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.

I was pleased to see the Media Alliance of Zimbabwe and the Voluntary Media Council of Zimbabwe speak out about an upcoming All Stakeholder Media Conference being organised by the Ministry of Media, Information and Publicity.

The conference is themed “towards an open, tolerant, and responsible media environment.” Its objective is “to review Zimbabwe’s current media environment and policies in order to guide the Government’s media policy.” It replaces an event planned for March which Deputy Minister of Media, Information and Publicity Jameson Timba called “the first consultative step by the ministry as it reviews Zimbabwe’s media environment and policies with a view to advising the inclusive government on its new policy.”

But the substance of the two events seems quite different. As MAZ and VMCZ point out, many of the speakers in the revised programme are the same people who have blocked media freedom and opposed liberalisation of publishing and broadcasting over the past ten years.

The 15-minute presentation on “Being seen to be free and fair: Media and electioneering” is hosted by Sekeramayi, which doesn’t exactly inspire confidence. Web 2.0 publishing gets 15 dedicated minutes – under the topic “New media and accountability: The role of ghost sites and blogs.” Way to be progressive, interim government.

How are the same people who closed off Zimbabwe’s media environment, and made it characterised by intolerance, irresponsibility and propaganda going to be the ones to open it up and make it more tolerant and responsible?

Colletah, a Kubatana subscriber has just written to us with a demand that the Government of National Unity treat the issue of investigating human rights abuses with the respect it deserves . . .

Politicians in Zimbabwe say “Our call is to let bygones be bygones and for everyone and every entity to start anew and open a new page.”

I keep reading statements like the above about the situation in Zimbabwe. Where is logic in the people who are demanding that we forget about the past and get on to a new page. It is not possible to forget the torture in all forms that has gone on in the past political upheavals that have happened in the country. How do you think “OK YOU KILLED MY FATHER” but it does not matter that was yesterday, lets start a new page or “YOU RAPED ME” but let bygones be bygones and we start a new page.  Zimbabwe, please  be serious and be real. In post independent Zimbabwe it was “reconciliation” where the thinking was the same – lets forget and work together for Zimbabwe – now see the mess of letting bygones be bygones.

Zimbabwe  please Call a Spade a Spade and bring those that did wrong to face the music – that is logic.  This new page business is nonsense and we all know that life does not work like that.

A recent commentary by Eddie Cross caught Dale Doré’s eye. Among other things, Doré suggested:

The MDC must grasp is that they are powerless and that they have indeed been sucked into the ZANU(PF) morass. And, yes, there is something the MDC can do …… GET OUT!

This in turn caught our eye. Yesterday, we included some of Dale’s comments in our email newsletter, and we invited people to email us back with their thoughts. This has sparked a lively debate. The people who are responding to us disagree strongly with Dale, saying things like:

The GPA is cast in stone! We are tired of talks – and we do not want to backtrack and redo the talks. We will not achieve anything, we cant reinvent the wheel! Why should anyone want the MDC to pull out of the GNU when there are signs of progress written all over the wall? I say to this to these peddlers of venom, eat the humble pie. The GNU is here and is here to stay!

Read more here, and leave us a comment to share your thoughts on this debate.

I’ve just finished Dead Aid, Zambian economist Dambisa Moyo’s book on “why aid isn’t working and how there is another way for Africa.”

At a time of STERP and budget slashing, Moyo’s book poses an interesting challenge to Zimbabwe’s Minister of Finance and the inclusive government as a whole.

Moyo is sharply critical of aid and its role in Africa’s development:

Sixty years, over US$ 1 trillion of African aid, and not much good to show for it. Were aid simply innocuous – just not doing what it claimed it would do – this book would not have been written. The problem is that aid is not benign – it’s malignant. No longer part of the potential solution, it’s part of the problem – in fact aid is the problem.

Foreign aid and concessional loans have contributed to Africa’s bad governance and human rights track record, Moyo posits, by supplanting the relationship between governing and governed with the relationship between government and donor.

Moyo doesn’t for a moment doubt Africa’s need to develop. But rather than relying on aid for this purpose, Moyo recommends that countries instead turn to a combination of:

• Bonds
• Trade – local, regional and foreign
• Foreign Direct Investment
• Micro-finance
• Leveraging remittances

In her book, Moyo outlines the potential each one of these areas has for promoting growth – and the challenges countries would face in leveraging each of these options.

Unfortunately, the principle challenge raised by Moyo’s suggestion is a governance one – it would require political will for governments to convert their aid dependency into a more business model approach to financing. Financing is hard work compared to getting aid, and it requires transparency, accountability, and sound decision making to keep it. For politicians who have themselves been getting rich off of aid – even as their countries don’t develop – there’s a disincentive to move to the harsher conditions of the market. Those politicians who would want to change would face stiff resistance from their more corrupt and less forward thinking colleagues.

Despite the obstacles, Moyo consistently argues that moving away from donor dependence and towards a more diversified, business model of finance, is good for its own sake, as well as having the potential to be more financially lucrative. Of course, as Moyo points out, having confidence in the institutions – the banking system, the government, the laws, and the government’s respect for these laws – is an important part of encouraging business in a country.  Zimbabwe has a long way to go on this score; suspicion is still rife.

But Moyo’s point on remittances particularly stood out, given recent conversations I’ve been having.

The UN estimates that there are around 33 million Africans living outside their country of origin. Remittances – the money Africans abroad sent home to their families – totalled around US$20 billion in 2006. According to a United Nations report entiteld Resource Flows to Africa: An Update on Statistical Trends, between 2000 and 2003 Africans sent home about US$17 billion each year, a figure that even tops Foreign Direct Investment, which averaged US$ 15 billion during this period.
…
Although the actual remittance sums taken individually are relatively small, taken collectively the remittance amounts flowing into African nations’ cofferes are enormous. On  a household level, remittances are used to finance basic consumption needs: housing, children’s education, healthcare, and even capital for small businesses and entrepreneurial activities – the heart of an economy.
…
Remittances are, of course, in some sense a form of aid (the recipient is essntially getting something for nothing). And like other forms of aid, there is the inherent risk that remittances encourage reckless consumption and laziness. But at least some part of the money is reaching the indigent and making its way to productive uses. And unlike aid, it does not increase corruption.

With Zimbabwe having moved to a US dollar based economy, obviating the official vs. parallel market exchange rate dilemma, and with the mandatory foreign currency remittance to the central bank lifted, moving money from overseas into local bank accounts should become easier. And hopefully, with an interim government that is able to engender a bit more trust in the population, encouraging remittances should be met with less cynicism than Gono’s Homelink initiative was some years back.

Even my lowly banking society, CABS, has created USD accounts for all of its existing ZWD account holders. One only has to deposit $10 into the account for it to be active – the same swipe card, account number and pin number apply.

One can imagine an economy in which shops again started offering point of sale services – for customers to swipe their USD account bank cards. Schools could offer their account details for both local and Diasporan Zimbabweans to pay school fees directly into their accounts. Relatives could make other purchases, for example for electronics, equipment or other investments directly into the supplier’s bank account.

Morgan Tsvangirai recently estimated that rebuilding Zimbabwe will require at least US$ 5 billion. The revised 2009 budget stands at about US$ 1 billion – and most of that is for running the country, not rebuilding it. And whilst Zimbabwe is asking for aid, Mugabe’s and Zanu PF’s assets remain untouched. Zimbabwe needs financial help – but it needs this help to solve its problems, not create new ones or compound the existing ones. It’s time to get creative about how we finance our future – and depending on donors to bail us out isn’t the only way.

A recent press statement MDC presses for national policy on hero status, caught my eye. In it, the MDC questions the “national hero” concept as it’s been appropriated by Zanu PF, and makes some important observations about the ordinary heroes – and sheroes – living amongst all of us.

It is erroneous to believe that only politicians qualify to be national heroes. Zimbabweans have produced the best minds in business, in sport, in music and in the arts in general. The MDC equally believes that one does not need to be dead to be appreciated in the country of their birth. Acknowledging talent and celebrating it is the hallmark of progressive and civilised societies. Read more