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.

So Robert Mugabe, our very own Laurent Gbagbo. What would it take for you to walk away?

For the past two weeks I have, like many others across the world, witnessed the Ivory Coast take centre stage as one of the most volatile nations on the planet this year so far.

However this beautiful country, famous for cocoa and great footballers amongst its exports, has been ruled by a despotic, former History Professor Laurent Gbagbo for eleven years, and who later refused to step down after losing an election in November 2010. That refusal to cede power provoked atrocities and a humanitarian crisis on an enormous scale that made Libya's Muammar Gaddafi look like a Saint. His opponent, the internationally recognised winner Alassane Quattara, did not give up the fight. Today, history has been made in this troubled former French colony. The last time I witnessed such an embarrassing moment for a former president was in 2004 when the then Iraq dictator Saddam Hussein was dug up by American forces. The tyrant has succumbed to mounting pressure and is now under house arrest after he apparently holed himself up in his bunker at his Abidjan residence. It was a sad ending for the former leader who only last week appeared like a "normal rules do not apply" guy, being handed only a clean shirt to cover his humiliation on live television. It was encouraging however to see the people of Ivory Coast cheering at Gbagbo and his first lady's arrest. I too cheered with them.

To those not familiar with African politics, Robert Zimbabwe doesn't appear to have a lot in common with Gbagbo. Indeed great is the match of attributes - brutality and bribery - and both portray themselves as the strongest even when the facts are tremendously against them. Both are highly educated and manipulate individuals who sorely think in terms of competitive prestige.

Obviously there is a striking resemblance given Mugabe has been a totalitarian over a span of three decades. He represents one of Africa's greatest problems. Throughout his iron-fist grip to power thousands of his political opponents have mysteriously died or disappeared. More than 20,000 innocent civilians were butchered by his notorious, North Korea-trained Fifth Brigade in Matebeleland during the early 1980's. In 2008 he lost a presidential contest to Movement for Democratic Change rival Morgan Tsvangirai. He cunningly refused to step aside. In the re-run election that followed his supporters, like Gbagbo's, waged a reign of terror against the opposition and innocent civilians. Unlike Mr Quattara in Ivory Coast Mr Tsvangirai feared a bloodbath and boycotted the election. Mugabe went on to contest a one man election, emerging with a 98% majority. To date Mugabe looks increasingly like Zimbabwe's monarch and president for life. He has groomed no successor and no departure date is in sight.

Mugabe has a habit of littering his oration on Britain and America each time Zimbabwean people express resentment. Such is Gbagbo's attitude that he continuously lashed out at France's Nicolas Sarkozy, accusing him of attempting to instigate regime change. Firing such shots has been a tool long used to influence opinion. Ut us therefore logical for Zimbabweans to say we have heard that before, enough is enough.

I think it is time for Mugabe to rethink given the catastrophe that has furnished Africa recently, notably the ousting of Gbagbo, Zen Al-Albidine Ben Ali of Tunisia, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and the currently sinking ship of Libya's Gaddafi. It is a great moment for him to rethink the nature of his political exit, and how much dignity he wants in that package. He has to think how Zimbaweans will react in both the short and long term to other crises, and whether he should leave government now willingly or wait to be dug up like Gbagbo and Saddam.

Though this poses his greatest challenge to date and the consequences of which are hard to predict, hope to Zimbabweans is that Change is possible and is coming soon.

He should be very weary given that in these crises the international community has been, in some way or another, very destructive and threatening the operating systems upon which these despots depend. This has been very significant and sending a very clear message to dictators that the world will not watch while individuals slaughter their own people in a bid to remain in power. It is a lesson well learnt for those who listen. No one is above the law and at some point we will all be held to account for our actions. This is what we are seeing today in Ivory Coast and Egypt, we have seen it in Iraq and I forecast it to befall Mugabe.

Mugabe has exhausted his possible strategies to desperately cling to power. Like his counterpart in Kenya, Mwai Kibaki, he set up the artificial leg of the Government of National Unity with the MDC. It seems to have increased his political lifeline. He is pinning his hopes on the belief that when the economic crisis in Zimbabwe is resolved the majority will be pleasantly surprised that he is born again, prolonging his days in office. But Mr Mugabe, Zimbabweans are not foolish. That political office is not a retirement home. Even his sharp-horned security forces will one day realise the wishes of the people and refuse to take orders.

For now, the challenge for Mugabe is that the alarm bells have sounded loudly across Africa and the Middle East. It is not too late, but have you learned your lessons Mr President?

If his advisors are watching and following world events, they should be anxious too. If Grace Mugabe was watching Gbagbo's wife being pitifully dragged by security forces on live television, if she truly loves her old man and cares about 'their' young children, I urge her to wake him up in the middle of the night. Alone. And shout through his hearing aid; "So Robert, what would is take for you to walk away?"

No signal of shift in Zimbabwe as Big Brother wraps dissent.

When George Orwell penned his priceless novel Nineteen Eighty-Four it was as if he was predicting Zimbabwe's future. It is probably obvious, therefore, that I am not surprised to learn that 46 people are facing treason charges for allegedly plotting an Egyptian-style revolution.

This 62 year old vintage means different things to different people but, after reading it several times, I believe the author had a revelation, under the horizon of an imaginary work of fiction.

My favourite, and the central, character Winston Smith lives in the future totalitarian state of Oceania, in which almost all his actions are controlled and under surveillance. 'Big Brother' has a sophisticated system which makes access to truth practically impossible. History is continuously rewritten by the propaganda machinery in terms favourable to the state and its apparatus. All kind of brainwashing is practiced across every generation of society. Smith is guilty of dissent - a 'thought crime'. The Ministry of Love (Miniluv), which maintains law and order, net and imprison him. He is tortured by his interrogator, a man of whom he has always had suspicions, Mr O'Brien. The idea of torture is not for Smith to deny his dissent or alter what he actually believes, What is symbolic is the belief that two plus two equals five. O'Brien wants exactly that from Smith, through torture. Smith;s resistance eventually breaks down and he believes he is seeing five fingers when there are actually four. By the end of the novel Smith believes whatever O'Brien wants him to believe.

So far, Orwell's novel matches every fibre of Zimbabwe's situation since independence in 1980. It is comparable to every structure of our society and fills the horizons of many peoples minds. The events in Egypt inevitably inspire Zimbabweans to emulate and plot against the repressive regime that habitually uses torture. As a society we can always question how long we can tolerate such an institutionalised, recurrent underground of conspiracies.

There are many Smiths and O'Briens in our socity. We all have different priorities, beliefs and attitudes toward democracy and human dignity. Any sane person would have thought a revolution the order of the day in Zimbabwe. But Zimbabwe has no sympathisers and no support from the democracy-loving West. There is no oil to attain and its internal mayhem is of no political significance to World Order. Thus our fate looks negatively marginal to Western interests.

There are ingredients lacking in our society for a revolution to take off to its highest mode of perfection. Zimbabweans have to stand up and believe in themselves. Initiating an uprising requires contracts that are incomplete and sometimes difficult to enforce. What brings lack of trust is strategic behaviour and opportunism. Not until people become naturally and absolutely unselfish, then they won't rebel and successfully show their displeasure through civil disobedience, We require a general will; the common interest as prescribed by Rousseau's The social Contract (1762).

The World Order has been redecorated many different colours in recent times, by revolutions in Tehran in 1979 to the Berlin Wall in 1989. To remind us, such important revolutions were solved by entirely violent protests and physical force. I am not talking of Ghandi's concept of passive resistance, 'Satyagraha', which advocates affecting political change through non-violence. Not even the highly anointed Gene Sharp's list of 198 methods of non-violent protest and persuasion will shift our position. Zimbabwe requires an even more radical approach with a great anticipation of provoking bloodshed.

The group arrested in Zimbabwe claim that their meeting was an academic study session. An interesting line of defence but short of intellectual awakening and moral maturity. Knowing the nature of Big Brother's Thought Police, people keep making the same mistakes. Do you remember the fabrication and treason charges against the late Reverend Ndabaningi Sithole of ZANU Ndonga? No need to remind of the genocide of over 20,000 people in Matebeleland in the 1980's as a convenient truth - by pure chance! Our people should not be path dependent. To be fair, we have to understand our limitations.

More important, Big Brother is a product of a revolutionary struggle. Since independence he has been in a revolution of his own in which thousands of opponents were eliminated in order to terrorise the entirety of millions. He is blood thirsty and blood is his lubricant. His record in politic shows ruthlessness and interest in power as an obsession. The dreams of power and conquest he merrily lives in are out of phase with the physical world in which ordinary citizens live.

To confront such a character on needs a unique skill. One cannot confront an armed regime with violence but there are ways of preparing for that. So far no leader has that flair and absolutely no one has passed the test in Zimbabwe. Even if people are organised I have noticed how ideas vaporise quickly and collapse simply because they cannot be implemented as action plans and strategies. Like character Syme in Orwell's book, our people are too open and too careless such that the state is always ready and able to unmask any dissent, even in its formative stage.

Consider the Chinhoyi Battle of 1966. It was initiated by only six determined individuals recruited through the Battle Cry magazine run by students at Fletcher High School. It ran a 'Scholarship Scheme' to evade Rhodesian intelligence. More recently the Tsvangirai led ZCTU protest in 1997 against the government was a success too. I loved a joke in the which the late Vice President Simon Muzenda did not turn up for work. When Mugabe asked him why, he simply answer "VaTsvangirai vakati kune stay away" (Morgan Tsvangirai had called for a stay away). I give these examples to show how easily coordinated strategies can outmaneuver the security forces.

Ideally people would have to choose a means of protest that the security apparatus are not prepared to deal with effectively. In Zimbabwe you don't call for a protest to remove or push out a sitting authority. This is not illegal, but if detected it is reasonable to expect sever punishment, even death. Language and tone are very important. One would imagine why the women of WOZA group always raise banners with text such as "We want roses and bread, we want SEX...eh...eh...equality etc".

Our society needs all the best and plain advice it can get because we face a more complex regime than Egypt did recently. The women of WOZA should instead refuse sex with their husbands or partners to induce them in to confronting Big Brother. Again, I am not advocating Satyagraha here, but if it is a starting point for that portion then let it be so. It would have been wiser for the 46 activists, through other recognised bodies such as trade unions and civic bodies, to call for industrial action and coordinated protests, instead of grouping to analyse video footage. In so doing people from all walks of life, just like in 1997, would join in given the appalling state of our living standards, political suppression and exorbitant unemployment: there is a common cause. Everything else would have extended from there just as the Chinhoyi Battle proved.

I am not going to dwell much on the ideological weakness of Diaspora citizens who continue to abuse the precious cyberspace. While other brave people like Wael Ghonim, the hero of the Egyptian revolution, used Facebook as a stepping stone, Zimbabweans are using it as a tombstone. The solidarity culture will struggle and not make an impact when one in the UK calls for a protest march in Harare the following morning. Stupid! Worse still, this jeopardises the contingency planning of those in Zimbabwe and put intelligence services on high alert. My advice will be for these 'wise' men to shut up if they can't be part of a real solution.

People need a national collective action that they don't fear death. This is key to any struggle. Forget the belief that once you kill, the spirit of the dead will come and wreak havoc on your family. People don't need leaders for a people's revolution but just be brave and spirited individuals. Let's not forget that in a violent revolution often ends with casualties. Until people are prepared to pay the ultimate price, see themselves as lame or blind, and realise the greatest of all pain, I am afraid there will be no such Egyptian style uprising in Zimbabwe; otherwise Mugabe will shoot until all bullets are gone!

George Orwell had a vision and he deserves a place in the same sentence as other advocates of liberation. If anyone dare not agree, I will bring you closer to home. Read Professor Solomon Mutsvairo's Nehanda Nyakasikana, a poem that Big Brother would not want you to look at today. Probably it has been rewritten into a more patriotic NOra or perhaps Hondo Yeminda!

When journalism thrives on misfortune and not ethics.

One Melody Gwenyambira dropped a headline "I pulled his testicles, he pulled my breasts". As if that was not enough, another press wrote "Kapfupi in-laws with hoe". Suddenly this raises serious concerns whether this is the sort of stuff that should be thrown in to the public domain. Whether these are meant to be jokes, tired thinking or just downright offensive terminology, I wonder.

We all crave big headlines, accurate and great content made with due consideration of context. I am not talking of news-feeds that seem to make the right noises but leaving little impression. Nowadays writing bad stuff about people is how the media conducts itself. There exists a quiet, extraordinary tyranny that our reporters propose to exercise over people's private lives. This reporter is not alone as many others have developed this chronic disorder, seriously endangering the reputation of responsible journalism.

Recently Mai Charamba announced she is to have the last child and the response is to tell the lady to put down the lid? Did she brief us when she had her first child? For her own information. I have in mind how such information might be interpreted and its impact. Though no one thinks it's something really not for public interest.

A restriction on publishing such stories would be considered a monstrous idea, even though most people in Zimbabwe live with internalised restrictions anyway. This becomes an argument about morality and whether free speech should be chained, though it is a vital element of any democratic society.

Last decade Jonathan Moyo, a former Zimbabwe Information Minister, decided it was time to shake off sloppy media practice. He drafted and sent a directive named AIPPA, telling media houses and independent journalists to adopt his code of conduct to operate in the country or else broadcast from the sea.

The directive caused resentment any many in opposition called him draconian and his attitude patronising. They demanded greater clarity and exploded in anger. "How could he know what would or would not represent suitable media conduct?" asked an angry reporter during a protest that thronged Africa Unity Square. I whispered to one Mass Communications student, "tell him to ask Dr. Tafatoana Mahoso". At one point some protesters held up their middle fingers at Jonathan Moyo's face on placards - an insulting gesture in our culture. Guess what? Moyo had no imaginary craziness and we all at some point dream akin to Cecil Rhode's Cape to Cairo vision.

It was the same period that the use of internet mushroomed and of particular relevance were weblogs and online newspapers. I witnessed the birth of gozimbabwe, newzimbabwe, changezimbabwe, talkzimbabwe, swradioafrica, zwnews, zimbabweantimes...the list is endless. This meant that it was impossble for Jonathan Moyo to achieve his goals. He could not control the internet, where freedom of speech has no regulation and indeed arguably posed a much bigger problem. Internet publishing has become so fashionable because servers can be located anywhere in the world.

As a result, it has become the norm for a mainly Diaspora Zimbabwean journalist or bored web logger to wake up in the middle of the night to express skepticism of Zimbabwe's future and its citizens. And let alone earlier examples of indecent and unthoughtful writings about 'very' private life of individuals. The vitriol and inaccuracy of these works are infused with a nastiness and xenophobia that leaves me asking "is it about time that regulations are imposed on reporters in the Zimbabwe domain?" Whether the servers are located in Silicon Valley or Musabayana Street in Mbare, something has to be done. It has to be done soon.

Serious libels are published online daily about individuals. What is said is neither true, nor are they "fair comments'. Defamation does destroy one's reputation and those on the receiving end usually have no chance to defend themselves. The right to protect one's reputation and their right to free speech are equally important. One's reputation involves privacy that should not be invaded. Sometimes there is no genuine public interest involved, even "true" - there are some things that a public has no right to know and they have nothing to do with people's private lives at all. After all, no public interest is served by misrepresentation.

We have a serious problem where profit-hungry publishers compel their journalists to invade one's privacy and relay things that are ugly or disgusting. No wonder the phone hacking scandal has become talk if every corridor of power in the UK. Gossip and scandal is a norm that they take a real pleasure in publishing horrible things. This still raises suspicion on the issue of pleasing the public and fulfilling their interest forming a sort of permanent basis of income. The world has gone mad. Negative story is what they see of anybody as they seek to maximise their corporate interests ahead of moral priorities.

The press freedom is undeniably acceptable but should not be absolute. It is the acceptance for public rather than one's reputation. So the ethos had to specify limits. Something has to change whatever the platform. This will mark an end to this practice and resolve it once and for all.

Gwenyambira stories out. Kapfufi out. More success stories of land reform in. More stories or Tariro Masyiti (owner of a successful vineyard in Cape Town, we want to know how he ended up there and not at home) in. What of business? Most business lines are clearly acceptable. My favoured sections are politics and business. But too much of political party headlining cannot be accepted and so is overemphasis on Philip Chiyangwa's empire. Only if these reporters refrain from being full of malice and hate, then we can again shift the emphasis from the 'rightness' to the 'goodness' of free speech.

Media is at the forefront of demanding free speech but again commits the very faults they protest against. In many respects this media practice is unacceptable. The longer it continues untamed the more disturbing the signs that morality loss will spread across our spectrum. I always wonder whether Zimbabweans will ever learn from the Caribbean Diaspora. They always promote their countries in any space they get and they don't publish rubbish. It does not follow that there is no scandal or gossip in their yards. They know what is good for their health.

Zimbabwe's culture has always been conservative. For more than a century we have been in good order. We have learnt to consistently respectful to one another. Unlike Britain, Zimbabwe has not allowed magazines such as Nuts and Daily Sport; unlike South Africa, Zimbabwe has not allowed homosexuality; unlike many other countries across the globe it will remain a country defined by morality and closely guarded traditions.

So what is driving our journalists mad? This madness has gripped and paralysed our nation. There should by no excuse to write graffiti in the media. I will not me amazed that these same individuals who paint abuse on our country and its people are the very same people who would play truant and paint abuse in public toilets using feces during their childhood. It is this grossly irresponsible, sloppy representation of facts that I am worried about.

We can afford not to underline this threat by introducing reforms to our media. How about government intervention to propose for cyber and foreign publishing to incur the same regulations as others operating inside Zimbabwe assuming the authorities can ensure the compliance of those journalists reporting Zimbabwe news from non-Zimbabwe locations. Why shouldn't they comply if they are Zimbabwean citizens and crying for a Diaspora vote?

This idea might seem objectionable but like many in social choice and public policy problems involved in options, there are winners and losers: private rights ahead of public interest. This is in line with Italian economist Vilfred Pareto's concept of efficiency when he said that such situations occur in which everyone is no worse off and some are better off than before. Private information should no be a public good unless if it's Mai Charamba who wants to coerce us to know how fertile she still is.

I have a great deal of admiration for free speech and that of the 'responsible' press, for the important work it is doing in most and difficult circumstances. But they must make sure that in their publishing a balance is struck to enable those with objections to achieve justice and protect their reputation if they so wish. The press should not look back one day and ask "Why did we mislead people and purvey as facts statements which were not true? Why didn't we realise that there is no interest in being misinformed? And why didn't we live to our ethics and code of conduct?"

Good content is what makes us follow the press and stay with them. It is this same belief that gives us an identity within the online community as well as away from it: We remain Zimbabweans and above all, we all deserve the best. All of us.