Africa can do better with less rhetoric and more action

I write to you on Africa Day; the day we put aside to celebrate our unity as Africans. Our problems are there for everyone to see. There are many academics who have built their standing from the study of African politics and economy. We have a vast array of literature that deals on African economy; but why is it that despite all that knowledge at our disposal Africa is not progressing?

Politically, we have witnessed coups, civil wars, electoral fraud, violence and an increased emergence of dictatorships. Economically; even though Africa’s GDP is expected to grow from 5.5 to about 6% in 2010; there are millions of people living in extreme poverty and as it stands there is a chance that Africa is going to miss the Millennium Development Goal of halving the number of people living on less than US$1 per day. Africa is still struggling to cope with the burden of HIV/AIDS pandemic which in developed countries is no longer regarded as a killer disease yet in Africa millions die every year.

These are manifestations at a macrocosmic level. We know that we can blame the West for colonialism, we can blame USA for destabilizing Africa through its regime change policies that claimed the lives of people like Patrice Lumumba and plunged DR Congo into this crisis they have up to today. Indeed, we can blame whites for apartheid and colonialism that has left many of our people marginalized but the question we ought to ask ourselves is: assuming that colonialism had not taken place, would we as a people been any different today?

Let us take Ethiopia as an example. Save for five years under Mussolini, Ethiopia was largely uncolonized. Under Haile Selassie, the distribution of wealth was skewed towards the ruling elite, the landowners and elements of the clergy. The plight of the peasants is well documented. Upon the deposition of the emperor, the Derg adopted Marxism and communism as their working ideology. Hundreds of thousands were killed due to red terror, forced deportations, or from using hunger as a weapon. Despite the egalitarian rhetoric of the Derg, high-ranking government officials retained privileged economic positions. Even today under Meles Zenawi government officials and a few high-ranking professionals control the country’s mode of production.

There are many people who give colonialism as an excuse for Africa’s failure to thrive. Here is a country that has never been fully colonized, a country that had African rulers from time immemorial- a typical African country that we fantasize about in our excuses. Why is it that we still find oppression and suppression of voices in such a country? Why are Ethiopians amongst the poorest in the world? Why isn’t there such camaraderie as that punctuates our rhetoric when we speak of “WE AFRICANS”?

We give excuses that we had limited access to basic education thus our failure to engage in meaningful economic activity largely due to colonialism and apartheid. Let us look at a country like Zimbabwe which has the highest literacy rate of 92% in Africa. If educating an African was such a factor why do we find such levels of poverty and oppression in Zimbabwe? Why don’t we see Africans in Zimbabwe sitting down in true “African spirit” to discuss amongst them how to lift each other from poverty?

Is it really that “WE AFRICANS” are victims of history or we have inherent characteristics that predispose us to poverty?

Firstly, we as Africans lack the drive for scientific adventure, neither are we inclined towards innovativeness. Have we ever asked ourselves why it is almost everyone’s dream to be a medical doctor? It is because of job security. We are more worried about failing to get employment than our ability to be our own employers. No one wishes to study natural sciences like Physics in Zimbabwe because all of us are afraid of ending up as secondary school teachers somewhere in the deserted lands of Dzaramba. None of us ever think that we could be the Isaac Newtons of our time.
I remember one day being fascinated by a toy bird made by the Chinese which could balance on anything solid using its beak. There were no electronics used, nor expensive material, just plastic. It took me a while to figure out that whoever made that toy applied see-saw physics that we learn in the first few years of secondary education. When we are learning that, do we ever think that this could be harnessed to generate wealth?

In contrast, the level of research in the field of sciences in Asia and the West is so advanced to the extent that we sometimes feel that they major on minors. What we fail to realize is that we are the ones who drive these researches as we are the ones who end up buying finished products from them feeding their inventors with royalties from patents.

Maybe this also has to do with our lack of vision and our acute inclination towards consumerism-without-production. How many of us look into the future and plan for it? We seek instant rewards without investment. It is our expectation that one can miraculously wake up with a bank account pregnant with money without working for it.
There have been efforts by some Africans especially those in the diaspora to bring together their few resources in various collective investments schemes. This was after a realization that what we earn from a regular job will never be enough to cater for our ambitions and secondly that access to capital is limited in Africa. Unfortunately not many of our people understand the power of collective investment. This is usually because as human beings we desire to be powerful. We desired to be on top, thus the aspect of collectiveness- where we rise together as a group- is not attractive lest we may not have those to whom we can show off. Secondly we do not want to start small. We feel that by saving a dollar and investing it to get a cent is not worthy it; rather we hope to start after we have saved a thousand dollars. Unfortunately, we rarely manage to reach that stage when we have a thousand at our disposal; thus we die hoping and blaming.

We blame the Americans for what they do to us; but do we ever stop to think about our own inadequacies when it comes to money and power? If we are as morally upright (botho, unhu, ubuntu) as we always claim to be why is it that the Americans always find people amongst us willing to be paid to do mercenary work for them. People like Mobutu and Savimbi. Even amongst us right now we have people especially in destabilized economies like Zimbabwe and Eritrea who go about preaching things that do more harm than good disguised as Civic Society at the instigation of donor agencies whose agenda in most instances is to propel American Foreign Policy. It is again this love for riches without sweat that drives us to lose our conscience.
Perhaps we need to first look at what power means to an African. I think from time immemorial power in Africa meant proclamation of self and total submission of others. Power to us means influence to expropriate and not inspiration to nurture. Many of us at individual level do not appreciate that our children can teach us to be wise. Many still believe that women are objects for suppression even within marriage. It is because of this bigoted behavior that we find geriatrics like Mr Mugabe looking with contempt at people of younger age. It is again because of this wrong understanding of power that we find people like Joseph Kony, Charles Taylor and Al Bashir using death as a means to prevail over others.

The big reason why we as Africans fight each other every day is usually because of our wish to expropriate things that do not belong to us. We have a severe failure of positive imagination. When a man builds his house out of his own sweat, we find it worthwhile to seize and own it. This behavior dates back beyond the times of Shaka. Idi Amin, chased Asians from Uganda because he was jealousy of their hard work. What did he do; expropriated their possessions to the same African man whose poor vision drives him to make drums out of his own house’s roof forgetting that rain will one day pound him. Out of sheer vengeance and jealousy Mugabe did the same in Zimbabwe; the people he gave land found it sensible to sell pipes instead of using them for irrigation.

So if “WE AFRICANS” are like this, what should be done? This is the question that we need to explore to its fullest extent, apart from that we have to go beyond mere rhetoric and work towards tangible results.

We have to primarily change our focus. Let us educate our children to be productive. African education should not just be academic but should reflect empowerment. Beyond elementary education, a student should be allowed to follow his career out of passion not as a product of how much she can recall in an examination. A student who is able to tend to two pigs until they multiply to six in a year should be graded better than one who sits in an examination and recalls the theory of tending pigs without practically showing that indeed she can do that. Likewise we do not expect a person to graduate from a University without showing that beyond the theory he can actually harness it to produce a gadget or product that can be useful to society. This should not be misconstrued to mean that arts and social sciences should to be sacrificed. Summarily, the education system should be changed.

It does no good however to change the education system of a society that does not understand the value of such education. Doing so is tantamount to giving a torch to a baboon. Thus as Africans we should begin to teach our children to strive to be innovative, self-sufficient, independent and dignified. When your kid makes a wire car that is a stage above those made by his peers, reward him for that so that he appreciates hard work and inventiveness. Our children should know how to create and multiply wealth from a tender age. Give him a stone and tell him to carve something of better value out of it, pay him and tomorrow he will sell you purified oxygen! In all that he does tell him to value his conscience; tell him bloody money is dangerous. Teach him to do good.

Why put emphasis on the individual? We know that by concentrating on the atomic make up of a substance we may as well influence its gross appearance. If we build a generation that knows how to work and create wealth; who knows maybe we will be able to choose our member of parliament from them.

It is only when we have people who have been groomed to work hard, to respect others and to be innovative that we can possibly have a government that protects Intellectual Property Rights, General Property Rights and Human Rights. A government that can do away with the so-called Development Aid and use home-grown and less-expensive solutions to wiggle out of debt and poverty. We cannot expect a child soldier who eventually grows into a head of junta to respect the power of a mere ballot paper. To him it is only a bullet that matters and indeed; in Africa the bullet is still mightier than the pen.

These few thoughts are by no means exhaustive. It is my hope that we can build upon the rich history that we have; use it as pool of knowledge that can inspire us into a more successful people without marginalizing each other. Africa can do better with less rhetoric and more action!

INDIGENISATION: A mosquito seeking to treat malaria

There has been a flurry of activity following the gazzeting of the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment (General) Regulations. A lot of emotions have been expressed: joy, dismay, anger and indifference. These have been the typical responses to most of the sensitive issues that have challenge our country and it is expected in such a highly polarized country. This divergence has done a lot of disservice to our country in that public opinion is usually dictated by voices wearing political and therefore blinkered voices. Indigenization and Economic Empowerment are issues that need to be looked at holistically as they are the cornerstone of justice and ultimately peace in any country.

There are number of facts that we need to note before probing the status quo. It is true that prior to 1980 non-white Zimbabweans were discriminated against economically, socially and politically. Economic discrimination took root on inaccessibility of Education, mode of production and business freedom. Blacks in Rhodesia were restricted from economic activity. Commercial agriculture was skewed towards whites as they alone had unfettered access to commercially viable land. Blacks had other restrictions too which included bottle-necking at schools. One had to be exceptionally brilliant and lucky to reach university while whites found comfort in numerous whites-only schools, scholarships and government assistance. In short; historically blacks were disadvantaged.

Independence brought with it freedom and schools. People could now walk freely in Harare’s First Street. People could now drink brown bottled beer and whisky which used to be a criminal offence prior to independence. Primary and Secondary Schools mushroomed all over the country and education was opened up to every Zimbabwean. In 2000 Zimbabwe had more than six universities as compared to one in 1980. Zimbabwe had reached a milestone in education.

Did political independence bring with it economic independence to blacks? This can be answered by examining the distribution of wealth and resources across races.

The Land Apportionment Act of 1930 prohibited blacks from owning land in the lucrative “European Areas”, it even prohibited them from owning land in Tribal Trust Lands which were of ecologically poor. This act guaranteed that less than 1% of the nation owned approximately 80% of arable land in Zimbabwe. Very few blacks managed to purchase land in urban and commercial farming areas where private ownership of land was allowable. Most of them had to be contend with life in the communally owned Tribal Trust Lands. The implication of this Act on black empowerment can never be overlooked as it unfairly disadvantaged blacks especially regarding access to capital. Communally owned lands cannot be used to guarantee loans whilst title deeds from private ownership of land are major collateral. Secondly, this Act forced blacks into marginal areas where economic activity was minimal reducing them to cheap labor and not a people capable of economic activity.

Let us look at the distribution of industrial and commercial enterprises in Zimbabwe after independence. In a report done by OTM Consultancy for IBDC in 1994 it was noted that blacks who happened to be 95% of the population owned only 1% of these. Whites who were 3% of the population owned 30% of the industries and commercial enterprises whilst the Zimbabwe Government owned 4%. The rest was owned by foreign multinational companies. These figures show us that despite their huge population, blacks in Zimbabwe were owned very few businesses.

It is clear therefore that political independence in Zimbabwe did not come with economic empowerment of those who had for long been marginalized. The question we now ought to examine is whether this lack of economic power was all due to historical injustices or some other causes. This interrogation can help us approach the issue of Indigenization with an open eye.

Firstly let us look at the government’s policies towards private business. When the Marxist government of Robert Mugabe took over, it adopted a socialist approach towards business. More emphasis was placed on formation of cooperatives and not private business. A lot of Ujamas erupted across the country. These flourished for a short while but because a cooperative is usually tedious and full of mistrust and suspicion many crumbled. Those who dared to enter into private business found the environment hostile to capitalism. The government introduced price controls between 1980 and 1981 which made it economically unviable for emerging business people. These restrictions stifled growth.

The financial system that the government inherited and adopted was risk averse with more emphasis on conservatism than business adventurism. What this meant was that most financial institutions demanded high collateral for any loans that they would issue. Despite the knowledge of the handicaps that blacks faced, the government did not intervene to assist; rather it left everything in the hands of institutions like Small Enterprise Development Corporation (SEDCO) which issued short-term and long-term loans which obviously were guaranteed by collateral.

This is the issue that led to phenomenon that was then called “Institutional racism”, where blacks failed to gain loans from financial institutions whilst whites seemed to easily secure them. Blacks had no collateral, whilst whites could afford it.

Not all blacks didn’t have start-up capital; some did have but why did they fail to start thriving businesses in Zimbabwe? Let us again examine the Zimbabwe Government’s hand in this. There were pieces of legislation in Zimbabwe that made starting up a business tedious rather than exciting. Let us for example consider the processes that were involved in starting up a company. First there was Company Name Search, followed by Memorandum and Articles of Association, then Certificate of Incorporation. This alone could take up to a year to complete even though officially it was projected to be a month. If one wanted to then enter into Hotel and Catering, he would have to apply to the Zimbabwe Tourism Authority which was under Ministry of Environment and Tourism, if he intended to then ferry his clients around in a bus he would have to apply for another license from the Ministry of Roads and Transport. His premises had to be inspected by the Local Government and he also needed a clearance from the Ministry of Health. All this could take another two years. How on earth did the government expect its people to participate in economic activities under such strenuous and unfriendly demands?

The government knows about these restrictive laws that are present because in 1994 the Deregulation Committee set up by the government to look into the laws identified 28 Acts that were impediments to business and therefore needed to be amended urgently. Unfortunately very few were amended and even today the government still uses these shamed laws to act on its citizens.

We need not look further than Strive Masiiwa’s battle to set-up Econet wireless to identify the hypocrisy of the Zimbabwean Government. In 1993, Masiiwa secured a US$40 million loan from Standard Chartered Bank to launch his telecommunication business. Here was a black man with a brilliant idea, who approached a foreign owned-bank in Zimbabwe and secured a loan. He approached Post and Telecommunications Corporation (PTC) for licensing but they told him that only PTC could do such a business under the Zimbabwe PTC Act. Initially he had approached them for a joint venture but they declined saying that there was no immediate demand for mobile technology in Zimbabwe. He appealed to the High Court and got a favorable verdict from Judge Gibson. PTC appealed to the Supreme Court and they won.

Masiiwa then made a constitutional challenge which ruled in his favor in August 1995. Unfortunately, President Robert Gabriel Mugabe invoked the Presidential Powers Act to issue a Presidential Decree requiring private parties to obtain a license from the Ministry of Information, Post, and Telecommunications before setting up a cellular network effectively overturning the decision of the Supreme Court and restoring PTC’s monopoly. The battle took another two years and it was only after the intervention of Joshua Nkomo to force Rejoice Mujuru then the Information minister and currently the Vice-President to license Econet.

Masiiwa is not the only black businessman who has been persecuted by Zimbabwe’s government and its horrendous laws. Many names come to mind, Mushore, Muponda, Kuruneri, Makamba and many minor ones like Daniel Chingoma whose dream of flying his helicopter will never see light of the day due to restrictions imposed by the aviation laws.

Let us not forget the then emerging black businessmen like my brother Tobias who owned five tuckshops in Chitungwiza which were all razed down during the infamous Operation Murambatsvina in 2005. I have no doubt that if the ZANU PF government had not destroyed his tuckshops he could be having a decent supermarket maybe employing ten more people. Today he is a pauper selling matches and cigarettes at Makoni Bus Rank.

The question we ask today as Minister Kasukuwere gazettes his regulations is whether the Government of Zimbabwe is being truthful in its quest for indigenization or it’s another ploy to empower a few using the guise of futile populism.

Let us not forget that this is the same government that has presided over Zimbabwe for the past 30 years. It is the same government that has presided over the demise of the country. It is the same government that been brutal to its own people and it is the same government that has grabbed and expropriated land amongst itself. What has really changed today that this brutal government has suddenly become sensitive to its people?

I ask these questions not because I want to scare people away from riches. I am only saying; let us not develop a tendency of expropriating wealth. Let us create wealth. Historical injustices are not made right by just multiplying the people that eat the cake but by multiplying the cake and the people who eat it.

If ZANU PF is serious about black empowerment I challenge it to walk the talk and begin by accepting that most of the damage to black entrepreneurship in the past 30 years was due to its bad governance and impunity. After that we share its proceeds of corruption and plunder before we demand the 51% from foreigners!

What it means to be Zimbabwean: A search for identity

I have stayed in foreign lands for some time now. I have seen Zimbabweans being killed, I have seen them being segregated and I have seen them living worse than dogs. Back home I have seen my people degenerating into thieves, fraudsters and murderers; our once righteous women turning into nocturnal body-sellers. Out of pain, I decided to undertake a dialectical journey to the core of our existence; to explore what it means to be Zimbabwean, what it should mean and why it means what it means right now to be a Zimbabwean. This could be the works of a troubled mind but my hope is that someone would find sense out of it.

Sometimes I sit wondering why some people behave the way they do. I wonder why Robert Mugabe is that arrogant, why General Zvinavashe agreed to pronounce that infamous statement on the eve of the 2002 Presidential elections, why Jonathan Moyo keeps vacillating like a pendulum and why Morgan Tsvangirai overruled a democratic consensus that later led to the split of MDC. Most of the times, I end up indifferently concluding that maybe that’s how human beings behave. This time I decided to interrogate the source of these behaviors even deeper without giving myself a chance to resign.
The first question that I asked myself was; “what makes a man a man?” Apart from the physical how can we differentiate between a man and a dog? This question came about because of some things that we have seen happening in Zimbabwe that we would normally say; they are not fit to be done by human beings but by dogs or savages. So what is it that makes a man a man and a dog a dog?
There are certain characteristics that are common between a man and a dog which compel us to conclude that a man is primarily an animal. They both desire food, water, shelter and other basic needs. They both have the five scientific senses. They are both calculative- a baboon may bury wild fruits in sand to facilitate ripening just like a human being. Most importantly, they both act instinctively in the face of danger to avoid death. But still a baboon is a baboon and a man is a man- why?
Somebody argued that a man is a man because he can differentiate between good and bad. Again we ask; is good universal to all men? Why is polygamy good in some societies but bad in some? Who defines good? If we can follow the dictates of society on good and bad can’t that be said of a dog that is conditioned to know what is acceptable and what is not acceptable to its master?
However, even if good or bad is not universal to all men the concept of goodness and badness is common across all people. But even this concept derives from a deeper intrinsic awareness in man which is I prefer to call the consciousness of value. It is therefore arguable that apart from the physical and the genetic make-up, human beings also share a common characteristic- attaching value to nature.
Notwithstanding the fact that animals also attach value to things out of instinct, it is only man who has the ability to attach value and defend it on worthless material and on non-material things. For example, man fight to defend religion, they fight to defend their rights because they place value unto these things and they are willing to risk death for things that are intangible.

Man in as much as he places value on other things also places value upon himself. He believes that he is worth a certain value. This is what is called self-worth. The product of this self-evaluation is called dignity. Because man is naturally a social being, that is he desires to be desired by other man. He expects other man to evaluate his worth by other man, he expects other man to evaluate his worth to its real value. When they undervalue him, he gets angry and when the evaluate him to his real worth he feels pride. This desire to be recognized by other man, is the one that drives man to behave in ways that defy natural animal instinct.
Let us look at Zimbabwe. On one hand we have a ruling class that is unwilling to recognize other ordinary Zimbabweans as people amongst other people, on the other we have a people that is yearning for such recognition. This ruling class which is mainly ZANU PF , behaves in a manner that seeks to undo history.
I say ZANU PF is seeking to undo history because it is taking the human philosophical function back to the primitive state when man , although social beings, interacted with each other violently. A period in history when man’s worth was evaluated on how much one was willing to risk death for pure prestige. Remember Alexander or Chaka .
Unfortunately, other Zimbabweans are unwilling to engage ZANU PF in such a primitive manner which to some may appear as cowardice. In circumstances, where one part is willing to engage in violence and another is unwilling there is greater possibility that their relationship terminates in lordship and bondage in which as is in Zimbabwe, ZANU PF gains the recognition of being the master and everybody else looses the dignity of being a man and becomes a slave.
But is the unwillingness of Zimbabweans to engage in violence a symbol of cowardice? The answer could be both YES and NO.
YES in that, cowardice itself begins when a man fails to overcome the fear of death and let his animal instinct of self-preservation override the human characteristic of seeking recognition. So out of cowardice, Zimbabweans decided to forfeit their worth for a chance to live.
NO in that, a human being is also calculative and can temporarily forgo his human desires for a particular reason. For example a man may choose not to eat even if he is hungry because he is on hunger-strike. So there could be a reason why Zimbabweans chose to forfeit their worth. One of which could be that they know that most of the primitive members of ZANU PF are close to death due to aging. From their calculations, they can do without dignity for a few years until this generation is wiped out. They can derive hope from the fact that a number of younger ZANU PF members have been attracted to the idea of change like Simba Makoni, Daniel Shumba, Walter Mzembi and others.
What is certain in Zimbabwe however is that the ZANU PF regime is not evaluating its people’s worth justly. Zimbabweans are conscious of this, unfortunately; as in all dictatorships, two groups of slaves arise. One that feels unjustly evaluated and is willing to regain its dignity and another that knows and feels theindignation but is content to live like that as long as they are alive.

The first group knows that an honest reason for its situation is simply that they are cowards but because they deem themselves to be of certain worth they can’t accept that they are after all mere animals whose fear drives them into submission. So, instead of confronting their fears, this group devices methods by which it can fool itself that it is still capable of functioning as human beings. They feel the anger because firstly they lost dignity in the eyes of the master and secondly because they have been reduced to ordinary amongst the ordinary. They begin to seek to be recognized again as extra-ordinary by their fellow ordinary peers.
They know that they can never be recognized as extraordinary by acts of bravery because already their peers know that they are mere cowards. They are left with no option but to be industrious. They now relate their value to the value of their ability and what they own. Their motive becomes to amass as much as they can so as to attract attention and recognition from primarily their peers and eventually the ruling class. This is what happened in America after independence where those who had not participated in the revolution ended up also part of the ruling class because the ruling class was rational enough to recognize these people’s dignity through their ability and what they owned.

The driving force behind this kind of man is the will to be free- to be a dignified human being capable of unrestricted moral choice. But this kind of man is also caught up in the conflict of desire to be recognized and the desire for self-preservation. It is this man who becomes capable of defining what is good and what is bad because he has consciousness of slavery and a will to be a master. He is capable of defining good because he feels that all things that lead to perpetuation of life (self-preservation) represent morality and good whilst those that lead to violence, war, animosity and death (out of the need to be recognized) are bad. It is this group that is dangerous to TYRANY and ZANU PF knows it.

ZANU PF knows that a man who is unwilling to fight may become even more dangerous if he becomes prosperous because prosperity without freedom is not satisfying to man. They know that man derive satisfaction from owning property not because of necessity but because other man recognize it as theirs and they have made sure that nobody owns property beyond necessity. To them a slave should not be capable of being industrious and if by chance he does so; they are more than happy to grab and expropriate.


Under these circumstances it becomes totally impossible for the ordinary to be extraordinary. Two realities now exist for this group; they are no longer a people amongst people and there is no chance to redeem their dignity through work. Only two options remain: to leave the country altogether or to revert into the lower group that survive as if they do not exist.
When the desire to live supersedes the desire to be human, men begin to drift towards primitiveness. He loses his dignity; he also loses the consciousness of being human. Survival becomes the primary object of his existence. He loses the basis of morality and ultimately the basis of humanness.

When the whole society loses the basis of morality it becomes hard to differentiate or dictate what is good and what is bad. Corruption for survival becomes good, so becomes prostitution, theft, fraud and murder. The feeling of guilty is gone because we are no longer able to evaluate ourselves to our real worth; rather we become worthless and therefore incapable of understanding justice or even to judge ourselves.
This is what happened in Zimbabwe. We had a people that earned less than one dollar a day but survived on five dollars every day. It did not matter where the money was coming from because EVERYBODY was doing it. We celebrated thieves and fraudsters because they were the symbol of survival.

Now, let us turn our sight to those who decided to leave Zimbabwe. These people had lost dignity but not the ability to evaluate themselves. They hoped to transfer their perceived value in Zimbabwe to other societies. They hoped that those societies would assess their worth justly.

What most did not realize was that dignity is built through interaction. They hoped to be given back their dignity in foreign lands through work since these foreigners respected and recognized each other’s property. But what happens when those in the foreign lands realize that you are mere animals running away from death. You lose the basis for just evaluation and revert to being less than the ordinary of that society.
Eventually it becomes hard to get dignified work. It becomes a matter of survival. One needs to eat, drink and shelter. So even in foreign lands we then sacrifice our dignity for survival. Teachers become housemaids, Nurses become child-minders and accountants become gardeners. Those who had hope become prostitutes. This becomes the basis of xenophobia. We become animals, as worthless as a wild dog which can be axed to death in the townships of Alexandria.

Logically, it becomes easier to define who a Zimbabwean is and what it means to be a Zimbabwean today. A Zimbabwean is an animal which is nothing, owns nothing and is ever loitering in search of survival! This is what ZANU PF has reduced us to.
So when I evaluate the so-called Government of National Unity, I have to base my assessment on whether this government has restored dignity to its people. Are Zimbabweans now man amongst man? Do they own something or are they free to own something? Have they gone beyond scavenging for survival?
A friend called me and said “man the shops are full, everything is there”. The first question to strike my mind was- if everything is there, is everything there for everybody?

If a slave master opens a shop at his farm to sell sugar which was not locally available at the farm, if he sells unto them at wild prices so as to confiscate their meager savings and orders them not to buy anywhere else; should we call that freedom? Should we call that prosperity? Is it a change in history? No, the slave is still a slave and the master still the master only that the slave is able to point at the grocer and say, “ A long time ago we had to scavenge as far as South Africa but we now have our own dumpsite here!”
If the slave was able to build the shop, sell his sugar and multiply his wealth without restriction from the master then that would be significant because the slave would have regained his dignity firstly by having the master recognize his rights to private property and freedom to be industrious and secondly because he would have re-ignited and re-calibrated his consciousness of value to that which reflects the progress in history.

So abundance in Zimbabwean shops does not necessarily reflect a gain in dignity rather it only assures Zimbabweans that if they commit their labor to their slave-master they will be able to buy food and survive. Other than that they would die.

The challenge we have s to differentiate between the appearance of freedom and the reality of freedom. For how else can we explain the phenomenon in Zimbabwe: you are only free as long as you are willing to live like an animal but that freedom ends when you decide to be a human being- when you begin to interrogate the truth and seek your worth? So yes Zimbabweans are free today as is a dog that is only free when it is willing to track behind its owner who would not hesitate to shoot it if it decides to challenge him.

Having sacrificed a lot of time on what is and has been happening in Zimbabwe; we have an obligation also to enquire on ways that may help us be human again. That, I hope will become the object of my next article but as it is let us think clearly about whom we are , what we want to be and build ourselves for the future battles to regain our dignity!