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.

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

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

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!

“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 ?

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.

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?