News

After Mugabe, Africa now looks at how Museveni will fall

Published

9 years ago

November 19, 2017

After Mugabe, Africa is looking at Museveni's fall

Long serving leaders in Africa have been falling in quick succession, since the days of the Arab Spring. As much as they deny similarities, made wild threats and scampered to secure their power, events have not spared them and history is rewriting itself, once again proving to doubters that all dictators must fall.

Hundreds of thousand of Zimbabweans of all political persuasions are on the streets of Zimbabwe, celebrating the ouster of Robert Mugabe from the presidency. Mugabe was put under House Arrest, as the party party convenes to formally remove him from power.

Mugabe’s hold on Zimbabwe power and on ZANU-PF is not much different from. They follow the same diabolical pattern of purging comrades from power, sacking ambitious leaders, killing off competitors, in the expectation of removing hope for change. The latest mistake for Mugabe was his sacking of the country’s vice president, in a last minute effort to make way for his wife and enable her to consolidate her power, akin to Museveni’s appointment of wife to ministerial posts, and sacking of the party secretary general, who has some power in the party. The two used very similar methods to extend their bloody rein.

The rise of the youth

At the fore front of the popular revolt on the streets of Zimbabwean are the country’s youth. Without distinction in tribe or party, they are unanimously pulling down giant billboards, sculptures, burning effigies, and dismantling every image that reminds them of the brutal dictator, while rising new faces and proclaiming freedom. NRM youth would absolutely, and dramatically do the exact same thing, when they realise that their leader was about to lose power. They would be at the front of the uprising.

Army’s role

The army commander made a move on Mugabe earlier in the week, and the army statement said they were targeting “criminals around him” but they must have realised on close scrutiny that if you’re surrounded by criminals, you must be the criminal kingpin yourself, hence they put him under house arrest, as mobilization of party to remove him formally was going on. The criminals around him were mostly his foulmouthed wife, whom the party is also removing from her position of ZANU-PF head for the women’s league, and who is already in exile.

People Jubilation

From old women to little children, to ageing men and Zimbabwean youth, the whole country is in a state of outpouring joy and being thankful to the military officers, raising their pictures high, for making the ultimate move of the long-serving leader.

Long serving leaders across Africa have been falling every few years and now months. The manner in which they fall reveals that they had no desire to leave power, or standby plan. As such, they are rounded up with their close families and cronies, and given either the mercy of exile or killed if the uprising turns hot. But one thing that is for sure is that long serving African dictators are in the eye of a storm – and are effectively living on borrowed time. Africans always change their leaders, it unfathomable why leaders do not follow democratic means to come or to go, and choose to fall by the sword each time. Maybe they take the importance of the initial victory higher than they should, and despise the people

In the hierarchy of Africa’s long serving dictators, Mugabe and Museveni have been on top of the list. Now that Mugabe has fallen, Africa is definitely anxious to see the end of Museveni’s bloody rule too. As Ugandan youth are celebrating with Zimbabweans on their victory, so will Zimbabweans and youth all around Africa celebrating when the moment comes. As it stands, it will not be long, as Museveni is committing yet another treacherous act trying to remove age limit from the constitution, so that he could stand again after the constitutional age limit in purged, and he is busy wasting the taxes of Ugandans on this scheme, while doctors are on strike for no pay and poor working conditions.

Global Politics

Israel: The Homeland for Jews

Published

2 years ago

October 1, 2024

Birondwa Frank

The creation of the State of Israel in the 22,145 square kilometers between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan is often portrayed as a convergence of Jewish aspirations, as articulated in Theodor Herzl’s 1896 manifesto Der Judenstaat (“The Jewish State”), and the political support of the British government through the Balfour Declaration of 1917. However, the land in question was not an empty space awaiting new inhabitants—it was Palestine, historically referred to as Canaan, the Promised Land.

Britain, holding a mandate over Palestine from 1920 to 1947 under the authority of the League of Nations, facilitated the partitioning of this land. This political maneuver laid the groundwork for the establishment of Israel but also ignited tensions between Arabs and Jews—tensions that endure to this day. The Jewish return to Palestine, though enabled by British and international politics, was not just a matter of politics; it was deeply rooted in religious history and identity.

But why did the Jewish people seek Britain’s backing, and later the support of the United Nations, to reclaim their ancient homeland? This question points to the intersection of politics and religion, a mix that has proved volatile in this region. The Jewish connection to Canaan—dating back thousands of years to biblical times—was a driving force, but the modern political context required international legitimacy and support. Herzl understood this when he sought to secure formal agreements from “the present masters of the land.” However, it was not just a matter of legal approval; it was about creating a framework that would allow for the survival and security of a future Jewish state.

The broader regional context is crucial here. The countries surrounding modern Israel are predominantly Muslim and governed by principles deeply rooted in Islam. The notion of creating a Jewish state in the heart of this region was not only a political challenge but a religious one. Arab opposition to the establishment of Israel stemmed, in part, from religious conviction—Israel’s existence challenged the Muslim claim to the land. Yet, the Arab world’s failure to make a robust religious argument against the Jewish return to Canaan, and instead focusing solely on the political mechanism, was perhaps a strategic error. By neglecting to challenge the religious foundation of the Zionist claim, they ceded crucial ground in the ideological battle.

Meanwhile, Britain’s motivations in supporting the Jewish cause were not purely altruistic. During World War I, Jewish leaders in Britain, including the influential Lord Rothschild, provided resources and support to the British war effort. The Balfour Declaration, in which Britain expressed its support for a “national home for the Jewish people,” was as much a political favor as it was a recognition of Jewish historical ties to the land. In this light, Britain’s role in the creation of Israel can be seen as an exercise in realpolitik, where self-interest and wartime alliances played a significant role.

Jewish determination, however, transcended diplomatic support. Herzl’s vision was clear: even if Britain and the United Nations had not endorsed the creation of Israel, the Jews would have pressed forward with their plan. The Zionist movement was not merely about securing a piece of land—it was about reclaiming a national identity, fulfilling a historical destiny, and establishing a sanctuary for Jews in the wake of centuries of persecution, culminating in the Holocaust.

Moreover, the cultural and religious identity of the Jewish people played a critical role in shaping their aspirations. Jews are not Christians, and they do not recognize Jesus Christ as the Messiah—a key theological divergence that has historically set them apart. This strong sense of identity, rooted in Judaism, fueled the Zionist drive to establish a homeland that reflected their ancient beliefs and traditions. Their resistance to assimilation, both politically and religiously, has been a hallmark of Jewish history.

Letter

Opposition should protect its Own!

Published

7 years ago

August 4, 2019

The Nationalist

A rare phenomenon exists in the groups opposed to the dictatorial regime in our country today, that makes them seem unfit for the great cause of liberation. Basic revolutionary code demands that a force must protect itself – its fighters, and those who support its cause, from the attacks of their common enemy.

But not Ugandan opposition groups. They view this – protecting the revolution, as the concern of each independent opposition group or person. This is also how they approach the task of liberating the country – going it solo!

They meet, “agree”, even “sign”… and yet before the sun goes down they lie, cheat and betray themselves. Every day they say “all we want is to – overthrow this dictatorship, create authentic democracy and protect you.

Unless we believe that logic works the same way the chameleon works, personally I don’t think protection, or democracy could come from one who does not stand on a principle for a full day!

It is because of believing such fallacies (misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning), that those who fought the 1980-86 struggle, ended up creating bufere democracy and a mafia state

We all know that the opposition parties/group/camps do not agree (consent), on pretty much anything, it doesn’t matter if they claim to agree, because the actions give it away, but the protection of revolutionary fighters like Nyanzi, and the supporters of the revolution – this is so pertinent that a mutual defense pact needs to be in place, for a common response against the strikes of the mafia regime, against them.

Protecting your own is a cardinal principle in revolutionary politics. Not only locally, but also regionally. The popular rebellion in Sudan North should by now have benefited from loud voices of support from Ugandan opposition.

How to do it – protecting fighters is protecting the revolution

The strategy of political opposition in Uganda should be broad in its coverage of political matters, and all inclusive in terms of its appeal.

Exposing the evils of the junta regime locally, regionally & internally

The opposition groups should seize every incident of the mafia and junta regime, each time they unleash terror against the citizens, killing of innocents, jailing innocents, and using the judiciary system as tools of political oppression. The opposition should seize each and every incident of these to decisively record, report and expose it across all corners of the country, the region and the international forums. This is a core function of peaceful opposition, and it should not be done without coordination of the groups, but all opposition players should have a common approach to exposing the regime. The junta regime loosing credibility locally, regionally & globally for its jailing opponents, activists, shutting businesses of those perceived to be not supporting the military junta in private sector, stiffing free speech by shutting newspapers and radios, and creating sub-human conditions for citizens in hospitals, schools, jails – these serve as material to build the right momentum for popular liberation of the country.

Pinning down the Individuals who carry out injustice

The individuals within the junta regime who are the executioners and purveyors of injustice who carry out the matching orders from the political junta, against citizens, should be meticulously recorded in the black books of Uganda’s history. Their names should be mentioned out out of the noise and cries they met on innocents, to be on the record as tools of political persecution, so that they may not escape justice when the junta can no-longer protect them. The opposition needs to be meticulous, thorough and scientific when pinning injustice to the real individuals who carry them out, and all their assistants – you cannot bring justice to a land without pinning the ones who committed the injustice. So all those members in the army, police, intelligence, judiciary and other areas of the junta state who are doing the work of political mercenaries should be well documented and exposed to the public, for the day of reckoning

Again this something that all political opposition would find common ground on, since they’re affected by it, so a common approach and efforts to doing it is the right answer to protecting themselves against the excesses of the junta regime

It is not logical to say say: we’re going to win the coming election, if you cannot win personal freedom first. Obviously you’re not allowed to mobilise for the said election. If as opposition politician, your personal freedom is debatable, then by all means your mission is not winning elections, it is winning freedom!

Do not claim on the podium, to be the poster child of certain values, while in fact, there is no evidence of you having put such values in action