Zimbabwe Elections: Should Be About Dynamism and Generational Change

On my first trip home to Zimbabwe from College in N.America (early 90s) I made my way to see my grand-mother in Gweru. On seeing me she asked whether I still rode my bicycle as I did before, since she had been told that North American Winters were quite cold. I told her that, yes, I still rode but now most of my riding was indoors, in a gym, and on a stationary-bike. This I did to keep trim. We then went on a back-and-forth in our (Shona) language as I tried to explain to her exactly what a stationary-bike was and how it helped me stay fit. Now, my grand-mother knew what a bicycle was and she knew what exercise was, but she couldn't compute why someone would ride a bike and go nowhere! "Where will you be going on this bike of yours", she kept on pressing me...to which I answered, "nowhere!'

I recalled this conversation with my late grand-mother this morning, when I was scanning the news updates on the upcoming elections in Zimbabwe. The Amadala (old geriatrics in their late 60s, 70s and 80s) who run the ruling party ZANU-PF, are clueless as to why elections are held in the first place. They know what elections are and they duly aim to win (by any means possible), but the concept behind elections, of democratic dynamism, is beyond these old geriatric folks.

Like my late grand-mother asking me "where I was going" on a stationary-bike, these old folks probably ask out aloud, "but who will replace us if we lose?". They cannot compute that losing, change, dynamism, and an infusion of fresh-blood are implicitly written into any democratic system. In fact this dynamism is really what democracy is all about: a chance to give newer faces (and a fresh, younger generation) a democratic-mandate to tackle the nation's problems. Not only that, but democracy implicitly allows the older ruling elites to depart from the stage gracefully. This quandary, of Africa's geriatric ruling elites not understanding why elections are held in the first place, is what's holding modern Africa back.

The Dictatorial Route To Egyptian Democracy

The antidote to snake-bite is antevenom made from snake-poison. Similarly, to cure the need for authoritarianism and "strong-man" rule in Egypt, the Egyptian state must first have to be subjected to a harsh dose of iron-fisted rule by a strong leader -- and this heavy-handed rule must be buttressed by full-blown capitalism. Egypt neither has the resources (like Saudi Arabia) to re-distribute to a pliant populace nor can it afford Liberal Democracy on the empty bellies of its 85 million people, half of whom are illiterate and live on $2/day. After all, "you can't eat democracy", goes the old saying.

Here's my crude blue-print for what Egypt has to do to get itself out of its malaise. Firstly, a strong leader should be at the helm; someone who can rule with an iron-fist and who eschews all the niceties and trappings of democracy. Secondly, the strong-leader must appoint a small team of leading economists and technocrats to implement a top-down, root-and-branch overhaul of the Egyptian economy. Egypt has no choice but to go with the full-blown form of Capitalism. Demographic pressures on the ground and a woeful lack of resources means that it must literally go for broke with full-blown Capitalism. There literally is no other way!

The team of economists and technocrats must immediately implement the following economic measures: (a) all capital-controls to be lifted (b) all tariffs on capital-equipment to be removed (c) the Egyptian Pound to be made free-floating (d) all loss-making state-enterprises to be sold (e) all restrictions on the-ease-of-doing-business removed. In this business-friendly environment it should take no less than a week to start a business, and all the paper-work should be available online. (f) the removal of all food and fuel subsidies. I know this will be extremely painful, but these are the subsidies that are bankrupting the state, and the Egyptian state can ill-afford such extravagance. And finally (g) a flat tax of 15% to encourage Egypt's wealthy class to pay their fair share of taxes. Compliance with such a low flat-tax will increase (and not decrease) revenues in a developing economy like Egypt's.

After enacting the above measures the Egyptian economy will start to grow again, albeit from a low base. Egypt should be shooting for growth rates of between 7-10% per year (economic growth of 10% per year will double the economy every seven years). Egypt's poor masses cannot eat the empty rhetoric of democracy, but what they can eat is the sustained prosperity of a growing economy. Once the economy ticks, THEN incremental political and social reforms can be implemented. This is an important point: get the economics right first, and then tackle all other needed reforms. I repeat: this is a crucial point. Often nations like Egypt (stuck in a rut) try to "democratise" their way out of their problems first, before tackling economic problems, with the result being more misery and even anarchy.

A growing economy will feed on itself and a more prosperous citizenry will then demand a greater say in the running of their own affairs. Once the hypothetical "strong-man" hears these words from the streets, he will then know that it's time to allow for a more democratic political-dispensation. And that, my friends, is how Egypt can steer itself to a more prosperous and viable democracy, via the steely hand of a dictatorial-regime and prudent economic policies. If it sounds contradictory, it actually isn't. That's how South Korea and Chile steered themselves from misery to prosperity, and then gradually to viable democracy.

We're All Nigerians Now

I've always theorized that all Black Africans have a dormant Nigerian gene that is made active or inactive depending on the particular circumstance that one finds oneself in. When Chinua Achebe passed away in March, all educated Africans fell over themselves to heap literary praise on the undisputed master of African writing. In fact Achebe's own writings were recycled in that praise and Ogidi, Umuofia and Okonkwo were resurrected by admirers who had never set foot in Nigeria. For once, all of Black Africa were pseudo-Nigerians, or wannabe Nigerians.

That admiration for all things Nigerian came to an abrupt end in May when two Two British Muslims (of Nigerian descent) hacked to death a British soldier on the streets of London. All Africans quickly pointed an accusing finger at the two attackers, who were themselves quickly disowned by the wider Nigerian community.

Now we are in June and the Confederations Cup of Football is upon us. Once again the pendulum has swung the other way and that dormant Nigerian gene has been made active once again. For the next two weeks expect to see Nigeria's population miraculously grow from 150 million to 750 million as all of Black Africa gets behind Nigeria's football team, the Super Eagles. Football fans from Dodoma in Tanzania to Dakar in Senegal will be cursing at their TV-screens and choking on their food as the Super eagles take to the field. Every cross from the wings will be scrutinised; every near miss by the strikers will be lamented.

Have mercy on Nigeria's fantastically misnamed President, Goodluck Jonathan. For the next two weeks he will have to deal with 750 million critics as opposed to his usual 150 million. In Africa, where football and politics often morph into a singular pursuit, football fans will use the opportunity to blast every decision he makes. They will criticize his choice of cabinet-ministers and even his wardrobe, while following the exploits of the Super Eagles.

That, my dear Africans, is what it means to be a modern African: following the footballing exploits (and travails) of a nation you most likely have never set foot in. That's what I meant by the header, We're All Nigerians Now.  You gotta love being an African!

Robert Mugabe's Template For Racial Reconciliation in Southern Africa

Today is Zimbabwe's 33rd independence anniversary and I would like to take readers back to an amazing event that took place on March 4, 1980. It was the first ever speech made to the new nation by the incoming Prime Minister, Robert Mugabe, and I have posted this speech at the bottom of this blog. This statesman-like speech of racial reconciliation and nation-building set the tone for a decade of economic prosperity, racial healing and great advances in education and health.

Having demonized Robert Mugabe as a "terrorist", "war-monger" and "Communist" throughout Zimbabwe's war of liberation, White Rhodesians were understandably terrified of the incoming Black African nationalists who were to take over the reigns of power. Furthermore, the mass evacuation of a quarter-of-a-million Portuguese to Portugal on the eve of Mozambique's independence in 1975, was still fresh in the minds of Rhodesia's Whites. After Robert Mugabe's ZANU had been declared the winner in the elections, White Rhodesians literally had their bags packed waiting to escape the incoming racial retribution and tyranny that they thought was to accompany ZANU's rule. Alas, no such thing happened.

On the 4th of March 1980, Robert Mugabe gave one of history's greatest speeches, a speech that is up there in the same league as Dr King's, "I have A Dream" speech and Winston Churchill's wartime,"Never, Never, Surrender" speech. It was a speech that changed the course of history. Prime Minister Mugabe assured the nation's Whites of their rights and economic freedoms in the new and independent state of Zimbabwe, and stated that there was to be no racial retribution for past misdeeds. This racial-reconciliation would allow White Zimbabweans to prosper for a decade-and-a-half in ways they had never imagined before!

This White prosperity and racial harmony in Zimbabwe was also keenly followed by White South Africans. It was this harmonious Zimbabwean template that would convince White South Africans of their own place in a free and independent South Africa under Black majority rule. Had the Black African nationalists in newly independent Zimbabwe gone for racial retribution, the Whites in South Africa would never have acquiesced to majority rule in their own country. They would have fought  to continue with the evil Apartheid system and this would have engulfed the whole of Southern Africa in a racial inferno. Mercifully, that ghastly outcome never saw the light of day, thanks to the foresight and statesman-like conduct of Prime Minister Robert Mugabe. We salute him and thank him for that.

======================================================================


 

Margaret Thatcher: Lessons For Africa

I've never hidden my love for Maggie Thatcher, the now dearly-departed former PM of Britain. I'm an unashamed fan and I've always kept her speeches, biographies and videos in my personal records. Her faults were legion and her enemies ran into the millions, but nevertheless, she ruthlessly stood for British interests and the policies that she thought would help Britain prosper. Some of these policies were brazen in their cruelty, lacking not even an iota of empathy. And yet, these were the policies she wanted, these were the policies she stood by (whatever other people thought), and these were the policies that ultimately saved the UK from turning into a basket-case. We too in Africa need to produce a few "Thatchers" of our own to move our countries forward. We need to produce leaders that are daring; willing to "radically alter the pieces on the chess-board" and change the status-quo; even to be cruel -- where doses of cruelty are needed -- in order to achieve their aims.

Other countries have had leaders who were prepared to take unpopular, even exceedingly cruel actions, actions that in the long-run greatly benefited their countries. Chairman Mao ruthlessly crushed China's feudal elite; allowed peasants to farm for themselves; increased female literacy from 1% to 80%; and set in motion the progressive direction that led to China's dominant position today. Joseph Stalin took over Europe's most backward, illiterate nation and within thirty years had turned the Soviet Union into a Super-Power, albeit at great human cost. The South Korean Generals who took over after the Korean War crushed all dissent; marshaled all resources in a concentrated effort to catch up with the West; and in a generation-and-a-half turned the once backward, inward-looking "Hermit Kingdom" into one of the world's most dynamic regions.

We have had three leaders in Africa who could be defined as "Thatcherian" in their revolutionary idealism. The first two were Kwame Nkrumah and Thomas Sankara, and third of the trio has to be Robert Mugabe. The bold actions of the first two were cut short prematurely, and we will never know what could have transpired in Ghana & Burkina Faso had their revolutions been allowed to run their course. In Zimbabwe, President Mugabe has returned land back to its original owners and is in the process of re-possessing the mines and other key sectors of the economy. The jury is still out on his reforms, but by golly, he has shown the Chutzpah, the gumption, the revolutionary idealism that would have made Margaret Thatcher proud! In fact, in many ways, they were kindred spirits.

What we now need is a newer, fresher, younger generation who come forward and radically re-vitalise the African landscape. This is not a utopian fantasy, but a necessary course that might be our saving grace. Without radical change in Africa, we risk turning into African versions of America's Native Indians...a defeated people who no longer direct their own destiny.

Phandu Skelemani and Botswana: A Napoleon Complex Writ Large

Way back in my clubbing days I was always weary of attracting the ire of short people. I knew that if an argument broke out in a night-club it was always the little guys who wielded a knife (or even worse, a gun). You see, short people always have a point to prove and the same can be said for the little countries that most people have never heard off. It's always the Qatars and Botswanas of this world who make the most noise in the international arena, despite their having small populations.

Just this week we witnessed the bizarre tale of Botswana's Foreign Minister, Phandu Skelemani, threatening to arrest Kenya's President-elect, Uhuru Kenyatta, if he dared to set foot in Botswana. One could almost imagine Uhuru Kenyatta sitting in his office, straining his eyes and trying to find Botswana on a map of Africa! The fact that little Botswana (population1.8Mil) could dare to throw the rule-book at Kenya (population 41 million) was a shock to many people. What gumption!

The truth of the matter is that, in the wider scheme of things, Botswana simply does not matter. No-one gives a rat's ass what the Foreign Minister of that little country thinks or says! Most people in East or West Africa would have a hard time naming the sleepy capital of Botswana (Gaborone) or even one MuTswana who has ever achieved any fame (I couldn't).

Let's leave pontificating on Continental issues to the big boys of African politics, the Nigerias, South Africas and Ethiopias of this world. They have the clout, size and Continental heft to make their voices heard throughout Africa. Small nations like Botswana, Lesotho and Eritrea should speak only when spoken to.

Rest In Peace, Hugo Chavez.

Whatever we think of Hugo Chavez we must at least concede that he did make an honest attempt at making the Venezuelan masses active participants in their own country's development. Previous rulers -- representing a very narrow elite -- had ignored the bulk of Venezuela's Mestizo and Mulatto masses, and instead had focused on living in their false utopia. These European-descended elites had always cared more for plastic-surgery and shopping trips to Miami rather than caring for the welfare of schoolchildren in Caracas' barrios.

Thanks to Hugo Chavez' Bolivarian Revolution, the state finally re-orientated its machinery to providing for the basic needs of the teeming masses. Ironically, the Bolivarian Revolution was named for Simon Bolivar, an independence-era member of the wealthy elite, but whose predecessors had chosen to ignore his noble intentions. Centuries of deliberate and structural "active inactivity" on the part of Venezuela's do-nothing elites meant that nothing had ever been done to uplift the poor. Absolutely nothing!

Until roughly thirty years ago, the only path of progress available to upwardly-mobile Mestizos and mulattos in Venezuela was to be found either in the military or as teachers. That's how Hugo Chavez -- a sharp mind from the lowly classes -- found himself in the military. As ruler himself, he could never change centuries of misrule in two decades, but he did give his best shot.

By no means is modern-day Venezuela a verifiable utopia, with its serious problems of crime and inequality, but at least the masses now have a foot in the door. It was Hugo Chavez who upturned the chessboard and put the masses in play as actors in their own development. For this we thank him! We salute him and may he forever rest in peace.