John Makumbe dies
This article was written by Our reporter on 27 January, at 13 : 48 PM
University of Zimbabwe academic and political commentator, John Makumbe, has died.
MDC-T spokesman Douglas Mwonzora confirmed that Makumbe, who was planning to run as a member of parliament, died at Arcadia Medical Centre in Harare on Sunday morning after suffering a suspected heart attack.
He is survived by his wife, Virginia, and five children.
Late last year, the University of Zimbabwe professor announced he was going to take a break from teaching to contest in the forthcoming general elections as an MDC-T candidate for Buhera West constituency in Manicaland province.
Mwonzora confirmed the news to SW Radio adding that he was a technical adviser for the MDC-T party.
Labels: DOUGLAS MWONZORA, JOHN MAKUMBE, MDC
Read more...
I wanted to take power by force: Tsvangirai
Friday, 21 October 2011 00:00
Herald Reporter
MDC-T leader Mr Morgan Tsvangirai says he thought of taking up arms to force himself into power after failing to outrightly win the 2008 presidential election.
Mr Tsvangirai said this in his recently published book: "Morgan Tsvangirai: At The Deep End" that he was surprised to learn there was going to be a presidential election run-off.
"For a moment I did not know what to do," he said. "I had no arms of war. I lacked the necessary wherewithal to force myself into power to fulfil the people's wish."
Mr Tsvangirai got 47,9 percent of the vote in the first round when the Electoral Act required one to garner more than 50 percent to be declared a winner.
President Mugabe got 43,2 percent while Mr Simba Makoni was third with 8,3 percent.
Little-known Langton Towungana was a distant fourth on 0.6 percent.
The failure by any of the candidates to get the required majority vote meant there was going to be a run-off between President Mugabe and Mr Tsvangirai.
But Mr Tsvangirai said he was not aware of the provisions of the Electoral Act.
"What was this run-off business all about?" said Mr Tsvangirai, adding: "I was unaware that the law had been changed to deny a winner without 50 percent plus one vote to take over government."
"It must have slipped my mind at the time when it went through Parliament. I did not know that in such an event, a run-off would be needed between the two leading candidates."
Mr Tsvangirai said he had already formed a government.
The Electoral Act says:
"(3) Where two or more candidates for President are nominated, and after a poll taken in terms of subsection (2) no candidate receives a majority of the total number of valid votes cast, a second election shall be held within 21 days after the previous election in accordance with this Act."
Analysts said it is surprising that Mr Tsvangirai was not aware of the run-off yet some senior members of his party like secretary-general Mr Tendai Biti were talking about it at the time.
In fact, Mr Tsvangirai says in his book that Mr Biti announced him a winner well before the election results were made public and said there was no need for a run-off.
[That's Tendai Biti trying to steal the elections. - MrK]
University of Zimbabwe lecturer Professor John Makumbe blamed lawyers who are members of MDC-T for failing to advise Mr Tsvangirai appropriately.
He said the lawyers in MDC-T should be embarrassed by Mr Tsvangirai's revelations.
"It's not all people who read the Constitution and understand it," said Prof Makumbe.
"Tsvangirai is surrounded by lawyers. How could they not advise him that there is a possibility of a two-stage election?"
A political analyst, Mr Goodwine Mureriwa said: The ignorance that Tsvangirai displays is amazing. We are a very educated nation and cannot expect to be led by a person who does not mind to study the consequences of a major event like an election that he participates in."
Mr Mureriwa said Mr Tsvangirai was expected to have acquired experience from his time at the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions even if he "did not attain higher educational qualifications".
Another political analyst, Mr Alexander Kanengoni, said it was shocking that Mr Tsvangirai did not know of such a fundamental law governing presidential elections.
"It is surprising that he did not know about that," he said.
"People will not deny it if he is said to be of low intellect because he is admitting it by failing to study provisions of a law in which he is an interested party."
MDC-T spokesperson Mr Douglas Mwonzora said Mr Tsvangirai was being sincere that he did not know of the provisions of the Electoral Act.
"As you can see that his book is a memoir and people tell the truth about their lives in such books," he said.
"The idea is not to pretend what you are not. Perhaps he was not advised about the necessary clauses."
The provisions for a run-off were introduced into the Electoral Act in 2004, with the full participation of Members of Parliament from MDC.
With five days to go to voting day, Mr Tsvangirai announced that he was boycotting the presidential run-off held on June 27, 2008 after claiming that his supporters were being harassed.
His announcement was, however, declared a legal nullity since the election had started in earnest and the poll was held and won by President Mugabe.
Labels: ALEXANDER KANENGONI, ELECTIONS, GODWINE MURERIWA, JOHN MAKUMBE, MDC, MORGAN TSVANGIRAI
Read more...
Intellectual responsibility: The bane of writers
HISTORY, public opinion, policy decisions, wars and other aspects of human life are in more than one way strongly influenced by the work of writers, and the perplexing question that is rarely answered pertains to the intellectual responsibility of these writers.
At a level of generality, the easy answer to the question of intellectual responsibility is that any writer, or any decent person, should tell the truth. Here, "truth" and "intellectual responsibility" are taken in their narrow sense of respect for moral values — putting aside philosophical and other aesthetic dimensions.
Qualifications and complexities that arise when one looks at the moral obligations expected of writers centre on the moral imperative to find out and tell the truth as best as one can; about things that really matter and to the right audience.
Finding and telling the truth is not only hard, but can be personally costly, particularly when one is vulnerable — and this writer knows from personal experience that the cost can really be severe, even in societies that pride themselves as civilised and free democracies.
Writers sometimes do not find it so easy to determine what really matters and this is because of a number of factors that influence intellectual interest.
It is always intriguing to establish the moral dimension behind the motivation of some writers — especially when one is confronted by politically affiliated and partisan intellectuals as John Makumbe of the University of Zimbabwe — a vibrant street political activist who doubles up as a lecturing university professor.
In explaining the responsibility of a writer Noam Chomsky had this to say, "The responsibility of the writer as a moral agent is to try to bring the truth about matters of human significance to an audience that can do something about them".
It is very easy for writers to transform from moral agents into ruthless monsters, sanitising brutalities and serving at the hands of mighty power centres, be these in the so-called totalitarian states or in the so-called developed democracies.
In fact, the standard practice of the intellectual communities to which we variously belong often rejects this elementary moral practice, most of the time with considerable fervour and passion.
Between 1975 and 1980, there were two major atrocities taking place at a scale warranting global attention, and these were in Cambodia and East Timor. From a point of view of basic rationality and integrity the two atrocities were similar in many ways, not least in their deplorability.
But reading about them as presented by writers from different intellectual communities they are made to look strikingly so different that history is even distorted.
The Cambodia Khmer Rougue atrocities were correctly reported as crimes against humanity, if the concept has meaning at all. In the West, these were attributable to an official enemy; they were ideologically serviceable, offering justification for US crimes against humanity in Indochina for 25 years.
So Pol Pot’s atrocities were then deliberately exploited for purposes of justifying the US’ own atrocities elsewhere — this as a way to reconstruct the faith of US citizens and as a weapon to implement further atrocities. The principle was that the US could torture and kill in other countries so as to prevent the rise of other Pol Pots across the world.
It is like the atrocity that was suffered by the United States on September 11, 2001, a terror attack that killed about 3000 people.
That atrocity has tragically and sadly been used to reconstruct jingoistic patriotism and a faith in the sabre-rattling foreign policy of Washington.
And the whole world must now come to understand that Barrack Obama’s "surge" in the Afghan war can torture, maim, mutilate and kill innocent civilians so as to prevent the possibility of another 9/11. It is all about fighting terrorism, and that we must never dispute, unless we support Osama bin Laden and his murderous goons.
There were no credible suggestions from right wing Western intellectuals and writers on how to halt or mitigate the Khmer Rouge crimes, focusing rather on sensationalising the stories so as to elicit a huge outcry and show of indignation, often deceitfully misinforming the audience with such artistry as would have courted the envy of Stalin.
Fabrications became uncorrectable, as is often the case with the reporting of events in the territories of the West’s official enemies.
When exposed, the authors of deceit only became more passionate in reiterating the exaggerations, however childish and absurd. The truth about Cambodia was awful enough, but any suggestions that Western writers had to stick to the truth were met with hostility, virtual hysteria and renewed deceit.
It is like telling the Western Press to stick to the truth about the political situation in Zimbabwe today — especially when one queries the gross statistical exaggerations often used to back up allegations of political violence and President Mugabe’s alleged brutality.
When a suggestion to keep to the truth is made — it is automatically met with repulsive attacks where those making such suggestions are labelled "Mugabe apologists" or "supporters of a despotic regime".
This writer is well aware of those whose position on Zimbabwe is based on fabrications and exaggerations, but are so resolute that they will criminalise any challenge to their entrenched views.
So the crimes of Pol Pot were elevated to the very symbol of evil, placed alongside those of Adolf Hitler and Stalin, where they remain in the officially approved list of the twentieth century horrors.
We will now turn to the atrocities carried out through the Indonesian occupation of East Timor at the same time.
Like those of Khmer Rouge, they were also crimes against humanity, but furthermore, crimes carried out in the process of outright aggression, war crimes, hence clearly within the purview of international law.
Just like the war crimes of Iraq and Afghanistan today, the war crimes of East Timor traced directly to Washington and its allies.
These were atrocities that were ideologically dysfunctional, if one were to look at the locus of responsibility. Washington was so directly responsible for these atrocities that all it took to terminate them was just turning off the tap — the weapons supply to Jakarta. There was not even a need to send troops, to bomb Jakarta, impose sanctions, or even issue warnings.
The reaction to the East Timor atrocities was almost total silence in the US, apart from routine reiteration of lies told by the Department of State and the Indonesian Generals — always reported as fact.
The Western backed atrocities in East Timor, just like those in Palestine, in Iraq, Afghanistan or those that happened in Vietnam; will never be a symbol of evil, and there is always no blot on the Western record.
The pattern is so striking that it takes outstanding talent not to recognise it, and to avoid drawing certain conclusions from it. All tribute must go to Western writers, journalists and intellectuals for conferring such extraordinary talent with so impressive a success.
When it became problematic to sustain the deceit and lies around the East Timor atrocities, Washington backtracked and started passing the blame on Indonesia — "the shaming of Indonesia", as The New York Times put it, never the shaming of the US.
At the very worst the US can accept to be blamed as having failed to attend closely enough to the unpleasant acts of people who lacked the West’s civilised standards, and may not have done enough to stop the acts for which Washington was so eagerly providing the decisive military and diplomatic support.
The West has this tradition of honouring dissidents from countries they consider as official enemies. There is no difficulty distinguishing the decency in the dissidents from enemy states, and this is why Liu Xiaobo of China was honoured as the winner of the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize. The commissars of the Chinese Communist Party are easily derided in the West.
But when we turn the truths that matter in the moral realm, looking at the record of the West, we see judgements dramatically reversing — this time Western commissars are greatly honoured, the dissidents berated for their iniquity — and this writer has a personal testimony to that.
The principles that Western writers apply with increasing facility as Western responsibility declines are the merest truisms — the noblest of intentions.
When the Soviet Union was committing crimes against humanity in Poland and Czechoslovakia, those crimes did not come within shouting distance of US crimes in Central America, and that was an obvious parallel at the time.
Then it was seen in the West as the moral duty of the Russian intellectuals to focus attention on the former, even to the exclusion of far worse crimes beyond the reach of Russian power.
If Soviet intellectuals told the truth about US crimes, well and good, but there were no prizes to be expected from the West. There are always more important things for lesser people to do than criticising Western powers.
This is why this writer is persecuted, harassed, stalked, detained at airports and flagged in data bases for daring criticising the West instead of being a dissident against the president of his homeland, Robert Mugabe. For someone coming from Zimbabwe, there must surely be better and more important things to write about than attacking Western imperialism and the atrocities that sustain it.
If a Soviet intellectual exaggerated or fabricated American crimes, then he became an object of utter contempt and equally that would be the case with any other writer doing the same.
However, if a Soviet intellectual ignored American crimes it was of no consequence. Western admiration for dissidents from enemy states is never diminished by the fact that these dissidents may choose to openly condone Western atrocities.
When Zimbabwean dissident intellectuals praise the US atrocities as John Makumbe does, it is of no significance, and such intellectuals can expect accolades for their efforts.
If Soviet intellectuals denied or minimised American atrocities, as many did, it was a matter of no consequence at all. Their responsibility lay at home, and they needed to reserve their energy attacking crimes carried out by their own government.
When Zimbabwean intellectuals and writers minimise or deny the ruinous and murderous nature of the atrocities caused by the illegally imposed Western sanctions — this is a matter of honour in as far as the West is concerned. This glaring irrationality is rewarded as objective intellectualism, and those that insist that the illegal sanctions are hurting the poor the most are derided as deplorable sidekicks of a "ruthless Mugabe regime".
If Soviet intellectuals ignored or justified Soviet crimes, that was criminal and unforgivable. It is the same thing one gets from the West today by being labelled a Zanu-PF supporter — something Western elites patently regard as a crime — despite the fact that Zanu-PF remains the majority party in Zimbabwe, by way of carrying a superior popular vote in the last elections held in March 2008.
There is no lack of information about Western atrocities. The world is well aware that civilians, including children, are routinely and frequently killed by Western occupation forces in Afghanistan and the brutal nature of the Western war in that country is a matter of common knowledge.
If Western intellectuals tell the truth about the crimes of the USSR, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein or any other declared official enemy, in the past or in the present, that is regarded as an act of high moral standing in the Western sense.
If they exaggerate or fabricate such crimes, that is of no significance at all. Yet if they ignore such crimes they become objects of utter contempt.
If they ignore or justify the crimes carried out by their own states then that is a matter of very little significance — if any at all. Many have even been honoured for this, while others have been silenced by bribes. Criticism of the Afghan war is acceptable for Western intellectuals if it is limited to critiquing the tactics of the war, as opposed to its justification.
These patterns shape most of the content in the reports made by Western sponsored civic organisations carrying out assignments authored in Western corridors of power. They often have very little, if anything at all — to say about atrocities carried out by Western allies, but they are too eager to portray negative images for states considered as official enemies of the West.
These organisations avail damning reports covering alleged crimes carried out in Africa and other non-Western countries to the ICC prosecutor — and calls for investigation are often quite loud. Witnesses have been bribed and reports of incentives to get witnesses to incriminate targeted persons are quite common.
There are no such calls for witnesses over atrocities carried out frequently by US soldiers and their allies in Afghanistan and in Iraq today.
This is why the ICC has so far indicted 13 people since its inception in 1998; and its subsequent establishment in July 2002 — and all the 13 are from one continent — Africa.
Recently the ICC was investigating the February 12, 2009 killing of two adults and four children by three Australian soldiers in Afghanistan.
The ICC has since dropped the case after the Australian Director of Military Prosecutions announced that charges would be laid against the soldiers.
However, when Sudan says it wants to lay charges against its own alleged perpetrators of war crimes the ICC insists that the case be dealt with at The Hague. And Australia is one of the countries openly opposed to Sudan’s stance that it prosecutes its accused perpetrators of atrocities in Darfur.
Those who gave the orders for the war crimes carried out at Abu Ghraib, Iraq in 2004 will never be investigated by the ICC, not only because the US is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, but mainly because it is unthinkable for the ICC to drag US Generals to The Hague.
The low ranking soldiers who carried out these criminal acts were jailed for obeying orders — including those who were so appalled by these instructions that they helped in exposing them.
The true story of Zimbabwe is now shrouded in uncorrectable fabrications as can be found through the outrageous lies filed in thousands of pending applications by Zimbabwean asylum seekers in the UK — applications that are based on impressive and dramatic falsehoods designed to make President Mugabe a monster, and Zimbabwe a dreadful torture state.
The lies are legendary and so absolute that even the Devil is bound to dissociate himself from such crass dishonesty.
A teenage girl facing removal from the UK quickly claims that she faces a "firing squad" for having participated on a British TV singing competition and the writers at the Daily Mail just buy that apparently ludicrous fabrication with the zeal of novices, all because all anti-Mugabe hate will do in serving at the imperial shrine.
It is the duty of intellectuals, journalists and writers to stand for the truth and integrity as world affairs increasingly become a matter of power politics as shaped by the United States.
Writers have an intellectual responsibility to keep readers well informed by keeping in line with the truth.
Zimbabwe we are one and together we will overcome. It is homeland or death!
Reason Wafawarova is a political writer and can be contacted on wafawarova *** yahoo.co.uk or reason@ rwafa warova.com or visit www.rwafawarova.com
Labels: INDOCHINA WAR, JOHN MAKUMBE, PROPAGANDA, REASON WAFAWAROVA
Read more...
COMMENT - From the OTI funded UK based studios of SW Radio Africa. SW Radio Africa is funded by the USAID's 'Office Of Transition Initiatives'. The OTI is or has also been active to support opposition in Yugoslavia and Venezuela.
(1) USAID is quote: "USAID is an independent federal government agency that receives overall foreign policy guidance from the Secretary of State."
(2) The US Secretary of State is of course Hillary Clinton.
Makumbe says MDC-T must address issue of internal violence
May 7, 2010
BROADCAST: APRIL 30, 2010
On SW Radio Africa’s HotSeat, political analyst Professor John Makumbe analysis the alleged infighting in the MDC -T. Violence broke out in MDC Headquarters two weeks ago when rowdy youths reportedly confronted the party’s Director General, Toendepi Shonhe and took his car. Speculation is rife that the incident was a result of power struggles within the MDC-T leadership ahead of next year’s party congress. Is Secretary General Tendai Biti trying to upstage President Morgan Tsvangirai? Are these ‘power struggles’ a result of disagreements over strategies and tactics, or a mere smear campaign by ZANU PF?
VIOLET GONDA: My guest on the Hot Seat programme is political analyst, Professor John Makumbe with his analysis of the alleged in-fighting in the MDC. Violence broke out at Harvest House, MDC Headquarters in Harare a fortnight ago when a group of youths allegedly attacked the Party’s Director General Toendepi Shonhe and took his car. It is reported that MDC youths also assaulted three private investigators who had been called in to investigate the disturbances. Speculation is rife that the incident was a result of the power struggles within the MDC. Professor Makumbe, what is your understanding of what is going on in the MDC? Are there power struggles?
JOHN MAKUMBE: There are always power struggles in every Party, because people are people – they like power, they enjoy power and once they are in certain positions, they aspire for higher positions, so there’s a real possibility that there may be power struggles in the MDC. We are waiting to hear what the report, which should be released today will be saying.
GONDA: Well I was talking to some of the MDC people who were speaking on condition of anonymity and they were saying that they didn’t think that the report would be coming out this week because the committee investigating these disturbances was still interviewing people. But even if the report does not come out right away, what is your understanding of what exactly is happening because there are some people who are saying there are rivalries between the Secretary General, Tendai Biti and the President Morgan Tsvangirai?
MAKUMBE: I have heard those rumours also but it’s very difficult Violet to go by way of rumours. In this country, rumour mongering is an industry and you can be led up the garden path really by believing rumours. But I think that it is really very unlikely that Tendai Biti would be wanting to push Morgan Tsvangirai out before there is a Congress. I think their Congress is due next year or is it later this year, I don’t remember. And then at the Congress, anyone not just Tendai Biti but all the others are free to contest if Morgan Tsvangirai wants to stand again. But I have seen very little or anything that actually is credible in terms of saying Tendai Biti is undermining Morgan Tsvangirai or Morgan Tsvangirai is undermining Tendai Biti. I suspect very strongly that a lot of that is coming from the Central Intelligence Organisation and then there are also elements within the MDC who are influenced by it and the rumour mongering really spreading all kinds of innuendos about the relationship between Biti and Morgan. For starters I know very well that Morgan would not hesitate to take the matter to the National Executive Council of the MDC if he thought that Tendai Biti was undermining him.
GONDA: But I’ve been trying to get MDC officials to talk on the record about these reports of in-fighting but it’s a problem getting people to go on record. What is the sensitivity with this issue?
MAKUMBE: Well largely people usually don’t want to go on record because sometimes what they are saying is not borne out by evidence; it’s not really true, it’s not really happening. Sometimes they are really pushing a rumour they heard somewhere and they don’t want to be, they don’t want it to be attributed to them, but I think if there was clear evidence that there is a power struggle between Tendai Biti and Morgan Tsvangirai, it would be evident and anybody speaking about it would actually be willing to say – yeh, put my name to that.
[There has been a running battle between Tendai Biti and Morgan Tsvangirai over the (typically neoliberal but electorially extremely unpopular) wage freeze for civil servants. Does 'political analyst' John Makumbe ascribe that to the CIO too? - MrK]
GONDA: A statement issued by the MDC on Friday accuses ZANU PF of embarking on a smear campaign and they said that this is to malign Morgan Tsvangirai and Tendai Biti by alleging that they are involved in a non-existent power struggle. But Professor Makumbe, to what extent is this just a mere smear campaign?
MAKUMBE: Robert Mugabe got into the Government of National Unity for one purpose and one purpose only – to destroy the MDC. And so his puppets, his running dogs have the responsibility of manufacturing anything and everything possible to cause the MDC to break down. Robert Mugabe and ZANU PF know very well that Morgan Tsvangirai and Tendai Biti are the lynch pins of the MDC-Tsvangirai and so the best way of destroying the MDC-Tsvangirai is to place these two against each other. Whether it is imagined or real I really can’t say at this stage but I personally suspect that there is no truth whatsoever in the allegations that Tendai Biti is trying to upstage Morgan Tsvangirai and vice versa. It is fiction.
[John Makumbe is not 'a political analyst', but an MDC spin doctor. - MrK]
GONDA: Well some observers say that there are some disagreements over strategies and tactics between those in the MDC leadership in terms of how to solve this crisis in the unity government and of course in Zimbabwe.
MAKUMBE: Oh I agree entirely and these have been with the MDC since its formation, in fact at one stage on the 12th of October 2005, the differences resulted in the split of the MDC with the Mutambara and Ncube group going their way and the mainstream MDC remaining with Tendai Biti and Morgan Tsvangirai. So yes, there are differences in methodology of how to resolve the crisis but these differences have never escalated within the MDC leadership to the level where there are really struggles for positions as is alleged at the moment. But there are people who would like to take that history of 12th of October 2005 and say, this is now recurring but now between Biti and Morgan Tsvangirai and I still think that differences in how do you proceed, what’s the best methodology of removing a dictator
[Through elections? - MrK]
have always been within the MDC because it is essentially a movement of various fingers, various people with various views. Very different from ZANU PF which has a dictator; whatever he says goes. In the MDC, people actually discuss issues and when they disagree, then the people of weak minds take those disagreements to mean that, therefore these people are actually fighting for power, and it is fiction.
GONDA: Some of the MDC supporters are saying that the MDC is acquiescing too much to ZANU PF and are now unable to provide a forceful alternative for Zimbabweans. Do you agree with this?
MAKUMBE: I don’t agree with that. I don’t think there is anything on the horizon other than the MDC as an alternative to ZANU PF. I don’t agree that the MDC is acquiescing too much; when the Iranian President came visiting, the MDC literally boycotted him, Morgan himself went on a regional trip and that’s not acquiescing. And the MDC have to observe a certain modicum of behaviour – not only in parliament but also in government. So there are certain things they must do lest even Jacob Zuma will say no minister of a government behaves in this manner and, the SADC itself, will find the MDC to be the spoiler of the Global Political Agreement. As things are now, everybody knows it is ZANU PF which is the spoiler but the MDC have to beat their time, they have to compromise because the Government of National Unity is a compromise and their objective for this compromise, the new constitution must be written, new elections must be held and a new government, a straight government from one party will then emerge and you will not observe those if you don’t at least compromise, give and take here and there.
GONDA: How do you respond to others who say that important decisions are still being made without consultation by ZANU PF?
MAKUMBE: I think it is correct. It is correct that there are decisions being made by ZANU PF without so much as a ‘by your leave’ from the MDC and those, the MDC have placed on the agenda as outstanding issues. Not only that but also the issue of Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment and also the recently gazetted, again, legislation on fuel procurement, all those are being added onto the list by the MDC. But if people think that the MDC should therefore throw up and walk out – walk out to where? To 2008? Walk out from what? From the current stability in the country, from the current pseudo peace, the false peace that is prevailing in the country because we know there is still violence, there is still farm invasions and there are still very serious problems.
But where we were in 2008 is very different from where we are now. True the MDC have to put their wheel to the shoulder, they have to continue to light the fires and let ZANU PF run around putting them out. I think they are not doing enough of that, they should do more, but again there is a certain modicum which they have to observe lest the whole GNU collapses.
GONDA: And there are many who believe that Mugabe will never give in to the MDC’s demands and that these negotiations are going to go on forever. So what happens then? Do they just continue with these endless talks? What’s the way forward on this?
MAKUMBE: That is true – Mugabe will never give in. He knows if he gives in and he goes out of power he will be heading for The Hague, that is true but eventually, even a dictator really faces doomsday eventually. The way forward for Zimbabwe is for the MDC to continue to hold that democratic space which they have in government until a constitution is written, until elections are held, until the results of those elections – and I’m not saying we will not have a repeat of 2008 where Mugabe loses but stays put and refuses to go – let that happen again and the whole world will know who the spoiler is and the whole world will know how to deal with a dictator and even the MDC will wake up to the realisation that a dictator cannot be removed from office through democratic means.
GONDA: Going back to the issue of the violence or the disturbances that took place at the MDC Headquarters, the MDC said in their latest statement about this that the disturbances were to do with administrative issues which the leadership is currently seized with and the culprits have since been suspended and investigations are underway. We all know that Parties do have internal tensions and we have plenty of examples showing how ZANU PF uses violence to control situations, but a Party that has based its principles on using non-violent means to achieve its objectives has the MDC really addressed the issue of internal violence? When you hear that Party youths are dealing with grievances by attacking the Director General of the Party, and this has happened before where senior Party officials were assaulted by rowdy youths?
MAKUMBE: No this is an issue that is a product of the culture created in Zimbabwe by ZANU PF. All of us Zimbabweans are violent in nature, that’s our nature, that’s our culture. We are bred, born and bred in a violent culture, to think that because the youth in MDC are in MDC therefore they are not violent is really fiction. So that issue still needs to be addressed and I doubt the MDC were doing their best to address the issue of violence by suspending and eventually they may actually expel the violent youths. But I think it needs more work, it needs a lot of work to be done but it is not typical of MDC youth to be violent, it is typical for Zimbabweans to be violent whether they are in ZANU PF or MDC. What the MDC has done to pursue peaceful means of replacing a dictator needs to be interrogated needs to be questioned – will it work? We have evidence that it has so far failed to work. Is it possible that it will work next time or is it possible that the MDC might be brought to the realisation that the only way that a dictator can be removed from power is through force and therefore, rather than discourage violence within its own ranks, the MDC should direct that violence, not at its own leadership but at the supporters of ZANU PF. That also hasn’t been attended to and needs to be attended to.
And I don’t really think that the Party was very wise when they joined the Government of National Unity to remove both the Secretary General and the Deputy Secretary General from the Party and put them in government. One of the Secretary Generals should have stayed at Harvest House in charge of the administration, in charge of the running of Harvest House, the Headquarters of the MDC and this didn’t happen and there’s been considerable corruption going on at Harvest House and the youth are rebelling because they see some of this corruption going on. But the Party leadership, the Secretary General, the President, the Deputy are not even there, they are now in charge of the nation and so the youth have been forced to take matters into their hands and that’s very unfortunate.
GONDA: And what about issues to do with setting up independent investigation committees because many people say the Parties always set up these committees but nothing concrete ever comes out or is publicised about the findings?
MAKUMBE: I totally agree with independent commissions or committees of enquiry. I don’t really see how anyone in MDC, if there is factionalism in the MDC, I don’t see how anyone in the Party cannot be aligned to one faction or the other. I don’t see how you then select a committee to investigate an issue within the MDC and you select that committee from members of the MDC. It would be wise and transparent to appoint people who are not members of the MDC who therefore, cannot be accused of being aligned to one of the groups or one of the factions or the other.
GONDA: So these commissions in your view, should they still have a few members from the Party or it has be hundred per cent independent? The reason I’m asking this is because the latest committee that is investigating the disturbances that took place at Harvest House, I understand comprises of some MDC officials, including Seiso Moyo who is the MP for Nketa and the Deputy Minister of Justice Jesse Majome and one or two other members of the MDC. Should they still be involved in a committee like this because others will say they are too junior also to be investigating issues that involve senior party leaders? What can you say about that?
MAKUMBE: I agree, I agree, not only are they junior but because they are members of the MDC they have a faction which they will be supporting if there’s factionalism in the MDC and so you are going to end up with a report which is either biased in one direction or the other. But I personally believe that these committees of enquiry should be entirely independent and the MDC cannot claim that they couldn’t find anyone in Zimbabwe who could actually be a member of such a committee who is totally not aligned to either ZANU PF or the MDC or one of the factions in the MDC-M or one of the factions in the MDC-T. It’s not true, they need to have transparency and they need to deal with issues as they come, For junior members to investigate senior members is always risky especially when a Party is now in government because what comes out of these reports can determine whether an individual continues to be in Cabinet or maybe relieved of their duties or will be appointed into Cabinet next time or will be overlooked. It is really tricky. In politics there are no permanent friends, there are no permanent enemies, there are only permanent interests.
GONDA: And I remember the last time we spoke you also said the same thing about the need for the MDC to set up an independent committee to investigate the allegations of corruption in their UK Chapter and I understand that a committee has been set up and it will be in the UK this weekend. But again, the composition of this committee comprises mostly of people who are in the Party, for example Minister Sipepa Nkomo, MP Thabitha Khumalo and the Finance Director of the Party, Rumbidzai Nyamayemombe.
MAKUMBE: No it is not an independent committee and therefore it will not do a good job. It is going to be aligned one way or the other and it is going to doctor whatever it finds out in terms of its own preferences or the preferences and interests of its members or a combination thereof. And so in my view, I think we are again going to end up with a report about the UK fraudulent activities that is again questionable, that report could be disputed and therefore we will still see the MDC will not actually get to the bottom of the problem and when you don’t get to the bottom of the problem, those problems are likely to recur, it’s just as simple as that.
GONDA: And a final word Professor Makumbe.
MAKUMBE: I think there is nothing on the horizon. There is no way the MDC should get out of the unity government at the moment. They must stay in there, they must fight, from both within and without. Zimbabwe is too precious to be surrendered to ZANU PF and Robert Mugabe forever. The fight must go on and it must take all fronts, not only one front.
GONDA: Thank you very much Professor John Makumbe for participating on the programme Hot Seat.
MAKUMBE: My pleasure always Violet.
Feedback can be sent to violet@swradioafrica.com
Labels: INTERVIEW, JOHN MAKUMBE, MDC VIOLENCE, POLITICAL VIOLENCE, VIOLET GONDA
Read more...
Intellectualism overrated in Zimbabwean politics
By: Reason Wafawarova
Posted: Thursday, April 1, 2010 2:13 am
JUST like the media, intellectualism is often overrated as both a source of truth and accurate information — more so in the field of socio-political commentary.
Blatantly partial academic political activists like Professor John Makumbe sometimes find themselves in the luxury of being showered with accolades and cheerleading adulations for "impartiality and objectivity", as the MDC-T supporters would say of Makumbe’s political rants. The deodorising rhetoric behind this facade is often centred in the fabulous glory of intellectualism. We are told we must believe the fallacy because it comes from intellectuals.
Just like what evangelists and sect leaders are to religious fanatics, professors and holders of doctorates cannot err or lie insofar as their fanatical followers are concerned.
In Africa, the sense of entitlement that comes with intellectualism is astonishing. However, this is all but a mirror image of the attainment of academic titles, as opposed to it being an appreciation of achievement in academic work.
In fact, real academic work is frowned upon and shunned by many as the tiresome and thankless business of trying to attain high-ranking titles in academia. What is attractive is the idea of leading an intellectual life without engaging in real intellectual work.
People like John Makumbe carry with them an intellectual life as opposed to intellectual work, and that way he has created a constituency of fanatical cheerleaders whose appreciation for intellectualism is rigidly limited to the knowledge of academic titles and nothing more.
With such an intellectual life as Makumbe leads, one has a sense of entitlement to supremacy of opinion — in reality a baseless entitlement awarded by fanatics and charlatans in the field of the politics of polarity and fanatical activism.
On the other hand, intellectual work requires constant and concrete proof of one’s ability to scientifically prove every assertion they make.
So you have an intellectual like Makumbe traducing his political rivals through schoolyard type of scolding language and there is a ready and appreciative audience driven by cretinism. To them, Makumbe becomes a respected professor because of his hate speech towards a shared enemy, and not because of his intellectual work.
In reality, there is nothing particularly intellectual about being concerned with world affairs or the domestic politics of one’s country. In fact, labour unions, peasants, the working class and student unions are usually concerned with these issues, and they are not intellectuals.
A lot of people wrongly or rightly believe that being intellectual means one who works with their mind. Plenty of people in the crafts, trades, mechanics, and so on probably do more intellectual work than most of the people working in academia or in universities; that is if the idea of working with the mind is considered the right definition of intellectualism.
A lot of the so-called scholarly work in academia is just clerical work, and there is no real logic in believing that clerical work is more challenging mentally than fixing an automobile engine.
This writer for example, can easily do any clerical work, but can never figure out how to fix an automobile engine or even a mobile phone.
So if by "intellectual" the essence is to talk about people who use their minds, then society is awash with intellectuals. However, it would appear that most people, especially from a political perspective, do think that being intellectual means a special class of people, who in the name of academic titles are in the business of imposing thoughts, and framing ideas for people in power or for their political allies, and telling everyone what they should believe.
These people may be called intellectuals, but in reality they are just a kind of secular priesthood, whose task is to uphold doctrinal truths of political groupings they stand as allies to, if not as a central part.
This is why it is very healthy for the population to be anti-intellectual, or at the very least be sceptical of intellectualism.
There is one thing that this writer admires so much about the United States of America. There is very little respect for intellectuals by the mainstream American community, and even by the media in general. They are quite farcical about the propaganda model, about Hollywood and so on, but their intellectual culture is far from being farcical.
During the Vietnam War, people like Noam Chomsky would co-sign protest letters with such intellectuals like the Frenchman Jean-Paul Sartre. In France the letters would hit headlines straight away and in the US there would not be even a word mentioned about them.
The French media even attacked the American media for this because they thought this was all scandalous; and this writer also thinks anyone who ignores Chomsky is scandalous. But the point is that so many people were clearly opposed to the war, regardless of what Noam Chomsky and his respected French colleague were signing.
What difference does it make if two guys who happen to have some name recognition got together and signed a statement? There is no compulsive logic why this should be of any particular interest to anybody, let alone why the media should scramble for this statement.
What happens in Africa is that if you hit the cord as an intellectual or as a political icon; then you find yourself in front of television cameras all the time, you are invited to talk shops and other such gatherings. Then you have got to keep doing something new so they will keep focussing on you, and not on the next fellow.
Well these so-called intellectuals and political icons often do not have excellent ideas, so they have to come up with really crazy stuff, so that they maintain this sense of pomposity and self-importance — the illusion that gives them so much attention.
This is precisely why Desmond Tutu plays the clown. He has to come up with all this crazy stuff to maintain his self-importance. He has to please a constituency that needs his voice to authenticate what their own voices would be ridiculed for, if ever they did the proclamations themselves.
John Makumbe does the same thing. He has to come up with cruciferous hoopla against Zanu-PF if the donors are not going to look for the next fellow. So he becomes an "intellectual" for describing Zanu-PF leadership as having "mucus for brains" — that without even bothering to elaborate or explain his point.
Any Zimbabwean who was brought up the traditional way knows that this kind of scolding is borrowed from the low level misfits at village beer-drinking gatherings — a deplorable habit of wayward villagers, yet it passes for intellectualism when Makumbe has to keep up with the business of maintaining an intellectual life. That level of thinking replaces intellectual work required by conventional academic practices.
About three years ago, John Sentamu had to cut off his dog collar before BBC television cameras because he needed to maintain his position above the rest in the Mugabe-demonisation campaign. You play the fool if you must, that is what it takes when you are trapped in the game of playing the authentic voice for the paymaster.
This is the trap intellectuals often find themselves in.
Intellectual work itself is a matter of privilege, not a reflection of intellectual supremacy. People work at universities, and that way they are privileged. Much as they pretend to, they do not have to work that hard. Often they control their own work, and they choose when to do certain things and so on.
They have resources, they know how to use the library, they have reading lists to guide them, and they have all other sources of information availed for their benefit.
Arguably, some of this intellectual work may not be as mentally challenging as figuring out a problem with a car, something that clearly requires creativity.
But hey, why would an African intellectual involved with the politics of a party like the MDC-T worry about intellectual work in the first place?
The party itself has never believed in the politics of public policy. Policy matters have always been either non-existent or extremely peripheral in MDC-T talk. This is why a scolding professor like Makumbe is a very suitable ally. The MDC-T believes their constituency understands and prefers hate language to policy.
The party was founded on the principle that Zanu-PF could be shouted and scolded out of power, and this explains the hate language we read the other time when Thamsanqa Mahlangu decided to break his controversy-induced silence to say something about the youth and sanctions. Anyone who read what the deputy minister wrote in The Changing Times may agree that the man wrote like a deputy clown.
Zanu-PF youths had outlined their policy position on the illegal Western imposed economic sanctions and they gave an ultimatum for a reaction from Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai. Mahlangu, as MDC-T youth chairman responded by scolding the hell out of everyone that came to his mind, accusing his political rivals of being "rented hoodlums" and a "motley group of hired thugs".
This is the same principle behind the hate language used by pirate radio stations and the pro-MDC-T online tabloids. Research, policy and intellectual work all have no such room in the MDC-T’s "struggle for democracy" and that is well reflected in these mouthpieces. All one reads in these tabloids is primitive name calling targeted at Zanu-PF officials.
In Europe and in Africa, this business of waving intellectual titles ahead of common sense is quite rife. The American public would largely not notice any such gimmicks. You got to act it at Hollywood and you will most likely fool them that way.
But the problem really is that all that is waved as intellectual prowess is often nothing more than an empty intellectual life — a special craft that does not particularly require any thought. In fact one is better off when they don’t think too much. That is the facade we often see as a luminary image of intellectualism.
Society does not necessarily owe intellectuals the respect that most academics expect. Our Zimbabwean background is that of village life, with a lot of people who may not have too much formal education, but in our way of life they are very literate.
They have a traditional court system, they have wide knowledge about their surroundings, they argue about things around them, they find solutions; they discuss problems and fix them. This writer would even call them intellectuals.
They do not need "public awareness" or "outreach campaigns" to teach them how to make political choices. They know very well what is politically relevant to their way of life, and they do not need a bunch of Western sponsored youngsters to tell them what is politically correct for them.
We have seen these people trivialised and dismissed by many, in apparent preference for political loud mouths like Dr John Makumbe, and others who do speak of democracy with a self-anointed sense of authority that would make one to be forgiven for thinking that donors are the custodians of democratic practices.
This writer wishes for a society where people treat intellectuals sceptically the way they should treat the media and any other characters who anoint themselves voices for the people, or sources of accurate information.
That way we avoid a situation where intellectuals become delusional with illusions of grandeur, getting so carried away that they begin to think they can impose their ideas on all others.
Zimbabwe we are one and together we will overcome. It is homeland or death!
_____________
Reason Wafawarova is a political writer and can be contacted on: wafawarova@yahoo.co.uk or reason@rwafawarova.com or visit www.rwafawarova.com
Labels: JOHN MAKUMBE, MDC, REASON WAFAWAROVA
Read more...
Makumbe: Anti-Mugabe agenda gone awry
Philip Murombedzi
Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:38:00 +0000
RECENT comments by Dr John Makumbe in response to President Mugabe's speech at the Food And Agricultural Organisation's (FAO) World Food summit in Rome are embarassing to say the least. For a learned man, the ignorance exposed was astounding. President Mugabe criticised Western countries at the summit for their ruinous agricultural practices at the world trading stage.
Dr Makumbe said that President Mugabe “has gallivanted around the world attending U.N. conferences and of course enjoying the food there when a lot of his people here are scratching the bottom of the barrel”.
He added: “It is a sanctions-busting maneuver. It's a shopping trip, taking advantage of the U.N. to actually get into Europe.”
This is ignorance at the highest level for a man of his supposed stature. This man is an embarassment. His attempts at politicising everything smack of ignorance, to say the least.
He should be reminded that the world trading system is skewed in favour of the West. This is a position accepted, not just by Zimbabwe, but by the rest of the developing world.
President Mugabe is not the only leader who expressed these sentiments. Makumbe should read about negotiations at the World Trade Organisation relating to agriculture and how these negotiations have failed over the wester subsidy issue.
Makumbe should be reminded that Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi was the only leader from the G8 industrialised countries to be among the 60 heads of state and governments who attend the summit.
The United States, which is the world's biggest food aid donor, sent the acting head of the US Agency for International Development, while Britain sent two junior ministers.
Ban Ki-moon, the U.N. secretary-general, laid out the sobering statistic as he kicked off the three-day summit.
"Today, more than 1 billion people are hungry," he told the assembled leaders. Six million children die of hunger every year, 17000 every day, he said.
"We must craft a single global vision ... to produce real results for people in real need," Ban told at the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) headquarters in Rome.
Pope Benedict XVI also addressed ministers, calling for an end to the "greed" of financial speculation on food prices.
Jacques Diouf, the head of the UN food agency, has urged governments to invest $44 billion a year to end chronic hunger suffered by 1.02 billion people and achieve “food security.” World hunger has continued to rise even with food prices falling from their peaks of last year, which coincided with FAO’s previous summit where donors pledged $11 billion in aid.
Jacques Diouf says he is not satisfied with the final declaration of the UN world food summit in Rome. Mr Diouf criticised the declaration - which vowed "urgent action" to boost food security - for not including exact targets to reduce hunger.
The summit opened with the leaders adopting a declaration in which they renewed their commitment to eradicate hunger. They promised to do so by promoting investment, reversing the decline in funding for agriculture and tackling the effect of global warming on food security.
But the final declaration includes only a general promise to pour more money into agricultural aid, with no target or time frame for action.
The summit also rejected a call by the UN to commit £26bn per year to develop agriculture in developing countries. The UN warned that if more land is not used for food production, 370 million people could face famine by 2050.
"There can be no food security without climate security…by 2050 our planet may be the home of 9.1 billion people... by 2050 we know we will need to grow 70 percent more food, yet weather is becoming more extreme and more unpredictable…this week's food security summit and next month's climate change meeting in Copenhagen must craft a single global vision" Ban told at the summit.
The United Nations seeks pledge from the public as well, having launched an online appeal for individual donations to fight hunger. The World Food Program's (WFT) "Billion for a Billion" campaign aims to reach 1 billion individuals.
"If a billion Internet users donate a dollar or a euro a week, we can transform the lives of a billion hungry people across the world," said Josette Sheeran, executive director of the WFP.
President Mugabe attracted the media attention.
"We face very hostile interventions by these states which have imposed unilateral sanctions on us," he said.
"This has had a negative impact on our farmers, who, according to our neocolonialist enemies, must fail so as to damn the land reforms we have undertaken."
Academics like Dr Makumbe obviously should know such issues. Unfortunately, they are blinded by the western anti-Mugabe lobby which clouds their judgment,
---------
*Philip Murombedzi is the editor of the Zimbabwe Guardian. He can be reached via: philipmurombedzi@yahoo.com
Labels: FAO, JACQUES DIOUF, JOHN MAKUMBE, MUGABE
Read more...
Makumbe not arrested, only questioned ― police
Floyd Nkomo
Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:11:00 +0000
HARARE police yesterday visited Dr John Makumbe, a University of Zimbabwe political science lecturer and political commentator, to substantiate allegations that he made claiming that there were people in Zimbabwe still living in the mountains for fear of their lives, but had not arrested him as reported in sections of the media.
According to police sources, Makumbe’s claims that violence was still going on in some parts of the country were unfounded. A statement issued Thursday said
Makumbe had "failed to substantiate the claims” he made on a ZBC TV programme, ‘Zimbabwe Today’ which was broadcast on Wednesday night. Dr Makumbe is reported to have said that he obtains all his information from
Voice of America’s (VOA) Studio 7 reports on Zimbabwe and
The Zimbabwean weekly newspaper.
Yesterday Dr Makumbe told VOA’s Studio 7 that he was skeptical of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed between the ruling Zanu PF party and the opposition Movement for Democratic Change is not very “keen of power sharing” with Zanu PF.
He added that Zanu PF wanted to use the MDC as a ‘cleaning agent’ to make themselves ‘sellable’ to the region and the international community.
In an interview with Bloomberg, Dr Makumbe was less skeptical, referring to the MOU as “a tentative step in the right direction, but at this point everything is tentative,”
“The situation in the country is desperate and the gulf between the parties immense.”
Meanwhile, the new ZBH Chief Executive Officer, Happison Muchechetere is said to have reminded guests invited on national TV programmes to be people of integrity who do not 'peddle falsehoods'.
Since he took over from Henry Muradzikwa (the former CEO), Muchechetere has invited political and civic leaders onto the programme to ensure fairness and balance in national programming.
Some of the people who have appeared on the weekly “Zimbabwe Today” programme include MDC (Tsvangirai) spokesman, Nelson Chamisa, lawyer and political activist Douglas Mwonzora, former MDC (Mutambara) spokesman Gabriel Chaibva, MDC-M secretary general Professor Welshman Ncube, among other opposition and civic personalities.
Muchechetere said the national broadcaster expects guests on its programmes to speak the truth and not mislead viewers and listeners by making false or exaggerated statements adding that public interest was at the heart of national programming and fairness and sincerity was the only goal
Zimbabwe’s main political parties, Zanu PF and the two formations of the opposition MDC kick started the crisis talks at a secret location in South Africa’s capital Pretoria yesterday. The talks, embargoed from the public and the media, are likely to resolve the current political and economic impasse in the country.
Both sides have stressed their sincerity in ending the long time feud and work towards a peaceful resolution to the Zimbabwean crisis - a move welcomed by many Zimbabweans.
Sources say the parties may sign a power-sharing agreement soon as they have already agreed on a wide range of issues, including a new constitution. The biggest sticking point is said to be on the type and structure of a shared government. The opposition MDC prefers a 'transitional authority' which leads to a credible, democratic election, but Zanu PF is said to favour a government of national unity.
Labels: COLOUR REVOLUTIONS, JOHN MAKUMBE, VOA
Read more...
