African Statesmanship

The recent death of Zambia’s President Levy Mwanawasa is a tragedy for not only Zambia but also for the entire African continent.

My understanding is that Zambia has prematurely lost a leader of exceptional calibre who was striving to make a genuine difference to the lives of Zambians, particularly in his determined fight against corruption.

Almost uniquely amongst world leaders, Mwanawasa publicly confronted and then prosecuted his predecessor Frederick Chiluba for corruption and fraud. Mwanawasa’s decision to do so cannot have been easy. Chiluba had, after all, been the one to groom and present Mwanawasa as his successor and there must have been some considerable pressure from within the ruling party not to rock the boat (thereby spilling the cash) and to spare Chiluba public humiliation – to say nothing of Chiluba’s underlings, hangers-on, presumed beneficiaries and possible co-conspirators.

Instead, Levy Mwanawasa chose to be a statesman, deciding – as far as possible in a political environment – to honour his promises to the electorate by adhering to the principles (oft-repeated but rarely practiced by the power hungry) of his country’s Constitution. In so doing he appears to have honoured himself and his country, as well as having set a worthy example to his constituency.

Although Spearpoint never had the opportunity to meet and know Levy Mwanawasa personally, the hope is that Zambia will allow Spearpoint to join (albeit remotely) in their mourning as a fellow African.

For the demise of Zambia’s Mwanawasa is a loss not only for Zambia but is also a loss for the whole of Africa – especially southern Africa.

As at home, Mwanawasa displayed the courage to stand up and be counted in the face of the prevailing antipathy in the southern African region towards corruption, fraud and dictatorship in the form of Robert Mugabe’s tyrannical and outright criminal regime in Zimbabwe.

With the tacit support of Ian Khama, the President of Botswana, Mwanawasa alone named and shamed Mugabe for what he is, what he represents and what he perpetrates against his own country and people.

In so doing Mwanawasa also implicitly named and shamed all those other African leaders who, despite mounting and convincing evidence, have given Mugabe political support and sustenance either directly and openly or through their failure to criticise and isolate Zimbabwe for its current policies and situation.

Principal amongst these has been South Africa’s Thabo Mbeki and his ANC government.

Appointed by SADC to mediate in the Zimbabwe crisis, Mbeki has epitomized the approach of many other African leaders: don’t rock the boat; don’t embarrass Mugabe; don’t expose Mugabe; don’t fracture the façade of imagined African so-called solidarity; don’t further reinforce the global perception of Africa’s inability to identify, address and remedy its own problems, including those of poverty, corruption, crime, ignorance and indolence.

Notwithstanding recent critical comments from Jacob Zuma (as President of the ANC) regarding Zimbabwe, the fact remains that South Africa continues to pussyfoot around the person of Mugabe and the crisis in Zimbabwe and refuses – publicly, at least – to acknowledge that a problem exists. In Mbeki’s own words on the subject, “There is no crisis”. Sentiments echoed by the Minister and the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The ANC must be living in gaga land.

It’s obviously not a crisis when a neighbour of South Africa destroys its economy (inflation admitted by the Zimbabwean government just this month to be running at not less than eleven million percent – that’s eleven followed by six zeroes, folks), and driving no less than four million of its own citizens into South Africa – mostly illegally – to escape starvation and political persecution (and who knows how many into other neighbouring countries).

And how can it be a crisis when even the great ANC, champion of the art of rule by smoke and mirrors, has been appointed (in the person of Thabo Mbeki) by SADC to mediate between Mugabe and the Zimbabwean Opposition.

Yet the appointment of a mediator implies conflict, dispute and actual or potential crisis. That much SADC has got right; where it went wrong was appointing Mbeki and his team as mediators. Not only do the mediators deny the existence of a situation which they have consciously agreed to fix, but they are unsuited and unqualified to carry out such a role since they have consistently and laughably maintained for many years now that within their own borders there are no crises in law enforcement, the judicial system, education, HIV, AIDS, TB and other health matters, housing, and so on.

SADC erred in appointing the ANC and Mbeki. It is patently clear that these guys couldn’t organise an orgy in a brothel, given their record of domestic service delivery and good governance.

The mediation between the parties in Zimbabwe has stalled. Naught has been achieved. Mugabe continues to do as he pleases – even to the extent of re-convening Zimbabwe’s parliament (which, according to Zimbabwe’s Constitution, should have occurred months ago) before there is any clarity and agreement on how power division and sharing will prevail in the new government.

Now, doesn’t that just speak volumes on the dedication and abilities of the so-called mediators?

Excepting Zambia and Botswana, no-one in SADC has had the courage to slap Mugabe silly and to tell him to stop behaving like a spoiled brat and to stop embarrassing all of Africa with his puerile behaviour. Mugabe’s arrogance and assumed impunity – watch his disjointed marionette-like swagger in public – has never been challenged by South Africa and its continental cronies.

Indeed, South Africa has shown great concern over Mugabe’s dignity and has been keen to protect that dubious quality. But at what price? Where is the dignity of those Zimbabweans, forever on the cusp of eviction, arrest and starvation, free-falling into the black hole of faster-than-light inflation who have had to separate from their families and homes in order to cross the borders of neighbours looking for some means of sustenance and to live in the additional and constant fear of deportation as illegal immigrants? Where, in South Africa, is the dignity for those South Africans already suffering under the laissez-faire incompetencies of the ANC dictatorship who now have to make room in already overcrowded cities, townships and squatter camps for swarms of desperate immigrants who also want a share of what is clearly an inadequate, mismanaged and ill-divided political and economic cake?

Does the ANC have no shame? Is it not ashamed that it continues its rhetoric and spin doctoring even though it clearly cannot do its job – either at home or around the table in Harare? Just what are the criteria against which it measures itself and which, obviously, allow it in its collective politburo mind to continue its rule?

Of course, shame and admission of error are not matters for easy admission by any politician even in the normal course of events, much less at any other time. Such is the nature of the beast. (Also, incidentally, such is the nature of those that look for and permit the politicians to rule; populations and electorates tend to be lazy in thinking for themselves and constantly seek the comfort of having someone else do their thinking for them. A contradiction of the human condition is that, of all the creatures on the planet, humans have the greatest ability to deal with change, challenge and chance yet are the most persistent in their – often unconscious and unspoken – drive for certainty and comfort.)

Admission of error in Africa is very difficult. Culturally the strong man must be seen to be strong, even if – especially if – wrong. The advent of colonial rule, with all the embarrassments that that brought, together with the displays of power and material goods by the colonial powers, then provided the need to display to the world that Africa and Africans could achieve the same themselves without outside intervention.

The loss of face when African nations screw things up is immense – far more so than the purported Oriental perceptions of face. This is why, for example, racism and colonialism are frequently used as catchphrases to divert attention away from the true reasons for African failure.

Mugabe blames the racism and imperialism of Britain and America for his devastation of the Zimbabwean economy and social structure. Mbeki and many of his colleagues blame racism in South Africa for the failure of many of the ANC’s policies and programmes. It is far less embarrassing and far easier to fix the blame rather than the problem – particularly where personal political careers and ambitions might be at stake. It’s an African pastime; it didn’t rain enough; it rained too much; we don’t have enough money; foreigners are taking our women and jobs; the Whites don’t share; the British conspire against our sovereignty; the Chinese steal our resources; the Indians are lazy and greedy; the Zulus cannot be trusted and steal everything not nailed down; the World Food Programme gave our starving people the wrong food; it goes on and on.

Spearpoint is not suggesting that there are not grains of truth and reality in some or all of the above excuses. But that is what they are – excuses. Fourteen years after shouldering aside the burdens of apartheid the ANC and its stalwarts still glibly trot out racism, colonialism and imperialism as reasons behind its failures in almost every arena of life in South Africa. They fail to see that history is history; it is past and passé. History is a guide for and to the future, not a Balkan-type motivation for perpetuating old horrors as justification for interminable inefficiencies and inadequacies.

Unfortunately, it is in the past that the ANC finds itself mired. Starting its existence as a protest and liberation movement the ANC has been unable to shrug off that mindset. Fourteen years into government the ANC is trapped in a time-warp, still slavishly employing the same slogans, gestures and thought patterns of its Communist Party origins and history dating back to the October Revolution and the Long March when those who were not for the movement were targetted as enemies and to be treated accordingly. Defunct ideology and the mindless mouthing of Cold War rhetoric serve little useful purpose when the living are here and now in a world that has moved on from what may or may not have happened centuries ago.

The ANC has failed to heed its own ideological teachings and raison d’etre which were to grow, improve and develop. The ANC has fallen at the first hurdle of metamorphosing from a liberation movement into a credible political party and sustainable government. The eyes and thoughts of the ANC remain firmly fixed on the perceived glories of its past where, by virtue of the then prevailing circumstances, it was easy to exhibit and enjoy disciplined solidarity since the goals of the organisation were simple to define and explain and the enemy was easily identified. Now in government the aims and objectives are far fuzzier in the face of the need to be a responsible and credible representative of an entire and diverse population; the temptation for which the ANC has fallen has been that of remaining a lobby group for a narrow and specific segment of the populace. The ANC continues to view everything non-ANC as being ‘the enemy’ and has behaved and responded accordingly.

Thus, for example, ANC officials will blame ‘white mentality’ and resistant racism for poor results on the rugby pitch or athletics field where points are not awarded for ideological or racial purity but for excellence in performance. Excellence cannot be legislated or enforced. It must be scouted, nurtured and developed organically. A fat runner cannot be expected to be able to produce satisfactory results in the marathon, regardless of any racial or socio-economic origins from which the individual may have come; the athlete must be made fit and then trained in his discipline before adequate results can be reasonably expected. Likewise, a school leaver, unable to add, subtract and so on cannot become a computer technician or electrician until he has had the time and resources granted him to master sufficient of the basics to enable him to then progress on to more specialised (and better paid) areas of competence.

Similarly with the Zimbabwe situation. The ANC remains locked in its perennial ‘circle-the-wagons’ mentality of giving greater weight to old loyalties than to recognition of getting the job done and removing those who fail to produce results. The support given the ANC by Mugabe and Zimbabwe during the ANC’s years of opposition to the then South African regime are viewed by the ANC to be perpetual bonds of debt that far outweigh any consideration of the abilities and rationale of the creditor in that relationship. That Mugabe is an egomaniacal despot who has so alienated the people of both his own country and others around the world that the economic and political fabric of Zimbabwe now lies tattered and fallen appears to matter less to the ANC than the perceived debt owed to Mugabe by the ANC. Worse still, the negative impact upon South Africa and other SADC countries stemming from Mugabe’s depredations is clearly considered by the ANC to be of little import; it could be argued that what happens in Zimbabwe is their own affair and they should be allowed to get on with it, but the argument fails if the actions of Zimbabwe directly impact on South Africa. Would the ANC retain its present stance if the Zimbabwean army were to invade South Africa in order to seize assets no longer available in Zimbabwe? Or would the ANC turn a blind eye, again, and insist that no crisis existed?

As the governing party of South Africa the ANC’s prime responsibility is to the country and all the people of South Africa. The ANC’s responsibility to Zimbabwe (or any other country, for that matter) is secondary, at best. Get your own house in order. Only then – not before – and if there is something to spare, can you turn your charitable efforts elsewhere.

Hubris can be a terrible thing. It blinds one to failings and shortcomings which, if pride be briefly set aside, could be corrected with a minimum of fuss and damage. There is no shame or loss of self-esteem in saying “I don’t know” or “I don’t have the skills right now to correct this situation” and then turning to others who possess the requisite knowledge. Knowledge and skills know no skin colours – but where they are claimed when, in fact, they are absent then there is a real and severe humiliation when the deficit is finally revealed.

Levy Mwanawasa’s legacy – in part, at least – will be of declaring to the world that just because fellow black Africans now largely control their own destinies it is still not right or acceptable when laws and principles are broken and cast aside – just as it is unacceptable when ordinary people suffer because their leaders are too proud or ideologically blinkered to acknowledge that they are relatively new to the business of running their own affairs and to bring in the required expertise.

Spearpoint.

26^th August 2008

A little more on crime in South Africa…

“Morning Live” – a breakfast programme on SABC (the State broadcasting carrier) – today had quite an interesting theme, addressing crime and the impact upon our society and citizenry.

Usually I don’t watch this programme in any detail except for the news headlines, the business reports and the weather. I am uncomfortable with the (often) blatant apologetic and praise-singing role that the SABC adopts for the government and the ANC in this and other programmes. 

Be that as it may, this morning I was rather surprised to discover that the programme (by the way, Morning Live, you are not a “show” – you have no dancing girls, jugglers, big bands or other spectaculars intended to entertain), was devoting much of its time on air to the topic of crime and related issues. Surprised, because this is now the second time of which I am aware in the last week or so that the topic has been addressed quite so critically.

Various guests were given (by what I perceive to be normal SABC standards) an interestingly intensive grilling by the presenter who, I felt, was trying to get beyond the more usual mealy-mouthed responses given by representatives or spokesmen of whichever government bodies happen to be under scrutiny.

This type of interviewing was sufficiently different from what I have seen previously that it gave me pause for thought.

(There were, I figured, three possible ways of looking at the reasons behind the apparently new style and content:

1. The presenter had finally got sick and tired of the usual placatory spin doled out by guests on occasions like this;
2. The SABC has, finally, decided to change its editorial policy towards a position more independent of its more normal toeing-the-ANC-line function; or,
3. Like the old days in the USSR, the SABC is, Pravda-like, issuing a signal that the government is, at long last, reviewing its position on its crime-fighting policies and practices – there is, after all, an election looming next year.

Assuming any of the above might apply – Hallelujah!)

But I digress.

Each of the guests  being interviewed appeared to be sincere, professional and, even, erudite. Their responses to many of the questions were even plausible. But plausibility and political correctness are not what is required to solve our problems regarding crime.

The party line (in this case, that of the ANC) has, manifestly, failed to work to date. And falling back on the now old and tired argument of inherited legacies from our apartheid past – relevant and pertinent as they may have been in the immediate post-1994 South Africa – just doesn’t hold water any longer. Much as the ANC might wish to continue blaming apartheid for all the ills of the next two hundred years, the fact is that, aside from the ANC’s current implementation of its own particular programme of apartheid, we are living in the present and there has been plenty of time to address and correct many of the problems bequeathed to us from the old regime – especially crime.

This is where our law enforcement policies and programmes have failed so dramatically and this is what we did not hear on Morning Live today from the so-called experts. Not once did any of the guests refer to, much less accept, responsibility for the current situation.

To be fair, I doubt that any of the guests was in any sort of position to actually carry direct responsibility for the levels and types of crime so prevalent in South Africa today. But they did not say that those who are responsible for the policies, the allocation of funds and resources, the quality of the service provided by the police and courts, as well as those who perform the enforcement of our laws are not being held accountable and are not being required to accept, at a personal and professional level, the responsibilities with which they are charged.

Perhaps this is not surprising since our political masters are so adept at hiding behind the incomprehensible concept of “collective” responsibility or liability for when things go wrong. The recent Eskom fiasco, numerous cases of theft, fraud and corruption in various government departments – not only have the individuals involved all too often kept their jobs and positions but so, too, have the relevant ministers and directors-general under the doctrine of collective responsibility. The term has been used very loosely and without definition of what it actually means and what sanctions (and how they are determined) apply in such cases. If our government were honest about conforming to some principle of “collective” responsibility then, logically applied, the entire government should resign if even one minister or appointee fails in the discharge of his or her duties.

It is the issue of responsibility that is the very crux of the current crime situation.

It’s a two-way street. The government seeks, theoretically and practically, to hold you and me personally and directly responsible if we evade our taxes, drive through red traffic lights, embezzle from our employer, poach abalone, possess a firearm without a licence, use the “K”-word, abduct and kill our neighbours and their children – and quite rightly so. Most of us do implicitly and willingly accept that personal responsibility. Why can’t the members and employees of our government and its various agencies do the same? Or are there too many political debts from the past, too much hidden patronage arranged in smoke-filled rooms/jungle camps in the nineteen-eighties to ever permit true, honest and transparent personal accountability?

We have the laws. We have the human rights. We have a great Constitution.

We have – nothing.

The Constitution and its precepts are too often regarded as instruments of convenience.

Our laws are not fully, properly or professionally enforced; as a result our human rights, where they exist at all, are devalued and insignificant. Words or wishes alone do not make human rights.

Fourteen years after release from a repressive social and political order has seen South Africa take many great strides towards improving the lot of the bulk of the population and the ANC deserves considerable credit for those achievements.

However, what was the point in empowering and enriching those who were previously disadvantaged when they and their newly-won possessions and means of acquiring those possessions are not protected by their government and its various agencies? The government manifestly has no desire to see individual citizens empowered (by virtue of being enabled and entitled to own and possess firearms) to defend their own rights to life and possession of private property; by default the government has taken that role and duty upon itself – and has failed to discharge it with even the smallest degree of competence.

Surely the ANC would not wish to be accused of having sought and achieved power merely for the exercise and enjoyment of that power by the few who manage(d) to scramble to the top of the ANC pyramid and the devil take the rest? Surely the ANC would not wish to be compared with other countries in Africa?

Although my personal experience of power has been very limited (I am but a family man), I believe that, whilst there are personal benefits to be legitimately expected and gained, power also incurs obligations and responsibilities which must be honoured.

Enjoy the perks, pay, limos, nice offices and furniture, the travel and so on. We won’t begrudge you. But these come with a quid pro quo which cannot be shirked or denied.

If you cannot – or will not – actually perform your job in a way that yields the results expected of you then, please, step aside and let someone else have a shot. This is how it works outside of government; do your job well and receive the rewards; do the job badly and expect demotion or dismissal. It’s fair and just. And it engenders tremendous respect in those over whom you have dominion. Think of the regard in which both the government and, say, for example, the current Minister of Safety and Security would be held if the Minister were to say; “Sorry, guys, I seem to have made a bit of a dog’s breakfast of my job. I am going to ask the President to re-assign me to another area of responsibility better suited to my abilities and ask him to appoint Spearpoint to take over my role because I believe he might be able to get some better results”. Spearpoint may or may not do a better job but, at least the government would receive huge credit for being sufficiently self-critical as to recognise that it has a shortcoming and is doing something to rectify it.

(I should hasten to point out here that Spearpoint does not seek the post of Minister of Safety and Security or any other. My ambitions tend to be more modest and mundane.)

Leaders are expected to lead – and not just in insisting on compliance with their dictates. It is not “Do as I say” but, rather “Do what I do”. Leadership comes from example. Society follows its leaders (by definition). If society’s leaders are seen to be honest, hard working, transparent and law-abiding then society tends to emulate the example of those leaders. If leaders are seen to be dishonest, grasping and beyond or above the law to which everyone else is subject, then the rest of society will follow that same example and regard the public law with contempt; they will, like their leaders, seek their own selfish privilege (lit. “private law”) and disregard all but their own private interests to the stark detriment of everyone else.

Spearpoint.