SOBRE O (IMPOSSIVEL?) DEBATE DA QUESTAO ZIMBABWEANA

No seguimento do debate suscitado, entre outros, pelo artigo do antropologo Mahmood Mamdani, este artigo do sociologo mocambicano Elisio Macamo:

Porquê é tão difícil discutir o Zimbabwe?

Eu sou por uma abordagem analítica. Reconheço a legitimidade e a razão de ser da abordagem normativa. Devo, contudo, também dizer que não fazemos parte do mesmo contexto de discussão. O seu debate não é o meu. E pior. A forma como alguns deles debatem mete muito medo. A insistência na adopção das suas posições normativas como condição de continuação de discussão não é, na essência, diferente do posicionamento de Mugabe que eles próprios criticam. Uma das razões que leva Mugabe a ser intolerante para com aqueles que não concordam com ele é justamente esta convicção de que em questões morais não é possível qualquer tipo de compromisso.
(...)
Mas isto é que é integridade intelectual. Não está em questão saber como Mahmood Mamdani se posiciona moralmente em relação a Mugabe. A questão é saber como perceber aquele problema. E ter a coragem de fazer o exercício de reflexão, mesmo sob o risco de se enganar e interpretar certos dados de forma inapropriada. Se outras abordagens analíticas mostrarem que ele está equivocado, muito bem, não há problema. Como bom académico que ele é vai de certeza rever as suas posições. Não obstante, ele não vai fazer essa revisão em função da necessidade de diabolizar seja quem for. Ele vai fazer a revisão em função de analisar cada vez melhor o problema. O sofrimento do povo zimbabweano exige esta solidariedade analítica dos académicos. Não exige o simples alinhamento com a opinião da maioria. Exige que sejamos mais rigorosos na análise. Essa é a melhor ajuda que podemos prestar ao Zimbabwe.

***

NÃO é fácil discutir o Zimbabwe. Essa dificuldade não se prende apenas à própria natureza bicuda do assunto. Ela prende-se também ao facto de que o assunto polariza e conduz os intervenientes na discussão aos extremos. Talvez não fosse mau reflectir sobre esta polarização, pois em certa medida ela impede uma abordagem útil de um problema que precisa de ser ultrapassado. O meu palpite é de que é difícil discutir o problema do Zimbabwe porque são privilegiadas duas abordagens que me parecem incompatíveis entre si. E não só. Uma dessas abordagens já provou ser não só parte da solução, como também parte do problema. Para simplificar as coisas chamemos às duas abordagens de normativa e analítica.

A defesa de uma ou outra abordagem é, em princípio, legítima. Isso está, portanto, fora de questão. O que interessa saber, contudo, é se uma ou outra são úteis ou não para uma reflexão produtiva do caso zimbabweano. Por abordagem normativa podemos entender duas coisas. Uma é a tendência de procurar saber o que fazer perante a situação. Isto é patente na insistência em articular a solução do problema ao afastamento de Robert Mugabe do poder. Essa é a resposta para a questão de saber o que fazer no Zimbabwe. Afastar Mugabe, o tirano, como se diz. A outra coisa que podemos entender por abordagem normativa é a preferência por uma discussão que faz apelos morais como base de avaliação da plausibilidade do que se diz sobre o assunto.

Esta dimensão manifesta-se de várias maneiras, todas elas ligadas a problemas lógicos de argumentação que precisariam de mais espaço para serem expostos com cuidado. De momento, podemos reter o tipo de linguagem que é privilegiado, isto é, uma linguagem bastante emotiva, uma tendência de estabelecer relações de causalidade bastante problemáticas, bem como os ataques às pessoas que dizem coisas diferentes do que é defendido pela abordagem normativa. Tudo isto é feito no sentido de descrever o problema de maneira a que não sejam razões fundamentadas que contam para se perceber o problema, mas sim emoções. Talvez seja importante destacar aqui que a abordagem normativa não se limita apenas aos que defendem que Mugabe deve sair do poder como condição de resolução do problema; mesmo aqueles que defendem que tudo é conspiração de brancos contra pretos resvalam por aí. Interessam-me, contudo, os outros, porque são eles que tornam difícil uma intervenção menos normativa.

A outra abordagem é analítica. A preocupação aqui é em perceber o que se está a passar naquele país. Caracteristicamente, os da abordagem normativa vão retorquir que não há mais nada a perceber. Mas essa preocupação assenta na necessidade de apreciar as razões que os vários actores envolvidos no assunto têm para assumir as posições que assumem e as acções que praticam. Porque é que Robert Mugabe está preparado para desafiar todo o mundo da maneira como o faz? Porque é que Morgan Tsvangirai acha que pode prescindir dos préstimos da região? Porque é que a comunidade internacional acha que as sanções são oportunas? Portanto, é preciso perceber isto e, acima de tudo, perceber o contexto que torna esses posicionamentos possíveis.

Uma comunidade internacional mais sensível à história, aos constrangimentos regionais, à evolução do problema zimbabweano teria sido rejeitada como interlocutor válido por Mugabe? O que se passou com o contexto para que o mesmo Mugabe que aceitou de forma pragmática as disposições do Acordo de Lancaster, muito embora adiasse a colheita dos frutos da razão da luta, nomeadamente um ordenamento económico justo, viesse mais tarde a fazer ouvidos de mercador à comunidade internacional? A simples apetência pelo poder? A falta de credenciais democráticas? De que maneira é que o contexto pode chegar mesmo a limitar as próprias opções dos actores?

[Continue lendo aqui]

No seguimento do debate suscitado, entre outros, pelo artigo do antropologo Mahmood Mamdani, este artigo do sociologo mocambicano Elisio Macamo:

Porquê é tão difícil discutir o Zimbabwe?

Eu sou por uma abordagem analítica. Reconheço a legitimidade e a razão de ser da abordagem normativa. Devo, contudo, também dizer que não fazemos parte do mesmo contexto de discussão. O seu debate não é o meu. E pior. A forma como alguns deles debatem mete muito medo. A insistência na adopção das suas posições normativas como condição de continuação de discussão não é, na essência, diferente do posicionamento de Mugabe que eles próprios criticam. Uma das razões que leva Mugabe a ser intolerante para com aqueles que não concordam com ele é justamente esta convicção de que em questões morais não é possível qualquer tipo de compromisso.
(...)
Mas isto é que é integridade intelectual. Não está em questão saber como Mahmood Mamdani se posiciona moralmente em relação a Mugabe. A questão é saber como perceber aquele problema. E ter a coragem de fazer o exercício de reflexão, mesmo sob o risco de se enganar e interpretar certos dados de forma inapropriada. Se outras abordagens analíticas mostrarem que ele está equivocado, muito bem, não há problema. Como bom académico que ele é vai de certeza rever as suas posições. Não obstante, ele não vai fazer essa revisão em função da necessidade de diabolizar seja quem for. Ele vai fazer a revisão em função de analisar cada vez melhor o problema. O sofrimento do povo zimbabweano exige esta solidariedade analítica dos académicos. Não exige o simples alinhamento com a opinião da maioria. Exige que sejamos mais rigorosos na análise. Essa é a melhor ajuda que podemos prestar ao Zimbabwe.

***

NÃO é fácil discutir o Zimbabwe. Essa dificuldade não se prende apenas à própria natureza bicuda do assunto. Ela prende-se também ao facto de que o assunto polariza e conduz os intervenientes na discussão aos extremos. Talvez não fosse mau reflectir sobre esta polarização, pois em certa medida ela impede uma abordagem útil de um problema que precisa de ser ultrapassado. O meu palpite é de que é difícil discutir o problema do Zimbabwe porque são privilegiadas duas abordagens que me parecem incompatíveis entre si. E não só. Uma dessas abordagens já provou ser não só parte da solução, como também parte do problema. Para simplificar as coisas chamemos às duas abordagens de normativa e analítica.

A defesa de uma ou outra abordagem é, em princípio, legítima. Isso está, portanto, fora de questão. O que interessa saber, contudo, é se uma ou outra são úteis ou não para uma reflexão produtiva do caso zimbabweano. Por abordagem normativa podemos entender duas coisas. Uma é a tendência de procurar saber o que fazer perante a situação. Isto é patente na insistência em articular a solução do problema ao afastamento de Robert Mugabe do poder. Essa é a resposta para a questão de saber o que fazer no Zimbabwe. Afastar Mugabe, o tirano, como se diz. A outra coisa que podemos entender por abordagem normativa é a preferência por uma discussão que faz apelos morais como base de avaliação da plausibilidade do que se diz sobre o assunto.

Esta dimensão manifesta-se de várias maneiras, todas elas ligadas a problemas lógicos de argumentação que precisariam de mais espaço para serem expostos com cuidado. De momento, podemos reter o tipo de linguagem que é privilegiado, isto é, uma linguagem bastante emotiva, uma tendência de estabelecer relações de causalidade bastante problemáticas, bem como os ataques às pessoas que dizem coisas diferentes do que é defendido pela abordagem normativa. Tudo isto é feito no sentido de descrever o problema de maneira a que não sejam razões fundamentadas que contam para se perceber o problema, mas sim emoções. Talvez seja importante destacar aqui que a abordagem normativa não se limita apenas aos que defendem que Mugabe deve sair do poder como condição de resolução do problema; mesmo aqueles que defendem que tudo é conspiração de brancos contra pretos resvalam por aí. Interessam-me, contudo, os outros, porque são eles que tornam difícil uma intervenção menos normativa.

A outra abordagem é analítica. A preocupação aqui é em perceber o que se está a passar naquele país. Caracteristicamente, os da abordagem normativa vão retorquir que não há mais nada a perceber. Mas essa preocupação assenta na necessidade de apreciar as razões que os vários actores envolvidos no assunto têm para assumir as posições que assumem e as acções que praticam. Porque é que Robert Mugabe está preparado para desafiar todo o mundo da maneira como o faz? Porque é que Morgan Tsvangirai acha que pode prescindir dos préstimos da região? Porque é que a comunidade internacional acha que as sanções são oportunas? Portanto, é preciso perceber isto e, acima de tudo, perceber o contexto que torna esses posicionamentos possíveis.

Uma comunidade internacional mais sensível à história, aos constrangimentos regionais, à evolução do problema zimbabweano teria sido rejeitada como interlocutor válido por Mugabe? O que se passou com o contexto para que o mesmo Mugabe que aceitou de forma pragmática as disposições do Acordo de Lancaster, muito embora adiasse a colheita dos frutos da razão da luta, nomeadamente um ordenamento económico justo, viesse mais tarde a fazer ouvidos de mercador à comunidade internacional? A simples apetência pelo poder? A falta de credenciais democráticas? De que maneira é que o contexto pode chegar mesmo a limitar as próprias opções dos actores?

[Continue lendo aqui]

MAHMOOD MAMDANI ON ZIMBABWE

Mahmood Mamdani, a Ugandan of Asian origin, is Herbert Lehman Professor of Government in the Departments of Anthropology, Political Science and International Affairs at Columbia University and was recently elected one of the world's top 10 intellectuals. In this recently published article he expresses his views on the Zimbabwean crisis.

Lessons of Zimbabwe
Mahmood Mamdani

It is hard to think of a figure more reviled in the West than Robert Mugabe. Liberal and conservative commentators alike portray him as a brutal dictator, and blame him for Zimbabwe’s descent into hyperinflation and poverty. The seizure of white-owned farms by his black supporters has been depicted as a form of thuggery, and as a cause of the country’s declining production, as if these lands were doomed by black ownership. Sanctions have been imposed, and opposition groups funded with the explicit aim of unseating him.

There is no denying Mugabe’s authoritarianism, or his willingness to tolerate and even encourage the violent behaviour of his supporters. His policies have helped lay waste the country’s economy, though sanctions have played no small part, while his refusal to share power with the country’s growing opposition movement, much of it based in the trade unions, has led to a bitter impasse. This view of Zimbabwe’s crisis can be found everywhere, from the Economist and the Financial Times to the Guardian and the New Statesman, but it gives us little sense of how Mugabe has managed to survive. For he has ruled not only by coercion but by consent, and his land reform measures, however harsh, have won him considerable popularity, not just in Zimbabwe but throughout southern Africa. In any case, the preoccupation with his character does little to illuminate the socio-historical issues involved.

Many have compared Mugabe to Idi Amin and the land expropriation in Zimbabwe to the Asian expulsion in Uganda. The comparison isn’t entirely off the mark. I was one of the 70,000 people of South Asian descent booted out by Idi Amin in 1972; I returned to Uganda in 1979. My abiding recollection of my first few months back is that no one I met opposed Amin’s expulsion of ‘Asians’. Most merely said: ‘It was bad the way he did it.’ The same is likely to be said of the land transfers in Zimbabwe.

What distinguishes Mugabe and Amin from other authoritarian rulers is not their demagoguery but the fact that they projected themselves as champions of mass justice and successfully rallied those to whom justice had been denied by the colonial system. Not surprisingly, the justice dispensed by these demagogues mirrored the racialised injustice of the colonial system. In 1979 I began to realise that whatever they made of Amin’s brutality, the Ugandan people experienced the Asian expulsion of 1972 – and not the formal handover in 1962 – as the dawn of true independence. The people of Zimbabwe are likely to remember 2000-3 as the end of the settler colonial era. Any assessment of contemporary Zimbabwe needs to begin with this sobering fact.

[Keep reading here]

*****

N.B.1: You can read another interesting article by Mahmood Mamdani about Africa here.

N.B. 2: My own two lwei (that's the Angolan equivalent to two pence , tuppence, or two cents) on Zimbabwe and African post-colonial issues in general can be found - among other places, such as my 2000 MSc Dissertation, whose bibliography, incidentally, includes one of the authors cited by Mamdani: Phimister, on 'Commodity Relations and Class Formation in the Zimbabwean Countryside, 1898-1920', Journal of Pesant Studies 13,4 (1986) - here and here.

N.B.3: Se preferir ler algo sobre o assunto em Portugues, click aqui.

Mahmood Mamdani, a Ugandan of Asian origin, is Herbert Lehman Professor of Government in the Departments of Anthropology, Political Science and International Affairs at Columbia University and was recently elected one of the world's top 10 intellectuals. In this recently published article he expresses his views on the Zimbabwean crisis.

Lessons of Zimbabwe
Mahmood Mamdani

It is hard to think of a figure more reviled in the West than Robert Mugabe. Liberal and conservative commentators alike portray him as a brutal dictator, and blame him for Zimbabwe’s descent into hyperinflation and poverty. The seizure of white-owned farms by his black supporters has been depicted as a form of thuggery, and as a cause of the country’s declining production, as if these lands were doomed by black ownership. Sanctions have been imposed, and opposition groups funded with the explicit aim of unseating him.

There is no denying Mugabe’s authoritarianism, or his willingness to tolerate and even encourage the violent behaviour of his supporters. His policies have helped lay waste the country’s economy, though sanctions have played no small part, while his refusal to share power with the country’s growing opposition movement, much of it based in the trade unions, has led to a bitter impasse. This view of Zimbabwe’s crisis can be found everywhere, from the Economist and the Financial Times to the Guardian and the New Statesman, but it gives us little sense of how Mugabe has managed to survive. For he has ruled not only by coercion but by consent, and his land reform measures, however harsh, have won him considerable popularity, not just in Zimbabwe but throughout southern Africa. In any case, the preoccupation with his character does little to illuminate the socio-historical issues involved.

Many have compared Mugabe to Idi Amin and the land expropriation in Zimbabwe to the Asian expulsion in Uganda. The comparison isn’t entirely off the mark. I was one of the 70,000 people of South Asian descent booted out by Idi Amin in 1972; I returned to Uganda in 1979. My abiding recollection of my first few months back is that no one I met opposed Amin’s expulsion of ‘Asians’. Most merely said: ‘It was bad the way he did it.’ The same is likely to be said of the land transfers in Zimbabwe.

What distinguishes Mugabe and Amin from other authoritarian rulers is not their demagoguery but the fact that they projected themselves as champions of mass justice and successfully rallied those to whom justice had been denied by the colonial system. Not surprisingly, the justice dispensed by these demagogues mirrored the racialised injustice of the colonial system. In 1979 I began to realise that whatever they made of Amin’s brutality, the Ugandan people experienced the Asian expulsion of 1972 – and not the formal handover in 1962 – as the dawn of true independence. The people of Zimbabwe are likely to remember 2000-3 as the end of the settler colonial era. Any assessment of contemporary Zimbabwe needs to begin with this sobering fact.

[Keep reading here]

*****

N.B.1: You can read another interesting article by Mahmood Mamdani about Africa here.

N.B. 2: My own two lwei (that's the Angolan equivalent to two pence , tuppence, or two cents) on Zimbabwe and African post-colonial issues in general can be found - among other places, such as my 2000 MSc Dissertation, whose bibliography, incidentally, includes one of the authors cited by Mamdani: Phimister, on 'Commodity Relations and Class Formation in the Zimbabwean Countryside, 1898-1920', Journal of Pesant Studies 13,4 (1986) - here and here.

N.B.3: Se preferir ler algo sobre o assunto em Portugues, click aqui.

O FIM DA ECONOMIA DE CASINO COMO FIM DAS IDEOLOGIAS...

Ja’ aqui toquei ao de leve na forma como alguns veem a actual crise economica global como “o fim da economia de casino”. Tambem ja’ aqui tinha feito uma breve alusao ao “ideologos de todo o mundo uni-vos!” como um possivel slogan a ser adoptado na nova “era Obama” que ai vem...

Mas em nenhuma dessas ocasioes me passou pela cabeca algo como isto:
O governador do Banco Central do Zimbabwe (Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe – RBZ), Gideon Gono, acaba de lancar um livro entitulado “A Economia de Casino do Zimbabwe: Medidas Extraordinarias para Desafios Extraordinarios”.

Segundo ele, “no meu humilde livro, nao lido tanto com a minha historia pessoal, mas tento principalmente lancar luz sobre as profundas questoes filosoficas que marcaram a orientacao e a conduta do RBZ sob a minha supervisao nos ultimos cinco anos. Assim que arregacei as mangas para comecar a trabalhar a 1 de Dezembro de 2003, fui confrontado pela crua realidade da nossa economia degenerando-se literalmente numa economia de casino, devido a ganancia individual e, em alguns casos, colectiva, indisciplina, corrupcao, fraude e uma geral falta de unidade de objectivos entre os stakeholders.”

Nao se poderia aplicar essa descricao a Wall Street dos ultimos anos? Veja-se, em particular, como a crise ali e' atribuida as facilidades de acesso ao credito habitacional concedidas, durante as administracoes Carter e Clinton, a comunidade negra na America e as analogias entre essa analise e a questao da redistribuicao da terra na base da crise no Zimbabwe... Nao poderia esse livro ter sido escrito por Alan Greenspan ou, talvez mais apropriadamente, por Ben Bernanke? Nao sera’ a possibilidade de pronunciar Gono, Greenspan e Bernanke (e, ja’ agora, Melo e Cockburn) numa mesma frase, o prenuncio do “fim das ideologias”?

Mas o fantastico desta historia nao termina ai. Diz Gono, recentemente reconduzido por Mugabe na governacao do RBZ, que George Bush e Condoleezza Rice lhe ofereceram um posto de chefia no Banco Mundial, tendo o board deste reunido tres vezes para o convencer a aceita-lo, mas... ele regeitou a oferta.

[Leia mais aqui]

Ja’ aqui toquei ao de leve na forma como alguns veem a actual crise economica global como “o fim da economia de casino”. Tambem ja’ aqui tinha feito uma breve alusao ao “ideologos de todo o mundo uni-vos!” como um possivel slogan a ser adoptado na nova “era Obama” que ai vem...

Mas em nenhuma dessas ocasioes me passou pela cabeca algo como isto:
O governador do Banco Central do Zimbabwe (Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe – RBZ), Gideon Gono, acaba de lancar um livro entitulado “A Economia de Casino do Zimbabwe: Medidas Extraordinarias para Desafios Extraordinarios”.

Segundo ele, “no meu humilde livro, nao lido tanto com a minha historia pessoal, mas tento principalmente lancar luz sobre as profundas questoes filosoficas que marcaram a orientacao e a conduta do RBZ sob a minha supervisao nos ultimos cinco anos. Assim que arregacei as mangas para comecar a trabalhar a 1 de Dezembro de 2003, fui confrontado pela crua realidade da nossa economia degenerando-se literalmente numa economia de casino, devido a ganancia individual e, em alguns casos, colectiva, indisciplina, corrupcao, fraude e uma geral falta de unidade de objectivos entre os stakeholders.”

Nao se poderia aplicar essa descricao a Wall Street dos ultimos anos? Veja-se, em particular, como a crise ali e' atribuida as facilidades de acesso ao credito habitacional concedidas, durante as administracoes Carter e Clinton, a comunidade negra na America e as analogias entre essa analise e a questao da redistribuicao da terra na base da crise no Zimbabwe... Nao poderia esse livro ter sido escrito por Alan Greenspan ou, talvez mais apropriadamente, por Ben Bernanke? Nao sera’ a possibilidade de pronunciar Gono, Greenspan e Bernanke (e, ja’ agora, Melo e Cockburn) numa mesma frase, o prenuncio do “fim das ideologias”?

Mas o fantastico desta historia nao termina ai. Diz Gono, recentemente reconduzido por Mugabe na governacao do RBZ, que George Bush e Condoleezza Rice lhe ofereceram um posto de chefia no Banco Mundial, tendo o board deste reunido tres vezes para o convencer a aceita-lo, mas... ele regeitou a oferta.

[Leia mais aqui]

ZIMBABWE: THE (IM)POSSIBLE AGREEMENT

[More details here]

[More details here]

SPEAKING OF HIPPOS…

As I finally managed to get rid of all my (let me be frank about it: less than rewarding in every conceivable sense - quite the contrary!) commitments with other outlets in the blogosphere, I gained now some time to get back to basics as far as my normal, simple, life is concerned: e.g. get to revisit my long neglected 'African files' and some of the pictures in them…

I took these pictures on some lazy afternoon somewhere in Swaziland, in 2001, during a break from my work on the establishment of the regional legal and institutional framework for the implementation of the SADC Trade Protocol.
To me, they say it all about these gentle giants: right there and then I fell in love with them!

That they've come to get such a damning reputation in recent times, thanks to the hasty followers of some economist – who, in fact might be blissfully unaware of all the nonsense being generated by some of his ideas - is something that totally escapes me and, I have no doubt, these innocent pachyderms as well…

Apparently, they are ‘accused’ of being ‘complacent’, ‘lazy’ and of ‘always blaming all the evils plaguing their present lives on bad old colonialism’… On which they are pitched against the 'cheetahs' (I actually took some pictures of these in Botswana, which I still need to find, – they were caged, though…) which apparently behave as their ‘antipodes’! To such extent that some of the most ‘red-blooded’ among those hasty followers of said economist got to self-proclaiming themselves ‘cheetahs’ and the only hope for the future of Africa, while singing all the way to the bank or to the bright new dawns they promise to bring to the continent from far afield, whichever comes first, #we are the world, we are the children#… Oh, how they get me moved, amused, and bemused!

Seriously, though, while I am not sure if this is true of the said economist (just as I am not sure if Mandela is fully aware that many understand his legacy as meaning to give full rein to the most despicable forms of white racism in the name of forgiveness…), what I have no doubt about is that some of his followers seem to have a poor, if any, grip on the path-dependent nature of Economic Development on History, as Nobel Prize of Economics Douglass North has so clearly shown …

The madness got to such a point that these worriers and young turks, in their belief that they are indeed 'cheetahs' (when to me all they manage to look like is hyenas – no offence intended to these…), got to leaping over history, science and rationality altogether and to confusing (...just as they confuse 'diplomacy' with 'subservience'...) any argument based on Economic History with “blaming colonialism for all the evils plaguing Africa in the present”, for which they have no qualms in trying “by all means necessary” to silence whoever dares to speak about African economic development in historical perspective… How appropriate and convenient this is for the contemporary versions of the “white man’s burden” and his “loyal servants”, isn’t it?!

However, as such “dedicated followers of fashion” as they are, some seem to start seeing some “profit” in reading historical narratives about even such until recently “damned and godforsaken territory” as Zimbabwe… How interesting, isn’t it?! Could it be that this sudden “revolution” has something to do with the recently signed framework agreement between the two contending parties in that country, about which they’ve been so conspicuously silent?!

Anyway, whatever happens next (... they might even get to such unthinkable things as start supporting Obama, who knows?...), I’ll keep my faith in my hippos! You see, just like me, in spite of their huge eyes, they are often blind to all the evil surrounding them and, while being as unforgetful as elephants, they are so forgiving...

As I finally managed to get rid of all my (let me be frank about it: less than rewarding in every conceivable sense - quite the contrary!) commitments with other outlets in the blogosphere, I gained now some time to get back to basics as far as my normal, simple, life is concerned: e.g. get to revisit my long neglected 'African files' and some of the pictures in them…

I took these pictures on some lazy afternoon somewhere in Swaziland, in 2001, during a break from my work on the establishment of the regional legal and institutional framework for the implementation of the SADC Trade Protocol.
To me, they say it all about these gentle giants: right there and then I fell in love with them!

That they've come to get such a damning reputation in recent times, thanks to the hasty followers of some economist – who, in fact might be blissfully unaware of all the nonsense being generated by some of his ideas - is something that totally escapes me and, I have no doubt, these innocent pachyderms as well…

Apparently, they are ‘accused’ of being ‘complacent’, ‘lazy’ and of ‘always blaming all the evils plaguing their present lives on bad old colonialism’… On which they are pitched against the 'cheetahs' (I actually took some pictures of these in Botswana, which I still need to find, – they were caged, though…) which apparently behave as their ‘antipodes’! To such extent that some of the most ‘red-blooded’ among those hasty followers of said economist got to self-proclaiming themselves ‘cheetahs’ and the only hope for the future of Africa, while singing all the way to the bank or to the bright new dawns they promise to bring to the continent from far afield, whichever comes first, #we are the world, we are the children#… Oh, how they get me moved, amused, and bemused!

Seriously, though, while I am not sure if this is true of the said economist (just as I am not sure if Mandela is fully aware that many understand his legacy as meaning to give full rein to the most despicable forms of white racism in the name of forgiveness…), what I have no doubt about is that some of his followers seem to have a poor, if any, grip on the path-dependent nature of Economic Development on History, as Nobel Prize of Economics Douglass North has so clearly shown …

The madness got to such a point that these worriers and young turks, in their belief that they are indeed 'cheetahs' (when to me all they manage to look like is hyenas – no offence intended to these…), got to leaping over history, science and rationality altogether and to confusing (...just as they confuse 'diplomacy' with 'subservience'...) any argument based on Economic History with “blaming colonialism for all the evils plaguing Africa in the present”, for which they have no qualms in trying “by all means necessary” to silence whoever dares to speak about African economic development in historical perspective… How appropriate and convenient this is for the contemporary versions of the “white man’s burden” and his “loyal servants”, isn’t it?!

However, as such “dedicated followers of fashion” as they are, some seem to start seeing some “profit” in reading historical narratives about even such until recently “damned and godforsaken territory” as Zimbabwe… How interesting, isn’t it?! Could it be that this sudden “revolution” has something to do with the recently signed framework agreement between the two contending parties in that country, about which they’ve been so conspicuously silent?!

Anyway, whatever happens next (... they might even get to such unthinkable things as start supporting Obama, who knows?...), I’ll keep my faith in my hippos! You see, just like me, in spite of their huge eyes, they are often blind to all the evil surrounding them and, while being as unforgetful as elephants, they are so forgiving...

IS THIS FOR GOOD?

[Read story here]

[Read story here]

FIELD DAY

LOCAL VOICES OFFLINE (3)

Things someone, somewhere in the world, was talking about but you probably weren’t listening…

I found this speech particularly interesting for what it has to say about the deterioration of the situation in Zimbabwe since its independence.
The speaker, Jeremy Thorpe, addresses the situation in then Rhodesia (present-day Zimbabwe) at the time. He directs his ‘punches’ at the “internal government” then headed by Ian Smith, who once famously said "I don't believe in black majority rule over Rhodesia, not in a thousand years." It should be noted in passing that Smith has recently passed away and has been hailed in some circles of the blogosphere as a “African Hero”.

The talks Thorpe refers to eventually led to the ‘Lancaster House Agreement’ and Zimbabwe’s independence. Retrospectively, it may be said that there was a formal agreement but no implementation of it, in such a way that, paraphrasing his speech, “there was no delivery of the goods agreed to at Lancaster House and the life of the average African has only altered for the worse”…

Taking this speech somewhat out of context, one might suggest, in relation to the current negotiations on the EU-Africa EPAs, that “they have got now to generate such activity towards genuine partnership they will begin to not only astonish the world but, in particular, they will astonish the African population within Africa itself”…

Thorpe’s Last Stand

JEREMY THORPE was forced to resign the leadership of the Liberal Party in 1976, and survived scandal and a major trial for incitement and conspiracy to murder. He lost his North Devon seat in 1979. This is possibly his last major speech in the Commons, where he once had a reputation as a sparkling wit, well informed and fluent. He spoke in a debate on Rhodesia, which was still in turmoil, as MPs sought ways to end the fighting. (2/8/78)

Things someone, somewhere in the world, was talking about but you probably weren’t listening…

I found this speech particularly interesting for what it has to say about the deterioration of the situation in Zimbabwe since its independence.
The speaker, Jeremy Thorpe, addresses the situation in then Rhodesia (present-day Zimbabwe) at the time. He directs his ‘punches’ at the “internal government” then headed by Ian Smith, who once famously said "I don't believe in black majority rule over Rhodesia, not in a thousand years." It should be noted in passing that Smith has recently passed away and has been hailed in some circles of the blogosphere as a “African Hero”.

The talks Thorpe refers to eventually led to the ‘Lancaster House Agreement’ and Zimbabwe’s independence. Retrospectively, it may be said that there was a formal agreement but no implementation of it, in such a way that, paraphrasing his speech, “there was no delivery of the goods agreed to at Lancaster House and the life of the average African has only altered for the worse”…

Taking this speech somewhat out of context, one might suggest, in relation to the current negotiations on the EU-Africa EPAs, that “they have got now to generate such activity towards genuine partnership they will begin to not only astonish the world but, in particular, they will astonish the African population within Africa itself”…

Thorpe’s Last Stand

JEREMY THORPE was forced to resign the leadership of the Liberal Party in 1976, and survived scandal and a major trial for incitement and conspiracy to murder. He lost his North Devon seat in 1979. This is possibly his last major speech in the Commons, where he once had a reputation as a sparkling wit, well informed and fluent. He spoke in a debate on Rhodesia, which was still in turmoil, as MPs sought ways to end the fighting. (2/8/78)

ZIMBABWEAN SCULPTURE

Whoever lives or travels around Southern Africa has certainly marveled at the numerous ‘informal markets’, normally by the roadsides, where all sorts of works of art, by men and women, are sold by Zimbabwean refugees all across the region. Of these, the most noticeable are sculptures, most frequently in soap-stone, but also in wood, iron and other materials. These elaborated, often sumptuous, works of art, for which one would most certainly pay small or big fortunes in big city art galleries, will cost you ‘peanuts’ in those markets.

This is just one of the many facets of the current tragedy affecting Zimbabwe: thousands of nationals from the country, reputed as not just the “former bread-basket”, but also as possessing one of the biggest reservoirs of qualified people in the region, nowadays try to earn a living in such markets or through menial jobs in neighbouring countries, while being targeted by all sorts of xenophobic attitudes from the authorities and nationals of those countries – something not likely to figure in the agendas of the AU summits, at a time when the buzzword in various continental fora is one “United States of Africa”…

There are, however, as with everything in life, exceptions to the rule, and as much as you will find former Zimbabwean engineers, teachers and other professionals washing dishes as domestic workers in some middle-class household in a neighbouring country, you will also find many qualified and competent Zimbabweans well employed in institutions and companies across the region, the rest of the continent and the world at large.

The sculptures depicted above are just one such example: the work of Shepherd Ndudzo, a Zimbabwean artist based in Gaborone, they’ve escaped the roadside and were exhibited at local galleries and sold, well… not exactly for ‘peanuts’! To my chagrin, I couldn’t buy one, but managed to get from the artist one of the limited series of postcards made out of his fabulous collection of female postures.

Whoever lives or travels around Southern Africa has certainly marveled at the numerous ‘informal markets’, normally by the roadsides, where all sorts of works of art, by men and women, are sold by Zimbabwean refugees all across the region. Of these, the most noticeable are sculptures, most frequently in soap-stone, but also in wood, iron and other materials. These elaborated, often sumptuous, works of art, for which one would most certainly pay small or big fortunes in big city art galleries, will cost you ‘peanuts’ in those markets.

This is just one of the many facets of the current tragedy affecting Zimbabwe: thousands of nationals from the country, reputed as not just the “former bread-basket”, but also as possessing one of the biggest reservoirs of qualified people in the region, nowadays try to earn a living in such markets or through menial jobs in neighbouring countries, while being targeted by all sorts of xenophobic attitudes from the authorities and nationals of those countries – something not likely to figure in the agendas of the AU summits, at a time when the buzzword in various continental fora is one “United States of Africa”…

There are, however, as with everything in life, exceptions to the rule, and as much as you will find former Zimbabwean engineers, teachers and other professionals washing dishes as domestic workers in some middle-class household in a neighbouring country, you will also find many qualified and competent Zimbabweans well employed in institutions and companies across the region, the rest of the continent and the world at large.

The sculptures depicted above are just one such example: the work of Shepherd Ndudzo, a Zimbabwean artist based in Gaborone, they’ve escaped the roadside and were exhibited at local galleries and sold, well… not exactly for ‘peanuts’! To my chagrin, I couldn’t buy one, but managed to get from the artist one of the limited series of postcards made out of his fabulous collection of female postures.

ZIMBABWE: "MAKING IT"?

The attached article tells a tale of today’s Zimbabwe, or more precisely Harare, that seems a bit at odds with the gloomy and terrifying reports we are getting used to:

“A Zimbabwean who recently visited Harare for the first time in more than nine years remarked that the biggest change in the capital over a decade had been the increased evidence of wealth. He mentioned the large four wheel drive vehicles that ply the roads, huge mansions in the upmarket suburbs and supermarkets stocked to the brim with imported goods.”

And, apparently, it’s not just members of the ruling party who are “making it”! How can this be, against a backdrop of unbelievably high rates of inflation and unemployment and virtually null GDP growth? The author comes up with a number of economic explanations, all of which put together don’t succeed at completely overshadowing the more common picture arising from current reports on Zimbabwe:

“With no end in sight to the distortions in the economy resulting from the political climate, many people will still make a lot more money but the issue is not about their unethical ways of creating wealth, it is something much more serious. The more the economy benefits these people, the less incentive they have for supporting change. That is far more dangerous than flaunting your wealth in the faces of an increasingly miserable population.”

The attached article tells a tale of today’s Zimbabwe, or more precisely Harare, that seems a bit at odds with the gloomy and terrifying reports we are getting used to:

“A Zimbabwean who recently visited Harare for the first time in more than nine years remarked that the biggest change in the capital over a decade had been the increased evidence of wealth. He mentioned the large four wheel drive vehicles that ply the roads, huge mansions in the upmarket suburbs and supermarkets stocked to the brim with imported goods.”

And, apparently, it’s not just members of the ruling party who are “making it”! How can this be, against a backdrop of unbelievably high rates of inflation and unemployment and virtually null GDP growth? The author comes up with a number of economic explanations, all of which put together don’t succeed at completely overshadowing the more common picture arising from current reports on Zimbabwe:

“With no end in sight to the distortions in the economy resulting from the political climate, many people will still make a lot more money but the issue is not about their unethical ways of creating wealth, it is something much more serious. The more the economy benefits these people, the less incentive they have for supporting change. That is far more dangerous than flaunting your wealth in the faces of an increasingly miserable population.”

OUTBLOGGING @ AFRICANPATH – II

As at least some of you might have noticed, my first article at Africanpath received almost immediately a response from Dennis Matanda, one of the site’s resident bloggers.
In my second article, posted today, I seek to address some of the issues raised by Matanda in his last and previous articles. In doing so, I deal with three discrete cases from African economic history, namely Ghana, Zimbabwe and Botswana.

Again, you can read and comment it either Here or at Africanpath.

As at least some of you might have noticed, my first article at Africanpath received almost immediately a response from Dennis Matanda, one of the site’s resident bloggers.
In my second article, posted today, I seek to address some of the issues raised by Matanda in his last and previous articles. In doing so, I deal with three discrete cases from African economic history, namely Ghana, Zimbabwe and Botswana.

Again, you can read and comment it either Here or at Africanpath.

ZIMBABWE: ENTER ANGOLA...

Angolan police militia will arrive in Zimbabwe in less than a week to boost the Zimbabwe Republic Police force which has suffered massive desertions in the past few years.

Angola's Minister of Home Affairs Roberto Monteiro said on Friday Angola was sympathetic to Zimbabwe's police force and in light of recent disturbances and attacks on Zimbabwe police, Angola will be bringing in more that 3,000 police militia to help with quelling violence and maintaining law and order in Zimbabwe. Monteiro was in Zimbabwe to sign a cooperation agreement on public order and security, state radio said.

Angola and Namibia are President Robert Mugabe's strongest allies in the region and the deal raises the possibility that Angolan police could be called in. The MPLA government has a powerful police militia that is used to quell local disorder. There have been signs of dissidence among Zimbabwe's police, who are suffering as are the rest of the population from the effects of the collapsed economy. Speaking during a visit to Harare, the Angolan minister said the police should use appropriate measures to contain cases of violence in order to maintain peace and security and "the Angolan government will help Zimbabwe in this endeavour."

He condemned subsequent attacks on police officers, saying the police are there to maintain public order. He said some of the best trained police militia will be deployed to Zimbabwe as early as Tuesday to help with the growing unrest in the country." Angola will do everything in its power to help the Zimbabwean police force and will not allow Western imperialism to take over Zimbabwe," he said." There are misleading statements coming out of independent media and opposition politicians in Zimbabwe, that have incited Zimbabweans to rebel against their own government," he said.

"President Robert Mugabe and I have agreed on a law and order maintenance agreement that will see Angolan police helping with the situation in the country," he said. It is still unclear where Angolan militia will be deployed in the country and for how long. At least six police officers have been injured in revenge attacks on the force. Meanwhile Mugabe has threatened Western diplomats with expulsion if they continue their criticism.

(Sourced from here)

N.B.: In the meantime authorities of both countries denied this news (22/03/07).

Angolan police militia will arrive in Zimbabwe in less than a week to boost the Zimbabwe Republic Police force which has suffered massive desertions in the past few years.

Angola's Minister of Home Affairs Roberto Monteiro said on Friday Angola was sympathetic to Zimbabwe's police force and in light of recent disturbances and attacks on Zimbabwe police, Angola will be bringing in more that 3,000 police militia to help with quelling violence and maintaining law and order in Zimbabwe. Monteiro was in Zimbabwe to sign a cooperation agreement on public order and security, state radio said.

Angola and Namibia are President Robert Mugabe's strongest allies in the region and the deal raises the possibility that Angolan police could be called in. The MPLA government has a powerful police militia that is used to quell local disorder. There have been signs of dissidence among Zimbabwe's police, who are suffering as are the rest of the population from the effects of the collapsed economy. Speaking during a visit to Harare, the Angolan minister said the police should use appropriate measures to contain cases of violence in order to maintain peace and security and "the Angolan government will help Zimbabwe in this endeavour."

He condemned subsequent attacks on police officers, saying the police are there to maintain public order. He said some of the best trained police militia will be deployed to Zimbabwe as early as Tuesday to help with the growing unrest in the country." Angola will do everything in its power to help the Zimbabwean police force and will not allow Western imperialism to take over Zimbabwe," he said." There are misleading statements coming out of independent media and opposition politicians in Zimbabwe, that have incited Zimbabweans to rebel against their own government," he said.

"President Robert Mugabe and I have agreed on a law and order maintenance agreement that will see Angolan police helping with the situation in the country," he said. It is still unclear where Angolan militia will be deployed in the country and for how long. At least six police officers have been injured in revenge attacks on the force. Meanwhile Mugabe has threatened Western diplomats with expulsion if they continue their criticism.

(Sourced from here)

N.B.: In the meantime authorities of both countries denied this news (22/03/07).

THE LEVEL OF POLITICAL VIOLENCE IN ZIMBABWE...

SIMPLY UNACCEPTABLE!!!

SIMPLY UNACCEPTABLE!!!