No, I will not preach. Not yet. I'm referring to China. An earthquake that occurred last week has left at least 71,000 killed, buried or missing. I can't imagine 71,000 people dead. That's several villages all wiped out, just like that.
I was thinking this is the worst earthquake in history when a friend pointed me to January 23, 1556, also in China. That day, more than 830,000 lay dead after an earthquake.
The worst thing is that there is almost nothing people can do about it. You cannot predict at short notice when an earthquake will occur, where exactly it will hit and to what scale. You can't do nada about aftershocks either, although they are a lot easier to predict.
China has declared three days of national mourning.
Did I hear someone ask where was God when all this was happening? Why does he let bad things happen to good people (ok, Chinese authorities have problems with Tibet, Darfur, Zimbabwe and Tiananmen square, but that does not call for an earthquake)?
I don't know why God let it happen. All I know is that Jesus told His disciples (maybe that helps) that when they begin seeing earthquakes, famines, pestilences and strife, when they hear of wars and rumours of war, they should prepare to go home. That doesn't explain why earthquakes kill so many, or whether those killed should be among the disciples preparing to go home, but it is good news.
The fact is that even if you survive an earthquake (like we all have), some day you will die unless Christ comes back and finds you alive. Some day soon, you will go west, either courtesy of an earthquake, a tsunami, a car crash, illness, heart attack... The question then is not the means by which we will leave the earth but our preparedness for the big day when Christ returns.
Man may appear helpless in the wake of earthquakes, disease, illness and other agents of death, but there is good news: It will end soon! One day we will ask, O death, where is your victory? Where, O death, where is your sting?
Let me share what a friend once told me: Live each day as if it were your last; one day you'll be right.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Xenophobia rears its ugly head
I got this from the Thought Leader. I'm not sure if Kenya's Transport minister Ali Mwakwere 'makwerekwere' has any relation to this animal. I first heard it early from a friend who once lived in Windhoek, Namibia, but had relocated back to the country. He says everywhere he went he was referred to as 'kwerekwere'.
On makwerekwere…
Submitted by Boitumelo Magolego
The inside cover of my Oxford English dictionary features a word with which I have become all too familiar: the word is kwerekwere.
(It may be more familiar to you with one of its vernacular language–dependant prefixes prepended — the Sotho singular being le– and plural ma–, the Nguni singular being i– and plural ama–). This word is used to refer to black (in the morphological sense) Africans who are not South Africans — South African being defined as Sotho, Nguni, Venda and Tsonga ethnic groups (by that measure the Swazis, Batswana, etc. would be South African?). This word has a very negative sting to it and is often used with contempt. From what I gather it has undertones which speak of how black Africans are believed to be sub–human, too dark and have a pungent smell. Two other words also used in this regard are grigamba and kom–ver (as in the Afrikaans kom van ver) — each prepended with the relevant prefix.
Even though these words seem new to some people, I have been hearing them as far back as I can remember. My grandparents also say that these words have been in use for as long as they can remember. What’s my point? The contempt with which South Africans regard black African foreigners is not a post–democracy phenomenon. The question which everyone has been asking since the May 12 Alexandra killings is: What has made South Africans behave like this? What has brought about all this anger and rage? To me a more relevant question is: What was the trigger event which resulted in the outpouring of all this pent–up contempt?
To read the rest of the article, click here..
On makwerekwere…
Submitted by Boitumelo Magolego
The inside cover of my Oxford English dictionary features a word with which I have become all too familiar: the word is kwerekwere.
(It may be more familiar to you with one of its vernacular language–dependant prefixes prepended — the Sotho singular being le– and plural ma–, the Nguni singular being i– and plural ama–). This word is used to refer to black (in the morphological sense) Africans who are not South Africans — South African being defined as Sotho, Nguni, Venda and Tsonga ethnic groups (by that measure the Swazis, Batswana, etc. would be South African?). This word has a very negative sting to it and is often used with contempt. From what I gather it has undertones which speak of how black Africans are believed to be sub–human, too dark and have a pungent smell. Two other words also used in this regard are grigamba and kom–ver (as in the Afrikaans kom van ver) — each prepended with the relevant prefix.
Even though these words seem new to some people, I have been hearing them as far back as I can remember. My grandparents also say that these words have been in use for as long as they can remember. What’s my point? The contempt with which South Africans regard black African foreigners is not a post–democracy phenomenon. The question which everyone has been asking since the May 12 Alexandra killings is: What has made South Africans behave like this? What has brought about all this anger and rage? To me a more relevant question is: What was the trigger event which resulted in the outpouring of all this pent–up contempt?
To read the rest of the article, click here..
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Let's watch KBC laugh at the log in SABC's eye
The other day a friend remarked that I was obsessed with the South African media. Maybe I am. Most of the media stories posted here are on SA. There are three main reasons why. The first is the sheer vibrance of the SA media. Two is that the country has many parallels with my country (many ethnic groups, a regional economic giant, former British colony, and gyrates to similar political music).
There are major differences, of course, but the parallels are significant. For example, President Thabo Mbeki is serving his last few months in office, the same as Kibaki (we thought he had a few months to go last year, and some still feel nothing really changed). The presumed incoming presidents (Zuma in SA and Raila in Kenya) share a history of persecution and are seen as radically different from the incumbents.
Heck! Graca Machel, Madiba's wife, even visited Nairobi quite a few times in January and February to persuade us that killing each other was not really a sport. A few years back, it was Prof Washington Jalang'o, a Kenyan, who convinced IFP and ANC leaders that their adversary was laughing on the sidelines as they squared with each other.
The third reason is esoteric: I have a few friends in SA who care about the media and current affairs. Today, my post will focus on SABC, where I have a few friends. Any similarities with the backside, front, head or sole of any media house, real, imagined, living or dead, in Kenya and elsewhere, are purely coincidental. My gut feeling is that a media house near you will undergo similar gyrations very soon.
I will quote from my favourite SA newspaper, Mail & Guardian. The update is that Mpofu has now been suspended.
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=337403&area=/insight/insight__national/
Celebrity SABC boss Mpofu splits board
Ferial Hafajee and Kwanele Sosibo | Johannesburg, South Africa
21 April 2008 08:09
The opposing forces in the SABC boardroom battle became clearer this week: CEO Dali Mpofu is up against board chairperson Khanyi Mkonza and her deputy Christine Qunta, who want him axed, while his supporters include businessman Peter Vundla, President Thabo Mbeki’s former spokesperson Bheki Khumalo and electoral commission chief Pansy Tlakula.
Mpofu’s future, and that of the SABC board, will be on the agenda when the broadcaster appears before Parliament early next month.
The board is deeply split on Mpofu. Mkonza and Qunta accuse him of being an absentee CEO and failing to make key staff appointments, and hold him personally responsible for losing football and cricket broadcasting rights and tabling a loss-making budget for the next financial year.
There are major differences, of course, but the parallels are significant. For example, President Thabo Mbeki is serving his last few months in office, the same as Kibaki (we thought he had a few months to go last year, and some still feel nothing really changed). The presumed incoming presidents (Zuma in SA and Raila in Kenya) share a history of persecution and are seen as radically different from the incumbents.
Heck! Graca Machel, Madiba's wife, even visited Nairobi quite a few times in January and February to persuade us that killing each other was not really a sport. A few years back, it was Prof Washington Jalang'o, a Kenyan, who convinced IFP and ANC leaders that their adversary was laughing on the sidelines as they squared with each other.
The third reason is esoteric: I have a few friends in SA who care about the media and current affairs. Today, my post will focus on SABC, where I have a few friends. Any similarities with the backside, front, head or sole of any media house, real, imagined, living or dead, in Kenya and elsewhere, are purely coincidental. My gut feeling is that a media house near you will undergo similar gyrations very soon.
I will quote from my favourite SA newspaper, Mail & Guardian. The update is that Mpofu has now been suspended.
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=337403&area=/insight/insight__national/
Celebrity SABC boss Mpofu splits board
Ferial Hafajee and Kwanele Sosibo | Johannesburg, South Africa
21 April 2008 08:09
The opposing forces in the SABC boardroom battle became clearer this week: CEO Dali Mpofu is up against board chairperson Khanyi Mkonza and her deputy Christine Qunta, who want him axed, while his supporters include businessman Peter Vundla, President Thabo Mbeki’s former spokesperson Bheki Khumalo and electoral commission chief Pansy Tlakula.
Mpofu’s future, and that of the SABC board, will be on the agenda when the broadcaster appears before Parliament early next month.
The board is deeply split on Mpofu. Mkonza and Qunta accuse him of being an absentee CEO and failing to make key staff appointments, and hold him personally responsible for losing football and cricket broadcasting rights and tabling a loss-making budget for the next financial year.
Monday, May 5, 2008
You aren't white enough, SAHRC tells black journalists
A few days ago, the South African Human Rights Commission delivered a ruling on the case raised by white journalists who has been barred from a Forum for Black Journalists (FBJ) imbizo addressed by president-in-waiting Jacob Zuma.
SAHRC ruled that "barring journalists from joining the Forum for Black Journalists on the basis of race is unconstitutional".
The argument the FBJ used to justify excluding white journalists did not pass the scrutiny of the Constitution, he said.
Among the loudest was Radio 702's editor, Katy Katopodis, who said excluding whites from covering an imbizo attended by Zuma was tantamount to denying them access to Zuma based on the colour of their skin.
FBJ have called the ruling a "judicial ambush" and a "banning order". FBJ's Abbey Makoe said the ruling amounted to "criminalising black people". He said:
"By its ruling the HRC has found us guilty for being black; it has criminalised black people; it has found us guilty for exercising the initiative to solve the problems not of its making. The HRC is bastardising the ability of black people to confront their experiential exigencies."
Related to the ruling was an incident in which a columnist referred to two journalists as "coconuts". While SAHRC "discouraged the use of the word, it did not find any wrongdoing by the columnist. In SA parlance, "coconut" refers to those who are black on the outside but white inside. In this case, it referred to black journalists who walked out of the FBJ imbizo in solidarity with their white colleagues.
While we try to exorcise Kenya of tribal ghosts through forced resettlement of IDPs, SA is using its institutions. The running thread is that you cannot force someone to like a neighbour, regardless of colour or tribe.
SAHRC ruled that "barring journalists from joining the Forum for Black Journalists on the basis of race is unconstitutional".
The argument the FBJ used to justify excluding white journalists did not pass the scrutiny of the Constitution, he said.
Among the loudest was Radio 702's editor, Katy Katopodis, who said excluding whites from covering an imbizo attended by Zuma was tantamount to denying them access to Zuma based on the colour of their skin.
FBJ have called the ruling a "judicial ambush" and a "banning order". FBJ's Abbey Makoe said the ruling amounted to "criminalising black people". He said:
"By its ruling the HRC has found us guilty for being black; it has criminalised black people; it has found us guilty for exercising the initiative to solve the problems not of its making. The HRC is bastardising the ability of black people to confront their experiential exigencies."
Related to the ruling was an incident in which a columnist referred to two journalists as "coconuts". While SAHRC "discouraged the use of the word, it did not find any wrongdoing by the columnist. In SA parlance, "coconut" refers to those who are black on the outside but white inside. In this case, it referred to black journalists who walked out of the FBJ imbizo in solidarity with their white colleagues.
While we try to exorcise Kenya of tribal ghosts through forced resettlement of IDPs, SA is using its institutions. The running thread is that you cannot force someone to like a neighbour, regardless of colour or tribe.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Ok, Mugabe is still around
A few weeks ago, I posted here an article wishing Mugabe a nice retirement. The Zimbabwean election came and went (or rather, refuses to go away) yet we do not have presidential results. The opposition MDC won (according to their count and remarks by US envoy Jendayi Frazer).
Frazer
Incidentally, Frazer was unable to find similar words for Kibaki, whose fraudulent election is the novel Mugabe read before going to bed a few weeks ago.
Like in Zimbabwe, Raila's opposition ODM beat Kibaki at the election, but somehow, Kibaki remains the country's president. After sending congratulations to him, Jendayi Frazer's country was quick to withdraw when it noticed that the European Union and other more honest nations saw through Kibaki's ruse. Any surprise that Mugabe's Zanu-PF party has been calling for a coalition government?
Mugabe is sticking to a recount (amazingly, of results which have not been released). Not surprisingly, about 200 MDC supporters are in jail.
In a previous article, I asked what the African Union was planning to do about Mugabe. Well, it turns out they planned to do exactly nothing, so the matter remains in the hands of the UN Security Council. Meanwhile, to borrow another leaf straight from Kenya, Mugabe's police are accused of unleashing violence in the countryside, displacing thousands of people. This is a tactic that might become handy in case repeat presidential elections are called.
I just hope Zimbabweans will not descend to the level of killing each other like Kenyans did a few weeks ago.
Frazer
Incidentally, Frazer was unable to find similar words for Kibaki, whose fraudulent election is the novel Mugabe read before going to bed a few weeks ago.
Like in Zimbabwe, Raila's opposition ODM beat Kibaki at the election, but somehow, Kibaki remains the country's president. After sending congratulations to him, Jendayi Frazer's country was quick to withdraw when it noticed that the European Union and other more honest nations saw through Kibaki's ruse. Any surprise that Mugabe's Zanu-PF party has been calling for a coalition government?
Mugabe is sticking to a recount (amazingly, of results which have not been released). Not surprisingly, about 200 MDC supporters are in jail.
In a previous article, I asked what the African Union was planning to do about Mugabe. Well, it turns out they planned to do exactly nothing, so the matter remains in the hands of the UN Security Council. Meanwhile, to borrow another leaf straight from Kenya, Mugabe's police are accused of unleashing violence in the countryside, displacing thousands of people. This is a tactic that might become handy in case repeat presidential elections are called.
I just hope Zimbabweans will not descend to the level of killing each other like Kenyans did a few weeks ago.
Monday, April 7, 2008
Kibaki pushing his luck
This man who claims to be the president of Kenya, STOLE elections on December 30. As a result of that theft, 1,500 Kenyans are dead and thousands more are refugees in their own country. Peacemakers came and went but a deal was struck when Kofi Annan managed to convince ODM, the election winners, to negotiate with Kibaki.
That was a soft landing for the thief. A few weeks before that, he would have helped himself (literally and allegorically) by looking for a country that could have accepted him. To date, he remains a pariah who is recognized by about seven despotic African and Middle Eastern countries.
In the deal that was signed before the chief mediators and the international community, Kibaki agreed to share power on equal terms with Raila Odinga, the leader of the winning party whose victory he had stolen. That agreement ended the civil war that Kenya had plunged into. It also held the promise for the resettlement of the displaced, and signalled hope for the country's economic recovery. To date, no cabinet has been agreed on, mainly because Kibaki and his henchmen continue to cling onto positions he assigned them during the chaos.
Kibaki, against the advice of the international community and local leaders, appointed his half-cabinet the same day Kofi Annan arrived in the country to mediate the talks. With hindsight, he was portraying himself as having the upper hand when we know he could hardly leave State House. The one time he ventured out of Nairobi, angry locals in Eldoret burnt homes near the vicinity of his function (the scene where scores of IDPs were burnt to death in a church). It was an act of spite, despicable as it was following the saddening deaths in the church, but Kibaki could only watch helplessly.
Yesterday, Kibaki sent his fellow octogenerian Branjis Muthaura to purport that according to the constitution, only the president had executive authority to appoint ministers. Huh! If that is the case, why did Kibaki not name the full cabinet in the first place? Why did Kibaki (reluctantly) negotiate with ODM if he had such powers?
It is not the first time Muthaura, the head of the civil service, is pooping on the high table. A few weeks back, accompanied by an equally repugnant uncivil servant Dr Alfred Mutua, he issued a startling statement that the portfolio balance and power-sharing in the deal signed by Kibaki and Raila would not touch the civil service. Total nonsense. Government includes civil service, otherwise Muthaura would not be a political appointee lapping Kibaki's every vomit and regurgitating it on our feet.
On KTN last night, Local Government minister Uhuru Kenyatta repeated roughly the same remarks. Media reports indicate that Uhuru is among the Kibaki lapdogs who have refused to let go of their ministries. This explains why Kibaki, against all reason, insists on a 40-member cabinet. ODM had asked for 34 in total, giving itself 17.
This is the way to go:
1. Declare Kibaki illegally in office.
2. Call for mass action until the cabinet is named.
3. Pile international and diplomatic pressure on Kibaki to go home.
4. Keep up the pressure on the Hague to investigate human rights abuses committed under his illegal watch, including the killing of unarmed and fleeing protesters.
5. Freeze Kibaki's assets and deport his family members living abroad.
6. Disband the Electoral commission and call fresh elections in six months.
7. Announce a plan to resettle the displaced under a new government. The current one is not only the cause of their displacement but has shown no inclination to resolve the issue of IDPs. Indeed, it has shown it wants more Kenyans displaced.
8. Cooperate with the TJRC to investigate the post-election violence and historical injustices.
That was a soft landing for the thief. A few weeks before that, he would have helped himself (literally and allegorically) by looking for a country that could have accepted him. To date, he remains a pariah who is recognized by about seven despotic African and Middle Eastern countries.
In the deal that was signed before the chief mediators and the international community, Kibaki agreed to share power on equal terms with Raila Odinga, the leader of the winning party whose victory he had stolen. That agreement ended the civil war that Kenya had plunged into. It also held the promise for the resettlement of the displaced, and signalled hope for the country's economic recovery. To date, no cabinet has been agreed on, mainly because Kibaki and his henchmen continue to cling onto positions he assigned them during the chaos.
Kibaki, against the advice of the international community and local leaders, appointed his half-cabinet the same day Kofi Annan arrived in the country to mediate the talks. With hindsight, he was portraying himself as having the upper hand when we know he could hardly leave State House. The one time he ventured out of Nairobi, angry locals in Eldoret burnt homes near the vicinity of his function (the scene where scores of IDPs were burnt to death in a church). It was an act of spite, despicable as it was following the saddening deaths in the church, but Kibaki could only watch helplessly.
Yesterday, Kibaki sent his fellow octogenerian Branjis Muthaura to purport that according to the constitution, only the president had executive authority to appoint ministers. Huh! If that is the case, why did Kibaki not name the full cabinet in the first place? Why did Kibaki (reluctantly) negotiate with ODM if he had such powers?
It is not the first time Muthaura, the head of the civil service, is pooping on the high table. A few weeks back, accompanied by an equally repugnant uncivil servant Dr Alfred Mutua, he issued a startling statement that the portfolio balance and power-sharing in the deal signed by Kibaki and Raila would not touch the civil service. Total nonsense. Government includes civil service, otherwise Muthaura would not be a political appointee lapping Kibaki's every vomit and regurgitating it on our feet.
On KTN last night, Local Government minister Uhuru Kenyatta repeated roughly the same remarks. Media reports indicate that Uhuru is among the Kibaki lapdogs who have refused to let go of their ministries. This explains why Kibaki, against all reason, insists on a 40-member cabinet. ODM had asked for 34 in total, giving itself 17.
This is the way to go:
1. Declare Kibaki illegally in office.
2. Call for mass action until the cabinet is named.
3. Pile international and diplomatic pressure on Kibaki to go home.
4. Keep up the pressure on the Hague to investigate human rights abuses committed under his illegal watch, including the killing of unarmed and fleeing protesters.
5. Freeze Kibaki's assets and deport his family members living abroad.
6. Disband the Electoral commission and call fresh elections in six months.
7. Announce a plan to resettle the displaced under a new government. The current one is not only the cause of their displacement but has shown no inclination to resolve the issue of IDPs. Indeed, it has shown it wants more Kenyans displaced.
8. Cooperate with the TJRC to investigate the post-election violence and historical injustices.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Bye, bye Mugabe; Rust in piece
http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnL03693542.html
Zimbabwe's Mugabe has conceded defeat -report
Thu 3 Apr 2008, 5:34 GMT
[-] Text [+]
JOHANNESBURG, April 3 (Reuters) - Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe has admitted to his family and advisers that he has lost the most important election of his 28-year rule, South African financial daily Business Day reported on Thursday.
Mugabe lost control of parliament for the first time since independence in 1980 and the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) said he had also been defeated in a presidential election last Saturday and should concede defeat.
Business Day said Mugabe had privately conceded defeat and was deciding if he should contest a run-off vote needed because MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai failed to secure a clear majority.
As Mugabe goes home to shower, I'm trying to think whether to view him as a hero or as a villain. I'll try to base my decision on three things: land reforms, commitment to the independence of Zimbabwe and his legacy.
His land reforms, one of the main ingredients of his downfall, were well-intentioned. It is difficult to justify a situation where the majority black population owns less than half the arable land of their fathers, a situation similar to Kenya before independence. I've met a few Zimbabweans who think Mugabe was right to take over white lands. It sounded reasonable for Mugabe to ask Britain to compensate the whites they had brought to Zimbabwe. But things went horribly wrong when Mugabe turned to his people and started seeing them as enemies for simply opposing his methods.
Mugabe thumbed his nose at the west for years against the backdrop of economic sanction and diplomatic isolation. Apart from the land issue, this is one of the reasons why few African leaders openly criticised the man. They understood the oppression Mugabe himself had withstood and the hands of Britain (he was jailed for 10 years in the period leading to 1974). They also understood why he wanted to kick out the white settlers from the land of his people.
Mugabe's legacy for Africa is mixed. At home, he leaves a bitter taste in the mouth of his people. Abroad, his name evokes mixed emotions. Largely, I feel his legacy is a negative one. There are few enduring lessons from his rulership. A positive one, though, is that he had the courage to concede defeat and walk away without having to be pushed out by the gun. Interestingly too, although it could have been inadvertent, Zimbabwe under Mugabe retained a little mentioned law that could help many AFrican nations. It is a provision for a rerun in case a presidential election produces no clear winner. It is doubtful Mugabe retained it out of altruism, but as of yesterday, the country was preparing for a rerun now that his closest rival, Morgan Tsvangirai, did not attain the 50+1 majority needed to get him the presidency.
Like Daniel arap Moi in 2002, Mugabe has tasted defeat and will walk away a proud man. I do not see him going for the rerun.
Like a new spanner in the mechanic's workshop, Mugabe came in strong, shining like tempered steel. Now he walks away rusted, not out of good use but out of internal acidosis. On the whole, I give him 4 out of 10.
God bless Africa.
Zimbabwe's Mugabe has conceded defeat -report
Thu 3 Apr 2008, 5:34 GMT
[-] Text [+]
JOHANNESBURG, April 3 (Reuters) - Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe has admitted to his family and advisers that he has lost the most important election of his 28-year rule, South African financial daily Business Day reported on Thursday.
Mugabe lost control of parliament for the first time since independence in 1980 and the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) said he had also been defeated in a presidential election last Saturday and should concede defeat.
Business Day said Mugabe had privately conceded defeat and was deciding if he should contest a run-off vote needed because MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai failed to secure a clear majority.
As Mugabe goes home to shower, I'm trying to think whether to view him as a hero or as a villain. I'll try to base my decision on three things: land reforms, commitment to the independence of Zimbabwe and his legacy.
His land reforms, one of the main ingredients of his downfall, were well-intentioned. It is difficult to justify a situation where the majority black population owns less than half the arable land of their fathers, a situation similar to Kenya before independence. I've met a few Zimbabweans who think Mugabe was right to take over white lands. It sounded reasonable for Mugabe to ask Britain to compensate the whites they had brought to Zimbabwe. But things went horribly wrong when Mugabe turned to his people and started seeing them as enemies for simply opposing his methods.
Mugabe thumbed his nose at the west for years against the backdrop of economic sanction and diplomatic isolation. Apart from the land issue, this is one of the reasons why few African leaders openly criticised the man. They understood the oppression Mugabe himself had withstood and the hands of Britain (he was jailed for 10 years in the period leading to 1974). They also understood why he wanted to kick out the white settlers from the land of his people.
Mugabe's legacy for Africa is mixed. At home, he leaves a bitter taste in the mouth of his people. Abroad, his name evokes mixed emotions. Largely, I feel his legacy is a negative one. There are few enduring lessons from his rulership. A positive one, though, is that he had the courage to concede defeat and walk away without having to be pushed out by the gun. Interestingly too, although it could have been inadvertent, Zimbabwe under Mugabe retained a little mentioned law that could help many AFrican nations. It is a provision for a rerun in case a presidential election produces no clear winner. It is doubtful Mugabe retained it out of altruism, but as of yesterday, the country was preparing for a rerun now that his closest rival, Morgan Tsvangirai, did not attain the 50+1 majority needed to get him the presidency.
Like Daniel arap Moi in 2002, Mugabe has tasted defeat and will walk away a proud man. I do not see him going for the rerun.
Like a new spanner in the mechanic's workshop, Mugabe came in strong, shining like tempered steel. Now he walks away rusted, not out of good use but out of internal acidosis. On the whole, I give him 4 out of 10.
God bless Africa.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)