Great Lesson from Covid-19

3,463 × 2,250

By Nkwazi Mhango

Almost everything under the Sun's two fasciae either good or bad. Put it this way. There’s nuanced dichotomy almost in everything, principally the way humans do and interpret things. I’ll use this dyadic tactic to reconnoiter all good and subtle things methinks covid-19 has engendered despite its obvious looming corollaries, idiosyncrasies, and jeopardies to humankind. I say this because Covid-19 is still around and will be there for unknown time. Too much or little of everything is dangerous; whereas everything poised is good. After the novel coronavirus broke in 2019, it’s been doom and gloom for the world almost in everything. The manner in and hustle at which the pandemic whelmed the world like bushfire were verily nerve-wracking. The self-promoted high and mighty of the world started to sound a death knell for Africans that they’ve always deemed gloomy. 

    Ironically, before long, the pandemic turned tables on them and proved them wrong up until now. The pangs and twangs the pandemic’s dispatched are bigger and more palpable in the west than Africa. Here's where you wonder neglected countries such as the CAR, DRC, Somalia and Zimbabwe among others would do better than the might west.

However, as the things go, there seems to be a silver lining to it. There are some positive things attributable to this pandemic. The Swahili sage’s it that every calamity’s its blessings. Considering some new findings, there are chances that Covid-19–––if well studied and utilized–––is likely to help us to usefully change the world.                               Environmental activists, ecologists, and futurists are happy with the ablution of air that comes with Covid-19.  Similarly, rare and imperiled animals, in some place, are coming back. Josiane Plante of Montreal, Canada's quoted  (CTV News, April 19, 2020) as saying that she was surprised to see a pair of bare-headed wild turkey in downtown swaggering in the sidewalk, which is a rare sight.

Further, according to James Page of the Canadian Wildlife Federation, there were 15,000 new sightings reported in the first days of April of the same year. This might be seen as something negligible.

            Arguably, the bigger picture one gets from eco-friendly changes such as air and water quality improvements speaks to the fact that our consumerism is something that’ll one time extinguish us. It further speaks to how we can apply the good lessons from Covid-19 to take on the global warming; we, humans will easily avert the looming dangers we are collectively facing. In this way, we’ve an opportunity to make sense of and reconcile Covid-19 science with global warming science. 

         I’m sure. If research is conducted on how trees, our forests have improved during the lockdown in China and Europe, chances are that much will be learned and gained from Covid-19. There can be a silver lining in this cloud of pandemic if humans become creative and avant-garde seeking to make opportunities out of what seems to be a colossal menace. Yes, one’s garbage might become another’s treasure.

            Apart from ecological goodies, there are some socio-economic goodies. For example, the husbands who used to come home in the middle of the night under various ruses so as to become rare genera to their progenies were always home during the lockdowns thanks to the Covid-19. The movements of such creatures were curtailed either for the fear of endangering their families or obeying the lockdown laws. The kismets they used to burn on liquor and prostitutes can now help their families to live better. Consider this. The used to be lonely housewives were then happy for what Covid-19 has awarded them.  The lockdowns that Covid-19 ushered in can’t be negated so to speak or being treated as fishing expedition. For, it has informed us about our preparedness as countries and as peoples. Many governments were caught off guard; something that allowed corrupt officials to rob public coffers under the pretext[s] of urgency in tackling the pandemic. The lesson learned is that countries and governments need to have emergency funds and laws altogether.

 Consider the lock out many went through; some to end up taking to streets to oppose the move. Similarly, kids who had already forgotten how their fathers look like were then happy to see them around toying with parenthood. Conflict over parenting, not to mention infidelity, must have fallen sharply despite the fact that there have been negative side whereby girls have been on a receiving end as far as premarital pregnancies are concerned. 

For example, according to the Global Citizen (August 19^th, 2022), in Kenya alone, “over a period of three months in lockdown due to COVID-19, 152,000 Kenya teenage girls became pregnant—a 40% increase in the country's monthly average.”  What's the lesson today? This is not good. However, it provides a lesson on how to avoid this to recur. The good side of this is the fact that it alerts us to do things differently shall we go back to the lockdown to see to it that we seal the loopholes that enabled this crime to be committed.

            Another goodie that Covid-19 shows as a lesson for Africa is technological divide. While many students globally were online learning, ours were struggling for various reasons such as lack of internet connectivity, electricity, and the general programs, and infrastructure that would have enabled us to address this anomaly. The upshot is that Africa needs to start thinking about technological and power interconnectivity.                         Dependency on others to help proved to not help, especially during the pandemic in which it was everybody on his own. African sage has it that when spiders unite can tie a lion. We, too, despite being made to believe we are poor, together, we can bridge the orifice we're having now as a people and a continent.

More importantly, as was with HIV/AIDS and Ebola in Africa, humans have proved to be resilient. Maybe, it is time to learn the model African countries used to thwart the two pandemic singlehandedly while the west’s just ringing the death knell as if it wasn’t their duty to help other humans.  Africa needs to come forth and teach the others how it survived the above two perils. For, apart from its experience from the two pandemic, up until now, Africa still faces lesser of the pandemic compared to others. Why while Africa’s accused of having feeble health services compared to the west that's now huffing and puffing without underscoring its role in this.

Another good thing that Covid-19 ushered in is the fact that our health and social systems are wanting and gouged. Who’d think that the so-called developed countries would lose the battle to Covid-19 as it happened?  Refer to the hecatomb of many of its elderly. 

Apart from our health and social systems, in western countries, their wellbeing, especially that of elderly, is but shambolic. That’s why many elderly died compared to Africa and Asia where they are taken care of by their families instead of interning them in care homes.

In sum, Covid-19, despite its perils, presents challenges and opportunities to humankind shall we become creative and resilient, especially in preparing ourselves for the postcovid-19 time. Despite being a menace, Covid-19 can be a wake-up call for us to reconsider how we use our resources and the way we treat Mother Earth with myopia flaunted by our consumerism, greed, and self-centeredness as people and society. Africa and the west have a lot to learn and share from Covid-19 experience and resilience.

Source: Independent (Zimbabwe).

If It Were Africa They'd Say It Is Poverty

 

Support Ruto, Raila Pact

If there’s anything Kenya’s good at is nothing but its unique nature of changing quickly. Dynamic as Kenya’s always been, sometimes does things that are only Kenyan. Out of the blue, evidencing President William Ruto extending an olive branch to his erstwhile foe, Raila Odinga, the Opposition leader and the contestant in the last year elections, is something for Kenya and the world to celebrate, hang onto, and vigorously, wholeheartedly support and welcome. We believe Ruto means serious business to which, Odinga will equally reciprocate. 
            After leading the demos in the demonstrations that split Kenya down the middle and thereby paralysed it, economically, politically, and socially, Odinga brought to the fore an underlying problem Kenya, as a nation and a people, have sat on and need to seriously address and arrest. Now, that Odinga’s accepted the olive branch, I’ve the following for the duo:
            First, hold your horses and desist from fanaticism and issuing inflammatory messages or chest-thumping as you unswervingly ponder on how to go about and address the conflict. This is key. Squander this golden break, things might become worse than they’ve been. If this–––God forbid–––happens, all will become losers and Kenya, specifically will lose bigly. 
            Secondly, you must practically underscore and understand the fact that you’re Kenyans more than anything and all Kenyans’ and the world’s  eyes are on you, and the burden is on your shoulders. Thus, what you’ve gotten into is not about you. It’s about Kenya of today, tomorrow and the future. In conflict studies we say that, sometimes, the conflict can become a chance to address long-drawn-out issues that must be turned into an opportunity but not a liability.
            Thirdly, you must truly and unreservedly understand that Kenya’s bigger and more important than the parties to conflict,  individual power and ends. Therefore, the rare maturity, patriotism, and love for Kenya that the intentions of you display happen once in a lift time. Thus, you must understand. If  Kenya goes up in smokes, you’ll lose bigly, and all blames will be on your shoulders. Kenya can be destroyed or saved by Kenyans themselves. 

        There’s no uncle who’ll come to save Kenya but Kenyans themselves will. So, Kenya needs help badly from itself and from Kenyans to grab and exploit this opportunity to get down to brass tacks. It’s easy to know what’s in the cards, especially after the court made its mind, which didn’t resolve these looming quandaries that’ve been resurging every ten years. I, thus, strongly emphasise. Odinga and Ruto must seize this rare moment and prove their mellow leadership. 
            Fourthly, all lieutenants and sympathisers to the duo must avoid enkindling Kenya by letting their voices of reason work on the conflict. They must understand that shall Kenya go south, all Kenyans as well as the region will lose and suffer. Blocked-in countries, chiefly Uganda and South Sudan, which use Mombasa port to import and export their goods should brace themselves for preventable hardships shall the EAC step in quickly and timely. 
            Fifthly, you must avoid fanaticism and hooliganism and let reality apply in addressing the conflict that needs more of give and take, reasoning, and let go in some matters. We all evidenced Kenya sweltering. Demonstrations become a weekly ritual. President Ruto’s regime’s a tussle with Opposition Chief, Raila Odinga who’s pressing it to lessen sufferings Kenyans are now facing after Ruto scrapped subsides his predecessor’s regime introduced on petrol and unga to protect people from the rising cost of living. Apart from agitating for the resumption of subsides, Odinga seeks to compel Ruto to open the savers in order to audit last year Presidential results he claimed he won but the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) botched in  favour of Ruto. Because of that Odinga’s declared biweekly demos every Monday and Thursday up until the government loops in. 
        Kenya history is strewed with violent ethnic conflict that’s been surfacing and resurfacing almost after every general election. Despite having one of progressive constitutions, it seems. The powers-that-be have horribly failed to apply it to resolve such looming dangers resulting from the allegation of vote rigging and stealing. On 27th March, 2023, demonstrations took a bad turn. The looters invaded former President Uhuru Kenyatta’s farm in Ruiru sub-county and made away with a couple sheep. Also, the looters set fire on bushes and trees.
    Those who know Kenya’s precariousness still wonder how the unfolding situation will end. This speaks to the dangers of avowing to allow history, dirty history to define Kenya. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Who wants the repetition of dirty and sad history? Remember, in 2007’s elections, there occurred violent ethnic conflict that left over 1,000 Kenyans dead, and property worth millions of dollars vandalised. As if it wasn’t enough, ten years after in 2017, the same allegations resurfaced. This time around, the Supreme Court of Kenya prevailed by nullifying Kenyatta’s win setting a precedent in Kenya and Africa. Had it not been for the court to assuage the loser of the elections by ruling in his favour, things would have been different.
    Come last year, the same revisited. Odinga claimed that his win was stolen for yet another time. He petitioned the court to intervene to no avail. The Supreme Court, this time, seemed to openly be partisan, which peeved Odinga to petition to the wananchi. Those who are conversant with law will agree with me that the language, logic, and reasons the court applied in delivering its verdict’s more political than bafflegab.
After being handed victory, Ruto and his lieutenants, mainly his Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua honed their clappers irresponsibly so as to start buying and falling into Odinga’s trap. For example, one of Ruto’s lieutenants, Kimani Ichungw’a tweeted before the vandalization of Kenyatta’s property that they’re coming for the chattels of the dynasties and before long, it came to pass. Thereafter, Kenyatta’s property was vandalized. Was this a coincidence or a plot? Such utterances must stop as the power of reason comes in to save Kenya from itself. Let the protagonist hire a Solomonic wisdom at least. Why didn’t Ichungwa underscore the weight his position as the Majority Leader carries? I’d argue Ichung’wa to recant his threats and apologise if he’s taken out of context. I know it’s tough to beat swords into ploughshare. Nonetheless, Gachagua and Ichung’wa must know point blank. They’re plotting to bring their boss down irresponsibly for the reckless volleys they’ve been repeating now and then for their perils? The duo must avoid giving their enemies ammos to finish them off easily. What do you expect when you threaten a former President with ransacking his property and it happens?
      In sum, I beseech Ruto and his lieutenants to scratch their heads and adequately and competently address the problem instead of letting tongues wag. So, too, I applaud Odinga for seeing the light. Let Kenya and Kenyans talk about peace and avoid self-destruction, chaos, and violence. They must know. Shall they squander this golden opportunity, neither Kenyans nor the world will forgive them. For me, what’s in the offing’s another golden chance for Kenya to show the world how mature it has become. The conflicts in DRC, South Sudan, and the horn of Africa–––is enough. Odinga and Ruto must be supported in this rocky road to resolving the dangerously rolling conflict for Kenya and the region.
Source: Sunday Nation today.

Why sovereign equality is a fiction

Former US President Donald Trump. 

Pool I Nation Media Group

    By Makau Mutua    Professor at SUNY Buffalo Law School and Chair of the KHRC.

In 2018, Donald J Trump — who was then US President — called Haiti, El Salvador, and African states “sh**hole” countries. An uproar of anger, disbelief, and disgust erupted. One fact is common in all the states insulted by Mr Trump — they are either black or brown states. But mostly black.

In any language, Mr Trump’s epithet was textbook racism. After all, the President of the United States is the official spokesperson of the most powerful nation earth. Was Mr Trump expressing an unwritten policy, or belief, of the US government? Was that unspoken policy of the US Department of State, America’s foreign ministry, and its embassies around the globe? Was that what white people in America believe about Africa and Africans?

            More importantly, was there any truth to what Mr Trump had said? Did the description actually fit African countries? Can one make a distinction between “sh**hole states” and “sh**hole people”? In other words, can people who aren’t “sh**hole” live in such a country or state? Or does it necessarily follow that countries that fit this description are created by such people so that there is a hierarchy of races in which some races are “sh**hole” and others aren’t? You know where I am going with this. Are some races superior to others? Is the world built on the inequality of races and peoples? Does it follow that some races have a “right” to colonise, or exploit, others? Can this unjust and corrupt world be changed?

            We live in a hypocritical world governed by a scandalous international legal and economic order. Let’s take the Charter of the United Nations itself. The UN, according to Article 2(1) of its Charter, “is based on the sovereign equality of all its members.” What, exactly is the meaning of that vacuous provision? The UN’s two main organs — the General Assembly and the Security Council — are a contradiction in terms. The General Assembly is a toothless talking shop because real power lies in the Security Council. Get this — every state sits in the General Assembly but only 15 states sit in the Security Council. A minority of 15 rules the majority 193 in the UN structure.

                It’s actually worse than that because within the Security Council there is blatant inequality. Of the 15 members, five are permanent members. The General Assembly gets to elect the 10 “others” who rotate off every two years. These 10 are non-permanent. The five permanent members have veto power, meaning that if only one of the five objects to an issue, that matter dies there and then.

UN charter

The five permanent members, who took the UN hostage at its founding are the United States, the People’s Republic of China, Russia, France, and the United Kingdom. Nothing happens in the UN without their say-so. The Charter of the UN can’t even be amended unless they all consent. Is that sovereign equality?

                That’s why I wasn’t amused when Kenya spent beaucoup cash to lobby to become a non-permanent member of the UN. I don’t think Kenya got anything out of that futile exercise. The money would’ve better spent to build a bridge across Enziu River in Mwingi, where a bus plunged into the swollen river, killing 33 souls. In liberal theory and philosophy, the key tenets are formal equality and abstract autonomy. It’s the struggle to put substance into “formal” and “abstract” that renders the nirvana of liberalism elusive and fictitious. In reality, equality and autonomy are fictions. But these are fictions we must aspire to because the opposite is unthinkable. We cannot accept a society built on explicit inequality.

        Back to Mr Trump, the buffoon. By “sh**hole” countries Mr Trump meant that white people must have dominion over black, brown, and yellow peoples. In other words, the master race — Caucasians — must rule the world and the rest of us must serve them, or exist for their use, abuse, and pleasure. We are supposed to be the pit latrine for white people. Today, you can see this plainly and clearly in Kenya. The unjust international economic order has rendered African countries “client” states of the West, and now increasingly Asian states like China and Japan. Kenya believes that it will collapse without handouts from Washington, London, Beijing, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Our leaders go there to beg.

            For how long shall we live on our knees rather than die on our feet? Let me give you one poignant example of our beggarly existence and its humiliating consequences. It’s diplomatic practice for states to exchange envoys or ambassadors. I have lived in America for decades, but I have never heard of an African ambassador going to the White House to lecture the US president on democracy, let alone publicly criticise Washington.    African ambassadors in Washington DC are happy to wine and dine in the capital of the world’s empire without raising a fuss. That’s the exact opposite of what Western, usually white, ambassadors do in Nairobi.

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

Source: Sunday Nation today.

I won't Back Down I'll Stand My Ground

 

Global warming abandon capitalism or perish

Evidence shows that human activities, particularly carbon emissions are to blame.

Currently, planet earth is under many assorts of assaults and hazards. And rightly so, it is bleeding to death and nobody’s asking quo vadis. Humans have brought it to its kneel for the peril of almost everything including themselves. Currently, the world is facing global warming, natural calamities, which to me are manmade. For example, we recently evidenced the raise of cyclones, floods, pandemics, storm and wildfires among many. Evidence shows that  human activities, particularly carbon emissions are to blame. Again, who cares? Who is to blame? The answer is simple that those with powers are to blame, mainly the so-called developed or industrialised countries, which–––for many decades––––have greedily and intentionally contaminated and polluted mother earth.  Their arrogance, greed, ignorance and myopia among others are to blame. Their greed and myopia too are. The refusal to learn from the obvious will cost the earth more than anybody can tell. The doomsdays are on our door weightily smiting though we pretend to downplay them, once again, for our peril. In this piece, I will point at one of the root causes of our self-inflicted tragedy shall we go on with business as usual at these unusual times.
    My culprit today is actually capitalism among others. I must state this clearly from the outset that capitalism is chief culprits since, for many years, has forced the world to destroy mother earth under its mantra of consumerism. Capitalist countries toppled governments that seems not to toe the line. After its triumph over communism in 1989, thanks to the fall of the Berlin Wall, its neoliberal polices became the only bull in the stable, especially after China embraced it doggedly and ploddingly replicated it. That is why those in Africa who think China is going to help them are wasting their time. No capitalist is good or bad. A capitalist seeks to make a killing even by killing or torturing. You can take this to the bank.
             Why am I accusing capitalism of destroying the world shall it not be cut to size or decolonised? The first reason revolves around its disregard of humanity by allowing a person to exploit another disguised in profit. Under capitalism, one is allowed to colonise, enslave, exploit even genocide others provided that doing so should not touch on the interests of big capitalists in the West. Under capitalism, everybody is allowed to harm mother earth if doing so guarantees him or her to make a dollar. Refer to how many natural forests are decimated globally to supply the ever demanding and overdemanding capitalist market. Many endangered spices are now perishing for the same myopic and suicidal reason. Many lakes and rivers have been polluted for the same reason. Multinational companies in conjunction with African elites are behind this destruction, mainly in the countries endowed with sources of resources of values. At national and international levels, one’s allowed to get away with murder. Refer to how our former colonial monsters are still hounding us even after assaulting and gazumping for decades during slavery, colonization and now neocolonialism aka neoliberalism. Can anybody tell me why countries that colonised and enslaved others have never been brought to book to, at least, redress their victims? 
                Moreover, victimised countries were incredibly cheated by being given their ‘independence’ after the superstructure found that running colonies was more expensive than using proxies in many offices of presidents in their ex-colonies. Can we call African countries independent while they have always been dependent since the day they got their so-called independence? Is it demeaning African countries to assert that their so-called independence was a decoy for the big criminals to keep on lord it over them? If this is the case then why Africa has always been dependent and poor while it is told it is independent? Why African countries have always been the exporters of raw materials? Here comes another poison of capitalism. It thrives on extractivism and consumerism whereby materials of value have ever since colonial times been extracted from ex-colonies, manufactured massively by ex-colonial masters aka industrialised countries and exported back to where they were taken from to sell at exorbitant prices. Through this chicanery, criminals even richer despite making a killing and capital during slavery and colonialism. In producing massively, we’re poisoning mother earth in the name of development, industrialisation and supply even unwanted materials such as toys and fake hair among others. Our factories, for decades, dumped a lot of toxic materials to our lakes, rivers and oceans for our peril. Mother earth’s choked to death by our planes, factories, cars, greenhouses and others and we just do business as usual for our peril.
            Then we come to the second killer instinct of capitalism. This is none other than business or busyness. In the name of business, capitalism keep people busy toiling to make a dollar. To crown it, those who toil hard are not called toilers or servants even slaves but middle class. Middle class in the middle of exploitation. To push them in a snare, the middleclass is always told that it needs purchasing power to develop the country but not themselves. It is encouraged to show off the money it gets through extravagance instead of thinking about what it consumes and the dent it creates to mother earth. Here you will see people invest in oil guzzlers for show-offs thinking they’re they smart. Are they smart or stupid? To make the ruse work, some corrupt government in poor countries sitting on humungous resources of value are given aid. Capitalist bosses allow the official of such dependent government to abuse the aid and loans their countries get from their masters. Small, big and mega corruption become another rule of the game. The consumer even more for the peril of the world. While the middleclass is busy with showing off, a few billionaires purchase Private jets they use to traverse the world either hunting for leisure or even sending their pilots to buy pizza and wine from other countries as they burn gas and increase global warming. Despite this selfishness and huge carbon print, government don’t make them pay for their mischiefs through heavy taxation.
            What’s more, from where I sit, capitalism doesn’t create anything. Instead, it reaps where it didn’t sow, from nature. Refer to how we’re depleting everything to supply capitalism free market. It is free market or free fall destruction of mother earth? While this has been ongoing, capitalist institutions killed Indigenous knowledges that used to protect environment by harvesting nature sustainably; and thus save the world from itself and now from capitalism. Those who think this rationale’s hooey, please tell me: how ‘traditional-cum-primitive’ societies were able to live from time immemorial without harming environs up until there came capitalism or without begging and living on handouts up until they’re colonised. This speaks to the fact that Africa still has a lot to offer to address the problem at hand and thereby redress mother earth. Actually, this is a rare skill that colonisers killed. However, Africa can still salvage this knowledge and extend to others. For example, Africans used to consume according to the need but not luxury as they became after being colonised politically and culturally. A simple example is that there was no tourist hunting wherein animals are killed for fun! Tourists pays millions of dollars to decimate our animals. Ironically, we fail to understand the fact that the dollars we are given are churned by machines while our animals take a long time to be delivered and reach maturity. The almighty dollar–––the God of capitalism–––has blinded many to think that it can make them rich while in the long run, makes them poorer and poorer, especially due to the fact that they are losing priceless species just for papers. 
            Now that we know what we’re into, what’d we expect for our arrogance, greed, ignorance and myopia? Pandemics, after we have encroached on animals that used to live with their viruses in their habitats, natural calamities such as floods, famines heatwaves, weather instability and unpredictability, wildfires not to forget human-inflicted tragedies such as global warming, economic slumps, poverty and resource-based violent conflicts that’ll wreck many innocent and unsuspecting lives, especially in the so-called third world or pauperised countries that capitalism created while in actuality it’s the first world of resources that run the world.  
A long story short, when the world threw doors open to capitalism, it did not know how to shut them shall need arise. Again, in this self-annihilation, nobody’ll survive. We will die together as fools or survive together as humanity.  Are we mentally bankrupt so as to die together as fools? For, Mother earth is but the boat on which we’re all boarding though in different classes. Shall it sink, we all will. Then, what’ll we do? Abandon or abolish capitalism or perish. It is that simple. You do not need to have a PhD in natural resources, economics, finance or astrology to comprehend this.

Source: Independent (Zimbabwe) today.

Crafting the desired ‘new katiba’ in President Samia’s reconciliation process: Lessons from previous processes

BY PIUS MSEKWA

TODAY’S presentation is a continuation of the discussion which we started last week, on the matter of crafting a new constitution as part of President Samia’s ‘reconciliation’ process, wherein we will focus on our past experience in ‘constitution-making’ relating to the transition to multi-party politics in 1992; in the sincere hope that this information will benefit the team which will be tasked to undertake similar exercise in the current circumstances. But before proceeding with this topic, I believe it is right and proper that I should start with a protocol matter; which is to express my humble recognition of the great significance of US Vice President Kamala Harris’s visit to Tanzania last week.
                Although I developed some remote feelings of ‘regret’, that my decision of choosing to settle far away in Ukerewe, had denied me the rare opportunity of attending and enjoying the glittering Iftar (to which I was invited), that was organized in honour of the visiting Vice President by President Samia Suluhu Hassan at the Da es Salaam State House. But they cannot dampen my acknowledgement of the fact that this unprecedented event demonstrates, beyond reasonable doubt, the magnificent successes achieved by President Samia in her ‘economic diplomacy’ drive; as well as in her efforts in strengthening our bilateral relations with other nations.
            But this event rocks my memory back to those very old days, when the diplomatic relations between Tanzania and the United States were at the level of open hostility; which led to the angry recall of Tanzania’s Ambassador to the United States of America by President Julius Nyerere.  But those were the “bad old days” of the cold war, which should best be forgotten. In view of that, President Samia’s success in arranging this high-profile visit, amounts to ‘reconciliation’ in international relations.
Possible lessons from our past experiences in the ‘constitution-making’ process 
The first relevant experience is with regard to the transition from the multi-party system that was inherited at the time of independence, to the ‘one-party’ system in 1965   The second was the transition back to multi-party politics in 1992. In both cases, we followed a well-structured process, which included collecting and coordinating the views of the general public on the matter. 

            But because of editorial space limitations, we are able to discuss only the second experience.
This second transition process started with a meeting of the CCM National Executive Committee (NEC) which was held in February, 1990; whose agenda included “a review of the general state of politics in the world”; (which had been caused by the events which took place in Eastern Europe during 1989; that witnessed the sudden  downfall of nearly all of the hitherto  powerful ruling communist parties in that part of the world; as a result of  strong demands  for the introduction of democracy based on multi-party politics; and for the introduction of a market economy.
        Such demands quickly spread to several African countries; which, in some cases, resulted in violence, that led to losses of life.
This is what, basically, motivated the leadership of Tanzania to start giving serious consideration to the matter. The actual ‘reform process’ formally commenced with the February 1990 meeting of the CCM National Executive Committee referred to above; which issued the following directives: –
        (i)  That in view of the global political environment, a change of the political system was inevitable. 

     (ii)  That a national debate be organized that will involve all stakeholders throughout the country, to discuss the desirability, or otherwise, of this major change being effected.
        (iii) That in order to formalize these discussions, the President should appoint a commission to coordinate the people’s expressed opinions, on the question whether the country should remain a one-party state, or should change to the multi-party-political dispensation.
        And indeed, President Ali Hassan Mwinyi was quick in taking the necessary action; when, on February 27th, 1991, he appointed the said commission, consisting of an equal number of members from Tanzania Mainland and from Zanzibar, which he placed under the Chairmanship of the then Chief Justice of Tanzania, Mr Justice Francis Nyalali.
            In its “Terms of Reference’, among several other directives which were specified, the commission was also directed: “to recommend any amendments which should be made in the Union and Zanzibar constitutions, or in any other law; and  any appropriate modification that should be made in the country’s political culture”.
I had the good luck of being appointed a member of that Commission; which was given one year within which to complete its assignment.
            Working hard and with due diligence, we were able to meet that deadline, and submitted our final Report to the President on 17th February, 1992; in which we unanimously recommended that the change to the multi-party system should be made.  The President subsequently presented the said Report to the National Executive Committee for consideration and decision.
            I feel compelled to point out one extraordinary feature of our Report, which was in relation to the surprisingly large number of negative responses that we had received from the people interviewed, regarding the fundamental question whether, or not, the country should change to a multi-party-political system. The results were that 80 per cent of the views expressed had said ”NO” to such change; leaving only 20 per cent who were in favour of  that  change.
        However, despite this overwhelming rejection of the multi-party-political system, our commission still unanimously recommended that the change should nevertheless be effected.
On the face of it, this would appear to be a deliberate contravention of the well-known democracy principle of “the majority always wins”. But we had very good and cogent reasons for doing so, which we elaborated in our Report in order to convince the ruling party to accepted that recommendation.
            Subsequently, in processing the Commission’s recommendations through the Legislative process, the government did not stop merely at making provisions only for the transition to the multi-party system; but went further and introduced other important provisions which were aimed at removing some of the systemic impediments to democracy; and specifically, the apparent ‘concentration of vast executive powers in the Presidency’; and ‘the marginalisation of women’ in the political process.
            Presumably in positive response to our recommendations on that ‘Term of Reference’ which directed us “to consider any modifications that should be made in the country’s political culture”; both these deficiencies were appropriately dealt with.  We had interpreted the word “culture” to include our apparent ‘tradition’ of having an “untouchable” President, (who was vested with immense executive powers, and who could not even be arraigned in court for any offence he might commit while he is in office).
        The constitutional Amendments which were made in that respect, addressed these matters; when they introduced the following new provisions:- 

     (i)  For the impeachment of the President (under the circumstances that were detailed in that provision).                                                            

       (ii) For the removal of the President’s power to dissolve Parliament in his absolute discretion.  As a result of this amendment, the President can dissolve Parliament only at the end of its year term, in order to facilitate the preparations for the ensuing general election. Thus he cannot, for example, dissolve Parliament in order to save himself from an impending impeachment!
        (iii) For the removal of the President’s power to nominate as many as fifteen MPS. This number was reduced to ten such nominees.  At the same time, the provision for Regional Commissioners (who are appointees of the President) to be ex officio members of Parliament, was similarly removed.
        (iv) For the enhancement of women’s participation in the country’s governance; by providing for a specified minimum percentage of ‘specially reserved seats’ for women in Parliament; as well as in the Local Authority Councils.
            (v) For empowering Parliament to move a “motion of no confidence” in the Prime Minister, in the circumstances prescribed in that provision.
Such was the great extent to which the constitutional reforms that were introduced; presumably with the aim of giving the country a totally new ‘political look’; after closing the long chapter of the ‘single-party’ political system in our country.
Lessons for the anticipated ‘new constitution’ reformers
In view of the agreement reached to include the making of new constitutional reforms in President Samia’s reconciliation agenda;  I would suggest that  the experiences  gained from the past  similar  exercises, could  serve as a useful ‘guide’ to the team that  will be entrusted with the task of undertaking the anticipated similar exercise; and  in particular, the need to clearly identify the issues that will require consideration. This is what was done both  by the ‘Nyalali Commission’ of 1991, and  the ‘Kisanga commission’ of 1998.
        The ‘Kisanga commission’ was appointed by President Benjamin Mkapa, in order to provide an answer to the continuing demands by the Opposition parties for a “new constitution’.

It was in response to these persistent demands, that President Mkapa decided, in 1998, to appoint another “Constitution Review Commission”, headed by Mr. Justice Kisanga as its Chairman.              This commission’s mandate was to collect and coordinate the views and opinions of the people, regarding “what desirable changes should be introduced in the constitution”; that would hopefully satisfy such demands. In carrying out this mandate, the commission framed the specific issues which it deemed would require consideration for reform; and the following were  the issues that were shortlisted for that    purpose:-                          

        (i) The structure of the Union government ; should it consist of one, or two, or three governments? The commission subsequently reported that 96.25 per  of all the people who responded to this question preferred the “two-government” structure.
        (ii) The threshold for winning the Presidency: should it be an absolute majority of more than 50 percent of all the valid votes cast?   The commission’s finding was that 92 per cent of the respondents wanted a simple majority win.
        (iii) Should private candidates be allowed to participate in elections?  The finding on this question was that 92.13 per cent wanted the current restriction to remain.
        (iv) Should the electoral system be changed to that of Proportional Representation (PR)?
The finding on this question was that 93 per cent were in favour of continuing with the ‘first-past-the-post’ system that is currently in use.
        (v) An independent electoral Commission: how should its embers be selected? The finding was that 86.96 per cent preferred a continuation of the present system, whereby the members thereof are appointed by the President.
        (vi) Should Ministers continue to be appointed only from among the Members of Parliament? The finding was that 91,60 per cent preferred a continuation of this practice.
        Hence, as a result of these findings, no changes were made to the constitution in respect of these matters, thus maintaining the status quo.
The relevant lesson here, is that these findings appear to suggest that the majority of the people are completely satisfied with the present constitution; whereas, in view of the continuing demands for a ‘new constitution’, such impression is most probably false. 

        Awareness of this situation is what is important for the stakeholders;  in order to enable them to plan, and implement, appropriate remedial strategies; which will ensure that the desired objective is  achieved.  For example, by paying attention to the need for enhancing peoples’ understanding of the “role of the constitution in their everyday lives”, because this essential understanding is, sadly, currently lacking.
piomsekwa@gmail.com  / 0754767576.   
Source: Daily News today.

Let’s not become Zimbabwe

One of the people who invaded the Kenyatta family-owned Northlands farm and stole livestock on Monday, March 27, 2023. 

Professor at SUNY Buffalo Law School and Chair of the KHRC.

A failed state is one that is unable, or unwilling, to perform the basic functions of statehood. In the nomenclature of the modern republican state, the term describes a state that can’t guarantee the security of the people who live under it or protect their property. It bespeaks a state that is an ogre bent on the consumption of its people. A state that is bereft of basic political morality and decency, and in which officials prey on a hapless population.

        Such a state either descends into anarchy, or the citizens overthrow it to establish one that’s responsive to them. I am afraid we in Kenya now must start asking this scary question – are we a failing state? Allow me to take you back to a dark place – Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe. We all recall the iconic and articulate freedom fighter who led Zimbabwe out of white minority racist rule.

            But Mr Mugabe, once the darling of many, became a demagogic figure fixated on hot rhetoric and fascistic populism. He embarked on what initially looked like a justifiable land reform program to return white-owned lands to black Africans.

            However, it quickly became clear that this was just another land grab for his cronies which didn’t have anything to do with redressing historical injustices or requiting freedom fighters. Things quickly went south as commercial agriculture collapsed and Zimbabwe’s economy fell into a deep coma. It has never recovered.  Seeking power is often a different thing from governing once in office. That’s what many freedom fighters of the early independent African republics realised. But it’s not clear whether Mr Mugabe internalised this lesson.

            The man died an unrepentant fascist. In Kenya’s case, UDA’s William Ruto was declared fraudulently – as Azimio La Umoja One Kenya has insisted – the winner of the 2022 election.

Not prepared

From what I could tell, Mr Ruto didn’t expect to prevail in that contest. Hence, he and UDA didn’t seem to have been prepared to take power. That’s why the UDA regime has been gasping for air stumbling from one gargantuan error to another. The regime doesn’t know whether it’s coming, or going. It’s flummoxed. 

            The first sign Mr Ruto was headed for trouble was the composition of his cabinet. That body is littered, nay, punctuated with questionable characters. Among them are folks who faced charges of serious crimes including murder, rape, and corruption.

        It doesn’t get any worse than that. That was before Azimio La Umoja pressed its case against the regime. The apex of Azimio’s challenge has come with the weekly demonstrations that have exposed the regime’s illegitimacy and feet of clay.

            The state has responded with an iron fist in contravention of the constitution. Police have killed several demonstrators and injured many with live bullets, water cannons, and tear gas. The economy, which was comatose, is in a free fall.

        Rather than address Azimio’s irreducible demands – lowering the cost of living, stopping the unilateral reconstitution of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission, reinstating the Cherera Four, and ending the cannibalisation of Azimio – Mr. Ruto has dug in.

Azimio not going anywhere

 Methinks Mr Ruto is yet to understand that you stop digging when you are in a hole. My guess is that Azimio isn’t going anywhere, nor will it relent on these core demands. And I don’t think that Mr Ruto’s foreign backers have the staying power if the economy continues to sink.

            Sooner, or later, Mr Ruto will come to the realisation that you can take power, but you need the consent of the people to govern them. Legality isn’t the same thing as legitimacy.

            Shockingly, Mr Ruto has continued to thumb his nose at Kenyans. This past week, the unthinkable happened. Goons, reportedly connected to state officials invaded the Northlands property of the former head of state Uhuru Kenyatta.

            They cut and burned trees, slaughtered and took away livestock, vandalised property, and did mock division and allocation of plots to themselves. The heavily armed gangs operated with impunity as police refused to respond to the wanton destruction of property.

        At the same time, hired thugs stormed Spectre International Ltd, the Industrial Area company associated with Azimio leader Raila Odinga. They broke windows and vandalised the exterior before they were repulsed by citizens. Here, too, the police refused to respond. Why target them?

        UDA leaders close to Mr Ruto have vowed to teach Mr Kenyatta a lesson. Some even spoke openly about invading his property. They had threatened Mr Odinga in the same manner. But a line was crossed last week. Farm and property invasions are how they started in Zimbabwe.

            Today, it’s Mr Odinga and Mr Kenyatta. Tomorrow it could be Wiper’s Kalonzo Musyoka or Jubilee’s Jeremiah Kioni. The right to property is enshrined in the Constitution. If this happens again, I can see a tit-for-tat everywhere. That’s how Kenya could descend into chaos and anarchy. If the state can touch Mr Kenyatta, then all bets are off.

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

Source:Sunday Nation today.

I Stand My Ground and I Won't Back Down

 

Tavita and the music of the week

 

Pending reconciliation issues: The question of the independent candidate in elections

BY PIUS MSEKWA

IN last week’s presentation, I referred to the ‘understanding’ that has been reached to include the ‘new constitution’ agenda, in President Samia Suluhu Hassan’s ‘reconciliation’ process. And  I also mentioned the two pending constitutional issues that have continued being raised in different formal platforms; namely: the ‘two-governments’ Union structure and the question of the independent candidate in elections.   Due to editorial space limitations, we were able to discuss only the first issue and reserved the second one for discussion later.  Hence, that is the subject of today’s presentation.
        Strictly speaking, these were not, in fact, political conflicts as such in the sense that they were not conflicts between political parties. But nevertheless, they were raised by other interested stakeholders.  The ‘two-government’ issue has been repeatedly raised by ‘Constitutional Review commissions’ chaired (and largely influenced) by senior Judiciary officers; and the ‘private candidate’ issue was raised by ‘human rights’ activists.
The long story of ‘private candidate’ issue
As a general rule, ‘political decisions are made under the influence of the political circumstance prevailing at the material time’.  In the political circumstances prevailing around the time of the country’s independence, the participation of ‘independent candidates’ in elections was allowed.           And, indeed, in the 1960 pre-independence parliamentary election; one such independent candidate actually defeated the official TANU candidate in Mbulu constituency. But when the ‘One-party’ constitution was enacted in 1965; it outlawed the participation of private candidates in elections.  This major constitutional change was also dictated by the political circumstances of the time; which were that the country (Tanganyika) was operating as a de facto ‘One-party’ State, while it was, legally and in fact, a multiparty State. under the “Independence constitution” that was enacted by the British Parliament in London (based on the concepts and traditions of political management which were prevalent in the United Kingdom), and imposed on Tanganyika as part of the independence negotiations and Agreement in March 1961.
        These were, indeed, unusual political circumstances, whose effects became manifested in two areas: (i) in the 1960 pre-independence Parliamentary election results, and (ii) in the functioning of the country’s Legislature.
        The 1960 parliamentary election results actually surprised even the colonial Administration itself (whose officers had supervised the elections).  In 58 constituencies (out of a total of 71 constituencies countrywide), the Tanganyika African National Union (TANU) candidates had all been elected unopposed at the time of ‘nomination of candidates’.  And when the election was held, TANU candidates won by huge majorities in each of the remaining 13 constituencies; including Mbulu, where the independent candidate who won the election, was in fact a TANU member.
        But in the Bagamoyo constituency, the African National Congress (ANC) candidate Zuberi Mtemvu (who was the President of that party), even lost his election deposit, for having received only 53 votes, which was far below the minimum required for a refund of the election deposit to be made to the candidate.   TANU’s political dominance had been clearly demonstrated.
        However, of much greater significance and importance was the fact that in the 58 constituencies where the TANU candidates had been elected unopposed, the voters therein had been effectively dis-enfranchised; which means that they had been denied the opportunity to cast their votes at that election. The reason for this was that under the multi-party environment, the law allowed each participating political party to nominate only one candidate for election in any given constituency; and if no other candidate is nominated, no ting takes place in that constituency.
        Thus, by an ingenious paradox, the more support the people gave to TANU as a party, the more they reduced their own level of participation in the process of government; as a result of being dis-enfranchised!
        This was regarded as a serious “democracy deficit” by Mwalimu Julius Nyerere, and that was one of his reasons for wanting a ‘One-party State’ constitution enacted, in which TANU would be required (by the constitution) to select more than one candidate to compete in each and every constituency, thus removing the possibility of the electorate being dis-enfranchised.
        Mwalimu  Nyerere’s major reason for wanting a ‘one-party’ constitution, was his philosophical conviction, that a multi-party system can be justified only “when the parties are divided over some fundamental issue or issues; otherwise, it merely encourages the growth of factionalism “And he was committed to preventing the emergence of any such factions.”
        The “artificial” functioning of the Legislature was yet another reason that influenced his decision to abandon the multi-party system; for it curtailed the TANU MPs’ freedom of expression”; because they were required to follow the “party line”.  In other words, they were not free to express their sincere opinions on subjects which came up for discussion in the House.  And even such ‘caucus meetings’ are, in fact, part of the structure of multi-party Parliaments; as they are intended for use by the ruling party to determine their strategies for defeating the opposition MPs during debates on the floor of the House; which was not necessary in this case. But nevertheless, a “TANU Parliamentary party caucus” was established for that purpose. These were the main arguments that were advance in justifying the introduction of the “One-party” constitution; which would get rid of all such irrelevant restrictions.
Enter the ‘one-party’ constitution
But in crating the ‘One-party’ constitution, consideration was also  given to a large number of other factors,  including:  (a) the need to ensure the maintenance of democracy in a one-party environment by “providing maximum possible participation by the people in their own government,  and its ultimate control by them”;  (b) the need to make provision for the maintenance of “ethics and integrity”;  and (c) the need to make provision  for the observance of the “fundamental rights and duties of every citizen”; and (d) the need to make provision for implementing  the principles of “good governance and the rule of law”.
        And among the other factors that were considered, was this controversial prohibition of private candidates’ participation in elections, by confining such participation only to “a citizen of Tanganyika who has attained the age of eighteen years, and is a member of the party. These provisions were retained; both in the constitution, and in the relevant election laws.
The return to multi-party politics
The constitutional amendments which were made by Parliament in 1992 in order to accommodate the multi-party system, also carried forward these prohibitive provisions.  However, under the changed political circumstances, the said provisions became the subject of attack from different stakeholders; including Rev. Christopher Mtikilla, who filed a petition in the High Court challenging the constitutionality of these provisions, in the case cited  as Rev. Christophet  Mtikila  v  Attorney General (1995),  T.R.L. 31 of 1997; in which he asked the High Court to declare several statutory provisions to be unconstitutional “for infringing the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the constitution of the United Republic”. 

        The provisions that were challenged included those which prohibited the participation of independent candidates in elections.
His contention was that the requirement for membership of a political party “contravenes article 20(4) of the constitution, (which provides that no person shall be compelled to belong to a political party); together with article 21(1) (which entitles every citizen to participate in the government of the country, either directly or through freely chosen representatives) were both unconstitutional, for the reason that they deny the citizens their right to participate in in the governance affairs of the nation”.
        His petition initially succeeded, as judgment was given in his favour.  But the wording of that judgment had provided a loophole, which enabled the government to escape its implementation. That judgment said: “It is illogical for a law to provide that no person shall be compelled to belong to a political party, and in the same breath, to provide that no person shall be qualified to run for office except through a political party. If it was the intention of the Legislature to exclude non-party citizens from participating in the government of their country, it could easily have done so by removing the generality in article 21(1)”
        The loophole was in the final sentence; which the government promptly used by submitting to Parliament its proposals for amending that article of the constitution, “in order to remove that generality”.  Parliament duly obliged, by enacting Act no.34 of 1994. However subsequently, on 17th February, 2005; Rev. Mtikila filed yet another petition to the High Court, seeking a declaration that even Act no. 34 of 1994 had violated the constitution.
        His second petition also succeeded; when the Court again agreed with the petitioner, and declared that the amendments to the constitution which were introduced by Act no, 34 of 1994, were unconstitutional.  But on its part, the government announced its intention to appeal against this decision, in order to seek a determination of the question “whether the High Court has the power to declare a provision of the constitution itself to be “unconstitutional”! I am not aware of the outcome, if any, of this appeal.
        This ‘legal battle’ reminds me of the objections which were raised in the Parliament of the Australian Capital Territory, when the House was considering proposals for the enactment of a “Bill of Right; when some of its Members contended that “A Bill of Rights” will generate a litigation culture, and the only benefit is to the lawyers”.
        The 1984 amendments to the Constitution of the United republic had introduced a Bill of Rights into the Constitution of the United Republic. Hence, the “litigation culture” that was alluded to by the Australian Law makers had, apparently, been created here, and Rev. Christopher Mtikila was a beneficiary thereof.
        But because of the persisting Opposition parties’ demands for a new constitution, President Benjamin Mkapa appointed a ‘Constitutional Review Commission” under the Chairmanship of Mr. Justice Kisanga. The Commission’s Report said that it had used the methodology of asking the people to address specific areas of the constitution which were deemed to require amendment.  These included “the structure of the Union”; and the issue of the “private candidate in elections”.
        The commission’s findings on each of these matters are reported as follows: -“Regarding the question of the ‘structure of the Union’; 96.25 per cent of all the people who responded to this question preferred the ‘two-government structure’; and regarding the question of allowing private candidates to  participate in elections; 92.13 per cent  were against  allowing private candidates to participate in elections.  The status quo had been effectively defended.
Mwalimu Nyerere joins the chorus
Another prominent personality who joined the chorus for demanding the removal of this prohibition, was Mwalimu Nyerere himself; when he expressed his views at a public rally that was held in Mbeya on May Day in 1995 (to which he had been invited in the capacity of ‘Guest of Honour)’. In his key note Address, among many other things, Mwalimu Nyerere also said the following: -“Ninalo tatizo moja ambalo ninataka kulisema hapa, kwa sababu ninaona ni la msingi sana. Mimi nadhani kwamba sheria zetu zimekoea sana,  kwa kuzuia wagombea binafsi,    Hili ni jambo la msingi kwa sababu linahusu haki ya mtu ya kuomba kura. Hiyo ni haki yake ya kiraia, ambayo huwezi kumnyima.”  However, even his powerful intervention has not succeeded in removing the said prohibition.
piomsekwa@gmail.com /0754767576.

    Source: Daily News today.

Oh Grace Decca!

 

Do our callous, corrupt rulers deserve red carpets?

African traditional dances, Mbende Jerusalem

WHEREVER an African ruler goes, there are three things, namely, a red carpet, bodyguards and traditional dancers. I have always wondered: What is their significance? Are they not colonial carry overs and a wastage of time and public money? I am of the firm belief that our colonisers pretended that they revered our traditional dances, while they actually disliked them and wanted us to concentrate on them instead of liberating ourselves.
        Traditionally, Africans do not have the red-carpet culture. The red carpet is a sign of colonial and Western superiority. One would have thought that former colonies would detest and eschew such colonial instruments because they hardly demonstrate decolonisation, freedom or mellowness. Again, how can our rulers rebuff such colonial dregs while they act exactly like our former colonisers, not to mention that the State houses they greedily and owlishly occupy and protect were built by the erstwhile settlers?
The splendour and trimmings the State houses shamelessly display and enjoy are but typical replicas of colonial comportment and mentality?
        For Western leaders and monarchs to display such penchant makes sense because it is a sign of their perfidy that conceived colonialism and neocolonialism. Nonetheless, for the victims, taking pride in colonial lees, is nothing, but self-degradation if not the display of rank ignorance and greenness, not to mention burdening their poor people whose taxes they burn.
        Many still ask where the problem lies. Is it because they are not leaders but rulers who lack self-confidence? Is it a monkey see monkey do malady? I shudder to note that some of those displaying and regurgitating such colonial vestiges are PhD holders who cannot discern such simple things. I shudder to painfully see a ruler of a poor and begging country driven in a bigger motorcade than that of the late Queen of England whose major sources of income were slavery and colonialism.
        Considering how many corrupt and callous African washouts behave and misbehave, methinks they deserve to be received on dirty, torn and not red carpets. Why? Simple. They rule and live like nawabs on the sweat and taxes of pauperised people and countries. How and where do they get the money they squander? Is it by means of begging and borrowing? Nay, they make a killing by collecting taxes from paupers without offering any services.
        Also, they make money by vending our resources without any fear since we fear to confront them for fear of being purged. Another reason why African rulers deserve dirty carpets is the fact that they intimidate and mug their nationals, while Western leaders fleece other countries to feed their people who appreciate and applaud it. Considering how inept our rulers are, methinks they don’t deserve red, but a dirty carpet. Before giving more nuggets of wisdom, let me allude to the short history of the red or crimson carpet and its infidelity and death trap.
        According to Amy Henderson, history emeritus at the National Portrait Gallery, Washington, the history of the red carpet started in Greece during the times of Agamemnon, King of Mycenae in the year 458 BC. Agamemnon left his wife Clytemnestra at home and went to fight Trojan wars. On his return, Agamemnon brought a concubine with him, which infuriated Clytemnestra who hatched a plot to punish him for infidelity. She rolled out a crimson or red carpet to walk him to his death. The long story short is that the red carpet is historically a symbol of betrayal even though “it denotes stratospheric status, style and opulence” (BBC, February 22, 2016).
        Do our corrupt and inept rulers love the red carpet because of their political infidelity or fake opulence?    If you combine the two, you find that they are right to love the red carpet since they are politically infidel and heartlessly opulent.
In Greek mythoi, red carpets were for the gods only.
        Again, when it comes to our mortal rulers who play God, and are but self-appointed demigods, they think the red carpet is their birthright.
Again, if you consider how corrupt and gunge our rulers are, they deserve a dirty carpet, and not a red one, otherwise it would befit them if they are walking to their deaths for their political infidelity.
        In sum, provided that the monies thrown away on colonial red carpets were siphoned from taxes, we need to question their rationale.

It maddens to find that those who love to walk on red carpets, most of them, if not all, are the children of paupers who slept on goatskins before conspiring against their people. Again, based on their failure, do our rulers deserve to plod on red carpets or on dirty ones? Again, if our countries were free, maybe, we would have chosen leaders and discarded rulers.
Source: Independent Zimbabwe today.