Yes we can.

If Americans can throw out conventional thinking and a complete paradigm shift of seismic proportions and elect a black Man with a foreign sounding name, Ignore years of racial acrimony differences, stereotypes, Then we Africans have a lot to learn in regard to democracy, tolerance and peaceful co-existence.

l have just come to learn that true leaders are not made, but are indeed Born. You can have all the experience and the political pedigree, But at the end you cannot deliver no matter what. Certain men exude a certain confidence, integrity and the ability to lead and inspire “Hope” among there respective constituency’s, a good example are a well known cast of characters….

Winston Churchill, the WW2, British prime Minister who inspired hope, among Britons amid hopelessness and potential defeat by the Nazis, Ronald Reagan who won the cold war without firing a single missile, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King jnr who fought for civil rights and inspired American Blacks with his leadership…. Nelson Mandela who emerged from jail and united a racially divided south Africa after years of apartheid, our own Tom Mboya who inspired countless African trade unionists, and young politicians to fight the yoke of colonialism and exploitation only to fall to an assassins bullet…and now Obama.

Obama now has that rare chance to prove he can lead and inspire a whole generation of young people for a better and brighter future.

For us in Africa, it’s time to focus on the fight against well known suspects..Poverty ignorance and disease, tribalism, racism and corruption not necessarily in that order.

We need to invite and initiate open discussion and debate about the road ahead — invite the well known unwanted guest called DEMOCRACY and give him a chance, to prevail/build enviable institutions, and governments elected by the ballot not the bullet.

It’s about time to change the status quo and give our children and people hope for the future.

Phil Ole Sompisha
Mad_Moran

Popularity: 2% [?]

Jacob Zuma, the president of the Africa National Congress (ANC) and South Africa’s president-in-waiting is the quintessential African politician. Only that he is late to the scene by 30 years. He is rough. He is randy. He sexual escapades, which he wears on his sleeves, are well documented. He has many wives. His first wife committed suicide. In the last written note testimony authored, she blamed Zuma for her death. He famously said as a Zulu man he never seduces a woman to have sex. He simply knows from the way the woman sits whether she is inviting him to have sex or not. Once he notices the lady’s posture, he proceeds accordingly depending on his dress mode, by either unzipping his trouser or more easily by throwing to the side the skin garment loosely dangling around his waist.

Things being equal, he will be crowned the next president of South Africa. This is the same man who famously said by taking a shower after unsafe sex he will be protect himself from contracting Aids! There is no doubt Zuma presents Africa’s past, not its future leaders. With a mindset of this nature, South Africans are waiting for a threatening hurricane, and they are not blinking yet. Africa’s fascination with the ugly, the bully, and rowdy leaders has for a long time fascinated anthropologists and South African’s flirtation with Zuma falls into the same setup.

The events that led to the resignation of Thabo Mbeki as South Africa’s president has shown the intriguing nature of politics in South Africa. On one side the orderly transfer of power to the interim president, Mr Kgalema Motlanthe and the sweeping edicts from the higher echelons of the ANC was breathtaking.

This is the oldest political party on the continent, and by recalling the president in a most undignified style, it showed how power is not only wield, but its filtering process was brutally on display too.

Mbeki despite his intellectual aura has the charisma of an undertaker and that did not help.

The enormity of power displayed by the ANC in recalling president Mbeki must be appreciated at several levels. First, it must be acknowledged especially in this part of the world that a party with historic continuity and memory is good for the politics of any country. ANC has shown that it has structures, and that it has teeth to bite. In Kenya for instance, where the average lifespan of a political party is three to five years and the party dies and a new one created as a result of ethnic reconfiguration, ANC’s power structure and discipline was poignant lesson for local politicians.

Second, Mbeki by answering the call of his party in throwing in the towel showed the maturity of politics in South Africa. He definitely has his support within the party.

Nelson Mandela

He could have counterattacked the Kenyan way by shouting loud that foreign money was poured to fight him or even go personal with Zuma. Remember, he won over forty percent of the vote during the leadership contest for the president of the ANC when he lost to Zuma.

Third, the silence of the great man Nelson Mandela was telling. He simply kept mum, not because he was for either side of the political divide. No! As a dignified ex-president he knows his role as an elder statesman and left politics to politicians.

That was an excellent lesson for those retired presidents with itchy fingers for powers like Jerry Rawling of Ghana.

Zuma’s ascendancy to the pinnacle of political power is a cruel reply of what has happened in other African countries in the 1980s and 90s. He has faced all kinds of allegations ranging from corruption in an arms deal to a rape allegation.

On corruption, we see a replay of the typical African politician’s strategy. Zuma had a financial adviser who was convicted and is currently serving sentence for his role in the corrupt arms deal. Zuma was heavily implicated as an accomplice by the judge who sentenced his adviser. He was then rightly fired as vice president. Pursuant to that, the government undertook investigation and referred criminal charges against Zuma. Being the typical African politician, he frustrated the legal process in all manners conceivable. Challenging and appealing every decision made against him by any court. At the same time, he was fermenting the party against Mbeki.

Zuma’s presidency will be calamitous. He is supremely unsuitable to be the president of any country, leave alone South Africa with its past tortured history and promising future. He will take South Africa down the ruinous road tin-god dictators with similar background took their countries in Africa.

With a party that sees his weakness and vices as the archetypical African male strengths, one will soon see the replay of unsavoury scenes reminiscent in other parts of Africa replayed gleefully by Zuma and his supporting orchestra. What is South Africa’s enthralment with this horrid character and his seedy past?

Popularity: 6% [?]

Writes: CHARLES ONYANGO-OBBO

Kenya, and now Zimbabwe. Is power-sharing the panacea?

BOYS WILL ALWAYS BE BOYS. A few weeks ago, some male-dominated African lists on the Internet circulated the photos of Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe’s daughter Bona, and that of his opposition rival Morgan Tsvangirai’s, Rumbi (Zimbabweans have such wonderful names!)

Members were asked which one of them they thought was the more beautiful. Also, which one of the two they would like to marry.

I thought, knowing that most of the chaps that I knew on the lists were anti-Mugabe that Bona would lose.

However, when it comes to matters of women, most men will gladly leave politics at the door, so Bona got many admirers. In the end, it was very close.

   [Bona Mugabe (left) and Rumbi Tsvangirai][Click Pics To Enlarge]
Bona, as the daughter of a president, clearly was receiving the care of a well-paid beautician. She had a glossier look than Rumbi. Half the men, on the other hand, said Rumbi didn’t have Bona’s grim look (much like her father), and exuded more character.

Only one bloke, Thomas (not his real name) rose beyond the limited choices being offered, and said he would marry both! His position was slammed as unprincipled and weak, because he feared the responsibility of choice.

This seemingly frivolous Internet fun game, however, proves how unpredictable African politics can be, and demonstrated that what is ideal and “right” is not always the best and most practical.

Mugabe had sworn that he would never share power with Tsvangirai, after he lost the first round of elections and unleashed so much terror on Tsvangirai ahead of the second round, that the opposition had little choice but to pull out. This left Mugabe to run against himself, and claim a sham victory.

Zimbabwe just plunged further into crisis. Inflation rose to over 20 million per cent, and unemployment skyrocketed to 80 per cent.

As The Observer (London) reported in a long insightful piece, the central bank knocked 10 zeros off the Zimbabwe dollar at the beginning of August because shops and banks could not cope with calculations in the trillions.

When it was launched on August 1, the new dollar was Z$4 to the Pound, but on the black market, it immediately slumped to Z$25. It continued crashing dramatically, and within a month, the black market rate was Z$13,000.

With worthless bank notes, and too broke to print more, three weeks ago the Government announced that it would legalise the use of US dollars and South African Rand as everyday currency.

It would seem that shortly after, Mugabe finally realised that he had run out of wiggle room, and put in a call to South Africa President Thabo Mbeki, who had been mediating the power-sharing talks that seemed doomed to fail.

THE RESULT IS THAT ALL THE MEN who said they would marry Bona Mugabe, would now have a father-in-law with less power than he wielded two months ago.

Those who went for Rumbi Tsvangirai, expecting their father-in-law would be an opposition leader, who came close to becoming Zimbabwe’s president, but not close enough, would have one who is a prime minister and controlling about 51 per cent of the Government.

Thomas would be the greatest winner, with one father-in-law being president, and the other prime minister. It couldn’t be better. However, his fortunes have been scorned.

Daily Nation’s sister publication The East African had South African judge Johann Kriegler, who is heading the commission of inquiry into what went wrong in the December 2007 election, saying he thought these Mwai Kibaki-Raila Odinga, and now Mugabe-Tsvangirai power-sharing deals were undermining Africa’s democracy.

He argued that they offered presidents, who are not ready to retire when their time has come, or who have lost elections, to cling on to power. Within a day, there were many such reservations being aired about the Zimbabwe deal.

Kriegler’s view is particularly interesting, because he should be aware of what is touted as the most successful power-sharing deal in Africa — the transitional government between the African Nation Congress’ leader Nelson Mandela, and F. W. de Klerk, who was president and leader of the racist National Party that had jailed him for 27 years.

This is not to say there are no problems with governments where power is shared.

Because there can never be two winners in an election contest, they reward losers and turn the logic of elections — the idea that the person or party that is preferred by most voters should form government — on its head.

And while power-sharing might give unpopular incumbents a way back into power through a back door, they can also equally hand disorganised opposition groups a slice of power that they were denied at polls.

On balance, if Kenya’s example is anything to go by, the competition between coalition partners for the affection of the public seems to be the greatest incentive for performance there is.

And because they are wooing voters, each of the sides is eager to be seen as more enlightened than the other, and therefore tends to avoid being repressive. The result is that Kenya is probably freer today, than the previous time when it had been freest — the first years of Kibaki 2003-2007.

About The Author: Charles Onyango-Obbo is Uganda’s leading political commentator. He is Nation Media Group’s managing editor for convergence and new products. Charles writes for The Monitor, Uganda’s only independent daily and most influential newspaper and The East African, a NationMedia publication. Be sure to check out his Article Archive featuring hundreds of Charles’s greatest publications…..Click Here To Read More Articles By Onyango-Obbo

Popularity: 8% [?]

Zuma’s Baggage Too Much For South Africa To Bear

Jacob Zuma, the leader of South Africa’s ruling African National Congress, may have been left off the hook on a technicality on corruption, fraud and money laundering charges, but it would be better for him to defend himself in court to lift the cloud of allegations of corruption swirling around his head.

On Friday, South Africa’s High Court ruled the fraud and corruption charges against Zuma — the front-runner to succeed South African President Thabo Mbeki next year — were invalid because prosecutors failed to follow proper procedures. Zuma faces 16 charges of fraud, corruption and racketeering, including receiving bribes totaling $500,000 from arms dealers. Judge Chris Nicholson ruled that the National Prosecuting Authority should have consulted Zuma before it pressed corruption charges against him in 2007. Importantly, Judge Nicholson emphasized that he was not giving a verdict on whether Zuma was innocent or guilty and said prosecutors were free to bring charges again.

The increased political pressure now likely to come from Zuma’s buoyant backers and the question marks raised about the prosecuting authority’s competency over this, the second procedural lapse in the case, will make it very difficult for them to press on with charges. Nicholson’s decision in the Pietermaritzburg High Court clears a significant hurdle for Zuma, 66, to secure his party’s nomination for president in next general elections.

South African President Thabo Mbeki’s second and final terms ends next year. Such is the African National Congress’s political dominance that whoever is the party’s chosen candidate for South Africa’s presidency is assured victory.

Yet, if Zuma does not answer the allegations fully in court, the lingering questions over his involvement in alleged corruption will continue to paralyze government, erode public confidence and undermine the democracy. A new South African president will need to tackle a pervasive air of public corruption, which will demand honesty.

Judge Nicholson rightly heavily criticised Mbeki and his government for routinely abusing public institutions to launch vendettas against critics. Yet, in his campaign to quash the corruption charges against him, Zuma and his sometimes violent supporters have attacked the judiciary, democratic institutions, the media and his critics to such an extent that the country’s not yet consolidated constitutional system, institutions and values are put at risk in the same way as they were by Mbeki’s previous manipulation of them.

   Jacob Zuma in Traditional Zulu Garb
Zuma may be popular, but there is a considerable opposition from within the ANC against him, a populist, sexist and homophobic leader with controversial views on HIV/Aids. Zuma claimed he could see by the way a women dressed and sat that she was looking for sex and that he should oblige. Furthermore, he said that he thought having a shower after unprotected sex with an HIV positive partner would would help prevent infection. He has urged the police to shoot first and ask questions later to combat high crime levels. He is under fire from his own camp for flip-flopping on economic policy depending on the audience.

The fierce campaign to secure the presidency for Zuma and the equally stiff opposition to it has paralysed the ANC and the government in such a way that making Zuma president of South Africa will not end. Such is the enmity he evokes from those within the ANC who oppose him that his presidency is likely to be prone to log-jams, making it hard to execute policies which would benefit the country’s poor. Zuma has surrounded himself with hardline demagogues. This will make it difficult for him to bring in new talent — so necessary to energize the country — from across the color, ideological and political divides. Others fear Zuma will be held hostage by special interests and partisan factions from both the left and the right who have rallied around him.

South Africa is stuck in a number of interlocking crises: broken families, communities and society; high levels of poverty, unemployment and crime; perceptions of widespread corruption; increasing racial tensions; faltering democratic institutions; rapidly declining public confidence in government’s ability to deliver services; and looming economic problems.

The country must deal with these problems in an increasing complex, dangerous and economically treacherous world. The ANC and South Africa need a less divisive and more unifying leader, with fresh ideas, to give imaginative leadership to the country’s mountain of problems. Zuma is certainly not the answer.

William M. Gumede is Associate Editor at Africa Confidential. He is Research Fellow at the School of Public and Development Management, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. He recently released the bestselling book Thabo Mbeki and the Battle for the Soul of the ANC. Close. Other articles by Mr. Gumede — Read Here

Popularity: 10% [?]

Writes: James N. Kariuki

Obama, nuclear weapons and the race factor — Given the history of nuclear weapons relative to the non-white world, and noting the ongoing ‘loose talk about nukes’ in the US regarding Iran, it is fitting that Barack Obama should aspire to eliminate all nuclear weapons, American and otherwise. Perhaps, he owes it most to his ancestral Diaspora.

In early August 1945, the US dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. The indiscriminate damage of life and property was immeasurable. It was a massive collective punishment, a classic case of the power of modern civilisation without its mercy.

Ever since, the world has been haunted by two questions. Was the use of nuclear devices necessary? Would the US have used nuclear weapons against white Germany? Critics remain deeply divided.

President Harry Truman’s sympathisers however, support his logic that the bombs were vital to shortening the war in the Pacific and saving American lives.

Doubters insist that by mid-1945, Japan was virtually a crippled enemy. Nazi Germany had already surrendered in May 1945.

Combined bombardment

How much longer could Japan have endured under the combined ‘conventional’ bombardment of the Allies and, possibly, Russia?

In short, the American use of atomic weapons was unnecessary, prompted and made easier by the fact that the victims were non-white. Indeed innuendoes abound that America used the Japanese as guinea pigs to demonstrate the ravaging power of its new, barbarous weapon.

Twenty years later, the same US was bogged down in the protracted Vietnam War, and language of nuclear weapons resurfaced in American politics. The 1964 Republican presidential contender, Barry Goldwater, openly recommended using low-yield nuclear weapons for defoliation of Vietnamese woodlands.

Goldwater’s ‘nuclear reckless talk’ ultimately cost him the presidency. But in the hunt for it, he had arrogated to himself the right to entertain nuclear language that could have resulted in annihilation of a Southeast Asian nation.

Again, the collective victims would have been non-whites — men, women and children alike.

Castro’s autobiography

In a 2007 autobiography, Fidel Castro: My Life, the Cuban icon narrates the story that for Angola’s freedom, Cuban and Angolan troops fought against an apartheid army and government that had eight Hiroshima/Nagasaki-size atomic bombs secretly “provided by the US through … Israel.” Were those weapons developed during the South African-Israeli nuclear collaboration or were they US-made? In either case, the targets were black people.

As SA approached freedom, the West became increasingly nervous over the prospects of blacks inheriting a nuclear state.

Accordingly, Nelson Mandela and his associates were vigorously coaxed into dismantling the bombs and signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Racist SA could be nuclear; democratic one could not.

Given the history of nuclear weapons relative to the non-white world, and noting the ongoing ‘loose talk about nukes’ in the US regarding Iran, it is fitting that Barack Obama should aspire to eliminate all nuclear weapons, American and otherwise. Perhaps, he owes it most to his ancestral Diaspora.

Popularity: 14% [?]