Double standards or what?

The Bush administration's $700bn rescue package, along with the bail out of AIG, Bear Stearns and other erstwhile financial titans signal desperate measures being invoked during desperate times. However, in other parts of the world, particularly in Asia and Africa, these interventions smack of double standards of western government particularly the United States. 

Its only a decade ago, when as the Asian economies were reeling under a regional financial crisis, the United States sharply criticized them for attempting to bail out cash-starved companies. So too do numerous African governments who were forced into strict market liberalisation conditions to qualify for structural adjustment packages and in some cases, balance of payments support from the Bretton Woods Institutions. They were lectured by the west that there should be no government intervention whatsoever in supporting ailing companies and strategic industries, with the mantra being let the free-market forces prevail.

What's good for the goose and what not, hey?

                                     ______________________________________

Whilst I have come across articles prematurely sounding the death knell for capitalism as Main Street (to borrow a much abused term in these times - and that's you and me apparently) knows it, one blogger on an American newspaper website quipped that Trotsky, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, and Marx must all be looking down and having a mighty good laugh right now.

Is a split in the ANC now inevitable?

As matters came to head in a tumultuous weekend in South Africa which culminated in Thabo Mbeki’s resignation as State President of South Africa, a little side story but one that’s sure to gain prominence in coming days is the suggestion that some staunch Mbeki supporters may break away from the ANC and perhaps form a new party that will contest the general election in April 2009. This would be quite a staggering, but I suppose, inevitable outcome of the internecine feuding that can be traced back to even before Mbeki fired Jacob Zuma, his then deputy in 2005 due to allegations of corruption. Now ANC leader, Zuma has seemingly meted out his revenge but one suspects Mbeki’s stepping down is only the beginning of interesting and uncertain times ahead, especially if this breakaway threat comes to fruition. With tribal politics never far-off in African politics, the fact that Zuma is a Zulu (Nelson Mandela and Mbeki are both Xhosas) means that if Mbeki supporters do indeed break-away from the ANC, the split could most likely be along tribal lines and this would be a recipe for disaster. On the other hand, perhaps a break-up of the ANC would not be such a bad thing after all, seeing as they have had more than a two-thirds majority in parliament since 1994 and therefore in effect can do as they please constitutionally, if they were so inclined. These latest events and other tell-tale signs that South Africa may unfortunately tread the path of other African countries where liberation war movements became the predominant and dictatorial governing parties show that the country needs a two (major) party system. The current official opposition, the Democratic Alliance, which is  largely seen as a white and elitist party by the majority black South Africans has a truly remarkable 246 seats less than the ANC, in what is a 400 seat National Assembly. With time, the fervour for the ANC will diminish somewhat and perhaps South Africa will be better for it. Looking at the events of the last few days, whereby a powerful political party has literally held a country to ransom (it can be argued) one can see why it would not be a bad thing at all.

Crisis in Azania?

So soon after his 'triumph' in Zimbabwe, South African President Thabo Mbeki is on his way out. As I write, the ANC has recalled him, in effect, forcing him to resign only a few months before he completes his second and final term. Whatever the accusations of political interference in ANC President Jacob Zuma's corruption trial, this move by the ruling party appears to be very mistimed, ill-judged and overly vindictive. Certainly Zuma and his supporters have been mightily aggrieved and incensed at Mbeki 's attempts to derail his now seemingly unhindered march to the Presidency. However, as a national leader and the presumptive future President of South Africa, Zuma should have taken the moral high ground (which he can afford to do, since barring any calamity he is headed for the top office) and reined in his supporters and allowed Mbeki to complete his constitutional mandate as the democratically elected head of state. With its pre-eminent status in Africa and as hosts of the 2010 World Cup, significant attention will always be on South Africa and the events of recent days will do harm to the standing of the country, investor confidence, the prospects of a successfully hosted World Cup. Lets wait and see! One hopes sanity will prevail and cool heads will pull Africa's beacon from the brink.

Hero in Zimbabwe, Zero at Home

So Jacob Zuma, or more specifically his ANC colleagues, are seemingly hell bent on ousting Thabo Mbeki as South African President after the damning high court judgement stated that he had interfered in the prosecution of Zuma for corruption. Well, in sharp contrast to the vultures circling around the ‘dead snake’ as Zuma so diplomatically described Mbeki at the weekend, the South African president’s successful ‘quiet’ diplomacy in neighbouring Zimbabwe – culminating in the historic power sharing (of sorts) has garnered him enough accolades in that country to perhaps provide him with a much needed escape route. If Zuma and his Umshini Wam’ brigade have their way, Mbeki wont even finish his final term as president. Which brings me to Mbeki’s facilitation of the Zimbabwe deal, which really had seemed unreachable only a few days ago. My humble suggestion is that having spent considerable amount of time shuttling to and sleeping over in Zimbabwe in recent months, the soon to be ex-president may find it more comfortable and much safer to set up his retirement home in one of the plush suburbs of Harare or perhaps Bulawayo, which would be much closer to home. Certainly, Prime Minister and the President of Zimbabwe will be happy to oblige. It’s the least they can do in return. In any case, with many Zimbabweans recalling how farcical the previous government of national unity turned out to be, a readily available Thabo Mvuyelwa Mbeki may just be the man to referee this unwieldy and incongruous political marriage of convenience. Time will tell!

Key points of the historic Zimbabwe power sharing deal between Zanu PF and the MDC factions

• President Robert Mugabe with two deputies from Zanu PF;

• Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai with two deputies from MDC-M and MDC-T;

• Mugabe, as head of state and government, to chair cabinet of 31 ministers;

• Tsvangirai to preside over a council of ministers, supervises ministers, formulates and implements policies, sits in National Security Council (JOC) and heads government business in parliament;

• Zanu PF to have 15 ministers and eight deputy ministers, Tsvangirai’s MDC faction 13 ministers and six deputy ministers and the Arthur Mutambara faction three ministers and 1 deputy minister;

• Provincial governors to be shared among the three parties;

• If an elected representative (MPs and Senators) dies or is recalled by their party 12 months from the day of signing, none of the other parties to the deal will contest the by-election;

• The "inclusive government" will remain in power for a maximum five years. A review of the power-sharing deal will take place in 18 months, and every year thereafter;

• New constitution after 18 months;

• Constitutional Amendment No 19 to be passed to facilitate implementation of the agreement.