Delivered on the steps at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. on August 28, 1963
Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of captivity.
But one hundred years later, we must face the tragic fact that the Negro is still not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize an appalling condition.
In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check -- a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to open the doors of opportunity to all of God's children. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood.
It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment and to underestimate the determination of the Negro. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.
But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.
We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny and their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.
And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.
I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.
Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.
I say to you today, my friends, that in spite of the difficulties and frustrations of the moment, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day the state of Alabama, whose governor's lips are presently dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, will be transformed into a situation where little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls and walk together as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.
This is our hope. This is the faith with which I return to the South. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.
This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."
And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!
Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!
Let freedom ring from the curvaceous peaks of California!
But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!
Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!
Let freedom ring from every hill and every molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.
When we let freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Zimbabwe on slippery slope toward civil conflict
http://www.newzimbabwe.com
DR ALEX T. MAGAISA
Last updated: 10/31/2008 15:31:34
THERE was a time, in the 1980s, when villages across Zimbabwe became hosts
to young men like Mukoma Zhuwawo. These were young men from Mozambique,
having crossed the border to eke out a living far from the raging war in
their homeland. They worked hard, these young men, tilling the land and
herding cattle.
There was a time, too, in the 1990s, when we received young men and women
who had travelled thousands of miles, hitch-hiking along the way, from the
genocide in Rwanda.
Some of them became good friends when they joined university. They were
decent young men and women who sought shelter and comfort in our home.
I remember speaking to our guests and asking about the conditions they had
left behind. Their stories weighed heavily on our hearts. They carried many
wounds of war - they had lost families and friends.
I remember wondering at the time whether we, too, could find ourselves in a
similar situation. At the time, that Zimbabwe could descend into absolute
poverty and utter chaos was far from the mind. It is not far anymore.
There has been a reversal of fortunes. The likes of Mukoma Tendai are now
foraging in the Mozambican hinterland, perhaps Mukoma Zhuwawo is now his
host. Young Zimbabweans are paying the last penny; they are using the last
of their energies to cross borders into Botswana, South Africa and thousands
of miles away into Britain, Australia, USA, etc.
But what are the chances that Zimbabwe could also descend into civil
conflict, the type that made young men and women run from their homes in
Rwanda, Somalia, Mozambique and the DRC into Zimbabwe?
The possibility is certainly no longer far-fetched. There are already
situations we thought we could never have. I remember the wild laughs when
visitors from Zambia in the late eighties brought the worthless Zambian
Kwacha. Yet it never quite fell to the depths that the Zimbabwe Dollar has
reached.
At this rate, that Zimbabwe could descend into civil conflict is therefore
not beyond imagination. It is no longer something to be easily dismissed.
There are number of reasons why the situation may deteriorate to the state
of conflict:
Political Failure: Zimbabwe has failed and continues to fail to find a
political solution to its problems. Normally, questions of leadership are
decided through elections. This has, so far, not worked in Zimbabwe.
The other option, as we saw in Kenya earlier this year, is to submit to a
negotiated settlement. This has not worked either and holds little prospects
of success.
When politics fails and when politicians fail, this creates opportunities
for military strongmen to take power. This will not allay fears of conflict;
it will only heighten them.
Desperation: With political failure comes desperation and desperation causes
people to think of crazy things. Desperate men develop very dangerous minds,
especially when coupled with poverty and a paucity of options for survival.
Zimbabwe is reaching, if not so already, the Hobbesian state of nature where
life is 'nasty, brutish and short'. In this kind of world it is only the
fittest who survive by virtue of force.
Big Men and Lords of War: Beyond and, indeed, within the large political
party structure, the Zimbabwean political landscape is characterised by deep
cracks along regional and tribal lines. This is an often understated reality
but only because it is an inconvenient reality. Zanu PF's unity, or what
appears on the surface, is driven by the common desire to retain power and
the mutual benefits accruing to rival factions. If the equilibrium that
sustains the mutual interests shifts, there is likely to be chaos between
the rivals.
For its part, the MDC (already divided since 2005) is united only by a
common desire to drive out Zanu PF from power, perhaps less so by any common
vision or ideology that would withstand the challenges of a post-Mugabe era.
The different factional conflicts, which simmer under the surface like a
volcano, could erupt at any time.
When it all breaks down, the Big Men, especially within or connected to the
military who have their spheres of influence could easily mobilise
impressionable and desperate young men to engage in a free-for-all brawl.
There is a huge reserve of unemployed young people, the type that Frantz
Fanon referred to as the Lumpen Proletariat which is vulnerable to
manipulation and easily led.
Militarisation of Society: Violence has always been employed by the powerful
to suppress the largely pliant majority of ordinary people. There is a
growing pool of desperate young men who in their crucial teenage years who
have been led to believe that violence is a perfectly legitimate way of
resolving disputes. The then burgeoning middle class of the nineties has
been severely eroded and in its place is the growing Lumpen Proletariat.
They have very little to lose; nothing but their lives to protect and when
it comes to the worst, who knows what risks they could take?
Add to this the large numbers of Youth Militias, better known as the Border
Gezi Youths or Green Bombers, after their olive green garb, who have been
indoctrinated in the virtues of the fist. They have killed, raped and
assaulted at will without fear of the law's enforcement. Then there is also
the growing number of deserters from the military, as recently reported in
parts of the media. These are poor young men who know how to use arms; they
are desperate and who knows what they might do if they got hold of arms?
An unhealed nation: Zimbabwe has experienced a tumultuous history since it
was founded as the colony of Southern Rhodesia in 1890. The culture of
violence and impunity did not commence in the Zanu PF - MDC era as is often
presented. Right through the violence of the colonial era, the bloodshed of
the liberation war in the 1970s, to the unmitigated atrocities in
Matabeleland during the 1980s, Zimbabweans have endured pain, loss and
suffering. There are divisions and suspicions along the fault lines of race,
tribe and class. The nation has not healed.
The post-2000 violence has undoubtedly received greater coverage and
intensified the hostilities. People naturally want to account for what
happened; they want justice and accountability in order to have closure. If
there is no proper system in place, people could easily resort to chaos,
where they take the law into their own hands, with devastating results. All
these episodes in the history of the nation are festering wounds and chances
are that they will burst, and when they do, it will not be a pretty sight.
We Zimbabweans have long thought of ourselves as a sophisticated nation. We
got independence late in the day, long after our African counterparts had
experienced the political and economic demise of the post-colonial period.
We had our sunshine years when dark clouds hung over most of Africa. We
never thought we would get to their sorry state. But they have moved on;
they are moving on and we are where they were in their dark days, only
worse.
If we still think civil conflict is unimaginable in Zimbabwe, perhaps it is
time to wake up and smell the coffee. There are too many factors building up
to create a very dangerous situation, largely because politics and
politicians seem to be failing.
Now after the failure of the SADC Troika, we have to wait for the SADC
Summit. The question is: what if that, too, fails? But even if it does
succeed, there is little evidence of good faith and political will on the
part of politicians to make things work. No amount of beautiful clauses, not
even control of 'key ministries' will transform Zimbabwe's fortunes unless
the politicians invest sufficient trust, confidence in each other and act in
good faith. Things could get much worse. Politicians have the responsibility
to halt the slide on the slippery slope toward civil conflict.
Alex Magaisa is based at Kent Law School, The University of Kent. He can be
contacted at wamagaisa@yahoo.co.uk
DR ALEX T. MAGAISA
Last updated: 10/31/2008 15:31:34
THERE was a time, in the 1980s, when villages across Zimbabwe became hosts
to young men like Mukoma Zhuwawo. These were young men from Mozambique,
having crossed the border to eke out a living far from the raging war in
their homeland. They worked hard, these young men, tilling the land and
herding cattle.
There was a time, too, in the 1990s, when we received young men and women
who had travelled thousands of miles, hitch-hiking along the way, from the
genocide in Rwanda.
Some of them became good friends when they joined university. They were
decent young men and women who sought shelter and comfort in our home.
I remember speaking to our guests and asking about the conditions they had
left behind. Their stories weighed heavily on our hearts. They carried many
wounds of war - they had lost families and friends.
I remember wondering at the time whether we, too, could find ourselves in a
similar situation. At the time, that Zimbabwe could descend into absolute
poverty and utter chaos was far from the mind. It is not far anymore.
There has been a reversal of fortunes. The likes of Mukoma Tendai are now
foraging in the Mozambican hinterland, perhaps Mukoma Zhuwawo is now his
host. Young Zimbabweans are paying the last penny; they are using the last
of their energies to cross borders into Botswana, South Africa and thousands
of miles away into Britain, Australia, USA, etc.
But what are the chances that Zimbabwe could also descend into civil
conflict, the type that made young men and women run from their homes in
Rwanda, Somalia, Mozambique and the DRC into Zimbabwe?
The possibility is certainly no longer far-fetched. There are already
situations we thought we could never have. I remember the wild laughs when
visitors from Zambia in the late eighties brought the worthless Zambian
Kwacha. Yet it never quite fell to the depths that the Zimbabwe Dollar has
reached.
At this rate, that Zimbabwe could descend into civil conflict is therefore
not beyond imagination. It is no longer something to be easily dismissed.
There are number of reasons why the situation may deteriorate to the state
of conflict:
Political Failure: Zimbabwe has failed and continues to fail to find a
political solution to its problems. Normally, questions of leadership are
decided through elections. This has, so far, not worked in Zimbabwe.
The other option, as we saw in Kenya earlier this year, is to submit to a
negotiated settlement. This has not worked either and holds little prospects
of success.
When politics fails and when politicians fail, this creates opportunities
for military strongmen to take power. This will not allay fears of conflict;
it will only heighten them.
Desperation: With political failure comes desperation and desperation causes
people to think of crazy things. Desperate men develop very dangerous minds,
especially when coupled with poverty and a paucity of options for survival.
Zimbabwe is reaching, if not so already, the Hobbesian state of nature where
life is 'nasty, brutish and short'. In this kind of world it is only the
fittest who survive by virtue of force.
Big Men and Lords of War: Beyond and, indeed, within the large political
party structure, the Zimbabwean political landscape is characterised by deep
cracks along regional and tribal lines. This is an often understated reality
but only because it is an inconvenient reality. Zanu PF's unity, or what
appears on the surface, is driven by the common desire to retain power and
the mutual benefits accruing to rival factions. If the equilibrium that
sustains the mutual interests shifts, there is likely to be chaos between
the rivals.
For its part, the MDC (already divided since 2005) is united only by a
common desire to drive out Zanu PF from power, perhaps less so by any common
vision or ideology that would withstand the challenges of a post-Mugabe era.
The different factional conflicts, which simmer under the surface like a
volcano, could erupt at any time.
When it all breaks down, the Big Men, especially within or connected to the
military who have their spheres of influence could easily mobilise
impressionable and desperate young men to engage in a free-for-all brawl.
There is a huge reserve of unemployed young people, the type that Frantz
Fanon referred to as the Lumpen Proletariat which is vulnerable to
manipulation and easily led.
Militarisation of Society: Violence has always been employed by the powerful
to suppress the largely pliant majority of ordinary people. There is a
growing pool of desperate young men who in their crucial teenage years who
have been led to believe that violence is a perfectly legitimate way of
resolving disputes. The then burgeoning middle class of the nineties has
been severely eroded and in its place is the growing Lumpen Proletariat.
They have very little to lose; nothing but their lives to protect and when
it comes to the worst, who knows what risks they could take?
Add to this the large numbers of Youth Militias, better known as the Border
Gezi Youths or Green Bombers, after their olive green garb, who have been
indoctrinated in the virtues of the fist. They have killed, raped and
assaulted at will without fear of the law's enforcement. Then there is also
the growing number of deserters from the military, as recently reported in
parts of the media. These are poor young men who know how to use arms; they
are desperate and who knows what they might do if they got hold of arms?
An unhealed nation: Zimbabwe has experienced a tumultuous history since it
was founded as the colony of Southern Rhodesia in 1890. The culture of
violence and impunity did not commence in the Zanu PF - MDC era as is often
presented. Right through the violence of the colonial era, the bloodshed of
the liberation war in the 1970s, to the unmitigated atrocities in
Matabeleland during the 1980s, Zimbabweans have endured pain, loss and
suffering. There are divisions and suspicions along the fault lines of race,
tribe and class. The nation has not healed.
The post-2000 violence has undoubtedly received greater coverage and
intensified the hostilities. People naturally want to account for what
happened; they want justice and accountability in order to have closure. If
there is no proper system in place, people could easily resort to chaos,
where they take the law into their own hands, with devastating results. All
these episodes in the history of the nation are festering wounds and chances
are that they will burst, and when they do, it will not be a pretty sight.
We Zimbabweans have long thought of ourselves as a sophisticated nation. We
got independence late in the day, long after our African counterparts had
experienced the political and economic demise of the post-colonial period.
We had our sunshine years when dark clouds hung over most of Africa. We
never thought we would get to their sorry state. But they have moved on;
they are moving on and we are where they were in their dark days, only
worse.
If we still think civil conflict is unimaginable in Zimbabwe, perhaps it is
time to wake up and smell the coffee. There are too many factors building up
to create a very dangerous situation, largely because politics and
politicians seem to be failing.
Now after the failure of the SADC Troika, we have to wait for the SADC
Summit. The question is: what if that, too, fails? But even if it does
succeed, there is little evidence of good faith and political will on the
part of politicians to make things work. No amount of beautiful clauses, not
even control of 'key ministries' will transform Zimbabwe's fortunes unless
the politicians invest sufficient trust, confidence in each other and act in
good faith. Things could get much worse. Politicians have the responsibility
to halt the slide on the slippery slope toward civil conflict.
Alex Magaisa is based at Kent Law School, The University of Kent. He can be
contacted at wamagaisa@yahoo.co.uk
Fair elections, not summits, the utlimate solution
http://www.thezimbabwetimes.com/?p=6547
October 29, 2008
By Tendai Dumbutshena
IF the communique released by the SADC secretariat after the failed meeting
to resolve the political impasse in Zimbabwe is to be believed, 15 regional
heads of state and government are to meet to decide who controls the
ministry of Home Affairs in the proposed inclusive government.
Taxpayers and donors in the SADC region will fund a summit to get Zimbabwe's
warring factions to agree on who runs the Home Affairs portfolio. How
farcical can things get?
Desperate people clutch at straws. This is what is happening in Zimbabwe as
people wait expectantly for SADC to provide the solution.
It is forgotten that for eight years this body has let the people of
Zimbabwe down. It turned a blind eye to Robert Mugabe's violation of its own
protocols on governance and human rights. It endorsed elections which were
condemned even by its own observers. It cynically embraced the lie that the
land issue was at the core of the crisis in Zimbabwe to absolve itself of
the responsibility to take a principled stand against Harare's aberrant
behaviour. It was only jolted into half-hearted action when it appointed
Thabo Mbeki last year to mediate following brutal assaults on political and
civic leaders including MDC president, Morgan Tsvangirai. Images of the
savage attacks and the resultant international outcry forced the hand of
SADC leaders.
Also central to the problem has been Mbeki's treacherous role which began in
2000. Masquerading as a mediator, Mbeki has done everything within his
powers to protect Mugabe and prolong his rule. Even now he continues to bat
for Mugabe seeking at every turn to undermine the MDC. His hidden hand was
visible in SADC's communiqué which took the position of Zanu-PF that only
the ministry of Home Affairs was the outstanding issue.
The MDC has set the record straight. Differences go beyond the home affairs
ministry to include the posts of provincial governors, diplomats, permanent
secretaries and the composition and functions of the proposed national
security council. Mbeki and the SADC secretariat want the full SADC summit
to only discuss the Home Affairs ministry leaving other issues of concern to
the MDC off the agenda.
It will be interesting to see where the summit is held. Normally it is held
in the country of the current chair which is South Africa. The MDC has
threatened that Tsvangirai will not attend if he is not issued with a
passport. It may well be decided to hold the summit in Zimbabwe so that SADC
leaders do not have to put pressure on Mugabe to issue a passport. The
policy of appeasement is still very much alive.
Nothing positive should be expected from the SADC summit. Mugabe has no
intention of sharing power with the MDC. At long last the MDC has officially
acknowledged this. Regional leaders with the notable exception of Botswana's
Ian Khama are unwilling to get Mugabe to do the right thing. There is great
resentment among African leaders when Western powers involve themselves in
the Zimbabwe issue They are told this is a matter for Africans to resolve
among themselves.
But what if Africans cannot bring themselves to seriously address the issue?
What if their feeble efforts are rendered useless by an insatiable desire to
protect and appease Mugabe? What will a full SADC summit achieve that a
smaller group more suited to resolving such a matter failed to do? For as
long as SADC leaders are not prepared to show some spine and address the
issue squarely these summits and troika meetings are a waste of time and
money.
Some analysts suggest that the matter be referred to the AU - another
guarantor of the agreement. What makes them think AU can do better than
SADC? The AU usually defers to regional bodies on such matters. The
continental body is full of leaders with a peripheral interest in Zimbabwe.
Many of them lack the moral stature to pronounce on Zimbabwe. If an African
solution is to be found it has to be in the region. Unless there is a
paradigm shift in their thinking and approach SADC leaders will not be able
to offer a solution to Zimbabwe's crisis. If they fail to author an
acceptable solution there is no point in running to Addis Ababa.
The inescapable conclusion to draw is that the September 15 agreement is
worthless. No one including the two major protagonists, Zanu-PF and MDC,
believes it is a workable solution. Given Mugabe's visceral loathing of
Tsvangirai and his party, is it not naïve optimism to believe that somehow
the agreement will work? The fact that seven weeks after the signing of the
agreement nothing has been achieved says it all.
The solution offered by Botswana is the only realistic option. Mugabe must
be put under pressure to accept a short transitional arrangement leading to
the adoption of a new constitution and elections. This process must be
driven by the international community because the regime in Harare cannot be
trusted to behave properly. Mugabe is vulnerable to pressure. What is
lacking among his peers in Africa is the will and courage to apply the
pressure. The people of Zimbabwe must be given an opportunity to settle this
matter once and for all. They must freely decide who governs them.
Therein lies the solution. But the international community must play its
part. If Africa is unwilling to do the right thing for Zimbabwe, others
should.
October 29, 2008
By Tendai Dumbutshena
IF the communique released by the SADC secretariat after the failed meeting
to resolve the political impasse in Zimbabwe is to be believed, 15 regional
heads of state and government are to meet to decide who controls the
ministry of Home Affairs in the proposed inclusive government.
Taxpayers and donors in the SADC region will fund a summit to get Zimbabwe's
warring factions to agree on who runs the Home Affairs portfolio. How
farcical can things get?
Desperate people clutch at straws. This is what is happening in Zimbabwe as
people wait expectantly for SADC to provide the solution.
It is forgotten that for eight years this body has let the people of
Zimbabwe down. It turned a blind eye to Robert Mugabe's violation of its own
protocols on governance and human rights. It endorsed elections which were
condemned even by its own observers. It cynically embraced the lie that the
land issue was at the core of the crisis in Zimbabwe to absolve itself of
the responsibility to take a principled stand against Harare's aberrant
behaviour. It was only jolted into half-hearted action when it appointed
Thabo Mbeki last year to mediate following brutal assaults on political and
civic leaders including MDC president, Morgan Tsvangirai. Images of the
savage attacks and the resultant international outcry forced the hand of
SADC leaders.
Also central to the problem has been Mbeki's treacherous role which began in
2000. Masquerading as a mediator, Mbeki has done everything within his
powers to protect Mugabe and prolong his rule. Even now he continues to bat
for Mugabe seeking at every turn to undermine the MDC. His hidden hand was
visible in SADC's communiqué which took the position of Zanu-PF that only
the ministry of Home Affairs was the outstanding issue.
The MDC has set the record straight. Differences go beyond the home affairs
ministry to include the posts of provincial governors, diplomats, permanent
secretaries and the composition and functions of the proposed national
security council. Mbeki and the SADC secretariat want the full SADC summit
to only discuss the Home Affairs ministry leaving other issues of concern to
the MDC off the agenda.
It will be interesting to see where the summit is held. Normally it is held
in the country of the current chair which is South Africa. The MDC has
threatened that Tsvangirai will not attend if he is not issued with a
passport. It may well be decided to hold the summit in Zimbabwe so that SADC
leaders do not have to put pressure on Mugabe to issue a passport. The
policy of appeasement is still very much alive.
Nothing positive should be expected from the SADC summit. Mugabe has no
intention of sharing power with the MDC. At long last the MDC has officially
acknowledged this. Regional leaders with the notable exception of Botswana's
Ian Khama are unwilling to get Mugabe to do the right thing. There is great
resentment among African leaders when Western powers involve themselves in
the Zimbabwe issue They are told this is a matter for Africans to resolve
among themselves.
But what if Africans cannot bring themselves to seriously address the issue?
What if their feeble efforts are rendered useless by an insatiable desire to
protect and appease Mugabe? What will a full SADC summit achieve that a
smaller group more suited to resolving such a matter failed to do? For as
long as SADC leaders are not prepared to show some spine and address the
issue squarely these summits and troika meetings are a waste of time and
money.
Some analysts suggest that the matter be referred to the AU - another
guarantor of the agreement. What makes them think AU can do better than
SADC? The AU usually defers to regional bodies on such matters. The
continental body is full of leaders with a peripheral interest in Zimbabwe.
Many of them lack the moral stature to pronounce on Zimbabwe. If an African
solution is to be found it has to be in the region. Unless there is a
paradigm shift in their thinking and approach SADC leaders will not be able
to offer a solution to Zimbabwe's crisis. If they fail to author an
acceptable solution there is no point in running to Addis Ababa.
The inescapable conclusion to draw is that the September 15 agreement is
worthless. No one including the two major protagonists, Zanu-PF and MDC,
believes it is a workable solution. Given Mugabe's visceral loathing of
Tsvangirai and his party, is it not naïve optimism to believe that somehow
the agreement will work? The fact that seven weeks after the signing of the
agreement nothing has been achieved says it all.
The solution offered by Botswana is the only realistic option. Mugabe must
be put under pressure to accept a short transitional arrangement leading to
the adoption of a new constitution and elections. This process must be
driven by the international community because the regime in Harare cannot be
trusted to behave properly. Mugabe is vulnerable to pressure. What is
lacking among his peers in Africa is the will and courage to apply the
pressure. The people of Zimbabwe must be given an opportunity to settle this
matter once and for all. They must freely decide who governs them.
Therein lies the solution. But the international community must play its
part. If Africa is unwilling to do the right thing for Zimbabwe, others
should.
Analyst says breaking 'rural terror' key to success of deal
http://www.swradioafrica.com
By Lance Guma
29 October 2008
Zimbabwe cannot move forward as long as there are vigilante terror groups
operating in the rural areas and blocking people from expressing their vote
freely in elections. According to Luke Zunga, a Zimbabwean businessman
exiled in South Africa, the current discussions over cabinet allocations
have to address this problem or will be completely meaningless. He believes
that for the deal to work, the MDC has to continue campaigning vigorously
for the Home Affairs, Information and Finance Ministries as a buffer against
the continued use of state terror.
Only through the control of finance will the MDC be able to stop state
sponsorship of militants in the rural areas. By controlling Home Affairs,
and with it the police, all perpetrators of violence will be arrested. He
also added that because of the divisive propaganda churned out by the state
media, control of Information is going to be vital in order to change things
around.
Zunga, who is also a treasurer for the Zimbabwe Diaspora Development
Chamber, even suggested, 'the appointment of a SADC police commissioner,
'whose tasks will be to eliminate rural terror structures and clean the
police,' if the deadlock persisted. He argues that at independence Zimbabwe
turned to a Pakistani army general to help with the integration of the
various armed forces from the guerrilla groups, 'so it's not new.' Any calls
for a re-run of elections supervised by the UN, 'will not necessarily
neutralize the rural terror gangs,' he argued.
Zunga feels the current SADC mediation team has over-simplified the
Zimbabwean problem into a conflict between two parties that need to work
together. He believes the problem lies deeper in the ZANU PF culture of
violence and intolerance. 'Our view is that President Mbeki is aware of the
rural control. If so, his support or recommendation for Mugabe to take
control of these ministries transfers the liability for the death and
starvation of these people to the doorstep of South Africa,' he added.
By Lance Guma
29 October 2008
Zimbabwe cannot move forward as long as there are vigilante terror groups
operating in the rural areas and blocking people from expressing their vote
freely in elections. According to Luke Zunga, a Zimbabwean businessman
exiled in South Africa, the current discussions over cabinet allocations
have to address this problem or will be completely meaningless. He believes
that for the deal to work, the MDC has to continue campaigning vigorously
for the Home Affairs, Information and Finance Ministries as a buffer against
the continued use of state terror.
Only through the control of finance will the MDC be able to stop state
sponsorship of militants in the rural areas. By controlling Home Affairs,
and with it the police, all perpetrators of violence will be arrested. He
also added that because of the divisive propaganda churned out by the state
media, control of Information is going to be vital in order to change things
around.
Zunga, who is also a treasurer for the Zimbabwe Diaspora Development
Chamber, even suggested, 'the appointment of a SADC police commissioner,
'whose tasks will be to eliminate rural terror structures and clean the
police,' if the deadlock persisted. He argues that at independence Zimbabwe
turned to a Pakistani army general to help with the integration of the
various armed forces from the guerrilla groups, 'so it's not new.' Any calls
for a re-run of elections supervised by the UN, 'will not necessarily
neutralize the rural terror gangs,' he argued.
Zunga feels the current SADC mediation team has over-simplified the
Zimbabwean problem into a conflict between two parties that need to work
together. He believes the problem lies deeper in the ZANU PF culture of
violence and intolerance. 'Our view is that President Mbeki is aware of the
rural control. If so, his support or recommendation for Mugabe to take
control of these ministries transfers the liability for the death and
starvation of these people to the doorstep of South Africa,' he added.
Monday, October 27, 2008
PRESS STATEMENT BY THE BOTSWANA CIVIL SOCIETY SOLIDARITY COALITION FOR ZIMBABWE (BOCISCOZ)
Regional civil society committed to monitoring Zimbabwe agreement
We, The Botswana Civil Society Solidarity Coalition for Zimbabwe (BOCISCOZ) are concerned by the current impasse relating to the political agreement signed in Zimbabwe on 15 September 2008. BOCISCOZ held a series of meetings in Gaborone on 9 and 10 October 2008, with the aim of understanding whether or not the agreement provides an option for finding a sustainable solution to the crisis in Zimbabwe.
The first meeting on the 9 October 2008 was for the BOCISCOZ movement, regional civil society, diplomatic community and the media. The meeting observed that while the agreement has some imperfections, it provides a window of opportunity for the resuscitation of economic and social recovery in Zimbabwe. Civil society organisations were therefore encouraged to identify achievable goals to enable the monitoring of the implementation of the agreement.
The second meeting on the 9 October 2008, was a public meeting for Zimbabweans in Botswana to share their thoughts on the signed agreement, with civil society leaders. The meeting explored the role of civil society organisations, the SADC, AU and UN in the interpretation and implementation of the agreement. BOCISCOZ noted with concern, the fact that some SADC countries like Mozambique and South Africa had been reported to have begun mass deportation campaigns on the basis that the agreement has been signed. Zimbabweans at this meeting expressed concern, anxiety and uncertainty at the deadlock over the formation of an inclusive government, in particular the mutually agreed upon allocation of Government Ministries.
On the 10 October 2008, a strategic planning meeting was held by the BOCISCOZ working group and the regional civil society leaders to discuss appropriate regional strategies for civil society in response to the Zimbabwe crisis.
It was agreed that;
∙ There is need to sensitise Zimbabweans in all SADC countries about the content of the agreement;
∙ Civil society organisations should lobby Humanitarian Organisations and international cooperating partners, through their Embassies and High Commissions in the respective SADC countries, to provide humanitarian assistance to Zimbabwe.
∙ Civil society organisations should continue to lobby the SADC, African Union and United Nations to mobilise humanitarian assistance in order to avert the worsening humanitarian crisis currently unfolding in Zimbabwe; and
∙ There is a need to urgently identify achievable goals to enable the effective monitoring of the implementation of the agreement by regional civil society.
Recognising the urgency of the matter, BOCISCOZ therefore calls upon the SADC and AU member states to:
∙ Stop the deportation of Zimbabweans from their countries on the basis of the signed agreement and
∙ Ensure that the signed agreement is implemented. As official guarantors of the agreement, both the SADC and AU have a responsibility to execute their obligations.
15 October 2008
Gaborone
For more information please contact: DITSHWANELO – The Botswana Centre for Human Rights. Tel: (267) 3906998 Fax: (267) 3907778. Email: admin.ditshwanelo@info.bw. Website: www.ditshwanelo.org.bw
We, The Botswana Civil Society Solidarity Coalition for Zimbabwe (BOCISCOZ) are concerned by the current impasse relating to the political agreement signed in Zimbabwe on 15 September 2008. BOCISCOZ held a series of meetings in Gaborone on 9 and 10 October 2008, with the aim of understanding whether or not the agreement provides an option for finding a sustainable solution to the crisis in Zimbabwe.
The first meeting on the 9 October 2008 was for the BOCISCOZ movement, regional civil society, diplomatic community and the media. The meeting observed that while the agreement has some imperfections, it provides a window of opportunity for the resuscitation of economic and social recovery in Zimbabwe. Civil society organisations were therefore encouraged to identify achievable goals to enable the monitoring of the implementation of the agreement.
The second meeting on the 9 October 2008, was a public meeting for Zimbabweans in Botswana to share their thoughts on the signed agreement, with civil society leaders. The meeting explored the role of civil society organisations, the SADC, AU and UN in the interpretation and implementation of the agreement. BOCISCOZ noted with concern, the fact that some SADC countries like Mozambique and South Africa had been reported to have begun mass deportation campaigns on the basis that the agreement has been signed. Zimbabweans at this meeting expressed concern, anxiety and uncertainty at the deadlock over the formation of an inclusive government, in particular the mutually agreed upon allocation of Government Ministries.
On the 10 October 2008, a strategic planning meeting was held by the BOCISCOZ working group and the regional civil society leaders to discuss appropriate regional strategies for civil society in response to the Zimbabwe crisis.
It was agreed that;
∙ There is need to sensitise Zimbabweans in all SADC countries about the content of the agreement;
∙ Civil society organisations should lobby Humanitarian Organisations and international cooperating partners, through their Embassies and High Commissions in the respective SADC countries, to provide humanitarian assistance to Zimbabwe.
∙ Civil society organisations should continue to lobby the SADC, African Union and United Nations to mobilise humanitarian assistance in order to avert the worsening humanitarian crisis currently unfolding in Zimbabwe; and
∙ There is a need to urgently identify achievable goals to enable the effective monitoring of the implementation of the agreement by regional civil society.
Recognising the urgency of the matter, BOCISCOZ therefore calls upon the SADC and AU member states to:
∙ Stop the deportation of Zimbabweans from their countries on the basis of the signed agreement and
∙ Ensure that the signed agreement is implemented. As official guarantors of the agreement, both the SADC and AU have a responsibility to execute their obligations.
15 October 2008
Gaborone
For more information please contact: DITSHWANELO – The Botswana Centre for Human Rights. Tel: (267) 3906998 Fax: (267) 3907778. Email: admin.ditshwanelo@info.bw. Website: www.ditshwanelo.org.bw
Joint Statement on Cabinet Impasse
Zimbabweans Demand Finality on the Formation of Government as Enshrined in the Global Political Agreement signed on the 15th of September 2008.
Considering that:
- A month has passed since Zanu PF and the two MDCs signed a power sharing agreement, the Global Political Agreement (GPA) facilitated by SADC and the AU, for the formation of an interim government of national unity in Zimbabwe.
- Zimbabweans continue to live in abject poverty, lacking access to of basic health care, food, employment, education and other socio economic resources crucial to basic human dignity and livelihood.
- The failure of the politicians to respect the spirit of the GPA and create an interim government in terms of it adversely affects 12million people in Zimbabwe.
- Moreover this political impasse continues to have negative repercussions within the Southern African region.
- Inflation continues to rise and is exacerbated by the current global financial crisis, it is estimated that the rate of inflation is now 231m% in Zimbabwe.
- All these elements combined have grave consequences for the impoverished people of Zimbabwe who urgently need food aid among other necessities of life.
Alarmed that:
- The number of Zimbabweans reported dead from starvation and/or eating poisonous wild fruits continues to spiral.
- Further the rainy season is fast approaching, this political impasse seriously threatens the ability of hard working Zimbabweans to make full use of this period and lift themselves from poverty and hunger. Without a government in place Zimbabweans are unable to access the essential R300m Agriculture Rescue package generously provided by South Africa.
- In addition the political impasse has severely interfered with the provision of education at primary, secondary and tertiary level. This is disastrous to the millions of children whose academic year and future prospects have been placed in serious jeopardy.
- In adequate water and sanitation services, goods and facilities continue to be a major cause of alarm threatening the health of numerous Zimbabweans. At the moment many people are suffering from fatal, communicable and preventable water borne diseases.
- A finality on this political impasse is long overdue yet it is becoming more distant by the day.
We the citizens and friends of Zimbabwe demand:
- That the SADC Extra Ordinary Summit of the Organ Troika on Zimbabwe set for Monday the 27th October in Harare, bring finality to this matter in the form of a new cabinet demonstrating a more equitable distribution of power reflecting spirit of the GPA and respecting the wishes of the people of Zimbabwe;
- And as guarantors of the GPA that they act as arbitrators to the matters in dispute between the Zimbabwe political parties;
- Finally that they impress upon the 3 Principal Zimbabwean parties the need to show Zimbabweans and the region their commitment to putting the country first and working together to implement the GPA.
Signed:
Save Zimbabwe Campaign New Zealand and Global Zimbabwe Forum.
Sunday 26 October, 2008
Considering that:
- A month has passed since Zanu PF and the two MDCs signed a power sharing agreement, the Global Political Agreement (GPA) facilitated by SADC and the AU, for the formation of an interim government of national unity in Zimbabwe.
- Zimbabweans continue to live in abject poverty, lacking access to of basic health care, food, employment, education and other socio economic resources crucial to basic human dignity and livelihood.
- The failure of the politicians to respect the spirit of the GPA and create an interim government in terms of it adversely affects 12million people in Zimbabwe.
- Moreover this political impasse continues to have negative repercussions within the Southern African region.
- Inflation continues to rise and is exacerbated by the current global financial crisis, it is estimated that the rate of inflation is now 231m% in Zimbabwe.
- All these elements combined have grave consequences for the impoverished people of Zimbabwe who urgently need food aid among other necessities of life.
Alarmed that:
- The number of Zimbabweans reported dead from starvation and/or eating poisonous wild fruits continues to spiral.
- Further the rainy season is fast approaching, this political impasse seriously threatens the ability of hard working Zimbabweans to make full use of this period and lift themselves from poverty and hunger. Without a government in place Zimbabweans are unable to access the essential R300m Agriculture Rescue package generously provided by South Africa.
- In addition the political impasse has severely interfered with the provision of education at primary, secondary and tertiary level. This is disastrous to the millions of children whose academic year and future prospects have been placed in serious jeopardy.
- In adequate water and sanitation services, goods and facilities continue to be a major cause of alarm threatening the health of numerous Zimbabweans. At the moment many people are suffering from fatal, communicable and preventable water borne diseases.
- A finality on this political impasse is long overdue yet it is becoming more distant by the day.
We the citizens and friends of Zimbabwe demand:
- That the SADC Extra Ordinary Summit of the Organ Troika on Zimbabwe set for Monday the 27th October in Harare, bring finality to this matter in the form of a new cabinet demonstrating a more equitable distribution of power reflecting spirit of the GPA and respecting the wishes of the people of Zimbabwe;
- And as guarantors of the GPA that they act as arbitrators to the matters in dispute between the Zimbabwe political parties;
- Finally that they impress upon the 3 Principal Zimbabwean parties the need to show Zimbabweans and the region their commitment to putting the country first and working together to implement the GPA.
Signed:
Save Zimbabwe Campaign New Zealand and Global Zimbabwe Forum.
Sunday 26 October, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Zanu PF Faces Bleak Future After Mugabe
http://www.thezimbabwestandard.com
Tuesday, 21 October 2008 11:24
FOR a man of his age, intellect and experience, it boggles the mind
why President Robert Mugabe does not appear to have learned from the
precedents before him.
For a party of its collective experience, it is difficult to fathom
why Zanu PF has failed to learn from the mistakes of its counterparts across
Africa.
Because, if there is one discernible feature in the trajectory of
African politics since independence, it is that liberation parties that fail
to adapt are doomed and will often contract terminal illness at the
departure of a long-serving leader.
One day, Mugabe shall depart, yes, even if that has to await God's
will as he suggested a few months ago. At this rate, Zanu PF is unlikely to
survive his departure and the power-sharing deal is no more than a
palliative for an ailing patient - it may reduce the pain but it does not
remove the cause of the pain. The sad spectacle is that it is dragging
Zimbabwe down with it.
Liberation parties are those organisations that orchestrated the
struggle for independence in African countries. It is interesting to observe
the way these parties have handled the challenges of governance in their
respective countries; how and why some have survived and others have failed.
There is a clear line, which is that, in a process akin to natural
selection, the more adaptable have survived whilst the less adaptable have
suffered inevitable demise. It is in this context that it is arguable that
the power-sharing deal in Zimbabwe is an attempt by Zanu PF to cope with the
spectre of extinction but that this, too, is only likely to be temporary
relief.
The trajectory of African politics indicates that at independence and
for thirty or so years thereafter, most countries followed the authoritarian
one-party state system. Statistics show that by the end of the 1980s, nearly
50 African states were one-party states or ruled by a military junta. In 32
states, opposition parties were illegal and elections were mere formalities
to confirm the incumbent.
Daniel Arap Moi, then President of Kenya is quoted as having said in
1984: "I would like my ministers, assistant ministers and others to sing
like a parrot after me. That is how we can progress." (Meredith 2006). This
typified the mentality of the leaders at the time, influenced mainly by the
Soviet-style communist paradigm. The result was that liberation parties
claimed all political territory and suppressed, often violently, any
opposition or dissent.
The end of the Cold War, signified most visibly by the collapse of the
Berlin Wall in 1989 and the disintegration of the Soviet Union brought
fundamental changes to African politics. The Soviet Union was no longer able
to sustain its large network of client states. Suddenly, the ruling
liberation parties had to conform to a new environment of multi-party
politics, driven mainly by rising internal opposition due to repression and
poverty caused by the authoritarian politics.
It was also fuelled by renewed Western influence in African politics.
The US in particular made the spread of democracy a key part of its foreign
policy. The structural adjustment programmes of the International Monetary
Fund (IMF)/World Bank tied democracy to potential assistance. It is hardly
surprising, therefore, that there was a flurry of elections in most African
states in the early 1990s, as they embraced multi-party politics largely for
convenience rather than in good faith. Accepting the challenge of the
opposition was a new phenomenon which the liberation parties, long used to
dominating all political space, had to cope with.
As a superficial measure of democracy, the election suddenly enabled
the transformation of authoritarian strong-men into "democrats". The ritual
of the election was, rather unfortunately and inaccurately, equated with
democracy. The wider values and institutions, developed through struggle
over long periods of time and, therefore, firmly in place in the Western
political universe where democracy appeared to flourish, were non-existent
or at best, limited, in the African context. For example, where the
judiciary, responsible for resolving conflicts, is emasculated by one of the
contestants, the election process is ineffective since the incentive to be
fair is limited.
It is interesting to observe how, using examples from the South and
East African regions, the liberation parties responded to the challenge of
multi-party politics. I have divided the countries by response into two
sets, the Adaptable and the Non-Adaptable sets, depending on how the
liberation parties have coped with change.
Tanzania: When Mwalimu Julius Nyerere saw that the end was nigh he
departed gracefully in 1985 and was succeeded by Ali Hassan Mwinyi. Mwinyi
who handed over to Benjamin Mkapa. Mkapa passed the baton to the current
President Jakaya Kikwete. All these leaders belong to the liberation party,
Chama Cha Mapinduzi ("CCM") - a clear example of adaptability, even though
it was at the forefront of the one-party system in the 1970s.
Botswana: It is rightly held as Africa's longest multi-party
democracy, having adopted the system at independence in 1966. But in those
42 years, the ruling party, the Botswana Democratic Party ("BDP") has never
lost power to the opposition. Sir Seretse Khama, the first President was
succeeded by Sir Ketumile Masire who later stepped down for Festus Mogae.
Mogae recently handed over power to Seretse Khama Ian Khama.
Mozambique: The country that got off to a tumultuous start with Samora
Machel at the helm has calmed down lately. When Machel died tragically in
1986, he was succeeded by Joachim Chissano who successfully steered the
country out of the civil war, served his terms and gracefully left power to
the current President Armando Guebuza. As in Tanzania and Botswana, the
liberation party, FRELIMO, has retained power since independence and enabled
internal leadership succession and change, thereby providing a respectable
façade of democracy.
This is the set of countries where the liberation parties failed to
cope with change and have suffered a terrible patch after the leader's
departure. These are:
Zambia: Kenneth Kaunda led Zambia for 27 years since independence in
1964. He lost heavily to Frederick Chiluba in the watershed election in
1991. He became one of the first high profile victims of the new age of
politics and his party, UNIP, was left in the doldrums after his demise. It
has not recovered since.
Kenya: Moi took over the leadership after the death of Jomo Kenyatta
in 1978. By 1982 Kenya was a one-party state and Moi retained power, with an
iron grip, until 2002 when he "retired" before the election which his
party, KANU, lost to the opposition. It, too, has never recovered.
Malawi: Hastings Kamuzu Banda ruled this small country with an
iron-fist from independence in 1964 until he lost power to Bakili Muluzi in
1994, after reluctantly accepting multi-party politics.
So where, then, does Zimbabwe's Zanu PF fit?
It is the liberation party in Zimbabwe. Mugabe has dominated Zanu PF
politics since independence. The subject of succession in Zanu PF is almost
taboo. It has failed to learn from the mixed fortunes of the other
liberation parties
The power-sharing deal may have saved Mugabe from humiliation of
Kaunda and Banda, but the likelihood is that for Zanu PF the relief is only
short-term; a mere painkiller rather than a cure against a terminal disease.
It is odd that the many men and women in Zanu PF watch idly whilst their
party partakes the poison-pill.
Alex Magaisa is based at, Kent Law School, the University of Kent
and can be contacted at wamagaisa@yahoo.co.uk
Tuesday, 21 October 2008 11:24
FOR a man of his age, intellect and experience, it boggles the mind
why President Robert Mugabe does not appear to have learned from the
precedents before him.
For a party of its collective experience, it is difficult to fathom
why Zanu PF has failed to learn from the mistakes of its counterparts across
Africa.
Because, if there is one discernible feature in the trajectory of
African politics since independence, it is that liberation parties that fail
to adapt are doomed and will often contract terminal illness at the
departure of a long-serving leader.
One day, Mugabe shall depart, yes, even if that has to await God's
will as he suggested a few months ago. At this rate, Zanu PF is unlikely to
survive his departure and the power-sharing deal is no more than a
palliative for an ailing patient - it may reduce the pain but it does not
remove the cause of the pain. The sad spectacle is that it is dragging
Zimbabwe down with it.
Liberation parties are those organisations that orchestrated the
struggle for independence in African countries. It is interesting to observe
the way these parties have handled the challenges of governance in their
respective countries; how and why some have survived and others have failed.
There is a clear line, which is that, in a process akin to natural
selection, the more adaptable have survived whilst the less adaptable have
suffered inevitable demise. It is in this context that it is arguable that
the power-sharing deal in Zimbabwe is an attempt by Zanu PF to cope with the
spectre of extinction but that this, too, is only likely to be temporary
relief.
The trajectory of African politics indicates that at independence and
for thirty or so years thereafter, most countries followed the authoritarian
one-party state system. Statistics show that by the end of the 1980s, nearly
50 African states were one-party states or ruled by a military junta. In 32
states, opposition parties were illegal and elections were mere formalities
to confirm the incumbent.
Daniel Arap Moi, then President of Kenya is quoted as having said in
1984: "I would like my ministers, assistant ministers and others to sing
like a parrot after me. That is how we can progress." (Meredith 2006). This
typified the mentality of the leaders at the time, influenced mainly by the
Soviet-style communist paradigm. The result was that liberation parties
claimed all political territory and suppressed, often violently, any
opposition or dissent.
The end of the Cold War, signified most visibly by the collapse of the
Berlin Wall in 1989 and the disintegration of the Soviet Union brought
fundamental changes to African politics. The Soviet Union was no longer able
to sustain its large network of client states. Suddenly, the ruling
liberation parties had to conform to a new environment of multi-party
politics, driven mainly by rising internal opposition due to repression and
poverty caused by the authoritarian politics.
It was also fuelled by renewed Western influence in African politics.
The US in particular made the spread of democracy a key part of its foreign
policy. The structural adjustment programmes of the International Monetary
Fund (IMF)/World Bank tied democracy to potential assistance. It is hardly
surprising, therefore, that there was a flurry of elections in most African
states in the early 1990s, as they embraced multi-party politics largely for
convenience rather than in good faith. Accepting the challenge of the
opposition was a new phenomenon which the liberation parties, long used to
dominating all political space, had to cope with.
As a superficial measure of democracy, the election suddenly enabled
the transformation of authoritarian strong-men into "democrats". The ritual
of the election was, rather unfortunately and inaccurately, equated with
democracy. The wider values and institutions, developed through struggle
over long periods of time and, therefore, firmly in place in the Western
political universe where democracy appeared to flourish, were non-existent
or at best, limited, in the African context. For example, where the
judiciary, responsible for resolving conflicts, is emasculated by one of the
contestants, the election process is ineffective since the incentive to be
fair is limited.
It is interesting to observe how, using examples from the South and
East African regions, the liberation parties responded to the challenge of
multi-party politics. I have divided the countries by response into two
sets, the Adaptable and the Non-Adaptable sets, depending on how the
liberation parties have coped with change.
Tanzania: When Mwalimu Julius Nyerere saw that the end was nigh he
departed gracefully in 1985 and was succeeded by Ali Hassan Mwinyi. Mwinyi
who handed over to Benjamin Mkapa. Mkapa passed the baton to the current
President Jakaya Kikwete. All these leaders belong to the liberation party,
Chama Cha Mapinduzi ("CCM") - a clear example of adaptability, even though
it was at the forefront of the one-party system in the 1970s.
Botswana: It is rightly held as Africa's longest multi-party
democracy, having adopted the system at independence in 1966. But in those
42 years, the ruling party, the Botswana Democratic Party ("BDP") has never
lost power to the opposition. Sir Seretse Khama, the first President was
succeeded by Sir Ketumile Masire who later stepped down for Festus Mogae.
Mogae recently handed over power to Seretse Khama Ian Khama.
Mozambique: The country that got off to a tumultuous start with Samora
Machel at the helm has calmed down lately. When Machel died tragically in
1986, he was succeeded by Joachim Chissano who successfully steered the
country out of the civil war, served his terms and gracefully left power to
the current President Armando Guebuza. As in Tanzania and Botswana, the
liberation party, FRELIMO, has retained power since independence and enabled
internal leadership succession and change, thereby providing a respectable
façade of democracy.
This is the set of countries where the liberation parties failed to
cope with change and have suffered a terrible patch after the leader's
departure. These are:
Zambia: Kenneth Kaunda led Zambia for 27 years since independence in
1964. He lost heavily to Frederick Chiluba in the watershed election in
1991. He became one of the first high profile victims of the new age of
politics and his party, UNIP, was left in the doldrums after his demise. It
has not recovered since.
Kenya: Moi took over the leadership after the death of Jomo Kenyatta
in 1978. By 1982 Kenya was a one-party state and Moi retained power, with an
iron grip, until 2002 when he "retired" before the election which his
party, KANU, lost to the opposition. It, too, has never recovered.
Malawi: Hastings Kamuzu Banda ruled this small country with an
iron-fist from independence in 1964 until he lost power to Bakili Muluzi in
1994, after reluctantly accepting multi-party politics.
So where, then, does Zimbabwe's Zanu PF fit?
It is the liberation party in Zimbabwe. Mugabe has dominated Zanu PF
politics since independence. The subject of succession in Zanu PF is almost
taboo. It has failed to learn from the mixed fortunes of the other
liberation parties
The power-sharing deal may have saved Mugabe from humiliation of
Kaunda and Banda, but the likelihood is that for Zanu PF the relief is only
short-term; a mere painkiller rather than a cure against a terminal disease.
It is odd that the many men and women in Zanu PF watch idly whilst their
party partakes the poison-pill.
Alex Magaisa is based at, Kent Law School, the University of Kent
and can be contacted at wamagaisa@yahoo.co.uk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)