In the letter written by ex President Thabo Mbeki to the ANC after he was fired as President he listed Robert Mugabe – who pretends to be the legitimate President of Zimbabwe – as one of the heroes he has had the honour to interact with. Can one tell the quality of a person by his or her heroes? Probably yes.
So when the New York Times reported this morning that a new survey has found that hunger is wide spread in that country, I could not help but wonder what Mbeki would say to this. The report states:
The survey, recently provided to international donors, found that the proportion of people who had eaten nothing the previous day had risen to 12 percent from zero, while those who had consumed only one meal had soared to 60 percent from only 13 percent last year.
For almost three months, from June to August, Mr. Mugabe banned international charitable organizations from operating, depriving more than a million people of food and basic aid after the country had already suffered one of its worst harvests.
Mr. Mugabe defended the suspension by arguing that some Western aid groups were backing his political rival, Morgan Tsvangirai, who bested him at the polls in March but withdrew before a June 27 runoff. But civic groups and analysts said Mr. Mugabe’s real motive was to clear rural areas of witnesses to his military-led crackdown on opposition supporters and to starve those supporters.
Can one remain a heroe if one has contributed so starkly to this state of affairs? Apparently one can if one inhabits the moral universe of Thabo Mbeki. Thank goodness we are rid of him.
If Mbeki admits failure in Zimbabwe, he admits failure to his dream of an African renaissance. So therefore he would rather not admit failure full stop…even though the rest of the world is blind.
It’s typical ANC strategy…bury your head in the sand of the present, all the while harping on about contributions of the past. While Mugabe DID make a contribution once, that will not feed the people of Zim now.
I feel that Mbeki has allowed his identity to become so caught up in his dream of establishing a legacy like Nelson Mandela’s, that he has allowed his sense of perspective to get so bitterlly twisted that he can’t see the woods for the trees anymore.
You are correct, regardless of how I feel about JZ, he is one small step up from TM.
Sweet post, Pierre.
Lets us also not forget the real heroes of Zimbabwe : the MDC, the Zimbabwean labor unions and their long-standing “left leaning” allies in the ANC who are now lampooned in our neoliberal media as “raping” Lady Justice.
One of the most frustrating things on this blog is to try and highlight the, at times, racial insensitivity that the owner of the blog displays with gay regard. When one tries to protest one is branded as a not worthy contributor who uses the race card to debate points.
But what the heck, I will protest once more.
In the said letter and, of Mugabe, Mbeki says:-
“Personally, I’ve been privileged to interact with such varied titans of our struggle….. ”
and then covers that paragraph by saying:-
“All these, and many others I have not mentioned, were and are true heroines and heroes of our struggle.”
In summary, Mbeki calls Mugabe a ‘hero of our struggle’ and does nothing to praise worship him for the current state of Zimbabwe.
Peirre, this is the first time I hear of anyone disputing this fact. Whatever Mugabe did/does after the struggle for the liberation of black people, from your forefathers, is not at issue in that letter. What Mbeki is saying is that Mugabe is a liberation hero and that is TRUE for every ethnic African walking the face of this continent. I would not expect you to understand that, and I would understand the limitations imposed to you by virtue of your race.
Funny thing, I wonder sometimes. Had people that Mbeki mentions as heroes and heroines, including Mugabe, not done what they did, would interracial marriages and homosexuality be allowed in an apartheid South Africa? Just a thought!
Mugabe has routinely referred to American and British leaders as “sodomists” and “gays and lesbians”.
I don’t think homosexuality is very welcome in Zimbabwe.
Additionally, I think Zimbabweans were under the impression that liberation meant that they could find jobs, would be able to put food on the table, and would be free to choose who they wanted as president and free to engage in crtical debate of social and political affairs.
Mugabe may have been a hero once, but no more.
Oh please, Slipper. JZ, “one small step up from TM”? That joker! I think not.
He is, whether you like it or not. It’s kind of like if I told you I was going to chop your arm off, but you could choose to have it done under anasthetic or without anasthetic while I used a chainsaw. The outcome is not particularly good either way, but obviously you’d choose anasthetic. Therefore, it would be considered a step up.
When you’re at rock bottom, you can only go up. The ANC could’ve elected another candidate which would’ve been a good few steps up, but they elected Zuma. He is still better than Mbeki, which is a sad reality we must all face.
hmmm … yes hot off the press and sorry to say I told you so:
“Jacob Zuma says he can no longer call Zanu PF and Robert Mugabe “comrades”, and thinks pressure should be brought on them to effect change in Zimbabwe.”
http://www.thezimbabwean.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17512&Itemid=108
Does anyone think that the Mugabe reference may have been a personal inclusion understandable only to TM and JZ? TM is very comfortable with Mugabe, we know that. JZ is well publicised as hating him. Perhaps it was deliberate to tell JZ that TM dismisses his judgement in relation to personal discussions between the two of them which, miraculously, TM hasn’t published or the ANC haven’t leaked.
Just a thought.
khosi // Dec 22, 2008 at 5:01 pm
“Funny thing, I wonder sometimes. Had people that Mbeki mentions as heroes and heroines, including Mugabe, not done what they did, would interracial marriages and homosexuality be allowed in an apartheid South Africa? Just a thought!”
Hell Khosi, and you keep telling me to think? You know precisely that the thing that got us our freedom was the belief within the leadership of the NP that if Mugabe could be a compliant little kaffir and run his country peacefully, then we all could be!
I do not think Mugabe displayed any courage for the greater-good. Anyone who names him a Hero does so without the true intentions. Its a dirty game these so called leaders are playing, its just a pitty that the poor have to suffer….die of deases and hunger. Wouldn’t it be nice if they could go on blogs like this and compare what they had for supper.
Zuma can no longer call Mugabe and Zanu-PF comrades. (Applause!!!)
Zuma is against regime change in Zimbabwe. (Huh?!?!)
Mpho // Dec 22, 2008 at 9:54 pm
What you are saying makes no sense at all. I would like to suggest, once more and with humility, please heed my advice.
khosi // Dec 22, 2008 at 5:01 pm
http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/anctoday/2007/text/at29.txt
Pierre, I suggest you read the above linked comments by your arch nemesis (Thabo Mbeki) in regard to facts and the tendency of postmodernists to distort facts in order to provide a basis for amplifying their innate prejudice. Thus, when faced with an unambiguous private letter, lacking all elements of equivocation and trickery, the postmodernist in the likes of Mr. P De Vos (Bcomm LLB LLM (Stellenbosch), LLM (Columbia), LLD (Western Cape), professor extraordinaire, UWC) chooses rather to distort reality and find a “deeper” meaning where in fact the obvious will suffice!
Khosi’s response is a sublime and appropriate rejoinder to your false and shameful analysis.
Khosi and Vuyo, anybody familiar with language philosophy of the past 50 years, will know that words do not have one final and unambiguous meaning outside the context within those words find themselves. The context in which Mbeki chose to descrribe Mugabe as a hero of the struggle is one in which Mugabe has been shown to be a murderous tyrant. It is rather disingenuous (and maybe bordering on a kind of nihilistic postmodernism) to claim that Mbeki’s letter does not express admiration for Mugabe at all. He is described as a hero (of the struggle yes, but still a hero). If someone had helped me in the past and has now been found to be a mass murderer I would not call him a hero of my struggle because I would show myself to be callously disregarding the lives of those murdered. In Mbeki’s world, because Mugabe assisted with the struggle, he can still be called a hero. I suggest this shows a shocking and scandalous disregard for the hundreds of thousands of people how died in Zimbabwe and for the new struggle of Zimbabweans to be free. The fact that you choose another interpretation, says much about your moral compass (or lack thereof).
Pierre De Vos // Dec 23, 2008 at 10:46 am
I find the contradictions in, and anomalies of, your analysis to be quite extraordinary. Is it not appropriate for the West to describe Winston Churchill, Jan Smuts, Dwight Eisenhower, Field Marshal Montgomery, Gen Macarthur, Gen Charles De Gaulle, etc, as “heroes”, for their admirable exploits in the struggle against the Nazi war machine? Notwithstanding the appropriateness and accuracy of their description as heroes (in regard to their struggle against the genocidal Nazi regime), it would be inappropriate to describe them as heroes in regard to the political conduct after the defeat of the Nazis, precisely because of their racialist, imperialist, paternalistic, and prejudicial attitudes to non-Europeans and their military and like interventions in pursuance of their ignoble prejudice. Regardless of the accuracy of the foregoing, one still cannot reinvent history and reject the fact of their heroism in the face of Nazism.
Similarly, in regard to Mugabe, we cannot discount the fact of his heroism in the face of a genocidal white regime led by Ian Smith. Mugabe is therefore factually a hero of the struggle against colonialism and Rhodesian apartheid. Indeed, for his support of the South African liberation movements, he is indeed factually and therefore truthfully a hero of the struggle against South African apartheid. This is indubitable! Accordingly, Mbeki’s assertion of the foregoing (i.e. the suggestion that Mugabe is a hero of the struggle against apartheid, colonialism and the colonialism of the special kind) is indubitable, notwithstanding postmodernist analysis.
Mugabe’s post liberation conduct is germane only to the extent of the determination of the histories of his role in the Zimbabwean history as a whole (i.e. is he a Hero or Villain). Thus, it could be stated by the histories that in the present epoch of Zimbabwean history, Mugabe is arguably not a hero (but this is for determination by histories after due consideration of the context and actors as well as the motives thereof). With the foregoing in mind, if Mbeki had in his letter judged Mugabe as a hero of all the epochs of Zimbabwean pre and post liberation history, then your comments Pierre could likely be sustainable. Indeed, any such suggestion by Mbeki would, logically, lead one to question his role in the epoch of mediation.
To misrepresent the above is to be scanty with the truth.
Pierre De Vos // Dec 23, 2008 at 10:46 am
Vuyo // Dec 23, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Dear Pierre,
Please pardon the loquaciousness and laboriousness of my earlier posting, the contents of which is nonetheless accurate and are restated below
Fact of the matter is that your reliance on language philosophy of the past 50 years does not dissuade from the lack of substance of your contention. Regardless of the possibly plausible argument that words do not have one final and unambiguous meaning outside the context thereof, the fact remains (as you yourself suggest) that words must be imputed to a historical context as reflected by historical fact. And Mbeki’s words, interpreted in accordance with this approach, do not conflate to an admiration of Mugabe’s present actions. Indeed, if one considers Mbeki’s remarks in the 2001 private discussion paper between himself and Mugabe, where he clearly raises his concerns with the manner with which ZanuPF deals with the challenges facing, firstly, the party and, secondly, Zimbabwe, one cannot conclude that Mbeki admires what is occurring in Zimbabwe (to the contrary, he is critical and in fact proposes a change of course, hardly the actions of an admirer! To suggest that he, in 2008, now admires the same actions of Mugabe which he privately criticized in 2001 is mere fabrication.).
To suggest that: “If someone had helped me in the past and has now been found to be a mass murderer I would not call him a hero of my struggle because I would show myself to be callously disregarding the lives of those murdered” is imprudent. There ought to be fidelity to fact regardless how you are perceived or the likelihood of deception and distortion of truth increases. The fact of Hitler’s diabolical regime cannot dissuade from the fact that he built the autobahns and was instrumental in ensuring that the masses of Germany attained mobility as a result of the development of the Volkswagen. Stating this fact does not eradicate the fact of the evil of the Hitler regime. The facts remain the facts and must be communicated as such without fear.
Regards
Vuyo
Ugh. I haven’t words anymore for this very fucking unnecassary waste of human lives. People have been suffering in Zim for so long, it has now become customary to just roll your eyes when it is mentioned. Every mention is just another statistic – just across the freekin border.
When a country reaches eye rolling level, they’re screwed beyond measure.
*rolls eyes*
khosi // Dec 22, 2008 at 5:01 pm
khosi wrote : “……. What Mbeki is saying is that Mugabe is a liberation hero and that is TRUE for every ethnic African walking the face of this continent. I would not expect you to understand that, and I would understand the limitations imposed to you by virtue of your race…….”
@Khosi
I do not expect you to understand that Mugabe TOTALLY destroyed a once prosperous and beautiful country.
I do not expect you to understand that the old ANC (Mbeki and his gang) has basically destroyed a once prosperous and beautiful country.
I also do not expect you to understand that the new ANC (with Zuma and his gang at the helm) do not have the skill, expertise or proficiency to lead our country.
I do not expect you to understand that the “apartheid regime” with its many many faults and wrongs still did a far far better job than the ANC ever did.
In fact I do not expect you to understand much more than savagery.
I do expect you to label me a racist now, just like you have branded the owner of this blog a racist…it’s part of your approach. Fact of the matter is, if we do not agree with you or the ANC you guys play the race card. (every time – like you just did now)
By the way Mugabe is a savage murderer with no respect for life, but, I don’t expect you to understand that.
retsrov
I must admit that is highly debatable. Perhaps you would like to rephrase that to “apartheid regime” with its many many faults and wrongs still did a far far better job for THE WHITE MINORITY than the ANC ever did.” The many successes of the ANC in empowering the disenfranchised masses is well documented and can be verified using various metrics. It is only reactionary white Apartheid apologists that can possibly make such an absurd assertion. Hypocritical racist who have done nothing else supported Apartheid all their lives and now have the stupid audacity to zoom into each and every human frailty exposed by the leaders of the liberation movement as if they somehow occupy some kind of moral high ground.
Restrov,
I am a Black South African who is still carrying the scars of the brutality of Apartheid. But I understand.
Mugabe is a hero turned villain. It is clear that his struggle was not for the liberation of the Zimbabweans; otherwise he would be concerned with their lives. He engaged in the struggle so that he can ‘own’ Zimbabwe and the Zimbabweans.
What a shame. A worse shame is when victims of oppression don’t realise that oppressors come in all colours.
Mbeki could have ignored Mugabe in his speech. After all, he ignores Biko and Sobukwe all the time he speaks about heroes of the struggle against Apartheid.
No Restrov, some of us understand.
Retsrov // Dec 23, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Restrov,
Your posting a regurgitation of the lies commonly peddled by afro-pessimists, lunatic white supremacists and others who similarly have no regard for truth.
Mugabe has led Zimbabwe for nearly three decades and he (and ZanuPF) must therefore be held accountable for the shameful state of that country. To however claim that he “TOTALLY” destroyed a once prosperous and beautiful country is a fabrication of extraordinary proportions. In fact, I question your suggestion that Zimbabwe was ever prosperous as useful propaganda propagated by those who wish to starkly contrast the present condition of Zimbabwe to its condition upon attainment of black majority governance.
Fact of the matter is that Zimbabwe was an unequal country with a fiscus and economy that had been devastated by the civil war and the irresponsible policies of Ina Smith and his white majority government. Fact of the matter is that the vast population of Zimabwe was, in 1981, traumatized, poor and illiterate. Fact of the matter is that the tendency to militancy and paranoia in Zimbabwean politics can be directly attributed to the Civil War instigated by the illegitimate white government of Zimbabwe and the atrocities that resulted therefrom. Fact of the matter is that ZanuPF was forced to acquiesce to pro-minority compromises, at Lancaster House, that sustained the structural inequities of that country. Fact of the matter is that the newly elected Zanu government was forced by socio-economic realities to adopt macroeconomic policies that led to the indebtedness of the Zimbabwean state and the subsequent need to obtain World Bank funding with the prerequistory structural adjustments. Fact of the matter is that Zimbabwe’s economy was not performing optimally from at least 1985 and was being driven by government expenditure programmes and characterized by contracting private sector growth, and the consequent economic impact thereof. Fact of the matter is that all this happened partly because of the shortsighted policies of ZanuPF and Mugabe as well as the policy constraints forced upon Zimbabwe by Britain and the dubious Lancaster agreement.
Fact of the matter is that Zimbabwean “prosperity” is nothing but a manufactured myth. The populist (and often plain evil) policies of Mugabe’s government were bound to result in that countries implosion. The resources expended in military and other programmes in support of anti-apartheid initiatives also deviated significant resources and contributed to the deterioration of the Zimbabwean economy and consequently its politico-social space. Zimbabwe was bound to implode, especially after Britain reneged from its obligations in terms of Lancaster.
Zimbabwe’s implosion can be attributed directly to ZanuPF, Mugabe, Britain, the World Bank, Ian Smith, apartheid and colonialism. Pierre de Vos, Restrov and other beneficiaries of apartheid will always argue vehemently against the aforementioned facts (especially the latter two facts) because of a dishonourable need to absolve themselves of the responsibility of the socio-political cataclysm that afflicts Zimbabwe and many other SADC countries directly as a result of the misguided policies of apartheid (which were designed solely for the pleasure of white South Africans and Western corporations). It is within this context that this attempt by many in the Media and international community to attribute the failures in Zimbabwe to the ANC and Mbeki must be rejected for what they are: fabrications peddled by apartheid denialists (such as Restrov), uninformed compradors, and others who are just too lazy to do their research and therefore choose to rely on special analysis from an embedded media.
Your suggestion that “the apartheid regime with its many faults and wrongs still did a far better job than the ANC ever did”, reveals you as a loony apartheid denialist (like the majority of South African whites). Dismiss me as another darkie playing the race card but I will not standby, like many compradors and other useful idiots, while Pierre De Vos, Restrov, and their bedfellows, misrepresent history and fact, in the guise of some form of righteous indignation about human rights abuses, etc, while failing to acknowledge that the consequences of policies which benefited the white populations of Southern Africa (for half a millennium) still reverberate in the socio-economic instabilities that we see today, including Zimbabwe and the socio-economic calamities (attributable to colonial and apartheid policies) that have given us the tragic pandemic of HIV/AIDS, rape, pillage, illiteracy, etc.
Mugabe is no hero. people who slaughter other people are not heroes no matter what their conduct in the past was. Mugabe has been playing the struggle fighter card for to long. Hes a megalomaniac, and his struggle attempts were just a step to getting himself in power..
Ozone,
I must admit, I was a little insensitive by saying the “apartheid regime” did a better job than the ANC ever did. You are quite right, they did a better job to benefit the white minority, and often heartlessly so. I apologize to progressive thinking bloggers if I came across as callous. I reacted with cold emotion because some people just will not or perhaps can not understand that we need to go forward with dignity and positive mindsets (trying to forget/forgive the past wrongs). What I really tried to say is that the “apartheid regime” did a brilliant job in building the top class infrastructure for this beautiful country we live in.
As for Vuyo, please run to the tokkelosh DT who recently on American TV stated that Zim has gone from the bread basket of Africa to a basket case, thanx to Mugabe and his illegitimate government. It also seems Vuyo is just as misinformed as Mbeki and Beetroot as far as the origin and causes of HIV/AIDS (and Bob with regards to cholera !!!)
Vuyo, if you have been following this Blog (and if you are honest) you would not be able to argue that I am not mindful of our shameful history and the effects of colonialism on Africa in general and South Africa and Zimbabwe in particular. What I take issue with is your simplistic dichotomous arguments which seems to me deeply insulting to Africans as you seem to suggest African leaders are helpless and passive bystanders devoid of any real moral agency. Developing countries – especially those whose economies have been distorted by colonialism – do suffer from serious constraints and their leaders are not as free as those in developed countries to make the choices they wish to make for the betterment of their people. But to point to this as an excuse for the murder and brutality of someone like Mugabe, is really to argue that Africans are so simple minded and morally depraved that they cannot act in a humane and wise way within those constraints.
Mugabe’s henchmen killed thousands of their country men and women in Matabeleland only a few years after independence. This had NOTHING to do with colonialism and everything to do with Mugabe’s wish to stay in power for ever. This is morally reprehensible. To try and excuse it is to say that Africans must be held to a lower moral standard because they are incapable of meeting ordinary standards espoused by a basic human rights based paradigm. I find this deeply insulting and bordering on racism.
Recognising the wrongs of the past can surely not justify the murder and torture of thousands of Zimbaweans and the complete ruin of that country by a man who says Zimbabwe belongs to HIM. If you believe it can, then you are inhabiting a kind of relativistic moral universe that goes even beyond the worse kind of moral relativism that you ascribe to post modernists.
It seems to me this kind of “them” and “us” mentality gives far too much power to the white erstwhile oppressors as it really is based on the assumption that what “we” as Africans do is already always completely determined by what “they” did before. Steve Biko would not be very happy with this kind of analysis. And I am with Steve Biko on this point.
When will people stop blaming Britain and other European colonial powers for current messes? When are African leaders going to be held accountable for African messes? After decades of liberation, and inheriting countries which – while inequal in wealth distribution and education – still had infrastructure and industry, African leaders will continue to blame their long gone and forgotten colonial masters.
Colonialism, for all it’s mistakes and legacies, did not teach anybody to pillage a country for personal gain. Robert Mugabe is nothing short of a thug, and to shift the blame for that to something or someone else is simply playing the usual African political game. 30 years in power and now Zimbabwe is broken. Who’s fault is that? I don’t care what the man did to liberate Zimbabwe, the fact is that now he has utterly ruined it. You lose the hero-status with that unfortunately – performance is evaluated over time, not at a point of choosing.
Imagine if I stood up and proclaimed National Party leaders like Verwoerd heroes, because they got rid of the British?
A word on the above – I am not saying colonialists did NOT pillage countries for personal gain, indeed, certain 1st world countries continue to do so to this day, albeit in more low-key ways.
That statement was meant to indicate that colonial governments at least always looked after their own. Mugabe has driven out white people by and large, but he has also decimated his own people through physical violence (dating back to the 80s I believe), and forced starvation, among others. There is absolutely no way this man can be regarded as a hero. At best, he is somebody who once had potential but blew that right away.
A bunch of academic hooligans!!!
big slipper
“When will people stop blaming Britain and other European colonial powers for current messes? When are African leaders going to be held accountable for African messes?”
When BAE and Tony Blair stop sponsoring the ANC’s elections and selling weapons to Robert Mugabe ?
In future, this blog should have a poll under each post. You could then simply tick ‘aye, prof!’ or ‘nay, prof!’ and submit your vote.
Retsrov // Dec 23, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Restrov, your puerile response is noted with contempt. As I expected, you will not address the facts that I have raised and will resort to casting aspersions. Frankly, you have a feeble mind.
Pierre De Vos // Dec 23, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Dear Pierre,
I am mindful of your previous acknowledgements of the negative effects of colonialism on Africa in general and South Africa and Zimbabwe in particular, for which acknowledgements I am grateful. I hope you are mindful of my condemnation of the leadership of Mugabe and his human rights record, etc, which has not precluded me from criticizing the incompetent and self-serving MDC. I have based all my assertions on facts and facts alone and never once resort to emotional blackmail or such similar subjective approach (indeed, it is you who embraces subjective analysis as though it has some virtue, a position with which I disagree).
My arguments are not simplistic. In fact, it has always been my contention you’re your analysis tends relegate issues to their most basic, which (although admirable as “uncompromising” and/or “honest”), tends to skew debate into some make-believe contest between two divergent motive forces, one dark, the other light, one bad the other good! Policy making and operational administrative action in Africa often does not occur in within such a paradigm and is (in the African context), a choice between to bad options, one of which may be slightly better than the other (i.e. a non-choice). Therefore I confirm as accurate your assertion that: “Developing countries – especially those whose economies have been distorted by colonialism – do suffer from serious constraints and their leaders are not as free as those in developed countries to make the choices they wish to make for the betterment of their people”. Consistent with the foregoing, we must therefore be cautious of one dimensional solutions that arise from the developed world, precisely because they often do not take into account what you have succinctly stated. Times aplenty, we have seen “solutions” originating from the west (such a structural adjustments, the withdrawal of DDT, etc) being implemented in Africa with calamitous results! I therefore only urge that a fitting analysis be conducted of all our challenges in Africa rather than the one dimensional and pro-western analysis that we are fed, on a daily basis by the media.
Let us not resort to hyperbole, when it does not correspond to reality, merely to forcefully argue unsustainable positions. For example, in regard to the Matebeleland pogrom, fact of the matter is that IT DEED HAVE TO DO WITH COLONIALISM. Fact of the matter is that this does not preclude accountability of Mugabe and his regime for that cowardly genocide. The colonial regime of Salisbury and imperial government of Britain dealt with troublesome natives with the well known strategy of divide and rule. They capitalized on tensions and the system of patronage in order to create clearly defined divisions between these group which still exist today (a situation not unlike that of the Xhosa and the Zulu, who were similarly dealt with in South Africa). These tensions and mistrust were of such an extent that even the motive forces of the Zimbabwean revolution were largely defined according to ethnicity (Zanu => Shona, Zapu =>). These tensions would ultimately culminate in the troubles of gukurahundi. These divides manifest themselves today in the composition of the MDC and zanuPF as well as in the voting patterns. It is therefore as incorrect to state that gukurahundi has NOTHING to do with colonialism as it is to state that the Xhosa and Zulu tensions have NOTHING to do with colonialism and apartheid. Fact!
I don’t suggest that Africans have a lower moral standard and contend that the basis of your premise can not be sustained on application of basic common sense. The suggestion of borderline racism on my part is similarly unfounded, is disputed, and is rather scurrilous!
I am not spreading falsehoods nor being racist by stating the following facts:
It is the west that left Africa with no heritage of democratic governance. It is the west itself that destroyed the social fabric, underpinned by that much lauded principle of natural justice, ubuntu/botho! The west destroyed pre-colonial politico – social structures and replaced them with the Indo-European “nation state” without in any way doing the necessary prerequisite for such a state form (i.e. fostering national unity, developing a leadership corps, bolstering civic groupings, a professional civil service, etc). Indeed, and au contraire, they did the opposite (fostered tribalism, fostered a comprador class, chose corruptible “big men” as governors, militarized African societies, failed to develop industrial capacity while raping Africa of her resources, etc. Clearly this was a recipe for catastrophe!
Certainly, all the above mentioned do not excuse genocidists such as Mugabe, Amin, Sese Seko, etc, for the rape, pillage and murder wrought on the masses of their people. Yet if you wish to address the consequences of the actions of this ignoble Big Men you must understand and appreciate the lay of the land and divorce yourself from a dry pseudo-analysis of Mugabe = Evil, Mbeki = Evil, South Africa = Evil, Morgan and his British brothers = GOOD!
Pierre,
I refer you to the following report as an example of the extent of apartheid direct destabilization of Zimbabwe and contribution to the troubles leading to gukurahundi, therefore nullifying (as not based on fact) your contention that colonialism and/or apartheid had NOTHING to do with matebeleland.
http://www.archive.org/download/BreakingTheSilenceBuildingTruePeace/MatabelelandReport.pdf
Regards
Vuyo
Phew! I can’t read all these posts, but follow this link: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v30/n23/mamd01_.html – I found it illuminating. It helped me to understand the history of the Zimbabwean situation.
And see my blog if you care to read even more: http://attentiontodetail.wordpress.com/2008/12/21/adifferentangle/ – re. my confusion around this Zimbabwe issue that led to someone sending me the above link.
TLS
Afghanistan following Kenia, Zimbabwe adsurdity of conflicting control ?
bviously ‘conflicting control’, euphamistically called ‘power sharing’
is an unworkable absurdity. Afghanistan’s disputerd elections ‘talks’
about copying this disaster from Kenia and Zimbabwe.
Apparently the close election of US GWB led to the subsequent resentment
and split of US society? So a mechanism that avoids national conflict is
good.
What would happen if in Afghanistan, Kenia, Zimbabawe if the disputing looser was
given sole control over some aspect of governance or some geographical region?
An objective means of allocating resources to the controlled-by-the-minority
zone would be needed. So if Kenia’s subservient party was given control
of health and education, the resources collected and controlled by the strong
party, would need to be allocated to the weaker party, eg. at the same budget
percentage as ‘previously’.
In Afghanistan eg. the 2nd party could be given governance of a province/s
where they had the most support. The idea is to allow the 2nd party to compete
by *PERFORMANCE*, against the dominant party, and thereby have the opportunity
to prove themselves to the electorate.
In S.Africa [and apparently to a lesser degree in Mexico] where the education
system is held to ransom by the teacher’s union, which must mean continuing
degeneration of the nation for decades ahead, it would be difficult to implement
this policy eg. to the western cape province, where the opposition party’s
strength is, because of the inertia of the educational structures.
I.e. you can’t just replace the rotten/corrupt teachers over night.
OTOH, perhaps replacing the worst ones would provide some shock effect, to
immediately improve outcomes ?
And already, education policy is/was said to be provinicially controlled.
—
Of course the corrupt long-time incumbents would oppose such a scheme;
but when the non-functioning state is fed by donor nation/s, this scheme would be
better than supporting the Kenia, Zimbabwe type farce.
———
Re. December 22, 2008 Mpho says:–
] Hell Khosi, and you keep telling me to think? You know precisely
] that the thing that got us our freedom was the belief within the
] leadership of the NP that if Mugabe could be a compliant little
] kaffir and run his country peacefully, then we all could be!
This confirms what I call the Hong-kong-trick:
Apartheid had to be eliminated because it was causing international racial-tension
which eg. the US didn’t need. So if the NP could see Zimbabwe as ‘not a disaster’
they too would more easily submit. So the donors made maximum effort to ensure
that Zimbabwe was perceived to be a success. Once Zanzi had ‘taken the cheese
and entered the trap, there was no need to sacrifice more cheese; and the
western-donors, decided to drop the diareah-ing baby. Analagously Peking
needs to show Taipei that Hong-Kong is a success.
I am Zimbabwean living in England and I used to live in Harare, I must say that my country has been ruined by world’s biggest terrorist which is Mugabe, look at the exchange rate, poverty, economic conditions of Zimbabwe. When I think about it my heart really goes, I wonder why Mugabe does not let citizens of Zimbabwe decide the future of the country and also Mugabe must realize that he is in power since last 30 years his mind is getting old and he cannot think the same as young generation can think, so he must resign for the better of Zimbabweans. Thank you