In many ways, this has been Nigeria's week. Mostly as a result of the news that Goodluck Jonathan disolved the cabinet on Wednesday. I blogged about it then (read it here), and since there have been more signs that it may be positive news - for example the response from the markets. The news have generated plent of comments, for today's editorial on The Guardian to the unavoidable and unnecessary advice given by Col. Muammar al Gaddafi: "split Nigeria in two" (so much for his vision of a United States of Africa!) - which has been responded by Nigeria recalling its ambassador to Libya.
For some background information of Nigeria's current predicament you can read this Global Voices' article on the Enough is Enough movement - and their protest on Tuesday; and this Sahel Blog entry on a conference on Nigeria and Islamic Extremism.
Zuma's been to Zimbebwe this week, where he's engaged in talkes with both ZANU-PF and MDC officials and tried to resolve the stalemate paralysing the country's government. Although Zuma called for a free and fair election, he knows this is not likely to happen- and that any alection may lead to further violence if ZANU's grip on security forces continues. The most positive outcome of the talks than is that Zuma has met not only top-officials, but he's made his round of conversations wider - including even Roy Bennet, the MD member standing trial accused of "terrorism". Furthermore, all parties in government agreed to solve outstanding issues and reprting back to Zuma before the end of the month.
- The Pan African Media Conference has taken place in Nairobi yesterday and today. There has been a brilliant coverage by Tweeps. If you want to have a look ot what's been said follow the #AfMediaConf topic.
- World Bank sees Africa economies rebounding in 2010 (via Loomnie)
- Does the ongoing debate about American military support for Somalia’s government signal a small but significant step toward non-interventionism among US elites? asks Sahel Blog
- Congo Siasa reminds us that "these are important days in the future of the Congo.Two important decisions are being taken by the international community: debt relief and the future of the peacekeeping mission."
- Fela! comes closer - I can only share NaijaBlog's enthusiasm.
- Spanish blog "Héroes de Ébano" shares this classic and touching video:
As noted last week, Zuma's visit to the UK gave plenty of things for the media to talk about: from his sex habits, marriage arrangements and the British's empire mentality. But there was much more. Zuma used his visit to ask Gordon Brown to support the lifting of Zimbabwe sanctions; this is, the "travel bans and asset freezes imposed by the EU and the US on Robert Mugabe and his allies" and still in place, and which serve, he argued, "only to divide the already fragile power-sharing government in Zimbabwe". This generated an interesting debate on The Guardian, regarding the usefulness of sanctions in the Zimbabwean case. Thus, last Wednesday Blessing Miles-Tendi wrote an article titled "Zuma's right on Zimbabwe", in which he supported the lifting of sanctions and argued that these "are not only internally divisive but iniquitous and obstructive to democracy". You can read the full article here.
South African president Jacob Zuma. Photograph: Ben Stansall/AFP (via The Guardian)
This article prompted Tom Porteous, London director of Human Rights Watch, to response, witing a letter in which he argued: “Blessing-Miles Tendi blames the EU targeted sanctions against Mugabe and his cronies for the failure of last year's power-sharing deal to bring about the hoped-for political transformation in Zimbabwe. That is absurd. The evidence that Zanu-PF continues to violate the agreement is overwhelming. In the past year MDC activists have been killed and abducted. Legislators and journalists have been arrested on spurious charges. Repressive media laws remain in place. Illegal invasions of commercial farms continue. Zanu-PF continues to use its control of the army, police and security sector to persecute its opponents. Just this week journalist Andrison Shadreck Manyere was arrested for filming political detainees outside a courthouse and union leader Gertrude Hambira fled the country fearing for her life after her offices were ransacked by police. Easing EU sanctions now will simply reinforce the repression in Zimbabwe.”
Continuing the debate, yesterday Miles-Tandi responded, with what I consider to be and extremely insightful criticism of the limitations of how human rights discourse is applied in political crisis, and especially, regarding Zimbabwe. Here are some excerpts:“Porteous either failed to comprehend my article or he is in the habit of making kneejerk responses, because nowhere do I make the assertion that sanctions are the sole reason for the failure of the "power-sharing deal to bring about the hoped-for political transformation"… My argument is that sanctions must be lifted in order to rob Zanu PF of a key propaganda and negotiating plank, which it has used to weaken internal opposition and as a pretext for the non-implementation of democratic reforms… However, the most disconcerting aspect of Porteous's response is not its misrepresentation of my views but that it shows how, for four reasons, the human rights movement remains intellectually ill-equipped to deal with Zanu PF…
First, Porteous… does not stop to ask whether targeted sanctions have had any effect in deterring Zanu PF's human rights violations. Sanctions have been in place since 2002, but Robert Mugabe still stole the 2002 and 2008 presidential elections. Sanctions did not dissuade the Zanu PF government from violently seizing white-owned commercial farms... carrying out Operation Murambatsvina…Journalists, the opposition and civil society have faced untold repression under the EU sanctions' watch…
Second, Porteous' insistence on the maintenance of sanctions that clearly do not have the desired effect reflects how the human rights movement lacks ingenuity in confronting Zanu PF's human rights violations...For a decade, we have isolated the Zanu PF government, attacked its excesses and applied targeted sanctions. Zanu PF has only become more belligerent and its human rights abuses have worsened…
Third, the human rights movement has struggled to deal with the problem that the very same actors, such as the EU, that it has urged to maintain sanctions on Zimbabwe do not apply the same human rights standards everywhere and are themselves gross human rights violators. This is a very important shortcoming because external attempts at protecting the human rights of a given populace are undermined if they are accompanied by selectivity and hypocrisy. ...
Fourth, the human rights movement has not fully appreciated the sophisticated nature of Mugabe and Zanu PF. Zanu PF has invested sustained intellectual labour in attacking the idea of human rights…The human rights movement in Zimbabwe and internationally has failed to articulate a compelling defence of the validity of human rights in the country. As a result, intellectual space has been ceded to Zanu PF's public intellectuals.
In my opinion this constitues an excellent summary of the shorcomings of the current approach to the Zimbabwean crisis - shortcoming that only reinforce Mugabe's position. This situation in Zimbabwe continued to be tense, with a fragile national unity government, harrasment of activists and politicians, and continued power-abuses from ZANU-PF. But sanctions, in place since 2002 do not appear to have made the situation better, rather the opposite, as Miles-Tandi argues, giving ideological ammunition to Mugabe's camp. What Human Rights activist sometimes forget - something that directly results from the very nature of the Human Rights discourse - is that politics is often a messy affais, that calls for compromises, and that in order to exert any change you need to have leverage of some sort. Undoubtedly, complying with the international Human Rights framework gives you a certain degree of leverage, and wins you international support from Western powers. But in many cases - such as Zimbabwe - this is not enough because on the national sphere this discourse is confronted and over-powered by Mugabe's interested use of anti-imperialist rhetoric.
A more fruitful approach then will be, as Miles-Tandi suggests and I agree, to adopt a more flexible political position - instead of a manichean "you-either-fully-comply-with-human-rights-requirements-or you-will-be-considered-a-pariah" approach, which highlights the double standards existing in the international sphere (see Afghanistan). Following this, the international community's best chance may be to rely on Zuma to act as intermediate in making ZANU-PF comply with the powersharing agreement. Understandably, there is a reticiency to do this, given the failure of Mbeki's "constructive engagement" policy. Nevertheless, there appears to be a certain, albeit slight, change in South Africa's foreign policy towards Zimbabwe as this SAIIA article notes:"Zimbabwe remains South Africa’s most immediate foreign policy challenge. Zuma’s more cordial relations with Morgan Tsvangirai, his tougher stance at the November 2009 Maputo SADC Summit and his replacement of Mbeki as mediator by Charles Nqakula, Mac Maharaj and Lindiwe Zulu later that month heralds, for some, a definite break with the past, although it is early days."
Photograph: Desmond Kwande/AFP/Getty Images (via The Guardian)
Furthermore, as the "Blue Lines" section signals in the latest Africa-Confidential (here, no suscription required), Zuma's team "has made some headway in negotiations on political and security issues" and "is searching for leverage with Mugabe, suggesting that sanctions could be quickly reimposed if pledges are not kept" (a much more interesting dynamic than keeping the sanctions). Sanctions on Zimbabwe, this article continues, are in fact "under review: its voting rights at the IMF have been restored. The IMF and the World Bank are working on a plan to tackle its arrears and speed up disbursement for the short term recovery programme – despite the United States’ and Britain’s veto on loans. That too may change after some diplomatic clodhopping. Last year, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said that it was up to the MDC to decide when sanctions were lifted. Since then, Premier Morgan Tsvangirai has written to EU leaders calling for a general review of sanctions and Finance Minister Tendai Biti has asked the EU to lift sanctions on eight specific companies; it quickly complied. However, the last set of sanctions – the targeting of ZANU-PF officials and their business friends – is likely to stand for many months yet."
It is therefore clear that the stand-off in Zimbabwe has been paralysing for the country's situation, and that a new something needs to be done. And that the sanctions, in place since 2002 have not worked. It does not therefore seem such a crazy idea then, to give it a go at trying new ideas, like lifting the sanctions...
- BarCamp Abidjan has just begun!! And it will be on, until Sunday. You can follow live updates on Twitter from @africamps, or through the tag #bcbabi. Looking forward to all the sessions and talks!!
- Regarding African politics this week, well, no one can doubt the man's entertainment value. This week Zuma visited the UK, where he accused the British media of seeing Africans as "barbaric". Not only Zuma's personal life, but also his attitude, declarations, and the state of South African politics led to plenty of comments on the media - from the ridiculous (the Daily Mail column that rightly ofended Zuma), to this article by Mark Gevisser and even today's editorial on The Guardian (partly siding with Zuma in criticising the media's "undertone of imperial snobbishness" and a "British national weakness for thinking of foreign leaders in the most simplistic, comic-book terms".
- Togolese elections yesterday, apperaed to have gone smoothly. For all the information tune to the African Elections Togo site - here
- After China and India, attention now turns to new "emergent" powers in Africa - Iran (and Israel). See this article on the Economist and this one by the Deutsche-Welle.
- This week's issue of Pambazuka News carries plenty of interesting articles, on various topics such as Zimbabwe's unity government's staggering from pillar to post, (incidentally, we have also recently learnt that external support for the regime is in decline, after China affirmed it does not consider Zimbabwe a "friend"); US interference in Nigeria's constitutional crisis; how Abahlali baseMjondolo is gathering strengthafter the Kennedy Road evictions and a Campaign for democracy in Swaziland.
- Global Voices carries this week two interesting articles on the topic - first is a mention to this very interesting article on Afromusing from early February (which I read at the time but forgot to share), and also this piece by Rebekah Heacock on whether "Is ICT all it's cracked up to be?". She discusses how, in Sudan for example, some ICT4D (ICT for development) initiatives that are all the hype at the moment, have failed to produce results. A test to see how far citizen involvement on politics can go, she argues, will be the forthcoming Sudanese elections. And just to prove the point of ICT4D being fashionable, the World bank has launched "a new online game, Evoke, to channel gamer obsession and time (3 billion hours per week) into solving Africa's problems" (via Bombastic Element)
- Away from politics, A Bombastic Element has an entry on the latest news and initiatives around Bushpunk (definition here), and on the recently concluded Design Indaba.
- And Africa Is A Country shares his enthusiasm for the forthcoming Pop Africana Magazine.
Click on the picture to see the magazine's site
Last Tuesday it was the 20th anniversary of the announcement of Mandela's release from Robben Island. And what was practically the whole of South Africa talking about...? President Zuma's sex life!! As you probably know by now, a newspaper las Sunday published the exclusive that Zuma had fathered his 20th child. The baby born last October however, was the result of an extra-marital affair with Sonono Khoza (39), the daughter of football magnate and member of the World Cup organising committee Irvin Khoza. Ever since the story broke, all of the South African media, the blogosphere, the twittersphere has been of fire, discussing the matter. As an example, Thought Leader, the opinion portal of the newspapater Mail and Guardian, and the top ranked blog in Africa, according to Afrigator, has published numerous posts on the matter, by different columnists. Just listing some of their titles gives an idea of what are the most important problemas and aspects which derive from the whole story: for example, Michael Trapido - Is Zuma's sex drive out of control?; Marius Redelinghuys - Umshini wethu weSex; Janice Winter - Father of the nation? In that case, the personal is public, Dad ; Khaya Dlanga - The president is public property; Alex Matthews - Why Zuma's sex life in endangering millions; Christi van der Westhuizen - The ‘bonus’ of polygamy, but only if you’re ‘indigenous’ (Part 1), etc
South African President Jacob Zuma with his fifth wife Thobeka Mabhija, whom he married in January (Jerome Delay, Reuters)
I once read something along the lines that (can't remember or find the exact quote): "political scandals in Italy are about always money, and in England about sex", pointing out that each country has a distinctive character that dictates what constistutes a scandal and what is an acceptable, or unproblematic behaviour. In this case South African society and the country's recent history dictate a series of fault-lines which usually dictate how politics is conducted and how public opinion tends to get divided. Most of these fault-lines, which include: the racial legacy of apartheid, how to deal with cultural diversity in the "rainbow nation", the HIV-AIDS epidemy, Zuma's character and his contrast to both Mandela and Mbeki... have been touched in this saga, along with more universal concerns such as: the responsibility of politicians, and the public/private division. Thus, as the story broke the ANC refused to comment alleging that the party had "always made a distinction between people’s personal affairs and their public responsibilities. Insofar as we are concerned, the alleged relationship of the president and anyone should be treated as such”. On a similar note, Julius Malema, president of the ANC Youth League, argued that: “We are Africans and sitting here all of us [sic], Zuma is our father so we are not qualified to talk about that”; an explanation even more questionable as it sought to bring a cultural argument to defend Zuma's actions (in this case the respect for elders).
But the indefensible character of the extra-marital affair, together with Zuma's baggage, and the HIV-AIDS epidemy in South Africa, soon began to weight on the judgements passed on the President - who on Wednesday was forced to admith the paternity of the child (and announced that he would take two days off, because he was exhausted). Let us remember that Zuma was accused (and later acquitted) of raping a young HIV-positive woman in 2006, and that during the trial he admitted having (unprotected) sex with her and infamously declared to have had a shower to prevent being infected by HIV/AIDS (something which earned him a shower-head, courtesy of cartoonist Zapiro, only recently removed - more on this story here). This was an unacceptable behaviour from a South African public figure (and even more so from a future president), but Zuma appeared to have mended his way in last year's AIDS Day speech, widely praised by NGOs and pressure groups, and in which he announced that Anti-Retro Virals would be made available to all HIV positive babies, and that, although mistakes had been made, the government would now lead the HIV-AIDS fight in South Africa, and that himself was preparing to take an HIV test.
A Zapiro cartoon showing Zuma and his shower.
Now, the announcement of this extra-marital paternity threatens to un-do all his work on this deparment, and appears to be affecting his support among the public, and perhaps more crucially among members of the Alliance. Thus, the M&G reports today that leaders of the ANC Youth League, COSATU, and the SACP, although not making openly hostile comments, "are known to have opined privately that his behaviour was simply indefensible". I have written more extensively here, about Zuma's need for delicately balancing the forces within and outside his government if he wants to successfully lead the South African government. It also seems clear now, that the popular support that he enjoyed when he was invested in April last year is quickly diminishing on the face of contiuned economic hardship, and that the political support that he needs, is only being harmed by his "bedroom antics".
On Sunday I wrote about Spanish PM Zapatero addressing African leaders at the opening of the 14th ordinary African Union Summit in Addis Abeba, and how he stuck to generalities on his speech. The summit finished yesterday, and, keeping in the line, African leaders made some interesting declarations but did not push through any revolutionary decisions. Nevertheless, I have tought it may be a good idea to put together the most important outcomes of the summit:
The most commented aspect of the meeting, as it is often the case in African politics, was a question of leadership. Thus, the earlier part of the summit was dominated by a bitter controversy: the desire of the AU Chairman, Muammar Al Gaddafi, to exten his one-year term. During his tenure, Gaddafi has been the centre of numerous controversies (some of these have been mentioned before in this blog - for example, here and here), but this time he had to give up and cede the AU Chairmanship to Malawian president Bingu Wa Mutharika. This change to a presidency on the south of the continent was part of an established rotating system, but after Gaddafi's wishes were ignored - something that some consider as an "rare glimpse of courage" from African leaders - Gaddafi accused the "political elite of the continent" of lacking "political awareness and hence the political determination”, and set his sight on a new international role - this time as leader of the League of Arab states.
Newly elected AU Chairman Bingu Wa Mutharika (Photo Reuters)
On the main theme of the conference “Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in Africa: Challenges and Prospects for Development”, not much appears to have been advanced. There was, of course the unavoidable declaration of good intentions at the closing ceremony, with the Chairman Wa Mutharika pointing out the need to "put in place a food security program to alleviate poverty in the next five years; the need to develop transport and telecommunications, and connect countries through ICTs; and the development of energy". But these declarations are not enough and ICT analysts and experts still think there is much work to be done, and that sometimes the AU focuses on the wrong areas.
A number of other topics were however also discussed at the AU summit, such as:
- the dissolution of NEPAD - after nearly ten years in which it failed to deliver a single project - and its substitution by a new agency - the NEPAD Planning and Coordination Agency (NPCA) - formally integrated within the AU's structures.
- on the inauguration of 2010 as the "Year of Peace and Security in Africa", Wa Mutharika also declared "war on unconstitutional change of government on the African soil and resolve to take strong necessary punitive action against all authors of coup d'etats and those that provide them the means to unseat duly elected governments", and pressed for the AU to take a harder stance on coup leaders in countries like Madagascar, Mauritania and Guinea (with measures being announced next week).
- a letter from Eritrea was circulated among the leaders attending the summit, accusing Ethiopia of blocking Eritrea's participation at AU events by failing to extend appropiate guarantees to its officials.
- AU leaders also considered, according to the Chairman of the AU Comission Jean Ping, offering "land and naturalization benefits" to Haitians affected by the earthquake and who may seek to return to the African continent.
- at the the summit, the AU also endorsed South Africa's candidature for a non-permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, on the elections that will take place at the General Assembly in October this year.
- finally, at the summit, the AU also unveiled its new flag, selected from those put forward after the call for new ideas made in 2007.
No one doubts that 2010 will be a momentous year for South Africa. But in politics, exciting things have been taking place for the past two years - specifically since Thabo Mbeki's ousting from the African National Congress (ANC). Then, barely 10 months later Mbeki was forced to resign, after the Pietermaritzburg Court ruled that the corruption charges against Zuma were unfounded and that they, furthermore, had been politically motivated - we have to remember here that these charges were central to the power struggle between Mbeki and Zuma and the reason for Mbeki's dismissal of Zuma as deputy president in 2005. Finally, the change in power was confirmed with Zuma's election as South African president in April 2009.
In political parties' terms, this was not a surprise, as the ANC's majority in South Africa has not been challenged by any other party - and is not likely to be anytime soon. The most important risk to the ANC's continuity in power, as numerous analysts point out, comes from internal fighting and divisions. One such challenge has already emerged, although not along the expected lines - most people saw as most likely a left-leaning block led by COSATU and SACP to challenge the ANC - but as a result of the Mbeki-Zuma fighting. Late in 2008 CoPe (Congress of the People) was created, and although it got relatively good result for a newcomer, it was far away from presenting a serious challenge to the ANC.
Nevertheless, if for party politics Zuma's taking over from Mbeki as president has not mattered much, there are many other aspects in which this Zunami! it has meant a total change. First, there is a clear difference in the backgrounds (both in class and ethnic terms) of Zuma and Mbeki. Zuma has become the first Zulu president of South Africa, taking over from Mbeki, a Xhosa (like Mandela). Also, while Mandela belonged to a royal lineage among the Xhosas, and Mbeki was born into an educated middle class family - both his parents were theachers, and Mbeki earned his BA and Master's degree in the U.K. (Sussex University), Zuma finished only his primary school. But, despite this clear differences, it is in their character that the starker contrast betweem Zuma and Mbeki appears.
Mbeki always had a serious presence, sometimes seeming even cold and aloof - perhaps even arrogant. He was a theoretical man, used to political dealings to be made secretly, outside from the spotlight, as they had been done by him (with great success) in exile and during the apartheid transition. For those interested in Mbeki's figure and his life, I can recommend Mark Gevisser's book "A Legacy of Liberation". Zuma is the total opposite to this: he's much more extroverted, laughs often, and has a charismatic - some may say populist-leaning - personality. For a more detailed analysis of his policies, you can read this recent special Concerned African Scholars bulletin.
Thabo Mbeki
Nothing however, encapsulates this difference better than their dress-code and their different public behaviour. Mbeki "black englishman" looks - elegant suits, pipe-smoker and a calm on-stage presence could not be further away from Zuma's "Umshini wami" ("bring me my machine gun") chanting in political meetings (see the video here)onstage dancing, and his use of traditional clothing. Zuma is also a polygamist, and last Monday he married Thobeka Madiba,his 5th wife - you can see pictures of the ceremony here. And is Zuma's character wasn't colourful enough, a new figure has emerged in South African politics, who's drawing most of the media attention: ANC Youth League (ANCYL) president Julius Malema. Malema's controversial remarks, often with a racial dimension, have been one of the talking points in South Africa in 2009 - together with his disappointing highschool grades, and his flashy life-style.
President Zuma dances during the campaign for the presidential elections (Photo Jonathan Clayton)
But behind Zuma's charismatic presence and Malema's politically incorrect comments, South Africa faces more serious challenges, which its politicians need to take care. Not only the global economic crisis, which is affecting South Africa greatly, but especially, the response to the crisis that is expected from politicians. Zuma came to power promising a left-turn in social policies, seeking to incorporate those left behing by Mbeki's neo-liberal orientation. But he also promised foreign investors and national capital that not much would change. This squaring of the circle appears as something impossible, and the disaffection gripping society may soon be reflected on politicians. The tripartite alliance (ANC, COSATU, SACP) is likely to suffer and, according to comentator William Gumede, a reallignment is already taking place. At present, the left flank of the Alliance - SACP, COSATU - is dissapointed with Zuma's government, whom they helped to power; and they would like to do something about it (a new "party of the left"?) but their social base is weaker than ever. Winning the support of "new poor" (not-unionised, informal workers, and those unemployed) remains the key challenge for the left. But this constituency is also being wooed by an emerging "nationalist-populist-traditionalist block" (Gumede), who's benefiting from Zuma's popularity and of whom Malema's ANCYL can be perceived as their leader. If Malema wants to be a serious candidate to a good position however, most people agree that he must learn the trade and tone down most of his interventions this coming year. A taste of whay may be hapening to South African politics from here to the ANC 2012 Centenary conference if the rift between the left block and the populist block continues, can be seen in the recent incident at the SACP conference, when Malema was heckled, booed and criticised for his lifestyle. To this, he responded by storming off and calling for the ANC to take actions. Now, a similar treatment from the ANCYL audience to SACP leaders is feared at the Kimberly conference happening today, something that has been tried to be avoided by a number of talks this Christmas seeking to bridge the rifts within the Alliance. We'll see what happens today but, there is no doubt that the excitement in South African politics is far from ending soon. Interesting times do lie ahead!
And after 2009, we arrived at 2010. A year which is expected to be full special moments for the continent, especially the Football World Cup in South Africa which starts on June 11th. But as we look forward to what 2010 will bring, we must not lose sight of what happened before. And this time something that took place, not last year, but few years before: 50 to be exact.
Because in 2010 it will be the 50th anniversary of the "Year of Africa" or the "Year of African independence". During the 12 months of 1960, 17 African countries regained their independence after decades of European coloniation. Fourteen of these countries were French colonies: Cameroon, Togo, Mali, Senegal, Madagascar, Benin, Niger, Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, Chad, Central African Republic, Congo (Brazzaville), Gabon and Mauritania, and the other three, two territories colonized by Great Britain: Somalia and Nigeria, and one from Belgium: Congo (Kinshasa).
Map showing the borders of African countries on July 15, 1960 - National Geographic ( here you can see the details)
It is true that in 1960 the decolonization of Africa had already begun: in 1957 the Gold Coast led by Kwame Nkrumah became independent from Britain and was renamed Ghana, and in 1958 Sekou Toure's Guinean Democratic Party voted against staying within the French Community, declaring their independence. But 1960 was the year in which the processes of independence reached cruising speed, an exciting year full of events, celebrations and intrigues, and which can be symbolically situated between two events of very different character.
The initial moment was the speech of British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, in Cape Town on 3 February 1960. In it, Macmillan, Conservative Prime Minister said Britain would not oppose the processes of independence that were brewing in most African countries. He did it with some famous words that gave the name to his speech:
"The wind of change is blowing through this continent, and whether we like it or not, this growth of national consciousness is a political fact. We must all accept it as a fact, and our national policies must take account of it."
British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan
If this speech, in which he also criticized the continuation of apartheid in South Africa, can be seen as the symbolic beginning of the "year of Africa", its end can be placed in January 1961, with a totally different event. I am talking about the murder, after his kidnapping and torture of the elected prime minister of Congo, Patrice Lumumba. Lumumba was elected to form a government in May 1960 and became prime minister of Congo on June 30 of that year. Although he was a government leader, Lumumba was excluded from the official independence ceremony in which both President Kasa-Vuvu and King Baudouin of Belgium spoke. Despite his exclusion Lumumba, enraged by the apology of colonialism and the defense of King Leopold II delivered by Baudouin, could not refrain from speaking against the European dignitaries, denouncing the humiliation and suffering inflicted on the Congolese people during colonialism:
"Because ... no Congolese worthy of the name will ever be able to forget that is was by fighting that it has been won [applause], a day-to-day fight, an ardent and idealistic fight, a fight in which we were spared neither privation nor suffering, and for which we gave our strength and our blood.
... We have known ironies, insults, blows that we endured morning, noon, and evening, because we are Negroes.
... We have witnessed atrocious sufferings of those condemned for their political opinions or religious beliefs; exiled in their own country, their fate truly worse than death itself.
... All that, my brothers, we have endured.
But all this is over today.
... We are going to show the world what the black man can do when he works in freedom, and we are going to make of the Congo the center of the sun's radiance for all of Africa.
... Our government, strong, national, popular, will be the health of our country.
... Long live independence and African unity!
Long live the independent and sovereign Congo!
Signing of the Act of Independence of the Congo
Less than 7 months later however, Lumumba was assassinated in a plot orchestrated by the governments of Belgium and the U.S. - the CIA had already supported Joseph Mobutu's coup in September 1960 that had deposed Lumbumba - and with the complicty of the United Nations, whose troops were deployed in the country.
The choice of these two moments as symbolic beginning and end of year 1960, reflects the desire to reflect on the process of African decolonization in this 50th anniversary.
Therefore, and although historical debates are too complex to enter in depth here, it seems necessary to emphasize that decolonization largely responded, not to the simple words of the former European powers, but to the actions of political leaders - whether in favor of independence, as in the commitment of many African leaders, or against, as in South Africa or the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) - and the struggle of African peoples.
A second reflection is aimed at pointing out how Macmillan's "wind of change" swept not only Africa, but also Europe. This explains that during the three decades after 1960, the main external player in the continent were the former colonial powers (although the persistence of the "Francafrique" should be noted) but the U.S. and the USSR, locked in a Cold War which in Africa however, was rather "hot" (Congo, Angola, Ethiopia / Somalia, etc).
The "50 years of independence" appear thus as a moment for taking stock of half a century (which, I think we need to remember, though it may seem long, it is still a very short time in the history of any country): the successes and failures of African leaders, the causes of current problems, the responsibility of the former colonizing countries ... All this should be analysed, and especially it must be emphasized the need for people to have a role in the decisions concerning their future.
Congratulations to all those people for whom 2010 marks 50 years since independence !!
And let these people decide the direction of their country during the next five decades!!
Yesterday, as almost everyone in Spain must know, was admitted by the Catalan Parliament, the Popular Legislative Initiative to ban bullfighting in this region. A decision that has generated many minutes of talk-radio, and many lines in the opinion columns in newspapers. It is however much less known (I guess) that a couple of weeks ago South Africa was embroiled in a similar controversy about animal rights, in which it was also the bull that was in the centre of controversy. Last November, the association Animal Rights Africa (ARA), filed a complaint against the Zulu king, Goodwill Zwelithini, and against the South African government to try to stop the annual ritual of Ukeshwama. In this ritual, which takes place every year, a bull is slaughtered by tens of young Zulus, who killed it with their bare hands. The judge however ruled that there were no grounds for suspending the ritual and therefore it could go on , and so the Ukeshwama finally took last Saturday, 5th of December.
Poster announcing a bullfight in the Plaza Monumental de Barcelona (El Pais)
Examining these two controversies may be interesting in order to explore the similarities between them, and how these illuminate how complicated - or rather impossible – it is to limit these discussions to the subject of animal rights. So much so, that although both the initiative to end bullfighting in Catalonia and that which sought to the end the Ukeshwama cited as their main motive the need to end the suffering and cruelty to animals, this aspect has been almost buried by other considerations. Thus, in both cases, arguments have emerged that present these rituals - and the need for continuity - as an important aspect of the culture and identity of peoples/nations. And once these concepts and arguments enter the debate, it is extremely easy to move towards the total politicization of the issue, both by civil society, and by the political class. In South Africa, for example, the fact that the representative of ARA is a white man and that the aim of the lawsuit was to stop a Zulu ritual has led commentators like Sipho Hlongwane , who stands against the Ukeshwama (and bullfights too) because he considers it a brutal ceremony, to nevertheless defend the continuity of the ritual as an aspect of the multicultural South African society and criticize the lawsuit initiated by “sandal-wearers and grass eaters”. The Ukeshwama will cease only when the Zulu people decide it (which in turn leads to discussion of how, what the Zulu people want translates to what their King wants).
In Catalonia, on the other hand, it also seems clear that some of the defenders of the ban see it as another way to distinguish Catalonia from Spain – and Spanish rituals. But also, supporters of the continuation of bullfights in Catalonia, argue that the ban is yet another example of the intolerance of Catalan nationalism.
The politicization of the debate leads us to one final question, that of forms - an important part of the political debate surrounding these controversies. Thus, in South Africa it has been argued the the court intervention is a mistake, and something that contributes to the politicization of the issue. Yet, this intervention was necessary, apparently, given the refusal of the Zulu royal house to talk with the ARA, regarding the suspension or modification of the celebration. Similarly, some advocates of the continuation of bullfighting in Catalonia, argue it is the decision to ban bullfights that they oppose, because it does not respect the will of the Catalan population who may want to assist to these festivals.
And in the forms is also where, in my opinion, lies the greatest difference between the two controversies. In South Africa, the ARA requested the court to suspend the practice - a purely judicial decision – and this led the judge to interpret - using as reference the existing legislation - that there were no grounds to grant this suspension. In the case of Catalonia it is a popular initiative, supported by 180.000 signatures, which has "forced" parliament to decide on this question. An uncomfortable topic for some political parties - both CiU and the PSC (the two major parties) gave a free vote to its members and the vote was secret. This is therefore a political debate that responds to the demand of part of the population, and seeks the determination of the political parties to create a new law - something that it is still uncertain, as parliament has only agreed to discuss the proposition. Two controversies then which have the bull in a central role, and show how difficult it is to limit - in any country - such debates only to the suffering of animals and their rights, without involving political identity or issues. For better or for worse, humans remain the only ones who can talk and express their opinion, and those who remain therefore at the heart of the debate.
