Will the new South African president, Zuma, break into spontaneous dance whenever he delivers a speech to the international community?

So far ( as far as I know), he has managed to keep his rousing rendition of the now out-of-context Umkhonto we Sizwe war cry ‘Mshini Wami’ confined to national fora such as political rallies and other platforms he has been provided to defend his innocence against the many charges levelled against him in the recent past.

The reason I ask is simple. Beyond his amazing agility and moves to rival Michael Jackson in the prime of his musical career, Zuma doesn’t seem to offer much else.

Now, to be sure, I have serious problems in looking beyond the misgivings of a man who claims that taking a shower after unprotected sex with an HIV-positive person can prevent transmission of the virus. That statement will forever stick in my mind whenever Zuma’s name is mentioned to me.

But after all his run-ins, and let-offs by the rule of law, I thought it only decent of me to give him an ear at the last ANC rally held last weekend in Johannesburg.

I will admit that I haven’t listened to many of his speeches, but called the Siyanqoba (We shall conquer) rally, and the last that the ANC held prior to elections that Wednesday,  I expected Zuma to give the  most rousing speech of his political career.

But oh, so drawl and monotonous was he that I dozed off a few times, as I watched. Was that un-emotive expressionless list of promises to make South Africa a better nation really what the people wanted to hear?

And when he promised to fight corruption, I couldn’t help the smirk that instantly appeared on my face. More transparent tendering processes and less misappropriation of public resources?!

That sounded like a page out of a Grimm’s fairytale.

While functional, apart from clever little statements like stating that South Africans ought to “put sport back into our national psyche” in the build-up to the 2010 World Cup, I found his speech drab and quite banal. Nothing in it would give anyone a shiver down their spine, which is what good speeches tend to do.

While he will never be an Obama in terms of his oratory, Zuma needs to start sounding a bit more convincing that he is a changed man and not some reluctant school kid forced to stand up and read his short story to the rest of the class.

His political persona already doesn’t look so good – what with a trail of corruption cases behind him – and other near-miss charges he has managed to worm his way out of.

Speech has power to convince. You only need look at the immortal place that Martin Luther King Jnr holds in history because of his ‘I have a dream’ speech.

And though more sinister, no one can deny the power of Adolf Hitler’s oration in convincing the German masses of the ‘goodness’ of Nazism.

For me, there’s nothing to savour about Msholozi’s political character yet – until, of course, he breaks into that ubiquitous theme song and jumps across the podium belting out “Mshini Wami, Mshini Wami.”

Have you ever noticed how the South African media focuses so intently on this aspect of Zuma in its coverage of him? With dance moves that crisp, he could put many a young man less than half his age to shame. Yes, that forms part of his ‘everyman’ appeal. But that should not become the hallmark of his persona.

Zuma has to appeal to a larger audience than just South Africans who have recently become disgruntled with the ANC and thus see him as the agent of necessary reform.

He has to appeal to regional and global audiences, to represent South Africa, and Africa as a respectable statesman in the mould of his predecessors who include Nelson Mandela.

And sadly for him, he will have to do all of that without the dancing.

For me, my greatest hope for Zuma’s reign is that he can combat the HIV epidemic that is currently wreaking havoc in South Africa and sending shock waves throughout southern Africa. For one who himself peddled gross misinformation about ways to prevent HIV transmission, this would represent the greatest victory in overcoming the very ignorance that continues to kill so many.

I sincerely hope that come May 9, at the presidential inauguration of Zuma, I will become more convinced by this man who holds the hopes and destiny of not only his nation, but the whole region.

Life’s too short to not investigate all of your potential. This is why I have boldly taken to wearing colour of late. Orange, pink, yellow, purple, tie-dye; you name it, I wear it!

And it’s the most liberating thing that I have done for myself recently.

Why?

Because, I suppose I grew up at a time when wearing bright colours was either considered crude, or a sign of low class and taste – at least if you were any age above 16. Yes, even today, anyone who dares wear vivid colours will elicit one or two taunts for their braveness.

But I just don’t care what people say anymore, which is why it is so liberating to dress as I please. In my opinion, far too many women spend their lives being overly modest with themselves. They won’t try different things to help redefine their image and thereby get stuck in a hole they aren’t so happy to be in.

Now, I am not saying that constant change is for us all. But if you, like me, are the restless type who gets bored with having just one look, then all I can say to you is, “Do something about it!”

As one of my university lecturers used to warn us, “Time is moving and frankly, none of us is getting any younger!”

Too true – none of us is getting any younger. So, the way I see it, go for it! If you’ve always wondered what green and purple look like together, buy clothes in those colours and find out! If you’ve always wanted to get extravagantly coloured hair extensions, get them!

There’s nothing like a woman developing a safety zone and choosing to always wear ‘safe’ colours – like white and black, and brown – to avoid ever standing out in a crowd.

The world is not an entirely safe place, so why should your wardrobe be any different?! That is unless ‘safe’ colours are the only ones that you have a particular leaning towards. If not, I would suggest that you learn to live a little more on the fun side.

And what’s the worst thing that could happen?

A few people might voice their disapproval, but the one thing I have learnt in my relatively short trek on planet earth, thus far, is that OTHER PEOPLE DON’T MATTER!

It is often ‘other people’ who try to bring you down, or make you not go for the things that you really want in life. They naysay about everything and anything, just to make you feel uncomfortable about having an opinion and an individual identity.

And these kinds of people will always be around us. The only real solution to overcoming their negativity is to nurture a true sense of yourself and go for what you want, regardless of what anyone might say about you. Liberate yourself from the group mentality.

Oh, I could go on and on about the fun side of colour. There’s no greater joy than discovering that your six year-old blue scarf, the purple earrings you bought yourself recently, your pink jersey and black skirt all come together to make a uniquely beautiful combination and celebration of colour.

It’s so much fun, too, to watch the passing crowds around you stop and stare and wonder where you are from because of your unique colour coordination.

For myself, my enjoyment has nothing at all to do with vanity, but rather a deep sense of appreciation that the wonderful kaleidoscope of colours I present to the external world represents the same world of living rainbows swirling inside of me.

When the AU was formed in 2002 as a successor of the OAU, one of its main objectives was to achieve peace and security in Africa and to promote democratic institutions, good governance and human rights. It was also going to promote and defend common African positions on issues of interest to the continent and its peoples.

The Zimbabwe crisis is just the latest indication of why we must place no confidence in the ability of either the AU or its young brother SADC to handle regional problems as well as sail this continent onto the path of development. Their inaction on Zimbabwe is shocking and appalling to say the least and it smacks of both lack of will and incompetence.

Mugabe derives his spunk from the indifference and silent support of his peers. Ejecting him from the AU and verbally condemning his actions would probably have made some difference in his behavior or at least lessened his confidence. But only a few leaders like the late Zambian president Levy Mwanawasa, Botswana’s new President, Seretse Khama Ian Khama and lately, Kenyan Prime Minister, Raila Odinga have dared to be vocal about Mugabe’s self-imposed government and have even called for his and Zimbabwe’s suspension from the AU. The rest of the whiteheads especially in SADC have been inexplicably maintaining what Odinga calls a “diabolical conspiracy of silence bound by personal misdeeds and complicity in refusing to condemn their neighbors,” especially Mugabe. The same culture of impunity is what nurtured the excesses of the continent’s infamous dictators like Mobutu Sese Seko of the DRC and Uganda’s heartless Idi Amin under the banner of predecessor OAU’s founding principle of respect for national sovereignty.

In trying to understand why the AU and the SADC are toothless bulldogs barking endlessly from the periphery, Odinga postulates that African leaders are an old dictators’ club that have an inherent fear of criticizing each other. This is because, as Mugabe so rightly put it at the Sharm el Shaik, Egypt AU summit, they too have skeletons rattling in their closets.

It is thus not surprising that the AU has failed to put the people of Zimbabwe first and to stand up for democracy. In an ironic joint statement, the AU/SADC pledged “As guarantors of the implementation of the agreement, both AU and SADC will spare no effort in supporting its full and effective implementation.” What have these two organs done in the face of Mugabe’s latest unilateral declaration of cabinet? Again, as was the case in Kenya, the party that should have rightly taken over power is being forced by regional pressure to concede to an increasingly unworkable compromise deal and endless mediation processes by an inefficient go-between who insists on a concept of quiet diplomacy that only he understands. Recently, in response to a legal application filed against it by the Zimbabwe Exiles Forum two months ago, SADC has for the first time acknowledged that Mugabe should not be recognized as a legitimate head of state. But the organization rejected the demand to refuse to allow Mugabe and his government to participate in future SADC activities. Its excuse was that former South African President Thabo Mbeki, the SADC appointed mediator, was able to facilitate a power sharing deal to end Zimbabwe’s political crisis.

What ‘African’ common position are the AU/SADC defending when they fail to condemn errant dictators who hold whole starving nations to ransom in order to protect selfish interests?

In its thirty-nine year history, the OAU could only be judged as an abysmal failure. It failed to challenge any major dictator on the continent and stood idle while civil wars, ethnic conflicts, poverty and disease ravaged ordinary Africans. Its only success was in preserving the notion of sovereign borders in Africa. Wole Soyinka once described it as a “collaborative club of perpetual self-preservation.” The AU is the new OAU under a different name: its membership is the same and there are no new institutions to suggest that it will be any more effective or less selfish than its predecessor.

As a pan-African organization, the AU must be willing to stand up to African dictators and military rulers that have been the real causes of bloodshed and poverty on the continent. So far the AU has failed in this mission: Mugabe is still a revered charter member of the AU and it has failed to recognize Morgan Tsvangirai as the country’s rightful elected leader. If we start to question the complacency of the AU, we start to ask, why was it tolerable that a tyrant lost an election, imprisoned, killed and molested those who dared oppose him, then proceeded to reelect himself to the presidium, and no action was taken?

The AU has failed the people of Zimbabwe by its unwillingness to deal effectively with the political crisis that was single-handedly constructed by one dictator. For months they have insisted on mediation and dialogue when decisive action has been called for. The AU has failed too often or remained inert when it should have acted, and its internal procedures are often agonizingly inadequate for the challenges it faces in problem countries. For far too long, and with immensely destructive consequences, the AU has downplayed the dimensions of crises in various African countries and the urgency of large-scale humanitarian intervention. This is particularly true of the situation in Africa’s largest country, Sudan with the longstanding and ongoing conflict in Darfur that stretches as far back as 2003. Look also how dictators recently bulldozed their way into leadership in Kenya.

The AU has only been good at issuing statements. The AU’s fine words at the moment are little consolation to Zimbabwe’s hungry, oppressed people. Once more, like its predecessor, the AU is set to fail the people of Africa.

I find it challenging in blogging to develop balance between a strictly informative style and a more personal style inclusive of my opinions and experiences. And if leaning one way or the other is of more interest to readers. There’s a similar balance issue when it comes to statistics concerning HIV/AIDS. Just as a more personal blog potentially presents a particular slant on a piece of information, so too are statistics most often about slanting a story in particular directions.

Of late, I’ve been reading the report The World Bank’s Commitment to HIV and AIDS in Africa: Our Agenda for Action, 2007-201. More I should say I’ve been analyzing the report to uncover what statistics the report left out. This undertaking led me to develop my own chart concerning trends in HIV/AIDS funding among the big name and big bucks donors. The information I think is very telling. Also, I really love making pretty charts and I think this is one of my best charts ever.

By reorganizing data provided in the report, I was able to cast additional light on something that’s missing from the report. That being: It wouldn’t take a rocket scientist to make an argument that funding is highly political and falls short with regard to providing money for the countries that have the most need. The multi-colored columns are amounts of funding for individual countries and the connected dots plot adult HIV prevalence rates in those same countries from lowest to highest. Looking left to right, what’s telling is the first really tall column. Ethiopia has received the most donor funding (US$1.1B) and has an adult prevalence rate of 2.2%. Then if you look to the far right, the countries with highest prevalence rates have short columns. Zimbabwe has an adult prevalence rate of 20.1%, but has received only US$50M of funding. Of course, one has to factor in that the population of Ethiopia is about five times greater than the population of Zimbabwe. And several of the countries with tall columns are some of Africa’s most populous nations. But still. The columns on the far right don’t even come close to the line with the connected dots. And with its US$50M of funding Zimbabwe falls well short of the per country average total amount of funding (US$227M).

As much as I like my chart, it made me angry. Thick donor reports tend to garner a lot of fan fare, but ascertaining the most relevant information generally requires reading between the lines and reformulating the content of the report. I’m sick of the slanted donors (the politics and the system, not necessarily the individuals). For years, the world has noted the resilience, patience, and courage Zimbabweans exhibit given their ingenuity to adapt to difficult circumstances which have largely grown to be beyond the control of individual citizens. Jokes are made to help cope and people take solace that things could be worse. But with talk of more sanctions, things would become worse. I see no problem with bloggers being slanted. But for donors it’s inexcusable. Stop slanting, skewing, eschewing, politicking, etc. and instead, put sufficient amounts of money where it’s needed.

Download the JPEG, PDF or MS Excel version of this chart.

Note: If you download this chart, it will open in a MS Excel spreadsheet. When it opens, it will say: “The workbook you opened contains automatic links to information in another workbook. Do you want to update this workbook with changes made to the other workbook?” Click No to view the chart.