COMMENT - No one should swear allegiance to an elected official. The Constitution, yes, but not a politician.
Defending what can’t be defended
By The Post
Sun 26 Sep. 2010, 04:00 CAT
Things must be called by their right names. This does not mean that one is speaking with hurt, harshly or insultingly about anyone. We should analyse and criticise seriously things people say. If one has told a lie, this cannot be called by any other name other than that of a lie. And one who tells a lie has no other description other than that of a liar.
It doesn’t matter what position or title one holds in society, if they tell a lie, it will be called a lie and they themselves liars. And no attempt should be made to create conditions suitable for people to tell lies.
As Amilcar Cabral aptly put it: “Tell no lies. Expose lies whenever they are told.” Lies shouldn’t be told because even from a biblical point of view, they are not allowed.
“What I say is the truth; lies are hurtful to me” (Proverbs 8:7); “To honour the Lord is to hate evil; I hate pride and arrogance, evil ways and false words” (Proverbs 8:13); “If you are good, you are guided by honesty. People who can’t be trusted are destroyed by their own dishonesty” (Proverbs 11:3); “Honesty makes a good man’s life easier, but a wicked man will cause his own downfall” (Proverbs 11:5); “Honest people will treat you fairly; the wicked only want to deceive you” (Proverbs 12:5); “A wicked man is trapped by his own words, but an honest man gets himself out of trouble” (Proverbs 12:13);
“When you tell the truth, justice is done, but lies lead to injustice” (Proverbs 12:17); “Honest people hate lies, but the words of wicked people are shameful and disgraceful” (Proverbs 13:5); “Evil people listen to evil ideas, and liars listen to lies” (Proverbs 17:4); “Respected people do not tell lies, and fools have nothing worthwhile to say” (Proverbs 17:7); “You will have to live with the consequences of everything you say” (Proverbs 18:20); “You have to hate someone to want to hurt him with lies. Insincere talk brings nothing but ruin” (Proverbs 26:28).
It doesn’t seem right for Speaker Amusaa Mwanamwambwa to go for George Mpombo who was telling the truth and protect a liar – Rupiah Banda – who was telling lies. There is nothing in what Mpombo said about Rupiah that cannot be truthfully defended. There is no doubt Mpombo successfully exposed Rupiah’s lies in a manner that could not be challenged. Mpombo was extremely factual in his exposition of Rupiah’s lies. Rupiah told lies and there is no doubt about it.
And one who tells lies is nothing but a liar. And since Rupiah lied, Mpombo was justified to call him a liar because this is the truth of the matter. It is not an insult on the President to call him a liar when he lies. Rupiah himself has called other people liars, sometimes even when they have not lied. But if they have lied, Rupiah would equally be justified to call them liars and there is nothing unfair or insulting about that – things have to be called by their names.
Speaker Mwanamwambwa asks a question: “But consider if it is a Zambian culture for adults to insult each other. Is it normal to call one another liars?” Firstly, it is not an insult to call one who lies a liar. Secondly, it is not an insult under the Zambian culture to call a liar a liar and denounce him as such. Actually, the Zambian culture abhors lies and liars.
And Speaker Mwanamwambwa went on to warn Mpombo and other members of parliament:
“When it comes to this House, each one of you subscribes to the oath of allegiance. Be careful what you say here or there. And the oath says allegiance to the President. What that means is that wherever you are, inside or outside this House you must represent the President.”
There is no member of parliament that has sworn any oath of allegiance to the President’s lies. They have sworn allegiance to the dignity and honour of that office and not to its lies and other evil deeds. When a president resorts to lies, he loses that honour; he is no longer a man of excellence or honour; he is a man without honour and dignity.
And this is why when people occupying that office are found wanting, those with some honour and dignity that has been affected quickly apologise to restore it. Rupiah has never apologised for any lies he has told. Rupiah lied about us; he falsely and maliciously accused us of having pocketed US $30 million from state institutions to build and own mansions, buy and drive strange cars.
And he assured the nation that he would collect that money from us so that he could use it to build hospitals and schools. None of these is true; it’s all lies. And Rupiah knows very well that he lied about us. But he has made no effort whatsoever to apologise to us and to the Zambian people he told lies. Truly, Mpombo was right in calling Rupiah a shameless liar. A man with shame would have apologised to us and to the nation for such big lies.
Speaker Mwanamwambwa says: “Insulting is not a sign of heroism or political championship. Honourable Mpombo is an honourable member of parliament, honourable! And no honourable member can utter such words.”
It is said that “he who is not afraid of death by a thousand cuts dares to unhorse the emperor” – this is the indomitable spirit exhibited by Mpombo and which is needed in our struggle to build a more honest, fair, just and humane nation. Whether Speaker Mwanamwambwa likes it or not, Mpombo is a hero. We say this because heroes are men and women chosen to bring happiness into the hearts of people – these are the real heroes. Mpombo is a hero because he has refused to defend lies even if it may be beneficial to him personally to do so. We are told in the Bible:
“Don’t allow yourself to be dominated by someone who is stupid or show partiality to influential people. Stand up for what is right, even if it costs you your life; the Lord God will be fighting on your side” (Sirach 4:27-28).
It is very difficult to defend a humble politician like Mpombo when he is pitted against a powerful person like the President.
Only heroes will defend the weak against the powerful. We don’t expect Speaker Mwanamwambwa to defend Mpombo and go for the President. It is said that “when a rich man stumbles, his friends will steady him, but if a poor man falls, his friends will have nothing to do with him. When a rich man makes a mistake, there are many people to cover up for him and explain away all the things he never should have said.
But let a poor man make a mistake, and he gets nothing but criticism. Even if what he says makes good sense, nobody will listen” (Sirach 13:21-22).
We wish Speaker Mwanamwambwa could learn something from United States president Franklin Roosevelt who observed that: “The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants.
He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right.
Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or anyone else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about anyone else.”
And Speaker Mwanamwambwa is wondering why the law enforcement agencies are not arresting and prosecuting people insulting Rupiah by calling him a liar. Probably they know more than the Speaker knows about Rupiah that the man is a liar, and they will just embarrass themselves by arresting people and taking them to court for calling him a liar.
This is so because in defamation, truth is the most potent defence. And there is no way Mpombo, with all that truth he pointed out about Rupiah telling lies, can fail to defend himself for calling Rupiah a liar. This can be like the case of Frederick Chiluba arresting us in 2001 for calling him a thief when he had actually stolen. There was no defamation here because the man had stolen. And one who steals is a thief.
All that needs to be proved is simply that the man has stolen. If Speaker Mwanamwambwa really wants to defend Rupiah from being called a liar, he should advise the law enforcement agencies to pounce on us for calling him a liar so that we can go to court and truly show that Rupiah tells lies and is a liar.
If calling Rupiah a liar is an insult, the only medicine that can cure this is for him to stop telling lies and live by the truth and the truth alone.
No amount of intimidation or threats from Speaker Mwanamwambwa or anyone else for that matter will stop Rupiah from being called a liar if he continues to tell lies. Clearly, Speaker Mwanamwambwa is trying to defend what cannot be defended.
Labels: AMILCAR CABRAL, AMUSA MWANAMWAMBA
Read more...
Biti: wrong diagnosis, wrong prescription
By: Itayi Garande
Posted: Monday, September 20, 2010 4:54 am
AN article by Finance Minister Tendai Biti, in The Herald entitled “It’s all about the Zanu-PF DNA” made for interesting reading as it was based on some confusing economic logic and a lack of appreciation for the history and struggles of the Zimbabwean postcolonial State.
It was a response to a previous article by columnist Nathaniel Manheru, whom he attacked for his writing style which he called “loquacious and prolix ... typical of university students of his generation”. He also questions Manheru’s economic logic at the same time making a bad job of explaining his own.
Manheru’s writing style is his own. We all have different writing styles; and they are important in a publication like The Herald as they break the monotony that we often find in anti Zanu-PF organisations disguised as independent media outlets.
Mr Biti’s economic argument is self-contradictory. He quotes writers like Amilcar Cabral and Franz Fanon out of context without taking a holistic look at their arguments; or appreciating the context within which those arguments were based.
Minister Biti, for example, quotes Cabral's ideas on the black middle class "its immaturity and indeed its capacity to reproduce itself through legitimation by whites and white capital", but fails to contextualise his ideas on national liberation.
Besides this critique of the middle class, Cabral also said that national liberation comes about “when the national productive forces have been completely freed from all and any kind of foreign domination”. He argued that the national bourgeoisie had to acquire a high level of morality in order to lead the national liberation struggle; that is a leadership that can articulate its problems and consequently fashion the goals and course of liberation.
Cabral also argues that the national bourgeoisie should help the proletariat to develop revolutionary consciousness through a wide range of political mobilization.
No one today argues that this process is taking place in Zimbabwe with the indigenisation and economic empowerment programme and the land reform programme.
In any case, Biti tried to compare two completely different struggles. The peasantry in Guinea which Cabral wrote about was not originally a revolutionary force, unlike their counterparts, for example in Zimbabwe and in China.
Cabral also expressed the urgency of a national liberation struggle saying cadres should not hedge, drag their feet, and watch the gains of the liberation struggle go back to colonial power.
In the post-colonial period this test was expanded to include those who actively participate in the emancipation and empowerment through education, gainful employment and enhancement of self-respect and personal dignity, those who were previously disadvantged -- the “wretched of the earth” in dire need of not just political and social emancipation, but also economic emancipation.
Minister Biti also make the fallacy of quoting Franz Fanon out of context; and of picking what is relevant to his line of argument.
While he is right to quote Fanon on his criticism of the national bourgeoisie, he ignores Fanon's ideas on the relationship of the national bourgeoisie with the colony (mother country). In the case of Zimbabwe, the bourgeoisie does not continue to serve the former mother country; but the interests of Zimbabweans.
The Zimbabwean State does not have a patron-client relationship with foreign capitalists "who count on its obliging compliance.” In fact the MDC-T advocates such a relationship. Zanu-PF has tried to reduce the demands, accumulation of concessions and guarantees by western capital and form a mutually beneficial relationship.
Minister Biti fails to recognise that some postcolonial States like Zimbabwe and South Africa also have a firm theory and practice of National Democratic Revolution involving unity or alliance among classes, especially between the working class and the national bourgeoisie.
Earlier writings of former South African President, Thabo Mbeki, express these ideas quite eloquently.
The land reform and the indigenisation programmes run against Fanon's "money-in-the-stocking mentality ... dominant in the psychology of these landed proprietors”. Zimbabwe's national democratic revolution aims to reduce class differences and increase social mobility by providing access to the means of production to those who were disadvantaged by colonisation.
Today Zimbabwe boasts some of the best middleclass businesses on the continent and some of the finest brains. If there was that "money-in-the-stocking mentality" the middleclass in Zimbabwe would not have been as bloated as it is today.
ON A MORE PRACTICAL LEVEL
Minister Biti starts his argument with the mistake that the empowerment programme is intended to benefit the “black middleclass” and “elites” and argues that these two groups are opposed to the programme. This is untrue, and in fact, these two groups, together with the working class (or the generality of the Zimbabwean population) are in agreement over the need for the policy; so there's no class conflict here.
Mr Biti talks of a “post colonial education system, which trains the African child to be a subservient seller of labour”. This is in fact a misunderstanding of the role played by the education system of Zimbabwe which churned out many doctors, teachers, engineers, lawyers, nurses, social workers among others who are benefitting countries like South Africa, Botswana, UK, to name a few. The country today even boasts the highest literacy rate on the continent.
Minister Biti wants us to believe that “The education system does not allow us to have bigger horizons other than being a teacher, nurse, doctor or accountant” as if these are not honourable professions themselves.
Mr Biti fails to understand the role of the post-colonial State by again declaring that it has “failed to create a mature middleclass and indeed for that matter a black bourgeoisie”. The “creation of a middle class” is a process achieved through tertiary education, attaining professional qualifications (academics, lawyers, engineers, politicians and doctors regardless of their leisure or wealth), a belief in a set of value systems based on ownership and security, lifestyle and cultural identification; among others.
How does a State “create” this; if not by education? Today, Mr Biti boasts a middleclass lifestyle courtesy of that same State he criticises.
He then justifies that “failure to create a middleclass” by referring to legal battles involving the likes of Strive Masiyiwa, Nigel Chanakira, James Makamba, Shingi Mutasa, Nicholas Vingirai, Julius Makoni, James Mushore, Mutumwa Mawere, Mthuli Ncube and Jeff Mzwimbi, whose specific circumstances and relationships with the State are as varied as their business interests.
Minister Biti’s economic logic of the 1930s is that development is measured in terms of GDP only. He makes a somewhat troubling comparison between the GDPs of Europe and those of pre-independence African countries; not accepting that these two economies were inextricably linked during colonialism. Rhodesia, before the Unilateral Declaration of Independence, was a "province" of Britain.
The honourable minister also implies in his argument that Rhodesia's Ian Smith was better at sanctions busting than President Mugabe. This is a bizarre comparison; not least because the Smith regime, despite a UN Security Council resolution 216 had the support of the Western world. US maintained relations with Smith and Portugal pursued a middle ground path and gave active behind-the-scenes support to the racist minority regime.
France and Portugal supported Rhodesian War effort from 1965-1979. Crucial clandestine missions kept Rhodesia afloat, especially in the area of air power and industrial development.
The details are outlined in the book "Winds of Destruction" by PJH Petter-Bowyer.
Rhodesia was not only a battleground of Moscow and Washington, it was also a remarkable cauldron of intrigue, violence and power play that often overflowed national borders.
Smith received a lot of secret funding from the US opposed to the spread of socialism. Bishop Abel Muzorewa (as Zimbabwe-Rhodesia prime minister in October and November 1979) continued bombing Zipra bases in Botswana and Zambia -- a continuation of the war between Moscow and Washington.
"Rex" beef was exported to Switzerland throughout the sanction years. The Cold Storage Commission also exported unmarked beef to Portugal and the United Arab Emirates. Bata shoes were exported to Europe as well as many African countries. Lever Bros exported soap, cooking oil and many other products to our neighbours, including Tanzania and other "frontline countries" all of which helped pay for Rhodesia's military operations.
Minister Biti also somehow thinks development is defined by how many Strive Masiyiwas, Nigel Chanakiras or Shingi Mutasas we have in Zimbabwe; not the improvement in standards of living of the generality of the Zimbabwean people (all classes).
Minister Biti has referred to the Zimbabwean economy as a “subsistence economy” or an economy where we “gather whatever we eat”. In such an economy, GDP will not necessarily be a measure of, or will underestimate, economic development.
Official GDP statistics do not include the black market – a significant part of most subsistence economies. The unofficial market today is a significant source of the US dollar.
Mr Emeka Anyaoku, former foreign minister of Nigeria in 1997 said, "Economies are a means, not an end. Governments and industry of today, never mind tomorrow, need to know how our ecological and social assets are performing, just as much as our economic ones.”
Other measures like the Ecological Footprint, the Human Development Index and GDP per capita – are better measures of level of development.
Minister Biti quotes Dr Ibbo Mandaza, who in line with Fanon, suggests that the post-independent Zimbabwean State is not intellectually incompetent and that it "was inherited by peasant teachers and headmasters who simply could not understand State craftsmanship and therefore maintained the status quo of conformity”. This is not only a misunderstanding of the post-colonial Zimbabwean State; but also a failure to realise the efforts made by that State post-independence.
Zimbabwe managed to develop skilled civil servants by not immediately elevating them to top posts; but by developing their experience through the “Understudy Programme”. Agricultural colleges, women's co-operatives, State resettlement areas ("minda mirefu") and agricultural extension services were developed helping Zimbabwe, not Rhodesia, achieve the "breadbasket of Southern Africa" status and improving the livelihoods of majority blacks.
This is the role that was played by the developmental State until the World Bank/IMF sposored Economic Structural Adjustment Programme was introduced as the favoured model, with disastrous results.
Mr Biti makes a somewhat interesting relationship between political power and economic development; running into problems of causality. He says that Zanu-PF has been concerned only by retention of power. It is not a crime; every political party seeks power, and retention of it. The Zanu-PF agenda though is wider than that and is national democratic agenda; with land redistribution highest on the agenda, followed by efforts in education, health, etc.
The country today boasts the highest literacy level in Africa. The minister himself is a product of the Zanu-PF government’s free education programme; primary, secondary and university education.
The minister also thinks that somehow retention of power is directly linked to level of development. It is not plausible to suggest that a more equitable distribution of power will lead to more equitable development.
In fact Minister Biti contradicts himself by then quoting China as a success story. The Chinese Communist Party has been in power for a long time having seized power in 1949. It developed China into a global powerhouse that it is today. It also did so, not on the basis of a neo-liberal blueprint from Washington, but through inward-looking.
Before he joined the inclusive government, Minister Biti advocated a free market economy based on his much hyped RESTART programme, where he advocated the "liberalisation" of Zimbabwe’s economy (together with Eddie Cross). As minister he makes suggestions that Zimbabwe should have a Diamond Act, taking power from private enterprise. Such an Act would increase the role of the State (through the Ministry of Finance) – the same State the minister is saying is dysfunctional.
How does that idea reconcile with his neoliberal reasoning in RESTART? And how about other minerals in Zimbabwe? Do we need a Platinum Act, a Gold Act, a Copper Act, a Nickel Act and so forth?
Minister Biti’s very confusing argument does not end there.
He talks of corruption and cronyism as if they are concentrated in the State only.
The case against Africa Consolidated Resources, which Minister Biti a while ago suggested should be settled out of court, was about corruption; not by the State, but involving a private enterprise.
If it was not for the oversight of the Ministry of Mines, the State would have lost huge revenue from diamonds.
The minister should also debate the fact that De Beers and other companies took part in thwarting progress of the postcolonial States in South Africa and Zimbabwe. The company, for example, was "prospecting" for alluvial diamond deposits for 15 years!
In fact Zimbabwe has the Prevention of Corruption Act and an Anti-Corruption Commission. Many government ministers lost their jobs after the Sandura Commission report of 1989 because of corruption over the Willowvale Motors scandal.
The minister concludes his piece, in a rather odd fashion – by discrediting everything that he had mentioned before. He says: “Africa’s new rulers suddenly found themselves in control of a State which was not in control of its own resources” and were mere gatekeepers. So how could they have performed well if they were mere gatekeepers?
While he admits that resources were held by Western businesses, he fails to admit that the State was battling to have access to those resources; otherwise it would have been deemed dictatorial. The State lost a lot of revenue as many westerners remitted their profits overseas, banked offshore or produced cash crops that did not feed the people.
By agreeing that the State was a mere gatekeeper, Minister Biti agrees that the indigenisation and economic empowerment programme was necessary; and that land redistribution was inevitable.
So why is he opposing the same law and policy now; and why does he want the State to continue as a gatekeeper, or a spectator in economic affairs of Zimbabwe?
Why does he want Zimbabwe to be declared a HIPC when it is so rich?
In the Zimbabwean case, the government is battling with shaking off the gatekeeper role via various policies – indigenisation, land reform (including fast track land reform, and government compulsory acquisition of farmland), education, etc.
Minister Biti's economic logic is symbolic of the struggles that his MDC-T party goes through in defining a real agenda for Zimbabwe.
Unfortunately, that logic is premised on a flawed appreciation of Zimbabwe’s economic, social and political history; and is a hotch-potch of economic isms and schisms. It has nothing to do with "the Zanu-PF DNA" if anything like that ever exists.
________________________________
Itayi Garande can be reached via itayig@hotmail.com
Labels: AMILCAR CABRAL, FRANZ FANON, ITAYI GARANDE, NATHANIEL MANHERU, NEOCOLONIALISM, NEOLIBERALISM, TENDAI BITI, ZANU-PF
Read more...
