Zanu PF swept to victory in the March 31 Zimbabwe elections, consolidating the power of long-term president Robert Mugabe with a two-thirds majority that will enable him to change the constitution. Amidst allegations of vote-rigging and debates over the free and fair nature of the poll, Patrick Bond and David Moore explain what happened and why it matters, while at the same time spelling out the terrain for future solidarity efforts.

The official results of Zimbabwe's March 31 parliamentary elections, announced on 2 April, give the ruling Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (Zanu PF) 78 seats, the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) 41 (down from 57 seats in 2000), and 1 to an independent (Mugabe's notorious former information officer, Jonathan Moyo). What happened? Why does it matter for progressives across Africa and elsewhere?

What happened? Simply this: the urban poor and working-class were cheated. The rural poor were intimidated into supporting a government whose costs to them now far outweigh the limited benefits (for 130 000 households) of the ineffectual land redistribution strategy that began in 2000. And the regional super-power collaborated to the full.

It's easy to substantiate this conclusion. Consider the past quarter century of political repression meted out to opponents of Robert Mugabe and his Zanu PF. During the 1980s, an initial round of strikes and land invasions was suppressed by the new government; approximately 20,000 Matabeleland residents were killed in horrendous massacres; single women were rounded up in urban raids; students were regularly beat up when they objected to declining living standards and corruption; workers were targeted from the late 1980s when Mugabe lost control of the trade unions; and the urban poor suffered police shootings during mid/late-1990s IMF Riots.

Who was winning, then? Mainly Mugabe's cronies, a several thousand strong mini-class of high-ranking bureaucrats and business elites; but most whites too, who until farm invasions began in earnest in February 2000, lived the high life. The 4000 commercial farmers controlling the vast bulk of productive rain-fed land until 2000 benefited outlandishly from 1990s economic liberalisation. Race and class inequality worsened. World Bank and IMF policies - ably implemented by Zanu PF's ascendant neoliberal technocrats - deindustrialised the economy and savaged once-admirable social policies. Aspirants for 'indigenous bourgeois' status jumped to the queue too, based on financial speculation and military deals with the Democratic Republic of the Congo's Laurent Kabila, fighting a war against rebels, Rwandans, and Ugandans.

Who was fighting back? Grassroots efforts for change reached a new stage in February 1999 with the Working People's Convention, birthing the MDC and producing a progressive manifesto. However, funding from and alliances with white farmers and imperialists, including US state agencies, led to moderation. Mugabe quickly labeled the MDC's leader Morgan Tsvangirai, former head of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions, as "Tsvangison" the "boy" serving tea to the Blair/Bush global regime.

In addition, the aftermath of a shocking February 2000 defeat of Mugabe's constitutional referendum saw a revamping of Zanu-Pf's electoral machinery. The parliamentary elections in June 2000 and March 2002's presidential contest were characterised by high levels of violence and blatant thievery. Last week's parliamentary vote saw less coercion, which necessitated more craftiness on the count..

How did they 'win' this time? A few days after the count, the MDC's Eddie Cross reported that "A message passed on to Tsvangirai from a state security agent said the MDC had in fact 'won' in 94 of the 120 seats." Whatever the genuine will of the people added up to, Mugabe ensured it was suppressed. In Pretoria, his ally South African president Thabo Mbeki ensured carefully censored 'observer teams' declared the result 'the will of the people.'

Veteran Johannesburg liberal journalist, Alistair Sparks, summarises the terrain quite accurately: "The playing field was skewed from the beginning. The constitution enabled Mugabe to handpick 30 MPs, which meant the opposition MDC needed 76 of the 120 contested seats to win a majority of one while the ruling Zanu PF needed only 71 for a two-thirds majority. Add to that the years of intimidation of opposition voters, practically no access for the opposition to the state-controlled media, the closure of the country's only independent daily newspaper, the shutting out of foreign observers and correspondents, the redrawing of constituency boundaries to eliminate several safe MDC seats and make others marginal, a hopelessly outdated voters roll which opened the way for nearly two million 'ghost' votes to be cast, and you begin to get the picture. Ghost voters aside, more than 133 000 living voters were turned away from the polls because of the defective roll. But it was the count which proved decisive - something which was also widely predicted but which the friendly observer teams appear not to have observed."

Simply, Zanu-PF captured the vote processing procedure. Zimbabwean analysts say the theft worked in 2000 and 2002 when Zanu PF counted trucked-in ballots centrally. Results were faxed to Mugabe's home, where they were altered and sent back. This time, things were more difficult because counting was done at voting stations, from where the numbers were sent to the constituency centres.

The Zimbabwe Electoral Support Network - a reputable NGO alliance with observers in 6,000 of the approximately 8,000 polling stations - pointed to the confusion late March 31. They were not certain whether or not the results were to be posted immediately on the station doors. Initially Zanu PF endorsed this approach. It changed tack later, so they could be released in aggregate from the constituency centres.

Polling agents were forced to sign affidavits swearing secrecy to station procedures. This indicates the importance of the ghost voters - the MDC claims 2.7 million - appearing on a terribly inaccurate voter's roll of 5.7 million. Says Cross, "These were manipulated and used to pad out areas where Zanu PF felt they could dominate the election campaign and control the electoral process. [Thus] the delimitation exercise was gerrymandered to further tilt the electoral process against the MDC."

The most visible manifestation of the theft was the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission's sudden halt in their announcements of aggregate voters per constituency on the night of March 31, so that the total votes cast would not conflict so baldly with the altered numbers. In some cases there was a smoking gun. In Manyame, a half-hour drive south-west of Harare, Mugabe's nephew ran. The Commission announced that 14,812 people had voted in the constituency. The next day the total was changed to 24,000, resulting in a 15,000 win for Zanu PF. There were many similar incidents, amounting to at least 200,000 extra votes.

Under these circumstances, should the MDC have played the electoral game? The party and civil society supporters knew the playing field was badly skewed and that the vote counting would be monopolised by Mugabe's agents (the shadowy Electoral Directorate - not even in the Electoral Act - is completely controlled by the military).

Last August the MDC announced a 'suspension' of participation on grounds that the minimum conditions set by the Southern African Development Community (SADC), including freedom of association, access to mass media, and a truly independent electoral commission, were not implemented. Matters improved noticeably after the MDC's January announcement that it would indeed participate. SADC guidelines were flouted systematically, but not nearly as badly as in 2000 or 2002, or subsequent parliamentary by-elections.

Some sources say Tsvangirai himself was not keen to participate, but others in the MDC prevailed. Parliamentarians with no other income wanted to stay in parliament, the trade unions wanted the MDC to contest given the failure of both elite negotiations and intermittent mass action strategies, and people in rural and urban Matabeleland saw no sense in giving their MDC seats to the other tiny opposition parties. Once Tsvangirai was cleared of a frame-up treason charge last September, he toured Africa and Europe, and pressure was undoubtedly applied there. Long-time Mugabe supporter Mbeki - who announced on March 1 that this election would be free and fair - put heavy pressure on Tsvangirai to participate.

Mbeki will continue suffering ridicule, especially as he tours the world proclaiming that the New Partnership for Africa's Development signals the continental elites' democratic commitment. Cross conceded, "What was very disappointing was the appalling lack of integrity (or simply stupidity) in the SA and the SADC observer missions. But we were told by almost everyone before this whole farce began that we were wasting our time and money - the election would be rigged (the Zanu PF cannot get off the Tiger without being eaten hypothesis) and that the African observer missions would whitewash the result. Our detractors were spot on, but it was worth the effort."

Was it? Time will tell whether the post-election despondency across much of Zimbabwe will lift. The immediate reaction of progressives we talked to was extreme frustration. SMS messages on Harare's cellphones advised people to 'defend their vote' A flying demonstration of 400 was organised in the city centre, with most people dispersing as the police arrived. MDC youth begged the leadership to foment protest, but more conservative voices in the national executive prevailed over the weekend. By mid-week, reports were emerging of Zanu PF's revenge campaigns against known MDC voters especially in rural areas.

Will there result, now, an upsurge of urban protest against both electoral and socio-economic grievances? In October 2000 a rise in basic goods' prices ignited a fire. This time, many commodities - including petrol and the staple food, maize - will likely become scarce and prices will soar. The effective South African fuel price is two and a half times as much as Zimbabwe's controlled price. As the Zimbabwe dollar devalues, the last six months' artificially-constructed economic revival based upon strategic state spending and lower interest rates will quickly degenerate.

Nevertheless, Zanu PF leaders hope that the election will convince the region to forget about Zimbabwe, that their two-thirds control of parliament will allow constitutional changes and reinforce Mugabe's rule perhaps until 2010, and that Mbeki will bring the World Bank and IMF back to the party (Mugabe has been defaulting on loans since 1999 simply because Zimbabwe ran out of foreign currency for repayment).

According to a young Bulawayo socialist, Briggs Bomba: Zanu PF "is doing everything to regain the confidence of international capital, and to re-integrate with the 'international community'. Reserve Bank Governor Gideon Gono is leading efforts to liberalise not just the monetary system but the whole economy and to re-engage international institutions like the IMF and the World Bank." The MDC has a faction always open to elite deal-making with Mbeki, but is not likely to persuade the masses.

If people in the cities can get evidence that rural people did not let them down, contrary to popular urban wisdom, they may see some way out of this. Mugabe's careful construction of a peasant/worker divide since the late 1990s may come apart. Even land-invading war veterans who who tried to get into Zanu PF during the party primaries, but were shunted aside in favour of the political class, are as angry as the city folks.

Wilfred Mhanda, one of the most serious of war veterans and Mugabe critics, founded the Zimbabwe Liberator's Platform. Knowing Mugabe would not 'lose,' he advocated boycotting the election and using other means of struggle. But even if winning was impossible, perhaps this election fray allowed the MDC to at least unveil the most manipulative political regime in a region full of venal state elites. Their challenge is to prove this decisively to the rest of society.

The challenge for us living elsewhere, not suffering the daily degradation associated with Mugabe's tyranny, is to offer solidarity. Here, the prior months and weeks were partially encouraging. The Congress of SA Trade Unions (COSATU) attempted several times to enter Zimbabwe to strategise with the ZCTU. Several other activist groups worked hard to raise consciousness, albeit under carefully controlled conditions. The union, however, disappointed activists - especially in the impressive community-labour Zimbabwe Social Forum - by pulling back from pre-election threats to blockade the SA-Zimbabwe border, after severe pressure from Mbeki and his officials.

And yet, a February 25 statement by South African civil society's Zimbabwe Solidarity and Consultation Forum still sees a role for Mbeki: "We say confidently that we have contributed to a much greater understanding of the crisis and challenges in Zimbabwe within our organizations and within the broader South African debate... We commend efforts made by the South African government and by SADC to foster talks between the major political forces in Zimbabwe to arrive at a negotiated road-map for a democratic transition."

More militant South Africans reject such a role, based upon Mbeki's appalling performance to date. Leftist activists in the Anti-Privatisation Forum and Jubilee movement engaged in a joint fact-finding mission to Zimbabwe in February, although colleagues from the Landless People's Movement disputed criticisms of Mugabe's messy land redistribution.

But the real solidarity action ahead may revolve around COSATU and broader civil society forces. They must shake free of Mbeki's influence and establish a strategy for longer-term support. This would more forcefully and surgically target Mugabe and his cronies, and nurture the unpredictable resurgence of Zimbabwean protests, which certainly still lie ahead.

Bond and Moore teach at University of KwaZulu-Natal in Durban, and, respectively, coauthored and coedited books for the university press: *Zimbabwe's Plunge: Exhausted Nationalism, Neoliberalism and the Search for Social Justice* (2003) and *Zimbabwe: Crisis and Transition* (2005):

* Please send comments to [email protected]

‘You are not African because you are born in Africa but you are an African because Africa is born in you”

Introduction

The African Union made history on the 29th of March 2005 as it launched the interim Economic, Social and Cultural Council (ECOSOCC) in Addis Abba, Ethiopia. ECOSOCC is an advisory organ of the Union consisting of a variety of civil society groups from member states; these included professional groups, non-governmental organization, social groups, community based organizations, workers, traditional, religious and cultural groups. ECOSOCC is headed by a bureau of five regional representatives, a standing committee and then the general assembly of 150 members. Members of the bureau are; the noble peace prize winner, Prof. Wangari Muthai (Presiding Officer and East Africa representative), and Deputy Presiding Officers; Professor Maurice Tadadjeu (Central Africa), Dr. Ayo Aderinwale (West Africa), Prof. Fatima Karadja (North Africa) and Mr. Charles Mutasa (Southern Africa).

ECOSOCC was established under the provisions of article 5 and 22 of the Constitutive Act of the African Union. ECOSOCC gives the civil society in the continent an opportunity to interact with all organs of the union and influence policy, decisions and chart Africa’s future together with the heads of states and governments. In the words of His Excellency Mr. Alpha Oumar Konare, Chairman of the African Union Commission, “the creation of ECOSOCC is against authoritarian regimes, hostile external efforts and the negative waves of globalization…..” You should be by the side of those who suffer injustice and are deprived of their basic human rights.” ECOSOCC is the solid foundation of democracy; it will guarantee the observance of the rule of law, human rights, democratic transformation and good governance. It is through ECOSOCC that civil society organizations in Africa has to define itself and prove to skeptics that they are not the conveyor belts of western interests.

Interim ECOSOCC Mandate

ECOSOCC is a potential resource-base yet to be tapped by the political powers but it is also the mechanism by which their own governance shall be weighed. ECOSOCC is a reservoir of human knowledge that should be taken seriously in building African economies. The greatest challenge for civil society in ECOSOCC will be to claim its legitimacy, demonstrate its ability and value addition to the continent by bringing in implementable solutions and alternatives to Africa’s challenges of disease, the lethal impact of AIDS on food security and livelihoods, poverty, conflict, authoritarian tendencies, heartbreaking events in Sudan’s Darfur region, as well as in the beleaguered regions of Ituri and the Kivus in the Democratic Republic of Congo. There is need for both civil society and African leaders to work hard together and to convince the people of the continent that the lives and safety of their fellow Africans are sacrosanct, and that there can be no substitute for the fruits of peace.

The mandate of the interim ECOSOCC is two years from March 2005 to March 2007. The two major tasks for the interim ECOSOCC are therefore; first is to ensure that ECOSOCC sub-regional and national structures are in place. Secondly, through ECOSOCC civil society must begin influencing policy changes within the African Union by engaging the sectoral clusters of the African Union namely; peace and security, political affairs, infrastructure and energy, human resources, science and technology, rural economy and agriculture, economic affairs, women and gender related issues and cross-cutting issues such as NEPAD.

The year 2005 itself is a historic year for Africa considering that the United Kingdom has purposed to prioritize Africa’s backwardness and poverty on the G7/G8 summit to be held in Scotland in June. The United Kingdom Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair has put up the Commission for Africa with the core purpose of ensuring that alternatives to change Africa’s development face be put forward and discussed in 2005. Both the United Kingdom and the United States have issued statements regarding canceling poor countries multilateral debts with the aim of freeing resources for development in Africa. The 2005 September United Nations Millennium Development Goals review also put Africa at the top of the world’s development agenda. Within this scenario, the ECOSOCC is expected to play a major role and bring change to the face of Africa. There is much hope that another Africa is possible!
There is need to respect, acknowledge and accept that we Africans have a contribution to make to our own development and to the development of all humanity. Partnership of civil society with their governments as one citizen put it happens “when they care about our gains as they do about theirs”.
Context
The birth of the African Union in July 2002, forty years after the creation of the OAU, reflected an historic reaffirmation that Africa itself bears the primary responsibility for shaping its fate and future; and that the best way - the only way - for Africa to carry out that mission is to unite around the needs and aspirations of its people.
The role of African civil society in the development of Africa has been recognised for a long time. This is based on the fundamental premise that Africa’s development must be about development of people. As early as 1990, the Arusha Charter on Popular Participation recognised the need for African governance to fully integrate African civil society in various governance structures of key institutions in order for them to fully participate in defining the long-term development policies of the continent. While the charter of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), had made no reference to African civil society, the OAU increasingly began to invite African Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) to participate in some of its meetings and structures, as observers.

Past Organization of Africa Unity (OAU) approaches to cooperation with CSOs included the criteria for observer status and outlined essential prerequisites. In cases where observer status was not possible, cooperation agreements or Memorandums of Understanding could still be concluded as internal mechanisms for cooperation in specific areas. It is important to note that there were some serious limitations inherent in the OAU framework as it did not allow for direct participation of CSO representatives at the meetings and had no reporting or follow-up systems.

With the birth of the African Union in 2002, the importance has been recognized for CSOs not to be observers of the African Union proceedings but be an integral part of the organization’s decision and policymaking process. The African Union’s Assembly of Heads of State and Government Decision AHG Dec. 160 (XXXII) of July 2001 in Lusaka, stressed the importance of involving African Non-governmental Organizations, socio-economic organizations, professional associations and civil society organizations in Africa’s integration process, as well as in the formulation and implementation of the programme of the Union. In that same decision, the Assembly requested the Interim Chairperson of the AU, in consultation with a group of experts and CSO Working Group Representatives submit a comprehensive report during its 2003 Maputo Summit on ECOSOCC with recommendations on:

1. Its structure, functioning, areas of competence and relationships to other organs of the Union;

2. The procedure and criteria for selecting the members of ECOSOCC, including their terms of office;

3. The relationship between ECOSOCC and African regional non-governmental organizations and professional groups;

4. The Rules of Procedure of ECOSOCC and the preparations of its work programme.

The Economic, Social and Cultural Council of the African Union (ECOSOCC) established under Article 22 of the founding charter of the African Union defines African civil society as an advisory organ and explicitly invites African civil society through its various organisations to fully participate in the institutions of the Union, in particular, the Economic, Social and Cultural Council. The establishment of this important organ is to enable the African people and institutions, not only to contribute to the programmes and decisions of the AU, but also to assume ownership of these programmes and be responsible for their implementation. This has now been extended to participation in various other institutions and committees such as the African Parliament, The African Court of Justice, the Conference on Security, Stability, Development and Cooperation (CSSDCA) and specialised Committees, all of which are required to involve CSOs in their work.

The first African Union Civil Society Conference was held in June 2001. During this conference, the general framework of cooperation between the African Union (AU) and about 400 CSOs was elaborated. Latter, a Civil Society Desk was established to deal with civil society matters. It was initially agreed that the CSOs are to meet once every two years. In June 2002, the second OAU-Civil Society Conference in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, decided to establish a Provisional AU-Civil Society Working Group in order to coordinate and work through the modalities of African civil society interface with the organs of the AU. The Meeting elected some 20 regional representatives and the AU Secretariat nominated three sectoral representatives. The terms of reference for the working group are to:

- Prepare criteria for accreditation and affiliation of African CSOs across the continent;
- Participate in the formulation of possible modalities relating to the participation of civil society in ECOSOCC and other relevant AU organs;
- Develop a code of conduct and ethics for CSOs;
- Assist the AU in the elaboration of a plan of action relating to CSO activities and contributions to the OAU/AU and forging networks; and
- Assist in resource mobilization and popularize the AU.

The statutes of ECOSOCC were then adopted by the heads of states and governments in July 2004. Since then, two meetings of the provisional working group where convened in Cairo, Egypt and Abuja, Nigeria to strategize on how to launch the ECOSOCC, especially finalizing the rules of procedure and the Code of Ethics.

The Challenges ahead

- Poverty, HIV/AIDS, malaria, instability, conflict, human insecurity, corruption, bad governance and marginalization of Africa peoples are among the contemporary enemies of the African Union. Citizens hope that the collaboration of government and civic groups will enable them to develop appropriate strategies to deal with Africa’s daunting challenges.

- Government and civic organizations’ relationships in many African countries have been characterized by conflict and counter-accusations. To turn this around and work together may be easier said than done. Most governments scoff at the idea of civil society groups watching over their undemocratic practices, especially in the area of the rule of law, human rights; civic and voter education.

- Civic organizations have to prove that they live by what they say and they should not condemn government for the very things found amiss in their own camp. They will have to prove that they can offer alternatives to Africa’s economic quagmire and political despondency if they are to remain relevant as an advisory organ to the African Union.

- CSO’s have to effectively champion a proactive popularization of the new Africa Union among African people within the context of potential resistance to change. Members of ECOSOCC have to work hard not to be perceived as an alternative club of elites in its operations and collaboration with the African Union.

Final remarks

The Africa Union, unlike its predecessor the OAU, seems determined to graduate from a “politicians club” to a people centered and driven regional organization. The ECOSOCC process is a historical opportunity for the formulation of a new social contract between African Governments and their people. Involving CSO’s in African Union endeavours is a positive move and is a way of involving ordinary citizens of Africa in decision and policy-making processes of issues that concern their daily lives.

More to this is that involving CSO’s is key in considering the role they would be expected to play as watchdogs of their governments and that CSO’s have the ability to reach out to grass root level people in African communities. There is more to be done by both governments and civil society if Africa is to pull itself from the quagmire of poverty, tyranny and corruption. Democracy that goes beyond mere periodic elections seems to be the missing link. As Mandela noted, we all need to say: ‘“Democracy is an ideal that I would like to live for, it is an ideal that if necessary I am prepared to die for.”

* Charles Mutasa is currently the Acting Coordinator of the African Forum and Network on Debt and Development (Afrodad) and the Programme Director for Research and Policy Analysis.

* Please send comments to

Pope John Paul II was much loved in Africa and traveled widely on the continent. But the outpouring of grief at his death should not eclipse the way in which the Catholic Church dealt with the genocide in Rwanda and its position on the the use of condoms in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

"He stood for truth and promoted respect for human dignity by speaking against social injustice in the world," wrote a contributor from Zambia. "He always said nothing but the truth and he was fighting war, poverty and terrorism better than no one else because he was trying to unify all faiths, which is the root of all the problems the world is facing," said another from Senegal. "I remember his visit to Nigeria during the regime of the late General Sani Abacha. During one of my country's darkest moments, he managed to bring hope to a populace badly in need of it," was what a Nigerian writer expressed. These were just a few of the many comments posted to the BBC website in the days after the death of Catholic Pope John Paul II. As millions streamed into Rome to get a glimpse of their icon as he lay in state, it was clear from these comments and the overwhelming media coverage that the tens of millions of Catholics on the African continent were in deep mourning for the loss of their spiritual leader.

The Pope was a well-known face in Africa and perhaps it was the fact that he traveled widely that people felt closer to the head of their faith, even loved him for his willingness to show solidarity in often difficult circumstances. He traveled extensively on the continent, visiting 13 times. He took a pragmatic view towards the sometimes uneasy tension between traditional beliefs and the Catholic faith, broadening the base of Catholic worship on the continent. The estimated 100 million Catholic worshippers in Africa will remember him for expressing concern about Africa, denouncing abuse of power and corruption, calling for human rights to be respected in Sudan, appealing for tensions between Christians and Muslims to be relaxed and calling on Nigeria's former military regime to free political prisoners and respect its citizens.

The overwhelming majority of voices on the BBC website were positive, but his role on the African continent does not come without criticism. One of these criticisms was with regards the Rwandan genocide, which this week marks its 11th anniversary. "The Pope was a man of double standards," wrote Thomas Nyambane from Nairobi, Kenya. "He failed to apologise to Rwandese, Africans and humanity in general for the role played by the Catholic church in the Rwanda genocide. Why did he go ahead to protect and even call for the release of the Catholic bishops and fathers who were directly involved in the genocide? We all know of the fathers and bishops of the Catholic church who lured Tutsis and moderate Hutus to be killed in churches."

Last year, as part of our commemoration of the tenth anniversary of the Rwandan genocide, Pambazuka News carried an article on the role of the Catholic Church in the Rwandan genocide (http://www.pambazuka.org/index.php?issue=150). As one of our contributors wrote in response to a letter defending the Catholic Church: "The collective responsibility of the Church goes well beyond the despicable actions of certain of its members. It was Catholic missionaries who created the false stereotypes of Hutu and Tutsi in the first place, which led to the unbridgeable chasm between them. It was the Church, through its control of the education system, that brainwashed all Rwandans into believing their destructive ideology. It was the Church that made Rwandans believe that ethnic identity was paramount. It was the Church that effectively co-ruled colonial Rwandan with the Belgians. It was the Church that gave moral legitimation to the Hutu dictators who ruled the country after independence."

The response went further to say: "Throughout the 100 days, the Church as an institution failed utterly ever to condemn the genocide, indeed ever to acknowledge that there WAS a genocide happening before its very eyes, not to say with its cooperation. Never did it demand that the genocidaires halt their targeted killings. Nor, after it was over, did the leaders of the Church in Rwanda ever acknowledge their corporate responsibility or apologize for their complicity and/or passivity. As for the Vatican, while it has acknowledged that certain bad apples existed, it too has consistently denied any institutional responsibility."

It is perhaps not surprising that despite the vast international media coverage of the death of the Pope, there has been virtual silence about the role of the Catholic Church in the Rwanda genocide. While rivers were engorged with the bodies of slaughtered Rwandans, the media were either silent, or, at best, portrayed the conflict as merely another typical example of tribal conflict that, in their view, characterizes the continent of Africa.

It is in the area of the fight against HIV/AIDS that the Pope garnered the most criticism for his failure to endorse the use of condoms, seen as crucial in stemming the epidemic. Critics contend that the Catholic Church, with its vast resources and wide access to communities, could have played a crucial role in fighting the epidemic, but had instead chosen to go against the realities of the continent through its ban on contraceptives – and at the same time lending support to the Bush campaign against contraceptives. Not only was the Pope’s stance against contraception seen as representative of a bygone era, but it also undermined the realization of the right of women to have control over the own bodies. This, critics argue, has not only had a negative effect on the struggle for women’s equal rights but has also perpetuated the unequal status of women in society and thus further contributed to the spread of HIV/AIDS.

Again from the BBC web site: "One should not forget the millions of HIV victims, most of them Africans. Had the Pope blessed condoms and family planning programs instead of preaching a rigid and damaging dogma, he certainly could have saved many more souls. Wasn't that his job?"

The Editors
Pambazuka News

'I am glad they have banned it.' So said a colleague who walked into my office the day after the news of the play’s banning by the Media Council.

‘Why?’ I asked her very quietly.

‘Because now we can clearly see what we are up against. How dare you women celebrate your womanhood, condemn sexual oppression, and the abuse of women’s bodies. And you not only dare to do this, but in public also? What? You look at it from their point of view. Don’t you know that your vaginas are dirty, obscene, distasteful, vulgar and evil? Don’t you know that these ‘things’ no matter how much they suffer should be kept private? Haven’t you yet understood that the only ones who can talk with authority on these matters are men who think that way about you and women who think that way about themselves? Really you women, where do you get the nerve to talk about vaginas in public? Don’t you know this is not how ‘respectable’ women behave? You have embarrassed good women everywhere. Our cultures are sacrosanct. They should never be questioned or challenged. You who have done so are morally corrupted’

We laugh.

So is it our cultures or our religions we are worried about?

Well both. We should safeguard our African Christian, cultural values against the surge of western immorality!

So when for example, the Christian religion says we are all made in the image of God (every single part of our bodies that is), it means that it is wrong for us to refer to the vagina as vulgar, dirty and distasteful, because we are denigrating the image of God?

Well no, because culturally this is how we refer to these parts of the body.

Oh, so it is wrong for us to challenge these socially constructed practices, even though we may be dishonouring God in adhering to them?

Well, yes. In this case yes. We think.

Which case is that? The case in which the issue touches on the rights of women of course. In those cases, we always refer to that which sits comfortably with patriarchal notions of what a woman’s place should be. Women are used to this (even those who were opposed to this play). They have steadfastly challenged patriarchal cultural practices and norms. They have gone to school, own property, left abusive marriages; some have even chosen not to marry. But now many of them turn and point the finger on those who dare to challenge the last and most insidious bastion of patriarchal oppression. The notion of women’s bodily integrity and autonomy; the idea that a woman’s body is hers and hers alone to do with as she chooses is so scary to so many of us, that we quickly hide behind some of the very defence mechanisms we have so long challenged. Culture. African cultural values.

I think that we should be very careful how we fashion our arguments. For hiding behind cultural relativism has been the very tool used to stamp our oppression in the past. We pander to racist and sexist stereotypes about what African culture is when we do this. We paint a picture of this fossilised, immovable, intolerant, reactionary, monolithic culture. Let us also not forget that in the past these arguments have been used to safeguard dictatorial regimes. Concepts such as human rights, democracy, and gender equality were all once referred to as ‘western and alien concepts’. So whilst we Africans were stuck in oppressive, repressed, dictatorial, cultural systems, the west was showing us the way forward? What absolute garbage. The fact of the matter is that the oppression and exclusion of peoples, on the basis of race, gender, and ethnicity and so on is a universal practice, which each society justifies with slick explanations of culture, religion and what have you. And just as it has been practiced in every society, so has it been resisted.

‘Corruption of our values by western immorality is one of the biggest challenges of our time’ So said the good Minister of State for Information Dr Nsaba Buturo in his press briefing statement. I am sure he believes it. But really some of us think that compared to the subjugation of our economies to the west, this is a stroll in the park. But there you have it. This is where the Minister concentrates his energies. And not very well one might add. Well let’s look at subscription TV and what it frequently beams into our homes. No bans there. Let’s look at all the salacious print media that is around for everyone to see? No ban there. What about all those watering holes dotted around the city, which feature goodness knows what. No, no ban there. What about the corruption that is endemic in our society and which denies so many their right to basic social welfare? Nope. No moves there either. Has he managed to get all those government officials and employees who have abandoned their children to at least pay child support? Last I heard, that was not on his radar. In fact no action anywhere except for where some women want to stage a play called The Vagina Monologues. Ahh.

Of course we have heard from a number of those who have seen the play and condemn it as pornography from the west. I cannot argue with their experiences, it is pointless to do that. Because in doing so, I silence them; relegate them to the back of beyond; as somehow completely unimportant. Their view is important, and they can exercise their right to stay away. I hasten to add, that several others have seen the play, myself included and have been liberated by it. Our views and experiences have simply been ignored and silenced by the bully boy tactics of some of our ministers (whose backgrounds we are all really keen to know) and their cronies.
The play has a different effect on different people. It is as simple as that. And in that sense this play is no different from any other.

‘The message is good but you should have packaged it differently’ some now say. Hello? Have you been on the moon? What have women’s organisations been doing all these years? 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence. Seminar after seminar. Tree after tree chopped down, to produce report after report which presents these issues to fit comfortably with people’s sensibilities. And where are we? As I write this, these reports sit, gathering layers of dust in a number of people’s offices. In the meantime, the crisis escalates (this is by the government’s own reckoning).

‘Say it in vernacular!’ Others scream. They throw this as the biggest defence against staging the play. Well, as I recall, a number of this same group argued for ‘gender sensitive language’ in the drawing up of the 1995 Constitution. This principle document now uses ‘he’ and ‘she’, ‘woman ‘and ‘man’ as the case warrants. Why did they do this? Language they argued, is patriarchal in nature. It is socially constructed and it reflects societal, cultural norms. Quite right too. And by the same token I say that any language that refers to the essence of womanhood, the vagina (by that I mean, that which distinguishes a woman from a man) in ways that are derogatory should be questioned and challenged. Not protected and defended.

And then there are the ‘Pastor’ Sempas of this world. With them, one should waste as little energy as possible. So I will not bother much, except to say, that someone from police please enforce the ban and throw this man in jail. He has been reading at will, the very excerpts from the play that were banned by the Media Council for all and sundry to hear. And boy does this man shout! ‘The bandit is enjoying this!’ laughed members of the cast as we listened to him read the script on the radio a few days after the play had been banned (He actually reads quite well). But here’s the thing. This man has had the opportunity to read the book from cover to cover. And having done so, he has arrived at his own conclusions about the play. Fair enough. But what he then seeks to do is to deny others the same opportunity to make up their own minds, by calling for the play’s ban.

Well this is after all in keeping with the tradition in the wave of charismatic churches that is sweeping this nation. Any man (for they are usually men) who can shout beyond a certain decibel, can set up a ‘church’. And in this so called church he is free to preach what he chooses in the name of God. Many a wealthy lifestyle by our ‘Pastors’ has been funded from the proceeds of the congregation’s sweat. ‘Bring no coins here!’ they shout. ‘God only wants notes!’ They expect absolute obedience from their followers. They tell the congregation what to think, do and say – some even whom to marry. They have killed their congregations in Kanungu, and have hoodwinked women into believing they are carrying miracle babies in Kenya. They hold night vigils for ‘healing’ and ‘curing’ the sick of HIV/AIDS to exorcisms. The term ‘Born Again’ becomes the new mantra and license to engage in some of the most iniquitous and scandalous behaviour imaginable. But no matter. If people choose to go to these churches, I do not have the right to stop them. I recognise, and respect their right to do it. That they do not extend me the same right to watch the Vagina Monologues is neither here nor there. One of us has to be principled.

Incidentally someone called up on one of the TV stations to ask the ‘good Pastor’ Sempa, why his church is littered with used condoms every time he has night prayers. I have never seen anyone look as pitiful as did this man. Actually for a moment he looked like a frightened mouse. But only for a moment. For this man is nothing but a slick performer if you like that sort of thing. Quickly he regrouped and hid behind a barrage of slanderous attacks on Isis-Women’s International Cross Cultural Exchange (a co host of the VDay Campaign in Uganda). This is a very morally upright man of God after all.

I regret very much the government’s handling of this play. But I also know that you cannot keep a social movement down, certainly not through actions such as these. Those in power forget very quickly that the generation of ideas, their examination, debate and dialogue are the hallmarks of a democratic society. Drunk with power, they use the long arm of the state to silence people in ways that are so transparently unfair and unjust (and incidentally very highly immoral). And they plant a seed that germinates quietly underground. You cannot suppress ideas, just because they upset your sense of propriety. And then to lean on the apparatus of the state to do this is so outrageous and in the long term highly damaging. Leaders who pander for cheap popularity at the expense of principled governance, lose very quickly, the respect even of their most ardent supporters. For intrinsically, deep in the recess of their sub consciousness echoes that tiny but persistent voice: Today, it has been the turn of so and so. Tomorrow, might it be me? Don’t take my word for it. Let us examine our histories very carefully.

The positive side to all this, is that this play and the issues it is trying to raise has reached a wider audience than would ever have been possible had the state not interfered in the way it did. ‘You mean these ministers and all have banned the play? Ahh then there must be something good in it for women!’ Radio stations, email list serves, arguments, counter arguments, discussions in living rooms, on matatus, in the market place, with parents, children, siblings, cousins, aunts and uncles, it is everywhere. Young people have been exposed (as it were) to the hypocrisy of the older generation. They have watched as scoundrels, wastrels, wife batterers, runaway dads, swindlers, idlers, extortionists and playboys have formed a most unholy alliance with men of the cloth to see this play banned. And they have watched in utter disbelief, those in the women’s movement, who have joined this band of merry men. It is the pedagogy of the oppressed, we try to explain. Oh no it is not, say they. It is downright dishonesty, opportunism and immorality.

But all that is by the by. The play is banned and that is all that matters now. Or is it?

* Sarah Mukasa is Programmes Manager for the East and Horn of Africa at Akina Mama wa Afrika

* Please send comments to