The MentalGator » Items by Rumbidzai Dube

Items by Rumbidzai Dube

Black Looks

Some are guiltier than others

Posted: April 17, 2012, 11:18 am by Rumbidzai Dube

The fundamental principle underlying the right to a fair trial is that every individual is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. Hence no one individual should be treated like a criminal until a court of law has passed a decision declaring them so. Even if the circumstantial evidence points to the guilt of the [...]
Maybe we need an ECOWAS in Southern Africa

Posted: April 12, 2012, 11:31 am by Rumbidzai Dube

Military governments found their most marked expression on the African continent recording an unprecedented eighty-five violent coups and rebellions from the time of the Egyptian revolution in 1952 until 1998.Seventy-eight of these took place between 1961 and 1997. Undoubtedly, West Africa was the worst affected region and it continues to experience more coups, rebellions and [...]
Who is next?

Posted: March 26, 2012, 1:08 pm by Rumbidzai Dube

Is Africa changing? Is the politics changing? Are the people changing and are their demands for democracy and good governance becoming more solid? Are we finally claiming our space as the cradle of mankind and the beginnings of all civilisation? For years African citizens have suffered grave governance deficits at the hands of octogenarians who [...]
Coup in Mali: The ‘Rats’ and ‘Dogs’ discussion continues

Posted: March 23, 2012, 11:13 am by Rumbidzai Dube

Another coup in Africa. Another decision by an elite group of citizens to take the fate of millions into their own hands. Another threat to peace and security on the African continent. Well here is the thing; it all begins with such events, a coup, a rebellion, a mutiny. Then it gets prolonged and for [...]
We are all Munyaradzi Gwisai

Posted: March 22, 2012, 11:08 am by Rumbidzai Dube

*This article was motivated by the call by Kubatana for Zimbabwean human rights activists to stand in solidarity with Munyaradzi Gwisai, and 5 of his colleagues who have been convicted for watching videos of the Egyptian Revolution in February 2011* The decision passed against Zimbabwe International Socialist Organisation leader, and my former lecturer at the [...]
Imprisoned prisoners: the double tragedy of refugees in Zimbabwe

Posted: March 20, 2012, 12:41 pm by Rumbidzai Dube

Every state has a right to defend its sovereignty and national integrity-yes. Every state also has a right to protect its borders from infiltrators who are a threat to its national security-yes. In so doing, it is hence not only necessary but also prudent for any state to have immigration laws that regulate the ability [...]
IWD: We the poor women in this rich world

Posted: March 8, 2012, 7:34 am by Rumbidzai Dube

*I would like to sincerely apologise to those who follow my writings for my long absence. Among other things I have spent the past month focused on lobbying the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, (the CEDAW Committee) to, in its review of the state of Zimbabwe, take on board [...]
When ‘i’ means ignorance

Posted: February 6, 2012, 9:47 am by Rumbidzai Dube

I was sitting amongst a bunch of teenagers in an internet café when the things I observed inspired this article. I peeped at the screens of the computers they were using and made some interesting observations. Two were playing games. One was hiding his screen and from the corner of my eye I saw naked [...]
Zimbabwe to Egypt: Reflections from Tahrir Square: Part 2

Posted: December 31, 2012, 2:31 am by Rumbidzai Dube

2012 is here. 2011 is gone and oh what an interesting year it was. One that gave birth to a spring of consciousness; birthed the Arab Spring in which Tunisia and Egypt successfully toppled their presidents although all evidence on the ground indicates that the struggle to topple the regimes that these individual leaders had [...]
Rising from despondency to hope: The tale of a healer

Posted: December 17, 2011, 11:33 am by Rumbidzai Dube

“Violence against women causes trauma. It takes away women’s ability to make progress in their lives. It destroys families, breaks up marriages and increases the spread of HIV/AIDS.” Listening to her striking words, I felt the conviction that drives her vision in life; to assist victims of organised violence and torture (OVT) to find healing [...]
Of course; they have a lot to hide!

Posted: November 29, 2011, 11:50 am by Rumbidzai Dube

When I first heard this piece of news I was shocked, then I became angry and then I turned defiant and decided that I would chart my own destiny. The piece of news is that out of the 192 member states of the United Nations, Zimbabwe has decided to declare itself so special, setting itself [...]
When will we learn?

Posted: November 24, 2011, 12:12 pm by Rumbidzai Dube

*Disclaimer*
[This article does not mean in any way to trivialise the struggle by sexual minorities for their rights, neither does it seek to force the writers’ own views on sexual minority rights on the reader. Rather it is a call on a nation blinded by intolerance and hate to see how political leaders are manipulating that intolerance to drive their own agenda to derail meaningful constitutional reforms]

“Where after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home-so close and so small that they can not be seen on any map of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person: the nighbourhood he lives in; the school or college he attends the factory, farm or office where he works. Such are the places where every man and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. Without concerned citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world” [Eleanor Roosevelt on the Universal declaration of human rights]
Our children are starving...

This quote speaks to the essence of what Zimbabweans, as a people need right now, a concerted popular effort to demand human dignity and all that comes with it. We need food on our tables; decent wages and employment; a good education for our children; proper healthcare including affordable medication when we need it; roofs over our heads; reliable electricity supply; running and clean water; and proper working sewer systems. These are things we should be demanding to see in a new constitution and as Eleanor Roosevelt said, without concerted citizen action, as Zimbabweans we will continue to look to ‘donors’ to assist us, yet we could solve our problems ourselves.
...we now use candles for light and firewood for cooking...

Yet, overnight, we have stopped deliberating over these fundamental issues. Suddenly, the discussion on a constitution that carries all fundamental rights has been overtaken by the debate on whether gays and lesbians’ rights should be put in the constitution. People’s focus has been shifted from socio-economic guarantees and political freedoms to one issue-homosexuality. So, will Zimbabweans blindly accept a constitution that has no guarantees for either economic, social and cultural rights or basic freedoms simply because it does not contain gays and lesbians’ rights? Will we also blindly reject a constitutional framework that has all these guarantees simply because it also contains gays and lesbians’ rights?
...we find rubbish at our doorsteps...

Have we forgotten our fight for dignity, equality, freedom and justice which began with the liberation struggle and cost the lives of many? Is this what our liberators died for; a nation of hypocrites who fornicate, commit adultery, lie, steal, murder, oppress the poor and yet find themselves better ‘sinners’ than others?

Who are we to judge gays and lesbians? Who are we to condemn them to the extent of segregating and ostracising them? What makes us think they are worse-off sinners than we are? From a Christian standpoint, if we find their behavior sinful are we then being Christ-like when we shun them? Should we not be drawing them into our circles as disciples of Christ and evangelists so they may know the truth we purport to know? Tolerance which Christ preaches demands that we take standpoints against their behavior not individuals, deeds not the doers, choices not the choosers and hence be our brothers’ keepers; are we doing that when we remove them from our circles and call them trash, filth, pigs and dogs? Who and what give us the moral standpoint to consider our own sins less “sinful” than their perceived sins? Why have we all become God- to be the judge and condemn and even kill (in the case of Uganda and David Kato) and rape (corrective rape in South Africa)and deem that they deserve to “be punished severely for their behaviour which is inconsistent with African and Christian values” in our case? [Excerpt from the Herald 24/11/11]
...yet we betray our struggle out of hate!!!

As for Zimbabweans one thing stands clear to me, we have been waylaid!!!

We must always remember that politicians have an agenda and will play on our emotional and moral senses to manipulate circumstances to their own advantage. We are being manipulated and most of us do not even see it. Our oh-so-upright population (my foot) is up in arms against gays and lesbians and has been brainwashed to reject a constitution that so much as mentions that,
“every person has the right to marry a person of their choice.”

The individuals leading this campaign because they find gays and lesbians ‘morally reprehensible’ have committed or instigated the murder, disappearance, torture, abduction, rape, sodomisation, and grave assault of men, women and children to remain in power. Why has the nation suddenly become so blind to their sinfulness? Do these leaders really care about this issue or are they not merely using the question of homosexuality to derail the constitution-making process by diverting our attention from issues they never want to see contained in the constitution?

I think we need to wake up and smell the coffee. Let us leave God to judge His people as He commands. Our priority should be to challenge issues that shape our day to day lives. Whether or not gays and lesbians’ rights are part of our constitution will not bring food to our tables nor guarantee water in our homes. It will neither stop the incessant power cuts nor will it guarantee the nation’s political freedoms. This I believe we need to learn.
Of bloggers, activists, expectant mothers and military rulers: Free Alaa!!!

Posted: November 5, 2011, 11:56 am by Rumbidzai Dube

In better days...April 2011
Throughout the time I spent in Egypt, one recurrent question from people outside Egypt struck me the most: Had the Revolution brought about any meaningful change? My very first impressions upon arriving in Egypt were that indeed the Revolution had changed many things. I had read about the Mubarak regime which sounded pretty much like my own government. The Egypt of Mubarak was one of violent repression of dissenting opinions, arbitrary arrests, bloody dispersions of any forms of protest, strict censorship of the media, demonisation of non governmental organisations and the general suppression of the masses’ freedoms and rights. Indeed Mubarak was famous for being a ruthless dictator who would not stop at anything to consolidate his reign on power.

So when I found Egyptians able to demonstrate and camp in Tahrir Square in the aftermath of the Revolution I thought things had changed. When one of my friends asked me whether the January 25 movement in Egypt was in effect a Revolution I answered yes and based my judgement on the characteristics of the movement. I argue that it was an initiative by the masses (1), which grew out of disaffection with the governing authority (2); it overthrew a government (3) and brought about change (4). Now I look back at that response and wonder if my assessment may have been premature. Was there a real overthrow of a government and has there been any real change in Egypt? Mubarakism persists even after Mubarak has gone.

I witnessed the smear campaign against the NGOs as the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces discredited them as agents of the West the same way Mubarak denounced and harassed them. That rang an alarm bell in my head because in my country, NGOs are also called stooges of the West. I witnessed the death of 26 protestors at the hands of the military as it exercised disproportionate force against unarmed civilians and again the alarm bells went off and I could smell doom coming.

I witnessed the political space closing up again and the ability to speak freely, assemble freely and associate freely that had characterised the period immediately after the revolution dissipated. Maikel Nabil an activist and blogger was subjected to military trial for writing a blog refuting the belief that was prevalent during the Revolution that the military and the people were one. He was sentenced to 3 years in prison and an additional fine of 200 Egyptian Pounds. He subsequently went on a hunger strike and has since been moved to a psychiatric hospital.

What I had not envisaged was that my very own dear friend and one of Egypt’s most prominent younger generation bloggers and human rights activists, Alaa Abd El Fattah ,would become a victim of the system just as he had done under Mubarak. I had also not anticipated that his arrest would come at a time when his dear wife Manal Bahey El Din Hassan is due to deliver their very first child/son Semsem.

In 2006 Alaa was arrested on spurious charges and spent 45 days in detention. On October 30 2011, just 6 days ago Alaa was summoned by the Egyptian Supreme Council of the Armed Forces at their C4 headquarters for investigations. Alaa stands accused of inciting violence among the protestors who were expressing their anger at the burning of a church in Aswan on 9 October. The clashes between the military and the protestors that followed hose protests now famously known as the Maspero attacks (named after the state television building in front of which they took place) resulted in the death of 26 people.

It is then quite ironical for the military to charge Alaa with inciting violence when they are on record for calling people to come and defend the oh-so-vulnerable army from uncontrollable and rowdy Christians on state television. It is also ironic coming from the military which according to most video footage and eyewitnesses is clearly responsible for the death of the 26 protestors. To add insult to injury the same indictment investigating Alaa also contains the name of Mina Daniel, one of the protestors who died during the clashes.

Alaa refused to answer to the charges by the military for many reasons. First, exercising his right to remain silent and not give any evidence that could incriminate him. Second, challenging the legitimacy of the military to investigate him given that they are also an accused in the matter and therefore placing questions on the independence and impartiality of the investigations. Third, questioning the legitimacy of the military to investigate civilians in a civilian matter when the ordinary channels and ordinary courts are there to exercise this function.

For refusing to answer, Alaa was thrown into a jail cell at the notorious Bab El Khalq prison where he later explained in a letter addressed to the press was a tiny 6 x 12 feet roach infested cell which he shared with 8 other detainees. Today marks the 6th of the 15 days that he has been ordered to remain in detention. It appears this period may be extended in order to force Alaa to cooperate with the military prosecutors.

Alaa’s arrest and detention is a tragic occurrence bringing to light the reality that the Revolution in Egypt is far from accomplished. It is clear that the real reason for his arrest is that he denounced the SCAF and unequivocally placed blame on their shoulders for the Maspero massacres. It is also his vocal stance against the SCAF stating that the military rulers are doing all they can to erode the gains of the revolution. Alaa is among 12 000 other individuals, many of them human rights defenders and activists that are being subjected to military trials a culture that is not only a clear violation of their right to a fair and transparent trial but also a gross travesty to justice in itself.

Taking advantage of my proximity to the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights I filed a complaint regarding Alaa’s detention with the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders in Africa. The Special Rapporteur has since sent a letter of allegations to the Egyptian Head of State with regard to the arrest and detention of Alaa Abd El Fattah and Bahaa Saber by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces. I await the result of that enquiry and hope Alaa is released before SemSem (Alaa’s unborn son) comes into the world lest that little boy also grows up thinking it is normal for his father to be a political detainee the way Alaa did with his own father.
Did they entrust fillet to the dogs?

Posted: October 17, 2011, 2:38 am by Rumbidzai Dube

Dogs eat meat- that is a fact. When you serve them with fillet, they eat it all because it is a steak and tender and afterwards nothing remains; not a trace that in that plate once lay a piece of meat. But when you serve them meat with bones, they eat all the meat and leave the bones. After their meal you can salvage the bones remaining. I am sitting here in Cairo International Airport waiting to board my plane home and wondering if the situation I am leaving behind in Egypt resembles the case of a dog entrusted with priced meat.

It is fact, militaries are powerful and they thrive on that power. States that are weak militarily are scoffed upon hence the mockery directed towards the Ottoman Empire (now Turkey in the 20th Century) as “The weak men of Europe”. In a democracy, the power of the military is measured in comparison to their military power against other nations’ military power. However when that power gains excess domestically and the military is involved in politics, the might of the military is exercised against a nation of unarmed, defenceless civilians. The result will be something quite similar to serving a dog with fillet- where you are left with nothing to salvage.

I came to Egypt a couple of months after the Revolution. I found in Egypt a nation hopeful, eager and ready for change and for transformation. I leave behind a nation in a state of comatose, a depressed youth, heartbroken and growing more and more agitated as the Egyptian army displays itself for what it really is…just another brutal, African army that follows its interests and not those of the people it pledged to protect. The nation is reeling from the shock of their experiences and every individual has had to confront the reality that activism and the fight for a democratic Egypt can be attained at the cost of their own lives. The people believed that given its history, the Egyptian army would set a precedent of leading a successful transition but how can the transition succeed when the guarantours of its success are sabotaging it. Or are they?

On the day of the Maspero massacres (the death of 26 political activists and injury of 300 other at the hands of the military forces in front of Maspero-the state television building in Cairo as they were protesting the burning of a Coptic Church in Merinab Village, Aswan-Upper Egypt) Egypt woke up and it was just another Sunday, another day in the lives of a great nation that is charting its own history towards freedom, dignity and equality.

When the demonstration also started it was just another protest; as has been the culture since the January 25 Revolution. The procession began in Shubra and continued all the way to Maspero. Little did the protestors know that just a mere few hours away 26 of them would be dead, 300 injured and many of them would lose a friend, a sister, a brother, a daughter and a son at the hands of the army that the people entrusted with their ticket to democracy.

Simmering tensions between Christians and Moslems in Egypt have always existed, with Christians feeling like second class citizens in their own country because they cannot practice their religion, build and renovate religious buildings and carry out their religious practices as freely as Moslems do. In 2011 alone, 3 other major incidents of attacks on Christians by Muslims and vice versa have been recorded. First was the bombing of the Two Saints Church in Alexandria on the eve of the New Year. 100 people were injured and 23 died. 51 others were injured and 6 died when Orthodox Christians and Muslim Salafists fought in March in Cairo. In May, 242 were injured and 15 died in a bomb blast that destroyed a church in the Imbaba surbub of Cairo. The Maspero massacres make the 4th religiously aligned attack.

The broadcasting of the massacre on state television was biased and instead of relaying the Christians’ fears that the army is there to protect everyone regardless of their religion, the army presented itself as the poor-weak and Muslim army being attacked by uncontrollable and unruly Christians. Of course this was a lucrative call on those who already harboured ill feelings towards Christians to use this opportunity to attack them. What game the army was playing out when it created this antagonism between Christians and Moslems one cannot understand. Since when has a national army been religiously aligned and since when has the mighty Egyptian army which has threatened war against Ethiopia over the Nile and war against Israel (and indirectly the US because it always backs Israel) been overpowered by an insignificant fraction of a mere 8 million Christians?

Yes, with this incident the Supreme Council of Armed Forces showed its inability to manage the pressing problem of intolerance that Egypt faces if it is to transform into a democratic society. Such intolerance exists at religious, racial and gender levels characterised by tensions between Muslims and Christian Copts, racism by Arabs against Africans and even Nubians within their own country and sexual harassment and maltreatment of women, respectively. Intolerance towards dissenting political views is still rife as prisoners of conscience still languish in prison. One of them Maikel Nabil Sanad, has been on a hunger strike for 45 days following his three year sentence to imprisonment for criticising the army.

The SCAF is guilty of many other violations some of which are still ongoing. It started with the virginity testing of protestors, then came the military trial followed the violent dispersion of demonstrators from Tahrir Square resulting in the injury of many. Then there were the several declarations of a state of emergency and imposition of curfews. It seems the tricks have gotten worse and dirtier with time.

I look at this scenario and ask myself, is Egypt going back to the days of Mubarak? Has the situation become worse than it was under Mubarak’s rule?

I however conclude that there is hope Egypt. In the aftermath of the Maspero massacres the Supreme Council of Armed Forces (ruling authority) called for speedy investigations into the clashes. It tasked the government to speedily form a fact finding committee to investigate the case and institute legal action against those responsible for directly inducing or meting out the massacre. It promulgated an anti-discrimination law that forbade discrimination on the basis of religion. These actions might not have been as far-reaching as most Egyptians would have wanted in addressing the problem of peace and security in Egypt, but I can imagine they are more than what the nation would have received from a Mubarak government that was not accountable to the people and did not care what the people thought of it. The implementation of these laws remains to be seen.

The incident at Maspero met with intense debate and discussions both private and public concerning the ability of the SCAF to lead a democratic transition. Under the Mubarak regime there was no room for such public debate and criticism. There has been great improvement in the exercise of freedom of expression. Some people have seen the religious strife as a setback to the democratic transition where the focus has shifted from pushing for elections and other democratic reforms and turned to questions of security and peace amongst Egypt’s citizens. However the realisation that these events must not sidetrack the drive for democratic transition is by itself a commendable development.
Yes the future is uncertain, and yes progress in consolidating the momentum set by the January 25 Revolution remains unsatisfactory but I have hope for Egypt.

The dogs may have eaten some of the meat, but there are always the bones to salvage and redirect the path towards democracy.
The death penalty in Zimbabwe: A necessary evil?

Posted: September 30, 2011, 9:35 am by Rumbidzai Dube

Big thanks to my friend Kirolos Nagy (Nathan) for designing this picture

In solidarity with the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People (NAACP), one of the organisations fighting for the abolition of capital punishment in America following the terrible fate of Troy Davis on the 21^st of September, I posted on my facebook wall a call for signatures to a petition demanding such abolition in America.My Facebook status read,

“The case of Troy Davis brought home to me that we have a similar situation in Zimbabwe. Although the death penalty has not been executed because currently nobody wants to be the hangman, many are languishing in prisons on the death row, some of whom may be innocent. Let us help our American friends to get rid of their death penalty. We help them today and maybe they will also help us when we begin our campaign to do away with capital punishment in Zimbabwe.”

One would presume such a petition would receive positive commitments to sign onto the petition but NO, that presumption would be misplaced as mine was. The responses I got back were resounding no no’s. No, we are not going to sign the petition because we do not believe in what it says. No, poor Mr Davis might be one of the few innocent people who got a raw deal from the existence of capital punishment, but in Zimbabwe we need the death penalty and it remains a necessary evil in order to deal effectively with crime. As one person argued “the nature of wickedness and barbaric acts” that certain individuals commit must be punished with the death penalty. One other person argued that only the death sentence was the answer because these people are evil and a life sentence would not serve the same purpose the death sentence does because the evildoers would continue to “use tax payers money in food and “enjoying” life (though with limitations) which they would have brutally denied of their victims.”

So I ask is the death penalty a necessary evil in Zimbabwe?

I know the feeling of living in fear of dangerous criminals. I remember the fear that filled Zimbabweans’ hearts when Edmund Masendeke, Elias Chauke and Stephen Chidhumo three of the most notorious criminals to ‘grace’ the Zimbabwean landscape escaped from Chikurubi Maximum Prison in 1995. They were infamously known for murder, rape and armed robbery. Masendeke and Chidhumo were the last 2 people to be hanged in 2004.

Since then the ‘Office of the Hangman’ has remained vacant leaving those sentenced to death waiting on the death row. Civil rights defenders in Zimbabwe have reported that some prisoners have been on the death row for an average of four years with some having been ‘waiting to die’ for as long as 13 years. Meanwhile they live in prison conditions that are unsanitary, harzadous to health and can only be summarised as inhumane and degrading.

So I ask again what the purpose of a justice system is. Is retribution the goal or is it not rather restoration? Is the goal of justice to punish human error/folly/wickedness or whatever else may have motivated the murder in the worst possible manner available? Is it not rather to condemn the acts committed, punish them but at the same time restore the values of respect for humanity in the perpetrators that they would have lost when they committed these foul acts?

Why do we have the death penalty in the best place? Are there no other punishments that could serve the same purpose of punishing wrongful acts without giving the impression of being vengeful? Is life imprisonment not punishment enough? So if our version of justice is equal to the murder of those who murder shall we also amputate those who amputate and rape those who rape? Are we serving justice or exacting revenge when we do this? Do we not then lose our humanness and reduce ourselves to the levels of the same criminals that we condemn when we do these things? Are we not ashamed that we could be killing innocent people like Troy Davis?

In a justice system in a state similar to the Zimbabwean situation where the quality and intensity of investigations is poor, the morale of the police is low, the levels of corruption among the prosecutors and magistrates is high and even the integrity of the judiciary and law profession is compromised then the probability of innocent people being convicted based on circumstantial evidence is high. I guess it is more convenient and comforting for the prosecutor and investigating officer of the murder to go home knowing that they got someone convicted for a murder even knowing that the accused could have been innocent than not to have apprehended anyone in connection with the case at all. So then is human life now less important than a criminal investigator’s ego or promotion? Are we really serving justice when we sentence individuals to death?

The following excerpts forming the reasoning of the South African Constitutional Court in the case of the State v Makwanyane answer some of these questions for me. In that case the court concluded that the death penalty was a form of inhumane and degrading punishment and treatment in South Africa and since that decision the death penalty was outlawed in South Africa.

In arguing that the death sentence gives no room for innocent people to vindicate themselves the Court said,
“The differences that exist between rich and poor, between good and bad prosecutions, between good and bad defence, between severe and lenient judges, between judges who favour capital punishment and those who do not, and the subjective attitudes that might be brought into play by factors such as race and class, may in similar ways affect any case that comes before the courts. But death is different, and the question is, whether this is acceptable when the difference is between life and death. Unjust imprisonment is a great wrong, but if it is discovered, the prisoner can be released and compensated; but the killing of an innocent person is irremediable. While this court has the power to correct constitutional or other errors retroactively…it cannot, of course, raise the dead.”[Para 54]

The Bench also refused to be swayed by public opinion as people were also clamouring for the death penalty to be retained and the Court went on to say;

“The carrying out of the death sentence destroys life, which is protected without reservation under section 9 of our Constitution [the South African Constitution], it annihilates human dignity which is protected under section 10, elements of arbitrariness are present in its enforcement and it is irremediable…I am satisfied that in the context of our Constitution the death penalty is indeed a cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. [Para 95]

In responding to the Attorney General’s argument that the death sentence was the most effective punitive measure without which the criminal justice system would be compromised the Court said;

“In the course of his argument the Attorney General contended that if sentences imposed by the Courts on convicted criminals are too lenient, the law will be brought into disrepute, and members of society will then take the law into their own hands. Law is brought into disrepute if the justice system is ineffective and criminals are not punished. But if the justice system is effective and criminals are apprehended, brought to trial and in serious cases subjected to severe sentences, the law will not fall into disrepute. We have made the commitment to “a future founded on the recognition of human rights, democracy and peaceful co-existence…for all South Africans.” Respect for life and dignity lies at the heart of that commitment. One of the reasons for the prohibition of capital punishment is “that allowing the State to kill will cheapen the value of human life and thus [through not doing so] the State will serve in a sense as a role model for individuals in society.”Our country needs such role models. Reconciliation contains the following commitment: The adoption of this Constitution lays the secure foundation for the people of South Africa to transcend the divisions and strife of the past, which generated gross violations of human rights, the transgression of humanitarian principles in violent conflicts and a legacy of hatred, fear, guilt and revenge. These can now be addressed on the basis that there is a need for understanding but not for vengeance, a need for reparation but not for retaliation, a need for ubuntu but not for victimisation. (Emphasis supplied) [Para 124]

One thing is for sure, advocating the abolition of the death penalty, does not mean playing down the enormity of the crime being punished. Handing down the death sentence does not guarantee deterrence in crime and no credible evidence to this date has shown that the death penalty ensures reduction in crime rates. In fact studies conducted in the US have shown that crime is higher in states that retained the death penalty and lower in those that abolished it. It is an inhumane act that no government should sustain and it goes against the very moral fabric of society that we condemn in those who commit terrible crimes. No society should uphold it or condone it!

I cannot understand how Zimbabweans would want to retain the death penalty given our history and our heritage. We inherited the death penalty form the legacy of colonialism and it is one of the evils we should have gotten rid of upon attaining independence. One of the most significant historical accounts in the struggle for independence is the story of Mbuya Nehanda, the great Zezuru Svikiro who resisted the white colonialists and inspired the Shona people to rise and expel the British from the land. She went to her death in defiance, denouncing the British. Her death by hanging at the hands of the British settlers is condemned even today, not just because she was fighting for a good cause but also because they denied her dignity at the moment of her death. Her last words “My bones shall rise” are a source of inspiration, at least to me as I continue the struggle for dignity, equality and freedom that she began. I believe she is turning in her grave when the same noose that sent her to her death bed is still being used to destroy human life, regardless of whether the people getting killed are innocent or guilty.

Life is life.
The Blame Game

Posted: September 21, 2011, 12:17 pm by Rumbidzai Dube

I have been asking myself why it is that people never want to take responsibility for their own actions especially when the consequences of their actions are negative. Why is it so much easier to find scapegoats and shift the blame on others what is called chipomerwa in Shona, my mother tongue than to face the truth and find ways of dealing with the problem ? Why then is it that people expect problems to disappear yet they have not addressed the part of the problem to which they are the problem? These are questions I have been asking myself every time I think of the economic meltdown that Zimbabwe has undergone and the consequences that the meltdown has had on the lives of ordinary Zimbabweans,especially women and children.

In 2008; the worst year ever in Zimbabwean economic history since its independence in 1980, the lives of many people were transformed for the worst. The nation was plunged into poverty and the burden of poverty wore heavily on women as the mothers and in some cases sole breadwinners for their families. The food that most people grew up taking for granted was no longer so easily accessible and the content of the basket which was once considered basic consisting of bread, milk, tea-leaves, sugar, margarine, mealie-meal, meat, vegetables, cooking oil, washing and bathing soap and Vaseline became a privilege. Families were forced to eat a single meal each day and the meal would consist of food rich in starch to stave off starvation. Such an unbalanced diet led to increased reports of malnutrition.

Women with school going children struggled to pay school fees. Some failed to pay the fees forcing the children to drop out of school. In some cases where they could afford the fees, school uniforms were unaffordable so the children were sent to school with no uniforms. At a time when food was hard to get by, healthcare was not a priority, no wonder there was an increase in maternal and infant mortality. Access to proper medical care and medication became the preserve of the affluent.

In their resilience, women channelled their energy to the informal market and a spring of misikas (vegetable market stalls) and flea markets ironically manned by women became a growing phenomenon as women tried to make ends meet. Some started going to neighboring states to bring any goods that could be sold and the phenomenon of cross-border trading became a house-name in Zimbabwe.

When social justice movements and watchdogs of democracy spoke their minds against this deterioration in the lifestyle of Zimbabweans, they were thrown into prison cells. The stories of the arrest, detention and harassment of members of the Women of Zimbabwe Arise (WOZA) and Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) among others hit the headlines.

But, it is also at that time that the black-market flourished as mainly young men engaged in shady deals madhiri. The field of gold panning chikorokoza and diamond dealing zvengoda made many people rich. But, these fields were the preserve of men as very few women were daring enough to engage in such cutthroat business. So yes, women in Zimbabwe bore the brunt of an economic era that was unregulated and chaotic.

The question remains how did the Zimbabwean economy collapse? The responses to this question will always vary depending on whom it is addressed to. The general public will say it is because of the corruption by political leaders. Economists and other political analysts will say it is because of the disastrous economic policies and politics that the ZANU-PF government implemented. The ZANU –PF loyalists and party members will say it is because of the sanctions imposed by the West (Europe, Australia and North America) which some of our own (meaning the MDC) supported. The West will say it was the mismanagement of the economy by ZANU-PF especially a disorderly land reform process that destroyed an agro-based economy. Viewed separately each response has a ring of truth. But these responses also reflect certain levels of bias and a failure by each group to appreciate and acknowledge its own role and contribution to the demise of the economy.

Disastrous economic policies

Zimbabwe’s involvement in the Coltan War in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) between 1998 and 2003 significantly impacted the economy. The military initiative emptied the public coffers. Zimbabwe’s contribution was estimated at 11 000 in human resources and an unaccounted number of war-equipment. Most people viewed the war as unnecessary since the country was not under any strategic threat given Zimbabwe’s geographical positioning from the DRC. A report by the then Finance Minister of Finance Simba Makoni in his briefing to Parliament in August 2000 revealed that government expenditure directed towards the war was over USD $200 million. The reasons for that controversial intervention, the depth of losses incurred and the impact it had on the economy have never been fully accounted for and hence the real details remain mere speculation.

The disorderly and sporadic land reform process which began in 2000 not only failed to redistribute land equitably, but also removed land from the hands of the white population and placed it in the hands of a few elites. Most of the beneficiaries neither have farming skills nor do they have the business sense of approaching farming at a large scale. Under-utilisation of the land and reduced production destroyed the basis of an economy which was agriculturally based and hence shoved the economy many steps into the dungeons. Zimbabwe used to grow enough food to feed its own people and feed the region as well but now thousands go hungry and each year. The World Food Programme and other relief agencies have had to intervene to feed Zimbabweans.

It is also true that the widespread mismanagement of funds and excessive spending on luxury vehicles contributed in increasing government expenditure. This milked the government’s revenue and widened the debt deficit the country owed to international monetary institutions. The response of the Reserve Bank, between December 2008 and 2010, to limited foreign currency flows into the formal market with constant devaluation of the Zimbabwean dollar and the printing of higher denomination value bank notes backed by nothing fuelled inflation and completely rubbished our currency. It also promoted speculative tendencies which drove trade in foreign currency to the black market where rates were more lucrative than the formal channels. This caused even greater reduction to the foreign currency flows in the formal market and the result was hyperinflation.

The corruption that surrounds the mining of diamonds, platinum and other precious minerals has seen the country incurring losses with a few beneficiaries amassing wealth from the country’s resources. The politics of violence and intimidation that the country has experienced since 2000 has also led to its designation as an ‘unsafe tourist destination’ hence reducing the amount of revenue flowing into the coffers through tourism. Hence it cannot be disputed that the ZANU-PF led government played a major role in taking the Zimbabwean economy to the doldrums.

Sanctions
The role that Western powers have played to the death of the Zimbabwean economy cannot be dismissed as insignificant. The sanctions imposed by the United States under the banner of the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001 (ZIDERA) contributed to the economic woes. This Act significantly reduced Zimbabwe’s access to finance and credit facilities. With limited access to foreign currency, inability to apply for debt cancellations, coupled with the global financial crisis, Zimbabwe’s chances of surviving in such harsh conditions were next to nil. This catalysed fuel shortages witnessed acutely in 2008 which in turn catalysed price increases of all basic commodities and significantly made the cost of living higher.

The EU targeted sanctions which imposed an asset freeze on a few prominent leaders not only failed to serve their intended purpose which was to address the violation of human rights in Zimbabwe but they also fuelled corruption. With their lifestyles demanding huge cash-flows, individuals with political influence whose assets were frozen, simply used their influence to siphon state resources to make up for the financial gap created in the absence of their frozen fat bank balances.

Absence of the rule of law
There is nothing wrong with citizens expecting state institutions to enforce the rule of law. Under normal circumstances it is the responsibility of the state to ensure that there is rule of law. However in the absence of effective state institutions and in the absence of sanctions then the resultant end is anarchy. But who is the anarchist? It is the citizens. It is you (who is reading this article) and I. When citizens obey the law because they fear sanctions and act against the same law when the sanction goes away or if there is no one to enforce it, I believe it is their fault if their actions have negative consequences on themselves.

My point is to ask, how many Zimbabweans will stand and say they never traded foreign currency on the black market because there was no regulation to stop them? How many did not sell whatever they had and which they knew to be on demand at exorbitant prices ignoring the 40% mark-up needed to make a decent profit? How many people pay their domestic workers meagre wages because the Labour court never came knocking on their door? How many Zimbabweans are involved in informal trade yet they have not given a dime to the government in tax returns because the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority has not caught them out? How much revenue was lost through tax evasion by Zimbabwean citizens?

Many argued and will argue of course that paying tax under the previous regime was tantamount to feeding a corrupt government, but how many still evade paying tax with the new inclusive government in place and despite its clear appeal for revenue to get the economy back on track. The private sector has taken to mimicking the exploitative nature of the government, paying employees peanuts despite making mega profits and forcing thousands of skilled labour out of the country in search of greener pastures. So who should be blamed? For the shrinking pool of skilled labour? For the corruption that has become endemic? For the government‟s bankruptcy? For the demise of the Zimbabwean economy?

The reality
The response I will never get from all the different groups would be; “The Zimbabwean economy collapsed because we all contributed in some way to its demise.” The ‘we’ implies an assumption of responsibility and acknowledgement that everyone is part of the problem. It is not a mere shelving of responsibility on other parties’ shoulders and it is a reflection of honesty. Honesty that speaks of commendable levels of self-introspection and a wish to change the fate of this beautiful country I call home.

Indeed the government, the Western powers, the politicians and we the people of Zimbabwe have all contributed to our economic woes and until we accept this reality and take concrete steps to solve the part of the problem in which we are the problem then Zimbabwe’s economy shall never rise out of this pit. Zimbabwe is currently rated as the country with the largest diamond deposits in the world. It has gold, copper, coal, platinum, silver and vast amounts of mineral deposits. It has wide expanses of land for agriculture. One of the Seven Wonders of the World, the Victoria Falls, is in Zimbabwe and the country could be bringing in revenue through tourism. Yet this same country ranked 172 out of 191 states on the Human Poverty Index in 2010, 159th on the Ease of Doing Business Index and is one of the lowest ranked countries on the General Inequality Index (GINI).

People are starving surrounded by arable land and flowing rivers. Scores are unemployed and the government is broke!! This suffering that Zimbabweans are going through could have been avoided and can still be overcome. Accountability for a few hundred diamonds could change so many things. Strategic and well thought out redistribution of land could also make food available on people’s tables. Black empowerment strategies that are reasoned and conscientious of the global market paradigm in which we live would also ensure employment and production of good quality, affordable goods for Zimbabwean people.

Initiatives that seek to empower grassroots economically targeting women who have proved to be the breadwinners and providers of families in trying times would ease the poverty. The politicians may jump in like bull frogs into hot water, dragging whole nations along and when a whole nation’s legs are burnt then they want to drag it in yet another wrong direction, but the ‘people’ do not have to let them continue doing so. The end to corruption starts with the individual, choosing to be a whistleblower. Choosing not to be corrupt is choosing a transparent nation and possibly a stable economy.
Justice or no justice?

Posted: September 2, 2011, 10:05 pm by Rumbidzai Dube

Egyptians are angry, so very angry that they are dragging their former president through the criminal courts. The trial of Hosni Mubarak on charges of corruption and for conspiring to kill protestors who are popularly known as the martyrs of the Revolution, made headlines on many news stations across the globe.

Mubarak denied all charges meaning that his plea was that of not guilty. The implications of that plea are grave. The prosecution has to establish the link between Mubarak’s actions or failure to take action and the crimes that he is said to have committed. That is not an easy task. There is thus no guarantee that the trial will result in a successful conviction because the outcome is based on the evidence. So no matter how much Egyptians may be convinced that Mubarak was corrupt or that were it not for him snipers would never have shot at protestors, their convictions will come to naught if no convincing evidence is put to the judges to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Criminal justice is also slow and very expensive. The hiring of lawyers and the charges of the court could be costly.

The most worrying element for me is even if Mubarak were to be found guilty the criminal charges against him are specific to particular incidences of corruption and specific incidences of killings. The trial will not likely reveal details of the repression of the regime which must be exposed if Egypt is to move on. The trial will not expose the structures of corruption and so these will remain standing even after Mubarak is convicted. It will not show who was responsible for all the human rights violations that took place in Egypt during Mubarak’s reign. It is with this in mind that I ask myself if the prosecution of Mubarak, his sons and the six associates is the best way for Egyptians to express their anger.

When crimes are committed and justice is never served, the wounds of those against whom the crimes were committed never heal and that is why transitional justice is relevant. Transitional justice is not just an idea. It is the lived experiences of many countries that suffered under repressive regimes and then found ways of moving forward post-conflict. Transitional justice seeks to help societies to find ways of reshaping them, to prevent recurrence of atrocities committed in the past, to reaffirm victims’ dignity and to expose the truth of what exactly happened because victims have a reciprocal right to know.

By victims I mean the actual people who were killed, beaten, tortured, mutilated, abducted, unlawfully detained, disappeared, harassed, subjected to inhumane and degrading treatment and had all sorts of terrible things done to them. These are the primary victims. I also refer to secondary victims; the people who were close to those who directly suffered. They witnessed the atrocities committed against their loved ones and some of them live even today with the trauma of not knowing the fate of their husbands, sons and relatives.

I wonder then if a trial that addresses one incident of corruption and the killing of a few protestors during the Revolution is the best answer when so many years of repression remain mystical. Is it not prudent to deal with the issues in a more holistic manner than to focus on a single incident?

Reconciliation is key if Egypt is to move forward. But there cannot be reconciliation without justice. And that justice cannot be achieved through the trial of Mubarak, his two sons and a few associates for an isolated incident. Justice lies in the nation of Egypt coming together to chart a process in which they will formulate a strategy to deal with their past. Such a strategy must not only focus on addressing the violations committed during the revolution but also the trends of violations that prevailed throughout Mubarak’s rule.

Truth-seeking must be a central part of that strategy. The victims need to know how certain crimes were committed, who committed them, what happened to their loved ones. In knowing the truth and exposing the systematic way in which certain crimes were committed; history will correctly record the violations and the victims can begin to deal with their losses and come to terms with their experiences.

Victims must receive reparations. Reparations can be in the form of restitution, compensation or reintegration. Restitution involves restoring the victims to their previous circumstances before the violations were perpetrated against them. Those who lost their jobs or property for merely opposing the regime could be reinstated. Compensation must be given to the victims for the harm they suffered. Such compensation may be in the form of money, goods, symbolic acts significantly recognising the wrongs of the past or some other form such as the building of memorials. Reintegration would be the process of bringing society together, rebuilding trust between individuals who previously were on opposing sides. In the context of Egyptian society it would involve rebuilding relations between the perpetrators and the victims especially the police and the general public, between Copts and Muslims and recent events show the need for mending the relationship between the army and the revolutionaries.
Libya: ‘Rats’ and ‘Dogs’ defeated humans?

Posted: August 22, 2011, 1:21 am by Rumbidzai Dube

As the Libyan rebels gain ground towards Tripoli every news station is talking about an end to the grip on power that Gaddafi has had over Libya for 42 years. And just some hours ago the Colonel lost a grip on himself and in an outburst called the rebels ‘dogs’ and ‘rats.’ This got me wondering who are the real rats and dogs in this equation. The unarmed civilian protestors who, inspired by their counterparts in the region, peacefully assembled asking for ‘democratic reforms’ and in return received warplanes, warships, tanks, artillery, and live fire from their government? The rebels who, provoked by a rigid government that was not willing to negotiate took up arms and welcomed assistance from NATO forces to resolve their ‘Libyan’ crisis? The leaders and nations behind the NATO forces who ‘could’ be driven by nothing more than political and economic expediency? A leader and his government on the verge of total collapse who for 42 years systematically eroded all freedoms of the media, speech, assembly and association; who tortured all opposition, disappeared many and killed scores more? A leader who launched a war against his own people and killed more than 6,000 lives in just 6 months?

Surely without NATO intervention we would have seen one of the following outcomes in Libya:

1. Disintegration into a perpetual civil war

Highly likely! When two or more warring sides are driven the battle will go on until one side has no more people or resources to fight. Another DRC – another Somalia – a protracted war, with a government that holds power in some regions of the country while others are controlled by rebels. Lawlessness and ultimately a debilitation into a perpetual state of insecurity is what we would have seen.

2. Defeat for the rebels-brutal punishment from the restored leader

With no NATO to stretch the Gaddafi resources both human and military, the rebels would have faced the full wrath of the Gaddafi forces. Eventually they would have run out of arms, if no (more) covert supplies were given to them. Gaddafi would have regained his control over Beghazi. This would in all likelihood signify severe bloodshed as the wounded leader wiped out every single trace of an attempted mutiny. Libya would have given historians yet another ‘Reign of Terror’ to document. Very likely! No wonder NATO did not leave it to chance for this outcome to come to pass.

3. Defeat for the rebels-mercy from a benevolent leader

The rebels would have run out of ammunition. Gaddafi would have crashed the protests and resumed his post at the helm of Libya as President. He would then have reflected on the cause of the protests, instigated reforms, promised to step down, arrange for the holding of free and fair elections and we would never heard of him in a bad light anymore. Really? More of a pipe dream and delusional wishful thinking, I would say, given the man’s history.

4. Impasse-Negotiated solution
Maybe the two sides would have fought until they were tired of it then sought a negotiated solution whereupon they would enter into a power sharing government and live happily ever after the way Raila Odinga and Mwai Kibaki in Kenya or Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai have been doing in Zimbabwe. To borrow one my friends’ expression this would have been ‘[absolute] nonsense upon stilts.’
Picture credit: African Cultural Renaissance Artists

What we have now is a post-NATO-intervention Libya. NATO efforts were ‘allegedly’ focused on ‘ the protection of civilians.’ To what extent this is true history shall reveal in due course as it has always done. But what other alternative was there really? Would it have been better for NATO to stand on the sidelines while Gaddafi, the butcher prepared a barbeque out of his own people’s flesh? Would the intervention have been more legitimate had it been by the African Union? Was the African Union ever going to stop the killings?

Fears remain that factions within the rebel groups could disintegrate into inter-rebel fights for political control. More fears are that pro-Gaddafi fighters will continue to pose a security threat to Libya launching incursions, possibly ‘terroristic attacks’ and haunt Libya even after Gaddafi is gone. Worse still as I write, Gaddafi himself is nowhere to be found. God forbid that he be on his way to Zimbabwe to join his long term friends Bob and Mengistu. I am convinced the four scenarios I posed above would never have been better options and if the rebels do not rapidly assert control a protracted war could still be a possibility. Should the new authorities also fail to assert control over their resources then history shall reveal the real rats and dogs.
Libya: ‘Rats’ and ‘Dogs’ defeated humans?

Posted: August 22, 2011, 1:21 am by Rumbidzai Dube

As the Libyan rebels gain ground towards Tripoli every news station is talking about an end to the grip on power that Gaddafi has had over Libya for 42 years. And just some hours ago the Colonel lost a grip on himself and in an outburst called the rebels ‘dogs’ and ‘rats.’ This got me wondering who are the real rats and dogs in this equation. The unarmed civilian protestors who, inspired by their counterparts in the region, peacefully assembled asking for ‘democratic reforms’ and in return received warplanes, warships, tanks, artillery, and live fire from their government? The rebels who, provoked by a rigid government that was not willing to negotiate took up arms and welcomed assistance from NATO forces to resolve their ‘Libyan’ crisis? The leaders and nations behind the NATO forces who ‘could’ be driven by nothing more than political and economic expediency? A leader and his government on the verge of total collapse who for 42 years systematically eroded all freedoms of the media, speech, assembly and association; who tortured all opposition, disappeared many and killed scores more? A leader who launched a war against his own people and killed more than 6,000 lives in just 6 months?

Surely without NATO intervention we would have seen one of the following outcomes in Libya:

1. Disintegration into a perpetual civil war

Highly likely! When two or more warring sides are driven the battle will go on until one side has no more people or resources to fight. Another DRC – another Somalia – a protracted war, with a government that holds power in some regions of the country while others are controlled by rebels. Lawlessness and ultimately a debilitation into a perpetual state of insecurity is what we would have seen.

2. Defeat for the rebels-brutal punishment from the restored leader

With no NATO to stretch the Gaddafi resources both human and military, the rebels would have faced the full wrath of the Gaddafi forces. Eventually they would have run out of arms, if no (more) covert supplies were given to them. Gaddafi would have regained his control over Beghazi. This would in all likelihood signify severe bloodshed as the wounded leader wiped out every single trace of an attempted mutiny. Libya would have given historians yet another ‘Reign of Terror’ to document. Very likely! No wonder NATO did not leave it to chance for this outcome to come to pass.

3. Defeat for the rebels-mercy from a benevolent leader

The rebels would have run out of ammunition. Gaddafi would have crashed the protests and resumed his post at the helm of Libya as President. He would then have reflected on the cause of the protests, instigated reforms, promised to step down, arrange for the holding of free and fair elections and we would never heard of him in a bad light anymore. Really? More of a pipe dream and delusional wishful thinking, I would say, given the man’s history.

4. Impasse-Negotiated solution
Maybe the two sides would have fought until they were tired of it then sought a negotiated solution whereupon they would enter into a power sharing government and live happily ever after the way Raila Odinga and Mwai Kibaki in Kenya or Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai have been doing in Zimbabwe. To borrow one my friends’ expression this would have been ‘[absolute] nonsense upon stilts.’
Picture credit: African Cultural Renaissance Artists

What we have now is a post-NATO-intervention Libya. NATO efforts were ‘allegedly’ focused on ‘ the protection of civilians.’ To what extent this is true history shall reveal in due course as it has always done. But what other alternative was there really? Would it have been better for NATO to stand on the sidelines while Gaddafi, the butcher prepared a barbeque out of his own people’s flesh? Would the intervention have been more legitimate had it been by the African Union? Was the African Union ever going to stop the killings?

Fears remain that factions within the rebel groups could disintegrate into inter-rebel fights for political control. More fears are that pro-Gaddafi fighters will continue to pose a security threat to Libya launching incursions, possibly ‘terroristic attacks’ and haunt Libya even after Gaddafi is gone. Worse still as I write, Gaddafi himself is nowhere to be found. God forbid that he be on his way to Zimbabwe to join his long term friends Bob and Mengistu. I am convinced the four scenarios I posed above would never have been better options and if the rebels do not rapidly assert control a protracted war could still be a possibility. Should the new authorities also fail to assert control over their resources then history shall reveal the real rats and dogs.
They are all terrorists

Posted: August 19, 2011, 1:14 am by Rumbidzai Dube

When most of us hear the word terrorist this is the picture that forms in our heads because it is the most flagged stereotype.
Picture credit [blogs.jamaicans.com]

A long bearded man, wearing a flowing robe, with a keffiyeh-Islamic headscarf- for men or a hijab for women and most probably a practicing Muslim. Yet this image and perception is fraught with inaccuracies. It is neither perpetually true nor justified.

I am also greatly concerned by the skewed reporting by the wider press on incidences whose impact is grave and whose nature is terroristic. For instance the recent killings by Anders Breivik of 87 of his fellow Norwegians earned him the labels a ‘far-right Norwegian nationalist with ardent -anti Muslim views’, ‘a right wing extremist’ (Wikipedia), a far right extremist (BBC News) a mad man (The Time World), a ‘Norwegian mass killer’ (The Telegraph) and a self confessed mass killer (The Guardian). Yet when Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab tried to detonate a bomb aboard a Detroit bound flight headlines such as these were all over the news:

Detroit terror attack: profile of Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab – The Telegraph

Source: Terror suspect’s father tried to warn authorities – CNN Justice

Flight 253 terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab led life of luxury in London before attempted attack – Daily News UK

Terror suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab Investigations still to be completed reveal he visited Houston in 2008 – The Examiner, Texas US

Clearly attaching the label ‘terrorist’ to Mutallab was an easier task for the press than it was with regard to Breivik. Worse still Breivik actually carried his act through yet Mutallab only had the intention but his plans failed. Do not get me wrong, Mutallab’s failure to detonate the bomb does not in any way make him less of a terrorist but one can not help but wonder what the cause and reasoning behind the differential labelling could possibly be.

Two days ago, my friend, Sarah Dorman, was reading a book called ‘The First Terrorists.’ I could not read it because it was in Arabic and my Arabic is still very much elementary but I did ask what it was about. She said it is an analysis of the origins of terrorism from an Islamic point of view. The book apparently identifies the Israelis as the first terrorists, arguing that the Zionist movement, which saw the Israelis trying to set up a nation and in the process displacing Palestinians began the war on terror. The book argues that had Israel not started the war against Palestinians, Arabic Islamists would not have had a reason to retaliate. And so it appears that blame shifting, labeling and in some instances misrepresentation is the order of the day when it comes to identifying who is a terrorist. It is with this struggle to define a terrorist in mind that I reached my conclusion and it is as follows:

The word terror existed before the terms terrorist or terrorism were created. The Oxford dictionary describes terror as ‘a feeling of extreme fear.’ The Cambridge Smart Thesaurus explains it as violent action which causes extreme fear. The Cambridge Thesaurus goes on to explain that terror is synonymous with fear, panic, fright, horror and dread. The Collins English Dictionary describes terror as great fear, panic or dread inspired by a troublesome person. The definitions of terror cannot get any better than these three sources, or at least my Advanced Level English Literature teacher, Miss Mpeti would say so. I believed and do still believe her.

Using these definitions, it means that any person who commits acts or threatens to commit acts that instill fear, horror and panic in people is committing terror and is therefore a terrorist. So from:

Osama Bin Laden (considered to be the worst terrorist ever) who took out the twin towers and killed many in the USA;
Al Qaeda who burn whole villages in Afghanistan and Pakistan;
Joseph Kony who killed, raped and maimed civilians in Northern Uganda and continue doing so in parts of Southern Sudan and the DRC;
Omar Al Bashir who killed, displaced, and instigated the rape and are still killing, displacing and instigating the rape thousands in Darfur, South Kordofan and South Sudan;
George Bush responsible for wars that caused and still cause the death and maiming of thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan;
Benjamin Netanyau and his Israeli government who have caused great suffering on Palestinian civilians;
Retaliating Palestinian Liberation Organisation members who attack Israelis with suicide bombers;
Genociders in Germany in particular the Holocaust by Nazis, Rwanda 1994, Zimbabwe in the Gukurahundi 1987 and Operation Mavhoterapapi 2008, Cambodia mass killing by the Khmer Rouge, Indonesian slaughter of the East Timorese;
Al-Shabab attackers on Uganda in July 2010;
Individuals responsible for the numerous bomb blasts in Nigeria, India, Pakistan;
Umar Farouk, the Nigerian who attempted to detonate bombs in an aeroplane and;
Anders Behring Breivik the Norwegian man who killed more than 87 of his own people they are all terrorists.

Terrorists live among us. They do not only wear headscarfs and masks, they also dress in smart suits and pretty dresses. They could be men or women. They could practice Christianity, Islam or any other religion. They might have a reason for their actions driven by certain ideologies or philosophies or they may just terrorise others out of a sadistic character complex.

So despite the many specific definitions provided in UN Conventions against Terrorism, and despite the fact that genocide is defined differently in the Convention on the prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide from terror, when we go back to the basic description of the feeling in the people against whom these acts are committed; it is terror. And it does not matter if the individuals committing the act are seating heads of state, power hungry tyrants, ambitious drug-lords, war mongering warlords, religious fundamentalists or common thieves. In my view, they are all terrorists and should be treated with the highest condemnation and disdain!
They are all terrorists

Posted: August 19, 2011, 1:14 am by Rumbidzai Dube

When most of us hear the word terrorist this is the picture that forms in our heads because it is the most flagged stereotype.
Picture credit [blogs.jamaicans.com]

A long bearded man, wearing a flowing robe, with a keffiyeh-Islamic headscarf- for men or a hijab for women and most probably a practicing Muslim. Yet this image and perception is fraught with inaccuracies. It is neither perpetually true nor justified.

I am also greatly concerned by the skewed reporting by the wider press on incidences whose impact is grave and whose nature is terroristic. For instance the recent killings by Anders Breivik of 87 of his fellow Norwegians earned him the labels a ‘far-right Norwegian nationalist with ardent -anti Muslim views’, ‘a right wing extremist’ (Wikipedia), a far right extremist (BBC News) a mad man (The Time World), a ‘Norwegian mass killer’ (The Telegraph) and a self confessed mass killer (The Guardian). Yet when Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab tried to detonate a bomb aboard a Detroit bound flight headlines such as these were all over the news:

Detroit terror attack: profile of Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab – The Telegraph

Source: Terror suspect’s father tried to warn authorities – CNN Justice

Flight 253 terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab led life of luxury in London before attempted attack – Daily News UK

Terror suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab Investigations still to be completed reveal he visited Houston in 2008 – The Examiner, Texas US

Clearly attaching the label ‘terrorist’ to Mutallab was an easier task for the press than it was with regard to Breivik. Worse still Breivik actually carried his act through yet Mutallab only had the intention but his plans failed. Do not get me wrong, Mutallab’s failure to detonate the bomb does not in any way make him less of a terrorist but one can not help but wonder what the cause and reasoning behind the differential labelling could possibly be.

Two days ago, my friend, Sarah Dorman, was reading a book called ‘The First Terrorists.’ I could not read it because it was in Arabic and my Arabic is still very much elementary but I did ask what it was about. She said it is an analysis of the origins of terrorism from an Islamic point of view. The book apparently identifies the Israelis as the first terrorists, arguing that the Zionist movement, which saw the Israelis trying to set up a nation and in the process displacing Palestinians began the war on terror. The book argues that had Israel not started the war against Palestinians, Arabic Islamists would not have had a reason to retaliate. And so it appears that blame shifting, labeling and in some instances misrepresentation is the order of the day when it comes to identifying who is a terrorist. It is with this struggle to define a terrorist in mind that I reached my conclusion and it is as follows:

The word terror existed before the terms terrorist or terrorism were created. The Oxford dictionary describes terror as ‘a feeling of extreme fear.’ The Cambridge Smart Thesaurus explains it as violent action which causes extreme fear. The Cambridge Thesaurus goes on to explain that terror is synonymous with fear, panic, fright, horror and dread. The Collins English Dictionary describes terror as great fear, panic or dread inspired by a troublesome person. The definitions of terror cannot get any better than these three sources, or at least my Advanced Level English Literature teacher, Miss Mpeti would say so. I believed and do still believe her.

Using these definitions, it means that any person who commits acts or threatens to commit acts that instill fear, horror and panic in people is committing terror and is therefore a terrorist. So from:

Osama Bin Laden (considered to be the worst terrorist ever) who took out the twin towers and killed many in the USA;
Al Qaeda who burn whole villages in Afghanistan and Pakistan;
Joseph Kony who killed, raped and maimed civilians in Northern Uganda and continue doing so in parts of Southern Sudan and the DRC;
Omar Al Bashir who killed, displaced, and instigated the rape and are still killing, displacing and instigating the rape thousands in Darfur, South Kordofan and South Sudan;
George Bush responsible for wars that caused and still cause the death and maiming of thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan;
Benjamin Netanyau and his Israeli government who have caused great suffering on Palestinian civilians;
Retaliating Palestinian Liberation Organisation members who attack Israelis with suicide bombers;
Genociders in Germany in particular the Holocaust by Nazis, Rwanda 1994, Zimbabwe in the Gukurahundi 1987 and Operation Mavhoterapapi 2008, Cambodia mass killing by the Khmer Rouge, Indonesian slaughter of the East Timorese;
Al-Shabab attackers on Uganda in July 2010;
Individuals responsible for the numerous bomb blasts in Nigeria, India, Pakistan;
Umar Farouk, the Nigerian who attempted to detonate bombs in an aeroplane and;
Anders Behring Breivik the Norwegian man who killed more than 87 of his own people they are all terrorists.

Terrorists live among us. They do not only wear headscarfs and masks, they also dress in smart suits and pretty dresses. They could be men or women. They could practice Christianity, Islam or any other religion. They might have a reason for their actions driven by certain ideologies or philosophies or they may just terrorise others out of a sadistic character complex.

So despite the many specific definitions provided in UN Conventions against Terrorism, and despite the fact that genocide is defined differently in the Convention on the prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide from terror, when we go back to the basic description of the feeling in the people against whom these acts are committed; it is terror. And it does not matter if the individuals committing the act are seating heads of state, power hungry tyrants, ambitious drug-lords, war mongering warlords, religious fundamentalists or common thieves. In my view, they are all terrorists and should be treated with the highest condemnation and disdain!
Democracy is African too!!!

Posted: August 14, 2011, 2:19 am by Rumbidzai Dube

So many times I have heard one too many African leaders deriding the idea of democracy as a Western driven agenda meant to achieve regime change. They have argued that the aim of the West is to get rid of all the strongly nationalist and patriotic leaders and movements that have been in power since independence from colonial rule. They have insisted that the West seeks to assist weak-minded politicians to come into power. The argument is that these weaklings would then serve the interests of the West, particularly through giving them easy and unlimited access to Africa’s vast resources in the extractive industry including oil, gold, diamonds and other precious stones, uranium and other minerals. My president has often called such leaders ‘puppets’ and at times ‘stooges of the West.’ He has also referred to the main opposition leader as ‘an ambitious frog’ ’a white man masquerading as a black’ and ‘a tea boy for his white boss.’ Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni has alleged that Africans cannot speak of democratisation until they have transformed their economies from the pre-industrial age suggesting that democratisation should be a separate process from economic development yet it is the democratisation of these economic policies, of the political space and of society in general that African citizens are seeking.

Should there be a grain of truth to the African leaders’ position, that the West has hidden behind the veil of ‘democratisation’ to selfishly serve their own agendas; that cannot be used as a justification in concluding that democracy is merely a Western tool to gain access to Africa’s resources. It cannot also be the reason why African leaders continue to repress the press, harass fighters for social justice, resist electoral reforms and launch terror campaigns to remain in power. In fact a quick survey will show that most of Africa’s terrible leaders have survived because of the support they have received from the West. To mind comes the case of the US whose engagement with the highly corrupt Gabonese government has never considered prioritizing meaningful reform. Besides the obvious benefits from the oil, the thousands of Gabonese languishing in poverty could as well be invisible to the Americans. The same can also be said in the case of the government of Obiang Nguema in Equitorial Guinea which for years has exacted a terrible humanitarian crisis on its people through its corruption and repressive rule yet few in the West have raised a finger against it.

Besides, this manipulation of political power for personal gain by influential states is not just a ‘Western’ phenomenon. The rising economies in the Global South such as China have also supported terrible governments such as that of Sudan and Zimbabwe in exchange for oil and mineral deposits respectively. South Africa for instance; which has the military, political, diplomatic, and financial/economic capabilities to influence the affairs of the region has for years ignored the quest for human rights, calls for freedom of speech, assembly, and association by Zimbabweans when they were being trampled upon by the Zimbabwean government. South Africa idly watched on as a spectator. Indeed the Zimbabwean political and economic meltdown served the South African agenda. Being a new nation, requiring extensive properly trained and qualified professional personnel in their numerous schools, hospitals and companies South Africa did nothing to stem the flow of trained brains from Zimbabwe into their country. The vacant posts were filled and continue to be filled; cheaply too because the ‘desperate’ Zimbabweans do not hold too many bargaining chips.

It is with these facts in mind that I ask myself whether the question of the Africanness of democracy, the meaning of democracy and its relevance as a phenomenon to the African context should be asked at all. I would think not. Scholars might have debated this concept left, right and center and some may have concluded it is a nifty ideal but who needs a fancy definition of democracy when the people on the ground are defining it themselves. Africans are tired of enduring long years of dictatorships, brutality against peaceful democracy campaigns, as well as series of coups and protracted civil wars. They have had enough insecurity and are looking for stability which allows them to live normal lives. They are seeking to set up governments of the people, for the people and by the people taking us back to the simplest and most accurate definition of democracy.

A wise African woman said something that I found to be quite profound and a concise summary explaining the rising quest for democratisation and improved governance amongst African populations. She said;
“African states have failed to inspire loyalty in the citizenry; produce a political class with [real] integrity and [genuine] national interest; [they have failed] to [impress upon] the military, the police and security forces their proper roles in society; to build nations consisting of different linguistic and cultural groups and to fashion economically viable economic policies.” (Makau wa Mutua in Human Rights and the African Fingerprint)
Indeed these are the woes besieging the African continent- despotism, autocracy, police brutality, ethnic strife, poverty, inequitable distribution of wealth and corruption. Africa is riddled by self-serving governments and politicians whose sole purpose for participating in politics is their own self aggrandisement. In my country as in many others on our continent I have never heard the politicians mention the words ‘Nationalism’ or ‘Patriotism’ unless elections are around the corner and usually those words are mentioned to discredit their opponents perceived to be ‘sell outs’ trying to subject the nation to neocolonialist ideologies.

Police forces and in some cases military forces, terrorise the very populations they ought to protect. Reports of police brutality and abuses by the military against political activists, journalists, student activists, women activists and the general masses are widespread on our continent. Africa has recorded scores of deaths and has seen untold suffering because of wars fought merely because people belonged to different ethnic groups. More often than not politicians fuel these differences in order to capitalise on them to score political victories. Most recent examples would be the ongoing fighting in the Southern Kordofan and Darfur regions of Sudan. Also still fresh in our memories would be the genocide in Rwanda and the period of the Gukurahundi in Zimbabwe when one’s ethnicity was the difference between life and death. Corruption is also endemic. Governments have poor or poorly executed economic policies ploughing our continent underground and causing it to be identified as the richest continent in abstract but the poorest and least developed in reality. In the case of Zimbabwe, an economy that was so prosperous and deserving to be called Africa’s ‘breadbasket’ has indeed become a ‘basket case.’

It is not surprising then that against this backdrop of deteriorating standards of living, high levels of unemployment, and widespread repression nations should rise in protest. So yes, let scholars say all they want and let philosophers find something to ‘philosophise’ but when it comes down to the basics I will tell you that democracy is African too because Africans are defining it for themselves. It is what drove the Tunisians, Egyptians and Gabonese in January; Angolans, Cameroonians and Djiboutis in February, Swazis and the Burkinabe in April; the Ugandans in May and the Malawians in July onto the streets. It is why every year thousands of people take to the ballot box to choose their leaders, despite previous experiences of that process’ futility in bringing about change.

It is in their claim for an environment that allows them to thrive to their full potential economically, socially, politically, religiously, culturally, physically and spiritually. It is in their denunciation of ruthless and corrupt governments and brutal police forces. It is embodied in their demands for equal distribution of wealth and an end to the current dogma where the rich keep getting richer and the poor poorer. It is in their fight for dignity and freedom, their quest for victory.

And it did not begin with the recent protests. The quest for democracy may not have been called as such but it was already evident when the whole of Africa fought against colonial rule. The things we hated in the white supremacist political order characterised by exclusion of the majority from the means of production; deep divides between the rich and poor and the educated and uneducated; the torture, murder, forced disappearances and inhumane and degrading treatment of those who dared to speak against the ‘evil’ white regimes; denial of equal opportunities for all citizens; and the exploitation of national resources for the benefit of a few are the same things we denounce in the current crop of leadership on the African continent. Hence calls for democratisation are calls for a restoration of humanity and dignity to the masses. Surely that cannot be said to be un-African when several African cultures embrace the concept of humanity recognizing that ‘to be human is to affirm one’s humanity by recognizing the humanity in others.’ We call it ‘hunhu’ in Shona in Zimbabwe. They call it ‘ubuntu’ in Zulu in South Africa and Rwanda Rundi in Rwanda and Burundi, ‘botho’ in Botswana, obuntu in Uganda and Tanzania, ‘umundu’ in Kikuyu in Kenya, ‘vumuntu’ in ShiTsonga in Mozambique and ‘bomoto’ in Bobangi in DRC , ‘insenniya’ in Egyptian.

So peoples have challenged the legitimacy of political establishments to the proportions of the Egyptian and Tunisian Revolutions where whole nations brought things to a standstill until leaders were effectively overthrown but also in a series of concerted efforts over a long period of time through organised social and political movements exercising civil disobedience and continually fighting for democratic reforms.

If anyone will insist that democracy is un-African shall we also accept that the opposite is African? Clearly not because autocracy is not an African phenomenon, it is a human phenomenon. It existed throughout ancient civilizations and for generations, monarchies and dynasties on all continents displayed variations of it. From Shaka Zulu in South Africa who buried virgins with his dead mother, to Louis the XVI in France who used the guillotine on every dissenting voice during his reign. Even great historical figures such as Alexander the Great Macedonian King, Napoleon Bonaparte the French leader who tried to control the world, renowned communist Chinese leader Mao Tse Tung and the Great Ethiopian Emperor Haille Selassie have had despotic/autocratic characteristics attached to the historical accounts of their reign.

So neither democracy nor autocracy belong to any specific people and cannot be imported to a people. Democracy is a human element that can only exist when it has been demanded by those who want it in the same way that autocracy can be rid of by those who do not want it. As Martin Luther King Junior rightly said, freedom can never be given by the oppressor; it has to be demanded by the oppressed. As in history when uprisings took place during the Russian, French and Great American Revolutions, the quests for freedom, good governance, and defiance of rulers that deny majorities a life of dignity, remain the reasons why African peoples seek to democratise.

There is no need therefore to look beyond the people’s clamour for freedom and justice to seek imaginary ‘detracting’ external forces. The Egyptian example throws this argument in the face of its expositors because the usual forces perceived to be spreading democracy as an absolute truth in order to serve their own political agendas, were clearly opposed to the revolution succeeding and only supported the revolutionaries when it was clear that it was going to succeed. It was the sheer bravery and courage of the protestors that yielded a success. For days after the people of Egypt took to the streets, the West did not lift a finger to fight for them against the brutal attacks they faced. In fact the West had not lifted a finger for decades when the people of Egypt faced a repression so heavy that they bore numerous violations each day. Egypt had not had a democratic election in ages yet no one from the West seemed to see anything particularly wrong with that. Surely if democracy was a Western driven agenda the West would have rushed to the rescue of the Egyptians in the face of such blatant undemocratic tendencies.

My position may be challenged by the developments in Libya which some have seen as another chance for the West to exploit oil resources in the name of change. Without seeking to dismiss the possibility that the involvement of the Western states might have elements of economic expediency, one must never lose sight of the fact that the forces in Libya are not purely Western. Belgium, Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, Greece, Romania, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States and Turkey may be Western but Qatar, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates are definitely not, yet they all have forces helping the protestors now turned rebel fighters fighting for democratic change in Libya.

So the next time you hear anyone saying that democracy does not exist and that if it does it is not African , tell them it is in your right to practice your religion freely and without fear, to speak freely, and to criticise politicians without fear of arrest, torture or forced disappearance. Tell them it is in your right to elect leaders of your choice and to make such a choice in a violence-free and intimidation-free environment. Above all you must tell them it is in your right to live, to eat, to have clean water, to have a roof over your head with proper sanitation, to get proper medical treatment when you fall ill, and to send your children to the school of your choice. Explain that democracy lies in the collective power of a people; that it is in a people’s perception of how their resources and country should be governed and the measure of how their aspirations can and should be fulfilled. Tell them that democracy is African too.
Democracy is African too!!!

Posted: August 14, 2011, 2:19 am by Rumbidzai Dube

So many times I have heard one too many African leaders deriding the idea of democracy as a Western driven agenda meant to achieve regime change. They have argued that the aim of the West is to get rid of all the strongly nationalist and patriotic leaders and movements that have been in power since independence from colonial rule. They have insisted that the West seeks to assist weak-minded politicians to come into power. The argument is that these weaklings would then serve the interests of the West, particularly through giving them easy and unlimited access to Africa’s vast resources in the extractive industry including oil, gold, diamonds and other precious stones, uranium and other minerals. My president has often called such leaders ‘puppets’ and at times ‘stooges of the West.’ He has also referred to the main opposition leader as ‘an ambitious frog’ ’a white man masquerading as a black’ and ‘a tea boy for his white boss.’ Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni has alleged that Africans cannot speak of democratisation until they have transformed their economies from the pre-industrial age suggesting that democratisation should be a separate process from economic development yet it is the democratisation of these economic policies, of the political space and of society in general that African citizens are seeking.

Should there be a grain of truth to the African leaders’ position, that the West has hidden behind the veil of ‘democratisation’ to selfishly serve their own agendas; that cannot be used as a justification in concluding that democracy is merely a Western tool to gain access to Africa’s resources. It cannot also be the reason why African leaders continue to repress the press, harass fighters for social justice, resist electoral reforms and launch terror campaigns to remain in power. In fact a quick survey will show that most of Africa’s terrible leaders have survived because of the support they have received from the West. To mind comes the case of the US whose engagement with the highly corrupt Gabonese government has never considered prioritizing meaningful reform. Besides the obvious benefits from the oil, the thousands of Gabonese languishing in poverty could as well be invisible to the Americans. The same can also be said in the case of the government of Obiang Nguema in Equitorial Guinea which for years has exacted a terrible humanitarian crisis on its people through its corruption and repressive rule yet few in the West have raised a finger against it.

Besides, this manipulation of political power for personal gain by influential states is not just a ‘Western’ phenomenon. The rising economies in the Global South such as China have also supported terrible governments such as that of Sudan and Zimbabwe in exchange for oil and mineral deposits respectively. South Africa for instance; which has the military, political, diplomatic, and financial/economic capabilities to influence the affairs of the region has for years ignored the quest for human rights, calls for freedom of speech, assembly, and association by Zimbabweans when they were being trampled upon by the Zimbabwean government. South Africa idly watched on as a spectator. Indeed the Zimbabwean political and economic meltdown served the South African agenda. Being a new nation, requiring extensive properly trained and qualified professional personnel in their numerous schools, hospitals and companies South Africa did nothing to stem the flow of trained brains from Zimbabwe into their country. The vacant posts were filled and continue to be filled; cheaply too because the ‘desperate’ Zimbabweans do not hold too many bargaining chips.

It is with these facts in mind that I ask myself whether the question of the Africanness of democracy, the meaning of democracy and its relevance as a phenomenon to the African context should be asked at all. I would think not. Scholars might have debated this concept left, right and center and some may have concluded it is a nifty ideal but who needs a fancy definition of democracy when the people on the ground are defining it themselves. Africans are tired of enduring long years of dictatorships, brutality against peaceful democracy campaigns, as well as series of coups and protracted civil wars. They have had enough insecurity and are looking for stability which allows them to live normal lives. They are seeking to set up governments of the people, for the people and by the people taking us back to the simplest and most accurate definition of democracy.

A wise African woman said something that I found to be quite profound and a concise summary explaining the rising quest for democratisation and improved governance amongst African populations. She said;
“African states have failed to inspire loyalty in the citizenry; produce a political class with [real] integrity and [genuine] national interest; [they have failed] to [impress upon] the military, the police and security forces their proper roles in society; to build nations consisting of different linguistic and cultural groups and to fashion economically viable economic policies.” (Makau wa Mutua in Human Rights and the African Fingerprint)
Indeed these are the woes besieging the African continent- despotism, autocracy, police brutality, ethnic strife, poverty, inequitable distribution of wealth and corruption. Africa is riddled by self-serving governments and politicians whose sole purpose for participating in politics is their own self aggrandisement. In my country as in many others on our continent I have never heard the politicians mention the words ‘Nationalism’ or ‘Patriotism’ unless elections are around the corner and usually those words are mentioned to discredit their opponents perceived to be ‘sell outs’ trying to subject the nation to neocolonialist ideologies.

Police forces and in some cases military forces, terrorise the very populations they ought to protect. Reports of police brutality and abuses by the military against political activists, journalists, student activists, women activists and the general masses are widespread on our continent. Africa has recorded scores of deaths and has seen untold suffering because of wars fought merely because people belonged to different ethnic groups. More often than not politicians fuel these differences in order to capitalise on them to score political victories. Most recent examples would be the ongoing fighting in the Southern Kordofan and Darfur regions of Sudan. Also still fresh in our memories would be the genocide in Rwanda and the period of the Gukurahundi in Zimbabwe when one’s ethnicity was the difference between life and death. Corruption is also endemic. Governments have poor or poorly executed economic policies ploughing our continent underground and causing it to be identified as the richest continent in abstract but the poorest and least developed in reality. In the case of Zimbabwe, an economy that was so prosperous and deserving to be called Africa’s ‘breadbasket’ has indeed become a ‘basket case.’

It is not surprising then that against this backdrop of deteriorating standards of living, high levels of unemployment, and widespread repression nations should rise in protest. So yes, let scholars say all they want and let philosophers find something to ‘philosophise’ but when it comes down to the basics I will tell you that democracy is African too because Africans are defining it for themselves. It is what drove the Tunisians, Egyptians and Gabonese in January; Angolans, Cameroonians and Djiboutis in February, Swazis and the Burkinabe in April; the Ugandans in May and the Malawians in July onto the streets. It is why every year thousands of people take to the ballot box to choose their leaders, despite previous experiences of that process’ futility in bringing about change.

It is in their claim for an environment that allows them to thrive to their full potential economically, socially, politically, religiously, culturally, physically and spiritually. It is in their denunciation of ruthless and corrupt governments and brutal police forces. It is embodied in their demands for equal distribution of wealth and an end to the current dogma where the rich keep getting richer and the poor poorer. It is in their fight for dignity and freedom, their quest for victory.

And it did not begin with the recent protests. The quest for democracy may not have been called as such but it was already evident when the whole of Africa fought against colonial rule. The things we hated in the white supremacist political order characterised by exclusion of the majority from the means of production; deep divides between the rich and poor and the educated and uneducated; the torture, murder, forced disappearances and inhumane and degrading treatment of those who dared to speak against the ‘evil’ white regimes; denial of equal opportunities for all citizens; and the exploitation of national resources for the benefit of a few are the same things we denounce in the current crop of leadership on the African continent. Hence calls for democratisation are calls for a restoration of humanity and dignity to the masses. Surely that cannot be said to be un-African when several African cultures embrace the concept of humanity recognizing that ‘to be human is to affirm one’s humanity by recognizing the humanity in others.’ We call it ‘hunhu’ in Shona in Zimbabwe. They call it ‘ubuntu’ in Zulu in South Africa and Rwanda Rundi in Rwanda and Burundi, ‘botho’ in Botswana, obuntu in Uganda and Tanzania, ‘umundu’ in Kikuyu in Kenya, ‘vumuntu’ in ShiTsonga in Mozambique and ‘bomoto’ in Bobangi in DRC , ‘insenniya’ in Egyptian.

So peoples have challenged the legitimacy of political establishments to the proportions of the Egyptian and Tunisian Revolutions where whole nations brought things to a standstill until leaders were effectively overthrown but also in a series of concerted efforts over a long period of time through organised social and political movements exercising civil disobedience and continually fighting for democratic reforms.

If anyone will insist that democracy is un-African shall we also accept that the opposite is African? Clearly not because autocracy is not an African phenomenon, it is a human phenomenon. It existed throughout ancient civilizations and for generations, monarchies and dynasties on all continents displayed variations of it. From Shaka Zulu in South Africa who buried virgins with his dead mother, to Louis the XVI in France who used the guillotine on every dissenting voice during his reign. Even great historical figures such as Alexander the Great Macedonian King, Napoleon Bonaparte the French leader who tried to control the world, renowned communist Chinese leader Mao Tse Tung and the Great Ethiopian Emperor Haille Selassie have had despotic/autocratic characteristics attached to the historical accounts of their reign.

So neither democracy nor autocracy belong to any specific people and cannot be imported to a people. Democracy is a human element that can only exist when it has been demanded by those who want it in the same way that autocracy can be rid of by those who do not want it. As Martin Luther King Junior rightly said, freedom can never be given by the oppressor; it has to be demanded by the oppressed. As in history when uprisings took place during the Russian, French and Great American Revolutions, the quests for freedom, good governance, and defiance of rulers that deny majorities a life of dignity, remain the reasons why African peoples seek to democratise.

There is no need therefore to look beyond the people’s clamour for freedom and justice to seek imaginary ‘detracting’ external forces. The Egyptian example throws this argument in the face of its expositors because the usual forces perceived to be spreading democracy as an absolute truth in order to serve their own political agendas, were clearly opposed to the revolution succeeding and only supported the revolutionaries when it was clear that it was going to succeed. It was the sheer bravery and courage of the protestors that yielded a success. For days after the people of Egypt took to the streets, the West did not lift a finger to fight for them against the brutal attacks they faced. In fact the West had not lifted a finger for decades when the people of Egypt faced a repression so heavy that they bore numerous violations each day. Egypt had not had a democratic election in ages yet no one from the West seemed to see anything particularly wrong with that. Surely if democracy was a Western driven agenda the West would have rushed to the rescue of the Egyptians in the face of such blatant undemocratic tendencies.

My position may be challenged by the developments in Libya which some have seen as another chance for the West to exploit oil resources in the name of change. Without seeking to dismiss the possibility that the involvement of the Western states might have elements of economic expediency, one must never lose sight of the fact that the forces in Libya are not purely Western. Belgium, Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, Greece, Romania, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States and Turkey may be Western but Qatar, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates are definitely not, yet they all have forces helping the protestors now turned rebel fighters fighting for democratic change in Libya.

So the next time you hear anyone saying that democracy does not exist and that if it does it is not African , tell them it is in your right to practice your religion freely and without fear, to speak freely, and to criticise politicians without fear of arrest, torture or forced disappearance. Tell them it is in your right to elect leaders of your choice and to make such a choice in a violence-free and intimidation-free environment. Above all you must tell them it is in your right to live, to eat, to have clean water, to have a roof over your head with proper sanitation, to get proper medical treatment when you fall ill, and to send your children to the school of your choice. Explain that democracy lies in the collective power of a people; that it is in a people’s perception of how their resources and country should be governed and the measure of how their aspirations can and should be fulfilled. Tell them that democracy is African too.
South Sudan: Birth of a new nation

Posted: August 8, 2011, 3:00 pm by Rumbidzai Dube

As I watched the celebrations by the people of South Sudan on their Independence Day, the 9^th of July 2011, I could not help but do so with a sense of nostalgia. I listened with a critical ear to the new President of thenew Republic of South Sudan, Salva Kiir Mayardit swearing his allegiance to the nation and to serve it in good faith. I noted the presence of dignitaries from the international community with representatives from governments, as well as international and inter-governmental organizations including IGAD, the League of Arab States, the European Union, the African Union, the UN General Assembly with the UN Secretary General, Mr. Ban Ki Moon present in person.

I observed the lowering of the flag of Sudan and the raising of the new flag of South Sudan symbolizing the victory of a People and the manifestation of a new identity.

I watched the jubilant crowds jumping, dancing, singing, and ululating-for a new nation had been born. I pondered over the significant signing of an ‘Interim Constitution’ of the Republic of South Sudan. I took a moment of silence to remember my fellow women who were raped, mutilated and subjected to the worst forms of sexual violence during the conflict. I paid my respects to the men, women, children, husbands, wives, sons and daughters to the crowds celebrating who died for this day to be realized.

Why did I feel nostalgic?

I remembered the Independence Day celebrations of Zimbabwe on 18 April 1980. Yes, I had not been born then but I have watched videos, read articles, seen pictures and heard many stories of how magical that day was. The vision of my country in 1980 is so vivid in my mind that I could have been there. It is a vision of a nation full of hope. A nation overflowing with joy for having achieved a hard won independence. A nation with scars and wounds: bearing testimony to a difficult and painful past.

I remembered the lowering of the Union Jack and the hoisting of the Zimbabwean flag with its bright and beautiful colors – green symbolizing our agricultural capabilities and the wide species of vegetation our land grows; yellow symbolizing the mineral wealth that is abundant beneath our soils; red symbolizing the blood that was shed in wars fought to liberate our country; black symbolizing the heritage and ethnicity of the majority of the population that our nation contains; the white triangle symbolizing our wish for sustained peace; the red star symbolizing our hopes and aspirations for the future as a nation; and the yellow/gold bird being our national symbol-the Zimbabwe bird. I remembered that moment, 31 years ago, when a charismatic leader on the eve of independence addressed the nation and said the following;

“Tomorrow is thus our birthday, the birth of a great Zimbabwe, and the birth of its nation. Tomorrow we shall cease to be men and women of the past and become men and women of the future. It’s tomorrow then, not yesterday, which bears our destiny. As we become a new people we are called to be constructive, progressive and forever forward looking, for we cannot afford to be men of yesterday, backward-looking, retrogressive and destructive. Our new nation requires of every one of us to be a new man, with a new mind, a new heart and a new spirit. Our new mind must have a new vision and our new hearts a new love that spurns hate, and a new spirit that must unite and not divide.” (Full speech available here)

I can even see the crowds going into a frenzy as the legendary Bob Marleyperformed the song ‘Zimbabwe’ in the National Sports Stadium which opens with the lyrics “Every man has got a right to decide his own destiny” (Full song and live performance available here]. The ceremony was witnessed by Heads of State and Government and representatives of nearly 100 countries plus representatives of several international, political and voluntary organizations. I remembered the handing over of a new Constitution negotiated between the Nationalist leaders and the former colonizers at Lancaster House in England hence its name: The Lancaster House Constitution.

Guess what…

31 years on this is the picture of Zimbabwe I would like to paint. Our government has a reputation within the international sphere sourer than olives. In fact it has made enemies with the West choosing a “look-East” policy. The population is experiencing deterioration in living standards with difficulties in accessing fundamental basic needs such as medicines, medical care, education, food and shelter. Yes there have been improvements in 2009 and 2010 as compared to 2008 but the standard that we all once knew has not yet been restored.

The once charismatic leader who made such an inspiring observation as this;

“An evil remains an evil whether practiced by white against black or by black against white. Our majority rule could easily turn into inhuman rule if we oppressed, persecuted or harassed those who do not look or think like the majority of us. Democracy is never mob-rule. It is and should remain disciplined rule requiring compliance with the law and social rules. Our independence must thus not be construed as an instrument vesting individuals or groups with the right to harass and intimidate others into acting against their will. It is not the right to negate the freedom of others to think and act, as they desire,” (Mugabe in his Independence speech on 17 April 1980)

has resorted to organized violence and torture, abductions, rape, destruction of property including people’s homes to stay in power. The parties that liberated the nation from colonialism [the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) and the Zimbabwe African Peoples Union Patriotic Front (PF-ZAPU) have come together to form a single party [the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU PF) that uses all manner of treachery and trickery to get rid of opposition. The Constitution that the country inherited, although imperfect then has been amended 19 times reducing it to a manual to keep some people in power and the rest of the nation on the margins.

How did we get to this?

Complacency I would say. We [and by this I mean Zimbabweans] did not make the right demands at the right times. We allowed our constitution to be manipulated for political expediency and neglected to jealously guard it. That could have been because we never really felt we owned it since it was given to us upon our independence but we certainly should have tried to better acquaint ourselves with it. We allowed a single party to grow to proportions that led it to think it is the only party with a legitimate right to exist in and rule our country. We entertained/tolerated/bore a leader for so long he now thinks he owns us and has eloquently stated so;

“We have fought for our land, we have fought for our sovereignty, small as we are we have won our independence and we are prepared to shed our blood…. So, Blair keep your England, and let me keep my Zimbabwe.” (Speech of the President of Zimbabwe at the Earth Summit in Johannesburg 2 September 2002)

They say history has a way of repeating itself and I hope that adage never comes to pass with regard to the people of South Sudan. I urge the South Sudanese to be wary and prevent the same thing from happening in their country and this is what they should guard against.

First, the women

A gendered analysis will show you that war affects women differently from men. Mothers cannot run away without their children. If they do run with their children, they worry about what their children shall eat, about keeping them warm and free from disease. Their hearts shatter when their children succumb to hunger, cold and disease and die. As wives they have to go for long periods missing the comfort of their husbands fighting on the warfront, fearing that they might be dead. As caretakers they cannot leave the old and disabled in their families hence sometimes they stay and face the worst when the enemy comes. They are often subjected to cruel and degrading treatment and rape. As combatants they fight alongside the men, keeping up with them despite the obvious physiological differences.

My point exactly?

War is rough on women! Why then is it that in most cases this fact is easily forgotten after the war. During the liberation struggle in Zimbabwe it was the women (chimbwidos) who cooked for the guerilla fighters, risking their lives to take the food to the places where the fighters were hidden. Some were raped by the same fighters they served because it was impossible to say no when sexual advances were made to them. The women lost sons, husbands, daughters and some died. They lost their homes. Yet after the war it was predominantly the men…the war veterans who were rewarded for their role. It was the men who occupied key political positions. Not to water-down the positive position that our first vice-President Joyce Mujuru occupies, but why did she have to wait for so many years after independence before she could be awarded this position. The rest of the women were relegated to cheerleading positions where they campaigned for male candidates to hold key positions.

The situation of women in South Sudan was terrible and still remains precarious. The war brought suffering, rape and abuse of women. Social services were continually disrupted. I try to imagine being pregnant in that context, constantly living in fear of rape or death and filled with uncertainty about access to medical facilities, food and water. Many women lost their babies and South Sudan is one of the countries with the highest mortality rates in the world. To further their miseries women’s livelihoods were continuously disrupted with, with cattle raids targeted on defenceless women.

South Sudan adopted a new interim constitution on its independence day after consultations with various stakeholders. A final constitution shall be adopted after the first 4 years of interim rule whereupon elections shall be held for a new parliament and president. These consultations presented an invaluable window of opportunity to the women of Sudan to advocate a supreme law and a system of governance that represented their needs as women. Women in Zimbabwe did not have this pleasure at independence. In fact there was no woman at the Lancaster House negotiations. If there was she was British and had no idea what Zimbabwean women wanted. Although over the 31 years of independence Zimbabwean women have struggled and largely succeeded in asserting their space within the governance of their country, the progress would have been much higher had certain rights been constitutionally guaranteed. The women in South Sudan should not be relegated to spectators and should vigorously pursue their interests before the adoption of a final constitution in 2015. They must place themselves strategically to have their needs addressed. The key women who arose during the long fought war should be the voice of the grassroots. The women in power must be the voice for their voiceless counterparts.

Allow me to digress a little…

The other day I met a female politician from my country (the diplomatic kind); This woman had the nerve to mock another female politician who has been making a lot of noise advocating the adoption of UN Resolution 1325 in Zimbabwe. As she spoke in that derisive tone I really wished that her little nest of diplomatic grandeur could crumble and that she would experience the terrible things that Resolution 1325 seeks to protect women from during and after conflict including rape; internal displacement; becoming refugees; exclusion from peace-building processes; as well as marginalisation of their voices in repatriation, resettlement, rehabilitation, reintegration and post-conflict reconstruction processes. I thought to myself, a woman who cannot understand the value of this Resolution and stand and fight for her fellow women, does not deserve to be in a position of influence at all.

Back to my story…

In a nation emerging from years of conflict there is an unavoidable tendency to reward those who have ‘fought’ in other words those women perceived to have made huge sacrifices in the struggle. Yes, their contributions might have been outstanding but it must be remembered that all women ‘fought’ despite never having held a gun or gone to the battlefront. The key women must use their influence to represent the wishes of other women and not prioritize the designs of the political parties they belong to. Individuals like Rebecca Nyandeng De Mabior, the wife of John Garang De Mabior the former leader of the SPLM, who already wields power as advisor to the President should push for reforms that draw in more women to participate in politics and prioritize that goal above the wishes of the SPLM. Women in Sudan constitute 60% of the population. At the moment 34% of Parliamentarians are women with 7 ministers in a cabinet of 32. Women have a high illiteracy rate with an estimated 80% rating compared to the 60% for men. Women and girls are still traded for cattle and these are the things the women in decision making should fight to change.

Second, the Constitution

South Sudan should ensure that when they adopt their final constitution; that constitution will embrace the views and aspirations of the wider population. Every voice and need should be heard and responded to in the Constitution. It must not only provide for civil and political rights but also incorporate social and economic rights. The Constitution must safeguard against majorities silencing the minorities or else the long and arduous war with the North would have been fought in vain. It must be the supreme law of the land and as such should be respected and adhered to and enforced by an independent and impartial judiciary. It must be based on inviolable fundamental principles which would make amendments even by the required majority in parliament impossible should those amendments be contrary to the founding principles. I say this because in Zimbabwe all the amendments to the constitution were legally made with a 2/3 vote. Some of these amendments violated basic constitutional precepts such as the separation of powers, giving the President excessive power. As of 17 September 2008, the day before the Global Political Agreement which introduced a power-sharing government in Zimbabwe was signed, the Constitution gave the President powers as head of state; head of government; commander of the armed forces; appointer of the judiciary, electoral commission, the attorney general, the registrar general and other key positions hence enabling him to control every decision making processes in Zimbabwe. Although the GPA has reduced some of these powers theoretically, in practice, these are the powers that our President still has. South Sudan should listen, learn and take all measures necessary to make sure this does not happen to them.

Third, the President

President Salva Kiir should not be mistaken as the only Sudanese capable of ruling South Sudan. Inarguably, he has been pivotal in keeping the momentum in the movement for the liberation of the South. His availability as a trusted member of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) allowed the party to stand especially after the assassination of SPLM leader John Garang a few weeks after signing the Comprehensive Peace Agreement which enabled South Sudan to secede from Northern Sudan. To mind comes the similar role that President Mugabe played after the murder of Josiah Magama Tongogara (whom everyone expected to become the President of an independent Zimbabwe) on the eve of Zimbabwe’s independence. However South Sudan should not lose sight of the fact that, leaders should serve the nation’s interests and should be removed the moment they cease to do so. The people of South Sudan should continue to nurture and encourage many options for the presidential post to avoid falling into the same trap as Zimbabweans have where some people believe that there cannot be a Zimbabwe without Mugabe. Excuse me! He was born in 1924 and Zimbabwe existed way before then.

Fourth, the SPLM

The Sudan People’s Liberation Movement has been the force behind the success of an independent South. In other words the vision for nationalism in the South was spearheaded by the SPLM. They had to take up the guns and fight the North for 22 gruesome years. They lost friends and family who were killed, maimed, raped for South Sudan to be born. Indeed they paid a huge price for the freedom of their country. It was a noble cause they fought for which ought to be commended. However South Sudanese should be careful not to be held at ransom for the rest of their lives by this party because of the leading role it played. I urge the mothers whose sons died to remind anyone who comes to them claiming that the SPLA should be their only party that it is their sons who died and those who are alive should respect the choices of the living. For South Sudan to mature into a full democracy, they must encourage the growth of other parties. It will be up to the people to choose who they please based on their needs and their assessment of the fulfillment of their needs through the policies adopted by the party in question.

Fifth, the oil and land

The oil and land in South Sudan belongs to the South Sudanese and hence should benefit them. Their land holds the potential to diversify the Sudanese economy from being oil based to include large-scale commercial agriculture.They should not make the same mistake Zimbabwe made. Zimbabwe’s leadership agreed in the Lancaster House negotiations with the British to suspend discussions on ownership of or access to land (the main resource in our country) for 10 years after independence. In fact they waited for 20 years to begin to do something to address the glaring imbalance where 1% of the population owned 60% of the means of production and the rest of the 99% watched on with growing discontent. The people of South Sudan should assert their rights to their land and oil beginning now. Yes, foreign investment shall be pivotal to the growth and development of the South Sudanese economy but should it be skewed in serving the interests of the investor, and involve the exploitation of resources at the expense of the masses who are the true owners of the resources? Should the people of South Sudan provide cheap labour in the exploitation of their raw materials, fail to add value to their resources and see no benefits from having such resources at their feet? If that does happen then we can all be assured that it will only be a matter of time before a meltdown occurs when the people realize that this is not what they bargained for when they celebrated and jumped welcoming their independence.

I do wish South Sudan the very best as they join the world of nations.

Cross posted from Banjamba
The Skull

Posted: August 6, 2011, 3:22 pm by Rumbidzai Dube

Today, I had an interesting encounter with one of my colleagues here in Cairo. He wore rings on every one of his 10 fingers and the rings had the symbol of the skull.

When I first saw them my heart went ‘thump thump.’ I cannot really say it was fear but more of trepidation and a bit… ok maybe a lot… of unease seeing so many skulls on one person’s fingers. The unease was mainly because of the symbolic meanings that skulls have to me. The most outstanding would be that the skull is a representation of death and mortality. I will have to come to terms with my fear because the inevitable truth is that I will die someday but for now, let me be afraid.

When studying the history of Germany in the time of the Third Reich with Hitler and his Nazi Regime, I remember my history teacher, Mr Mlauzi (God rest his soul in peace), telling us that the skull was the symbol of thetotenkompf verband, a branch of the Schutzstaffel that was responsible for manning the concentration camps where thousands of Jews were massacred. Then it was a sign of hate.

On many pesticides and poisonous substances the skull represents the danger that the product poses to the human being. Pirates used it as a symbol of their defiance against death; a sign of rebellion.

Bikers and sailors today get it too as an expression of their defiance against the forces of nature.Ordinarily in my culture the skull has a sinister meaning representing things demonic and/or evil. In my church if you were to conduct a quick survey I can guarantee 99% of the congregation would tell you that the skull is a symbol of the anti-Christ therefore connoting great evil. I will be honest and admit that for a moment there it did cross my mind that maybe my colleague sold his soul to the devil.

With all these unusual meanings can you blame me for being uncomfortable around skulls?

Fortunately for me and maybe for you, today I reproached myself for being so judgemental. I retracted my assumptions about why my colleague wore so many skull rings and decided to take the time to ask him and listen to what he had to say. He said that he loves them because of what they represent to him. I asked what that was and he told me that the skull is the symbol of the true human being, every human being. At that moment when he explained himself I thought “Yeah, right. True human being my foot.”

After a while I reflected on his statement and it occurred to me that he had a point, a very valid point. There is no human being who can deny that beneath the flesh, skin ad hair on our heads and faces,there is a skull. That skull is neither black nor white. It is just a skull and it looks the same. Indeed the skull is the representation of the most equal state that all human beings can ever be. The barriers that we have set up based on how light you are and how dark I am, or how pretty you are and how ugly I am, or how immaculately adorned you are and how disheveled I look, or how fat your cheeks are and how gaunt mine are, and even how smooth your hair is and how kinky mine is will all cease to matter when it is just the skull. No skin color or texture. No measure of flesh, its shape and size. No differing hair textures, colors and length.

So from revulsion at seeing so many skulls on one person’s fingers, I practiced tolerance by respecting his choice to have them on his body, then I displayed wisdom by enquiring into his obvious love for skulls in a diplomatic and respectful manner and I acquired enlightenment which I am sharing with you now. I have not suddenly developed a love for skulls but I now understand why he wears them.

If only we could all take the time to understand what we do not know, face our fears and tolerate what we dislike then there would be no ethnic cleansings, religious wars, racism, homophobia, islamophobia, xenophobia or other forms of intolerance. If only all human beings could realize this basic idea that when you take away the things that make other people think they are better than others we are all the same…

…Just skull!

Cross posted from JamBanja
Zimbabwe to Egypt: Reflections from Tahrir Square

Posted: July 15, 2011, 4:00 pm by Rumbidzai Dube

I met Rumbidzai Dube in March 2009 at the Tactical Tech InfoActivism camp in Bangalore India. At the time she worked as a researcher within the Women’s Programme at the Research and Advocacy Unit (RAU) an NGO in Zimbabwe. Since then Rumbidzai has completed her Masters in Law (LLM Human Rights and Democratization in Africa) at the University of Pretoria in Pretoria, South Africa. She has worked as an intern for the African Union Commission in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and is presently serving a second internship in Egypt with the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies. Over the next six months Rumbidzai will be writing about her work and her observations of life in Cairo and the people’s revolution.

______________________________

As a Zimbabwean, an African, a black person and a woman, I cannot help but wish my life were different. No, I do not wish I had a different nationality-I love my country and all its beauty. I do not wish I were anything else but an African- I love the diversity that makes our continent what it is. I do not wish to be anything other than black- in fact I love being black because I do not believe in the stereotypes attached to being black. I am not barbaric! I do not eat human flesh! I do not live in a jungle! I am not ignorant though I do not claim to know everything there is to know in this world! I am not poor even though my bank account is empty! As one of my professors always said whereas some subscribe to the “I think therefore I am” theory by Rene Descartes as an African I believe “We are therefore I am.”Hence money does not make me rich, family does. When I have no family then I am poor.

When I wear something black there is definitely a difference between my skin complexion and that piece of clothing and I see the same difference when a ‘white’ person wears a white dress so maybe that label should be changed to dark skinned and light skinned instead. I love being a woman, ask any woman who is comfortable in her skin and she will tell you she does not wish to be recreated any differently. The reason I wish my life were different is that I hate the negativity attached to these identities that make my life more difficult than it should be. As a Zimbabwean I face repression from my own government. We cannot express ourselves freely, assemble freely, associate freely and choose who we want to govern us freely. As an African our nations are subjected to global politics characterized by the paradox of ‘equal’ nations yet some are more equal than others.’ This has caused untold suffering, particularly, to the African peoples through skewed negotiations on climate change. We constantly fight the war on the patenting of life saving drugs as against free and easy access to medicines. We are victims of conflicts fuelled by the availability of arms and weapons supplied by developed nations, the so called ‘War economies.” As a black person I am constantly made to feel I need to measure up to something. I still have not figured out what that something is since I certainly do not feel I am lacking in any respect. As for my struggle as woman, that cannot be told in this short space. I will leave it for another day and forum.

Where am I going with all this? Well here is my story…

Today I spent an hour in Tahrir Square, mingling with the thousands of Egyptians who were gathered there. Some were just sitting and discussing the recent developments in the country including the acquittal of some and conviction of other perpetrators of human rights violations during the |Jan|25| protests. Others were chanting slogans making demands from the Supreme Council of Armed Forces to implement the reforms that have been demanded since the Revolution began. Yes, there were factions in the Square. I came across one stand comprising youths that cried out “Allah Akbar” an Islamic phrase loosely translated to mean “God is the Most High.” I also found another one where they were playing Christian gospel music. It was clear there were different groupings in the Square but guess what, they were all in the Square.

They could have chosen to assemble in different squares but they did not. They came together, putting aside their differences for a greater purpose which was to put the message across clearly to the ruling Supreme Council of Armed Forces that this new earned right conceived during the Revolution shall neither be aborted nor miscarried. I also met a 14 year old blogger- yes fourteen. Before he has even reached the legal age of majority he understands that politics and political participation affects his life and impacts on his human rights. He does not shy away from it because ‘politics is a dirty game’-no. He takes charge and makes legitimate demands from the politicians in his country. I spent quality time with my close friends Alaa Abd El Fattah and Manal Bahey El Din Hassan who have been blogging for years at Manalaa.Net, exposing the Mubarak regime for the dictatorship that it was. Alaa got arrested several times by the police and today he stands with the rest of the Revolutionaries celebrating the fruits of his and many other people’s hard work. I walked within that Square for an hour and in all that time I did not get sexually harassed, neither did I hear any man whisper the obscene things that I am usually subjected to on the street. I was treated with respect and I did not feel conspicuous as a dark-skinned person amongst the crowds of light-skinned people.

What did all this mean to me?

As Zimbabweans, Africans, black people, women we can change our future. It takes patience, persistence and perseverance but it not impossible. Let history be remembered as the hair we shaved off our heads but let it not determine the kind of new hair we grow on our heads. Black people let us not remain victims of perceptions created ages ago and sustained for generations by people who suffer from a misplaced superiority complex. Africans let us not let the ghost of colonialism haunt us forever. Zimbabweans let us not pay for not having been born when the war of independence was fought. Women, let us stand strong against the skeleton that patriarchy has since become. We have been eating off the flesh of these things and I am sure pushing over the bones will not be such a hard task.

Back to Tahrir Square and Egypt…

Many people have argued that the culture of protests has become almost maniacal in the Arab world. Others argue that they have not seen how protesting has helped the Egyptian people and I quote my colleague, Paul speaking of the revolutionaries and the ousting of Mubarak (Paul and I studied for the Bachelor of Laws Honours Degree at the University of Zimbabwe)

“I do not see any good results coming from them. And do u believe they are the ones who removed him from power? I do not think so that is why they back in the streets bcoz their revolution was not home grown”
Well here is what I think. Protesting helped Egyptians get rid of a despotic government whose corruption had reached chronic levels. It ensured that their demands for justice against the perpetrators of human rights violations during the |Jan|25| protests were heard. Protesting ensured that property and money worth thousands of dollars belonging to the state which had been siphoned by the President and his wife was returned and handed over to the State. Through their concerted effort, Egyptians are setting a culture which if entrenched will see better respect, promotion and protection of human rights. How? Every time they gather in protest they are asserting their right to peaceful assembly and association as well as their right to freely express themselves.

Every time they make political demands pertaining to law reform, constitutional amendments, as well as the formation of political parties and their participation in elections they are asserting the right to participate in the governance of their country. It definitely is not as simplistic as it sounds but this is one step (or however many it may be) positively taken and it is gaining momentum each day. The police and military authorities still resist this culture but their resistance is becoming weaker each day. The weaker it becomes the more entrenched these freedoms will be in Egyptian society, spelling a progressive realization of their rights.

It is also many steps ahead of the Zimbabwean scenario where attempts to hold peaceful protests are crushed every time. In Zimbabwe, we have a security system that harasses, arrests and detains lawyers for demanding the sanctity of the profession that they chose. Our system finds a group of brave women (the Women of Zimbabwe Arise-WOZA) as criminals yet these women are constantly advocating social justice. The Egyptians have certainly gone one step ahead in this regard and the more they gather in Tahrir Square and hold their peaceful protests with no interference from the state apparatus, the higher their chances of sustaining this exercise of their right.

No sexual harassment for an hour?

Yes, I have discovered that Egypt is one of those places where being a woman is particularly difficult. The way you dress, walk, talk and laugh is so scrutinized that you cannot help but be very self conscious. Men whisper all sorts of obscenities to you as they pass by. Others stalk you. Some even try to grab you and run-in public! Yet today I was in that Square and for a whole hour none of that happened yet there were thousands of men there. Why-I asked myself? The obvious answer is because the Revolution birthed a new culture of respect for women with leading figures like Dr Laila Soueif emerging as lead figures at some defining moments of the Revolution . Harassment of women was viewed as unacceptable behavior and hence that perception holds true. Yes-it might only be wholly observed in Tahrir Square and at moments such as the one I experienced today but there is no doubt with time it shall cascade down to the everyday lives of Egyptians. It will take time but as always everything that is good comes through hard work, perseverance and persistence.

A 14 year old blogger? Wow!

My first thought was; I am 27 and I have done close to nothing to share the knowledge I have on human rights, democracy and democratization, good governance and women’s rights? ZIP!! And I am very ashamed to admit this. My second thought was I wish I knew a 14 year old blogger in Zimbabwe, let alone one who blogs on human rights and political participation. It is this kind of awareness that we need to build in our youth in Zimbabwe and the rest of Africa. A youth that is not polarized on political grounds. A youth that resists state patronage. A youth that questions policies and practices that do not benefit the wider population. We do not want a youth that is used to terrorise communities, or to rape women and girls, or to force communities to support a party or a government they clearly loathe. It is time that our 14 year olds developed an interest in the things that shape their future and the future of their countries rather than concentrating on figuring out how to put a condom on!
There is more but for now I will end here.

MentalGator

Mentalacrobatics'aggregator

About The layout

Aggregated Blogs

Items by Rumbidzai Dube

Posted: April 17, 2012, 11:18 am by Rumbidzai Dube

Posted: April 12, 2012, 11:31 am by Rumbidzai Dube

Posted: March 26, 2012, 1:08 pm by Rumbidzai Dube

Posted: March 23, 2012, 11:13 am by Rumbidzai Dube

Posted: March 22, 2012, 11:08 am by Rumbidzai Dube

Posted: March 20, 2012, 12:41 pm by Rumbidzai Dube

Posted: March 8, 2012, 7:34 am by Rumbidzai Dube

Posted: February 6, 2012, 9:47 am by Rumbidzai Dube

Posted: December 31, 2012, 2:31 am by Rumbidzai Dube

Posted: December 17, 2011, 11:33 am by Rumbidzai Dube

Posted: November 29, 2011, 11:50 am by Rumbidzai Dube

Posted: November 24, 2011, 12:12 pm by Rumbidzai Dube

Posted: November 5, 2011, 11:56 am by Rumbidzai Dube

Posted: October 17, 2011, 2:38 am by Rumbidzai Dube

Posted: September 30, 2011, 9:35 am by Rumbidzai Dube

Posted: September 21, 2011, 12:17 pm by Rumbidzai Dube

Posted: September 2, 2011, 10:05 pm by Rumbidzai Dube

Posted: August 22, 2011, 1:21 am by Rumbidzai Dube

Posted: August 22, 2011, 1:21 am by Rumbidzai Dube

Posted: August 19, 2011, 1:14 am by Rumbidzai Dube

Posted: August 19, 2011, 1:14 am by Rumbidzai Dube

Posted: August 14, 2011, 2:19 am by Rumbidzai Dube

Posted: August 14, 2011, 2:19 am by Rumbidzai Dube

Posted: August 8, 2011, 3:00 pm by Rumbidzai Dube

Posted: August 6, 2011, 3:22 pm by Rumbidzai Dube

Posted: July 15, 2011, 4:00 pm by Rumbidzai Dube