Here is something from Fungai Machirori, one of Zimbabwe’s best social commentators:

It’s just you and me … and my wife and your boyfriend…

This might sound like a humorous line. But in Lesotho, one of the world leaders in prevalence of HIV, this is the name of a play that has been developed to address the issue of multiple and concurrent partnerships (MCP).

And this play was one of the innovative interventions shared at the Africa-wide practicum on HIV prevention among married and cohabiting couples in Africa, held from 11 to 13 August in Johannesburg, South Africa. The three day-long meeting which brought together over 100 HIV and AIDS communications experts from almost 20 African countries was organised by the African Network for Strategic Communication in Health and Development (AfriComNet).

In his opening address the guest of honour – South African National AIDS Council (SANAC) Communications Advocacy and Campaigns Manager, Junaid Seedat – underscored the importance of looking at HIV transmission among married people and those involved in stable relationships by citing regional statistics on a growing epidemic that is hardly ever discussed or addressed.

Kenya, around 40% of new HIV infections are happening among married women while in Uganda, about 65% of new HIV infections are found in cohabiting couples,” said Seedat, quoting national data from both East African countries. He also cited a 2008 Cape Town study that demonstrated that people involved in MCP were using condoms only 64% of the time within their stable relationships.

The practicum focused on various communication challenges and interventions such as couples’ HIV status discordance, behaviour change communication, couples HIV counselling and testing and condom use.

“Some people don’t think that communication matters and some people want to resort to an entirely medical approach to HIV,” observed international HIV and AIDS expert, Helen Epstein who delivered the practicum keynote address. “But I think it would be a mistake to give up on communication completely.”

During the practicum factors such as sexual dissatisfaction (lack of variety in sex positions, infrequent sex or no sex at all), lack of communication between partners and male entitlement to multiple partners were discussed as some of the drivers of MCP in some regions of Africa.  Such concurrency, coupled with low condom use, is currently a high-risk factor for HIV transmission.

Bisexual concurrency among men who have sex with men (MSM) was also noted as a driver of HIV by Gift Trapence of the Centre for the Development of People in Malawi. In a three-country study conducted in Botswana, Malawi and Namibia, overall rates of HIV infection were found to be about double national prevalence estimates for all men of reproductive age.

As noted by Churchill Alumasa of the Discordant Couples of Kenya, one of the challenges to people involved in stable relationships in knowing their status is what he described as ‘proxy testing’ whereby one partner bases their HIV status on that of their partner’s.

Evidence shared at the practicum shows that a couple that has been sexually active can maintain different HIV statuses. But early detection, through regular HIV testing is key to ensuring that the HIV negative partner remains negative and that the couple takes up consistent and correct condom use throughout the rest of their sexual relationship.

One of the challenges to this as shared by many of the speakers at the practicum is that models of couples testing across the continent tend to focus on bringing couples together to testing centres and yet thereafter, each member of the couple is tested separately thus providing leeway for an HIV positive partner to disclose a false status to their partner. For instance, Professor Susan Allen of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine and Global Health, shared that routine testing for partners of pregnant Rwandan women increased from 40% in 2006 to 80% in 2008, but that women and men were tested separately.

Allen added that regular couples testing had a significant cost advantage over the recently mooted ‘test and treat’ policy that seeks to treat all people found to be HIV positive (thereby making them less infectious to people who are HIV negative) and would actually prevent far more new infections thus putting less financial strain on the treatment end of the spectrum.

Allen’s data showed that in Zambia, it would cost USD 675 000 per year to prevent 70 new infections among 1 000 serodiscordant couples. But yet that same amount of money could provide couples HIV counseling and testing to 10 227 more couples preventing 285 infections in one year, and a cumulative 1282 infections in five years.

Religion and cultural norms were also identified as barriers to effective uptake of services. A study conducted by Zimbabwe’s Family AIDS Caring Trust (FACT) presented by Pemberai Zambezi showed that among members of the Johane Marange Apostolic Church, many refused to acknowledge the existence of HIV in the belief that one could pray for healing from the virus.  Such denialism was suggested to be particularly dangerous for this group as evidence shows that their previously clustered and closed  sexual networks, developed through practices such as polygamy, child pledging and wife inheritance, are now also becoming multi-linked as partners seek sexual relations outside of their closed unions.

But while the experts shared their promising practices, they also shared some of the obvious challenges inherent in their programmes; for instance, the strong emphasis on love in many of the communications interventions shared. These included couples testing campaigns such as ‘Prove Your Love’ in Mozambique and ‘Keep Your Love Under One Roof’ in Zimbabwe. This, many participants felt, left a grey area for those involved in sexual relationships who did not identify themselves as being in love with their partner.

However, it was agreed that often government influence, from whom buy-in must be guaranteed if a campaign is to be successful, led to organisations having to moralise sex and therefore censor their content to gain government’s favour. For instance, due to government pressure and displeasure, Uganda’s ‘Get Off the Sexual Network’ Campaign had to withdraw the use of children highlighting how their parent’s concurrent sexual partnerships had destroyed their family life.

Another obvious challenge shared was funding to ensure sustainability of programmes. One stark example of this was Zambia’s OneLove Kwasila! campaign which achieved overwhelming success particularly through its television drama, ‘Club Risky Business’ depicting the lives of three men all involved in MCP. The campaign’s theme song was a Zambian Top 10 hit showing that the campaign had not only served its communication functions to inform and educate, but also to entertain. The campaign has however been unable to replenish funds to enter into the second phase of the intervention.

Also consistency and uniformity in messaging was identified as a barrier to audiences understanding communications efforts. For example, participants could not reach consensus among themselves on the meaning and parameters of serial monogamy – a sexual practice which was suggested as being far less conducive to accelerated HIV transmission than MCP. It was also suggested that reference to HIV counselling and testing as either HCT or HTC, depending on the region of Africa, made it confusing for people to always understand what was being discussed.

Recommendations offered at the end of the practicum were for such AfriComNet to include private sector players who might be able to engage in public-private partnerships with civil society and government, in future editions of the event.  It was also suggested that AfriComNet facilitate capacity building exchange visits between countries and programmes, while also creating a clearing house for HIV and AIDS materials on its website. The need for AfriComNet, whose secretariat is currently located in Uganda, to establish regional secretariats was also emphasised.

Source: AF-AIDS List

Here’s a poem by the late, great Dambudzo Marechera. Writing on Poetry International, Irene Staunton suggests that … Marechera’s work, his ideas and his defiance live on in Zimbabwe, particularly amongst the youth, who find inspiration in his willingness to be the lone outsider, challenging conventional and authoritarian views.

The last line in this poem, published in 1992, reminds me of Zimbabwe’s unity government.

There’s a Dissident in the Election Soup!

I have no ear for slogans
You may as well shut up your arse
I run when it’s I LOVE YOU time
Don’t say it I’ll stick around
I run when it’s A LUTA time
I run when it’s FORWARD time
Don’t say it we’ll fuck the whole night
The moon won’t come down
At first awkwardly, excruciatingly embarrassing
But with Venus ascending, a shout and leap of joy

When the sheets are at last silent
Don’t ask “What are you thinking?”
Don’t ask “Was it good?”
Don’t feel bad because I’m smoking
They ask and feel bad who are insecure
Who say after the act “Tell me a story”
And you may as well know
Don’t talk of “MARRIAGE” if this reconciliation
is to last.

I think we could do with this in Zimbabwe, although I suspect our Tweets would end up as bird seed. But really, if you could send Mugabe and Tsvangirai a tweet, what would you say (hmmm don’t be rude now!):

Chavez joins twitter
It is known mainly for transmitting celebrity trivia and narcissism, but in the hands of Hugo Chavez, twitter has become something else: a tool of government. Venezuela’s president has harnessed the social networking and microblogging service for his socialist revolution by encouraging the population to tweet him their concerns. Chavez’s Twitter account, @chavezcandanga has exceeded 720 000 followers after establishing a reputation as a way to bypass bureaucracy and appeal directly to the president. It has been gaining 2 000 followers daily.
Source: The Mail &Guardian

Zimbabwe Election Support Network, Zimbabwe Peace Project and Zimbabwe Lawyers For Human Rights have issued the following statement on violence during the current Constitutional outreach campaign:

A Constitution Select Committee (COPAC) outreach meeting was on Saturday 14 August, 2010 abandoned in Chipinge, Manicaland Province after some ZANU PF youths assaulted two villagers prior to commencement of the meeting.

The COPAC meeting was scheduled to be held at Checheche Primary School.

The villagers Charles Chovi and Charles Chunje were assaulted by some ZANU PF youths at Checheche Primary School, who were led by Tonderai Ngwendu and Gilbert Kombo, who used benches, boots and clenched fists.

The two villagers were accused of sitting on some benches which had been set up before the arrival of the COPAC team members for a meeting to solicit people’s input into a proposed draft constitution.

ZZZICOMP monitors who witnessed the incident reported that Chovi and Chunje sustained some injuries on their bodies and on the ear and sought medical attention at St Peters Hospital.

The COPAC meeting was called off after some villagers protested that the meeting could not proceed as some of them had been assaulted and intimidated before the arrival of the COPAC team members. Ngwendu and Kombo were fined by the police at Chisumbanje Police Station, who also asked Chovi and Chunje to pay an admission of guilty fine for engaging in public fighting.

Honourable David Chimhini confirmed the assault and the abandonment of the meeting. He said it was evident that some villagers had been intimidated before the arrival of the COPAC team and his team had to postpone the meeting to a date to be advised as tension was high at the meeting.

The Harare Residents’ Trust (HRT), and many others, are rightly fed up with how our city is being managed. They make the following recommendations to improve service delivery and cash-flows to the City of Harare:

1. The Urban Councils’ Act (Chapter 29:15) should be amended to ensure that local authorities are led by elected mayors, who derive their mandate from the residents, and not from their political parties.
2. Mayor Masunda should desist from making statements that undermine the concerns of residents with regards to transparency, accountability and governance at Town House.
3. The City of Harare should make the necessary adjustments to its huge salary bill, in line with the Government’s directive.
4. Residents of Harare, industry and business should pay justified rates and rentals and not allow themselves to be held at ransom by Mayor Masunda and his colleagues in the top management of the City of Harare who take home 70 percent of the city’s revenue in salaries and allowances against service provision of 30 percent.
5. The mayor should drop his attitude and listen to the voice of stakeholders who have repeatedly expressed concern at the city’s rates and services.

We featured an article on aid and NGOs in one of our Kubatana newsletters recently. Seems like the MDC’s Priscilla Misihairabwi-Mushonga wants the government to monitor and audit the activities of NGOs in Zimbabwe.

All well and good but surely it should work both ways? When do Zimbabwean citizens ever encounter any accountability and transparency from the Unity Government? Like, for example, audited accounts of how revenue from toll gates is used? Or how revenue from City of Harare advertising is used?

Donors require strict financial and programming reporting from the beneficiaries of their funding. If NGOs don’t comply or perform to these high standards they lose their funding. Meanwhile, the Unity Government of which Ms Misihairabwi-Mushonga is a part of, seems to believe that they stand apart from any checks and balances.

Some of our subscribers responded like this:

Why does government all of a sudden want donors to account for its money? Do we know how government uses its funds; which by the way, come from tax payers? Why would government expect donors to be accountable to them when government itself is not accountable to its own citizens? I do not think this is a good move on the part of government, especially now when there is a dire need for funds and government is failing to meet its obligations. NGOs are providing the much-needed food, clean water, agricultural inputs to citizens. Government has clearly failed to meet its obligations. Look what happened in 2008 when we had the cholera outbreak. UNICEF and other NGOs moved in and provided clean water and treatment. Right now clinics are functioning, obviously thanks to NGOs, which ever ones they are. So, is this another example of government shooting itself in the foot?  It does not make sense for a man to start harassing someone who is feeding his family when he has no capacity to do so himself. Minister Misihairabwi-Mushonga should tell us the real reasons for this requirement; she surely does not expect us to believe that this is the norm everywhere in the world? Even if it is, other countries are normal with normal governments. We on the other hand, have a dysfunctional government and one would hardly describe our situation as normal. I hope the Minister does not think that we are all so stupid we would think government is worried about us-we know they are not, ZANU PF or MDC.

I do agree  with Jona Mapako who responded on ZimIand forum saying . . . I think the minister has lost it. The government can only decide where its own money goes. The fact that there are donors reflects failure on government’s part to care for its citizens. This however is very true . our country has made head lines not because of anything but our corrupt politicians whose corrupt minds and actions led to the fall of the Zimbabwean dollar. Channeling all funds to the government will only misuse this money just as they always do. Chakatanga ndicho chakachenjedza to hell with them wanting to own everything. Minister Priscilla is beginning to sound  Zanu pf or has she been promised something in all this. Is she being controlled by someone? “We try to put aid where it’s most effective, and I don’t believe having a rule that says everything must be one way or another. As it stands right now the bulk of our aid goes directly to communities and goes through NGOs,” as said. By the US Ambassador is very true. I believe there is nothing wrong with this. Even the Bible says there is more joy in giving than in receiving but rest assured if your efforts are directed to the wrong destination then you simply have not achieved your goal which is to help. My conclusion is NO to government control over the funds. Them controlling the NGO’s is okay but not their activities and funds.

I think the minister is very right, the government should know who the donors are dealing with, in a way it’s a matter of national security. This is our country Zimbabwe and it is the government which acts as custodian of our safety, our peace, and our resources. It is therefore prudent for them, as custodians, to know everything that transpires within or outside the boarders of Zimbabwe as long as it has a bearing on the life of any Zimbabwean. Whether it is aid or what, the government has to know because they are answerable to us, citizens of this beautiful country, Zimbabwe.  I salute the stance taken by Madam Honourable Minister.

I second the notion that the Minister, (Misihairabwi-Mushonga) has lost it, and has lost it big time. I am sure she has come along a saying which goes like, “beggars are not choosers”.Honestly , have they thought of what would happen if those donors decide to pull out?

Decision on NGOs threatens Western aid

A government decision to police non-governmental organisations working in Zimbabwe threatens future support from Western countries whose funds have been critical in curbing humanitarian disasters, a top diplomat has said.

Regional Integration and International Cooperation minister Priscilla Misihairabwi-Mushonga said the government last week told donors and ambassadors from donor countries that they should inform government of their activities, total funding into the country and the non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that they were working with.

But the United States (US), which is one of Zimbabwe’s biggest donors, warned yesterday that such a move would be disastrous, mainly because it was not practical to make such demands when donors were doing their best under the current environment where their options were limited due to restrictions levelled against some people in the inclusive government.

However, Misihairabwi-Mushonga insisted that donors and NGOs should abide by the rules and regulations government has set out for donor funding. Misihairabwi-Mushonga, who chairs the recently set up Government Development Forum in which 10 ministers sit with donors and ambassadors to discuss policy and problematic issues regarding donor funding, said government should be the dominant player in aid co-ordination and aid-distribution. She said she would soon be compiling a database of the total number of donors and the NGOs in the country, programmes that they finance, size and quantity of funding and the criteria they use to select their beneficiaries.

“It is the government that defines where aid should go. We now require everyone in the country to inform us about their aid work, how much they are spending and which areas they are working on. Right now we don’t know and are not sure who is doing what or working with whom and through which NGOs,” said Misihairabwi-Mushonga.

However, US Ambassador to Zimbabwe Charles Ray told the Zimbabwe Independent yesterday that he did not believe in a government dictating rules on how they should operate, adding that what worked at the moment, because of the restrictions on Zimbabwe, was to channel aid through NGOs or directly to communities.

“We try to put aid where it’s most effective, and I don’t believe having a rule that says everything must be one way or another. As it stands right now the bulk of our aid goes directly to communities and goes through NGOs,” he said.

“The essential philosophy of US aid and the way I influence wherever I work is… I refuse to have someone write a set of rules and tell me that I must follow those rules, I look for what works.”

Misihairabwi-Mushonga said what they are doing is the accepted norm in any country in the world. “They have to know that they are dealing with a country which has a government and they will have to follow certain rules. They can’t just operate in this country the way they want.”

Source: Faith Zaba, The Zimbabwe Independent