South African madness--Africa needs an apology

Ladies and gentlemen, the most despicable yet unsurprising thing has happened. Native South Africans have turned their guns on African immigrants in their country. Last week, up to 50 people were murdered by these marauding mobs, compelling Ndugu Mbeki to send the army onto the streets.
What do you call this irony? Consider that not less than two decades ago, Most of Africa was concerned about the suppression of the black community under the apartheid system, offering sanctuary to dissident South Africans and even funding the anti-apartheid struggle.
African countries in the UN compelled the body to impose sanctions, even when it was clear that countries like Britain were not warming to the idea. (Thatcher was doing arms business with the apartheid regime).
In Uganda, the struggle against apartheid, became so engaging that we even selected books on anti-apartheid like Ale La Guma’s “In the Fog of the Seasons’ End” to run on our syllabus. Do you guys remember that we also read “A Wreath for Udomo” and for more sophiscated people like Alex Balimwikungu, “Sizwe Bansi is Dead”?
So, why does a country that owes it current freedom and economic prosperity get the right to clobber and murder people who helped it get there? Of course one may argue that what we saw was not State-sanctioned violence. But surely, this is a point that should not be lost even to the densest of a South African.
And I was right on economic prosperity. The majority workers in South African mines were immigrants. And as we all know it is these mines that have put South Africa to the economic threshold it is on today.
The least South Africans can do is apologise to the rest of Africa and promise what we saw will not happen again.
I sought out the views of my fourth generation South African friend, Khadija Mohamed on this and below was her reply. Read the thoughts of a South African on this. And know that I value your replies…so please, post comments.

Regarding the xenophobic crisis: Firstly, it shouldn’t be seen as a sudden uprising but rather as a gradual amalgamation of other issues facing the country, poverty, crime and unemployment. I’ll share with you comments from a columnist of the local Times daily: ”...as South Africans, we have an attitude of entitlement. We think that the world owes us something.... directly or indirectly, (we) think apartheid is something to hold on to so that we can be viewed as victims and everything should be smooth sailing for us.Here we are 14 years since the beginning of democracy in South Africa and we are still holding onto 1976.”

It sounds harsh, but I can back much of what she is saying through my own experiences.

In the same edition of the paper, a report on Jacob Zuma’s visit to one the xenophobic hotspots (as it's now called): “... the atmosphere became tense when someone interrupted Zuma’s opening remarks to ask why the meeting was being held in a predominantly Indian, upmarket suburb....

"Zuma and others who went into exile stayed in the camps in (Zimbabwe and Mozambique), they were not all over the place like here," a resident said.

The man went on to tell Zuma that the reason Mozambicans were targeted was 'because bosses put them in charge over us at work. This is because every time the white man says 'Do this,' the Shangaan (Mozambican) says. 'Yes, baas (boss)'."

back from the abyss--straight to Hillobama drama

I must apologise to all thee---fans of this blog. I last posted sometime in January, but truth be told, my system just broke down. Blogspot was just not accessible on my PC and senior blogger E Baz advised me to relocate to wordpress, but i was reluctant, knowing how many of you were already hooked here. Anyway, somehow i have managed to access it.

And let us blow it away with the American presidential elections or is it still party primaries (courtesy of the pant suit wearing Hillary---she itches like a jigger i must say. Why can't she just go away??)

Anyway, below is an opinion i came across this morning written by Associated Press staffer Calvin Woodward on the end of the Clinton era---or is it? My own rumbles on the topic will be coming soon. Indulge

THE CLINTON ERA COMING TO AN END
By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – There’s been a Clinton running for the White House or living in it for approximately forever. Bill, it could be said, was born to run. Running became Hillary's destiny, too.
One quarter of Americans have never known life without a Clinton trying for or having the presidency. Millions have gone from diapers to diplomas in the time of the Clintons.
When Hillary Rodham Clinton finally exits the 2008 Democratic presidential race, she will end a decades-long, power-couple streak of unique political energy, savvy ideas, colossal policy flops and raw ambition dressed in pants suits and briefs, not boxers.
“Every day is an adventure," Bill said cheerfully at the start of it all. And how.
By now, the Clintons have been assigned mystical qualities of perseverance. The notion that the adventure is over is almost beyond comprehension.
“I never quit,” she says. "I never give up."
Even in defeat, Hillary Clinton has made history as the first woman favored for a major party presidential nomination — the first with a real shot at the presidency.
She’s gotten more than 17 million votes in her own right this year, enticingly close to the number won by Barack Obama, who is making history, too, because he's black.
With her cachet, not to mention her job in the Senate, Clinton won't drift far from the nation's consciousness. (Nor is Bill likely to get out of the country's face.)
"Whatever else you might say about them, they have contributed to substantive dialogue and policy,” says Mary Matalin, a Clinton-era Republican strategist. “Hats off to them substantively.
“They’re really kind of giants in this world.”
In the 2012 and 2016 presidential campaign years, Hillary Clinton, now 60, will still be younger than the Republican candidate, John McCain, is now. Meantime, she could become a powerhouse senator in the manner of the stricken Edward M. Kennedy. Or a Supreme Court justice. Or Obama’s running mate.
Soon, though, there will be no Clinton running for president or about to. Imagine that.
___
Clinton I:
Dial back to Bill Clinton's two terms and a few big achievements and various smaller ones stand out: unsurpassed economic growth, a balanced budget, welfare reform, free trade, a Middle East peace agreement, gun control, more money for police on the street, the first Cabinet without white men in the majority.
Here was a man who could wear people out talking about the fine points of policy while owning up to his choice of underwear.
Another legacy was the transcendent His and Hers failure: universal health care. The complex, secretively drawn plan to achieve that goal was sent to and killed by a Democratic Congress, no less.
And there were the scandals, His and Hers.
They are known, in brief, as: Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Whitewater, the White House travel office firings, White House coffees and Lincoln bedroom stays for donors, FBI background files on Republicans, missing documents and the presidential pardon of a fugitive friend.
The episodes involving women were his. Most of the others were theirs or hers.
___
Scene from a 'funeral':
In January 2001, shortly before George W. Bush was sworn in, some of the Clintons' fiercest critics from the right gathered in a Washington hotel to feast on filet mignon, salmon and sour grapes.
"It's our way of celebrating the fumigation of Washington," said L. Brent Bozell III, host of the "funeral" for the Clinton years.
"I've never seen a back I've found more attractive," said Robert Bork, the scuttled Supreme Court nominee, meaning Bill Clinton's back when he left town.
Bozell amended the Lord's Prayer to say of Mrs. Clinton: "Her socialist agenda got runneth over." And the Rev. Jerry Falwell gave the invocation, thanking God "a new wind is blowing."
They seemed to be forgetting someone.
Hillary Clinton came blowing into the Senate chamber, the newly minted junior senator from New York.
___
Clinton II:
She was diligent from the start, attentive to constituent needs and a hard worker on the Armed Services Committee. She promised to be "pretty New York-centric," and was.
But everything she did was colored by the expectation of a presidential run.
The most polarizing woman in politics turned into a workhorse and formed surprising alliances with Republicans.
She edged toward the center and attempted to accomplish in little pieces what she could not pull off as a whole in her years as first lady.
Clinton joined Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, an architect of her husband's impeachment, in a law improving health coverage for members of the National Reserve and Guard serving in Iraq.
She pushed for tighter regulation of prescription drugs for children and help for recovery workers whose health was impaired by laboring at the site of the 2001 World Trade Center terrorist attack.
And she voted to authorize the Iraq invasion, which she would never live down after she cruised to re-election in 2006.
No monumental law bears her name.
But in the campaign, universal health care returned to her agenda. This time, she said, she would learn from her experience and do it right — more openly and less intrusively on parts of the health care system that work.
Clinton was the one to beat out of the gate. Everyone knew her, for one thing.
"Ninety-nine percent of the country feels they have a relationship with her," said Mike McCurry, former press secretary to President Clinton.
And there was Bill, still in everyone's face. He stumped for his wife as if possessed. Hillary Clinton flashed him that bright smile on stage through thick and thin.
For some voters, that was one Clinton — or two — too many.
"We've had enough of the Clintons," said Haydon Grubbs, 77, of Shalimar, Fla. "New direction, right?"
Grubbs, a Republican who voted in the past for the "He Clinton," backed Obama this time.
The "She Clinton" found her own voice.
But, like her husband, she seemed the strongest when her back was against the wall.
As the odds of beating Obama sank into the nearly impossible, she campaigned as if there were some previously undiscovered "third way" to win, just as Bill Clinton had sought a third way to govern between the old politics of left and right.
On Friday, she cited the 1968 Democratic primaries as a reason why she should stay in the race. She mentioned the assassination of Robert Kennedy in June of that year, then apologized for bringing it up.
___
Together, Bill and Hillary Clinton have pulled it out of the fire over and over, going back to 1976, when he bounced back from losing a congressional race two years earlier. He won election as Arkansas attorney general.
Two years after that, at 32, he became the nation's youngest governor.
Then, defeat in 1980 when he sought a second term. It would be his final election loss, but hardly the last dip in the Clintons' seemingly endless cycle of failure and renewal.
By the mid-1980s, when he was back in office in Little Rock, Clinton's name was floating as a Democratic presidential prospect.
He took a pass in 1988. But that year marked one benchmark in the rollout of the Clinton era.
He delivered a speech at the Democratic convention laying out a new orthodoxy that he would bring to the presidential race himself four years later, his activist wife at his side.
The Clintons' national conversation had begun.
The speech went on for so long that some people wondered if it would ever end.
In a way, it never did. Not until now.

So, Kenya finally is a failed state?

The heading sounds funny, doesn't it; a declarative question. Yeah, am wondering whether to agree that Kenya is a failed state or give it the benefit of doubt.

Kenya has been in the news for now close to a month since elections were conducted. And not just in the regional papers but even the global media. Not because Kenya conducted a great election, but because the election marked the start to an end of a state called Kenya.

Ok, what are the indicators? Finance minister Kimunya has been trying to put on a brave face that the economy would still survive the anarchy. But yesterday, he threw in the towel. He admitted that the clashes, which now have claimed over 1,000 people is sending Kenya down the recession road. He has admitted that tourism will take ages to rebuild.

As the massacres continue, especially in Naivasha and Nakuru, the police can only look on. Meaning they are either defeated, or conspiring to let Kikuyus kill Luos. I know that they are overstretched. But what do we call a state, which can not police itself?

The biggest component of a failed state is not the dead or even the economy. It is fear. The moment a country slides into a situation where people are not sure of their neighbours, where you must walk while watching your back, where you talk in whispers, for fear of being heard, then all freedoms are gone.

And believe me, Kenya has gotten there. I sent a mail to my friend (a journalist in one of the biggest media houses asking whether, the division bug had not bitten even they the 'elite' too. I asked her if in office, they are not segregating among themselves, and here is what she told me;

"Don, we do not want to believe it, but to be frank the bug has bitten us too. A Kikuyu friend of mine has suddenly stopped talking to me. When i greet him, he offers muffed responses. We hear some of our bosses from a certain tribe met to discuss how to guard their interests. We are now in a state of confuion and fear. Am not sure even sending you this mail is safe."

Fear, to me is the definition of a dead state. A people who live in fear of one another are as good as those living in cages. Kenya is a failed state.

the job i don't envy

As a child, I dreamt about being a journalist. I loved the voice of Robin White on the BBC African Service, though many times then; I did not fathom what exactly he was saying. Then as my love for the profession grew, I learnt of people called spokesmen. I was impressed when some time in the mid 90s, I watched a NATO spokesman, during the siege on Slobodan Milosevic of Yugoslavia, address a press conference and answered questions from journalists in five different international languages!!
I immediately knew where my heart wanted to go—spokesmanship. I did not matter really what I should be speaking for, but all I wanted was to be a spokesman.
Then came the American invasion on Iraq in 2003 and the thrust into international spotlight of a man, we later termed Comical Ali. Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf was the Iraq information minister when the Americans descended over his country.
He, overnight, became a star when through comical interviews; he rubbished the attacking forces, even when it was clear that Baghdad was falling to the occupational force.
“There is no presence of American infidels in the city of Baghdad,” he declared to journalists on the roof of the Palestine Hotel as gunfire echoed across the city and tanks fired from the banks of the Tigris just a few hundred yards away.
As the audience of bemused reporters pointed out the fierce firefight across the river, he continued: “There is no presence of the American columns in the city of Baghdad at all. We besieged them and we killed most of them.”
“Today, the tide has turned,” he continued confidently. “We are destroying them.”
And after an American tank shell hit the hotel, killing two cameramen, he moved to reassure the world’s press corps. “We are not afraid,” he proclaimed, adding paternally “And don’t you be afraid”.
After such theatrical performances, I knew that speaking, especially for governments can be indeed tough business. Matters are not made any better, if it is a dictatorship you are speaking for.
You may be wondering what has suddenly forced me go through these archives. But it is events in neighbouring Kenya. You see, since election results were disputed in late December, there has been one man who has tried to defend an outrightly illegitimate Kibaki government. This man goes by the names of Dr. Alfred Mutua—the official government spokesman.
Small in build and rather tall, listening to him makes one remember the tragi-comedy sub-genre of drama. I was ‘privileged’ to hear him speak to a group of Kenyan students in 2005 at Makerere University just before his government was defeated in the referendum on constitutional amendments; I concluded that theatre had missed an asset.
In a bid to impress students, he took to mimicking accents of several Kenyan tribes and obviously, you could see a man who did not recognise the gravity of events.
This week, Mutua was again in the news. After several western nations threatened to cut aid to Kenya, unless it got its political act together, Mutua said the threat was idle, adding: “You are not here to threaten us. We have gotten ourselves free from the yoke of neo-colonialism and dependency.”
Poor man, he may be right, considering that only 5% of the Kenyan budget gets foreign funding, but little does he know that the western masters still wield influence, too much of it that no amount of independence can let you cross their paths. He should ask Mugabe, Saddam and a couple of African states. He is obviously overstepping the bounds.
But what makes me see the real Comical Mutua is his remark in relation to opposition leaders, who called for mass nationwide protests.
“They are just waking up at 10 o’clock, eating eggs and sausages, giving interviews and planning how to disrupt people's lives,” Mutua told reporters.
Of course, I no longer dream of being a spokesman. Am comfortable being a blogger!!

KENYAN VIOLENCE; AFRICA'S POWDER KEG

We are now taking stock. Over 1,000 people might have been killed in the violence that gripped Kenya after elections, over 300,000 people are displaced both within and without the country.

Ease seems to return but the recent announcement of a partial cabinet by Kibaki and possible failure of AU-brokered talks means Kenya is far from peaceful.

Now, away from the political sentiments that gripped all of us, depending on what side we sat, we need to do a post-mortem on what exactly took Kenya down that path. We know that few African countries conduct fool-proof elections. We know that many African regimes lack legitimacy to rule but they go ahead and rule.

So, why did Kenya get caught up in this flame? Are the Kenyans more patriotic than other Africans? Are they the most sensitive that any form of electoral malpractice would yield the bloodshed it did?

Obviously not. So, why did we see youth, living in slums hold matchetes and clubs and maul each other? why did we see young men, with good command of English (telling from the TV interviews) decide to burn and loot shops and other institutions?

The answer in my understanding is; they are a lot of young people frustrated by unfair economic state policies, who seem to be losing hope in existence. They are a group of young people, who perceive themselves as already dead, and physical death will mean nothing to them. That is why, unlike the middle class, which most likely had voted for Raila also, these depressed youth took to the streets, ready to confront security forces and if possible get killed.

In subsequent accusations between the warring parties, PNU accused ODM of masterminding a genocide and terrorism. I beg to disagree on the genocide bit but fully agree on the terrorism accusation.

What is terrorism anyway: An American general described terrorism as the war of the poor against the rich, while war is the terrorism of the rich against the poor.

What we saw on the streets of Nairobi was indeed, a war of the poor against the rich. What we saw was a statement of discontent by the 57% of Kenyans who live on less than one dollar a day. The blood-thirsty youth we saw are no hoodlums. Many of them are Form Four leavers, who have failed to gain access to colleges. Some maybe graduates, who with the unflexible economic systems that favour those who already have, are confined to the misery of slums. They try to make a living the hard way. The education system has shaped them to reject rural life and have moved to urban areas, living in constant hope of a miracle happening and things getting better. Problem is---the miracle like the parousia, seems nowhere in sight.

It is such a lot of youth who are a time-bomb. They are ready to die for someone (like Raila) who promises them heaven when they get to power. To such youth, the State has failed them. That is why they will raze houses, they know they will never build. That is why they will loot property they have only afforded in dreams. That is why they will walk in the face of bullets, knowing their lives are as good as absent.

Two things though: Is Kenya the only African state with this growing class of frustrated youth?

Secondly, is it true that we are short of resources to ensure equity in our societies?

kenya has let us down

Prior to the December 27 presidential polls in Kenya, it was universally agreed that the biggest economy in East Africa was also setting the right pace in terms of democracy and general respect of freedoms. The first five years of the Kibaki presidency had literally turned round the image of a country once seen as a waste under Daniel Arap Moi, into a thriving, enviable economy in the region.
At the back of this praise was the 2002 presidential election, where Uhuru Kenyatta, the then ruling KANU party candidate, lost to Kibaki of the NARC and gracefully conceded defeat. For once in this region, we saw a ruling party hand over power to an opposition party.
For the rest of us, especially in Uganda, we could only afford to watch on with envy, considering the fact that our own 2001 presidential elections had been declared unfair by the Supreme Court and some not-so-romantic images of paramilitary squads like the Kalangala Action Plan still fresh in our memories.
Therefore, going into the 2007 presidential election, we knew our Kenyan brothers had already set the pace for us. If the 2002 election was like setting a house foundation, we expected this election to be the harnessing of the ring-beam with the hope that the 2012 polls would be roofing the democratic thatch.
How mistaken we were! We heard the opposition complain about the composition of the electoral commission during the campaigns and saw a few skirmishes claim lives. But where in Africa don’t these things happen? Even our darling Kenya could be guilty of these small failures.

But we knew they would stand the biggest test---let the people choose and respect their choice of a president. That we knew was a sure deal.
By Sunday December 31, it was clear that the maxim ‘In elections those who count the votes are strong than those who cast the votes’-had caught up with Kenya. We have looked on with horror as a country hitherto known to be peaceful descend into anarchy.
We have looked on with disgust as a country taunted as being respectful to media freedoms clamp down on media with decrees on what they should air.

We have seen a country previously respected for its thriving economy slowly witness a slump with its thriving tourist sector already threatened by scenes of violence and mayhem.
It was very disturbing to see thousands of Kenyans flee their previously peaceful country and seek refugee at shelterless border towns in Uganda. We have with worry reports that gangs are attacking innocent people in churches and burning them, reminding us of the 1994 Rwanda genocide, where even the altars turned into slaughter grounds.
And of course we can never blame the majority ordinary Kenyans. They did their part and cast their vote. The degeneration of Kenya into a Police state will by posterity and history be blamed on the political leadership. It will be placed on those, who threw away conscience and altered results in places like Molo.

The blame will squarely lie on the politicians, who put egos before State, who put self-interest before country, who roused ethnic sentiments at the cost of national unity.
The rest of us in this region will look on and say, Kenya took one step forward and moved three steps backward.

Bhutto's demise; man continues to annihilate man

My friend Raymond Baguma today told me about a common joke in Pakistan; It goes; what is the difference between God and Musharraf? Answer: God does not think he is Musharraf.


Following today's events; the grissly assasination of this lady politician, Bhenazir Bhutto, am beginning to think those who coined that joke may after all have been serious.


You may also be wondering what Jesus' image is doing in this piece meant to examine how man is slowly destroying fellow man but remember this is the Christmas season--the time when those of us who profess Christianity are out there preaching love and unity. Trying to revive the principles and values that this Son of God, 2007 years ago, belaboured to drum into our skulls with his spot-on proverbs.
I mean, at this time when we are glorifying the Messiah's birth, the last thing we should be seeing on our screens is Man creating a carnage of fellow man. But again, we are talking about man here.


So, Bhutto, is shot in the head after addressing a rally, 15 other lives are claimed in the process and the suicide bomber takes his life too. Fingers may point to the Islamic fundamentalists operating in Pakistan but i want to think otherwise. Global media (of course with US orchestration) is going to tell people how Bhutto, became a victim of the Al qaeda and other hardline islamic groups but i beg to differ.


'The other view' strongly believes that the demise of this woman has everything to do with Pervez Musharaff. And i will not even attempt to sound academic here. Let's just ask a simple question; who stands to gain most with Bhutto reduced into past tense?


The Islamists have nothing great to gain. When Bhutto ascended the Premier throne at the age of 35 in 1988, she was never engaged in anti-Islam politics. Not even with the reduction in the Afghan war that the US had used Osama to suppress Russian influence.


When she was deposed in 1990 and re-elected in 1993, and again deposed in 1996, she had not taken any radical stance against the Islamists. So, the question is; why would a woman, who when in power never threatened the radical Islamic movement be such a threat to them this time round whe she is running for power?


We all know that the biggest threat to the fanatical Islamic movement in Asia at least is Musharraf. He entered an agreement with the US to use Pakistan as a bumper state against the Al qaeda. If there is anyone the islamists would love to skin alive, it would be Musharaff, not Bhutto.


So, the finger of accusation points in one direction. Musharraf was behind Bhutto's assasination. And try as i may, i find it hard to absolve America. Bhutto's return to Pakistan had posed a real threat to Musharraf's hold unto power. Her rallies were electrifying, with thousands turning up and literally worshipping her. The writing on the wall was clear for Musharraf---come January 8, he was heading for defeat at the ballot. And for the US, they were just not sure whether this woman would have the mettle enough to be duped as a US puppet the way Musharraf had been pocketed.


It was therefore a case of hanging on with the devil you know than court the angel you are not aware of. Of course there will a some tears, diplomatic statements condemning the act and it will return to business as usual. Musharaff doing the dirty work for the US. The biggest losers here are the Pakistanis, who in Bhutto, saw a hope of an 'independent' country.
Of course in my mind continues to ring this statement she made a week to her assasination:

"I put my life in danger and came here because I feel this country is in danger. People are worried. We will bring the country out of this crisis."

EDUCATION--THE GALLOWS OF AFRICAN POLITICIANS

At the bottom of this blogspot, there is a photo of the Kampala mayor, Al hajj Nasser Ssebagala and me. For starters, this man lacks basic education (the school type I mean). Listening to him make a speech in English, one is reminded of Mulili, the comic character in Francis Imbuga’s play, Betrayal in the City. The one who talks of a ‘breathing corpse’ and ‘being a professional soldier by profession’. Ssebagala’s use of tenses—if at all--- will leave one pitying the authors of semantic and lexical rules.
But that said, the man commands a more than fanatical following among city voters. In 2006, he swept aside the flamboyant, American-accented Pastor Sematimba to take the seat that he had lost in 1998 after being convicted in Boston, USA over possession of counterfeit dollars---and inadvertently bringing into Ugandan lingua, a new term ‘bichupuli’.
You may be wondering why I am dwelling on the past and fortunes of this mayor but recent events around this continent are compelling me to think. Look, early this week, the ruling African National Congress (ANC) party in South Africa met to elect a leader. This followed the expiry of the term of current President Thabo Mbeki. When the ballot is finally cast, Jacob Zuma, a political nemesis of Mbeki, emerges victorious.
I need not repeat here the story of Zuma, but allow me point out that Mbeki fired him as the country’s vice-president when his (Zuma’s) aide was implicated in a corruption scandal that saw an arms-procurement deal influenced. Naturally, we tend to be bitter with people we think are using undue influence to gain wealth, but to the contrary, Zuma’s popularity seemed to have hit fever-pitch high.
Of course, we can not pay a blind eye to the rape trial he was subjected to---and which to the majority of South African ordinaries was a ploy by Mbeki to damage (perhaps irreparably) Zuma’s image.
What is more telling about Zuma and what I want to focus on here is his apparent lack of academic papers. The types we call degrees and diplomas. Whereas Mbeki has a Masters in Economics from the UK, Zuma, who floored him, does not even have basic primary school education. So, why would a politician without formal schooling (like Ssebagala and Zuma), command such fanatical support among voters?
This, from close scrutiny is not just about the politics---it is about the disillusionment we the schooled people have subjected our lesser ‘educated’ brothers to. After independence, there was a surge of political and material optimism in most of Africa. The thought of our own sons and daughters managing our state of affairs was so promising that many at the time saw a great future ahead of them. In countries like Kenya, the ascension of the black man to power had come with a lot of blood sacrifice in from of the Mau Mau movement.
Not long after, the majority of the African masses painfully learnt that even their own sons, who had taken over reigns of power from the imperialists were not any different. And mark you; many of these were graduates of African and British universities. Their education and assumption of power had given the masses false confidence. It was not long before they were instituting tribalism and primitive drive for wealth. In Uganda for example the tribal bug caused the elitist regime of Obote to crumble under the P4 ‘graduate’ Amin. It was obvious that people were getting disillusioned with the educated.
With that phase gone and after sampling misery under the illiterate rulers like Mobutu, Bokassa and Amin, it looked like the return of educated leaders was inevitable.
But look, the wheel is coming full-circle. In South Africa for example, Mbeki is seen to have lost the ANC leadership because he had cemented a society of ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’. Few had become billionaires under him but majority had slid into poverty. In Kenya, Kibaki (now fighting for his political life—but left with a few days), is losing the grip to Raila, who though trained in a Communist German university, has packaged himself as the advocate of the riff-ruff of Kenya; the hoi-polloi.
So ladies and gentlemen, why are people perceived to be less educated or closer to the uneducated assuming leadership now across this continent? One thing explains it; education damages us---especially we Africans. Believe me or not but possession of a degree builds a certain level of pride in you. Makes you think you belong to an exclusive class of society and rubbing shoulders with the lower citizens is beyond you. In company of these less educated, you propound your theories of Malthusian unemployment and GDP, when what all these guys want to hear is simple explanation of why they cannot afford sugar or why their coffee is fetching less money this year than it did last year.
You assume sophiscation as the mark of your education and consequently isolate yourself from the simple, majority peasantry masses. And politics being the art of proximity coupled with numbers, you suffer Mbeki’s fate—rejection.
I will end with a tale about Larry Ellison, the CEO of Oracle Group and one time second richest man in the world. At a graduation at Yale one time, he told the graduands that they had made the mistake of their lives by gaining degrees. Those papers, he reasoned, would make them develop sophiscations, e.g. on only seeking for white-collar jobs and in the process would lose out on the more paying, though more demanding blue-collar jobs. He was hinting on the reasoning like ‘because I am a graduate, I can not work in a garage or hawk merchandise’. How right he was, because in this city for example, the top most millionaires are those who have risen from hawking to global retailing.
And now, Ellison’s fear is catching up in politics too. Degrees, rather than become an asset are becoming alienating. That is why people like Zuma, with no clear economic policy for Africa’s biggest economy and no degree, will become its President in 2009, as the majority uneducated, cast a protest vote against ‘we’ the educated. Be very afraid!!!!

"I" annihilates 'We"

In one of his remarkable speeches, the renown American president, JF Kennedy warned that: "If mankind does not bring an end to war, war will bring an end to mankind". At his hindsight was the explosive possibility of the Cold War and the arms race.
Today, if JFK passed in Africa, i am sure he would caution: "If Africans do not put an end to greed, greed will put an end to Africans".
Look, an investigation reveals that people charged with the duty of distributing drugs freely to public health facilities have decided to ferry the drugs to private centres and sell them.
Obviously, this reduces accessibility to drugs and consequently deaths are imminent. For those of us who have access to health cover and rush to the doctor even with the slightest migraine, we may not actually know the impact of some of these things.
When a national paper runs a story that drugs worth sh100m have been diverted, we may just look on and brush it off as the next of the corruption scandals we have gotten used to. True, but for how long should mankind, in the crave for personal aggrandisement, subject other people to misery?
But as i posted earlier, we need to ask: why is man descending this low? Why would anyone with a conscience divert funds meant for HIV/AIDS victims to putting up personal mansions and shopping a fleet of cars for his concubines and himself? Surely, where has the word 'shame' gone?
Before you weep, like i do a great deal; stop and think---these people are products of our society. They are responding to standards and expectaions the rest of us are setting. The former Kagoma County MP, Dr. Frank Nabwiso, was voted out in 2006, and one of the reasons given by a section of his constituents was that he embarrased them by driving an old car. I listened to Dr. Nabwiso address a meeting in Makerere University in 2006 (after the elections) and he admitted that with his salary and family committments, he could not afford a 4-wheel-drive car. He actually rode a bicycle a couple of times!! To voters, this was a shame.
So, with a mindset like that, what do we expect people to do when they access positions that previlege them to handle big sums of money (even if it is not theirs?).
Just ask yourself, how many times have you judged a person by the car s/he drives or by the suit he wears, just because s/he holds a certain position? How many times does someone walk up to us and the first thing we do is look at the shoe type they have on or the wrist watch they are wearing?
It is common knowledge today that if someone ascends a 'top' position whether in politics or public office, a lot in terms of material flamboyance is expected of them. It is our expectation as the public that they build a mansion, acquire a state-of-the-art new wheels and manage a harem of concubines.
It is these standards we set that are driving men into vampires. That are turning people into blood-suckers. That are transforming man into a proponent of the "I" at the cost of the "We".
Of course this does not work in isolation. Some people are just greedy. Many of our 'liberators' today exhibit that. For a group of people who assumed power 20 years ago to have a bank balance of sh4 billion is total daylight robbery, when we know that all these years, these people have held public offices with clearly defined salaries that no amount fo saving can create such colossal bank balances.
I know that Capitalism has never left us the same. We have jumped onto the wealth bandwagon. but stop to think: before you pocket those millions, you are authoring the slow death of millions others. That before you divert those billions into buying a state-of-the-art benz, your action maybe subjecting thousands to a life of bad roads.
Lets just for once remember the "We" and dispose the "I".

victory of loss---the journey takes off

I remember reading an extract from the Guinness book of records that announced that the most rigged election was held some time back in China, where the voter turn-out was even higher than the country's entire adult population and in the about 5 parties contesting, the ruling one scored over 100% votes (forget about the dead, etc).
I know that governments strive to live on and on and on. In so doing, amny especially in the developing world, will do everything, both legal and illegal to try and retain state power. Remember our own 1980 elections, where ballot papers were intetionally sent to wrong polling stations and candidates detained before polling day?
And many times because the elite are aware of these things (and supposed invicibility of current regimes), they opt to become apolitical. They will not register to vote and try to keep away in their NGO/Private sector life and leave public affairs to the thugs. "It will make no difference in my life," they argue. I need to testify that i subscribe to that school of thought myself.
However, are regimes as invicible as we suppose they are? Is it true that we can pay taxes and let them waste away because we are powerless? Are things God-ordained the way they are? We shall get to this a little bit later.
Back to the crave to retain power. In our own courtyard, events have been following the same the script. After the 2006 presidential elections in Uganda, several petitions in court, saw a couple of MPs being dethroned of their seats, either because they cheated or lacked necessary academic qualifications.
The classic case was that of Kirunda Kivejinja, the Third Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Information and National Guidance (a mouthful of a title...?). The 71-year-old gentleman (hard pressed to refer to him thus), was found guilty of bribing and intimidating supporters of his major opponent, Abdu Katuntu.
A re-run was ordered; and guess who goes to Bugweri to campaign for Kivejinja? President Yoweri Museveni. He tells the people there that Katuntu, a candidate of the opposition FDC party, will have no impact in the House. That he will be a mere figure-head.
We all know that Katuntu is a distinguished lawyer. In the 7th Parliament, he engineered great legislation, including moving a private members bill on accountability. He was voted by the whole House to represent Uganda in the Pan African Parliament. Surely, this can not be an empty tin.
My concern though, is the President's party, has over 250 MPs in a House of 300 MPs. Does he surely need a Parliament saturated with his loyalists only? Won't having a sensible opposition contribute to his own strength as people help point out weaknesess in his govt? Is it fair for leaders to crave only for loyalists and suppress even the least voice of dissent?
So, with the stage set, the people of Bugweri vote Katuntu and old Kivejinja is floored, despite 3 days of the President's lodging in their constituency!
This brings me to the earlier question i posed: are we powerless? The people of Bugweri, despite being peasants and despite the heavy military deployment, showed that voices of the common man, once united, are difficult to suppress.
In 1830 qnd 1848, when the ruling monarchs in Europe had become a problem, students and intellengetia took to the streets and led the whole of Europe into riots and protests. The monarchs came down crumbling.
It is about time that the elite (especially in Africa) shake off the lethargy and become active. It is about time that we realised the potential of united man.
And for leaders---it is not true to suppose that any opposition in any form is bad.
When one Russian Tsar wanted to retire, he called together his advisers and asked them whether he could go ahead and leave the throne. Many of them, cognisant of the fact that their material survival depended on him, urged him to cling on. However, one of them, asked the group to follow him outside. The whole troop went, not knowing what he was upto.
The single adviser led them to a cemetery; where at the gate as they entered, was a signpost: "We were once like you". He took them (with the Tsar ) around the cemetery and as they were getting out, they saw the other signpost: "And you will also be like us".
The Tsar, went to the palace and announced his resignation, appointing the lone adviser his successor.
I rest my case.