They Serve God Too, Those Who Act Rather Than Just Pray.

They serve God too, those who act rather than just pray.

That I do not reaffirm my Christian faith as often as I should is remiss, but, sufficiently excused by this passage recited by that Honourable and Ingenious Knight of antiquity; Don Quixote of La Mancha. Summed up, his argument is this; they serve God too, those who act rather than just pray.

"For, if the truth is to be told, the soldier who executes what his captain orders does no less than the captain himself who gives the order. My meaning, is, that churchmen in peace and quiet pray to Heaven for the welfare of the world, but we soldiers and knights carry into effect what they pray for, defending it with the might of our arms and the edge of our swords, not under shelter but in the open air, a target for the intolerable rays of the sun in summer and the piercing frosts of winter. 

Thus are we God's ministers on earth and the arms by which his justice is done there in. And as the business of war and all that relates and belongs to it cannot be conducted without exceeding great sweat, toil, and exertion, it follows that those who make it their profession have undoubtedly more labour than those who in tranquil peace and quiet are engaged in praying to God to help the weak" - Don Quixote: The Ingenious Gentleman of La Mancha.

They serve God too, those who act rather than just pray.

The Land Question Is Zimbabwe's ONLY National Question

The condition of the black farm worker in Zimbabwe between 1893 - 2000

On this issue I cannot prevaricate as all academics do: a country's national question is that question which when resolved satisfactorily, will cause all other questions to resolve themselves. If you resolve the land question - once and for all - everything else will fall into place. Of course, when a crisis has gone on long enough, it's easy to forget the initial condition and thus mistake a concomitant question for the actual national question i.e. mistaking the shadow for the substance. It is also easy to - with hindsight - think there was a better way of doing things and, by so doing, revise history. 

Speaking at Oxford University, the Commander in Chief of the Economic Freedom Fighters of South Africa - Julius Malema - accused President Robert Mugabe of being an opportunist who only used the land issue as a way to hold on to power when he was falling out of favour in Zimbabwe. Julius Malema then went on to say that land reform could have been done through changing the constitution instead of the extra-legal and violent way it was conducted in Zimbabwe. In this postulation he revises history as, indeed, the legal means were tried (to no avail) and he also fails to realise that land law is not really a sovereign issue - by which I mean, outside forces can frustrate any attempts to enshrine land reform in national constitutions:

Video: Whose Land Is It Anyway

The condition of the black farm owner 2000 - present

Africa Imported The Wrong State

Importing the wrong state.

The argument of "The Imported State" restated, in the fewest possible words, is that Africa imported the wrong State. The operational concept being that every society has an organic way of organising its political life that best fits it (given its values) - there is no one size fits all.

This idea, when diagrammatically represented would be this: the foundation of the State in Africa is circular (round), yet the superstructure it has been sent is in the shape of a square. Thus the imported state will never take root in Africa.

The Tyrannical Character (as desribed as long ago as the 5th Century by Plato).

The Republic

A Synopsis Of Plato’s The Republic

Plato's The Republic is widely acknowledged as the cornerstone of Western philosophy. Presented in the form of a dialogue between Socrates and three different interlocutors, it is an inquiry into the notion of a perfect community and the ideal individual within it. During the conversation other questions are raised: what is goodness; what is reality; what is knowledge? The Republic also addresses the purpose of education and the role of both women and men as 'guardians' of the people. With remarkable lucidity and deft use of allegory, Plato arrives at a depiction of a state bound by harmony and ruled by 'philosopher kings.' 

PART IX, BOOK VIII, IMPERFECT SOCIETIES. 

The Tyrannical Character 

Its essential similarity to the criminal 

... ... “There do indeed.”

“In this struggle don’t the people normally put forward a single popular leader, whom they nurse to greatness?”

“Yes, as a rule.”

“Then it should be clear,” I said, “that this leadership is the root from which tyranny invariably springs.”

“Perfectly clear.”

“Then how does the popular leader start to turn into a tyrant? Isn’t it, clearly, when he starts doing what we hear about in the story about the shrine of Zeus Lykaeus in Arcadia?”

“What is the story?”

“That the man who tastes a single piece of human flesh, mixed in with the rest of the sacrifice, is fated to become a wolf. Surely you’ve heard the tale?”

“Yes, I have.”

“The same happens with the popular leader. The mob will do anything he tells them, and the temptation to shed a brother’s blood is too strong. He brings the usual unjust charges against him, takes him to court and murders him, thus destroying a human life, and getting an unholy taste of the blood of his fellows. Exiles, executions, hints of cancellation of debts and redistribution of land follow, till their instigator is inevitably fatally bound either to be destroyed by his enemies, or to change from man to wolf.”

“That is an inevitable necessity.”

“It is he who leads the class war against the owners of property.”

“It is.”

“And if he’s exiled, and then returns in spite of his enemies, he returns a finished tyrant.”

“Obviously.” ... ...

... ... ... “Meanwhile there’s clearly no question of our champion ‘measuring his towering strength in the dust’; he overthrows all opposition and grasps the reins of state, and stands, no longer champion, but the complete tyrant.”

“That’s the inevitable conclusion,” he agreed.

“Then shall we describe the happy conditions of this man, and of the state in which a creature like him is bred?”

“Yes, please, let us.” 

“In his early days he has a smile and a kind word for everyone; he says he’s no tyrant, makes large promises, public and private, frees debtors, distributes land to the people and to his own followers, and puts on a generally mild and kindly air.”

“He has to.”

“But I think we shall find that when he has disposed of his foreign enemies by treaty or destruction, and he has no more to fear from them, he will in the first place continue to stir up war in order that the people may continue to need a leader.”

“Very likely.”

“And the high level of war taxation will also enable him to reduce them to poverty and force them to attend to earning their daily bread rather than to plotting against him.”

“Clearly.”

“Finally if he suspects anyone of having ideas of freedom and not submitting to his rule, he can find an excuse to get rid of them by handing them over to the enemy. For all these reasons a tyrant must always be provoking war.”

“Yes, he must.”

“But all this lays him open to unpopularity.”

“Inevitably.”

“So won’t some of the bolder characters among those who helped him to power, and now hold positions of influence, begin to speak freely to him and each other, and blame him for what is happening?”

“Very probably.”

“Then if he is to retain power, he must root them out, all of them, till there’s not one man of consequence left, whether friend or foe.”

“That’s obvious.”

“So he must keep a sharp eye out for men of courage or vision or intelligence or wealth, for, whether he likes it or not, it is his happy fate to be their constant enemy and to intrigue until he has purged them from the state.”

“A fine kind of purge,” he remarked.

“Yes,” I returned, “and the reverse of a purge in the medical sense. For the doctor removes the poison and leaves the healthy elements in the body, while the tyrant does the opposite.”

“Yes it seems inevitable, if he’s to remain in power.”

“He is compelled to make the happy choice,” I said, “between a life with companions most of whom are worthless and all of whom hate him, and an inevitable death.”

“That is his fate.”

... ... .... 

... “But we are digressing,” I said. “We must go back to what we were saying about our tyrant’s ... . How is he going to maintain the changing ranks of this splendid and motley gang?”

“Obviously he’ll use any temple treasures there are, so long as they last, and the property of his victims. That will enable him to tax the people less.”

“And when these sources fail?”

“Then he and his gang, boy-friends and girl-friends, will live on his parents’ estate.” 

“I see,” I said. “You mean that the people who have bred him will have to maintain him and his crew.” 

“They will have no option.” 

“No option,” I said. “But what if they get annoyed and say that it’s not right for a father to keep his son when he’s grown up - it’s the son who should keep the father: and that they never intended, when they bred him and set him up, that when he grew great they should be enslaved by their own slaves, and have to keep him and his servile rabble; on the contrary, he was to be their champion and free them from the power of the wealthy and so-called upper classes? What if they then order him and his partisans to leave the country, like a father ordering his son out of the house with his riotous friends?”

“Then,” said he with emphasis, “people will find out soon enough what sort of beast they’ve bred and groomed for greatness. He’ll be too strong for them to turn out.”

“What?” I exclaimed. “Do you mean that the tyrant will dare to use violence against the people who fathered him, and raise his hand against them if they oppose him?”

“Yes,” he said, “when he has disarmed them.”

“So the tyrant is a parricide,” said I, “and little comfort to his old parent. In fact, here we have real tyranny, open and avowed, and the people find, as the saying is, that they’ve jumped out of the frying pan of subjection to free men into the fire of subjection to slaves, and exchanged their excessive and untimely freedom for the harshest and bitterest of servitudes, where the slave is the master.”

“That is exactly what happens.”

“Well,” I said, “I think we can fairly claim to have given an adequate description of how democracy turns to tyranny and what tyranny is like.”

“I think we can.”

The Tyrannical Character

Notes: 

Plato. (2007) The Republic. Translated by Desmond Lee. London: Penguin Books. pp 298 - 308.

What Goods Do The Political Elites Really Manufacture?

"Suppose that France suddenly lost fifty of her best physicists, chemists, physiologists, mathematicians, poets, painters, sculptors, musicians, writers; fifty of her best mechanical engineers, civil and military engineers, artillery experts, architects, doctors, surgeons, apothecaries, seamen, clockmakers; fifty of her best bankers, two hundred of her best business men, two hundred of her best farmers, fifty of her best ironmasters, arms manufacturers, tanners, dyers, miners, clothmakers, cotton manufacturers, silk-makers, linen-makers, manufacturers of hardware, of pottery and china, of crystal and glass, ship chandlers, carriers, printers, engravers, goldsmiths, and other metal-workers; her fifty best masons, carpenters, joiners, farriers, locksmiths, cutlers, smelters, and a hundred other persons of various unspecified occupations, eminent in the sciences, fine arts and professions; making in all the three thousand leading scientists, artists and artisans of France.

These men are the Frenchmen who are the most essential producers, those who make the most important products, those who direct the enterprises most useful to the nation, those who contribute to its achievements in the sciences, fine arts and professions. They are in the most real sense the flower of French society; they are, above all Frenchmen, the most useful to their country, contribute most to its glory, increasing its civilization and prosperity. The nation would become a lifeless corpse as soon as it lost them. It would immediately fall into a position of inferiority compared with the nations it now rivals, and would continue to be inferior until this loss has been replaced, until it had grown another head. It would require at least a generation for France to repair this misfortune; for men who are distinguished in work of positive ability are exceptions, and nature is not prodigal of exceptions, particularly in this species.

Let us pass on to another assumption. Suppose that France preserves all the men of genius that she possesses in the sciences, fine arts and professions, but has the misfortune to lose in the same day Monsieur the King's brother, Monseigneur le duc d'Angouleme, Monseigneur le duc d'Berry, Monseigneur le duc d'Orleans, Monseigneur le duc de Bourbon, Madame la duchesse d'Anguoleme, Madame la duchesse de Berry, Madame la duchesse d'Orleans, Madame la duchesse de Bourbon, and Madame la duchesse de Conde. Suppose that France loses at the same time all the great officers of the royal household, all the ministers (with or without portfolio), all the councillors of the state, all the chief magistrates, marshals, cardinals, archbishops, vicars-general, and canons, all the prefects and sub-prefects, all the civil servants, and judges, and, in addition, ten thousand of the richest proprietors who live in the style of nobles.

This mischance would certainly distress the French, because they are kind-hearted, and could not see with indifference the sudden disappearance of such a large number of their compatriots. But this loss of thirty-thousand individuals, considered to be the most important in the state, would only grieve them for purely sentimental reasons and would result in no political evil for the State."

Notes:

Henri d Saint-Simon, The Organizer (1819).

President Robert Mugabe's 2015 State of the Nation Address

President Robert Gabriel Mugabe. The Commander-in-Chief of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces.

The story is told of the (improbable) encounter between five blind men and an elephant (possibly sedated). Whatever part of the elephant each person came across became his view of what an elephant was really like. The one who held the trunk thought it was a like a thick rubbery hose, the one who held the leg thought it was like a tree trunk or pillar, while the one who held the tail thought it was like a rope. 

The story does not explicitly say this but I assume they all agreed that it was an animal. I hope they did. It is the same with our recently delivered State of the Nation Address. We must all agree that the state of affairs in Zimbabwe are not ideal at all. But, beyond this agreement, we can become like the 5 blind men and highlight different things in the address owing to our 'contact,' prejudices, world views, and levels of understanding. Thus, I beg to differ with anyone who has ever uttered, written or thought that the State of the Nation address was a pointless exercise.

What President Mugabe mentioned almost in passing in this speech, is for me the fundamental issue. He mentioned the fact that the security services have ensured that there is peace and security in the most trying of circumstances. Everything must build on this foundation of security. A passage by John Stuart Mill is instructive as to how impossible it is to achieve anything where there is no security. I am well aware that security has since been broadened to include economic, climatic, personal and political security in the 21st Century, but still, all these aspects of Human Security depend on there being peace in a given territory.  

Applying "Swarm Theory" To Zimbabwe's Re-Development Agenda

This concept above by Ben Zweibelson for the Canadian Military Journal (CMJ) illustrates how a traditional hierarchical organisation works. For our purposes, development projects should be done at the tactical level without necessarily being directed from the operational or strategic levels.  

The dimensions and implications of "Swarm Theory" are elegantly explained in this article here, and could easily be applied to Zimbabwe's re-development agenda - provided there are sufficient dedicated adherents. I have taken the tenets of Swarm Theory to mean, for what I have in mind, Zimbabweans using their talents and expertise to develop their rural areas relying neither on foreign sponsored NGOs nor State funds/approval. There are excellent reasons for this approach which I will list in later instalments when I come round to explaining the feasible prospective projects. For now I must list the hurdles this course of action must encounter.

Swarm Theory, for all its elegance and promise, must falter on the differences observed by Thomas Hobbes as to why the selfless cooperation that occurs in the animal kingdom cannot be replicated in human affairs. He noted; "Some man may perhaps desire to know, why mankind cannot do the same (Swarm behaviour). To which I answer, first, that men are continually in competition for honour and dignity, which these creatures are not; and consequently amongst men there ariseth on that ground envy and hatred... Secondly, that amongst these creatures, the common good differeth not from the private, and being by nature inclined to their private, they procure thereby the common benefit. But man, whose joy consisteth in comparing himself with other men, can relish nothing but what is eminent. Thirdly, that these creatures, having not (as man) the use of reason, do not see, nor think they see any fault, in the administration of their common business: whereas amongst men, there are very many, that think themselves wiser, and abler to govern the public, better than the rest; and these strive to reform and innovate, one this way, another that way; and thereby bring it into distraction."

Heroes And Heroines Of Zimbabwe's Liberation Struggle

Mbuya Nehanda - The Heroine of Chimurenga I and our inspiration in Chimurenga II.

Cecil John Rhodes and his Pioneer Column came into present day Zimbabwe in 1890 and set themselves up as the overlords of Zimbabweans, having duped King Lobengula into signing away this role to them. They then displaced the black population from their land and enacted racist laws which further disenfranchised blacks in all spheres. This carried on for nearly a hundred years, until after an armed struggle - Chimurenga II (1966 to 1980) - Zimbabwe gained its independence from this servitude to foreigners.

Of course, the colonial settlers and their descendants have, from time to time, tried to present themselves as having been welcomed as saviours by the black population. This lie is easy to dismiss because they arrived in 1890, under false pretences, between 1893 and 1896 there was already an armed revolt - Chimurenga I - by the blacks, as the white settlers' pretence was discovered. The leader of Chimurenga I - Mbuya Nehanda - was executed by the whites, but not before she prophesied the coming of Chimurenga II with these words: "My bones shall arise!"

Video: A Short And Accurate History of Zimbabwe's Liberation Struggle.

Britain Does Not Owe Zimbabwe Reparations

Balancing Rocks, Harare, Zimbabwe.

The speaker in this video argues that Britain does not owe any reparations to the countries it colonised as it was welcomed in most of those countries. The prime example of this welcome, according to him, is that; "Sometimes they showed humility, King Lobengula of the Matabeles famously started his first loyal address to Queen Victoria with the words; 'we who are but as lice on the edge of Her Majesty's blanket.'" 

Such condescending attitudes and conceit. 

President Barack Obama Jokes About That All Important Third Term!

AU Chairperson HE Dr Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma with President Barack Obama. Picture Credit: African Union.

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 

President Barack Obama joked, while addressing the African Union, that he would win if he ran again for the office of President of the United States, but cannot run again, because the Constitution does not allow it and the "law is the law." While his message and joke was delivered without malice, he still overlooks objective conditions and structural constraints that African countries face which are absent in the United States.

Progressive Nationalism: Primus Inter Pares.

I am a Zimbabwean (and will always be).

Having been unable, of necessity, to talk about Zimbabwe for the past few years, I am now able to discuss Zimbabwe in explicit terms. I can now tell everyone where I really stand politically in Zimbabwe. My (re)entry into explicitly discussing all things Zimbabwean will be focused by one question, and one question only: does it serve Zimbabwe? Hence, Progressive Nationalism. 

Progressive Nationalism is the simple idea that everything that a Zimbabwean does should privilege Zimbabwe in its standing among nations. For example, how does externalization of wealth serve Zimbabwe? Will Zimbabwe be held in high esteem because it has people who are proficient at externalization of wealth?

Politicians will try to expropriate this long standing idea of mine for their political campaigns and what-have-you but, here, on this platform, I have the scales to weigh whether their actions match their grand pronouncements. This is what this platform will do initially; scan past, present and (likely) future actions by Zimbabweans as well as other nationalities, and from that mosaic, extract what is useful and what is harmful to Zimbabwe.

But that's not all, because, as Aristotle already told us in Nichomacean Ethics, the end of political science is action not knowledge.