Jun 25, 2008

by

in ,

Can Elections End Mugabe’s Dictatorship?

Zimbabweans’ experience of elections, especially since 2000 when the MDC first challenged ZANU PF rule, has made them cynical about elections as a mechanism to transfer power. They have learned that ZANU PF will do whatever it takes to win elections. 2007 was rated the worst year in terms of the number of human rights abuses since 2001, most perpetrated by ZANU PF state and paramilitary forces, and aimed at decimating the top and lower level leadership of the opposition in advance of the anticipated 2008 elections.1 Also, there was growing disillusionment with the opposition. The March 29 2008 presidential, parliamentary, and local government elections initially aroused little interest among dejected voters. The MDC had split into two bickering factions in late 2005, the majority faction led by Morgan Tsvangirai (MDC-T) and the minority faction by Arthur Mutambara (MDC-M). The MDC-T was increasingly bedeviled by youth violence, problems of leadership transparency and accountability, and interest in positions for the material rewards they provided. Its political culture had begun to mimic the organization which it sought to remove.

When Simba Makoni, who had been a ZANU PF politburo member, announced that he would run for the presidency, it injected a refreshing uncertainty about his impact on the elections. For opponents of ZANU PF, Makoni’s candidacy signaled the ruling party’s internal unraveling. There was also a palpable shift in the political environment during the campaign, especially in ZANU PF’s rural strongholds. On brief visits to Chibi in Masvingo province and to the area in Manicaland province where powerful ZANU PF government minister, Didymus Mutasa, and Simba Makoni both own farms, I saw MDC supporters fearlessly wearing MDC-t shirts, moving freely, and organizing and attending rallies.

For the first time since 1980, ZANU PF lost control of the house of assembly. The MDC-T won 99 seats, the MDC-M 10 seats, ZANU PF 97 seats, and an independent one seat. [Three assembly constituencies, where candidates died before the March 29th election, will hold by-elections on June 27.] Despite the inroads made by the opposition into ZANU PF rural strongholds, ZANU PF still secured a majority of seats in four out of ten provinces. Should a new post-electoral unity agreement between MDC-M (which supported Simba Makoni in the presidential election) and MDC-T hold, the MDC factions will control the house of assembly. In the senate elections, the two MDC factions won 30 seats (MDC-T won 24 seats and MDC-M 6 seats), as did ZANU PF. The senate also has 33 reserved seats for chiefs, provincial governors, and presidential appointees, thus guaranteeing ZANU PF control. A caveat: these parliamentary results are not final. Fifty-three ZANU PF candidates and fifty-two MDC candidates have lodged petitions with the Electoral Court, mainly affecting House seats. Under the Electoral Act, the Electoral Court has six months in which to rule on the petitions.

Official presidential election results were finally announced on May 2, more than five weeks after the polling date. Tsvangirai won 47.9% of the votes, Mugabe 43.2%, and Makoni 8.3%. A fourth candidate won the remainder of the vote. Approximately 43% of registered voters participated in the presidential election. Legally, local government election results were declared at ward level within a day or two of polling on March 29. Councils are required to meet as soon as practicable after the declaration of the results to elect mayors and chairpersons. This did not happen, though. Councils apparently waited for the electoral commission to publish the results in the press, which it is required to do under law. The commission finally began to slowly publish the council results in the press days after it had announced the presidential election results.

Prior to the March 29 2008 elections in Zimbabwe, historical precedent suggested (at least to me) that President Mugabe would find a way to “win” the presidential election despite the inauspicious context – economic collapse and a three-way race in which the vote would be split among himself, Simba Makoni (who stood as an independent), and his longstanding rival, Morgan Tsvangirai (head of the MDC-Tsvangirai faction). While opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai and his MDC faction (MDC-T) continue to claim outright victory (as they have since soon after the polls closed) and engage in diplomatic efforts to ensure that they inherit state power, President Mugabe predictably shows no signs of ending his 28-year reign. ZANU PF has handled the crisis arising from Mugabe’s failure to secure a majority of the popular vote with familiar guile and ruthlessness.

Almost immediately after the election, the media were abuzz with how a ZANU PF envoy had approached Morgan Tsvangirai to discuss forming a Tsvangirai-led government of national unity. Reportedly, Mugabe had indicated he would resign, as long as he was offered immunity from prosecution from crimes against humanity. These talks were allegedly derailed by hawks in the party, the military, and police. Fearful of facing future prosecutions, they apparently urged Mugabe not to capitulate. At the time, Secretary-General Tendai Biti (MDC-T) denied the reports, saying the MDC-T would not negotiate with ZANU PF until the results had been declared. That these negotiations took place was later confirmed by Morgan Tsvangirai and still later by veteran South African journalist Allister Sparks.

One must question whether this ZANU PF overture was ever more than a deliberate attempt to give the ruling elite time to consider its options and perhaps ensure that the MDC-T did not call for street protests to demand the announcement of the results. (There is no evidence that the MDC-T had such a plan, and its critics believe it lost another opportunity to back up its electoral performance with organized mass action.) Mugabe’s alleged readiness to quit is out of character. During his campaign, for instance, he vowed that he would never allow Morgan Tsvangirai to rule Zimbabwe. Mugabe’s verbal threats are seldom gratuitous.

Announcements made on April 3 and 4 indicated that ZANU PF had settled on the run-off scenario: Mugabe would challenge Tsvangirai in a second round ostensibly because neither candidate had secured the necessary 50% + one vote for a first-round victory. To ensure a Mugabe victory, the Joint Operations Command (JOC), reportedly led by Emmerson Munangagwa, himself an aspirant presidential successor to Mugabe, launched a strategy of violence and intimidation, chiefly against rural voters who had supported the opposition in former ZANU PF strongholds. The JOC is composed of the commanders of the army, air force, police, prison, and intelligence services. The military, police, war veterans, and youth militia, aided by ZANU PF supporters and senior ZANU PF officials, are leading the terror campaign. ZANU PF has a history of using state-orchestrated violence to punish those who vote against it. For example, it embarked on violent campaigns against ZAPU after the 1985 election and against urban MDC voters after the 2005 election.

A sad paradox of the effort to bring transparency to elections is that the new legal requirement to post the election results outside the polling stations enabled the ruling party to target those villages or farms or resettlement areas which had voted for the opposition in its Operation Makavhoterapapi (Where did you put your cross?). Victims of violence and arrests also include local election observers and those who administered the elections – the polling officers, MDC electoral agents, and even Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) officials. They are accused of assisting the MDC through fraud, vote-rigging, and other electoral irregularities.

ZANU PF continued to play for more time, not only to prepare for a run-off but also likely to explore other options, such as a government of national unity under President Mugabe. Legally, ZEC did not need to announce the parliamentary election results. Once they had been posted at the polling stations, they were official. Nonetheless, ZEC behaved as if it had the authority to declare the parliamentary results. The ZEC dragged out the announcement of the assembly results, then moved to a similarly drawn out process of announcing senate results. On April 12 the ZEC ordered a recount of the parliamentary, presidential, and local government election votes in 23 constituencies. The recount only began on April 19 and continued for over a week. Whether or not the ZEC intended to reverse ZANU PF’s narrow but historic loss of its majority in the house is unclear; in the end, the recount merely confirmed the parliamentary results announced earlier. Given the weakness of the House, ZANU PF may have decided to accept the loss of control over it rather than further inflame international and regional hostility.

ZANU PF normalized the abnormal. Mugabe’s cabinet, which he dissolved on the eve of the election, continues to serve as if legal. Moreover, at least six cabinet ministers lost their seats in the parliamentary election but remain in office which violates the legal requirement that ministers be elected to parliament. The state media, a mouthpiece of Mugabe and ZANU PF, focused attention away from the undeclared presidential election result, and alleged conspiracies against the nation’s sovereignty involving variously the US, the UK, the MDC, white farmers, critical SADC heads of state, and the UN.

After ZEC had announced the presidential election results on May 2, it initially said the run-off might not be held for up to a year. The commission cited lack of resources (the Reserve Bank governor says the run-off will cost at least US$60 million) and of preparation time. Under the electoral law, the electoral commission must announce the date for the run-off election within twenty-one days of “the election” – the only reasonable interpretation in this case must be that the run-off be held within twenty-one days of the declaration of the election result. However, the Electoral Act empowers the commission to make statutory instruments to extend the twenty-one day period – and indeed to affect virtually any aspect relating to the election – as long as the Minister of Justice approves the statutory instruments. The commission used these powers. On May 16, the commission announced that the run-off would be held on June 27.

On May 10 Morgan Tsvangirai announced that he would participate in the run-off. Over the past few weeks, the MDC and its leader first said that even though Tsvangirai was the president-elect, he would participate in a run-off but only under certain conditions, only to later assert he would not participate in a run-off under any conditions. Tsvangirai’s announcement to contest the run-off, or perhaps the reporting of it, does not entirely remove ambiguity about the MDC’s position. Some accounts say his participation is contingent on certain conditions being met: SADC must send peacekeepers, the election must be held within twenty-one days, international observers must have free access, SADC peacekeepers must be in-country, ZEC must be re-constituted, and the media must be free for local and international journalists. Other reports treat these conditions as an MDC wish-list rather than prerequisites for his participation. One thing is certain: the government, as it quickly responded, will not meet the conditions.

One sympathizes with the opposition’s dilemma, yet again, about whether or not to participate in another election. If Tsvangirai does not contest the election, Mugabe automatically becomes the next president. If he participates in the run-off, his supporters are almost certain to be the victims of ZANU PF’s escalating campaign of terror. Should Tsvangirai, who has been in self-imposed exile for weeks now, return to Zimbabwe as he said he would, he too may face the ruling party’s wrath. Beyond its use of terror tactics, ZANU PF plans to further tilt the playing field in other ways. ZEC and President Mugabe have the power to alter electoral rules that, according to the Minister of Justice, disadvantage ZANU PF vis-à-vis the MDC. And ZANU PF has already made changes to ensure that the state media will be even more pro-Mugabe for the run-off than the first round.

It is easy to see why the MDC would prefer to form a government of national unity rather than participate in a run-off which Mugabe will not allow them to win. Almost immediately after Tsvangirai said on May 10 that he would participate in the run-off, MDC Secretary-General Tendai Biti spoke in favor of a government of national unity as a solution to the electoral crisis. The independents – the Makoni faction and Jonathan Moyo, who broke from ZANU PF before the March 2005 house of assembly elections – also prefer the formation of a government of national unity to a run-off. The securocrats and Mugabe might consider a government of national unity, but only on condition that it is headed by Mugabe. Mugabe told President Mbeki on May 9 that he would consider a government of national unity only after the run-off. However, there are reports that Mugabe is interested in holding talks with Tsvangirai about forming a government of national unity rather than holding a run-off. Neither the independents nor the MDC factions will accept a Mugabe-led government of national unity, before or after the run-off. Nor will the MDC accept a government of national unity that its leaders do not dominate. President Mbeki has long promoted a government of national unity under a successor to Mugabe. His preferred candidate for the job was Makoni, whom he expected would win the presidential election. For a government of national unity to be brokered, mediation will be necessary.

Since the disputed presidential elections in 2002, which the MDC believes Tsvangirai won, there has been a cycle of elections followed by attempts to mediate a constitutional settlement between the MDC and ZANU PF so as to pave the way for holding elections that will be considered legitimate. To date, neither elections nor mediation has solved the political crisis. Moreover, after President Mbeki, who has served as SADC’s appointed mediator for the past year, famously declared on April 12 that there was no crisis in Zimbabwe and asked for ZEC to be given more time to declare the presidential results, the MDC-T asked SADC to remove Mbeki. SADC subsequently endorsed Mbeki’s role as mediator but a new mediator will probably have to be found. SADC is apparently exploring appointing a team of mediators, which would include President Mbeki. The pattern of disputed elections and failed mediation looms ahead.

For the overwhelming majority of Zimbabweans, the ruling party’s post-election shenanigans and its escalating campaign of violence will be further proof that ballots cannot change a dictatorship. Expect the percentage of registered voters who participate in the run-off – assuming that it is actually held – to plummet well below 43%.

Norma Kriger
Honorary Research Fellow,
School of Economic History and Development Studies,
University of KwaZulu/Natal, Durban, South Africa

1. Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum, Political Violence Report: December 2007, 13 February 2008,

Note: This research was partially supported by a grant from Idasa, South Africa. An earlier version of this article appeared on the Royal Africa Society website

Jun 24, 2008

by

in , ,

ACAS Press Release: Zimbabwe Crisis

Press Release: Zimbabwe Crisis
June 24, 2008
4pm EST

The Association of Concerned Africa Scholars (ACAS), has published a special issue on Zimbabwe in the ACAS Bulletin. It introduces the issues surrounding Zimbabwe’s March 29 elections and the current political violence leading up to the June 27th Presidential run-off.

The aim of this special Zimbabwe issue is to provide details and analysis often left out of mainstream news sources. The reader will find a variety of articles from different perspectives, by Zimbabwe experts from the fields of political science, sociology, history, and theology, as well as from seasoned Zimbabwe journalists and an NGO worker reporting from the field. The special issue concludes with a historically-inflected editorial on Zimbabwe’s politics of violence, an open letter to Thabo Mbeki, and provides a listing of on-line resources for further research and information.

The issue was edited by Tim Scarnecchia and Wendy Urban-Mead, and contains articles by (among others): Norma Kriger, Jimmy G Dube, Augustine Hungwe, Sabelo J Ndlovu-Gatsheni, David Moore, Amy Ansell, and Peta Thornycroft.

Contact:
Tim Scarneccia
Kent State University
(330) 672-8904
tscarnec@kent.edu

Wendy Urban-Mead
Bard College
(845) 264-1805
wum@bard.edu

Read the issue here | PDF version: https://concernedafricascholars.org/docs/acasbulletin79.pdf

Jun 06, 2008

by

in

Africa Action on Debt Cancellation

Dear Colleague,

In April we celebrated a key victory when the House of Representatives passed the Jubilee Act for Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt Cancellation – many thanks to you all for the persistent calls and letters to your representatives. We stand within reach of total victory if we can push the U.S. Senate to pass the Senate version of this historic legislation (Jubilee Act (S 2166)).

Can you spare 5 minutes today to write to both your Senators urging them to support this very important bill?

The Jubilee Act is a huge step towards breaking the chocking chains of debt that engender endemic poverty in Africa and other impoverished regions of the regions of the world. In addition to expanding debt cancellation to an additional 24 impoverished nations that commit to use the resources to fight poverty, the Jubilee Act also undertakes to reign in the harmful lending practices of the IMF, World Bank and other international financial institutions complicit in Africa’s debt crisis.

The good news is that the Jubilee Act already has bi-partisan support from more than half the members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Good as this is, the bill can only move forward if more Senators sign on as co-sponsors.

If you live in Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, New York or Oregon – both your Senators have already signed on to the Jubilee Act. You can still get involved by telling your friends and family who live outside these states to ask their Senators to co-sponsor the Jubilee Act.

To find out who your Senator is, go to www.senate.gov. To see if any of your Senators is already a co-sponsor, go to list of co-sponsors.

If your Senator is not yet a co-sponsor please write today and ask them to support the Jubilee Act (S 2166).

Cancel the Debt! End Global Apartheid!

Sincerely,
Staff @ Africa Action

Apr 21, 2008

by

in

TransAfrica Forum calls for justice for Zimbabwe

JUSTICE FOR ZIMBABWE

On March 29 the people of Zimbabwe cast their votes for President, Parliament, and local representatives. To date, the results of the Presidential election have not been announced, leading to widespread accusations of vote manipulation. Charges of intimidation and the threat of violence grow daily, while the population suffers from spiraling inflation, commodity shortages, and joblessness. Ultimately, the people of Zimbabwe will determine their leaders, but as concerned citizens we can send a message to the Government of Zimbabwe, the African Union and to the nations of Southern Africa that we stand in solidarity with the people of Zimbabwe and that we support their struggle for human rights and justice.

The following Message of Solidarity includes the points outlined in such popular documents as The Zimbabwe We Want, the People’s Convention (February 2008), as well as the platforms of human rights and justice groups in Zimbabwe. We invite you to add your name to the following message.

MESSAGE OF SOLIDARITY
HUMAN RIGHTS AND JUSTICE FOR ZIMBABWE

The people of Zimbabwe have been betrayed, both by the government that represents them and by Western governments that claim to support their desires for economic development and democracy. Internally, corruption, government mis-management, military excesses, and poor economic decisions have deepened the country’s multiple social and economic crises. At the same time, the post-independence promises made by the international community were not kept and the imposition of World Bank/IMF economic structural adjustment policies further entrenched inequality and reversed the initial gains made by the country. We, the undersigned, support the people of Zimbabwe in their calls for a peaceful resolution to the current crisis.

We urge the Government of Zimbabwe to work towards:

1. A new constitution, a people-driven document that ensures that any elected government runs the country to benefit its people, not the elite.

2. Economic justice, specifically:
* An audit of Zimbabwe’s 4.2 billion dollar debt.
* Repatriation of stolen assets, particularly funds diverted from public coffers to individual accounts in international banks.
* National investments in social development, job creation, and regional economic integration efforts.

3. A national “Truth and Reconciliation” process to begin the healing process. We urge the international community to:
* End the “undeclared economic sanctions.”
* Cancel the colonial debt, including apartheid-related debt, along with debts related to failed structural adjustment policies, following an audit of the country’s national debt.
* Work with the Zimbabwean people to identify and repatriate public funds that have been diverted to private accounts in international banks.

Click here [ JusticeforZimbabwe@transafricaforum.org ] to add your name.

For more information visit us on the web:
www.transafricaforum.org

Mar 12, 2008

by

in

Action Alert: Support A Strong HIV/AIDS Senate Bill!

Africa Action
March 12, 2008

A Key Moment to Act
Support A Strong HIV/AIDS Senate Bill!
Write your Senator Now!

Dear Friend,

On Thursday, March 13th the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will sit to mark up the most important bill in the fight against global HIV/AIDS. Africa Action encourages you to immediately write to your Senator to urge them to support a bill that will make U.S. global HIV/AIDS policy more effective and ensure true U.S. global leadership in the fight against the pandemic.

Last Friday, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden, Jr (D-DE) and Ranking Member Richard G. Lugar (R-IN) introduced the bill S 2731, officially known as the “Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008.” This legislation is not only a huge leap forward from Bush’s unproductive policy, which for the past five years severely limited the U.S. response to global AIDS, but it is also a clear testimony that popular pressure works in shaping U.S. policy.

While the current bill is a big improvement over the past 5 years of U.S. global HIV/AIDS policy, several areas still need our strong pushing in order to produce the best possible law. These include:

* Increasing the treatment target to 4 million individuals from the current 3 million;

* Increasing the total funding to $59 billion to meet the public health recommendation of $50 billion for HIV/AIDS programs alone and still include the necessary $4 billion and $5 billion for tuberculosis and malaria programs;

* Integrating HIV/AIDS and reproductive health/family planning programs so that women have easy access to effective HIV prevention services to prevent babies being born with HIV; and

* Removing the requirement that groups must have policies that oppose prostitution to be eligible for U.S. funding. While we do not support prostitution, it is important that our HIV/AIDS policy be comprehensive and reaches out even to prostitutes in order to most effectively prevent the spread of HIV.

The fight against HIV/AIDS remains the defining struggle of our time, as the pandemic claims more than two million lives a year, with more than three quarters of the victims in Africa. The devastating impact of the pandemic on families, communities and nations makes the disease the biggest global threat to human security and development. Only a concerted global effort will succeed in stopping this deadly scourge that has claimed more than 20 million lives globally in the last 3 decades.

As the richest nation in the world, the U.S. must play a leadership role in ending the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Africa, the hardest hit part of the world is incapacitated to deal with a crisis of this magnitude on its own because of the legacy of slavery, colonialism and current global trade policies and power relations that work together to impoverish and debilitate the African continent. As the chief beneficiary of some of the historical injustices that ruined Africa, the U.S. has not only a moral, but also a historical responsibility to support the African continent in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

It is the complacency of our leadership that resulted in HIV/AIDS blowing out of control to become the menace it is today. This is time to let our leaders know that we care about global HIV/AIDS, we care about the plight of humanity, we care about our Africa brothers and sisters, we care about our fellow Americans who falling victim to this pandemic AND WE DEMAND a bill from senate that will be effective in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

Speak out now! – Be heard! – Write to your Senator now!

Sincerely;
Staff @ Africa Action

Mar 12, 2008

by

in

Resistance to AFRICOM

Africa Action
March 12, 2008

Dear Friend,

Take Action! Call or Write to Oppose Increasing Militarization of Aid to Africa

Tomorrow, AFRICOM will be featured during a hearing in the Senate Armed Services Committee, giving us an opening to resist the new U.S. military command in Africa. Please take a moment to pick up the phone and call your Senator or send an email registering your opposition to AFRICOM.

Africa Action has been working with a coalition of organizations including our long-time allies TransAfrica Forum, Foreign Policy in Focus, the Hip Hop Caucus, Africa Faith and Justice Network and others to challenge the Pentagon’s new military command for Africa, AFRICOM.

In our recent Africa Policy Outlook and AFRICOM statement we describe how this development manifests the increasing militarization of U.S. aid to Africa, going even so far as to place U.S. diplomacy and development initiatives under the auspices of the Department of Defense. You can read African voices on AFRICOM on our website. Africa Action has joined allies to launch the website ResistAFRICOM to enhance our campaigning efforts on this important issue and to serve as a central location for advocacy against AFRICOM. Today we invite you to take action – in concert with our allies – and call your Senator to register your opposition to AFRICOM.

President Bush created AFRICOM in 2007, but Congress still needs to fund it. We encourage you to get involved and to tell your member of Congress that you do not agree with the direction of U.S. foreign policy in Africa and that you would rather see taxpayer dollars go toward just security initiatives like ending HIV/AIDS, canceling Africa’s debt, or stopping genocide in Darfur.

You can call now at 202-224-3121 to get the Capitol Switchboard or you can click here and put in your zip code to find the direct number for your Senators, and then feel free to use the script below. Or you can email your representative below. A call will have more impact than an email – so if you can take the time, please make the call. If you are rushing today, and won’t have time to pick up the phone, please take this one-click action.

Thank you, for your commitment to justice and peace in Africa and for taking action on this critical issue.

Peace,

The Staff @ Africa Action

Script for AFRICOM Calls:

Hi, my name is __________ and I am calling to express my concerns regarding the new U.S. military command for Africa – AFRICOM. It is poorly structured and gives unprecedented power to the military. I want to ask ________(name of member of Congress)___________ to make every effort to create more Congressional oversight of the new command and to ensure that diplomatic and development efforts do not fall under the jurisdiction of the military. Thank you!

Mar 09, 2008

by

in

Call for Papers: Critical Connections

African Law Student Association, Columbia University and the Center for African Education, Teachers College, Columbia University present the symposium

Critical Connections

Law, Education, Scholarship & Practice: Re-imagining Africa(ns) in light of Global Emigration & Neocolonialism

Critical Connections is a one-day symposium created in collaboration between the Center for African Education, Teachers College and the African Law Student Association of Columbia Law School. The purpose of this symposium is to promote interdisciplinary engagement with the legal, educational, scholarly and practice-based issues affecting the African continent. This year we are paying particular attention to the effect of neo-colonialist policies on the emigration of African peoples on the continent and around the world. Specifically of interest are the connections between such policies and questions of discriminatory immigration laws and trade policies; the movement of refugee populations; xenophobia both in and out of the continent; the development of new legal norms reflecting African cultures and identities; education; the shifting of identities across generations and borders; and the health and well-being of Africans throughout the world.

We invite papers from established graduate students, practitioners, and community-based organizations in a wide variety of disciplines, including education, law, sociology, anthropology, archaeology, history, African(a) studies, policy, literature, economics, international development and cultural studies. Individual papers, posters and complete panels will be considered. Panels are strongly encouraged that reflect the collaboration between scholars and practitioners.

Those interested in presenting at the symposium should submit a 250-word abstract and a CV by Friday, March 10, 2008 via email to: Mojoyin Onijala, Chair of the Columbia African Law Student Association or Ramatu Bangura, Graduate Assistant at the Center for African Education at criticalconnections@gmail.com. Abstracts can be sent via regular mail to the African Law Student Association, Columbia University, 435 West 116th St., New York, NY 10027-7297.

Critical Connections will be held at Teachers College, Columbia University, New York on April 24, 2008.

Mar 09, 2008

by

in

Call for Papers: African Customary Law Revisited

The Role of Customary Law in the 21st Century
October 23-24, 2008

New: Conference website: www.customarylawrevisited.com

A Project of the Leitner Center for International Law and Justice at Fordham Law School The sponsoring organization of African Customary Law Revisited: The Role of Customary Law in the 21st Century invites submissions and participant nominations for a collaborative exchange and discussion at a two-day conference to take place on October 23-24, 2008 in Botswana. The conference working language will be English. The conference will include paper presentations on topics detailed below and will also include working group discussions with a broad range of stakeholders, including, for example, traditional leaders, members of the judiciary, representatives of non-governmental organizations and other interested persons, on topics related to customary law.

Customary law, the traditional law indigenous to a region, continues to regulate many areas of people’s lives in Africa. For example, some African constitutions now enshrine the right to culture and oblige courts to apply customary law where applicable. Elsewhere, constitutional and statutory law have superseded most or all customary law. Yet, even in situations where constitutional law, statutory law and common law have largely superseded it, customary law may nevertheless govern in certain areas, such as family relations. For example, in many places, the requirements for marriage, the rights and duties of husbands and wives, the obligations toward and custody of children, the ownership of property acquired during marriage, and many other aspects of family life are governed by customary law. Moreover, even where conflicting constitutional or statutory law exists, lack of access to legal resources may mean that, as a practical matter, customary law still governs.

Finally, the persistence of longstanding expectations and social practices informed by customary law has given rise to many problems in enforcing contradictory statutory law.

Notwithstanding the significant role customary law continues to play in people’s lives, there has been a notable lack of research and formal scholarly exchange on the topic. As detailed further below, the African Customary Law Revisited conference will attempt to fill this gap by exploring the nature, substance and role of customary law in Africa in the 21st Century.

Transportation to the conference venue, lodging, meals and transportation at the venue will be subject to arrangement between the sponsoring organizations and the event participants.

CALL FOR PAPERS

Twenty papers will be selected for presentation at the conference by a Steering Committee comprised of members from the sponsoring organization. All proposals should include a project description and the applicant’s curriculum vitae. All proposals should be in English with project descriptions not to exceed 1000 words. As publication of selected papers in contemplated, submissions should describe work that has not been previously published.

Possible topics for consideration:
* What is customary law in the 21st Century
* How is customary law ascertained? What are the sources of customary
law? How is it generated? How does it change?
* The history of customary law; customary law and colonialism
* “Procedural” aspects of customary law / Venues to enforce customary law
* Traditional courts and other venues for decision
* The relationship between traditional courts or decision-makers and the
formal court system
* Evidentiary standards and methods of proving customary law
* Codification of customary law
* Substantive areas of customary law For example:
-Land tenure
-Family law
Environmental law
-Chieftancy
-Intellectual Property
-Criminal law
-Gender and customary law
-Customary law and international law

SUBMISSION DEADLINE MARCH 25, 2008. Proposals should be submitted by e-mail to leitnercenter@law.fordham.edu . Participants will be notified in April 2008 that their papers have been accepted for presentation at the
conference. The papers will be published together in a book after the conference and will be posted on this website. Publication is contingent on producing a final paper of publishable quality.

CALL FOR NOMINATIONS

The sponsoring organizations invite nominations of traditional leaders, members of the judiciary or other persons or organizations who may be interested in attending the conference to participate in the working group discussions and discussion of papers. Persons may self-nominate or nominate others with expertise in matters related to customary law.

Nominations should include:

* The title and address of person or organization nominated.

* An explanation of the reasons for the nomination (500-word limit)
including:

* What is the person or organization’s role with respect to customary
law? What is the basis for the person or organization’s expertise in
this area?

* Why, specifically, do you believe this person or organization should
be included in the conference?

* What areas or issues related to customary law would the person or organization be most interested in discussing?

* Submitter information: Your name, mailing address, phone number and e-mail address.

NOMINATION DEADLINE MARCH 25, 2008. Proposals should be submitted by
e-mail to leitnercenter@law.fordham.edu
Nominated persons and
organizations who are accepted to participate in the conference will be
notified in April 2008.

Feb 28, 2008

by

in

Action Alert: Call for Debt Cancelation

Africa Action
February 28, 2008

Dear Friend,

Leap Into Action TODAY and TOMORROW – February 28th and 29th — to support the Jubilee Act!

Africa Action joins Jubilee USA to encourage you to use your “extra” day this Leap Year to call your member of Congress and urge them to support the Jubilee Act for Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt Cancellation (HR 2634/S2166). You can reach the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121.

The Jubilee Act promise to unshackle a lot of poor countries from the chocking york of debt and create opportunities for development and poverty eradication.

Africa is ground zero in the debt crisis – the continent’s over $200 billion debt burden is the single biggest obstacle to development. Most of this debt is illegitimate, having been incurred by despotic and unrepresentative regimes. African countries spend almost $14 billion annually on debt service, diverting resources from HIV/AIDS programs, education and other important needs. This makes the Jubilee Act the most important piece of legislation in the past seven years for the continent’s fights against poverty and disease.

Globally, everyday over $100 million flows out of impoverished countries in the form of debt payments, rendering millions of people destitute. Debt cancellation provides a ray of hope to affected communities.

Since the days of Jubilee 2000, we have seen 23 countries receive near 100% cancellation of their debts to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. In countries like Zambia and Tanzania, debt relief has produced great results – eliminating fees that had blocked access to primary education and rural health clinics for the poorest, helping millions of children return to school and providing access to basic medical care.

Yet, despite the remarkable track record of debt cancellation, more than 40 poor countries, such as Haiti and Lesotho, are still waiting to see their debts canceled.
The Jubilee Act (HR 2634 / S 2166) builds on past debt cancellation successes, by calling for expanded debt cancellation to all countries that need it to reach the UN Millennium Development Goals to cut extreme poverty in half by 2015.

We are asking you to Leap Into Action TODAY! Call your Representative and Senators and ask them to support the Jubilee Act

The Jubilee Act is one of the most widely supported anti-poverty bills in Congress, but it can only pass with our support. We have a historic opportunity to address the debt crisis in impoverished countries around the world and LEAP forward in the fight against poverty.

PLEASE CALL TODAY – Click here for phone number and call script
To learn more about Africa Action’s Campaign to Cancel Africa’s Debt please visit http://africaaction.org/campaign_new/debt.php.

Please, also visit www.jubileeusa.org/measureup to learn more about the Jubilee Act and its progress through Congress and to order postcards to send to your Representative and Senator.

Sincerely,
Staff @ Africa Action

Feb 14, 2008

by

in

Tanzania: A haven of peace

By Goran Hyden
February 14, 2008

Originally published in the Gainesville Sun

President Bush is on his way to Africa this week. One of his destinations is Tanzania. He will be the first American president to ever visit the country.

Unlike its northern neighbor Kenya, Tanzania is relatively little known in the U.S. although it is the location of Kilimanjaro, the highest mountain on the African continent, Serengeti, the richest endowed wildlife reserve in the world, and – for all Valentine lovers – the exquisite Tanzanite gemstone.

There are reasons why no U.S. president has visited Tanzania and why the country remains little known to Americans. For a long time, Tanzania was devoted to building a socialist state – an experiment that collapsed in the 1980s leaving the country to rebuild its economy along market economy lines.

There was no love lost between the United States and Tanzania during those socialist years, although, paradoxically, according to a study of foreign aid to Tanzania, Republican presidents – Nixon, Ford and Reagan – gave more money for its development than their Democratic counterparts Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter did.

Today socialism is history in Tanzania. President Bush will visit a country that is an African economic success story. Its growth rate in recent years has averaged over 6 percent. Its mineral and natural gas resources are drawing in foreign investors. Its large tracts of unused land are being developed for agriculture and cattle ranching. Its beautiful beaches on the islands of Zanzibar as well as the mainland are attracting increasing numbers of tourists.

Some of these developments may be met with mixed feelings by ordinary Tanzanians but there is little doubt that Tanzania is now on the move.

Rapid changes like those taking place in Tanzania now have caused social and political upheavals in other African countries. No one can rule those out even in Tanzania. Yet, it has a record of political stability that none of its neighbors, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo or Mozambique can match. It is a true haven of peace in Africa living up to the name of its largest city. Dar es Salaam means exactly that.

Governments in Africa have been difficult to hold accountable. Despite corruption and misrule they have stayed on, a shortcoming that afflicts these countries as they try to democratize. President Bush will come to Tanzania just a few days after it struck a political first in Africa.

Its Prime Minister, Edward Lowassa, was forced to resign after parliamentarians in his own party revealed his involvement in a scandal involving misappropriation of government funds. President Jakaya Kikwete immediately dissolved the cabinet and has just appointed a fresh one with a new Prime Minister, Peter Mizengo Pinda.

This change of government is all the more remarkable as Lowassa was a very close ally of the president. Kikwete’s decision to let him go is an indication that he is ready to tackle the issue of corruption that has eluded so many of his fellow African heads of state. It raises eyebrows among investors and foreign donors alike. It augurs well for Tanzania.

The country’s political stability is not a coincidence. Ever since independence, the ruling party – Chama cha Mapinduzi (Revolutionary Party) – has been careful in choosing presidents who come from small and insignificant ethnic groups rather than from the larger and more prosperous ones. This has spared the country from the tensions that have afflicted Kenya and Uganda where the largest ethnic group has tried to rule the country and ignored the interest of other groups.

Tanzania was for a long time the darling of European donors. Ever since its socialist days, China has also been an important investor and donor.

In the past two years, Tanzania has gone out of its way to lure Americans to take an interest in the country. President Kikwete has visited the U.S. three times and not only attended the odd meeting at the United Nations as his predecessors did. Kikwete has been as interested in Washington as in New York.

President Bush will get a warm welcome in Dar es Salaam when he arrives this week. He will see for himself an African country that is a genuine haven of peace; one that has turned its economy around and is now a showcase of what other African countries should aim for.

Goran Hyden is Distinguished Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Florida. He can be reached at ghyden@polisci.ufl.edu