Is Jacob Zuma the new Robert Mugabe, or something far worse?

For some time I have been discussing William Gumede's book Thabo Mbeki and the Battle for the Soul of the ANC with my sekuru. In an effort to guess the future of South Africa and the ANC party we have been trying to understand Jacob Zuma's frustration at Julius Malema, the firebrand suspended youth leader. We also questioned his efforts to suspend him from the ANC for bringing the party into despute and only to be voted onto the party's executive committee in his home province of Limpopo a month later.

I will begin by telling you a short story about a boy named Derek. If this does not put you off, it will make you laugh - out loud. Derek, from Nzvimbo in Chiweshe, had a foul mouth. A loud young man with an outcast character and what not. His very passion was for notoriety, so much so that even village elders dare not stand in his way. One beautiful summers day his elder, and only, sister was getting married at their homestead. Under these circumstances family could not face the prospect of embarrassment in front of Vakuwasha. It prompted, I suppose very naturally, the elders to suggest that Derek be kept out of the day's customary proceedings. One elderly woman, Ambuya Muronga, felt that no matter what Derek's conduct, in accordance with Chishona ritual, Nditezvara and that he had to be present. Ambuya Muronga spent some time talking through and convincing Derek to be on his best behavior and to keep quiet at all times, unless invited to speak. She went on to promise him a big reward in the event that he doesn't spoil the ceremony.

Anyone who remembers how the in-laws and Vanyai celebrate together after accepting the proceedings of Roora, will be acquainted with the Shona saying "Ukama igaswa hunozadziswa nokudya". All but Derek saw merit in the day's events. The elders nod with satisfaction that Ambuya had done well in taming Derek. As it was time for tea, all the kids sat on their own, while Ambuya kept an eagle eye on the boy. Surprised neighbours kept asking in delight "Kwakanaka, ko Derek mamupeyi kunyarara kudai?". Yes, it was odd for him, having his freedom chained. That seems like a life-long torture. While others were having second cups of tea, Derek could not drink his first, let alone eat.

Most rural homes usually mix sugar in one big kettle, but Derek was not used to that; as a result there was no sugar or tea spoon in front of him. Worried about the boy's uncompromising mood, Ambuya, like everyone else, encouraged him to drink his tea, telling him it already had sugar and was getting cold. He remained seated and silent. Finally, having drawn attention from nearly everyone there, Derek broke his silence; "Muri kuda kuti ndikonzonge nem**ro here?" (Are you expecting me to stir this with my penis?).

I am thinking merely of the quality of this tale, while some people will think it was inevitable. The story of Derek is intellectually stimulating to me. All that was an illusion, one of the worst indeed, which brings me to compare how Julius Malema raged against his president, Jacob Zuma, whom he believes has betrayed the promises of June 26th, 1955's Freedom Charter.

Gumede, at the time of defending the firestorm caused by his book accepted that he was a bitter man; bitter at himself and his beloved ANC. Archbishop Desmond Tutu was equally frustrated in 2003 when he questioned the Charter's unfinished business. It seems to me that Malema is not alone in his demands for a revised economic system. It is strange that the circumstances of these men highlight how vital a pledge is until it is broken or ignored.

Make no mistake; there is a case for Zuma to act. And to act now. Party discipline is important at all levels. When we are living in a global village where any form of political instability can directly lead to a total collapse of economic production and distribution systems. People's attitudes have been changing over time. Cries of "Mayibuye iAfrica" in the fifties cannot compare with singing chants as "Kill the Boer, Kill the Farmer" now. Crucially though, the context purely depends on ANC's continuing to resist growing popular pressure for solving economic and political problems.

There is a question whether any of ANC's chaos will mirror recent troubles in my homeland, Zimbabwe; starvation and near collapse of the economy as a result of Robert Mugabe's destruction of the agriculture infrastructure and anti-business policies  which reflect the proceedings of 1979's Lancaster House Agreement. Using populist resentment as a convenient political slogan has doomed Zimbabweans. Look at how Mugabe rounded up his opponents with repression and terror; expelling Joshua Nkomo from government in 1982; Edgar Tekere for speaking about his corruption; Dzikamai Mavhaire for calling for reforms; Jonathan Moyo after the infamous Tsholotsho Declaration, a practice Zuma is beginning to get desire for..

The trouble is that if Zuma is to listen to the demands of the disgruntled young black majority, it will risk damaging the economy. Nationalization of mines and banking institutions in not a substitute for running business in a professional way. Many developed countries are seeing that it is viable to attract investment by selling off national assets. Land reform, when there is no alternative, is a threat to an already existing agricultural infrastructure. Investors fear interference. Malema and Zuma need to ask themselves why De Beers, the diamond conglomerate that left South Africa for Switzerland in 1990 just after Nelson Mandela was released from Robben Island, has relocated to Botswana, a country whose president Ian Khama is branded an 'imperialist' by Malema.

What the ANC needs to do is to listen, educate its youth and empower them, not in a chaotic ZANU (PF) Boarder Gezi fashion that we saw in Zimbabwe. They need to understand that free speech does not imply the right to being rude and offensive. In Shona we say “Gudo guru peta muswe kuti vadoko vakutye”. I make particular reference to Malema’s mocking of Zuma last weekend calling his party leader a “shower man”.In fact, if his inflammatory rhetoric is not tamed in some way, he is a threat to stability in South Africa and his actions can provoke an economic disaster, not only in his homeland but the entire region. That said the discipline has to start from the top.

To understand his position one must first understand that the ANC is not doing enough for the young South Africans. I would agree if Malema was claiming that the economy was benefiting a few black politicians, and their friends, that control the means of production and influence financial markets. If the ANC still stands with Lenin's ideology (which it does not) that private property should be abolished, how and why has Malema accumulated so much wealth at the age of 31?

Indeed, so great is the mismatch of his character - crying for the keys to the house knowing only he has the combination to the safe. So obvious is it to see who stands to benefit from any form of empowerment that Zuma might be forced to implement. To understand the meaning of such reforms, look at the winners and not the losers. Zimbabwe's failure, just like Derek's story, explains it all.

Robert Mugabe need not care for now because he found a brief shelter in a storm. Jacob Zuma should worry because he is sitting on a time bomb. As long as he continues to ignore these economic and political problems, just like Mbeki and Mandela failed and betrayed the people's struggle, Julius Malema may prove to be right for the wrong reason.

As every Zimbabwean knows, there is danger in great expectations. Is December's "Vanguard Party" a long awaited opportunity?

I am in two minds about the jubilant scenes across Libya recently. The reasons are obvious. It reminds me of that beautiful Friday, the 18th of April 1980, when a youthful Robert Mugabe led Zimbabwe's independence ceremony. Prince Charles was there at Rufaro Stadium that day, Bob Marley blew the cheering crowds away with Redemption Song. In the midst of those celebrations, little did they know what was to hit them tomorrow.

Since then, at this time of year, Zimbabweans either draw or stare at the wrong list. I hear this year it is the City of Kings taking turn to provide the fertile ground for yet another ZANU (PF) conference  to take root. They hail it as The People's Congress. The People's Conference. It beggars belief.

Not long ago a brotherly friend Tawanda and I were discussing the leadership subject and a Shona proverb, "Garwe haridyi chebamba, charo chinoza neronga". Of course, it was in the context of our political domain. In the process he brought up a joke about self-control. He reminds me that in our culture, Dzinza ravaShona, our elders are very sensitive to even the slightest puff of wind. Even when alone, being able to suppress is the ultimate desire for such an indelicate disorder. WHen in company, the trick is to be on guard at all times. If one loses control of those muscles it does not only embarrass but the isolation that follows means one is bound to break. In fact, this culture of self-control is meant to unite people and encourage good behaviour. Nevertheless, when people gather, the possibilities are many and varied.

It is a moot point as to whether the outcome is important to the nation. Either way, the relative enlightenment by those Wikileaks revelations on the instability achieved by immature political thinking secured through various ZANU (PF) power structures is vital for our ordinary judgement. The cloud is still hanging following the unique circumstances in which General Solomon Mujuru lost his life in August. As we know, this year was not very fruitful for most African dictators who were either killed or booted out from office by popular uprisings. Wether alarm bells have rang loud enough, this will surely be a cause of concern for the leadership, particularly in light of the recent summary execution of Libya's Muammar Gaddafi. In addition, rumour has it that Robert Mugabe does have less than three years to live. Although the leadership issue may not be on their agenda, successive conferences have always led to a widespread expectation that Mugabe will appoint his 'heir' and step down.

This may sound like sweet music to the ears of many, and many will begin to feel more confident about our country's future. However, that is only half the story. Look again, and this time at the needs of a shattered populace. As the ZANU (PF) faithful gather, I beg that they realise the path of stability and nation building need not be fraught by the inexorable pattern of recurring internal dissension, the harrowing experience of growing unrest and the visible presence of a central character that refuses to leave the platform despite woeful performance. Of course it is tragic that Solomon is dead, but who else could stand up to Mugabe and unveil a strong campaign for the leadership subject? It is clear there are not many philosopher, "would-be Kings" in this "Vanguard Party". But surely, the outcome may be unintended or undesirable.

As crafty as he is at turning tombstones in to stepping stones, Mugabe will throw a potentially lethal blow to the likes of Emerson Munangagwa as a statement of intent to emphasize his masculinity - masculinity which open warfare within his party has undermined. In fact, Mugabe's ambition of lifelong presidency will be likely. This matters most to those who have benefited from his leadership. United and patriotism and a "win" at the next election can prolong their grip on both ultimate political and economic power, regardless of the dire consequences for the people.

Another classic example of Robert Mugabe's task of persuasion would be enormously facilitated by his trademark propaganda, so stratified with hate and bitterness towards Britain and America. I presuppose, in order to mobilise enough popular hysteria, Mugabe would remind people of the devastating destruction recently caused by these countries and other powers in Africa. In attempting to reassure his followers, Mugabe will promise them more stakes in the country's wealth and defence. The means to these ends will involve license to ignore the rule of law and to create a very genuine sense of hope and temporary relief to those not familiar with political gimmicks. So, why should the attempt to bring him down, a man who does not undermine their power and give everything they want? That way he would avoid the mistakes of Richard Nixon; antagonising people with power.

In his book Understanding Power, Noam Chomsky shows how people's power can topple a president. These people, who included the extreme neoliberal at the University of Chicago Milton Friedman, demonstrated that state managers are just servants. He reminds us that the Watergate scandal was not the main reason for his impeachment. They knew that Nixon operated a Counter Intelligence program (COINTELPRO) that comprises the "opponents list and political enemies project". Their activities included Gestapo-style assassinations, infiltration of opposition movements, stealing membership lists and using them to threaten people. Most importantly, revelations about his "secret bombing of Cambodia" were a highlight to the much needed truth about US foreign policy towards third world countries.

Can you see the pattern yet with Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe? In his own words, Chomsky's emphasis was to highlight that if servants forget their role and go after people who own their place; they are very quickly put back in to their box.

So after all this fuss it looks as if human beings are fallible as philosopher John Stuart Mill once argued. Even Mark Buchanan in his book The Social Atom: Why the rich get richer, cheaters get caught and your neighbour usually looks like you, writes;

If you still doubt the hard-wired fallibility of human beings, ask yourself the following question. A bat and a ball, together, cost a total of £1.10 and the bat costs £1 more than the ball. How much is the ball?

The incorrect answer is the one that roughly one in every two people cries out; ten pence.

However, right and proper it may be, people need to think about what might happen in the future and how to respond to that change since nobody can predict the best summary of the congress' outcome. The question is whether Zimbabweans have it wrong again this time.

Hurricane Wikileaks and the Perils of Being a General

The Wikileaks hurricane seems to be causing serious consternation and damage across Zimbabwe’s political landscape.

A few months ago, the storm seemed to be affecting the former opposition and its leaders in the MDC. There was a lot of excitement in ZANU PF circles mainly because they thought the storm would only affect the MDC and its leaders. But the elders were not wrong when they said whenever it rains the Heavens do not select who gets wet. If you are all outside without shelter, you will surely get wet.

Clearly, many people, whether they are ZANU PF or MDC, whether they are black, white or yellow, were caught out in the open by Hurricane Wikileaks which is surely threatening the careers and livelihoods of men and women in politics and surrounding professions. 

We have now seen very clearly that many people, including those in ZANU PF no longer favour the continued rule of Robert Mugabe who is now in the twilight of life. What has shocked many of us is that big wigs in ZANU PF were eating with Mugabe during the day, whilst later on indulging in their nocturnal habits with the enemy. Mugabe will realise that he has no one to trust even in his own party.

The problem is that this might prompt him to cling even more to power until he dies in office. He knows that fellow leaders like Charles Taylor were betrayed by fellow leaders who had promised him protection. Mugabe will fear that his disciples will deny him at the last hour – the hour when he would need them most. It looks like he will now use all possible means to cling to power until the very end.

The people I feel sorry for the most however are the two army officers who were quoted in one of the Wikileaks cables. Brigadier General Herbert Chingono and Major General Fidelis Satuku, were quoted by US Ambassador in 2010 as saying that their boss, Commander of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces, General Constantine Chiwenga, as a "political general" who lacked adequate "practical military experience or expertise". The two officers were generally critical of the military leadership. Reports that they may now face Court Martial are unsurprising in a repressive environment such as Zimbabwe.

The top leadership of the military have always been pro-ZANU PF and Mugabe. They have always been too political and they have even publicly announced their support towards Mugabe and ZANU PF in the past. So there is nothing new really to what the two military men have said of their superiors. The superiors have said so themselves, declaring that they would not support or salute anyone who did not go to war – trying of course to disqualify Tsvangirai who has been a severe thorn in the flesh of the repressive regime for past decade or so.

Just weeks before the Hurricane Wikileaks arrived announced the ZANU PF regime was busy defending Brigadier General Nyikayaramba who was making clearly political statements against the MDC - a party that is in the GNU. Government propagandists were fighting tooth and nail in Nyikayaramba’s corner even if what he was saying amounted showing lack of confidence in the government because the MDC is part of government. If anything he was publicly interfering in politics and undermining government, something that is unacceptable anywhere else in the civilised world. A

lso Nyikayaramba was undermining the authority of his Commander in Chief who appointed Tsvangirai. Tsvangirai and his MDC ministers were appointed by Mugabe whose supporters never stop reminding us of his many titles including that he is the Commander in Chief of the Defence Forces. If Nyikayamba thinks Tsvangirai and the MDC are threats to national security, is he not also questioning the integrity and decision-making abilities of Mugabe – his Commander in Chief? Is he not questioning Mugabe’s leadership? Yet he was being feted as a hero! What then is the difference between Nyikayaramba and the two other military officers except possibly the colour of their political views? If two officers are wrong then surely so is Nyikayaramba? Why should military law be applied differently?

As I said Chiwenga himself has made no secret of his political colours. He has come out in support of Mugabe and ZANU PF. So what the military men said only confirms what he himself has said. You wonder why they are being penalised if it’s not mere vindictiveness on the part of an emotionally wounded superior or those who want to make him happy.

I feel sorry for those men but they will be subjected to a ‘show trial’ to warn all other soldiers. They will be made examples. It just goes to show that danger for soldiers in Zimbabwe is not just at the frontline when they have to duck bullets, landmines and grenades. They are everywhere in Zimbabwe. If there was freedom of speech and transparency the military officers would not have need to mouth off like they did to the foreign ambassador. It only shows the highly restricted space in Zimbabwe.

From Harare to Damascus, the disturbing tale of a lost sense of humanity.

News coming from Zimbabwe as reported by BBC's Panorama in Mugabe's Bloody Diamonds and Syria highlights the case of yet another appalling foreign policy by the democracy-loving West. This seems to be happening on a regular basis and outrageously dividing world opinion. Surely this raises some fundamental questions.

Human rights violations are and will always remain a universal evil. Campaigners are reporting sky-rocketing numbers of incidences of victims of torture and death in both countries. Such a humanitarian crisis in which millions of people are facing threats while enduring such dreadful forms of brutality from their repressive regimes could naturally call for the international community to intervene and safeguard people's lives. Sadly those musclemen are saying, albeit in different ways, any resolution is unlikely despite expressing 'sadness and concern'.

When NATO and its allies convinced the 15 member Security Council in recent months to enforce the UN charter's resolution 1973, to protect the Libyan people, I had high hopes that this just and necessary intervention alone would put a swift end to the unrest and dispose of Gaddafi. I also believed that the warning shots have been sent to other despots such as Robert Mugabe and Bashar al-Assad. I misplaced my judgement.

How disappointing therefore to find that the UN imposed a no-fly zone to protect Libyans, issued an international arrest warrant to the regime but only stand by and witness Mugabe and Assad's  bloody purges and mass imprisonment of political opponents in Zimbabwe and Syria respectively? These people matter to the world, just as the world matters to them. I just wonder why China and Russia abstain and laugh when these resolutions are voted on. Such misplaced sentiments betray both those repressed by these regimes and world expectations.

Some people have been suggesting that criminal indictments are desirable , that this would chain these regime's appetite for pernicious oppression. The commitment to international justice is every nation's responsibility, but it seems to me that there are rules for some despots and different rules for others. Both Robert Mugabe and Assad's father, Hafez al-Assad, committed acts of genocides of equal magnitude in the 1980's. More blood was shed in the DRC, Rwanda and Sri Lanka among others. Yowere Museveni in Uganda, Equatorial Guinea dictator Teodoro Obiang and Amar Bongo all have appalling human rights records. But the EU and US shower them with praise whilst giving them a great deal of aid money. General Pinochet was never brought to justice despite his known record of crimes against humanity in Chile for decades until his death in 2006. Outstanding warrants of arrest on Sudan's Omar al-Bashir and Libya's Gaddafi issued by the ICC for war crimes cannot even be implemented and they remain at large. What message does this send to others who commit similar human rights violations? In Lebanon a similar warrant backed by the US six years after the killing of the then premier, Rafiq Hariri, by Hizbollah cannot be enforced. The reason  being that it threatens unity in the country and Lebanon will have to contribute financially and by providing judges to sit alongside those at The Hague. What nonsense! These are just a few best known cases where the UN and the West have either failed in view  of world expectations or simply turned a blind eye.

It is rather sad that because the ICC was set up in 2002, it cannot investigate cases of human rights violations committed before that and yet the UN charter on torture has been in place since 1948.

If Nazi war criminals were put on trial, why can't it be done with Mugabe or Assad? Indeed following France's example might be worthwhile. They are currently in the process of sending to Panama former military leader Manuel Noriega for atrocities backdating to the 80's, a move that Mugabe has resisted for a long time. He is harboring an Ethiopian fugitive in Harare and his soon to be close ally Muammar Gaddafi. Similar efforts of bringing people to account in Egypt, Haiti and Tunisia following the fall of their repressive leaders are rather more feasible.

Many appear to have forgotten however that history has shown that some of these ruthless despots will always be recycled and labels redrawn to paint a 'responsible statesman' and friendly tyrant. One does not require a precise methodology to agree that (in our own case) Mugabe's bloody diamonds are giving him an upper hand and a new image despite his awful human rights record. Once these strategic resources are in place it doesn't surprise to see why Beijin, Sepp Blatter and the Kremlin are embracing such regimes.

My view of the Anglo-French is illustrated by their 20th century Middle Eastern errors. Since Woodrow Wilson, his overseas envoy Colonel House warned that they risk making the region a breeding place for future wars while in the words of Maurice Hankey, the British were after 'undisputed control of the greatest amount of petroleum that they can'. Both are still pursuing the ends without any worry of the consequences and they are not alone. What is this that we are seeing today, nearly a century later if it's not hypocrisy and an insult to humanity?

Even at this stage where there may be no obvious strategic interest in Zimbabwe, many Western countries fear that an identical use of force in Syria to the one that hit Iraq and Libya would stir a hullabaloo across the Arab world. But it was not the Arab league that both despised and campaigned for an assault on Gaddafi alongside NATO? Syria may be a natural ally of Iran and the backbone of militant Hizbollah in Lebanon and Gaza's Hamas but that does not mean that Bashar al-Assad's regime can do as it pleases and get away with ferocious genocide. Surely the US can sort its economic interests with Israel in other ways rather than viewing the region in black and white. Crucially, instead of propping up despots in Africa and Middle East in the name of 'be careful what you wish for', it should provide all the ingredients that enable these countries to establish the basis for an open and stable society.

Thomas Hobbes wrote in his famous political treatise, Leviathan, 'without the rule of law, the life of a man would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short"'. Therefore, the greatest call in such disintegration is that both Zimbabweans and Syrians need more international support and protection to return to normal life, constitutional reform and the rule of law. No one else can stand up to them and bury these evil regimes. It seems Robert Mugabe and Bashir al-Assad will kill until all the bullets are gone.

Why mending Zimbabwe's bent and broken military tradition can benefit us all.

"I can understand now why our countrymen took up arms against us. And if these actions and attitudes and forms of selective ignorance displayed by my tribe once caused blood and fire to spread across the land called Rhodesia, what will these same actions and attitudes and forms of selective ignorance produce in this land called Zimbabwe?" quaintly asked write Bruce Moore-King in his 1988 book, White Man Black War.  This is an excellent book sparkling with the right stuff set out by an ex-soldier who switches sides and exposes the viciousness of the liberation war and underpinning ideology of white supremacy.

Few are probably more aware of that than our war veterans and servicemen, that the 11th and 12th of August are very important days on our nation's calendar. The same might be said of the 'ruling' party; whose ruthless campaign and brutal control over people fueled so much fear that led to seclusion, vulnerability and hatred. Suddenly these important dates have been reduced to nothing. Heroes and Armed Forces days may possibly never recover their reputation and purpose after all these years of military repression and midwifery of the most brutal forms of coercion.

And to say the least, these scars and wounds need mending in the interest of reconciliation and nation building. My appeal does not mean loyalty to government. Neither do I mean to join the soppy chorus of calls for burden of proof as in criminal law where they preserve the presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. My moral conviction emanates from philosophical enquiry which shows that the dangers of rejecting the status quo, if it is in fact true, are far greater than those of accepting if they are false. If we don't act on them and they are true, serious consequences will follow. Let's not allow history to sadly repeat itself.

We can't go without mentioning Mugabe's admitted 'error' of sending the North Korean-trained Fifth Brigade to slaughter thousands of civilians (estimated to be 20,000) during the Matebeleland unrest in the 1980's. As in many other parts of the country, the military has methodically carried out those wicked assassinations of opposition, inflicted villainous human rights violations with deliberate intent of terrorising people. This has been their modus operandi since independence. Sometimes, of course, our government gives the impression of being unconcerned with the spirit of Joshua Nkomo, even though without his persuasion and insistence, Zimbabwe would not be where it is today. In fact, until late in 1963, Nkomo counted among his disciples Robert Mugabe and Ndabaningi Sithole.

Or one may question whether there is justification for our armed forces to shamefully prop up evil and undemocratic regimes across Africa. Is their current support of tyrant Gadaffi against his own people, or their military intervention in 1997 Congo, good for any of us?

It is hard for me to articulate sufficiently my contempt for our armed forces and their leadership. I was a Rio Tinto Foundation scholar in 1997 when military helicopters invaded Chitungwiza airspace and bombarded us with teargas, on the ground soldiers were beating up children and women indiscriminately. During the strikes by trade unions, civil servants and students in 1989, for negative socio-economic developments and corruption by government officials, Mugabe unleashed his vicious army who, with such venomous glee, suppressed the people's voice.

Today we are told of human rights abuses and shooting of illegal miners from helicopter gunships in the Chiadzwa diamond fields in Marange. Not to mention the infamous farm invasions. What is surprising is that if you look at any of the list of the many things that have been going terribly wrong since independence in Zimbabwe, you will find that "military" or "war veterans" tops the list.

To my mind, it is important that we point to these defects, point to their errors and nobody ever went bankrupt condemning wrong doing. Consider the evilness of the late General Vitalis Zvinavashe. He went on to build a school in Tynwald, named it after himself. His idea was to leave a lasting legacy and convey a holy image but to us we remember him for all the wrongs he did to many innocent Zimbabweans during his time at the helm of our armed forces. Obviously it isn't possible for General Chiwenga and his men to do this forever. So they too need an extreme makeover as a choice rather than a strategic piecemeal change.

I say this for a variety of reasons. Firstly, I am thinking of the eternal flame of the Unknown Soldier and my respect for the heroes of our revolutions. Thirdly, both the military and people need each other. Not only because of the 1980's deployment of Zimbabwean troops to defend our economic interests at the Beira Corridor railroad in Mozambique following violent threats from South Africa and Renamo's declaration of war on us. I was a pupil at Shingayi primary school in Chiredzi then, but I remember Sekuru Manenji a former teacher in Chikombedzi narrating his ordeal and how the Matsangas (Renamo fighters operating in Zimbabwe then) were terrorising them.

We can also draw lessons from our war of liberation. Mao Tse-tung was famously notorious for his 'great famine' of the 1959-1962 re-education camps and the invasion of Tibet. But his ideology is credited for what we are today. In the 1970's our fighters adopted Mao's philosophy of "guerillas swimming like fish in water of people". Military success then had been a result of mutual trust and cooperation between magandanga and povho. It was through integration that the Mujibas and Zvimbwidos would spy for, cook for and provide the much needed morale boost for the comrades. It was through this very same great wartime Maoist organisation that political ideas were shared and spread. Ian Smith was prepared to kill but our people were prepared to pay the ultimate price for our freedom. My question then is; if our people were prepared to stand by and die with our fighters, why can't the soldiers and veterans stand and fight for the people now?

Finally, the military, indeed like most people everywhere, want to do the right thing. I believe they could and should be good. They should not be confused about what the good thing is because it is obvious to them as it is to us; their purpose is not being partisan but standing with the people and defending our borders. Lacking tht, we are poised to see conflict between ethics and greedy.

So given the institutions in which these important days are embedded, the challenge is for the war veterans and the servicemen to learn and see some change in the tide and opportunity in a surge of event, not only in Zimbabwe but beyond. They need to have a clear purpose. These landmark events should accommodate the mainstream and, most importantly, appeal to those who had either given up or never respected the significance of our history from the 1896 uprising, the Land Apportionment Act 1930, Land Husbandry Act 1951, Nationalism of the 1940's, Constitutionalism of the 50's to at least the Lancaster House Agreement in 1979.

But sadly this history has rarely been studied by those who aim to lead us or serve in our armed forces. I can now see why Plato (427-327 BC) in his Republic wanted philosopher-Kings to rule society. He saw education and political participation as key to society and even said "that the penalty that good men pay for not being in politics is to be governed by men worse than themselves". I know our democrats and libertarians will scream at hearing this, but surely basic understanding of politics and history is not bad either. However, the fact that this vital knowledge has not reached many does not mean we cannot all benefitting from acquiring this wisdom now.

Veterans, Servicemen and Politicians should not ignore people and head for their celebrations without the nation's support. The povho will turn off their TV sets at home and boycott the proceedings but in the absence of an alternative, we are punishing the spirit of that Unknown Soldier and many who choose to do the right thing and stand with the people. Lenin (1879-1924) puts it best; "that the people cannot go on being ruled in the old way and that the rulers cannot go on ruling in the old way". For I and others like me see compromise and change as necessary, otherwise 'selective ignorance' remains a parable of our times.

***I write in memory of Takawira Shumba Mafukidze & Venia M. Zvaipa******************

I put it to you, my fellow Zimbabweans, that grown up politics need to move beyond Heroes and Herods.

Sometimes, of course, our politicians pretend to ignore the definition of a hero; a man who is idealized for possessing superior qualities in any field. More than thirty years since the fall of Rhodesia, Zimbabwe's ruling government has still not learned that the war that brought us independence was not fought by ZANU (PF) alone. Robert Mugabe and his Politburo have had their own version of good hero, bad hero. So now we know. The latest edition to the long list of national heroes, Edgar Tekere who once played the hard man, was too courageous, too brilliant, principled, charming and a true comrade.

Did I neglect to mention that the former Zimbabwe Unity Movement (ZUM) leader was a womaniser, murderer and too controversial? It's because that's not the Zimbabwe way. You see, these fine words about heroism in our context are lost and argued ad hominem when the possibility of a heroic individual hostile to Mugabe and his party being dead is faced. And yet we repeatedly told that a liberation war credentials is the only criterion for granting such honour: hence it is worth our support.

There is, in short, very little that is actually startling in ZANU (PF) now: the same old witnesses who never paint a true portrait of what happened during the war, What we know is no less important for our judgement of course. THe late Reverend Ndabaningi Sithole of ZANU (Ndonga) and Maurice Nyagumbo were both former members of ZAPU before switching sides. Nyagumbo committed suicide to save his face from corruption uncovered in the Willogate scandal and was subsequently granted national hero status in 1989. Sithole was never recognised at death. Instead, despite his poor health, Mugabe 'fabricated treason charges' against him and continued his assault until he secured a conviction. Tekere on the other hand in 1989 accused Mugabe of corruption, then expelled from ZANU (PF) and a year later formed ZUM. He then went on to form an alliance with the much hated Bishop Abel Muzorewa in 1994 after failing to unseat Mugabe in the previous election.

Given their known contribution to our nation, Sithole and Muzorewa are not the only victims of this sinister ploy by the Politburo. There are many other independent and opposition politicians in Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) who bravely fought for our independence, endured apartheid at its worst submissively and suffered brutality like any other Zimbabwean but ZANU (PF) takes a dim view of bad heroes and heroines. There are many great sportsmen, talented artists and scientists who have done our country proud and made great contributions to our nation, but politicians are wrong to ignore their heroism because they did not support ZANU (PF) or did not fight in a war. Even when marriages break up it doesn't stop people from reflecting on the good times they have had together. What worries me is that my country will remain divided on this thorny issue until the Politburo abandons its one sided policy of unconditional appointments for its loyalists to this tax payer-funded facility. In any fair way, ordinary citizens must decide who they want there.

Grown up politics is what ZANU (PF) need to move beyond and indeed reading some of Aristotle's work may be worthwhile. For Aristotle (384-322 BC), the Greek philosopher paid attention and more respect to tutor Plato: the purpose of politics is not only to ease economic exchange and provide for the common defense; it is also to encourage good character and form good citizens.

Our economy has been losing momentum since independence. In an age of austerity, where even the world's great economies are struggling, I must admit that the cost of maintaining such a luxury has become more expensive to service. We should not overlook the fact that every child born since 1980 owes a lifelong financial debt to the war of independence. In her book The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein describes a long time South African antiapartheid activist, Rassool Snyman, as saying "They never freed us. They only took the chain from around our neck and put it on our ankles". Snyman was pointing to ANC's failure to implement the promises synthesized in 1955's Freedom Charter. I am afraid to say Zimbabwe and its 'born free' are in no better position.

My current frustration is that our politicians see liberation as a gift to the nation or a self-achievement. They view public funds as their personal wealth. What we owe the heroes of this bygone struggle is a moral debt and no reparation should be made for civic virtue. It is therefore unfitting that a country struggling with its economy should continue to pay hefty pensions, increasing wealth without end to a few war veterans while they plot their next evil deed. It is unfitting that those very same thugs who have chained democracy and wreaked a ruthless terror on innocent citizens continue to have huge pay cheques, even in death for their surviving families. More worryingly, all paid for by their victims.

What is fitting is that these so-called 'heroes' should be taxed on death or during their lifetime and pay for the upkeep of 'their shrine', their own estates. There should be no question of who is liable because they know each other; it's only a matter of who the heavens call first. They have stripped the country of its assets and looted from the poor. ZANU (PF) like the ANC broke with the past as Francis Fukuyama put in his End of History and The Last Man, abandoned their Lenin-Marxist ideologies that they were always supposed to be for. It is indescribably dreadful how they have already undermined freedom rather than increasing it, by turning civic duty in to tradable goods as argued by Rousseau in The Social Contract (1762). Their widows and children are equally rich and should not be looked after at the tax payer's expense. I am convinced of this, given our scarce resources, deal with this obvious injustice.

If this proves painfully inadequate and in case the insane, greedy, shameless ZANU (PF) Politburo refuse to pay for their resting place, certainly I call all Zimbabweans to push for reforms that could eventually shut down that shrine. My understanding of social reality is; there is nothing wrong with burying them at one of their multiple farms as my family lay at rest at Mawire village in Buthera. After all, there are many forgotten heroes scattered across Mozambique and Zambia who never made it back home. Otherwise, funds saved from this misadventure could be put to better public services and free the children of Zimbabwe of unnecessary debt.

The heroes acre has been unpopular with many Zimbabweans for obvious reasons. It has failed to serve its purpose. Instead of uniting us, it has further infuriated apartheid: "apartness" in independent Zimbabwe. It will be an understatement to suggest that I see our politicians like George Orwell's pigs in Animal Farm, and endorsement of an earlier column by Dr Alex Magaisa on NewZimbabwe.com. Each time I reflect on Harare's Warren Park Hill, I see a monumental blunder. You decide!

The curious case of Robert Mugabe: Our agony of having a President who wields a magic wand.

The curious case of Robert Mugabe: Our agony of having a President who wields a magic wand.It's not supposed to be this way. But I can't help laughing. The world is convinced that there is no smoke without fire. We can't just pass a day without something rather bizarre slipping through our ears. For those acquainted with the wizardry of the magical movie series in which Harry Potter fights evil, we have our very own evil wizard Lord Voldemort in Zimbabwe.

For example, when you thought enough had been said of Silvio Berlusconi and his penchant for belly dancing and bunga bunga girls discarding their knickers. Football icon Ryan Giggs looking like Adam in the Garden of Eden after eating the forbidden fruit. The ever-growing Pippa Middleton Ass Appreciation Society. Wikileaks founder Julian Assange and his condom hatred. Arnold Schwarzenegger , the 'Sperminator', fathering a secret child with a housemaid thirteen years ago. Now imagine ex-IMF boss Dominique Strauss-Kahn heavily disappointed after being denied oral sex by that hotel maid he is accused of sexually assaulting in New York. Think about it. You don't need scholarly analysis to see the correlation. The profound resemblance reflects a prevailing despair in which men succumb to the spirit of hot rabbits and score goals in their own nets. And no need for advanced map reading to locate the diseased part of our anatomy.

It turned out even worse when someone who is not known for revealing his private life suddenly tells a wedding congregation that he has a hidden secret. He has a magic wand. I hear Robert Mugabe (RM); elderly despot boasting that no woman can turn him down. What if a woman did turn him down? Unleash a vicious bloodbath on them? Torture? Rape? This old fashioned attitude is unimaginable, distasteful and cannot go unmarked; he is a danger to women. Make no mistake, he was not joking. I pray he did not pose bare chested or strip naked like Stauss-Kahn. Surely these are end times.

Mind you, this was a Seventh Day Adventist faith themed nuptial. Although we do not know if they laid hands on his head, like the Apostolic sect where he claims to have got his stick from, this is a vital piece of information. They take seriously the issue of testifying (Kureurura). Mugabe must have been vindicated in some respect. I now wish that they invite him more often. He once carried the nations hopes but is now sinking it deeper in to the mud. Perhaps he will potentially open up in depth and take us to the bottom of those questions still embedded in our conscience. The liberation struggle, whose effect has been grossly over stated for propaganda campaigns and we have had nothing informative about his father, mother or even his origins.

I have no idea where that secret want he talks about is hidden. Besides, at 87 we know plenty about him already. It is obvious that the magic wand is not in his pants; otherwise the anecdote about the First Lady playing away would not have been so widespread. More so, there is talk that Mugabe's manhood was heavily tampered with by his Rhodesian torturers during his detentian at Gonakudzingwa and Hwahwa prisons. To give him the benefit of the doubt, his own revelations meant that the ITV's Loose Women and our very own Oprah Winfrey, Mai Chisamba would have had the pleasure of inviting him in for a cup of coffee.

It cannot too often be emphasised that quite a few men, I would suggest, would admit to the problem of having a young and sex obsessed wife. One confidante of the late Peter Pamire mentioned that Peter believed the First Lady had multiple sexual arousal syndrome. It's that moment when trusting your neighbour to replace a light bulb can be very hard. Every now and again, old wounds get opened up. It dosn't come as a surprise to me that James Makamba and Gideon Gono are believed to have injected their share in to the equation given the fact that RM said his wife took the stick for safekeeping. It's having a reverse effect! To make matters worse, Grace was once a private secretary in RM's cabinet office. Through the wits and titanic undertaking of his very close ally, Munhamo Utete, he managed to snatch the former Christ Mambo student from under the nose of her husband; a shameful and positively embarrassing way to acquire a wife for a man with magic.

Given these circumstances I am sure that, like Osama Bin Laden, Mugabe must be heavily dependent on 'herbal Viagra' (Mushonga wemusana or Vhuka-vhuka). I watched Colin Firth's The Kings Speech. I hear a porn version of this masterpiece is out, The Kings Piece. Then, of course, I can only imagine the trauma and horror that Mugabe's therapist is going through given the Wikileaks cable disclosure that he is so frail he needs support to wash his hands for dinner.

Dwelling on his secret life, Mugabe had no reputation of alcoholism. As part of his strategy he would intoxicate others so he could manipulate them. My understanding is that he used the same tricks to bring down the late Edison Mudadigwa Zvobgo, whom he would get drunk and depict themselves as God's chosen two, Jesus Christ and John the Baptist. Those who know him well openly admit that he is good at identifying peoples weaknesses and exploiting them. Those who recall the words of Margaret Dongo to ZANU (PF) MP's that 'Muri vakadzi vaMugabe' (You are Mugabe's wives). They were not homosexuals but blushed at their own credulity.

RM is not known as a womaniser either. It seems my country is unable to find an alternative in this portfolio and what defies belief is that not even one in the Women's League has accused him of fathering a secret child, unlike the testosterone mad Schwarzenegger. I am talking of those women with proper 'bottom...ass...assets' that will make Pipp Middleton look like an oxygen-deprived parrot and her fans renounce their devotion. Only Oppah Muchinguri , who has dated a string of men including the late Simon Chimbetu, has been linked to RM during the guerilla war. At that time Oppah was an aide to the late revolutionary icon Josiah Tongogara until his untimely death, shortly before our independence. I only cited this example for those doubting Thomases, still asking how Josia may have died and who stood to benefit from his death. Here is a clue.

That said I can't help thinking that Mugabe is on to something. His outbursts frighten many. It makes one feel very uneasy knowing that a neighbour has mubobobo and there is nothing you can do about it. And when you think even more about it, you can see why many people have been suspecting this man of having wizardry and witchcraft, just like Harry's nemesis Voldemort.

The tragedy then is that those who have come within RM's vicinity say his face alone is enough to strike so much fear that his wife Grace dare not mention him by name. Like the evil Voldemort, whom they refer to as 'you know who', RM is 'Shefu or Bob' for our convenience. We know of his strategic acumen for plotting against his foes.

I am told that during the Guerilla War Mugabe would trot across Africa looking for Sankoma or witch doctors. Through his alliance with the late Chief Rekai Tangwena, whom Edgar Tekere introduced him to, and Hastings Kamuzu Banda of Malawi, Mugabe had heavy muti (potions), including voodoo (Zvikwambo). How would he have survived the havoc of Ngozi after killing so many people? This is regarded as his pillar of strength and it is those potions that he uses to precipitate brutal reprisals leading to intimidation of those who dare stand up to him. Look at how he has spectacularly purged the opposition and the military. Unlike many other African countries, in Zimbabwe there has never been a 'candid' coup attempt or even a barrack revolt in the dictators 30 year old rule.

Even more troubling than this is RM's hostility to the late Joshua Nkomo. Mugabe did fear the Ndebele and did not approve of its loyalty to ZAPU. Though Nkomo (aka Bhuru renkozi or Chibwechitedza) was equally formidable, he settled for a brutal checkmate after being deceived. I first met Joshua when he arrived with his UD lorries filled with armed men at Mulena Supermarket at Dorowa Minerals, five years after independence. And three years earlier he had been sacked from his Home Affairs portfolio for allegedly being involved in a coup attempt. On that day the shops had to shut briefly for his presence. Hanging up his long, black three-quarter length jacket and hat he plunged me in to a terrible gloom. Since then I had no doubt that Joshua was so brave and had extraordinary powers.

Accidentaly, my second encounter with Joshua was in the late 90's along Harare's First Street. Perhaps it is because he was committed to the people and in pursuit of fairness. There used to be this guy who would walk on a wire and lift some heavy piece of rail (Njanji) with his teeth. Joshua touched that Njanji with his walking stick and asked the man to lift it as he always does. Hey, I have never seen a man sweating and frowning like that in my life. He couldn't lift that which he routinely poses with in photographs. Phew! Come to think of it, how powerful is Mugabe's potion?

It is also worth emphasizing once again, a Rhodesian prosecutors feeling after the acquittal of those involved in masterminding the Chinhoyi Battle in 1966. I heard the prosecutor failed to speak and lay out his case on three occasions, even though Hassan Chakezha had turned state witness and gave name after name. According to the Memories of Rhodesia's library archives the prosecutor strongly believed that the use of muti always brought victory to the natives.

Now that Mugabe is old, the worst outcome would be that he passes that wand of his to his 'son', Robert Jnr. Or to cut in to the Achilles heel of his nephew, Leo. However, in the event that RM dies before passing it on, please bury him at sea, just like Osama Bin Laden. Otherwise his ghost would cause mayhem and a catalogue of horrors in the streets of Harare.

Besides, here is something that touched my heart and would certainly help; even if Mugabe is a devil-worshipping man with a very nasty personality, and he may play the epic, sentimental, backwards-ageing man Benjamin Button, but mark my words; No one lives forever!

Osama Bin Laden ; Imagining the dilemma, death, doubting Thomases and the Zimbabwean way.

During my early years I usually spent my school holidays divided between Mombeyarara and Chireya in rural Buhera and Gokwe respectively. There is one aspect that I found remarkably similar in both societies: accepting and handling the dead.

It was very rare to come across funerals as they are today. Children were not allowed near a funeral and would usually be moved to other places until the proceedings are finished. Those traditionally acclaimed humns such as 'Maria naMaritha or Mumureverer' and that significantly sumbolic glagged red cloth would alert us that something was not right. People then did not have to ask whether the deceased was a philanderer who would leave no skirt unturned, or did he have any evil, stained hands. Everyone was entitled to a decent burial and families would celebrate the deceased's life. They used to say 'Wafa Wanaka' (avoid cursing the dead). I too remember being told not to stare or to point at a grave. The significance of such myths was to save us from being haunted by such trauma (buka or kuvhumuka).

As time goes by so our attitudes change. In a country where the average life expectancy is low at nearly 49 years, it is not surprising that children bury each other. Although the tradition has not changed much regarding honoring the dead there is evidence of some men behaving rather badly. For instance, tyrant Robert Mugabe is sharp eyed at seizing these funeral platforms for political gains. In the past he has unleashed anger at his opponents at the National heroes acre on live television and there is no indication of him shifting his bad stance. I do not recall him making any comments following the killing of notorious dissident Richard Gwasela in the late 1980's. What I found outrageous were his comments and reaction to the death of one Zimbabwean nationaly who died in active service in Iraq while serving with the British Army in 2003. The late Piper Muzuvuru was not a traitor or a dog of war. He died doing the job he loved, may his soul rest in peace.

Today the most popular question when one passes away is "Ko afa nei. Handicho chakati kuuya ichi?" (What caused the death? Is this not HIV/AIDS?). Surprisingly, even Zimbabwe's untained eye can today diagnose highly complex conditions that an expert in the field would seek a second opinion on. Start going bald or get greying hair, they will say "We once told you". Interestingly, sharing a table with those you love can be a bad experience. You joke and giggle but by the time you leave for the toilet they whisper "did you see his red lips?" and the response "his eyes are too white, anorwara chete, ende vane HIV vanotaurisa (he must be HIV positive, he's talkative). Such is the problem of thought and stigma. However in the hour of need this is all irrelevant because whatever the cause, whatever the past, people would still come together, holding their peace and doing the right thing.

May 2nd saw an announcement by US President Barack Obama; that the worlds most wanted man, Al-Qaeda chief Osama Bin Laden, had been shot dead by the US Navy SEALs in his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. This made me proud to be Zimbabwean. In my country we don't celebrate the death of a man. As outlined earlier, evidence refuting or supporting this view could be inconclusive. It seems that even the death of the most hated figure after Mugabe, former Rhodesia PM Ian Douglas Smith was received like any other. Smith once declared that no black men would rule Zimbawe during his lifetime. He was responsible for the massacre of hundreds of thousamds of Zimbabwean fighters during the Liberation struggle following his Unilateral Declaration of Independence from Britain in 1965. He was so evil that he would facilitate donations of those famous poisoned 'Blue Jeans" (stone wash or Satani) to the freedom fighters. What remains unclear is whether Gordon Chavhunduka, the facilitator, knw that the chemicals in these jeans react in wet conditions, eating in to the flesh of these brave fighters. Yet, we appear to have accepted that past is past; Ian had to have dignity in life and in death.

Obama's words, "Justice has been done", are still ringing in my head. If Aristotle was alive today he would have been America's worst enemy. If justice means giving people what they deserve, then truly his modern heirs should be shaking their heads.

I saw euphoric crowds that thronged the White House chanting and showering all sorts of praise to Obama. It was only a week after Donald Trump forced him to produce his birth certificate to prove that he was a bona fide citizen. They celebrated the killing of a man who wreaked havoc and troubled America for many years. What is evident is the nature in which the horrific 9/11 attacks were carried out. Though Osama has urged Muslims to continue jihad against the US and Jews alike, he denied any involvement in the bombing and killing of 212 people at US embassies in Eastern Africa on that dreadful day August 7th, 1998. The world also knows that the CIA armed and funded the Afghan Mujaheddin during the war against the Soviets. Does this answer the conspiracy theories that the CIA created this monster? However, amid all this joy at the 'assassination' of Osama, the world has been united in principle but with emotions overshadowing morality, opinions have been divided.

It is important to understand how Osama Bin Laden was killed and whether that was the right thing to do. It seems that the US backtracked on its priginal statement that Bin Laden was armed. They later issued a statement to the contrary. This together with their refusal to publish images of dead Osama gave the leftists and conspiracy theorists another reason to doubt US claims. Whether the images would have been provocative and incite revenge or would make him a martyrm many people believe that these mistakes by America will fuel terrorism rather than thwart it.

Clearly there is no way of knowing the truth from the fairytale America tells us, given their recent spectacular display of verbal acrobatics. It is believed that in politics lies prevail. However, this makes the world more unsafe and uncertain. What is clear is that there are no elections to fill Osama's boots as it is in politics. By the time Obama is re-elected for a second term as a token of appreciation the world will be more dangerous because we do not know how these ideologically inspired extremists are going to respond. What is even more worrying is that we can't identify who the real enemy is. With radicalism a key issue deeply rooted inside a respectable religion, it will be hard to differentiate the two and to attempt tackling one without upsetting the other. So for America to treat the cause and not the effects; they need to set their goals clearly to avoid repeating these confusing and unhappy endings.

If Osama was unarmed just like his 9/11 victims it was wrong for the US to shoot him dead. As a former soldier myself the rules of engagement prohibit such action. But the rule of engagement isn't much help because it begs the question that is tat the heart of the debate; War on terrorism? Many would argue that justice is only delivered through a fair trial at a neutral courts of law, as was done at Nuremberg to those Nazis accused of crimes against humanity after the Second World War. Yjay, after all, is how Dr Rowan Williams thrilled me by revealing that 'the killing of an unarmed man' left 'a very uncomfortable feeling'. Another interesting moral dilema to this effect was that of a Navy SEAL, Marcus Luttrell, in 2005 when he had to cast a deciding vote on whether to release Afghan goatheards. He said 'It would be wrong wrong to execute these unarmed men in cold blood". The real point is not whether Osama was armed or not, as long as he did not pose an immediate threat, the life of any man is vital. Killing him this way because he was evil makes the US equally evil.

Given that their goal was to kill or capture as described by the US Attorney General Eric Holder, we can only make assumptions of what could have happened given these misleading statements. We are not told whether Osama did surrender to the SEALs. It will be reasonable to suggest that they shot him because he was about to detonate himself; a characteristic feature of al-Qaeda and its militant ally, the Taliban. In this case the SEALs had a duty to protect themselves and Osama's family.

A further assumption by contrast, given that the US always do things their own way, is that of the prisoner's dilemma. They remind me of the famous words of Don Corleone in the Godfather, "I'm gonna make him an offer he can't refuse". Osama must have faced a dilemma; we kill you now or get a summary executionat Guantanamo Bay at a later date. For this reason alone he must have looked like a bull knowing it is being fattened for slaughter.

Another scenario is to imagine Osama facing his six Navy SEAL capturers. He is unarmed. There he sits wearing a woolly hat and a brown blanket with his small TV set behind him. He is probably humming the old classics from te master of song, the late Simon Chimetu. It can't be anuthing other than Samatenga or Nguva Yakaoma. He is subsequently very high on 'verbal viagra' as we are told he had three wives. Osama might have had young wives, given that his family disowned him in 1994, the same time Saudi Arabia stripped him of his citizenship. What might he have said to the SEALs? "Take me to Britain alive where I can get money each week and a house for free?" Of course the US would argue "if we don't kill him now, imprisonment is clearly not in the public interest".

Surely some people would celebrate at this vengeance but, wanted or not, Osama Bin Laden was a son, a father, and above all a human being. Notwithstanding that I am with those who lost their loved ones on that dreadful 9/11 day. If I were President Obama I would condemn such overreactions in which justice and rights become casualties of evil. But even I would consider former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw's words that followed Israel's orchestrated assassination of Hamas founder Abdel Aziz. He said that "the British government has made it repeatedly clear that so called 'targeted assassinations' of this kind are unlawful, unjustified and unproductive".

Besides, setting aside my personal moral and religious conviction, I am proud to be Zimbabwean. And its great to say I, and many alike, respect the dead.

Is it wise to stick with boys form your neighbourhood? Zimbabwe needs to fear the Libyan syndrome.

The ground breaking 1968 article 'The Tragedy of the Commons' by Gareth Hardin exposes some of the long held myths about the dilemmas I faced as a young herdsman of Mawire village in Buhera. Drawing on candid in-depth experience as a six year old boy with such an enormous responsibility, this example reveals some remarkable new insight as the rapid geopolitical turmoil resonates across the world today.

Hardin cites a parable about a common pasture on which many herdsmen graze their cows. Each herdsman knows that the limited common is open to all and therefore freely brings new cows as he acquires them. Over the years this rational, prudent practice destroys the common. As he points out, 'freedom in a common brings ruin to all'. Therein lies the dilemma.

Reflecting on the story, my memory jogs back to my late grandfather Johane Mawire recounting to me how he and his three brothers, Philemon, Joseph and Oswald, had inherited the village from our Great Grandmother VaMadyedzo's father, Sekuru Zvaipa. We admired the fine looking hills of Marenga and the Makumbe Mission. Behind us sat the dazzling horizon of the Dorowa Mines where my late father Ngonidzaishe worked. That is where the sun set and it was the only measure of time we had when we would communally shephard our livestock in the green pastures along Mwerihari River with my brotherly neighbour Taona Kundishora, nephew Fortune Mawire and many others who are no longer with us today. Not at any point did I take notice of any obvious pursuit of strategic behaviour or self-interest amongst the many households, but today I am willing to suspend my view.

The dilemma set up by Hardin's story is strikingly relevant not only as he initially modeled it on environmental problems but its significance in particular to our own politics in Africa as governments, political movements, tribes and individuals seek to take control of their respective commons. In a globalised world we have to understand the role of self interest among other motivations, as Adam Smith's Invisible Hand accentuates in The Wealth of Nations (1776). Are we putting blind faith in the Western World given our past experience? Could we be losing our comradeship and 'trust in thy neighbour'? Are we truly selfish creatures infested with division, hate and violent motives as some evolutionary scientists proclaim?

Intolerant.

As part of Africa and The Middle East's popular uprising against dictators, it is just over two months today since the Libyan people refused to voluntarily relinquish their rights over their country to Muammar Gaddafi, who from 1969 had exercised illegitimate coercion to brutally manage their collective interests. He unhesitatingly chose to remain in power, convincing only himself that the uprising is the work of imperialists and Al-Qaeda attempting to hold Libya hostage. Gaddafi is known to have used his bloody money and oil to influence opinion and support terrorists like the IRA, the despotic Mugabe and Liberia's Charles Taylor, and is responsible for many other troubles across the world. Against all sense and reason his regime has vowed to fight until the 'last bullet'. That means indiscriminately slaughtering innocent civilians. For what? Mr Gaddafi knows it is not fair to his people and he knows it's not fair to himself. He has to make a choice.

Danger.

During the infancy of this unrest, Libya's Bengazi based Transitional National Council was keen to gain recognition and exposure to major Western democracies. Initially recognised by France as a legitimate representative of the Libyan people, Europe, the USA and The Arab League have also embraced them. Whether this was a gift to the Muslim Brotherhood it remains to be seen. Today NATO is voraciously hovering over the Libyan air space, thanks to the UN resolution in 1973  authorising only to protect civilians, the mandate which Britain and France are willing to go beyond and bring Gaddafi's head. Does this entail Libyans sacrificing their sovereignty? Does this make the mission 'illegal'? Maybe I am content tha ttheir intervention is just and necessary.

The rebels have no control over NATO operations and there is no clear distinction between a civilian and a 'rebel'. That presented a dilemma to both parties when NATO air strikes killed the rebels. Rear Admiral Harding refused to make an apology. Not even after William Hague said that it doesn't cost anything to apologise. Does that entail getting more than bargained for? Probably that's the price for protection!

Still on that point, Hague is right. And so is David Cameron when he admits that the United Kingdom is responsible for many of the world's historic problems during his recent visit to Pakistan. There should be no reason why he fails to feel guilty about Kashmir, the 1952 crackdown by Britain in Kenya of the Mau Mau rebels and the ruthless massacre of many Zimbabweans in Chimoio and Nyadzonyia camps in the late 1970's. The Prime Minister is right too to acknowledge that the British are being called to account because their colonial fathers occupied these countries and brutally carried out these human rights abuses they speak so highly against today. All that is need for Cameron is to say sorry.

Inconsistency.

We know that had it not been for the love of money and not humanity the No-Win-No-Fee lawyers would not have brought the frail 82-year old Wambugu WaNyingi and his three fellow Kenyan torture victims to London seeking justice. We know who would stand to benefit from the Libyan oil and its reconstruction deals by supporting the rebels. Just as Blair's regime embrace Gaddafi and joyfully supplied him with the ammunition he is using to kill is people today, America is giving strong support to a dictator in Equatorial Guinea, while France wine and dines with autocrat Amar Bongo. Inconsistency? Yes. Regrets? I am sure someone is having a few...

The speed of events provided a tough test for the Africa Union. Unlike NATO and its allies Africa knows that the people involved are 'ours'. With shared values and ideology, AU has to stand up and be counted. Gaddafi considers the AU his brainchild after failing to manipulate the Arab World. He was its president in 2009 despite his awful record; he chaired the Human Rights Commission at the UN in 2003. How then could the AU be an honest mediator in Libya? If the peace deals that Jacob Zuma presented, alongside Equatorial Guinea dictator Teodoro Obiang, were good for Gaddafi, I am not surprised that the rebels rejected it. Remember Jacob Zuma, South Africa's controversial president, is the same man who thinks that a shower after unprotected sex with an HIV infected woman will prevent him from catching the virus.

This inability of AU to deploy a combined peace keeping mission to Libya is proving to be fatal. The union seems to have great tension within its ranks and such instability hardly gives them mandate to represent Africa, let alone force through peace deals. The sad thing is that many of Africa' ailing dictators such as Zenavi, Museveni, Mugabe and Wade etc are still present and piling pressure on ineffective Zuma to support Gaddafi's cause with this suspiciously low-level appeal because of financial interest tied to the Tripoli administration. What is even more worrying is that all parties continue to keep each other at arms length and undermining each others efforts. Such is the tragedy of conflicting interests.

Ludicrous.

Earlier it was reported that both the British and Gaddafi were secretly hiring mercenaries to step up their efforts. In my mind there is no reason why this couldn't actually be a possibility. If the bombshell that Robert Mugabe's notorious Fifth Brigade veterans are already operating in Libya is true it will be a repeat of 1997 when he, without consultation, sent the army to fight for Kabila in DRC. If the arrangement is to offer Gaddafi a brief haven in this desert storm, it looks fanciful. Not only because this practice makes the already fragile crisis so huge that seeing beyond it is hard. It gravely endangers the chances of a sustainable peace and cooperation in Africa and the entire world.

So with this self-inflicted foreign policy failure the people who are concerned with the end of conflict like Zuma and AU 'road map' or the removal of Gaddafi like Cameron and Sarkozy, they are not under any illusion that getting rid of Gaddafi and ending the conflict would produce a perfectly just order in Libya. It would be interesting to see if they mind about those young children and women we see dying every day. If they are going to conquer the peril of their selfish desires then NATO, the Arab LEague, AU and the Libyans should pause and say 'this can't go on'. In the interest of peace, what does it cost to resolve differences through good faith negotiations?

I am beginning to worry that for me, and many Africans alike, what we are seeing in Libya is rather not the way to achieve long term peace settlement. Are we being charmed by what these glittery and beautiful Western democracies offer us? Yet, losing our sovereignty seems to be the ultimate price we are willing to pay.

History isn't finished: Now let's think again.

Granting post-independent Zimbabweans freedom to interact with some of the heroes of a bygone liberation struggle helps us understand why so many lives were lost. Our independence on 18th April does not tell the whole story. To some this may seem a trivial issue but the values it symbolises does matter. Those who don't approve of the opinion are reminded; this independence is only a partial victory because our liberation will will not be complete until we are a true sovereignty and claim what is rightfully ours.

Every citizen should remember the First and Second Chiurenga wars that brought us independence. My first encounter with these events included reading Social Studies and History at school. I also recite my meeting with the late Dr Michael Mawema (a Historian and distinguished veteran of our liberation struggle) in 1999 at his Milton Park home. He poured his heart out about his experience and eventually emphasised that our country's history should not be a closely guarded secret but instead a source of pride to inspire future generations. To this day I am proud to have shared that moment and, most importantly, I listened and learned.

I am not saying much that hasn't been said before but it's worth a prescription to the other doses that may not have clearly gotten through. All these struggles meant challenging white supremacy, fighting social injustice, our desire to self govern and addressing the socioeconomic imbalances between the minority White Rhodesians and the landless masses of the Black majority. This is what motivated the great sons and daughters of Zimbabwe, dead and alive, black and white, the native and immigrant, and above all to paint a balanced portrait: all tribes.

There was no law that required the sons and daughters of Zimbabwe to take up arms and fight. Pressure from within individuals was so immense that they each felt they had a duty to not conform. They felt it was the only way to correct some historic and current imbalances at that time which have not been in favour of the Black majority. Coupled with passionate enthusiasm, it was these rituals and extremes of ambition that enabled them to conquer imperialists.

Consider the basis on which this liberation struggle was conducted. There were no terms of reference, but there existed a striking degree of agreement among the freedom fighters. They were not organised but taught self-discipline and were able to build relationships between groups that were previously divided. In so doing they were capable of establishing a credible leadership in the moulds of Herbert Chitepo, Alfred Mangena, Abel Muzorewa, Joshua Nkomo and Josiah Tongogara, among others. No ballot existed butthe leadership was built on ability to lead, mutual trust and at times implicit principles. Some, if not most, freedom fighters had no idea what they were doing or why they were doing it.

It was or this self sacrifice that these sons and daughters of Zimbabwe would sing those joyful lyrics about revolution all night long, "Iva gamba, Iva gamba, utarire mhandu" (be a hero, be a hero, watch for the enemy). Non-runners would run bare footed with empty stomachs in pursuit of that promised land or at least bring the country back home to the cheering parents and children. Sadly some never lived to see this day.

Not so in independent Zimbabwe. People have so far lost focus on the importance of that vision and the belief that our sons and daughters died for. Our countrymen today have in theory some horrific desires that make a mockery of themselves. In practice, they have become enemies and with only one abiding motive; greed. So many politicians believe that by sabotaging the economy they are sabotaging fellow politicians. With lost points of reference, politicians are getting away with anything, having kid-glove treatment for so long and spectacularly profiting from near economic catastrophe with Robert Mugabe turning a blind eye while sitting on his hands. This is disastrous as experience has show with apparently fatal consequences. It is the ordinary men who suffer and it is the spirit of those brave freedom fighters who never made it back home that are politicians are suffocating.

We are now in the 31st year of practical control of our country. Yet far from being the masters we seem, more than ever, the captives of this independence. Logically, as a major owner of the country, we should challenge why the government has failed to promote and fulfill most of its promises to date. There is no obvious answer and we can only assume that criticizing them is only likely to make those accountable more foolish and annoyed.

Yet the view of many Zimbabweans appears to be that our political sphere has actors who continuously refuse to leave the platform despite woeful performance and disapproval from the crowds. Elections are swayed by corrupt tendencies. Key parts of the country e.g. Masvingo and Matebeleland have continuously suffered from neglect and marginalisation by the ZANU (PF) government. That the Gini-coefficient, which measures the gap between the rich and poor in our communities, is one of the highest in Africa. Generally for the vast majority life has become relentlessly stressful and too harsh to contemplate. It is easy to see, easy to say and easy to find evidence, but ask a ZANU (PF) hardcore and they wont see it that way. THe sad thing is that our country has vast amounts of natural resources and untapped minerals which, if managed properly, can get us out of this economic profligacy and bring prosperity. Though this day is not about arguments for broken promises and malpractices, it's worth mentioning.

Furthermore, politicians should redirect their efforts from accumulating personal wealth and closing the leadership vacuum. This lost relationship and focus is vital in organising and providing the leadership our societies need to generate positive change for the people who brought them to power. People have exclusive rights to Zimbabwe's future and not political parties or politicians. Yet as in all the greatest tragedies, in its ideals and virtues lay the spirit of those brave Zimbabweans who perished at Chimoio and Nyadzonia feeling betrayed and in astonishment.

Also, if blame must be laid for the country's inability to fulfill those independent promises, it can't be entirely at the hands of present leadership (and The West, as Mugabe always wants to put it). Allow me to correctly accuse the forgetful sons and daughters of Zimbabwe; a generation lacking a sense of belonging, patriotism and sometimes too extreme. Let there be an explanation of payoff between abusing democratic space and betrayal; being wholly oneself or being divided and being spectators or actors. They are different sides of the same coin that compares to a choice between Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. Ask what it means for English cricket fans to beat Australia in an Ashes series, this generation of Zimbabweans is reminded to arouse pan-African sentiment and rally behind the home team.

Rallying behind the home team consists of spending valuable time and knowledge to take off from where those brave sons and daughters left. Rallying behind the home team is not continuing to demonstrate angry rhetoric and preventing reform. Such short sightedness in decision making will live to be regretted forever. This also consists of cheering and encouraging our fellow countrymen when they have done well. THere is no way of quietly enjoying or keeping out of politics; either you are part of it or your soul will cringe away from the whole affair altogether, as George Orwell says "all issues are political issues". Instead of laughing out loud, object not and do what you know best - Murimi tora badza urime (the farmer should grab the hoe and get on with it). Opposition for opposition's sake isn't always a good practice. To borrow a phrase, it goes to the adage, "Ask not what you're country can do for you but what you can do for your country". The trouble is that some may hesitate to agree. But I do agree.

We once had vibrant flagship technology and industrial policies in Zimbabwe. Without any doubt world class researchers, mainly indigenous to Zimbabwe, have gotten expertise from abroad and returned to design and support the creation of new technology. I am not talking of Nomatter Tagarira's (a.k.a. Rotina Mavhunga) type of Chinhoyi diesel exploration that made Dydmus Mutasa more foolish and yet reduced archaeologists to mere refuse collectors. These public-donor funded government laboratories interacted with our universities, financial institutions and private firms. The interaction formed innovative systems in which powerful incentives were provided to sustain our own future development and self reliance.

The future of Zimbabwe now needs further reform and what brings this to life is democracy and empowerment. Though this is a long process we require reforms that fulfill vital national interests. If the wider society is allowed to participate, fulfilling the wishes of those brave freedom fighters; these reforms define our country's future as history has done. Let history remind us of the riskiness of some of our actions. Not everything has to be set to change but obviously the face of politics, fiscal policies, welfare, education and justice systems require immediate resuscitation. These reforms, like our liberation wars, require a collective effort and share norms of behaviors even against our own immediate interests.

The present leadership claim to have seen it all but seem hungry and motivated by money and an obsession with power. To credit Caesar his dues, they have been masterful at uniting Zimbabweans against foreign predatory plotting and denouncing interference. Whether they are right too in wanting indigenous people to own a controlling stake in domestic business remains to be seen. Zimbabwe no longer subscribes to neo-colonial actions. The virtues I see in this government are a pointer in the wrong direction and at the wrong point in time because it is difficult to see what they are conscientiously seeking to do. That is why I call for reforms that satisfy us most and leave a lasting legacy with no alternatives. This accomplishment will satisfy the vision of those brothers and sisters who could not live to see this day. And this reform package could then be passed on to other generations who, with indulgence and cooperation, ensure a smooth running of the country because with it comes sovereignty, freedom and people's power.

What sends us to war and brought independence is the belief that we can govern ourselves. We can solve complex issues. It is this paradigm shift we need to re-establish and safeguard our country's sovereignty, be more equal to our natural resources and observing our moral values. It is this paradigm shift that we need, to re-engage with the spirit of those who fought and died for our independence, embrace patriotism and wider participation in real politics without fear of victimisation and to hold people to account. We need not betray our beautiful country. More beautiful then, one day we will look back, appreciate, smile at all our efforts and say "We did it ourselves".

A forgotten Kibera where only poverty counts.

The "Famous, Rich And In The Slums" beamed across the world by the BBC for Comic Relief during the past two weeks is not mere rhetoric. The latest reminder of this has come in the Kenyan slum of Kibera The lethal combination of upward-spiralling unemployment, poor sanitation and substandard health facilities makes Danny Boyle's Slumdog Millionaire Mumbai slums in India look like paradise.

The truly harrowing scenes documented left funny man Lenny Henry, Eastenders star Samantha Womack, Angela Rippon and Reggie Yates broken in tears after only spending a week living in the poverty stricken Kibera. They were strongly moved by their experiences and it is inevitable that many other viewers were too. I am sure the prejudices of many have been challenged during and after the show.

It is a commendably clear account of the difficulties faced not only by Kibera but all developing countries. This wide effect of poverty is something that I experienced firsthand as a child in Zimbabwe. I have also witnessed poverty in developed countries, extending to too many areas across England today. This rightly recognises the need for the world to do more to alleviate poverty - the single greatest collective challenge the world faces today.

We have to applaud the celebrities for their careful mapping of a complex dilemma. They simply reinforced the disbelief that many are not conscious of. However the documentary also highlights a weakness of purpose, THere are further alternatives to their possible conclusion: you can donate to Comic Relief or you can ignore the suffering of others. It means finding a line of least resistance by deliberately setting up a false dichotomy.

I am not anti-aid but questions need to be asked, like why and how these slums exist in the first place. I don't want to drag this whole affair into the cause and effect of colonial capitalism (which converted foreign public resources into private property and substituted cooperation for competition). I can't quite understand why people who did harm are the very same preaching the gospel of altruism. On a fair not, colonial history is no major excuse. Africa's former colonies have, on average, fifty years of independence during which they have turned in to professional beggars. Ask them, but they wont admit this.

Now the damage has been done, why are they surprised by the aftermath? Accordingly with due respect, though reserved, Comic Relief and the celebrities are misdirected in their tasks. They shed tears over the effects, but do not treat the cause. Aid merely prolongs the troubles we are seeing in sub-Saharan Africa, India, Bangladesh and others. Indeed their efforts are part of the wider problem. They try to solve the problem of poverty by replacing on form of poverty with another. What those poor children and their families want is a permanent solution, one that will give them a sustainable future. Give them the bread crumbs falling from your table today and tomorrow they will wake up hungry again.

Historically, in such poverty hit countries, people rely on government provision to provide a fallback when their mode of living fails. But is the government really the only source? In most cases they are an option because they are recipients of foreign aid and sole custodians of a country's budget. The donor community through non-government organisations (NGO's) provide for most of healthcare and education on the basis of need. Redistribution of income to the less well off by developing countries' governments has always been a subject of political and economic debate.

But we are talking of a large population of failed children here. Do they have to suffer because their parents had no means? Children do not vote for a family to be born in to. Neither is it a choice for them to be on this earth. We know most of them are not in a position to make the best choices for themselves. Given their initial endowment in life I am of the opinion that they deserve better merit goods and so is the importance of ensuring universal access to healthcare and education. By any means necessary, this is a widely acceptable form of social redistribution that brings equal endowments among citizens.

Politicians, because of great corruption and greed, divert funds and resources to line their own pockets at the expense of the intended recipients - the poor. This paints a truly tragic portrait of our ability to develop in Africa. So politicians should perhaps be held to account when it comes to aid redistribution itself. Distributional justice is always a cause of concern where social choices are not prioritised.

Furthermore, aid to governments and individuals has introduced many incentives for unholy actions that are not optimal. Recipients have been encouraged to overstate costs and understate benefits in order to maximise their entitlement to handouts as we witnessed on the screen when Lenny paid for one slum resident to purchase a house.

It must have been great for the celebrities to confront and make the legislators responsible for the slums to issue a statement. That, in so many respects, gives those a shame-and-blame in the fullest degree. I never forget the day Joanna Lumley ambushed the former Labour Immigration Minister on live television over the Ghurkha rights to settle in Britain. It was fun, but it also worked.

In the case of a country where not many people pay taxes because of higher levels of unemployment, can communities improve themselves through forms of collective stewardship? Yes. Julius Nyerere's Ujamaa cocnept of alleviating poverty through cooperatives in Tanzania was a great model in Africa which needs a rethink; in the event people have condemned it to the slums. His aim, as what the world should aim to do is to rebuild our communities in such a way that poverty will be impossible.

Other people have argued that it is an insult to ask a poor man to eat less. After my encounter with Darwin's Origin of Species and Dawkin's The Selfish Gene, I began to have a clear picture and understanding of why it is debatable to advocate for population control as a means of reducing poverty. Campaigners of free will (genuine choice and responsibility) concepts agree with this. In life we need not determinism but common sense. We do not require great philosophers to tell us that one hungry man plus another hungry man equals two hungry mouths. While the jury is still out, I leave the reader to do the arithmetic of altruism and selfishness.

There has been a constant argument whether there are gains in terms of reducing poverty within developing countries - from full multilateral trade liberalisation. Many have suggested this benefits the rich and not the poor. But what really happens when countries specialise in production according to comparative advantage and engage in free trade? I suppose relative to restricted trade scenarios in which countries operate behind tariff barriers, specialisation and free trade enhance world production which can be distributed among free trading nations including developing countries. These models in which trade restrictions are removed can work within countries as free trade zones e.g. South Africa's Orania, enterprise zone, growth points etc. Eventually this will better a poor man, it will give them an oppurtunity while we acknowledge that investors want a return on their capital. There is no dilemma here.

It is possibly right to suggest charity does prevent communities carrying out the aim of alleviating poverty. Escaping the bondage and necessity of living for others, is undoubtedly the essence of fairness and morality. Upon realising this fact people can move forward and forget the absolutely repulsive slum life we see today.