Occasional Kubatana blogger Fungai Machirori recently posted a very interesting comment on a health listserv in response to an online conversation about who should take responsibility for HIV prevention. I kind of thought it was a no-brainer. Individuals should of course. But then again there are men involved and condoms and men in general go together like Mugabe and Democracy.

Here’s Fungai for you:

Ensuring power to every “i” Fungai Machirori

Last year, South Africa developed a remarkable graphic to accompany its World AIDS Day campaign message: a graphic consisting entirely of a myriad letter “i”s that together made up the shape of South Africa’s map.

The tagline that accompanied the graphic read “I am responsible. We are responsible. South Africa is taking responsibility.”

What each of those little “i”s stood for was a South African; an individual taking responsibility for adopting health-promoting behaviours that would ultimately yield the collective national responsibility needed for an effective response to the urgency of HIV and AIDS.

I give this example because I feel it is particularly relevant to the topic at hand – whose responsibility it is to prevent HIV.

I believe that only once every individual is able to identify himself or herself as that “i” with the highest levels of self-efficacy, or confidence in one’s own ability to take responsible action, can we realise a significant change to the emergency that is the HIV and AIDS pandemic.

Building that self-efficacy encompasses creating a range of competences, from the basic ability to understand what HIV and AIDS are, to comprehending the implications of HIV infection or re-infection, as well as the benefits of preventing such infection, all the way to being able to overcome the many barriers that may exist as impediments to positive behaviour change.

Make no mistake, this is no easy process. Because we are all individuals of differing backgrounds and circumstances, our competencies, and the rates at which these can be developed will differ.

What levels of self-efficacy will a 16-year-old girl given to her sister’s widow as a replacement wife (knowing well that her sister died of a long and mysterious illness) have to demand an HIV test even if she knows about the virus and its effects, but is bound, by family tradition, to become this man’s wife without questioning?

What self-efficacy can a baby, still in his mother’s womb, speak of if his mother never receives antenatal services and does not discover her own positive HIV status until after her baby is born and already infected?

How then do we ensure power to every “i”?

A blanket approach to HIV and AIDS programming is definitely not the right way. Insensitive messaging that fails to take into consideration that we are all at different levels of literacy, understanding and openness about the collective and individual impact of the pandemic is more detrimental than helpful as it only achieves the churning out of impersonal, and therefore, inaccessible content.

Some people still just need to hear the basics – what HIV is, how it brings on AIDS, how it is transmitted and how it is prevented.

And messages and programmes for these individuals need to be tailored in an attractive, interactive fashion that eliminates pedagogy by welcoming debate, discussion and personal negotiation.

Also, we need to stop thinking only in conventional formats because quite honestly, far too many of the information-rich booklets and CD-ROMs dished out generously by well-meaning organisations are NOT being read or utilised.

I remember looking on in horror as a neighbour used the pages of an HIV prevention book I had given him to get a fire going in his backyard.

Noticing my anguish, he apologised but told me that there was no other practical use for the book beyond the one he had found.

“Thankfully, I have toilet paper,” he joked.

I went away wondering how many other people might feel this way about Information and Education Communication (IEC) materials that they feel have no resonance with them.

We need to be doing things differently, dynamically and determinedly all the time within an environment that is constantly changing, but at the same time staying very much the same.

Also, we need to think creatively about how to overcome the many socio-cultural and economic barriers to information dissemination and knowledge assimilation; how to jump over those internal walls that cement ideas within people’s minds that saying “not yet” or demanding a condom during sex is taboo and unforgivable; how to ensure that we are catering to communities and societies and individuals at their points of need, and not at the points that we estimate on their behalf; how to be relevant.

In short, how do we ensure that when an individual makes a decision that can have an impact on the state of their health, he or she is fully equipped with the artillery of internalised practical and practicable information?

At the same time as we seek to answer this question, we must focus attention on the dire need to strengthen our HIV service delivery systems to the point where people can access the different prevention, treatment, care and support packages that they require in an efficient, effective and professional(in terms of the health service providers) manner.

Our role as programmers, advocates, researchers and role models is two-fold: firstly, we must take personal responsibility for our own behaviours ensuring that they are positive and health-promoting.

Too many jokes abound about how any workshop that involves HIV programmers and advocates degenerates, after hours, into a ‘sex shop’.

This is the unfortunate badge of embarrassment that many associate our sector with, particularly as it identifies us as obvious hypocrites who subscribe to the mantra, “Do as I say, not as I do.”

Only once we are right in our own ways can we strike a cord with our audiences so that we may pass the mantle of responsibility on to them, to capacitate them to answer emphatically, whenever asked whose responsibility it is to prevent HIV, that indeed it is “i”.

Imagine if we could draw out a map, not just of South Africa, but of every nation in our region from the pledge made by every “i”, every person putting their hand up to say, “I am responsible to prevent HIV”.

This map would certainly mark the beginnings of a new Africa.

The European Union (EU) will lift sanctions against President Robert Mugabe and his top allies only after the Zimbabwean leader and his former opposition foes fully implement a power-sharing agreement signed in 2008, a group of British parliamentarians said in Harare on Monday according to ZimOnline.

Sounds about right.

We need more people like Rejoice Ngwenya in Zimbabwe. People who are willing to say it like it is. Here is Rejoice’s latest article:

Many people who have expressed contrarian views on the wickedness of Mugabe , like yours, have only one slight problem – they won’t swap citizenship with me! We liberals in Zimbabwe [and there a miserly few of us] do accept that Leander Starr Jameson and his paymaster, Cecil John Rhodes, galloped across our fore fathers’ land and shot their way to the Deeds Office in 1890.  Rhodes’ remains are now at Matobo Hills, a world heritage site that is part of our revered National Parks.  Guess who was forcibly evicted from there in the 1900s? My mother’s grandfather and his entire clan!

But you see, we, modern black Zimbabweans, are more civilised, albeit poorer than the Pioneer Column. If a criminal rapes my daughter, I won’t bring myself to rape his sister, wife or girlfriend, No!, for this will reduce me to his level of satanic mentality. The object lesson here, my friend, is that Mugabe first accepted, at his inaugural speech, 18 April 1980, that our history needed to be corrected, but in a civilised, law abiding way. This meant that the second and third generation of white landowners who had acquired their farms ‘legitimately’ – and done so well to make Zimbabwe a net exporter of grain, flowers, fruits and tobacco, needed to be integrated into the ‘new civilisation’. So between 1980 and 2000, Mugabe had all the opportunity of ‘equalising’ the situation, because, and get this straight, the government owned more land than all private citizens combined. The ‘willing buyer/willing seller’ clause worked well as thousands of ‘comrades’ [especially Joshua Nkomo's fighters], took up land offers and produced.

Of course many ‘villagers’ were crowded and cramped in Tribal Trust Lands, but they were damn good farmers too! When Mugabe’s political clock ran out, and the Movement for Democratic Change was formed, Mugabe lost the February 2000 constitutional referendum and accepted ‘defeat’. By the way, at that time, I was chief rapporteur and convener in Professor Moyo’s Constitutional Commission. When we took the first draft to Mugabe, it contained a ‘willing buyer, willing seller clause’, but Mugabe actually refused to accept it arguing that free land was the only thing his government could offer. We went back to plenary and Jonathan Moyo, like most senior officials in the Commission, vowed that he would resign if Chief Justice Chidyausiku changed the property rights clause.

The Chief Justice changed the clause, Professor Moyo did not resign, but I resigned and joined the Election Commission. Professor Moyo was lured with a big pay check to ZANU-PF as publicist. Now notice that the Commercial Farmers Union saw the alterations and they then put their full support behind MDC. Mugabe knew the danger of their political support to opposition, so he vowed to ‘destroy them’. John Nkomo, Cephas Msika and Dumiso Dabengwa – the remnants of Joshua Nkomo’s ZAPU [but now integrated in ZANU], publicly refused to support the land invasions, but Mugabe and his thugs showed them the middle finger.

Mugabe’s ‘land reform’ is not about equity and justice, it is revenge. Mugabe had previously murdered, in cold blood, 20 000 [twenty thousand] of my tribesmen in Matabeleland in the 1980s, and I was prepared to forgive him. But when he plundered property rights and his cronies took six – ten farms each, displaced 500 000 farm workers and completely annihilated commercial farming, I made up my mind that I would oppose him all the way to my grave.

We know that in the past five years, three ‘land audits’ have been carried out but the results have not been published.  Mugabe’s cronies are the ONLY beneficiaries to land. Gideon Gono, the rabid so-called Central Bank Governor, has been doling out expensive farming inputs to party activist and friends since 2007, but our country is on the brink of famine because Mugabe’s cronies were just interested in plundering produce and not making their own.  Last month, the GNU agreed to start another land audit, but Mugabe’s chief farm henchman, Joseph Made, says we can’t have a land audit now because it’s ‘too early’. “New farmers have not had an opportunity to produce because of American and EU sanctions.” You tell me, what are they hiding? Why have they not produced anything in ten years?

So my friend, I don’t know, and don’t really care which planet you come from – Mugabe has reduced me and my citizens to beggars. His thugs have plundered everything. There are three million Zimbabweans, black Zimbabweans, suffering outside our borders. The other ten million can no longer feed or employ themselves – because there is a direct relationship between property rights vandalism and productivity. I am in Zimbabwe, was born here and lived on both sides of our history. I know what I am talking about. When Ian Smith was opressing me, my father could send eight children to college and feed them. There is not a single day people had no running water in Harare, or electricity, because Ian Smith was organised. Mugabe’s brand of politics – unforgiving, vengeful, Marxist-Leninist paranoia destroyed my country. I’d rather have a factory to manufacture cars than a piece of land to grow corn. Mugabe wants to turn ten million citizens into subsistence farmers – nonsense – his days are gone. History will judge him. No credit must go to him.  No credit goes to a man who has presided over a murderous regime. No credit, whatsoever. If the devil buys you lunch, it’s probably spiked with snake venom. What credit can you give Idi Amin, Mobutu Sseseseko? What credit can you give Adolph Hitler?

To term my letter a spitting image of colonial detractors is sure proof that there are many people out there who have bought into Mugabe’s political decoy. Mugabe is a lunatic who experiments with people’s life, a modern day Dracula. The man is extremely cruel, his generosity and benevolence are used as bait for votes.  But I do appreciate that there is things you do not know about our situation.

Back in 2006 Kubatana featured the art of Josiah Bob Taundi, a Zimbabwean interested in depicting everyday life in our country and how politics affects how we live our lives.

Just recently Josiah launched his own online gallery which we enourage you to visit. See more here.

Josiah describes himself as:

a self-taught artist from a piece of earth called called Zimbabwe, south of Africa. I’m inspired by people in their different circumstances. They could be happy, sad or confused. I love colour. Africa is a land of living colour. But I try to be as true and realistic as possible. I don’t paint nice pictures to solely please the eye of the beholder. My motivation to paint is to communicate an important message. It may social, political or economic. I’m a commentator and encourage debate around real issues affecting the human condition. I paint intensely after long hiatuses.

John Mutumburanzou wrote to Kubatana recently, sharing his views on GNUs, and the new way of doing politics in Africa:

The obsession and deliberate automated habit by contemporary statesman, political brokers and mediators buttressed by multilateral institutions like SADC, AU and the UN to form coalition governments (also erroneously referred to as Unity Government or Government of National Unity) in each and every troubled state in Africa is astonishing and mind boggling to say the least.

Since the formation of the coalition government in Kenya it seems the echoes of the chorus are reverberating throughout Africa.  First, it shows that Africa direly lacks the statesmen of the yesteryears who had the guts and courage to speak out against their fellow African brothers who are fond of abusing power and who trample on citizen rights willy-nilly.

Secondly, the yesteryear authority of such multilateral institutions is fast eroding and lost into abysmal oblivion. Put plainly, their lack of authority gives credence to the assertion that international law is an ass. It is not an understatement that a Chief’s Dare in traditional Africa is better that a club of expensively dressed men and women acting on behalf of and for SADC, AU or UN and more so masquerading as mediators.

There seems to be a sudden irresistible and invigorated rise, on the political horizons of Africa, of a form of system of governance which is fast substituting elections as a way of coming up with and legitimising governments in Africa. The electorate, it seems, do not matter any more in as far as deciding who is to lead them. Leaders of troubled and so called hot spots in Africa are chosen, on behalf of and for the electorate in those respective states, in posh hotels and flamboyant mansions, more often than not, situated miles away from the respective states and the majority of the citizenry.

Indeed, coalition governments brought about through this political methodology are tantamount to legitimised coups in modern 21st century Africa. The coalition governments formed in Kenya, Zimbabwe, Madagascar and more to come are in the political intensive care unit. The lack of democratic culture and egregious intolerance in modern African society continues to haunt such systems of governments with consequences horrendous and too ghastly to contemplate. At most in these political arrangements, the principals to the governments just buckle to immense international pressure and signed the deal without a real commitment to make it work leading to festering tensions and acrimony that will gnaw the government and in the process, kill it softly.

I have never been too fond of radical feminism or any form of extremism for that matter; finding it to be an aggressive, usually narrow and unhelpful approach to conflict resolution.

Radicalism is often reactionary, manifesting as a reaction to some undesired reality and is usually the preserve of those who feel they have something to defend against all costs and something to fight for against whatever odds.

As an activist, I have found that radicalism has its place, its use and its benefits in pursuing the elusive goal of attaining social justice for womankind.

Some weeks back, I read with glee, that Emilia Muchawa and a group of women had broken into song and dance protesting the negligible female representation in the constitution-making process’s committees and even had the gumption to threaten to derail the process altogether.

Now I reckon there are those who found such conduct distasteful, extreme and even uncalled for – but every once in a while, it is necessary for discontent to erupt into something more than passive resistance.

I do not know whether these women intended to make such a vocal display of their displeasure but I would like to think it was neither premeditated nor meant as a gesture of disrespect for the process – I’d like to think it was a spontaneous and extreme reaction to long suppressed frustrations that women have felt at having to be side-lined time and again in critical decision-making processes.

And I daresay, no one can argue that women’s grievances are legitimate and their frustration a natural consequence of ineffectual words never put to practice as our country has a great gender policy on paper and absolutely nothing to back it up on the ground.

The transition from theoretical gender policy frameworks to the implementation and practice of the same has yet to manifest; and while one can appreciate that it is not easy to reverse the thinking of years and that gender equity will be a process – one expects to see a degree of commitment towards living up to the words enshrined in the treaties, legislative instruments and laws which Zimbabwe has signed, ratified and enacted.

From the CEDAW to the SADC Protocol on Gender and Development, and other treaties focusing on the need for gender parity, Zimbabwe has made a commitment on paper that is yet to manifest in actuality; so with the imminent crafting of a new Constitution, women have every right to insist – no – to demand equal representation.

Article VI of the Global Political Agreement having stated without equivocation that the parties are, “Mindful of the need to ensure that the new Constitution deepens our democratic values and principles and the protection of the equality of all citizens, particularly the enhancement of full citizenship and equality of women,” it is only natural that a deviation from these noble goals be met with resistance, and if need be, outright mutiny.

However, cognisance must be taken of the fact that men folk have deeply internalised cultural values and have often related to women on a paternalistic level – an unfortunate consequence of being born and raised in a patriarchal society.

Having said this, I found the gesture made by Emilia Muchawa and the other women present at that gathering to be a definitive act of kicking paternalism to the curb.

Emphatically, Zimbabwean women are making a statement they have no use for paternalistic gestures; men do not ever need to make decisions (regardless of how well-meaning the intention) on behalf of women.

We can and we will speak for ourselves.

In this context, my view is that paternalism is premised on two considerations; the first being that men adopt a benevolent and ‘fatherly’ attitude towards women and by assuming this attitude they (men) then make decisions ostensibly meant to benefit women without the inclusion, consent or will of the women themselves.

So perhaps, it was with good intent that these men gathered, figuring that they would ‘know what was best for women’ and go ahead with the business of crafting the constitution without the permission, participation or involvement of women.

Inexorably, the women’s movement in this country has over the years consistently challenged and resisted patriarchal and paternalistic attitudes – suffice to say, the constitution-making process presents the most volatile battlefront yet.