Another Call for Assistance for Zimbabwe

Posted on by
Reply

If one was to look back through the Archives of this blog, one would find a post where one of the authors of this blog promised a step by step plan for how to help Zimbabwe, instead of the typically useless ‘calls for solidarity’. As the formation of this plan went along, holes began to develop and the whole idea became vastly more complicated and detailed than was originally set out to be. The African File’s now defunct sister site, The Fertile Cresent File, tore into the drafts of this project, and as time went along the situation on the ground continued to change right up to the unity government that was forced upon the MDC and Mugabe by SADC. Since then the world has watched (though less so than in 2008) as the two rivals parties try to form something resembling a functioning government. I had given up on any prescription because the situation seemed to deal more with personalities and certainly a little bit of luck, rather than any post-conflict organizational chart.

Since then, we have had a MDC Minister arrested, Morgan Tsvangirai’s wife has been killed in a traffic accident, and Mugabe has celebrated his 85th birthday.

All of which leads to this article from the Huffington Post by two ICG writers:

International Crisis Group – Sydney Masamvu and Donald Steinberg in The Huffington Post.

I have a few issues with this piece, other than the repeated calls for aid.

First deals with this paragraph:

…failure would likely lead to a new seizure of power by Mugabe and his hardline allies, even greater repression and isolation, and new hardship and abuse for the long-suffering Zimbabwean people.

I think this does quite an unjustice to Mugabe. I mean, it would be awfully hard to top the repression and isolation that has gone on in the country. I would be curious to learn where there were any areas in the lives of ordinary Zimbabweans that wasn’t ‘hard’ already. To suggest that it could be worse, is to suggest that Mugabe hasn’t been at the top of his game. I wonder how he’ll respond to that criticism. 

Second, is the impression that the regional body SADC actually gives a damn about Zimbabwe through the channeling of funds:

The regional grouping of the Southern African Development Corporation (SADC), has recognized the stakes, and is putting its money where its interests are, including through new financial support from South Africa and Botswana. It is time for the broader international community to do the same.

Masamvu and Steinberg realize that these are the only countries that would even have money to contribute, yes? Angola is spending their saved up petro dollars on football stadiums for the next ACN. Mozambique is just getting its budget together after years of actually useful help from the IMF/WB. Zambia is getting poached by vulture funds. Namibia is dealing with water shortages and aid reductions. The DRC is the DRC. Madagascar is suspended, Tanzania has never made a meaningful contribution to regional development lately, and everyone else is too small to have any kind of political or economic impact. Thus to back up a claim that SADC is actually interested in solving Zimbabwe’s crisis by funding through Botswana and South Africa (who are coincidently asking us to help pay), does not really make much sense. On top of that, they include a quote by Tsvangirai saying “Don’t make us pay for working with Mugabe.” They fail to read between the lines of this quote, because what Tsvangirai really means to say is “Don’t make us pay for working with Mugabe….because you made us do it“. SADC thought they had performed their role by holding the firearm in this shot-gun marriage. With their hands now washed of Zimbabwe, they can now blame the MDC and maybe ZANU-PF if and when they screw up.

Finally, to suggest that it is the US/UK refusals to contribute humanitarian assistance as the reason for service failure in Zimbabwe is overstating the effect of Western aid. Nothing short of an invasion by medical personnel, engineers, and teachers would help begin to tackle the challenges faced by the country. To suggest that simply freeing money to support these ventures would cause anything more than a bump in PR rating for the West buys into the antiquated belief that aid can have profound effects on a country simply by giving more and more. Many books have recently been published that should diminish this belief that aid can achieve anything when funneled through sovereign service delivery agencies or that half-ass projects by the UN or the West will cause significant societal changes. People would certainly argue that something is better than nothing, but I would argue quite the opposite. Either invade Zimbabwe with services and personnel, say to the unity government “take seat, you can come back in 10 years” and then commit to a decade long project of education and service improvements, while letting the politicians map out a long-term plan of reconciliation and civic society building, OR let the Zimbabweans figure it out on their own. Anything in the middle will just prolong the final product of a safe and prosperous Zimbabwe.

Nando’s television advert Star, Julius, retires

Posted on by
1

Well it would seem that one of the most popular South African puppets has decided to call it a day, and was auctioned off by his employers to the higest bidder. Nando’s owner had thought of offering it to Helen Zille, who had recently been dubbed a “little racist girl” by a prominent ANCYL member.

If only the US could have produced something as racy and politically satirical during our election. Instead we got placid attempts to just twist words and policy like this. I guess we’ll just have to be our satisfied with the beating that Apple lays on Windows as our form of advertising entertainment.

See the famous Advert:

Nando’s television advert | Times Multimedia.

Jacob Zuma Shower Gel, Feel Presidential

Posted on by
Reply

First Zaipiro with the shower-headed Jacob Zuma and now laughitoff, a satirical South African blog, has been selling a shower bath product with Jacob Zuma’s name attached to it for the past few months. The label advises: “After intense physical activity use … gel for an invigorating cleansing experience.” With coverage in The Times, the BBC, and other blogs, it seems to be the hot product for this election season. 

Though it might be too clever for the ANC’s liking, and with Zuma riding his political capital at the moment and going after cartoonist Zaipiro, the ANC is said to be considering legal action against laughitoff.. This is just another example in the long list of others, that the ANC pictures itself as above the state, and thus above criticism or satire. Obviously the recent failure to achieve a 2/3 majority in the parliament has done nothing to dent the ANC’s hubris.

One must believe that its not until satirists and critics are accepted by the ANC as part and parcel of democracy that South Africa will take the next step. Obviously simply accepting satire is not the only thing that must be done, but when a cultural exists that accepts criticisms and does not attempt to label it libelous, a atmosphere will exist to promote greater thought, introspection, and debate on the serious issues. 

Where that society can be found in the world today is hard to pinpoint. As much fun as Americans and Britons make of their politicians, there are still a minority of their supporters who will not tolerate the abuse and satire that is thrown at their candidate. 

However it turns out, well-played to laughitoff….now if only it was available in the US. Make sure to check out the advert that is going viral.

Zuma to Decide on Deputy – Do Voters Matter?

Posted on by
Reply

One of the unique systems of the parliamentary system that South Africa adopted in 1994 was the party-list system. In simplistic terms, a South African political party puts a list of 400 of its members for election. This of course corresponds to the 400 seats in the National Assmebly. The list is made up by the party and has no input from the actual voters. The list represents those members of the party who will be seated first in the new National Assmebly when the new government convenes. Obviously, those on the top of the list have a better shot at gaining a seat then those at the bottom. Thus the percentage of the vote that your party achieves on election day equals the percentage of your party list that is seated in the National Assembly.

The most notable problem of this system in South Africa is personal accountability to the constiuents of the country. Local voters have no local canidate necessarily attached to the national party. They simply vote ANC, DA, etc. While these parties campaign behind a national leader and the party’s leadership, there is no direct connection between the voters and the politicians once they are seated in terms of accountability. There is no legislator to complain to when the power goes out or the water turns off. Plus there is no one in the National Assembly fighting for your district. No one to bring home the pork as Americans would say. Thus you as a voter have no one to vote out of office in order to show your displeasure.

This disconnect is a problem that will loom over South Africa for as long as service delivery remains one of the most pressing topics for everyday citizens and the government. This disconnect also can explain why the ANC can retain 60%+ of the voters even though most South Africans remain disatisfied with the governments attempts to reduce poverty, crime, and unemployment. While newspapers like to harp on the fact that voters see the ANC as the liberation party and thus have a (in Western-eyes) irrational attachment to the party, what Western newspapers fail to pick up is the fact that while the ANC is the government and the president, whether Mandela, Mbeki, or now Zuma, is the face of the party, the connection between regular voters and those men is so great that voters cannot attribute failure to those individuals. Perhaps rightly so, as how can voters attach all the blame to the person at the very top? As much as presidents and prime ministers like to claim they are responsible for all that goes on in their government, this is unrealistic, and untrue. While a president can assume responsibility and blame for a mid-level bureaucrat’s mistakes, there is no actual link between the bureaucrat that  screws up and the person at the head of the government that should reflect poorly on the President. However, in western societies we like, and demand, that the leaders of companies, organizations, and goverments take full blame for anyone beneath them that screws up. People are severly chastised when they try to explain away or pass blame. 

In Africa, and specifically in parts of Africa where remnants of tribal structures remain, the desire to see the head leader of an organization, or chief, accept all the blame solely on their shoulders does not have the same cultural significance that it does in the West. Thus while Western newspapers like to portray ANC voters as a sort of a cult of personality surrounding Jacob Zuma, they fail to recognize that the culpability that Europeans and Americans expect from their leaders has not taken hold in South African politics to the same extent. Thus to blame Zuma for all of the ANC’s mistakes is not something a common ANC voter would do, and even if they did attribute some blame to previous ANC leaders, it would not be enough for them to put their trust in another party. 

When Jacob Zuma finally decides on his deputy president, the voters will have had no formal impact on this selection. There will be no vetting process, no campaign to see the person up on stage, or in their households sipping tea. And the disconnect between voters and their elected representatives will grow. 

How does this trend change? Or should it change? From my experience in local and municipal politics in South Africa, an Americanized change of political representation could benefit local and underdeveloped communities. But would this be good for the nation as a whole? One of the effects of local representation in the national legislature in the United States is that the good of the whole is often overlooked in favor of the benefit of a representative’s relatively small size of constituents. South Africa’s system would seem to favor broad national consensus that was not polluted with local and regional interests. 15 years on from the first multiracial election, the progress seems to be a fraction of what was needed, or even promised by the first ANC government. Due to the desperate need for service delivery in rural and impoverished areas, the benefit of a local representative of the National Assembly could be crucial in spurring more growth as the world emerges from the economic downturn. How and from who such a radical rewrite of the South Africa political scene comes from is uncertain. Allocating a portion of the National Legislature to local representation is a possibility. Or, adding more weight and power to the National Council of Provinces. Adding more positions for politicians or party contributers should not play a part in any rewrite. Instead allowing for the current power structures to recognize and allow particiation from overlooked areas of the country should be the priority.

Perhaps Tip O’Neil’s declaration that “all politics is local” is not something that South Africa wants to experiment with, but despite the solid increases in services that the ANC has provided since 1994, so much more can and should be done. Having a local rep in the legislature would be an outlet for local and community groups to get solutions to immediate and regional issues. It would create a vehical to vent frustration with slow progress or corruption. How South Africa addresses this need for a stronger connection between the constituency of voters and their representatives should be a pressing issue for debate in the lead up to the next election.