Celebrating the demise of a continent dying comfortably

Gibson Nyikadzino

COVID-19 infections and deaths are surging in Angola, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Zambia, South Africa and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where 32 parliamentarians and several aides to the president, Félix Tshisekedi, are among those who have died.

Africa is living in a time of terrible crisis, but of tremendous opportunities to the western world.

“The threat of a third wave in Africa is real and rising. Our priority is clear – it’s crucial that we swiftly get vaccines into the arms of Africans at high risk of falling seriously ill and dying of Covid-19,” said Dr Matshidiso Moeti, the World Health Organization (WHO) regional director for Africa.

The upsurge of the COVID-19 pandemic in Africa and other poor countries through the third wave caused by the highly virulent India’s delta variant has shaken the essence of global “humanitarianism.” With lessons from India’s delta variant cases, there are widespread fears that Africa could suffer similar or worse devastation to that seen in India, which has a more robust health system than many African countries.

Countries such as Burundi, Chad, Eritrea and Tanzania are yet to start any vaccination campaign. In Seychelles, a resurgence of infection continues despite it being the most vaccinated country in Africa, possibly due to new variants and “the relatively low” efficacy of China’s Sinopharm vaccine.

Where lives are at stake, hoarding and the desire for profits have informed decisions on how vaccines are and should be allocated. The political economy around vaccine access and allocation continues to be dominated by the wealthy and powerful. This is a deliberate global architecture of unfairness on Africa and the developing world.

Grabbing the producer to control production

There are no signs of progress in improving access to vaccines.

Zimbabwe’s businessman Strive Masiyiwa, on behalf of the African Union (AU), in December last year met all vaccine producers and said the AU wanted to “buy vaccines in cash and not asking for donations.” According to the vaccine producers, all 2021 production capacity had been sold out. “The people who bought and those who sold the vaccines knew there would be nothing for Africa,” Masiyiwa recently said.

Before a G7 meeting held in Britain last month, USA’s Joe Biden said his country is donating 500 million doses of vaccines to poor countries while a post-G7 meeting, the group pledged a billion doses in donations to poor countries before the end of the year.

At a meeting by the G20 leaders in May at the European Union (EU) headquarters, vaccine producing companies pledged to give Africa aid. The EU pledged to give Africa 100 million vaccines by the end of the year. So far the continent has received a cumulative 32 million vaccines. On the other hand, vaccine producing companies like Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Johnson and Johnson said they will avail 1.3 billion vaccines to Africa by year end at a “slight” commercial value.

There is a serious breach of trust between the “haves” and the “have-nots” regarding who is interested in eradicating the pandemic.

As the global leading economies march towards opening up their economies, schools and other facilities, poor countries have been affected and appear to be making a long march backwards. The humanitarian veil used first to calm the nerves of poor nations the world has put on access to COVID19 vaccines through the COVAX continues to tear. The face behind the facility is no longer humanitarian as first postured. It is a two-faced facility. It looks at the humanitarian and the political, with the latter ultimately emerging victorious.

The COVAX Facility, we are told, is the vaccines pillar of the Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator working on the global collaboration to the development, production and equitable access to vaccines. The facility is led by the Coalition of epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), Gavi and the World Health Organisation (WHO), alongside UNICEF. It is governed by equitable access of vaccines, and, for humanitarian purposes countries such as Iran, Syria, Venezuela, North Korea and Zimbabwe, though under USA sanctions, can access the facility.

The COVAX facility is ‘not’ exempt from sanctions. Recently, the government of Venezuela (under USA sanctions) made a US$109 million dollar purchase of five million doses of vaccines under the COVAX facility. But so far the country has received none, although most regional neighbors from Nicaragua to Colombia having already received hundreds of thousands of doses under the facility. Venezuela received a letter from WHO signaling that the sixteen transactions processed by Venezuelan banks could not be processed.

Last Thursday, US officials issued an exemption to its sanctions on Venezuela, as well as on Syria and Iran, clarifying that financial transactions related to COVID-19 treatment and testing were permitted. With a population of some 30 million, Venezuela has only received 3.5 million vaccines from allies, Russia and China.

Dying in comfortable agony

According to French President Emmanuel Macron, in June, one in six Europeans had been vaccinated, one in five in North America but just one in 100 in Africa.

“It’s unacceptable,” he said.

In Feb. 2021 Africa reached the 100 000 death mark of known COVID-19 deaths. In this picture, a health worker disinfects family members during a burial of a person who died from COVID-19, in Harare, Zimbabwe. The continent had earlier been praised for its early response to the pandemic, but is now struggling with a dangerous resurgence. (AP Photo/Tsvangirayi Mukwazhi)

WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has repeatedly denounced inequities in vaccine distribution and urged wealthier countries to share excess doses to help inoculate health workers in low-income countries. The idea of humanitarianism in this complex global order is as detestable as misfortunes, especially in the context of COVID-19. What the vaccine manufacturing companies are doing is to promote the vast network of European and American commercial interests. The current situation is also a promotion of western foreign policy and corporate commercial interests. It is driven by greed rather than the desire to make life better for the majority of global citizens.

At one point, the USA spent over US$87 billion dollars conducting its war in Iraq while the United Nations estimates that for less than half that amount it could provide clean water, adequate diets, sanitation services and basic education to every person on the planet.

Africa is being pushed into poverty and citizens dying comfortably if the situation is not addressed.

A recent report by the US Pew Research Center found that about 494 million people in sub-Saharan Africa, out of a total population of 1.14 billion, were expected to be living in poverty before the pandemic in 2020. That total has risen by 40 million, the report estimated.

For feedback: gnyikadzino@gmail.com

 

Africa and the failure of post-colonial autonomy

Gibson Nyikadzino

ELECTIONS in Africa since 2016 have continued to give further indications that democracy is showing cracks in the continent as new leaders and those established 'authoritarianly' are gaining strength. 

 

In that year, Djibouti, Chad and The Gambia held elections whose results came largely as expected. In Djibouti the incumbent Ismail Guelleh won a fourth term and in Chad Idriss Dèby. In The Gambia, Yahya Jammeh (the incumbent) lost to challenger Adama Barrow who today is keen to be a sit-tight leader breaking democratic promises he made before the elections in 2016. 

 

At his inauguration in early 2017, he promised to stay in office for only three years. He has since changed his mind, much to the disgust of his former allies. 

 

Questions continue to be asked whether continental democracy is dying? 

 

This appears to be the problem of what analysts say “third-termism” where leaders extend their presidential terms beyond constitutionally reasonable limits. 

 

This has been visible in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) where Joseph Kabila, instead of leaving the presidency in 2016 after serving his two five year terms, held on to office for two more years. Zimbabwe’s Emmerson Mnangagwa, whose mandate is set to expire in 2028 after serving a maximum two five year terms, is working on amending the constitution after signaling in 2019 that “in 2030 I will still be around.” A similar development occurred in Burundi in 2015 when the late Pierre Nkurunziza amended the constitution and stay in office for more years led to civil disturbances. In Rwanda, Paul Kagame is set to be at the helm until 2034, since 1994. 

 

Leaders who had been arrested during their strong campaigns for freedom, liberty, access to health and all other democratic elements turned their back on such once they got in office. Last year Guinea’s Alpha Conde became a “third termist” after soiling the sanctity of the constitution.

 

How did the continent, so promising in youth, become a comfortable bed for undemocratic exercises?

 

During the industrial revolution, European powers colonized ninety percent of Africa and had local politicians who acted as proxies to keep pressure on the population, exploiting human and natural resources on behalf of the colonizers. This created an authoritarian top-down approach and birthed the idea that the only way to rule was by force.

 

Decolonisation, though spoken glossly today, has not helped building democracy in Africa, but has blocked efforts to have a sustainable democracy. 

 

Equatorial Guinea’s Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo has ruled Africa’s richest country per capita since 1979 amid persistent accusations of corruption, nepotism and electoral fraud. His son is the country’s vice-president and has all governing power. 

Although colonialism is gone, it has had a negative bearing on the continent.

 

After Ghana attaining independence in 1957, Guinea was the sole French West Africa colony in 1958 to opt for complete independence rather than membership in the French community. Soon after Guinea’s declaration for complete independence, France withdrew all aid to the new republic and dismantled all government structures, destroyed all paper-work and left the new government with no structural record of government operation.

 

The issue of an uneducated and illiterate population comes to mind. 

 

When the DRC (then Zaire) got independence from Belgium in 1960, it only had sixteen college graduates in a population of a little over fifteen million. From the dawn of Africa’s independence, an uneducated leadership and population proved a hurdle to democracy. It is said democracy is a horrible form of government if the people are not educated.

 

The biggest worry the continent faces today is sliding back to colonial authoritarianism in post-colonial Africa. Democracy is in reverse. Today there is an unprecedented pressure applied on ‘free media’, free speech, independent judiciary, legislature and electoral commissions. 

 

Recent developments in Uganda’s election reveal that the continent’s mark on democracy is off tangent. Incumbent Yoweri Museveni was declared the winner for a sixth term. 

 

These leaders were only interested in power. Zimbabwe’s (late) Robert Mugabe, a teacher by profession, came to power without administrative experience came to power in 1980 and ruled the nation for nearly four decades. Uganda’s Museveni, a rebel army commander whose noted ‘profession’ has been involvement in rebellions that toppled Idi Amin and Milton Obote’s governments before he captured power.

 

While many African “liberators” claimed democracy is “one man, one vote,” evidence seen today points that Africa was not ready for democracy coming through all elements. When European and American countries became democracies and/constitutional monarchies, they too had a large uneducated population. They promoted citizen education and political involvement, unlike bordering on “literacy.”

 

Winston Churchill’s said: “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.” This is one against democracy in Africa, too. 

 

Feedback: gnyikadzino@gmail.com

Democracy: Learning from the West not to be like the West

Gibson Nyikadzino

A LOT of nonsense is talked about democracy especially in the relatively rich Western countries who attribute their comparative wealth and well-being to hard work, the liberal capitalist system and the democratic form of government. The benefits of democracy are relative. It depends with who you are, where you are in the global system, how wealthy your state is compared to others and where you are in the evolution of your own political system and who you are.

 

The United States of America (USA) last week issued an interesting statement to countries holding elections this year. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said his country is committed to supporting “free, fair, inclusive elections.”

 

In three weeks time, the US is going for elections. Today, violence and polarisation have become identity characteristics in the run-up to the November 3 elections. Democracy does not require violence and polarisation even in the name of “nationalism.” This is such a superpower keen on lecturing other countries how to live, conduct elections and uphold democracy. But, have you ever wondered if elections are democratic in this superpower state? Do you ever think if elections are organized democratically? As of October 09, some 1, 216 candidates of various levels of seriousness had filed with the USA’s Federal Election Commission to run for president on November 3. Unfortunately many people only know of incumbent Donald Trump and democratic challenger Joe Biden, and their mates, Mike Pence and Kamala Harris. 

 

On five occasions in the history of the USA have presidents emerged without being elected by the popular vote. These presidents were elected or chosen “by the people who have the right to vote.” In the USA, the popular vote has its weakness because of how the USA electoral system is managed. But, no one has ever blamed the USA electoral system. However, key policy drivers of USA elections tell nations no to “worry because elections are being conducted the way they should.” Americans love their system despite its democratic shortcomings.

 

This is probably none of our business! 

 

Today, the same USA and her Western allies lecture other countries about what democracy is, a scenario that raises the “one size fits all” aspect. The developed countries should not abandon their democracy, at the same time, it should be noted that their democracy is not the right recommendation for all countries because of circumstances.

 

After 1989 and the collapse of Soviet communism, the West anticipated that for Russia, Western democracy was the universal panacea. For Russia, there was a widespread expectation and belief that it would develop a Western style democracy and a western style free market. Over the years, it has become clear that all that were mascara thoughts as we have witnessed the reassertion of Russian history, traditions, culture, and with that, the emergence of an ‘authoritarian’ state. Again, in Iraq, the world remembers in 2003 when the USA, in conjunction with Britain, illegally invaded the Arab country in the name of democracy. What happened to that democracy? Has it worked? 

 

Certainly it has not!

In Egypt, the litmus paper test of the Arab Spring of 2010/2011, democracy briefly sprung into life but hasbeen killed off by the reassertion of the military. Going back into history, in 1990 China was still an extremely small economy. Since then, the world has witnessed the most remarkable story of economictransformation in human history. The growth of China’s economy has been presided over by a non-Western democratic style, but a different, working system altogether.

 

China’s growth in the last 30 years is an extra-ordinary achievement for a country of 1.3 billion people who make up 20 percent of the current world population, and growing at 10 percent a year. In 1980, China’s economy was one-twentieth the size of the US economy, but now is over half the size of the US economy.

 

Since Mao Zedong’s death in 1976, six hundred million people have been taken out of poverty in China. This has been achieved in no Western style democracy, but by an extra-ordinary competent state.

 

Democracy is not universally appropriate and applicable in all countries regardless of history, culture and circumstances. It is not a one-size-fits-all. Above all, the “democracy fits all” mentality ignores the fundamental historical and cultural differences between the developed and the developing countries. In any democracy, the level of a country’s economic development is a critical issue. Remember, in the history of democratic development, not a single Western country was a democracy at the time of economic take-off. 

 

South African born industrialist Ivor Ichikowitz last year expressed his views about what democracy is and spoke of models of democracy that nations have had since the end of WWII. In his view, the world order that emerged after 1945 where everyone was “one-for-all and all-for-one and once sense of democracy” does not work.

 

He said: “China must do what works for China, and Africa must do what works for Africa.”

 

Overtime, democracy the world over will grow in its own way, according to a country’s own history, culture and circumstances. Democracy will come in many different forms, shapes and sizes. Countries may learn from the west, but they will not be like the west. 

For feedback: gnyikadzino@gmail.com

Political victories are about name recognition

Gibson Nyikadzino

A FEW days ago, footballer Lionel Messi was allowed by the European Court of Justice, EU’s top court, to register his name as a trademark. The Barcelona FC player first applied to trademark his surname as a sportswear brand in 2011. A sportswear company, Massi, argued the similarity between their “two logos would cause confusion."

The court noted that “the star player’s reputation” could be taken into account when “weighing up whether the public would be able to tell the difference between the two brands.”

This goes similarly with our politics. A name in politics is like an ideology. It helps extract identity. All politics is identity. Identity and politics are two phenomena joined together by contestation and the struggles that emerge from it are struggles of power, relevance and memory.

This explains the acrimony between the MDC-A led by Nelson Chamisa and the MDC-T of Thokozani Khupe. Of interest is the recent statement by Khupe that his party is set to go to the December by-elections as MDC-A, seizing Chamisa’s party/identity/values/ideals. The name MDC (despite splits) has a memory, it is leverage, it is a representation of values, norms, customs and ideals against Zanu-PF’s two score hegemony.

Today when one mentions EFF, DA and ANC, they are quickly understood to be talking of the political entities in neighbouring South Africa. The parties continue with their values and relevance. In December 2008, an ANC party veteran Mosiua ‘Terror’ Lekota formed his Congress of the People party (COPE). It was hope it would tear and divide the ANC. Today the party is diminishing and dwarfing.

Similarly, even revolutions that form part of the histories around the world were identified by name to meet their objectives. The 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia advertised its aim as replacing the exploitative economic system of tsarist Russia with more just and efficient one that would bring freedom and prosperity to millions in Russia.

Zimbabwe’s liberators turned oppressors, fought hard to oust the Ian Smith’s racist regime. The leaders, fighting for a democratic and just society, replaced Smith’s system with a much more complex extractive system that defies the constitutional freedoms as much as they were defied during colonialism.

In Russia and Zimbabwe the outcomes have been opposite. Repression has followed en masse. Even the experiences in Vietnam, China and Cuba were similar. The reason credited to the successes of the revolutions in Russia, Zimbabwe, China, Vietnam and Cuba, among others, is the ideological and organization of the freedom fighters against their oppressors. Radio and pamphlets were used as ideological tools to counter the narratives. The leaders of these revolutions from Russia’s Vladimir Lenin to China’s Mao Tse-tung, Vietnam’s Ho Chi Minh to Cuba’s Fidel Castro had ideological clarity that drew them closer to the masses. They received collaborative support from the people hence in Zimbabwe’s liberation struggle the phrase “the people represent water and the fighters are the fish” grew loud then.

The name Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) in Zimbabwe is synonymous with socio-democratic change. Of late the name has been compromised, contaminated and corrupted to meet political ends that have been judicially accepted as true, whether such relevance is true or imagined. The MDC-T vs MDC Alliance scenario is proof that Zanu-PF is living to fight another day. The splits that have taken place in the MDC have diminished the power of their leaders to force officeholders to hew the party line.

When a group of former ZANU and ZAPU officials who were fed up with the incessant squabbles between the two liberation movements formed the Front for the Liberation of Zimbabwe (FROLIZI) in October 1971, they were disparaged as a “Front for the Liaison of Zezuru Intellectuals.” This was done to maintain the ZANU-ZANU dominance in the fight against colonialism.

When Joice Mujuru was expelled from Zanu-PF, she and Didymus Mutasa, Rugare Gumbo and Dzikamai Mavhaire were thought to be key people who’d split Zanu-PF. Their departure was seen as an opportunity for a new phase in Zimbabwean politics without Zanu-PF. Even another outfit, Zimbabwe People First (ZPF), was threatened with legal action by using the initials PF (People First) which according to Zanu-PF was meant to confuse the electorate. However, up to today, that remains an unfulfilled dream, Gumbo and Mutasa already retraced their footsteps to the liberation party.

The name MDC matters. Chamisa and Khupe are both committing fatal errors that are not being addressed with immediacy. In today’s interconnected world, it is difficult to penetrate the consciousness of a busy and distracted electorate without a political name. As a result, winning in politics mainly comes down to a simple matter of name recognition.

On the other hand, the Zanu-PF of today is not the 1990s party. It is also rebranding and has become aware of technological and digital innovations that are reshaping society, politics and economies. This they are doing because of their party’s name and putting a new energy in the party.

For feedback: gnyikadzino@gmail.com

How Zimbabwe’s 2023 election is being rigged?

Gibson Nyikadzino

When Zimbabwe’s CEO Emmerson Mnangagwa recently told Catholic bishops that “they must come out and form political parties. As ZANU-PF, we are ready for 2023 elections” it is clear he knows he will win. If he was not sure about his 2023 victory, he would not have mentioned the party’s readiness on the next general elections. The best in this game know when the elections are won. They are won well before the vote is cast, and President Mnangagwa knows so. Voting in 2023 will just be fulfillment of a constitutional obligation.

 

The modern environment is such a hostile one and dictatorships are becoming endangered species. However, Mnangagwa’s confidence to win has been firmed by signs of sickening frailty in the opposition and that gives margins of hope to ZANU-PF. On the other hand, the opposition’s verve, zeal and enthusiasm displayed during elections are vanishing in the mists of history.

 

Opposition bodies no longer or rarely talk of biometric voting, diaspora votes, selection of election observer missions, in general, they have muted on electoral reforms. An attitude of a ‘democratic confrontation’ by the opposition has become an exhausted argument. Those challenging Mnangagwa through confrontation are crushed by the day, when he is benevolent, he charms them. Since 2018, when foreign leaders and continental bodies enquired about reported human rights abuses, Mnangagwa has raised the flag of interference. This is how he is making strides to the 2023 finishing line. The opposition has lost endurance.

 

Before Zimbabwe’s parliament halted business, the main opposition disengaged from the legislature because of legal squabbles. In general, Zimbabwe’s opposition parties become active only during an election, and disappear when the election is over.

There are also findings that most of the opposition parties in Africa are established around the personalities of individuals (Morgan Tsvangirai, Nelson Chamisa, Julius Malema, Hellen Zille, Robert Kagulyani). In most cases these parties lack internal democracy, suffer from inter-party and intra-party conflicts, have severe shortage of finance, and lack of a strong base and experience. Among their deficiencies is their weakness of bad organisation and a poor connection with the popular constituencies. All these are avenues exploited by the governing parties on the continent who are aided by the preponderance of the incumbent.

 

In their book, How To Rig An Election, Nic Cheeseman and Brian Klaas try to expose the way that elections are rigged around the world so that people learn how to better defend democracy.

 

Technology use to the incumbent’s advantage, reform pretence, managing media, use of violence and starting when others are absent minded and deaf to developments.

 

The issue of technology use during the voting process is critical because many say it is harder to manipulate. Electronic voting gets rid of ghost voters, in many instances, though it can be tempered. A week before the 2018 elections, Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) chairperson claimed that hackers broke into the commission’s database and stole crucial information. Dictators know when to crash a system, this they do to revert to the manual system.

 

Since 2017, after Robert Mugabe’s resignation, Mnangagwa has been pretending to be a reformer. As part of this strategy, he has been holding interviews with international media and has mentioned his aspiration to have Zimbabwe be like Paul Kagame’s Rwanda. Everyone likes a reformer. Mnangagwa has used the charming, tried and tested phrase ‘Open for Business’, created a Political Actors Dialogue (POLAD) platform, has been meeting the Matabeleland Collective to hear concerns from Gukurahundi victims and he says he is “a listening President who is as soft as wool.”

 

Democracies thrive on plural voices, alternative views and ideas. Zimbabwe’s public/state broadcaster is constitutionally mandated to be “impartial” and “afford a fair opportunity for the presentation of divergent views and dissenting opinions” in Section 61(4)(b) and (c) of the constitution. Mnangagwa’s administration maintains a tight control on media. The invitation of the Nick Mangwana from Britain as the Information Permanent Secretary was not enough to provide reform the public/state broadcaster, despite his experiences on the appropriateness of plural voices in a democracy.

 

The strategy and tactic that is being used to suppress opposition access to media is subsidizing the media, especially the public press, with some unnecessary government adverts and target them with trumped-up charges. The alternative has been the use of digital media platforms. However, the opposition in Zimbabwe has no finances, it is broke. The ZANU-PF government is aware that mainly Twitter (and other platforms) will expose them if left unchecked. The government has bought friends that have flood social media with “positive messages.” The good story that has won ZANU-PF the social media argument is that the opposition is funded by Britain, the country’s former colonial power.

 

Many citizens hailed Mnangagwa as a proponent for democratic change when he invited the European Union and the USA to observe the 2018 elections. Mnangagwa was not worried with the African Union (AU) and Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) missions because they are “friends.” After the elections, a report by the EU noted that some people in opposition strongholds were frustrated and not allowed to register to vote. The invitation that came without electoral and security sector reforms did not level the electoral field.

 

While many want the opposition to come into power in Zimbabwe, not everyone wants it to win the election because of how disconnected it has been, how it appears to abandon the “struggle” and lack of ideological clarity.

 

The rigging of the elections is being done now. Technology, bureaucratic delays, a frail and poor opposition, media control and the reform message are all mechanisms at ZANU-PF’s disposal win or rig the next election.

 

For feedback: gnyikadzino@gmail.com  

 

  

#ZimbabweanLivesMatter: Evidence of a bald-faced US foreign policy?

Gibson Nyikadzino

 

Following its bombing of Iraq in 1991, the United States of America (USA) wound up with military bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Following its bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, the USA wound up with military bases in Kosovo, Albania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Hungary, Bosnia and Croatia. When it bombed Afghanistan in 2001-2, the USA ended with military bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Yemen and Djibouti.

 

This is not a very subtle foreign policy. It is a clear trajectory and certainly not covert. With these examples, those who run US Foreign Policy are men and women who are not easily embarrassed. There is a reason why they do so. They engineer foreign interference with gusto. The one that pops quickly in Africa is the Libyan case and the murder of Col. Muammar Gaddafi on October 20, 2011. Col. Gaddafi’s death ‘excited’ then USA secretary of State Hillary Clinton who famously said: “We came, we saw, he DIED!” Libyans were made to believe the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) alliance was fighting for their freedoms and rights. Today Libya is a ground of everything inhuman and colonial.

 

Between 1945 and 1991, the USA government through the military and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had over 55 military interventions that destabilised nations, deposed and imposed leaders, mortgaged nations’ resources over small loans and created wars that led to splits of nations.

 

Even in the post-millennium global order, the USA appears to be in that path even in the name of democracy. In 1996, the White House and Pentagon made a declaration from a policy paper that said: “We will engage in terrestrial targets someday - ships, airplanes and land targets – from space. We are going to fight in space. We are going to fight from space and we are going to fight into space.”

 

As argued by Nancy Fraser in her Transnationalising the Public Sphere essay, the space to fight has broadened and even the digital space is now a battleground that is easily manipulated by “international citizens from wherever they are.” Zimbabwe recently got an “adversary” label from the USA administration for using the digital space to make US streets turbulent under the #BlackLivesMatter movement following the murder of a black man by a white police officer. Zimbabwe was alleged to be torpedoing USA tranquility by “fighting in (cyber) space.”

 

Zimbabwe today is experiencing a fragile and delicate socio-economic and political order that has “pro-democracy activists” calling for its replacement or transformation. The #ZimbabweLivesMatter movement has generated interest adequate to pressure the government of president Emmerson Mnangagwa to respond. As usual, government spokesperson Nick Mangwana has denied there is a crisis in Zimbabwe.

In international media, headlines like “Economic Chaos! Zimbabwe on Brink of Doom” are raising the specter of civil war, if not actually calling for it, literally.

 

While government has to address the concerns of the people and ensure the environment is secure and free of “oppression, intimidation and brutality,” the right of people to be heard should be respected. That president Mnangagwa won the vote with a 50.8% victory, it should not be a way to disregard the voices of the 49.2%. Democracy is not a winner takes all scenario. The concerns of those who voted other candidates are a “threat to national security” if they are not addressed, hence the birth of the #ZimbabweanLivesMatter trend.

 

As the government and “pro-democracy activists” make their contests apparent, some of those leading the protests have been arrested and others reportedly fled their homes.

 

One of the delightful things about most Zimbabweans is that they absolutely have no historical memory. There is no conspiracy needed to understand such. Most are functionally illiterate about the history of their surroundings. The troubled African country has people who are easily swayed by anything that rings new, fresh, trending and exciting. Only a few months ago, opposition parliamentarian Job Sikhala had a photo moment with guests from the USA embassy in Harare at his Chitungwiza home. Since 2001, ZANU-PF has on many occasions said the main opposition party, Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) is an appendage of western interests. A few months ago, opposition leader Nelson Chamisa was on national television addressing supporters in Mutare saying he was in western capitals calling on western leaders to tighten the screws on Zimbabwe under the ZANU-PF government. It was his “sunga-one-sunga-dozen” moment.

 

It is Chamisa who has, according to WikiLeaks cable, been advocating for a military intervention in Zimbabwe to remove ZANU-PF. Either there is truth or not in these cable reports does not matter to ZANU-PF because it has always used the association between MDC and USA as a pretext to dismiss the former’s cause. On the other hand, it is undeniable that president Mnangagwa has performed an economic miracle. He has taught Zimbabweans to live without money, eat without food and live without life. He has of late been using radical and inflammatory language to dismiss the concerns of those claiming they did not vote for him. There is some evidence that the most supporters of the #ZimbabweanLivesMatter movement have no ideological commitment but are mainly Zimbabweans who are disillusioned with the corruption and irresponsibility that has characterised the Mnangagwa administration.

 

“To die for an idea, it is unquestionably noble. But how much nobler it would be if men died for ideas that were true,” said American journalist Henry Louis Mencken in 1919.

 

While there is legitimacy in protesting, the intentions of the “western backers” of the MDC cannot be cleansed because they have led to destruction of states. Those that want to go in the streets to act as protestors, they should not be provocateurs or shock troops, determined to act for other people. Events in Zimbabwe should not merely be looked as protests by the people against government, there is much that citizens have to understand.

 

In every war, the enemy is undefined. It adapts to any environment and uses every means, both licit and illicit, to achieve its aims. It disguises itself as a priest, a student, as a defender of democracy or an advanced intellectual, as a pious soul or as an extremist protestor. The enemy goes into the fields and the schools, the factories and the churches, the universities and the magistracy, if necessary, it will even wear a uniform or civil garb, in sum, it will take any role that it considers appropriate to deceive, to lie and to take in the faith of the Western peoples.

 

For feedback: gnyikadzino@gmail.com

 

 

    

Why ZANU-PF is able to stay in power

Gibson Nyikadzino

DID you know that fear is a very strong tool that can blur human’s logic and change their behavior? Without popular fear, no government could endure more than twenty-four hours. Fear is definitely the main tool of a government, institutions and even ecclesiastical movements. Because of this fear, many Zimbabweans are too scared to disobey laws.

In the USA today, President Donald Trump’s administration is using the “communist resurgence” as a tool to keep citizens in check in its fight against China. Trade wars and diplomatic tiffs have become the order of the day. The January 3 assassination of Iran’s Qasem Soleimani by the Trump administration was a pre-emptive strike over what it termed “Soleimani’s terrorist plan to hit American targets and injure our interests.” The resurgence of communism and the growth of terrorism are phenomena Americans do not want to hear about. During his campaign in 2016, Trump’s campaign message centred on “Make America Great Again,” a message that resonated with white supremacy and invoked the memories of the evils of the KKK alternatively interpreted “Make America White Again.”

When the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) was formed in 1999, many young people switched political allegiance from Zanu-PF to the newfound party. These same youths were executioners of violence and intimidation in the Zanu-PF structures, whose tactics they moved with to MDC. Their commitment, zeal and enthusiasm to defend the MDC values led their late founding leader Morgan Tsvangirai to issue the famous 2000 statement: “What we say to Robert Mugabe: if you don’t want to go peacefully, we will remove you violently.” Tsvangirai was confident of violence and atmosphere of fear and intimidation his young followers would secure his determination. Meanwhile, Zanu-PF because it had the institutions of power, used the Boarder Gezi National Youth Service to counter the threats posed by the MDC. The revolutionary party was victorious.

Extremely rare but vivid threats often loom large in the human mind. Most people wildly overestimate the courage they claim they have.

Today this fear remains a formidable tool used against political opponents or amongst followers of some charismatic leaders. In this scenario, some people in Zimbabwe, for example, are afraid of speaking out against MDC-Alliance leader Nelson Chamisa because of fear of getting ostracized. This equally goes to speaking out against Zanu-PF’s Emmerson Mnangagwa. Charismatic leaders like Chamisa entice disillusioned people into giving them support. On the contrary, leaders like Mnangagwa use the threat of the west’s envy of Zimbabwe’s resources to deter anyone seemingly trying to challenge their authority.

Despite living in this post-liberal world where the right to independence of thought and freedom of expression are remarkable tenets, fear rules!

This week’s events in Zimbabwe have been very unsettling. The arrest of journalist Hopewell Chin’ono for speaking out against corruption attracted a sharp disapproval on government actions by the United Nations (UN). The role of the journalist in this era is most noble. It is perhaps the highest form of public service, not because it is easy, but it is oftentimes difficult. The State at the same time alleges that while Chin’ono spoke out against corruption, he incited violence by mobilizing citizens using social media to take over power unconstitutionally on July 31. He was arrested along with Jacob Ngarivhume who contested under the MDC-Alliance ticket for a parliamentary seat for Bikita East constituency and garnered 638 votes.

In the same week, there was a state sanctioned, dispassionate and ceremonial taking away of civil liberties through a curfew to contain the spread of the coronavirus. Yes, the speed of the spread of the virus is phenomenal. However, citizens were not given enough time to prepare, the decision was necessary to some extent but impromptu. The curfew according to the government, is enforced by members of the Zimbabwe National Army (ZNA) and police. Since the curfew on Wednesday, I have been a witness to some arrests, they were vile, debased and horrifyingly sadistic.

Those who cheered both Chin’ono and Ngarivhume on social media are nowhere near him because the government has deployed the security apparatus to deal with the rowdy citizenry. The government has not been judicious. They made the judgement to deploy heavy and armed officers following the momentum on Twitter which has been pedaled by other inter-territorial citizens who are for the protests.

Do not be surprised, the Zanu-PF government knows how to deal with people it has dominated for forty years. Government is achieving its goals through intimidation and brutality. Even the most courageous, those like Job Sikhala, Obert Masaraure and Godfrey Tsenengamu, key proponents critical of government, have fled their homes because they are scared, afraid and in fear.

These stories are fizzling the determination of Twitter warriors whose generals, Chin’ono and Ngarivhume have been denied bail and remanded in police custody. The two are alone. I understand their fight, but they were speaking to cowards. Zimbabweans are generally cowards, not patient. This fear is coupled with mistrust. In 2004 former minister Prof. Jonathan Moyo said: “There is enough space in Zimbabwe’s prisons for journalists.” After such remarks, Moyo is at the forefront expressing his determination to see the current administration go. In view of this, people should be scared and afraid.

The reason why Chin’ono was arrested has nothing to do with inciting violence. He spoke an offensive political idea of accountability, a legitimate issue for public debate and got arrested. Similarly, in the USA, wartime President Woodrow Wilson jailed 5 000 citizens for speaking against America’s involvement during WWI. They were threatened for speaking out a political idea relevant for public debate.

It is true Chin’ono exposed corruption and it is fact that he is now in prison alone, without any cheerleader by his side. Facts and truth have nothing to do with each other. Zimbabweans are not a patient people as many would think, but great cowards that tremble with pride. They push each other and embolden one another behind oneness and patriotism, but stumble when they confronted by formidable responses.

It is fear that rules the world. As it is, Zimbabweans will continue to live in fear, and danger of violent death. The lives of citizens will remain solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.

For feedback: gnyikadzino@gmail.com