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.

Freedom Fone’s ability to fulfill it’s promise as a must have tool for bridging the digital divide has yet to be determined. Millions of poor people have access to mobile phones, but with tariffs as high as they are in countries like Zimbabwe, experimentation in this field is still costly. And of course, for our project these are early days. The development team is still in the process of creating the variety of features that will distinguish Freedom Fone from the technically intimidating (to ordinary folk) IVR products like FreePBX, Trixbox and PBX in a Flash.

One of the recalibrations for me has been a growing appreciation of the relevance of text-to-speech synthetic voices for our platform. This isn’t news to our Project Architect, Alberto Escudero Pascual. He’s been convinced of its relevance from the start. In fact, in order to build an interactive online demo for Freedom Fone he integrated a commercial synthetic voice from Cepstral called Allison as a quick option for building and testing a voice menu.

As you can imagine, English speaking Allison, as good as she sounds given she’s synthetic, is not an ideal voice for enunciating other languages.

As a project located in Africa we are keen to develop/acquire free synthetic voices for some of the continent’s many languages and include them with the Freedom Fone software. As an open source project I hope that we can attract the contribution of free synthetic voices for many of the world’s languages over time.

Yesterday I had the pleasure of speaking with Etienne Barnard at Meraka Institute in Pretoria, South Africa. To my delight he indicated that work already done in Kenya on text-to-speech for Kiswahili by a team led by Dr Mucemi Gakuru at the University of Nairobi some years ago, might be updated and made available in time for our July release of Freedom Fone version 2.

In recognition of the competitive mobile phone tariffs prevailing in east Africa and the willingness of organisations there to experiment with information on demand voice services, we will create our first localisation of the Freedom Fone GUI for Kiswahili in February 2010. The possibility of including a free synthetic voice for this audience is exciting.

So why this interest in synthetic voice? Doesn’t this just mean a horrible robotic sounding Kiswahili voice? Obviously original audio files with perfect inflection are the first choice, but not all information requires the effort associated with recording audio files. Freedom Fone helps with the automatic conversion of audio files for voice menus, and it will be improved over time to make it as easy as possible to create audio files using a basic microphone attached to a computer. Still, it would be a lot quicker to automatically convey information received/produced in text format, like product prices, weather reports, breaking news using text-to-speech.

And … not all synthetic voice sounds dreadful. Build and test your own voice menu in English using Allison and our online demo. Make it the default audio menu and call in to listen for free using Skype. To do this you will need to add Skypiax4 as a Skype contact. Let us know what you think of the experience!