Chief ZANU PF apologist Zvayi overlooked in major Zimpapers reshuffle

By Denford Ncube

ZANU (PF) apologist and deputy editor at the state owned Herald has been left to dry in a senior editorial reshuffle announced on Monday this week by Zimpapers Board Chairman Dr Paul Chimedza.

In a move that observers claim is clear indication that, despite his best efforts over the years to sing the ZANU PF tune, the Zimpapers board and their political masters have no confidence in Zvayi’s abilities, the Board has instead decided to move Innocent Gore from the Bulawayo-based Chronicle to head the editorial at Herald ahead of Zvayi. Zvayi has been deputising William Chikoto who has been moved upstairs into a new role – a usual tactic at Zimpapers when an editor at the flagship Herald is being demoted. Gore’s move from the Chronicle to the Herald is seen as a promotion

Caesar Zvayi with Robert Mugabe -"Left to dry"

given The Herald’s flagship status at Zimpapers. But observers say Zvayi, the former geography teacher, would have expected a promotion particularly given his openly partisan and biased opinions that he regularly publishes in the Herald. “Like all apologists, he would have expected some kind of reward and he must be sorely disappointed at being overlooked for a senior role at The Herald in this reshuffle”, a source said.

Zvayi has had a chequered history at The Herald. The former geography teacher assaulted a female journalist, Thelma Chikwanha in the newsroom in 2005 for which he was arrested and paid an admission of guilt fine. In January 2007, the High Court ordered him to pay damages to Chikwanha after she sued him for the assault.

In 2009 Zvayi, a former political editor faced an internal enquiry into an alleged sexual harassment of a female colleague, Thelma Chikwanha which resulted in him being given a final warning.

In the same year, there were reports of sexual harassment and nepotism at Zimpapers. There revelations were made public in a report by a parliamentary committee on transport and communications which was looking at the state of Zimbabwe’s public media.

Zvayi, once a fiery critic of President Robert Mugabe before switching allegiance has been one ZANU (PF) key apologists who use vast space in the state to issue vitriolic attacks against MDC leader and Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai and his party, who defeated Mugabe and ZANU PF in the March 2008 elections.

The latest reshuffle at Zimpapers saw assistant editor Itai Musengeyi taking the top post at Chronicle. William Chikoto who was Herald editor becomes group editorial executive. Thumeliso Makhurane who was assistant editor at chronicle comes in as senior assistant editor at The Herald while Innocent Madonko from Sunday news fills in Makhurane’s post at The Chronicle.

“The reshuffle is a political move ahead of the coming elections. Chikoto is seen as a softy while Gore and Musengeyi are hardliners”, said a senior reporter at Herald who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Although Zvayi writes so much in support of ZANU PF his loyalty has been questioned especially after he jumped ship at one point fleeing to Botswana where he had got employment at the university. He had an unceremonious departure from Botswana from where he was effectively deported after which he made serious personal attacks against Botswana President Ian Khama.

Sources said, apart from his doubtful journalistic qualifications, his temperament is suspect and it is inconceivable that a person of such temperament could be trusted with the top role at The Herald or even The Chronicle, where Musengeyi has been appointed editor ahead of Zvayi. (ZIMBABWE, ZimEye)

Masaiti Matter: Media Must Avoid Negative Stereotypes against Women and Widows

A recent case involving MDC-T MP Evelyn Masaiti's failed attempt to marry her foreign partner, a Cameroonian yet again illustrates the raw deal women in general and women politicians in particular receive in the media.  The narrative in some media went beyond what was really necessarily to describe the story and instead touched on sensitive issues about Masaiti's private life which seemed to be at casting doubt on her personal integrity. It is doubtful that such treatment would have been meted to a male politician.

For example, having narrated the refusal by the Masvingo Magistrate to preside over the marriage on the ground that her prospective husband had failed to produce the required certificate of no marriage from his home country, some media reports went on to describe how Masaiti's previous husband, Isaac Matongo had died. The language used seemed to suggest that Matongo had died as a result of a sexual encounter with Masaiti. A report on one website describes in the following crude terms: "Matongo died of a heart attack on May 2, 2007, after romping with Masaiti”.

The language suggests that Matongo succumbed to his death following a sexual encounter with Masaiti. This comes after a paragraph that describes Masaiti's alleged infidelity.

Basically the report tries to paint Masaiti's character in hideous terms. In basic terms it says: here is an MP, whose previous three husbands have died, including one who died in the aftermath of a "sexual romp", who has been accused of infidelity and is now seeking to marry a younger, foreign man. At a time when Zimbabwe is apparently making strides to improve the lot of women; to change attitudes toward women and women politicians in particular, such reporting in the media is unhelpful and simply strengthens the age-old stereotypes of women in public life.

It is this type of characterisation that dissuades women from entering public life, let alone participating in politics. Besides the old stereotypes about women, it also perpetuates negative stereotypes about widows. It is unfair, morally questionable and discriminatory to treat women who have suffered misfortune in this way. This is why the constitution must be emphatic about the prohibition of discriminatory conduct towards women on the basis of marital status. It is also the same reason why hate speech or language that promotes hostility and discrimination towards women must be proscribed in the constitution.

Freedom of the media is a wonderful thing which must be vigorously defended but it is important to have provisions which ensure that speech that encourages hate, hostility or discrimination must be prohibited and those responsible for it must be held to account.

One can imagine young women aspiring to enter politics reading such a negative story that reveals ugly but unnecessary private detail about a politician and makes hostile innuendoes. Or a widow who has ambitions to enter politics or participate in public life. Would they be prepared to put up with unnecessary revelations about their private lives - details not about the fact that their husbands died but that seem to suggest that they were somehow responsible for it? And worse, even when such innuendoes are not supported by facts but reflect a reporter's reckless and wild imagination?  It is such attitudes and practices that continue to place serious barriers in the paths of women engaging in politics or public life in general.

The media has a serious responsibility to discharge in undoing the old stereotypes towards women and widows. It has a moral obligation, having so much freedom that is rightfully defended, to promote and further the cause of women.

On the issue of the refusal by the magistrate to preside over the marriage, one would have expected a more robust and critical analysis of the law that effectively prohibits Zimbabweans (men and women, alike) to marry foreigners. Indeed, the requirement to produce a certificate of no marriage could very well be in violation of Zimbabwean citizens' fundamental rights - to movement and association.

Magistrate, Jabulani Mzinyathi is reported to have stated that "Under the law reforms, foreigners are now required to produce a verifiable “certificate of no marriage” from their countries of origin before they marry in Zimbabwe."

This measure is presumably a response to the alleged rampant abuse of the marriage institution which since the landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe in the 1994 case of Rattigan and Others v. Chief Immigration Officer of Zimbabwe, Where it ruled that “ to prohibit the husbands from residing in Zimbabwe and so disable them from living with their wives in the country of which they are citizens and to which they owe allegiance, is in effect to undermine and devalue the protection of freedom of movement accorded to each of the wives as a member of a family unit". This enabled foreign husbands of Zimbabwean citizens to be entitled to live with their wives in Zimbabwe. The various rules and mechanisms that foreign husbands needed to fulfill were therefore a hindrance to women's enjoyment of their constitutional rights especially viewed in the context that Zimbabwean women were at the time being treated differently from their male counterparts. However, this also opened the gates and created a problem from an immigration point of view.

In efforts to control the influx of foreigners trying to exploit Zimbabwe's lax immigration laws through the marriage institution, the state has responded by creating measures to prevent what are commonly referred to as sham marriages or marriages of convenience. It is not unusual for foreigners seeking immigration papers to pay their way into a marriage. The state's mechanisms to control the escalation of such marriages is to require the foreigner to produce a certificate of no marriage.

The public interest to control immigration must be balanced with the private interests of the parties involved, in particular the Zimbabwean's citizen's fundamental rights. Using this test, it is possible to judge whether the requirement of a certificate of no marriage is a reasonable requirement in a democratic society.

How reasonable is it to expect a certificate of no marriage to be produced before a marriage can be allowed? Does this not depend on whether the foreign partner's home country recognises, let alone produces such a certificate in the first place? Does this mean that if the foreign country does not provide for such certificates, the Zimbabwean citizen will be unable to marry her foreign partner under Zimbabwean law? The effect of this requirement could be such that Zimbabwean citizens intending to marry their foreign partners may be prevented from doing so under Zimbabwean law for no other reason except that the certificate of no marriage cannot be produced and not because of the fault of the Zimbabwean citizen or his/her foreign partner. Arguably, this would be unreasonable. It would violate the Zimbabwean's citizen's right to freedom of association which also includes the right to relate to and marry a person of one's choice. The fact that the chosen partner is a foreigner should not be reason enough to discriminate Zimbabwean citizen's right.

In fact, one could ask why the same requirement is not required of two Zimbabwean intending to marry because the very existence of bigamy laws is an acknowledgement of the fact that there are people who marry illegally whilst they are married elsewhere. The same problem of a person marrying whilst married to someone else exists in respect of prospective Zimbabwean spouses as it does in respect of foreigners. The discrimination here is not between the Zimbabwean and the foreigner but between two Zimbabwean citizens one intending to marry a Zimbabwean and the other intending to marry a foreigner. There is no rationale basis for requiring a certificate of no marriage from one but not the other.

It is possible that the requirement can be challenged in court because it may be unconstitutional. One would expect that the media would be more critical of the law as opposed to delving into the private affairs of Masaiti, which are hardly supported by facts. Much of it is innuendo and suggestions regarding her character and personality that borders on vilification? The media does a disservice to the cause of women's empowerment when it perpetuates such stereotypes as we saw in this matter.

It is about striking the right balance between respect for women and a firm assertion of our laws given the current demonization and the insensitivity demonstrated by the press. One’s thoughts are drawn to Oliver Mutukudzi’s timeless song, Neria. The line, “Kufirwa nemurume hanzvadzi, zvinoda mwoyo wekushinga”. (To lose a husband is a difficult ordeal, my sister. It requires a strong heart.)

Masaiti and those in her unfortunate position may find some comfort in these words. But we must take responsibility; accept equality and the emancipation of women. How we treat women politicians or women in public life in general is fundamental in this endeavour. 

This article was originally published on www.newzimbabwe.com , www.zimeye.org , http://www.nehandaradio/ , http://www.herald.co.zw/ & http://www.allafrica.com/

Mzembi, Nhema plagued by humiliation as conservancy woes mount.

The latest invasion of Chiredzi River Conservancy (CRC) has left Walter Mzembi and Francis Nhema, ministers responsible for Zimbabwe’s Tourism and Environment respectively facing a rare political humiliation.

Minister Mzembi is now in China, after visiting Chicago and Berlin, preparing for Zimbabwe to host the United Nations World Tourism Organisation Assembly in Victoria Falls next year. But greater abuse is taking place at home.

Invasions on Sunday 18th March 2012 of Oscro and Wasara Ranch, CRC exploded into the open with horrific images of freshly slaughtered elephants. Gangs of armed men could be seen building structures.
Barely last month, Francis Nhema acknowledged the problem of poaching and vowed to do more to help the situation. Mzembi also said that anyone who seeks to violate the law through invasions will be arrested.

A sceptical Zimbabwe based conservationists told ZimEye.com, “It appears these Ministers are not for real regarding saving wildlife in Conservancies, particularly CRC. No action on the ground. What is Mzembi and Nhema doing about it? Appears nothing, just paying lip service. They can stop an MDC meeting with all its support in Zimbabwe, at a moment’s notice, but cannot stop the invasions. It is very apparent that it has been planned for a long time to destroy what is left, and carry this out to the end”.

So it comes as something of a shock to see Mzembi “Crowned African Tourism Minister of the year 2011″, said a leading Wildlife Conservationist based at University of Kent’s School of Anthropology & Conservation. He went on to say “It is ridiculous that when Zimbabwe is due to host a major tourism conference, it is allowing marauding gangs to violate conservancies and animal rights so flagrantly. It takes Zimbabwe back many steps”.

Meanwhile, Zimbabwean conservationists and animal-rights groups have hit out at Donald Trump’s millionaire sons, Donald Jnr and Eric for cruelty after photographs emerged on the internet of them standing next to animals shot dead during a hunting holiday in Zimbabwe last year.

Nhema vows to fight for Zimbabwe’s remaining wildlife

The Minister in charge of Zimbabwe’s Environment, Francis Nhema, has urged people not just to politicise issues relating to wildlife but to do more to help the deteriorating situation, after it emerged that ZANU (PF) and other senior government officials are involved in butchering of elephants in Chiredzi River Conservancy (CRC) and Gonarezhou National Parks.

He responded this morning after criticism from Kerry Kay, Secretary for Environment and Climate Change (MDC T), for not showing any muscle to stop the destruction of the environment and wildlife, especially the despicable way in which National Parks Officials have behaved.

I would rather have more animals than human beings - Nhema

Unconfirmed reports say that out of 70 CRC resident elephants, in 2011 alone, only about 40 are accounted for today.

Mr Nhema pinned the blame on greedy individuals working with foreigners going beyond their remit in acting illegally, but environmental campaigners (names withheld) said he is looking for scapegoats and that these destructions were a direct result of ignorance and government orders.

In a telephone interview, from Harare, the soft spoken politician Nhema said that these issues of illegal ivory trade have been raised with the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) a number of times but it seems not only Zimbabwe, but Africa is losing to these highly sophisticated military-like operators. “The developed nations are not doing enough to help in this regard as our governments do not always have resources to keep pace with poachers. I would rather have more animals than human beings, they are innocent souls. They don’t know politics at all. What we need is help to separate the two issues, fight and deal with the crime”, he said.


In his statement, scientific support officer at CITES Secretariat based in Geneva, Tom Demeulenaer, reiterated that reports have been received from Zimbabwe but the problem is validating the claims made by the media. “Zimbabwe used to be a leader in environment and wildlife and we are aware that it has lost its standards and hope that will be restored before it is too late”, he said.


CITES has since established Monitoring Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIK), a watchdog based in South Africa. Tapera Chimuti, who heads the Pretoria office could not be reached for comment at the time of writing. But Mr Walter Mzembi, Zimbabwe’s Tourism Minister issued a bold statement in February saying his government was ready to bring perpetrators to justice, whatever their status or affiliation.


“In 2013, Zimbabwe alongside Zambia host the United Nations World Tourism Organisation Assembly in Victoria Falls and any violation of CITES code of conduct will damage its reputation and their drive to promote tourism” said a World Society for Protection of Animals Official in London.

What difference does the Mujuru’s inquest make?

                                                   

The death of General Solomon Mujuru (who was known by his liberation war nom de guerre: Rex Nhongo) on 16 August 2011 left many Zimbabweans with divided opinion .While the tension is high due, to the on-going inquest into his death, people need to learn the lesson that the aim of this exercise is not to apportion blame but to discuss the evidence surrounding this case.

Today marks the sixth day of the investigation in Harare. So far ordinary Zimbabweans through social networks and media have focused almost all of their attention on oral evidence, and in particular contradictory testimonies .As a result most of the hearing so far has been uncovering government catastrophes and not its accountability.

Inside that Harare Magistrate courtroom, there have been twenty-six witnesses. Made up of several professionals, they have been a continuing inconsistence throughout the chronicles. For the first time I have actually asked myself and other concerned countrymen what the inquest is trying to achieve. As our society’s history pointed, the findings of this inquest aren’t likely to bring the culprits to account any time soon.

One respected Reuters  Correspondent  based in Harare I spoke to took his position with caution and argued that, this  inquest is more about a mere formality than necessarily seeking to establish the truth. Another senior academic based in London told me: “Lots of people know what’s going on. Think about the circumstances in which we lost Herbert Chitepo and Josiah Tongogara.Then you can understand who stands to gain most from the Nhongo’s death”.

They also argued that it was not the inquest’s role to bring people to book. As MDC-UK Southampton Branch vice- Chairperson, Mr Bornwell Madzingira rather concisely put it:” They are pointing out who the killers are. We might suggest that the perpetrators are tried and face the music, but it is impossible when there is no judicial independence”.  Another Zimbabwean Independent paper editor based in Hampshire added: “What would be good though is to fire and jail those who failed to execute their professional duties”.

All the people I spoke to about this issue are more sceptical and clearly sure about the circumstances surrounding Mujuru’s death; and they don’t seem to have had the problems with their judgement. Despite this, I have had a rather uneasy feeling. The inquest will continue but is it actually going to make any difference? We have had several government inquests on the death of key members since 1980, but even with the overwhelming evidence within our domain, there were no accusations or confessions implicating known suspects. Thus, the investigation may prove pointless since it does not offer any plausible findings.

I think the wider problem that needs to be faced is the unpleasant truth that the ailing despot Robert Mugabe may have either personally sanctioned or instigated these target assassinations over the last thirty-four years in his quest to cling on to power. Zanu (PF) faithful might try to point to their saviour’s defence during the time, but that ignores the fact that his success, has been mainly due to his calculated elimination of his political opponents and also due to the one-sided systems that carry out and report these inquests. Since then, the veil has become so thin for him to conceal his tracks. Most of these deaths have been blamed on foreign governments and members of the opposition. However, his actions on devouring friends and enemies go further than nation could ever have imagined.

Zanu (PF) distanced itself from these proceedings. On the opening day of the probe, reports said that Robert Mugabe recalled the General’s widow, VP Joyce Mujuru during the hearing. The trouble with this is that when the public sentiments are full of expectation, the least they want to hear is this kind of irresponsible behaviour from a Head of State. People were made even worse to suspect foul play. This demonstrates a clearly new meaning of the word respect I was before unaware of.

While I think the investigation should go ahead, I believe one of the most important questions they need to address is the previous shortcomings and if any lessons have been learnt over the past thirty-two years. Until they do, Mugabe will continue to set the agenda and we will be back to repeating the mistakes that got us into this tragedy in the first place.

Free Zimbabwe Global Protest: Worth all the sweat.

By Gift Kugara & Bornwell Madzingira.

Last Saturday, hundreds of brave Zimbabweans brought The Strand to a standstill as they marched from Zimbabwe House in London to the South African embassy. They presented a petition to the President of the Republic of South Africa, Jacob Zuma.

Understandably, the mood was upbeat given the usually bad weather. Although angry with what many called a slow progress in the implementation of Global Political Agreement (GPA) signed in between the ZANU(PF)’s ageing tyranny  Robert Mugabe and the two Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) formations in February 2009. The process was mediated by Thabo Mbeki who was leading South Africa at the time.

Among other grievances raised include continued violation of fundamental rights , denial of diaspora vote , dual citizenship and use of state apparatus by Mugabe’s regime to target political opponents particularly MDC and ZAPU members .Speaker after speaker, they narrated horrific ordeals they endured at the hands of Central Intelligence Organisation , Police and the Army before they fled Zimbabwe.

And even more strangely, there is less than perfect constitutional process .Mugabe has threatened to abandon the process and call for an election. He was since received a sounding support from Jabulani Sibanda, a war veterans leader who has been going around terrorising the rural populace. A respected retired Colonel Bernard Matongo who was representing MDC-UK’s Hertfordshire Branch expressed resentment on the use of war veterans in political campaigns as they are notoriously known for killing and abusing women .Moreover, he cited how Mugabe gave in to previous ex-combatant   leaders’ demands that later backfired.

Tawanda Muchanyuka from the same Hertfordshire Branch said: “Indeed, far from  living like normal  citizens ZANU(PF) and the War Veterans ‘ actions have fostered gangsterism on a scale that the world has never seen before”.

And 21 year old Ruramai Madzingira from Portsmouth who also took to the streets said she was delighted to be part of this democratic and peaceful protest. “I can only look forward to the future now, as I believe the people’s demands will finally be respected  and there is evidence of failure and repression by  ZANU(PF)and a further evidence of autocratic  tendencies even in the presence of GPA”, she said.

But eventually the signed  petition was handed in and thank God for that .Because it not only provided  a vital awakening to Zuma, that he has to act now and the world is watching but also reminded him that Zimbabweans helped South Africa in its fight against apartheid.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 Gift Kugara is a Zimbabwean political blogger and writes: Letter from Buhera at www.giftkugara.blogspot.com  & Mr Bornwell Madzingira is the MDC-UK  Vice Chair at Southampton Branch.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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.