United States of Africa? Only if...

The recently concluded African Union summit in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, once again delved into the longstanding and controversial matter of the establishment of the United States of Africa (USAf) which will bring all African countries under a single governance structure. The concept of the USAf has been around for a very long time – in fact from the early days of African independence when the likes of Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana were gallivanting around the continent trying to mobilise other newly independent African states to shun their colonial borders and come together to form a new stronger country which would more effectively compete on the global arena. That Nkrumah failed to achieve this unity and instead died in exile having been deposed in a coup is perhaps another small evidence of everything that is wrong with the continent.

I have a lot of sympathy and respect for the idea of a united African state. I have been fortunate and privileged to have either worked in or visited a large number of African countries. Just a few months back I was addressing a gathering of professional colleagues in West Africa and I remarked that we Africans were all one people who have been separated by artificial borders. Of course, we may have different languages and different cultures but beneath all that we are one people. I feel as comfortable and at home in Nigeria as I feel in Ethiopia or Rwanda or Zambia or Zimbabwe. There are far more similarities between our people than there are differences. I have friends and colleagues scattered across the continent and when we meet and interact, there is very little difference between us except the nationality tag which history imposed upon us and which we are obliged to carry with us.

My experiences in Africa have taught me that the importance of nationalism is as insignificant, if not harmful, as regionalism or tribalism is within a national context. I am more than convinced that Africa, especially south and west of the Sahara, is and should be one country. I do have, of course, reservations on whether the northern parts can still be classified as Africa given the predominance of the Euro-Arabic (or Mediterranean) influences. Even then I would be quite happy to give them the benefit of doubt and support their membership of USAf. So if it is such a good idea to establish the USAf, why is it proving so difficult to advance this idea forward and achieve the realisation of Nkrumah’s dream?

To be brutally frank, I don’t believe that the union will be achieved by the present crop of leadership. The present leadership in Africa is still dominated by despotic and dictatorial leaders whose only desire is to strengthen and expand their rule or to cling on to power even when they no longer command the support of their people. I cannot see for goodness sake see how Muammar Gaddafi can be a credible advocate of African unity when he lacks a democratic mandate even in his own country. It should be remembered that this man came to power through a military coup and has kept power in a tightly clenched fist for more than three decades through systematic repression and suppression of the opposition. I seriously doubt Gaddafi’s sincerity and suspect that he is more interested in expanding his empire and sphere of influence without the mess and pain of military conquest.

Many other current African leaders use their countries as sources for personal wealth and accumulation. A recent article on the internet (whose veracity I cannot vouch for) placed six of the present and past heads of state among the twenty richest people on the continent. And you have the likes of Mugabe baying to all and sundry that “Zimbabwe is mine” as if it is a t-shirt or a pair of sneakers! Such leaders are not interested in a united state of Africa because it would reduce the rent-seeking opportunities which they enjoy and threaten their ability to continue expropriating their countries’ wealth for themselves and their supporters. As long as leadership is synonymous with personal wealth accumulation, every leader will hold on to their small pieces of turf and damn the consequences for the ordinary citizens!

The other barrier to African unity is the different levels of democratic maturity on the continent. As I have already alluded to, there are far too many leaders who have no time or respect for democratic governance. Some achieved power through military coups and others inherited it from their dictator parents. And with very few notable exceptions, most leaders retain power through oppression and downright fraud in the few circumstances when elections are conducted. What this means is that the leaders lack the mandate to make any fundamental concessions or decisions and they lack the conviction that they would retain any measure of importance and influence if they allow their own countries to be “swallowed” by a larger entity.

While the African Union charter and the protocols of regional bodies like SADC prescribe the minimum standards of democracy which member countries must abide by, these are often ignored in practice. To exacerbate the situation, the continental bodies appear to have no authority or, indeed, the political will to enforce compliance. Two recent examples of this impotence are the rigged elections in Kenya and the refusal by Zanu-PF to accept the results of the free and fair March 2008 elections in Zimbabwe. In both instances, the AU could have read the riot act on the errant incumbent governments but they failed to do so promoting, instead, national unity governments which preserved the status of the sitting but electorally vanquished incumbent presidents.

In the circumstances it is very difficult to imagine or appreciate how the 47 odd countries on the African continent (and six other islands off the coast which are also considered as African) can be managed under a central administration. It will take much more than sober argument, political will and unity of purpose – it will take a miracle to get all the countries to agree to such arrangements. Unless of course, such unity is dictated and enforced through military conquest. This is something which I have previously advocated but which I doubt would be acceptable in today’s political and diplomatic environment.

Having said that, I should not sound too pessimistic about the prospects of success of the USAf. As I have already alluded to above, I am a strong proponent of a united Africa falling under a single statehood. I am convinced that a huge potential is lost due to duplication of effort, failure to synergise and national capacities which are limited by geographical and resource disparities and constraints. The latest figures show that approximately one billion people live in Africa. The continent is also endowed with immense natural resources and climatic conditions which are unsurpassed by any other region or continent on earth. If all these advantages and potentials were exploited in a cohesive and collaborative manner, this could catapult Africa to unimagined levels of economic and social development and dramatically reduce the current levels of poverty.

SADC must break Zanu-PF stranglehold on power

The SADC has one hell of a challenge to rescue the Mbeki negotiated Global Political Agreement (GPA) in Zimbabwe from almost certain collapse. After several failed efforts, yet another opportunity will arise on Monday in Pretoria to fashion out an acceptable implementation plan of sorts. However, after the failure of negotiations in Harare earlier this week there is no reason to believe that the outcome will be any more different this time around. There is one fundamental problem with the approach SADC has taken to resolve Zimbabwe’s problem and unless and until they sort this problem out, their efforts will result in almost certain failure.

SADC seems to have forgotten that the basic premise of power sharing is that the parties to the sharing bring the power with them to the table. They agree to add their own to the power which the other parties bring so that the sum total of the power is shared between the parties along an agreeable and workable formula. It is not like the power comes intact from some other independent source and the parties grab what they can in the sharing process. For some reasons best known to themselves, the SADC believe that power is in the hands of Zanu-PF and therefore it is enough for the later to offer bits of that power to the opposition MDC to achieve political settlement and everlasting peace. That is clearly an erroneous, misguided and unproductive approach.

Zanu-PF derives its power from its position as the sitting incumbent. There will some who will argue on the legitimacy or otherwise of this source of power but the fact remains that, through hook or crook, they still control the levers of power in the country. They have achieved this by subordinating and manipulating state institutions over a long period of time to serve their own ends and purposes. These institutions survive and subsist to further the ends of Zanu-PF. It must be remembered that the incumbency was initially achieved legitimately, when the people of Zimbabwe elected Mr Mugabe and his party to lead them in 1980. However the incumbency is now being sustained illegitimately especially now after the party lost the elections of March 2008. So while the party’s incumbency lacks legitimacy, the power which the incumbency confers on them is nevertheless real.

That is what Zanu-PF is really bringing to the negotiating table. Zanu-PF is saying that as sitting incumbents they are not willing to relinquish their power regardless of the outcome of democratic processes. They have the might of the gun on their side – the same gun which they used to shoot down colonial oppression is what they are now using to suppress democratic will and expression. By imposing a solution which allows Zanu-PF to retain that substantial power, the SADC is in fact accepting that the power of incumbency is a bona fide element of Zimbabwe’s political equation. Well it is their choice, it is their decision and I am not going to argue with that.

What I find objectionable is the apparent unwillingness of the SADC to recognise the power which the MDC is bringing to the table – the power of democratic authority. The MDC won the March 2008 elections and, with that, claimed the mandate which is conferred by the democratic processes which the elections represent. The success of the MDC in the elections was as much a stamp of approval by the people of their (MDC’s) rightfulness to preside over the affairs of the Zimbabwe state as it was a repudiation of Zanu-PF’s rule. The people of Zimbabwe spoke loudly and clearly that it was time for a change and they anointed Mr Tsvangirai and his party as their preferred and rightful leaders.

In the circumstances any settlement that will fail to respect or give vent to the will of the people as expressed in March 2008, will be a nullity. This is the point which the MDC has been trying to make to all and sundry who care to listen and they should repeat this position until everyone hears and understands it clearly. MDC derives its power to sit on the negotiating table from the fact that in March 2008 the people of Zimbabwe declared that they wanted them (MDC) to preside over them and not Zanu-PF. If they agree to any settlement that leaves Zanu-PF is charge, no matter how cleverly disguised, they will have betrayed the people who voted for them and, thus, rendered themselves illegitimate and irrelevant.

That is the simple point which the SADC should recognise – any settlement that leaves Zanu-PF in full control is not a settlement at all. These negotiations are not about how the opposition can be accommodated in a Zanu-PF led government but they are about how the will of the people of Zimbabwe can be fulfilled in the face of Zanu-PF’s intransigence and unwillingness to respect democratic outcomes. The task and challenge of the SADC is to break Mugabe’s stranglehold on power and not to protect and sustain it. This requires that they stand up to him and tell him in no uncertain terms that his rule is illegitimate and that he must give way to those who have been chosen by the people.

They should tell him that if he is unwilling to give in peacefully then an AU-led international effort will be launched to forcibly remove him from power after which he will be taken to The Hague to face trial on crimes against humanity. They should tell him that he can avoid these consequences by respecting the spirit and letter of the GPA (which was designed as a safety net for him), by relinquishing meaningful and substantial power and authority to the opposition and by cooperating in all transitional arrangements to a fully democratic dispensation.

Too much time and effort has been wasted in diplomatic niceties (such as Mbeki’s quiet diplomacy) and constructive engagements. The issues which the MDC has demanded to be resolved before they enter into the unity government are valid and understandable but they are just symptoms of the single most significant issue that should be sorted out by SADC if Zimbabwe is ever going to emerge from the current doldrums – breaking Mugabe’s stranglehold on power. This whole initiate should be about telling Mugabe not just to go but showing him the door and holding it open for him to exit. SADC should realise that too much time has been spent in trying to appease a dictator whose time is long past gone. They should now hold the gun to his head and stop pussy-footing around him.

In the meantime, the MDC must hold fast and strong against the pressure being exerted on them by both Zanu-PF and the SADC to join the national unity government under unfavourable terms and conditions. It is all very well for MDC to continue to profess their commitment to the political agreement but they should equally make it clear that they are prepared to walk out of the deal if there is no acceptable and expeditious conclusion to the ongoing negotiations. They should ensure that every one of their concerns is fully resolved before they join their relatively clean hands to Zanu-PF’s blood-dripping hands.

They should insist on and secure sole and full responsibility for the key ministry of home affairs through which they can begin the serious task of restoring law and order in the country. Securing home affairs will also represent the single most important indicator of a break in the power of Zanu-PF. My experience is that life is all about compromise – give and take, some would say. However there are times and cases when it is neither wise nor desirable to compromise. Allowing Zanu-PF to retain all the powers which they are seeking to hold under the GPA is one such issue which cannot and should not be allowed nor be compromised on.

2009: The year of so much promise

The year 2009 has begun much as like the previous year did – showing so much promise. In many respects 2008 began with a lot of promise for Africa and for human kind generally. Elections were due to be held in Zimbabwe at the end of the first quarter and these elections were expected to resolve the long running political impasse which has seen the country regressing on all important fronts. An African American was beginning to prove that he was a serious contender for a presidential nomination in the United States of America. And I was going to turn fifty in the course of the year.

When the year ended some of the promises had been fulfilled but others remained unfulfilled. I turned fifty. Barack Obama, a forty-six year old man of mixed-race whose father grew up heading goats in Kenya, was elected president of the most powerful nation on earth. I had stayed up all night to follow the election results and when, in the wee hours of 5 November he was declared the winner of the most celebrated contest on the planet, I celebrated along with much of the world. I felt then as I feel now that there was a strong and positive message in this event for me and for the continent. If the sons of our sons can be become the leaders of the free world, why can Africa not rise from the doldrums of poverty and take its rightful place as an important partner in the community of the nations?

But even this momentous event could not musk my overall disappointment with the continent. The Zimbabwe elections were held as scheduled at the end of March in a process which was generally considered as free and fair. The opposition won the majority of the parliamentary seats and it seemed quite obvious that they had also won the main prize – the presidential contest. But it took more than a month for the presidential election results to be announced and when they finally came out the incumbent had clearly lost the contest. However the margin of loss necessitated that a run-off election be held. And so began an unprecedented orgy of violence to coerce the electorate to change their minds and reinstate the vanquished leader. The violence was so widespread and so vicious that the opposing candidate had to withdraw from the contest to save his followers from more harm.

This was a moment for Africa to stand up and say “No, this cannot be allowed!”. But after lengthy deliberations in the Egyptian resort town of Sham el Sheik, the wise leaders of the continent pronounced their verdict – a government of national unity should be established in Zimbabwe. The rest, as the oft employed cliché goes, is now history. Save that the people of Zimbabwe continue to suffer from all manner of natural and unnatural misfortunes – poverty, hunger, cholera, HIV aids, political repression, kidnappings, torture, etcetera, etcetera. If there was a bright spot in all this, it was the dismissal of the then president of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki. As the long standing mediator in the Zimbabwean political conflict, Mr Mbeki had proved to be both partial and incompetent. The GNU which he cobbled up has yet to be implemented with the prospects for its success dimming with each passing day.

With the departure of Mbeki, there is hope again that the issue of Zimbabwe will be tackled with the appropriate level of vigour and seriousness. In Africa, there is hope that the year which has just started will be different and better than previous years. A number of very positive signs have emerged. For me the first good sign is the fabulous and heart-warming story of a six-year old German Mika and his one year older girlfriend Anna Bell who, in the early hours of New Year’s Day left their homes with a grand plan of eloping to Africa to get married and honeymoon there. Accompanied by Mika’s five year old sister Anna-Lena who was to witness the marriage ceremony the children packed their suitcases with all sorts of goodies and beach-wear and took a bus to the train station in Hanover where they would catch the train to the airport and from thence fly to the sunny skies of Africa for their wedding. Unfortunately the plan unravelled after a security guard became suspicious of their movements and alerted the police. (Read the full story here http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/05/german-children-elope-mika-annabel).

Young Mika and Anna Bell showed that there is still some good to come out of Africa - the sunshine, the friendly and hospitable people and the breathtaking sights and sounds. These are what Africa has been about for many centuries. These were what attracted many adventurers and explorers to the continent and these are what triggered the partition of the continent more than a century ago by the colonial powers. As it did in the past centuries, Africa still holds a lot of mystic, exoticism and awe for many experienced and aspiring travellers, adventurers and tourists. The three young Germans once again reminded the world of this great potential that remains largely untapped and unfulfilled. And for this incident to have taken place on New Year’s Eve is, in my view, a very good omen for the rest of the year.

However the most serious and significant good omen for Africa is an event about to take place in the United States of America – the inauguration of the first African-American as the president. Obama is not just an African-American. He is an African by custom and heredity. He is a son of an African man from Kenya and he has made several visits to his father’s homeland. From his account in Dreams of My Father, Obama has experienced life as an African. He has travelled on overcrowded matatus (the Nairobi public transport), stayed in grass-thatched huts and drank umqomboti (the African beer). He knows Africa and understands what is at the root of the continent’s problems of poverty and underdevelopment. He is the first American president who is most likely to have a very influential and decisive say in what happens on the continent in the next four years at least. I have a lot of optimism and expectation in him and what he can achieve for the continent.

Some of this achievement will come out of direct and proactive effort on his part – redefining the terms of relationship between Africa and the US, promoting democracy and human rights on the continent, providing better trade terms and other economic incentives and support and increasing the aid levels to the poorer countries. Much more will be achieved indirectly – through providing exemplary leadership for African leaders to emulate and eliminating the often used accusation that any policy which challenges African malfeasance is motivated by racism and colonialist mentality. It is going to be extremely hard for African leaders to ignore or deflect criticism and unwanted attention from Obama.

Already there are indications that the Obama regime will take a more robust stand in some of Africa’s hotspots. They have promised to be more actively involved in Sudan to end the human suffering in Darfur. Obama has expressed concerns about the denial of electoral rights to the people of Zimbabwe. I am optimistic that he will deliver on his promises in these areas. There is a real sense that the old world order is about to change and nothing, not even the intransigence of African dictators and despots, will stand in the path of that change. The omens are very good indeed. Roll on 2009!

Removing Mugabe will not solve Zimbabwe’s problems

In the past few weeks there have been calls for Mr Mugabe to step down as president of Zimbabwe. The calls are not just coming from the usual Mugabe foes – Britain and America but some Africans are also making the call very forcefully. Much of the cacophony has been instigated by the cholera outbreak in the country which has so far claimed over a thousand lives and is threatening to devastate the whole Southern African region. The calls are not surprising in the least because they only confirm what the Zimbabwe people have already stated using their votes in the elections held last March.

What is surprising is that it has taken this long for some of the world leaders to begin to side with the oppressed people of Zimbabwe. What is also surprising is that the call has not received much support in Africa other than from those like Botswana and Kenya whose views are already known. However it is important to acknowledge that South Africa, long the defender of Mugabe’s rule, have started accepting the merits of the idea that Mr Mugabe needs to go, or more precisely, to be retired. This is a significant move which, no doubt, puts more pressure on the belligerent dictator.

While Mr Mugabe’s departure will be celebrated (when and not if it happens), I have my serious doubts that the event of his departure alone will resolve the many, many problems that now afflict the country. My own view is that the problems have morphed beyond Mugabe into something much bigger and more sinister. Whether Mugabe goes or not, the country is in a very deep hole from which it has to be dug out. My own assessment is that there are three big challenges which Zimbabweans have to tackle to reverse their misfortunes, turn the country around, prosper and once more become a respected member of the international community. These are how to handle the issue of immunity for human rights abuses, how to deal with Mugabe’s power structures and how to facilitate the return of those in Diaspora.

The issue of immunity from prosecution of Mugabe and his henchmen is likely to be the most difficult and controversial. There is a general feeling that Mugabe can be exonerated and allowed to serve the last few years of his life in peace somewhere. That position is also necessitated and influenced by the realisation that there is a need to provide some incentive to him to loosen his grip on and relinquish power. The acceptance of immunity for Mugabe is likely to be a hard-sell to and very bitter pill for the many victims of the abuses of his rule but, in the final analysis, they may just be prepared to swallow it.

However the same cannot be said of immunity for the rest of his henchman and foot-solders who perpetrated the hideous crimes and many of whom are known to the victims. The issue to consider here is how far down the line the immunity should go. It must be remembered that the actual physical commission of abuses took place at the lowest hierarchical levels occupied by youth militias and junior officers of the army, police and intelligence services such as Joseph Mwale. Should all these people be forgiven and allowed to “get away with murder” so to speak? This will not just be unpalatable, it will be unprecedented and undesirable. Historically, justice has been allowed to prevail even it is in some convoluted form such as truth and reconciliation commissions. Even now the perpetrators of the genocide in Rwanda are still being tried for their crimes.

The second issue is how to deal with Mugabe’s power structures so that they do not pose a future risk to the country. It should be remembered that Mugabe is the visible element (or the face) of a military-civilian junta that are controlling the country. From many credible accounts, Mr Mugabe is no longer fully in charge of the country. The Joint Operations Command (JOC) is the de facto authority in the country. They are calling the shots and they are the ones who decided to overturn the mandate of the people following the March elections. They are also the ones who initiated and directed the savage brutality inflicted on the Zimbabwean people in the run up to the farcical June re-run elections.

The departure of Mugabe will not yield anything substantial unless it is accompanied by the disbandment of the JOC and the retirement of its members. Members of the JOC are a real and credible threat to the future of Zimbabwe – much more so than Mugabe has been and will ever be. But so far their blood-socked hand has been hidden behind the image of Mugabe. I recall someone saying to me, not so long ago, that there are powerful forces which are so desperate to keep Mugabe in power that he could be dead for months and they would still pretend he is still alive and in charge. These structures and institutions which have been the power behind the Mugabe throne will need to be neutralised and disbanded so that they do not pose a threat to any future dispensation.

It will also be necessary, in this vein, to address the issue of chiefs who have been so corrupted and compromised by the ruling party. The chiefs have always been manipulated by ruling elites to provide a cloak of legitimacy to unpopular regimes. During the Rhodesian era, Ian Smith used chiefs like Chirau and Ndiweni to try and subvert the Africans aspirations for freedom and independence. Mugabe continued with this policy and went much further. He subverted the chiefs to the extent that they had become integral elements of the ruling Zanu-PF party. In any future dispensation the role of the chiefs will need to be re-examined and there may very well be need to “de-frock” some of the more obnoxious characters.

The third issue is how to attract back into the country the millions of people who have fled abroad. It should be remembered that many of these diasporians are skilled people who are desperately needed in many critical social and economic sectors such as health, education, agriculture, manufacturing, etc. Until the country is able to attract these people back in sufficient numbers there is little chance that the country will recover. It takes more than three years to train a competent nurse and a similar period to train a teacher. There is absolutely no chance that Zimbabwe can meet its skilled manpower needs through training and development and will thus have to put in place a mechanism for attracting them from abroad and retaining the skills that it desperately needs.

In the early 1980s the newly independent Zimbabwe was able to attract many of its progeny from abroad because the economy was generally sound, there were jobs to offer them and the health and education systems were strong. This time it is different. All the fundamentals are pointing the other way – there are no jobs, no medical facilities, a broken education system and no food. It is wrong to believe that just a sense of patriotism will be enough to encourage the people who have left to return. Many of them have now established alternative lifestyles where they have settled. They have started new professions and businesses, bought houses and other property, enrolled their children in new schools and have become full and important members of their new communities.

To attract these people back to Zimbabwe will take strategy, ingenuity and perseverance. They have to be convinced that there is a meaningful future for them in a post-Mugabe Zimbabwe. They need to be assured that what the country offers is much better than what they already have and this is always going to be a tough call. To expect that the people in Diaspora will return to the country simply because Mugabe has gone is either an act of self-deception or misplaced optimism. Of course, Mugabe’s departure will be a useful beginning but nothing more than a beginning.

The tragic failure of leadership in Zimbabwe

Celebrating his 90th birthday at a dinner in London in June this year Africa’s foremost and most famous son, Nelson Mandela, decried the tribulations which had befallen his northern neighbour and described the problem as a “tragic failure of leadership in Zimbabwe”. The words echoed a similar statement by another of Africa’s iconic figures Chinua Achebe who, in his famous treatise The Trouble with Nigeria (first published in 1983) concluded that “The trouble with Nigeria is simply and squarely a failure of leadership”.

While Nigeria is working hard at correcting its leadership failures in order to improve its society and achieve measured improvements in the welfare of its people, Zimbabwe has fallen into the deepest mire of failure with a leadership which is not only a failure but which is also discredited and illegitimate in the eyes of the world. The evidence of failure have been there for a long time now – from the late 1990s when Mr Mugabe dolled out billions of dollars in unplanned expenditure to pacify his increasingly restless former comrades-in-arms and then unilaterally led the country into an unpopular and un-winnable war in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

By the time the illegal farm invasions escalated in 2000, the downward spiral had started in earnest. It has been one way to hell ever since with the only difference being the pace and scope of the decline which have accelerated and deepened with the passage of time. The present cholera disaster afflicting the nation has become the most damning and visible evidence of failure – not just because people are dying (many more died from political violence over the many years of Zanu-PF rule and many others have died from AIDS and other diseases which could have been easily treated) but because for the first time ever, the disease is threatening to engulf and emasculate the whole Southern African region.

The tragic failure of leadership which Mr Mandela refers to is manifest in an economy which has completely collapsed with unimaginable and incalculable inflation rates, empty store shelves, stratospheric rate of devaluation of local currency, chronic shortage of money and the complete collapse of economic infrastructure. The latest and most desperate, if not bizarre, attempt to address the shortage of money has been to issue yet another high denomination note printed on cotton. Maybe there is a message in this somewhere – that when the currency has once again become valueless, one can stitch the notes together and sew a dress. If it were not so tragic one would think this is one of the most innovative approaches to recycling ever devised.

Leadership has always been important for survival of society. Even in animal kingdoms and colonies, leadership plays an important role in the survival and thriving of the species. In insects, the queen mother provides critical leadership to her progeny and many animal colonies have defined and clearly identifiable leadership hierarchies which serve to guide and protect the colony. When these leaders fail or are killed, the colony becomes disoriented and vulnerable. If another leader does not emerge quickly to mobilise cohesion, the colony could disintegrate completely. If animals and other tiny creatures can recognise the importance of leadership, why is it difficult for us human beings, who are infinitely more intelligent than other animal species, to appreciate that without good leadership we are doomed?

The other day I was having a discussion with a colleague about what causes the sort of failures which we are experiencing in Zimbabwe. I suggested that there may be three reasons for this: the first is failure to recognise failure; second is failure to achieve consensus on whether there is failure or not; and third is failure to accept failure. Let me expand on these reasons a bit using the context of Zimbabwe.

Failure to recognise failure has occurred in Zimbabwe over the many years in which Mr Mugabe and the Zanu-PF leadership have simply not recognised that the main cause of the problems afflicting the country is their own incompetence and inability to lead the country. They have sought to attribute the country’s failures to every conceivable detractor – the British, the Americans, Tony Blair and George Bush, the opposition MDC, nature and God. The cholera epidemic which is currently raging in the country has now been blamed on the British who are allegedly engaged in chemical warfare against the poor citizens in order to precipitate a regime change.

The point is really not who or what has caused the cholera. The streams of putrid sewage gashing from blocked and overflowing sewers which traverse the urban areas and lack of clean and treated drinking water suggest themselves as more plausible causes of the outbreak than any subterfuge or machinations on the part of the British, but I am not about to engage in this futile blame apportionment exercise. The issue really is what are the leadership doing to protect their people from harm and relieve them of their suffering, notwithstanding the cause or source of the afflictions? The answer is nothing, almost. One may wish to be generous and credit government’s advice to people not to shake hands as an acceptable and appropriate endeavour.

As people lie dying in understaffed and under-equipped hospitals, as children are denied education because their schools have closed because there are no teachers and no food to feed them, as women die in delivery because the maternity hospitals have closed, the cry for urgent government intervention is loud and deafening. But the government is not responding or chooses to simply ignore them. In widely reported remarks Ms Graca Machel recently said that either Zimbabwe's leaders do not understand how deeply their people are suffering "or they don't care."

Failure of consensus on whether there is failure or not has happened at the international level. From the UN, to the AU, down to SADC, member states have failed to agree not only on the nature and extent of the failure of the leadership in Zimbabwe but also on ways to address the failure. What little acknowledgement and condemnation of failure there is by small surrounding states like Botswana and Zambia has been drowned out by the deafening silence and outright denial of wrongfulness by South Africa and other global powers like Russia and China. Even at this moment the debate on Zimbabwe at the UN is being stymied by a lack of consensus on how to censure Mr Mugabe and the leadership cabal in Harare.

Mr Mugabe has in turn sought ways and means to fully exploit any such dissentions to his advantage. To him the fact that there is no consensus on his wrongdoing is a seal of approval to continue to repress his people and to commit other despicable acts. In other words, he has managed to adroitly turn what is patent failure into something of a celebrated success. Consensus is sometimes very hard to achieve, even in the best of times. In more controversial circumstances, such as those obtaining in Zimbabwe, it is nearly impossible to achieve. Even if the situation deteriorated into the likeness of Rwanda, there will still be some states that will argue that there is nothing amiss in a sovereign state butchering its own people.

The above failings culminate in the final cause of failure – denial. Mr Mugabe and his cabal are simply denying that they have failed. They believe that they are still the heroes who liberated the country and who still attract admiration and reverence from their people – if only the damn British, Americans and the bad white farmers could stop negatively influencing them. They contend that their economic policies have been sound if it were not for economic saboteurs who needlessly raise prices to make goods unaffordable or the black marketers who hoard scarce goods for resale at extortionist prices. They even believe that the land reform programme has been an outstanding success where it not for God who has withheld the much needed rain.

In their minds and in their deeds, everyone and everything has failed accept themselves. They have done nothing wrong and they demand the right to continue doing whatever they have been doing under the misguided expectation that somehow the results will be different. Unless and until Mr Mugabe and company and those states that will not challenge him recognise that leadership failure is at the root of the country’s tribulations, the suffering of the people will continue. The extent of the tragedy will only become apparent when there is no one left in the country to lead.

Zimbabwe government should admit failure and step down

In 2002, soon after Mr Mugabe’s disputed win of the presidential elections in Zimbabwe, a professional friend sought my views on what the future held for the country. In response, I outlined to him two possible scenarios. The first, an optimistic one, was that the country would overcome the political setbacks and rise up to its former glory as the jewel of the region. I even dared to add that the difficult experiences would make the people stronger and more determined to succeed. The other and more pessimistic scenario was that Zimbabwe would degenerate further and become a failed state just like Somalia.

Six years later and much to my disappointment (but not perhaps too much surprise) the latter prediction appears to have been fulfilled. In almost every respect, Zimbabwe has become a failed state. The latest indications are the cholera that is decimating the nation fuelled by a collapse of state institutions and services including health, water provision, transportation, education, banking and whatever else you can think of. So dire is the situation that a few weeks ago three leading humanitarian personalities (former US president Jimmy Carter, former UN secretary general Kofi Annan and Mr Mandela’s wife, Graca Machel) were denied entry into the country for fear of what they may witness. This week the South African government is sending in a high-powered delegation to assess the humanitarian situation in the country.

In denying Messrs Carter and company entry into the country, the foreign affairs minister, Simbarashe Mumbengegwi stated that the Zimbabwe government took exception to the notion that foreigners do care more about the livelihood of their people than the government itself. Well the South Africans are coming in and it will be surprising if they are similarly rebuffed. Somehow, I doubt that and in the event that the South Africans have their way, it will be an open admission that government has failed. It is tantamount to the social services department walking into your house to assess how you are looking after your own children.

In the normal scheme of things, when one fails they leave a position voluntarily or are forcibly relieved of their positions. In the case of Zimbabwe the failure is much too apparent. This failure is manifested into three main areas – governance failure, economic failure and social failure. Governance failure is manifested in the current lack of constitutional or legitimate government in the country. The previous government was dissolved prior to the March elections and, given what has transpired after the elections, there cannot be said to be any government which is ruling the country at this stage. Mr Mugabe is laying claims to the leadership of the country but the claims are being strongly resisted.

Progress of some sorts was achieved in September when an agreement was signed by the main contending parties to form a government of national unity but that was about the best that happened. Since then it’s been disappointment all the way with Mr Mugabe refusing to cede any meaningful power to the opposition. Consequently the agreement is now all but dead. It will take a miraculous change of heart from one of the contending parties to allow the GNU to become fully established and operational. In the meantime the country is drifting around directionless and leaderless.

Economic failure is the most evident, pronounced and irrefutable failure of the moment. Inflation is measured in billions of percentage points, the national currency is unavailable and valueless and the infrastructure has collapsed (there is no electricity and treated water in urban centres). People spend endless hours queuing up to withdraw their money and what they are allowed to withdraw is not enough to buy a loaf of bread. Less than ten percent of the people remain in formal employment and these very fortunate few are not earning enough to cover the costs of their transport to work. The situation has got so bad that transactions have been reduced to barter trading with many services being paid with fuel coupons and other negotiable instruments.

However it is in the social sphere that the failure is most acutely and painfully felt. Starting with the dispersion of over four million of its citizens who have sought refuge anywhere they could be received across the globe, to the millions more who have remained at home to endure the worst case of deprivation and misery – the Zimbabwean people have been brutalised like very few other people have in the modern era. Other places like Congo, Darfur and Somalia may have experienced similar hardship – but Zimbabwe is the only place where such hardship has not been caused by war. The people have remained peaceful and brave in the face of the most brutal and consistent onslaught of personal liberties and violation of human rights ever witnessed.

This massive migration of people has had a debilitating effect on the social fabric of Zimbabwe including the breakdown of many family ties. Husbands have been separated from wives, parents from children, brothers from sisters and friends from friends. Some of those who have left have been fortunate to find new opportunities in their lives but many more live in poverty, suffering and humiliating conditions. Other less fortunate ones have become victims of xenophobic attacks for which they have paid with their lives, with serious bodily injury and with psychological pain.

For those who have remained in the country, they have seen themselves reduced to paupers as their life savings and pensions have been wiped out by inflation, they are stalked with hunger as food has disappeared from the fields and from shop shelves, they are afflicted with preventable disease as hospitals have closed or run out of medicines and people to staff them, and their children have become illiterates as schools have closed down due to lack of teachers and teaching materials.

It is impossible to imagine any worse failure than what is being witnessed in Zimbabwe at the moment. Yet, very tragically, no one is owning up to the failure, much less acknowledging its existence. The failed leadership in the country have their heads firmly planted in the sand pretending that all is well or, at the very least, things are not as bad as being purported. The international community is paralysed by misplaced notions of Pan-African solidarity and by the restrictions of political and diplomatic correctness.

Under any normal circumstances, the Zimbabwean government would have admitted that they have failed and stepped down to allow others to try their hand on correcting the situation. What we have got instead is a group of megalomaniacs who believe they have the right to rule the country in perpetuity regardless of how much suffering and deprivation is caused by their rule. They do not have respect for human lives and see the suffering of their people as a necessary sacrifice for their own continued tenure in power. In the circumstances it appears both futile and overly optimistic to expect any good to come out of this bunch. It is now time to force a change.

If Zimbabwe was a business organisation, it would have been forced to close its business a long time ago. It would have been declared bankrupt and the doors would have been bolted shut for any operations and trade. Although the country may not be a business organisation, it is time that the principles applied when dealing with failed business organisations should be invoked at this stage to stop the rot and the suffering. The people of Zimbabwe cannot wait one minute longer.

Denying hospitality to the elders was un-African

If there is one thing that is common among Africans, wherever you go and wherever they are, it is their hospitability and welcoming attitude. Even in the most difficult of circumstances, Africans are renowned for opening their arms wide to any visitor even and especially strangers. Many years ago when I was a young man, I remember visiting one of my relatives in a far off place. Somehow the bus I travelled on was delayed and I arrived at my disembarkation point well at night when people had gone to sleep. As I didn’t know where I was going, I knocked at some door in a village which I stumbled upon in the dark night to ask for directions.

The residents of the village woke up to receive me and after I explained where I was going they told me that it was too far and too dangerous for me to travel at night. So they offered me a place to sleep for the night. In the morning, they offered me some breakfast and sent me on my way. I am sure there are many stories like this which testify to the African tradition of hospitality and accommodation. It is therefore most sad, disgraceful and bizarre that the Zimbabwean authorities have barred three eminent personalities from travelling to the country to offer support in addressing the humanitarian catastrophe that is unfolding in that once beautiful country.

Former US President, Jimmy Carter, who is now a world renowned philanthropist together with Mr Kofi Anan, the former secretary general of the United Nations and Mrs Graca Machel, the wife of Nelson Mandela and herself a leading humanitarian were due to have travelled to Harare, the Zimbabwe capital city, this weekend to confer with government and other stakeholders about the humanitarian situation in the country and the means to ameliorate the suffering. However the Zimbabwean authorities advised that the trio were not welcome and refused to grant them visas to enter the country.

The reasons? The government officials are too busy preparing for the agricultural season and negotiating the government of national unity to meet with these eminent persons. It is very well for government to be busy preparing for the farming season, especially in present dire circumstances of food shortage and it is also important for the authorities to apply themselves to the onerous task of establishing a legitimate government that will resolve the current political impasse. These are tasks that should not be delayed or approached half- heartedly and, therefore, in that respect I fully sympathise with the government on the challenges that it is facing.

But to say that all other matters of government must necessarily be relegated to the sidelines is incredulous, disingenuous and highly irresponsible. You may recall that at the height of the recently concluded election campaign in the US, one of the candidates, Senator John McCain, offered to suspend his campaign in order to deal with the unfolding financial crisis in the country and invited his opponent to do likewise. The opponent, Senator (now president-elect) Barack Obama retorted that a president must be able to deal with more than one crisis at a time. The same should be said of any government worth its salt – it should be able to deal with more than one priority at any given time.

In the case of Zimbabwe, the real priorities are to provide food to the starving population, to provide clean and safe drinking water to urban centres, electricity to power the nation and medicines to treat the spreading cholera epidemic and the runaway HIV/aids pandemic. Other important priorities are to provide people with easy access to their money in banks and resuscitate the comatose education and health sectors, amongst other social and economic sectors. These are the challenges which the trio from the Group of Elders were planning to review and assess and offer their wisdom on an appropriate way forward. Surely the government and people of Zimbabwe should have spread their hands even wider to welcome them.

The three are members of a group of highly influential people – former heads of state and government and chief bureaucrats. Jimmy Carter is a former president of the US, the world’s only superpower, Kofi Anan served as the secretary general of the UN, the world’s most foremost bureaucrat, while Machel is the widow of the late president of Mozambique, Samora Machel, who was a gracious host to Zimbabweans during their war of independence. She is now the wife of the world’s top political icon, Mandela. If anyone has an interest in helping the suffering people of Zimbabwe and if anyone has the means to do so, then this Group of Elders is it.

These are the people with the power and influence to click their fingers and unlock desperately needed aid to relieve the suffering of the people of Zimbabwe. So why have they been denied the opportunity to lend their hand? The answer is very simple indeed. It is that there is no longer any government in Zimbabwe, never mind the legitimacy or otherwise of such a government. Indeed, there are people who claim that they are still ruling the country but these are the very people who were rejected by the electorate in the March 29 elections and have been trying their hardest to circumvent that humiliating loss of power. They have raped, tortured and murdered in an attempt to regain their losses but all to no avail. They cannot function as a government because they have lost their authority to govern. The only tools left in their power arsenal are denial, posturing and dreams of the past.

The collapse of just about every social, economic and political system and institution in the country is bare testimony that there is no longer any government in place. If indeed there was a government, would schools and hospitals be closing at such an alarming and accelerated rate? Would people be starving because there is no more food in the country and, the little that is still available, is well beyond the means of many citizens? Would any government which is democratically elected (or pretends to be so) allow unemployment levels of over 90% and inflation measured in billions percent? Would it allow its national currency to become worthless?

The answer to all the questions is a resounding no. Yet we have a group of people who have presided over such an unimaginable debacle but yet believe that they remain popular and are entitled to rule ad infinitum. No sir, this is no government at all! It is not even a dictatorship because sometimes even dictatorships have a heart and know when to hold back and to empathise with their suffering subjects. After the March elections, during the long hiatus of waiting for the election results, I recall one analyst who explained to a cable network reporter that the ruling cabal in Harare was no longer a political party in the true sense of the term.

He stated that these people were criminals who had been involved in such heinous and hideous crimes that they realised that they would be arrested immediately they lose power. He explained that it was for this reason that they were unlikely to leave power voluntarily. I think this is the most plausible explanation which I have heard yet about the real cause of the political deadlock in Zimbabwe. Which begs the question, why should anyone want to form a unity government with such devious miscreants? That is an issue for another debate.

What is blindingly obvious at this stage is that the actions of the authorities in Harare of denying Mrs Machel and Messrs Anan and Carter entry into Zimbabwe breaks the well known African tradition of warm welcome and hospitality. It is very un-African and unbecoming of anyone who purports to be an African. But I doubt very much that the authorities in Harare care anymore. They are cornered and plain dangerous. In that respect, it is probably wise to stay as far away from them as possible. More than three million of their own citizens have already done that.