The Simplicity of Greatness: A down to earth view of Mandela

Very little can be taken away from Mandela in terms of what he managed to achieve for his great country, and the ripples that swept various parts of our continent and indeed our world as a result of those achievements. At face value, the ideals for which Mandela stood - and was prepared to die for - did raise a few hairs on some backs particularly because of their implications as regards leadership on this continent and beyond. But a deeper view into Mandela's ideals reveals perhaps the workings of one of the most prudent political minds we have yet seen on our continent.

I think Mandela keenly understood the human condition, and firmly believed that the majority of human suffering was a direct consequence of mostly selfish and self-serving human actions. In respect of that realization, Mandela sought out to make the most of what such an unenviable condition could conjure up if only it were political configured in specific ways for its own internal egocentricities to consolidate into a form of cooperation and co-existence.

Of all the fights for self-rule on the African continent, no designated group of Africans ever cooperated with each other in order to inherit a bigger and wealthier economy than that of South Africa. And by extension, the shear promise of being in charge of such an monument of an economy naturally shifted that economy into a center of focus for the various racially differentiated factions of the South African "nation". In this regard, while the calls for nationalization and indigenization rang louder as their fore-running calls of Ujama and African communism declined, they did not dissuade Mandela into heeding them. For him, the bare pragmatics of the long awaited transition into self-rule that his organization alongside the many others who have today been overpowered by the ANC's liberation rhetoric, required the careful preservation of the common center of stakes which was the economy, tinged with the gradual and cautious transition that would enable Africans to slowly filter into its ranks. The logic for this move was simple: radical transformation would only be sustainable in the short and barely into the medium terms precisely because a destroyed economy which had become the focus and aspiration of the previously oppressed would only become a catalyst for rogue centers of power each of them committed to their own ambitions. But implement a gradual transition, then all you have to deal with are the on-going cries of those who felt the transition was moving too slow while the economy itself cushioned and soaked up some of the discontent as more and more people were absorbed into it. This is why for me, as much as many people cry foul about Mandela's handling of South Africa's transition, I think that their ability to cry and to feel like they have been heard has lot to do with the fact that South Africa is what it is today rather than what it would have been if there had been a radical shift at "independence". And to add more flesh to this argument, there is still not yet an African president who inherited a country at independence and didn't treat its inherited economy as a sacred-cow. Kamuzu Banda of Malawi did it, Mugabe did it (up until he became radical), Dos Santos did it, Kaunda did it and several others - albeit within the constraints of that characterized their times. The overt difference therefore between Mandela's transition and the transitions of others was simply this: while other African countries aspired for self-rule with less of an impression of the economies they would inherit because they were significantly smaller, South Africa's much larger economy made a deeper impression of the gains to be realized upon the realization of self-rule. And by default, the economy was the battlefield which Mandela, in his political shrewdness, quickly moved to de-militarize.

Now the questions that need to be asked within such a scenario can only be about the practicalities of implementing the vision of the South Africa so many seek to see while accepting the centrality of South Africa's economy in that entire process. After all, there is nothing else that, even within the vague definition of Africanness, acts as a distinguish-er between "Africans" as a whole and "South Africans" as a specific group of Africans other than the economic difference between other African countries and that of South Africa. And this is not to mention the place such an economy accords South Africa globally. Now, if the economy of South Africa is so central to the extent that it has demarcated and instilled African identity itself into two blocs namely "South Africans" and "Africans", what kind of a man would realistically implode such an economy upon which the very warring and radical factions themselves based their radical ideas? For me, Mandela saw an imperfect but prudent resolution to an enormous dilemma, and opted for it. He would preserve the economy, and champion a painstaking slow process of integration that would span several decades, fully aware that that very thing everyone was very radical about was the sole entity that gave a nation rising out of decades of conflict and violence any chance at cohesiveness and perhaps a shot at unity. And furthermore, if democracy would remain the aspired-for ideal, then radicalism could not be an option. The process therefore of building a nation sat squarely on creating the impression that given the de-racialized and objective systems that would come with democracy, the country then emerge de-personalized and as such united in a seemingly disembodied and automated economy... an economy that seemed to represent everyone and no one in particular with the grand effect of instituting a formative or an embryonic state of unity essential for holding the entire contraption, if you please, together.

But then a surface examination of such a prudent choice would point us to what remains the dominant criticism of Mandela which is that he was too good to the oppressor at the expense of his own people. There is always a certain level of substance in every argument but I am not so inclined to take such a criticism wholesale, because like I have argued above... South Africa's economy is its identity, as in a great sense the focus of its struggle, and today remains its basis of difference from the rest of the continent. It was therefore within the parameters of that economy that human dignity had been lost under the evils of racism. And as such, dignity would be restored largely through re-integration into it. Perhaps this is why the economy is concurrently resented and loved by its citizens on the basis of its exclusion and its rewards respectively. Radically tampering with it would no doubt have created a different South Africa. I am just not sure if that alternative version would have yielded greater levels of hope than we see presently.

But in a few weeks or months, who knows. I might be compelled to think differently about this entire topic. Sometime next week, I hope to post an argument about Revolution within the African context. I will pre-empt the following: I don't think that such a concept exists in the real world outside the realm of ideals.

The Inverse Relationship Between Patronage and Political Power

Last month I wrote a polemic in which I argued that the only way Malawi is to rise out of its debilitating state is to channel its antagonistic energies motivated by greed into a grand nation building formula. The arguments can be seen in that previous post entitled Reconciling Our Problematic Concepts.

This week, we have seen the president of Malawi heighten her efforts to consolidate power via the old formula of patronage. And this is an interesting one because as already demonstrated in previous posts, patronage is an inherently insufficient strategy to achieve the consolidation of power precisely because insatiable greed is the motivation at the core of most of Malawian business. The State which is heavily donor dependent has no means in and of itself to sustain that heavy weight of patronage and therefore, the more people the president calls up into her bloated team of patrons, the less resources are available to appease the vast majorities who are outside her circle to sustain the very power she craves. In the last instance, Malawi will revert to the same situation that undid Kamuzu, undid Muluzi, and was undoing Bingu. That situation occurs when the country becomes so polarized along the lines of “those within the gravy train” and “those outside it”. This formula simply does not work.

The only way to silence a country saturated by greed in the absence of a heavily greased military is to level the playing field, make transparent the business of the State, and effectively give people no reason to think that some are being offered more without merit than others. That simple formula automatically galvanizes two sets of activities;

Firstly, it raises the collective consciousness to a level at which there is an obsession with protecting the just order because only through that order can the greed of others be curbed. In this fashion we use the very venom of our greed to police ourselves into a just and fair order.

Secondly, it raises the agency level of the citizens because when everything is transparent, activities engaged by various actors are more ascertained, less risky and therefore more profitable to the greed motivator that induces those activities in the first place. Economists have expanded this basic Social Theory to generate the vast field of study Economics is today, looking at means and ends, demand and supply within a context of insatiable appetites and limited and contested resources. With less speculation, there is an automatic adherence to the status quo which in economics theory is called the equilibrium: there is no inherent tendency to want to alter it.

These two simple pillars would be the foundation of building a new Malawi.

Rhetoric about God and justice, good governance, and other ideals which do nothing to symmetrize the greed machine via the imposition of an institutional order that is everywhere symmetrically experienced by the citizenry will not take the country anywhere. They will only serve to continue to create ideological bases from which various forms of injustice can be accounted for as normal and acceptable. For instance, to fear God is to fear the leadership he ordains (check your Bible, or if you are like me, borrow one and check). Another for instance: to respect your elders is to be morally right in the numerous cultural forms of the Malawian nation. Usually the elder in this case is the president, our Amayi or Mother. In the end, these two randomly selected edifices only provide a basis for why citizens who feel cut off from or marginalized by the State should keep quiet and trust the God-given leader or respect the Mother of the Nation who knows exactly what she is doing. This is why, in my view, a State based on secular ideals is for me the best kind of State. It is realistic in the sense that it holds no ideals or sentimentalism higher than any others, it accepts the human condition for its rotten state, and seeks to institute regulations that must apply to everyone regardless of whether they worship Mbona, Allah, Jehovah or whoever they so please to.

So in returning to the crux of this topic, as the desperation grows within the party of the President, we must expect to see bigger and bigger webs of patronage which will be coupled by greater financial mismanagement, and ultimately a weakening ability of the State to render its core functions. As the State collapses in its abilities, we will see greater efforts to expand the patronage in order to consolidate power, which will go on to further weaken the State’s abilities. Ultimately, we will see a loss of power just as we have seen it in the past, and….and here is the thing; another one who promises a new future for Malawi will arise to whom we will all rally only to be taken back into the same cycle again. The principle is clear, a poor country cannot sustain any government on the basis of patronage. It can only do so by institution a form of indifference that makes everyone feel that they are equal to everyone else in terms of its regulations, its opportunities or whatever citizen affordances it bears on its written code.

The answer to our problem is thus staring us in the face. Patronage does not maintain power especially in a country whose development budget is almost completely donor financed. Malawi’s revenue is only barely able to keep up with its recurrent costs of salaries (inclusive of the luxurious living in high government) and operations in the state service. Development financing however is almost entirely sourced externally; that is the 40 per cent of the budget that is donor funded constitutes over 80 per cent of development expenditure, while the 60 per cent is predominantly recurrent State costs, such as State Houses and Allowances, and salaries. So Malawian taxes only barely cater for our recurrent budget, while roads, hospitals, schools and other assets that require capital investment are externally financed. Such is the enormity of our herculean crisis.

But we can trust Joyce Banda to follow the failed script to the bitter end whence from she too could meet her political demise. We just hope that that end will not take the entire nation along with her as seemed to be the aspirations of her predecessor, one Bingu wa Mutharika.

Reconciling our Problematic Concepts of Sovereignty, Nationalism and Culture within a context of Dependency

The title of this article is broad, and the questions that could ensue from a more comprehensive interrogation of the concepts named in that title could lead to lengthy discussions with little relevance to the immediate needs of troubled Malawi. As such, this article will attempt to make concise and direct linkages between the seemingly abstract aspects of the concepts involved with pragmatic outputs which necessitate collective political action.

Firstly, let me place the assumptions undergirding much of my thinking in the open. Paradoxically I consider myself an optimistic-pessimist, and what I mean by that is this - I do not think it is of much use to presuppose that any human being in most cases would opt to work selflessly in the interest of the collective when the opportunities to do the contrary are readily available. My proposal are thus informed by this rather cynical view, and often I attempt to find synergies within our rotten systems that ultimately synchronize the egocentric and self-centred actors of that system into complementary counterparts for positive change. If done right, I am convinced that the newly emergent stakes arising from a re-ordered social setup would motivate the inherent greed in humanity to protect against a compromise of that system which could potentially undermine the welfare of themselves as a collective - even though that itself would be motivated by an entirely self-centred attitude to preserve self and only just self. By being so modest, it means that my predications for a better society can only ever be understated, and that anything beyond the very basic expectations would be very great news.

Malawi, needless to say, groans with the hunger to be sovereign. The definitions of sovereignty abound, masquerading within the disambiguating terms of self-determination, self-reliance, self-validation, and even for the more liberal thinkers, greater global relevance. In a crude manner, sovereignty seems to be subtly presented as the grand eventuality of nationalistic pride emanating from the acquisition of a largely collective realization of a distinct civilization that accords members of that national society the right to be ethnocentrically arrogant. An arrogance emanating from a well-developed collective psyche rooted in self-validation, self-determinism, and global visibility.

Nationalism would thus entail not just the camaraderie that comes to envelope the members of the society in question, transforming them into a community of brothers and sisters who also inseminate each other while inviting external others to participate in the greatness of their communal life, but more critically the mutual cooperation in the protection of that which is considered central to the holding up of that particularly adored society. While there can be no consensus as to what fundamental pillars these protected social artefacts really are – even though the modalities through which material and to some extent immaterial needs are met within that society would constitute some of those central features – the various spheres at which individual members of that society find their stake and access into the material and immaterial opportunities of that society become the egocentric motivators for protecting and reinforcing the status quo. In which case, greed and self-centeredness within the right kind of societal setup would propel to varying extents fairness and justness – but not on account of a strong belief in that principle, but rather on account of the strong stake in the sphere from which one’s limited livelihood is drawn from and sustained. To that effect, a rewired society whose systemic tentacles extended deep into the many spheres and spaces from which various members obtained sustenance should, even against the very design of its members, accommodate symmetrical applications of procedures and stipulations that would necessarily benefit the whole. Indeed within this abstraction resonate the problem of change – that is the ability of a society to pragmatically deal with the changing circumstances under which it finds itself over the course of time. This problem is perhaps too large to be contested on this blog, and suffice it to say that it may be tackled to the best of my abilities in later posts. But, if the rewired society is sufficiently self-preservationist, then pragmatism propelled by that same essentially egocentric individualism should activate sufficient quantities of the social system to induce change.

And as such, the role of culture – another very problematic concept to even define let alone incorporate into developmental efforts – would become devolved into localities in which culture would be informed not by the ancestors so much as it would be informed by necessity; a necessity everywhere cognizant of the strict limitations that undergird the liberties that everyone symmetrically enjoys. To that end, the ordinary expectation of sovereign and nationalist arrogance is not intentionally an attitude towards others, but rather a focused and coordinated effort to preserve that which enables people to live similar to one another, and yet independent of one another – truncated inextricably into a binding nationalism obtained from an assuring set of societal stipulations and organizations which ultimately make the said people a proud sovereign.

Then comes the discussion having to do with the harnessing of greed into a system that transforms it into an energy for progress. The answers would obviously vary from place to place – or to put it more accurately from country to country. But in as far as Malawi goes my proposal is somewhat modest that, and even with the litany of a growing number of political actors, a political resolution is more than likely the most eminent origin. The greed engine continues to churn in Malawi and yet within a context of ever growing stakeholders to the political processes compounded by their increasing power to unsettle and potentially dethrone establishments, the greed of populism itself which in Malawi’s history has fed patronage and state-clientelism would attempt to prolong its place on the Malawian political scene by instituting adaptations to the system that promise a fairer share of the national pie, including power, to the litany of political actors. That is the first foreseeable automated positive outcome of greed. And through a set of unpredictable and greed-informed steps, the minor reforms should lead to other reforms with the impact of limiting the political space in the arenas of the elite while concurrently widening the space of the previously marginalized. Greed would do this in order to ascertain its own place within the societal setup. Indeed focused efforts will churn on in the back-and-foregrounds in the spheres of civil society and other non-state actors which would contribute to spurring on this one-dimensional progression of our society – I however refrain from declaring that even such humanitarian acts would truly be motivated by the need to serve others. My assumption is that while there are some people who do care about others, most of us do not – and so we must bank upon this parasite and pathological human condition to somehow work itself into a situation that enables more and more people who do not care to be accommodated into this new form of social organization which cares for all of us precisely because we do not and will not care.

The question of dependency – the seemingly perpetual affliction of financial self-insufficiency – works most powerfully within a context in which the very benchmarks whereupon a people can judge for themselves the progress made in their country are lacking. Depending on others for financial reasons could be the result of good and convincing reasons, and perhaps – even though the evidence is narrow – help put a country in a position to catapult itself onto a better and more sustainable trajectory. But while economic or financial dependency has numerous criticisms which have been extensively discussed by various political economists and economists alike, the social effects of dependency in as far as the national psyche is concerned in the absence of internal benchmarks means that a nation remains always divided as to the exact role that external financiers ought to play. And this is not to the very simplistic and narrow definitional connotations of what the previous statement reads, but more deeply in the spheres of livelihood which are largely sustained not by a wide and everywhere symmetric system but rather by patronage, exclusion and to put it simply “GREED”. In a consistent manner as applied to the earlier view, the wells from which one’s water is harvested and from which one’s bread is drawn directly inform discourse disguised as an objective plea to maintain, reform or scrap a particular arrangement which is yet only informed by the egocentric desire to protect one’s well. Thus, should the assertions mentioned above indeed culminate into a greed informed state of progress, dependency as the epiphenomenal outshoot of internal instability within a fierce contest of ensuring the preservation of livelihoods naturally loses its destabilizing impact and becomes a stench to the inhabitants of the particular social order whose maturity has allowed it a greater degree of self-reliance and global-significance. Dependency then comes to be seen as an warranted access into the cultural independence of that social organization which must be resisted and blocked – as seen in South Africa for instance even though its complexities are very unique from those of Malawi.

In essence therefore, the problematic concepts of sovereignty, nationalism, culture and aid dependency appear to me as the occasions under which ordinarily compatible concepts are misaligned by a missing and symmetrical stake that causes or accrues into a collective adherence. I do not see too many contradictions within the concepts themselves so much as I see contradictions within the mode of business as it is in the motherland and how these concepts fail to be appropriated into that largely undefined context. After all, while indeed the actions that surround such concepts are varied and versatile, the concepts themselves fix actions as loaded activities aimed at enforcing the more or less static implications of those concepts. And as such, those static features are what allow the greed-informed progress which conjures up a system as a popular stake to more stability adhere to the static expectations of such concepts. Even within this pessimistic view, should a political leader decide to fast track the processes leading up to such an eventuality, it would not offset the expected compatibility to these concepts and self-protecting features that would allow them to remain stable and yet attentive to environmental shocks – whatever they might be, social, political, economic or ecological – affecting the said society. As such, I remain optimistic within this pessimism that ours remains a country steadily primed to rise and become great.

Soberly Focusing on the Problem

Largely, Africans have been on the defensive. Perhaps not all Africans, but more especially their estranged politician representatives. We have been on the defensive about our sovereignty and our right to determine matters within our own borders; within our own regions, and within our continent. We have cried foul when the West has intervened, especially when they have intervened in a manner deemed politically negative or in the West's own interests.

 

This is perhaps best crystalized in the Al Bashir saga when Malawi, under one leadership thought it a show of African solidarity to allow him entry and exit into Malawi without arrest; and then under another, a show of defending the national interest to deny him entry to avert another wrangle with the already withdrawing donor community. It is indeed all within good reason to believe that indeed there is some agenda being pursued in the manner in which certain international organizations have dealt with African matters, and the ICC issue relating to AL Bashir of Sudan is no different. But in the midst of all this, we as Africans, be it within our national borders, within our regional groups and then as a collective across the continent seem to simultaneously turn a blind eye to other matters that are of equal or perhaps more importance when we deal with such external influences.

 

Take Malawi for example, July 20th arrives in 2011. This day has already been designated a day of nation-wide demonstrations against the political and economic postures being pursued by the incumbent and his party. The incumbent designates that same day as a day to carry out a public lecture, to "teach" Malawians what it means to be nationalistic and sovereign. While the president carries on in this manner at the State House, adding more rage to the explosive demonstrations outside which are in fact protests against that very tendency of the incumbent of seeing himself as "all-knowing and infallible", police proceed to open live-ammunition fire on protesters in Mzuzu (the northern city) and Lilongwe (the capital). In total, 19 or more are gunned down with clear bullet injuries, and several more are injured in the clashes. The SADC meeting for that year meanwhile is due to occur just several days ahead (I don't exactly recall if it was weeks or a month or two ahead) of this violent confrontation between the State and the Public. At that meeting, while Malawians wait with baited breaths to hear SADC condemn the violence, no reference is made to that issue at all. Meanwhile, the AU is more concerned with trying to organize its fruitless (in my opinion useless) annual conference in Lilongwe. It designates a great deal of its energy towards ensuring the security of wanted man Al Bashir at that meeting in a grand stand against western imperialism and witch-hunting on African leaders through the organ of the ICC. Like the SADC, the AU is mum on the events in Malawi.

 

Now, as already mentioned, there is evidence that could cement the argument that indeed the ICC and other organizations only truly represent disguised modes of indirect control over African affairs - and indeed this post is not dismissive of that view. But what is more seriously at stake in my view is the "banding together" of two very distinct issues under the same banner of "resisting imperialism". The first issue is in fact the one that is immediately apparent to the so called regional blocs as well as the African Union and that is the continued interference of external actors in African politics. The second however, and of far greater implications, is the question as to whether Africans are in fact being governed in a manner that is truly representative of their interests and, put loosely and generally, if the political leadership is truly an accountable, transparent leadership of various African nationals. This second issue is often obliterated by the politically charged and "post-colonially" sentimental rhetoric of "here they come again to colonize us once more!", thereby turning the attention away from the more relevant question of "but did you Mr President indeed order the police to shoot down protesters on July 20, 2011 in Malawi?" or "did you Mr Al Bashir oversee the murders of hundreds of people in various villages and settlements during various times of your tenure as a Sudanese leader?"

 

We cannot band the two issues together. To do so is to effectively defeat justice and fairness in the entire political process. Regional bodies like SADC or the continental body of the AU should match their militancy towards the west with a militancy towards ensuring that while the west is kept out of African affairs, African leaders are bound to uphold the rights of their citizens in their various countries. It is quite shocking that after the deafening silences of the SADC and AU, the first people to comment on and condemn the violence that had happened in Malawi where AMNESTY international and later the British  Parliament. The former issued a strongly worded statement which was served on the establishment and aired in various media houses, the latter instituted a commission of inquiry to visit Malawi and to find out what had happened on July 20th to ensure that British aid was not being given to a government that was undermining certain aspects or conditions underpinning that reception of that aid. Now in this case, imperialistic or otherwise, when the regional and continental organizations have both failed to act on a matter pertinent to the rights and securities of citizens of a member country, would one blame the people of Malawi for seeking redress externally? It is in fact precisely this ineptitude on the part of our regional and continental bodies that facilitates western interference. Their negligence over the real matters of just governance and constitutionalism for some silly pursuit of "sovereignty" from an imperial other is in fact only a ploy by these bodies to protect the interests of their brotherhood of "excellences" that sows the very seeds of interference. An objective SADC and AU which dealt with the very real problems of brutal dictatorships and political massacres would more effectively preserve African independence as it would legitimize itself as a relevant body committed to the pursuit of political solutions in Africa.

 

At the national level, similar disconnects are rampant. In Malawi, under Mutharika, to be nationalist or a lover of one's country was to rally behind the president in a confrontational drive against the west, and an unquestioning attitude over the manner in which he decided to drive the national development agenda, period. Meanwhile the added functions of checking the president, ensuring that the constitution was adhered to, that the law is symmetrically applied, that all citizens are entitled to the same treatment under the constitutional order regardless of ethnicities, gender, race and others are all annulled and set aside. And so to stand up to the west becomes unnecessarily truncated automatically with standing down to tyranny and abuse. Meanwhile, my whole argument is that it does not necessarily need to go that far in the first place. Standing up to the West or in national solidarity need not automatically mean to be subservient to a leader. Africans can just as effectively maintain sovereignty within internally robust and transparent political processes. Sudan can be just as nationalist by standing up to Al Bashir and demanding that he keeps within his legal mandates. Malawi can and should call Joyce Banda to account even in the absence of British presence. And where citizens are disallowed that space, regional and continental bodies must champion the plight of the governed and not side with the tyrant or ailing leader. After all the right to rule is bestowed and therefore revocable by the public even more reasons that could be seen as flimsy or unjustified. But to defend a leader without an inquiry into the manner in which that leader governs as a mark of African-ness is to deny the people justice, and it is this tendency that continues to open our continent up to extremely pervasive forms of external interference.

 

In short, the soberness that would necessitate a turn-around in our politics requires major demystifications of so many political symbols that continue to only enable Africans to expect or to act in certain predictable fashions. Leaders should just be leaders, bound by the systems of the establishment and accountable to the people. Leaders should not be fathers or mothers, or Ngwazis or Nkhoswe's or other names that are embedded in symbolisms of "all knowing, infallible, defender, visionary etc". Such symbolism only serves to elevate them to a status that allows them the space to personalize an entire state, dragging it into their own self-interested ventures. How about leaders just became employees, without mysticism or other visions of grandeur. And how about we focus on our sovereignty as a measure of our felt growing freedoms to think, to participate, to suggest and question, to be equally protected by the state, and so on. How about SADC focuses on whether leaders in the SADC region truly adhere to the expectations of their citizens. How about the AU focus on whether Al Bashir indeed orchestrated those killings in a show of solidarity with the Sudanese people. Once we begin to do that, we not only begin to lay the basis for our own thriving African civilizations and our own versions of modernities but we also provide little room for the type of overt interference we see on this continent. But keep the political landscape as it is, and we leave floodgates open for all manner of interferences masked as interventions. And of course the inherent human condition of greed and opportunism twists up the already murky waters of African political development ever so intricately. We owe pragmatism to ourselves. Corruption is not the answer to imperialism.

Conversations with Moses [Mphatso] by Khumbo Soko

 

Fumbo: who benefits from societal order?

Interesting thoughts…on the male control of the female body. Maybe to simply reduce the argument to ‘men controlling the woman’s body’ is to pay scanty attention to the other rather pervasive and equally important power players in society. Because when you think about it, our bodies, yes both male and female, are subject to some sort of societal strictures. It might as well be that the inhibitions placed on the female body are indeed more pronounced but it doesn’t change the fact that Society would ‘flog’ me if I paraded in my village square naked. So maybe we need to interrogate the basis of societal order. Who stands to benefit more from a well ordered society with conventions on even mundane matters like dressing? Where do we place political and religious interests in all this? Do I hear someone say that it is even patriarchy which stands behind these systems? But what of systems where females have traditionally been very important power brokers? Can we not say that they are also in that regard beneficiaries of a well ordered society of which the ‘control of the body’ is but an aspect? I would love to hear your thoughts on where the ‘man’ stands in a matrilineal set-up…My point is, at the end of the day, we might as well find ourselves concluding that in some instances it is the woman who controls the male body! Quite outlandish, huh?

Of “us” and “others”…

On this I fully concur with you and I have nothing useful to add. I posted on my FB wall a couple of weeks ago that the “‘There is no chewa, tumbuka, sena but Malawian’ is a refrain of dubious accuracy.” There is nothing objectionable with racial/ethnic [and whatever] diversity. Heck! There is nothing we can do about being born Tumbuka, Chewa,, black, brown etc is there? The problem arises when we use these differences to disentitle others and to favour our own. I have always told ‘northerners’ who agitate for cessation on the basis of discrimination that “ah just dare do that and you will soon see what will happen. After the cessation Tumbukas will start discriminating against ngondes and Tongas against lambyas and so on and so forth. Before we know it, every village will be its own country if the solution to ethnic discrimination will be cessation.” I would love to see how much this othering has set us backwards as a people. We compromise on putting the right people in the right places because they do not belong. We would rather an inept homeboy occupied the office. Poor us…

“At what precise pace should a black man walk to avoid suspicion?”

 

I was watching Andersoon Cooper’s Townhall Meeting Special on Race & Justice in the US yesterday July 18, 2013. This whole Trayvon Martin travesty feels me with a great sense of frustration and anger. Let me start by acknowledging that it might as well be the case that the case, merely looked at from its “merits” was correctly decided. I believe it is the law in the US that if a jury entertains any doubt about the culpability of the accused, then it must resolve the same in his favour. In this case, we do have evidence that Zimmerman did in fact sustain some injuries on the material day. We also know that there was someone between the 2 of them who shouted for help. In other words there was some compelling evidence to suggest that in the minutes leading up to his fatality, Trayvon was in fact the aggressor. Now throw in Florida’s stand your ground law into the mix and you really have a hopeless case as a prosecution. After all, we must not allow ourselves to be blinded by our momentary anger to the fact that it is for the State to prove the guilt of an accused. The bar to clear is rather high in this regard. The evidence must be such as eliminates any reasonable doubt from the jury/court’s mind. That can hardly be said to have been the case in this case. Sadly, however, that’s not all that there is to the Trayvon travesty. The criminal justice system is not simply an assemblage of rules, procedures and system for enforcing a state’s penal laws. It also encompasses the unwritten attitudes of the people who run it, from the penal lawmaker through the cop who stops and frisks to a sentencing judge. It is informed by the policy objectives of any given polity. And it is not value free. And because we entrust it to human beings, they bring to it their prejudices and biases, both acknowledged and subconscious. Now it is a notorious fact that a young black man has got more chances of ending up in a penitentiary than he has of say a community college. If you are black, you are more likely to be stopped by the Police. You are more likely to be arrested. You are more likely to be shot by the Police and you are more likely to be at the receiving end of a long custodial sentence than would be the case if you were a white Defendant. Am saying nothing new here. These are well researched observations. Now this is the system that ‘processed’ Trayvon. You are right when you say that paper justice was served here. Zimmerman had his day in court and he carried it. But we all know better, don’t we? If Trayvon had been white and Zimmerman black….How I wish this was a Stephen Lawrence moment for the US. But somehow, I just have a depressing feeling it won’t be. Racism in the US is too institutionalized. It is a centuries-old machine that may never be fully dismantled. But that of course, is no excuse for failing to ask the tough questions.  Again I must agree with you that paper justice was served here. But we all know that the young man was screwed by the system…

 

Acknowledgements and other details

 

This entry was sourced from Khumbo Soko's blog at;

http://kbsoko.blogspot.com/2013/07/conversations-with-moses.html?showComment=1374153859167

 

Visit his blog for more interesting perspectives on a variety of social, political, legal and even popular matters.