Nipate
Forum => Kenya Discussion => Topic started by: Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants on April 01, 2016, 06:04:42 PM
-
While Zuma seems to have the police in his pocket, like any good African autocrat, he appears to have no control over the Public Protector(similar to EACC) or the courts.
Here is what the police said in clearing Zuma of any wrongdoing, in a comical report in the best African tradition.
JOHANNESBURG—
“Pay Back the Money" has become a rallying cry in South Africa for politicians and citizens who want President Jacob Zuma to pay back some of the $20 million in public money spent on upgrades to his private homestead.
But this week, the nation's police minister cleared Zuma of any responsibility, saying the upgrades, which included a swimming pool and a cattle enclosure, were necessary for presidential security.
South Africa’s police minister declared that Zuma does not have to pay back any of the $20 million in government money that was used for improvements on his private homestead.
He said the features that have grabbed headlines, a swimming pool, a cattle corral, an amphitheater and a visitors’ center, are necessary security upgrades.
The scandal has followed Zuma for years, and the nation’s public protector wrote a 2014 report condemning the use of government funds and recommending that the president pay back a reasonable portion of the money.
Controversial report
That report has prompted Zuma’s political opponents to disrupt recent parliamentary sessions with insistent calls that he “pay back the money.” He has refused and said he did nothing wrong and that he did not ask for the upgrades.
Police Minister Nathi Nhleko, this week, issued his long-awaited report, in which he addressed the four most contentious items in the rural homestead.
“Evidence points to the questionable features, namely the animal enclosure, in other words, the new cattle corral and/or goat corral with culvert and chicken run; the fire pool, referred to as the swimming pool; soil retention wall, referred to as the amphitheater; and the and visitors’ center as being security features which are in accordance with the physical security requirements and/or interest,” Nhleko said. “Accordingly, the state president is therefore not liable to pay for any of these security features.”
The swimming pool, renamed a “fire pool” for its firefighting purposes, was described as the most important security asset because local fire services are slow and the area is dry and prone to catching fire.
The cattle corral, he said, keeps livestock away from the security perimeter, and the chicken run prevents wayward chickens from tripping motion detector beams. The amphitheater, Nhleko concluded, is an emergency assembly point. And the visitors’ center is an important security control point for guests and for visiting dignitaries.
He added that the widespread reporting of the affair was an affront to the president’s security, and that it might warrant more security upgrades.
“His family has concomitantly suffered the violation and breach of their security and safety. It is an unprecedented phenomenon the world over, that a president’s security and safety is violated to the degree we have seen in South Africa,” he said.
One South African journalist at the Cape Town briefing asked a question that is on the minds of many South Africans, namely: ”Do you really think we are that stupid?”
The journalist was accused of being disrespectful.
The nation’s main opposition party condemned the report and said it is investigating how to mount a legal challenge.
“The Democratic Alliance is appalled by what we’ve dubbed a ‘whitewash report’ which has absolved the president of any accountability for the millions of dollars that have been spent on one man’s private residence when there are five other presidential residences for the president to use,” Mabine Seabe, spokesman, Democratic Alliance.
Seabe said the saga is far from over, and that Zuma has not heard the last of the “pay back the money” refrain.
http://www.voanews.com/content/police-minister-zuma-owes-nothing-for-20-milliion-home-upgrades/2797377.html
-
While Zuma seems to have the police in his pocket, like any good African autocrat, he appears to have no control over the Public Protector(similar to EACC) or the courts.
Here is what the police said in clearing Zuma of any wrongdoing, in a comical report in the best African tradition.
JOHANNESBURG—
“Pay Back the Money" has become a rallying cry in South Africa for politicians and citizens who want President Jacob Zuma to pay back some of the $20 million in public money spent on upgrades to his private homestead.
But this week, the nation's police minister cleared Zuma of any responsibility, saying the upgrades, which included a swimming pool and a cattle enclosure, were necessary for presidential security.
South Africa’s police minister declared that Zuma does not have to pay back any of the $20 million in government money that was used for improvements on his private homestead.
He said the features that have grabbed headlines, a swimming pool, a cattle corral, an amphitheater and a visitors’ center, are necessary security upgrades.
The scandal has followed Zuma for years, and the nation’s public protector wrote a 2014 report condemning the use of government funds and recommending that the president pay back a reasonable portion of the money.
Controversial report
That report has prompted Zuma’s political opponents to disrupt recent parliamentary sessions with insistent calls that he “pay back the money.” He has refused and said he did nothing wrong and that he did not ask for the upgrades.
Police Minister Nathi Nhleko, this week, issued his long-awaited report, in which he addressed the four most contentious items in the rural homestead.
“Evidence points to the questionable features, namely the animal enclosure, in other words, the new cattle corral and/or goat corral with culvert and chicken run; the fire pool, referred to as the swimming pool; soil retention wall, referred to as the amphitheater; and the and visitors’ center as being security features which are in accordance with the physical security requirements and/or interest,” Nhleko said. “Accordingly, the state president is therefore not liable to pay for any of these security features.”
The swimming pool, renamed a “fire pool” for its firefighting purposes, was described as the most important security asset because local fire services are slow and the area is dry and prone to catching fire.
The cattle corral, he said, keeps livestock away from the security perimeter, and the chicken run prevents wayward chickens from tripping motion detector beams. The amphitheater, Nhleko concluded, is an emergency assembly point. And the visitors’ center is an important security control point for guests and for visiting dignitaries.
He added that the widespread reporting of the affair was an affront to the president’s security, and that it might warrant more security upgrades.
“His family has concomitantly suffered the violation and breach of their security and safety. It is an unprecedented phenomenon the world over, that a president’s security and safety is violated to the degree we have seen in South Africa,” he said.
One South African journalist at the Cape Town briefing asked a question that is on the minds of many South Africans, namely: ”Do you really think we are that stupid?”
The journalist was accused of being disrespectful.
The nation’s main opposition party condemned the report and said it is investigating how to mount a legal challenge.
“The Democratic Alliance is appalled by what we’ve dubbed a ‘whitewash report’ which has absolved the president of any accountability for the millions of dollars that have been spent on one man’s private residence when there are five other presidential residences for the president to use,” Mabine Seabe, spokesman, Democratic Alliance.
Seabe said the saga is far from over, and that Zuma has not heard the last of the “pay back the money” refrain.
http://www.voanews.com/content/police-minister-zuma-owes-nothing-for-20-milliion-home-upgrades/2797377.html
What irks me most is the new constitution made these offices independent so that they would carry on with their mandate without undue influence from the executive. What we forgot is once they got their independence they simply sold their services to the highest bidder
-
Another African leader who has no ethics. Sad thing is, many cheer him because he is from the neighborhood.
-
While Zuma seems to have the police in his pocket, like any good African autocrat, he appears to have no control over the Public Protector(similar to EACC) or the courts.
Here is what the police said in clearing Zuma of any wrongdoing, in a comical report in the best African tradition.
JOHANNESBURG—
“Pay Back the Money" has become a rallying cry in South Africa for politicians and citizens who want President Jacob Zuma to pay back some of the $20 million in public money spent on upgrades to his private homestead.
But this week, the nation's police minister cleared Zuma of any responsibility, saying the upgrades, which included a swimming pool and a cattle enclosure, were necessary for presidential security.
South Africa’s police minister declared that Zuma does not have to pay back any of the $20 million in government money that was used for improvements on his private homestead.
He said the features that have grabbed headlines, a swimming pool, a cattle corral, an amphitheater and a visitors’ center, are necessary security upgrades.
The scandal has followed Zuma for years, and the nation’s public protector wrote a 2014 report condemning the use of government funds and recommending that the president pay back a reasonable portion of the money.
Controversial report
That report has prompted Zuma’s political opponents to disrupt recent parliamentary sessions with insistent calls that he “pay back the money.” He has refused and said he did nothing wrong and that he did not ask for the upgrades.
Police Minister Nathi Nhleko, this week, issued his long-awaited report, in which he addressed the four most contentious items in the rural homestead.
“Evidence points to the questionable features, namely the animal enclosure, in other words, the new cattle corral and/or goat corral with culvert and chicken run; the fire pool, referred to as the swimming pool; soil retention wall, referred to as the amphitheater; and the and visitors’ center as being security features which are in accordance with the physical security requirements and/or interest,” Nhleko said. “Accordingly, the state president is therefore not liable to pay for any of these security features.”
The swimming pool, renamed a “fire pool” for its firefighting purposes, was described as the most important security asset because local fire services are slow and the area is dry and prone to catching fire.
The cattle corral, he said, keeps livestock away from the security perimeter, and the chicken run prevents wayward chickens from tripping motion detector beams. The amphitheater, Nhleko concluded, is an emergency assembly point. And the visitors’ center is an important security control point for guests and for visiting dignitaries.
He added that the widespread reporting of the affair was an affront to the president’s security, and that it might warrant more security upgrades.
“His family has concomitantly suffered the violation and breach of their security and safety. It is an unprecedented phenomenon the world over, that a president’s security and safety is violated to the degree we have seen in South Africa,” he said.
One South African journalist at the Cape Town briefing asked a question that is on the minds of many South Africans, namely: ”Do you really think we are that stupid?”
The journalist was accused of being disrespectful.
The nation’s main opposition party condemned the report and said it is investigating how to mount a legal challenge.
“The Democratic Alliance is appalled by what we’ve dubbed a ‘whitewash report’ which has absolved the president of any accountability for the millions of dollars that have been spent on one man’s private residence when there are five other presidential residences for the president to use,” Mabine Seabe, spokesman, Democratic Alliance.
Seabe said the saga is far from over, and that Zuma has not heard the last of the “pay back the money” refrain.
http://www.voanews.com/content/police-minister-zuma-owes-nothing-for-20-milliion-home-upgrades/2797377.html (http://www.voanews.com/content/police-minister-zuma-owes-nothing-for-20-milliion-home-upgrades/2797377.html)
What irks me most is the new constitution made these offices independent so that they would carry on with their mandate without undue influence from the executive. What we forgot is once they got their independence they simply sold their services to the highest bidder
The Public Protector and the Courts and thus far still independent. They would have protected him if this were Kenya. But the police seems like a typical African police force working on behalf of the big man in power.
-
Another African leader who has no ethics. Sad thing is, many cheer him because he is from the neighborhood.
He has apologized. He says he never meant to violate the constitution. He will not resign. Zuma has ushered in the era of impunity in SA. Screw ethics, constitutionalism and the law as long as you have a majority.
-
like uhuru, Zuma used the power of the majority to circumvent the law.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-conversation-africa/dramatic-night-in-south-a_b_9600062.html?
-
SA...
The courts seem to have some fair independence. A semifunctional judiciary and civil society. Parliament is undermined by ANC monopoly which rides on apartheid hangover. Black folks blindly back ANC because it saved them from color bar. I believe the emergence of the nationalist EFF is a good development for SA. Zuma and his ilk have to do better than remind folks of apartheid heroism with Maremas on their backs.
Now, as for Kenya... I have lost hope. Look at DPP - I think we were better under AG, at least Pattni attended quarterly mentions. Perhaps mzungu did SA some good afterall. I went there first time 2006 and the hosts openly told us the environment, roads, etc were deteriorating fast under Mbeki. This was at a time Jo'burg was heaven compared to Nairobi. Last year I could not believe it -- SA is fully dilapidated to 3rd world status. So sad.
I think whites are much better at development and general leadership than blacks. Patriotic too. Blacks should just guarantee their racial rights and let white man save them from backwardness.
-
Robina
Most people will label you a white for saying that "whites are better", but for me I'm a pragmatist. our kind are the ones that kill us. Having lived in USA for a while I see the same. We see our brothers as the enemy and always want to patronize them. The ruled become subjects to be used and spat on, rather than people who should be the bosses. Basic facilities tend to revert to primordial being rather than needing significant improvement. Harare was a first class city in 1990s, but its turned into a disorganized village city. Nothing functions.
SA...
The courts seem to have some fair independence. A semifunctional judiciary and civil society. Parliament is undermined by ANC monopoly which rides on apartheid hangover. Black folks blindly back ANC because it saved them from color bar. I believe the emergence of the nationalist EFF is a good development for SA. Zuma and his ilk have to do better than remind folks of apartheid heroism with Maremas on their backs.
Now, as for Kenya... I have lost hope. Look at DPP - I think we were better under AG, at least Pattni attended quarterly mentions. Perhaps mzungu did SA some good afterall. I went there first time 2006 and the hosts openly told us the environment, roads, etc were deteriorating fast under Mbeki. This was at a time Jo'burg was heaven compared to Nairobi. Last year I could not believe it -- SA is fully dilapidated to 3rd world status. So sad.
I think whites are much better at development and general leadership than blacks. Patriotic too. Blacks should just guarantee their racial rights and let white man save them from backwardness.
-
Maybe the posh areas are deteriorating while other areas are catching up. I am talking for example maybe more black kids in RSA are now going to school? Many more going to College? Maybe rural roads in Kwa Zulu natal are now better. Naturally this money will have to be diverted from posh white majority areas like the big cities.
The point being if you use money to reward certain areas or class of people; then that cannot be sustainable development.
Of course I am not discounting corruption. But if the Whites had educated the blacks (including Zuma) we won't be here in the first place. They didn't and now barely literate people are running the political and public affairs of RSA.
The way forward is for RSA to invest more and more on the majority blacks. RSA cannot develop thro a short cut where a small majority somehow pulls the rest. That cannot happen. The majority will always pull it back.
The good infrastructure that apartheid left is good legacy. But Zuma is also their legacy. The legacy of blacks who were deliberately under-educated.
SA...
The courts seem to have some fair independence. A semifunctional judiciary and civil society. Parliament is undermined by ANC monopoly which rides on apartheid hangover. Black folks blindly back ANC because it saved them from color bar. I believe the emergence of the nationalist EFF is a good development for SA. Zuma and his ilk have to do better than remind folks of apartheid heroism with Maremas on their backs.
Now, as for Kenya... I have lost hope. Look at DPP - I think we were better under AG, at least Pattni attended quarterly mentions. Perhaps mzungu did SA some good afterall. I went there first time 2006 and the hosts openly told us the environment, roads, etc were deteriorating fast under Mbeki. This was at a time Jo'burg was heaven compared to Nairobi. Last year I could not believe it -- SA is fully dilapidated to 3rd world status. So sad.
I think whites are much better at development and general leadership than blacks. Patriotic too. Blacks should just guarantee their racial rights and let white man save them from backwardness.
-
RVP obviously you have a point. Still Africans we are way back. Rwanda miracle tell us it is possible to have a focused, patriotic leadership for a couple of decades... like the Chinese, Asian Tigers, etc. Don't be superhuman mzungu, no, just attempt to copycat what a Malaysian has done.
SA apartheid is a BENEFIT, RVP, as was the rest of colonialism. The reality is not with you. The more recent mzungu departure the less backward the colony. I recall that debate here sometime ended in a gloomy consensus of mwafrika is clueless.
Even in business you outsource to expats in case you are challenged. Mzungu has his social issues too but mentality is eons ahead of mwafrika. Look at Germany / EU / Japan. Wipe out Japan... 20 years later they are firmly back to top.
Just to note that SA, Zim, etc leadership is rank and file First Class Oxford folks. Kibaki type of intellectuals kina Cyril Ramaphosa, Welshman Ncube, etc. Just too corrupt, tribal and unpatriotic.
50 years of underachievement... what is wrong with us?
-
Robina,
Welcome back. I wish I could find another explanation for the deterioration in RSA. Zimbabwe. Haiti 200 years ago(yes it was a rich place). The reason cannot be intellect because to develop is really just common sense. The African can do well individually but he sucks at cooperation for the good of the whole. It might be the result of centuries of being bombarded with negative self image.
-
Maybe the posh areas are deteriorating while other areas are catching up. I am talking for example maybe more black kids in RSA are now going to school? Many more going to College? Maybe rural roads in Kwa Zulu natal are now better. Naturally this money will have to be diverted from posh white majority areas like the big cities.
I'm not sure I buy that argument. First, considering cause and effect, it must not be assumed that if rural roads are better and more black kids are going to school, it is necessarily because money has been diverted from majority white areas. It is possible that those things could have happened even with white rule.
Second, even though most whites live in the cities, the majority of those in the cities are black. So there is not much comfort in the view that resources are being diverted from whites to the benefit of blacks.
The problem, as I see it, is simply the absence of a maintenance culture, coupled with extremely selfish corruption, and that is all over the continent. Look at Kenya: A new road will be built or an old road resurfaced, and then it will be allowed to deteriorate to the extent that another new road or major resurfacing is required. A similar situation applies to just about everything else----buildings, equipment, etc. Couple that with corruption that is so selfish that eaters don't even remember that they too have to use the same public facilities---Terminator's point about the public good.
-
Did you know most residential areas in African cities have no tarmac roads?
I was surprised to see high end areas in NRB with dilapidated roads.
I am sure that BuruBuru is no longer as nice as it used to be.
Most of Africas problems lie in the fact that leaders see themselves as Demigods. They act with impunity and when challenged they use law enforcement to their advantage. Uganda's is a good example. Kenya is going the same way after Kibaki left.
-
We seem to agree that corruption and antipatriotism are the root cause of underdevelopment. So my suggestion is to outsource on trial and error basis. Simply pack key institutions with white folks with untainted genetics.
-Anti corruption judicial branch - police, EACC, courts, prisons. Top bosses to be foreigners (whites) of international repute in economic crime bursting.
-Mandate extra resources for this same purpose to avoid subversion by MPs or PORK or court orders.
I am talking katiba level BoR-style clauses here. Not acts of parliament. Other legal administration - buglary, rape, etc we continue with mwafrika as we don't have severe challenges there.
-
Maybe the posh areas are deteriorating while other areas are catching up. I am talking for example maybe more black kids in RSA are now going to school? Many more going to College? Maybe rural roads in Kwa Zulu natal are now better. Naturally this money will have to be diverted from posh white majority areas like the big cities.
I'm not sure I buy that argument. First, considering cause and effect, it must not be assumed that if rural roads are better and more black kids are going to school, it is necessarily because money has been diverted from majority white areas. It is possible that those things could have happened even with white rule.
Second, even though most whites live in the cities, the majority of those in the cities are black. So there is not much comfort in the view that resources are being diverted from whites to the benefit of blacks.
The problem, as I see it, is simply the absence of a maintenance culture, coupled with extremely selfish corruption, and that is all over the continent. Look at Kenya: A new road will be built or an old road resurfaced, and then it will be allowed to deteriorate to the extent that another new road or major resurfacing is required. A similar situation applies to just about everything else----buildings, equipment, etc. Couple that with corruption that is so selfish that eaters don't even remember that they too have to use the same public facilities---Terminator's point about the public good.
There is certainly an issue of lack of maintenance culture. Nobody maintains anything; there is no point investing in an industry that would support this kind of thing.
I also think that the African is a poor team leader/player. Harambee Stars are a good analogy. On paper, they are as good a team as any that Kenya has ever assembled. But the officials pocket the allowances allocated for the players. Everyone, including players, realize it's better to be an official because there is no joy producing on the field. They end up losing to better organized teams that may even have a lower quality of individual players.
Africa lacks synergy. For some reason, when a mzungu is in charge, everybody seems to find joy in performing their roles.
-
I didn't know Zuma is semi-illiterate!!!
Watch this..
-
We seem to agree that corruption and antipatriotism are the root cause of underdevelopment. So my suggestion is to outsource on trial and error basis. Simply pack key institutions with white folks with untainted genetics.
-Anti corruption judicial branch - police, EACC, courts, prisons. Top bosses to be foreigners (whites) of international repute in economic crime bursting.
-Mandate extra resources for this same purpose to avoid subversion by MPs or PORK or court orders.
I don't think the problem is that we are fundamentally incompetent or incapable or that we want to solve the problems but don't have the means. Nobody really wants change----I mean really, really wants it---so the proposed solution is impossible:
* The top 1%---and they control the "levers"---would vigorously oppose it because they like the current "subversive" situation just the way it is. The last thing they care for is anything that would turn off the taps of looting. Keep in mind that people are not appointed to critical positions in order to solve any problems; they are appointed to look busy but ensure that nothing changes (and a few others are appointed because they are "our people"). If they do well, then in retirement they get appointed to head parastatals, directorships of government-owned enterprises, etc., where they can enjoy their retirement (i.e. no work) but still get paid; and that's an additional incentive to do "well" in the former positions.
* The bottom 99%, who get the shit, could force change, but they simply don't care enough, their claims notwithstanding. When it comes to voting---the one place where they could directly exercise some power---use of the head goes out the window and the issues don't matter; neither do integrity, past performance or potential for performance, etc. It's all about "our man". That they might have little to show for "our man" being in place matters little to them. (Raila might be doing his "job as Opposition" but is largely wasting his time by focusing on issues like corruption, which will have absolutely no effect on how people vote.) Post-elections, how many people ever make performance demands of their MPs, protest at their office, and generally make demands for performance?
Think about this: In any well-run place, the types of corruption scandals that we get almost weekly would have brought masses of citizens onto the streets. In Kenya the closest we have come to mass protest is a few hundred comments by readers of the three main dailies. The same goes for various retrogressive laws that are regularly passed with hardly a whimper from the populace.
Kenyans appear to have hard heads that need some cracking before the owners move to real actions. Post-independence, we have had only two major changes. The first was after Moi socked it to people so hard and for so long that they decided enough was enough. (Has there ever been a better show of Kenyan unity than when people rallied around Kibaki? Have Kenyans ever been happier about the outcome of any elections?) The second was in finally passing a new constitution when, after the PEV, people woke up from their complacent belief that Kenya could never go the African way. (Kenyan could easily have gone that way, had it not been for outsiders, who were subsequently insulted for their assistance.)
My guess is that the third change will come from the youth. The high unemployment rates of this lot is a disaster waiting to happen, and it will happen when they get tired of the empty "you are the future of Kenya" and decide to forcefully grab their share. The possibility that the masses will wake up in a mindful way is nonexistent for now; it will eventually happen, but it will take too long. Likewise the possibility of leadership-driven change is nonexistent: the current landscape does not reveal anyone of the right caliber, and to change the character of the present lot, or at least moderate their venality, would require a wide-awake populace. So until the next disaster, we will continue to stumble along, with things increasingly getting worse.
-
There is certainly an issue of lack of maintenance culture. Nobody maintains anything; there is no point investing in an industry that would support this kind of thing.
I also think that the African is a poor team leader/player. Harambee Stars are a good analogy. On paper, they are as good a team as any that Kenya has ever assembled. But the officials pocket the allowances allocated for the players. Everyone, including players, realize it's better to be an official because there is no joy producing on the field. They end up losing to better organized teams that may even have a lower quality of individual players.
At the "top level", I see the two as being closely related, in that the problem with a lack of maintenance culture shows up at its worst when because of a lack of "team spirit" (i.e. thinking of the greater public good)---e.g. the guy in charge of roads eating maintenance money, or simply not caring, because, after all, it is not his road (or his mother's road, as Kenyans would say).
Africa lacks synergy.
In far too many ways. On a continental level, think of travel, doing business, etc. Travelling around Africa on an African passport is not particularly easy, especially for a black person; contrast that with the case of the mzungu and his European passport.
-
It really disgraceful to read some of you attribute race to stuff. That is just nonsense. There is nothing white about being ethical, no-corrupt, discipline and have so called maintenance culture. These are stuff that are learnt. Learnt either at home or schools or out there. South Africa I believe will do good or bad as the average south African is! Therefore to improve the country; the whole population has to move along. White nations had their time a few centuries ago when they were like Africans; too poor to care! too poor to be ethical! too stupid to do what appear to be commonsensical stuff.
Over centuries they've got better. Africans will get there. Just don't expect this to happen instantly unless folks were to be put under military or colonial rule. They will evolve naturally. Over many years. And the black African is certainly making progress....
-
There is case to outsource some stuff to countries (not necessarily white) that are better than others in some stuff. We can pick an asian or black or african. But it utter nonsense to talk about untainted genetics. There is nothing genetic about our problems.
We seem to agree that corruption and antipatriotism are the root cause of underdevelopment. So my suggestion is to outsource on trial and error basis. Simply pack key institutions with white folks with untainted genetics.
-Anti corruption judicial branch - police, EACC, courts, prisons. Top bosses to be foreigners (whites) of international repute in economic crime bursting.
-Mandate extra resources for this same purpose to avoid subversion by MPs or PORK or court orders.
I am talking katiba level BoR-style clauses here. Not acts of parliament. Other legal administration - buglary, rape, etc we continue with mwafrika as we don't have severe challenges there.
-
It really disgraceful to read some of you attribute race to stuff. That is just nonsense. There is nothing white about being ethical, no-corrupt, discipline and have so called maintenance culture. These are stuff that are learnt.
You are well within your rights to complain about "disgraceful" writing. But perhaps people are simply going by the evidence.
In my case, I wrote about the lack of a "maintenance culture". If you here evidence to the contrary, then let's have it. To start you off, let me give you an example, to which you may respond:
Take the SGR. The Japanese consultant hired by the EAC had this to say to them: "Your obsession with gauge is misplaced; what you folks need to work on is maintenance. You can learn from us there.". [And he then gave examples.] And the facts: When the SGR is complete, it will do at most 120 kph. Now, once you exclude the "bullet train lines", Japan has mostly narrow-gauge lines---thousands of kms---on which they do up to 130 kph. Question: has the railway lines Kenya got at independence been an example of anything other that eating and a lack of maintenance? Last I heard, South Africans (or other externals) had to brought in to keep those lines going.
Let's have your argument for that case. And then proceed to the general case where you argue that "maintenance" is not an issue for us.
Over centuries they've got better.
And, surely, in centuries we too will be better. But why should it take centuries? We don't have to go through what they went through for "centuries". Today we can read the same books as they do, access the same information and accumulated knowledge as they do (especially thanks to their invention known as the internet), send our kids to sit in the same classes as they do, etc. We can (and do) learn the same engineering, law, medicine, systems of governance, etc. as they do, benefitting (one hopes) from their accumulated knowledge and experience. And precisely because, rather than start from scratch, we get directly to the products of centuries of effort elsewhere. Why, then, should we have to wait for centuries? Was exactly is it that we lack that means we must wait for "centuries"? [The comments that you object to may be seen as a partial answer to the latter question.]
We benefit form centuries of history in other places, technology being the most obvious example. Why can't we do so in other cases? For example, Kenyan law is the result of centuries of legal development in England. So is the basic civil service. So is ... Etc. etc. etc. We are not starting "from scratch", so why the need for centuries? Today, every Kenyan, from His Excellency in Stat House to the manamba in Nyalgunga has something to say on the social and economic evil that is virulent corruption? For a solution, what will the "centuries" bring that we don't already have?
In any case, our own "visions" don't anticipate waiting forever. In Kenya we have a (pie-in-the-sky) Vision 2030 (not Vision 3020). Fundamentally quite possible, but it won't happen. Why is it pie-in-the-sky that won't happen? Why is it that when it comes to enjoying the benefits of centuries of scientific and technological development elsewhere, we are ready to do so (and actually do so) right now, but when it comes to how we govern ourselves and run our daily lives, it's "look! it took them centuries to get there!"? Schoolkids with no food, no classrooms, dying of diarrhea and what-not, ... but, looky looky!, they will all have laptops!!! [What is missing there?] A mobile phone in the pocket, but the stomach is empty. Can't run a basic railway line? No problem; let it go to hell, and then borrow money to build a spanking new one. Dot, dot, dot.
I think it pains all of us to say "we can do this, but we are messed up in this and that way". But to my mind, it is the first step in changing and moving forward. We simply have to acknowledge these unpleasant realities and then work for change. Simply insisting that the reality is different won't do. People can talk all they want about "Africa Rising", Africans are as capable as anyone else, blah blah blah, but where's the matching reality? We should move from what we say for our self-esteem and start working on a matching reality that will be self-evident. And that reality needs to change----not as a "show" to the rest of the world, but because Africans desperately need the change. We are like alcoholics: we need to give up the self-comforting narrative that justifies the bottle and face a hard, sober reality ... and engage in reconstruction. In compute geek-speak, bootstrap the thing instead of moving the screen to where the light is better.
The only way forward for us is to change ourselves. And it is not a matter of technology, or climate, or help from others (too much about turning West or East for "help"), or centuries of this and that, or whatever. We can do it right now, if we are minded to. Which we are not.
-
I'll repeat. There is nothing racial about all these. The maintenance culture is not ingrained in Japs or white DNA.There are white communities in RSA that are wallowing in slums and dumping garbage.Are you looking for the superficial reason to explain things or do you really want to engage your brains, and understand why things are the way they are, and why you cannot force some stuff to happen like instant coffee. All you'll end up being is a frustrated cynic who thinks blacks are inferior. Shocking ignorance.
Talk about the MGR. WB/IFC (white ran) was given by GK and UK the mandate to look for somoene to ran and maintain the old rail-line for 25yrs. They got a white South African crook named RvR. And the white ran RVR didn't care to maintain the rail tracks nor even paint the trains. Maybe the Japs were not aware about that. Why SGR not MGR..that I reckon is a technical and financial debate best left to Kenya and China government..who are putting 5billion USD on the line.
Maybe you guys are messed up. Your thinking certainly is messed up. But Africans will get there. They are getting time very quickly. Thanks to what your allude; there is now more opportunity to move forward than centuries ago.Time when you're talking about changing a country cannot be in hours or years. It has to be in decades, in generations and centuries. African was a raw savage 100yrs ago...and look where he is now...100yrs later. All indicators of progress are up. There is no doubt that in another century, maybe Africa will have caught up with civilization (like white or japanase or chinese) with 10 or 20 centuries of advancement.
South Africa that seem far ahead thanks to small minority will have to find it natural base. And it natural base is the average south africa level of education, ethics, discipline, integrity, maintance culture, thuggery, etc. That is what mathematics tell us in normal natural distribution. Then over the years it will slowly but surely improve the average ability to think, to be ethical, to be disciplined, to maintain stuff and all the good things.
You cannot rush some things. And you must be very blind or have never visited Africa recently not to see self-evident progress.Breathtaking progress. Every time I go to shags I see tremendous progress. Evey time I go to Nairobi or any Africa city I see noticeable changes. Africa rise is real.
It really disgraceful to read some of you attribute race to stuff. That is just nonsense. There is nothing white about being ethical, no-corrupt, discipline and have so called maintenance culture. These are stuff that are learnt.
You are well within your rights to complain about "disgraceful" writing. But perhaps people are simply going by the evidence.
In my case, I wrote about the lack of a "maintenance culture". If you here evidence to the contrary, then let's have it. To start you off, let me give you an example, to which you may respond:
Take the SGR. The Japanese consultant hired by the EAC had this to say to them: "Your obsession with gauge is misplaced; what you folks need to work on is maintenance. You can learn from us there.". [And he then gave examples.] And the facts: When the SGR is complete, it will do at most 120 kph. Now, once you exclude the "bullet train lines", Japan has mostly narrow-gauge lines---thousands of kms---on which they do up to 130 kph. Question: has the railway lines Kenya got at independence been an example of anything other that eating and a lack of maintenance? Last I heard, South Africans (or other externals) had to brought in to keep those lines going.
Let's have your argument for that case. And then proceed to the general case where you argue that "maintenance" is not an issue for us.
Over centuries they've got better.
And, surely, in centuries we too will be better. But why should it take centuries? We don't have to go through what they went through for "centuries". Today we can read the same books as they do, access the same information and accumulated knowledge as they do (especially thanks to their invention known as the internet), send our kids to sit in the same classes as they do, etc. We can (and do) learn the same engineering, law, medicine, systems of governance, etc. as they do, benefitting (one hopes) from their accumulated knowledge and experience. And precisely because, rather than start from scratch, we get directly to the products of centuries of effort elsewhere. Why, then, should we have to wait for centuries? Was exactly is it that we lack that means we must wait for "centuries"? [The comments that you object to may be seen as a partial answer to the latter question.]
In any case, our own "visions" don't anticipate waiting forever. In Kenya we have a (pie-in-the-sky) Vision 2030 (not Vision 3020). Fundamentally quite possible, but it won't happen. Why is it pie-in-the-sky that won't happen? Why is it that when it comes to enjoying the benefits of centuries of scientific and technological development elsewhere, we are ready to do so (and actually do so) right now, but when it comes to how we govern ourselves and run our daily lives, it's "look! it took them centuries to get there!"? Schoolkids with no food, no classrooms, dying of diarrhea and what-not, ... but, looky looky!, they will all have laptops!!! [What is missing there?] A mobile phone in the pocket, but the stomach is empty. Can't run a basic railway line? No problem; let it go to hell, and then borrow money to build a spanking new one. Dot, dot, dot.
I think it pains all of us to say "we can do this, but we are messed up in this and that way". But to my mind, it is the first step in changing and moving forward. We simply have to acknowledge these unpleasant realities and then work for change. Simply insisting that the reality is different won't do. People can talk all they want about "Africa Rising", Africans are as capable as anyone else, blah blah blah, but where's the matching reality? We should move from what we say for our self-esteem and start working on a matching reality that will be self-evident. And that reality needs to change----not as a "show" to the rest of the world, but because Africans desperately need the change. We are like alcoholics: we need to give up the self-comforting narrative that justifies the bottle and face a hard, sober reality ... and engage in reconstruction. In compute geek-speak, bootstrap the thing instead of moving the screen to where the light is better.
The only way forward for us is to change ourselves. And it is not a matter of technology, or climate, or help from others (too much about turning West or East for "help"), or centuries of this and that, or whatever. We can do it right now, if we are minded to. Which we are not.
-
I'll repeat. There is nothing racial about all these. The maintenance culture is not ingrained in Japs or white DNA.There are white communities in RSA that are wallowing in slums and dumping garbage.Are you looking for the superficial reason to explain things or do you really want to engage your brains, and understand why things are the way they are, and why you cannot force some stuff to happen like instant coffee. All you'll end up being is a frustrated cynic who thinks blacks are inferior. Shocking ignorance.
If you carefully read what I wrote, I did not claim (or even imply) that it is ingrained in anyone DNA. What I stated is that we don't have it. So, to the extent that you disagree with me, what you should do is give an argument, with examples, to the effect that, contrary to what I claim, we do indeed have a strong "maintenance culture". (I hope that's not too difficult for you.) The other emotional stuff that you inject into it----"a frustrated cynic who thinks blacks are inferior ... shocking ignorance"---is irrelevant and unhelpful.
Talk about the MGR. WB/IFC (white ran) was given by GK and UK the mandate to look for somoene to ran and maintain the old rail-line for 25yrs. They got a white South African crook named RvR. And the white ran RVR didn't care to maintain the rail tracks nor even paint the trains. Maybe the Japs were not aware about that. Why SGR not MGR..that I reckon is a technical and financial debate best left to Kenya and China government..who are putting 5billion USD on the line.
All that about the RVR could well be the case, but there is also evidence to the contrary. Regardless, all of that is completely irrelevant to my point, which is this: How did the railway lines that Kenya got at independence end up so badly that outsiders had to be brought in? (Once you answer that, we'll get to the corollary: on what basis do we believe that SGR will be any better?)
By the way, the Chinese are not putting anything on the line in SGR. They have lent Kenyans the money, and they want to be (and will be) paid back with interest. But there's more: they have also insisted that Kenyans pay (to a Chinese bank) for hefty insurance on the loans; so no matter what, they get paid, and then some. For them, it's a win-win-win.
There is no doubt that in another century, maybe Africa will have caught up with civilization (like white or japanase or chinese) with 10 or 20 centuries of advancement.
Again, I repeat: avoid simplistic comparisons of time, given that Africa is already getting the benefits of centuries of development elsewhere, and point me to what exactly it is that we lack right now.
As for getting there in another century, why not. It seems it will have so be that way. So then: Vision 2030. Vision 3020.
-
I'm glad your dialing back and engaging your brains. This thread was slowly becoming embarrassing. There is nothing in white or asian or black DNA that denote they are more brighter or more intelligent or more ethical. All these stuff are learnt from the enviroment.
The rail and everything (left by colonial gov) had to go down. It was just natural. The African (right now) cannot manage it. Not with corruption. The same fate await south africans.
And out of the ashes...the African will rise. It will take time. So go slow and find something else to do. Don't be too hard on yourself and fellow Africans. These things take centuries.
Africa will start building their own infrastructure and manage it well. There is NO short cut. If you swap the people living in Europe with those in Africa. The results will be the same. Africans will mismanage Europe to the level they can handle. Europeans will quickly develop Africa.
And yet it won't mean Africa is somehow inferior or dna is messed up. No. It simply mean Africa won't be ready for that. She has no experience running all that suff. She has no aptitude for that. She has no education for that. She is not prepared for that. Over the years Africa will become more educated, more experiences, more prepared and more advanced. The same with bad leadership and corruption.
There is no doubt that across Africa indicators of many things including leadership and corruption are getting better. The leaders of today may appear bad but the leaders of 50yrs were atrocious. In whole of Rift Valley when Mzungu went round to look for leaders; they could only get Moi and some Maasai with 10 yrs of education. The whole populace had btw 0-3 level of education! These are guys suppose to ran a gov? ran the railway? ran buses on time!
I'll repeat. There is nothing racial about all these. The maintenance culture is not ingrained in Japs or white DNA.There are white communities in RSA that are wallowing in slums and dumping garbage.Are you looking for the superficial reason to explain things or do you really want to engage your brains, and understand why things are the way they are, and why you cannot force some stuff to happen like instant coffee. All you'll end up being is a frustrated cynic who thinks blacks are inferior. Shocking ignorance.
If you carefully read what I wrote, I did not claim (or even imply) that it is ingrained in anyone DNA. What I stated is that we don't have it. So, to the extent that you disagree with me, what you should do is give an argument, with examples, to the effect that, contrary to what I claim, we do indeed have a strong "maintenance culture". (I hope that's not too difficult for you.) The other emotional stuff that you inject into it----"a frustrated cynic who thinks blacks are inferior ... shocking ignorance"---is irrelevant and unhelpful.
Talk about the MGR. WB/IFC (white ran) was given by GK and UK the mandate to look for somoene to ran and maintain the old rail-line for 25yrs. They got a white South African crook named RvR. And the white ran RVR didn't care to maintain the rail tracks nor even paint the trains. Maybe the Japs were not aware about that. Why SGR not MGR..that I reckon is a technical and financial debate best left to Kenya and China government..who are putting 5billion USD on the line.
All that about the RVR could well be the case, but there is also evidence to the contrary. Regardless, all of that is completely irrelevant to my point, which is this: How did the railway lines that Kenya got at independence end up so badly that outsiders had to be brought in? (Once you answer that, we'll get to the corollary: on what basis do we believe that SGR will be any better?)
By the way, the Chinese are not putting anything on the line in SGR. They have lent Kenyans the money, and they want to be (and will be) paid back with interest. But there's more: they have also insisted that Kenyans pay (to a Chinese bank) for hefty insurance on the loans; so no matter what, they get paid, and then some. For them, it's a win-win-win.
There is no doubt that in another century, maybe Africa will have caught up with civilization (like white or japanase or chinese) with 10 or 20 centuries of advancement.
Again, I repeat: avoid simplistic comparisons of time, given that Africa is already getting the benefits of centuries of development elsewhere, and point me to what exactly it is that we lack right now.
As for getting there in another century, why not. It seems it will have so be that way. So then: Vision 2030. Vision 3020.
-
I'm glad your dialing back and engaging your brains.
Anyone who can read and comprehend will see that I did no such thing as "dialing back". But if it suits you to think so, why not.
There is nothing in white or asian or black DNA that denote they are more brighter or more intelligent or more ethical. All these stuff are learnt from the enviroment.
No, there is not. Here is what I wrote earlier:
I don't think the problem is that we are fundamentally incompetent or incapable or that we want to solve the problems but don't have the means.
The question that needs to be addressed is why we are nevertheless in such a mess. In that "post", I offered my "preliminary" conclusion: we simply don't care enough, and I suggested why that might be so.
The rail and everything (left by colonial gov) had to go down. It was just natural. The African (right now) cannot manage it. Not with corruption. The same fate await south africans.
I don't see why any of it had to go down, or why such going-down should be natural. And I have even more "problems" seeing why things should keep going down now.
You state that "the African (right now) cannot manage" such things. So what is the plan with SGR, and the like, for which billions are being borrowed? Will the Chinese also be brought in to manage them? Or perhaps the wazungu?
A more general question is this: Why is it that "the African (right now)" cannot manage such things or deal with corruption and whatever? Given, as you state, that brightness, ethics, and intelligence are not in the DNA, what is the African's problem---the one that makes you state that even for South Africans "the same fate awaits"? (Aside: This is especially interesting given that South Africa in 1994 had the benefit of observing the mess of the "1960s-independence" countries.)
And out of the ashes...the African will rise. It will take time. So go slow and find something else to do. Don't be too hard on yourself and fellow Africans. These things take centuries.
I have no doubt that it will rise out of the ashes. My "issue" is why there must first be ashes. Why, for example, could South African (and any other place) not improve on whatever they had instead of first going to the "same fate" ("African Way")?
(I will skip the gratuitous emotional stuff and get to the lest sentence.) Yes, it certainly looks like it will take centuries. What a pity!
Africa will start building their own infrastructure and manage it well.
No doubt about it. And when might that be?
If you swap the people living in Europe with those in Africa. The results will be the same. Africans will mismanage Europe to the level they can handle. Europeans will quickly develop Africa.
Again this brings me back to the starting point:
(a) What is it about Africans that makes you sure they will mismanage Europe?
(b) What is it about Europeans that makes you sure they will quickly develop Africa?
Ruling out random and uninvited commentary on DNA---all of which I suggest you give up, for the unhelpful emotional content---you nevertheless seem to be suggesting a fundamental difference. What would that be? More generally, why are Africans (according to your theory) incapable of managing (or even learning to manage) while the Europeans are not? Why should we cheerfully accept the "fact" that Africans will make a mess of things, but the Europeans won't?
The point that others on this thread have noted is not necessarily to do with DNA: at its core are (a) glaring differences and (b) what to do until the Africans and "ready", as you would put it. The essence is the same one that has produced your statement above. And one proposed solution is to have "expatriates" do critical jobs, a proposal seemingly supported by your claim that "Europeans will quickly develop Africa".
(So you should perhaps rethink the line of argument that starts with "we are all absolutely the same, because nothing is in the DNA!" but nevertheless ends with "Africans are like this, and Europeans are like that".)
Africa won't be ready for that. She has no experience running all that suff. She has no aptitude for that. She has no education for that. She is not prepared for that. Over the years Africa will become more educated, more experiences, more prepared and more advanced.
- Africans have no aptitude to properly run their lives? I will leave that one there.
- Half a century hardly seems like no experience, especially when the starting point is the benefit of hundreds of years of labour elsewhere.
- What sort of education and preparation do you suppose they require?
- Everybody is getting more educated, more this, more that.
A question: Would it make sense to ask for "voluntary recolonization" until we are ready, or should we be like children, who see fire burn a person but will continue to play with it until we are ready to learn from experience? Or should we just get serious instead of making a hash of it while boldly declaring Vision This and Vision That?
The same with bad leadership and corruption.
Are Africans fundamentally incapable of choosing good leaders? Why would that be the case? And what is it about corruption? Looking just at Kenya, there seems to be a clear understanding of what the problem is and an equally clear understanding on what is required for a solution: public commentary, from top to bottom, indicate that; so do the laws that have been enacted and the institutions that have been put in place. So what is it about the African can that means it has to be "the same?"
-
Now you're beginning to ask the right questions. A country or continent is a large big ship. To turn it around is not that easy. It takes time. A country/family might have a few bright spots here and there but generally the "majority" will determine the country's or family's fate.
Talk about corruption. You pass the law and do all that Kenya has done. But all the guys from the police, the lawyer, the witnesses, the judges, the court clerk, the pastor and name anyone is corrupt and looking for loopholes to kill those cases. This corruption is true for the country as well as our immediate families. So until the average kenya is not corrupt, it going to be small gains here and there, and lots of setbacks.When will kenya stop being corrupt, there are lot of variables that come into play. People need to have more economic opportunities so they can live an honest live. This is going to happen slowly as GDP grows slowly. The same with violent robberies. Corruption is just a softer version of kid in Kibera buying a gun and robbing folks.
Another example if you go with leadership. Political leadership. First Africa had to go through military coups and dictatorship. Then some mockery of democracy. Then some real competitive democracy. Then eventually better and better leaders get elected. These things take centuries. No short cut.
So the right answer is to watch INDICATORS. Indicators that measure the mean/average of whether the country is progressing or regressing. What is average corruption level of a kenyan. Not rail day and night about politicians. Nor SGR. What is average education of a kenya or south african. What is average quality of leadership in the country..from guys running a local dip/primary school..to national leadership. Do you have barely literate people running our schools..YES. Are they corrupt..Yes.
I'm glad your dialing back and engaging your brains.
Anyone who can read and comprehend will see that I did no such thing as "dialing back". But if it suits you to think so, why not.
There is nothing in white or asian or black DNA that denote they are more brighter or more intelligent or more ethical. All these stuff are learnt from the enviroment.
No, there is not. Here is what I wrote earlier:
I don't think the problem is that we are fundamentally incompetent or incapable or that we want to solve the problems but don't have the means.
The question that needs to be addressed is why we are nevertheless in such a mess. In that "post", I offered my "preliminary" conclusion: we simply don't care enough, and I suggested why that might be so.
The rail and everything (left by colonial gov) had to go down. It was just natural. The African (right now) cannot manage it. Not with corruption. The same fate await south africans.
I don't see why any of it had to go down, or why such going-down should be natural. And I have even more "problems" seeing why things should keep going down now.
You state that "the African (right now) cannot manage" such things. So what is the plan with SGR, and the like, for which billions are being borrowed? Will the Chinese also be brought in to manage them? Or perhaps the wazungu?
A more general question is this: Why is it that "the African (right now)" cannot manage such things or deal with corruption and whatever? Given, as you state, that brightness, ethics, and intelligence are not in the DNA, what is the African's problem---the one that makes you state that even for South Africans "the same fate awaits"? (Aside: This is especially interesting given that South Africa in 1994 had the benefit of observing the mess of the "1960s-independence" countries.)
And out of the ashes...the African will rise. It will take time. So go slow and find something else to do. Don't be too hard on yourself and fellow Africans. These things take centuries.
I have no doubt that it will rise out of the ashes. My "issue" is why there must first be ashes. Why, for example, could South African (and any other place) not improve on whatever they had instead of first going to the "same fate" ("African Way")?
(I will skip the gratuitous emotional stuff and get to the lest sentence.) Yes, it certainly looks like it will take centuries. What a pity!
Africa will start building their own infrastructure and manage it well.
No doubt about it. And when might that be?
If you swap the people living in Europe with those in Africa. The results will be the same. Africans will mismanage Europe to the level they can handle. Europeans will quickly develop Africa.
Again this brings me back to the starting point:
(a) What is it about Africans that makes you sure they will mismanage Europe?
(b) What is it about Europeans that makes you sure they will quickly develop Africa?
Ruling out random and uninvited commentary on DNA---all of which I suggest you give up, for the unhelpful emotional content---you nevertheless seem to be suggesting a fundamental difference. What would that be? More generally, why are Africans (according to your theory) incapable of managing (or even learning to manage) while the Europeans are not? Why should we cheerfully accept the "fact" that Africans will make a mess of things, but the Europeans won't?
The point that others on this thread have noted is not necessarily to do with DNA: at its core are (a) glaring differences and (b) what to do until the Africans and "ready", as you would put it. The essence is the same one that has produced your statement above. And one proposed solution is to have "expatriates" do critical jobs, a proposal seemingly supported by your claim that "Europeans will quickly develop Africa".
(So you should perhaps rethink the line of argument that starts with "we are all absolutely the same, because nothing is in the DNA!" but nevertheless ends with "Africans are like this, and Europeans are like that".)
Africa won't be ready for that. She has no experience running all that suff. She has no aptitude for that. She has no education for that. She is not prepared for that. Over the years Africa will become more educated, more experiences, more prepared and more advanced.
- Africans have no aptitude to properly run their lives? I will leave that one there.
- Half a century hardly seems like no experience, especially when the starting point is the benefit of hundreds of years of labour elsewhere.
- What sort of education and preparation do you suppose they require?
- Everybody is getting more educated, more this, more that.
A question: Would it make sense to ask for "voluntary recolonization" until we are ready, or should we be like children, who see fire burn a person but will continue to play with it until we are ready to learn from experience? Or should we just get serious instead of making a hash of it while boldly declaring Vision This and Vision That?
The same with bad leadership and corruption.
Are Africans fundamentally incapable of choosing good leaders? Why would that be the case? And what is it about corruption? Looking just at Kenya, there seems to be a clear understanding of what the problem is and an equally clear understanding on what is required for a solution: public commentary, from top to bottom, indicate that; so do the laws that have been enacted and the institutions that have been put in place. So what is it about the African can that means it has to be "the same?"
-
Now you're beginning to ask the right questions.
Many thanks for the "compliment". There are quite a few questions there. I suppose it would be too much to expect answers? (I have not seen the slightest hint of an attempt at such.)
Responding to your other comments would only take us back to "Square One"; so I won't. Instead, I will ask you to reflect further on your general remark to the effect that, in a "swap", Africans in Europe would mess up the place, whereas Europeans in Africa would quickly develop the place. Once you have some clarity---but it will be becessarily only some---on that, you'll see the point that some of us have been trying to make.
As to time, I see no reason why Africans should have to wait for time to do its thing; to my mind, that's just an "upgraded" version of the "Cargo Cult" mentality. Otherwise, we are in agreement---at least to the extent that I hope (and believe) that Africa will be better in a few centuries. So then: let's hope and pray and .... make sure that "our man" is in place?
P.S. I do plenty of "looking at the indicators", but my observations on hard numbers tend to be dismissed as "splitting hair". Better Vision 2030 than Vision 3020, I guess.
-
Sorry I don't have time to answer all your questions. I think once you understand why African will quickly trash Europe while Europeans will quickly develop Africa; you'll have answers to your questions. You need to understand that civilization takes a lot of years. You cannot rush it. Human being is not an antelope who is born running. Human baby takes 18 yrs to be able to stand on their own. Now what about a country of 50m folks. How many years would it take for them to embrace a culture of hard-work, discipline, maintenance and ethics. All which happens with right inputs and environment.
Many thanks for the "compliment". There are quite a few questions there. I suppose it would be too much to expect answers? (I have not seen the slightest hint of an attempt at such.)
Responding to your other comments would only take us back to "Square One"; so I won't. Instead, I will ask you to reflect further on your general remark to the effect that, in a "swap", Africans in Europe would mess up the place, whereas Europeans in Africa would quickly develop the place. Once you have some clarity---but it will be becessarily only some---on that, you'll see the point that some of us have been trying to make.
As to time, I see no reason why Africans should have to wait for time to do its thing; to my mind, that's just an "upgraded" version of the "Cargo Cult" mentality. Otherwise, we are in agreement---at least to the extent that I hope (and believe) that Africa will be better in a few centuries. So then: let's hope and pray and .... make sure that "our man" is in place?
P.S. I do plenty of "looking at the indicators", but my observations on hard numbers tend to be dismissed as "splitting hair". Better Vision 2030 than Vision 3020, I guess.
-
Sorry I don't have time to answer all your questions.
I must have missed it: which ones did you answer?
I think once you understand why African will quickly trash Europe while Europeans will quickly develop Africa; you'll have answers to your questions.
That's actually one of the points I don't understand and which I was hoping you would explain to me. We have ruled out DNA, so why is in inevitable that the African must trash the place, but the European will quickly develop it.
(By the way: There are many Europeans who "object" to Africans in Europe on precisely the same basis as you put forth. Naturally, those Africans disagree with the notion that they are fundamentally "trashers" while Europeans are fundamentally "developers". On such perceptions and claims are built numerous problems .... these days "terrorist" and "scrounger" seem to come to mind more often than "trasher".")
You need to understand that civilization takes a lot of years. You cannot rush it.
I don't entirely disagree with: the history certainly indicates that it has taken a lot of years, and I don't claim to fully understand it. It is a subject that I have long fascinated with, and in fact many years ago I read Durant's entire Story of Civilization and then moved on to other literature on the subject (African, Chinese, etc.). One of the things I learned from all that lengthy exercise is that "civilization" is not something that that takes place at some linear rate of the same gradient: the fact that it took some people 100 years to get to some point does not mean that everyone requires the same time. (In science and technology: Here we are, on computer and internet. The scientific history to get here?)
So, taking, say, Durant's or your definition of "civilization" (which I hope you will give), what aspect of civilization do you think will take us centuries to achieve. And, also equally important, why would we need that long? After all, no matter in man fields--science, technology, law, ... even religion!---we have simply "leapfrogged" to enjoy the fruits of centuries of "European Civilization". What components are we lacking, and why can't we enjoy "full civilization" right now?
Your remark also brings another thought to mind: Suppose a European says that we are uncivilized and backward, that it will take us centuries to catch up with them (in essence, your argument), and that we should give up all talk of equality (based on ability and accomplishments and whatever), and so on and so forth, ... and, being mindful of all that, we should accept "our place" in the world. Perhaps even have some Europeans running the place until we are sufficiently "civilized". What would you say to that?
How many years would it take for them to embrace a culture of hard-work, discipline, maintenance and ethics.
From what I saw Lee Kwan Yew do in Singapore, it need not take very long: one simply insists on it and acts accordingly. What is it about Africans that they should require centuries to embrace a culture of hard-work, discipline, maintenance and ethics? Or are we to believe the notion, put forth elsewhere, that Africans are fundamentally lazy, undisciplined, incompetent, unethical .... starting centuries behind and requiring centuries to even get the basics right?
(By the way: You should try and keep better track of your line of argument: one minute you are complaining that those who make comments in this regard are making a "DNA argument", which they absolutely did not, and the very next minute you, implicitly, put forth a "many years" argument to "explain" the very same observation.)
All which happens with right inputs and environment.
Quite so. And Africans are hoping for the "right inputs" and "environment" to come from where?
-
It really disgraceful to read some of you attribute race to stuff. That is just nonsense. There is nothing white about being ethical, no-corrupt, discipline and have so called maintenance culture. These are stuff that are learnt. Learnt either at home or schools or out there. South Africa I believe will do good or bad as the average south African is! Therefore to improve the country; the whole population has to move along. White nations had their time a few centuries ago when they were like Africans; too poor to care! too poor to be ethical! too stupid to do what appear to be commonsensical stuff.
Over centuries they've got better. Africans will get there. Just don't expect this to happen instantly unless folks were to be put under military or colonial rule. They will evolve naturally. Over many years. And the black African is certainly making progress....
The bolded part is interesting. Given that you are famous for the sentiment of leapfrogging as MOON Ki points out, by leveraging what has already been figured out without going through the pains that others have had to go through. Put another way, you do not, normally, believe in reinventing the wheel. Why should that apply in this case? How comes Botswana has not taken forever to figure out major aspects of the puzzle? Is Haiti still turning that corner 200 years later?
In your point that swaps Africans and Europeans, you are expressing the soft bigotry of low expectations. It is worse than straight up skinhead racism in the long term damage it does. It is something I actually believe explains a lot about Africa as I mentioned earlier in the thread. It is why Africans generally seem to be very tolerant of criminal negligence and malfeasance in the management of their affairs. Almost a resignation that it will get better on a timescale where they are no longer there to witness; it seems like a miracle to expect otherwise. I don't think anyone deserves that sort of resignation.
SA after apartheid went in a positive direction with Mandela and Mbeki. You could point to every indicator and there was improvement. It was not miraculous, but it was competently managed; those two did not make attempts to capture sections of the state that are independent.
Zuma, who is black just like Madiba and Mbeki, is just screwing up the place. Zuma is an intelligent man. What he cannot seem to control is his greed. His mother was a maid, as were many black women, during apartheid. A few short years after apartheid, he finds himself running a family empire http://www.news24.com/Archives/City-Press/Jacob-Zumas-family-empire-20150430 (http://www.news24.com/Archives/City-Press/Jacob-Zumas-family-empire-20150430). Is he a capitalist, industrialist, an entrepreneur perhaps? What has he done to amass so much wealth? I think the answer to these questions is a better explanation for what is wrong with SA than corners that take centuries to turn.
-
Pundit started here:
It really disgraceful to read some of you attribute race to stuff. That is just nonsense.
and ended up here:
If you swap the people living in Europe with those in Africa. The results will be the same. Africans will mismanage Europe to the level they can handle. Europeans will quickly develop Africa.
I leave it there.
-
Black folks in South Africa are disadvantaged. However, this is not unique to South Africa blacks only, and while apartheid exacerbated the phenomenon, it is present almost everywhere. Twenty years after the demise of apartheid, black folks in South Africa should be asking why their governments have been so ineffective in combating inequality, what vested interest these 'leaders' have in maintaining the status quo: an ill-educated relatively uninformed majority who will do as they are told just like Kenyans. More than anything black folks in South Africans today are responsible for their own plight by giving a mandate to politicians who are utterly disinterested in the destiny of their electorate.
-
You hit the nail on the head. Africans fail to elect people who will look after their interests.
Black folks in South Africa are disadvantaged. However, this is not unique to South Africa blacks only, and while apartheid exacerbated the phenomenon, it is present almost everywhere. Twenty years after the demise of apartheid, black folks in South Africa should be asking why their governments have been so ineffective in combating inequality, what vested interest these 'leaders' have in maintaining the status quo: an ill-educated relatively uninformed majority who will do as they are told just like Kenyans. More than anything black folks in South Africans today are responsible for their own plight by giving a mandate to politicians who are utterly disinterested in the destiny of their electorate.
-
You cannot compare a child(Africa) with an adult (Europe). There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the child. The child one day will become an adult.
-
You cannot compare a child(Africa) with an adult (Europe). There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the child. The child one day will become an adult.
I have thought a bit about your analogy. It provides some interesting insight. Europe was a shit-hole at some point. But it changed. However it changed not merely because time passed. There were revolutions, innovations, that kind of thing. Life was generally nice for Kings and friends, but a hellhole for everybody else. It was not an efficient way of managing affairs. Some of these changes required quite a bit of violence.
The European state shifted from being a ruler's personal fiefdom to something that worked for most people. The African leader, for the most part, gravitates towards turning the state into his fiefdom. He captures power because it is his only known method of amassing wealth. We can compare Africa to old Europe, but it would be misleading to assume passage of a long time was the sufficient or even necessary condition.
-
What time frame are you looking into.Child will stumble and mess around but he is growing.
You cannot compare a child(Africa) with an adult (Europe). There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the child. The child one day will become an adult.
I have thought a bit about your analogy. It provides some interesting insight. Europe was a shit-hole at some point. But it changed. However it changed not merely because time passed. There were revolutions, innovations, that kind of thing. Life was generally nice for Kings and friends, but a hellhole for everybody else. It was not an efficient way of managing affairs. Some of these changes required quite a bit of violence.
The European state shifted from being a ruler's personal fiefdom to something that worked for most people. The African leader, for the most part, gravitates towards turning the state into his fiefdom. He captures power because it is his only known method of amassing wealth. We can compare Africa to old Europe, but it would be misleading to assume passage of a long time was the sufficient or even necessary condition.
-
I have thought a bit about your analogy. It provides some interesting insight. Europe was a shit-hole at some point. But it changed. However it changed not merely because time passed. There were revolutions, innovations, that kind of thing. Life was generally nice for Kings and friends, but a hellhole for everybody else. It was not an efficient way of managing affairs. Some of these changes required quite a bit of violence.
The European state shifted from being a ruler's personal fiefdom to something that worked for most people. The African leader, for the most part, gravitates towards turning the state into his fiefdom. He captures power because it is his only known method of amassing wealth. We can compare Africa to old Europe, but it would be misleading to assume passage of a long time was the sufficient or even necessary condition.
You will never hear of the analogy when it comes to enjoying the material benefits of centuries of "European civilization"; for that, we want to have all the good stuff right now and enjoy all of it as "adults". (In fact much of the corruption and greed around us is driven by the desire to indulge in a certain type of material acquisition and to enjoy a certain type of "good life" that is far from "indigenous".) But when it comes to abuses or matters of governance, then the analogy gets trotted out real quick.
The analogy is quite amusing in this way: I recall reading some historical literature to the effect that when the British colonialists first considering having Africans in their armies, some argued that they were like children and would simply hurt themselves with guns. Naturally, the Africans did not think much of that view. Today, we will happily acquire foreign weapons and slaughter each other in large numbers. But when it suggested that we might stop, the argument is raised that Europeans too used to similarly slaughter each other. All of a sudden we need time.
And in both cases, positive and negative, you can imagine the hue-and-cry----"racists! bent on keeping Africa down to better exploit it!---if some Westerners were to suggest that we are simply too backward and should wait for centuries to start leading the sort of lives we now lead with products that took them centuries to come up with---that we should first go through what they went through.
The most unfortunate aspect is that, while it gives us comfort and we think that others buy it, to the extent that we engage in it, we are simply fooling ourselves and further retarding our progress. Further, if we want to insist that we are like children, then we should prepare for---and perhaps even insist on---the implications of that notion, such as that the rest of the world will treat us like children; another "scenario" that would have us objecting quite strongly. For example, why not restore colonialism? After all, what sort of responsible grown-ups allow children to run around destructively?
-
What time frame are you looking into.Child will stumble and mess around but he is growing.
You cannot compare a child(Africa) with an adult (Europe). There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the child. The child one day will become an adult.
I have thought a bit about your analogy. It provides some interesting insight. Europe was a shit-hole at some point. But it changed. However it changed not merely because time passed. There were revolutions, innovations, that kind of thing. Life was generally nice for Kings and friends, but a hellhole for everybody else. It was not an efficient way of managing affairs. Some of these changes required quite a bit of violence.
The European state shifted from being a ruler's personal fiefdom to something that worked for most people. The African leader, for the most part, gravitates towards turning the state into his fiefdom. He captures power because it is his only known method of amassing wealth. We can compare Africa to old Europe, but it would be misleading to assume passage of a long time was the sufficient or even necessary condition.
Pre-industrial revolution. The argument I am making is that there are explanations for the changes in Europe that go beyond mere passage of time.
-
This all have to do with unfair comparison leading to unfair conclusion. You cannot compare Europeans to Africans. Not now. This is due to some historical reasons. I also strongly believe that African will use far more short time to civilize than any other civilization out there. For a fact Africa is mere 100yrs into modernity and yet it not badly off whatever metric or parameter you pick. Most African countries are now moving to middle income countries, our beloved Kenya included.There is sizeable Africa middle class. Africa infrastructure is getting better. Overall live is getting better for many Africans. Yeah there will be setbacks. There are setbacks everywhere including in white world..Greece is fuck.ed for example.
Actually if we were to be honest; Africans are probably going to become civilized faster than any civilisation. Africans were savages 100yrs ago. Africa was due to geographical reason isolated from rest of the world for so LONG. Apart from a few countries along the northern shores...Africa remained isolated unable to benefit from economic, social and political advancement. Asian were generally colonized 200-300 yrs ago. Most of big asian civilization like Japs, Koreans and Chinese have interacted with western world for years.
Africans have embraced civilization like nobody else has. It moving with breath taking speed. You cannot compare white dude whose great grandfather probably went to college to an Africa whose father never went to school. What do you think the illiterate father impart to the African boy? Maybe witchcraft, hunting, gathering, bull stories.
You will never hear of the analogy when it comes to enjoying the material benefits of centuries of "European civilization"; for that, we want to have all the good stuff right now and enjoy all of it as "adults". (In fact much of the corruption and greed around us is driven by the desire to indulge in a certain type of material acquisition and to enjoy a certain type of "good life" that is far from "indigenous".) But when it comes to abuses or matters of governance, then the analogy gets trotted out real quick.
The analogy is quite amusing in this way: I recall reading some historical literature to the effect that when the British colonialists first considering having Africans in their armies, some argued that they were like children and would simply hurt themselves with guns. Naturally, the Africans did not think much of that view. Today, we will happily acquire foreign weapons and slaughter each other in large numbers. But when it suggested that we might stop, the argument is raised that Europeans too used to similarly slaughter each other. All of a sudden we need time.
And in both cases, positive and negative, you can imagine the hue-and-cry----"racists! bent on keeping Africa down to better exploit it!---if some Westerners were to suggest that we are simply too backward and should wait for centuries to start leading the sort of lives we now lead with products that took them centuries to come up with---that we should first go through what they went through.
The most unfortunate aspect is that, while it gives us comfort and we think that others buy it, to the extent that we engage in it, we are simply fooling ourselves and further retarding our progress. Further, if we want to insist that we are like children, then we should prepare for consequences of that notion, such as that the rest of the world will treat us like children; another "scenario" that would have us objecting quite strongly.
-
I have thought a bit about your analogy. It provides some interesting insight. Europe was a shit-hole at some point. But it changed. However it changed not merely because time passed. There were revolutions, innovations, that kind of thing. Life was generally nice for Kings and friends, but a hellhole for everybody else. It was not an efficient way of managing affairs. Some of these changes required quite a bit of violence.
The European state shifted from being a ruler's personal fiefdom to something that worked for most people. The African leader, for the most part, gravitates towards turning the state into his fiefdom. He captures power because it is his only known method of amassing wealth. We can compare Africa to old Europe, but it would be misleading to assume passage of a long time was the sufficient or even necessary condition.
You will never hear of the analogy when it comes to enjoying the material benefits of centuries of "European civilization"; for that, we want to have all the good stuff right now and enjoy all of it as "adults". (In fact much of the corruption and greed around us is driven by the desire to indulge in a certain type of material acquisition and to enjoy a certain type of "good life" that is far from "indigenous".) But when it comes to abuses or matters of governance, then the analogy gets trotted out real quick.
The analogy is quite amusing in this way: I recall reading some historical literature to the effect that when the British colonialists first considering having Africans in their armies, some argued that they were like children and would simply hurt themselves with guns. Naturally, the Africans did not think much of that view. Today, we will happily acquire foreign weapons and slaughter each other in large numbers. But when it suggested that we might stop, the argument is raised that Europeans too used to similarly slaughter each other. All of a sudden we need time.
And in both cases, positive and negative, you can imagine the hue-and-cry----"racists! bent on keeping Africa down to better exploit it!---if some Westerners were to suggest that we are simply too backward and should wait for centuries to start leading the sort of lives we now lead with products that took them centuries to come up with---that we should first go through what they went through.
The most unfortunate aspect is that, while it gives us comfort and we think that others buy it, to the extent that we engage in it, we are simply fooling ourselves and further retarding our progress. Further, if we want to insist that we are like children, then we should prepare for---and perhaps even insist on---the implications of that notion, such as that the rest of the world will treat us like children; another "scenario" that would have us objecting quite strongly. For example, why not restore colonialism? After all, what sort of responsible grown-ups allow children to run around destructively?
I get the impression pundit wants to divorce the actions of people from their outcomes. Though he seems to walk it back a little in his last response.
The real question is why is Zuma trying to undermine the rule of law in South Africa? Why should South Africans have to put up with him? How did he become so wealthy? Even apartheid leaders never reaped that way from the state.
-
(http://www.airiters.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/www.newvision.co_.ugw-images6a6a364b-df79-4c92-88e5-5cb37264098a2aaaaaabig-703x422-617279127896966bf3a7456901a4fe584088ebdc-703x422.jpg)
783 corruption charges against him were dropped irrationally. Says a South African court.
Judge Aubrey Ledwaba found three contradictions in Mr Mpshe’s affidavits explaining his decision to withdraw the charges against President Zuma.
Mr Mpshe should have followed the legal processes on emergence of the “spy tapes” and allow the courts to decide if the charges should have been withdrawn.
He acted "alone and impulsively", and therefore his decision was “irrational”.
The decision from 2009 has been set aside.
The NPA and its head Shaun Abrahams must now decide if it will recharge President Jacob Zuma with the original 783 counts of corruption.
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/live-zuma-to-hear-if-spy-tapes-judgment-will-be-set-aside-20160429
-
Zuma is another Ruto. You know he is guilty but nothing touches him because he is shrewd.
-
Zuma is another Ruto. You know he is guilty but nothing touches him because he is shrewd.
One could also make the alternative argument that Zuma is more like Uhuru, who is probably shrewder than Ruto.
See, then it's easier to explain why nothing tars the Boss. It also helps if your chief gatekeeper aka Private Secretary is your nephew. As Jomo would say Siri-Kali.That's how the pros do it.
Ruto, by comparison, bah... plays in the minor leagues -- the bush league -- per baseball parlance.
-
South Africa's indigenization continues at a steady clip under Zuma.
South Africa's top anti-corruption official says she fears for her life after learning from an informant that hitmen are being contracted to kill her, her spokeswoman has said.
Public Protector Thuli Madonsela is a leading public figure who scored a major victory when South Africa's top court ruled on March 31 that President Jacob Zuma had violated the constitution by ignoring her instructions to pay back some of the $16m of state money spent upgrading his private home.
The Western Cape province has a reputation for gangsterism and organised crime but her spokeswoman said Madonsela did not know who wanted to kill her.
http://allafrica.com/stories/201605100193.html (http://allafrica.com/stories/201605100193.html)
-
Prince Mashele thinks South Africa is finally making peace with its African heritage as Zuma tightens his grip on power. Surviving events that in previous times would have brought down governments, even during apartheid.
SA finally African, all thanks to Zuma
In the midst of the political confusion that has gripped our country many people are wondering if we have come to the end of South Africa.
The answer is simple: the thing called an "end" does not exist, not in relation to a country. SA will be there long after Jacob Zuma is gone.
What Zuma has done is to make us come to the realisation that ours is just another African country, not some exceptional country on the southern tip of the African continent.
During the presidency of Nelson Mandela and Thabo Mbeki, some among us used to believe that the black people of SA are better than those of other African countries.
We must all thank Zuma for revealing our true African character; that the idea of rule of law is not part of who we are, and that constitutionalism is a concept far ahead of us as a people.
How else are we to explain the thousands of people who flock to stadiums to clap hands for a president who has violated their country's constitution? Such people have no idea of constitutionalism.
Now that we have reclaimed our place as another African country, we must reflect on and come to terms with our real character, and imagine what our future portends.
In a typical African country, ordinary people don't expect much of politicians, because people get tired of repeated empty promises.
In a typical African country, people have no illusions about the unity of morality and governance. People know that those who have power have it for themselves and their friends and families.
The idea that the state is an instrument for people's development is a Western concept, and has been copied by pockets of Asian countries.
Africans and their leaders don't like to copy from the West. They are happy to remain African, and do things "the African way".
The African way is rule by kings, chiefs and indunas in a setting of unwritten rules. Is there anyone who has seen a book of African customary laws?
The idea that a commoner can raise questions about public money spent on the residence of a king is not African. The ANC MPs who have been defending Zuma are true Africans.
Asking a ruler to be accountable is a foreign - Western - idea. In a situation where there is conflict between a ruler and laws, Africans simply change the laws to protect the ruler. This is why no single white person has called for King Dalindyebo to be released from jail.
The problem with clever blacks is that they think they live in Europe, where ideas of democracy have been refined over centuries.
What we need to do is to come back to reality, and accept that ours is a typical African country. Such a return to reality will give us a fairly good idea of what SA's future might look like.
This country will not look like Denmark. It might look like Nigeria, where anti-corruption crusaders are an oddity.
Being an African country, ours will not look like Germany. SA might look like Kenya, where tribalism drives politics.
People must not entertain the illusion that a day is coming when SA will look like the US. Our future is more on the side of Zimbabwe, where one ruler is more powerful than the rest of the population. Even if Julius Malema were to become president, it would still be the same.
African leaders don't like the idea of an educated populace, for clever people are difficult to govern. Mandela and Mbeki were themselves corrupted by Western education. (Admission: this columnist is also corrupted by such education.)
Zuma remains African. His mentality is in line with Boko Haram. He is suspicious of educated people; what he calls "clever blacks". Remember that Boko Haram means "Against Western Education".
The people who think we have come to the end of SA don't realise that we have actually come to the beginning of a real African country, away from the Western illusions of exceptionalism. Those who are unsettled by this true African character need help. The best we can do for them is to ask them to look north of the Limpopo River, to learn more about governance in Africa.
What makes most people restless about the future of SA is that they have Western models in mind, forgetting that ours is an Africa country.
The idea that a president can resign simply because a court of law has delivered an adverse judgment is Western. Only the Prime Minister of Iceland does that; African rulers will never do that.
Analysed carefully, the notion of SA coming to an "end" is an expression of a Western value system - of accountability, political morality, reason, and so on. All these are lofty ideas of Socrates, Kant, Hegel, and so on. They are not African.
All of us must thank Jacob Zuma for introducing us to the real African Republic of South Africa, not some outpost of European values.
http://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/2016/05/09/sa-finally-african-all-thanks-to-zuma
-
Great piece. I read it twice, as it is obviously intended to be read at two levels. On the first reading, I just chuckled; on the second reading I reflected on the many serious points she has raised and wants people to think about.
Why is it that SA is slowly going "the African Way"? Was this inevitable? Will a place like Botswana remain as the sole exception? What inspiration could other African countries have drawn from "South Africa done right"? Can SA reverse course? Dot, dot, dot.
One of the things I always find amazing whenever I am home is the extent to which everyone is hankering for the "good life" as seen of the West (TV, movies, etc.). In fact, it is the desire for such a life, and the implied material acquisitions, that drives the worst cases of corruption we see: the worst cases of stealing and grabbing are not by people whose survival depends on it. It is only in governance, especially when allowances are needed to get around theft from public coffers and the excesses of power, that we insist on an "African Way". And this goes all the way back to the period of independence:
The first thing that the new African leaders insisted on was that they didn't need "Western democracy", that they would come up with something that was more appropriate for Africa. What they overlooked is that the Western systems are the result of working past centuries of social evils and mayhem. So we had all sorts of abuses, crimes against humanity, presidents for life, coups, etc. Then---and Kenya is a good example---we started revising constitutions and the like to have the sorts of checks and balances that the West arrived at in painful ways. Nevertheless we continue in a similar path: when it comes to the "material enjoyment of life", we see no reason why we are not as "deserving" as those elsewhere and of goods produced in the elsewhere; but in matters of governance (especially in abuses of power or access to power), we insist that there is an "African Way" or that we, seemingly incapable of learning, must go through the same experiences that those we borrow from went through. And all the while our universities churn out graduates in law, public administration, etc. ... all based on the "Western System" and all of whom we insist are as capable as anyone else.
Dot, dot, dot.
The relationship between morality and governance comes up twice in the article. I am unable to understand why it should be a problem, but some exchanges here indicate that it is for some of us. There seems to be the idea that we can have endless misbehaviour at the top but that, somehow, those at the bottom will overlook that and lead upright lives.
-
Being an African country, ours will not look like Germany. SA might look like Kenya, where tribalism drives politics.
Ouch!
Anyways .... I did a third reading. In the first two, I was looking at things from a "South African" angle. Why did people, both in SA and elsewhere, except that SA would be "different"? What does the article say about the rest of Africa? As Americans would say, it's not a pretty picture. Or something like that ...
-
Zuma's a pig.
The "Afro" way is tribal. Best exemplified under a socialist model like a Fuedian society in Europe centuries ago or a Cuban society with equitable health and wealth distribution under a selfless regime.
The best of capitalist democracies lead to genocides in poor countries and micro-aggressions and sociopathic tendencies, class differences in rich countries.
Milton is so yesterday.
The African way will always be consequential poverty under the capitalist blanket because global resource distribution favours rich countries. One way to reverse that is war like terrorism. Militia groups among civilian populations drains capitalist security ie. disrupts status quo money trails.
-
Pan-Africanism, a united Africa was a diplomatic front spearheaded by Gaddaffi in recent times to empower the African way. He was killed by the West when the African Union began to strengthen. Recognizing tribal conglomerates over British colonial protectorates could be one way of resolving tribal animosity. Eg. Separate the Kikuyus to their own nation, Kalenjin to their own nation etc. That way voting isn't fuelled by tribal animosity but like the West reflect conservative vs liberal values.
-
Great piece. I read it twice, as it is obviously intended to be read at two levels. On the first reading, I just chuckled; on the second reading I reflected on the many serious points she has raised and wants people to think about.
Why is it that SA is slowly going "the African Way"? Was this inevitable? Will a place like Botswana remain as the sole exception? What inspiration could other African countries have drawn from "South Africa done right"? Can SA reverse course? Dot, dot, dot.
One of the things I always find amazing whenever I am home is the extent to which everyone is hankering for the "good life" as seen of the West (TV, movies, etc.). In fact, it is the desire for such a life, and the implied material acquisitions, that drives the worst cases of corruption we see: the worst cases of stealing and grabbing are not by people whose survival depends on it. It is only in governance, especially when allowances are needed to get around theft from public coffers and the excesses of power, that we insist on an "African Way". And this goes all the way back to the period of independence:
The first thing that the new African leaders insisted on was that they didn't need "Western democracy", that they would come up with something that was more appropriate for Africa. What they overlooked is that the Western systems are the result of working past centuries of social evils and mayhem. So we had all sorts of abuses, crimes against humanity, presidents for life, coups, etc. Then---and Kenya is a good example---we started revising constitutions and the like to have the sorts of checks and balances that the West arrived at in painful ways. Nevertheless we continue in a similar path: when it comes to the "material enjoyment of life", we see no reason why we are not as "deserving" as those elsewhere and of goods produced in the elsewhere; but in matters of governance (especially in abuses of power or access to power), we insist that there is an "African Way" or that we, seemingly incapable of learning, must go through the same experiences that those we borrow from went through. And all the while our universities churn out graduates in law, public administration, etc. ... all based on the "Western System" and all of whom we insist are as capable as anyone else.
Dot, dot, dot.
The relationship between morality and governance comes up twice in the article. I am unable to understand why it should be a problem, but some exchanges here indicate that it is for some of us. There seems to be the idea that we can have endless misbehaviour at the top but that, somehow, those at the bottom will overlook that and lead upright lives.
The mzansi has always seen himself as a special breed of African; largely justified by the obvious if rapidly narrowing gap that the kaburu, his cruel system aside, was able to create with the otherwise kienyeji run parts of the beloved continent.
None other Induna Zuma himself is on record ridiculing "Africa" suggesting SA is not part of that realm.
President Jacob Zuma was speaking at the ANC's Manifesto Forum at Wits University on Monday night when he was questioned about the wisdom and logic of the e-tolling system that will soon be implemented. "We can't think like Africans in Africa. It's not some national road in Malawi." What the president meant by this has been a subject of debate on Twitter, with some claiming it was arrogant and classist.
http://mg.co.za/article/2013-10-22-zuma-dont-think-like-an-african-pay-up-for-e-tolls
That's the type of background for Prince Mashele's article. Africa's own "exceptional country".
There is angst, especially in the white minority, but also a portion of the black middle class, at the breakneck speed Zuma is embracing "African" values. The masses remain ANC voting zombies engendering a feeling of utter helplessness.
Botswana has somehow managed a semblance of alien organization though it lacks the punch of South Africa.
-
South Africa had this coming. I won't lay the blame on Zuma. I lay the blame on the AVERAGE South Africans. Average RSA intelligence,education,exposure,name it is not very different from sub-saharan africa or latin america or some parts of Asia. What camouflage RSA is a tiny white majority that is holding up (and down) the country.
I have been to Namibia and I suspect it more or less like Bostwana. A huge desert with little towns while the majority are hunters & gathers running around in the desert wilderness. Those are not true african countries. It like carving a little country out of northern kenya desert. You can make it anything you want.
It is very lame & intellectually lazy to blame this on Zuma while the majority of RSA is an ANC supporter not any different from TZ ccm supporter. They are going to support ANC or KANU or CCM until they go the kenya or nigeria way...of tribalism.What will delay tribalism..is probably the fear of white rule and of course it take few more years for real democracy to flourish there.
-
Folks, Zuma was preceded by the great Mandela and the passable Thabo Mbeki. But not once have I heard corruption mentioned alongside their names.
On Mandela, here's a man who died with a wealth estimated at anywhere from $6 million to $8 million or thereabouts -- money whose origin Mandela could account for, but paltry by the standards of our money making alchemists, the Kenyatta's, Kanyotus, Ndegwas, Mois, etc. Put differently, Mandela could easily have made $1 billion off his name alone - including from wealthy benefactors in the West, Asia, the Middle East or pretty much anywhere in this world. He was a bona fide hero - not contrived.
Now enter the corrupt Zuma. Instead of emulating Mandela or Mbeki or the ascetic Nyerere, he's chosen to emulate the most rapacious of Africa's kleptocrats, the likes of Jomo Kenyatta, Mobutu, Sani Abacha and Dos Santos of Angola.
Zuma, welcome to the pantheon of African heroes -- you're in good company.
-
Folks, Zuma was preceded by the great Mandela and the passable Thabo Mbeki. But not once have I heard corruption mentioned alongside their names.
Exactly. Pundit implies that the average SA voter is as sheepish or as robotic as his/her counterpart in Kenya and other parts of Africa. If that is so---and I have no particular reason to disagree with him---then leadership is even more crucial: sheep should be properly led (whence "good shepherd") and robots need good programmers (an active industry).
But what I am really curious about is the notion that such a descent---into the 3rd or 4th or whatever world it's called these days---was inevitable for South Africa. (As RV Pundit "delicately" puts it: "South Africa had this coming".) Why can we not pick up from wherever the oppressor or "oppressor" left and move on positively, forwards and upwards?
-
You need to read about the law of averages. Or in statistic the idea of a normal distribution. Yeah one man can pull the country up but another can similarly pull it down..all these are temporary shocks..but utlimately the country will move with majority in tow. Trump or Zuma if he became US potus...cannot pull the country down by any serious notch. The average America is far more educated, more intelligent, more sophisticated and more informed.
The law of averages is a layman's term for a belief that the statistical distribution of outcomes among members of a small sample must reflect the distribution of outcomes across the population as a whole.
This is way countries in sub-sahara are all averagely there--and they will all move along--bar a few outliers. South Africa majority blacks are like fellow sub-saharan africa in all indicators -wealth, level of education, etc etc.
Exactly. Pundit implies that the average SA voter is as sheepish or as robotic as his/her counterpart in Kenya and other parts of Africa. If that is so---and I have no particular reason to disagree with him---then leadership is even more crucial: sheep should be properly led (whence "good shepherd") and robots need good programmers (an active industry).
But what I am really curious about is the notion that such a descent---into the 3rd or 4th or whatever world it's called these days---was inevitable for South Africa. (As RV Pundit "delicately" puts it: "South Africa had this coming".) Why can we not pick up from wherever the oppressor or "oppressor" left and move on positively, forwards and upwards?
-
Total chaos. JSC do not want 3 judges to sit on the bench; Justices Ndung’u, Mohamed Ibrahim and Justice JB Ojwang’; Tunoi is suspended and Rawal cannot hear her own case. So that leaves the retiring Mutunga and Wanjala to decide on the case? And yet the constitution requires at least 5 judges to form a bench.
This is legacy that Mutunga is leaving. They should have listen to wise counsel long ago to have this arbitrated through mediation.
http://www.nation.co.ke/news/Plot-to-influence-Chief-Justice-succession/-/1056/3232996/-/i7g8yrz/-/index.html
-
South Africa Court Rules Parliament Failed to Hold President Zuma Accountable
https://www.voanews.com/a/south-africa-court-zuma-parliament/4184009.html (https://www.voanews.com/a/south-africa-court-zuma-parliament/4184009.html)