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

#ZanuPFMustGo: A dangerous excursion taking off from the deep end

Gibson Nyikadzino

THE history of non-violent protests shows that people who participated had consistency and commitment to meet their objectives. The nature of their speech, then, did not incite violence. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and India’s Mahatma Ghandi are examples of how non-violence can be an anecdote to social ills if properly executed.

The Arab Revolutions of 2011 in Egypt also show that street protests are just one of a host of non-violent tactics that can achieve political results. Equally, valuable types of resistance include boycotts or strikes. Recently in Zimbabwe two girls Namatai Kwekweza and Vongai Zimudzi were arrested for staging a non-violent demonstration against a constitutional amendment without taking the issue for a referendum.

Today, a Twitter hashtag #ZanuPFMustGo has generated online momentum from activists, frustrated citizens, politicians and academics over the fragile economic situation in Zimbabwe. This online consensus has come ahead of the planned July 31 protest calling for change of livelihoods on one end and the complete decimation of ZANU-PF on the other extreme end. Already, the activists and others have begun unfollowing President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s account on the platform. As they tweet, they say theirs is a non-violent struggle to bring change in a country that endured 14 years of a violent struggle for independence.

With the history of how the Zanu-PF government has responded to protests, to think of removing the revolutionary government from power using a hashtag movement is a dangerous excursion taking off from the deep end. By placing confidence in violent means, one has chosen the very type of struggle with which the oppressors nearly have superiority. The leaders of nation-state are more equipped to use violence overwhelmingly. At the height of the April 2016 #ThisFlag and #Tajamuka demonstrations, Prof. Jonathan Moyo then a minister in the Zanu-PF government tweeted: “Only idiots think publicit stunts, hashtag protests, pastoral farts and rented demos will grab power in Zimbabwe.”

Zimbabweans behind the #ZanuPFMustGo movement are not ready for the call, they know their calls are a fluke. There are ways to depict problems in Zimbabwe mastered in an unorthodox manner, for example, like what contemporary musician and satirist Valentine Choga (Van Choga) does. Through his artistry, he uses metaphors, symbolisms and caricatures that show the struggles of a common man. Satire is part of any work of culture, art or entertainment created with a goal to drive social-change through non-violent means.

Also, how non-violent protests work depend on the nature of the political history of a nation and the creative ideas of the people to relay their grievances.

For instance, the Montgomery bus and South Africa boycotts paved the way for the dismantling of Jim Crow segregation and apartheid. A sex strike in 2003 by Liberian women demanding an end to the country’s second civil war succeeded.

In Sudan, a nation-wide labour strike and stay-at-home campaign preceded the ouster of Omar Al Bashir.

In the 1990s in Turkey, 30 million citizens were reported to have turned the lights on and off at night to focus national attention on corruption, part of the campaign that culminated in judicial investigations, trials and guilty verdicts for politicians and members of organised crime syndicates. The leaders of these protests were known by their respective governments and led their compatriots.

Non-violence is a substitute to war. What those behind the #ZanuPFMustGo movement should do is identifying the sources of a government’s power, knowing what it survives on and shrink that support. Without doing so, this is a futile virtual rant with short legs.

British archaeologist and diplomat Col. Thomas Edward Lawrence once said: “All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find it was vanity, but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they act upon their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible.”

The possibility to decimate Zanu-PF using a hashtag, at times known as people power, is close to non-existent judging with the nature of the political terrain and the history of the movements. The July 31 planned protests are a dangerous dream and a plan without strategy. The previous protests coordinated and mobilised through use of Twitter and other platforms had violent outcomes. This is a constant reminder today that the participation rate of the planned protests is likely to be lower.

In 2011, then State Security minister Didymus Mutasa warned: “You cannot start a revolution in a square. If you try it hear in Zimbabwe, you will be dealt with decisively.” Having left government in 2014, Mutasa's words can still be felt as present in his physical absence.

While the government has not been efficient in addressing socio-economic needs affecting the people, it will be ready to deploy its machinery when threatened by those who will participate in the #ZanuPFMustGo movement.

For feedback: gnyikadzino@gmail.com

Why victory for Malawi’s Chakwera is bad news to southern Africa’s opposition

Gibson Nyikadzino

AS the remnants of his regime became loose while under house arrest in 1995, Malawi’s dictator Kamuzu Banda spoke of Africa’s troubles: “That is the trouble in Africa today – too many ignorant people who do not know anything about history. And if they do know anything about it, they do not know how to interpret and apply it.”

The trouble persists and has morphed to a tragedy. Among many Africans, Zimbabweans are keenly excited about the political developments Malawi. They have become overnight analysts of the situation in Malawi.

The Malawi Congress Party (MCP) is heading for victory in the tiny and poor African state. The incoming leader will be welcomed into the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC), a club of Revolutionary Movements. We are all privy of its modus operandi!

MCP’s Lazarus Chakwera’s contemporaries will be Angola’s Joao Lourenco of the MPLA, Mozambique’s Filipe Nyusi of FRELIMO, Namibia’s Hage Geingob of SWAPO, Tanazania’s John Magufuli of CCM, South Africa’s Cyril Ramaphosa of ANC and Zimbabwe’s Emmerson Mnangagwa who leads ZANU PF, among others. He will be among liberation movements, some that have failed to become political parties. We know how these parties are behaving currently in their respective countries.

      Putting things into context?

Zimbabwe, Zambia and Malawi, all former British colonies, were once ruled under the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland between 1953 and 1963. A year later, Zambia and Malawi were granted independence by the British, without going for war or firing any bullets using heavy artillery.

This explains why it has been easy for Zambia and Malawi to have smooth transfers of power. Successive administrations have been given mandates by the people since the beginning of multi-party democracy in Africa after the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in 1991.

Zimbabwe’s experiences towards independence and liberation have been different to those of its federation sister nations. On April 28, 1966 the Second Chimurenga started in Chinhoyi. A protracted 14-year-armed struggle led to independence and liberation. It was liberty after years of blood, sweat and toil by Zimbabwe’s nationalists, while Malawi and Zambia were led by pan-Africanists.

There were differences between the administrations of a nationalist Zimbabwe and that of pan-Africanist Malawi and Zambia, itself a discussion for another day. The differences were however apparent in how governments of Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, Zambia’s Kenneth Kaunda and Malawi’s Kamuzu Banda directed socio-economic policies and handled politics in their respective countries.

Mugabe led ZANU PF a liberation movement while Kaunda’s UNIP party and Banda Malawi Congress Party (MCP) were independence parties.

Now, in May 2019, Malawians voted in an election that was clearly mismanaged. Those declared to have lost took to the streets demanding electoral justice and petitioned the Constitutional Court. In that drama, the police shot at them but the army moved in to protect the losing or opposition protestors. When the matter was in the Constitutional Court, it was the army which provided security to judges who entertained the matter and overturned the election result.

Malawi became the second African nation to annul a presidential election over irregularities, after Kenya in 2017.

Tuesday’s presidential election run-off between Democratic Progressive Party’s Peter Mutharika and opposition leader Chakwera has been referenced by opposition leaders in Southern Africa as “a dawn of a modern era.”

Chakwera’s big achievement as MCP leader (Kamuzu Banda’s party) has been his rebranding of the party of independence, which was accused of rights violations and has been out of power since 1994.

Zimbabwe’s opposition leader Nelson Chamisa was among the first to congratulate Chakwera. “New life to Malawi! The Lord has given Malawi a godly man,” said Chamisa.

The case of Malawi is one in southern Africa that is coated with a veneer of modernity and left to cope with the complexities and confusions of the 21^st century. This case is a classic example that a year after the first round of elections, it is unarguable that western style multi-party democracy has had a dismal record in Africa.

Chakwera, who is now referred to as the president-elect, quit pastoral work in 2013 to join frontline politics saying, “it is time to heal about the past atrocities and have a new Malawi.”

It is important to note that in this drama of hope, voting in Malawi follows ethnic lines and the political landscape is fractured. Mutharika has already threatened to reject the election results if they are not in his favour. His followers have backed his threat. If not handled well, the country will be polarised, just like in Zimbabwe.

      A surprise that has nothing new

Chakwera is exposed to western style management and leadership. However, during his campaigns under the Tonse Alliance, his message centred on national development. He spoke boldly of his desire have a government that will “institute servant leadership that promotes national development and universal respect for the law and human rights.”

He was never divisive, nor did he say he will use mechanisms from western governments to govern and lead the country. He spoke of Malawi charting its course. He also promised to honour men and women who died in the struggle for Malawi’s independence.

Chakwera’s victory, is just an electoral victory in Malawi. It will not change the landscape and toxicity of Zimbabwe’s politics. It will not give new strategies to both the ruling and opposition parties in Zimbabwe. It is not symbolic to any other developments obtaining in Zimbabwe because the two countries have different histories.

While something different is happening in Malawi, it is imperative to note that Zimbabwe’s political difficulties are more deeply rooted than just bad leadership. To the opposition in Zimbabwe, Chakwera’s victory is a victory of democracy.

Bakili Muluzi of Malawi once said: “People cannot eat democracy. They cannot eat human rights. All these problems we see in Africa are because people are poor.”

To understand the political currents that are swirling in southern Africa, people have to go beyond the utterances of their leaders.

Zimbabwean’s should not fail to interpret and apply events in Malawi. No amount of victory will be done by contextualising the events in Malawi. While the political developments in Malawi offer hope, they have no salvation to what people are going through. 

For feedback: gnyikadzino@gmail.com

Rethinking poverty reduction in an automated economy

Gibson Nyikadzino

The World Economic Forum (WEF) in January noted that in ten years time, fifty percent of jobs will be changed by automation. However, automation is not expected to eliminate more than five percent of the jobs. On the other hand, the United Nations anticipates reducing poverty in the world by 2030.

Further statistics reveal in the next decade 1.2 billion employees worldwide will be affected by the adaptation of automation technologies and Artificial Intelligence (AI). As economies mutate, digital transformations occurring the world over are believed to be affecting the vulnerable and low-skills populations, thus, these groups are in need up-skilling. 

In the development context, this might cause the rise in inequality and challenges in reducing poverty levels. Already, Africa’s most populous nation, Nigeria, is the world’s poverty capital after overtaking India, despite India’s population relatively six times more Nigeria’s. By 2050, Nigeria is expected to be the world’s third largest country by population and its poverty problem will likely worsen. The visible poverty levels are likely to continue in sub-Saharan Africa in general, where Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in particular, are set to house the majority of the world’s poor. While poverty is an African-wide problem, only Ethiopia is on track to meet the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) of ending extreme poverty by 2030.

Last year the World Bank (WB) recorded that extreme poverty in Zimbabwe rose from 29 percent in 2018 to 34 percent, an increase from 4.7 to 5.7 million. Putting it bluntly, Zimbabweans and their leaders are still finding it hard to start forty years into independence.  

Ending poverty is a huge assignment, and working towards its reduction is a practice that can be achieved in equal measure because of vast knowledge and innovations around sustainable practices.

Embracing modern communication technologies or ICTs and the internet of things is an imminent mission that governments in the less economically developed countries should embark to reduce poverty, boost agriculture, improve the health being of the people among other things. As expected, losing jobs in the next decade and joining the poverty bracket will make many people part of the miserable statistics if they do not rethink adaptation to modern technologies.

The forms of journalism today are not what we had just five years ago. The introduction of solar or electric powered vehicles will push most petrol attendants out of work, for instance. In Europe, Sweden has already started banning diesel powered vehicles.  The education sector too is facing transformation; e-learning is becoming an effective form of knowledge exchange. Education and health sectors are becoming ICT driven. New skillsets are therefore required in reducing poverty and adapting to the vagaries of the changing world of work.

Oftenly, in Africa, some academic qualifications have become irrelevant; rendering holders useless as they fail to compete for jobs in the interconnected world and reduce poverty. These academic disciplines have become moribund and dysfunctional.

Kenya’s academic and public intellectual Prof. Lumumba says: “Africa must review and change the education curriculum in order to meet the modern challenges and future opportunities. We must not lock ourselves in a state of permanent lamentations.”

Talking about and embracing modern technologies alone is not going to change Africa’s fortunes in poverty reduction, but a change mindset.

No single sector has an answer to the reduction of poverty. It calls for collaboration from government, private sector and citizens with interest in socio-economic development. It is imperative to learn about what has worked elsewhere and realise that at the heart of the success stories were politicians taking hard decisions and taking more action than ideological rhetoric.

Africa should work towards more growth to address inequality and reduce poverty. Zimbabwe by 2030 is expected to become a middle-income economy. Figures have been released by President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s government to squeeze in citizens the idea that the country’s economy has been growing, “correct fundamentals” have been put in place. The statements, albeit, have been meaningless to the layman who is pummeled by the harsh economic conditions.

It does not mean that growth automatically reduces poverty, but no growth definitely implies that poverty is not going to be reduced.

In fighting to reduce poverty, the future jobs demonstrate that the automation revolution will not necessarily lead to a loss of work. Rather, it represents an opportunity and a call to action for up-skilling to reduce poverty and address inequality.

For feedback: gnyikadzino@gmail.com

Africa Day: A Celebration Degenerating to Fallacy

Gibson Nyikadzino

IT is ridiculous to let the 57^th commemoration of the African Union (AU/OAU) pass without putting significant thoughts about the day and try to see it in Africa's post-modern context. It has become tradition for African leaders on this day find excitement in posturing towards the pulpit of unity with esoteric Pan-African ideological inclinations that never translate to the betterment of perilous socio-economic challenges distressing the continent. 

While it is crucial to talk of African unity, ironically, Africa Day is observed as a public holiday in only 12 out of 54 African countries: Ghana, Mali, Namibia, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Angola, Chad, Comoros, Equatorial Guinea, Lesotho, Liberia and Mauritania; when over thirty leaders gathered and midwifed the birth of the OAU in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. There is need to reflect!  

When I was in grade three, a teacher at St. Francis in Chegutu, Mr. Buns, gave me a sweet at the assembly point after I provided an answer of the name of the organisation that preceded the AU, i.e. the Organisation of African Unity (OAU).

Mr. Buns spoke glowingly about Pan-Africanism. That was a moment of conviction, a moment that shook my conscience and triggered interest to go beyond the usual desire to know mere names of the Founding Fathers to understanding the philosophy behind the OAU/AU; Pan-Africanism. 

Without doubt, Pan-Africanism today no longer has the meaning it carried four decades ago. It has become more of a misdirected idea whose objectives need to be revisited and concretised towards service delivery, accountability, transparency, respect for rule of law and good governance.

In 1996, Uganda’s Yoweri Museveni, who has been in power since 1986 had a changing perspective about the then OAU: “It is a Club of Thieves,” he said.  

Many years after my primary school days, echoes of African unity on Africa Day continue to be heard, alas, only as the fading sound of a horn blown by a watchman from above the tower.

Africa is an unfortunate continent whose fortunes remain linked to its former colonisers (or the G7 of Colonialism) of Italy, Spain, Germany, France, Britain, Belgium and Portugal. From the G7 of Colonialism, many African nationalists used various methods to attain independence. For some African colonies, armed struggle was the alternative, while to others elections and negotiations ended years of colonialism. In extreme cases, some administrations have been established through bloody coup and revolution. 

In his book, Wretched of the Earth, Frantz Fanon wrote: “We have seen that the objective of the nationalist parties from a period onward is geared strictly along national lines. They mobilise people with slogans of independence and anything else is left to the future. When these parties are questioned on their economic agenda for the nation they propose to establish, they prove incapable of giving an answer because in fact they do not have a clue about the economy of their own country.”

Contemporary governments have however failed to separate the framework of their modern governments to those that made a transition from colonialism to independence. Because Zimbabwe won its independence through the barrel of a gun, it is inexplicable for the current administration to listen to a voice from Botswana over human rights abuses because Botswana got its independence on a “silver platter.”

The dynamics are so complex that even the development challenges and the needs of Africans require more than what the leaders are doing. Inclination towards the mind of the coloniser remains visible amongst Africans who remain divided along Anglophone, Francophone and Lusophone lines. 

In 2012 when South Africa’s Dr. Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma was challenging Gabon’s Jean Ping to head the AU Commission, then spokesperson to the late Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe, George Charamba, mentioned the despicable.

“At the election, Zimbabwe is going to vote for Dr. Dlamini-Zuma because we share a similar history. South Africa and Zimbabwe were both colonised by Britain,” said Charamba. To defend one position is to attack another. The Francophone-Anglophone divide remains elusive in comprehending what Africa’s unity entails.

As Dr. Dlamini-Zuma won the election, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) were fighting hard to neutralise rebels in eastern DRC, with the AU pledging to send peacekeepers there.

Since May 25, 1963, Africa has had more wars than those it has managed to solve. The DRC, Central African Republic, Cameroon, South Sudan and Libya are all examples that serve as a reminder that African unity is soon becoming a mirage.

Because of politics of patronage, since its inception, the bloc has not been caring enough to the concerns of the people who today continue to groan under the yoke of dictatorships, military governments, kleptocrats and the comprador bourgeoisie who act as middlemen of the erstwhile colonisers in economic exploitation.

While state's remain sovereign: Is it in the interest of a united Africa to see Equatorial-Guinea's President Teodoro Obiang Mbasogo appoint his son to become the country's vide-president? Is it the continent's satisfaction to see the young men and women wield AK47s to fight in wars they have no contribution to instead of attending school? Is it feasible for Africa's unity to be seen through leaders who endorse military governments that grab power through coups and kill people with impunity and shut democratic space?

Years before the 2011 demise of Libya’s Col. Muammar al Qhatafi, the issue of a United States of Africa (USA) was presented on many African fora, and it had rhetorical buy-in before dying a natural death. The continent’s development patterns are varied. 

The issue of unity in Africa is mere rhetoric that is brought up for the convenience of the elite. Today the continent's leaders talk of Agenda 2063, an agenda with a time frame whose burden they will not bear because they will not live to see it.

Africa’s unity does not need geographical explanations to be effective, but needs (re)invented shared values, norms and beliefs. The pan-Africanist gospel is nothing but an idea that never works but refuses to die. In its current form, Pan-Africanism will not go beyond Ubuntuism. It needs an urgent revisit.

Without shared values, norms and beliefs, all slogans and change rhetoric become nothing but a common sight that Africa is united in error!

For feedback: gnyikadzino@gmail.com

Millennial poverty, unemployment and a generation’s future in Zimbabwe

Gibson Nyikadzino

Let me start on a sombre note, and I hope it will end as a reflection that stands to be judged, either way. The original state of people is not poverty, people are pushed into poverty. Zimbabwe’s millennial generation is no exception. The future of the Zimbabwean youth is the most dramatic story that does not even make the news headlines, except for political reasons.

Zimbabwe is on the edge of an economic precipice. The young who are today clamouring for equal opportunities are unmindful that if you want to make poverty history, the first thing is to understand the history of poverty.

Historian Emmanuel Akyeampong remarked: “Poverty, wealth, power, powerlessness are connected.”

It has become a terrifying reflection that in Zimbabwe, people are not poor because they do not have food or they have no rich culture, but their poverty has been created first by grabbing the resources by a few but powerful people.

A score ago, Zimbabwe embarked on a “nationalist” land redistribution exercise that, according to the leaders, was meant to change the fortunes of natives in the agricultural sector and social life in general.

But twenty years later, the poverty currently experienced is deeply linked with the appropriation of land, itself a major economic resource. Using nationalist terminology, biggest “land redistribution” happened in Zimbabwe, while on the other hand it created more poor people.

Since 2000, a new poverty has been created in the hunt of affluence and a new language has been created; cartels and oligarchs. The emerging oligarchs grabbed the land of the people, today they benefit from energy, power and transport deals, they are beneficiaries of the privatisation of state enterprises, are in the agriculture sector.

As the poverty unfolds, the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is slowing, income per capita is pathetic all because productivity has been declining  for 20 years, since the “nationalist land redistribution.” The result; unemployment has been very high and nowhere in Zimbabwe is it pronounced than among the millennial generation ready to join the workforce. 

Poverty and inequality is a twin scourge in the 21^st century, and has become more pronounced in Sub-Saharan African. A lot of  unfortunate scenarios, never witnessed by our ancestors, are by the doorstep.

Zimbabwean youth have been disadvantaged because of the 20 years of declining productivity, slow growth, steep unemployment and increasing inequality since 2000. The economic downturn is fuelling growing discontent towards governing institutions and spawning extreme political views that threaten to disrupt the prevailing order.

In the face of a global COVID-19 pandemic, what are signs that point to the government’s ability to nurture the talents of the young generation and prepare them for the competitive future.

While the ‘government of Zimbabwe’, then and now, never competed in the first and second Industrial Revolutions, how is the leadership harnessing modern infrastructure as a measure on its commitment to provide equal opportunities to millennials and all with innovation?   

While globally today we may be living longer and comfortably, on average, than our forebears, it is frightening to know that 40 percent of the global population that is earning less than two dollars a day is far worse than what our ancestors were before the two industrial revolutions in the 18^th and 19^th centuries.

This current industrial era, if not embraced with innovation and rewarding talent, it can create a more profound crisis, a worse generational crisis. Zimbabwe’s 65 percent of the population are youth, that is no longer a myth. What is terrifying about this demography is that it is made up of most brilliant minds that are impoverished by those they look up to.

Inequality of opportunity is certainly one of the many major drivers of poverty among Africa and Zimbabwe’s young generation. The situation we experience today has all to do with the quality of our governance structure.

For example, Zimbabwe in 1996 hosted the first Solar Energy Conference, and unfortunately as a nation we have failed to install renewable energy technology to transform our electricity and transport grids to move the economy. This only requires innovative leaders without a strongman mentality, possessing the willingness to change factors that drove a 21^stcentury economy. 

Where is Zimbabwe’s millennial generation looking to when global economists reveal that “we are looking at small growth and little job opportunities for the next 20 years?”

As German philosopher Walter Banjamin puts it: “The value of information does not survive the moment in which it was new. It lives only at that moment; it has to surrender to it completely and explain itself to it without losing any time.

A story is different. It does not expend itself. It preserves and concentrates its strength and is capable of realizing it even after a long time.”

Zimbabwe’s youth should tell a different story, with time.