Black Looks

• SOPUDEP [Haiti] Scholarship Programme needs your support

  Posted: August 29, 2011, 6:25 pm by Sokari

  
  
  

   

  While SOPUDEP School provides accessible education from kindergarten to grade 12, Director Réa Dol often expresses the frustration she feels when her students simply have no means to continue their studies, in hopes of finding better work or a career. In a rural setting, the pursuit of higher education may not be as vital, with substantial energies focused on agriculture production and selling their bounty at the local markets – although make no mistake, that due to the continual destabilization of their agro-business by foreign powers, the rural population have their own set of problems and life is very hard. But in an urban setting, there aren’t many means for self sufficiency. This means that the poor class, whether uneducated, or those with some primary and even secondary education, are more at risk for unemployment, or to suffer at the hands of employers that can easily exploit them. Therefor, trade skill training and University can help give these poorer cast youth a substantial leg up. It may also serve to quiet the voice that says that higher education belongs almost exclusively to the rich.

  For these bright young people, extended education means that they will have an opportunity to better serve their country and their fellow citizen’s. A career for them is not isn’t a means to an end, but a way for them to affect change.

  For this first year, we have posted only three of SOPUDEP’s star students. We hope that all three will be able to attend the school of their choice for the duration of their studies. The following is a short introduction to each of these students, including school, program and cost. Links to the Schools websites have also been provided.

  Name: Sauvelyne Louis Jean
  Birthday: 07/07/ 1989
  From: Jacmel
  School: Quisqueya University, Port-au-Prince
  Option chosen: Education science
  Years: 4
  Price per trimester: $619 US
  Price per  year: $1857  US + cost of textbooks and basic supplies

   

  Name: Kervens Jean Noël
  Birthday: 11/06/1987
  From: Pétion-ville
  School: Institut Supérieur Technique d’Haiti, Port-au-Prince
  Option chosen: Civil Engineering
  Years: 4
  Price per Year: $1471.25 US + cost of textbooks and basic supplies
  Price per quadmester: $367.82 US
  

   

  Name: Marie Trainne Charles
  Birthday: 09/27/1991
  From: Jérémie
  School: University of Notre Dame d’Haiti, Port-au-Prince
  Option chosen: Nursing science
  Years: 4
  Price per year: $1400 US + cost of textbooks and basic supplies
  Price per month: $140 US

   

  As there is a substantial commitment involved in seeing that one of these students can finish their studies, it might be something that an individual, family, group of friends, or a single organization would take on as a project.

  If one decides to help put one of these students through school, they will receive regular updates of that student, including pertinent information on their scholastics.

   

  More information on how you can support the students.

   

• Changing relationship between “information and power”

  Posted: August 25, 2011, 1:16 pm by Sokari

  
  
  

  Last week Paul Gilroy spoke at a meeting in Tottenham on the recent riots in London and elsewhere. Gilroy makes some insightful observations on the differences between the 1980s and 2011 for example the relationship between information and power has changed along with the way we as a nation are “managed”…

  The difference between 1981 and now is that the relationship between information and power has been changed, and our tactics for understanding our defence of our communities have to take those changes into account. And that means that we have to think very carefully about how we engage with the media. I’m very happy that there are people here who are independent distributors of information and news, who are circulating what goes on here and circulating interpretations of what’s happened in this country. We have to get it to people outside of our country–we have to internationalize it. We have to think about how technology can work for us. And media is not something transparent.

  Because what happens in the digitalization of media and privatization is the contraction and the impoverishment of our media. People talk about “dumbing down”–it’s not just about dumbing down–it’s something different than that. And that means that there’s a much tighter control over what can be said.

  And that technology which is so different from in 1981 is also part of what I’d like to call, tonight, a securitocracy, ruling us through security. And that means the DNA in your bodies, in your mouths, in DNA swabs, the CCTV cameras that are all around us here…And, and this is another interesting feature of last week, the way the spin operation works. The media, owned by people like Murdoch, have a ‘golden hour’ after the story breaks, in which they can fix the story, and then that fixed story grows, like a snowball rolling downhill.

  What is amazing is that the police admit to 100,000 searches under the terrorist legislation yet not one of these has led to an arrest – so the question is on what basis, what intelligence were these searches carried out and in what manner? One observation Gilroy makes which stands out for me is the “privatisation of the movement” or the “consultariat”. This is something which is also happening across countries in Africa with the NGO-isation of activism and movements and no doubt is happening elsewhere across the world – which leads to a loss of imagination but I think that is the point. It’s happening in Nigeria right now with activists abandoning movement building in exchange for contract building in Abuja.

  When you look at the layer of political leaders from our communities, the generation who came of age during that time thirty years ago, many of those people have accepted the logic of privatization. They’ve privatized that movement, and they’ve sold their services as consultants and managers and diversity trainers. They’ve sold their services to the police, they’ve sold them to the army, they’ve sold them to the corporate world…go to some of their websites and you’ll see how proud they are of their clients. And that means that, in many areas, the loss of experience, the loss of the imagination is a massive phenomenon. So that the young people in the courts today don’t have a defence campaign. They don’t have one yet, but I hope that one will develop.

  So a lot of that leadership has been channeled into the local government, and has formed a kind of “consultariat.” And if you want to understand what that means, you have to look at places like South Africa, where, in the process after the end of apartheid, a whole layer of militants, a whole layer of people went over, and they got their pensions, and they sold this, and they sold that, because the government, in changing that society, thought that having a Black middle class was going to be the way to do it. Well, that’s not the way it’s going to work here. [applause] Continue reading ……..

• Libya: ‘Rats’ and ‘Dogs’ defeated humans?

  Posted: August 23, 2011, 2:21 am by Rumbidzai Dube

  
  
  

  As the Libyan rebels gain ground towards Tripoli every news station is talking about an end to the grip on power that Gaddafi has had over Libya for 42 years. And just some hours ago the Colonel lost a grip on himself and in an outburst called the rebels ‘dogs’ and ‘rats.’ This got me wondering who are the real rats and dogs in this equation. The unarmed civilian protestors who, inspired by their counterparts in the region, peacefully assembled asking for ‘democratic reforms’ and in return received warplanes, warships, tanks, artillery, and live fire from their government? The rebels who, provoked by a rigid government that was not willing to negotiate took up arms and welcomed assistance from NATO forces to resolve their ‘Libyan’ crisis? The leaders and nations behind the NATO forces who ‘could’ be driven by nothing more than political and economic expediency? A leader and his government on the verge of total collapse who for 42 years systematically eroded all freedoms of the media, speech, assembly and association; who tortured all opposition, disappeared many and killed scores more? A leader who launched a war against his own people and killed more than 6,000 lives in just 6 months?

  Surely without NATO intervention we would have seen one of the following outcomes in Libya:

  1. Disintegration into a perpetual civil war

  Highly likely! When two or more warring sides are driven the battle will go on until one side has no more people or resources to fight. Another DRC – another Somalia – a protracted war, with a government that holds power in some regions of the country while others are controlled by rebels. Lawlessness and ultimately a debilitation into a perpetual state of insecurity is what we would have seen.

  2. Defeat for the rebels-brutal punishment from the restored leader

  With no NATO to stretch the Gaddafi resources both human and military, the rebels would have faced the full wrath of the Gaddafi forces. Eventually they would have run out of arms, if no (more) covert supplies were given to them. Gaddafi would have regained his control over Beghazi. This would in all likelihood signify severe bloodshed as the wounded leader wiped out every single trace of an attempted mutiny. Libya would have given historians yet another ‘Reign of Terror’ to document. Very likely! No wonder NATO did not leave it to chance for this outcome to come to pass.

  3. Defeat for the rebels-mercy from a benevolent leader

  The rebels would have run out of ammunition. Gaddafi would have crashed the protests and resumed his post at the helm of Libya as President. He would then have reflected on the cause of the protests, instigated reforms, promised to step down, arrange for the holding of free and fair elections and we would never heard of him in a bad light anymore. Really? More of a pipe dream and delusional wishful thinking, I would say, given the man’s history.

  4. Impasse-Negotiated solution
  Maybe the two sides would have fought until they were tired of it then sought a negotiated solution whereupon they would enter into a power sharing government and live happily ever after the way Raila Odinga and Mwai Kibaki in Kenya or Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai have been doing in Zimbabwe. To borrow one my friends’ expression this would have been ‘[absolute] nonsense upon stilts.’

  Picture credit: African Cultural Renaissance Artists

  What we have now is a post-NATO-intervention Libya. NATO efforts were ‘allegedly’ focused on ‘ the protection of civilians.’ To what extent this is true history shall reveal in due course as it has always done. But what other alternative was there really? Would it have been better for NATO to stand on the sidelines while Gaddafi, the butcher prepared a barbeque out of his own people’s flesh? Would the intervention have been more legitimate had it been by the African Union? Was the African Union ever going to stop the killings?

  Fears remain that factions within the rebel groups could disintegrate into inter-rebel fights for political control. More fears are that pro-Gaddafi fighters will continue to pose a security threat to Libya launching incursions, possibly ‘terroristic attacks’ and haunt Libya even after Gaddafi is gone. Worse still as I write, Gaddafi himself is nowhere to be found. God forbid that he be on his way to Zimbabwe to join his long term friends Bob and Mengistu. I am convinced the four scenarios I posed above would never have been better options and if the rebels do not rapidly assert control a protracted war could still be a possibility. Should the new authorities also fail to assert control over their resources then history shall reveal the real rats and dogs.

• They are all terrorists

  Posted: August 20, 2011, 2:14 am by Rumbidzai Dube

  
  
  

  When most of us hear the word terrorist this is the picture that forms in our heads because it is the most flagged stereotype.

  Picture credit http://blogs.jamaicans.com/yaadinfo/files/2011/07/Pissed_Off_Terrorist_by_Wescoast.jpg

  A long bearded man, wearing a flowing robe, with a keffiyeh-Islamic headscarf- for men or a hijab for women and most probably a practicing Muslim. Yet this image and perception is fraught with inaccuracies. It is neither perpetually true nor justified.

  I am also greatly concerned by the skewed reporting by the wider press on incidences whose impact is grave and whose nature is terroristic. For instance the recent killings by Anders Breivik of 87 of his fellow Norwegians earned him the labels a ‘far-right Norwegian nationalist with ardent -anti Muslim views’, ‘a right wing extremist’ (Wikipedia), a far right extremist (BBC News) a mad man (The Time World), a ‘Norwegian mass killer’ (The Telegraph) and a self confessed mass killer (The Guardian). Yet when Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab tried to detonate a bomb aboard a Detroit bound flight headlines such as these were all over the news:

  Detroit terror attack: profile of Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab – The Telegraph

  Source: Terror suspect’s father tried to warn authorities – CNN Justice

  Flight 253 terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab led life of luxury in London before attempted attack – Daily News UK

  Terror suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab… Investigations still to be completed reveal he visited Houston in 2008 – The Examiner, Texas US

  Clearly attaching the label ‘terrorist’ to Mutallab was an easier task for the press than it was with regard to Breivik. Worse still Breivik actually carried his act through yet Mutallab only had the intention but his plans failed. Do not get me wrong, Mutallab’s failure to detonate the bomb does not in any way make him less of a terrorist but one can not help but wonder what the cause and reasoning behind the differential labelling could possibly be.

  Two days ago, my friend, Sarah Dorman, was reading a book called ‘The First Terrorists.’ I could not read it because it was in Arabic and my Arabic is still very much elementary but I did ask what it was about. She said it is an analysis of the origins of terrorism from an Islamic point of view. The book apparently identifies the Israelis as the first terrorists, arguing that the Zionist movement, which saw the Israelis trying to set up a nation and in the process displacing Palestinians began the war on terror. The book argues that had Israel not started the war against Palestinians, Arabic Islamists would not have had a reason to retaliate. And so it appears that blame shifting, labeling and in some instances misrepresentation is the order of the day when it comes to identifying who is a terrorist. It is with this struggle to define a terrorist in mind that I reached my conclusion and it is as follows:

  The word terror existed before the terms terrorist or terrorism were created. The Oxford dictionary describes terror as ‘a feeling of extreme fear.’ The Cambridge Smart Thesaurus explains it as violent action which causes extreme fear. The Cambridge Thesaurus goes on to explain that terror is synonymous with fear, panic, fright, horror and dread. The Collins English Dictionary describes terror as great fear, panic or dread inspired by a troublesome person. The definitions of terror cannot get any better than these three sources, or at least my Advanced Level English Literature teacher, Miss Mpeti would say so. I believed and do still believe her.

  Using these definitions, it means that any person who commits acts or threatens to commit acts that instill fear, horror and panic in people is committing terror and is therefore a terrorist. So from:

  Osama Bin Laden (considered to be the worst terrorist ever) who took out the twin towers and killed many in the USA;
  Al Qaeda who burn whole villages in Afghanistan and Pakistan;
  Joseph Kony who killed, raped and maimed civilians in Northern Uganda and continue doing so in parts of Southern Sudan and the DRC;
  Omar Al Bashir who killed, displaced, and instigated the rape and are still killing, displacing and instigating the rape thousands in Darfur, South Kordofan and South Sudan;
  George Bush responsible for wars that caused and still cause the death and maiming of thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan;
  Benjamin Netanyau and his Israeli government who have caused great suffering on Palestinian civilians;
  Retaliating Palestinian Liberation Organisation members who attack Israelis with suicide bombers;
  Genociders in Germany in particular the Holocaust by Nazis, Rwanda 1994, Zimbabwe in the Gukurahundi 1987 and Operation Mavhoterapapi 2008, Cambodia mass killing by the Khmer Rouge, Indonesian slaughter of the East Timorese;
  Al-Shabab attackers on Uganda in July 2010;
  Individuals responsible for the numerous bomb blasts in Nigeria, India, Pakistan;
  Umar Farouk, the Nigerian who attempted to detonate bombs in an aeroplane and;
  Anders Behring Breivik the Norwegian man who killed more than 87 of his own people they are all terrorists.

  Terrorists live among us. They do not only wear headscarfs and masks, they also dress in smart suits and pretty dresses. They could be men or women. They could practice Christianity, Islam or any other religion. They might have a reason for their actions driven by certain ideologies or philosophies or they may just terrorise others out of a sadistic character complex.

  So despite the many specific definitions provided in UN Conventions against Terrorism, and despite the fact that genocide is defined differently in the Convention on the prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide from terror, when we go back to the basic description of the feeling in the people against whom these acts are committed; it is terror. And it does not matter if the individuals committing the act are seating heads of state, power hungry tyrants, ambitious drug-lords, war mongering warlords, religious fundamentalists or common thieves. In my view, they are all terrorists and should be treated with the highest condemnation and disdain!

• Democracy is African too!!!

  Posted: August 15, 2011, 3:19 am by Rumbidzai Dube

  
  
  

  So many times I have heard one too many African leaders deriding the idea of democracy as a Western driven agenda meant to achieve regime change. They have argued that the aim of the West is to get rid of all the strongly nationalist and patriotic leaders and movements that have been in power since independence from colonial rule. They have insisted that the West seeks to assist weak-minded politicians to come into power. The argument is that these weaklings would then serve the interests of the West, particularly through giving them easy and unlimited access to Africa’s vast resources in the extractive industry including oil, gold, diamonds and other precious stones, uranium and other minerals. My president has often called such leaders ‘puppets’ and at times ‘stooges of the West.’ He has also referred to the main opposition leader as ‘an ambitious frog’ ’a white man masquerading as a black’ and ‘a tea boy for his white boss.’ Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni has alleged that Africans cannot speak of democratisation until they have transformed their economies from the pre-industrial age suggesting that democratisation should be a separate process from economic development yet it is the democratisation of these economic policies, of the political space and of society in general that African citizens are seeking.

  Should there be a grain of truth to the African leaders’ position, that the West has hidden behind the veil of ‘democratisation’ to selfishly serve their own agendas; that cannot be used as a justification in concluding that democracy is merely a Western tool to gain access to Africa’s resources. It cannot also be the reason why African leaders continue to repress the press, harass fighters for social justice, resist electoral reforms and launch terror campaigns to remain in power. In fact a quick survey will show that most of Africa’s terrible leaders have survived because of the support they have received from the West. To mind comes the case of the US whose engagement with the highly corrupt Gabonese government has never considered prioritizing meaningful reform. Besides the obvious benefits from the oil, the thousands of Gabonese languishing in poverty could as well be invisible to the Americans. The same can also be said in the case of the government of Obiang Nguema in Equitorial Guinea which for years has exacted a terrible humanitarian crisis on its people through its corruption and repressive rule yet few in the West have raised a finger against it.

  Besides, this manipulation of political power for personal gain by influential states is not just a ‘Western’ phenomenon. The rising economies in the Global South such as China have also supported terrible governments such as that of Sudan and Zimbabwe in exchange for oil and mineral deposits respectively. South Africa for instance; which has the military, political, diplomatic, and financial/economic capabilities to influence the affairs of the region has for years ignored the quest for human rights, calls for freedom of speech, assembly, and association by Zimbabweans when they were being trampled upon by the Zimbabwean government. South Africa idly watched on as a spectator. Indeed the Zimbabwean political and economic meltdown served the South African agenda. Being a new nation, requiring extensive properly trained and qualified professional personnel in their numerous schools, hospitals and companies South Africa did nothing to stem the flow of trained brains from Zimbabwe into their country. The vacant posts were filled and continue to be filled; cheaply too because the ‘desperate’ Zimbabweans do not hold too many bargaining chips.
  
  It is with these facts in mind that I ask myself whether the question of the Africanness of democracy, the meaning of democracy and its relevance as a phenomenon to the African context should be asked at all. I would think not. Scholars might have debated this concept left, right and center and some may have concluded it is a nifty ideal but who needs a fancy definition of democracy when the people on the ground are defining it themselves. Africans are tired of enduring long years of dictatorships, brutality against peaceful democracy campaigns, as well as series of coups and protracted civil wars. They have had enough insecurity and are looking for stability which allows them to live normal lives. They are seeking to set up governments of the people, for the people and by the people taking us back to the simplest and most accurate definition of democracy.

  A wise African woman said something that I found to be quite profound and a concise summary explaining the rising quest for democratisation and improved governance amongst African populations. She said;
  “African states have failed to inspire loyalty in the citizenry; produce a political class with [real] integrity and [genuine] national interest; [they have failed] to [impress upon] the military, the police and security forces their proper roles in society; to build nations consisting of different linguistic and cultural groups and to fashion economically viable economic policies.” (Makau wa Mutua in Human Rights and the African Fingerprint)
  Indeed these are the woes besieging the African continent- despotism, autocracy, police brutality, ethnic strife, poverty, inequitable distribution of wealth and corruption. Africa is riddled by self-serving governments and politicians whose sole purpose for participating in politics is their own self aggrandisement. In my country as in many others on our continent I have never heard the politicians mention the words ‘Nationalism’ or ‘Patriotism’ unless elections are around the corner and usually those words are mentioned to discredit their opponents perceived to be ‘sell outs’ trying to subject the nation to neocolonialist ideologies.

  Police forces and in some cases military forces, terrorise the very populations they ought to protect. Reports of police brutality and abuses by the military against political activists, journalists, student activists, women activists and the general masses are widespread on our continent. Africa has recorded scores of deaths and has seen untold suffering because of wars fought merely because people belonged to different ethnic groups. More often than not politicians fuel these differences in order to capitalise on them to score political victories. Most recent examples would be the ongoing fighting in the Southern Kordofan and Darfur regions of Sudan. Also still fresh in our memories would be the genocide in Rwanda and the period of the Gukurahundi in Zimbabwe when one’s ethnicity was the difference between life and death. Corruption is also endemic. Governments have poor or poorly executed economic policies ploughing our continent underground and causing it to be identified as the richest continent in abstract but the poorest and least developed in reality. In the case of Zimbabwe, an economy that was so prosperous and deserving to be called Africa’s ‘breadbasket’ has indeed become a ‘basket case.’

  It is not surprising then that against this backdrop of deteriorating standards of living, high levels of unemployment, and widespread repression nations should rise in protest. So yes, let scholars say all they want and let philosophers find something to ‘philosophise’ but when it comes down to the basics I will tell you that democracy is African too because Africans are defining it for themselves. It is what drove the Tunisians, Egyptians and Gabonese in January; Angolans, Cameroonians and Djiboutis in February, Swazis and the Burkinabe in April; the Ugandans in May and the Malawians in July onto the streets. It is why every year thousands of people take to the ballot box to choose their leaders, despite previous experiences of that process’ futility in bringing about change.

  It is in their claim for an environment that allows them to thrive to their full potential economically, socially, politically, religiously, culturally, physically and spiritually. It is in their denunciation of ruthless and corrupt governments and brutal police forces. It is embodied in their demands for equal distribution of wealth and an end to the current dogma where the rich keep getting richer and the poor poorer. It is in their fight for dignity and freedom, their quest for victory.

  And it did not begin with the recent protests. The quest for democracy may not have been called as such but it was already evident when the whole of Africa fought against colonial rule. The things we hated in the white supremacist political order characterised by exclusion of the majority from the means of production; deep divides between the rich and poor and the educated and uneducated; the torture, murder, forced disappearances and inhumane and degrading treatment of those who dared to speak against the ‘evil’ white regimes; denial of equal opportunities for all citizens; and the exploitation of national resources for the benefit of a few are the same things we denounce in the current crop of leadership on the African continent. Hence calls for democratisation are calls for a restoration of humanity and dignity to the masses. Surely that cannot be said to be un-African when several African cultures embrace the concept of humanity recognizing that ‘to be human is to affirm one’s humanity by recognizing the humanity in others.’ We call it ‘hunhu’ in Shona in Zimbabwe. They call it ‘ubuntu’ in Zulu in South Africa and Rwanda Rundi in Rwanda and Burundi, ‘botho’ in Botswana, obuntu in Uganda and Tanzania, ‘umundu’ in Kikuyu in Kenya, ‘vumuntu’ in ShiTsonga in Mozambique and ‘bomoto’ in Bobangi in DRC , ‘insenniya’ in Egyptian.

  So peoples have challenged the legitimacy of political establishments to the proportions of the Egyptian and Tunisian Revolutions where whole nations brought things to a standstill until leaders were effectively overthrown but also in a series of concerted efforts over a long period of time through organised social and political movements exercising civil disobedience and continually fighting for democratic reforms.

  If anyone will insist that democracy is un-African shall we also accept that the opposite is African? Clearly not because autocracy is not an African phenomenon, it is a human phenomenon. It existed throughout ancient civilizations and for generations, monarchies and dynasties on all continents displayed variations of it. From Shaka Zulu in South Africa who buried virgins with his dead mother, to Louis the XVI in France who used the guillotine on every dissenting voice during his reign. Even great historical figures such as Alexander the Great Macedonian King, Napoleon Bonaparte the French leader who tried to control the world, renowned communist Chinese leader Mao Tse Tung and the Great Ethiopian Emperor Haille Selassie have had despotic/autocratic characteristics attached to the historical accounts of their reign.

  So neither democracy nor autocracy belong to any specific people and cannot be imported to a people. Democracy is a human element that can only exist when it has been demanded by those who want it in the same way that autocracy can be rid of by those who do not want it. As Martin Luther King Junior rightly said, freedom can never be given by the oppressor; it has to be demanded by the oppressed. As in history when uprisings took place during the Russian, French and Great American Revolutions, the quests for freedom, good governance, and defiance of rulers that deny majorities a life of dignity, remain the reasons why African peoples seek to democratise.

  There is no need therefore to look beyond the people’s clamour for freedom and justice to seek imaginary ‘detracting’ external forces. The Egyptian example throws this argument in the face of its expositors because the usual forces perceived to be spreading democracy as an absolute truth in order to serve their own political agendas, were clearly opposed to the revolution succeeding and only supported the revolutionaries when it was clear that it was going to succeed. It was the sheer bravery and courage of the protestors that yielded a success. For days after the people of Egypt took to the streets, the West did not lift a finger to fight for them against the brutal attacks they faced. In fact the West had not lifted a finger for decades when the people of Egypt faced a repression so heavy that they bore numerous violations each day. Egypt had not had a democratic election in ages yet no one from the West seemed to see anything particularly wrong with that. Surely if democracy was a Western driven agenda the West would have rushed to the rescue of the Egyptians in the face of such blatant undemocratic tendencies.

  My position may be challenged by the developments in Libya which some have seen as another chance for the West to exploit oil resources in the name of change. Without seeking to dismiss the possibility that the involvement of the Western states might have elements of economic expediency, one must never lose sight of the fact that the forces in Libya are not purely Western. Belgium, Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, Greece, Romania, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States and Turkey may be Western but Qatar, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates are definitely not, yet they all have forces helping the protestors now turned rebel fighters fighting for democratic change in Libya.

  So the next time you hear anyone saying that democracy does not exist and that if it does it is not African , tell them it is in your right to practice your religion freely and without fear, to speak freely, and to criticise politicians without fear of arrest, torture or forced disappearance. Tell them it is in your right to elect leaders of your choice and to make such a choice in a violence-free and intimidation-free environment. Above all you must tell them it is in your right to live, to eat, to have clean water, to have a roof over your head with proper sanitation, to get proper medical treatment when you fall ill, and to send your children to the school of your choice. Explain that democracy lies in the collective power of a people; that it is in a people’s perception of how their resources and country should be governed and the measure of how their aspirations can and should be fulfilled. Tell them that democracy is African too.

• “Looking for Kato” by Kenne Mwikya & Amil Khassim

  Posted: August 12, 2011, 4:32 pm by Sokari

  
  
  

  Kenne and a friend, Amil Khassim discuss the death of David Kato and what it means to for queer rights and queer activists in East Africa.  Some six months on David has been forgotten in the frenzied media which hops from story to story like kangaroos on a mission to nowhere.    For the queer community particularly in Uganda and the wider East African region, David’s death was a shock not just for it’s brutality but the reality of hate expressed.   The conversation is moving and honourable.  Thank you Kenne and Amil for this  thoughtful piece……

  Amil

  Then, I met up with another friend in town who said he’d been to the burial; that gay men wore rainbow shirts, and there was quite the fight for his body by them. His neighbours abandoned his corpse, but the gay men were persistent in claiming it and eventually burying him.

  It made me think about honour.

  He was honourable, you know?

  The fact that death has been much of a theme in my poetry, and in a way, much of the philosophy I’ve read, I take a more critical approach to his death. The man’s death was quite mysterious. For crying out loud, people just said he was beaten up to death.

  No one publicly, was arrested or charged for murder.

  Indeed, many have forgotten who David was.

  Whereas, for many queer men, his death was a shocking revelation of their fate. I’m sort of ambiguous about this, because I felt that visibility was important, and as such projects like these curated by the Makerere University have emerged. I think death has a way of bridging meaning with nonsensical aggression. Trust me, I’m not one for war and clamour, but people always find themselves seeing a person at death.

  If they’ve forgotten him, they won’t forget other homosexual men. If they’ve been trying to kill someone else, all that has been blown by the death of David Kato. Even, the tabloids that had printed lists and lists of queers couldn’t laugh at his death, you know?

  Kenne

  How was his death perceived by Ugandans in general? I come back to this question because it is so integral to what we have come to see as East Africa’s activist culture. In extension, the question would maybe be “how does the public come to terms with activists and activism in general”?

  I don’t want to believe that we have come to the end of the discussion because I think that talking about Kato’s influence on where today’s politics are moving is something that must be addressed before we move on. Underneath a huge overlay of invocations of his death linked with the “hopeless” situation in Uganda are people, like the organisers of this project, who are genuinely concerned with his legacy, want to take issue with this notion that his demise as another mantle upon which the pathologisation of queer/homophobic Uganda takes place. Sokari Ekine said that Makerere University has a lot of progressives and thus the possibility and actualisation of this project, could there be more to this? All this in light of the fact that you didn’t study at Makerere, of course.

  …. Continue reading.

   

   

   

• links for 2011-08-11

  Posted: August 11, 2011, 5:02 pm by Sokari

  
  
  

  • Pambazuka – Famine by man not drought (tags: famine somalia)
  • Pambazuka – No easy path through the embers (tags: shackdwellers, southafrica)
  • There is a context to London's riots that can't be ignored | Nina Power | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk (tags: LondonRiots London UK Poverty Racism)
  • Rosa Parks Rape Attempt: Politics of Resistance (tags: CivilRights Racism)
  • Why Crisis Maps Can Be Risky When There's Political Unrest – Technology Review (tags: mapping crisis maptivism)

• South Sudan: Birth of a new nation

  Posted: August 8, 2011, 4:00 pm by Rumbidzai Dube

  
  
  

  As I watched the celebrations by the people of South Sudan on their Independence Day, the 9^th of July 2011, I could not help but do so with a sense of nostalgia. I listened with a critical ear to the new President of thenew Republic of South Sudan, Salva Kiir Mayardit swearing his allegiance to the nation and to serve it in good faith. I noted the presence of dignitaries from the international community with representatives from governments, as well as international and inter-governmental organizations including IGAD, the League of Arab States, the European Union, the African Union, the UN General Assembly with the UN Secretary General, Mr. Ban Ki Moon present in person.

  I observed the lowering of the flag of Sudan and the raising of the new flag of South Sudan symbolizing the victory of a People and the manifestation of a new identity.

  I watched the jubilant crowds jumping, dancing, singing, and ululating-for a new nation had been born. I pondered over the significant signing of an ‘Interim Constitution’ of the Republic of South Sudan. I took a moment of silence to remember my fellow women who were raped, mutilated and subjected to the worst forms of sexual violence during the conflict. I paid my respects to the men, women, children, husbands, wives, sons and daughters to the crowds celebrating who died for this day to be realized.

  Why did I feel nostalgic?

  I remembered the Independence Day celebrations of Zimbabwe on 18 April 1980. Yes, I had not been born then but I have watched videos, read articles, seen pictures and heard many stories of how magical that day was. The vision of my country in 1980 is so vivid in my mind that I could have been there. It is a vision of a nation full of hope. A nation overflowing with joy for having achieved a hard won independence. A nation with scars and wounds: bearing testimony to a difficult and painful past.

  I remembered the lowering of the Union Jack and the hoisting of the Zimbabwean flag with its bright and beautiful colors – green symbolizing our agricultural capabilities and the wide species of vegetation our land grows; yellow symbolizing the mineral wealth that is abundant beneath our soils; red symbolizing the blood that was shed in wars fought to liberate our country; black symbolizing the heritage and ethnicity of the majority of the population that our nation contains; the white triangle symbolizing our wish for sustained peace; the red star symbolizing our hopes and aspirations for the future as a nation; and the yellow/gold bird being our national symbol-the Zimbabwe bird. I remembered that moment, 31 years ago, when a charismatic leader on the eve of independence addressed the nation and said the following;

  “Tomorrow is thus our birthday, the birth of a great Zimbabwe, and the birth of its nation. Tomorrow we shall cease to be men and women of the past and become men and women of the future. It’s tomorrow then, not yesterday, which bears our destiny. As we become a new people we are called to be constructive, progressive and forever forward looking, for we cannot afford to be men of yesterday, backward-looking, retrogressive and destructive. Our new nation requires of every one of us to be a new man, with a new mind, a new heart and a new spirit. Our new mind must have a new vision and our new hearts a new love that spurns hate, and a new spirit that must unite and not divide.” (Full speech available here)

  I can even see the crowds going into a frenzy as the legendary Bob Marleyperformed the song ‘Zimbabwe’ in the National Sports Stadium which opens with the lyrics “Every man has got a right to decide his own destiny” (Full song and live performance available here]. The ceremony was witnessed by Heads of State and Government and representatives of nearly 100 countries plus representatives of several international, political and voluntary organizations. I remembered the handing over of a new Constitution negotiated between the Nationalist leaders and the former colonizers at Lancaster House in England hence its name: The Lancaster House Constitution.

  Guess what…

  31 years on this is the picture of Zimbabwe I would like to paint. Our government has a reputation within the international sphere sourer than olives. In fact it has made enemies with the West choosing a “look-East” policy. The population is experiencing deterioration in living standards with difficulties in accessing fundamental basic needs such as medicines, medical care, education, food and shelter. Yes there have been improvements in 2009 and 2010 as compared to 2008 but the standard that we all once knew has not yet been restored.

  The once charismatic leader who made such an inspiring observation as this;

  “An evil remains an evil whether practiced by white against black or by black against white. Our majority rule could easily turn into inhuman rule if we oppressed, persecuted or harassed those who do not look or think like the majority of us. Democracy is never mob-rule. It is and should remain disciplined rule requiring compliance with the law and social rules. Our independence must thus not be construed as an instrument vesting individuals or groups with the right to harass and intimidate others into acting against their will. It is not the right to negate the freedom of others to think and act, as they desire,” (Mugabe in his Independence speech on 17 April 1980)

  has resorted to organized violence and torture, abductions, rape, destruction of property including people’s homes to stay in power. The parties that liberated the nation from colonialism [the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) and the Zimbabwe African Peoples Union Patriotic Front (PF-ZAPU) have come together to form a single party [the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU PF) that uses all manner of treachery and trickery to get rid of opposition. The Constitution that the country inherited, although imperfect then has been amended 19 times reducing it to a manual to keep some people in power and the rest of the nation on the margins.

  How did we get to this?

  Complacency I would say. We [and by this I mean Zimbabweans] did not make the right demands at the right times. We allowed our constitution to be manipulated for political expediency and neglected to jealously guard it. That could have been because we never really felt we owned it since it was given to us upon our independence but we certainly should have tried to better acquaint ourselves with it. We allowed a single party to grow to proportions that led it to think it is the only party with a legitimate right to exist in and rule our country. We entertained/tolerated/bore a leader for so long he now thinks he owns us and has eloquently stated so;

  “We have fought for our land, we have fought for our sovereignty, small as we are we have won our independence and we are prepared to shed our blood…. So, Blair keep your England, and let me keep my Zimbabwe.” (Speech of the President of Zimbabwe at the Earth Summit in Johannesburg 2 September 2002)

  They say history has a way of repeating itself and I hope that adage never comes to pass with regard to the people of South Sudan. I urge the South Sudanese to be wary and prevent the same thing from happening in their country and this is what they should guard against.

  First, the women

  A gendered analysis will show you that war affects women differently from men. Mothers cannot run away without their children. If they do run with their children, they worry about what their children shall eat, about keeping them warm and free from disease. Their hearts shatter when their children succumb to hunger, cold and disease and die. As wives they have to go for long periods missing the comfort of their husbands fighting on the warfront, fearing that they might be dead. As caretakers they cannot leave the old and disabled in their families hence sometimes they stay and face the worst when the enemy comes. They are often subjected to cruel and degrading treatment and rape. As combatants they fight alongside the men, keeping up with them despite the obvious physiological differences.

  My point exactly?

  War is rough on women! Why then is it that in most cases this fact is easily forgotten after the war. During the liberation struggle in Zimbabwe it was the women (chimbwidos) who cooked for the guerilla fighters, risking their lives to take the food to the places where the fighters were hidden. Some were raped by the same fighters they served because it was impossible to say no when sexual advances were made to them. The women lost sons, husbands, daughters and some died. They lost their homes. Yet after the war it was predominantly the men…the war veterans who were rewarded for their role. It was the men who occupied key political positions. Not to water-down the positive position that our first vice-President Joyce Mujuru occupies, but why did she have to wait for so many years after independence before she could be awarded this position. The rest of the women were relegated to cheerleading positions where they campaigned for male candidates to hold key positions.

  The situation of women in South Sudan was terrible and still remains precarious. The war brought suffering, rape and abuse of women. Social services were continually disrupted. I try to imagine being pregnant in that context, constantly living in fear of rape or death and filled with uncertainty about access to medical facilities, food and water. Many women lost their babies and South Sudan is one of the countries with the highest mortality rates in the world. To further their miseries women’s livelihoods were continuously disrupted with, with cattle raids targeted on defenceless women.

  South Sudan adopted a new interim constitution on its independence day after consultations with various stakeholders. A final constitution shall be adopted after the first 4 years of interim rule whereupon elections shall be held for a new parliament and president. These consultations presented an invaluable window of opportunity to the women of Sudan to advocate a supreme law and a system of governance that represented their needs as women. Women in Zimbabwe did not have this pleasure at independence. In fact there was no woman at the Lancaster House negotiations. If there was she was British and had no idea what Zimbabwean women wanted. Although over the 31 years of independence Zimbabwean women have struggled and largely succeeded in asserting their space within the governance of their country, the progress would have been much higher had certain rights been constitutionally guaranteed. The women in South Sudan should not be relegated to spectators and should vigorously pursue their interests before the adoption of a final constitution in 2015. They must place themselves strategically to have their needs addressed. The key women who arose during the long fought war should be the voice of the grassroots. The women in power must be the voice for their voiceless counterparts.

  Allow me to digress a little…

  The other day I met a female politician from my country (the diplomatic kind); This woman had the nerve to mock another female politician who has been making a lot of noise advocating the adoption of UN Resolution 1325 in Zimbabwe. As she spoke in that derisive tone I really wished that her little nest of diplomatic grandeur could crumble and that she would experience the terrible things that Resolution 1325 seeks to protect women from during and after conflict including rape; internal displacement; becoming refugees; exclusion from peace-building processes; as well as marginalisation of their voices in repatriation, resettlement, rehabilitation, reintegration and post-conflict reconstruction processes. I thought to myself, a woman who cannot understand the value of this Resolution and stand and fight for her fellow women, does not deserve to be in a position of influence at all.

  Back to my story…

  In a nation emerging from years of conflict there is an unavoidable tendency to reward those who have ‘fought’ in other words those women perceived to have made huge sacrifices in the struggle. Yes, their contributions might have been outstanding but it must be remembered that all women ‘fought’ despite never having held a gun or gone to the battlefront. The key women must use their influence to represent the wishes of other women and not prioritize the designs of the political parties they belong to. Individuals like Rebecca Nyandeng De Mabior, the wife of John Garang De Mabior the former leader of the SPLM, who already wields power as advisor to the President should push for reforms that draw in more women to participate in politics and prioritize that goal above the wishes of the SPLM. Women in Sudan constitute 60% of the population. At the moment 34% of Parliamentarians are women with 7 ministers in a cabinet of 32. Women have a high illiteracy rate with an estimated 80% rating compared to the 60% for men. Women and girls are still traded for cattle and these are the things the women in decision making should fight to change.

  Second, the Constitution

  South Sudan should ensure that when they adopt their final constitution; that constitution will embrace the views and aspirations of the wider population. Every voice and need should be heard and responded to in the Constitution. It must not only provide for civil and political rights but also incorporate social and economic rights. The Constitution must safeguard against majorities silencing the minorities or else the long and arduous war with the North would have been fought in vain. It must be the supreme law of the land and as such should be respected and adhered to and enforced by an independent and impartial judiciary. It must be based on inviolable fundamental principles which would make amendments even by the required majority in parliament impossible should those amendments be contrary to the founding principles. I say this because in Zimbabwe all the amendments to the constitution were legally made with a 2/3 vote. Some of these amendments violated basic constitutional precepts such as the separation of powers, giving the President excessive power. As of 17 September 2008, the day before the Global Political Agreement which introduced a power-sharing government in Zimbabwe was signed, the Constitution gave the President powers as head of state; head of government; commander of the armed forces; appointer of the judiciary, electoral commission, the attorney general, the registrar general and other key positions hence enabling him to control every decision making processes in Zimbabwe. Although the GPA has reduced some of these powers theoretically, in practice, these are the powers that our President still has. South Sudan should listen, learn and take all measures necessary to make sure this does not happen to them.

  Third, the President

  President Salva Kiir should not be mistaken as the only Sudanese capable of ruling South Sudan. Inarguably, he has been pivotal in keeping the momentum in the movement for the liberation of the South. His availability as a trusted member of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) allowed the party to stand especially after the assassination of SPLM leader John Garang a few weeks after signing the Comprehensive Peace Agreement which enabled South Sudan to secede from Northern Sudan. To mind comes the similar role that President Mugabe played after the murder of Josiah Magama Tongogara (whom everyone expected to become the President of an independent Zimbabwe) on the eve of Zimbabwe’s independence. However South Sudan should not lose sight of the fact that, leaders should serve the nation’s interests and should be removed the moment they cease to do so. The people of South Sudan should continue to nurture and encourage many options for the presidential post to avoid falling into the same trap as Zimbabweans have where some people believe that there cannot be a Zimbabwe without Mugabe. Excuse me! He was born in 1924 and Zimbabwe existed way before then.

  Fourth, the SPLM

  The Sudan People’s Liberation Movement has been the force behind the success of an independent South. In other words the vision for nationalism in the South was spearheaded by the SPLM. They had to take up the guns and fight the North for 22 gruesome years. They lost friends and family who were killed, maimed, raped for South Sudan to be born. Indeed they paid a huge price for the freedom of their country. It was a noble cause they fought for which ought to be commended. However South Sudanese should be careful not to be held at ransom for the rest of their lives by this party because of the leading role it played. I urge the mothers whose sons died to remind anyone who comes to them claiming that the SPLA should be their only party that it is their sons who died and those who are alive should respect the choices of the living. For South Sudan to mature into a full democracy, they must encourage the growth of other parties. It will be up to the people to choose who they please based on their needs and their assessment of the fulfillment of their needs through the policies adopted by the party in question.

  Fifth, the oil and land

  The oil and land in South Sudan belongs to the South Sudanese and hence should benefit them. Their land holds the potential to diversify the Sudanese economy from being oil based to include large-scale commercial agriculture.They should not make the same mistake Zimbabwe made. Zimbabwe’s leadership agreed in the Lancaster House negotiations with the British to suspend discussions on ownership of or access to land (the main resource in our country) for 10 years after independence. In fact they waited for 20 years to begin to do something to address the glaring imbalance where 1% of the population owned 60% of the means of production and the rest of the 99% watched on with growing discontent. The people of South Sudan should assert their rights to their land and oil beginning now. Yes, foreign investment shall be pivotal to the growth and development of the South Sudanese economy but should it be skewed in serving the interests of the investor, and involve the exploitation of resources at the expense of the masses who are the true owners of the resources? Should the people of South Sudan provide cheap labour in the exploitation of their raw materials, fail to add value to their resources and see no benefits from having such resources at their feet? If that does happen then we can all be assured that it will only be a matter of time before a meltdown occurs when the people realize that this is not what they bargained for when they celebrated and jumped welcoming their independence.

  I do wish South Sudan the very best as they join the world of nations.

   

  Cross posted from Banjamba

   

• The Skull

  Posted: August 6, 2011, 4:22 pm by Rumbidzai Dube

  
  
  

  Today, I had an interesting encounter with one of my colleagues here in Cairo. He wore rings on every one of his 10 fingers and the rings had the symbol of the skull.

  When I first saw them my heart went ‘thump thump.’ I cannot really say it was fear but more of trepidation and a bit… ok maybe a lot… of unease seeing so many skulls on one person’s fingers. The unease was mainly because of the symbolic meanings that skulls have to me. The most outstanding would be that the skull is a representation of death and mortality. I will have to come to terms with my fear because the inevitable truth is that I will die someday but for now, let me be afraid.

  When studying the history of Germany in the time of the Third Reich with Hitler and his Nazi Regime, I remember my history teacher, Mr Mlauzi (God rest his soul in peace), telling us that the skull was the symbol of thetotenkompf verband, a branch of the Schutzstaffel that was responsible for manning the concentration camps where thousands of Jews were massacred. Then it was a sign of hate.

  On many pesticides and poisonous substances the skull represents the danger that the product poses to the human being.  Pirates used it as a symbol of their defiance against death; a sign of rebellion.

  Bikers and sailors today get it too as an expression of their defiance against the forces of nature.Ordinarily in my culture the skull has a sinister meaning representing things demonic and/or evil. In my church if you were to conduct a quick survey I can guarantee 99% of the congregation would tell you that the skull is a symbol of the anti-Christ therefore connoting great evil. I will be honest and admit that for a moment there it did cross my mind that maybe my colleague sold his soul to the devil.

  With all these unusual meanings can you blame me for being uncomfortable around skulls?

  Fortunately for me and maybe for you, today I reproached myself for being so judgemental. I retracted my assumptions about why my colleague wore so many skull rings and decided to take the time to ask him and listen to what he had to say. He said that he loves them because of what they represent to him. I asked what that was and he told me that the skull is the symbol of the true human being, every human being.  At that moment when he explained himself I thought “Yeah, right. True human being my foot.”

  After a while I reflected on his statement and it occurred to me that he had a point, a very valid point. There is no human being who can deny that beneath the flesh, skin ad hair on our heads and faces,there is a skull. That skull is neither black nor white. It is just a skull and it looks the same. Indeed the skull is the representation of the most equal state that all human beings can ever be. The barriers that we have set up based on how light you are and how dark I am, or how pretty you are and how ugly I am, or how immaculately adorned you are and how disheveled I look, or how fat your cheeks are and how gaunt mine are, and even how smooth your hair is and how kinky mine is will all cease to matter when it is just the skull. No skin color or texture. No measure of flesh, its shape and size. No differing hair textures, colors and length.

  So from revulsion at seeing so many skulls on one person’s fingers, I practiced tolerance by respecting his choice to have them on his body, then I displayed wisdom by enquiring into his obvious love for skulls in a diplomatic and respectful manner and I acquired enlightenment which I am sharing with you now. I have not suddenly developed a love for skulls but I now understand why he wears them.

  If only we could all take the time to understand what we do not know, face our fears and tolerate what we dislike then there would be no ethnic cleansings, religious wars, racism, homophobia, islamophobia, xenophobia or other forms of intolerance. If only all human beings could realize this basic idea that when you take away the things that make other people think they are better than others we are all the same…

  …Just skull!

  Cross posted from JamBanja

Blah blah blah

Fish cakes

Alas a fish cake.

Yet more fish cakes

Guess what ... yeah ... fish cakes.

The end of the fish cakes