The physical and financial condition of the institution tells its own story.

The journey from 1980 to date calls for doctors and historians to locate the reasons why after 32 years independence it would be deemed fit to use the route chosen by the DPM to not only raise awareness about the challenges faced by the factories of knowledge building but also to expose the fact that a public good now requires the strategic response of private benefactors.

On 23 April 2012, I received an email from the DPM with two attachments and a request to complete and submit a pledge form before the 28 April.  This was followed by a phone call from the DPM requesting me to circulate the email to my circle.  He implored on me to attend.

I did indicate to the DPM that only opportunists will attempt to selectively deal with issues instead of locating the UZ challenge in a larger context that has seen the increase of the frontiers of poverty, institutional decline, human capital externalisation, economic, social and financial decay.

I reminded the DPM about the state and condition of the employees of SMM Holdings Private Limited (“SMM”) and the implications of them learning through the media that their predicament is less important to me than the condition of the UZ.

I had a lengthy chat with the DPM about the need for state actors to focus on what matters in the business of building nations and viable states and also the importance of sharing the same platform at SMM instead of the UZ only to highlight and showcase what is wrong with Zimbabwe.

As a former UZ student, I understand why it was important to use informal channels to raise funds but also I was concerned and remain so that the predicament that the UZ finds itself may be used for political expediency by unscrupulous politicians who see the looming elections as an opportunity to improve their political fortunes.

The fact that the UZ like many other institutions finds itself in a position that the state is too broke to intervene must be a source of concern that should go beyond the institutional challenges to a higher level that will assist in identifying the kind of values, principles, and worldview that are required to create sustainable and viable institutions.

On this front, I got the distinct impression that the DPM was more concerned about my role in making the event successful than in using the opportunity to raise awareness about the role played by state actors in limiting opportunities and also in reducing the fiscal space within which to address the national challenges.

Indeed, I got more phone calls from the DPM all directed at establishing how much money I would be able to raise.  It became clear to me that any policy prescription I would suggest would not be listened to.

Notwithstanding, I did indicate that I would be prepared to attend if and only if the resolution of the SMM issue would be part of the agenda.  He responded saying that he had met with H.E. President Mugabe and the matter of SMM was discussed but he could not brief me on the phone.

With that assurance, I agreed to participate.  I brought some business colleagues with me to Zimbabwe.  We arrived in Harare on Friday afternoon.  We then proceeded to check in at the hotel and immediately afterwards we met the DPM at his office.

I naturally wanted to better understand the thinking of government on SMM and tried in vain to link the fate of SMM to the UZ challenge.

The DPM made the observation that the private sector led by Messrs. Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, and Warren Buffett, was leading the charge for business players to plough back into society and the same should apply to African businessmen.

In response, I said to him that if Gates and Buffett were born in Zimbabwe they would have been persecuted leaving no room for them to engage in philanthropy.

I pointed out that it is not accidental that America has produced billionaires because its founding fathers believed in the American idea that would allow for social and economic mobility of human beings.

However, it is the Zimbabwean idea that the DPM as a state actor should be seized with.  He time and effort should be devoted not at robbing private individuals in the name of a misunderstood concept of philanthropy but at creating conditions that would limit the encroachment of the state in private matters.

Philanthropy by construction and performance is a voluntary endeavour whereas the state by design and performance is based on a social contract that permits state actors to collect income generated by others involuntarily.

Zimbabwe underpinned by right policies is capable of producing its own billionaires.  No slogans or campaigns to make those who have been fortunate to come through the neck of a bottle feel guilty at their acquired stations in life will make Zimbabwe a winning nation.

When I was a student at the UZ, the conditions were better than they are now.  The institution was inherited from the colonial past and it must be accepted even by the DPM that the post-colonial experience should have produced a financially viable and sustainable institution.

Regrettably this is not the case and attempts to take a minimalist approach are nothing but a betrayal of the worldview that informed the liberations struggle.

The target was to raise US$10 million but the outcome exposes the fallacy of the thinking behind the initiative that funds are resident in the addresses of Zimbabweans to chip in as directed by state actors.

I did attend the dinner but the format and the participants confirmed my cynicism that the new crop of politicians may not be interested in making Zimbabwe the country of hope and promise.  Rather the interest may be in personal brand building using other people’s money.

The guest of honour was former President H.E. Mbeki and his intervention was sober and mature.  He made the point that to approach the challenge of the UZ through the instrumentality of philanthropy was to miss the location of higher education in the realm of a public good that ought to attract the attention of public policy practitioners.

He called on Zimbabweans to take responsibility for the outcomes they wish to see because ultimately the future of Africa is in the hands of builders.

It was ironic that H.E. Mbeki whose contribution to the struggle and post-colonial nation and state building is well established could be a guest of honour at a function themed on philanthropy.

His contribution to the conversation led some of us to join in with Chiyangwa on an initiative to build a chapel for the University.

The genius of Chiyangwa’s response that our consortium should contribute the building rather than the case is informed by the attitude of many state actors to give mineral rights and contracts to foreign players and when need arises for philanthropic intervention look to black entrepreneurs for support.

H.E. Mbeki made a significant contribution that the use of the word philanthropy must end and be properly replaced by interest based intervention.

The people who benefit from mining must show cause why they would want the metallurgy department of the UZ to be closed when a careful understanding of the supply chain suggests that the beneficiary of the human capital building is industry.

At the end of the dinner, I was satisfied that H.E. Mbeki had brought sanity to the process and hopefully we can follow Chiyangwa’s lead in starting a new conversation that will hopefully answer the question of why the DPM would want to campaign for the UZ and yet have amnesia on the plight of the forgotten workers at SMM and more importantly want me to contribute to the UZ when the very assets from which I could have contributed are in the hands of a government of which he plays a key part in shaping and defining its character.

Author: Mutumwa Mawere

No case demonstrates the challenge of constructing an understanding of what needs to be done to bridge the wealth gap and building an inclusive and cohesive society than the issue of economic empowerment and the role of state intervention in reducing the frontiers of poverty.

In an article entitled: “Zimbabwe — All for minerals, metals and land”, Nathaniel Manheru provides a compelling case that links minerals, metals and land to the developmental prospects of Zimbabwe.

It is significant that the role of human beings is relegated to the supremacy of God’s creation in advancing the cause of human prosperity.

There is no doubt that the future will be kind to Manheru for sharing his worldview generously and revealing the kind of thinking that informs the choices and actions of the post-colonial regime.

When calls against regime change are made it must be understood that the state actors believe that they alone have the compass and know where to take the country but in reality the truth lies elsewhere.

This worldview sees capital as necessarily evil and using this construction, state actors arrogate to themselves the right to think and act for citizens.

No one can doubt the importance of minerals; metals and land in human civilization and any right to such assets can and does confer on the holder significant wealth only if certain conditions are observed.

The importance of the rule of law and respect of the rights of man to their property cannot be understated for it is true that the existence of minerals and land does not in and out of itself produce income but effort is required to transform minerals into metals and then into cash.

The need for capital to produce income is and should be obvious to all but what is now being suggested is that predetermined outcomes can be sustainably engineered through the intermediation of the state.

In taking a point on Hon. Biti’s observations when he recently addressed the Atlantic Council in the USA asserting that the indigenisation law is absurd, not well thought, and that due process was not being followed and there appears to him that there is a need to go back to the drawing board and say how the state can empower its people; Manheru responded by saying: “We are very incisive in showing why we should not be empowered under the present law which all parties and all MPs, Biti included, supported and passed.  Was the easy passage a way of blessing a weak law in order to delay or even defeat empowerment through fatal litigation?  We saw this at work in the land saga, with certain elements deliberately inserting fatal clauses in the law to make the whole land reform programme legally vexatious?  And why – you a black man – open the flanks against your kind by raising the first legal doubts?  Why this legal punctiliousness?  Why this reluctance to err on the side of the poor black? And when we go back to the drawing board, does the white man stop eating our heritage?  This is one case where permission for continued exploitation is granted through delay. But it does not work.  When Zanu (PF) gets bogged down in courts of law, it goes to the highest court in the land, the people who are the final arbiters.”

Hon. Biti raises a question that still begs an honest and considered response.

We all want a better life and God provided no prescription as to how this is to be achieved.

By creating the land and all that is above and below it, God must have had a plan that was premised on the creativity and innovation of human beings.

If God wanted land and minerals to be owned by the living human beings, then surely he would have put in place mechanisms to achieve the desired end.

With respect to minerals, God required than human beings put something on the plate not just to reveal the existence of minerals but the size and quality before any extraction and processing activity could be done.

Manheru makes a valid point that Hon. Biti as not only a political actor but a lawyer who must know what needs to be done if he believes a law is bad.  This does not include make statements to foreign audiences or platforms that will not change the speed and direction of a bus in which he is an active participant as Minister of Finance.

It is common cause that a law exists and no suggestion both before the formation of the inclusive government or after that the law ought to be repealed and, if so, what alternative remedies are being offered to address the perceived injury caused by the inherited structures and the status quo.

It is evident that after 32 years of independence no space for meaningful conversation has been created to deal with the real issues that promote or impede development.

It is evident from the tone of both Manheru and Hon. Biti that there is no basis for conversation rather political point scoring informs the language.

When Hon. Biti suggests the need to go back to the drawing board, he fails to acknowledge that the parliament that passed the indigenisation law was one such board and as a legislator in good standing he must have played his part and also known what was to come.

No rational person would pass a law without a real intention to use it.

Hon. Biti must have known like everyone that the appointment of a Minister to administer the law was the first step in converting an idea that says blacks are weak as contracting parties in the marketplace and that such weakness is historically determined and the passage of post-independence time will not cure the weakness into a real stick that could legally compel actors to confirm.

Hon. Kasukuwere would no doubt say that he is just doing his job like every other cabinet Minister.  By targeting Hon. Kasukuwere a point is missed that a law exists just like the Reconstruction Laws has to be given life by implementing it.

The difference between the AIPPA, POSA, Indigenisation Law, Reconstruction Law and many other laws may ultimately be the same.

They are informed by a worldview that has to be challenged.  That worldview has taken root and is founded on a misunderstanding of the construction and role of capital in the enterprise of nation state building.

The suggestion made by Manheru that courts must not be allowed to overturn a moral argument that says indigenous people have a better claim on resources and that the state was created principally to engineer outcomes must be interrogated in an open manner.

Intellectual intimidation must not have a place in any civilized society and yet the language used would suggest that some people think that they alone have a better claim on what is right for Zimbabwe.

Zimbabwe is a geographical fact that was there before colonialism and will always be there.

The minerals in question are older than the human beings who claim ownership to them to sufficiently expose the fallacy of the argument that empowerment can be injected into citizens merely by state action.

The poor will not get any salvation from slogans or patronizing language.

The foundation of the republic is premised on the equality of men and the indivisibility of rights.  If this is true, any policy that seeks to transfer rights from one to the other must be treated.

Examples exist that confirm that individuals who started the journey of life poor have been able to lift themselves up.

The rise of fame in the majority of cases is supported by hard work.  A danger exists that a rise that is mitigated by elected office bearers in the state has its own limitations.

The harder one works the luckier one can be.  A worldview that says one does not need to work but has to wait for entitlement pursuant to the operation of a law is fundamentally flawed.

The ghosts of yesterday will not be eliminated simply by pontificating but the whispers of tomorrow provide inspiration to all who believe that God did his part but the business of life requires effort and initiative on the part of the living.

Author: Mutumwa Mawere

Nation states only exist to the extent that human beings allow them to and when a nation celebrates its birth, an opportunity exists to pause and reflect on the journey travelled by the human beings whose experiences during the relevant period define and shape the character of the nation state.

On 18 April, Zimbabwe will turn 32 years old and the question that must be posed is whether the promise of a prosperous and equal life for all its citizens has been delivered.

Some will argue rightly or wrongly that Zimbabwe is better principally for the benevolence of the state and the genius of state actors in defending the country’s sovereignty and independence.

Zimbabwe is a geographical fact that existed long before 18 April 1980 to suggest that it would be wrong to hold the view that this creation of God could be only 32 years.

The significance of this special day of 1980 was that henceforth the future belonged to all who chose to be Zimbabwean in the words of the new constitution.

When the new flag was raised, freedom, equality and justice were expected to be natural outcomes for no one expected that the new journey would be characterized by hypocrisy, sloganeering, limitation imposed on human freedom, poverty, and inequality.

The fight for a better and equal Zimbabwe was protracted precisely because the stakes were higher and yet the post-colonial period introduced a new language of power and indispensability of the part of the lucky ones who assumed state positions.

Some would argue that only the fighters of liberation have and should have a better claim on the right to protect the nation’s sovereignty.

The fact that even the mighty succumb to the age-old law of nature is easily lost to the proponents of this kind of thinking.

The name-calling and point scoring tactics of political actors often distorts the true story of nation state building.

To what extent is national growth and development a result of the decisions, choices and actions of state actors?

Human beings are the most complex instruments created by God for they are not only self centered but are capable of undermining the spirit of humanity that inspires people to rise up the opportunity mountain in the knowledge that they are mortal and, therefore, not permanent creatures capable of perpetually protecting their legacies.

To the extent that human beings are not capable of being permanently attached to any of their creations or wealth, the importance of freedom in creating a society that inspires all cannot be overstated.

It is on the question of freedom that Zimbabweans have to ask themselves whether they are freer in 2012 than they were in 1980.

It must be accepted that even the President of the Republic is after all human and, therefore, cannot pretend to have a better claim on life than any other person.

It is remarkable that a week before the independence anniversary, the state of President Mugabe’s health was an issue that occupied the minds of people who have not understood the true construction of the republic.

Many people believe that the absence of one individual will materially change the fate of the nation state forgetting that nation states only reflect the story of all the people that choose to be part of the nation.

To the mischievous, the story of Zimbabwe is the story of President Mugabe.

To the informed, the story of Zimbabwe can never be resident in the mind of one individual.  In fact, no single individual is capable of rising above others.

The fact that President Mugabe’s health is an issue of concern exposes continuing presence of the problem that independence was expected to eliminate.

Ian Smith was also a strong man who was also mischievously credited with superior intelligence to the extent that his demise was supposed to eliminate poverty and inequality.

After 32 years of independence, is it not ironic that the question of succession is resident in the minds of many.

Ultimately, leaders come and go but the people are the true authors of the story of any nation for it is in their lives that progress is registered.

When the story is told in the people’s language and stories, it becomes contradictory that when sick, foreign doctors are trusted suggesting that independence has failed to produce institutions and individuals that can secure even the life of the President.

Some would wish to make the point that economic freedom for the majority has been elusive because of the machinations of nameless and faceless imperialists forgetting that concentration of power in a few hands has its own corrosive effect on nation state building.

The last 32 years have seen the brain trust being converted into a brain drain.  The externalization of knowledge prosecuted by the very people who will on independence day ask others to believe in the idea of Zimbabwe when their actions and choices suggest otherwise.

The people who propagate the ideology of sovereignty and independence are the very people who dispatch with ease their children to foreign addresses to acquire knowledge.

The lifestyle of state actors after 32 years of independence tells of another story.

What can be said of the appetites of the few state actors who are in control of the business model?

If one were to visit their refrigerators, for example, one would be surprised what is preserved let alone what is in their wardrobes.

Independence has brought with it experiences for the few that were unthinkable in 1979.

The state has been good to the few and the people who have and continue to pay for the largesse are the majority.

It has been suggested that Zimbabwe has made great strides in education, health and other social investments.

After 32 years of independence, we are compelled to imagine, for example, what could be in the mind of a person who worked for the last 32 years and is retiring this year.

It must concern us that opportunities that 32 years can open for citizens in nation states that are founded on principles that capture the human spirit were squandered and many have nothing to show for the elapsed time.

There is no doubt that people would be asked to embrace patriotism, unity and development when the behavior of the state’s office bearers would suggest otherwise.

When people ask for change they risk being labeled as puppets notwithstanding the promise of the post-colonial constitutional order.

It is significant that the theme for this year has been dubbed: “Indigenisation and Empowerment for Social and Economic Transformation” as if to suggest that a 32 year old person needs to be reminded about what time it is.

Many 32-year olds have stories to tell and are indeed independent of their parents.

When you get a 32-year old person talking about the pre-birth period then one must know that something is fundamentally wrong in the idea of nation state building.

A 32-year old country must account for the years rather than attempting to inspire people on ideas that were relevant before the nation was born.

It would be wrong to hold the view that the experience of independence has been defined and shaped by imperialists.

If this argument is accepted then one has to ask critical questions about the state of mind of the authors of this kind of logic.

The custodians of liberation have a lot to explain about their commitment to freedom for freedom is the only guarantor of the success, peace and stability of any nation.

As Zimbabweans celebrate the independence anniversary there is not better time to ask whether the promise of freedom has been delivered and, if not, what needs to be done to deliver the promise.

The resources that a future is now premised on are not new to suggest that salvation has to be founded on the creativity and innovation of citizens and less on the benevolence and brilliance of state actors.

Author: Mutumwa Mawere

Addressing a seminar hosted by Sapes last week, Deputy Prime Minister (“DPM”) Professor Mutambara added his voice to a possible linkage between Zimbabwe’s mineral resources, its debt and development prospects by asserting that one good deal could offset the country’s sovereign debt of US$9.1 billion.

After 32 years of independence, we are all compelled to join the battle of ideas in the full knowledge that the promise of a better life requires an investment in correct ideas and not criminalizing economic behavior.

Such ideas reside in the minds of citizens and when a correct idea emerges the outcomes are as predictable as they are inevitable.

The idea that the DPM is credited for advancing is no different from the idea that manufactured the term “externalization” in the Zimbabwean narrative with disastrous consequences.

He observed that “Zimbabwe is losing billions of dollars in “bad” mining deal and government will soon revisit these transactions.  Big foreign are not declaring the value of un-mined assets thereby prejudicing the country.”

Implicit in the idea is a notion that the state is capable of owning resources and, therefore, un-mined resources truly belong to the state and that it is fair, just and equitable to place the burden of disclosure on non-state actors.

The locus standi of the DPM in asserting this idea is premised on his role as a state actor who must hold the view that it is the responsibility of state actors and not citizens to shape and define the character of the nation state.

How can Zimbabwe be poor and yet be credited with vast resources that are giving unjust and unfair value to non-state operators?

By invoking the word “bad” the intentions are clear and the outcomes sought are inescapable.  What is a bad mining deal?

It would seem that a bad mining deal is one in which prospective investor in a mineral prospecting endeavor suffers the obligation of disclosing that which he/she is not capable of knowing at the time the prospecting right is applied for and granted.

If the geology is known and the resources are established and measured then there would be no need to engage in any prospecting activity.

A prospecting order by construction and performance is granted precisely because limited or no knowledge exists on the resource that may be hosted in the target geographical area.

To establish a resource requires risk capital and, therefore, any idea that seeks to criminalize the prospecting process in so far as the investment in prospecting may reveal a commercially and technically viable resource will have its unintended consequences i.e. reducing or even undermining investment that is critically needed to create scarce jobs and deliver a better life.

How can anyone conceal information that is not available?

The factual and legal matrix available would suggest that if an asset equivalent to US$20 billion was established and known, the obligation to disclose it would fall on the government rather than Essar.

The status of Zisco prior to the involvement of Essar is common cause.  The need for Essar to invest in exploration cannot be understated.

How then could Essar be expected to declare that which was not known by the grantor of the prospecting order in respect of iron ore reserves?

If the argument advanced by the DPM is to be accepted, then the implications on indigenization are fairly direct and obvious.

The majority of indigenous persons have limited access to capital to secure prospecting rights let alone to engage in mining.  If anything, if the thinking of the DPM is followed to its logical conclusion, no indigenous person would be eligible to be granted a prospecting right.

If Essar can be accused of defrauding the state to the tune of US$20 billion then what will be said about the black beneficiaries of the same rights?

After 32 years of independence, it must be accepted that Zimbabwe has failed to create its own mining role models not least because of the machinations of imperialists but because of an attitude that is implicit in an ideology that subscribes to the notion that what God has created belongs to the state and the state’s role through its actors is to pass on the resources to the highest bidder.

Some may naively conclude based on the assertion that granting prospecting rights to non-state actors in criminal, it is advisable for the state to create a company that will be involved in prospecting minerals and even go further to ban the granting of prospecting rights in the belief that doing so would prejudice the nation state.

The history and background of Zimplats is well established to suggest that at the time of its entry, no reliable knowledge existed about the bankability of the platinum resources.

The reason BHP pulled out must also be interrogated before conclusions are made that the company made no mention of US$4 billion worth of un-mined platinum.

The role of the state in mining that seems to be at issue has to be understood.

Before Implats could acquire shares in Zimplats, there is no doubt that the government was engaged and more significantly no company could engage in prospecting activities without securing the consent of the government.

The starting point for any meaningful and constructive discourse on the subject matter that the DPM has added his voice to would have to be on the state of knowledge that existed at the time when Implats, for example, entered into the country.

The rights in question were granted by no other authority that the state that the DPM is now part of and, therefore, the institutional memory must exist in the corridors of government on the circumstances and information that existed and was available at the material time.

If the resource underground was known to state actors then surely they finger must be pointed at the right parties than to visitors.

The DPM also mentioned the example of the Diamond Mining Company (“DMC”) that he alleged had not declared the value of US$500 million representing presumably the resource in the area covered by a legitimately obtained prospecting order.

In advancing the idea that Zimbabwe must change course, he made the point that DMC had generated a profit of US$43 million in two transactions.

Any risky investment brings with it losses or profits as the case may be.  Even the lottery has been known to transform an investment of US$1 into millions to suggest that the government must concern itself with policies and programs that increases the pool of taxable entities rather than reduce them.

Should governments be engaged in speculative economic activities?

Based on the idea advanced by the DPM it would seem that the government ought to change the business model that has worked for other successful economies.

If state actors were to be trusted to be the custodians of minerals then it will be difficult for anyone who believes that he/she has a superior claim on knowledge or even economic nationalism to leave office.

A sovereign wealth fund (“SWF”) may simplistically offer a solution but when sovereignty is stolen and state actors are not accountable then one has to be wary of any dispensation in which more power is vested in state actors.

The absence and harassment of black entrepreneurs in post-colonial Africa and the lack of protection mechanisms would suggest that it is important that a new conversation be opened on the matters that have now been put under the umbrella of indigenization and economic empowerment when they truly belong to a discredited ideology.

Zimbabwe can lift its prospects not by leveraging God’s gift to mankind but by investing in correct ideas that help to inspire both indigenous and non-indigenous persons to believe in the future of the country.

Any attempt to link government revenues on gross revenues of non-state actors will be doomed to fail.  The fiscal challenges of Zimbabwe will be cured by correct ideas.

This will not be done successfully be pointing fingers but by thinking creatively and innovatively about the purpose of the state and the role of its actors in the business of creating and sustaining a better life for all.

Author: Mutumwa Mawere

Both countries will celebrate 18 and 32 years of democracy and independence, respectively.  They are neighbours separated by a river but share a common history and their future is inextricably linked.

The African National Congress (“ANC”), a party that turned 100 on 8 January 2012, was elected four times to put its representatives in the state.  Its representatives have been in charge of the state for the last 18 years.

The party has entrusted four individuals with the right to lead the state.  The first President was Nelson Mandela, followed by Thabo Mbeki, and then briefly by Kgalema Mothlante and now by Jacob Zuma.

With respect to Zimbabwe, the last 32 years has been dominated by ZANU-PF, whose first son in government has been President Mugabe for the entire journey.

As is the case in any democracy, the people are sovereign and the legitimacy of any representative form of government must necessarily be premised on their consent, we can assume that the post-colonial and post-apartheid construction of the state and the character that the state has taken represents the aspirations of the majority of the people in whose name the liberation struggles were waged in many of the African states.

If we accept that the business case for any political non-governmental organisation (“NGO”) is to seize state power and use it to better the lives of the majority then we are compelled to reflect on the journey travelled to determine whether the outcomes reflect the aspirations of the majority.

It is easy to establish a political party for when a few minds meet and agree that they shall be available to offer themselves to represent people who share the same vision, a political party can be formed.

The post-colonial experience has produced its own institutions but what is significant is that parties that fail to win the support of the majority and, therefore, seize state power, typically face insurmountable financial, logistical, security and other challenges.

The viability of any NGO must be based on the support of its members and yet regrettably many of Africa’s NGOs including political parties survive on the generosity of non-members who are principally foreign.

The financial health of Africa’s political institutions is to a large extent miserable largely because the business of politics has been sufficiently undermined by the perceived behaviour of the few that have invested in the career of politics.  Career politicians are difficult to convince that their knowledge does not represent the universe.

In the case of Zimbabwe and South Africa, one would expect to see dynamic organizations in which renewal of faces and ideas is automatic and seamless.

Political NGOs by construction and performance are underpinned by volunteers and yet in reality such institutions are sustained by financial blackmail and other tactics premised on a quid pro quo arrangement in which it is possible to buy influence through financial contributions.

If one were to audit the financial books of Africa’s governing parties, I have no doubt that one would be shocked to find the perilous state in which the finances are in.

Notwithstanding, organisations that are incapable of putting together business models to sustain themselves are easily trusted to lead the state and the people to a destination characterised by responsibility, accountability,  prosperity and equality.

The people should govern but in reality political NGOs are controlled and managed in a mafia style in which the will of the members is subordinated to the will of the few wise men and women.

The structure of many political NGOs in a hierarchical manner limits the space for democracy.

In the case of South Africa, it is easy to appreciate the current state of ANC not only because Julius Malema must fully be aware that the party is institutionally weak but more significantly that the voice is more important than action in shaping the character of the party and nation.

After 100 years of existence, it is instructive the party faced significant logistical and financial challenges in hosting the anniversary and more importantly in effectively and efficiently managing its affairs.

Although the policy of non-racialism and non-sexism exists, in reality white South Africans and foreign born nationals have largely chosen to remain outside the political bus and in so doing surrender their future to the few minds that have made a business and career case out of politics.

A political NGO ought to provide a platform for members to exchange ideas and also to set up mutual aid benefit associations that can make it attractive for non members to join.  Regrettably, Africa’s political NGOs outside the state have little to show for their existence.

When minds meet to debate the political and national questions, they invariably look to the state to do that which they are incapable of doing as card carrying members.

There is no reason why, for instance, ZANU-PF members could not set up their own New Mutual instead of looking to Old Mutual as a source of salvation.

If Chiyangwa had any doubt that his participation in ZANU-PF has nothing to do with the will of the people he sought to represent, the decision by the Politburo to reject his election as Vice Chairman of Mashonaland West confirms that for one to be relevant it is important to invest in being understood not by the masses but by the party brand custodians.

People must come first but the reality suggests otherwise.  The people are usually reduced to instruments that are then used as football by political players whose eyes are fixed on state power for the benefit of the few who are lucky to ride in politically driven wagons.  The wagons of political actors are typically filled with close associates.

The state is a creature of citizens.  Its viability depends on the involuntary transfers of income collected either from direct or indirect taxation.

The social contract in which many states are located suggests that state actors must act in the interests of the people that finance the state in as much as political actors must act in the interests of the people that create and give legitimacy to them.

Party members typically represent a small segment of the population and yet when such members are placed in the state they rarely reflect on the true meaning of state power and how it should be discharged in the interests of inspiring people to believe that their personal futures are prosperous and secure.

After 32 years of independence, the outcomes in Zimbabwe are obvious but little attention is focused on broadening the conversation points beyond the historically determined class and racial relationships.  A better life will not come to life simply by slogans or dwelling on the pain of the past.

Even in South Africa it is obvious that if people remain outside the political bus in the mistaken hope that their future is secure in the hands of the politically active, a rude awakening is coming.

The majority of members of political NGOs are poor and, therefore, any person that hopes to use such people to assume state office is compelled to advocate pro-poor policies and programs.

Such programs are premised on extracting value from the rich to the poor using the state as a vehicle.

To sustain a distributive system one has to encourage wealth creation.  However, the process of wealth creation is premised on self interest and therein lays the problem.

Political actors often find it difficult to trust any other person to assume their positions because ultimately the political space is consumed by greed and deception.

In the quietness of the time of political actors, there is no doubt that they begin to believe that no future of the party or state is secure without their intervention and, therefore, they invariably invest in limiting the number of actors in both the state and party.

Author: Mutumwa Mawere.

Born 21 August 1929, Ahmed Kathrada; also known as “Kathy” by those closest to him;  is a man worthy of praise and honour as we celebrate ANC’s centenary year and 18 years of democracy.

Kathrada became a political activist at the tender age of 12, where he was the youngest member of the Young Communist League of South Africa of South Africa. In World War 2, Kathrada was actively involved in the anti-war campaign for the Non-European United Front. At the age of 17, he was imprisoned along with two thousand other volunteers because of the “Asiatic Land Tenure and Indian Representative Act” also known as the “Ghetto Act.” The act sought to give Indians in the country limited political representation which further defined and alienated the Indians to areas where they could own land, trade and live. At the time Kathrada was a minor and his imprisonment meant that he would be treated as a juvenile. Kathrada saw this as an opportunity to lie about his age and therefore be imprisoned with his fellow activists in the adult prison instead. His brave act later led to his election as the secretary-general of the Transvaal Indian Youth Congress.

During his international travels, Kathrada was elected as the leader of the large multi-racial South African Delegation.

In the 1950’s, Kathrada came into close contact with African National leaders such as Nelson Mandela and Walter Sisulu. In 1960, the ANC and other anti-apartheid organisations were banned but this did not stop Kathrada from pursuing his political activities. On July 11^th 1963, Kathrada, Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu and many other activists were arrested at the internal headquarters of “Umkhonto we Sizwe”, they were many of the accused in the famous Rivonia Trial of October 1963. Kathrada was sentenced to life imprisonment. He was confined to the Robben Island Maximum Security Prison for 18 years. On 15 October 1989, he was released from Johannesburg prison. From 1990, after the unbanning of the ANC, Kathrada remained loyal to the fight of anti-apartheid. He served on the interim leadership committee and was a member of the ANC Public Relations. In 1994, he was elected a member of parliament for the ANC and later the political advisor to President Mandela. In 1999, Kathrada retired from parliamentary politics.

A man of great strength and leadership…I was delighted and furthermore honoured to have been seated in the same room with this amazing legend. A man who helped create our history.

As a young South African, I am saddened that when I was growing up older generations had not informed my generation about other great leaders and activists like Ahmed Kathrada. Powerful and influential people who sacrificed their lives for a better South Africa.

I, furthermore, wish that my generation was more motivated to study and create a better guaranteed future for themselves. Ahmed Kathrada attained four degrees while in prison. A man, who was oppressed by the system, took the only opportunity that he had at the time and educated himself. This is the very same man that fought for my youth to have the opportunity to schooling decades ago. As the youth, we not only owe it to ourselves to keep the candle of opportunity burning but to fellow heroes like Ahmed Kathrada who spent most of their lives fighting for what we are privileged to have today… A better future.

I am grateful to the ANC Rivonia Heroes Ward 106 has created this priceless moment for me and all those who attended the event. The ANC’s centenary celebration has more relevance and meaning to my life because I now have a better understanding of my country’s history. The event at Liliesleaf carried plenty of history and significance. I am also joyful that March 25 is declared Kathrada Day. I am also honoured to say ‘I know why…”

Author: Mampone Lebohang Lesego Matsoso

The head of party that presides over the state is person who is normally a leader in party, national or international affairs.  The post-colonial African narrative has produced its own diverse characters that have climbed the power ladder to assume the position of first citizen.

As we look back on the journey travelled, we are compelled to invoke in our conversations a discussion on the difference, if any, between a politician and statesman.

In our daily conversations, the term “politician” features prominently often times for the wrong reasons.

It is natural that human beings expect their circumstances to change for the better from the actions of politicians because in transforming an ordinary individual into an office bearer either in the party or state, a rational expectation is inherent in the process that such an individual will be capable of rising above personal interests.

A politician is after all human and is capable of using political office to extract personal benefits.  What we do know is that any rational politician is most likely interested in pulling a wagon full of loyal party members rather than political adversaries.

Although the term politician dominates most of our conversations, little or no investment is made in better understanding what the terms means.  It is true that a person who is active in party politics becomes labelled as a politician.

Such a person is concerned about winning favour or retaining power at all costs even it means shading the truth or even dipping into the party or state coffers to buy support.

If one is looking at saints then surely the nature and character of the political process would suggest that it is impossible to produce extraordinary citizens who can legitimately claim that their choices and actions are solely motivated by what is right for the nation.

Volumes have been written primarily by journalists and intellectuals about the lack of good and inspiring leadership in Africa and more significantly about the privatization of the state by citizens who climb the political supply chain ladder for personal aggrandisement in the name of service to the people.

On Sunday, 26 March 2012, the people of Senegal spoke and the outcome goes a long towards confirming the fact that citizens can take back their power and that the outgoing President is not alone in losing touch with the real claimants of sovereignty in whose name many bad politicians cling to power in the self serving belief that they alone are the rightful custodians of the national spirit and trust.

What is remarkable is that it is possible to transform through elections or otherwise an individual citizen into a monster or tyrant.

I have no doubt that the Wade of yesteryears was a normal human being but each day he stayed in power he came to believe that Senegal was better principally because of his enlightened and smart mind.

He proceeded to manipulate the constitution to allow him to offer his face for a third term.  He succeeded but did not fully appreciate what was to come.  He did not get the required majority in the first round and as required by law had to go for the runoff elections and the rest is now history.

By choosing to go for a third term, he fell into the trap that many of Africa’s first citizens have fallen but by choosing to allow the will of the people to be expressed without investing in violence, he managed to salvage some residual democratic credentials that would have been completely lost if he were to borrow state resources to leverage a weak position.

History will have to correctly place President Wade as a man who succumbed to the African leadership disease of living in a make believe world where the circle of the President substitutes the voices of the majority.

He lost the elections like many before him and his record has been blemished for it.  Had he decided not to push his way, he will no doubt have joined the ranks of statesman who knew when to pass the button and what time it is.

It is rare that an electoral process that is not underpinned by the vigilance of citizens can produce skilled and expert persons in government that are responsive and responsible to the needs of the masses.

Notwithstanding, it is natural for beneficiaries of the ignorance of citizens about the state and its true role to assume the positions of “great” leaders without any evidence showing on followers in terms of the quality of life to support the claimed greatness.

To the extent that post-colonial Africa has confronted a myriad of challenges including failure to materially reduce the frontiers of poverty, the contestation for political office in Africa must necessarily be informed by other variables than the purported protection of the majority from the machinations of the West or any other forces.

Surely it must be self evident that a leader who presides over a decaying economy does not need to expose himself or herself to the very people who bear the brunt of his failure to create an environment that allows citizens to prosper without the need of patronage.

What then are the differences between a statesman and a politician?  Politicians run to win whereas statesmen run to serve.  Statesman connotes ability, skill, and unselfish devotion to national duty and interest.

Politicians normally think they know it all and leave no room for others to be right whereas statesmen are open-minded for they know that it is impossible for a mortal human being to have all the answers to the challenges of the day.

To politicians the country is theirs and some even entertain the thought that it is God who has divined that they become leaders whereas to statesmen, the country comes first and the individual is just an actor in a theatre where there are many actors.

Politicians are solely motivated by self preservation and winning the next election rather than on the future of the people.

Politicians monopolize the conversation space pushing a warped and distorted worldview whereas statesmen strive to walk the talk.

A statesman’s actions will always be guided by what is good for the people even if it means stepping down so that new faces can be associated with what is good and right for the people.

Propaganda has been used as a substitute for responsible and honest government.

Politicians are worried about the independent media and citizens who gather to evaluate options for renewing the promise of good leadership.

Politicians are afraid of the implications of the Arab spring to the extent that they would resort to criminalising any citizens who attempts to draw valuable lessons from the experiences of other African states on what should happen when people are fed up of being treated like political infants.

When you hear a political leader blaming anyone and anything for the failure to deliver on the promise then you must know that such a person is and will never be a statesman.

To a politician, a scapegoat is a better friend than the truth.  A politician believes that state actors are better angels and, therefore, everything about progress must be attributed to such angels.

Finally, Africa needs real actors who are capable of subordinating their egos to allow more to shine.

Author: Mutumwa Mawere

Our Ward was launched in 2011.  We are a dynamic and passionate team of volunteers who believe that tomorrow will only be a better day if we act today.  The urgency of acting now cannot be overstated.  We hope that with your active support, we will be able to add our collective voices and faces to the enterprise of nation state building founded on found values and principles.

Tomorrow is not just another public holiday but represents an important reminder about the sacrifices inherent in any struggle that seeks to include all and build a cohesive, sustainable, prosperous, equal and just society.

This historic public holiday gives us all an opportunity to pause and reflect on the journey travelled and more significantly to celebrate the transformation over the last 18 years of South African society into an open and democratic space in which state and non-state actors can realise the promise.

You all may be aware that the theme for the public holiday is: “Working together to promote unity in diversity and human dignity for all” but the conversion of words into concrete actions requires the active participation and vigilance of all citizens.

Xenophobia is a reality and, therefore, as we celebrate the struggles and triumphs of yesteryears, we are also compelled to think critically about fundamental questions of national identity and citizenship.

There are many who believe that South Africa only truly belongs to those born in it and, therefore, any other human being who chooses to live in the country is a perpetual visitor whose rights must be accordingly qualified.  This worldview is informed by a natural quest to partition God’s geographic endowment into clusters of humanity each preserving the perceived space to a certain class of persons.

I joined the branch of ANC motivated by a desire to be the change that I want to see.  Recognizing that my identity would always be defined by where I was born, I have come to understand that unless our generation assimilate ourselves into the mainstream, a real danger exists that policies and programs of this important African address will be shaped and defined by not only the past but the limitations imposed by the inherited boundaries that places people who look the same as enemies in the quest for a better life.

The massacres in Sharpeville and Langa 51 years ago continue to serve as a reminder to all that it is important if the nation has to live up to the promise that efforts are made towards protecting human rights and dignity.

In recognition of the fallen heroes of 1960, the UN declared 21 March the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

By celebrating the past, we hope to secure a future that is inclusive and cohesive.  I urge all fellow members to educate your circle about the importance of the rule of law and respect of human rights and the property that they hold.

The role of the state will necessarily always be misunderstood but what is important is that we use the state to create an environment in which every life counts.  In as much as citizens have rights they also have obligations.

To the extent that we can all agree on what a South African looks like then we can all embrace that identity because ultimately identity can play not only a positive role in human development but also a toxic role unless the concept is properly understood.

Although the constitution places a requirement on the state to give effect to the Bill of Rights through the enactment of relevant legislation, the real guarantor of rights is vested in the minds, attitudes and actions of citizens.

I encourage you to join President Zuma at the Walter Sisulu Square in Kliptown tomorrow at 10:00am where he is expected to go on a walkabout before proceeding to the Walter Sisulu Hall to deliver a public lecture.

Important Quotes relevant for the theme of the day:

“We have the ability to achieve, if we master the necessary goodwill, a common global society blessed with a shared culture of peace that is nourished by the ethnic, national and local diversities that enrich our lives.” – Mahnaz Afkhami

“Cultural differences should not separate us from each other, but rather cultural diversity brings a collective strength that can benefit all of humanity.

Intercultural dialogue is the best guarantee of a more peaceful, just and sustainable world.

Okay, we are different it’s true.
And I don’t like to do all the things that you do.
But here’s one thing to think through,
You’re a lot like me and I’m a lot like you!” — Robert Alan Silverstein

“Peace requires everyone to be in the circle – wholeness, inclusion.” — Isabel Allende

“It is time for parents to teach young people early on that in diversity there is beauty and there is strength.” — Maya Angelou

“We may have different religions, different languages, different colored skin, but we all belong to one human race.” — Kofi Annan

“There are no nations! There is only humanity. And if we don’t come to understand that right soon, there will be no nations, because there will be no humanity.” — Isaac Asimov

“Diversity is the magic. It is the first manifestation, the first beginning of the differentiation of a thing and of simple identity. The greater the diversity, the greater the perfection.” ~ Thomas Berry

“When you’re finally up on the moon, looking back at the earth, all these differences and nationalistic traits are pretty well going to blend and you’re going to get a concept that maybe this is really one world and why the hell can’t we learn to live together like decent people?” — Frank Borman

“We are of course a nation of differences. Those differences don’t make us weak. They’re the source of our strength.” — Jimmy Carter

“The love of one’s country is a splendid thing. But why should love stop at the border?” — Pablo Casals

“Let us have but one end in view, the welfare of humanity; and let us put aside all selfishness in consideration of language, nationality, or religion.”
– John Comenius, 17th century philosopher

“Human diversity makes tolerance more than a virtue; it makes it a requirement for survival.” ~ René Dubos

“My country is the world; my countrymen are mankind.” — William Lloyd Garrison

“Peace is not unity in similarity but unity in diversity, in the comparison and conciliation of differences” — Mikhail Gorbachev

“I cannot, and will not judge, by what my eyes may see. For the skin on a man shall not reveal his true identity.

In the dark, equality for all of mankind couldn’t seem brighter.” — Robert M. Hensel

“The minute we become an integrated whole, we look through the same eyes and we see a whole different world together.” — Azizah Al-Hibri

“Our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.” – John F. Kennedy

“Ultimately, America’s answer to the intolerant man is diversity, the very diversity which our heritage of religious freedom has inspired.” — Robert F. Kennedy

“We may have all come on different ships, but we’re in the same boat now.

We must learn to live together as brothers, or we are going to perish together as fools.

We have learned to fly the air like birds and swim the sea like fish, but we have not learned the simple art of living together as brothers.

The hope of a secure and livable world lies with disciplined nonconformists who are dedicated to justice, peace and brotherhood.” – Martin Luther King, Jr

“We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our fellow men; and among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects.” — Herman Melville

“Identity is a concept of our age that should be used very carefully. All types of identities, ethnic, national, religious, sexual or whatever else, can become your prison after a while. The identity that you stand up for can enslave you and close you to the rest of the world.” — Murathan Mungan

“Share our similarities, celebrate our differences.” — M. Scott Peck

“We can find common ground only by moving to higher ground” — Jim Wallis

“In all things that are purely social we can be as separate as the fingers, yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress.” — Booker T. Washington

“Our true nationality is mankind.” – H.G. Wells

“As a woman I have no country. As a woman my country is the whole world.” — Virginia Woolf

“The oneness of human beings is the basic ethical thread that holds us together.” — Muhammad Yunus

“Just imagine how boring life would be if we were all the same. My idea of a perfect world is one in which we really appreciated each other’s differences: Short, tall; Democrat, Republican; black, white; gay, straight–a world in which all of us are equal, but definitely not the same.” — Barbra Streisand

To the extent that we are all actors in the theatre that we call life, we can accept that the state is a theatre dominated by citizens that are commonly described as politicians and bureaucrats.  So much is expected from the class of citizens that are described as politicians and yet so little is understood about what makes a good or bad leader in the state.

The process of creating the first citizen of any country is simple but it produces outcomes that are often contested and disputed notwithstanding the fact that in its proper construction the activity by which states are maintained and given form requires legitimacy and validation from the very people who naively expect that when elected, state actors acquire some superior wisdom in the management of public affairs.

The colonial story with its pain and squandered opportunities is known to suggest that any attempt to put the blame on the lack of progress in post-colonial Africa on it will not advance the interests of the living and unborn.

State actors are no different to movie actors for they are primarily in the peoples’ business in which propaganda and other tactics may substitute the essence of what is expected when people surrender their sovereignty to a few in the hope that the skills, techniques and judgment required to effectively and efficiently discharge state duties is resident in the people to whom matters of state are vested.

It is remarkable that the majority of Africans devote so much of their conversations on the exploits of state actors as if to suggest that a textbook of politics exists that can give pointers on how well or poorly the craft of state administration can be practised.

Can the trait of utilizing knowledge and experience with common sense and insight be generated through electoral politics?  We all value the role of leadership in advancing the cause of nation state building but it would be foolish to expect that the process through which leaders are created in Africa will necessarily produce better and smart outcomes than any haphazard or nonchalant process.

As we look back on the journey of the post-colonial experience, we are compelled to rate Africa’s custodians of the state to establish if the objective of creating a cohesive and inclusive society that informed the liberation struggles of Africa has been advanced by the people elected or otherwise.

The faces of Africa who have occupied or continue to occupy state houses are known but little is known about what they are actually do on a day to day basis.  What is their job description?  Who monitors and evaluates them?

A good politician is often the one who speaks a lot about the many subjects that he/she knows little about.

In the battle of ideas, words and images, post-colonial African leaders excel because they have demonstrated not just the mastery of the former colonial masters but they often have answers for everything to the extent that citizens generally expect that everything good or bad that visits the country is a consequence of the actions of these mortal beings.

The faces of Africa’s state crafters may be different but what is common in Africa is not the wealth in the hands of the majority but the poverty and other vices that visit mankind when the very people who are the guarantors of nation progress surrender their future to a few wise men and women who may not be as wise as they speak or pretend to act.

What makes a nation a winner?  If words could move a country from point A to B then surely Africa would be at the apex.

The last 56 years of independence have generated speeches by state actors, politicians, images that are carried in the media, and more importantly the rhetoric about what kind of Africa is expected but regrettably the Africa we see today is economically weaker and politically less free than one would have wanted to see.

No amount of slogans or rhetoric can substitute for the efforts of ordinary citizens to build a better life for themselves under a free and just dispensation.

The role of the state is contested and must be so because if the state existed and could take the place of hardworking citizens then governments can self perpetuate.  However, great nations only become so because of the efforts and actions of ordinary people.

If the perspective is accepted that the best state crafter is a person who understands and appreciates the limitations of the state as an agent of change, then the people who choose to cling to power in the mistaken belief that their departure from state office would undermine the promise of a better life for the majority would find no justifiable reason of imposing their worldview on others against a backdrop of diminishing economic welfare of the majority.

It is easy for state actors to listen to their own voices and Africa must be credited for creating its own tyrants and dictators.

What is ironic is that most of the bad leaders have no mechanism of knowing when it is time to let go as the true custodians of the state i.e. citizens have no knowledge about what happens or is said in the corridors of power.

My submission is that when African minds meet so little time is devoted in conversations about the values, principles and care required to make our continent a winning geography.

Although Africa is a strong geographical and geological fact, it must be accepted that the experience of post-colonial nation state building has failed to connect all the important dots that deal with values and not personalities.

Instead of addressing the real issues, conversations typically focus on God’s creations i.e. land, minerals, and other gifts of God that state actors take reckless credit for their existence to the extent that they exhibit charitable or philanthropic postures when they use the state to selectively give access to land, minerals and other resources to a few forgetting that any nation that premises its future solely on what God has created will fail to deliver the promise of a better life for the majority.

We often hear that land is the economy and the economy is the land.  While this may be true, what is clear in Africa is that countries like the DRC, Angola or even Nigeria have vast tracts of land and not only liquid fuels and minerals in their bellies but have little to show on the barometer of millennium development goals.

One would expect that younger countries like South Sudan and South Africa would learn from the experience that attempts to use the state as a driving force for economic and social change will fail because if it was true that minerals in the ground and the land on top of minerals belong to the living then surely the richest nations would exhibit the traits of success merely by answering the existential question.

I am reminded by the words of Cecil Rhodes who often told his fellow settlers that: “Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life” and as I reflect on what it means to be African I realise that we have a lot of work to do before we can truly say that being African represents a first or even second price in the lottery of life.

Today I write in English and even speak in the language that Rhodes devoted a large part of his life on earth to ensure that it shall be the language of rulers in our beloved part of Africa which confirms the durability of the idea that informed Rhodes’ actions.

Although he is long gone, he can claim credit that English and not Spanish or Italian is the language of business in many post-colonial states.

Rhodes’ worldview is well established to suggest that it would be wrong to draw any positive lessons for any black African from him but it would be naive to ignore the values that informed his choices and why English people would still consider him as a great man.

We need our leaders to help shape and define the character of a new Africa.

Such leaders are difficult to find because the followers make it easy for persons with blurred and distorted visions to assume the driver seat going nowhere solely but with a lot of words that inspire the dead and not the living.

Author: Mutumwa Mawere

He attributed the challenges that have confronted a number of black Zimbabweans engaged in business primarily to the attitude of ZANU-PF representatives in the state whose actions he has previously described as motivated by a power retention agenda.

I was present at the press conference held on 1 March 2012 when Hon. Biti responded to a question raised regarding SMM Holdings Private Limited (“SMM”) following a remark he made during his presentation at the conference that apart from land, no property rights of private citizens had been alienated without compensation by the state.

The thrust of his response was that the “inheritors of the African state at independence had no craft competence and craft literacy to deal with state craftsmanship” to the extent that black capital formation was seen as a threat to what he perceives as an agenda by a few state actors to retain power at all costs.

After the press conference, I reminded him that the SMM matter was somewhat different in that the legal holder of shares was a British registered company and, therefore, it was incorrect for him to state as truth and fact that no property rights of any external shareholder have been interfered with to which he responded surprisingly by saying that he did not buy what he described as a technical argument that I sought to advance that the unlawful transfer SMM’s shares held by a foreign company to a nominee of a government in which he is a Minister without the consent of the lawful shareholder could qualify as expropriation.

Accepting that Hon. Biti is an experienced lawyer, I was at pains to understand why he would choose to dismiss the factual and legal matrix of the SMM matter.

He took the view that his appreciation of the facts was the only logical and legitimate one and, therefore, had no appetite for any variation.

His view was that I was an indigenous person and my fate was written in the construction and performance of a post-colonial state presided since independence by backward looking nationalists.

With respect to the SMM matter, Hon. Biti said “It’s not an issue under the Ministry of Finance, but what I know is that some of us have been fighting that he gets his assets back. The only complication is that there have been various judgments, unlike in the other situations.  I don’t think it’s a lost case, it’s a struggle and Mawere will get his assets back.”

In the interests of broadening and deepening insights on the complex issue of nation building, I thought it would be beneficial to the process of building a body of knowledge in the minds of indigenous persons about the importance of the rule of law if Africa is to deliver the promise of a better life for all.

To the extent that Hon. Biti is an important role player in the Zimbabwean political process it is vital that we negotiate with him in the public arena where we feel that his understanding of issues does not represent the universe rather if uncorrected can be more corrosive than the behaviour and attitude of post-colonial Africa’s founding fathers.

It is important then that the minds of the majority of Zimbabweans meet on the observations made by Hon. Biti that the SMM issue that has adversely and continues to affect the lives of many and remains uncured after three years of the existence of the inclusive government is a ZANU-PF matter and that his Ministry bears no responsibility for the unfortunate and regrettable development.

What I do know is that the cabinet system of government still works in Zimbabwe.  Accordingly, it would be wrong to suggest that the matter of protecting black investors has been excluded from the agenda of cabinet and, therefore, the state has been reduced to a theatre for the political parties to play games.  If Hon. Biti is committed to building a new Zimbabwe founded on the respect of property rights, he will be a friend to all who have struggled to find a voice over the last 32 years.

It is common cause that a law exists on Zimbabwe’s statutes that allows the state to assume the control and administration of private companies without the involvement of the courts on account of allegations of state indebtedness.

To the extent that for the law to have any meaning, the affected party must indeed be indebted to the state, it is strange that Hon. Biti would have no interest in establishing whether SMM was indebted as alleged to the state.

Although he stated that he is one of the people in government who have been fighting not for the restoration of the rule of law but for me to get my assets, it is critical that the true implications of what Hon. Biti said is digested and understood.

It would appear that Hon. Biti has no problem with the fact that his ministry is involved on what would ordinarily be a state liability matter.  How could SMM be state indebted without the involvement of the Ministry of Finance?

If indeed, SMM was state indebted, what disability does Hon. Biti suffer in informing the nation of the existence and magnitude of the alleged indebtedness?

One would expect Hon. Biti to know that a law that confers on state actors the right to arbitrarily and unilaterally transfer claims of state institutions to an undefined super state body administered outside the knowledge of the Ministry of Finance is not only unconstitutional but serves no legitimate national interest.

Notwithstanding, Hon. Biti would arrive at the conclusion that judgments that arise from an illegal law pose a problem to an inclusive government that seeks to lift Zimbabwe up.

Hon. Biti went further to state that: “We went through a period in our country where the State had a problem with black capital.  Local black capital did not just apply to Mutumwa (Mawere);” as if to suggest that the era had ended.

For the benefit of Hon. Biti, the existence of the inclusive government has not changed the morality that informed the actions of state actors in invoking the law to solve political, social and commercial disputes.

I have no doubt that Messrs. Buyanga, Makamba, Muponda, Vingirai and others would be surprised to learn from Hon. Biti he is not aware of their continued ordeal under the inclusive government.

When the vacancy of the office of the Speaker was created by the Supreme Court, Hon. Biti and his colleagues were not impotent in responding to the challenge suggesting that minds can meet and act if it is deemed that the challenge deserves an appropriate response.

The fact that the Reconstruction Act exists seven years after its enactment goes a long way to confirming that no political will exists to repeal it.

Even the most ardent critics of the government of Zimbabwe would agree that laws have been used to achieve illegitimate ends but what is remarkable is the silence of the majority to the extent that the new political actors from who so much was expected have reduced themselves to public relations officer if not spectators.

On the question of SMM, I have no doubt that any Minister of Finance cannot avoid being involved especially when the state that is desperate for income is held hostage by political cowards who would use the law to create a crime that does not exist only for the purpose of allowing the state to be used as an instrument of dispossession.

It should not matter whether I get my assets back or not but that Zimbabwe respects the rule of law.

If I were to advise Hon. Biti, my message would be that stick to what matters to the nation that the playing field is level and no state actor must be allowed to act in a manner that undermines the integrity and legitimacy of the state.

It is not too late for Hon. Biti to tell the nation of what the relationship, if any, between the state and SMM was in respect of the allegation that SMM was state indebted.

In fact, I would suggest that a Commission of Inquiry be held to establish if, indeed, SMM was state indebted and why existing laws were deemed inadequate to protect the interests of a bona fides creditor.

The responsibility to build an inspiring, inclusive, shared, cohesive, responsible and responsive Zimbabwe is a joint one and our actions should build a sense of confidence and above all respect based on the fact that no state actor possesses the monopoly of wisdom rather should be a conduit for adding the voices that often are not given the space by a system that has systematically crowded out the voices of the majority in the name of mistaken national progress and interest.

Author: Mutumwa Mawere.