A crisis by any other name

Originally posted on the Citizen Journalism in Africa portal on 14 April 2008 (www.citizenjournalismafrica.org),

Last week I wrote a comment in response to a blog by Sandile Memela, on the South African blog site, Thought Leader (http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/sandilememela/2008/04/09/why-mbekis-quiet-diplomacy-is-the-best-solution-for-zimbabwe-and-the-rest-of-dark-africa/). Memela’s blog was a defence of Thabo Mbeki’s ‘quiet diplomacy’. I ended my outraged response with the comment that in contrast with President Mbeki’s lack of action, Zambia’s President, Levy Mwanawasa was showing real leadership by calling a summit on Zimbabwe.

Well, it turns out my comments were a little premature. Yes, President Mwanawasa was showing more leadership than Mbeki, but clearly not enough. The SADC summit did issue a statement expressing concern about the situation in ZImbabwe, and calling for the election results to be released ‘expeditiously’ — but this seems to me rather wishy-washy and not nearly strong enough to ensure that strong action is taken right now.

By all accounts, the SADC heads of state were locked in discussions until 3am on Saturday morning. No, not hashing out the details of a high-level delegation to Zimbabwe, or possible measures to be taken against Robert Mugabe and his cronies, but debating whether the use of the word ‘crisis’, was appropriate. Apparently theologians during the Middle Ages used to have heated debates about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. The SADC summit’s agonised deliberations over the use of a single word seem to be to be just as useful and practical. As a guest on our national radio station, SAFM put it this morning, “if people are being harassed and even tortured because of their political allegiances, that is a crisis. When inflation is so bad that most people can’t afford to buy food, that is a crisis. In South Africa, we are experiencing problems with electricity supply and regular black-outs, and we refer to that as a crisis. So why is Zimbabwe not a crisis?” (I was in the car so couldn’t write down his exact words — but this is in essence what he said.)

But in the end, who cares what you call it — a dire situation, a crisis, a big big problem — the question is:  what do we do about it? Let’s have some concrete proposals of clear steps that need to be taken, with timeframes and dates attached, and consequences to be faced — not simply statements of concern.

But at least a statement of concern is more than anyone’s likely to get from Thabo Mbeki. “Crisis, what crisis?”, blared the headlines on Sunday, quoting our esteemed president. Not only does this make me spitting mad, but it makes me very, very worried. When I was a practicing journalist I had the occasion once or twice to attend press conferences addressed by Mugabe. I used to marvel that unlike other leaders, he didn’t try to put a spin on negative news. He just denied it outright. Where other leaders would say, ‘yes, this happened, but it’s not our fault because…’, Mugabe would just say ‘it never happened. The media lied. The photographs were doctored. It never happened.’ What worries me deeply now, is that our own head of state seems to be adopting the same denialist behaviour.

Of course, he has done it before — in the face of the huge HIV/Aids…um…crisis. But I thought that perhaps that was an exception, a special case, motivated by complex factors that many writers more intelligent than I have tried to explain, over the years. Now it is becoming clear that denial is a habit of his. I mean, even Jacob Zuma is starting to look better — at least he had the sense to criticise the delay in the release of the election results. What, Jacob Zuma looking like a better alternative to what we have? Now not only do I fear for Zimbabwe, but I fear for South Africa.

What also worries me about much of the public debate here about ZImbabwe, is that people talk as if it’s about whether Mbeki (and other leaders in the region) should back either Mugabe or Tsvangirai. Some writers have, for example, commented that Mbeki is reluctant to support Tsvangirai because the MDC grew out of the unions, and the parallels between this and Zuma’s backing from the unions in SA are worrying for him. This may be true, but it misses the point. It’s not about personalities. It is the people of Zimbabwe, and the ideal of democracy that need support.  Mbeki and others with power should be insisting that democratic principles and practices be upheld, and that the choices of the people of Zimbabwe must be respected.

This is Africa

This blog was originally posted on the Citizen Journalism in Africa portal on the 9th of April 2008 (www.citizenjournalismafrica.org/).
I’m in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania. Yesterday one of the Tanzanians attending the Citizen Journalism in Africa workshop mentioned that the prime minister and some ministers had recently resigned as result of a corruption scandal. I decided I had to check this out, so did a Google search.

Yes, there it is. On the 8th of February this year, Associated Press carried this report: “Tanzania’s prime minister and two Cabinet ministers have resigned over a corruption scandal involving a contract with a nonexistent firm supposedly based in the United States, and the president dissolved the entire Cabinet as a result.” The resignations followed a critical report by a parliamentary committee on the dodgy contract.

And last week, in Cape Town, a Mozambican  colleague mentioned to me that some ministers had recently been fired for messing up. Good old Google. There, on allAfrica.com in a report dated the 11th of March,  you can read in black and white that Mozambican President Armando Guebuza sacked three ministers: the ministers of transport, agriculture and justice. No official reasons are ever given for ministerial sackings in Mozambique, but there have been problems with deforestation and logging in the agriculture sector, there were riots in Maputo in early February sparked by steep hikes in taxi prices, and the justice system has been criticised for being slow and inefficient.

Then, on the 26th of March came the news that Guebuza had also sacked the defence minister, his son in law to boot. This came a year after more than 100 people died when a Maputo arsenal exploded.

Ok, the Defence minister was sacked a long time after the incident, and only after the opposition had repeatedly called for his head. But still, as a South African I find all of this astonishing. That government ministers would be fired, or — and this I find REALLY incredible — resign! Just because of poor performance or a scandal. Could it really be true? Well, I checked, and all of these reports appeared way before April Fools’ Day so it must be. But I didn’t really believe it until I’d seen the reports with my own eyes.

Please try to understand my astonishment. It’s not that I don’t believe my colleagues. It just that in South Africa, where we are so proud of our democracy, a minister pretty much has to die to be removed from the Cabinet. In the face of critical newspaper reports, public scandals, or even damning findings by commissions of enquiry, public officials routinely insist that they’re innocent and deserve to keep their posts, because they haven’t yet been found guilty in a court of law. The idea that a public official has to live up to a higher standard than simply not (yet) having a criminal conviction, just doesn’t seem to have taken root. Oh, and being competent — well, who said that was a job requirement?

So, The health minister has completely messed up on HIV/Aids, presided over a decaying health system, and, according to newspaper reports, is a practicing alcoholic with a criminal record in a neighbouring country. Yet she is unassailable in her position, and staunchly backed by President Mbeki. Her former deputy who proved herself as a champion in the fight against HIV/Aids WAS sacked. So sorry, dying is not the only way to get dropped — the other way to lose your cabinet post is to be too good at your job. It just doesn’t do, as it makes everyone else look bad. Home Affairs is a shambles, we have an electricity crisis and a crime problem — yet the ministers in charge of all of these are sitting in their offices, safe and secure.

Now some South Africans point to this, sigh and shake their heads and say, “yes, this is Africa,” and preach that we should emulate the UK, where ministers also regularly are forced to resign. But why should we look to Britain (or the US for that matter, both of which have more than their fair share of corrupt and incompetent politicians, by the way)? There are clearly many examples in Africa where public officials are being held to account, and have to deliver the goods or get out.  So, I wonder, why aren’t these people pointing to the good example being set by the likes of Presidents Kikwete and Guebuza, and saying proudly, “THIS is Africa!”?