Questioning the concept of Democracy in Africa

It is critical to analyze how democracy fits well in African systems of governance so that we create a hybrid that functions better in our context.

One thing is for sure that democracy as we have perceived it in Africa is “dictatorship of the majority” overshadowing the views and needs of the minority.

This is why we are preoccupied with elections so that we know who is supported by the majority and thereafter they become dictators through maintaining the “winner takes it all type of government” which further enacts restrictive laws that promotes alienation of the minority.

Democracy as it stands has the potential of causing divisions, conflicts and polarity over issues and within the context of Africa this becomes the route of so many challenges that we face.

The minority in most cases are those that have less economic clout and political influence to sway opinion towards their favor- at times the very common people in the country.

Democracy has become a system that gives legitimacy to taking sides rather than allowing our leaders to take both sides and put them together.

What then Africa might need is strategic leadership rather than Democracy for such leadership has the ability to be inclusive in its decision making to ensure that there is no divide in society between the majority and the minority for all opinions matter if society is to become progressive.

See more on this space…

Consideration as we call for Zeros

1 February 2012

By Darlington Muyambwa

Another year and yet again another World AIDS Day came and went. As we continue to remember those whose lives were cut short by AIDS, let’s take stock of our collective achievements towards universal access to treatment and urge rights holders to put their money where their words are-on the zeroes.

More than three decades into the epidemic, 2011 held so much promise and for the first time, an AIDS free generation seems realistic come 2012 and beyond.

While the target of Zero HIV infections, Zero AIDS related deaths and Zero Discrimination epitomizes the dream of an AIDS free generation, the effort required has to transcend rhetoric.

The three zero vision is more significant for resource constrained but high burden countries like Zimbabwe. Such countries need to consider the fact that as the epidemic is evolving, responses have to do the same and they need not to take the business as usual approach.

While announcing multiple response positives, UNAIDS also offered a warning that funding for the response is dwindling.  In the context of reduced resources, there is evident contestation for space and relevance amongst organisation whilst at population level sexual risk taking remains prevalent- a recipe that contradicts the Zero vision.

The most distinct aspect of the three Zero vision is the collectivity it conjures. However, Zimbabwe’s response faces a potentially divisive moral dilemma which took root in policy and programming debates throughout 2011.

The debate around the feasibility of providing condom education, demonstration and distribution has divided opinion and generated debate only rivaled by political discourse. At its core is a moral argument versus the practical need to provide access to prevention information and commodities.

Although the debate has receded, it is by no means a sign that consensus was reached. Without taking a position, it is critical to outline that the debate has taken an overly moralistic tone to an extent of becoming almost political.

In a country where an estimated 93 percent of new infections arise out of unprotected sexual contact, is it not imperative to ensure access to prevention? Although prevention is wider than just condoms, condoms remain one of the practical commodities we need considering the sexual debut of the young people in today’s world.

From a prevention viewpoint, our concern should not be so much about who is having sex and at what age and whether they are in school or not. Our critical concern should be are they having safer sex and do we have programs, information, services and commodities that ensure their competency in practicing safer sex? If the above becomes the key consideration then our preoccupation should be on inculcating a culture of safer sex regardless of age gender or other determinants.

The debate has raised key questions around parenting, parent-child relations and multi influenced socialisation. However, not all of the multiple socializing factors provide accurate information and not all families have open relationships for young people to seek clarification. While experience used to be the best teacher, in the context of HIV it becomes the worst teacher with potential to destroy its students.

Although there can be no straight forward answer about how and when education of sexual and reproductive health should start, it is straightforward that families should redefine relations and take more responsibility for providing accurate information and guidance.

The other issue that has attained even more political significance is that of sexual minorities. Like the issue of condoms and youths, this has taken a moralistic and political turn to the extent of losing its significance.

Despite our moral inhibitions, sexual minorities exist and cannot be wished away by political statements.

Just as how we used to see HIV as something the “other” person had to worry about we still find ourselves not moved by men who have sex with men, sex workers or people with disabilities when it comes to designing effective prevention programs.

Even though we differ on principles and morals around certain practices and orientations it is now our obligation to be as inclusive as possible so that we strive for Zero. To get to Zero we cannot afford to exclude any section of our society simply because of our moral differences.

To get to Zero we need to do more on services and commodities to ensure that there is provision of services for the whole continuum of sexual and reproductive health and rights.

Although we have significantly done well in our PMTCT interventions there still remain structural challenges at service delivery point that makes it difficult for one to access a service as simple as testing and counseling-Experts might deny this but the general population may agree.

We need to be more vigilant and open minded in our approach to the epidemic. Realities have transformed, unlike what we used to be told as children that “AIDS Kills” it is not killing anymore but rather it can be prevented, treated and managed. Decades into the epidemic we have seen that fear does not work but instead we need to think of better ways of transforming behaviors.

To get to Zero as a country we need to first thrive for a single digit, we urgently need to improve our services and ensure that we become more receptive, we need to be more resourceful and accountable, we need (more than ever) to use all resources we have differently and more effectively.

No agenda set for the Referendum

By Darlington Muyambwa

11/28/11

Political parties are interesting establishments because of how they are overly concerned with accessing, gaining and retaining power.

In advanced societies they ensure that they retain power through delivering political goods, they are concerned with creating employment, facilitating economic growth and guaranteeing liberty and freedoms for individuals.

The scenario is different in other societies including ours where power is retained through social coercion and propaganda, manipulation of different state arms along with downright violence against dissenting voices.

An interesting case has arisen again in Zimbabwe where the upcoming referendum has been rendered insignificant as it threatens political interests. If done in the spirit of achieving long term national good, the referendum can result in restraint on the corrupting privileges enjoyed under the current set up and as such it is unpopular amongst those that would want the status quo to remain intact.

Secondly the current political dispensation has created a political culture where political negotiations and outcomes supersede the will of the people expressed electorally or otherwise.

Simple trend analysis points towards possibilities of a constitution negotiated along political lines. The fact that the constitution will precede an election will intensify contestation as the political party whose position gets popular approval in the referendum will likely hold the aces going into an election.

If lessons are to be drawn from the 2000 referendum, people’s choices will be determined more by their political parties’ preferred positions as opposed to what the constitution guarantees for them. The 2000 referendum arguably became the first demonstration of negative public opinion for the political monopoly that had existed since independence.

The current obsession with ultimate power by sections of the inclusive government has made strategists, political commentators and opinion leaders frame the next presidential election as the most important in post independence Zimbabwe.

Due to political contestation, the significance of the constitution making process as well as the referendum has been lost among ordinary citizens. However, these two processes should lay the foundation not only for short term political processes but for creation of independent arms of the state that sufficiently counter-balance each other.. .

The centrality of the constitution to long term stability can be understood in the context of how it will outlive the GPA and all its principles. Societies famed for upholding individual freedoms have well developed institutions derived from people centered constitutions and if Zimbabweans aspire for those levels of tolerance and peaceful co-existence, the constitution and referendum ought to be more important than presidential elections.

There is little doubt that the current inclusive government has been able to offer more political goods than previous governments hence calls for elections represent nothing more than wishes for a “winner takes it all” form of government. In our context, a one party government means tolerance for corruption and governance malpractice in the name of patronage.

Any meaningful discussions on elections now should be on the referendum because contrary to political posturing, the referendum should be the election of the decade if Zimbabwe is to move towards more meaningful governance.

The dialogue of elections is incomplete in that we are missing the fact that the referendum is also an election that we should be wary of equally well or even more considering that we are likely to record more voters than the other elections.

The referendum to me will define the political landscape. Depending on the outcome of the referendum Zimbabwe is likely to enter into a new dispensation. 

As people opinionate over this negotiated constitution that will come our way, opinions will once again be drawn along political lines.

I have proposed three scenarios to explain possible referendum outcomes.

The first is when the parties in the inclusive government will agree on the draft and then the people of Zimbabwe will rally behind their political leaders and support them by giving the needed ‘yes’ vote. This is arguably the best scenario and easiest one if the parties are serious about wanting a less contested presidential election and the transition we all need.

The second scenario is one where politicians agree but the civil society and some sections of the society do not and likewise will stage a campaign for a “No” vote. This will be interesting as political party leaders will try to silence dissenting voices. It will be more interesting now as political parties through their leadership are preaching for peace, something that the politics of this country had dismissed in time of real political contestations. This scenario is likely to be so if the political parties want to reduce the document into a political settlement that does not in any way reflect the needs of the people.

The third scenario which is the bloodiest and probably unsurprising is one that requires our deep thoughts around. This scenario is where the two parties continue to fight along part positions.  This scenario is most likely if the political parties refuse to divorce constitution making from immediate political gains.

In all the analysis key questions emerge on the role of parliament and most importantly the police if violence erupts. We already have latent political hatred and political leaders are aware of this and when faced with political losses will they not choose that route?

There are further questions on what becomes of the constitution in the event of a “No” vote prevailing.  Will the country be forced into an election at political parties’ earliest convenience?  

Will citizens simply lament about the constitution and the change that could have been?  Does COPAC have answers or again-as the trend suggest, principles of the GPA will come with answers after negotiations by 5 men and 1 woman from the 3 political parties?