Africa News blog
African business, politics and lifestyle
You do not always need to use a Foghorn to make a point. And sometimes, when The World is waiting for an Announcement, The Point is well made and counterintuitively magnified as it is being here.I commend Mr. Ibrahim [you might disagree with the methodology as I do in regard to Malawi - marked way too low - Bingu's Malawi Fed its People for several consecutive Years now - and Rwanda - where I feel Kagame has singlehandedly had Rwanda punching way above its weight] on putting an Index out there. it is like a Torch being shone in the Dark. He shone his torch first and that is commendable.Aly-Khan Satchuwww.rich.co.keTwitter alykhansatchu
Death knell for ANC’s political foes?
William Gumede
South Africa’s national elections last week have reshaped the contours of the country’s political landscape. It has almost certainly killed off the careers of many opposition leaders who have become institutions and their parties with them. It virtually obliterated the peer parties of the ANC, with their roots as liberation movements, such as the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania (PAC) and the Azanian Peoples’ Organisation (Azapo). It is clear the electorate believes these parties are irrelevant, outdated and under poor leadership. The Inkatha Freedom Party, whose founder, Mangosuthu Buthelezi also professed that it has its origins in liberation movement politics has also been brought down to size.
The IFP has dominated the KwaZulu Natal province since the 1960s, but embarrassingly lost out to the ANC now. ANC President Jacob Zuma’s overt appeal to Zulu speakers in the province who have supported the IFP in the past, by arguing that is better to support him (Zuma) for the presidency, and have a Zulu-speaker in the presidency, has evidently worked. Many IFP supporters have voted for Zuma merely on the basis of ethnic affinity, rather than his record in government.
But this strategy also run the risks of increasing ethnic divisions, with some Zuma supporters already whispering for the ‘Xhosa-Nostra’ to be purged from government. This is a reference to individuals who were allies of former President Thabo Mbeki, are Xhosa speakers or who are from the Eastern Cape province from where Mbeki and former President Nelson Mandela hail.
The beauty of democracy is that people can change their leaders by peaceful mean, which is the election and South Africans whether or not victims of apartheid can be proud of themselves for making apartheid history.
The fear is the in-fighting between old friends that can ruin the chances of fulfilling promises, which will cost the ANC as well as COPE votes in the future rounds. Zuma needs to be focused on the delivery of jobs and ponder laws to fight inequality through parliament. If he succeed to lead with unity, Zuma has the chance as his predecessors to be re-elected for a second mandate.
I am of the view that Zuma has got what it takes to attract foreign investments while meeting the needs of poor black people, who in most cases can not be skilled for jobs after years of education deprivation.
S.African Election: Democracy in tatters?
William Gumede is the author of “The Democracy Gap: Africa’s Wasted Years” and ”Thabo Mbeki and the Battle for the Soul of the ANC”.
South Africa votes on 22 April with not only its globally admired efforts to build democracy in tatters, but against the backdrop of many other promising attempts to build viable democracies across Africa now backsliding.
Military coups, such as the recent one in Madasgascar, assumed to be part of Africa’s terrible past, appear now to again have become a regular occurrence. The election earlier this year of Muammar Gadaffi – who himself came to power by military coup in Libya – as leader of the African Union, by his peers, is symbolic of the continental regression.
When South Africa became democratic in 1994 with Nelson Mandela at the head, it was hoped that the new democracy at the southern tip of Africa would provide a powerful home-grown impetus for expanding democracy across the continent.
And it initially looked promising, with Mandela’s exemplary moral leadership; and his successor Thabo Mbeki’s initial efforts to champion an African economic, social and democratic ‘renaissance’.
However, soon the African curse struck: Mbeki’s moving rhetoric did not match actual day-to-day practice. While preaching democracy, Mbeki clamped down on internal dissent, packed public watchdogs with uncritical loyalists, and looked the other way when allies were shown to be corrupt or incompetent.
It is inconceivable that the ruling African National Congress, with Jacob Zuma at the helm, will not win South Africa’s national elections. Formidable charges of corruption were dropped against Zuma after the acting head of the national prosecuting authority emphasised that the case against the incoming president was solid, but that possible political interference in the timing of whether to press charges against Zuma made the authority reluctant to press ahead.
In fairness, it should be noted that other “democracies” are not that much better than the African ones, and some non-African “democracies” have interfered in Africa to the detriment of its development and democracy – e.g. bribing politicians (e.g. while the arms corporations might actually have done the bribing they have been assisted and protected by their home governments).
What next for Jacob Zuma?
A court ruling that effectively reinstates corruption charges against African National Congress leader Jacob Zuma could hardly have come at a worse moment for him and the party that has dominated South Africa since the end of apartheid.
There appears little doubt that Zuma will be the party’s presidential candidate ahead of elections expected around April, but the ANC now faces its toughest electoral test yet with hefty graft charges hanging over its man.
Prosecutors say the ruling means Zuma remains charged with corruption, fraud and money laundering. This might severely hurt his image, internationally and at home, during a battle to fend off a challenge from the new party of ANC dissidents called COPE. The ANC is still expected to win, but maybe without such a sweeping parliamentary majority to be able to shape laws as it wishes.
The news brought renewed concerns of political instability and the rand fell to a one-month low.
Zuma’s lawyers may appeal to the Constitutional Court, the highest in the country, which will drag out the case further. Zuma has said before he will only step down as president if found guilty of the corruption and fraud charges.
Prosecutors and Zuma may try to secure a deal that will end the long-running saga over charges that Zuma’s supporters see as politically motivated.
A settlement may suit Zuma if it looks as though he will face new charges and a trial that will either coincide with the election, or punctuate the first years of his presidency.
Hi,
I just thought I would post the link to this blog post I picked up.. it illustrates to lengths the ANC will go to win something.
Remember to click on the pics twice to open it completely.
Hope this makes someone laugh.
http://afreka.co.cc/news-from-africa/anc -corrupts-all-funny
How far will South Africa’s ANC shift?
Given that the leaders of the world’s most firmly capitalist countries are splashing around unprecedented billions to nationalise banks, prop up industry and try to get economies moving, it might seem churlish for anyone to question South Africa’s ruling ANC for planning to spend a bit more freely.
This weekend, the African National Congress set out its election manifesto priorities of creating jobs and improving education and health – promises interpreted by many as marking a generally leftward shift under the leadership of president in waiting Jacob Zuma.
But the plan raises the questions of how the spending will be paid for and how dramatic a shift to the left there will be – of major interest to investors as well as South Africans.
“Zuma did not attach a price tag to the manifesto, but ANC leaders privately admit, to allay fears of a tax hike, that it would be too costly to implement,” said this article in the Sunday Independent.
Africa’s biggest economy has grown significantly since the end of apartheid in 1994, although the dynamism had started to falter even before the global financial crisis spread gloom around the world.
South Africa’s poor and its workers had long complained that the benefits were not being shared around fairly and that only those in a new elite were thriving. The leadership under Zuma, widely expected to become president this year, was always going to be under pressure for more social spending from the ANC grassroots and the party’s union and Communist Party allies.
The pressure may have increased further with the emergence of the new COPE party after the ousting of President Thabo Mbeki. Although COPE’s electoral impact is uncertain and it has not yet spelled out its policies clearly, the fact that close allies of Mbeki are behind it has suggested it is likely to align more with the former president’s stance, seen as ‘pro-business’.
i am a scholar, currently completing my grade 11. I feel as if South Africa is doomed to follow in Zimbabwe’s footsteps. COPE was our only HOPE! sorry to say, but its seems as if our newly elected president is on a power trip, one that’s going to effect all South African’s and impact OUR FUTURE gravely
Are talks going Mugabe’s way?
Is it just me, or is Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe starting to look more confident again? At the start of power sharing talks a few weeks back he appeared distinctly grim when he and opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai had their historic handshake.
In the past few days he has been much more his old self, lambasting the West at a speech to commemorate the dead in the liberation war, giving a national honour to George Chiweshe, who organised elections that were condemned by much of the world, and generally upbeat during three days of talks that in the end delivered no result.
Exactly what’s going on behind the closed doors is hard to fathom.
A top official from Mugabe’s ZANU-PF told Reuters a deal had already been done between Mugabe and Arthur Mutambara, leader of a breakaway opposition faction. “Deal sealed” read the headline from the state-owned Herald. Mutambara has come out to say that no such deal has been signed but tellingly noted that “should talks fail” any party was entitled to enter bilateral negotiations.
What a deal with Mutambara might give Mugabe is the parliamentary majority that ZANU-PF lost in the elections. What it is very unlikely to give him is hope of resolving the crisis that is destroying Zimbabwe or of persuading the rest of the world that change is underway.
here is a country that at one time had a surplus of food and now its a total mess with the people taking the blunt of it all.that gov. chased all the brains out,dont give them one dime.let neighboring countries put pressure to clean house of crooks by not giving them any money either.this hotbed of raicial hatred must stop and money is not the answer,basic medical care,food and education for the poor might be a beginning but whom do you trust with the aid money
No quick end seen in Zuma case
Keith Gottschalk, The University of the Western Cape
Jacob Zuma’s legal team has already proved, year after year that, if you have a bottomless pocket such as taxpayers, you can protract litigation, U.S.-style for the better part of a decade.
The Presidency currently has a line item budget of 10 million rand per year for Zuma’s legal expenses. By South African standards, this is a record. It will certainly enable his legal team to appeal every point of procedure, then if necessary the verdict, and sentence. Each appeal starts with a delay of six or nine months on the court rolls, repeated as it winds it way upwards through a full bench of the High Court, followed by the Supreme Court of Appeal, followed by the Constitutional Court.
Sooner or later Zuma’s lawyers will also discover that above the highest court in South Africa lies the new Southern African Development Community (SADC) Tribunal, based in Windhoek, already resorted to by Zimbabwean white ranchers.
In short, it’s unimaginable that Zuma’s trial will have concluded by election day in 2009. The last appeal might well stretch even beyond a one-term Zuma presidency, which would end in 2014.
There are several analogies in other western-style governments. U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney shrugged off similar allegations to those against Zuma. Israeli Prime Minister Erhud Olmert was not prosecuted for illegally receiving money, but has announced his early retirement.
Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi faces more serious claims than Zuma – allegations that he bribed judges. Italy’s ruling party reacted by passing a law forbidding the prosecution of a prime minister. Then they retroactively changed corporate accounting law to pre-empt another prosecution. At the same time a top ANC leader smeared South Africa’s judges as “counter-revolutionary”, Berlusconi smeared his judges as “Reds”.
Should there be any law passed to prohibit prosecution of a President, South africa will now have law of the ordinary and that of extraordinary.
It is worthmentioning that law is what it is, not what it ought to be. We cannot see alleged criminals being protected than victims. Whether one previously contributed constructively to the society or not, we are all subjects of the law.
But, in cases were hidden political agendas prevail against Zuma, its advisable to struck the case of the roll to avoid abuse and misuse of democratic institutions.
Furthermore, We need a Judicial system that is neutral in applying the law. Not the system that will perpetuate and accentuate interest of few at the expense of many.
it would be unfair for Jacob Zuma to be jailed, there was no fairness throughout his legal battle.
Last but not least,I would recomment that laws of natural justice be applied in this case. No one can afford to be a victim of the asymmetries of our judicial system.it is sad in everybody’s hearing that, SA Judicial System is movable, exploitable. South Africa is far from being democratic.
Mashitoa Magome Edwin
Intern Office of the Premier, Limpopo
Political Analyst at Thobela FM
Losing billions in Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe may lose its status as the country with the world’s highest proportion of billionaires after the central bank’s decision to lop 10 zeroes from its dollar.
What it means for the currency is that 10,000,000,000 dollars will become just one - although it will still take 25 of the new dollars to buy a loaf of bread.
What it means for Zimbabweans could be much less.
Having so many zeroes on the notes certainly doesn’t make shopping any easier, but there is little in the shops anyway and what is there costs too much for many to afford.
The decline of the currency’s value has become a stark symbol of the economic collapse of a country that was once prosperous by regional standards, but now suffers shortages of food and fuel and has lost millions of its people as refugees to neighbouring states.
Experts doubt whether the impact of the re-denomination will be any more than cosmetic. Zimbabwe removed three zeroes from the dollar in 2006, but prices actually spiked after that.
Is there any hope of economic recovery without a deal to end the political crisis? And can there be a hope of that given the differences between Zimbabwe’s rivals? Is the optimism of South African President Thabo Mbeki realistic with the clock ticking down to the initial deadline for an agreement?
Mugabe is a mad, bad and dangerous psychopathic murderer who ideally needs to be placed in a prison for the criminally insane for the rest of his infamous and sorrowful life.
He has caused the appalling hardship that his people do not enjoy. Theyt suffer terribly and he does not care one iota – he laughs at their pain and hunger and he has not the soul to even begin to reflect on reality.
He will go down in history as one of the world’s greatest ever malignant leaders to ever disgrace this earth of ours.
He has no shame, no remorse, no real intelligence, no sense of reality and no idea what the hell he is doing.
He is nothing more than a savage idiot with the brains of a violent lunatic.
But he will be brought to book and justice will see him condemned.
Is Zimbabwe back to square one after AU summit?
Can President Robert Mugabe be trusted to implement the resolution of the African Union summit calling for dialogue and a government of national unity to end Zimbabwe’s long-running crisis? According to Mugabe’s camp, he can. “The AU resolution is in conformity to what President Mugabe said at his inauguration, when he said we are prepared to talk in order to resolve our problems,” his Information Minister Sikhanyiso Ndlovu told Reuters a day after the AU passed the resolution on July 1.
While opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai and his Movement for Demoratic Change (MDC) say they have kept the door open for negotiations, he says conditions are not yet right for talks. The MDC also makes clear its objective is a transitional arrangement leading to fresh elections rather than a unity government. The crisis could conceivably be stuck on that difference.
The summit followed Mugabe’s controversial re-election in a run-off poll in which he was the sole candidate. Tsvangirai defeated Mugabe in the first round but pulled out of the run-off amid violence and intimidation directed at the MDC and blamed on Mugabe’s camp. The AU resolution expressed concern about the violence.
The AU resolution clearly calls for a Government of National Unity (GNU) as opposed to demands by the MDC and Western governments for a Transitional Government. Political analyst Cheryl Hendricks of Pretoria-based Institute for Security Studies makes a strong case for transitional government in Zimbabwe given the highly polarised situation in the country.
“We primarily have two polarised parties each asserting their legitimate right to rule without the prospect of settling the dispute amicably through elections in the near future,” Hendricks wrote in a paper posted on the ISS website on July 2. “The prospects of unity, given these conditions, are highly unlikley and a cobbled together GNU will be unstable.”
Here are further points to consider in relation to the AU’s resolution:
- The resolution upholds the mediation effort of the regional bloc SADC led by South African President Thabo Mbeki. The SADC formally appointed Mbeki to this role in March 2007 but he has been mediating in the Zimbabwe crisis since the country’s disputed 2002 presidential election. Mbeki has been widely condemned for his policy of quiet diplomacy with Mugabe.
- The resolution calls on the SADC to “establish a mechanism on the ground in order to seize the momentum for a negotiated solution” but it is not entirely clear what form this would take. In the case of the post-election mayhem in Kenya last December and January, the AU brought in former UN chief Kofi Annan to lead a high-powered mediation effort on the spot.
- The AU intervened more robustly in the Indian Ocean state of Comoros when it sent a military force to back the local army to expel renegade former gendarme Mohamed Bacar who seized power in 2001 and clung on after an illegal election last year.
- The AU has been cool to planned further sanctions by Western governments against Zimbabwe. Many analysts believe Zimbabwe’s economic meltdown, blamed on Mugabe, and the threat of further sanctions are the most potent means to bring down his government.
- Mbeki has openly dismissed a call by the European Union that Tsvangirai should head any transitional government, and has not disguised his dislike for solutions to the Zimbabwe crisis hatched from outside the region.
one important aspect of the recent deal of 21 July 2008 is having the UN and AU as part of the mediation process. this article delves into how impartial mediation is crucial:
http://www.bahaiperspectives.com/current -affairs/2008/07/16/world-cup-of-failed- politics/
A new way forward is needed in Sudan. The western advocacy groups have raised the discussion to a shrill scream that defies any relief politically or socially. Save Darfur…didn’t. The problems of the country lie in Khartoum’s central government, the same group of people that waged war on the south, Nuba, the East and Darfur. The same group of people that broght the terrorist players into their country for safe haven. Have they changed and have guilty conscience now? No! They take tactical steps to maintain power, confuse those who threaten their power, and fool outsider players. Conquer and divide is in fact the strategy of those in power in Khartoum. The South is weak but still the major political player with any chance to influence a political transformation. The constant scream about Darfur doesn’t help Sudan. Their should be a much broader and substantive engagement with all of Sudan’s issues and change is going to be slow but it needs heavy and constant US/Eurporean/China support.