I recently had the privilege of being at the ‘Progress’ in Zimbabwe conference organised by the Mass Public Opinion Institute, Bulawayo Agenda and the University of Johannesburg.

Various national, regional and international speakers participated, including: Amanda Hammar, Bill Freund, Blair Rutherford, Blessing Karumbidza, Brian Raftopoulos, Charity Manyeruke, Claude Kabemba, Easther Chigumira, Erin McCandless, Godfrey Kanyenze, Ian Phimister, Ibbo Mandaza, John Hoffman, John Makumbe, John Saul, Jocelyn Alexander, Josephine Nhongo-Simbanegavi, Joy Chadya, Kirk Helliker, Kumbirai Kundenga, Lionel Cliffe, Luise White, Mike Davies, Richard Saunders, Rob Davies, Roger Southall and Showers Mawowa.

Some of the stand out comments for me included:

• John Makumbe on The Parties & Their Politics: In Southern Africa, no liberation movement has ever handed power over to another political party. It is therefore obvious that liberation movements are necessarily dictatorial. So it is naïve to expect to remove them from power through democratic means. Any dictator who is susceptible to removal from power through democratic means is not a dictator. More

• Brian Raftopoulos on Labour’s Past, Present and Future: Raftopoulos discussed the ways trade unionists have tried to use an industrial relations discourse in order to avoid political intervention. Trade unions in Zimbabwe, as elsewhere, are very much children of the Enlightenment – they are very much those who have pushed for universal rights, and have often fought national repression through a recourse to a call for universal rights. This was interpreted by some as labour becoming ensconced in a kind of cosmopolitan Western discourse. Raftopolous found this wrong on two scores. Firstly, it misses the long historical precedent of this kind of discursive framework within labour – it’s not a new thing. Secondly, it assumes that because there is some agreement between international positions and the position of the labour movement in Zimbabwe, that the latter is complicit with imperialism. This is to assume that that whole project can be defined by how it is understood from outside, without looking at the local dynamics which are generating and producing those particular discourses. More

• Ibbo Mandaza on ‘Intellectuals’ and Progress in Zimbabwe: Radical scholars were systematically exorcised from positions of influence over the state. Mugabe’s Zanu PF is right wing, despite its anti imperialist rhetoric. The international community is less concerned about democracy and human rights than they are about stability. Thus, if it is accepted that there is a level of stability now as compared with 2008, this is accepted as “progress.” More

• Easther Chigumira on Landed Economies – Farming & Farmers Then & Now: Responding to Blessing Karumbidza’s presentation, Easther Chigumira questioned his convictions that farming “then” (as in the 1980s) is really so different from farming “now.” She noted there is still multiple farm ownership, still patronage, still bifurcation, but it is by class, not race. Key institutional structures, such as markets, are weaker than they were in the 1980s. Thus, she said, she was not as optimistic about new farmers, particularly given the long term degradation of the environment which has happened in the process. There is gold panning, sand mining, organised by suitcase farmers. Is that really progress? More

• Kirk Helliker on Civil Society – Strategies for Emancipation: Helliker argued that much of the conflict in contemporary Zimbabwean society is a discourse around state politics. The struggle is a struggle for state power. This, he said, marginalises more democratic radical popular movements – like the land movement – captured by state and delegitimisesd by liberals. He agreed that just because trade unions develop a position towards the state, and international capital develops the same position, this doesn’t necessarily that there is some sort of alliance, or that the trade unions are in the in pocket of international capital. However, he cautioned, there is a similar risk of reductionist thinking if you argue that the land movement was just an election ploy. This reduces the agency of rural people and war veterans to being simply pawns of Zanu PF. More

• Luise White on Zimbabwe Compared – ‘Progress’ in the Rest of Africa: White warned that governments of national unity simply reinvent the one party state with more international clout than the one party state has had since the 1960’s. She said this is retrogressive. There is now a single party apparatus that has access to international funding and donor participation. More

For a full listing of write ups and audio files from the different sessions, view the ‘Progress’ in Zimbabwe conference index page

Christmas decorations are up in most supermarkets indicating that the festive season is just around the corner and that mindless spending on food, drink and gifts can begin.

Had I the financial means I would add onto my Christmas shopping list Hugh Masekela’s song ‘Send Me’ and mail a copy of the track to every politician in office. This idea was inspired after reading Tawanda Chisango’s glowing review about the track’s rich Afro Jazz sound and moreover, its positive message. Describing the song as “spiritually uplifting” my immediate thought was that it would surely have some impact in reviving our seemingly lifeless statesmen to some noticeable action.

Primarily, I am hoping that the mere title of the song ‘Send Me’ will remind politicians that they have mandates to fulfil, as given by their constituents. All too often, it happens that public servants develop amnesia once elected into office and they forget that national, and not personal, development is paramount. In bestowing ‘Send Me’ as a gift perhaps our elected office bearers would remember that they were indeed sent, by us and for us. Maybe then we could get a bit more from them than ribbon cutting or the signing of yet another memorandum of agreement with ambiguous benefits for the masses.

Chisango writes: “The song is about someone … who is asking … to be sent so that they may be there when all the problems have been solved”. I imagine how nice it would be to have elected officials who actively find solutions to problems (or challenges, if we must use the more politically fashionable term), and not the more usual case where the politicians are the problem. Masekela’s song could inspire those in office to stop the tirades and the finger pointing in a westerly direction. After all, the purpose of putting politicians in power is not so that they can list the problems obvious to us all, but that they can find solutions to them.

But to fix a problem, you have to know that it exists and to do this you have to be in touch with the situation on the ground. Chisango explains that the person in the song is willing to go everywhere to assist the situation – to the railways, taxis, shebeens, buses, and the whole country. I admit that this is a tall order for our honourable representatives, who typically only visit their constituencies during election periods when they are garnering votes. How does one keep in touch with reality when they are surrounded (and shielded) by beefy bodyguards, heavily tinted car windows and nine-feet thick concrete walling? However, I believe that a new political norm is possible where statesmen actually live in the real world, amongst their constituents and assisting to better all our lives.

Although Masekela’s song is centred on being sent to tackle the HIV/AIDS pandemic, its message makes it relevant to all difficult circumstances that require the intervention of a champion or advocate. Elected officials take note. Being ‘honourable’ is not only a title that comes with the job; it indicates that there is a job to be done. The honour comes from being chosen and sent as a reliable campaigner for the people, to confront every difficulty no matter its size or its source and to improve circumstances for all of us.

You can download Send Me here

Internet fever has gripped so many people in Zimbabwe in the past month. There is now a scramble for those phones that can make one get connected. I’m telling you business is now booming downtown in Harare where cheap phones are found. These phones come in different sizes, shapes and weights. Some are even duped to think that the bigger the phone the faster it can get you on the Internet. On the other side it seems the companies in the business of cell phones services and the Internet are out to make a killing by charging exorbitant prices.

As a means of sharing information and communication, I think the Internet as a medium for communication is good, be it on your phone, laptop and desktop machine at home or work. Since the world is now a global village business transactions are now mostly carried out on the Internet. By just walking around town you can see people with phones in their hands trying to get a feel of the World Wide Web. When my mom heard about the Internet she also wanted to have it on her Nokia 1200.

My biggest worry is not about the Internet charges or how expensive the phones are. It’s about the dangers to children of the Internet on phones. A lot of information can be passed around via the Internet and my recent visit to an Internet café reminded me of this notice which was hanging on the wall advising customers that viewing of illegal sites is prohibited. This automatically struck the back of my mind trying to figure out if companies offering internet service especially to phones have put measures that restrict access to illegal sites and downloading of illegal content from the net.

The Internet can be a wonderful resource for kids. They can use it to research, communicate with each other, and play interactive games. As any comprehensive source of completely uncensored and often times erroneous information, the Internet is not an expert teacher or insoluble source of information. Nor is it really designed for children. The Internet is just another facet of socialization for the new generation; as always, common sense and a level head are the best safeguards but as a responsible parent you wouldn’t expect your 8-year-old kid to be level headed. With hopes of better prospects outside the country, young people may be tempted by online human traffickers. I know after reading this article some people may ask “How safe is the Internet for our children?”  Well the answer to that I am still trying to look for myself because just like my fellow countrymen we are still to appreciate the Internet on our phones.

Research shows that the majority of domestic Internet users in developing countries like India, South Africa, Kenya, Philippines and Pakistan access the Internet from a mobile phone rather than a PC. Zimbabwe as a developing country with over 6 million cell phone users, the chances are that 50% of these users will be accessing information via the Internet. By just looking at these statistics the Internet will be good for communication, business and socializing because imagine someone from Mukumbura reading today’s paper on the phone.  So lets welcome this intervention with open arms and use it to the benefit of our country.

Giving this year’s Lozikeyi Lecture, the Minister of Education, Arts, Sport and Culture Minister David Coltart quoted Picasson on the role of art: “We all know that Art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realise truth”.

Impressively Coltart used the lecture to make a powerful argument against censorship, and in favour of artistic freedom of expression. In particular, he argued against the banning of Owen Maseko’s art on Gukurahundi, and described the ban on a more recent piece, in the interest of “public morality,” as “patently ridiculous.”

Whilst he didn’t go so far as to argue that the Censor Board itself be disbanded, or reconstituted, he was none the less far more outspoken about the issue than the MDC-T’s co-Minister of Home Affairs, Theresa Makone was on the same issue. For his troubles, Minister Coltart is now being threatened by war veterans who are insisting that he retract statements he made in the speech, suggesting that Gukurahundi was akin to genocide.

Read the full lecture here – it’s worth it!

The reason women fight over men is simple – lack.

To many women, a single man can represent a roof over their head, food in their belly, clothes on their back and most importantly – a pride in their bearing.

And quite frankly, I don’t know of many people who wouldn’t fight to protect an “investment” that guarantees them most of life’s basic necessities.

I know that I would fight anyone who tried to take my shelter away, grab my food from me and snatch the sweet out of my mouth.

I would fight anyone who made the mistake of trying to leave me nude by pulling the clothes off my back or even worse, expose me to public ridicule by making me an object of pity.

I would fight any one.

The problem though is not that we want to fight for these things or indeed that we desire to have and keep them.

The problem is that not many of us (women) exert ourselves to pursuing these things for our benefit because we have been raised in a society where having a man equates to having all of the above – shelter, food, clothing and “respectability”.

So women fight other women because they fear to remain homeless, hungry, naked and ‘ashamed’.

I know many women who fight to have shelter, to have food, to have clothing by working damn hard to earn those things and whose sense of purpose gives them all the dignity they require – these are the empowered women; clawing their way to the top; understanding that they can succeed on their own.

I know many women; and I am one of them, who don’t summarize other human beings (read men) into shelter, food, clothes and status.

I find it irksome when women who have the potential to accomplish whatever they want in life opt to take a “short cut” by just getting a man to provide all the things they need and because they have chosen this dependency they make themselves vulnerable to abuse from their benefactor (read man).

Not only that, they find themselves obsessed with chasing off other women who will have had the same idea as they did, which is, “Let me find a man to take care of me.”

It seems clever, especially to the young 24 year old involved with a married older man; because she gets what she wants faster and easier than her age-mates who may make the sensible choice of just working hard and slowly attaining the things they wish to have.

Sweat or tears.

Many women prefer to pay through tears; they prefer life’s billing system to charge them through tears of pain, suffering, abuse, rejection and misery as long as they get to drive around in flashy cars they don’t own, live in houses on whose title deeds their names don’t appear; eat food their money didn’t pay for and wear clothes they didn’t lose a cent to buy.

But men are raised differently; they are raised to expect life’s billing system to charge them in the currency called sweat; they sweat to work, to achieve because they have been told that they have to expect to “keep” someone else, to provide a shelter, food, clothing and ‘protection’ to a woman – they can even marry her so that in return she’ll wash, cook, clean and have babies.

Seems like a reasonable arrangement, right?

Well I don’t think so, I think it is unfair to expect another adult who happens to be male to carry the weight of responsibility for another adult who happens to be female by giving him the sole obligation to sweat all life-long while the role of the woman could just be to enjoy the fruits of his labor.

It seems to be such a parasitic arrangement to me.

One way or the other, we’re gonna pay – women need to start deciding whether they want to keep settling life’s bills through tears because as long as the culture of looking for a man to “take care” of you remains, violence against women will remain a vicious cycle.

This level of one-sided dependence is unhealthy, parasitic and creates a fertile environment for women to be abused and to resort to violence when they feel their relationships are being threatened by other women.

So women fight over men because it is matter of survival for them; it is a matter of lack, of defending a relationship that guarantees the basics they desperately need – shelter, food, clothing (and because of society’s skewed patriarchal thinking) some semblance of human dignity – but this “dignity” aspect is fodder for another article.

I know of some men who abuse women and tell them “you’re nothing without me” – the sad reality is; many women truly HAVE nothing unless a man grants it to them.

Parting shot: Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery; none but ourselves can free our minds (Marcus Garvey)

This article is part of series written ahead of and in cognizance of the 16 Days of Activism against gender-based violence

The above two notices in Friday’s Herald caught my eye. The first makes a lot of sense to me. Harare has a huge water problem – as evidenced by the lack of water in our three-storey office block this week, as just one example. As the notice points out, “the city’s water supply infrastructure cannot satisfy the current demand. This is further worsened by infrastructure breakdowns and power outages.”

Surely, then, the city would recognise the need to fundraise and invest in infrastructure and power maintenance, repairs and development?

Meanwhile, a second notice warns suppliers against providing fire equipment without a SAZS Seal of Approval (Standards Association of Zimbabwe). This, the notice explains, is “aimed at protecting the public from substandard fire equipment that has found its way into the country.”

But why has this substandard fire equipment suddenly found its way across our borders? Because of a mad rush by motorists to get fire extinguishers, among other items, in time for the 1 December deadline of the new Road Traffic Regulations.

We’ve been looking for a month and have yet to find an SAZ approved fire extinguisher at any local hardware. How is the City of Harare going to warn suppliers of this issue? How will it enforce it, and if they do collect fines, how will that revenue be allocated?

I’m reminded of Thandi’s waste not, want not blog. What about fining people for using hose pipes, using that money to invest in water supply requirements, and dropping the whole fire extinguishers in vehicles issue altogether?