By Reason Wafawarova February 1, 2008
In his book Zimbabwe: Racism and The Land Question, Davis Gazi, a Zimbabwean author of political literature based in the United Kingdom, asserts that the major reason many youths of Zimbabwe embraced the MDC in 1999 was the youths’ enthusiasm for rebellion as opposed to any political conviction. Of course he was referring to mainly the urbanised black youths who, in terms of social classes can be classified as either aspiring or actual middle class.
He further notes that it makes interesting analyses that the youths in question are part of the major triumphs of our post independence social revolution, a revolution that among many other achievements tremendously increased the literacy rate through the mass education policy.
The question that may need an honest and speedy answer is – what exactly did these youths learn in their post independence schools as they benefited from the mass education policy centred on the primary objective of eradicating illiteracy? Why is it that our independence and our well-intentioned mass education policy seem to have produced a “politically disillusioned” urban youth?
In attempting to answer these questions Gazi notes that “…young people, while good diagnostic tools – sensitive and specific – are however, very poor compasses: they cannot point the way forward. Knowing that something is wrong is not the same as knowing how to put it right. One should not confuse diagnostics with therapeutics. It would be reckless in the extreme for any developing nation to gamble its future on the whims of its young. The future belongs to the wise not the impulsive.”
Many youths the world over, tend to have a feeling that the past is given undue and exaggerated prominence by an older generation that dismally fails to move with the times – something the young keep referring to as the “old school” if they are polite and “primitive liberation struggles” when you find them at their worst.
All they see is this big contrast staring in their faces as they are confronted with a 21st century world of hyper-consumerism on one hand and their destitute looking parents in the ghettos on the other. They can’t figure out why their parents are not placed well enough to access the glitters of the world the box called television keeps showing them and some of them have concluded that it’s all because they were born to parents hailing from a corrupt lazy continent made up of brainless people.
In fact Gazi asserts that an average Zimbabwean urban under 30; given just half a chance, would sell the country and use the proceeds to purchase a unit in Hollywood, London or anywhere else but home.
These are the children of our independence, whom some refer to as born free without bothering much to ask what they were born free from. There are pertinent issues that our independence needed to address as it came to us; which were not addressed. The very nature and context of what we embraced as independence was questionable from day one; not only for Zimbabwe but for the entire predecessor African countries that got independent ahead of Zimbabwe and not least for Namibia and South Africa the last two countries to break the yoke of colonialism if Western Sahara is to be considered independent.
When Kwame Nkurumah started preaching the doctrine of the United States of Africa he was basically refusing independence within the same confinements that the colonial legacy had established for Africa. He was preaching a doctrine, if adopted (of course at a cost); would have restored the pre-colonial Africa without the limitations of the Berlin Conference boundaries and colonial mental divisions. The leaders of his day, including his own people from Ghana, were half committed at their best and backstabbing at their worst when it came to the issue of a united Africa.
They, at least many of them, preferred independence akin to the analogy of animals in a zoo, fighting for their freedom based on two major demands, that is; the right to run the zoo and collect all money from visiting humans as well as the right to reproduce.
Of course, true freedom for these animals is to go back to the forests and jungles from where they were captured although the way to the jungles might not be that easy to find. It is not in the best interest of the animals to be collecting money from humans in the first place. Neither is it in their best interest to reproduce in the zoo since that will result in a new species of an offspring with no idea what wildlife is all about, besides creating other problems like overpopulation. If they do collect the money, the animals might need the services of humans to use the money to buy them food or whatever else they might need in the zoo.
This is the scenario that independent Africa finds itself in. When the colonial settlers came to Africa they made sure that they made artificial the African way of life. They caged the African culture in a western zoo through the trivialisation of the African traditional religion, vilification of African priests, demonisation of African beliefs, substitution of the African crops, overhauling of the African education system, promotion of western aspirations and values as well as introducing western systems of governance.
African countries, Zimbabwe included, found themselves aspiring more and more to be whiter than black. Those who rose up the corporate ladder were actually referred to as having turned into “white-men” or “varungu”. It is from this zoo of colonial mentality that we began shouting for our freedom to run the zoo our own way. We said we wanted our zoo freedom for our children, our children’s children and ourselves.
Our judges continued to wear those ridiculous wigs that resemble a white man’s hair when they are as black as two nights put together and we glorified that as the highest level of legal learning. Our ladies have now evolved into “attractive” figures ever wrapped into what seems to be painfully uncomfortable tight fitting clothing and we call that fashion. Many now literally subscribe to nudity and we okay it as part of civil liberties.
Our youth now confuse freedom with absence of responsibility and we okay it all because of the parents who actually share the same confusion if they are actually not worse. Our youths get offended if you insist on speaking to them in our vernacular languages, especially in public places and before their peers and many parents okay it as the in thing.
We inherited a colonial curriculum in our schools and all we did was to quickly replace colonial names with our new independent names while leaving the content as intact and sacrosanct as western civilisation would have its assessors admire.
Many schools and other public places retained their colonial names because there were two many whites still associated with the places. These included some former so-called Group A schools, places like Victoria Falls, and even Wankie Football Club until very recently.
If one can imagine the animals in the zoo coming to realise that their off-springs do lack the qualities of their original wildlife – and then they start demanding those qualities from the same off-springs and accusing them of being more and more like humans; then one gets the imagery of what we are doing when we are demanding some form of Africanness and Zimbabweanness from our youths. The way from the zoo to the jungle is long and is full of infrastructure and machinery that was developed by humans and it may only be with the assistance of humans that zooed animals can find their way back to the jungle. Other than that the animals need super revolutionary leaders to force their way back to the jungle, the only place they can exercise true freedom.
Our independence has produced zoo children and now they have rallied behind a zoo party in the name of the MDC; whose interests are nothing but to aspire to be like the humans that made the zoo. The jungle history we keep trying to tell them through the National Youth Service orientation programmes and many other avenues is just viewed as part of an over-glorified past with no relevance to the zoo aspirations as promoted by the television culture emanating from America.
After all, they ask; if the zoo culture is that bad why didn’t you destroy the white man’s parliament and build an African one; that is after independence. They ask why all adults aspire to be like white men if they genuinely want an African way of life.
Now the humans that made the zoo can easily come back to the zoo with the help of the very children of the “revolutionary” animals’ offsprings.
We call the adult animals leading their party sell-outs, poodles and puppets; which indeed they are; but that alone does not address the underlying problems that the kind of freedom we demanded and practised at the attainment of our independence created.
It is like bringing up a child in a foreign culture and then demanding that they act like they were born and bred in Chivi communal lands. That is against the law of sowing; one reaps what they sowed – no bananas from mango seeds.
The jungles of Africanness are still existent. It is the way back to the jungles that needs revolutionary leaders. One way already started towards the long journey is the land reform programme, perhaps followed by indigenous ownership of the extraction, manufacturing and service industries. Another way, already introduced (by way of down the throat force) is the 75% local content on television and radio, the youth national orientation training through the National Youth Service training programme – another furiously opposed programme, just like the land reform programme.
The way back to the jungle, back to true freedom cannot be an issue of fuzzy feelings and the feel good factor. It is a way loathed by those who would rather have the animals remain in the zoo. They ask why the animals don’t just enjoy this zoo freedom where they collect money from humans while they remain a source of entertainment and a centre of tourist attraction; while at the same time reproducing a dangerous and rebellious offspring who aspires to go and join the humans.
Is it any wonder then that Zimbabwe’s own post independence children; the ones we proudly refer to as “born frees”; are the closest allies to our erstwhile oppressors?
Is it any wonder when they cry loudest from western capitals, telling everybody that cares to listen that they have finally found freedom and they do not want any of their elders anywhere near their newly found eternal happiness? They proudly campaign that whoever points out at their shortcomings or that of their sell out party, should be sent back to the zoo – quiet oblivious to the fact that their hosts are dying to repossess the zoo for the value only them and their children know best.
In all honesty, it is very difficulty to pass blame on anyone in the analogy above, not in the least at the offspring of the animals that fought for zoo freedom. However acceding to the aspirations and demands of this offspring is obviously more dangerous than the first bondage. It is time to carry the unwilling children back to true freedom, for better or for worse.
The problem is that some of the adult animals are too used to the zoo themselves that they are less than willing to take up the journey back to the jungle.
This is where we hit the snag. We cannot have a leadership standing between two opinions. Not at a time like this. We need to rediscover true independence; that is historically, politically, economically, socially and religiously. It is a must that we do that if Africa is to move ahead without the current dependency syndrome.
To say the journey is long is an understatement because the journey is indeed very long. However, the first steps have already been taken and let those who fall along the way perish until we do reach the Promised Land. Those who are on the agricultural land are our fore-bearers. Let a consuming fire devour you if you are going to sit on that land thinking of the sweetness of the zoo and the money collected therein.
Those in our political leadership are our torchbearers. Let the same fire consume you if you are going to stick to the zoo kind of freedom and independence.
If indeed we are okay with zoo life then we are better of letting those who made the zoo run it, especially that now they can enjoy the support of the children born out of our victory over them. How the times have changed.
This writer believes Africa can chat its own way forward the African way and wants to applaud the current solidarity in Africa but will quickly urge the African leadership to work on creating real African freedom and independence, to create an aspiration for African children. Let the lost be consumed in the transitional period but let us begin to move ahead and build our own future.
Africa, it is homeland or death. Together we will overcome!
Dear Leader Mugabe: Reason and the Youth of Africa
"Why is it that our independence and our well-intentioned mass education policy seem to have produced a “politically disillusioned” urban youth?"
Probably the poor governance they were subjected to.
"“…young people, while good diagnostic tools – sensitive and specific – are however, very poor compasses: they cannot point the way forward. Knowing that something is wrong is not the same as knowing how to put it right."
That explans Castro and Guevarra. And you.
"Many youths the world over, tend to have a feeling that the past is given undue and exaggerated prominence by an older generation"
Why keep carrying the baggage of the past. If things arent as good as they should be, why should they settle for the "well, its better than it ever has been" bullcrap.
"They can’t figure out why their parents are not placed well enough to access the glitters of the world the box called television keeps showing them and some of them have concluded that it’s all because they were born to parents hailing from a corrupt lazy continent made up of brainless people."
Or, they dont care about their parents ability to access it. They simply want to be given the opportunity to access it, but in countries that enter economic decline (Zimbabwe), that opportunity decreases. They are frustrated not at their parents but by the "system" and the allegiance their parents give to said "system". It is not a continent of corrupt lazy brainless people that they are angry at - it is a government full of corrupt lazy brainless people that earns their fury. If Zimbabwe had half a decent government, it would not be in the mess that it is today.
"In fact Gazi asserts that an average Zimbabwean urban under 30; given just half a chance, would sell the country and use the proceeds to purchase a unit in Hollywood, London or anywhere else but home."
Thought so. Gazi sounds like he is on an even mental keel. Regardless, if Zimbabwe has lost its resonance in its youth, then the government and ONLY the government is to blame. The youth is relatively faultless.
"The leaders of his day, including his own people from Ghana, were half committed at their best and backstabbing at their worst when it came to the issue of a united Africa."
Would United Africa include the Arab states, or would it be a Sub-saharan entity with some North West African states?
"They caged the African culture in a western zoo through the trivialisation of the African traditional religion, vilification of African priests, demonisation of African beliefs, substitution of the African crops, overhauling of the African education system, promotion of western aspirations and values"
I agree 100%. But then why has independent Zimbabwe not renounced the Christian faith? After all western aspirations values and beliefs are directly linked to Christianity, while African beliefs and cultures are not. Does Mugabe use the Bible when he is sworn in, or the text of the religious beliefs that preceded colonialism?
"We inherited a colonial curriculum in our schools and all we did was to quickly replace colonial names with our new independent names while leaving the content as intact and sacrosanct as western civilisation would have its assessors admire."
Very true. But given that there is no real tangible history for pre-colonial Zimbabwe, what do you propose we do? Make it up?
"The way from the zoo to the jungle is long and is full of infrastructure and machinery that was developed by humans and it may only be with the assistance of humans that zooed animals can find their way back to the jungle."
The humans are needed ostensibly because animals cannot comprehend the "infrastructure and machinery". And yet super revolutionary animals can comprehend it. What is the moral of the story? That Africa has two species of humans - super revolutionaries and idiots? That is kind of insulting. Borderline racist, even. I assume you belong to the super revolutionaries while MDC supporters belong to the idiots?
"Our independence has produced zoo children and now they have rallied behind a zoo party in the name of the MDC; whose interests are nothing but to aspire to be like the humans that made the zoo"
In a globalizing world, where economies only prosper when they are linked into the global economy, you want to go back rural life a la precolonial Zimbabwe?
"Our independence has produced zoo children and now they have rallied behind a zoo party in the name of the MDC"
Oh, but the rulers of the Zoo, the Zanu PF, have no vested interests in keeping the animals caged?
"The jungles of Africanness are still existent. It is the way back to the jungles that needs revolutionary leaders. One way already started towards the long journey is the land reform programme, perhaps followed by indigenous ownership of the extraction, manufacturing and service industries."
Globalizatoin. Global Economy. Want to prosper economically- have to tap in. Richer and better resourced countries have tried to become self-sustaining. And they have fialed. Your favorite country, China, is one of them. You can take the animals into the jungles, Reason, but at the end of the day, they will be able to see the humans flying over their jungles in planes, and they will aspire to that too. You cant keep them isolated.
"Another way, already introduced (by way of down the throat force) is the 75% local content on television and radio, the youth national orientation training through the National Youth Service training programme – another furiously opposed programme, just like the land reform programme."
Its called free will, Reason. They can turn the television off. They can ignore it even when you are "forcing it down their throat". If local content is shit, nobodys going to watch it. Though I must say - it sounds very North Korean in nature. WHy 75- make it 100. The Mugabe can go to bed at night happy that his people call him Dear Leader.
The National Youth Service Program. Forced indoctrination. How very North Korean and quaint. Do you have to take a pledge of loyalty to Great Leader Mugabe in there?
You were one of the founders of this Program right?
"while at the same time reproducing a dangerous and rebellious offspring who aspires to go and join the humans."
Right. So for Africans to aspire to anything that is, IN YOUR MIND NOT AFRICAN, is a crime. Why should they want to food? They should only want to be Zimbabwean. Even if being ZImbabwean means starving. Too many shades of North Korea.
"Is it any wonder then that Zimbabwe’s own post independence children; the ones we proudly refer to as “born frees”; are the closest allies to our erstwhile oppressors?"
The reason your oppressors managed to oppress you is because they were more advanced than you. And now you want to crucify the youngers, who want nothing more than to match their former oppressors? Let me put it this way - if the future generation of Zimbabwe can match the future imperialist in every way (learning how to use machinery instead of running off into the jungle), then the imperialist will never be able to defeat him.
It is people like YOU, who are holding your country back deliberately, and weakening it vis-a-vis the rest of the world. You are putting the future of Zimbabwe at risk. Not the youngsters. The youngsters, if they find themselves in a weak position in a decade, will know who to blame - YOU.
All they want to do is match anything the world has to offer. All you want to do is make sure the humans are replaced by super revolutionaries.
"It is time to carry the unwilling children back to true freedom, for better or for worse."
What freedom? The freedom to watch the world pass you by. Freedom from working hard and matching everything the rest of the world has to offer? Exposure to the west is crucial - as Sun Tzu says - know your enemy. Emulation might also be neccessary - outdated tactics have lost many a battle in the past. You cannot fight a gun with a bow and arrow.
Yeah, I think you have been reading one too many books written by the Great Leader Kim Il Sung himself.
ANALYSIS
Your analysis, though detailed and well written, only confirms the line of thought in the aqrticle, that salvation can only come from the West. I differ and I am still entitled to that opinion.
Yes I AM IN THE WEST TO KNOW ABOUT the enemy, not to emulate the enemy and I will tell you there is still a lot of civilisations to pursue other than Western civilisation.
No, you're in the west...
...because life is shit in Zimbabwe.
There's no way you're going back with your "well paying job" as a consultant and fifty different types of yoghurt in the supermarket.
Realy?
I am not so sure if you are just fuming out of anger derived from my articles or you are at your sober best but whatever the case you sound very delusional to me.
Why are you in Australia?
Or a nice way to put it would be:
What has Zanu PF rule done to Zimbabwe universities?
You could have studied in Zimbabwe. We all know that. You made a choice to leave. And it was not to learn about the enemy. Your own article admits that you can learn about the enemy through the media.
So it could only have been:
a) well paying job.
b) shit life in Zimbabwe
c) you really like Australain girls - nah you re married.
See, something doesnt appear right - if there are universities and indeed jobs in Zimbabwe, what the hell are you doing in Australia?
Comparisons
I am here in Australia working and studying and there are jobs and universities in Zimbabwe as you know. I am here because I decided to leave abroad for a while and this is not a contradiction but a normal choice made by many people in this day and age.
You are in the West?
"only confirms the line of thought in the aqrticle, that salvation can only come from the West"
What you call West, I call global. The problem for you is not the west, it is globalization. Right now, the West is leading the race. Soon it will be China. Globalization is striving to be as good as everybody else. It is opening up your context and instead of competing in a regional setting (your jungle), it is about competing globally.
Every country that has opened up to globalization is doing well - the BRICs of the world - Brazil Russia India and China. Every country that is not is an economic quagmire - North Korea and Cuba come to mind. Yes, I know you like Castro, but Castro sold his beaches to the Europeans in exchange for hard foreign currency.
You are, of course, entitled to differ, but you are not entitled to treat citizens of Zimbabwe, young and old as second class citizens just because you are wrong with them. And dont try to say you havent been insinuating that throughout your article.
"Yes I AM IN THE WEST TO KNOW ABOUT the enemy not to emulate the enemy and "
You work in his economy, you speak in his language, you wear the clothes he wears, you eat the food he eats, you live the way he lives, and yet you claim you do not emulate them.
And the best part is no one is forcing you to live in Australia - in fact you are enjoying freedoms that they give to you that none of the other civilizations that you wish to emulate would. (assuming of course, that democarcy is western, as you so often claim)
Enemy
When we talk enemty we are talking imperial;ism as the enemy and not the Western culture. I dress African, Asian, Western and Chinese and I have no problems with that.
What we are fighting is an imperial order that seeks the subjugation of other peoples militarily and economically. Please do not confuse matters.
You are the one confusing matters
SO western culture is not the enemy? Then why are you going on about demanding 75% indigenous content on Zimbabwean television. Television teaches young ZImbabweans about Western culture imperialism?
It is not I who is confusing matters. It is you. The west, according to you, is imperial. Consequently, while you have a tendency to eschew deductive logic, it would appear that western culture is imperial culture.
What gives? You want them to go back to a traditional way of life knowing fully well that that traditional way of life is :
a) imagined - there is no way you can know how Africans lived prior to colonization without referring to an imperialist textbook
b) incompatible with the way the world works today
c) Self-Sustainment is not possible - bigger countries have tried and failed
d) Exposure to globalization is not optional.
Do you want the young Zimbabweans to be able to match what the world has to throw at them? Because this entire article is simply about justifying land reclaims. Your goal here is to re educate the Young Zimbabweans so that they stop supporting the MDC.
Re-education through labour almost - particulalry that anachronistic sounding National Youth Service. "We will stuff it down their throats". How quaintly authoritarian.
I thought
I thought the NYS programme was voluntary and I also thought that Western culture is way different to Western politics.
So did I
I dont think the NYS is voluntary any more than I believe that war veterans were sitting peacefully at home during the last elections.
You know, not once have you mentioned 'western politics' in this article. Do that before, instad of clarfying after. By brinigng in 75% indigenous content on TV you are going to control access to western politics? I dont know how daft you are but most people dont watch politics -eastern or western - on television. They watch entertainment shows.
Writing
I do not write about media practice or what should be watched on TV. I am an IR graduate and I write about the global political system.
Writing
"I do not write about media practice or what should be watched on TV." - Reason
"Another way, already introduced (by way of down the throat force) is the 75% local content on television and radio" - Reason
OKay?
Yes
This is not the subject but an example. Do you understand what 'another way" means?
No Reason
You are writing ABOUT the media. And here is what you are saying:
The media does not have enough indigenous content. We need to increase it to 75%.
That is called writing ABOUT the media.
Not me
Somebody said what you wrote and you know who that was. THEY went on to implement that and all I did was to cite the example and not to write about the subject.
Oh my bad
So this 75% rule has already been implemented?
I dont understand where you are going with this. All you did was cite it but you have no opinion on it?Because that is essentially what you are saying here.
The Subject
The subject was the youth and how the gvt has attempted to address the issue of orientation and the example is media 75% local content. Is that clear now?
Yeah its very clear
It is very clear that you are a parrot who does not like to think critically. Why else would you include an example without not giving it any thought.
Just because
Just because the example suffices to illustrate a point in the subject matter.
Nice try, again.
This is an op-ed piece, not objective reeporting. It does not illustrate A point, it illustrates your point of view.
Opinion
Even opinion pieces do have points and examples as well.
Precisely
And they are always the points and examples that illustrate the views of their author - ie YOU.
Reason is a mental case and
Reason is a mental case and needs urgent help.But if he is normal then he is just playing around with people's minds to occupy himself with arguments and controversies.He says he is a trade union consultant? He can only qualify to consult for Chinotimba's Zimbabwe Federation of Trade Unions.
Someone should help this Militia boss
Unsubstantiated
All the above assertion is unsubstantiated much as it is plainly stupid. You cannot take away facts and your bitterness can only harm yourself.
Insulting
I want to focus this reply on the allegations you (Reason) and Gazi make against he youth of Zimbabwe. It is mentioned that they are rebellious, politically disillusioned, young people without direction amongst other things.
I have to say that this is insulting to your average Zimbabwean youth.
First of all I understand that you and Gazi write opinions based on your Communist/Marxist ideals so I understand where you are coming from in that. I do not wish to discuss Marxism here as that is a whole different debate. Let's just say I understand it well and therefore I understand your opinions and beliefs.
So back to the article above. Here's my take and response to it. I think most people can concede that Zimbabwe up to the late 1990's had one of the most admired education systems in Africa. The litracy levels of the average Zimbabwean was very good. The assertion that this created an aspirant ,middle class is correct. It did. But, did this then mean that those young Zimbabweans became "politically disillusioned"? How about the idea that those youths became "politically enlightened"? Sure they may have been enlightened on more free market and west ideas but the fact remains they were enlightened and educated to a very high level. Are you saying that they should have been educated in Marxist and Communist principles? It is incorrect to say that the youth were never taught about the liberation. All Zimbabweans were taught and reminded of independence post 1980.
I think one thing you are missing out on here is that we live in a globalized world not a Zimbabwean world. whether you like it or not educated youths are much more "worldly wise" than say 30 years ago at the time of independence in Zimbabwe and this is a result of education and globalization. And those that have been priveleged to get a good education have been more "enlightened". It is further correct to say that they only seem to think to the future. But who are you to say that this is wrong? Why are the youth not allowed such freedoms of choice and who are you to tell them what is right or wrong? I can further guarantee that the majority of young educated Zimbabweans, myself included hugely respect what was fought for in the liberation struggle. It will never be forgotten. But at the very least one needs to allow people to look and move forward. It seems this opinion criticizes the youth for not focusing on the liberation struggle and not giving greater value to what was achieved and for not following the political ideals of Zanu (PF). But at the same time if the youth choose to support the MDC why not let them. They are educated people capable of making their own decisions.
It is further asserted to that the youth are like a very poor compasses. Why is that? Is that because they do not follow the path that you wish them to follow? Why must they be forced to go down a single path? Are you saying that the youth of Zimbabwe do not have the capacity to make their own decisions? Do they not have the freedom to make their own decisions or choose their own path? Are you saying that Zimbabwe should become a one party disciplinarian state where all people must follow similar paths? Do you see where I am going with this. It all comes down to education. The education provided to the youth of Zimbabwe simply allowed them to become more "enlightened" and to move Zimbabwe forward. It seems to me that you are saying Zimbabwe's youth should never have studied the curriculums they did and instead they should have studied a more nationalist type curriculum. Well, what's done is done, Mugabe maybe made a mistake (in your view) with regards to education.
I do not agree with you that the youth are misguided compasses. The youth today are completely the opposite, they are extremely focused and in many instances they are outstripping their peers. Are you saying they are misguided compasses because they do not aspire to the same political ideals that you do? Do you see how this is at the very least insulting to them? Many of the worlds leading entrepreneurs are under of the age of 30. They have made many brilliant decisions. I know entrepreneurship is against your marxist ideals but once again the fact remains that many young Zimbabweans have left their country and made successes else where (I know of many) simply because they do not aspire to the same ideals that you do. Will you ever accept that? Why will you not accept them for who they are: fellow Zimbabweans that have different ideals to you. The majority of these people are all under 30. Are they really misguided because they do not aspire to certain political ideals.
It seems you are writing from a completely subjective point of view where you fail or simply refuse to understand or comprehend the choices of the average Zimbabwean youth. To simply dismiss the decisions they make as "disillusioned" is extremely insulting.
Insulting
I keep noting that you tactically use the term "insulting" in a manner designed to incite aggression towards this writer. I write in defence of my mother land and my peole in Africa and these I will never insult.
If you want to see me at my insulting best read what I write on imperialist Bush and his Western crowd.
The point here is that government did not do enough to inform our youths about important values that they needed to internalise and the blame lies squarely with our system and not the youth. That is the whole aricle and your twisting won't wash.
I am sorry you feel that way
I am sorry you feel that way Reason. I am not trying to incite agression towards you. I am merely letting you know that I feel insulted by the content and offered a seperate point of view in opposition to the article in that is it not possible that there was "enlightenment"?
One needs to understand that it is your point of view that government did not do enough to teach the history of "Zimbabwe" and what you should accept is that people will dispute that, instead of trying to force them to think what you think is right.
Should the youth not be afforded the chance to think on their own two feet. I don't see many youths complaining about the system they were brought up in until the system tried to over impose themselves on the youth.
You say the blame lies squarly with the system, well then write an article about "the system" and not about the decisions the youth face and how directionless they are when in fact they actually have pretty good direction in life as far as I understand.
System
The article is about the system and what the youth are doing is just but an illustration of how much the system has failed us.
Who is "us"?
You may say that the "illitracy" project is the system of education that failed "us" but who is "us?" I was part of that system and i do not feel that it failed me.
The point I am making is that there are two sides to the story and it seems like you fail to accept the other side by simply dismissing it as a failure of the system in that they did not educate the youth on the correct tpoics. I feel that it enlightened me and I am entitled to that opinion am I not? Or is there only one education system that would have worked in Zimbabwe?
read the article again and try to understand how a normal educated person would interpret. I am not trying to incite agression out of you Reason I am trying to get it into you that people have differing ideas to your thoughts and the sooner you accept that the better.
Insulting
So the system is a mess. What do you propose? A North Korea style propaganda machine that substitutes Dear Leader Kim Jong Il, with Dear Leader Robert Mugabe?
PROPOSALS
The proposals are there in the article and urge you to read.
Insulting
So the system is a mess. What do you propose? A North Korea style propaganda machine that substitutes Dear Leader Kim Jong Il, with Dear Leader Robert Mugabe?
Reason is no different to
Reason is no different to Gono who calls himself an economist yet he holds a CIS qualification which is an accounting qualification.The mess at RBZ is there for all to see.Reason calls himself a political writer but we all can testify about his 'writings'. This guy sometimes exposes his ignorance and naivety one would doubt his educational qualifications.He calls Chinese exploitation of African resources 'Chinese Investment'in Africa.My foot!!!.He is so ignorant of basics of Economics he writes meaningless things whenever he tries to refer to economic issues.He cant distinguish social ideologies from economic systems etc.
Someone please help this fool who cant think outside the Zanu box
Reason
Reason is a political writer and you are right he is no economist although he has done ver well in political economy studies.
Leadership
You speak of a leadership for Africa, one of solidarity and sovereignity. That is fine but you are not actually putting your finger on what a good leader is. In my view it looks to me that you believe that if a leader opposes western ideas and intervention that makes him a good leader. I have to disagree.
First of all, being a leader doesn't necessarily make you a good one, take the most basic example: Hitler. There are many others such as Verwoerd of the National Party in South Africa or closer to home Iam Smith. These people were not necessarily good because they were leaders. In fact there have been very few good leaders in history such as Mandela. So what is it that makes a good leader? a leader that can make an influence for the good? There are many traits but there are a few common themes of good leaders. And when reading this, all people must ask themselves certain questions about themselves personally as we all have a leadership role to play whether it be as a father, in business, as a role model, as a brother, as a friend etc. I will point out what I believe makes a good leader below:
1.The basic fundamental of leadership is honesty, not to others but to yourself. You cannot be honest to others if you are not honest with yourself. So, do you reflect what you are in your deep inner self on your outward character?
2.This means one has to have a measure of personal responsibility. Good leaders are people who have taken "the hit", they have stood up and said I am responsible. They do not deflect the problems they incur on to others in a form of self deception. Talking about self deception, this is one of humans' worst traits. We are all guilty of it, some on larger scales than others. In fact humans actually get to the point that they firmly believe the deception they are telling themselves. There is such a psychological disorder. Case in point: many German officers in World War II to the day they died, and some that are still alive today still firmly believe that the holocaust never happened. I mean this is just bizarre. I think we can all acknowledge that there was mass genocide of the Jews in WWII, but again I am just making an extreme point of self deception in that it is very real. Ok back to leadership, lets not get distracted, but before we do that ask yourself: do you take responsibility for your actions?
3. One has to have immense personal integrity and be able to simply get things taken care of in a manner that is amicable to those around him/her that he is entrusted to lead. In such a situation your layman bystander simply says wow! and there is immediate respect for such an individual. Case in point: Nelson Madela walked out of prison in 1990 and one of the first things he said was that he bore no grudges or ill feelings after what had happened during apartheid: He had a vision of the "greater good". That is incredible.
4. A good leader puts the needs of those ahead of his own. This is pretty simple. You become a leader so that you can look after and exert influence. On a very basic level, we would all probably rather go on holiday often or something of the sort but we don't because perhaps you have to work to save money to send your child to school. A good leader takes away his personal desires and puts those of others before his own.
5. A good leader has common self respect for himself as well as for others, no matter what their race, ethnicity, political orientation or personal beliefs are. He accepts people for who they are and what they're about and in turn he himself is satisfied on a personal level about those other people and their beliefs.
6. It's about having a vision and sharing and focusing on that vision and working effectively towards that vision. For example I might be a CEO of a company and my vision might be to get that company listed on the stock exchange in 3 years time and give my employees share options in the company. The vision must ultimately be for the greater good.
7. It's about having view to the facts. there are a few aspects to this. One needs to have a i)vision as stated above but be aware of the ii)realities he is faced with, for example whether there are other leaders present to attain a greater vision or whether the vision is in fact supported? Once these are established, the leader must then be aware of the iii)ethics involved in attaining such a vision and then finally have the iv)courage to attain that vision. Sure one can have a vision and take his people there but if he discards ethics along the way he fails as a leader. When a the greater goal is established with these 4 points made here in perfect sync then a leader attains "greatness".
8. It's about accountability. I know this ties in with honesty and personal responsibility, but it is essential that leaders are accountable to those that they lead. A good leader is accountable to his people that he leads for the decisions that he makes whether bad or good. He does not deflect this accountability and he does not blame others.
9. Finally, it's about trustworthiness. can a person look his leader in the eye and say "yes I firmly believe what you are saying" or "yes I believe you have the needs of other before your own". To be successful, a leader has to be trusted by those who he leads.
These I believe are what makes a great leader. And I want to encourage all the readers on the forum including Reason to ask themselves the questions posed above on a personal level, and then obviously in the context of Zimbabwe, because after all honesty starts at ones own self.
Leadership
I cannot agree with you more on what makes good leadership. Indeed not many people in leadership will pass your test.
A leader can only be good to his people and not to people he does not lead. This is why I think the yardstick used to measure Mandela's leadership qualities does not wash. What did Nelson do for South Africans after he helped bring independence?
Who was pleased most with his leadership, the Nobel Peace Prize organisers or the people of Soweto?
We need top be clear with what we mean by accountability. To whom do we have to be accountable?
As long as a leader is supported by those he leads and that is what matters.
Leaders
It is true that only a very few truly great leaders have blessed this world in the past. When talking about leadership in the political realm I believe that the Standard/bar needs to be set as high as possible with which we judge our leaders.
A great leader is good to all people across the broader spectrum, not only to those who he does not lead and in turn he gains the respect of those who do not support him, not necessarily their support but their respect. A great leader shows humility and forgiveness and accepts people who do not choose to follow his "vision".
I am by no means saying that Mandela is the yardstick, I could have mentioned others such as Martin Luther King or Gandhi, although I will say that Mandela is one of the very few great leaders and we as Africans should be blessed by the lessons he has taught us. Nelson Mandela and the ANC brought about democracy in South Africa in a period of their past that was as volatile as Zimbabwe is now and it was done in relative peace, primarily because he as the leader held no ill feelings to the Nationalists no matter how bad the atrocities they had committed were. Imagine he said "Revenge!" "Retribution!" It would have been chaos and no doubt there would have been blood shed. He harboured the "vision" of the "greater goodness". This is the aspect of Mandela's leadership I was simply referring to which brought about calm in South Africa.
I have no doubt the people of Soweto were thrilled with the Mandela leadership. For instance the black middle class is the fastest growing economic sector in South Africa currently. Sure his vision may not yet have been fulfilled or it may not even be fulfilled (who knows) but when he handed over leadership in 1998 he did it with the ship pointed in the right direction with the vision of the greater goodness firmly on board. It is naive to think that the nobel Peace Prize Organisers were more thrilled. In fact that might even be insulting to the average Sotuh African. He has done great deeds through his impecable leadership. I have no doubt that the whole of South Africa is more than grateful for Mandela's leadership.
Sorry I did not elaborate on the issue of accountability. Firstly a leader has to be accountable to himself. Then the leader (in the political spectrum) needs to be accountable to the people he leads as well as the other people he is responsible for (i.e. the poeple who do not support him). You see in the political spectrum there are people that may not support the leader but the leader is still responsible for those people. A great leader accepts such a responsibility and holds himself accountable (personally and to the broader spectrum of people) for their well being at a very basic level. He is therefore accountable to himself as well as the poeple of the general public whether they support him or not. I know I am repeating myself but I am simply trying to emphasize the point.
Support does not make someone a great leader. Take Hitler for instance. He will probably go down in history as one of the greatest tyrants ever to have lived and he had support. There are ways of garnering support but this does not make you a good leader.
The point I am trying to make is that you talk about the Africa for Africans and what leaders need to do and so I am just trying to state what qualities and attributes the leaders should show and what we as the general populous should expect from them.
Well
You are right in describing a good leader from an idealistic right wing point of view. To me people like Mao, Bolivar and Castro are great leaders because they were/are driven by indignation against injsutice and exploitation.
Mao
Ok I am not one to comment on Bolivar, but Mao? A great leader? I have to respectfully disagree with you, Reason.
Mao began his political career by advocating a policy of "Violent Revolution". Yes this was what he even called it. He attempted a number of revolutions with the backing of the semi- educated industrial class people which failed dismally where after he was forced to flee and he was labelled a radical acticivist.
There is much more to Mao and we could debate him for hours but will you honestly say that he is a good leader? When he first came into power (1949) his policies were those of land reform (from fellow Chinese) and the supporession of counter revolutionaries. To put it simply if you were so much as suspected as being a counter revolutionary then you were executed and often these were mass executions for public audience. Mao even openly quoted he had killed 700 000 people as part of the ongoing counter revolutionary offensive between 1949-1953, however it is commonly agreed that the figure was closer to 1-2 million people. Is this good leadership? Killing your own people because they don't subscribe to communist ideas! Further to this he defended these killings publicly to as "necessary to secure power". Anyone who criticized him for this was to put it simply, killed.
Mao then introduced the hundred flowers campaign which he claimed was to allow people to provide different ideas as to how China was to be governed and to provide submissions to that effect. These submissions and suggestions were allowed for a few months and then they were suddenly stopped and those who provided submissions and suggestions were round up and executed. Read into this that the majority of the educated people made submissions as to how governing the country should be changed so he effectively wiped out the educated masses totalling close to 1 million after the hundred flowers campaign.
However, then came the policy that Mao is probably most famous for: The Great Leap Forward. Under this policy the smaller agricultural collectives that were formed under previous policies were forced to combine into greater collectives and additional labour was channeled into other sectors such as industry and infrastructure, thus causing a huge labour and skills shortage in the agriculture sector. Agriculture production plummeted by approximately 35% in two years. In an effort to win favor with their superiors and avoid being purged, each layer in the party hierarchy exaggerated the amount of grain produced under them and based on the fabricated success, party cadres were ordered to buy a disproportionately high amount of the true harvest for state use primarily in the cities and urban areas but also for export. This was compounded by the fact that parts of China were hit by drought and in others floods. this resulted in there being a famine of unimaginable proportions in rural and "peasant" China. People were simply left to starve and die. This policy directly led to the deaths of approximately 50 million people (no one will ever know the true figure).
And Mao is regarded as a great leader? Reason, as I have stated I have to disagree with you. Mao did not fight against counter revolutionary forces, his main shortcoming was that he did severe injustice to his own people.
Answer?
Re: my post above Reason. Can you seriously say Mao was a great leader?
Mao-nothing yet?
I see you're pretty involved in another debate but no answer as to whether Mao was a great leader?
Mao
Mao is a founder of the Communist Party and that institution is so Great that whoever founded it cannot be a small man.
Mao, Stalin, and Hitler: Reason's Heroes
...even if they are reviled in their own homelands.
"Mao is a founder of the Communist Party and that institution is so Great that whoever founded it cannot be a small man."
Correct.
Stalin is a founder of the Communist Party and that institution is so Great that whoever founded it cannot be a small man.
Hitler is a founder of the Nazi Party and that institution is so Great that whoever founded it cannot be a small man.
Quite the fan, arent you?
You cannot
You are a pathetic spinner. Quiet hopeless if you ask me. You can come for lessons if you want. You do not know my position on both Hitler and Stalin and you are foolishly romanticising yourself that you do.
You are making such a big IDIOT of yourself on this forum and I hope you realise how much you are damaging your already pathetic image.
Yes I can
Reason, in academia, when you are undergoing academic training, you learn about a method for drawing conclusions that is called DEDUCTIVE LOGIC.
All I did was apply it to two leaders using the CRITERIA YOU ESTABLISHED. You set the criteria for what you think makes a great leader and I applied it.
It is hardly my fault the results turned out the way they did. There was no spin involved. Perhaps there is someting wrong with your criteria? Or is it too difficult to admit that you migt be wrong?
I am not
I cant be wrong on a matter that does not arise and you are probably smart enough to know that when you are not drowsing in your Mugabe hatred.
What matter does not arise?
Your criteria for a great man is the greatness of the institution he creates as per your own words. This 'net' so to speak, is wide enough to drag all kinds of criminals, including the two named earlier - Stalin and Hitler.
Ergo, the criteria you use is flawed because it is wide enough to drag in people who are not great and establish them as great.
Its not rocket science, or natural science for that matter. Its deductive logic. Your criteria is flawed.
And no, I do not feel sleepy as a result of Mugabe hatred, whatever that means.
Greatness
What great institution did Hitler build?
Greatness and Hitler
Hitler built the Nazi Party and the Third Reich. He turned Germany into one of the most powerful countries in the world in around half a decade, overturning the economic depression that had nearly crippled it, and facilitated his rise.
The apparatus he built and set up was so huge that it won the grudging admiration of Churchill himself. After all, it took a combined effort from the US, the UK, and the USSR to bring Nazi Germany to its knees.
Now we all know this institution was built on an ideology that can only be described as pure evil, but as an institution, Hitlers Nazi Party was one of the greatest and most powerful in the world.
Kind of like China today. But fortunately, the Chinese favor famines over gas camps, and instead of killing people, they simply overwhelm them through mass migration. Fill Tibet with Han Chinese and no one will notice the Tibetans slowly disappearing, afterbeing relegated to the economic underclass.