This weblog is supposed to be in part about my travels and impressions of South Africa, which I have been neglecting. So, today I am going to Jo'burg. Well, not really, but I am bringing you along anyway. let's leave from the flat in Sunnyside, a place with a moribund reputation, repulsive high-rise residential buildings coiffed with barbed wire. Earlier this week the car I had been driving was spirited away in front of our lovely flat and so we won't be driving to Jo'burg. Let's walk to the taxi rank in Central Pretoria, it's not too far, but not the most beautiful walk.
The traffic is heavy and taxis hoot at everyone who is walking to say: "HEY! you are walking; could it be that you want a taxi, but just forgot to signal it to me?" It is November and the jacaranda trees are no longer in bloom and the carpet of purple flowers has rotten or been swept away. We are almost there, to our right is the department of home affairs where you could be struggling to get a visa to stay here.
We have arrived finally. The sun is hot and the idea of being stuffed in a taxi is dreadful, but we get our passes at the office and look for the taxi going to Jo'burg. It is easy to find it as there is a queu in front and we have to wait for a couple of taxis to leave before we can get a seat.
Taxis here usually sit between 15 and 22 people and fortunately much of the fleet has been upgraded to new Toyata or Mercedes combis, most likely to prepare for 2010. Unfortunately, when our turn comes we get one of the older ones; we are in for some rattling squeezed in between sits. We get into the front seats so I have enough room for my legs. If it were a inner-city taxi we would be handling the change for everyone in the back, so be prepared to use some serious mental calculation skills if you sit in the front.
The taxi is now leaving, and we are alost immediately on the freeway. On the way out of Pretoria we pass the mastodonic building of the University of South Africa and we can see the shape of the bland Voortreker monument against a beautiful sky populated by immense clouds giving life to all fantasies. We chose the right time to leave, traffic is not yet congealed and we are going full speed. About an hour and the traffic would have been thick and slowed down to snail pace.
We are now in Midrand, the suburb between Pretoria and Johannesburg. Here monotonous buildings spread the way American suburbs have revolutionized urban planning. The landscape is complemented with big billboards advertising various products whose makers are most likely close-by. After a short building-less space in the landscape, a series of business parks pop-up; let's call it Multi-National Corporation lane. The name is a little lackluster, but appropriate. L'Oreal, Toyota, Motorola, Samsung, Vodacom the names bordering MNCL are colorful enough, representing countries from all over the world. The stretch between the two cities is a concentrate of what capitalism has to deliver, sprawling suburbs, throngs of cars, big corporations and the bouquet final, a giant mall!
Then, suddenly we are in Jo'burg. Everybody in the taxi is hot and windows are opened. We are in the northern part where gargantuan mansions sit behind 30 feet high walls. It is in fact all there is to see, high walls and if the steet were silent we would be able to hear the ticking sound that characterizes electric fences. But soon, we are out from between the walls and reach Hillbrow.
Hillbrow is similar to Sunnyside, it is a neighborhood with a shady reputation. The decripate high rise buildings are here, dirty streets, peddlers and many people loitering and walking up and down the streets, a sad picture for one of the mythical neighborhoods of Jo'burg. Before too long we come to a stop, in front, the street is packed with other taxis inching toward the taxi rank. We are next to Joubert Park where I have heard it is not safe for people of my color to venture. Still, this is where we get off for it is faster to walk than to wait at this point. As soon as we step out of the taxi we have to be extremely attentive, the flow of people is unremitting and we have to slalom through the generally very slow pace of the mass.
But there we are, central Jo'burg...where should we go next?
Friday, October 31, 2008
Friday, October 24, 2008
Kill the dogs and cockroaches
I won't say anything about the inhumanity of killing dogs and cockroaches, though most will disagree about the latter, but when theses terms are applied to humans, there is a serious problem. The ANC youth league has been having issues of that sort. They have incited people in Namibia to kill political opposition members; likewise in South Africa about the politicians who are breaking away from the mother party. This after affirming that the youth league is ready to kill for Zuma on a automatic rifle shaped placard. These are just words; there is no evidence that any one has put them into action... yet. But this is far from being acceptable of a country that has fought for so many year for its freedom from oppression and want to set an example of good governance for the region.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
One step closer
Jacob Zuma drove another nail into the coffin of multi-party democracy. He visited the U.S. full of confidence concerning his future and the future of his party.
Fortunately, he boasted about the qualities of democracy in South Africa before trampling its very principles. I want to believe he can be a good leader and that democracy really is strong in South Africa, but will people really react in time if the leadership goes astray?
Good thing he believes in the resilience of the people of South Africa, they will likely need it. I hope that like parliamentary member Tony Leon commented, the schism within the ANC will be good for democracy.
We, however, maintain that the ANC will govern South Africa for many decades to come. That is because no other organisation has put forward policies that convincingly counter those of our movement. Most opposition parties spend their time criticising the ANC instead of putting forward convincing policy alternatives. The dissident group has fallen into the same trap, exploiting anger at losing leadership positions.
Fortunately, he boasted about the qualities of democracy in South Africa before trampling its very principles. I want to believe he can be a good leader and that democracy really is strong in South Africa, but will people really react in time if the leadership goes astray?
Good thing he believes in the resilience of the people of South Africa, they will likely need it. I hope that like parliamentary member Tony Leon commented, the schism within the ANC will be good for democracy.
What would Jesus do?
Maybe Jesus is not the best person to ask about investments; he could always confer with his pals. A recent article reported Zimbabwe as the best investment opportunity in Africa, surprising since Zimbabwe's economy has reached abysmal levels. While inflation continues to soar at exponential speed and unemployment is better than employment rates in the best economies, the Zimbabwe stock exchange rose 241%, enough to make the depressed people of Wall Street go through the rainbow colors with jealousy.
South African firms are considering investing large sums in Zimbabwe. They have an advantage in that their knowledge of the regional market is better than most and that they are right next door. The mining sector in Zimbabwe is starved for capital, the cell phone industry has gone into a shell, food retailing... well 5 million in need of food assistance says enough. All of these are sectors in which South Africa has major players, but Mugabe still maintains a stranglehold on the economy and the flow of assets which precludes investors from going in, or rather come back out with their profits.
That is where Jesus comes into play. As an omniscient and ethical investor, what would he do? There are potentially vast returns to be collected, and many jobs to be created, these are good things. South African (and others) investments could help jump start the Zimbabwean economy if it reaches the path to recovery. But the downside is that there is still no sign that the economy is even facing in the right direction and that Mugabe is relaxing his grip, which means the risks are still prohibitively high for most and that a fair amount of the money will probably bolster the Mugabe regime. South Africa has already been criticized for not pulling out completely of Zimbabwe; the question is do these investments do more harm than good?
South African firms are considering investing large sums in Zimbabwe. They have an advantage in that their knowledge of the regional market is better than most and that they are right next door. The mining sector in Zimbabwe is starved for capital, the cell phone industry has gone into a shell, food retailing... well 5 million in need of food assistance says enough. All of these are sectors in which South Africa has major players, but Mugabe still maintains a stranglehold on the economy and the flow of assets which precludes investors from going in, or rather come back out with their profits.
That is where Jesus comes into play. As an omniscient and ethical investor, what would he do? There are potentially vast returns to be collected, and many jobs to be created, these are good things. South African (and others) investments could help jump start the Zimbabwean economy if it reaches the path to recovery. But the downside is that there is still no sign that the economy is even facing in the right direction and that Mugabe is relaxing his grip, which means the risks are still prohibitively high for most and that a fair amount of the money will probably bolster the Mugabe regime. South Africa has already been criticized for not pulling out completely of Zimbabwe; the question is do these investments do more harm than good?
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
South Africa slowly but surely sliding
I don't think it would have a very long life span, I would be surprised," he said. "What kind of alternative policies could you put across alternate to the ANC, that would challenge the ANC?
The quote is from Jacob Zuma, in shining splendor, delineating his plan for a one party democracy. The ANC is a comprehensive party it includes both left wing and right wing ideologies and follows a relatively solid political agenda. But Zuma is arrogant to claim that there is no viable alternative when he has been shouting that he is an alternative. He has big plans for South Africa, he is going to change things and finally act on all the promises the ANC made. Mbeki was a stolid intellectual with training in economics from the UK. Zuma is a left-winger with a lot of rhetoric and muscle; this difference of leadership in itself is an alternative. If a solid party were to emerge from Mbeki's political demise, it would have strong grounds to contest Zuma’s politics, unless Zuma compromises pragmatically his policies. If Zuma adopts the best of the policies of the ANC of Mbeki and post Mbeki, then it’s true that alternatives become less obvious, because the ANC branch which retains the name, would still represent the myth of the liberation party with at its head a “freedom fighter,” this still has immense weight; a weight the party uses righteously to purge itself of dissenters. Three much needed cheers for democracy, please.
Let's blame!
The apartheid system that ended in 1994 is to blame for the devastating effects of poverty and unemployment in South Africa. The result is increased crime, escalating HIV/AIDS cases and family disabilities, according to Rev. Faleni Mzukisi of the Presbyterian Church of Africa in Nyanga, Cape Town.
Speaking to participants of the WACC 2008 Congress who visited the Gugulethu Presbyterian Church 8 October, Mzukisi said that although apartheid was a terrible crime against humanity that left people with deep scars, poverty was an even worse crime.
The Church blames apartheid for the current state of South Africa and effectively makes most countries, if not all, guilty of an horrendous crime against humanity. If Poverty is a crime, then we need someone to blame. One Church in South Africa chose apartheid, Mugabe in neighboring Zimbabwe chose colonialism (funny how similar the two views are,incidently, not the only one on which Mugabe and the Church are in agreement). In fact, many people blame some form or other of colonialism for many of the woes crippling Africa to this day.
Recently, I have come across unconventional opinions about blaming in Africa. For some reason they tend to come from Ghana; perhaps, they have become more sagacious since it was the first county to gain independence on the continent. They claim that Africans have to stop blaming others and start blaming themselves for the civil wars, genocides, econocides, politicides, etc... Colonialism has had some terrible consequences and left much confusion and desperation in its wake, but it’s been almost 60 years for Ghana. On the other hand, South Africa has gained majority rule only 14 years ago, yet it is by far the most prosperous country in Africa and one of the most successful among the emerging economies. But, yes, many buts. There is no doubt the South African transition has not delivered on many of the promises (read entry below).
I decided to blame as well since we are playing a global blame game. I blame religions for one, they seem overly protected from criticism. I am aware that there is no lack of religion bashing, but is there too much yet? Religion was one of the biggest agents of colonialism, the religion that the reverend belongs to was brought by the very men he is blaming for the poverty of his country. Africa is relatively free of religious conflicts if we exclude all the countries on the border of Christianity and Islam, about a dozen. But let's not limit to Africa for once, religion is a source of conflict. One only needs to read the news daily to realize that.
AIDS is another issue that sullies religion's hands. Even if we ignore that God should be the creator of the disease as the Creator (and all others diseases for that matter), the Church is also responsible for refusing to promote condoms and comprehensive sexual education; in a world where millions are sexually abused, religion sure is doing a great job.
Apartheid was an inhumane system based on institutionalized discrimination against non-whites; the Church did not support that, although surprisingly many of the architects and supporters of that system were devout church-goers. How strange, same God, right? But, now, we are talking about now after all. Well, religions repeatedly spreads a homophobic creed, denying the right of homosexuals to enjoy the same rights as their heterosexual kin, there's a name for that I think… discrimination; I'm sure pious and virtuous people are against that. Yet, hate crimes against homosexuals is commonplace here and around the world, surely they cannot condone that, but after all homosexuals are sinners, as such they deserve to be stoned or something, so says the Book I believe.
On the other hand, religion-based organisations are some of the biggest contributors to humanitarian causes, probably the biggest after states. So they do some good after all, not withstanding all the strings attached to promote moral integrity. Last weekend superstar preacher from Dallas, Texas came to Johannesburg to spread the good word. It's fatastic to see that religions give back to the families that were killed for not believing in the right version of God, for the diseases God helped permeate societies, the millions abused in silence because God instated certain rules concerning molestation by its messengers, rape by its servants, honor killing by its pious families, genital cutting, empty promises of a better life all because... because it's God in all its benevolence.
They really give back, a little, a fraction of what they receive, benevolent and selfless indeed. Religion can still afford some of the most extravagant and ostentatious buildings, it still asks the believers for their money so that the messenger can drive a BMW, have several wives, just so that the messenger can live with dignity while the servants slave away to bring back something to donate. I am done being tolerant of such infamy, but one cannot generalize.
I am taking easy shots and chose to ignore all the complexities of religion, for it is very complex and being pious is one of the hardest things to accomplish. Many outstanding individuals who act in the name of God try to set an example: Desmond Tutu, Mother Theresa, the Pope. Well they certainly are outstanding messengers, but they are, more often than not, guilty of some of my reproaches. South Africa is a country beset by crime, AIDS and inequality; it is a heavy burden for a pious nation, but there is apartheid to blame.
Much information in parantheses
Recently, I went to Johannesburg and Soweto; every excursion in the urban jungles of Gauteng Province is fascinating. On the way there you see giant billboards telling you how to invest in real estate with an SMS (you can do almost anything with SMS here, help prevent crime, find true love, get insurance…). Once I get off the taxi, I’m back in the unfamiliar feeling of having to navigate the crowds. In the middle of this permanent assault on senses, one sees shopping carts stacked with severed cow heads cutting through the throngs of hawker, shoppers and people. Still, I tried to look at my surroundings a little more this time even though the hustle and bustle of the streets requires all your attention.
Inner-cities in the Untied States are a collection of dilapidated buildings empty streets and drug dealers, at least that’s the image we are often presented with. Here, it is similar, dilapidated buildings rise high into the sky and the streets are full of activity, surely, the drug dealers are somewhere to be found. No matter how you look at it, however, the picture does not convey the same sense of despair that American inner-cities are known for. The reality is more complex of course, but that’s a snapshot.
Gauteng is by far the wealthiest province in South Africa (income is 82% above national average representing 36% of national income) so it offers a distorted vision of the country, but I found an interesting report that gives a general statistical point of view. Statistics implies a lot of distortion as well, but we like them so much that it’s hard to pass the opportunity.
South Africa has one of the highest inequality rates in the world (Gini index-a measure of inequality- of 58, by comparison Sweden has an index of 25), yet I’m going to argue that the present situation is not as bad as it is in the United States and many wealthy countries.
In 2005/2006 the richest 10% South African had an average income 94 times superior to the poorest 10%, the bottom decile represented 0.2% of all income, the top decile 51%; that’s some big disparity. Income of the 10% poorest, however, went up 79% between 2000 and 2005 in real terms (the biggest increase of all groups) which brought the average from around R2500 to R4500. In context, the average income of the poorest 10% went from below extreme poverty (as measure by international standards at $1.25 per day) to being safely above. The big percentage doesn’t correspond to much (less than one additional dollar a day), but it makes a significant difference (these measures do not take into account purchasing power parity). At the same time the average income of the richest 10% went up 37% which corresponds to a big increase when the income is already high. These figures, nevertheless, pale in comparison to the U.S. where the the richest have income 440 times higher than the poorest and income for the bottom 90% is not keeping up with inflation.
In South Africa you cannot ignore the different population groups. The black population represents 80% of the total, but only 41% of income. Blacks constitute more than 90% of the four poorest deciles while only 17% of the top decile. The white population (9% of the population) represents less than 5% in each of the first seven deciles, but 72.7% of the top decile. The smaller coloured and Asian/Indian populations occupy mostly the top half of the chart. You can look at this data in two ways. One is to say that the system of apartheid is still very much in place with the majority of black Africans facing abject poverty while the white population enjoys the bulk of the wealth of the country. The other way is to accept that it has been only 14 years and that now Black Africans are getting closer to represent a commensurate percentage of the top half of the board with the exception of the top two deciles (48% and 17% respectively). The black middle class grew 15% in just one year. Furthermore, income is increasing for everyone, fastest for the poorest, mostly through redistribution at this point. The road remains long and tumultuous, but is paved with high, though fragile, hopes. It is a matter of not stomping on them.
Inner-cities in the Untied States are a collection of dilapidated buildings empty streets and drug dealers, at least that’s the image we are often presented with. Here, it is similar, dilapidated buildings rise high into the sky and the streets are full of activity, surely, the drug dealers are somewhere to be found. No matter how you look at it, however, the picture does not convey the same sense of despair that American inner-cities are known for. The reality is more complex of course, but that’s a snapshot.
Gauteng is by far the wealthiest province in South Africa (income is 82% above national average representing 36% of national income) so it offers a distorted vision of the country, but I found an interesting report that gives a general statistical point of view. Statistics implies a lot of distortion as well, but we like them so much that it’s hard to pass the opportunity.
South Africa has one of the highest inequality rates in the world (Gini index-a measure of inequality- of 58, by comparison Sweden has an index of 25), yet I’m going to argue that the present situation is not as bad as it is in the United States and many wealthy countries.
In 2005/2006 the richest 10% South African had an average income 94 times superior to the poorest 10%, the bottom decile represented 0.2% of all income, the top decile 51%; that’s some big disparity. Income of the 10% poorest, however, went up 79% between 2000 and 2005 in real terms (the biggest increase of all groups) which brought the average from around R2500 to R4500. In context, the average income of the poorest 10% went from below extreme poverty (as measure by international standards at $1.25 per day) to being safely above. The big percentage doesn’t correspond to much (less than one additional dollar a day), but it makes a significant difference (these measures do not take into account purchasing power parity). At the same time the average income of the richest 10% went up 37% which corresponds to a big increase when the income is already high. These figures, nevertheless, pale in comparison to the U.S. where the the richest have income 440 times higher than the poorest and income for the bottom 90% is not keeping up with inflation.
In South Africa you cannot ignore the different population groups. The black population represents 80% of the total, but only 41% of income. Blacks constitute more than 90% of the four poorest deciles while only 17% of the top decile. The white population (9% of the population) represents less than 5% in each of the first seven deciles, but 72.7% of the top decile. The smaller coloured and Asian/Indian populations occupy mostly the top half of the chart. You can look at this data in two ways. One is to say that the system of apartheid is still very much in place with the majority of black Africans facing abject poverty while the white population enjoys the bulk of the wealth of the country. The other way is to accept that it has been only 14 years and that now Black Africans are getting closer to represent a commensurate percentage of the top half of the board with the exception of the top two deciles (48% and 17% respectively). The black middle class grew 15% in just one year. Furthermore, income is increasing for everyone, fastest for the poorest, mostly through redistribution at this point. The road remains long and tumultuous, but is paved with high, though fragile, hopes. It is a matter of not stomping on them.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Didn't have much time to write on my blog or check my Blackberry, sorry,
In between meetings with the VIP of development, Bono has been blogging with his mate Jeff Sachs. Bono, ever optimistic, demands that the encouraging stats concerning the progress towards achieving the MDGs be decimated. I guess I just did my good deed for the day.
The reason for the blogging is that this last week has been an important one for people who follow the trends of aid to developing countries closely. French president Nicholas Sarkozy is spearheading the movement this year and is pushing for a unilateral increase in aid to the pledged 0.7% of GDP.
There is a problem, uh, several in fact. As President Sarkozy has noted last week there is new competition coming from China. Chinese aid usually has no string attached and flows to countries that often have a long and ornate record of human rights violation. This paper gives an overview as to why trade with China affects the traders’ economy.
Bono, in his praise of Japanese PM and jovial interaction based on comic books, overlooked something rather important. Japanese aid can be traced to many of the success stories of development, but what role did Japanese aid play? I don’t want to be a cynical in the face of Bono’s optimism, but Japan’s approach to aid has been criticized for its heavy emphasis on infrastructural development and… that’s it. It’s nice, but doesn’t go very far to create the so desired ideal of sustainable development. Maybe I have a capacity for darkness like my new favorite fictional character Alan Shore, but when Bono double wows about talks to tackle Malaria by 2015, I say, wait for 2015 before getting excited, and second, what will happen to the millions saved from the deadly bite of mosquitoes? One often forgets, there is no one issue that stands alone in development (I can’t believe I’m tying in all the information I’ve read about into one entry inadvertently…)
This explains why many of the MDGs have seen so little progress in Africa; one of the most sordid cases is child mortality. So, Bono and consorts, thank you for the good news and the efforts, but to this day, I’m afraid we prefer to focus on the bad news and what remains to be done. As Chris Blattman (whom I am grateful to for providing me with much of the this information) wrote the MDG are purely humanitarian and do little to improve the the immediate needs of African countries to spur growth (Life is not all about economic growth, but it helps, no?).
I must say I am very biased, I find Bono’s attitude often repulsive (I truly hope it is only a façade), but to his credit he provides exactly what many, many people want to see and hear, so I am compelled to give him credit for what he does, as far as I know he still does more good than harm. It is good to know that we are making progress, but we would be fooling ourselves to think that the task is anything less than daunting, and aid alone will not solve much.
The reason for the blogging is that this last week has been an important one for people who follow the trends of aid to developing countries closely. French president Nicholas Sarkozy is spearheading the movement this year and is pushing for a unilateral increase in aid to the pledged 0.7% of GDP.
There is a problem, uh, several in fact. As President Sarkozy has noted last week there is new competition coming from China. Chinese aid usually has no string attached and flows to countries that often have a long and ornate record of human rights violation. This paper gives an overview as to why trade with China affects the traders’ economy.
Bono, in his praise of Japanese PM and jovial interaction based on comic books, overlooked something rather important. Japanese aid can be traced to many of the success stories of development, but what role did Japanese aid play? I don’t want to be a cynical in the face of Bono’s optimism, but Japan’s approach to aid has been criticized for its heavy emphasis on infrastructural development and… that’s it. It’s nice, but doesn’t go very far to create the so desired ideal of sustainable development. Maybe I have a capacity for darkness like my new favorite fictional character Alan Shore, but when Bono double wows about talks to tackle Malaria by 2015, I say, wait for 2015 before getting excited, and second, what will happen to the millions saved from the deadly bite of mosquitoes? One often forgets, there is no one issue that stands alone in development (I can’t believe I’m tying in all the information I’ve read about into one entry inadvertently…)
This explains why many of the MDGs have seen so little progress in Africa; one of the most sordid cases is child mortality. So, Bono and consorts, thank you for the good news and the efforts, but to this day, I’m afraid we prefer to focus on the bad news and what remains to be done. As Chris Blattman (whom I am grateful to for providing me with much of the this information) wrote the MDG are purely humanitarian and do little to improve the the immediate needs of African countries to spur growth (Life is not all about economic growth, but it helps, no?).
I must say I am very biased, I find Bono’s attitude often repulsive (I truly hope it is only a façade), but to his credit he provides exactly what many, many people want to see and hear, so I am compelled to give him credit for what he does, as far as I know he still does more good than harm. It is good to know that we are making progress, but we would be fooling ourselves to think that the task is anything less than daunting, and aid alone will not solve much.
Can Obama and McCain save Africa?
Two articles published by a republican and a democrat excerpted from remarks to the Constituency for Africa 2008 Ronald H. Brown African Affairs Series forum on "U.S.-Africa Policy Agenda and the Next Administration" at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.
If we ignore everything else on the respective candidates agenda, I would say that the McCain camp has some pretty good ideas. However, the emphasis on hard power, no matter how mitigated, is still rather frightening. Not to mention that most of what is delineated in the program sounds highly unfeasible. There is a thing called lobbies in the U.S. and they tend to have their way with politicians. That's why when I read of cutting farming subsidies in the U.S. I am rather skeptical.
On the other hand, Obama's program looks less involved, more simple, more realistic. It focuses on initiatives that are well established and make a difference (such as the initiative to fight HIV/AIDS, malaria and other tropical diseases). Another good thing, Obama seems committed to maintaining and furthering the efforts made to have freer trade with Africa, both ways. This one of the major issues with democrats, trade, if Obama sees its value and acts on his words that is praise-worthy. Obama also deserves a "however," so, however, Obama's tendency to be anti-free trade with his "protect the American workers" agenda leaves me skeptical, too. One cannot have the best of both world...
Anyway, you can read for yourself.
Zimbabwe's economic ruin, any hope?
According to Bernard Harborne, Lead Conflict Specialist at the World Bank, Zimbabwe’s military and its leaders have been “major beneficiaries” of government “quasi-fiscal excesses.”
“Substantial transfers and subsidies are made to keep them loyal and in check. This fiscal drain has reinforced the regime-focused nature of the military and cultivated a culture of entitlement,” Harborne says.
This excerpt from an article that gives good insight about the state of the economy of Zimbabwe and the prospects for improvement points at one of the big obstacles. In a nation where the military has developed a "culture of entitlement" the biggest danger would be to reform the system drastically and simply say to the branches of the military and paramilitary (the infamous wovits, war vets) especially close to the ZANU-PF, "we're cutting off your benefits, now you are a normal military," or worse "there is no need for you, go back home and find a job." The transition for the military is one of the touchiest ones for the country as a whole and will be, for me, a reference to measure progress. Tsvangirai has expressed the possibility of prosecution of some of the leaders, but it not the leaders alone that have ruined the country by seizing farms.
I can just imagine what happens in France whenever the government tries to rescind some social benefits, except in Zimbabwe they don't go to the street with placards, they go with pangas, knobkerries and AK-47s.
Furthermore, this situation is not unique to Zimbabwe, the case of (child) soldiers in Liberia and Sierra Leone unable to go back to a normal life and becoming mercenaries in other wars, the protracted war in DRC, etc. Control and regularization of the military seems to be a major problem in Africa, a problem that deserves more attention.
Good luck Morgan
Monday, September 29, 2008
Mbeki/Mugabe Conundrum
A quick glance at op-ed columns will make you realize that there is no consensus on Mbeki’s legacy. As I have stated previously some admire him some hate him. A few months back Thomas Friedman assumed the moral authority to proclaim that “the only one who rivals [Mugabe] is his neighbor and chief enabler and protector, South Africa’s president, Thabo Mbeki.” Just recently a Zimbabwean columnist resuscitated the analogy. The problem is that there is ground to argue both sides. Some will say that Mbeki’s view on HIV/AIDS were delusional and caused too much unnecessary suffering to be forgiven. Similarly, his role in Zimbabwe could be seen as detrimental. It could be argued that by using “quiet diplomacy” and not cutting off completely the relationship between Zimbabwe and South Africa, he deliberately supported Mugabe and prolonged the Zimbabweans’ suffering. How can we forgive such a source of suffering for one man, perhaps he deserves to be on the list of worst dictators?
Well, first of all, he is not a dictator; he was elected and has respected the constitution within the boundaries of acceptable governance. In fact, many political leaders have caused much suffering and are still acclaimed (Think President Bush, who was not ousted, but re-elected). The issue of AIDS is troubling, it cannot be ignored, so is the issue of poverty and inequality, and crime. These are major issues that need to be addressed, but a single presidency will never suffice. The rest of the world cannot do much about it, they cannot even agree on the best way to go about it and in 15 years (the time South Africa will have been free after nest year’s election) the Millennium Development Goal that the richest nation in world have pledged to uphold will not be achieved in many African countries. Obviously, there is a difference between international level of action and governance, and national level; the national has more power, duties and legitimacy, but still, it says quite a bit about the tasks the government faces.
Concerning Zimbabwe, what we have to ask is what were the alternatives? Many detractors of Mbeki were proponent of a more direct and forceful approach. Go to war with Zimbabwe? Completely isolating Zimbabwe? Uncompromisingly criticize Mugabe? Would any of these have resulted in lesser suffering of the Zimbabweans? War? That’s a pretty easy one; war without casualties is hard, war against a demential dictator who does not hesitate to cut his citizens down, you can imagine. Isolation? Zimbabwe was quite isolated, no food aid allowed, no weapons from China, no funds, landlocked… yet, Mugabe did not budge. As long as Mugabe had supplies for his place and his private army he felt quite safe. Should we mention that it is a country where top leaders assume the pseudonyms Hitler and Stalin and pragmatically state that the country would be better off with six million fewer citizens, especially if they are from the opposition? Criticism? 28 years in power, of which between three and five were without strong criticism; we all know the power of speech when it comes to dictators. In conclusion, I don’t think any one is in a position to really criticize the outcome of the Zimbabwe chaos. Something happened that undermines Mugabe’s stranglehold, that’s an achievement that is concrete.
Finally, I think the new transient president of South Africa, Kgalema Motlanthe, did well to praise and thank Thabo Mbeki; he belongs in a category far removed from the likes of Comrade Bob.
Well, first of all, he is not a dictator; he was elected and has respected the constitution within the boundaries of acceptable governance. In fact, many political leaders have caused much suffering and are still acclaimed (Think President Bush, who was not ousted, but re-elected). The issue of AIDS is troubling, it cannot be ignored, so is the issue of poverty and inequality, and crime. These are major issues that need to be addressed, but a single presidency will never suffice. The rest of the world cannot do much about it, they cannot even agree on the best way to go about it and in 15 years (the time South Africa will have been free after nest year’s election) the Millennium Development Goal that the richest nation in world have pledged to uphold will not be achieved in many African countries. Obviously, there is a difference between international level of action and governance, and national level; the national has more power, duties and legitimacy, but still, it says quite a bit about the tasks the government faces.
Concerning Zimbabwe, what we have to ask is what were the alternatives? Many detractors of Mbeki were proponent of a more direct and forceful approach. Go to war with Zimbabwe? Completely isolating Zimbabwe? Uncompromisingly criticize Mugabe? Would any of these have resulted in lesser suffering of the Zimbabweans? War? That’s a pretty easy one; war without casualties is hard, war against a demential dictator who does not hesitate to cut his citizens down, you can imagine. Isolation? Zimbabwe was quite isolated, no food aid allowed, no weapons from China, no funds, landlocked… yet, Mugabe did not budge. As long as Mugabe had supplies for his place and his private army he felt quite safe. Should we mention that it is a country where top leaders assume the pseudonyms Hitler and Stalin and pragmatically state that the country would be better off with six million fewer citizens, especially if they are from the opposition? Criticism? 28 years in power, of which between three and five were without strong criticism; we all know the power of speech when it comes to dictators. In conclusion, I don’t think any one is in a position to really criticize the outcome of the Zimbabwe chaos. Something happened that undermines Mugabe’s stranglehold, that’s an achievement that is concrete.
Finally, I think the new transient president of South Africa, Kgalema Motlanthe, did well to praise and thank Thabo Mbeki; he belongs in a category far removed from the likes of Comrade Bob.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
What will rise from Mbeki's ashes?
Mbeki's resignation ripple effect is starting to be apparent. Mbeki did not loose time in reigniting the controversy surrounding the prosecution of Jacob Zuma and is insisting on revising the conclusions of Judge Nicholson. How exactly his resignation and Zuma's dismissal of charges are related is very complex. It is possible, however, that Mbeki, by resigning, bit the bullet so as to give himself more leverage on the Zuma case. He took responsibility for his piecemeal alienation by the ANC that started when he lost the presidency of the party to Zuma, now, it is Zuma's turn to face his charges. I don't think Mbeki's departure was magnanimous; he was ousted for his belligerence towards Zuma. He denies being involved in the prosecution, but what his apparent is that the belligerence has not dissipated.
The bigger issue that this fight underlines is the widening division within the ANC. Nobel Peace prize Laureate Desmond Tutu expressed his discontentment noting that "The so-called recalling of the President of our land fits the pattern of settling of scores and the throwing about of weight." Mbeki has strong supporters, notably among the ministers, and his downfall will not be without repercussions for the government. It also implies that many within the party are against the rise of Zuma. Some have talked about the creation of a new party, but this is mere speculation at this point.
I think this is a turning point in South African politics and its de facto one party government. The now blatant feuds within the ANC exacerbate the divisions that already existed and even if it does not result in the fractionalization of the party, it has already bolstered the other parties' support. It might not be immediately visible, probably not for the next elections, but a political gear has beens set in motion. A development that could result in a healthier democratic system, or in a backlash and further concentration of power in the hands of the heavy weights of the ANC.
The bigger issue that this fight underlines is the widening division within the ANC. Nobel Peace prize Laureate Desmond Tutu expressed his discontentment noting that "The so-called recalling of the President of our land fits the pattern of settling of scores and the throwing about of weight." Mbeki has strong supporters, notably among the ministers, and his downfall will not be without repercussions for the government. It also implies that many within the party are against the rise of Zuma. Some have talked about the creation of a new party, but this is mere speculation at this point.
I think this is a turning point in South African politics and its de facto one party government. The now blatant feuds within the ANC exacerbate the divisions that already existed and even if it does not result in the fractionalization of the party, it has already bolstered the other parties' support. It might not be immediately visible, probably not for the next elections, but a political gear has beens set in motion. A development that could result in a healthier democratic system, or in a backlash and further concentration of power in the hands of the heavy weights of the ANC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
