outsidein »

• The ‘markets’

  May 11, 2009 @ 2:49 pm | by Bryan

  The New York Times approves of now President Jacob Zuma’s cabinet picks. And it’s not just the Times, the Wall Street Journal approve of his choice for Finance Minister as well as the fact that the outgoing one gets to remain in the cabinet.

  So what? In appointing his cabinet, Zuma had to keep one eye on the international ‘markets’ and the other on the nearly two-thirds of South Africans who voted him into office. All the media concern about how he would govern and whether or not he would ‘bow to the pressure from his supporters on the left’, the very same noise that accompanied the new presidency of Brazil’s Lula, ensured that no such thing would happen. For better or for worse, every ‘serious’ economic player in the world is in a polygamous marriage with ‘the markets’. And it’s one of those old-school marriages – divorce is not an option. The only way out is to do a Cuba, North Korea or Zimbabwe and commit economic suicide.

  It’s a fascinating system. The range of options that are realistically available to the Irish government for dealing with the downturn are constrained by the markets. Even if the McWilliams proposal was adopted and the euro was scrapped, Ireland wouldn’t have economic autonomy. Britain, with its own central bank and monetary policy is still bound by the conventional wisdom of the markets.

  All this would be well and good if the markets were some metaphysical positive entity, some type of economic god. But they aren’t. At the end of the day, aren’t the market simply the collective wisdom of a bunch of super rich guys (and maybe the odd girl here and there) whose chief interest is the continued existence and growth of their wealth?

  I actually don’t think that the greatest threat to South Africa’s poor is Zuma embarking on some radical economic policy. He wouldn’t last a week if he tried to do that. His party would recall him like they recalled Mbeki and replace him with a market friendly guy the Wall Street Journal and New York Times would approve of. No. The Greatest threat to South Africa’s poor is the possibility that their interests and those of the Wall Street Journal reading ‘markets’ may differ.

• Doctors’ strike?

  February 27, 2009 @ 10:58 am | by Bryan

  99% of non-consultant hospital doctors (NCHDs) voted in favour of industrial action yesterday. Interestingly, nothing was left off the table, including an all out strike.

  I remember being involved in a doctor’s strike in Zimbabwe. It’s never a good thing when people who work in hospitals are unhappy. Patient care can only suffer. In a Zimbabwean context, a doctors’ or nurses’ strike meant that some people, who under different circumstances would have survived their illness, died.

  So why did we go on strike? We were dealing with a system that refused to respond to any but the most extreme actions. It was the only way to ensure that health personnel were earning just enough to be able to live above the poverty datum line. The fact that the country’s social fabric had been completely ripped apart made it much easier to take that kind of action. And we always saw it as action taken against the government as opposed to patients. I guess when times are desperate, people generally try to use whatever power they have to ensure that they have the best chances of getting by. But having said all of that, even though we were convinced we weren’t in the wrong, I think we all felt guilty about the consequences of our actions.

  Here in Ireland, The NCHDs are being unfairly targeted by the HSE (Health Service Executive). They are significantly weaker than the nurses, who have powerful unions backing them, and they have less leverage and options than consultants. Despite the fact that NCHDs do most of the doctoring in hospitals, it has been proposed that they take what amounts to a 49% pay cut. Can you imagine a 49% pay cut being proposed for consultants or nurses? It just wouldn’t happen … unless similar cuts were imposed across the board.

  That said, the environment in Ireland is different to that in Zimbabwe. For starters, in many ways, the strike vote is primarily a show of power. The Irish Medical Organisation is in talks with the HSE and the industrial action vote will bolster the union’s position.

  The politics and the socio-economic situation are also very different. Public opinion counts for a lot more here than it does in Zimbabwe. There is also more social cohesion. I can’t see doctors walking out en masse. This dispute will probably be decided by public opinion and after all the posturing is done (on both sides), some form of compromise will be reached.

  To echo the sentiments expressed in Monday’s editorial in this newspaper, the real issue here is that people need to feel that the burden of the recession is being shared justly. At some stage, severe cuts are probably going to have to be made, and the standard of living in Ireland will have to drop.

  I wonder if any mainstream political party will be able to endure the political fall-out from saying that and making cuts across the board. The cynic in me thinks that most political parties the world over are much more likely to try to spare those with the power to keep them in power, or precipitate their demise.

• History?

  February 11, 2009 @ 9:00 pm | by Bryan

  

  This is going to be very interesting. For the sake of the estimated 9 million people living in Zimbabwe, and the 3-4million that are thought to be living in neighbouring countries or further afield, we can only pray that Morgan Tsvangirai’s gamble pays off. Hopefully, this arrangement will actually turn out to be a short term one that facilitates the writing and implementation of a new constitution.

• But will it work?

  January 30, 2009 @ 3:00 pm | by Bryan

  

  MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai addressing supporters in Harare today. Photograph: Reuters/Philimon Bulawayo

  The MDC has decided to go into government with Robert Mugabe’s Zanu PF. The question is, will it work?
  

• Zimbabwe – update

  January 29, 2009 @ 4:03 pm | by Bryan

  I’m never sure how much more about Zimbabwe non-Zimbabweans can stomach. And that in itself may contribute to the establishment of a national unity government.

  Although the death toll from the cholera has reached 3000 and is still rising, the country seems to be fading from the international news scene. Every time there is a regional meeting, it gets a little attention, but on the whole, ‘Zimbabwe-fatigue’ seems to have set in. The ruling party have dug their heels in and truth be told, it doesn’t look like they are any closer to being dislodged than when this mess began.

  The question, if you are the opposition, then becomes this: do you stick to principle at all costs and refuse to cooperate with an illegitimate power? Or, do you reluctantly get in bed with a treacherous group in the hope that you may be influence enough change to ease the plight of the people and begin a process of restoring normality to the country?

  There are no easy answers. If the opposition refuse to cooperate, eventually, the Mugabe regime will collapse. But at what cost? There are enough failed states in Africa as it is, and following that course could create a society that perpetually fails to get on track. Not to mention the horrible human cost.

  Having said that, acquiescing could prove to be just as disastrous. It may, for example, solidify the belief that with sufficient stubbornness and the use of deadly force, power can be retained indefinitely. Similarly, the opposition MDC may never have the negotiating power they have now, and passing up this opportunity to force changes could lead to the loss of even more life in the future.

  Morgan Tsvangirai and the MDC will decide between these two unpleasant options tomorrow.

• Lessons from Zimbabwe

  December 11, 2008 @ 8:15 am | by Bryan

  I imagine that at this stage, most people are suffering from a form of ‘compassion fatigue’ when it comes to all things Zimbabwe. I totally understand why. But for those who are not there yet, I recently came across what may be the most balanced and insightful analysis into how Zimbabwe ended up in this current crisis. I can’t recommend this article by Mahmood Mamdani, a Professor of Government in the Departments of Anthropology, Political Science and International Affairs at Columbia University, highly enough.

  “It is hard to think of a figure more reviled in the West than Robert Mugabe. Liberal and conservative commentators alike portray him as a brutal dictator, and blame him for Zimbabwe’s descent into hyperinflation and poverty. The seizure of white-owned farms by his black supporters has been depicted as a form of thuggery, and as a cause of the country’s declining production, as if these lands were doomed by black ownership. Sanctions have been imposed, and opposition groups funded with the explicit aim of unseating him…

  Continue reading this article

• We all fall down

  December 8, 2008 @ 8:45 am | by Bryan

  Over 600 people have died in Zimbabwe from cholera. Cholera is a waterborne infectious disease which, in this day and age, serves more as an indicator of the total collapse of water and sanitation services than anything else. The country no longer really has clean drinking water. Were that not enough, the quaternary hospitals, the large referral centers, have more or less shut down because they cannot operate under the prevail conditions.

  It’s a tough price to pay to get rid of one group of people. You need to have seen and lived in Zimbabwe 10 years ago to fully understand the extent of the crime against the people the government has committed. And it has all got me thinking about governance and power and democracy, particularly in Africa, but more generally, everywhere.

  As convenient as it may be to cast the country’s troubles all on Robert Mugabe’s shoulders, the reality is much more complicated than that. Even if he were to step down today, there is no guarantee that the person who comes after him will be any better – the prevailing ideology of the ruling party is poisonous. And even if the opposition were to take over, the nation’s culture has changed. People have lived for so long under such difficult conditions many may find it impossible to hold down normal jobs and may be unable to function as productive members of society. With all the goodwill and help in the world, under the best of circumstances, Zimbabwe will have to travel a very long way before it begins to resemble what it was 10 years ago.

  So was it worth it? At some stage, someone must have decided that the only way to bring down the ruling party would be by destroying the country. I thought it, and I was not involved with the opposition. Many people said it out loud. It makes sense, and as unproductive as that logic may seem, it was probably spot on. The question then becomes, was there too much of an emphasis on the Robert Mugabe and Zanu PF? Should, at some stage, the opposition have decided that playing chicken with psychopaths is unwise? Or is this just the price that we had to pay as a nation for freedom? That depends on your idea of freedom.

• Another Burma?

  November 24, 2008 @ 8:30 am | by Bryan

  According to former president Jimmy Carter, Zimbabwe is the first country to deny him a visa. In the middle of a humanitarian disaster, the Robert Mugabe regime has denied a humanitarian mission including Koffi Anan and Jimmy Carter entry into the country. Wow.

  Most people, I think, feel that the Zimbabwe situation is bound to unravel sooner or later, and sanity will return. I hope it does. But this weekend’s events raise the prospect of another eventuality. What if that country goes down the Burma road? What if the people in charge just decide that they couldn’t care less what the rest of the world thinks and shut themselves in?

  Which brings up the idea of sovereignty. I happen to think it is an important principle that should be respected. Though in theory I understand and respect humanitarian intervention, I think it’s a slippery slope. The Iraq invasion for example, after the WMD argument fell flat, was reframed as a humanitarian mission. I want the Rwandas of our time to be prevented as much as the next person, but I’m very fearful of the potential for the rise of global bullies who operate under the guise of humanitarian intervention.

  Which brings us back to the question of what happens if Mugabe decides to fully embrace his siege mentality and shut the world out while Zimbabweans continue to starve? I don’t really have any good answers and would appreciate any that are out there.

• Disaster

  October 10, 2008 @ 9:15 am | by Bryan

  I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’ve started to think about how this economic slowdown will directly affect my family and I in the coming months. It is growing menacingly from a theoretical concept into an uncomfortable reality.

  That said, every now and again something happens which gives me a renewed sense of perspective. Yesterday, that perspective came in the form of a headline and a text message from a friend in Australia; both were about Zimbabwe’s inflation figure for July which reached 231 million per cent. The icing on that cake is that official figures are always massaged down and the country still doesn’t have a functioning government. Great.

  One of Zimbabwe’s most famous musicians, Thomas Mapfumo, released a very popular song years ago called Disaster. In the song, he repeats a line that can’t really be translated without losing the depth of its meaning. The closest I can come to a decent translation is: Houston, we have a problem.

  The sad reality is that as painful as a global recession may be in a place like Ireland, it could be disastrous in struggling states. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen.

• A marriage of convenience

  September 16, 2008 @ 8:25 am | by Bryan

   Robert Mugabe, centre, flanked by Morgan Tsvangirai, left, and Arthur Mutambara

  A friend asked me today what I thought of the power-sharing deal that was signed by Zimbabwe’s political leaders yesterday. I told her that I was cautiously optimistic.

  On one hand, the fact that power no longer lies in the hands of one man is both historic and long overdue. If there is a change in the constitution to ensure that it is never again possible for a dictator to arise in Zimbabwe, so much the better. Best of all, the politically motivated violence which has rocked the country will end and Zimbabwe can start picking up the pieces.

  I am only cautiously optimistic though, mainly because Robert Mugabe still has a lot of influence. Even at the signing ceremony, he couldn’t help but go on a tirade about British and American interference. The expression on Tsvangirai’s face said it all – cabinet is going to be one seriously dysfunctional family. And the possibility of Mugabe deciding that sharing isn’t for him and throwing Tsvangirai out of his government is not beyond the realms of possibility.

  But this agreement is, potentially, a positive step. One can only hope that the peace holds and that a horrible chapter in Zimbabwe’s history is finally over.

Next Page »