I was born and brought up in a predominantly Muslim community but the best schools around were fee paying Christian missionary schools. Our parents were ambitious enough for us that they had no hesitation about paying (government Schools were free) to get us into these schools. They were strong enough in their faith to trust that we were there 'for their knowledge not their God.’ And so it was. I can recall only one Muslim pupil converting to Christianity for all the years that the school was run by the Baptist Missionaries.

By the time we finished our primary education, the school had become majority Muslim and taken over by the State government and renamed Shehu Primary School.

In those days there was a clear distinction between kids exclusively going to Quranic Schools (Almajirai) and those of us either going only to ‘western’ schools or a combination of both. The Almajirai were often children living far away from their homes having been sent away to seek Islamic knowledge and upbringing by their faithful parents - a decision usually reached by the fathers. But those of us ‘Yan boko’ (pupils in state or missionary schools) generally lived with our parents/guardians. We went to school during the day and returned to the warmth and security of our homes in the afternoon. Quranic schools would then be open in the afternoon during school days and morning and evening during weekends.

The Quranic schools were private initiatives designed to ensure that the student learned the whole of the 114 chapters of the Quran by heart. This was in turn followed by going further into the religion as a knowledge system including learning the Arabic language. Unfortunately for many of us 'yan makarantan boko' the higher you climbed up the western educational ladder the less likely you were to return to the Quranic schools. So you got into the incongruous situation of knowing the Quran or parts of it by heart without actually knowing the Arabic language. Our knowledge was thus short-circuited through the interpretations by Mallams and Sheiks (teachers and learned Scholars).

There has been a lot of opprobrium directed at African leaders for lacking the political will to put in check if not end Mugabe’s misrule. However I have a different take on the outcome of the recent Sharm El Sheikh Summit of the Heads of State and Government of the African Union.

Media reports and public reaction both in Africa and outside of Africa have been highly critical and dismissive of the AU resolution. For many, this was yet another unprincipled stand by the African leaders, many of whom have no better democratic credentials than those of Uncle Bob’s. So what would you expect from such a group the cynics ask? As understandable as this position is, it fails to take cognisance of the changing dynamics of intra-African diplomacy. For that failure those holding this view become unwitting allies of President Mugabe whose tainted and stale reading of Africa convince him that no African leader can criticise him.

Mugabe said this much soon after his one-man presidential run-off and his hurried ‘swearing in – just in time to rush off Egypt. He claimed that none of the leaders had cleaner hands than his, which are certainly bloody. In a sense he was daring those with cleaner hands to cast the first stone. It was desperate bravado from a man who has lost all claims to moral or political integrity. He exonerates himself not by proclaiming his innocence but declaring that he is not the only one guilty. No doubt his fellow riggers and robbers feel uncomfortable.

I skipped the AU summit in Egypt and did not feel guilty about it.

In the past 15 years I can count the number of times that I have missed the OAU/AU summits. And in the few times that I have, it was due to unavoidable circumstances.

I have been part of a core of African activists who have remained engaged with our premier diplomatic and political organisation long before it became fashionable as it has become today. Those were bleak times when the OAU was a pejorative term, a symbol of all that was wrong with Africa especially its leaders.

Today everybody talks of engaging, interfacing, collaborating and working with the AU. It is looked upon as an important forum for African leadership, African problems and African consensus on global issues. African and non-African NGOs in particular have in recent years ‘discovered’ that relating to the AU is important for their advocacy and even funding!

It is so sad that a leader who came as a new Nkrumah is going down as a Mobutu, writes Tajudeen Abdul Raheem about Mugabe. It is a grave understatement to continue to describe him as an embarrassment to Africa. He is a dangerous autocrat who does not care anymore if the whole nation crashes with him. He needs to be stopped and stopped now.
====

It is extremely sad to watch, hear or read about the tragic events happening in Zimbabwe. Not even the proverbial ostrich, notorious for burying its head in the sand no matter what is happening around, it can claim not to notice.

This week's withdrawal of the ppposition presidential candidate, Morgan Tsvangirai, is not surprising at all. In conditions such as those orchestrated by the ZANU-PF regime and its ageing revolutionary turned autocrat, holding a credible election is impossible. Mugabe has made it clear, and his security goons and freelance political enforcers have repeated it in words and brutal actions, that on no condition would he hand over power to the MDC and Morgan. So why bother to hold an election at all? Mugabe is willing to accept only one outcome: his continuation in office.

In conditions like these, an election is not an indication of democracy but a conspiracy against the masses. The issues facing Zimbabweans are no longer about electoral disputes but a one-sided civil / political war situation where the state and its agents are persecuting their political opponents and those they believe to be their supporters.

It is not only the coercive instruments and institutions of the state that are extremely and openly partisan. They also allow their supporters to operate with impunity. The army, the police, security and intelligence services, state and government officials, and party officials all operate as outlaws, while militias operate as regular officers. It is a post liberation state gone full circle. The people's state has become the enemy of the people.

The problem is political. Therefore the solution is also political. Our first responsibility is to discourage President Mugabe from his destructive self-succession in going ahead and contesting against himself on the 27th of June. If he insists, as it is likely, the immediate response should be a withdrawal of official observer teams that may have been sent there, recall of ambassadors, travel advice to nationals not to go to the country and possible evacuation of citizens. All these will signal to Mugabe that Africa is serious.

If he goes ahead with the farce, African countries must publicly state that they do not recognise his election. That should invite immediate break in diplomatic relations to demonstrate to President Mugabe that we mean business.

If western pressure alone could have done it, Mugabe could have gone many years before now. He has survived western diplomatic isolation because African states and leaders, even those opposed to him, have refused to accept Western dictates on the matter. He has exploited this to his advantage without giving back any significant concessions even to his closest allies and defenders, like Thabo Mbeki.

Mugabe has become a collective embarrassment to Africa and we need to be rid of him. It is no longer enough to say he is not alone. The fact that there are other thieves is not a plea against prosecution by those caught in the act. Those who continue to focus on Western hypocrisy and multiple standards on the matter are guilty of being accessories to the continuing suffering of the people of Zimbabwe.

As African leaders arrive this weekend in Sham El Sheik for the AU summit, we must campaign in our various countries, lobby foreign ministers, African ambassadors in our countries and our heads of state to take firm stand against Mugabe to ensure a credible political negotiation for a transitional government in which both ZANU-PF and MD and other stakeholders share power for a limited period, with an eye toward a level playing field for democratic elections. This is not possible with Mugabe therefore he needs to be eased out.

Africa has been an experimental laboratory for all kinds of transitions. Zimbabwe itself has historical memory of different transitions that were initially thought to be impossible. Ian Smith died of old age in a free Zimbabwe in spite of his atrocities against Black Zimbabweans. A negotiated settlement may indemnify Mugabe too while the cause of justice and democracy is enhanced by him seeing other people (including those he called traitors) govern the country. The handwriting is on the wall but Mugabe cannot read it; therefore African leaders should spell them out in BOLD letters to him.

It is so sad that a leader who came as a new Nkrumah is going down as a Mobutu. It is a grave understatement to continue to describe him as an embarrassment to Africa. He is a dangerous autocrat who does not care anymore if the whole nation crashes with him. He needs to be stopped and stopped NOW.

*Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem writes this column as a Pan Africanist.

*Please send comments to or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org/

For Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem, "Obama’s nomination and his eventual victory should make us reexamine our legal, political, cultural and social attitudes about citizenship and stop using it as a means of exclusion and marginalisation."
====

There is a carnivalesque celebration across Africa greeting Senator Barrack Obama historic presidential campaign. The excitement is such that one would be forgiven to think that Obama was about to be sworn in. No where is this excitement more infectious than in Kenya, the homeland of Obama’s father.

Even Kenyans who in the closely fought Presidential elections of last year swore that Raila would never be president, not because of anything other than his being Luo, without any sense of irony, are part of the Obamamania. A 100% Luo is not good enough for them as President of Kenya but they are supporting a 5O% Luo to be president of the USA!

Kenyans are not alone in these contradictory responses. I am not sure how many of the millions of Africans celebrating Obama’s possible victory would as enthusiastic were Obama running for office in their countries. Can you imagine an Obama as a presidential candidate in Ivory Coast? Would he not be reminded that he is not African enough? How could he pass the ‘ivorite’ test when even a former Prime Minister of the country born in the country was disqualified? If Obama had run in the Nigerian election would he have generated the same mass adulation?

This a continent in which a former President (Kenneth Kaunda), who was founding father of the country, a man who served as President for 25 years had his citizenship stripped off him by his successor because his parents allegedly came from a neighbouring country, The former President of Tanzania, Benjamin Mkapa, had the citizenship of a number of Tanzanians annulled just because they disagreed or he suspected that they did not agree with him politically. One of them was a serving High Commissioner and the other a former member of Parliament and leading member of the ruling party. As part of his campaign of prolonging his gerontocracy President Mugabe stripped some Zimbabweans of their citizenship. The journalist, Trevor Ncube, was declared a Malawian but his siblings who were not considered sympathisers of the opposition remained Zimbabweans. Ethiopia and Eritrea shamelessly engaged in tit for tat denationalisation of innocent citizens because of the senseless war between the two leaders. There are so many extremely bad examples of routine denial of citizenship across Africa.

The ease with which political opponents are foreignised across Africa would never have given any hope for an Obama to even dream of becoming a local councilor let alone aspire to the Presidency.

Even within the same country claims of who is an indigene, a settler, a resident, etc are used to disempower fellow citizens. And if you are a woman who married across ethnic or national boundaries you are doubly disempowered. You may not be fully accepted by the Man’s group or country and your group/country will disown you for marrying out.

Obama’s nomination and his eventual victory should make us reexamine our legal, political, cultural and social attitudes about citizenship and stop using it as a means of exclusion and marginalisation. Obama did not have to hide his African and non-African origins and heritage and both are not considered to be disadvantages to his political ascendancy. Instead he is celebrating and using them as a political selling point saying that the diversity of his heritage and upbringing equip him to lead a multi cultural America in an even more diverse world. Without stating it directly he challenges the WASP (White Anglo –Saxon Protestant) hegemony with a global cosmopolitanism that makes the provincialism of the likes of Bush antithetical to the wider interests of the US in the world. When he says he understands the world and could make the world understand America, it is more believable coming from him than from any of his opponents.

Obama’s victory should open the doors of opportunity for the enjoyment of full citizenship rights to all Africans wherever they may be from Cape Town to Cairo and lift the veil from the injustices that continue to surround citizenship across the continent. If we can be happily anticipate an Obama victory in the US elections we should be equally prepared to accept that a Munyarwanda raised in Uganda can be president of Uganda; A Nigerian of Ghanaian or Togolese extraction can be President of Nigeria; an immigrant from Zimbabwe or Mozambique who are targets of negrophobic attacks in South Africa today or their descendants can aspire to be president of South Africa in our life-time.

If we cannot accept this we should stop the hypocrisy. If an Obama is good for America he or she should be good for Africa too. Show that you really care about Obama’s promised brave new world of tolerance and inclusion by recognising the many Obamas near you.

*Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem writes this column as a Pan Africanist.

*Please send comments to or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org/

Tajudeen walks us through the skepticism that initially greated the Obama candidacy, the pitfalls of the hubristic Clinton campaign and Obama's strengths but cautions us that Obama will be an American President who happens to be of African origin. He is never going to subordinate America’s interests to ours where they clash in a fundamental way.
====

I must confess that I am one of those pundits who did not give Barrack Obama a significant chance of winning the Democratic Party presidential nomination. For most of December as we witnessed the tragic conflicts in Kenya with two good Professors/comrades/Pan Africanists, Horace Campbell and Okello Oculi, I was most scathing about Obama, while Horace did his best (including giving me the two books of Obama) to educate me, with Okello playing partisan moderator.

Much as I tried I could not bring myself to understand what the man really stood for. He was, and still remains, all things to all kinds of people. Maybe that is his strength. But it all seemed like a David and Goliath duel between him and the well-oiled political and financial machine of the presumed front-runner for the Democratic nominations, Hilary Clinton.

Not a few of us thought that Obama was just another protest candidate who would have his few moments in the limelight and then fizzle away as Hilary romped home to certain victory. How wrong we were! Even the Clintons, the power couple, misread Obama’s strengths. They mistook the political hurricane for a storm in a teacup until it was too late. They threw their considerable weight at him but somehow, in a twist of fate, he became more than Bill Clinton and Hilary could manage. Obama is the Teflon candidate reminiscent of the first Clinton campaign. Nothing sticks as the Chicago senator just ran and ran.

Why did we get it wrong? One, we thought Obama was a Black candidate and believed that the USA was not ready for a Black president. Two, even his Blackness was doubted because he did not come from 'traditional' African American/ black backgrounds and his CV was too short as both a Black/African icon.

The enigma of Obama is in making his opponents and critics underestimate him while he builds a broad spectrum of popular support that eats away at the support base of his critics. He believed in the small ordinary people and organized them into an electoral movement built on hope.

Obama did not have to be a Black candidate. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have both done that. He did not have to revisit covered grounds hence he became the candidate who happens to be black. There is no way he could have become a serious contender if all he has was his skin colour. The initial ambiguities of many African American elite who were used to putting their faith in 'the good white liberal' like the Clintons raised the prospect of a Black candidate without a Black base which the Clintons already took for granted. But the initial disadvantage among the Blacks who thought he was not black enough actually made it possible for him to attract a broader section of White Americans.

Bush has so damaged Americans’ faith in themselves and made America even less loved if not universally hated that Americans consciously or unconsciously expect a messiah to make them feel good about themselves again - and if not instantly loved, at least less hated by the rest of the world.

It is that yearning for the ‘feel good’ aura that has led many to believe that Obama is the man of destiny and the harbinger of ‘Change you can believe in.’ You may not put your finger on it. It may not add up to a grand vision but it is uplifting enough to rouse America. The Clintons misjudged the moment and Hilary has had to fight in such a despicable way that discussing them now leaves a bad taste in the mouth of many former supporters who used to love ‘the lovable rogue’ Bill Clinton.

Though Bill Clinton was a ‘feel good’ president worshipped by many, his wife was not always endearing to many. Indeed Obama is more like Bill than Hilary. If Hilary had not been his opponent, Bill might have been one of the early democrat grandees that would have declared support for Obama. Spousal loyalty (nothing extraordinary considering the pains he has caused Hilary over the years) combined with the power couple’s delusion of themselves as the democrats’ counter to the dubious aristocracy to the Bushes, contributed greatly to their undoing.

In defence of his wife, Mr. Feel-Good became Mr. Sour grapes and a not so skin-deep liberal who thinks he is entitled to Black and poor white working people’s votes as a right and that such loyalty is transferable by osmosis to any Clinton.

Instead of quitting in a dignified way they have fought almost to the bitter end. Those who fight to the finish get finished. Are the Clintons so bitter in defeat that they would actually prefer McCain to Obama?

The next few days will tell. However, now that Obama is the candidate in waiting, attention will shift to whether he can beat McCain come November. Whether he wins or not he has already lifted the ceiling on the ambition of every Black person in America. There is already victory in the symbolic importance of his candidacy. The prospect of his victory, barring assassination (as it happened to Robert Kennedy before being elected or earlier John Kennedy, after being elected) is very real. His victory will see a repackaging of the American dream as a country where anyone can make it.

Initially support for Obama candidacy was most unanimous in Kenya (where many may not vote for a Luo President but are quite convinced that his nephew can be president of the US!), but it is now universally being prayed for all across the continent. If many Africans have their way they will voluntarily become proxy voters come November!

But while I recognize the mix of historical, socio-psychological, emotional and great expectations that Obama’s candidacy has inspired among Americans and also in Africa and in her diasporas, we should have no illusions that Obama will suddenly make America do right by Africa or the rest of the world, for that matter. He is going to be an American President who happens to be of African origin. He is never going to subordinate America’s interests to ours where they clash in a fundamental way but he may package them less arrogantly and may add more honey to the poisoned chalice that any super power dishes out to smaller states - that is unless those states are firm in the defence of their own interests so they can get a better, if not fairer deal.

*Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem writes this column as a Pan Africanist.

*Please send comments to or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org/

Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem looks at the Yar Adua's administration and the political mileage the stolen election has cost him and argues that the only Yar Adua will win back legitimacy is "through public policies that reduce poverty, deliver education, creatre decent jobs for the millions of youth roaming the streets, empower women. bring security to cities, towns and villages and light up all homes, industry and streets of Nigeria."

May 29 was Democracy Day in Nigeria. It marks the day in 1999 when the Nigerian Generals returned the country to civilian rule albeit under a recivilianised former General, Olushegun Obasanjo. After 8 years of civilian politics under Obasanjo, the best that can be said is that democracy remains a national aspiration especially in terms of its capacity to deliver on the bread and butter issues that afflict the majority of Nigeria's boisterous millions. While the kind of brutality, arbitrary arrest, gross violation of the rights of citizens and other excesses that were characteristic of the direct military dictatorship of previous military regimes especially that of the kleptocratic Babangida and Abacha's sadistic regimes are no longer the case, it is perhaps an indication of the impatience of the public or the short memory of the chattering classes in the country that some people will argue that 'Obasanjo is worse than Abacha'.

The current scandals being exposed about the regime of Obasanjo and the financial recklessness of companies and individuals allied to his nightmare team of free loading parasites not withstanding, I do not agree with those who believe that Obasanjo's has been the worst regime Nigeria has ever had. By all means the atrocities, bad judgements and policy hypocrisies of the regime should be exposed and those guilty punished. The fact that these matters are coming to light, albeit after the regime has left office, is indeed part of growing demands for accountability. It may have been delayed but it sends out a message that there is no statute of limitation on abuse of office and betrayal of public trust. Many of those who are now clamouring for Obasanjo's head, or were public critics of his regime while he was in office, could not do the same under either IBB or Abacha. That in itself should count for something. But there are just too many people who cannot forgive Obasanjo for his arrogance and holier than thou attitude.

This year's Democracy Day also represents the first year of the administration of Alhaji Umar Musa Yar' Adua. The stench from Obasanjo's administration continues to hang over Yar Adua and the obsessions of those after Obasanjo and his cabal is making it look like Yar Adua's regime is a mere extention of Obasanjo's. As far as many of these people are concerned no change has taken place and the ghost of Obasanjo is seen looming large and haunting every room in Aso Rock. The low profile personality of Yar Adua and his even lower lustre style have combined to enthrench this view that he is a dithering and indecisive president. Hence the various sobriquets applied to him and his regime: 'Mr Go-Slow', 'Mr Hold-Up', and 'Mr No-Show' etc. They all point to the frustration of the public at his seeming lack of dynamism. It is a regime that has been too cautious and that caution is inducing executive inertia.

The circumstances under which Yar Adua was imposed as a candidate and eventually being handed the keys to Aso Rock meant that the legitimacy issue initially made it too defensive. There was uncetainty about how long it would last and some wrong-headed optimism that the courts would invalidate the robbery of the electorate.

These issues made the government less ambitious from the start, waiting to see what would happen. It was not as though Yar Adua had nothing else going for him. I argued then and continue to believe that he would have won without rigging. No serious observer could objectively claim that either of his two closest rivals had won. He also had a personal reputation of not being corrupt and a record of leading a decent administration in Katsina State for 8 years. So there were people willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. But the regime was caught between being grateful to the Obasanjo PDP robbery machine which gave it the stolen mandate and robbed public which wanted the new President to distance himself from his benefactors. Neither could be fully satisfied.

It was obvious that the PDP had more influence in the making of the new government. Yar Adua did not seem to have much room for manouvre therefore the party prevailed. All he had was his personal credibility as revealed in his innauguration speech where he assured the country he would be a servant leader and lead by example. That he was not Obasanjo and was not given to what Nigerians call 'I too know' and associated 'Baba-cracy' (rule of Baba by Baba for Baba!) was a positive development. His simplicity and austere outlook encouraged many Nigerians who are tired of the profligacy and ostentatious high living of Nigeria's power elite.

However governing a country as diverse and routinely mismanaged polity like Nigeria requires more than just being nice and wanting to do good. It seems that Yar Adua has become a prisoner in Aso Rock, distrusting his corrupt party and the wheeler dealers across the country. Unfortunately they have been so preoccupied with this that they have not been able to leverage the potential public support and good will from many Nigerians.

The PDO operates like a regime under siege - withdrawing into a tiny laager of few trusted people around the presidency. While this may have worked in a provincial setting like Katsina, it is not working any wonders in Abuja. Many people may want to help Yar Adua but they do not have entry points. The system's core is still dominated by malevolent individuals whose only claim to their position is because they have been part of previous misrulers! Yar Adua's small band of believers' inability to have its own narrative and grand vision has made it become vulnerable to other people's agenda. The most successful in filling this executive vacuum created by Yar Adua's excessive caution is the anti- Obasanjo lobby. While it is important to hold all leaders accountable the same Nigerians will blame Yar Adua for doing nothing later.

Let those who want to go after OBJ do so by all means possible under the law but Yar Adua needs to embark on his own programme very aggressively. A programme that will help launder the stolen mandate through public policies that reduce poverty, deliver education, create decent jobs for the millions of youth roaming the streets, empower women, bring security to cities, towns and villages and light up all homes, industry and streets of Nigeria. He needs to throw caution to the winds and break out of the presidential prison that Aso Rock has been for him for the past one year.

*Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem writes this column as a Pan Africanist.

*Please send comments to or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org/

In this Africa Liberation Day Postcard, Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem warns that "if care is not taken to take decisive action to stop the violence against other Africans and challenge the widespread xenophobia, South African businesses and other interests across Africa will soon become legitimate targets, not just for demonstrations, but for campaigns of boycott and who knows, even targets for sabotage and revenge attacks across this continent."

This Sunday, 25 May 2008, is Africa Liberation Day. This year’s celebration marks the 50th anniversary of this day set aside for reflection, celebration and rededication to the cause of Africa and Africans’ total liberation from social, economic and political injustices, initially by external colonialists but later neo-colonialists and their local agents. Today the struggle continues against the local oppressors and their foreign patrons in a renewed attempt at re-colonising Africa - through the combined forces of unpatriotic national leaders who sell our countries to anti-people globalisation and uncritical adoption of neo-liberal policies that continues to impoverish our peoples and ensures that the majority of Africans remain poor, even though ours is one of the richest continents in the whole world.

Central to the agenda of Africa’s liberation is the notion of ‘Africa for Africans’ and the unification of Africa ‘from Cape to Cairo’. As symbols go, both points were chosen not because they are the most symbolic representation of Africa, but because of the extreme geographic poles of this vast continent and its diversities. Yet both cities and the countries they are in have, at best, contested Africaness. Cape Town never fails to remind us that it remains a European enclave (that may apply to leave the AU and join the EU, if that is possible!). While a trip to the vibrant souks of Cairo by an African visitor is not complete without at least one Egyptian trader asking: ‘Are you from Africa?’; completely oblivious to the fact that Egypt is in Africa and that the proud civilisation that makes them feel superior to others, including other Arabs, was very much an African civilisation.

However, ambiguities about being African are not limited to the two cities or countries. 45 years after the OAU was headquartered in Addis, many Ethiopians still talk of, or see Africans, as others. In Egypt and South Africa, the anti-Africa feelings extend to areas that are ‘more African’ than both cities. The tragic events unfolding in South Africa around townships close to Johannesburg may have come as a surprise to those not familiar with the ‘rainbow’ nation after 1994, but not to Africans living there. We were all on a high about the end of apartheid, and swallowed the triumphalism and claims of exceptionalism as the legitimating ideology of the new post-apartheid state. If ever there was an inappropriate slogan ‘rainbow nation’ (later discovered not to include the colour black in it), this was it. It invited everybody but the majority black people.

I have been a regular visitor to South Africa since the inauguration of Mandela and have seen the rise in anti-African xenophobia, bigotry and discrimination against Africans. This took the form, from day one, of an anti-African racist immigration and visa regime.

Unfortunately as with everything else, the ANC leadership particularly Thabo Mbeki, tried to intellectualise the problem instead of addressing it. Remember, this is a President who claimed he had never known a person who had died of AIDS; and when confronted by a grim rise in crime, he retorted by asking whether crime was rising or it was more regularly reported. Government propagandists even suggested that there was some conspiracy by enemies of the new government to discourage investment and undermine the new dispensation. While there may be some truth in this, given the skewed media ownership and control in the country, one must beg the issue. Media does not create crime waves.

The denial default of the Thabo leadership means that problems are not nipped in the bud but rather debated endlessly, subjected to all kinds of panels, probes and investigations without end.

The anti-African xenophobia went through these motions. Initially it was thought that xenophobia was limited to some illiterate citizens (ignoring the ugly heads of university campuses, public parastatals, NGOs and board rooms). Illiterate citizens who would soon be rid of their ignorance as prosperity spread a la neo-liberal economic policies predicated on perpetual growth, with enough economic crumbs dropping off the tables of the new black bourgeois elite for the masses. Of course this is not how it is turning out. The new elite have proven to be more rapacious and the economic model they chose is not delivering as envisaged. But instead of the excluded masses turning on their elite, they find it convenient to vent for their anger and frustration in refugees - migrants from Africa who they blame for their inadequate housing or for stealing their jobs.

It is instructive that this violence is directed predominantly at other black Africans principally Zimbabweans, Nigerians, Somalis, Mozambicans and other southern Africans. They are the majority of other Africans in the country. How come this ‘anger’ has not extended to white immigrants from Europe and the former Soviet Union? Why it is not directed at new immigrants from Asia including Chinese and Indians?

It is encouraging that after initial shock sections of the South African establishment (the Human Rights Commission for example), and more importantly parts of the civil society, especially the churches led by the Methodist Church (that has been providing refuge to African refugees and asylum seekers before this crisis) are beginning to speak out openly. There are also attempts by local communities to reclaim the streets from criminal bigots. President Thabo Mbeki’s reaction remains professorial: ‘What is behind this? Who is behind it?’ I heard him asking on SABC Africa. Why can he not understand that we do not expect questions from our leaders? We expect answers and actions; concrete actions. If the South African political leadership is failing us, why are African leaders whose citizens are being killed not saying anything? Can you imagine if even one European, Canadian or American citizen had been attacked, what the noise would have been like?

And what about our busybody civil society? Why are there no demonstrations in front of South African embassies and High Commissions across this continent and abroad? Are they waiting for donors? Did we need donors to demonstrate against white apartheid? Why are we silent in the face of this creeping black apartheid? There is no point in making moral claims by reminding South Africans how the rest of Africa sacrificed in cash and kind for their liberation. Their memory has proven too short for that. There is no point reminding them that many of them were refugees in the rest of Africa and there was no similar incident of mass xenophobia against them.

What we need to do is to demystify the widely held belief that every African wants to emigrate there and that Africans in South Africa are taking jobs away from South Africans. The University faculties are full of other Africans, especially Southern and Western Africans. Would South Africa be able to sustain the entire educational system without the skills of these academics? The Somali stores that are being burnt grew because of a niche in the market not being met. South Africans also need to be made aware that the prosperity of their country, which they think the rest of Africa is coveting, is not wholly generated from within; prosperity, internal and external jobs are increasingly dependent on the rest of Africa. DSTV, MTN, South African Airways, Shoprite, water and management corporations, farmers, banks and other South African businesses, are rapidly expanding and minting money across Africa.

If care is not taken to take decisive action to stop the violence against other Africans and challenge the widespread xenophobia, South African businesses and other interests across Africa will soon become legitimate targets, not just for demonstrations, but for campaigns of boycott and who knows, even targets for sabotage and revenge attacks across this continent. A country that sees itself as the beacon of African renaissance, originator of NEPAD and chief lecturer on human rights, democracy and constitutionalism should be ashamed of itself for treating other Africans so appallingly. Especially in light of the fact that many of their leaders were themselves refugees or migrants in other African countries for several years. The bigger shame, however, will go to other Africans, should they remain silent in the face of this brutality and gross abuse of their rights.

On Africa day say “No!” to an attack on any African, from Cape Town to Cairo, wherever you may be. You can do something. Do so now.

*Dr. Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is the Deputy Director of the UN Millennium Campaign in Africa, based in Nairobi, Kenya. He writes this article in his personal capacity as a concerned Pan-Africanist.

*Please send comments to or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org/

Tajudeen rages against the attempts in Kenya to criminalise African language media. The state should be making laws to protest society and be willing to sanction those who use the media to exacerbate ethnic tensions rather than seeking to ban them.

African Languages should not be criminalised. In this column last week I wrote about the demonisation of the media in Kenya as Kenyans tried to exorcise themselves of their recent ghostly past.

The media is not without its faults but to blame it for the hatred, violence, wanton destruction of property, neighbours killing one another and communities turning against themselves is simply finding a scapegoat. Such a convenient foil will make it possible to let off all the other culprits and in this case the grand architects of the mayhem, the politicians, the political class, and Kenyan ruling class in general who whip up these sentiments and manipulate the genuine grievances of the masses in pursuit of their own personal and class interests.

As the grand coalition government that is increasingly exposing itself as lacking many grand people, struggles to take off the politicians who were only a few weeks ago sprouting all kinds of extremist statements are uniting against everybody else , becoming holier than thou in preaching national reconciliation, peace and trying to outshine one another as ‘the patriotic Kenyan’! Everyone else is guilty except the political leaders.

The Nairobi Star (Saturday May 10) reported on ‘radical proposals’ emerging from the recent bonding retreat of the new government : ‘vernacular radio stations should be closed down, cabinet ministers agreed …’ . The decision according to the report ‘… followed discussions on what role the media played in the post election period…’.

Really? I do not speak nor understand any of the languages of the 42 officially recognised ethnic groups in Kenya. My understanding of the more widely spoken National language, Kiswahili, is still very much ‘kidogo kidogo’ (i.e. little), yet I am acutely aware of the crass hostilities between different communities, charges of ethnic discrimination and allegations of ethnic monopoly of this or that by one group or the other. So which media is poisoning my mind?

The Kenya ruling elite have been quite successful, until recently, in living in grand denial about the injustices, social, economic and political that have made them one of the most prosperous middle classes in Africa but also one of the most unequal societies in the world. The tragic violence on the back of the disputed elections finally punctured deep holes in this class/crass delusion.

Even a casual familiarity with Kenya’s colonial and post colonial history will reveal the extreme violence perpetrated by the British, well thought to the independence elite who perfected their rule through the same divide and conquer of the British and turned Uhuru (independence) into a permanent burden to the masses. Yet somehow the elite swallowed their own propaganda that Kenya is an oasis of peace and stability. They took comfort in the disintegration of their neighbours and somehow believe that civil wars, genocide, military coups, economic meltdown, etc were things that happen to their neighbours, not in Kenya, the country known internationally as the destination of all exotic safari complacent to the tune of ‘Kenya Yetu, Hakuna Matata’!

The decades of violence from independence including ethnic clashes, ethnic cleansing and high level unsolved political murders were minor details conveniently airbrushed from the official self image of the country, until December 2007.

Now that the ideologically manufactured innocence has finally been exposed the rulers are looking for scapegoats for the troubled paradise, a paradise that has always excluded the majority of its peoples whatever their ethnicity, religion or race.

By making the media broadcasting in indigenous languages the enemy the political elite is only showing itself up as the local settler colonial masters that they have always been. In that colonial mindset the majority of the people, their culture, traditions and their languages become objects of attack and persecution.

The colonialists justified their predatory adventures, oppression and exploitation of the colonised as ‘white man’s burden’ to bring civilisation and God to the natives. The post colonial elite continues the same attack on their own peoples in the name of modernisation which culturally translates as westernisation and uncritically aping the language and cultures of wazungu (Europeans) . That’s why our indigenous languages are referred to as ‘vernacular’ and our children are made to feel ashamed of speaking their mother tongues at school and even punished for speaking them!

The current attack on indigenous language media in Kenya is not unique to Kenya. It is not limited to the media but wholesale attack on Africaness. It takes different forms in many other countries but relentless, all the same.

It is not just about freedom of expression but part of a long attack on the mind of the masses that must be resisted. The English language media are no less guilty of xenophobia, ethnic hatred or distortions, misrepresentation or disinformation. So why pick on the indigenous language stations? Is it because English phobias and ideological biases are preferable to indigenous ones?

In the UK, the Welsh are proud to use their local language and insist on having signposts in Wales in Welsh and have mandatory broadcast in their language. In Britain in general ethnic minorities are not ashamed to reclaim and retain their culture including their languages while being part of a vibrant multi cultural society.

And yet in Kenya the politicians want to legislate against ethnic media! Just imagine the ridiculousness of it all. A kikuyu, Luo, Luhya or any of the numerous diaspora of Kenyan communities in the UK can establish a radio station or any other media in their mother tongue, sometimes even with government support but back home in Kenya, if the politicians have their way, such endeavour would be criminalised!

I am very much aware of the role which the media especially radio (which is still the most influential media across Africa because it is virtually accessible to everyone) can play both negatively and positively in our societies. Radio Mille Coline in Rwanda was both orchestrator and perpetrator for genocidaire elements and genocide. But the solution in post genocide Rwanda was not to ban Radio in Kiyarwanda but to change the laws, criminalise hatred broadcast and publications and reorient the content of programmes in a wider public education programme of continuous fight against the ideology from which genocide springs.

The state should make laws that protect the whole of society and be willing to sanction those who violate them whether in the media or politicians or academics instead of blaming indigenous languages. In blaming the language rather than those who instigate these sentiments Kenyan politicians are behaving like the proverbial ostrich man in the Yoruba saying : O fi ete sile on pa lapa lapa (i.e. someone who is suffering from leprosy is busy seeking medicines for eczema!).

*Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem writes this column as a Pan Africanist.

**Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

Tajudeen Abdul Raheem asks the question: Do we expect too much from the media when we ourselves are failing African societies?

May 3 was International Press Freedom Day. Journalists make their living by poking their noses into other people’s affairs but are not very good at looking at themselves, their institutions, their own practice and how they advance or hinder the values of freedom of expression that their profession is built on.

I was at the Goethe Institute in the City of Nairobi to hear journalists celebrate the day and talk about the various challenges facing the Media in Kenya. A very interesting documentary film ‘Uncovering Kenya Media’ produced by one of Kenya’s veteran Pan Africanist photojournalists, Khamis Ramadan was screened. The film looked at the unsung contributions of photojournalists. In general African journalists are badly paid and ill treated by their employers, governments and the wider society.

But photojournalists are even more badly treated because media houses and the wider society do not recognise their real value. In Africa they are still seen as poor cousins of the ‘main stream’. Yet in this age of multimedia the image is increasingly more important than the written word. What people can see or hear are more believable than what they can read. How many times have you heard people affirm the truth of their position by saying: ‘I saw it on telly’ or ‘I saw the pictures with my own eyes’? These are more validating than even ‘I heard it with my ears’ that used to put stamp of authority on radio. In the order of things ‘I read it’ is less affirming because many people still can neither read nor write. And even among those who are ‘literate’ many will read more ‘pictures’ than the text!

The film was both a celebration of the media and also an auto-critique by practitioners. There was a sad illustration of both the courage and danger of being a working journalist in Kenya is the case of journalist who was handicapped escaping Police arrest in the bloody days of Moi/KANU dictatorship and was bedridden for many years. He died after the film was concluded. It raises the question of how those in power treat the media but it is also about how journalists treat one of their own.

Kenyan media has seen a rebirth in the past few years where acts of courage and hope triumph over adversity. But the political glasnost in the post Moi era has its own dangers and as the society became more polarised the media itself is caught up in the conflicts. It is not just an impartial reporter but also active partisans.

There was a very interesting exchange of views after the film. Sometimes the exchanges were recriminatory, at times heated and impassioned but mostly educative throughout. The discussions were led by an impressive panel of experienced media persons including my UN Millennium Campaign colleague, Sylvia Mudasia, who in a previous life was a frontline journalist in both Kenya Times and The Nation and also David Matende (Editor/Publisher), Mitch Odera (Editor/Media Trainer) and Kabando wa Kabando, an MP and Assistant Minister in the Grand Coalition government.

Most of the interventions, understandably, focused on the role of the media in the recent political conflicts and violence that unfolded in Kenya consequent to the inconclusive nature of the Presidential elections and its mismanagement by the Kenya Electoral Commission. There were all kinds of questions and even more comments. There was a set directed at the role of the media in the recent conflicts. Did the media foresee the calamity? Could they have done anything to avert it? Did they contribute to it? Did they fan the embers of ethnicity and xenophobia?

Another set of questions and comments were about the professional role of the Media. Is the media free in Kenya? Is it performing according to the highest of professional core values? Is it controlled by the powerful? Is it too beholden to the rich and other vested interests? Is it cowed by government? Does the public trust it? Does it reflect the truth?

There were as many people on either side of these questions as there were people in the audience and all argued their cases passionately.

What I found very interesting is the assumption implied in all the condemnations, criticisms or praises of the media that we expect the media to be above conflicts, prejudices, sectarianism and partisanship in its discharge of its functions. Yet the journalist, the TV or Radio producer, the radio announcer, the anchor woman or man, the photographer, the subeditor, the editor, including this columnist and other columnists are all human beings and living in the same environment as their readers, listeners or viewers.

In any polarised society would it not be expecting too much to believe that the media will not be part of it? They are also citizens and being in the media should not deny them the right to political participation. What can be legitimately expected is for the media to discharge its duties in as non-partisan way as possible.

As for being political we are all political whether we state so openly or not. Even when many feign lack of interest in politics it does not mean that they do not have a political position. Not having a position is also a political position! Politics affects you whether you are interested in it or not. The Media is both a source of information and disinformation depending on the social, ideological or political perspectives of the persons involved. Objectivity itself is an inter-subjective process mediated by education, skill, personal integrity or lack of it, values, cultural norms, and the power relations between the journalist and his or her employers and between them and the powerful in society be they government, corporate leaders, advertisers, their audience, etc.

If we are not angels ourselves, it is unrealistic to expect that our media will be peopled by saints because like governments a people get the media they deserve. They report as much as they reflect their society and the world around them, its contradictions, its highest and lowest of values and sometimes the plainly mediocre.

The election conflicts exposed the various fissures in Kenya long neglected by a self satisfied elite and complacent public. It is not only media that should engage in retrospection about its role in the conflict. The whole of Kenya needs the honesty to confront their not so hidden but conveniently ignored socio-economic and political demons. No institution is neutral. The religious establishments failed woefully in its moral duty to speak truth to power.

But they were not alone as many leaders in the arts, academia, professional associations, the NGOs/ CSOs, and respected public intellectuals failed the same moral test. It is convenient to blame the media but every Kenyan and to some extent all of us who live in the country need to ask where we stood / stand on the issues that divided / divide the country. Are you part of the problem or part of the solution?

*Dr Tajudeen Abdul Raheem writes this syndicated column as a concerned Pan Africanist.

**Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org