be interpreted to mean that we loved Zimbabwe less, but that we were regular human beings.
There are real obstacles in the way of those who want to return to Zimbabwe, not least of which is that the country is not ready to receive them and put them to gainful employment. Given a life expectancy in the mid-thirties, one can see why the prospect of going back home may not be a pleasant one for many in the Zimbabwean diaspora. Moreover, who is to say that we should not have our own diaspora community, as virtually every other major and minor country seems to have?
Nobody should feel ashamed if they decide to hang on in the Diaspora. After all, since its emergence as a species two hundred thousand years ago, homo sapiens sapiens has conquered every piece of terrain on this planet, in multiple migrations originating in the African savanna.

MDC embraces dual citizenship

Yesterday, I attended a Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) meeting in Ann Arbor, Michigan where the party was once again trying to set-up a new Michigan branch after experiencing some setbacks in recent years. To be fair, the recent mass exodus of Zimbabweans to neighbouring Canada took a toll on the MDC community in the USA in terms of numbers but the situation seems to be stabilizing and it may be about the right time to try again.
I went there to observe the process and learn a few things about the party. In the end, what struck me was the interest of so many people to drive huge distances across the Midwest to be part of this process. Unfortunately, Zimbabwean women were nowhere to be seen, represented by the American spouse of a Zimbabwean man and a native Zimbabwean woman who arrived towards the end of the gathering.
But the real news of the day was the announcement by a member of the MDC USA provincial executive that the party would work to make dual citizenship possible under the proposed new constitution. As you know, this is an issue that I feel rather strongly about. I just do not know how representative this particular official's views are of the movement's official position on this matter, perhaps the most important issue for Zimbabweans in the diaspora.

The teacher's plight!

Both my parents were school teachers. Naturally, I yield first place to nobody in terms of supporting the interests of the profession. Outside the family, I can barely think of anybody who had a profound impact on my life who was not a school teacher, the most influential being my sub-standard A teacher, Miss Tambandini. I remember a time when teachers enjoyed not only one of the highest standards of living of any large group of Africans in Zimbabwe, but also the admiration of their fellow citizens. I am told that fortunes have been dramatically reversed in recent years, reducing the profession to the laughing stock of the country, ironically all under the watchful gaze of a former school teacher of my parents' generation, one Robert Mugabe.
I feel very badly for Zimbabwean teachers. But I find some of the statements attributed to teachers' unions in recent months troubling, to say the least, particularly those demanding unrealistically high remuneration for teachers. Granted, these demands may be little more than bargaining positions, but they are so stratospheric that they border on the ridiculous. If teachers have no sense of where the country's economy is right now, then may be they should not be teaching any one's children.
I expect teachers to be the most enlightened members of society; they should demand improved conditions of service by all means, but they should show leadership by making demands that are in tune with the parlous state of the economy. Teachers must realize that any salary increases that have no foundation in economic growth will quickly dissipate, leaving them worse off than they are today. High standards of living cannot be plucked out of thin air, as we have all learned from our recent experience under the myopic and misguided policies of Mugabe and his ZANU-PF.

Mugabe selling us a dummy

When Robert Mugabe says Zimbabwe will not pay for land seized from white farmers under his needlessly rushed and violent land redistribution program which benefited only his cronies and cohorts, he is selling us a dummy. In typically flawed logic, Mugabe says the Brits should pay for the land while Zimbabwe pays for so-called improvements, as if the two could have any value outside of each other. As we have learned over the past decade, a farm is not just a piece of earthly real estate; on the contrary, the most valuable asset on a farm is not the soil, but the people who manage the farm and put the soil to good use.
I know it is not viable for politicians, especially the so-called opposition in Zimbabwe, to take Mugabe to task over this matter. Since I have no plans to run for office in this life, I will try to express what I think is a widely held view among ordinary people in Zimbabwe. If you asked Zimbabweans if they thought it was smart to wipe off the book value of most commercial farmland in Zimbabwe at the stroke of a pen ostensibly to redress the wrongs of the past, you would receive a resounding no. And yet that's precisely what Mugabe's land reform program has done: Zimbabwean land is nearly worthless as an asset which one might use as collateral security to borrow from commercial banks.
It is clear that unless there is a final resolution of questions around the seizure of land by Mugabe and his relatives and cohorts, our country will not be able to restore the value of this vital asset. Morgan Tsvangirai says there will be a land audit to take this matter forward but one wonders what else we need to know about this program other than the fact that it has been a national disaster. We could have had a more just land reform exercise which recognized and benefited the real victims of settler colonialism, not the beneficiaries of it. It goes without saying that there was no wisdom in uprooting the continent's most accomplished farmers.
One of these days, when Mugabe moves out of the way (and one hopes this will be sooner rather than later), Zimbabweans will find themselves with a massive bill in their hands. The only way to pay it will be to negotiate with those who Mugabe says we should we despise. If Zimbabweans are going to pay this bill, we should at the very least demand a more just land reform exercise under which those who already have a means to earn a living (such as the president and his wife and relatives, cabinet ministers, senior civil servants, army and police officers), would be the last to be given land. After all, the poor and unconnected deserve something too.

Zim dollar or US dollar?

Barely half a year after the long overdue abandonment of the hapless Zimbabwe dollar, the government appears to be debating its resuscitation, as if they do not have more important things to do. It is as if these guys absolutely have no idea about the real challenges facing the country at this critical time. Do they really think that the color of money matters to ordinary folk? This sort of conversation is truly silly and has more to do with the oversize ego of Robert Mugabe and the narrow interests of a small group of the well connected and powerful who used to make a killing trading worthless zimdollars for real currencies than with the improvement of the lot of the poor.
The government must focus its attention on creating conditions conducive to the stabilization and growth of the Zimbabwe economy and the creation of jobs for the millions of unemployed young people. Unaccompanied by real reforms, such as the control of wasteful spending (e.g. vehicles for parliamentarians to parade at growth points) , neither the rand nor the US dollar will deliver economic salvation. It is also clear that the government should divest from businesses that would be better run by private concerns (newspapers, television, airlines, food processing, mining). If there is one thing we can all agree on, it is that government has neither the skill nor the creativity needed to run a business of any kind. The main reason why the government has tentacles in every major sector of the economy is for Mugabe to maintain a patronage system in order to shore up his shrinking support base.
Zimbabweans must realize that the only way to bring about a more prosperous future is by making it attractive for those who have investment capital to make money in our country. Much as we may not like the looks and practices of some of the bearers of this much needed capital injection, the nature and size of our needs is such that we have no real alternatives. This is what should be causing the government sleepless nights, not the color of money.

Right path, wrong path

The IMF says the Zimbabwe economy is mending, according to reports. The government says its revenues have grown exponentially over the past six months: from a paltry $6 million to about $70 million. Now that's progress of sorts. We are not told what has been fueling this growth. Is it from excise duty on beer and cigarettes which were identified as the major sources of revenue a few months ago or has the government found other sources of income? As long as these revenues are being raised from increasing economic activity within Zimbabwe, that has got to be good news: after all, where else can the economy go but up?
What confounds some of us are the priorities of our supposedly cash-strapped government, one of which is to buy trucks for members of parliament so that they can go back to the rural areas and parade them at shrinking points. Just what is it that these MPs are supposed to be doing with these trucks in an environment where there is virtually no money for the government to spend on capital expenditure or infrastructural initiatives? What can an MP deliver under these difficult circumstances except endless meetings where unfulfillable promises are made to unsuspecting villagers who have probably been distracted from doing more worthwhile activities?

Zoombabwe or Zombiebwe?

Sometimes I wonder loudly about the most appropriate name for the land of my birth and love: the land of Munhumutapa, Changamire and Lobengula. It certainly does not look like the House of Stone right now; it feels more like a zoo or even a land of zombies. Ancient Zimbabweans were not afraid to challenge tyranny, domestic or foreign, preferring to die free, rather than live as slaves. The experiences of the early Portuguese adventure seekers and their British successors tell the story of a people that valued their dignity above any other consideration. That was why Changamire invaded northern Zimbabwe in the late seventeenth century to dislodge the Munhumutapa who had become a Portuguese vassal; that was why Lobengula chose to resist British rule under Rhodes than be co-opted and humiliated.
Not so in our own time, of course. Citizens are treated with utter contempt and denied their basic rights, such as the right to a passport, on flimsy grounds. The only way you can get a travel document is if you know someone inside an embassy who can then certify your Zimbabweanness! Otherwise, as one embassy official said to me, you are in tough luck. Having a Zimbabwean birth certificate is not proof of citizenship, we are told. You must have a national identity card. What if you left Zimbabwe as a child who was under the age of obtaining a national identity card? You are in tough luck!
This is a circus. First off, you cannot obtain a national identity card without a birth certificate, thus underlying the supremacy of the birth certificate over all other forms of identity. Logically, if you have a Zimbabwean birth certificate, it is safe to assume you are a Zimbabwean in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
To the Zoombabwe (or is it Zombiebwe?) government, figuring out simple and straightforward stuff like this is like studying cosmology, the origin and fate of the universe itself! This regime, this transitional regime, is not about serving the interests of the people of Zimbabwe but about rescuing the political careers of one or two people: Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai.
Mchini wami, mchini wami!

For the good of the country!

One of the more interesting things we have heard from Morgan Tsvangirai (Zimbabwe's hapless transitional prime minister) recently is that Johannes Tomana(Zimbabwe's attorney general whose appointment is in dispute) and Gideon Gono ( the money grabbing Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe governor) should both resign for the good of the country. Giving the Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt, and assuming that the resignation of these two men will deliver a new era of accountability in government, I am willing to call on these two men to quit.
However, I remain unpersuaded that such a development would be anything more than a political victory for the prime minister. I simply cannot believe that the departure of these men will change the opinion of a large number of people who must loosen their purse strings by way of investing in Zimbabwe or by providing bilateral aid. The prime minister knows, as do most Zimbabweans, that the real obstacle to the reintegration of Zimbabwe into the world economy is the continued presence and dominance of one person: Robert Mugabe.
Gono and Tomana are mere manifestations of the ailment at the heart of Zimbabwe's quarter century in the economic wilderness: the 'failure of leadership' so eloquently expressed by Madiba. Zimbabweans get it and, on this particular matter, the prime minister is behind the curve. As long as Mugabe is in place, it will be very difficult to convince investors, foreign and Zimbabwean, that there is a new political dispensation in the country.
Maybe the prime minister should have said or start saying: Robert Mugabe should retire for the good of the country.

That media law!

For about twenty years after independence, Zimbabwe had virtually no law governing the operations of newspapers. One did not need to talk to a single official in government to be able to start a newspaper. The only form one might have opted to fill in was to apply for special newspaper postage rates at the post office. Indeed, one did not need a press card to be able to report on any news; press cards were quite useful for entering soccer matches and after event parties but pretty much useless otherwise. In any case, obtaining a press card was a five minute affair which was freely provided by pleasant ministry staff at Liquenda house. This is not ancient history. Why can't we go back to that same beautiful place in recent history and let the sunlight disinfect our rotten republic? The electronic media was a different story altogether, being tightly controlled by the regime to this very day. I suggest that this is the area towards which reform efforts should be addressed, so that we can increase the players and spur competition and hopefully, permanently undermine the government's dominance of this sector.
All media workers should demand the restoration of the status quo ante with regards to the print media and insisit on government becoming a minor or non-player in both the broadcast and print media. On the internet, innovation should be left to thrive with no government role, except perhaps to expand broadband access across the country.
Parliament should only pass laws which increase or enhance the freedom of the people to access information, rather than protect the political and economic interests of the chosen few who(surprise! surprise!) also happen to be in government. As much as possible, only common law should govern the non-technical aspects of the news business, I say.

From Obama to Mugabe, with love

It is not unlikely that Barack Obama gave Morgan Tsvangirai a personal message to convey to Tsvangirai's partner in the transitional authority (am I the only one who finds it offensive to call him president?) Robert Mugabe? What could possibly be the contents of such a private communication? I think I know.
Dear sir, May I take the opportunity to thank you for leading the fight to liberate Zimbabwe and the southern African region from the yoke of colonialism and apartheid. As a young man, I was inspired by your leadership of the Zimbabwe independence struggle. I was unable to make it to the celebrations in 1980 but it was one of the more memorable events of my teenage days. I was equally impressed by your stance against apartheid in South Africa, in the years leading to its demise in the early 1990s.
As William Shakespeare said:"the evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones". I am concerned by the looming probability that your heroic works will be overshadowed by the sad events of the last several years, in which thousands of Zimbabweans have been directly victimized by their government under your leadership. Millions of others have died needlessly because of the choices you have made.
It may not be too late to salvage your legacy. For example, you could earn a windfall of goodwill by acknowledging the mistakes of the past twenty five years and doing good by the victims. You could then call a national indaba at which you will publicly bless the younger generation of leaders all political parties. You could say something like this: "It is not a secret that I am now a very old man, so old that I need my back to be soothed with cow dung from time to time (try some humour). The only thing I ever wanted was to free my people from colonial domination and I succeeded. Your generation must decide what its own objectives are and try to fulfil them, without me. Do not make the same mistakes that I made by not thinking twenty five years ahead. Think more about where our people will be in twenty five years, than about winning the next elections. Compete fairly for political power and above all, submit yourselves to the wishes of the people of Zimbabwe knowing that ultimately, the collective wisdom of the people is just."
I can assure you that if you did that, you would give yourself an opportunity to rehabilitate your good name. You could also find time to write those long awaited memoirs and if you needed a publisher, I would be happy to recommend one.
For my part, I will do everything in my power to help Zimbabweans put behind the lost opportunities of the past quarter century and re-ignite the promise of Munhumutapa!

No begging bowl in hand?

Morgan Tsvangirai is currently on a Magellanic (no pun intended!) journey around the western world, to ask for help to get Zimbabwe on its feet again, "without a begging bowl", so he says. But anytime someone volunteers images that have not been suggested, or provides answers to questions that have not been asked, reasonable observers may conclude that such a person is indeed, intimating truths emanating from deep within himself. Thus, we may state here without any danger of exaggerating, that the interim prime minister is holding a begging bowl, at least in his left hand! It's a little bit like passing the collection bowl in church: one does not have to give, but one feels like one is being asked to drop something in there.
I have no doubt that the prime minister will be able to go home with something in his bowl; certainly not as much as he would have hoped, but enough to encourage him to keep trying. Now, I have to confess that I consider the prime minister to be a good man with entirely altruistic motives, hence I wish him well in all his endeavours. However, I think that to expect the West to dig deep into their currently challenged pockets while the prime minister's partner in government, Robert Mugabe, continues to pull all the strings and play hide and seek with him, is a little over-optimistic.
Clearly, nothing that has happened so far is enough to convince critical thinkers that the prime minister has any real authority in Zimbabwe. It just seems that Mugabe is engaged in a protracted struggle to retain power for as long as possible. It may also be that I am caught up in a cyclical argument here, assuming that a release of significant aid by the west could be catalytic to the quest to send Mugabe into oblivion. My fear is that untargeted western aid could be counterproductive in the sense that it could strengthen ZANU-PF's hand by lubricating instruments of repression, not to mention the propaganda opportunity that would fall into Mugabe's lap.
On the other hand (as the prime minister himself has hinted), the west may live to regret its failure to help Tsvangirai if Zimbabwe descends into chaos. Humanitarian aid is fine, but it is not enough, as the Somalia case shows. Granted, the west would be taking a gamble by supporting Tsvangirai but if if all goes well, it could be a wager worth, as Chris De Burgh would say, "the biggest stakes yet: the souls of the dead"! Barack Obama may be the right man to place that bet!

To help or not to help?

I am somewhat conflicted as far as the issue of lifting western sanctions on Robert Mugabe and his cohorts and aiding the so-called inclusive government. On the one hand, I think it would be a mistake for the west to give Mugabe any kind of help; on the other I feel that if the likes of Tendai Biti and Morgan Tsvangirai are saying its time to lift the sanctions, their opinion should carry some weight given what they have endured at the hands of Mugabe over the past decade.
As a matter of principle, I believe that the Zimbabwe government must learn to live within its means and set an example for the people by curtailing wasteful spending.
I fear that the lifting of these minimal sanctions and the attendant access to aid and loans will lead to a stampede for the feeding trough, thus endangering the potential to write a new chapter of responsibility and realism in the management of our country's economic affairs.
The correct approach is for the Zimbabwean government to put in place measures that allow the economy to rebound and grow, gradually lifting the people from the depths of despair. This is not going to happen overnight: those who clamour for instant financial rewards must realize that any improvement in their living standards that is not based on sound economic fundamentals will soon wither away.

A right to bear arms?

Had Tichaona Chiminya and Talent Mabika (and countless other innocent victims, before and since) been armed on that fateful day in Buhera nine years ago, they might have been able to defend themselves. Unfortunately, only criminals sponsored by, and working for, the government, were armed on that day.
Whenever I consider some of the excesses of the past thirty years of ZANU-PF rule under Robert Mugabe, such as the genocidal atrocities perpetrated against innocent civilians in the western provinces during the 1980s; and the more recent murderous assault by the ruling party on farmers and political opponents of all sorts and conditions, across the length and breadth of the country, I experience a melting down of my natural resistance to the free availability of arms.
I just wonder if the behavior of the ruling elites might have been different had they known that their potential victims were lawfully armed and likely to fight back, as individuals and even, as organized groups. My liberal tendencies lead me to instinctively oppose widespread access to arms of all sorts, from small ones to missiles.
In theory, for one to be able to make the transition from one end of the spectrum to the other, one needs evidence showing that armed communities enjoy more political and individual rights. (I emphasize that for me, this is not an issue of public safety, so I am applying Occam’s razor to that line of discussion because it would be another conversation altogether if my original assumption were correct. Granted: there is a direct link between the number of guns in a community and the number of gun-related deaths and injuries).
Those who think only in terms of general safety are, therefore, missing the point. What I am arguing is that there may be a positive correlation between gun ownership and the enjoyment of individual rights such as free speech, association and property.
Let me briefly describe the gun ownership regulations in Zimbabwe, as I understand them. It is basically up to the police (read ZANU-PF or MDC, depending on who is in power) to decide who gets armed or not. Presumably, anyone can apply for a gun license but in general, licenses are reserved for farmers, businesspeople and other well-connected individuals.
The minister of home affairs may, at his or her sole discretion, by way of a so-called statutory instrument (surely one of the most primitive ways of law-making ever), decide who can or cannot own, a gun. The police are the functional licensing authority with respect to civilian firearms ownership.
In practice, what this means is that only members of the uniformed and intelligence services, thugs in the employ of the ruling coalition, and a few favored people, can legally own or carry, guns.
The results of this situation for the rule of law and the enjoyment of peace and political and individual rights, by the people of Zimbabwe, over the past thirty years, are so well documented that there is no need to discuss them here. Suffice it to say that a reasonable observer might wonder if the people of Zimbabwe might have been better off with an inalienable right to bear arms in the constitution. Of course, the Zimbabwe government is not famous for respecting constitutional rights, but it could well have been the case that before the government realized that its hold on power was under threat, the people would have been so well armed already in their villages and towns that the government would have thought twice before taking any action that might cause mass provocation.
It seems obvious that ruling party thugs would think twice before trying to drag a man from his home in the middle of the night or forcing people to attend political gatherings against their better wishes. Even the police would have second thoughts about exposing themselves to public anger unnecessarily by, for example, arresting people for simply enjoying their freedom of assembly and speech rights. We would all be better off, I suspect, if roles were reversed, and the government actually feared the people and not the other way round!
There are economic benefits to be derived from widespread gun ownership, to be sure. There would be many new shops selling and repairing guns and their accessories, along with a cluster of new jobs, perhaps. But that’s not the raison d’etre of this proposal.
Will there be those who use their guns to settle personal scores? No doubt. But should we punish the rest of the people because a tiny minority of them will commit crimes? I think not.
I am not suggesting that any adult person should be able to own a gun. There would have to be a system in place to screen applicants for specified crimes and other pertinent issues. Individuals would be required to undergo some form of training in the use of firearms before they are allowed to own arms. And those who committed crimes with their guns would have them permanently confiscated, by operation of the law. But it should not be up to some ruling party politician to decide who can or cannot own a gun; that decision ought to be the subject of an opinion of the people expressed through the constitution.
I would sweeten the deal for those opposed to my proposal by suggesting that freedom to own arms be instituted on an interim basis and be subject to public review every ten years. It may also be necessary to remove the licensing power (not the enforcement power) from the police by setting up a separate bureaucracy wholly funded by those who want to own guns. In other words, nobody who is not a gun owner will be forced to pay for the enjoyment of this right through taxes. If all goes well, and politicians begin to fear the people, then I would be happy to get rid of such a provision at the earliest possible opportunity. Those who say that an MDC-led future government will be more enlightened than ZANU-PF are mistaken purveyors of naivety. We heard similar stories in 1980. Nothing should be left to chance.
We know that the government will always have more and bigger guns, but I suspect that any government that consistently and willfully violates the rights of an armed people will soon find itself in serious trouble. It is precisely for this reason that the Zimbabwe government (including the current ruling coalition) will find this proposal to be truly alarming: they want to be the only ones “armed and dangerous”!
I know that many of my liberal friends will see this as an outrageously retrogressive suggestion, if not outright, right wing insanity. But if you asked me who, between a historically and potentially murderous and intrusive bureaucracy and a populace chastened by decades of political repression, should be armed, that would not be a mind-wrenching decision for me.
Umchini wami, mchini wami!

Zimbabwe and North Korea

Are the North Koreans suicidal? I mean, do they crave for national annihilation? I have no way of knowing the answer to these questions. I would rather assume that they are motivated by the same stimuli that move us all, perhaps with a strong orientation in a particular direction determined by their place in history and on the globe. I assume that self-preservation is their number one motive, followed by pride, anchored in prejudice. Fully human.It is clear that they will use their capacity to build nuclear weapons as their chief instrument to preserve their interests, in this case the interests of the ruling elite.Recently the arrival of a North Korean diplomat in Zimbabwe was greeted by local protests about the mass killings committed by a North Korean trained brigade in the 1980s, thus masking the real purpose of the visit. Within days, a South Korean delegation was in Zimbabwe, bestowing an honorary tae-kwondo belt on the country's octogenarian president.Why this Korean interest in Zimbabwe? Simple enough: Zimbabwe has known uranium reserves which the North would love to lay their hands upon, something which the South would like to prevent. I suspect the South will prevail by writing a miserly check given Zimbabwe's dire circumstances, but those who think Mugabe's relationship with the North is purely nostalgic are mistaken.

Passports for cash!

Recently the "terrible" twin ministers of Zimbabwe's home affairs ministry jointly announced, without so much as a whiff of embarrassment, that the fee for a Zimbabwe passport had been reduced from about US$600 to about US$170. The response from Zimbabweans was shatteringly silent and predictably apathetic. It was as if the new price was a bargain. One cannot think of a better example of governing of thieves, by thieves, for thieves! There cannot be any logical reason for charging that kind of money for this particular passport, especially when compared with what other countries are charging.Here is my question: who, in this bungling so-called inclusive regime, actually believes that US$170 is a reasonable fee for a passport in a country where most people live on less than two dollars a day? How come patently ridiculous decisions like this are made with no-one pointing out that this is no less than an attempt by the government to balance its books on the backs of the desperate and poor?And why has there been no uproar in the Zimbabwean community? Where, oh where is the outrage?In moments like this, I am inclined to agree with those who say Zimbabweans deserve their lot.

New constitution must allow dual nationality

We have been hearing a lot about the controversy surrounding the constitution-making process in Zimbabwe; that Lovemore Madhuku and the NCA want to be in charge of the process; that Robert Mugabe and his ZANU-PF want to stick to the so-called Kariba compact and that the MDC formations seem ready to compromise one way or the other. Not surprisingly, the formations do not seem to have strong opinions about a whole lot of things these days, except, perhaps, their desire to hold on to the peripheral and frugal margins of political power in the hope that they are on the right side of history.What we do not hear much about is what should be in that constitution. I am not suggesting that the process of bringing about a new constitution is not critical to the outcome; no doubt a constitution making process driven by ruling coalition politicians will result in a constitution that takes care of the interests of politicians at the expense of common sense, let alone the long term interests of peasants, workers and other disadvantaged groups.However, since there is not a whole lot of time to come up with a new constitution, and given that the dueling over the process is likely to dominate the conversation over the next few months, those of us who care as much about the content of the document as we do about the process of putting it together, should now begin to think more specifically about we would like to see in the final product.I am told that the current constitution does not allow for dual citizenship. I do not know the thinking behind this prohibition. If I were to guess, I would have to say that it was probably a decision targeted at those who were fleeing from black majority rule and who may have been in a position to use dual nationality to sabotage the new order. We are facing an entirely different set of circumstances this time and we ought to seriously consider allowing the issue of dual nationality in a calm and rational manner. Unfortunately, some of the current crop of politicians may not be equipped for such a thoughtful approach.One of the potential benefits of the current economically induced dispersion is that there are hundreds of thousands of Zimbabwean children born or bred abroad. There also are thousands of Zimbabweans who have become permanent residents of other countries, enjoying the benefits that accrue with such status. In a sense, some of these people will naturally have a dual allegiance to the country of their birth and the country of their (or their parents') origin.It may be that many of them will be able to quickly decide on their citizenship. Have no doubt though, that there will be many who will be torn between two or more countries. I submit that these children and their parents should have the opportunity to choose dual citizenship.Over the past few months, we have heard calls for Zimbabweans to return home to rebuild the country. I do not expect to see large-scale movement on this front until some of the concerns of those in the Diaspora about what this would mean for their family circumstances and with regards to some of the benefits they may have earned while living abroad.Obviously, if one has spent the best days of one's life in another country, one has probably earned some benefits that one would not want to forgo. Besides, not all members of the same family may decide to stay or leave, but they should have the assurance that they do not have to choose between their family and their country. If it is true that Zimbabwe needs these people more than they need her, then we ought to be flexible about how we help them to make what may be a very difficult decision.Even if such dual nationality were accompanied by certain minimum conditions and restrictions, it just seems to me that it ought to be an option. I suspect that Zimbabwe would be the chief beneficiary of such an arrangement because many people in the Diaspora are likely to have received a decent education and would have cultural and language skills that enable them to function effectively in a globalizing world. It would be a tragedy to tell these people that either they are with us or against us!Is it possible to make a reasonable case against dual nationality? I suspect so. Many countries have dual citizenship and we should be able to learn from some of their experiences. At a minimum, the constitution-making body should study this matter. I realize that there may be a nativist and visceral opposition to dual citizenship. Others equate it to "trying to have the best of both worlds". The least that we could do is to fail to even debate the desirability or otherwise of such a provision.But then again, I may be preaching to the converted!