|
|
Post by Onyango Oloo on Aug 4, 2013 18:47:10 GMT 3
|
|
|
|
Post by mank on Aug 5, 2013 4:43:04 GMT 3
|
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Aug 5, 2013 12:56:54 GMT 3
The cartoon seems to support the view that Morgan Tsvangirai is thinking of launching a Syrian style 'rebellion' at the bequest of their western backers - the UK/US.
And, it seems to me, the western media will oblige with constant bull about how bad Zanu-PF are. Same old, same old nuisance! Western Imperialism doesn't like the result of a democratic election, like in Egypt, or Chile 1974, so conspires with their puppets to cause mayhem. It is clear that
the USA have staged more elections, engineered more illegal coups and placed more puppets in power than anyone. They cannot point the finger or question the path to power for any other leader.
Oh yes, and what about the congratulations from Jacob Zuma on Bob’s victory, or from the AU, Morgan! Frankly a revolution is the worst kind of idiocy Tsvangirai uttered, a country that was at its knees less than a decade ago, does not need revolution. It needs Tsvangirai, if he is to be its leader, to be a visionary with fore planning.
He took vast patches for granted stupidly relying on the West who don’t vote and he has the temerity to call those same people to revolution. His call for revolution is simply talk, as the Armed Forces are under the control of Mugabe. All he can do is destablise the country commercially and let it collapse much further
. But, is that not what he and his western cohort tried and failed?
He calls for revolution when for all purposes the election was legitimate. The USA/UK block is known to reek for regime change because Bob took them to task on the land they stole.
In my view, Morgan Tsvangirai is a groveling clod who would clearly have his western buddies move in and exploit the country. Hence the West being so upset he's not in.
The simply truth is he should never have gone into government with Mugabe in the first place, and the alternative was to allow the country to collapse.
He was too a coward to go full-blown that way? He never should have formed a national unity government with Mugabe. Further, he should never have slept on his laurels with the half-baked power with which he used to sleep around. From where I’m sitting, his noises sounds a lot like sour grapes, he had his time in power, all he did with whatever little power he had was squander it. Most of the time what I read about him was his mistresses and his ever-changing wives. www.dailymaverick.co.za/images/resized_images/706x410q70Ranjeni-on-zim-and-election-strategies.jpgIt seems to me
people saw through his facade and lost most if not all appetite for him, what Zimbabweans was left with was no choices. He is frankly no better as a leader than those opposite him, he fractured his own party with no leadership contests, (shame for the democracy he now cries). 0
In a nutshell, Tsvangirai’s lack of political strategy and assumption that Zimbabweans would choose him over Mugabe led to a sweeping victory for Mugabe with the aid of some old-fashioned vote rigging. He should have been prepared fully for all eventuality, after all, he was here before, the election was a simply a repeat performance,
www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2013-08-05-dear-morgan-its-about-the-election-strategy-stupid/#.Uf91KhaRAc8 |
|
|
|
Post by KOLONEL BRISK on Aug 6, 2013 21:06:43 GMT 3
Dictator Mugabe calls Mweshimiwa Mandela a coward and an Idiot. “My huge victory in these elections prove I am the greatest leader in the history of Africa,” Mugabe told supporters in Zimbabwe’s capital, Harare. “I have spent my whole life fighting for the Zimbabwean people and they continue to elect me.” Mugabe tightened his iron grip on power in last week’s elections after he received 61 percent of the vote while his ZANU-PF party won a two-thirds majority in parliament, though there are allegations of widespread fraud and violence against the opposition. “I am the greatest African who has ever lived,” Mugabe said. “The world should love me more than the idiot Nelson Mandela. F**k Nelson Mandela. As I waged war against colonialism, that coward sat on his ass in prison for 27 years. He’s a coward. “I have been leader for 33 years. Mandela was president for five years. What kind of idiot gives up political power? Great leaders like me know how to stay in power. “While Mandela sits comfortably in a hospital, I stand before you fit and healthy, ready to lead this country and the Zimbabwean people for at least another 25 years,” Mugabe added, referring to the 95-year-old Mandela’s ongoing treatment for a lung condition www.ethiofreedom.com/robert-mugabe-blasted-nelson-mandela-as-a-coward-during-victory-speech/ |
|
|
|
Post by Onyango Oloo on Aug 10, 2013 7:53:11 GMT 3
Kolonel:
Was that alleged anti-Mandela rant attributed to Mugabe factual and verbatim or a malicious spoof?
I would double check if I were you...
Onyango Oloo
|
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Aug 10, 2013 10:31:42 GMT 3
Kolonel: Was that alleged anti-Mandela rant attributed to Mugabe factual and verbatim or a malicious spoof? I would double check if I were you... Onyango Oloo Oloo Source of the story is the satirical paper DAILY CURRANT......and they are good at making up things! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2013 1:38:11 GMT 3
UhuRuto and Raila supporters now battle for Zimbabwe Updated Sunday, August 11th 2013 at 20:46 GMT +3 By Peter Wanyonyi Our enthno-centrism knows no equal. Even Nigeria’s infamous enmity between that country’s mega-tribes pales into insignificance when one considers the ridiculous extent of our petty tribalism. Dr Robert Mugabe, BA, BEd, BSc, LLB, MSc, LLM, is not an easy president to like. What Zimbabwe has been through under his leadership can only be described as hell. From the Gukurahundi mini-genocide of the Ndebele in the early 1980s, in which 20,000 Ndebele were publicly shot dead after being forced to dig their own graves; the disorderly land reclamation programme in the 1990s in which white-owned land was forcibly confiscated by Mugabe loyalists; to plunging the country into a ruinous famine that reduced Zimbabweans to eating wild leaves and roots for sustenance, Mugabe has inflicted untold harm on Zimbabwe. The erstwhile breadbasket of Southern Africa has turned into little more than a basket case, a poster-child for African incompetence at running their own affairs. And all this before one considers President Mugabe’s ‘in-your-face’ stealing of elections in Zimbabwe. Surprisingly, he dictates to his party members and any one who dares challenge him is dealt with. For instance, any serious opponents inside his own party somehow get involved in accidents, with the latest being a general who dared suggest that Mugabe should step down. General Solomon Mujuru subsequently burnt to death in a fire. It is, therefore, a no-brainer that anyone even remotely interested in good governance and the rule of law would abhor any association with Mugabe. But there is a caveat when Mugabe is discussed in Kenyan political circles. You see, there are uncanny parallels between Zimbabwe and Kenya in more than one way. Politically, Kenya’s uncomfortable 2007 Presidential election was later virtually repeated in Zimbabwe in 2008. In the latter, Morgan Tsvangirai defeated Mugabe, necessitating a run-off election. Mugabe unleashed a reign of terror on the regions that had voted for Tsvangirai during the first round, with hundreds of Tsvangirai supporters brutally murdered to intimidate the rest into staying away from the vote. The Zimbabwean military declared they would mutiny if Tsvangirai won the election, and foreign diplomats trying to reach the worst affected areas were detained and turned back. Tsvangirai pulled out of the election, with Mugabe winning unopposed. This history of election theft endeared the boring Mr Tsvangirai to supporters of Mr Raila Odinga, who lost to former president Kibaki in 2007 in an election that Mr Kibaki’s vice-president, Kalonzo Musyoka, recently claimed ‘was stolen from Raila’. What has followed in Kenya has been ridiculous; Kenyans opposed to Mr Odinga have taken to praising Mr Mugabe, with a prominent cheerleader against Mr Odinga even incredulously declaring that this overwhelmingly-condemned “victory” for Mr Mugabe “opens the way for Mugabe to mend his ways”. Granted, every regime needs court-jesters, but it is disconcerting to see sharp lawyers and seasoned civil activists extending Kenya’s tribalism to Zimbabwe and beyond. Mugabe to mend his ways? Please! www.standardmedia.co.ke/?articleID=2000090723&story_title=uhuruto-and-raila-supporters-now-battle-for-zimbabweA chance for Mugabe to mend his wayswww.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/A-chance-for-Mugabe-to-mend-his-ways/-/440808/1936218/-/view/printVersion/-/ypw8viz/-/index.html |
|
dineo
Junior Member
Posts: 75
|
Post by dineo on Aug 13, 2013 22:34:19 GMT 3
From Ahmednassir's article in the Daily Nation: Why is it that external observers and monitors are always ignored by the losing candidate, in this case Tsvangirai?? Peter Wanyonyi's article - some of which I disagree with - reminds me of an article I just read titled "Zimbabwe is a Victim of Outsiders’ Fantasies", by Percy Zvomuya. Here's the link. In the article, Zvomuya discusses "...the use of the prism of Zimbabwe to debate local issues. The idea was to look at opinion and comment pieces... and show these as not really looking at Zimbabwe but, rather, using the country... as a touchstone to critique the local." I have pasted the entire article at the bottom of this post. It deals specifically with the South African media's reaction to "Zanufication/Mugabe", but the same can be applied to all other African countries (and their media). Lastly, love him or hate him, ex ANC Youth League head Julius Malema when launching his new movement Economic Freedom Frighters (EFF) said: "You can say what you want about Zimbabweans, in the next ten years, they will be the only Africans who own their own country, because they were ready to take the pain". And who can argue with that? As an aside, in addition to wresting land from a minority white 4.3% of the populace and resettling Black Zimbabweans ( who through their farming have ensured that tobacco production is back to 1990's levels) Mugabe's indigenization and self-empowerment policies give black Zimbabweans a 51 percent stake in all existing foreign owned businesses. Which is something we cannot say in our own country (and probably never will, unless radical land redistribution policies - that target both foreigners and locals who came into possession illegally - are introduced). Please check the 3:52 mark in the Youtube link below for Malema's comments: Zimbabwe is a Victim of Outsiders’ FantasiesBy Percy Zvomuya
In 2008 or so, I registered for a Masters degree at Wits University with a rather interesting research component that I never got to finish. My thesis was to be an examination of the coverage of Zimbabwe in South Africa’s Sunday Times; the use of the prism of Zimbabwe to debate local issues. The idea was to look at opinion and comment pieces on the Times’ pages and show these as not really looking at Zimbabwe but, rather, using the country to the north as a touchstone to critique the local.
Words like “Zanufication” and “Zimbabwe”; phrases like “go the way of Zimbabwe” and even stock ones such as “bread basket to basket case” are handy tools in this exercise. They are, in fact, not meant to shoot down whatever is wrong about Zimbabwe but, instead, to bend the barrel of the gun and target it at the self, right at South Africa.
When I conducted some of this research, Thabo Mbeki was president and his battle with Jacob Zuma couldn’t have been more toxic. Among other issues, Mbeki, it was argued, was too soft on Zimbabwe; he was stifling debate in the liberation movement; he was even about to commit a cardinal Mugabeism by seeking a third term as ANC president. (If Mugabe finishes his term, he would have been in power for 38 years).
Fast forward this debate to 2013 and we don’t seem to have moved an inch. Voted into office for another term, Mugabe will remain in South Africa’s firmament for a while.
The Mugabe ogre inches ever closer towards the Limpopo river and, for this reason, Zimbabwe continues to occupy a fantastical space in South Africa’s imaginary. Or rather, South Africa’s own problems increasingly make a Mugabe-style approach to social justice ever more appealing for a segment of South Africa’s citizenry.
The agent of the “Mugabefication” of South Africa is, of course, Julius Malema. It’s not helped by the fact that Malema, cast away by his biological parents, the ANC, has found a home in Mugabe’s Zanu-PF.
Like a good adoptive child, Malema spouts the doctrine of his new family.
Mugabe -after taking away land and giving it to black farmers who have generally made a success of it- is now moving on foreign owned companies. The doctrine of nationalization is, of course, one that scares vast swathes of South Africa. Nationalisation of companies, the culmination of Mugabe’s lifetime work, is a sermon that Malema has been preaching for years now.
Zimbabwe (or Rhodesia, its antecedent) has always occupied a mythical space in the imagination of outsiders.
In fact, much of the myths originated from the majestic stone walls from which the name Zimbabwe itself comes from. “Dzimba dza mabwe” (houses of stone) came to be the rallying metaphor for the nationalist struggle that began in the 1950s. Coined by nationalist Michael Mawema, the name of this future country wasn’t universally accepted by the various factions when it came into being.
Decades earlier, in 1891, the British South Africa Company (Cecil John Rhodes’ vehicle of imperialism) partnered with a research institute led by one J.T. Bent to “research” the origin of the stone walls.
One of their conclusions was, “the authors of these ruins were a northern race coming from Arabia”. Some even thought that Zimbabwe was the Ophir referenced in the Bible. “Zimbabwe is an old Phoenician residence,” Rhodes himself wrote.
Rhodes, like many other British invaders, refused to believe that this was the work of native Zimbabweans. In the book Great Zimbabwe, archaeologist Peter S Garlake writes that, to the white settlers, “the African had not got the energy, will, organisation, foresight or skill to build these walls. Indeed, he appeared so backward that it seemed that his entire race could never have accomplished the task at any period.”
Most of the early settlers had gone to Zimbabwe on the basis of what proved to be a false alarm, a myth, if you like. After the vast mineral riches of the Rand and Kimberley, fortune seekers were told by Rhodes and his people that Zimbabwe was blessed with even more gold deposits.
Delirious with the myths that the gold used by King Solomon had come from Zimbabwe, it wasn’t difficult to convince the men who would soon trek up to Zimbabwe as part of the Pioneer Column.
When they got to Zimbabwe, they realised the myth of the gold was just that: a myth. There was gold, but not to rival that on the Reef.
There was a lot of land, though, plenty of well-watered and fertile soil. So it was that natives were dispossessed of their land; the same land that is central to Zimbabwe’s economic and political struggle.
The myth of Rhodesia not just occupied the imagination of those near. It was equally bewitching to those afield.
From the United States, the expression of this imagination would assume a form that anyone aware of the Civil Rights movement would instantly recognise. In 1968, James Earl Ray, the man who is thought to have assassinated Martin Luther King, was caught in London on his way to Rhodesia.
A year before the assassination, he had expressed his desire for “immigrating to Rhodesia” so that he could be in the land of Ian Smith who was “doing a good job”.
According to “Hellhound on His Trail:” The Stalking of Martin Luther King (Jr) and the International Hunt for His Assassin (Double Day), a book about Ray by Hampton Sides, “the idea of Rhodesia burned in his imagination, the promise of sanctuary and refuge, the possibility of living in a society where people understood”.
Rhodesia was then a renegade republic ruled by Smith who had unilaterally declared independence from Britain in 1965. By denying the black majority a vote and stripping them of rights in their own land, Smith made sure that only an armed solution would break the impasse. Mugabe’s refrain “we fought for this country” was made possible by Smith.
Even to this day Zimbabwe remains, for many, just a metaphor not an actual, physical terrain whose people have hopes, ambitions and fears. On their territory, the fears and anxieties that, sometimes, have nothing to do with them at all, are projected.
Some Zimbabweans will tell you that the suffering of the last decade that manifested itself as food shortages and lack of forex, was not really about Zimbabwe. When the West imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe, what they were really doing was warning South Africa that a Zimbabwe-style turn wouldn’t be accepted.
Let us face it, Zimbabwe is quite insignificant in terms of global capital. The suffering Zimbabweans endured was a vicarious warning to South Africa, Africa’s economic giant, a country whose social injustices dwarf Zimbabwe’s.
Try what Zimbabwe did and see if you can get away with it, so the warning emblazoned on some virtual banner is supposed to read.
Much in the coverage of the last elections still betray that Zimbabwe remains an abstraction for many, a place that is still host to the fantasies, anxieties and fears of many South Africans.
But Zimbabwe is its own self, its own country, not some echo chamber from which people hope to catch reverberated strains of their own discourse |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Aug 14, 2013 4:24:42 GMT 3
Mugabe's indigenization and self-empowerment policies give black Zimbabweans a 51 percent stake in all existing foreign owned businesses. Which is something we cannot say in our own country (and probably never will, unless radical land redistribution policies - that target both foreigners and locals who came into possession illegally - are introduced). Kenyans might not able to say that, but I don't see many Kenyans (or other Africans) rushing to this self-empowered Zimbabwe. In fact, quite a few Zimbabweans don't seem to be very keen on the place ... Kenya actually had a pretty aggressive "Africanization policy---that was an official term---especially in the late 1960s and early 1970s. That included some sort of 51% rule. Take a look at the Kenyan history of Unilever, Lonhro, BAT, what used to be Kenyan Breweries, etc. You might also want to take a look at those who replaced the departing wazungus. If you want to know how the people who own Kenya today got to own it, taka a look at the "Africanization policy", the "51% rule", etc. I just noticed that Matiba is back in the news; you may use him as a small case study in how eating was done back then. Land "reclamation" in Kenya led to the situation that exists in Kenya today, as well as the 2007-2008 push for a "final solution" to the problem of "stolen land". Today Kenyans own most of the land, but who really owns it. Money handed over by the Brits to compensate departing settlers was used to eat like nobody's business. There was even the very interesting case of President Jomo Kenyatta, using his right to allocate government land to any deserving Kenyan citizen, deciding to allocate land to a worthy citizen who turned out to be .... a Mr. Jomo Kenyatta! (All perfectly legal according to the laws of the land.) The problem with land in Kenya today actually has little to do with foreigners owning it, but it needs to be solved, one way or another, before there is another attempt at a "final solution". All that happened with Kenyan's Africanization policy is that black wazungus replaced the white ones, although the former, driven by capitalist greed turned to be, perhaps, a slightly better than Mugabe's lot. That's quite a difference, considering that Mzee could at times be very aggressive in his Africanization policy: if he saw something he wanted or that he thought one of his friends or relatives could use, it was BAM!-----a 24-hr deportation order, for insulting Africans and their dignity. Naturally, anything owned by the deportee was confiscated by the state and ... An "interesting oddity": As far as I know, Uhuru's private house (which is connected by a "bridge" to the State House) used to belong to the Aga Khan. As soon as a certain fellow "moved" into State House, right around 1963, the Aga Khan received "an offer not to be refused". The Aga Khan carefully considered his interests in Kenya and, being a sensible fellow, did what any sensible fellow would do in such circumstances: he handed over his house as a "gift" to the Deserving Father of The Nation. (That certain fellow only used State House as an office. He always slept elsewhere. Apparent some mzungu governor had left a ghost some place.) In Kenya, there are many different groups---perhaps we can call then tribes---that made the process of "Africanization" a bit awkward. It appears that some groups were deemed less African than others; so, naturally, the focus had to be on the "most African" group, I imagine. Comrade Bob never had that problem: the one "other" group, the Ndebeles, were quickly put in their place and in a manner that they won't forget in a hurry. Those were pre-ICC days, but maybe we should keep them in mind as we praise Comrade Hero Bob ... But this is the 21st, Vision 2030 ... who knows? Maybe be the Chinese are the next Africans. Back to the details of the Zimbabwean elections: Did anyone imagine expect that Mugabe, a sitting *African* president could lose if he decided to stand? In Kenya, Moi had to be bribed after fwacking the country for a good quarter-century, and despite all that he is enjoying retirement and will die is his own warm bed .... Mugabe is one of those who will go in the traditional African way---in a coffin, on his own, or at the end of a bullet. |
|
dineo
Junior Member
Posts: 75
|
Post by dineo on Aug 14, 2013 18:38:13 GMT 3
OtishOtish,You said that: I say: Change is pain. And since homo sapiens does everything in her or his power to avoid pain, it goes without saying that many Kenyans, Africans and a few Zimbabweans will not be keen to inhabit a country in which – at least for the past decade – living has been synonymous with pain. There has never been any revolution – whether spiritual, political or otherwise, that has not involved pain. It is THE pre-requisite for change. The price to pay. Obviously, as with participants all political revolutions (whether they are willing participants or ‘forced’ to engage), there are those who will abscond – not necessarily out of weakness (or because they are sell-outs), but out of the genuine desire to seek a lifestyle conducive to peace of mind, financial wellbeing for themselves and their families, physical safety etc, and of course there are those who will remain behind. But all suffer the pain. Those who leave their homelands, and those who remain. Those who leave often find that the greener pastures they sought turn out to be bastions of xenophobia, financial hardship, racism and repression, and those who remain behind suffer the attendant ‘revolution’ indignities. But in the case of Zimbabwe, what will this pain bring about? The reality – as Malema said – that in ten years time, Zimbabweans will be the only Africans who own their own country. I think it doesn’t assist this discussion in moving to new ground when you claim that Kenyans (and other Africans) aren’t racing to live in Zimbabwe. I would hope not. Mugabe (and Zimbabweans) aren’t interested in resettling Kenyans and other Africans on their land. They are resettling themselves, taking back their own land, focusing on ensuring that their progeny will be the masters of their own destinies in their own locales. I am assuming that they could care less about what we (or other Africans) think, and would probably tell us to sort out our own mess and leave them alone. Or tell us to "go hang" like Mugabe just told us to. Personally, what I have found when reading, listening to, talking to or dealing with numerous Africans (non-Zimbabwean) who genuinely hate Mugabe (and I'm not saying you're one of them), is that they are usually idealists possessing quirks that disallow them the ability to comprehend that revolutions don't occur in a vacuum, or in some procession that 'makes sense' to these idealists or makes them happy. On the contrary, innocent people die, bad guys get away with bad things, some who should be on top end up at the bottom, geniuses are sidelined, others are co-opted, friends become turncoats etc, but at the end of the day, the revolution is successful. I have a friend whose mission in life in the 80's and 90's was to see Moi go. Today, this friend is a very angry and depressed individual because the utopia he expected (and had mapped out/itemized in his head during the long years of struggle), did not come about. Basically, he has been either angry or depressed for thirty years, because things didn't go exactly as he wished they would. But is he being tortured in a cell today? No. Is Moi gone? Yes. Are things generally looking up for his family and loved ones? Yes. But the guy is even angrier now with Uhuruto's incumbency that he was under Moi. One of the enigmas of African revolution is Winnie Mandela. She's been called an adulteress, a murderer, a corrupt egomaniac and what have you. And she may very well be all those things, but that revolution would have been impossible without her. Once, when Desmond Tutu was going on negatively about her, she reminded him that he would not be where he is today or have done the things he did had it not been for the dirt she did. Those whites weren't going to just give up apartheid because Desmond Tutu was praying and making speeches. People had to die. People had to be threatened. They had to know fear, and that's where Winnie came in. Now what many Africans do – as Percy Zvomuya elaborated in his piece – is that they project their own discourses into the Zimbabwe situation. We are not talking about Kenya or what certain tribes did during Kenya’s post-colonial realities. This isn’t about Kenyatta stealing land or who owns what in Kenya. This is about Zimbabwe’s indigenization processes and their successes and or failures, and those have nothing to do with Kenya or with the crimes committed by certain tribes, leaders etc. Kenyans alone will have to sort that mess out, without dragging Zimbabwe into it. Mugabe obviously has supporters, the bulk of whom have managed to ignore his excesses and look to that time ten years from now, when they (even the ones who left) will be able to look at the rest of us and say “We own our country”. Hopefully, we in Kenya will one day have our own revolution to sort our land issues out and at the very least, have leaders who will ensure that we are in control of 51% of our resources (if not all). Which is why in my previous post, I stated that those foreigners and locals (of whatever tribe) who illegally came into possession of vast or small tracts of land in Kenya, should be penalized and the land wrested away from them, regardless. Personally, I long for the day when poor (and middle class) Mijikendas will be able to own, live and work on the beaches and fertile land our ancestors settled and cultivated, and not be crammed into slums and minute plots in the hinterland in which our hopes for survival diminish daily. But like I said, that has nothing to do with Zimbabwe. They seem to be forging ahead quite well, despite the attendant sanctions, the despot leader, daily lack of forex dramas, and everybody else projecting their troublesome narratives onto them. - In 2004, there were 4,000 Black Zimbabwean small-scale tobacco farmers.
- By 2011, that number had increased to 47,000.
- As of May this year (2013), that number had increased to 90, 638.
- Of the total number of new farmers registered this year (2013), 27,799 are new farmers.
These are not rich Black Zimbabweans or Mugabe’s friends. Something that is worth ruminating upon is the reality that Zanu-PF has effectuated a paradigm shift in the common Black Zimbabwean that has been seen nowhere else in African ex-Anglo-colonised nations. That is, the mental shift and new awareness that has allowed poor Black Zimbabweans (most of Mugabe’s supporters), to realize that no white man is better than them or deserves a better life than they do. The shift has occurred, and once that happens, once people’s sense of self is altered, they can never go back to kowtowing to foreigners, making do with being squashed into high density slums, receiving all that is second or third best, or for that matter, to treating their own Black brethren as second or third best. Something has been awakened in them, and for my part, I hope that is where the rest of Africa is headed. To a place where we know we are first, not second or third, and that we view each other as first and equals. - Rupiah Banda conceded to Michael Sata in the last Zambian elections.
- Abdulaye Wade conceded defeat to Macky Sall after he (Wade) lost the run-off in 2012.
For me, the question is why African opposition leaders (and their supporters both at home and abroad) who lose independently monitored elections appeat incapable of accepting their losses, when all the foreign observers (in Tsvangirai’s case the AU and SADC), clearly report that the elections were free and fair. Where is the disconnect? These are not local officials from the incumbent’s party or tribe monitoring the process. So where is the disconnect?? Links to go with my post: allafrica.com/stories/201305240725.htmlallafrica.com/stories/201111070493.html
|
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Aug 14, 2013 19:50:50 GMT 3
Dineo:
Earlier you wrote:
and now add:
It was not my intention to "drag Zimbabwe into our mess". In fact, I originally had nothing to say about Mugabe's election. I was, however, intrigued by the idea that we should use Zimbabwe as a model; there, I felt compelled to point out Kenya's history of local-ownership experiments. I note your hopes that Kenyans will be one day "in control of 51%", but I see no figures to indicate that they are presently not in control of more; land would be a good place to start with some hard figures, if you care to.
Anyway, having carefully reviewed your comments, I can now clearly see that, as you put it, "This isn’t about ... who owns what in Kenya". Similarly, I can clearly see that "Kenyans alone will have to sort that mess out, without dragging Zimbabwe into it." I don't know what came over me to start discussing Kenya when the header of this thread clearly indicates that it is about elections in Zimbabwe, but I will now cease and desist. And your point again was ... ?
Ten years from now, eh? Hasn't Mugabe been saying something of that sort for close to 40 years now? But who can predict the future. Perhaps, as Ahmednasir, he might just decide that age 90 (and 40 years in power) is just about the right time to mend his ways.
|
|
dineo
Junior Member
Posts: 75
|
Post by dineo on Aug 14, 2013 19:53:08 GMT 3
OtishOtish,
My point was, from where I'm sitting Mugabe-ism is not all bad. It would be wonderful if Kenyans were in control of 51% of all foreign owned business that have anything to do with common resources (oil, minerals, etc) in our country.
And for the past 40 years, Mugabe has been saying that his people will own land (beginning with wrangles at the Lancaster House Agreement..., then in 1999 with Tony Blair...), and has actively worked to this end and is currently realizing that dream. In fact, it is no longer a dream. It is happening in real time, today. More 'poor' Black Zimbabweans own and farm land today than did 40 years ago. And the reality is that from year to year, those numbers are increasing.
|
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Aug 14, 2013 20:05:11 GMT 3
OtishOtish, My point was, from where I'm sitting Mugabe-ism is not all bad. It would be wonderful if Kenyans were in control of 51% of all foreign owned business that have anything to do with common resources (oil, minerals, etc) in our country. Quote: "This isn’t about ... who owns what in Kenya." |
|
dineo
Junior Member
Posts: 75
|
Post by dineo on Aug 14, 2013 20:10:40 GMT 3
I concede. ...and hope that someone will give an opinion on the questions I raised  |
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Aug 15, 2013 16:43:00 GMT 3
I concede. ...and hope that someone will give an opinion on the questions I raised Dadan'gu You are right. Read the following on Zimbabwean success, " ... a 2010 study by Prof Ian Scoones of Sussex University contended that, while no excuse could be made for the methods used, the painful process had bequeathed a positive spinoff in the form of thousands of small-scale black farmers." "It has been followed this year by a book, 'Zimbabwe Takes Back its Land', which concludes: "In the biggest land reform in Africa, 6,000 white farmers have been replaced by 245,000 Zimbabwean farmers. These are primarily ordinary poor people who have become more productive farmers." Agricultural production is returning to its 1990s level, they argue." www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/10/robert-mugabe-land-reform?INTCMP=SRCH |
|
dineo
Junior Member
Posts: 75
|
Post by dineo on Aug 16, 2013 2:55:32 GMT 3
Thank you Sadik. Morgan TsvangiraiWhat is most troubling about so many Africans hatred for Mugabe, is that it isn’t balanced with objectivity regarding Tsvangirai. And it is this blind faith in African opposition leaders by some that to my mind, disenfranchises the very same ‘poor’ masses they profess to fight for because it sometimes appears as though these poor exist 'in theory' or ideology alone, and not in real life, physical existence. Personally, I am just as tired of African presidents-for-life as I am with African opposition-leaders-for-life. They (opposition leaders) are usually just as crooked as the presidents they seek to topple and their movements are more a cult of personality (that will pull no stops in achieving power – including selling out their own people to the highest Western bidder) than they are genuine revolutionary movements. Anyway, regarding the two-facedness of Tsvangirai (that Mugabe had repeatedly talked about before a paper trail existed), thank goodness for the Wikileaks Cables because among other things, they revealed that - Employees from Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai’s office and the party earned an average monthly salary of $7000 (U.S. currency) - more than ten times the amount paid to other Zimbabwean civil servants - because the West topped up their salaries (MDC’s). All along, Tsvangirai had repeatedly sworn to Black Zimbabweans that he and his party were in no way financially supported by Western governments. Which of course begs the question as to whether they are true ideologues or just in it for the money?
- While publically calling for the end to sanctions against Zimbabwe, in private, Tsvangirai personally appealed to Barack Obama to sustain the sanctions and all “restrictive measures” against his people. Meaning, he wanted his people to continue suffering so that he could use that suffering as “leverage” in his quest to become leader.
- The West appear to have no faith in Tsvangirai or MDC, calling him among other things, “a weak leader”, that he would become “an albatross around the neck of his people once he comes into power” and noting that “the MDC-T leadership would "require massive hand-holding and assistance should they ever come to power."
Anyway, there are more than 3000 Wikileaks cables on Zimbabwe. I suppose my only other concern (or quandary) regarding this topic and people’s reactions to the Zimbabwe situation is whether or not you (the amorphous, un-named “you”), are unhappy because poor Black Zimbabweans now own land? Would you be at peace if Mugabe handed the land back to 4000 white farmers and moved Black Zimbabweans back to high-density slums? Or are you unhappy with the manner in which the exercise has been performed? If so, why? And what would you prefer to be the alternative, given that the UK clearly, systematically and purposefully reneged on the agreements reached at Lancaster House? Links: wikileaks.org/cablegate.htmlwww.insiderzim.com/stories/2193-tsvangirais-letter-to-obama.htmlwww.thomhartmann.com/forum/2010/11/wikileaks-zimbabwe-tsvangirai-mdc-unfit-lead-says-us-amb-dell#sthash.EXMnELUH.dpufLinks: www.insiderzim.com/stories/4946-swazi-minister-said-employees-in-tsvangirais-office-earn-us7-000-a-month.html |
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Aug 17, 2013 10:54:36 GMT 3
Dineo Your points are well illustrated, there is no need for me to repeat them. Suffice to say, I agree wholeheartedly. The icing on the cake for Mugabe - Tsvangirai has withdrawn his election petition from the Courts. www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/16/zimbabwe-mdc-party-court-mugabeMDC alleged the Electoral Body refused them 'crucial' information - one wonders why MDC did not go to the Court and ask for an injunction forcing the Electoral body to release those so-called 'crucial' information. |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Aug 17, 2013 15:38:18 GMT 3
Dineo:
As part of the amorphous "you", my comments:
* I don't hate Mugabe; I just don't think much of him. I also don't think much of Tsvangirai; let's not assume that any displeasure for Mugabe automatically translates into support for Tsvangirai. My main issue with Mugabe is that what he did to the Ndebele probably constitute crimes against humanity. I have nothing to say about his winning elections yet again.
* If your point was that Zimbabweans benefitted from Mugabe's reform's, then I have nothing to say on that point. I haven't examined the matter closely enough.
* My main points were in relation to the idea that Mugabe's policy could or should somehow be extended to Kenya. There I had to point out Kenya's history----that when "Africanization" took place, it all went to a few big eaters, who subsequently became the Owners of Kenya---which suggests that only a few well-place people have benefitted. We could have 51% or 91% ownership of foreign businesses in Kenya, but who will really own them.
|
|
Is that true by any measure?
