I am interested in the following questions: What is the role of organizations in creating individuals as products of the organization or system in which they work? Assuming organizations play a role, what are the implications for community and society? Are organizations the venue in which to affect societal and community change through the individuals that work there? Why would organizations care? Finally, how would it affect their bottom line, their work-culture, and their productivity?

To address this last question, Goleman in Primal Leadership offers that how people feel about working at a company can account for 20 to 30 percent of business performance. Getting the best out of people pay off in results and the leader plays a key role in managing that climate. Poor morale among front line service providers at a given point in time predicts higher turnover and a declining customer satisfaction of up to three years later. He adds that low customer satisfaction drives declining revenues. In addition, for every one percent improvement in service to clients, there is a two percent increase in revenue. This clearly implies that organizations should care about how their staff feels about the company in which they work.

As evident in the questions listed above, I am concerned about community and society. Canada is facing its tightest labour market in 35 years. In order for Canada to be competitive in the global market place employees will be called upon to be more productive with less human resources. This trend is more concerning in the increasingly rapid and constantly changing work environment that organizations face today. Bolman and Deal in Reframing Organizations state that organizations deal with complicated and uncertain environments by simplifying information and processes. They break complex issues into smaller more manageable pieces through specialization or division of responsibilities.

According to Senge in Presence, individuals “are out of relationship with all of nature because we’ve moved into a reductive kind of awareness that is based on alienation and separation.”

Perhaps we can find value in reuniting complex issues through new ways of leading and learning. Herein lies the opportunity to build capacity in the work-place and lead the way to building personal accountability in systems (complicated organizations) where accountability is typically diffused.

Without going into the implications or organizational systems on community and society, are organizations and the individuals that work for them, the venue in which to affect societal and community change? If individuals in those organizations were interested in positive outcomes for humanity, community or society were given the opportunity to impact these spheres through their work, perhaps this would contribute to a positive feeling about their company. The company is then creating a work environment to get the best out of people. In turn, business performance would improve. However, what is the leadership action if individuals in those organizations were not as interested in such positive outcomes for humanity, community and society?

- Written by Jennifer Cottes (From a larger paper on leadership learnings and self-reflection.)

References / Additional Reading:
Bolman, Lee G., and Terrence E. Deal. Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership. San Fransicso: Jossey-bass, 2008.

Bridges, Edwin M., and Philip Hallinger. Implementing Problem Based Learning in Leadership Development. Eugene: ERIC, 1995.

Goleman, Daniel, Richard Boyatzis, and Annie McKee. Primal Leadership: Learning to Lead with Emotional Intelligence. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2002.


Lynch, Kevin G. Fifteenth Annual Report of the Clerk to the Prime Minister on the Public Service of Canada”. (Ottawa, Ontario March 31, 2008). http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/index.asp?lang=eng&Page=information&Sub=publications&Doc=ar-ra/15-2008/table_e.htm, accessed March 2009.

Quinn, Robert E. Building the Bridge as You Walk on It: A Guide for Leading Change. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass, 2004.

Senge, Peter, C. Otto Scharmer, Joseph Jaworski, and Betty Sue Flowers. Presence: Human Purpose and the Field of the Future. New York: Doubleday, 2004.

There is a very interesting process which I have been so privileged to observe from a front row seat. As I write, election results are being announced from difference races across the country, they are appearing slowly, but surely. I think it is important to give a context to how this election has been set up:
There are 4 different elections happening simultaneously: local council elections, lower house parliamentary seats [House of Assembly], the Upper House of parliament [The Senate] and the Presidency. There are 1 958 local council seats up for election in 1 958 wards around the country, there are 210 House of Assembly seats up for grabs, there are sixty senate seats and one presidential seat. Now each one of these positions has at least two candidates contesting, with some having as many as seven candidates (and in other cases more). So there are a lot of people involved in contesting for all the elected offices in zimbabwe.

The post-voting electoral process

The process itself, that has come about out of a series of negotiations between the government and the opposition over the course of the past 12 months has meant that significant changes have been made to the electoral law in the country. New law requires that every polling station counts their ballots AT the station – this is in order to avoid rigging or tampering with ballot boxes in transit to any other location. This has been done in accordance with the law in every case. In a ward, you can get up to 3 or 4 polling stations depending on population data. In a constituency, you can get as many as 15 wards. This means that per constituency you get about 60 polling stations.

When the voting is done in that polling station, counting for all four seats begins – the local council, the lower house, the upper house and the presidency. For each candidate, there is a polling agent present to preside over the counting and to contest what they may deem to be deviations from due process or law. A result is only official when all the polling agents agree to it; hence in the case where there are disputes, this can take a while. Now remember, that this is happening for every single ballot, and every candidate's representatives can argue their cause. When a final result is reached and agreed upon by all parties and everyone signs to confirm such, the result for that polling station is posted on the entry way to that station. The official result is then sent to the 'Command Center' of that constituency. So in each constituency, they would have to wait for all sixty or so polling stations to reach that agreement, and then send the results to a central place where they are collated, and again agreed upon by all the Chief Election Agents of the candidates [if they chose to have agents represent them] and then a final result is reached. So in these cases, you can imagine how long this process may take given that (i) this is the first time that this was done in Zimbabwe; (ii) as in a big sporting game, the world cup final or something, every possession is contested – the same with these elections.; (iii) in some of the rural constituencies [actually, in most of them] the roads are horrendous. In some cases, non-existent. So moving a distance of 30 kilometres can actually take as long as an hour and a half to two hours. So movement is slow and complicated. And there are no telephones or electronic communications.

So the process is a slow one, and I think most people are doing the best to get these results out as fast as possible.

I observed the process in three electoral constituencies in rural Matabeleland. In VERY rural places so I am writing about all of this from first hand experience. The polls closed Saturday at 7pm. In the one constituency we only got a final result (after the process above was complete and all agreed upon) on Monday morning. Another one only by Monday afternoon. Others are not yet complete.

The mistake most people are making is that they see the result outside one polling station, take that as the overall result and then cry "that results are out. Why are they not being announced" and are completely ignorant of the process that must be taken to ensure that all parties involved at that local level are satisfied.

Allegations of Rigging etc

The international news media is buzzing with stories about how these delays are being caused by the government trying to buy time and rig the election. I think that is all the elections I have participated in and observed in Zimbabwe, this has been the most free, fair and competitive election. There was almost no violence leading up to the election. For the first time, you actually had a lot of oppositions parties using main stream including government controlled media to campaign and having access to the electorate almost on par with the government [I saw almost, because the government always has the advantage of incumbency. If a government minister is commissioning a new project for example, that is a 'national duty' and not a political meeting so the electoral rules don't necessarily apply, but any smart operator would use that platform to plug for their cause]. This doesn't mean that everything about the period leading up to the election was fair, but I think the environment really has allowed for people to express their will.

Even the post-election process I feel has provided for much more fairness than before. What is really surprising to me is the extent to which immediately after the election was done, the main opposition (the MDC party led by Morgan Tsvangirai) went on a global media blitz claiming the election is being rigged and already setting up an environment for those who are either not really aware of the details of the process, or who are far removed from it to prejudge all that is happening. I was really surprised by this and think it to be a really sleazy tactic.

Rigging, if it is taking place, is not happening with people stuffing boxes full of paper etc. It is happening on very technical grounds where those who are least informed on electoral law and procedure don't know how to play the game fully.

Most people reading this will be surprised by what I am about to say, but in my observations, I saw the greatest cases of foul play [call it rigging if you will] coming from the opposition. And their methodology for this is very sophisticated. Let me try and explain…

When we were children, there was a tactic where if there was a dispute between us as kids playing together, lets say, one kid hits another, the initiator of the transgression would run to an adult and cry the loudest and claim they were hit. The adult would run out in response and to the surprise of everyone watching would lash out at the person who actually was smacked in the first place, but it was too late, the initiative had been lost by the 'victim'. It was a smart tactic which worked most of the time, but it left the person who was really hit feeling very, very unjustly treated.

A similar thing has happened in this election from what I have seen. The MDC has run out screaming that we've been cheated, there is rigging etc. they've smartly managed tog et everyone watching the wrong place while they smugly cook the books where they can. It's a very close election in most cases so every point counts. Let me give you examples of what I mean, without mentioning specific locations and situations as this could have legal implications.

The widespread belief is that the government will rig the election because it is so popular that it cannot win the election fairly. They say it will rig it because it has deployed civil servants to oversee the election. In reality, the people who have the greatest animosity towards the government are civil servants. Teachers, Nurses, Police etc. they are the lowest paid people in the country and yet have the most expected from them. So we found in 3 places, and I think this is a sample behavior of what you would find nation wide, whereby you had electoral officials, employed by the government trying to work things in favor of the opposition.
In one polling station, where a government candidate had won and the papers confirming this were signed at that station, the delivery note meant to go to the Command Centre with the result 'disappeared.' There was a recount and a revisiting of the whole process I've described, the result again came out in favor of the government. Again, the delivery note disappeared. Eventually, the culprit was identified and arrested and the processes repeated once again and the result eventually went through. In that constituency, the government representative for that seat won, and there were incredible delays in releasing that data over endless, undescribed technicalities. Eventually, representatives from the electoral commission from the region's capital had to be called in to settle it.
Another incident, there was a case whereby a person standing for office of the government had a comfortable lead in their constituency with a margin of over 1000 votes. Two wards were still outstanding [about 6 polling stations]. When results came in, the ZANU PF [the governing party] representative won one constituency, and lost the other. The margin of the loss was significantly smaller than one thousand. The candidate's polling agent left the scene assuming victory. This was on Monday morning. Monday afternoon, we heard the results announced that the ZANU PF candidate has lost by over 2000 votes. Mathematically, this is not possible. There was most certainly an 'accounting error' in that case and the result will most probably be legally challenged.
The opposition has set up all of these 'parallel' structures to feed the word election results as 'they' see them. Some of them are so grossly wrong its disturbing. Yesterday they projected that out of 210 Lower House seats, the government has won only 50, the opposition 117 and the balance going to independents – which would of course mean a land slide for the opposition. As I type, about 90 results for the House of Assembly have been announced with 43 going to ZANU PF, 41 going to one faction of the MDC (Tsvangirai's faction) and the balance to independents and the smaller MDC Faction.

One thing that is being done which could be seen as controversial is that the results in the early stages are being announced almost in a balanced manner – i.e., you announce one victory for the opposition, one for the government etc. one reason for doing this may be so that you don't raise expectations of one side and then have a Kenya-type dispute when the final results swings in contradiction to early results. I think this makes sense because you do want to maintain calm in such a tense situation. Those advocating for this to be done "as results appear" seem to not have learned from what happened just north of Zimbabwe a few months ago.

I am sure there are cases of government (ZANU PF) rigging happening too, but I think ZANU's mischief would more have been done before the election, in the process leading up to it rather than during or post the election. But I am sure others elsewhere have their own reports and perspectives to share on this, especially those participating or observing the election for places that overwhelmingly support ZANU PF, of which Matabeleland isn't traditionally one of them.

Contrary to 'popular' expectations
Most commentators outside the country expect the ruling party and president to lose the election. The economic situation and an environment that actually allows more of a freer expression of people's will are cited as some of the influencing factors in those calculations. This is plausible thinking to some degree. I did not expect the president to have any support in Matabeleland at all. Given the history of this region, given the economic situation and the strong support the opposition has always had here, I was surprised to see the results in some places.

You would see results in a polling station where the president won by a significant margin over his opponents. You would get some where he lost by a very wide margin, and others that were close. I certainly expected him to lose everywhere in this part of the country. It's not turning out that way. In most areas here where I observed things up close, except for Bulawayo and urban centers, the presidential contest seems to have been between Robert Mugabe and Simba Makoni. Surprisingly, there is not much traction for Morgan Tsvangirai (which may be different in the northern and eastern regions of the country). In one entire constituency, Robert Mugabe beat Simba Makoni in the final tally of about 55 polling stations! It was a small margin but extremely surprising. In general, I think he will lose Matabeleland, but not by the wide margins people predict.

Where there is the greatest volatility in the election has been the local councils. That's where you get the most surprising results with many, many incumbents being thrown out. In retrospect, it makes sense because those are the candidates they know the best, that have the most direct contact and influence and that people have some form of control over. Again, that surprised me, given that the elections have always been billed as a presidential contest primarily.

The funny thing is that, you have external commentators surprised by the victories that the government achieves despite the situation economically. I feel that most people who vote for the president or governing party candidates have really done so out of their will. Many have chosen not to vote [hence the low voter turn out] for whatever reasons. When you have a 'democratic' election, and the candidate that outsiders don't prefer wins, there is always a problem. Ironically, those are the people who become hypocritical and do not accept the results. When Hamas won the elections in Palestine we saw the same thing happen. It's really funny watching the perspective of the 'western media' on Zimbabwe. BBC, CNN et al have been giving some pretty hilarious (and infuriating reporting). Partly because of their obvious biases, but also because of their location – they are not on the ground in Zimbabwe (for various, debatable reasons).

There are all sorts of notorious reports out there:
The president has left the country – Not True
The Military has been ordered to announce the president the winner – again, I don't think this is true. (http://www.swradioafrica.com/news300308/military300308.htm)

And so on … Most of these are not really true from what we can acertain, although confirming anything like that isn't really easy to do.


There are reports of civil unrest, and the military and police on the street. That is CERTAINLY not the case. Definitely not the case in Bulawayo and from what friends are telling me, it's not the case in Harare. It's one thing to look for an interesting story. It's mischief to say things that could lead to a tense (but calm) situation becoming tense and volatile.

I think if I called the BBC and claimed that I was being attacked by a Sabre Tooth Tiger sent by the government, I'd be on the front page of their website and on satellite TV within the hour!

It's a pretty close election – I think it could go either way. You'll probably get nothing more dramatic than a 55% -- 45% margin in the final result as far as parliament is concerned. The same may hold for the presidency.

I don't think Robert Mugabe is going to lose. If he does, I think he will probably accept the result, but expect some trading to take place about a way forward depending on his margin of defeat. But I don't think he will lose.

Well, my 'few thoughts' did become rather long and protracted – but other than that, we are all fine and awaiting the completion of the process with as much anxiety as everyone else.

Actually, the REAL result we are awaiting has NOTHING to do with the election. At around 3am this morning my sister, Mvuse, went into labor with her first pregnancy! So we are all on edge because that will be my parent's first biological grand child!!! It's a girl, that we know – but we're super excited to have her finally arrival. And what perfect timing, in time for the election results and on April Fool's Day no less!

Coup d’Media in Zimbabwe

It is shocking how the media in South Africa and that emanating mainly from countries in Europe and North America has gone ahead and made bold declarations about Zimbabwe’s recent election without paying much attention to the legal proceedings that dictate the unfolding of events here.

1. they have been drumming up since before voting closed been declaring that the president, Robert Mugabe, as lost the election, and the blitz has been so total that the intention seems to be to convince the whole world that the desired outcome of people not in Zimbabwe, who did not vote, becomes the dominant perception and in a way, reality.
2. the bias on the commentary on the satellite TV station is not surprising, but it is surprisingly anti most of the ethics and values you associate with the ‘independent press.’
3. the media went on for days about how the president and the ruling party were attempting to ‘rig’ the election. The opposition has gone on to declare victory unilaterally before any of the processes stated under law are complete which are actually slow by their nature and based on the nature of this most recent election. No one is accusing the opposition of ‘stealing’ the election. Where is the balance there? Imagine the President had declared himself the winner Sunday morning. What would those same ‘defenders of democracy’ have stated?
a. The same opposition which woke up the morning after the election is claiming fraud is now claiming that the same fraudulent election is one which they have won… how?
b. The same people who stated last night that they will wait for the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission to issue the official results and that they will follow the official results have now gone and stated that they will declare victory based on their own results which they have collated [some of which I have seen and are very different to what has been the actual results]. Yet the same media stations are accepting, tolerating and even promoting all of this.
c. Imagine if the government had done the same – the outrage, and retaliation by the ‘international community.’

Then when Robert Mugabe rages on about his fight against imperialism and western domination, and western bullying and the lack of respect of the principles of sovereignty, people say he is a disgruntled old dictator? Wouldn’t you be upset if you were in his position everyday for 15 years?

If i had the time, i would do a fuller analysis of this, but i am not sure it's even worth the time. No one out there listens to any other perspectives other than the ones that they want to see as reality

There is a very interesting process which I have been so privileged to observe from a front row seat. As I write, election results are being announced from difference races across the country, they are appearing slowly, but surely. I think it is important to give a context to how this election has been set up:
There are 4 different elections happening simultaneously: local council elections, lower house parliamentary seats [House of Assembly], the Upper House of parliament [The Senate] and the Presidency. There are 1 958 local council seats up for election in 1 958 wards around the country, there are 210 House of Assembly seats up for grabs, there are sixty senate seats and one presidential seat. Now each one of these positions has at least two candidates contesting, with some having as many as seven candidates (and in other cases more). So there are a lot of people involved in contesting for all the elected offices in zimbabwe.

The post-voting electoral process

The process itself, that has come about out of a series of negotiations between the government and the opposition over the course of the past 12 months has meant that significant changes have been made to the electoral law in the country. New law requires that every polling station counts their ballots AT the station – this is in order to avoid rigging or tampering with ballot boxes in transit to any other location. This has been done in accordance with the law in every case. In a ward, you can get up to 3 or 4 polling stations depending on population data. In a constituency, you can get as many as 15 wards. This means that per constituency you get about 60 polling stations.

When the voting is done in that polling station, counting for all four seats begins – the local council, the lower house, the upper house and the presidency. For each candidate, there is a polling agent present to preside over the counting and to contest what they may deem to be deviations from due process or law. A result is only official when all the polling agents agree to it; hence in the case where there are disputes, this can take a while. Now remember, that this is happening for every single ballot, and every candidate's representatives can argue their cause. When a final result is reached and agreed upon by all parties and everyone signs to confirm such, the result for that polling station is posted on the entry way to that station. The official result is then sent to the 'Command Center' of that constituency. So in each constituency, they would have to wait for all sixty or so polling stations to reach that agreement, and then send the results to a central place where they are collated, and again agreed upon by all the Chief Election Agents of the candidates [if they chose to have agents represent them] and then a final result is reached. So in these cases, you can imagine how long this process may take given that (i) this is the first time that this was done in Zimbabwe; (ii) as in a big sporting game, the world cup final or something, every possession is contested – the same with these elections.; (iii) in some of the rural constituencies [actually, in most of them] the roads are horrendous. In some cases, non-existent. So moving a distance of 30 kilometres can actually take as long as an hour and a half to two hours. So movement is slow and complicated. And there are no telephones or electronic communications.

So the process is a slow one, and I think most people are doing the best to get these results out as fast as possible.

I observed the process in three electoral constituencies in rural Matabeleland. In VERY rural places so I am writing about all of this from first hand experience. The polls closed Saturday at 7pm. In the one constituency we only got a final result (after the process above was complete and all agreed upon) on Monday morning. Another one only by Monday afternoon. Others are not yet complete.

The mistake most people are making is that they see the result outside one polling station, take that as the overall result and then cry "that results are out. Why are they not being announced" and are completely ignorant of the process that must be taken to ensure that all parties involved at that local level are satisfied.

Allegations of Rigging etc

The international news media is buzzing with stories about how these delays are being caused by the government trying to buy time and rig the election. I think that is all the elections I have participated in and observed in Zimbabwe, this has been the most free, fair and competitive election. There was almost no violence leading up to the election. For the first time, you actually had a lot of oppositions parties using main stream including government controlled media to campaign and having access to the electorate almost on par with the government [I saw almost, because the government always has the advantage of incumbency. If a government minister is commissioning a new project for example, that is a 'national duty' and not a political meeting so the electoral rules don't necessarily apply, but any smart operator would use that platform to plug for their cause]. This doesn't mean that everything about the period leading up to the election was fair, but I think the environment really has allowed for people to express their will.

Even the post-election process I feel has provided for much more fairness than before. What is really surprising to me is the extent to which immediately after the election was done, the main opposition (the MDC party led by Morgan Tsvangirai) went on a global media blitz claiming the election is being rigged and already setting up an environment for those who are either not really aware of the details of the process, or who are far removed from it to prejudge all that is happening. I was really surprised by this and think it to be a really sleazy tactic.

Rigging, if it is taking place, is not happening with people stuffing boxes full of paper etc. It is happening on very technical grounds where those who are least informed on electoral law and procedure don't know how to play the game fully.

Most people reading this will be surprised by what I am about to say, but in my observations, I saw the greatest cases of foul play [call it rigging if you will] coming from the opposition. And their methodology for this is very sophisticated. Let me try and explain…

When we were children, there was a tactic where if there was a dispute between us as kids playing together, lets say, one kid hits another, the initiator of the transgression would run to an adult and cry the loudest and claim they were hit. The adult would run out in response and to the surprise of everyone watching would lash out at the person who actually was smacked in the first place, but it was too late, the initiative had been lost by the 'victim'. It was a smart tactic which worked most of the time, but it left the person who was really hit feeling very, very unjustly treated.

A similar thing has happened in this election from what I have seen. The MDC has run out screaming that we've been cheated, there is rigging etc. they've smartly managed tog et everyone watching the wrong place while they smugly cook the books where they can. It's a very close election in most cases so every point counts. Let me give you examples of what I mean, without mentioning specific locations and situations as this could have legal implications.

The widespread belief is that the government will rig the election because it is so popular that it cannot win the election fairly. They say it will rig it because it has deployed civil servants to oversee the election. In reality, the people who have the greatest animosity towards the government are civil servants. Teachers, Nurses, Police etc. they are the lowest paid people in the country and yet have the most expected from them. So we found in 3 places, and I think this is a sample behavior of what you would find nation wide, whereby you had electoral officials, employed by the government trying to work things in favor of the opposition.
In one polling station, where a government candidate had won and the papers confirming this were signed at that station, the delivery note meant to go to the Command Centre with the result 'disappeared.' There was a recount and a revisiting of the whole process I've described, the result again came out in favor of the government. Again, the delivery note disappeared. Eventually, the culprit was identified and arrested and the processes repeated once again and the result eventually went through. In that constituency, the government representative for that seat won, and there were incredible delays in releasing that data over endless, undescribed technicalities. Eventually, representatives from the electoral commission from the region's capital had to be called in to settle it.
Another incident, there was a case whereby a person standing for office of the government had a comfortable lead in their constituency with a margin of over 1000 votes. Two wards were still outstanding [about 6 polling stations]. When results came in, the ZANU PF [the governing party] representative won one constituency, and lost the other. The margin of the loss was significantly smaller than one thousand. The candidate's polling agent left the scene assuming victory. This was on Monday morning. Monday afternoon, we heard the results announced that the ZANU PF candidate has lost by over 2000 votes. Mathematically, this is not possible. There was most certainly an 'accounting error' in that case and the result will most probably be legally challenged.
The opposition has set up all of these 'parallel' structures to feed the word election results as 'they' see them. Some of them are so grossly wrong its disturbing. Yesterday they projected that out of 210 Lower House seats, the government has won only 50, the opposition 117 and the balance going to independents – which would of course mean a land slide for the opposition. As I type, about 90 results for the House of Assembly have been announced with 43 going to ZANU PF, 41 going to one faction of the MDC (Tsvangirai's faction) and the balance to independents and the smaller MDC Faction.

One thing that is being done which could be seen as controversial is that the results in the early stages are being announced almost in a balanced manner – i.e., you announce one victory for the opposition, one for the government etc. one reason for doing this may be so that you don't raise expectations of one side and then have a Kenya-type dispute when the final results swings in contradiction to early results. I think this makes sense because you do want to maintain calm in such a tense situation. Those advocating for this to be done "as results appear" seem to not have learned from what happened just north of Zimbabwe a few months ago.

I am sure there are cases of government (ZANU PF) rigging happening too, but I think ZANU's mischief would more have been done before the election, in the process leading up to it rather than during or post the election. But I am sure others elsewhere have their own reports and perspectives to share on this, especially those participating or observing the election for places that overwhelmingly support ZANU PF, of which Matabeleland isn't traditionally one of them.

Contrary to 'popular' expectations
Most commentators outside the country expect the ruling party and president to lose the election. The economic situation and an environment that actually allows more of a freer expression of people's will are cited as some of the influencing factors in those calculations. This is plausible thinking to some degree. I did not expect the president to have any support in Matabeleland at all. Given the history of this region, given the economic situation and the strong support the opposition has always had here, I was surprised to see the results in some places.

You would see results in a polling station where the president won by a significant margin over his opponents. You would get some where he lost by a very wide margin, and others that were close. I certainly expected him to lose everywhere in this part of the country. It's not turning out that way. In most areas here where I observed things up close, except for Bulawayo and urban centers, the presidential contest seems to have been between Robert Mugabe and Simba Makoni. Surprisingly, there is not much traction for Morgan Tsvangirai (which may be different in the northern and eastern regions of the country). In one entire constituency, Robert Mugabe beat Simba Makoni in the final tally of about 55 polling stations! It was a small margin but extremely surprising. In general, I think he will lose Matabeleland, but not by the wide margins people predict.

Where there is the greatest volatility in the election has been the local councils. That's where you get the most surprising results with many, many incumbents being thrown out. In retrospect, it makes sense because those are the candidates they know the best, that have the most direct contact and influence and that people have some form of control over. Again, that surprised me, given that the elections have always been billed as a presidential contest primarily.

The funny thing is that, you have external commentators surprised by the victories that the government achieves despite the situation economically. I feel that most people who vote for the president or governing party candidates have really done so out of their will. Many have chosen not to vote [hence the low voter turn out] for whatever reasons. When you have a 'democratic' election, and the candidate that outsiders don't prefer wins, there is always a problem. Ironically, those are the people who become hypocritical and do not accept the results. When Hamas won the elections in Palestine we saw the same thing happen. It's really funny watching the perspective of the 'western media' on Zimbabwe. BBC, CNN et al have been giving some pretty hilarious (and infuriating reporting). Partly because of their obvious biases, but also because of their location – they are not on the ground in Zimbabwe (for various, debatable reasons).

There are all sorts of notorious reports out there:
The president has left the country – Not True
The Military has been ordered to announce the president the winner – again, I don't think this is true. (http://www.swradioafrica.com/news300308/military300308.htm)

And so on … Most of these are not really true from what we can acertain, although confirming anything like that isn't really easy to do.


There are reports of civil unrest, and the military and police on the street. That is CERTAINLY not the case. Definitely not the case in Bulawayo and from what friends are telling me, it's not the case in Harare. It's one thing to look for an interesting story. It's mischief to say things that could lead to a tense (but calm) situation becoming tense and volatile.

I think if I called the BBC and claimed that I was being attacked by a Sabre Tooth Tiger sent by the government, I'd be on the front page of their website and on satellite TV within the hour!

It's a pretty close election – I think it could go either way. You'll probably get nothing more dramatic than a 55% -- 45% margin in the final result as far as parliament is concerned. The same may hold for the presidency.

I don't think Robert Mugabe is going to lose. If he does, I think he will probably accept the result, but expect some trading to take place about a way forward depending on his margin of defeat. But I don't think he will lose.

Well, my 'few thoughts' did become rather long and protracted – but other than that, we are all fine and awaiting the completion of the process with as much anxiety as everyone else.

Actually, the REAL result we are awaiting has NOTHING to do with the election. At around 3am this morning my sister, Mvuse, went into labor with her first pregnancy! So we are all on edge because that will be my parent's first biological grand child!!! It's a girl, that we know – but we're super excited to have her finally arrival. And what perfect timing, in time for the election results and on April Fool's Day no less!

do the math. see if you can work out how hypocritical the media can be in this democracy thing .... this is just one [respected] publication.... but the hypocrisy i find across the board not just in The Economist.

http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9032254
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10430289
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10328986
http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10328292
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9079815
http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10880693
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8929019

This Article is called the Fakebook Generation and recently appeared in the New York Times - rather interesting... I wonder how many young people can identify with Mathias's points, which i think are a very good reflection on our generation and emerging global on-line, interconnected culture!



Op-Ed Contributor
The Fakebook Generation

By ALICE MATHIAS
Published: October 6, 2007

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/06/opinion/06mathias.html?ref=opinion

Chicago

THE time-chugging Web site Facebook.com first appeared during my freshman year as the exclusive domain of college students. This spring, Facebook opened its pearly gates, enabling myself and other members of the class of ’07 to graduate from our college networks into those of the real world.

In no time at all, the Web site has convinced its rapidly assembling adult population that it is a forum for genuine personal and professional connections. Its founder, Mark Zuckerberg, has even declared his quest to chart a “social graph” of human relationships the way that cartographers once charted the world.

Just a warning: if you’re planning on following the corner of this map that’s been digitally doodled by my 659 Facebook friends, you are going to end up in the middle of nowhere. All the rhetoric about human connectivity misses the real reason this popular online study buddy has so distracted college students for the past four years.

Facebook did not become popular because it was a functional tool — after all, most college students live in close quarters with the majority of their Facebook friends and have no need for social networking. Instead, we log into the Web site because it’s entertaining to watch a constantly evolving narrative starring the other people in the library.

I’ve always thought of Facebook as online community theater. In costumes we customize in a backstage makeup room — the Edit Profile page, where we can add a few Favorite Books or touch up our About Me section — we deliver our lines on the very public stage of friends’ walls or photo albums. And because every time we join a network, post a link or make another friend it’s immediately made visible to others via the News Feed, every Facebook act is a soliloquy to our anonymous audience.

It’s all comedy: making one another laugh matters more than providing useful updates about ourselves, which is why entirely phony profiles were all the rage before the grown-ups signed in. One friend announced her status as In a Relationship with Chinese Food, whose profile picture was a carry-out box and whose personal information personified the cuisine of China.

We even make a joke out of how we know one another — claiming to have met in “Intro to Super Mario Re-enactments,” which I seriously doubt is a real course at Wesleyan, or to have lived together in a “spay and neuter clinic” instead of the dorm. Still, these humor bits often reveal more about our personalities and interests than any honest answers.

Facebook administrators have since exiled at least the flagrantly fake profiles, the Greta Garbos and the I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butters, in an effort to have the site grow up from a farce into the serious social networking tool promised to its new adult users, who earnestly type in their actual personal information and precisely label everyone they know as former co-workers or current colleagues, family members or former lovers.

But does this more reverent incarnation of Facebook actually enrich adult relationships? What do these constellations of work colleagues and long-lost friends amount to? An online office mixer? A reunion with that one other guy from your high school who has a Facebook profile? Oh! You get to see pictures of your former college sweetheart’s family! (Only depressing possibilities are coming to mind for some reason.)

My generation has long been bizarrely comfortable with being looked at, and as performers on the Facebook stage, we upload pictures of ourselves cooking dinner for our parents or doing keg stands at last night’s party; we are reckless with our personal information. But there is one area of privacy that we won’t surrender: the secrecy of how and whom we search.

A friend of mine was recently in a panic over rumors of a hacker application that would allow Facebook users to see who’s been visiting their profiles. She’d spent the day ogling a love interest’s page and was horrified at the idea that he knew she’d been looking at him. But there’s no way Facebook would allow such a program to exist: the site is popular largely because it enables us to indulge our gazes anonymously. (We might feel invulnerable in the spotlight, but we don’t want to be caught sitting in someone else’s audience.) If our ability to privately search is ever jeopardized, Facebook will turn into a ghost town.

Facebook purports to be a place for human connectivity, but it’s made us more wary of real human confrontation. When I was in college, people always warned against the dangers of “Facebook stalking” at a library computer — the person whose profile you’re perusing might be right behind you. Dwelling online is a cowardly and utterly enjoyable alternative to real interaction.

So even though Facebook offers an elaborate menu of privacy settings, many of my friends admit that the only setting they use is the one that prevents people from seeing that they are Currently Logged In. Perhaps we fear that the Currently Logged In feature advertises to everyone else that we (too!) are Currently Bored, Lustful, Socially Unfulfilled or Generally Avoiding Real Life.

For young people, Facebook is yet another form of escapism; we can turn our lives into stage dramas and relationships into comedy routines. Make believe is not part of the postgraduate Facebook user’s agenda. As more and more older users try to turn Facebook into a legitimate social reference guide, younger people may follow suit and stop treating it as a circus ring. But let’s hope not.

Alice Mathias is a 2007 graduate of Dartmouth.

Monday night - Dice K pitching for the Nation. Hungry fans ate and ate and ate - they ate their faces off on Monday night. Fat bastards. Sausage Cook grilled 340 snags - a season record on a tiny grill. And you know what else - Monday night's fans were the season's worst tippers too. They will live long in my memory as the most gluttonous and stingiest fans I've encountered. By contrast, on Tuesday night Sausage Cook grilled 240 sausages - and made double the tips! Who knew?

By the way, kudos to the couple of Finns I met last night - my first set of Fans from Finland; I just thought it was cute the way they asked for a hot dog. Usually the Japanese win the accent award, but this times the Finns win.

As far as the baseball was concerned, I thought the Tigers' manager Jim Leyland was going to pull bullpen guy Rooney in the ninth with one out to get. It almost looked like a shade of the panic shown by the Orioles manager on Sunday night. It turned out Leyland was taking a moment to reassure Rooney to get that last out.

To hyperlink a website in your TIGblog post, you have to input some HTML code to make it work.

The HTML code that you need is on the right - look right!

Replace [http://www.takingitglobal.org] with the actual website address you want to link to, and replace [A really cool website] with whatever you want the link to say (this doesn't affect where the link will lead to upon clicking, its only the text of the hyperlink). Note: make sure to include the http:// in the link part!

Follow these steps.

1. All hyperlinks need to begin with A and end with /A - surrounded by an opening arrow A and a closing arrow A. The closing arrow A needs a slash (/) before it. Notice the slash (/) before the second A. The slash closes the link code. Look at the image in the top right corner of this box for an example.

2. HREF"

3. http://www.takingitglobal.org">A really cool
website

4. closing arrow /A

And to have a link show up in the right-hand side menu bar, it first has to be one of your 'Favourite Links' within your profile. Go to 'edit profile' in the MyTIG tab, then click on 'About Me'. At the very bottom of the page, add your link. Make sure that your TIGblog settings allow your link to show up in your blog- but I see you already have some links up there, so that should be find. Good luck!

Best Regards,

Stephanie
TakingITGlobal Member Services

My latest newsletter for my firm - EDRG - is available at the link below.

May 2007 Newsletter

Local Economic Assessment Package (LEAP)

Sausage Cook Blog

Hello all,

This is my first post concerning this year's edition of the Red Sox. From my position grilling sausages inside the park, I have a good view of the mood of the fans, what's on everybody's mind, a few inside tit-bits from park employees and how things are shaping up in '07. I'll be posting from time to time as I'm inspired to comment on all things Red Sox.

Dice-K mania is definitely on the up and up. It's bringing a lot more Japanese fans to the games, tons of journalists, created a fan-club called the Dice-K Girls ( all very pretty from what I've seen so far), lots of dubious sushi in the bars around the ground, and a cautious sense of optimism from serious baseball people. Red Sox Nation wants to love Dice-K, but there is a sense that he has to earn the love of the Nation - it won't be granted unconditionally until the results are posted. The jury's still out on Dice-K, despite two high quality starts already in (April 15).

The park feels more crowded inside - partly 'cos fans are hanging out below the stands to stay warm, eat and drink - and partly due to the extra seats installed along the right field roof. There's a new little stand up there; the owners try to squeeze more people in each year.

With three washouts already on the books, the latter part of the season looks to be filled with double-headers. You have to feel sorry for Seattle, losing a complete three-series in Cleveland, and then one with the Sox last week. Anaheim is copping it over this weekend. Playing a doubleheader at home must be a huge advantage when it comes time to play.

Alright - that's it for this weekend. There will probably be no game in the morning - and no Marathon either. A good day to stay in bed or head to the warm office job.
Seeya,
Sausage Cook

It's ridiculous how the US justifies its agricultural policy at the
expense of other peoples' livelihoods.

nothing really new in this article, but it's good to see this issue
getting media attention.



From http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/06/africa/web0406-zambia.php

For the hungry in Zambia, U.S. law may hinder urgent food aid
By Cecilia W. Dugger
Friday, April 6, 2007


MULONDO, Zambia: Traveling to school in wobbly dugout canoes, Munalula
Muhau and her three cousins, 7 and 8 year olds whose parents died of
AIDS, held onto just one possession: battered tin bowls to receive
their daily ration of gruel.

Within weeks, those rations, provided by the United Nations World Food
Program, will run out for them and 500,000 other paupers, including
thousands of people wasted by AIDS who are being treated with
American-financed drugs that make them healthier - and ravenously
hungry.

"Not to put too fine a point on it," said Jeffrey Stringer, an
American doctor who runs a non-profit group treating 50,000 Zambians
with AIDS, "but it will result in the death of some patients."

Hoping to forestall such a dire outcome, the World Food Program made
an urgent appeal in February for cash donations so it could buy corn
from Zambia's own bountiful harvest, piled in towering stacks in the
warehouses of the capital, Lusaka.

But United States law requires that virtually all donated food be
grown in America and shipped at great expense across oceans, mostly on
vessels that fly American flags and employ American crews - a process
that typically takes four to six months.

For a third year, the Bush administration, which has pushed to make
foreign aid more efficient, is trying to change the law to allow the
United States to use up to a quarter of the budget of its main food
aid program to buy food in developing countries during emergencies.
The proposal has run into stiff opposition from a potent alliance of
agribusiness, shipping and charitable groups with deep financial
stakes in the current food aid system.

Oxfam, the international aid group, and other proponents of the Bush
proposal, say it would enable the United States to feed more people
more quickly, while helping fight poverty by buying the crops of
peasants in poor countries.

The U.S. Agency for International Development estimated that if
Congress adopted the Bush proposal, the United States could feed at
least a million more people and save 50,000 more lives.

But Congress quickly killed the plan in each of the past two years,
cautioning that untying food aid from domestic interest groups would
weaken the commitment that has made the United States by far the
largest food aid donor in a world where 850 million go hungry.

Representative Tom Lantos, Democrat of California and chairman of the
House Foreign Relations Committee, warned last year at a food aid
conference in Washington that decoupling food aid from American
maritime and agribusiness interests "is beyond insane."

"It is a mistake of gigantic proportions," he said, "because support
for such a program will vanish overnight, overnight."

But James Kunder, acting deputy administrator of the U.S. Agency for
International Development, said in an interview that the
administration proposal - which would affect less than half of one
percent of American agricultural exports - would not undercut American
interests.

"The burden of proof is on producers and shippers to show this is
going to significantly damage their interests," he said, "because we
can provide compelling evidence that allowing local procurement is
going to save lives by speeding up delivery of supplies."

Here in Zambia, population 11 million, more than a million children
are already orphaned, mostly because AIDS killed their parents. Life
expectancy has plunged to 38 years, and countless sickened adults,
unable to work, can no longer feed their families.

On a recent day, patients on U.S.-financed AIDS drugs and their
families streamed into a food distribution point at the Lewanika
Hospital in Mongu town. Already, as the World Food Program's stocks
have run low, rations have been almost halved. Some were so hungry
that they scooped handfuls of corn-soy powder into their mouths
without even adding water to make porridge.

One of the patients, Annie Mubita, a 32-year-old mother of six, said
her strength is returning, and so is her appetite, which had shriveled
when she was sick. Mubita assumes her children are also HIV positive,
she said, but has not had them tested because if they, too, go on the
drugs, they will be as hungry as she is.

"If the children have an appetite like me, the food won't last even
two weeks," she said. If the rations end, she said, "me and my
children will die."

Kandundu Litia, a 12-year-old orphan with AIDS, also fears a cut-off
of food. Before the rations began, she said, her aunt, uncle and
cousins would eat when she was at school. "There was none left when I
got home," she whispered, her head dropping. The short shock of hair
springing from her head still had the telltale reddish tint of the
malnourished.

David Stevenson, who heads the World Food Program's Zambia office and
has worked for the organization in Africa for 15 years, through war
and drought, says he has never seen a crisis on the scale of what AIDS
and drought have wrought in Zambia. He worries as supplies dwindle.

With cash donations, the World Food Program could get Zambian corn to
the hungry in a month, far faster than the United States could
typically act.

The cash would also stretch further than in-kind food. In recent
years, the World Food Program has procured 75 percent more food for
Zambia, Kenya and Uganda by buying corn grown in those countries,
rather than shipping American food, according to Michigan State
University agricultural economists who studied crop and shipping data.

There is hope that Zambia, a relatively stable democracy, can become a
bread basket in a region roiled by conflict, disease and economic
collapse, at least in years when it is not devastated by drought.

In lean years, the World Food Program shuts down its buying operation
here for fear of driving up the prices of corn, the main staple,
beyond the reach of poor consumers. It imports food instead.

But during bumper harvests, the World Food Program has become a major
buyer of Zambian-grown corn. Since 2001, it has bought more than $1
billion worth of food in some of the poorest countries on earth.

For farmers like Catherine Hangama, 36, that money makes all the
difference. She works a small plot with her husband in the village of
Nakandyoli in Mumbwa district. For the first time last year they sold
a small surplus of maize for $53 to the Zambian government's Food
Reserve Agency, one of the World Food Programs biggest suppliers here.

That money bought soap and paid for uniforms and fees to send three
children to school. This year, she and her husband have planted more
and hope to sell 15 bags after this year's harvest.

"If I don't plow well, the children won't be able to go to school,"
she explained, with one twin baby at her breast and the other on her
back.

What Hangama earns is a pittance compared with the billions at stake
for the main players in American food aid.

Over the past three years, the same four companies and their
subsidiaries - Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill, Bunge and Cal Western
Packaging - have sold the American government more than half the $2.2
billion in food for Food for Peace, the largest food aid program, and
two smaller programs, according to the Department of Agriculture.

Shipping companies were paid $1.3 billion over the same period to move
the food aid overseas, the USDA figures show.

And nonprofit groups received over $500 million in donated American
food, which they sold at market rates in developing countries to raise
money for antipoverty programs, according to U.S. AID and a recent
study by Emmy Simmons, a retired U.S. AID official.

Agribusiness and shipping groups vigorously oppose the Bush
administration proposal to buy food in developing countries with cash,
which they argue is more likely to be stolen. They say American food
is safer and of higher quality and that the government can speed
delivery by storing it in warehouses around the world.

And they defend the idea that federal spending should benefit American
business and farming interests, as well as the hungry. Without support
from such interest groups, food aid budgets from Congress would
whither, they say.

"It would be at extreme risk of being diminished," said Paul Green, a
consultant to the North American Millers' Association, a trade
association for the milling industry that counts Archer Daniels
Midland, Bunge and Horizon Milling, a joint venture of Cargill and CHS
among its members.

Gloria Tosi, a lobbyist and immediate past president of the American
Maritime Congress, an association of U.S.-flag ship owners, agreed.
"There's no constituency for cash," she said.

Many charitable groups involved in food aid share that worry, and also
warn that a badly managed program to buy food in poor countries could
drive up food prices and worsen hunger.

The Alliance for Food Aid, 14 nonprofit groups involved in
distributing and selling American food aid overseas, maintains that
the Bush proposal is too ambitious and advocate a modest pilot
program.

"Do a demonstration," said Robert Zachritz, a senior policy adviser at
World Vision. "Does it work? Then you can go from there."

For now, the World Food Program is hoping other rich nations or
individuals will donate cash to keep rations flowing for the half
million needy Zambiams, among them Manaluna and 135,000 children fed
through community schools.

The pupils in this grass hut schoolhouse are from families so poor
they cannot afford the flip flops and $6 uniforms required to attend
public schools.

Beatrice Nyambe, 64, a retired public school teacher who serves
without pay as principal, worries that when food from school runs out,
most of the children will go back to day work in the fields so they
can buy a few handfuls of corn meal to fill their bellies.

Munalula, whose own mother was an untrained teacher before AIDS took
her, is the best student in the school and wants to be a teacher as
well. She helps her cousins with their homework, scratching out sums
in the dirt with a stick.

At school, she and 50 other children in the dirt-floored classroom in
the village of Nalusheke fell silent but for the smacking sounds they
made eating a boiled mush of American bulgur wheat. Each bowlful,
topped with split peas from Canada, cost 12 cents. The bulgur came
from sacks emblazoned with the words, "Gift of the People of the
United States of America."

Munalula and her barefoot cousins scraped their bowls clean, savoring
each unsweetened bite. But some children barely touched theirs.

Sisi Negenda, a six-year-old with little braids, shyly explained why.
She has a younger sister, 3, and several orphaned relatives at home.
She said she wanted to share with them. She carried off the bowl,
still heavy with porridge, as though it were a precious, breakable
object.

http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=304054&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__africa/

US reveals its efforts to topple Mugabe

The United States admitted openly for the first time on Thursday that
it was actively working to undermine Robert Mugabe, the President of
Zimbabwe.

Although officially Washington does not support regime change, a US
state department report published on Thursday acknowledged that it was
supporting opposition politicians in the country and others critical
of Mugabe.

The State Department also admitted sponsoring events aimed at
"discrediting" statements made by Mugabe's government.

The report will be seized on by Mugabe, who has repeatedly claimed
that the US and Britain are seeking regime change.

The comments are contained in the state department's fifth annual
Supporting Human Rights and Democracy report. It sets out in detail
actions the US government is taking worldwide to promote human rights.

The report has had a troubled history. Three years ago publication had
to be hastily delayed when details emerged about US human rights
abuses at Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad.

The US, compared with the United Kingdom, was initially slow to
criticise Mugabe, but has since adopted an increasingly critical
stance, most recently at the Human Rights Council in Geneva last
month.

In an unusual piece of candour, the State Department report says: "To
encourage greater public debate on restoring good governance in
[Zimbabwe], the United States sponsored public events that presented
economic and social analyses discrediting the government's excuses for
its failed policies.

"To further strengthen pro-democracy elements, the US government
continued to support the efforts of the political opposition, the
media and civil society to create and defend democratic space and to
support persons who criticised the government."

While the US and British governments still insist their aim in
Zimbabwe is not regime change, they have been encouraging the main
opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangarai, who was beaten up last month.

The report says that while Zimbabwe is nominally democratic, the
government of Mugabe is "now authoritarian".

At a press conference to launch the document, the Assistant Secretary
of State, Barry Lowenkren, said the US goal was not necessarily regime
change but to create a level playing field for all parties. He added
that where there was a country with record levels of inflation, denial
of basic human rights and other abuses, the US had a duty to speak out
so that people in Zimbabwe knew they had support.

Asked whether US efforts to promote human rights worldwide were being
undermined by the hundreds of of people being held at Guantánamo,
Lowenkren insisted the issue was not raised by non-governmental groups
at conferences he attended and participants were more interested in
what the US could do to help them in their own countries.

He also denied the report was softer on authoritarian governments
allied to the US, such as Belarus, than to Zimbabwe.

Lowenkren said $66-million was being spent on promotion of democracy
and human rights in Iran, about half of which was devoted to
broadcasts from outside the country and the rest spent on support for
non-governmental exchanges, cultural exchanges such as the visit by
the US wrestling team and a Persian internet service.

The report is critical of Russia, noting the killing of the journalist
Anna Politkovskaya.

It says: "Political pressure on the judiciary, corruption and
selectivity in enforcement of the law, continuing media restrictions
and self-censorship, and government pressure on opposition political
parties eroded the public accountability of government leaders.

"Security forces were involved in additional significant human rights problems."

University considers revoking degree
Meanwhile, the University of Massachusetts (UMass) is considering
revoking an honourary doctorate of law it awarded Mugabe in 1986.

Some students at the Boston campus have circulated a petition asking
for the university to revoke the degree, and officials say they are
considering doing so.

"Mugabe's actions during the past decade show he's fallen from being a
good citizen of the world," said Shauna Murray, a graduate student who
helped circulate the petition. "He has a track record of suppressing
basic human rights like free speech and the right to protest, and that
doesn't represent what students here stand for."

The issue also has surfaced at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland
and Michigan State University, which gave Mugabe honourary degrees in
1984 and 1990, respectively.

Terry Denbow, a Michigan State spokesperson, said administrators have
received letters requesting that Mugabe's degree be rescinded.

"There have been discussions, but I know of no formal process for
rescinding the degree," Denbow said.

Officials at Edinburgh said the issue of Mugabe's degree was under review.

According to the UMass policy, honourary degrees are handed out to
people "of great accomplishment and high ethical standards".

Recipients have included former South African president Nelson
Mandela, former United Nations secretary general Kofi Annan, author
Toni Morrison and comedian and educator Bill Cosby.

Once lauded as a model for African democracy, Mugabe has tried to
crush opposition to his power and has threatened to expel Western
envoys for criticising his government.

The country's Roman Catholic bishops said last month that health,
education and other public services "have all but disintegrated".

"Mugabe has become a scourge of his people and a scourge of Africa,"
said Michael Thelwell, a professor in the UMass Afro-American studies
department.

But Thelwell and others cautioned against revoking the degree just to
appease Mugabe's critics.

"The task of intellectuals is to seek the truth, not to be swayed by
pressures of the moment," said Bill Strickland, a UMass politics
professor. "If they take away the degree, they have to look at all the
facts surrounding what is happening in Zimbabwe and not simply blame
just one person." - Guardian Unlimited (c) Guardian News and Media
Limited 2007, Sapa-AP

i never thought i'd say this about an article from the Daily Mail or Mail on Sunday from Britain - but this is a great article :-) it's so well written that i don't think i need a comment to contextualize it.

enjoy it!



http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2007/03/fake_caring_abo.html
Fake caring about Zimbabwe

Read Peter Hitchens only in The Mail on Sunday

Do I care about Zimbabwe? Should you? Every few months, the British media, together with a certain number of politicians, make a fuss about the misery now afflicting that sad country. They sympathise with its ill-fed, oppressed people and with the leaders of its opposition movements. Pictures and reports are published of the horrible beatings given to those who dare to oppose the country's tyrant, Robert Mugabe. The BBC makes a great to-do about how it is banned from Zimbabwe but still manages to get information out.


Nobody can read these accounts without a feeling of outrage and a desire to do or say something. But in my view this is in fact a selfish impulse, unless you are prepared to act personally in some way that will improve matters. We become inflamed with righteous anger about these things, only to prove to ourselves that we are nice, civilised people. In truth, we have absolutely no intention of doing anything about it.


And if we did, it would probably fail. I don't know how many of those who call for intervention in Zimbabwe could find it on a map, but the fact that the country has no coastline could present a small problem to anyone who wanted to invade it. In any case, this is all futile stuff.


The disastrous and irreparable defeat of British arms by the Japanese in Singapore in 1942 finished the British empire for all time, though it would take a little while for this truth to become obvious. India went first, and, after a pause ended by the Suez fiasco, the rest followed soon afterwards. Not only could we not afford the empire any more. Our reputation for invincibility had been smashed by Japan, and we had lost the psychological advantage we had gained in the 18th century and had reinforced by our merciless crushing of the Indian mutiny in 1857.


All over Asia, the Japanese had been careful to see that captured British officers and soldiers were visible to their former colonial subjects, reduced to the status of humiliated, suppliant slaves. The effects of this were enormous and permanent in Asia, and word spread to Africa quite quickly.


Britain, which during the war against Hitler was understandably paying less attention to the Empire than it would otherwise have done, was slow to realise how much things had changed. But by the end of the 1950s, its leaders decided it could not afford an African colonial empire.


Its influence in the area has been in decline ever since, replaced by the USA, China, Cuba and - to a surprisingly small extent - Russia. The problem with Zimbabwe, formerly Southern Rhodesia, was that it was already semi-independent and self-governing in any case, with a white minority that did not wish to lose its privileged way of life because of Britain's decline. It was very difficult for a British government, trying to soothe the feelings of the United Nations and to scrub away all traces of unfashionable colonial supremacy, to force the Southern Rhodesians into giving up their power. They had good reason to suspect that, when they did, they would swiftly lose their pampered way of life.


So London devoted much of the late 1960s and all the 1970s to trying to force a settlement there that would enable the British government to avoid all future responsibility and appear in tune with modern thinking. This ended in 1979, under the Thatcher government but endorsed by the whole British establishment, with the Lancaster House agreement.


This handed Zimbabwe to the sinister Robert Mugabe - mainly because he was too politically and militarily strong to be denied. there were better men available, but they were not strong enough, and the rigged elections which followed confirmed the Lancaster House settlement


The history of that process is long, complicated and not specially honourable on any side. It involves, as so often, the curious paradox that the campaigners for 'freedom' turned out to be tyrants themselves once they had power, and that life under the 'colonial oppressors' was in many ways more prosperous and peaceful than it was to become later. You do not have to be a sympathiser of Ian Smith, the leader of the Rhodesian Front and the chief opponent of majority rule, to recognise that Robert Mugabe has done terrible damage to the country and its people. You do not have to be a partisan of Robert Mugabe to recognise that Smith's Southern Rhodesia was a state based on racial discrimination, that could not survive and should not have survived as it was. Was this unavoidable? Possibly.

Mugabeepa2102_228x197

Intelligent British politicians and diplomats knew, or at least suspected back in the 1950s and 1960s that the end of empire might well mean severe suffering for the people involved. Most of them probably privately admitted that - as in India in 1947 - this country simply no longer had the strength to rule, and that it must make the best of a very bad bargain by trying to leave behind as much democracy, law and freedom, and as strong an economy, as it could manage.


Many of the British colonial administrators, in Africa and Asia, were genuinely devoted men who had worked very hard to bring incorruptible justice, education and prosperity. Such men did all that they could to leave good things behind - and I am always greatly moved by two legacies that seem to have lasted specially well.


Even where elections are rigged and parliaments fail, and civil servants are corrupt, it is amazing how often African judges defy the new tyrants of Africa, releasing political prisoners and halting torture. And it is equally amazing how often African journalists continue to print the truth, despite the very real danger of torture and death, or the smashing of their presses. Free speech and law, interestingly enough, may be more important and enduring than democracy in securing justice and liberty.


What practical conclusions can we draw from this? First, that our power in these parts of the world is gone for good, and it is just posturing to imagine that a protest in London will make any difference there. Comrade Mugabe's response that his critics could 'go hang' is rude and brusque, but also an accurate estimate of how things stand. He doesn't care what we think, and what's more he doesn't even pretend to care.


That's embarrassing of him. We would much prefer an expression of concern, some sign that we matter, even if don't. In fact, his taunting of us for our powerlessness may be his greatest offence against those interventionist liberals who like to imagine that a tough leading article in the Guardian will make Harare tremble.


Second, that the worst crimes of empires often come at the finish of them. Having persuaded people to rely on our power and our ability to protect them, we abruptly change our minds and disappear over the horizon, leaving them with a parliament building, a flag, an anthem, several unresolved territorial disputes and (quite often) a Mugabe figure who, if not very pleasant, is at least strong enough to take over the state.


This is, so far as I have been able to work out, the most powerful argument against empire - which in its British form was often highly benevolent so long as it existed. It has to end, and when it does, there is almost always tragedy. People often say, without thinking, that the winding up of the British empire was a civilised and creditable episode. I completely disagree. the scuttle from India, 60 years ago this year, and the smaller but more poisonous scuttle from Palestine soon afterwards, are among the most shameful episodes in British history. Our departure from Africa was not much better. The USA, and its ring of loyal client states in the former Soviet Union, from the Caucasus to the Baltic, should beware of a comparable bout of shameful departures, probably in the next 30 years, when Washington loses interest in this part of the world and Moscow reasserts its ancient dominance.


Third, that other countries do not exist to provide broad open spaces in which we can exercise our constipated, under-used consciences. It is incredibly easy, and rather enjoyable, to rail against tyrants and injustice a long way away. The tyrants cannot get at you, and if you travel to these places on a Western passport, the worst you are likely to face is expulsion. But it is so much harder, and less glamorous, to challenge the power-grabbers and would-tyrants, and petty but persistent injustices, in your own home country - where your targets can take revenge.


Fourth, that intervention cannot permanently alter the balance of power in foreign lands. Unless you are prepared to stay forever, the 'improvements' you achieve will not survive your departure by more than a few years. Worse, people who trusted you and relied on you will be left to dreadful fates.


Caring about a foreign injustice is futile unless you have the means to express your concern through effective, sustained action. It is an impulse designed to make the carer feel good to himself, and look good in the eyes of others, rather than to do good. So the honest answer, for most of us, is that we do not really care. But who dares say so? To say in a public place that you do not think Britain should intervene in Zimbabwe is to court shocked disapproval. Yet those who say they think we should intervene are applauded - even if they have no intention of doing anything.

All comments are moderated by the community team. Please contact community@dailymailonline.co.uk with any queries about moderation

i found these two articles in South Africa's Sunday Times to be
somewhat refreshing and worth reading as opposed to most of the
sensational pieces floating over the internet and other newspapers.

Complicated times over here - but we're living through them... somehow!



From http://www.sundaytimes.co.za/PrintEdition/Insight/Article.aspx?id=414960

Peering through Zimbabwe's layers of deception

18 March 2007
Mohau Pheko


I have become jaded over the Zimbabwe issue.

I've been reading Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins,
which describes how highly paid professionals lurk in the shadows to
cheat countries around the world out of trillions of dollars. When
they emerge, their modus operandi includes overthrowing heads of
state, rigged elections, manufactured terrorist attacks, payoffs, sex,
murder and extortion.

It has me wondering whether recent events in Harare are not the
makings of an over- productive mastermind trying , through make-
believe scenarios, to evoke sympathy and outrage for what may actually
be seeds of deception.

Frankly, the reported situation in Zimbabwe has become the perfect
script for a spy movie.

On October 12 2005, Morgan Tsvangirai precipitated a fatal split in
his six-year-old opposition when he stormed out of a Movement for
Democratic Change meeting, prompting the faction led by the party's
deputy secretary, Gibson Sibanda, to suspend him .

In return, Tsvangirai supporters suspended Sibanda and members of his
faction. Stunned by their party leader's dishonesty and dictatorial
tendencies, the MDC found itself divided.

It has to be said that Tsvangirai's bizarre behaviour that day left
many formerly enthusiastic supporters baffled. Why, some question, was
he committed to boycotting the election? Why would he not countenance
an alternative plan? Why was he dogmatic and unyielding in his view,
prepared to trample on the MDC's constitution, lie to the media and
even declare to the national council, "If the party breaks, so be it"?
Why has he not done anything since to reconcile the two opposing
factions? Could a secret meeting with Zanu-PF kingmaker Solomon Mujuru
— husband of vice-president Joyce Mujuru — have changed his mind?

In the tradition of the espionage movie, conspiracy theories abound.
The Gibson Sibanda faction has been accused of secretly conniving with
President Thabo Mbeki to undermine Tsvangirai. On the other hand,
there are those who believe that President Robert Mugabe and
Tsvangirai are colluding on a blueprint that is mutually beneficial.
There are accusations that Tsvangirai has been colluding with Zanu- PF
in a plot by Mujuru's husband, betraying the MDC by pulling out of
senate elections in exchange for undisclosed political rewards.

If one links these events, recent statements by various leaders of the
ruling Zanu-PF make perfect sense. The government of Zimbabwe declares
its innocence in recent events by implicating opposition forces within
the MDC for the latest calamity. In essence, it is said the opposition
came with pangas to the recent march to deal with each other. In the
interest of public safety, the police had to intervene to stop the
altercation.

In the mind of many, this ongoing war within the opposition in
Zimbabwe is a perfect cover for the country's Central Intelligence
Organisation to meticulously deepen divisions within the opposition,
and undermine any credible opposition or threat to the ruling party.

The government's response to recent events is consistent with the
words of Emmerson Mnangagwa, shortly after the deployment of the Fifth
Brigade in Mata beleland North in 1983. As minister of State Security
responsible for the CIO, he stated: "Blessed are they who will follow
the path of the government law, for their days on earth shall be
increased. But woe to those who will choose the path of collaboration
with dissidents for we will certainly shorten their stay on earth."

In trying to discover who is culpable in the Zimbabwe crisis, Mugabe's
statement is instructive: "I would like to see an African country that
has gone this length in those directions ... abiding by the rule of
law, accepting the reign of human rights and establishing democracy.
You also have nongovernmental organisations here telling them [the
British government] the opposite of what we are. In the meantime, they
are enjoying the freedom of organising our people without hindrance."

It is clear from this that Mugabe perceives accusations levelled
against his government as baseless and unfounded.

As the plot thickens, the sad ending is that after 26 years as
distinguished architects of their own liberation, Zimbabweans pin
their hopes on the retirement of one man. Even more disappointing,
conversations in Zimbabwe have centred on dubious characters for
leadership. It is time Zimbabwe ended the personality cult in
politics. It is time to pause and not blindly follow popular and
charismatic personalities who have already shown that they are
seriously flawed as leaders. For outsiders to support and intervene in
Zimbabwe, solidarity needs to be built on a vision of a new Zimbabwe.

The lesson to be learnt from Zimbabwe is that a construction of
democracy, where the majority vote and the minority elites govern,
does not lend itself to participatory democracy where citizens can
recall their leaders. Perhaps the real lesson is, presidents do not
assume power through an exam. They are the product of the choices made
by the governed.

It is incumbent upon all Zimbabweans to elevate the level of debate to
provide a vision of their new society. This will reinforce solidarity
in the region in such a way that those who find themselves in wrong
jobs after 26 years of rule will be conscious of the pressure to step
aside in the interest of a new national vision and thereby end the
seeds of deception.

----------------------------------------------------------------

From http://www.sundaytimes.co.za/PrintEdition/Insight/Article.aspx?id=415095

Inaction lets Zimbabwe crisis play itself out

18 March 2007
Francis Kornegay


Second opinion Francis Kornegay says SA and the region have little
choice but to let Robert Mugabe's country stew

The arrest and brutal detention of Movement for Democratic Change
leader Morgan Tsvangirai and his colleagues have refocused the
spotlight on South Africa's "quiet diplomacy" towards Zimbabwe.

The assumption, as reflected in Mondli Makhanya's recent commentary
"The joke will be on us if we don't wake up to Zimbabwe's pain" (March
4), is that diplomacy is not working, though what may be the real
source of frustration is Pretoria's lack of effective public diplomacy
regarding Zimbabwe.

This becomes especially apparent during episodes of overt repression
as witnessed over the past week, though the South African government
did counsel Harare on the need to observe the rule of law and the
rights of all concerned.

If diplomacy has failed, perhaps a closer look at what is unfolding in
Zimbabwe is in order, accompanied by suggestions of what more South
Africa and/or the Southern African Development Community (SADC) should
undertake.

At the same time, it is useful to note observations about the recent
Franco-African summit to which Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe was
not invited and at which his fellow heads of state made not a peep.
The loud and clear message from their silence was that they had
"washed their hands" of and were not willing to go to bat for their
tarnished icon.

Silence can be golden and, in the Taoist tradition of "dynamic
inaction", the best approach to certain intractable situations. Here,
South Africa and the SADC are not alone. Witness the equally lengthy
stalemates between China-North Korea, the Association of Southeast
Asian Nations and Burma or even the US and Cuba.

Given the fact that the military option is ruled out and cutting off
electricity and a border blockade are equally unpalatable for what
these would convey to our neighbours — the return of the neighbourhood
bully — a protracted crisis-management containment strategy has been
the only realistic option.

Pretoria has gone the extra mile in searching for a negotiated
internal settlement to Zimbabwe's crisis, to no avail. As this
diplomacy interacted with the dynamics within and between the ruling
Zanu-PF and the opposition MDC, there was less and less scope within
which to work such a settlement. Both parties became internally
divided. But these internal divisions, especially within Zanu-PF, are
what may eventually bear fruit as the country's economic meltdown,
underneath the apparently loosening grip of Mugabe, seems to be
pushing the party's rival factions towards the exit as they search for
a way out of Zimbabwe's predicament.

Once the negotiating phase of quiet diplomacy had run its course, the
only thing Pretoria and the SADC could do was sit back and, in effect,
let Zimbabwe stew in its own juices.

South Africa and the SADC must prepare for whatever emerges from this
current "dynamic inaction" phase of quiet diplomacy, which allows
Zanu-PF's internal contradictions to play themselves out towards the
long-awaited "endgame".

As a result of the growing flood of desperate Zimbabweans streaming
into Zambia — not to mention South Africa, Botswana and Malawi —
Zambian Foreign Minister Mundia Sikatana has suggested that the next
SADC summit in August take up the Zimbabwean crisis. This may signal
the need for a more highly profiled diplomacy on Pretoria's part.

Sikatana's suggestion that the SADC facilitate dialogue between
Zimbabwe and the European Union could complement some of the
diplomatic outreach being reportedly attempted by some among Zanu-PF's
divided elite. His suggestion would also be in line with the
International Crisis Group's recommendation that Pretoria engage the
EU and the US in devising a strategy to resolve Zimbabwe's crisis.

Rather than hammering Pretoria without knowing all the facts about
what is and is not happening between South Africa and Zimbabwe, the
media need to focus on breaking developments, with the aim of
stimulating constructive dialogue on Zimbabwe's future and the role
that South Africa and others should play to ensure an internally and
regionally stabilising post-Mugabe transition.


Francis Kornegay is senior researcher in international affairs at the
Centre for Policy Studies