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!
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Saturday, June 27, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, June 15, 2009
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!
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!
Thursday, June 11, 2009
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!
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!
Sunday, June 7, 2009
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.
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.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)