I’ve just been reading about Facebook and Twitter being blocked in Uganda. Museveni is worried about new media helping people to organise protests in response to state repression and economic hardship. I’m pretty sure that Mugabe wouldn’t feel a move like that was necessary in Zimbabwe. People don’t protest here, no matter how much we get kicked in the teeth. Reading Peter Godwin in the New York Times, I have to agree that the pressure from neighbouring states helps to turn up the heat on dictators. Neighbours can’t ignore wide scale protest. But they can ignore silence. Which is what Zimbabweans are very good at. We’ve had stolen elections, detentions, torture, mind blowing inflation and food shortages. We didn’t respond. Will we ever? What is certain is that SADC, the AU and Showerhead will continue to ignore the crisis in Zimbabwe because we let them.

I’m reminded of a quote from Viktor Frankl; What is to give light must endure burning.

Here’s Godwin’s latest:

Making Mugabe Laugh

Barely was Laurent Gbagbo, wearing a sweat-damp white tank top and a startled expression, prodded at rebel gunpoint from the bombed ruins of his presidential bunker in Ivory Coast, than Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announced this conclusion: His ejection, more than four months after he refused to accept electoral defeat, sent “a strong signal to dictators and tyrants throughout the region and around the world. They may not disregard the voice of their own people in free and fair elections, and there will be consequences for those who cling to power.”

Zimbabwe’s 87-year-old president, Robert Mugabe, who began his 32nd year in power this week, must have chortled when he heard that one.

The parallels between Ivory Coast and Zimbabwe are striking: both were once viewed as the singular successes in their respective regions, the envy of their neighbors. Both Mr. Gbagbo, a former history professor, and Mr. Mugabe, a serial graduate student, are highly educated men who helped liberate their countries from authoritarian regimes.

Both later clothed themselves in the racist vestments of extreme nativism. Mr. Gbagbo claimed that his rival Alassane Ouattara couldn’t stand for president because his mother wasn’t Ivorian; Mr. Mugabe disenfranchised black Zimbabweans who had blood ties to neighboring states (even though his own father is widely believed to have been Malawian).

The two countries have also been similarly plagued by north-south conflicts. And when they spiraled into failed statehood, both leaders blamed the West, in particular their former colonial powers – France and Britain – for interfering to promote regime change.

Finally, the international community imposed sanctions against both countries, including bans on foreign travel and the freezing of bank accounts that have largely proved insufficient.

But here’s where the stories crucially diverge – why Laurent Gbagbo is no longer in power, while Robert Mugabe, who lost an election in 2008, continues to flout his people’s will.

The most important point of departure was the sharply contrasting behavior of regional powers. The dominant player in West Africa, Nigeria, immediately recognized the validity of Mr. Ouattara’s victory in United

Nations-supervised elections, and worked within the regional alliance, the Economic Community of West African States, to unseat the reluctant loser. But Zimbabwe’s most powerful neighbor, South Africa, played a very different role. Instead of helping to enforce democracy, it has provided cover for Mr. Mugabe to stay on.

Partly this is due to what is called “liberation solidarity.” Most of the political parties still in power in southern Africa were originally anti-colonial liberation movements – like those in South Africa, Mozambique, Namibia and Angola – and they tend to abhor the aura-diminishing prospect of seeing any of their fellows jettisoned.

It is also because South Africa eyes the Zimbabwean opposition – which morphed out of a once-loyal trade union movement – through the suspicious lens of its own trade union movement’s contemplation of opposition politics.

As a result, instead of supporting the Zimbabwean opposition in 2008, Thabo Mbeki, then the South African president, bullied it into a power-sharing government of national unity headed by Mr. Mugabe. This democracy-defying model has threatened to metastasize into the mainstream of African politics; that same year it was also applied to Kenya, where a unity government was set up to end post-election bloodshed. When Mr. Mbeki was deputized by the African Union to broker a solution in Ivory Coast, that was the Band-Aid he reached for – but it was rightly rejected by Mr. Ouattara.

Of course, the other crucial difference is that in Ivory Coast, the dictator’s ejection came at the hands of men with guns. The northern rebels moved on Abidjan. The United Nations peacekeepers, trussed by restrictive mandates as always, nevertheless protected Mr. Ouattara until the French expanded an airport-securing operation into something altogether more ambitious. They basically prized Mr. Gbagbo from his bunker, though to avoid bad postcolonial optics, they brought the rebels in to make the final move.

In contrast, for refusing to plunge the country into a civil war, Zimbabwe’s democratic opposition has been rewarded by the international community by being largely ignored.

Next month, a group of southern African nations will discuss Mr. Mugabe’s continued resistance to agreed-upon reforms intended to pave the way to free elections. Either South Africa must get Mr. Mugabe to honor them, or it must withdraw its support for him. If it won’t, then the international community needs to push South Africa out of leading the negotiations, and engage more directly.

Zimbabweans need help if their voices are to be heard. If the United States wants to prove that Mrs. Clinton’s words were more than empty rhetoric, it should begin by pressuring South Africa. Otherwise Zimbabwe’s hopes for freedom will founder, even as Ivory Coast regains its stolen democracy.

Peter Godwin is the author of “The Fear: Robert Mugabe and the Martyrdom of Zimbabwe.”

Source

Here’s something from BOOK Southern Africa:

At the recent launch of Lloyd Sachikonye’s When a State Turns Against its Citizens at Lobby Books, the author spoke with passion about the changes he hopes to see in his home country, Zimbabwe.

Here is the full text of his address:

I am enormously grateful to be here today to share in the launch of this book, When a State Turns Against its Citizens. I am really happy to meet many friends, guests, compatriots who have come to grace this occasion. My profound thanks go to the organizers of this event, SALO and Lobby Books, and to the publishers who have made the publication process possible within two months from the initial submission of the manuscript…The turn-around of the process and the publicity have been superb and professional, thank you.

This is a publication about Political Violence in my country, Zimbabwe. A country of enormous contradictions: on the one hand, it has one of the highest rates of literacy on this Continent, and one of the largest proportions of educated and skilled professionals. A country that showed great promise three decades ago, that was described variously as ‘a jewel’ and ‘breadbasket’.

But as the narrative of this book chronicles, it is now a country deeply mired in political violence and moral crisis. The roots of Political Violence go back not only to 2000 as some analysts assume, but to the 1950s and 1960s, half a century ago. The roots are to be found in:

* The ruthless suppression of moderate African nationalism by the colonial state; they used beatings, dogs and guns for example.

* Violence by nationalists between their parties in the early 1960s, the original ZAPU and ZANU in 1963-64; they employed stones, sticks and petrol bombs, for instance.

* Violence against civilians by colonial regime forces but also by liberation forces during the 1970s, and Use of violence to settle differences within liberation armies themselves.

After Independence in 1980, the post-colonial state inherited the apparatus and techniques of violence against those who criticized it. As years went by, that arsenal was used against rival parties such as ZAPU till 1987, against ZUM in 1990 and the MDC since 2000.

This culture and practice of violence were celebrated by leaders of Zanu PF who openly boasted of having ‘degrees in violence’. As the country witnessed, these were not empty boasts.

The book observes that the consequences of the culture of violence reached a peak in 2008 when the citizens’ bid for political change was blocked like in Kenya, and now Cote d’Ivoire. The incumbent party and the state used their apparatuses to frustrate a free and fair run-off election.

Subsequent chapters of the book show that the consequences of Political Violence include widespread trauma, scars, fear, stress and apathy. The full magnitude of these psychological and physical conditions is not known. It is partly because Zimbabwe is a society under trauma that it has experienced an exodus of up to 3 million, or a quarter of its population.

This situation of Political Violence needs to change because the consequences are terrible. Other countries that experienced large-scale Political Violence have demonstrated great political will to stop it. Take this country, South Africa. In the 1994 election, about 1 000 people were killed in Political Violence, many were maimed. In the last several elections, like in 2009, no single person died in Political Violence.

Why should Zimbabwe be exceptional? Why should its elections be marred always be marred by Political Violence? Why should impunity be tolerated? These are some of the questions raised in this book.

The book concludes with a few recommendations. Zimbabwe has great human resources but also resilient moral resources, and potential for civic values and democratic change. Let them be harnessed against Political Violence and the authoritarianism which sponsors it. Let them be harnessed for a credible process of transitional justice, and reform of security sector institutions. Let our knowledge of the history of Political Violence and various negative effects propel us to do something about it.

Book details

* When a State Turns Against its Citizens: Institutionalized Violence and Political Culture by Lloyd Sachikonye
EAN: 9781431401116

What does it mean to be Zimbabwean? If propaganda and political rhetoric from Our Dear Leader and his cohorts are to be believed it means winning a medal at some sporting event while, say, swimming or playing cricket for Zimbabwe. For those of us who are under achievers, or lazy, it means being black. I cannot help but feel that Zimbabwe is further away from resolving its racial issues than it was at Independence. Being born-free, and a member of the generation that attended private school without there being a quota system that mandated my presence, being Zimbabwean meant simply a love for my country and the things that make it unique. That is not to say that we weren’t aware of the cultural difference between races – we were.  But back then, it was ok to discuss them, to explore our individual identities within the context of our group identity as Zimbabweans, now it’s considered racist.

I think Zimbabwe is far from being post racial. I think there are those of us who in our heads, there are friends who I hang out with, who are definitely post racial in their outlook, but I think we’ve still got a lot of issues to deal with. There’s no doubt about it…racial issues and class issues. I’m not sure, but I think the last ten years have in some ways dragged us backwards, and in others have dragged us forwards. Dragging us backwards, there does seem to be more racial tension here now than there was when I was growing up. It’s definitely because of all the hate propaganda, the political propaganda that gets spewed in the state media. In how it’s dragged us forward, I think it’s made those who believe in Zimbabwe have to fight for it, be they black white or coloured, and that’s hopefully brought people closer together. At the same time Zimbabweans in the Diaspora, black, white: all these middle class kids who’ve gone abroad, connecting with their Zimbabweans identity. They grew up here and wanted to go away as quickly as possible, and then they go over there and try to find their identity and realize what connections they’ve got back here. There are interesting things that come out. You’ve got white kids in London who’ve got an mbira punk band and things like this that you end up appreciating what you have when you’re far away [from home].
- Comrade Fatso.

Read the full interview with Comrade Fatso here.

Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe has a tendency to use funeral speeches to attack some target or other, typically The West. There is even a name for this. Type in a Google search for “Mugabe funeral rant” and you’ll be amazed with what you find – for example, the Sabina Mugabe rant (“‘To hell’ with Europe and America) and the Joseph Msika rant ([The West] are not the people to deal with).

Yesterday, he gave the Menard Muzariri rant. According to AFP:

Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe on Thursday condemned gay “filth” in Europe, as he lambasted Western powers for maintaining their asset freeze and travel ban on him and his inner circle. “We don’t worry ourselves about the goings-on in Europe,” he told thousands at the burial of deputy intelligence chief Menard Muzariri, who died Monday. “About the unnatural things happening there, where they turn man-to-man and woman-to-woman. We say, well, it’s their country. If they want to call their country British Gaydom, it’s up to them. That’s not our culture. We condemn that filth.”

I haven’t heard about the upcoming referendum to change the name of the United Kingdom to British Gaydom, but clearly when you’re in the diplomatic circles you have more inside information on these sorts of things.

Read the Gays and Lesbians of Zimbabwe (GALZ) statement about the Muzariri rant:

Statement on President Robert Mugabe’s threats at the burial of Menard Muzariri

Statements by President Robert Mugabe castigating gays and lesbians at the burial of Menard Muzariri at the National Heroes Acre on Thursday 14 April are nothing new and only serve to reinforce our call for constitutional protection of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered and Intersex people that has been met with state sponsored homophobia of alarming levels.

It is time for the Zimbabwean government to reflect seriously on its thinking around human rights including those of its lesbian and gay citizens and Government should be implementing measures which proactively encourage a culture of meaningful human rights protection in this country.

Statements by the President are a contradiction of article VII of the Global Political agreement in which the President pledges to promote equality, national healing, cohesion and unity. The President should strive to “create an environment of tolerance and respect among Zimbabweans and that all citizens are treated with dignity and decency.”

Activists in Zimbabwe are not puppets of foreign forces, as government would have everyone believe: we want a responsible government that is responsive to the needs of all Zimbabweans and we are fighting for our own good and for our own benefit as citizens of Zimbabwe.

The President needs to provide leadership in overcoming Zimbabwe’s challenges in areas such as violence, unemployment, education and health rather than fostering antipathy and intolerance.

Given the political posturing and harassment which seems the norm in Zimbabwe these days, it’s easy to wonder what difference any of us can make.

But two pieces of recent news have left me encouraged by the opportunities for small change, at least, and have renewed my conviction that speaking out does matter.

Firstly, Parliament has reconsidered sections of the General Laws Amendment Bill following concerns raised by the public and during the Portfolio Committee review stage. Specifically, sections that would have changed procurement regulations to reduce the power and autonomy of local authorities, and changes in copyright laws which would have restricted the ability to copy and share national legislation have come under scrutiny. As such, Parliament has agreed to rewrite the legislation to omit the problematic sections.

I was also encourage to see a recent report from the Voluntary Media Council of Zimbabwe (VMCZ) which demonstrated the power of their complaints mechanism.

According to VMCZ:

MISA-Zimbabwe filed a complaint with the MCC over a Redds advertisement carried in the Standard Newspaper of 06 March 2011. The advertisement showed the posteriors of four women each holding a bottle of Redds. MISA-Zimbabwe said the advertisement objectifies women. After a complaint was lodged with the MCC, Delta beverages withdrew the advertisement and apologised to MISA-Zimbabwe.

Speaking your mind, voicing your concern really can make a difference.

Subscribe to the Veritas and SAPST mailings to stay informed about events in Parliament, and use the VMCZ complaints mechanism to air your concerns about the media.

4  April, 2011

ZUJ alarmed by increase in politically motivated violence against journalists by Zanu PF and  MDC T

The Zimbabwe Union of Journalists, ZUJ, would like to express its shock and alarm following the increase in politically motivated attacks against journalists by officials and supporters of the main political parties, Zanu PF and the MDC T in the coalition government.

We are deeply concerned that the spokesperson of the Movement for Democratic Change led by Prime Minister, Morgan Tsvangirai, Nelson Chamisa, who is also a government minister, verbally abused  freelance journalist, Comrade Nkosana Dlamini at a Press Conference held at the party’s headquarters, Harvest House recently.

Chamisa accused Comrade Dlamini of ‘bringing  Zanu PF proganda to Harvest House’ after he had asked Prime Minister Tsvangirai a question.

Cde Dlamini has indicated in his letter of complaint that the act amounted to harassment.

The Union is  concerned about the safety of our members when senior party officials appear to incite their supporters against journalists.

A few days after the incident, Cde Xolisani Ncube, a journalist with The Daily News  was assaulted  outside the MDC’s offices and had his camera stolen  by the party’s supporters while on assignment. As a Union we strongly condemn the attacks against journalists and  demand that the MDC T leadership should guarantee the safety of journalists at their press conferences and their forth coming congress.

ZUJ would also like to condemn in very strong terms, the beating up of Cde Priviledge Musvanhiri, a freelance journalist and the theft of his professional equipment by Zanu PF supporters in Harare. Musvanhiri was punched and had his recorder stolen by Zanu PF supporters while Cde Clarkson Mambo of New Ziana was man handled  by the same Zanu PF supporters.

We call on the Zanu PF leadership to warn its supporters to desist from  attacking journalists. Equally, we demand that Zanu PF should guarantee the safety and protection of journalists while on assignment at their functions or anywhere else.

As we approach the referendum and the elections, journalists will become more vulnerable to attacks by politicians and party supporters.

We call on the two main political parties to declare zero tolerance against journalists or any Zimbabwean citizen.

Foster Dongozi – ZUJ Secretary General