Open Letter to African Rulers on Ukraine ‘Peace Mission’

 

Dear Sirs, I was recently shocked to see you flying to Ukraine to do what media called peace mission. Dear Presidents, Azali Assoumani (Comoros), Macky Sall (Senegal), Cyril Ramaphosa (South Africa), Hakainde Hichilema (Zambia), PM Mustapha Madbuli (Egypt), and unmentioned top envoys from, Republic of Congo and Uganda. I’ve some questions for you. Who authorised you to represent Africa in this impossible mission in the first place? What did you achieve in your meeting with your host President Volodymyr Zelenskyy Zilch. Why? First, you goofed. Your dress code was a hoot. You didn’t do your homework well. Since the war started, Zelenskyy’s never been in suits. You’re in suits. What did this say to your host?

   Peacemaking requires some tricks one of which’s knowing the behaviour, family even the history of the conflicants. When former US President Jimmy Carter sought to reconcile Egypt and Israel in Camp David, he did a small trick that enticed and softened conflicants’ stony hearts. He says that “instead of just saying best wishes Jimmy Carter, I got my secretary to get their names and I put ‘with love’ (the) names of his grandchildren” (CNB, October 2, 2014).  Essentially, this trick solved the impasse that existed for 13 days without any flicker of peace.
        Dear Presidents, you know as everybody knows. Charity begins home. Somalia, Sudan, Mali, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ethiopia, CAR, DRC, South Sudan, and Zimbabwe are on fire for various reasons. Why Ukraine first but not the African countries above? Somalia went to the dogs over three decades ago, and you didn’t and don’t bother about it. Sudan is in hell. You didn’t and don’t bother! Burkina Faso, and Mali are on the verge ogf becoming failed states like Somalia because of terrorism. You didn’t and don’t bother!  Cameroon’s split down the middle between Anglo- and Franco-speaking Cameroonians. You didn’t and don’t bother! Who’ll bother? Why bother? A fool left his house on fire and went to souse the fire of his neighbour. Is this love or candle love? A goat always leaves pastures close to it and seeks those situated afar from it.
        Dear Sirs, ironically, while the likes of Hichilema and Ramaphosa went there, in their next door neighbourhood is Zimbabwe struggling with illegal sanctions. Egypt’s Libya and Sudan on fire and it came to light recently that it is denying entry Sudanese fleeing conflict (Al Jazeera, June 17, 2023). Republic of Congo and Uganda have the DRC burning and Senegal’s Mali in its neighbourhood. Why’ve you gone to help your neighbours first? Do you think you can move Ukraine that enjoys the backing of the west even an inch? That’s why I see your impossible mission of peace as a goof.
            Dear Sirs, let me ask you. Why did you go? Hichilema answers “life is universal, and we must protect lives­­­––Ukrainian lives, Russian lives, global lives” (PBS, June 16, 2023). Ramaphosa adds that “this conflict affects Africa negatively” (Sky News, June 17, 2023). Seriously? Aren’t the lives of the above mentioned countries, especially Zambia’s neighbour Zimbabwe universal, and thus, supposed to be protected? Are other conflicts in Africa affecting it positively? Can Russia or Ukraine listen to such failures whose house is on fire but are going to douse the fire of its far neighbour who’s all supports from the masters of the world? What’s the rationale of doing so? Is it the lack of self-confidence and self-esteem or self-racism? Were you sent by Russia, which’s behind BRICS to which South Africa’s a member while Egypt’s seeking to join? Zelenskyy responds “every soldier, every new step we take, every metre of Ukrainian land freed from the enemy is of utmost importance” but not the noises of peace from those who can’t address their internal conflicts next doors. Have you easily forgotten how the world discriminated against Africans in offering asylum and favoured Ukrainians?
        In a nutshell, Dear Sirs, in other words, Zelenskyy’s telling you to put your house in order first. Look at how Saudi Arabia and the US are busy in Sudan while you’re wasting hard-earned money of your poor people globetrotting for impossible mission. If there’s anything you achieved is nothing but photo-ops. That’s that.

Source: Independent Zimbabwe today.

Caution: Boycotting elections has its negative consequences

SOME sad news appeared recently in the social media, informing that CHADEMA is planning to boycott the forthcoming Local Authorities by-elections. This appeared in a statement attributed to the Chairman of CHADEMA’s Western Zone, reportedly speaking from Kigoma. I have already, on previous occasions, written similar pieces for this column, about the negative consequences that are caused by boycotting elections.
        But in view of this new ‘election boycott’  threat by CHADEMA, it may be appropriate and perhaps helpful,  to revisit this matter of the ‘negative consequences’ of boycotting elections, especially in view of the unpleasant  memories of  past ‘election boycotts’ in Zanzibar  that were carried out  by the Civic United Front (CUF) and  especially  the  negative consequences  which they  produced. The CUF boycotts were, admittedly, based on genuine ‘electoral grievances’, for which there were no other options for legal remedies. This was so for two basic reasons.  In the first place, they were ‘valid protests’ against the declared results of the Zanzibar Presidential elections which, under the country’s constitution, could not be challenged in a court of competent jurisdiction.
        But secondly, as we shall see a little later below, they were based on genuine complaints by CUF against the obviously unfair decisions of the Zanzibar Electoral Commission.
The adverse consequences of boycotting elections
Boycotting elections has its adverse consequences which, in fact, will   not hurt the political system itself, which will continue functioning normally, but will only hurt the boycotting party itself.
In today’s article, I am endeavouring to examine such consequences arising from our nasty past experience of the political impasse in Zanzibar.  The word “boycott” means “the refusal to take part in something, as a way of protesting about it”’.
        That is to say, expressing strong disagreement, or disapproval, of it; and that is precisely the message which CUF wanted to convey to Tanzanians and to the rest of the world,  when they repeatedly boycotted the Zanzibar elections; that is to say, they wanted to convey their ‘message of protest’  against, and their strong disapproval of  the relevant  elections results.
        Protests are, of course, perfectly normal occurrences in a large number of human communities, and they usually create no cognitive offence.  Furthermore, election boycotts by political parties as a form of protest, are not confined to CUF in Zanzibar alone;  for records exist of election boycotts being carried out by protesting political parties in many other countries of the world.
        But the main purpose of this article is to draw special attention to the negative consequences of those boycotts.  It has been said by the gurus, that “History is too serious to be left to historians alone”. Hence, It is my sincere hope, that our readers, who may not  be historians, will still  benefit from this particular  information regarding  the  past CUF election boycotts;  plus  the negative consequences that resulted there from.
        The ancient Greek Historian Dionysius, is on record as having said that “History is philosophy teaching by examples”.  This presentation provides a good opportunity for us to learn from our own political history.
The relevant story                                              

It all started with the first multi-party general elections which were held in 1995, when there arose a crisis in connection with the printing of ballot papers in South Africa. The Zanzibar Electoral Commission had carried out the printing of ballot papers in South Africa. When these papers arrived in Zanzibar ready for that election, the Civic United Front   threatened to boycott the voting exercise, alleging  that the said ballot papers had been  ‘doctored’  in favour of Chama cha Mapinduzi, the ruling party.

        Fortunately, that boycott was avoided, as a result of a timely intervention by UNDP, who reportedly persuaded CUF not to carry out their planned boycott. But soon thereafter, a much more serious protest occurred at the stage of announcing the Presidential results of that election.
        That protest was caused by the Zanzibar Electoral Commission’s undue delay in announcing the results of the said Presidential election for a period of four days after the counting process had been completed; while, on the other hand, the results of the House of Representatives and the Local Authorities Council members were announced immediately after the process of vote counting was completed.
        This unexplained action by ZEC understandably created strong suspicions on the part of the Civic United Front, that the Presidential election results were probably being “doctored”. This suspicion intensified when the said results were eventually announced, which gave Chama cha Mapinduzi  a narrow victory margin of only 0.4 per cent.
        The CUF strongly protested against these results which they   refused to recognize, and ordered all its members of the House of Representatives who had won the election, to boycott all meetings of the House of Representatives, as well those who had been elected to the Union Parliament, to also boycott meeting of that House. This was therefore not an ‘election boycott’; it was a boycott of its results.
The negative consequences of election boycotts.
The actual ‘election boycotts’ stated taking place in In the 2000 general election, when the voting process was characterised by serious irregularities, all of them emanating from the Zanzibar Electoral Commission (ZEC); which included an acute  shortage of ballot papers on election day in  all 16 constituencies in the Urban West  (Mjini  Magharibi)  Region, prompting ZEC to nullify the results of all these constituents,   and announced  that a  a re-run  of the nullified  election would  take place  on a later date.  

        And on its part, the Civic United Front, supported by some of the other opposition parties,  imposed a  boycott on the  re-run of  the election   in the said 16 constituencies of the Urban  West Region of Zanzibar. This was a boycott of the election itself.
        It is the main contention of this presentation, that “boycotting elections always produces some negative consequences”.  One such serious consequence of  that particular boycott was  that it caused  many of the registered voters to stay away from their  polling stations on election day,  thus  deliberately failing to  participate in the re-run of those elections, and consequently creating a negative impact on democracy.   But that is only one aspect of the negative consequences. There are several   others, including the following:

It is an abandonment of a legal obligation
In the context of the multi-party political system; political parties have an implied obligation to participate in elections; which  is created by the definition of political parties which is  provided  in the Political Parties Act (no 5  of 1992). That Act   provides as follows:
“Political party” means any organized group formed for the purpose of forming a government or a Local Authority within the United Republic through elections; or for putting up or supporting  candidates for such elections”.
        In the light of that definition, it is quite clear that the primary purpose, (or indeed the raison  d’etre)   of a political party in Tanzania),  is to participate in elections with a view to acquiring power, either  at the national or the  Local level, or both.  Hence, any group which does not have such objectives, does not qualify for recognition as a ‘political party’.  Its status changes to either a ‘pressure group’ or an ‘Interest Group’, as the case may be.
        It is of courses admitted, that one major purpose of boycotting an  election, is to demonstrate a  protest; but that function  should not obliterate political  party’s basic  obligation to participate in democratic elections, which is implied in the definition of a political party  quoted above. Thus, the often repeated election boycotts, such as those which were taking place in Zanzibar on a regular basis, were an ominous indicator that this obligation was being sadly  abandoned.        

The political party’s essential  role in electoral democracy.
Modern political thought generally accepts the notion that ‘political parties are absolutely essential to democracy’. This notion is itself based on the other fundamental principle, that democracy gives the majority the right to rule,  and that there is no other  way of creating an  ascertainable majority, without establishing political parties which can freely compete in elections  for the right to form a government, by presenting their different  policies and programmes to the electorate, and  endeavouring to persuade the   electorate to vote for their particular policy, or  particular programme  option.                  

        This is the political competition in which the winning political party gets the right to form the government of the day. And this process is what is generally known as “government by political party”’ which we inherited from the British political system.
        There were two most visible negative impacts in the case of Zanzibar. One was that  CUF as apolitical party, literally  phased itself out of Zanzibar’s  governance system;  and was reduced to the status of onlookers,  thus  leaving CCM  alone to govern Zanzibar totally unchallenged,  and had therefore  unwittingly returned  Zanzibar to the olden days of a one-party  state, at least  for the following five years!
        The other negative consequence is that the said  boycott unfortunately denied  Zanzibaris  all the political benefits accruing from the Government of National Unity, which Zanzibar and its people had enjoyed for five years from 2010; whose  main benefit was  the peace and tranquility which existed among the people of  Zanzibar during that period. Both in theory and in practice, the concept of a ‘Government of National Unity' is supported by the positive realisation that generally, political parties in Tanzania have similar, or even identical policy objectives, namely, the achievement of a high standard of living for its people, and   giving them equal rights  opportunities and freedoms, which will enable them  to live their daily lives in a way, which  is compatible with the freedoms  of others, in accordance with  the country’s  laws.
        Hence, instead of quarreling over which party will be given the mandate to carry out these responsibilities, the parties voluntarily agree to put their political manpower resources together in a Government of National Unity, for the better carrying out of these identical policies for the common  benefit of our country and its people.
 Remembering  MUAFAKA  III.
When Chama cha Mapinduzi and the Civic United Front signed the Agreement known as  MUAFAKA  III  (which introduced the  concept of a Government of National Unity, or Serikali ya Umoja wa Kitaifa  (SUK), in Zanzibar; and  whose implementation started immediately following the 2010 general elections, it was generally believed that a lasting solution for  the endless post-election disputes  which had  previously afflicted   Zanzibar throughout its entire electoral  history which commenced in 1957; had at last been found.    

       It had been confidently assumed that because the root cause of these endless post-election disputes was the struggle for power, or the strong desire of each competing political party  to win the relevant election in order to form the Government of Zanzibar;  such competitions would become  far less intense, if the contending parties were  assured of becoming partners in  the incoming Government, irrespective of the nature of the election results. But alas, the CUF boycott of the re-run of the Zanzibar general election which was held on 20th March, 2016; had unfairly deprived Zanzibaris of these benefits.
        “Politics is not an exact science” so declared that  famous German Statesman  named  Bismark , in his speech to the Prussian Chamber  on18th December, 1863.   It  appears  he  was damn  right!
  piomsekwa@gmail.com /0754767576.
Source: Daily News today

MY THIRD AND NEWEST BABY FOR THIS YEAR

ISBN	9781779314840
Pages	270
Dimensions	210 x 148 mm
Published	2023
Publisher	Mwanaka Media and Publishing, Zimbabwe
Format	Paperback

AFRICA’S CONTEMPORARY FOOD INSECURITY

Self-inflicted Wounds through Modern Veni Vidi Vici and Land Grabbing

by Nkwazi Nkuzi Mhango

Land is ubiquitous but exceptionally precious, no-frills, and one-off for all beings past, present, and future though not all appropriately appreciated for its nonpareil significance and sacredness. Nevertheless, currently, African corrupt, credulous, and closed-minded rulers are blindly and bald-facedly dishing land out in this toxic leasing by enacting another scramble for Africa under a putrid façade of investment, a crime against humanity revolving around coloniality, corruption, and racism. China, India, Petro-rich-with-inarable-land Middle East Countries, and western conglomerates are invading Africa to produce biofuels and food for their home populaces for yet another land and food colonisation. Contemporary land grabs aggravate Africa’s food and national in/ security, famishment, and effluence thereof. S/he who cannot feed her/himself is a dangerous laughingstock. This book addresses the crime and proposes what Africa must do to avert self-inflicted wounds resulting from fake and rose gambits like job creation, tax bases, and investment for development. Land is a life giver and is uniquely sacred as such nobody should dish it out or grab it like nobody’s business. The cardinal argument is that Africa must enable its people to till the land it is dishing out to produce and export food to those now grabbing its land. This is the only sensible solution any level-headed person can think of and apply.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Nkwazi Nkuzi Mhango

Mhango is the author of Saa ya Ukombozi, Nyuma ya Pazia, Souls on Sale, Born with Voice, Africa Reunite or Perish, Psalm of the Oppressed, Perpetual Search, Africa’s Best and Worst President: How Neocolonialism and Imperialism Maintained Venal Rules in Africa and ‘Is It Global War on Terrorism’ or Global War over Terra Africana?: The Ruse Imperial Powers Use to Occupy Africa Militarily for Economic Gains, How Africa Developed Europe: Deconstructing the His-story of Africa, Excavating Untold Truth and What Ought to Be Done and Known, Africa’s Dependency Syndrome: Can Africa Still Turn Things around for the Better?, Our Heritage, Family Friend of Animal and Matembezi Mbugani (Children’s book co-authored with his wife Nesaa).https://www.africanbookscollective.com/books/africa2019s-contemporary-food-insecurity

Mwanangu Umekua

 

African Needs Political Union First the Rest Next

When 44 African countries conceived and ratified, the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) in 2018, in Kigali, Rwanda, many thought it'd become a game changer. Has it?  One of the reprieves the AfCFTA would bring was tariff relief. For over two decades, Zimbabwe's been grappling with sanctions.  What's the AfCFTA done to alleviate the situation?

The AfCFTA was termed as being historical. Is it really? Is it supposed to be Africa’s priority? Arguably, Africa needs to batten down the hatchets and pragmatically take  them on instead of gerrymandering or beating around the bush. Despite its good intentions, this moneymaking union has, up until now, proved, it won’t reach anywhere or significantly solve Africa’s endemic problems shall Africa remain divided politically. Africa needs a single political entity that can adeptly manage its humongous and wide resources that have never helped it.

The division of Africa is a colonial strategy ex-colonisers  envisage to keep exploiting Africa effortlessly and perpetually. Maintaining it isn’t only coloniality but black colonialism itself. Our people would like to have a single united country of Africa like Canada or the US even tomorrow. Contrarily, African rulers don’t want to hear such a thing. Their demigod presidency, easy, free eating, and freebooting are more important than the future of Africa. If this is a lie, I challenge them to tell Africa why’re they're able to unite commercially but not politically while political division is the root cause of Africa’s miseries?

To put this into perspective, let’s look at how Africa's divided and partitioned in 1884-85 at the infamous Berlin Conference that endorsed full invasion and thereby occupation, and colonisation of Africa. Essentially, the Berlin Conference created current objectionable and puny African countries. Practically, such countries are artificial if not colonial creatures, which make Africa an exception to the general rule in that almost other the countries in the world were created by the history, needs, and will of their citizens.

Apart from creating feeble and fickle African states, African national boundaries are but artificial and a colonial imposition. Yes, all nationalities African boast of are the creatures of colonialism. They’re but bastardised a version of the concept. Africans are no longer Africans but Cameroonians, Kenyans, Tanzanians, Ugandans, Zimbabweans, and whatnot not just because they decided to call themselves as thus.  Ironically, many such artificial and fake nations have gone to wars with each other fighting over such colonial and toxic boundaries and sovereignty.

When Germany, the host of this criminal conference was divided, it became feeble economically as well as politically. Therefore, it saw to it that it was reunited so as to become Europe’s economic powerhouse, which it currently is. Apart from Germany, Europe’s now coming closer to the total unification. 

Other affected countries are the North and South Korea, which are always trying to regain their unity and strength that African countries don’t want to. Despite being feeble, Yemen, once suffered the same scrape, which ended up regaining its unity. It is only Africa that’s become so blind that it failed to see the dangers its division and partition have caused since colonial times. A fool is the one bitten twice in the same hole. Why’s Africa allowed itself to be bitten twice in the same hole? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Can now Africa blame its former white colonisers while it is in bed with black and homegrown ones? Aren’t our rulers willing agents of colonialism simply because they’re geared by their greed and myopia? If commercial unification of Africa is a deal, why is it not political one? Who’s fooling whom here?

It is sad to note that our rulers are encouraging us to think as Tanzanians, Ugandans, Kenyans, Cameroonians, South Africans, Zimbabweans, and whatnot so that they can keep their foible presidencies while we badly lose a lot as a people and as a continent. They verbally say they’re for the reunification while their actions say they're for division and the status quo as enacted by colonial monsters. They preach water and drink vino. To fan the flames, the same rulers are ruining Africa by blessing and embracing corruption and other vices. Although it may seem as being too bellicose to say that our rulers are our modern colonial monsters simply because they’re using our borders to foster their private interests, if our people need to be reunited, why’d our rulers refuse them to do so by clinging unto power, which belongs to the people?

In sum, seriously speaking, if indeed our rulers have any futuristic and good intention for Africa, they must reunite Africa as soon as possible so as to have a single country like Africa was before 1884. The AfCFTA and the like are wasting our time as our potentates buy more time to keep on dividing us for their personal and myopic interests. All those who clinging to power through such half-baked shenanigans are but mere johns if not stage-door Johnnies and agents of colonialism that have betrayed Africa. Union first, the rest next. Africa reunite or perish.

Source: Zimbabwe Independent, today.

HURRAH : THE ‘EAST AFRICAN FEDERATION’ IS NOW IN SIGHT, HOPEFULLY!

The CITIZEN  Newspaper of Friday, May 28th, 2023, carried the following news: “President  William Ruto of Kenya has called for fast-tracking the East African Federation plans”. I  believe that  there  must have been many people who were genuinely  enthused  upon reading this news;   and  particularly those  like myself,  who know  what  befell   this  proposal  when it was first made  in the early 1960s;  when the intention (or desire) to form an ‘East African Federation’  (to be comprised  of  the countries of Tanganyika, Kenya and Uganda)  was first announced.                         

        Available records show that the genesis of this proposal can be traced back to  Mwalimu Nyerere’s  Paper, which he wrote and presented at the  ‘Second Conference of Independent African States”, which was held  in 1960; in which he strongly argued the need for an East African Federation. 
        That was even before any of these East African countries had gained independence from colonialism. But even subsequently, after Tanganyika had achieved independence with  Mwalimu  Nyerere as its Head of State and Government; he continued to strongly  advocate this idea of an East African Federation;  but  he was disappointed and forced to give up,  when it became clear that his peers in Kenya and Uganda  were  in fact  not  committed to  forming  this Federation!                                                         

         The story of how this happened is told a little later in the paragraphs below. In my humble opinion, that is the special significance of Kenya’s President William Ruto’s statement quoted above; namely that Kenya appears now keenly interested in this proposal.   As indeed are all the other member countries of the now vastly expanded ‘East African Community’. Their common interest in this project is evidenced by their having unanimously agreed to form a “Committee of Experts”, which was given the task of ‘drafting of the constitution for the proposed Federation’; and the  Chairman of this committee is the former Chief Justice of Uganda.  
            Thus, considering what we have stated above, namely that the failure of the earlier proposal was caused by the lack of  genuine interest, or commitment, on the part of Kenya and Uganda; this new development rekindles the hope  that the desired  “East African Federation” will  now  be achieved;  and, happily,  with many more  member - countries  on board, than the original three. 
        The story of the failure of the erstwhile Federation proposal.
I have referred above to  Mwalimu  Nyerere’s  1960 Paper on ‘the need for an East African Federation’. That Paper was presented to the next following “Pan-African Movement for the Freedom of East and Central Africa (PAFMECA” meeting, which was held in October 1960, at  Mbale in Uganda.  That meeting reportedly “warmly accepted  Mwalimu Nyerere’s  proposal  of  forming the  East African Federation. and adopted it  as a project which was worth supporting,  and strongly  encouraged the countries concerned,  to focus on working out the details of this proposal, and  how to bring it into fruition”.                            
        In his Paper, Mwalimu Nyerere had emphasized the following three major points:- The first was his contention that “if each country gets its independence separately, the Federation proposal will be extremely difficult to achieve” because, he argued, after a country gets its independence, “it becomes open to the temptations of nationhood, and the intrigues of those who find their strength in the weakness of small nations”. Thus, he argued strongly in favour of the East African Territories achieving independence simultaneously as one unit, as that was the only way through which “the existing feelings of unity of opposition (to colonialism) could be changed to become feelings of unity for construction”.  
        Alternatively, he encouraged the formation of the Federation just before independence, when these countries had achieved the constitutional status which at that time was described as “internal self- Government”, which is the stage just before independence is achieved.                                                                                   

        The second point was that “the  countries concerned should take advantage of the  ‘feeling of unity’ in opposing colonialism which existed among them, in order  to maintain, and even strengthen, that unity after the fight against colonialism had been won” . Otherwise, he said, “this feeling of unity will be whittled away if each country gets its independence separately”.                                              

        The third point was that  “the colonial authority should be persuaded to grant independence simultaneously to these countries, so that they  could form the desired Federation immediately upon achieving their independence; in order to avoid  ‘the temptations of nationhood, and the intrigues of those who find strength in the weakness of small nations’; if each country was to be granted independence separately.                                                             

        The arguments regarding each of the above points, in his own words, were presented as follows:-                                                     (a) Regarding the first point, he said: “After each nation has achieved its independence separately, any move by one of the leaders in the direction of Federation,  is likely to be misunderstood, and will most probably be regarded as ‘an imperialist design and a search for personal power’. For that reason, the most honest and least selfish leaders will be strongly tempted to avoid that issue.       

            Furthermore, the leaders of each state will be so preoccupied with the immediate problems of their own Governments, that the long-term advantages which can accrue from the establishment of a Federation, will get crowded out of construction”.                      

(b) In relation to the second point, he said: “In the struggle against colonialism, the fundamental unity of the people of Africa is evident, and is deeply felt.  It is, however, a unity forged in adversity, in a battle against an outside government. The feeling of unity which now exists could, however, be whittled away if each country gets its independence separately, for it will then become exposed to the temptations of nationhood, plus the intrigues of those who find their strength in the weakness of small nations.                 

            There is only one way to ensure that the present ‘unity for opposition’ becomes a ‘unity for construction’. And this can best be achieved at the time of the independence of these Territories.      

(c) Regarding the third point, Mwalimu  Nyerere  said: “At the moment, Tanganyika is more advanced  on the road to independence than any of the other  East Africa Territories (Kenya, and Uganda).              I believe, however, that it is in the best interest of Tanganyika, that we should unite with those other Territories into a Federation.  I also believe that the attainment of complete independence by Tanganyika alone would complicate the establishment of a new political unit.                                        
        Tanganyika’s independence is expected to be achieved before the end of 1961.  But if the British Government would be willing to amend their timetable for the  constitutional changes of the  other East African Territories so that, for example, independence for them is fixed for 1962,  and  provided  that these  Territories  have clearly  expressed their desire for a Federation;  I would be prepared to postpone the celebration of the independence of Tanganyika, in order to celebrate the independence of all the East African countries together in 1962, accompanied by  the simultaneous  formation of the East African Federation”.                                                    

        In this connection, Mwalimu Nyerere subsequently disclosed to us, that when the proposal for the Union between Zanzibar and Tanganyika was first discussed between him and  Zanzibar President Karume,  it was precisely at the  point  when it seemed  that Kenya was ready to  enter into Federation with Tanganyika,  hence he advised Karume that they should ‘hold on’ a little, so that their  proposed union would include Kenya.  But, again, his high hopes on Kenya became quickly frustrated, so he and Karume went ahead with their discussions; which were successfully concluded, and our Union was born. 

Nyerere’s opposition to an imposed Federation. 
There was an additional point which also needs to be mentioned, which is that up to that time, Mwalimu Nyerere had been opposing the imposition of such Federation proposals; when he cautioned thus: “But a Federation of Kenya, Tanganyika, Uganda and Zanzibar cannot, and must not, be imposed upon the people of these Territories. It must be a decision of the people themselves, expressed through their elected representatives . . . In order that this Federation may be a reality, it must be willed, designed and  put into effect,  by  the people of East Africa themselves.  An imposed Federation like the ‘Central African Federation (of Rhodesia and Nyasaland) has no chance of succeeding, and is completely out of the question”.     

        That is why he insisted that “discussions on the question of the establishment of a Federation of East Africa  can only come after all the countries concerned have established Governments which are elected by the people, and are therefore responsive to the wishes of the people”. 
Nyerere’s initial fears were fully vindicated.
We have noted above, Mwalimu Nyerere’s initial fear that after each country has achieved its independence separately, it would become extremely difficult to form the desired Federation, for the reason that “they will become open to the temptations of nationhood, and the intrigues of those who find their strength in the weakness of small nations”.                                                                                                      These fears were fully vindicated, because that is what exactly happened.  All his hopes and predictions mentioned above, eventually came to naught, in the sense that the desired Federation was never established at the time he had actively campaigned for its formation, namely before these independent countries had become ‘exposed to the temptations of nationhood’. 
 The sequence of hopes and frustrations in that process.               

The hopes started in early 1963; soon after the countries of Kenya and Uganda had each achieved its independence separately, when in June, 1963, the Heads of the Governments of Kenya, Tanganyika and Uganda, after their meeting in Nairobi, issued a joint declaration stating that the ‘East African Federation would be established before the end of that year, 1963’. But alas, that year eventually ended without the proposed Federation being formed.                       

        Then, in   March 1964, the Kenyan members of Parliament took the initiative of convening a joint meeting of the members of Parliament of Kenya, Tanganyika and Uganda, for the purpose of discussing ways and means of achieving quickly the implementation of the said June 1963 declaration.                                                               The Ugandan members of Parliament did not even respond to that invitation; and it was later revealed that Uganda was of the view that “we must put our separate houses in order first, before we can contemplate a Federation”.                                                   

        However, the MPs from Kenya and Tanganyika did attend that meeting, at which it was resolved that the said Federation declaration should be implemented quickly, without any further delay. It was further decided to appoint a Committee from among themselves, which was mandated to visit each of the three Heads of Government, to press for the immediate implementation of their declaration. Unfortunately, all these efforts eventually also came to naught.  

        Now that this matter has been put back on the agenda, we pray to the Almighty God to grant the relevant decision-making authorities the wisdom, and the courage, to bring the East African Federation proposal to fruition this time round.  As the Holy Bible says in Ecclesiastes, 3, 1-8 :  “To everything there is a season,  and a time to every purpose under the heaven.   A time to be born, and a time to  die”.  Hopefully, now  is the  season for the desired “East African Federation” to be born.
piomsekwa@gmail.com/0754767576.

Source: Cde Msekwa today

Congrats Zim on ‘Inventing’ Patriotism Law

Although it’s long overdue, I can’t wait to see how it’ll pan out. I nevertheless congratulate Zim’s authorities on birthing a new bill lauded as a patriotic law. Africa needs such creative rulers who can enact laws that’ll help them to munch freely no matter what. I’ve some good reasons to clap such innovation. 
        Firstly, who wants to rule people who can holler or mutter about everything? Who’d like to hear every-so-often some unpatriotic ‘crooks’ call for the apprehension of the likes of gold mafioso syndicate? To do away with such ‘psychosis’, those in upper echelons of power, need to come up with simple solution of gagging such worrywarts who disrespect and expose the good rulers of Zim.
        Secondly, when the land is in an electoral mood, those aiming high to remain in high places must make sure that they’re on the top of the game. You call such a raw law a patriotic law that can protect even those who are unpatriotically patriotic as well from saying unsayable stuff. We call this winning without any fracases. You enact the law that’ll put off whoever plans to disgrace or dispute you or disclose your dirty linens. 
        Thirdly, underscoring that most of earthlings are becoming unpatriotic, you patriotically instruct the party and other organs under your control, to myopically come up with something to make everybody patriotic. To do so shrewdly, just define the law and its terms in your own terms. 
        Look at the bill in question. It clearly and nicely stipulates that “any citizen or permanent resident of Zimbabwe (hereinafter in this section called “the accused”) who, within or outside Zimbabwe actively partakes ... in any meeting whose object the accused knows or has reasonable grounds for believing involves ... military or other armed intervention in Zimbabwe ... subverting, upsetting, overthrowing or overturning the constitutional government in Zimbabwe; shall be guilty of wilfully damaging the sovereignty and national interest of Zimbabwe and liable to:-(i) the same penalties as for treason, in a case referred to in paragraph (a); or (ii) the same penalties as for subverting constitutional government.” What a beautiful piece of law!
        Looking at how timorous the bill’s, even haters abroad who met and instigated some evil foreign powers that issued sanctions against the mighty Zim’ll be sternly dealt with soon if not later. The law’s clear.  To be safe, all Zims and permanent residents must keep mum before they’re shown why birds don’t pee-pee. And this is truly patriotism. Zims as patriotic people, need to praise and protect the secrets of their rulers. This is where all lies about the gold Cosa nostra come in. How can foreign media know what’s happening in Zim and come with their lies to lecture Zims and tarnish its good name? This is dangerous and totally unpatriotic. Its major aim is to create bad blood between the mighty powers that be and the earthlings.
        As I sign off, I must say. Patriotic law’s so epic and terrific. It must add another legal requirement that all earthlings are duty-bound to defend, love, and protect the high and the mighty in the upper echelons of power. Former Uganda patriotic philosopher, Idi Amin once said that the duty of the earthlings is to love their rulers without questioning any action good or otherwise, they commit since when rulers eat, they do so on behalf of the earthlings. And this is what this patriotism’s all about. Join me to disclaim, sorry, to acclaim, patriotic law.

Source: Independent Zimbabwe today.

The power of a woman

A mother should not have to give up her life to create one

At birth, more boys than girls are born on our planet. Even though men have a lower life expectancy than women, the gender ratio in the world has hovered around 102 males to 100 females.

Of course, these statistics vary from one country to another. But what stuns me as someone who studies gender, culture, law and society is the resilience of girls and women in a very tough world for the female gender.

        What are the consequentialist bases for this outcome? Are women simply stronger – in the broader usage of that term – than men? Are men, in reverse, simply weaklings who rely on economic, social and political power to keep women subordinated? If so, why hasn’t that changed?

        Any man who has been in the presence of childbirth can attest to the power of a woman. I have been several times and I can report that the experience was awesome. But there was one important takeaway for me – I think I would simply die there and then if I had to give birth.

        The effort was so herculean and utterly stupefying that I still marvel at how women do it, and often crack a smile when the baby takes its first breath on the planet. The ability to carry the child to term and then bear the excruciating pain of childbirth is a testament to a woman’s superior strength. Those two things alone should make every boy and man kiss the ground on which women walk.

        On top of it all, there are the challenges that come in the aftermath of giving birth. Nursing the child, often in solitude without help. In some cases, the dangerous onset of post-partum depression has led some women to suicide, or even infanticide. This phenomenon in particular is not well understood and women often find themselves struggling with it alone.

        In many societies, post-partum depression is stigmatised, making it even harder for women to talk about it, or seek help. And yet women fight through these debilitating conditions to bear and nurture more species of the male gender than the female one. But do boys and men recognise these enormous sacrifices, or are they simply taken for granted?

    Then there’s the cultural piece. We teach girls and women – in all religions and cultures around the world – that they are lesser beings. We in fact tell them to “submit” to the male gender. 

Wedding vows 

In Christian wedding vows – echoing Ephesians 5:22-25 – Paul directs wives to “submit” to their husbands and for husbands to “love” their wives. There’s no doubt here that the husband (man) is being cast as the head of the family, and that the wife (woman) must accept the direction and the leadership of the man. Mind you this edict is given without regard to the task or the ability of either the husband or the wife. A brilliant wife must, perforce, submit and obey a stupid man.

        Even if we as humankind are so dimwitted, there’s no reason we should accept such an obviously morally indefensible and undemocratic concept. It’s an idea that goes against all logic because it gives all power to the husband (man) simply because of his gender, which really is only about his anatomy and genitalia.

        I don’t want to be crude, but male genitalia has never been known to possess any brilliant brain cells. If anything, male genitalia often corrupts a man’s better sense of judgement and morality, warping his thinking. We should not run households based on the hereditary leadership of male genitalia. I know many girls and women who are far superior beings to many if not most, men.

        This problem goes to the way we socialise male and female children in the home, at school and in society at large. We teach girls to serve and to tend to house chores while we let boys play outside. We even give different gendered holiday gifts to children. We will often give a toy gun to a boy but a sewing kit to a girl.

        We are socialising them for gendered roles – the gun is the symbol of a violent conqueror but the sewing kit is the indelible image of a stay-at-home homemaker. One is a master, the other a servant. It’s out of these roles that boys and men culturally expect to have dominion over girls and women, and even to “correct”, that is, beat them. 

        This breeding of misogyny and the naturalisation of hetero-patriarchy is by far the biggest reason for excluding girls and women from the public square and confining them to the private sphere. It’s the cultural justification for domestic and gender-based violence and for the rape of girls and women by strangers and even their husbands in marriage.

        In fact, it’s one of the cardinal reasons some cultures believe a husband can never rape his wife. And yet with all these limitations and the treatment of women as chattel, our mothers, sisters, wives, and aunts are the reason boys and men are here. It’s a wonder they live longer than men. More power to all girls and women!

   Makau Mutua is SUNY Distinguished Professor and Margaret W. Wong Professor at Buffalo Law School, The State University of New York. @makaumutua.

Source: Sunday News tomorrow.

S5 / 00:58

Revisiting the political history of Zanzibar

“History is too important to be left to Historians alone”, so the gurus said.  This is the month of June, 2023.  The  lovers of our country’s political history may be interested in this little piece of  our country’s  history; which  is that on June 24th, 1963;  Zanzibar was granted the status of “self-government” by the British colonial Authorities.  This was the final constitutional  step,  on the way to Zanzibar’s independence.
        Under  the  colonial system of  governance;  Zanzibar was categorised as a “Protectorate”, which meant  ‘a country  which was ruled by another Authority, but under British government protection’. And in the case of Zanzibar, that  other ‘ruling Authority’  was the Arab Sultan.
        Thus, according to the relevant historical records, the  ‘Zanzibar Protectorate’ was granted that  constitutional status on June 24th, 1963; and was soon  followed by the granting of independence to that  same Arab ruling Authority, on 10th December, 1963.
This record may help to provide a better understanding  of  the basic reason for the ‘glorious revolution’ which removed that  imposed  Sultan’s  government, only a month later during the night preceding January 12th, 1964. In  other words,  it was a heroic rejection of  this new form of colonialism.
        However, this little piece is only a “curtain raiser”, before the  main presentation, which will focus  on a different matter  whose title is  “The progressive growth and development of Kiswahili as the language of communication in government business,” We will now direct our readers’ attention to that other matter.
        We must first recognise and appreciate, the Kiswahili language’s   positive critical role, and its immense contribution, to the relatively easy success of  the liberation movement in Tanganyika in achieving the country’s independence from  British colonialism; for it  was this language which enabled Mwalimu Julius Nyerere, together with  his TANU colleagues and associates;  to reach all the areas of this geographically vast country, in order to deliver the  ‘message of liberation from colonialism’  directly to the people living in those diverse areas, and  belonged to more than a hundred different  ethnic groups, each having its own language or dialect.  But fortunately, at least the majority of them could understand these liberation messages that were delivered in Kiswahili.
The  growth and development of Kiswahili.
In my article of last week in this column, I referred, albeit very briefly, to the directive that was issued by President Julius Nyerere, in January 1963, to all government establishments; to use Kiswahili, instead of English, in all official government business communications.
        But this directive was not merely ‘whimsical’, or a sudden wish by President Nyerere to do something that was unusual or unnecessary.  His was a well thought out design for  the country’s transition to the official use of the  national  language in all  the  young  nation’s government, and  other public affairs  transactions.  This is clearly demonstrated by his  decision to address the first  Parliament in Kiswahili, on the occasion of its  official opening under the new Republican constitution, on 10th December, 1962; which was quickly followed by the January directive referred to above.
        Thus, it was in the process of  implementing  that directive, that  the National Assembly formally resolved,  on 12th February, 1963; to adopt Kiswahili as the official communication medium in  our Legislature.
        This was a complete departure from past practice, when  all parliamentary proceedings had been conducted solely   in English.  Indeed, it is for that reason that  it had become necessary to  administer  an  oral “English language proficiency test” for those MPS who had been elected to the ‘Independence  Parliament’, in  September 1960, whose curriculum vitae  showed that they had not  completed  even  primary education. Bibi Titi Mohamed, who had been elected to represent the Rufiji constituency, was the only one who required to take this test, which she did, and passed.
As a result of this National Assembly resolution, we had to take fast action to look for appropriate Kiswahili words for the parliamentary technical words and phrases which had no Kiswahili equivalents at that material time.  

          However, in some cases, this conversion to Kiswahili became a process of “trial and error”; in the sense that  some  of such technical names and phrases had no Kiswahili equivalents;  a fact which made it necessary for us to invent, or  create, our own such equivalents.
        Thus, for example, we had to find a Kiswahili name for the institution  itself,  i.e. the ‘National Assembly’, or ‘Parliament’, for which we created the  single word ‘BUNGE’. And for the description  “Member of Parliament”, we adopted the  word  “Mbunge”. For the  Honourable “Speaker”, we initially adopted the word “Khatibu”; but that was soon discarded, for being  unsuitable. Instead of which we created the word “Spika”. We also had to find  Kiswahili equivalents for phrases like the “Order Paper”, for which we adopted the words “Orodha ya Shughuli za Bunge”; Government  Bills”; for which we adopted the words “Miswada ya Sheria ya Serikali”; “Government  Motions”, for which we adopted the phrase “Hoja za Serikali; et cetera.
        Those were the humble beginnings of the use of the Kiswahili language, as a medium of communication in government business transactions. It has been a long journey, to where it is today; when it has been adopted as one of the official languages of communication in some of the international forums, such as the ‘East African Community’, the ‘Southern African Development Commission’, and the ‘African Union’.
Mwalimu  Nyerere’s   efforts in promoting Kiswahili
The story of the growth and development of Kiswahili would  certainly  be  incomplete, without mentioning Mwalimu Nyerere’s personal role and efforts that he invested in its promotion.
His  eagerness to promote Kiswahili, seems to have been  partly  based on his own sincere  love for this language; and this is evidenced by his early adventures into the rather exclusive  field of Kiswahili poetry; as well as in his  astonishing  efforts in translating  some of the ancient  scholarly  and  highly sophisticated  works;  namely the New Testament of the Holy Bible;  and  two of William Shakespeare’s famous Plays, Julius Caesar; and The Merchant of Venice. With regard to his adventures into Kiswahili poetry, I can  vividly remember the piece which he penned in welcoming Tanganyika’s independence, which was appropriately titled  “Kulikucha kuchele, na kulala kukomele”.
 The publication which contains  the Kiswahili version of the New Testament, is titled “Tenzi za Biblia”.                            

And in respect of his astonishing efforts  in translating  these heavy, scholarly literature  volumes;  there are two aspects which are truly amazing. The first wonder, was just how he was able to  render so many lines of dense Shakesperian  old  sixteenth century English verse, into Kiswahili.
        This, perhaps, provides proof of the richness of the Kiswahili language, in the sense that it is capable of  being used even in such highly  sophisticated and scholarly  undertakings. But the second wonder, was how he managed to get sufficient time  for  concentrating  on these  intellectually demanding tasks, when at the same time, he was already engaged heavily in the political business of liberating the country from British colonialism; plus putting the new nation on a proper footing, following the achievement of independence. But that was Julius Kambarage Nyerere, the founder President, and father of our nation.
 But  Kiswahili  was not  as a language of instruction in schools
We are, presumably, all aware  of the  serious discussions  which  are currently taking place regarding the use of Kiswahili as a language of instruction in the country’ education system. This same matter was also raised at one point during Mwalimu Nyerere’s presidency; and  I happen to have been directly  involved. It occurred during the preparations for a  meeting of the TANU National Executive Committee, that was  scheduled  to be held  in  April, 1974;  in  Musoma.
        This meeting had been convened, primarily  for the purpose of giving  consideration to  proposals for some major reforms, that were intended  to be introduced  in the country’s entire  education system,  with the aim of achieving the goal of “Education for Self-Reliance”  that had been announced in the 1967 ‘Arusha Declaration’ policies.   

        That meeting was also expected to consider proposed reforms  in  the procedure for students admission to the University of Dar es Salaam, for that  same purpose of incorporating the need for  self-reliance at  the tertiary  education level.
        I was then the Vice Chancellor of the University of Dar es Salaam, and President Nyerere  had asked me to prepare  a  ‘Discussion Paper’ which would help to  guide the deliberations of that important meeting.  

         The Minister of Education,  Reverend  Simon  Chiwanga,  had  got wind of my assignment,  so he asked me  to include  his  Ministry’s  proposal to make Kiswahili the medium of instruction in  the country’s  entire  education system.
        I of course obliged, and crafted it in  the following words: “That Kiswahili shall be progressively introduced, to replace English as the medium of instruction,  in  the country’s entire education system, including  the secondary and tertiary levels”. Thus, when  my assignment had been done and completed, I submitted the final draft  to Mwalimu Nyerere, for his scrutiny and approval, or other instructions.
        That is when he called  me to  express  his strong disapproval of  Minister Chiwanga’s  proposal. Therefore, I  deleted it from the  ‘Discussion Paper’ that was presented  to the Musoma  TANU  NEC meeting. But during the meeting itself, Mwalimu Nyerere  disclosed  that this proposal had been suggested to him,  and explained why  he had rejected it. “We cannot avoid training our students in  English, for English is the Kiswahili of the world today;  and we will only be doing  irreparable harm  to  ourselves,  if we remove it from  our education system”;  he said.
        That position may probably have  drastically  changed  by  now; so we can only wait to see the outcome of the on-going discussions regarding this matter. We may now return to the point of the vital contributions that Kiswahili has made generally;  and  look at the    fundamental contribution which was made by Kiswahili  in facilitating  the country’s governance, which should also be  properly  appreciated.  This was in respect of promoting public acceptance of new major development policies; and thus made their enforcement very much easier.  This includes the new policy of Ujamaa, which was introduced by  the “Arusha Declaration”, in February 1967; which introduced new words and phrases like: “Jitegemee, usiwe mnyonyaji,“usiwe kupe; or“Usiwe bepari,  Ubepari ni Unyama”; et  cetera.
        All such words and phrases emerged spontaneously, and were being enthusiastically chanted especially among the youth;  as  a way of demonstrating their full support for the new‘Arusha Declaration’  policies; and they greatly assisted in creating a clearer public understanding of the true meaning  of these policies; and this greatly  helped to generate  higher compliance levels.
 Enter President John Pombe Magufuli
It was the late President Magufuli who secured the acceptance by the Southern Africa Development Commission (SADCC) of Kiswahili to be used as one of its official languages of transacting its business.  

        The late President John Pombe Magufuli was, apparently, also  a  keen lover of Kiswahili; for in his State Banquets, which he hosted for Foreign Heads of State who visited Tanzania, he always proudly used Kiswahili   in his welcoming speeches. His contributions to the spread of Kiswahili to other countries include his efforts in ‘marketing’ Kiswahili in the countries which  comprise  the South African Development Commission (SADCC).
piomsekwa@gmail.com/0754767576.

Source: Daily News today.