The Biennial Commonwealth Summit takes place in Kampala, Uganda 22-24 November amidst the usual controversies that have surrounded these summits whose importance in a world in which Britain is nothing more than post imperial middle power whose claims to global leadership is no longer based on its imperial past but in recent years toadying to the USA (one of its former colonies!) The association of the organization with British colonialism has always been difficult for many radical anti colonialists to accept. However it is significant that apart from the USA that never joined most of Britain’s former colonies chose to join after their independence even countries with radical nationalists and militant anti imperialist governments like Nkrumah’s Ghana or Ghandi’s India. Instead of leaving the organization what has happened is that countries in Africa with tenuous or no direct links to British colonialism like Mozambique, Namibia and Cameroon have either joined or have some associate membership. Rwanda’s application to join has been pending since 1996.

The justification has always been that though these countries were forcibly colonized by Britain that experience has led to a number of shared institutions, histories and above all, English as their official language that could be the bases for technical, political, economic, cultural and diplomatic interface that goes beyond Britain. The Commonwealth, in typical British pragmatism, has been adjusting to the changing fortunes of Britain as a declining imperial power. It has evolved from White British Commonwealth, through British Commonwealth, to now simply, The Commonwealth. It has grown from being simply an adjunct to British diplomatic and political interests into an organization where former colonies can and do strike back and isolate Britain on many issues. Under Margaret Thatcher and her belligerent position in cosying up to Ian Smith (who incidentally died , as the Queen was heading for Uganda , Wednesday 21 November) and his ‘internal settlement’ in 1979 and her ignoble support for the apartheid regime, the British government could not get the support of the majority of the members of the Commonwealth. Indeed in spite of British support apartheid South Africa was expelled from the organization and only resumed membership after the country was liberated from Thatcher’s friends. To the right wing politicians and their media hirelings in Britain the Commonwealth is an anti-British organization therefore they query why Britain had to be providing the large support it gives towards running it.

The Commonwealth has also provided a means for the cheapest form of diplomacy for many poor countries and statelets to also fly their flag. In these countries the Commonwealth’s development cooperation, technical support and cultural exchanges are very crucial in providing capacity building on skills to the nationals and their governments. In these countries the Commonwealth perform much needed and therefore appreciated tasks that the best of UN system wide support do in many countries.

However the good work of the Commonwealth whether through education grants, training for different kinds of professionals, supporting judiciary, etc do not make headlines. One reason is that they are relatively quite modest. The other and more important reason is that the politics of the organization is what interests most people. It is Just like the way many people unfairly write off the UN because of their frustrations with the opportunistic power play in the security Council.

The focus on Commonwealth politics is not a misplaced one though they need to be tempered with due regard to other useful tasks it performs. In many cases I think there is an exaggerated expectation of what the Commonwealth can achieve. It is a talking shop with no real enforcement powers beyond expulsion of erring members. And that option has been rarely used. Zimbabwe withdrew before it could be expelled. But the exit of Zimbabwe has not diminished the controversy around the conflicts in the country within the Commonwealth. It continues to divide the organization with perceptible clear racial lines that pitches the majority members against the old White Commonwealth members (namely Australia, New Zealand, Canada and their mother country, Britain). They take a more hectoring line on Zimbabwe while the African, Caribbean and Asian countries tend to be more conciliatory towards Mugabe. The British simply do not have any moral or political right to lecture anyone about Zimbabwe. Their own inconsistencies also make them vulnerable to charges of multiple standards. The Zimbabwe conflict is parallel to Pakistan’s and the way Britain has been responding to Pakistan’s PERVERSE General Musharav is different from the way they talk to or about Zimbabwe. Why is it that what is good for the goose is suddenly not good for the gander? What has Musharaf lost by being expelled from the Commonwealth? It never affects its relations with London or his biggest backers in Washington? Although British hypocrisy does not mean that President Mugabe is right to be beating up his opponents and muscling the media, it gives his apologists ammunition to clobber opponents as agents of British colonialism and makes it even more difficult for Africans and African leaders in particular to be openly too critical of Uncle Bob and the excesses of his regime.

I thought Gordon Brown was more strategic and smarter than his predecessor, Blair, and would not be as sanctimonious as him but he has proven to be same, same. His threat not to attend the Africa-EU summit in Lisbon next month if Mugabe was invited has isolated him. He will soon discover as Blair did not just in Africa but also in the Commonwealth where even Britain needs friends. He should ask Mckinon, the Commonwealth Secretary General, about his experience at the AU summit in Accra in July. At a Pensioners’ Luncheon with the Leaders he looked on as these retired citizens praised Mugabe and demanded he address them. The wealth has never been common but it is no longer predictably British either. But when would it wean itself from the British Nanny by transforming into an organization that can welcome continued participation of Britain but can also do without it, as and when necessary.

* Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is the deputy director of the UN Millennium Campaign in Africa, based in Nairobi, Kenya. He writes this article in his personal capacity as a concerned pan-Africanist.

* Please send comments to or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org/

"Taking a stand against poverty on October 17th - Let us all join hands and say no to poverty" Tajudeen Abdul Raheem argues why we should support of the Millennium Development Goals and join the "Stand Up Against Poverty" Campaign.

Are you one of those overwhelming majority of the peoples of the world who only read of about the Guinness World Records but never has a clue how they are set and have ruled out the possibility of ever setting any of those records? Until last year I had never thought I could be part of the Guinness records myself and doing so for a very worthy cause.

Between 9.00pm (GMT) Tuesday 16th of October and 9.00 pm (GMT) on Wednesday the 17th of October 2007 you could also become a Guinness record holder. All you have to do is join millions of other peoples across the world to beat the record set last year for the largest number of people ever to 'Stand Up against poverty' and in support of the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

It all began very humbly last year. The UN Millennium Campaign Communications group had suggested to Guinness that we could set a record of people standing up for a particular cause in a 24 hour period. Guinness had never done that before. So they set a target of 10, 000 across the world. When I heard about the 10,000 target, I was amused because and even boasted to my colleagues that I could raise more than that just by mobilizing my extended family in Funtua, Katsina State, Northern Nigeria! By the 18th of October when the results were announced my boast proved right because almost 50, 000 people stood up in Funtua, the small town where I was born, joining over 3.6 million people across Africa. Interesting even bigger numbers across the world bringing the total to: over 23.5 million in more than 80 countries.

Both the UN Millennium Campaign and its partners including the Global Call to Action against Poverty (GCAP) and its various National partners in Africa, Asia, Latin America and Europe were pleasantly surprised. Even the Guinness recorders were taken by surprise that so many people could show their solidarity with the poor in such huge numbers.

It is not just the numbers that were staggering but the range of activities and broad coalition of peoples, social classes, individuals, groups and associations that took part: schools, churches, mosques, temples, synagogues, government officials, community groups, professional associations, NGOs, CBOS, , Trade Unionists, Political parties, legislatures including local councillors, etc. They took part in cities, towns, rural areas, hamlets and town halls. at peoples homes, town centres, cinema halls, Theatres, on the streets, parks and Gyms. For instance in Abuja, Nigeria a group of Lepers in an isolated community organized a STAND UP Moment in their community telling the National GCAP Coordinator that no one in authority had ever asked for their view on anything. in Kenya an elderly grassroots mobilize wearing a Sikh-like turban stormed the offices of the Millennium Campaign demanding nothing more than leaflets and banners and went on to stun us by mobilizing over 10, 000 people to Stand up in Kariobangi!

The idea is so simple and at the same time most empowering. You can do it anywhere you are. You are not powerless. You can at least say NO to extreme poverty in the midst of global plenty. More than saying NO you can also support the MDGs as a means of eradicating global poverty and hunger, redressing the imbalances between the rich and poor countries, the rich and the poor in all societies, educating our children , treating and caring for those sick amongst us and all the other goals.

The MDGs have been criticized by many since they were adopted in 2000 but implementing them has led to better living standards for millions who were without hope seven years ago. A disproportionate focus on what has not been achieved may actually make one lose sight of the progress being made and what more could be done. For instance, millions of children who could not have passed by the gates of a school are now in school. In some countries they are moving access beyond primary school to secondary school.

In a country like Kenya the provision of mosquito nets has dramatically brought down the number of people, especially children, dying from malaria. Malawi today is only second to Peru globally in the most dramatic reduction of infant mortality. In the past four years infant mortality has come down by more than a third.

The MDGs are not cocktails that states and communities can cherry pick as they go along. Progress in one goal must demand progress in others if the success is to be sustainable. Hence Campaigners in all our countries have to focus on some of the sad paradoxes. For example, as infant mortality is coming down maternal mortality remains scandalously high in many African countries. How can we achieve the lofty goals on gender and women’s empowerment if so many women continue to die in childbirth?

In general there has been slow and patchy progress in many African countries but this does not mean that the outcome is necessarily doomed. More can be done. But this depends on citizens demanding that their governments meet their commitments made on the MDGs. Seven years may be short but it is long enough for all states to meet these goals if citizens insist and continue to put pressure on the policy makers, whether government or parliamentarians or politicians at all levels. Indifference is the enemy of delivery and a great ally of insensitive politicians.

If you think demonstrations do not make a difference please read Nelson Mandela's LONG WALK TO FREEDOM. Whatever snippets of information that the censors of the apartheid jails allowed to spill in to the prisoners cheered them up. One of the first places that Mandela first visited after his release was London. He had refused to see any body in the official government of Britain instead he had a people’s reception at Trafalgar Square to thank the people of Britain for their demonstrations, pickets, protests in support of the liberation of South Africa.

Every little bit counts. It is the small steps of ordinary people that lead to extraordinary events in human quest for freedom and liberation. Poverty is the greatest enemy of freedom today for more than a billion people mostly in Africa and Asia.

On October 16/17 every one of us will have the opportunity to show how much we care about the poor by Standing Up against Poverty and supporting the MDGs . Help us beat the Guinness record that we set last year. Over 23.5 millions of people participated then. Make it even bigger this year. You can do so anywhere you are. Look at or [email protected] or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

Tajudeen Abdul Raheem argues that Western posturing against Zimbabwe, particularly in the case of the British, stokes the cause of the Mugabe apologists. Instead, he argues, solidarity should be with the ordinary people of Zimbabwe, who should not be distracted from demanding their government be held accountable to them.

There are very few African political activists who have been publicly consistent in their criticisms of
President Mugabe and ZANU-PF of Zimbabwe. I am one of them. But we are not very many. That is not because Africans do not care about what is happening in Zimbabwe; but because the external dimension: regime-change agenda induced from UK and US, and internal racial dynamics of the struggle have both combined to work in Mugabe's favour.

My position is made more difficult by the fact that I was until early last year Secretary-General of the Pan African Movement. Mugabe is indeed one of the most respected and admired leaders in the Pan African Movement, so how can I be criticising one of our icons?

Readers who routinely sent me text or email messages: 'well said'; 'aluta continua comrade'; 'give it to them man', etc, have been outraged by my stand on Zimbabwe and Mugabe. One close comrade, a well respected academic lawyer, wrote to me stating categorically that I should add a disclaimer at the end of my columns. He suggested: 'the views expressed are my personal views not necessarily the view of the Global Pan African Movement'. Both legally and politically, he is correct. But I was puzzled that he never felt it necessary to give me this legal advice until Mugabe became an issue!

One of my critics, a veteran of black struggles in the diaspora, even went as far as to suggest that my columns are syndicatedly written by the MI5 and CIA! My response to such lurid accusations is that if the CIA and MI5 could recruit me without my knowledge, then we must give them credit for good judgement!

More seriously, I have not been surprised by the hostile reactions. President Mugabe evokes extremes of passions, with no one being neutral. He is regarded by many Africans and pan-Africanists as the Liberator, the icon of anti–imperialism, the bold and courageous African leader who is able to look at imperialists in the face and say: 'to hell with you'.

In a historical period when Western arrogance and US hegemonic unilateralism are making many people angry, eliciting powerlessness and hopelessness, many are willing to embrace anyone who dares stand up against the West, especially the US. The same sentiments that drew many to admire Saddam Hussein, as an agent of the US for many years, regardless of his atrocities against his own people; or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran today in his vitriolic attacks on the US, or Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Many who are unsympathetic to socialism nonetheless admire Castro and Cubans for standing against the US and for having defied it for almost five decades, less than 100km from the coast of Florida! These are seen as leaders who refuse to bend to the wishes of Washington. Even other leaders, especially from the poorer countries of the world, are silently applauding them.

In the case of Mugabe, legitimacy is also derived from a genuine liberation struggle that many regarded as being ambushed by a 'Lancaster House compromise'. Therefore, they see Mugabe as returning to the unfinished agenda, differing from the negotiated settlement that led to independence in 1980. Many are stuck in 1980 and Chimurenga, and fail to judge Mugabe and ZANU PF for almost three decades of monopoly power in the country.

When this is pointed out, a lot of apologetics say that Lancaster House prevented any radical solution. But Lancaster was for only 10 years. Why then did Mugabe not restart the Chimurenga in 1990, instead of being forced to do so in the late 1990s by the veterans? But seeking answers to these questions are like arguing with Jehovah' witnesses!

What also strengthens the pro-Mugabe lobby is the evident hypocrisy of the West in dealing with the
Zimbabwe. Why is Mugabe singled out? Where were they in the mid-1980s when Matabeleland was wasting in ZANU's drive for a one-party state? Would they be making so much noise had Mugabe not attacked and repossessed land from white settlers, whose ancestors - with British imperial force - had grabbed the lands from black people? Is Mugabe being punished as a warning to the ANC in neighbouring South Africa: not to even dare to address the grotesque land inequality in that country?

It is the historic wrong against blacks in Zimbabwe that makes many Africans generally sympathetic to Mugabe, even if they will disagree with some of the methods. The pressures from the West, which is silent about similar or worse excesses of human rights, government authoritarianism and dictatorial leadership by other African leaders, but chose to make Mugabe a scapegoat, work for Mugabe apologists.

That is why the current debate sparked by Britain's Gordon Brown on the forthcoming Africa-EU dialogue scheduled for Portugal later this year can only make Mugabe's position more formidable. Britain is the least qualified country to grandstand anyone on Zimbabwe. Brown can not be threatening the rest of Europe with boycott because of one man and one country. If the dialogue is indeed between Africa and Europe, why should one side be laying down the terms?

Why do European leaders think they are the only ones with a public to respond to? African leaders must not accept this. If they do, they will prove to their people that they are spineless poodles of imperialism, whose only question, when asked to jump by the West, is not why, but how high?

However, rejecting the arrogance and hypocrisies of European leaders should not mean that we should endorse the excesses of President Mugabe's prolonged one-man-rule. Political and ideological suspicions of the opposition do not justify the attacks on them. In any case, our solidarity should be with the people of Zimbabwe, who may be ZANU loyalists, MDC supporters or neither. As citizens, they deserve to demand that their government be held accountable to them.

A disproportionate focus on the West's agenda is making us compromise in our duty to express this
solidarity much more boldly.

Tajudeen Abdul Raheem is the Deputy Director for the UN Millennium Campaign in Africa, based in Nairobi, Kenya. He writes this article in a personal capacity as a concerned pan-Africanist.

Tajudeen Abdul Raheem tries to decide whether politics, the business of political parties and money are in a greater state of disarray in Nigeria or Kenya. Or, who is more politically enterprising between the Nigerians and the Kenyans? Contrary to popular assumptions, it seems East Africa is winning!

I used to taunt political science colleagues in Nigeria that they were political voodoo magicians.

Given the unpredictability of Nigerian politics, and the ease with which the political class changes colours and allegiances from regime to regime, it is difficult to see that there can be any scientific basis for teaching politics in that country.

For instance, there are some people best described as orphans of the Nigerian state. They have been part of government in one way or the other almost all their lives.

Looking at some of the emerging power brokers in Aso Rock today, it would not be correct to say treachery and betrayal do not pay. Because neither have diminished their proximity to power! Some of them are and indeed deserve to be decorated as traitor-generals of Nigeria!

Many of them may not even win elections in their clans. But somehow whether military or civilian, they remain there. It is not science, but the creative art of power that is needed to understand the cabal that Aminu Kano would have described as being ‘consistently inconsistent’!

That’s why I even went as far as to suggest to my tormented fellow political scientists that their political science departments across the country should be closed down on the grounds of 'unfair trade description'. Because they claim to be teaching what is not really there.

But it was not my intention that they should all become jobless. Instead they needed mass retraining in order to be absorbed into Business Studies; since it is not politics that guides politicians, but money.

Therefore the science of Monetics may be more appropriate than political science theories in understanding how the country is governed and mis-governed.

Why bother to teach students democratic theories about parties, groups, elections etc, when political parties do not exist as alternative sets of policies to be canvassed in free intercourse of public debate and policy options, and from which the electorate can choose.

To the extent that there is any political party at all, all the politicians belong to AGIP (Any Government in Power)!

Now living in Kenya, one of the most politicised and ethnicity-obsessed countries in Africa, I am beginning to think that I have probably been most unfair to Nigerian political scientists.

You do not need science to understand Kenyan politics either. But the Nigerians need to come and learn from the masters here. It is pure business and memory-loss that you need to make sense of it at all.

President Museveni of neighbouring Uganda may have thought that he invented 'individual merit' and 'No Party Democracy' - which he imposed for ten years before donor pressures forced him to change tune.

But it is in Kenya where the ultimate privatisation of politics through a veneer of multi-party democracy is really being popularly practised.

For instance, last weekend, President Kibaki finally announced to a bored public that he was going to be standing on the platform of yet another new party (Kenya has more than 100 political parties), called the Party of National Unity (PNU), itself a coalition of 14 of the so-called Kibaki-friendly parties.

The same president had been brought to power on the platform of a coalition of similar parties in 2002. No sooner had they got rid of KANU and President Moi, cracks develop between the main parties in the National Rainbow Coalition (NARC).

It precipitated a parting of ways with prominent leaders like Raila Odinga and Kilonzo Musyoka, who defeated the president and his allies in the constitutional referendum under yet another coalition, the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM).

NARC was a coalition against KANU/Moi and his chosen successor, Uhuru Kenyatta. But ODM was a coalition against KIBAKI that included Uhuru Kenyatta/KANU. It even had the support of the much hated former president, Moi. They defeated the government. The euphoria was such that if elections were held, then they could have chased Kibaki out of the State House.

Elections were not held but the ODM lasted as a united group for much longer than many had predicted.

Eventually the improbable cohabitation of highly ambitious politicians finally gave way to a break-up, that meant Musyoka going away, but the other leaders remaining together.

And this is where the parallel with boardroom dynamics of Kenya political dealers reveal themselves most clearly.

It is in Kenya that I have come to realise that political parties are registered the same way as companies. You declare officials as you declare directors. You choose a name. As long as no one else has not registered it, it is yours.

Even if someone has registered the initials, you can still get it by adding 'K' (Kenya) or some other initial to yours. That’s why you have FORD, Ford K, Ford Asili, FORD people or NARC and NARC-K, ODM and
ODM-K.

Whoever has the certificates 'owns' the party! You do not even have to have members.

The owner needs not be a member of the party. He or she just happens to be the person to have registered it. You then wait until some politician needs the name, and you exchange it for cash!

In their initial triumphalism, the Orange people did not immediately register the ODM. So some smart lawyer beat them to it. They could not get him to relinquish the party, so they registered as ODM-K.

Then Musyoka found that he could not stop the Raila bandwagon for the ODM-k nomination. But he had the four aces. The chap who had registered the ODM-K was the close ally and kinsman who ‘gave him’ the certificate.

Raila and the majority leadership realised that this piece of paper will confer ownership on Musyoka. So they went back to the other dealer, and 'persuaded ' him to ‘give’ the certificate to Raila. He did the 'handover' in public!

So Raila and his allies became 'owners' of the original ODM, while Musyoka pocketed ODM-K.

Kibaki had similar problems and resolved them similarly!

After the exit of Raila and co. from NARC, the remaining NARC rump in government had problems about ownership. Mrs Charity Ngilu (whose National Party of Kenya had been used to register NARC) remains the original registered chairperson of NARC. She has refused to take out the certificate from her handbag.

Pro-Kibaki members of the government, frustrated at Ngilu’s non-cooperation, went ahead to register a new party, NARC-K!

So, you have a situation where most of the politicians, including the President and his leading challengers, are no longer members of the party or coalition that brought them to power.

Kibaki's people felt that NARC is no longer easy to sell to the public, with or without 'K', so they just bought themselves another party from the shelves!

In the new pro-Kibaki PNU coalition of parties - wait for it - is one Mr Uhuru Kenyatta. His faction of KANU and his benefactor, still looking after him, former President Moi, now a leading campaigner for Kibaki - who had defeated KANU and Uhuru!

Now you tell me who is more politically enterprising between the Nigerians and the Kenyans?

Next time you are checking for stocks and shares on the Nairobi Stock Exchange, you may want your financial adviser to check out what possible combination of names of parties are not yet registered, instruct him or her to snap them up, and wait for the next round in the game of musical chairs among the politicians that is bound to happen. Sooner or later, you will cash in your big bucks.

Tajudeen Abdul Raheem is the Deputy Director for the UN Millennium Campaign in Africa, based in Nairobi, Kenya. He writes this article in a personal capacity as a concerned pan-Africanist.

Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

On 12 September 1977 we were on long vacation in preparation for going into our final year as students of government secondary school, Funtua (then part of the north Central State of Nigeria but now in Katsina state), when news broke that Stephen Bantu Biko, the militant charismatic leader of the Black Consciousness Movement of Azania (BCMA) had been murdered by the apartheid security forces.

We were heart broken and angry. Steve had come to prominence and became our idol as a result of the Soweto protests of 1976 that thrust a new generation of militant youths into the leadership of the liberation war in South Africa. A popular musician, Sonny Okosun had ingrained that struggle in our popular consciousness in his album ‘Fire in Soweto’ just as Peter Tosh did with ‘Get Up Stand Up’ or Bob Marley’s ‘Exodus’, ‘Africa Unite’ and other songs.

Nigeria, though under a military regime (the charismatic Murtala Mohammed later succeeded by Olushegun Obasanjo) was in its most radical and assertive Pan-Africanist foreign policy regime in those days. Nigeria chaired the UN Anti-Apartheid Committee, even though it did not share borders with the apartheid state of South Africa. But by virtue of its readiness to put its money, diplomatic and political resources where its mouth was, it became a very active member of the frontline states.

Murtala Mohammed had been decisive in resolving the Angola impasse that pitched MPLA and many African states against UNITA and its Western masters - principally the USA. There was a celebrated public exchange of words with President Gerald Ford (who had taken over from disgraced Nixon as US President) just before the OAU Special Summit in Kampala on 11 January1976. Ford had written to all African leaders basically instructing them not to recognize the MPLA. The decision to recognise MPLA hung on a balance with a number of states dithering or just too cowardly to resist America’s pressures. On his way to the summit, Murtala took the unusual step of publishing not just Ford’s offensive letter but also his own brand of diplomatic response to it that basically meant: SHUT UP FORD! In Kampala he gave a powerful speech that is still remembered by many of my generation today: AFRICA HAS COME OF AGE. To crown it all the Nigerian Government refused to allow the haughty US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger from visiting Nigeria pleading they could not ‘guarantee his personal security’!

We used to follow these events and read the speeches in the media. As secondary school students we used to be impatient to enter the university so that we could be joining in the protests, marches and public demonstrations organised by university students.

The media in Nigeria - especially the newspapers and the radios (more accessible at the time than the TV) were full of stories on Southern Africa, the racism faced by Africans on their own soil, the duplicities of the west in aiding and abetting the criminal system simply because the lure of gold and other minerals blinded them to their own professed religion and pretences to loving humanity.

Oscar Wilde’s prayers of ‘praying to live in interesting times’ could not have been better answered. We grew up in that anti-imperialist and pro-liberation and unapologetically Pan-Africanist era with popular support for the struggles in South Africa, Angola, Mozambique and southern Rhodesia (later Zimbabwe). It was a period when even the old OAU was most united on the liberation agenda. There was concrete solidarity in most of the countries except reactionary ones like Banda's Malawi or Mobutu's Zaire, (who openly collaborated with apartheid) and later on states like Moi's Kenya, Houphoet Boigny's Ivory Coast (that were allowing their countries to be used as conduits for breaking trade sanctions).

You can imagine the outrage, public and private grief of many when the sad news broke about Steve Biko's assassination. There were mass protests, public outpourings of grief and declaration of continued support for the struggle for liberation in Southern Africa. Some of us were even young and certain enough to demand that the Nigerian government should allow us to enlist in a volunteer army to go and fight in South Africa!

No one was deceived by the official line then that he had hung himself in his cell. A white Journalist, Donald Woods, who was a close friend of Biko’s, was one of the bravest people to have exposed the lies about Biko's death right from the start. He had to go into exile but he did not relent turning the tragedy into a mass selling book and even more widely seen movie ‘Cry Freedom’. Subsequent revelations during the truth-and-no-reconciliation (reconciliation without truth) hearings confirmed the more gruesome aspects of the evil act against humanity by the apartheid state.

Biko was young, passionate, fearless and visionary. In less than a decade he led a whole generation of young South Africans to reject Bantu education, to be proud of their African heritage and to refuse to be second class citizens in their own country.

While the older generation of liberation fighters in the older organisations were mostly ‘gentle men’, anxious to prove that they are or could be as educated and 'civilized' as the whites, the Biko generation not only asserted their equality but believed that they are better than whites in many areas especially culturally, spiritually and morally. It was South Afrioca’s moment of SAY IT LOUD , I AM BLACK AND PROUD. For a people that have been made to feel inferior through deliberate miseducation and religious manipulation, the arrival of Steve Biko changed things both psychologically and philosophically.

Only recently I was watching the film, Good Bye Bafana, about Mandela and his jailer in Robben Island. In it you hear white prison warders and their immaculately dressed island trophy wives in their officers’ parties reaffirming their fate that apartheid was god's way of things. Biko helped many Black youth to reject such gods and helped opened the eyes of many whites too, even as he frightened the apartheid powers that be.

He and his colleagues did not just hope and pray for freedom one day. Deep in their burning hearts it was not overcoming their oppression one day: they believed in freedom and wanted it there and then. Biko's vision and courage resonated with the young, the most critical social category in any project of social transformation. They are the ones with much to gain and much to lose. The movement inspired doomsday scenario in the Boers and the apartheid state that their future was no longer as secured as their propaganda made them believe.

In killing Biko and doing so in the most fiendish way, they sought to kill the hope and aspirations of the youth of South Africa. However, you cannot murder the future. Instead they martyred him, making him an icon of the liberation struggle. Biko's life and example again proves that to make a lasting difference it is not how long one lived but how well one served. His was a very short life but one that is continuously remembered and revered for his dedication and commitment to freedom. Not just in Africa, but also among all strugglers for justice and human dignity.

I remember going to Belfast in the 'trouble days' in Northern Ireland as a guest (part of an all black delegation from mainland Britain) of Sinn Fein students (terrorists in those days!). The Irish take very seriously the tragedy of dying and martyrdom. They tend to gravesides with the same passion of their sectarian divide. They also have beautiful murals all over the place celebrating their mostly young dead partisans. I was stuck by the number of Steve Biko murals I saw along with those of Bobby Sands (the IRA prisoner whom Margaret Thatcher allowed to die on hunger strike in the infamous Maze Prison).

There was another part of the many experiences of that trip. I became very popular (in republican circles) during the two weeks we spent there because many of our hosts thought that I was Steve Biko's brother and would never allow me pay for anything! Maybe it was because in those days I was a bonafide revolutionary perpetually in jeans and beret with huge beards to match! Thank God there were not many BOSS (apartheid's intelligence) operatives around in Belfast. However come to think of it our Irish hosts did not make mistakes because Steve Biko was indeed one of the greatest brothers in the struggle.

On the 30th anniversary of his assassination we say to him, as he stands by the ancestors, that his soul should not rest, because it is not yet Uhuru in Azania though some 'comrades' have been privatised as Rand multibillionnaires.

For the past 6 weeks I have been travelling in the West, East and Southern parts of Africa. The mission (as these trips are grandiosely described in UN vocabulary) has been to assess situations on the ground with regards to the implementation and achievement of the Millennium Development Goals in the various countries.

This being the mid year in the 15-year terminal date set for the achievement of the goals. The other and more immediate reason for the travels is to see what preparations are being made by various partners of the UN Millennium Campaign for this year’s Guinness Challenge to beat the record set last year for Standing Up against poverty.

The UN Millennium Campaign’s Global Director, Salil Shetty, led the missions. It involved meeting with various UN country teams, Government officials, National Coalitions for the Global Call Against Poverty (GCAP) / MDG campaigners, Local and International NGOs, Other CSOs, Media, other opinion moulders, etc. We have been in Ghana, Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya,Tanzania, Zambia and Malawi.

There have been a number of activities; reports and media focus during July (the exact midpoint of the MDGs being, July 7 2007, i.e. 777) in many countries indicating slow progress on a number of the goals. But there is a general pessimistic consensus that on current pace most of our countries may not achieve the goals by 2015.

A disproportionate focus on what has not been achieved may actually make one lose sight of the progress being made and what more could be done. For instance all the countries we visited have made tremendous progress in the area of increasing access to education for both Boys and girls. Millions of children who could not have passed by the gates of a school are now in School. In some countries they are moving access beyond Primary school to secondary school.

While it is true that there are issues about retention and quality the minimum threshold is being pushed. It is now up to citizens to press harder for better education through a general improvement in teaching and learning conditions. In a country like Kenya the provision of Mosquito nets has dramatically brought down the number of people especially children dying from Malaria. Malawi today is only second to Peru globally in the most dramatic reduction of infant mortality. In the past four years infant mortality has come down by more than 1/3.

In Ghana and Malawi the interlink age between poverty and lack of access to education even when it is officially free and universal has led to complimentary programmes including giving children from poorer homes a decent meal in school and also providing transport. These successful initiatives proof the integrated nature of the MDGs. They are not cocktails that states and communities can cherry pick as they go along. Progress in one goal must demand progress in others if the success is to be sustainable. In all the countries there are sad paradoxes that both governments and campaigners have to focus upon. As infant mortality is coming down maternal mortality remain scandalously high. In Zambia, Nigeria, Malawi and Tanzania, they are so high that it is really amazing that there is no public outrage about them. If our children are living longer why are our mothers dying often so young? Who is going to look after these children? How can we achieve the lofty goals on Gender and women empowerment if so many women continue to die in childbirth?

While we welcome the patchy and slow progress that has been made so far it is important to use this mid point year to realign our national priorities to ensure that the MDGs are met and even surpassed. As a foot ball supporter and a life long Liverpool one, at that, the analogy I can draw is that of the European finals of 2005. At half time Liverpool was trailing AC Milan 3:0. As the whistle was blown both managers went into the dug out. Liverpool Manager was furious and he read out the riot act to his players. On resumption we saw a changed team who had levelled the scores by full time and refused to concede any even at the extra time. Finally in the Shoot out Liverpool won.

We should use the same tactics for our governments. The fact that they are making uneven progress at mid point should not mean that the outcome is necessarily doomed. More can be done. One of our Key partners, The Micah Challenge (a global group of ecumenical churches campaigning on MDGs) has dubbed their campaign: blowing the Whistle. We need to blow the whistle on our political leaders at local, national, Pan African and globally that they fulfil the commitments made under the MDGs.

There is no point in being cynical. 7 years may be short but it is long enough for all states to meet these goals if citizens insist and continue to put pressure on the policy makers whether government or parliamentarians or politicians at all levels. Indifference is the enemy of delivery and a great ally of insensitive politicians.

On October 16/17 every one of us will have the opportunity to show we care about the poor and support the MDGs by helping to beat the Guinness record that we set last year. Over 23.5 millions of people around the world stood up against poverty in support of the MDGs. You can do so anywhere you are. Look at or www.millenniumcampaign.org for details.

* Tajudeen Abdul Raheem is the Deputy Director for the UN Millennium Campaign in Africa, based in Nairobi, Kenya. He writes this article in a personal capacity as a concerned pan-Africanist.

* Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org/

Tajudeen Abdul Raheem exposes the humour and absurdity in cultural and racial prejudices, and situations where Africans have absorbed ridiculous and pernicious colonial rules and persist in inflicting them on their fellow citizens. 'The main reason why many of the anti-African biases and petty apartheids persist is because too many of us put up with them. We really need to wake up', he writes.

There are so many prejudices, insults and stereotypes between different peoples, races, religions, nationalities and other social groups in the world. Many of the violent conflicts unnecessarily claiming so many lives use such prejudices to justify themselves. But prejudice need not to be openly violent in order for it to be injurious to human beings. There are many such irrational attitudes commonly displayed in action, speech and conduct whose cumulative effect is to rob other human beings of their dignity, self esteem and right to equality with other human beings.

While prejudices are generally expressed by 'others' towards 'others' over time, some of the victims of such prejudices may actually internalise them and use them against themselves or believe them to be true. An obvious example is the widely used notion of 'African time'. If a European, American or Chinese person is late, nobody blames it on Britain or Sweden, America or China. But if Tajudeen is late the whole of Africa takes the blame. Even Africans use it to justify their lateness.

There are many other examples. But the one that triggered this week's column was a recent experience I had in Lusaka, capital city of Zambia. We had gone to one of the many South African-owned or designed shopping malls that are springing up in capital cities across Africa, paying homage to Africa's growing middle-class consumerism. We had scheduled to meet up with my good friend, veteran agitator, Sarah Longwe and her equally cantankerous partner, Roy Clarke of the famous Kalaki Corner, a satiric column in The Post Newspaper that irks Zambia's establishment so much that, but for the courts, they would have deported him back to the England he left decades ago, and in spite of being married to a Zambian woman.

Our rendez-vous was a popular restaurant and bar called Rhapsodies. I had gone with another friend and colleague in the UN Millennium Campaign, Salil Shetty. I was in my 'native' Nigerian up-and-down Kaftan and trouser with a traditional hat to match. As we made to enter, a burly security man in an ill-suited tight uniform beckoned me to stop. I asked why and he said I had to take off my hat because men are not allowed to wear hats in the bar. Roy and Sarah, who could see us from the open air verandah, were already agitated and leapt to their feet screaming at the security man.

They needed not have bothered because I was very prepared to deal with the situation. It has happen to me a few times in southern Africa before. The last time it was in Zimbabwe. I was staying at the Great Zimbabwe hotel by the Zimbabwe ruins. I had gone for supper, when this huge bouncer by the gate in ridiculous multi-coloured English costumes with bowler hat and long tail suit tried to deny me entrance because 'gentlemen are required to take off their hats for supper'. I told him that part of his statement was correct: I am a man, but as for being gentle, that may not fit, as he was to discover soon after. I asked him why I needed to take off my hat, and he said it was the rule. Set by whom? And how many years after liberation from the Rhodesians?

I asked him if I had been wearing a Jewish skull cap and looked Jewish if would he have stopped me. His answer was that the Jewish skull cap was a religious symbol. How did he know that my hat was not a religious one? He drew blank because these rules and conventions were imposed to keep Africans away. Or model Africans in a particular way in order for them to belong! Needless to say I did not take my hat off. The good sense of the manager prevailed after I threatened to leave without paying for the accommodation since I was not welcomed.

So my Lusaka expwerience was just an echo of that experience. When I pointed out to my Zambian bouncer that he was also wearing a hat his only response was that 'it is part of the uniform'. So I humored him that my hat could also be part of my cultural uniform but it was above his programmed mind to see the joke. By this time Sara was at the entrance and Roy was ready for a fight. Just imagine the scene: an Englishman defending the right of an African to wear African dress including his hat to another African in an African country! How insane can our world get?

I was not budging and Salil, an Indian, was just enjoying the spectacle. The opposition was unyielding and nobody came to his rescue so he stepped aside and I entered.

It is true that we live with ridiculous rules but there is nothing that says we have to implement them, especially when they offend our good taste and sense of being. In many of the cultures of west Africa the wearing of a hat is considered part of a normal or formal dress code. I know that in eastern and southern Africa the wearing of a hat has acquired religious connotation.

When I was living in Uganda when I wore a hat people generally greeted me with ' salaam alaykum', whereas when I was not wearing one, even if I was wearing west African tie-and-die clothe, they would not assume I was a Muslim. Christian missionaries and later colonialists attacked many aspects of our culture in their 'civilizing mission' but continuing with some of these petty rules so many years after the formal end of colonialism is a sign of the enduring legacy of the colonial mindset. Most of them are like a petty-apartheid, which we can do away with. For instance have you ever wondered our five star hotels and no-star ones offer 'continental breakfast' on their menu which does not mean the African continent? Can you imagine being in a hotel in Europe and asking for a continental breakfast that does not mean the European continent?

The late martyr of the anti-apartheid struggle, and Black Consciousness of Azania leader, Steve Biko, once observed that one of the best weapons in the hands of the oppressor is to set up his General Headquarters in the head of the oppressed. How true, sadly so, this is, in all manners and in every day things of our lives. In some countries it is still being debated whether African dresses could be accepted as 'proper dress' for formal occassions. The main reason why many of the anti-African biases and petty apartheids persist is because too many of us put up with them. We really need to wake up.

Woza AFRIKA!

* Tajudeen Abdul Raheem is the Deputy Director for the UN Millennium Campaign in Africa, based in Nairobi, Kenya. He writes this article in a personal capacity as a concerned pan-Africanist.

* Please send comments to or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org/

Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem reflects on the political processes in Britain after Blair and looks the fall of Thatcher and the origins of New Labour. Can you imagine, he asks, a similar situation in Africa?

In the past two weeks I have been in countries with a 'new' head. I left Yar'Adua's Nigeria for Gordon Brown's Britain. For the first time in ten years one entered Britain without having to put up with the arrogant and sanctimonious Blair and his spin doctors. The Long Good Bye is finally over. For those who think it is only African leaders who are desperate not to leave office just look at how long it took the Labour Party to get rid of their Savior-turned-Judas of a leader. Unfortunately for the Palestinians, this fraudulent prophet has been made their interlocutor. How a second-hand leader parceled by Bush could be their savior I do not know.

I must confess that I have not made the transition from Blairism to Brownism properly. Seeing Brown on television in Britain I was still looking at him like the Chancellor he had been for the past decade. But being in Britain got me thinking about the many years that I have spent in that country.

It is a big shame that Africans do not write about Westerners the way they write about us; but we keep complaining about their prejudices, inaccuracies and false knowledge about the African condition.

Two weeks safari in the Masai Mara and someone becomes an expert on our foods, lifestyles, culture, history, geography or whatever. Millions of Africans have been in the West from time immemorial, but we do not lay claim to being 'Europeanists'!

It is one of those vicarious 'benefits' of the British imperial past that as 'commonwealth ' citizens, British-resident citizens, immigrants and settlers from former British colonies (except the USA which has its own uncommon wealth in which Britain shares!) can vote and even be voted for in British elections. Being voted for has been relatively easier for citizens from the old White Commonwealth of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, though second generation descendants of the non-white Commonwealth from Asia, the Caribbean and Africa are also beginning to break into the system (though they are more successful at the local levels than in the British Parliament in Westminster).

The visibility of black MPs both in parliament and government positions including the Cabinet only serves to show how uncommon it is. They are so few that we know them all; they become instantly famous just for being black! One of the ironies of uncommon wealth politics is that many Africans have probably had more opportunity to vote and be involved in democratic politics in Britain than in their own countries. I have voted more often in Britain than in Nigeria. And this is not just because I have been away for 'too long', my peer group who did not live outside have never had many opportunities to vote since the military had been in power for most of their lives. Until recently, military rule with civilian interludes has been the order of the day. Thankfully that is now more or less over and we are now in the era of 'voting without choosing' or choosing without making any difference.

It can be argued though that even in more stable societies elections do not change much because there is too much public contentment or governing consensus among the ruling classes, and between their main political parties. Consequently, politics has become more commercialized, money and media driven, with no disagreement on fundamentals therefore reducing politics to forms of presentation largely devoid of substance. Hence the increasing democratic deficit in many Western democracies of voter apathy, especially among the young.

All that taken into consideration, and despite obvious Americanization, British politics in the 1980s and early 1990s still inspired great ideological disputes and debates, essentially because of the Thatcherite Conservative counter-revolution that tore apart the old consensus within the British political establishment. She shifted the politics to the extreme right, provoking moderates, the 'noblese oblige' type Tories in her own party, and all kinds of leftist opposition in the Labour Party, the Labour movement and eventually the whole country.

The main opposition Labour Party swung between left and right for many years, even provoking a split that led to the walkout by more openly right-wing elements who felt that the militant left had taken over the party and made it unelectable. They formed the SDP which initially attracted a lot of support from across the board among people who wanted a different kind of politics from the tribal war between the Tories and Labour. Unfortunately for David Owen and his tiny bunch, the two party system (and its ethnic, provincial and regional voting patterns) is so embedded in Britain that the room for a third party (let alone a fourth one) is extremely limited. They merged with the Liberal Party which had always operated as the halfway lounge between the Tories and Labour. Their hopes of becoming a powerful third force, holding the balance of power in a 'hung parliament', evaporated as Labour became more and more moderate and electable.

What really happened in the Labour Party was that the smarter right-wingers did not leave the party but bided their time and embarked on a long term right-wing counter revolution inside the party, involving a reform of old ideological positions and a loosening of the traditional Labourite, socialist and egalitarian conscience. The emergence of Neil Kinnock as the Party Leader facilitated the right-wing coup. He came from a staunch Labour background, solidly in the left of the party and a credible working-class hero. He sold moderation to the party and the movement and helped to begin the process of Labour recovery and electability by facing down the hard left and Labour militants. Still, he lost two elections to Margaret Thatcher but held Labour votes and increased it as the Conservatives took lower votes. Unfortunately Kinnock did not make it and lost the 1992 elections to a little known John Major after the Conservatives had committed political matricide by getting rid of Margaret Thatcher. That was the last time I was most passionately involved in British partisan politics.

I was there on the foot steps of the Old Labour Party Headquarters on Woolworth Rd in South London when Kinnock conceded victory to Major and announced his resignation to crying party supporters. The second day you could not find many people who would admit that they had voted Tory. If it was in Africa opposition supporters would have cried 'rigging' because the media and popular opinion widely predicted a Labour Victory. From then onwards I never really bothered about being active in British politics anymore even though I remained a passive supporter of the anti-Tory movement. After Kinnock it was John Smith who unfortunately died very early in his leadership. His sudden death made it possible for the brewing right-wing coup to be brought forward with Blair emerging as the Leader. Had Smith lived longer who knows if Blair would have been that fortunate? Smith was very much to Kinnock in opposition as Gordon was to Blair in power. One does the politics and the other the economics.

The party was hungry for power and in Blair they found a winner even if it was at the expense of their ideological souls. Brown continued Smith's number-crunching that made business interests to begin to take Labour seriously as managers of British capitalism. The Labour party became more middle class.

In power Mr. Blair was more of an adopted political son of Margaret Thatcher, more at home when battling the Labour party and so called OLD Labour values. The Thatcherites used to sing: 'If it is not hurting it is not working' to justify their assault on the poor and to subsidise the greed of the rich and powerful. In Blair's Britain it was punned to mean: If the Labour Party is not complaining, it cannot be right. Even when he seemed to have conquered every tendency, save for a small group of non- conformists, he would deliberately pick quarrels with the Party. He was the closest Britain got to having a truly Presidential PM and the Peoples' Party became the Leader's Party. For a few years it seemed he could walk on air and water. He took on the party and won, took on the Government and won, and then he took on the British people on many issues- but Iraq was to be his Waterloo from which his authority never quite recovered. In politics, as in real life, once an elephantine problem knocks you down then all kinds of crawling crawlers will climb on to you. Like Thatcher he was kicked out after 'winning' a consecutive third-term electoral victory.

Blair's fall from grace is proof, yet again, that whatever goes up will come down; but politicians like other human beings never learn. When they are up they never think they will come down and they always do. However there are important lessons. One, a politician is the servant of the people not their master, no matter how popular he or she may be. In a genuine democracy, as in a real consumer driven society, the citizen (i.e. customer) is always right. Two, political parties, parliament, judiciary, the media and other autonomous institutions are necessary for democracy to take root and democratic culture to be nurtured. Strong leaders influence people and institutions and sometimes destroy them. But for sustainable democracy these institutions must endure. It was not the electorate that threw out Blair or Thatcher before him, but their own political parties on whose behalf they were acting.

Can you imagine a similar situation in many African countries? The President will dissolve the party and dissolve the Parliament! Three, there must be credible alternative leaders, whether within the ruling party or outside of it, deliberately nurtured without being considered traitors or disloyal. Can you imagine if Gordon Brown had been a Cabinet Minister in some African country? Would he have retained his post breathing down the President's neck for so long? In the worst of cases he would probably be dead by now or hounded out of cabinet or politics or be in exile.

However, there are encouraging signs in some countries like Ghana, Botswana and Tanzania. The immediate Foreign Minister of Ghana, Nana Akuffo Ado had never hidden the fact that he wanted Kuffour's job, having been beaten to second place by him in 2002. Similarly, the current President of Tanzania, Jakaya Kikwete, was a runner up to his predecessor and remained Foreign Minister for ten years before becoming President. However in many countries up to now even mere suspicion of the ambition can land you in 'hot soup'. These are countries where the people are not supposed to even imagine life without the current occupant of state house. However, no matter how long it takes they will all become 'former current chairman' as Idi Amin famously said of himself!

Blair's exit also shows that sometimes people may just want a change for the sake of it. I am not sure there is much ideological difference between Blair and Brown, but there is a difference in style and presentation. In the end people just got fed up with Blair and his lectures, his missionary strictures and braggadocio. The truth though is that Brown even takes himself more seriously as an intellectual politician than Blair. Both domestically and internationally there may be more action than words, and probably less of the razzmatazz and media obsession of the Blair years. But it may well be the same difference on many issues.

With huge apologies to the Indian writer, Arundhati Roy, It's the God of Small Changes. The Conservatives remain unelectable because thanks to Blair and Brown all their clothes have been stolen by New Labour. Just like the Tories prevented a Labour victory in 1992 by having a change within with John Major. Labour may have guaranteed itself a fourth term by being rid of Blair. Unfortunately, David Cameron sounds more like a Blair clone. May be he should just vacate his post and give it to the real Blair, currently wandering like Moses in the Middle East as Cameron is getting lost in Rwandan villages in the name of showing Africa he cares. Blair did the care for Africa, and this never led him or those Africans naïve enough to trust him, anywhere.

* Dr. Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is the Deputy Director for the UN Millennium Campaign in Africa, based in Nairobi, Kenya. He writes this article in his personal capacity as a concerned Pan-Africanist.
* Please send comments to or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org/