Dorothy-Grace Guerrero and Firoze Manji (ed) (2008) China’s New Role in Africa and the South: A search for a new perspective. 
Back Issues
Pambazuka News 358: Zimbabwe and Kenya: uncertainties and lessons
The authoritative electronic weekly newsletter and platform for social justice in Africa
Pambazuka News (English edition): ISSN 1753-6839
With nearly 500 contributors and an estimated 500,000 readers Pambazuka News is the authoritative pan African electronic weekly newsletter and platform for social justice in Africa providing cutting edge commentary and in-depth analysis on politics and current affairs, development, human rights, refugees, gender issues and culture in Africa.
To view online, go to http://www.pambazuka.org/
To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE – please visit, http://www.pambazuka.org/en/subscribe.php
CONTENTS: 1. Announcements, 2. Features, 3. Comment & analysis, 4. Pan-African Postcard, 5. Letters
Support the struggle for social justice in Africa. Give generously!
Donate at: www.pambazuka.org/en/donate.php
Highlights from this issue
ANNOUNCEMENTS: Kenya -no more ministerial positions petition
FEATURES: Antony Otieno Ong'ayo on Kenya's power-sharing deal
COMMENTS & ANALYSIS:
- Rasna Warah on Zimbabwe and Kenya
- Joram Nyathi on Kenya and lessons for Zimbabwe
- A MISA-Zimbabwe statement on SADC
- International development agencies on Zimbabwe
PAN-AFRICAN POSTCARD:
- kola Ibrahim on the university strikes in Nigeria
- Onyango Oloo on distances yet to be covered in Kenya
LETTERS: Readers' comments and announcements
Announcements
Kenya: no more ministerial positions
2008-04-02
The struggle to implement a meaningul power-sharing agreement in Kenya has stalled over cabinet ministreal positions. Instead of dividing up the existing positions so that power is balanced between the two parties, the call has been for increasing the number of positions. This will not only create needless bureaucracy, but will not guarantee that power will be equitably distributed.
Please join other Kenyans calling for a moratorium of 24 cabinet ministers in Kenya and sign a petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/24Kenya/petition.html
Features
Kenya: A closer look at power-sharing
2008-03-26
Antony Otieno Ong'ayo
As Zimbabwe threatens to pull a 'Kenya', this is a good time to consider the implications of the Annan mediated power-sharing deal. Antony Otieno Ong'ayo dissects and weighs the Kenya power sharing deal.
While the tensions and apprehension as a result of the post election violence in Kenya subsides, focus is now placed on the newfound relationship between the antagonists during the 2007 elections. More important are the hopes of thousands who have been since the onset of electoral violence, displaced and still live in degrading conditions in various camps in the country. Business in various parts of the country seem to return to “normal” although large sections of the population are not sure of what will come next? Commentators have pointed to the optimism about the peace agreement between Raila Odinga and Mwai Kibaki; however, less attention is being given to the implications of the deal for governance and state restructuring.
In the recent past, two positions have defined the discussion about power in Kenyan politics. This begun with the commencement of the Bomas constitutional review process, where one position has been against devolution of powers, arguing that two centres of power is not workable. The other view is that devolution of powers is possible within a framework that provides for accountability in the highest office in the land. However interest-ridden views and adversarial approach hijacked the debate hence, a stalemate in finding a best alternative. Proponents of centralised power, failed to justify that position, except for suggestions that doing so is likely to lead into chaos and disunity. They did not state what benefits the country has enjoyed under such a system since independence. Their arguments seem to ignore the historical injustices caused by a presidential system with concentrated powers, a system that took the country through decades of authoritarianism and dictatorship. The previous presidents abused these enormous powers; hence politicised ethnicity that now threatens to tear the country apart. Through their abuse of power, the country continued to experience high levels of poverty, illiteracy and high unemployment rates, leave alone poor roads, lack of health and educational facilities. They used this power to detain opponents and allocate resources in a skewed manner to their own regions. They used the power to employ their own kinsmen in the armed forces, state corporations, and government departments without regard for the multiethnic composition of the country. Moreover if the centralised system was meant for the unity of the country, ethnic tensions that have plagued the country for decades is but a sign that the much touted unity was a coerced unification or a unity/peace that was forced, first by the colonial state and later by the three post-colonial regimes. These regimes did not take into account the institutional and constitutional arrangements that would pull every group towards the centre, but instead, adopted a system which broadly kept them under one (“roof”) territory, at the same time keeping them apart as much as possible. The economic and political marginalisation of certain regions in Kenya is a manifestation that the system was and is still not conducive for a country with a complex mix of diversity.
The common contradictions in the two positions are however inherent in the views of when change is necessary, which is also informed by which “group”, is in power. The attitude in Kenya is that if our man is in power, then nothing is wrong with the system, hence no need to re-negotiate or restructure the state. The malgovernance problem in Kenya, which lies in the elaborate power structure built up around the presidency, is also synonymous with the state structure. This has been done through minor constitutional change that entrenched the status quo in which “elite minority” monopolise state power and resources and in most cases in the name of an ethnic group. During the process there are extremists who have shown through their power strategy mix that they do not think about long-term interests of the entire country, instead, they are focused on short-term benefits and to have a place in the ‘grand coalition’. This rush to create positions without reflecting on how the very institutions could serve the country well undermines their potentials to diffuse the tension around access to and use of state power. All over sudden, both the opponents and proponents of centralised power are “silent”, and are not questioning the implications of this new arrangement for “national unity”. Therefore would the 2008 Bill be that different from its predecessor bills?
The concept of power sharing has been used in many contexts as a response to conflicts ranging from ethnicity, political differences of resources allocation and use, a means of setting up governing coalition in context where political parties have failed to win majority seats in parliament or in post-conflict situations where multiple actors who represent diverse backgrounds seek to control the state power. Power sharing it is also seen as “a multiple vehicle to create broad-based governing coalitions of a society's significant groups in a political system that provides influence to legitimate representatives of minority groups." It is also described as “a strategy for resolving disputes over who should have the most powerful position in the social hierarchy”. But it also implies a joint exercise of power where such an agreement is reached. While Kenya cannot be described as a deeply divided polity or experienced conflicts of a highly intense nature, enormous powers in the presidency have been used to “command monopolistic access to available resources, to employ violence and exclusion to safeguard interests”.
RELEVANCE IN THE KENYAN CONTEXT
While application of power sharing agreements might entail “the creation of broad-based coalition of significant groups, in a political system”, in the case of Kenya, it is however not a power sharing or negotiation between “ethnic minority groups”, but between an “elite minority”. The majority of “minority groups” that would have qualified for consideration under this conception are not part of the deal being signed in Nairobi nor are they represented in any way. For instance, those minority groups that are politically and economically marginalised, such as the Ogieks, Jemps, Rendile, are not represented in the process. Instead, we see some form of representation based on “political parties” even though some of them have no “official structures” other than in paper. This is because the political competition in Kenya has been between the dominant forces against the citizenry, and with the advent of multiparty, it has been between political parties that are individualistic, and disconnected with the citizenry they claim to represent, while at the same time using or whipping ethnic feelings for political expediency. So what difference would it make with the new power-sharing arrangement? This scenario raises problems with representation, but also aspects of collaboration and block building, which could reflect consociational arrangements that takes care of the interests of minority groups at the political table.
In the foregoing, Kenya of today demands some level of patriotism and commitment to the principles of effective representation and leadership for change. In order to bring back the confidence of Kenyans on leadership and use of power there is need to turn these negative and dangerous trends around, through power sharing. But this could also be problematic if there will be no equity and fair play through properly constituted institutions of the state. Turning the current volatile politics into a more amicable order is crucial, because a less conflictual politics would lead to and prompt elite disposition towards political accommodation and adoption of non-majoritarian political arrangements. Therefore what does the current power sharing deal mean for the ordinary Kenyan whose life has been disrupted or cut short by the police bullet, gang machete, or tribal fire? What are the long-term implications of this re-negotiation for governance in Kenya? What precedence would it set in the context of contested election results in the future? From a political and constitutional law perspectives, many important questions have not been asked while there is a rush to return to “normal” life. High hopes have been placed on the deal between Raila and Kibaki, but not much is asked whether it is the medicine Kenya needs for the many constitutional and institutional defects and deficiencies, that have plagued the country for decades. It is therefore crucial to question whether the deal is a step towards deal a long-term goal to devolution of powers or decongestion of the system from Presidentialism, which has been at the core of governance deficiency in Kenya? Is the current power sharing deal any different from previous manipulation of the system to serve partisan interests? What is the role of the citizenry in the process of state restructuring of this magnitude, and during a contested legitimacy?
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PEACE ACCORD
It is hoped that the peace accord, would be entrenched in the constitution, peace would return and that some level of democratic governance, equity and accountability, would be realised, however the accord as legally framed does not take into the account the stability, cushioning and democratic governance role of the very institutions it is creating. The bill provides for the “insertion” of a new section into the constitution but at the same time (in section 15 A (3) (a) provides for its termination at the whims of the parliament. Here too the drafters either intentional ignored the interest-ridden nature of parliamentary politics in Kenya, or potentials for “stomach philosophy” to carry the day and not constitutional considerations that matter to the millions of impoverished Kenyans. With such discrepancies, implementation of the accord might not entail the prospects for fostering a durable peace or devolution of powers that many Kenyans desire. This is because the “deal” and the “bills” are not about the internally displaced; land squatters, voters whose right was violated during the 2007 elections, nor it is for posterity, it seems to solve the differences between “elite minorities”.
Another concern is the way in which various groups are making claim to diverse stakes. Power sharing often includes reviewing such key institutions as “federalism and the devolution of power to ethnic groups in territories that they control; or providing for minority vetoes on issues of particular importance; grand coalition cabinets in a parliamentary framework, and proportionality in all spheres of public life such as budgeting and civil service appointments”. Taking this path in Kenya has implications for “ethnic” re-orientation” in the face of state re-negotiation and could present further obstacles to reconciliation, national cohesion and efforts towards a national identity. Un realistic power sharing will not augur well for development of issue oriented political parties since “ethnicity” and other particularistic considerations would come first in the national psyche. All signs point to some kind of elite mobilisation, bankrolling and interference with state apparatus to bolster their power at the centre, which is currently being negotiated. Therefore if power sharing is done with these factors as the underlying forces, then it will “reinforce the ethnic divisions in society rather than promote cross-cultural understanding”
The power-sharing deal also falls short of addressing the very factors that underpinned the post-election violence namely the decades of political and economic marginalisation, and the deprivation of millions of Kenyans, spanning generations to realise their full potentials as citizens of Kenya. It fails to address the problems of non-democratic governance, politicised ethnicity, draconian and defective constitutional order whose beneficiaries are local elites in collaboration with international interests. The deal fails to address the system of exploitation and expropriation the national resources in the name of millions of Kenyans who toil under harsh labour conditions and dehumanising wages. It also fails to address the relationship between various institutions within the broader governance structure that could directly link and relate to local needs, participatory democratic processes and decision-making.
POINTS FOR REFLECTION
The contents of the accord could still be fine-tuned to give it substance, through an integrative approach, to “eschew ethnic groups as the building blocks of a common society”. Power sharing in this direction can entail re-designing of the institutional and constitutional frameworks to provide for "centripetalism," whereby political dynamics are engineered in a “centre-oriented spin”. Examples include “multiethnic political parties, electoral systems that encourage pre-election pacts across ethnic lines, non-ethnic federalism that diffuses points of power, and public policies that promote political allegiances that transcend groups”. Recent political realignments have shown that there are potentials for ethnic accommodation due to crosscutting interests.
Another consideration is for the power sharing to move towards a group block building approach, a form of “consociationalism” in which there is an accommodation of the various “ethnic-groups” at the political centre and guarantees for minority rights. Such an approach might not necessarily lead to demands for autonomy because the interdependency of the various regions and groups within Kenya would not allow such a framework to function. This interdependency is caused by unequal availability of resources, un-equal infrastructure development, and disparities in climatic conditions with serious implication for food production or subsistence economy, which is still common in most part of Kenya. However a consociational arrangement could also lead to an outcome that “reflects the divisions in society but fails to provide incentives for building bridges across community lines”, hence the need for a framework, that encourages the various groups to identify with the state. This is also possible if the institutional framework and constitutional dispensation provides for receiving “something” back from the state regardless of “ethnicity”.
A "consociational" framework could also encourage collaborative decision-making, policy formulation and budgetary allocations that reflect the diversity of the Kenyan citizenry. The reality is that only through a broad based dialogue that the country can chart its way forward in these times of intensified globalisation. Arendt Lijphart maintains, “consociational democracy is the most viable structural model of politics for multiethnic societies”. But this is only possible if there is a political will, combined with the “will of the capital”, foreign forces and interests. Crucial at this juncture is a system that provides for institutional independence, holds people in power accountable and that decision-making is “consociational” as much as possible. It is only through centripetalism that all Kenyans would feel that they “belong” not just in words, but also through the policies of equity. The on-going power sharing therefore needs to look beyond Raila and Kibaki, focus on improving governance, accountability, equity and national cohesion and foster a common identity. It should also lead to institutional re-engineering to cater for governance conflicts. Although there exists a contrary notion that “fundamental conflicts in segmented politics cannot be solved by constitution writing and constitutional engineering”, it is also recognised that “rules can restructure a political system and cause changes in the game where there is some determination to obey the rules”.
Finally, re-thinking of an integrative approach would be a viable option. These would include “making persuasive appeals to people on the other side (usually focused on common values, goals, or needs), offering apologies and/or forgiveness for past deeds, seeking areas of commonality, reversing the de-humanisation process and building trust with opponents”. Integrative options are noted to be “less expensive to implement than force based options, and they are often more successful, as they do not generate the level of resistance and backlash that force often does”. Non-the less, how and whether the process will be taken seriously is a matter that heavily depends on the contents of the peace accord, its implementation, and acceptability by the citizenry. The success of the on-going power sharing however depends on whether the “grand coalition” would survive the conflict of interest and destructive confrontation, which are the hallmarks of Kenyan politics.
*Antony Otieno Ong’ayo is a researcher at the Transnational Institute, Amsterdam.
**Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org or comment online at www.pambazuka.org
Comment & analysis
Zimbabwe should not look to Kenya
2008-04-01
Rasna Warah
Rasna Warah reminds Zimbabweans that Kenya can only be a model of what not to do - the cost in terms of lives, a shattered economy, internally displaced populations, and broken trust is to high a price to pay.
Many Kenyans including myself, are shocked to learn that their country is now considered a role model by many Zimbabweans who have been seriously contemplating “doing a Kenya” if the results of the elections this weekend are not to their liking.
I suppose given the state of their economy, and the fact that the country has been ruled by the last of Africa’s Big Men for close to three decades, Zimbabweans are beginning to believe that the only way fundamental changes can be brought about in their country is by breaking into the kind of violence that Kenyans experienced in the weeks following what many believe to be rigged elections.
One argument put to me recently was that a country has to go through violent conflict in order to emerge as a better nation.
Shortly after the violence broke out in many parts of Kenya, I attended a meeting in Dar es Salaam where participants seriously debated whether what was happening in Kenya was a necessary prelude to fundamental reforms needed in society.
At one point, a stunned delegate from Rwanda was even asked whether the genocide in Rwanda had been worth it as it had paved the way for a more democratic and open society that was based on progressive, egalitarian laws.
He responded by saying that the price Rwanda had paid for its peace and democracy was too high, not just in terms of the cost of reconstruction, but because it was written in the blood of hundreds of thousands of his country’s men, women and children.
It is very tempting to believe that had it not been for the violence that engulfed Kenya in the last two months, the two leaders, Mr Raila Odinga and President Kibaki, might never have agreed to form a coalition government dedicated to bringing about much-needed reforms and constitutional changes.
But was it the fact that more than 1,200 people were killed and some 350,000 were internally displaced that melted their hearts, or was it international pressure from Western governments and the international community that forced them to reach a compromise?
Many believe it is the latter. Kenya is strategically important to Western governments for many reasons.
A crisis in Kenya has the potential to spill over to the entire Eastern Africa region and the Horn, as the port of Mombasa serves as a crucial transport link for neighbouring countries and is a strategic gateway to the troubled Middle East.
Moreover, the United States considers Kenya as a useful ally in its war against terror, especially because the country borders Somalia and Sudan, two countries that have been a thorn in the flesh of the US government for more than a decade.
Zimbabwe on the other hand is landlocked, has no significant ally among the world’s most powerful nations, has no oil or other minerals that are of critical importance to the Western world, and is on the brink of economic collapse.
A violent civil war may stir Britain, South Africa or the African Union into action, but it will barely elicit a yawn from the United States or the European Union.
But even if, by some miracle, the world did unite to liberate a strife-torn Zimbabwe, the price the country will have paid will be so great, it will take years to recover.
In Kenya, two months of violence not only cost lives, but hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue, property and jobs.
It is estimated that the first week of violence alone cost the country US$1 billion. Tourism, one of the biggest income-earners, dropped dramatically as tourists cancelled bookings or left the country in droves.
Inflation soared as vital road links were cut off, making it difficult for farmers to reach their markets. Seven land-locked neighbouring countries that relied on Kenya’s transport networks for imports suffered severe shortages.
But the real cost of the crisis was borne by the people of Kenya, who are still reeling from the impact of the violence.
Reports indicate that the incidence of rape tripled in the months of January and February, with a majority of victims being under the age of 18.
Lawlessness in various parts of the country, including Nairobi, spawned ethnically-based militia groups who killed or forcibly evicted people from their homes and neighbourhoods. Some of these groups are still operating in parts of the country.
Almost every Kenyan was directly or indirectly affected by the violence. As a nation we are traumatised and it will take us a long time to trust again.
If that is the price of democracy, then it is a price many Kenyans are not ever willing to pay again. Zimbabweans should take note.
*Ms Warah is an editor with the UN. The views expressed here are her own and do not necessarily reflect those of the United Nations. This article was first published in Kenya's Daily Nation
**Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org or comment online at www.pambazuka.org
Zimbabwe: Lessons from Kenya
2008-04-01
Joram Nyathi
Joram Nyathi candidly makes the case that what ails African democracies is change in the absence of real alternatives.
A lot has been said about the Kenyan election debacle. Lessons have been drawn locally on both sides of the political divide. Unfortunately most of these lessons are no more than self-serving wishes. In my view, the real lesson is the danger of obsession with change for its own sake, and in that quest, embracing every claimant to power as the Messiah. Zimbabweans are guilty of this propensity.
South Africans look worse. Reading the South African media about President Thabo Mbeki's alleged autocratic rule in the few weeks before Polokwane made me feel like we in Zimbabwe were ruled by angels. So intense was the hatred for Mbeki that his rival Jacob Zuma was assured of the ANC presidency despite his soiled name. It was as if the name Zuma represented a cure for Aids, crime and racial inequality in SA.
It is perplexing. Here is a man who answers to every act of misdemeanor from rape to influence-peddling to outright corruption and tax evasion being elevated to the pedestal of a saint who is being victimised by a cruel sitting president whom he has challenged for office! In any civilised society, the accusation of corruption, let alone rape, should make any decent person recuse himself from the presidential race. Zuma would have magnified his own stature. He doesn't need to be convicted.
Things were never going to be easy for Mbeki from the start: matching Nelson Mandela's affability, dealing with a recalcitrant ruler such as President Robert Mugabe who is universally reviled by those he has hurt, and given growing anti-intellectual sentiment in politics in Zimbabwe and SA. But in Zuma we have a man who can stand up when later accused of rape, violence (leth' umshini wami), corruption, racketeering, fraud and philandering and say with a straight face: "When I campaigned I didn't hide who I am."
In the face of all this grunge you have influential organisations such as Cosatu threatening the judiciary with a "bloodbath" if Zuma is brought to court.
The biggest lesson from the Kenyan post-election violence is the danger of electing into power democratic charlatans without institutional fireguards to ensure such people can be removed later without bloodletting; and our fascination with the politics of tribe and other irrational considerations which blind us to people's motives for getting into politics. It is the danger of choosing leaders for where they come from ahead of enduring values necessary in nation-building.
Anyone who opposes a hated sitting president automatically becomes a democrat. Mwai Kibaki was feted as a democrat for defeating Daniel arap Moi without anyone examining his democratic credentials. The election was judged free and fair. In five years the guy has shown his true colours and those who elected him are shocked by his "transformation" from what he never was to a corrupt dictator and tribalist. To me there was no betrayal of the people but an exposure of bad choice.
The irony is that Western democracies which are quick to point to us torch bearers of democracy subject their would-be leaders to a very rigorous vetting before they are elected. I am fascinated by the ongoing campaign by the Democrats in the United States. This is not a country in any serious political crisis like we are, yet its leader must pass through the crucible of public scrutiny and explain fully what his policies are, what he wants to do and how. It is not enough to chronicle the current leader's failures. Any imbecile can do that. Talking democracy and human rights is cheap -- the test is on delivery.
Unfortunately in desperation for change, any change, we are shy if not afraid to confront our future leaders with hard questions about who they are and their shortcomings. Yet it is the political leader ultimately who gives the nation its international character.
The other lesson from Kenya is the threat of violence if elections are rigged. Forcing people to vote in a certain way on the threat of violence amounts to democracy by fear. It does not represent the free will of the people. It is the need to select for leadership people of integrity. We need leaders who are able to accept loss and victory in an election with dignity and know when to quit.
Kenya's Raila Odinga might have a cause to complain, but to me there is no point in voting for a leader of hooligans, who, after a disputed electoral result, rampage in the streets, burning, raping and murdering people in church. There was nothing among the poor Kikuyu in the slums of Kibera and Mathare to show that they had unfairly benefited from Mwai Kibaki's rule ahead of other tribes. Nor is there evidence that those being targeted for attack voted for him. Yet we read that boys and girls as young as six years are being raped for voting for Kibaki or for simply being Kikuyu.
In any case, if the Kikuyu are being targeted as an ethnic group because Kibaki is Kikuyu, then by inverse rule Odinga forfeits the claim of a "people's president" if only his Luo clanspeople and a few others voted for him.
The trouble with wanton violence is that it never affects the criminal leader himself. Does anybody for once nurse the illusion that Charles Taylor or Joseph Kony will ever fully pay for atrocities they have committed against their people in Liberia and Uganda? Or that Odinga is justified in causing the deaths of over 600 Kenyans because he wants to go to State House?
Broadly, the Kenyans are paying for what has become the bane of African politics -- short-term and opportunistic considerations in the selection of national leaders. Lack of long-term vision in the beginning comes to haunt us in the end.
*Nyathi is the deputy editor of the Zimbabwe Independent. This article first appeared in the The Zimbabwe Independent.
**Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org or comment online at www.pambazuka.org
MISA-Zimbabwe on SADC observers
2008-04-01
MISA-Zimbabwe
The SADC Observer Mission to the 2008 elections noted several anomalies that run against the grain of the principles of democratic elections within the southern African region but still endorsed the process leading to the 29 March elections as free and fair.
Addressing journalists in Harare on 30 March 2008, the head of the mission Jose Marcos Barrica noted the issues of equal access to the state media by political parties and candidates, access to information on the electoral process and the “irresponsible statements” by security chiefs, as some of the anomalies. He, however, said the issue of access to the state media had improved as the election date drew close.
Barrica said the statements by the security chiefs such as Police Commissioner General Augustine Chihuri and Commissioner of Prisons Paradzai Zimondi that they would not salute Morgan Tsvangirai leader of the opposition MDC in the event of him winning the presidential race, should have been publicly denounced.
In its preliminary report on the elections, the observer mission also noted that information on the electoral and voting process should also have been published in advance but still commended the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) for doing everything to ensure that the elections would be held despite the logistical problems encountered.
It its pre-election position findings on the presidential, parliamentary, senatorial and local government elections held on 29 March 2008, MISA-Zimbabwe noted with grave concern that with polling only a few weeks away and almost four years after the adoption of the SADC Guidelines, there is little evidence on the Zimbabwean government’s willingness to relax its grip on the state media and allow opposition political parties or opposing voices to freely air their campaign messages and views on ZBC radio and television.
MISA-Zimbabwe noted that ZBC, Zimbabwe’s sole national state broadcaster continued to demonstrate its partisan tendencies where it concerns providing fair, balanced and equitable coverage of the ensuing election campaigns.
The live broadcast of the launch of the ruling Zanu PF’s election manifesto by ZBC on 29 March 2008 to the exclusion of a similar exercise by the opposition MDC led by Morgan Tsvangirai the previous week at Sakubva Stadium in Mutare and that of Independent presidential candidate, Simba Makoni in Bulawayo is one such glaring omission or commission denying citizens access to alternative information which should have been noted by the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) in its mandate.
In terms of the Electoral Laws Act (As Amended 2008), ZEC should also have drawn up regulations for free, fair and balanced access to public broadcasting. As of 4 March 2008 and 25 days before polling ZEC was still to come up with such regulations for purposes of monitoring the media to ensure accurate and fair coverage of the elections to stem encouragement of violence, racial, ethnic and religious hatred.
Meanwhile, asked why the SADC election team had endorsed the elections as having been free and fair when ZEC was still to announce the results almost 20 hours after polling had closed at 7pm on 29 March 2008, Barrica said their mandate was only restricted to observing the pre-election period in terms of the SADC Guidelines.
Urging all political parties to respect the will of the people, he warned Zimbabweans against allowing for the prospect of civil war saying as an Angolan he had the experience of the negative impact of that scenario.
“I reiterate SADC’s commitment to continue supporting the people of Zimbabwe in their efforts to deepen democracy and realise the dignity of Zimbabweans. The voice of the people of Zimbabwe need to be heard and heard by the people of Zimbabwe,” said Barrica.
**Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org or comment online at www.pambazuka.org
Zimbabwe: call to action
2008-04-01
International Development Agencies
International development agencies, Progressio, Trócaire, Tearfund and FEPA today call for immediate action to stop what appears to impartial observers as government-led election rigging of Zimbabwe’s March 29th polls.
All four agencies are concerned about the slow release of election results, which as Noel Kututwa, Chairperson of the Zimbabwe Election Support Network says “is fuelling speculation that there could be something going on”. Marwick Khumalo, head of the Pan-African Parliamentary Observer Mission, has also expressed concern over the delay.
Our mutual partner, Pastor Promise of the Zimbabwe Christian Alliance said: “SADC principles and guidelines governing democratic elections stipulate that counting of votes shall be done at the polling stations. This was done and completed yet ZEC is withholding the results which are already public knowledge as they were posted outside each polling station. With Kenya’s violence so fresh in our minds, it is not acceptable to delay the timely announcement of results as if to provoke the already highly charged electorate. It’s extremely urgent that ZEC announces all the results immediately.”
Specifically, the agencies are concerned that:
- In some cases, officially announced votes do not appear to be tallying with those registered and displayed at polling stations;
- It has taken over 30 hours to collate and begin to announce election results, which were posted up outside polling stations two days ago;
- The pace of announcement has been painfully slow. By 3pm on Monday 31st March the Electoral Commission had announced parliamentary poll results for only 30 out of 210 constituencies. Results for senatorial and presidential polls are also still pending;
- The delay in announcing results and the failure of the Electoral Commission to satisfactorily explain the delays to the general public is contributing to tensions and could lead to a situation of instability in the country;
- The Southern African Development Community (SADC) has already issued its statement on the elections. According to article 6.1.12 of the SADC guidelines, observers monitoring elections are obliged to issue a statement on 'conduct AND outcome'. The SADC observer mission only issued a statement on conduct of elections yesterday afternoon and has now declared its work finished.
In light of these serious concerns, we urge governments to take the following critical actions:
- African and especially southern African leaders should ensure that the SADC observer mission fulfils its obligations to the people of Zimbabwe by following through on assessing the counting process and declared outcome of the polls;
- There should be an SADC investigation and response to the allegations of fraud made by independent outside and domestic analysts and observers, in particular with respect to why the announcement of results was delayed when polling stations results were already reported;
- African Union and national leaders should be prepared to lead a process of mediation in the event of a disputed outcome;
- The UK, Ireland, EU and member states should encourage African leaders to insist that the SADC principles are rigorously followed, in particular on ensuring that the results announced reflect the will of the people;
- Security forces in Zimbabwe are also urged to respect the verdict of the people.
*Progressio is an international development agency working for sustainable development and the eradication of poverty.
**Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org or comment online at www.pambazuka.org
Pan-African Postcard
Kenyan government still heavy handed
2008-04-01
Onyango Oloo
Kenyan activists gathered to peacefully urge the Kenyan government not to increase cabinet ministerial posts as a way of accommodating the power-sharing deal because this adds to an already bloated bureaucracy - instead power should be shared meaningfully within the posts that exist. Onyango Oloo here below is writing shortly after the Kenyan government tear-gassed the activists.
It is around three minutes to one in the afternoon here in Nairobi.
Slightly over forty minutes ago, I was part of a group of civil society activists who were sent scampering all over Uhuru Park after being tear gassed by the Kenyan riot police.
Among those dozens forced to shed sudden involuntary tears were Nobel Peace Laureate Wangari Maathai, well known Kenyan human rights lawyer Harun Ndubi, Kenya National Commission for Human Rights Chair Maina Kiai, Africog head honcho Gladwell Otieno, Awaaz Managing Editor Zahid Rajan, Bunge la Mwananchi regulars Samson Ojiayo and Gacheke; Open Society East Africa Director Binaifer Nowrojee; independent documentary film maker/activist Mbugua Kaba; singer/dancer/drummer/actor/activist "Toothbrush" Ooko; ODM Secretariat member Dr. Jospeh Misoi; feminist/GBLT activist " Ms. P"; NCEC Coordinator Ndung'u Wainaina; minority rights activist Ms. Patita; Fahamu staffer Stella Chege and even the colourful Orie Rogo Manduli.
The cops did not discriminate in their distribution of the noxious canisters: I saw Anne Mawadhe of the BBC and several other local and international media folks choking from the ubiquitous gas fumes.
Later, as we were exiting Uhuru Park-with some still trying to access Harambee Avenue, the ultimate destination of the protest march- I could not resist throwing a broadside a the clutch of askaris, headed by an Assistant Commissioner who were looking for an opportunity to clobber us with their over used rungus. Directing my ire and fire at their presumed boss, I berated them for thwarting the efforts of democracy loving, corruption hating Kenyans like us who were there to fight against a bloated cabinet precisely we were thinking of underpaid public servants like the police and prison warders who still lived in hovels and earned a pittance even as they put their lives on the line for the greedy fat cats lining up for big jobs at the expense of the poor mwananchi tax payers. For a moment, given his vicious ferocious glare, I thought the Assistant Commissioner would unleash his goons on me.
Whatever violent thought was passing through his mind, he let that thought pass and let me, pass too, through them to the other end, towards the Hotel Inter Continental.
Ironically, the rest of the rally had gone smoothly, peacefully and without an incident.
Statements were read and speeches were made by Maina Kiai, Gladwell Otieno and Wangari Maathai; the patriotic songs including the militant national anthem were sung by all of us. We all had our "No More Than 24!" placards and we all intoned our slogans.
What is intriguing is WHO gave the police instructions to disrupt our legal, peaceful, democratic and constitutionally protected right to assembly, freedom of expression and association?
Was it just the police bureaucracy acting on their own and obeying their blood thirsty instincts?
Or was it an order from the "government" trying to keep a lid on dissent?
Freedom Corner is of course associated in the public mind with protests againt the status quo.
At any rate, for such a routine civil society action, I was somewhat taken aback by the number of helmeted riot cops on hand to"welcome" us to Uhuru Park with their traditional feisty hospitality.
The question that needs to be posed to PNU and ODM is whether or not power sharing extends to the Kenyan people.
After all, it is the ordinary Wanjiku and the Achieng who ensured that these two major parties have so much political clout.
It is our votes which propelled them to parliament.
It is our taxes which sustain them-whether as backbenchers or full cabinet ministers.
When they want to demonstrate to their opposite numbers about their strength, it is to us their turn when it comes to mass mobilization.
Presumably, we should be their political bosses because we are the ones who keep them in power.
In other words, we have a direct stake in their power sharing wrangles between PNU and ODM.
Obviously, we may never be invited to those hush hush negotiations because some of the political players view us as irrelevant to the process.
But since this is OUR Kenya that they are talking about, we do not their word of approval to participate in the process.
We have a right to be involved in determining not just WHO governs us HOW, but what kind of policies and action points will ensue.
It is not just about PNU haggling over positions with ODM.
At the moment all praises are going to Kofi Annan as the man who saved Kenya.
We have quickly forgotten that long before Kofi Annan set foot in Kenya, there were already Kenyans from all walks of life- from Ambassador Bethwell Kiplagat to Muthoni Wanyeki and the youth in the informal settlements- who were busy calling for Peace, Democracy, Truth and Justice.
I feel that two main players-ODM especially- should take their time to study how the ANC kept in touch with its popular and social base even as it top leadership anchored by Nelson Mandela kept ordinary ANC members informed and involved in the details of the power sharing process even as they dialogued with the De Klerks and the Pik Bothas.
There is a need for the Kenyan people to step up to the plate and seize this historic moment in our country's political development and push through a thorough going agenda for constitutional and democratic reform and shake our mainstream politicians from their comfort zone.
We should redefine power sharing to mean the right of the poor to share power with the rich; the right of women to share power with men; the right of the vijana to share power with the wazee...
To do this we must have a battering ram, an organized voice- a force that brings together civil society, smal political parties, trade unions and other social forces.
Today we saw that the Kenyan neo-colonial STATE as opposed to the "government" has no qualms about reasserting its essential violent and coercive nature. It means that even after elections, even after the bloody carnage which followed after it and all those heart rendering peace songs and exhortations for reconciliation and national harmony, we still need to redefine the power dynamics expressed by the daily actions of the state in the lives of Kenyans.
Yesterday (at least according to the front page of the Daily Nation today, April 1, 2008) cops trying to disperse a similar peaceful communiy protest in Njiru, on the peripheries of Nairobi shot dead an unarmed woman who was not even in the protest but sitting as a passenger in a public service vehicle. As we speak, units of the Kenya Army are busy torturing peasants in Mt. Elgon and shooting dead innocent civilians in an attempt to "restore peace" in that western Kenyan region that has been rocked and wracked with state and militia violence.
As Kenyans with a democratic conscience we need to tell the powers that be that there are effective alternatives to those Rambo intrusions- whether it is tear gassing peaceful protestors in downtown Nairobi; shooting in cold blood a woman in a matatu in Njiru or torturing villagers in Mt. Elgon.
In the meantime let me go back to two Sixties/Seventies slogans:
A Lutta Continua!
Un Pueblo Unido, Hamas Sera Vencido!
*Onyango Oloo, a Kenyan political activist and ex political prisoner.
**Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org or comment online at www.pambazuka.org
Nigeria: Still on Yar’adua and the Asuu strike
2008-03-11
Kola Ibrahim
Kola Ibrahim analysis the recent ASUU strike in Nigeria and argues that it is symptomatic of an education system that puts profit before learning; one that works aggressively against the working class.
The recent directive of the Yar’Adua government to heads of universities that no-work-no-pay rule should be applied to all lecturers who participated in the last warning strike is condemnable and provocative. It again knock a big hole in the pretentious posture of the current administration as a pro-masses organization. For a government that claims to be pro-people to use this archaic and backward policy of union breaking against striking lecturers fighting for improved and cheap educational system and justice for their colleagues further shows the anti-worker, neo-liberal character of this government.
The lecturers under ASUU had embarked on a one-week warning strike to compel government to return to the round-table on the issue of retrenched UNILORIN lecturers who were sacked since 2002 – most of whom have been living in penury since. It is instructive to state that the sacked lecturers met their unsolicited sabbatical when they participated in a national strike called by their parent body to compel the insensitive Obasanjo government to honour its agreement with ASUU on proper funding of education by at least 26 percent (as prescribed by UNESCO), improved salaries for lecturers and democratization of decision making in our ivory towers. It is noteworthy to state that practically none of these demands have been met, yet the lecturers that participated in the struggle are still made scape goat for demanding better educational system. It is morally debasing for government to think of punishing lecturers for reminding it (the government) that some of their colleagues are still outside the system despite the fact that their traditional demands were not met or even attempt are being made to meet them.
To further show the neo-liberal pro-imperialism character of this government less than 8.5 percent of the budget was earmarked for education in the 2008 budget yet UNESCO prescribe a minimum of 26 percent. Yet, the same government could provide extra billions of naira for jumbo pay for political officers. In fact, a significant part of the meagre education budget will be provided through loans especially from World Bank with its neo-liberal, obnoxious conditions such as usage of a large chunk of the budget for expatriate-oriented consultancy service and a deep cut in social service budget. Already over N110 million was to be used in the education budget for AIDS campaign – that is to support the condom and contraceptive industries’ campaign while over $200 million will be borrowed from World Bank to fund science and technology projects – mostly consultancy services. This simply means that the current government is least committed to education development and in fact human development; it will only continue the ruinous policy of the Obasanjo government – that is being a conduit pipe for imperialism. In a country where less than 20 percent of the youth population is in school; where less than 3 percent of the tertiary aged-youth is in school and where virtually all facilities in schools have collapsed such that most of our post-graduate students seek visas in US and Europe before they can have meaningful research work; the present posture of the Yar’Adua government to ASUU demands is bemoaning.
Already, many of our institutions are increasing fees as a result of government’s policy of under funding education while several school managements have to employ brute force in order to prevent students’ protest against deteriorating living and studying conditions. The case of Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU) where three students leaders were detained, thirteen others suspended indefinitely and the union purportedly and illegally proscribed over students’ agitation for better welfare, easily comes to mind. The excuse by the government that the case of the UNILORIN lecturers is in court is ridiculous. In the first instance, it was not the government that went to court, it was the lecturers after several years of waiting for evasive justice. If the government that claim to be abiding by rule of law has any dignity, it should immediate commend the effort of the lecturers for waiting so long and immediately reinstate them. Moreover, going to court is a reflection of the failure of government to resolve basic issues; therefore the Yar’Adua government should bury its face in shame for using court case to deny the lecturers justice. Furthermore, the government has lost virtually in all the stages of the case in question, why will government not accept defeat and recall these lecturers and wait for Supreme Court ruling.
While lecturers demanding properly funded, democratically run, cheap and affordable educational system are locked out of job, corrupt politicians who have looted the nation treasury dry are allowed to walk free in Aso Rock. It is pertinent to state that the same government that ask long suffering lecturers to wait ad infinitum for justice wait for no one to compensate the hatchet man who sent the lecturers to labour market – Prof Abdul Raheem Oba, who has been nominated by the Yar’Adua government for chairmanship of Federal Character Commission. This same man was to be given a ministerial post earlier save for the protest from the vigilant public. The same “rule of law” government deem it fit to confer a national honour on erstwhile vice chancellor of Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU), Prof. Wale Omole who was fingered in the cult attack on students which led to the death of five students including the secretary of the union then, George Iwilade, on 10th July, 1999 among other atrocities including graft and highhandedness. At least that is a moral boost to the current management. The real reason why government has failed to reabsorb the lecturers is that ASUU is seen as a radical union which needed to be killed if the anti-poor, neo-liberal education commercialization, cut in education funding and fee hike policies of the government is to see the light of the day in the educational sector.
The Yar’Adua government want to provoke ASUU to a prolong strike so that the mood of the general public can be swayed against it and a final onslaught can be launched against it. Furthermore, the commendation given to ruthless university administrators through awards and post is meant to embolden current school administrators to be more ruthless in attacking students’ and workers’ rights and for a ceaseless implementation of the neo-liberal policies in the education sector. The overall aim of this arrangement is to scare the working and toiling people away from challenging the present government I its attempt at implementing neo-liberal, IMF/World Bank-inspired policies of privatization, commercialization, liberalization, retrenchment, fuel price hike, etc.
This is why all working class and progressive organizations must condemn the government’s posture towards ASUU strike. The blame of a prolonged strike should be placed at the door step of the Yar’Adua government. However, the current situation calls for a working class solidarity, especially in the educational sector. The demands of ASUU are encompassing therefore, it must carry along all other unions both within the educational and non-educational institutions (especially the central labour unions) such as NUT, NASU, SSANU, COEASU, ASUP, NLC and TUC, the students’ movement, among others on a collective demands for massive funding of education by at least 26 percents, democratization of decision making organs and processes in the education sector (involving all the workers’ unions), adequate wages and working conditions for education workers, free, qualitative and functional education at all levels, among other demands.
Towards this end, there is need for a EDUCATION STAKEHOLDERS’ SUMMIT involving all the workers’ unions in the education sector and students’ movement. Such summit will carry the views of local branches to the national summit. This summit will analyzed all the problems facing education, chart the way out and draw out a collective plan of resisting government’s neo-liberal onslaught on the educational system and workers’ organizations. Otherwise, each union will be gradually stiffen to death as was witnessed during the Thatcher years in Britain.
Conclusively, the working and toiling people must realise that the current Yar’Adua government, despite all its grandstanding cannot resolve any problem facing the masses. It is an offshoot and continuation of the old ruinous anti-poor, pro-rich government of Obasanjo. Save for its saint-like look, it will continue to serve the interest of the rich few in business and power while masses will be given doses of retrenchment, commercialization, fuel and electricity price hikes, suffering and misery. Unless the working poor build a pan-Nigerian, radical working class political platform that will wrestle power from the corrupt political class and enthrone a government that will be committed to massive funding of free, qualitative and functional education system, free and efficient Medicare, massive expansion of public utilities – electricity, road network, housing, drainage system, tourism etc, adequate and secure job for all able bodied citizens with adequate and living wages and pensions, massive investment in cheap, efficient and environmental-friendly transport and communication system. None of the political class can undertake these if their profit-making system is to survive. This is task before serious-minded and genuine labour and working class leaders.
*Kola Ibrahim is a member of the Democratic Socialist Movement, Obafemi Awolowo University, Nigeria.
**Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org or comment online at www.pambazuka.org
Letters
China in Africa
2008-04-01
Jacques Depelchin
I entirely agree with Firoze [China still a small player in Africa, ]http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/46990] I would add, however, that one of biggest problems that Africa has been suffering from is a type of leadership which has generally been focused on how to get richer as selfishly as possible, turning the exercise of leader into one comparable to a feudal CEO (e.g. Mobutu). When a leader like Jean Bertrand Aristide appeared on the scene, determined to change the equation imposed by the West, and follow up on what was squashed after 1804, the West finds a way to remove/kill him (Kimpa Vita, Kimbangu, Lumumba (DRC), Moumié (Cameroon), Sankara (Burkina Fasso), Muhtar Mohamed (Nigeria), to only mention a few.
Firoze, quite rightly points out that both China and the West are engaged in maintaining the same system (e.g. working hard to increase the rate of profit). What he does not mention and a topic which is creating a great deal of tension in some countries is China's practice of insisting to use its own workers. Most African countries suffer from extremely high unemployment rates. If I were a skilled or unskilled worker in any of these countries, I would not like the practice, at all. But, even here, the practice of the West is not much better, especially if one looks at skilled labor. China itself is suffering from growing rates of unemployment as the gap between rich and poor in China gets deeper.
Will the emergence of China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, etc. trigger the badly needed awakening within the African leadership? Issues like access to food, education and health for all have become a world problem in a way that it will become increasingly difficult if not impossible to resolve within the dominant mentality of capitalism whether Chinese or Western.
Firoze's piece is very much welcome, but I also think that, given the situation in which humanity finds itself, important to pay attention to ideas coming from thinkers like Ernest Wamba dia Wamba, Lewis Ricardo Gordon, Alain Badiou, who have been thinking about emancipatory politics beyond and away from capitalism and its accessory institutions.
Mugabe must simply go!
2008-04-01
Dewa Mavhinga
Against the backdrop of a blatantly unfair pre-election environment, Zimbabweans voted on 29 March to indicate the direction they want to country to go. According to electoral laws, all votes are counted, verified and displayed outside each polling station. This is especially useful since much of the rigging has taken place in the counting of the vote. Voting ended at 7pm and, in an unprecedented move, Zimbabwe Electoral Commission delayed announcing results for at least 36 hours and only started a slow process of announcing results at 6am on Monday, 31 March. The MDC, through its elections directorate, simply collected and collated all votes displayed outside polling stations and announced a resounding victory for Tsvangirai’s MDC.
Because of the highly suspicious behaviour of ZEC of taking too long to announce official results, there are genuine fears that Mugabe and ZAN U PF want to subvert the will of the people and silence the people who have spoken through the ballot by fixing figures and announcing that Mugabe and ZANU Pf as winners. There are rumours now swilling in Harare that security chiefs are in marathon meetings preparing to rig elections and prepare to crush any challenge to their electoral fraud.
I must say the conduct of ZEC is reckless and inconsiderate as it puts the nation at risk of a Kenya style revolt as the absence of official results for no apparent reason creates tension and anxiety in the people. It is criminal and treasonous for security chiefs to interfere with the counting of the vote and the announcements; security chiefs must be warned that days of lawlessness and mayhem in Zimbabwe are over, in a new Zimbabwe we will hold them to account for their actions. If Zimbabwe’s army and police think that they can hold the nation hostage they are dreaming; no-one can stop the wind of change that is sweeping across Zimbabwe, not Mugabe, not Chihuri, and not Chiwenga. Mugabe has said his conscience will not let him sleep if he steals an election (l wonder how he has managed to sleep since 2000), so he must heed his conscience and do the honourable thing of respecting the will of the nation. Zimbabwe needs a new political leadership with fresh ideas. Zimbabwe cannot move on with Mugabe at helm; Mugabe must go, and he must go now before he plunges our beloved country into chaos and bloodshed.
ZANU PF may want to take comfort in the knowledge that they have rigged before and there was no uprising and South Africa and others looked away and pretended all was well. That was then, this time the people of Zimbabwe will defend their vote; the prospect of another disastrous five years with Mugabe and ZANU PF is motivation enough to take the struggle to the next level, on the streets. What Zimbabwe needs is a new leader with fresh ideas, not the look-east nonsense and diet of starvation that we have known with Mugabe. This time the rigging is easier to expose because results are displayed at polling stations; so we must defend the vote and pray that all patriotic and peace loving security forces must join the people of Zimbabwe and say no to Mugabe. Let us all stand up and act to stop Mugabe squandering our future.
The people of South Africa must stand in solidarity with us in Zimbabwe during this, our hour of great need, and prevail on Thabo Mbeki to demand that Mugabe respects the will of the people. The African Union has rejected all forms of unconstitutional changes of government and the massive electoral fraud unfolding in Zimbabwe is clearly unconstitutional and must be severely condemned as such by AU. In the case of Kenya, the African Union led the international community in activating the international duty to protect the fundamental rights of Kenyans, sadly, it was after considerable loss of life. My appeal to Mbeki and SADC is that they help stop this madness in Zimbabwe now before Mugabe plunges us into total darkness. It is with a heavy heart and tears in my eyes that l write this appeal. Now that the people have spoken, Mugabe and ZANU PF have a moral and legal obligation to give expression to the voice of the people and the respect the outcome of the elections. In Shona we say, Chisingaperi Chinoshura - which extorts all to know that everything has an end; for Mugabe and ZANU PF’s leadership of Zimbabwe the end has come and l urge them to accept it.
*Dewa Mavhinga, Zimbabwean Human Rights Lawyer.
Fahamu - Networks For Social Justice
www.fahamu.org
© Unless otherwise indicated, all materials published are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License. For further details see: www.pambazuka.org/en/about.php
Pambazuka news can be viewed online: www.pambazuka.org/
RSS Feeds available at www.pambazuka.org/en/newsfeed.php
Pambazuka News is published with the support of a number of funders, details of which can be obtained at www.pambazuka.org/en/about.php
To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE go to:
pambazuka.gn.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pambazuka-news
or send a message to editor@pambazuka.org with the word SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line as appropriate.
The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of Pambazuka News or Fahamu.
ISSN 1753-6839