Obama/Odinga/Zuma – What do They Represent to the Future of Africa & Change Politics

By Mutumwa Mawere

I woke up this morning to the news that Senator Barak Obama had convincingly won the Iowa caucus and could not help but reflect on what his candidature and victory represents for Africa and, indeed, for the politics of the world. I listened to Obama’s victory speech and many will agree that it was a message not only to Americans but to all of us in Africa who believe in a better tomorrow.

Indeed, it was inspirational and marks a historic and defining moment in human progress given the current unipolar global architecture dominated by America and some of its foundational values. This year will bring change to some parts of Africa and what is for certain in America is that President Bush will not be on the ballot box and even if Obama loses the Democratic nomination, America will never be the same again.

The context and content of Obama’s daring entry into the American political landscape has important implications for Africa not only because he shares the same heritage as all of us but because he has challenged us to believe in hope and that we have a part to play in shaping our destinies.

Echoing the words of Oprah Winfrey in support of Obama when she said: “I am not here to tell you how to think but I am here to make you think”, I thought it would be beneficial on this important day after Iowans have spoken to challenge my fellow brothers and sisters to deeply and critically think about Africa and its possibilities if we become as organised as Obama’s supporters in investing in the change that we can believe in.

Obama and Odinga share the same Luo heritage and history has made it possible for them to share the same spotlight at this defining moment in Kenyan and American histories about hope and fear. The people of Kenya thought they had spoken when they joined long queues to express their choice about what kind of future they wanted but alas the change they sought is not what they have been given resulting in the current confusion and chaos that only serves to undermine the hope that through democratic means people can get the change they can believe in.

The Obama victory is more than symbolic it really should capture the imagination of all the people who live in fear and have surrendered their future to the politics of yesterday. He has challenged the establishment and those who felt that they were destined by history and circumstances to be the natural leaders. Ordinary men and women were energised by what Obama represented and yes there are many who argued that not in America would it be possible for a person like Obama to rise above pride and prejudice and emerge as a winner in Iowa with its racial configuration.

There are many of us in Africa who share the sentiments of the many in America who thought Obama was a passing phase only to find out that it is not about him but he represents the majority of the people who want change that they can believe in. Obama has provided an opportunity for Americans to only think about what kind of soceity they should be but about change itself. What does change mean to all of us?
Even Senator H. Clinton is talking about change but a different kind of change. Equally in Africa there is a lot of talk about change and yet the people who talk about this subject are not clear about what kind of change should visit disillusioned Africa.

The euphoria of the dawn of independence has been replaced by complacency and fear. The politics of fear rather than hope is what dominates the African terrain to the extent that citizens have resigned themselves to believe that their future belongs to third parties and they have no role to play in shaping it.

Many of us would agree that the Africa we have today that can produce the kind of outcome that Kenyans have after the recent elections is not the kind of Africa we want to see. While we all agree that there is something fundamentally wrong in the way we as Africans have organised ourselves politically we do not seem to have the kind of leadership that can galvanise and inspire us to invest in the outcomes we want to see. Surely, the people who voted in the Kenyan elections cannot be satisfied that the outcome that is being played on our televisions and in the media is the kind of outcome that they sought to have by voting.

What would make Africa and its leaders respect the will of the people? We have seen leaders in Africa try to politically engineer outcomes through a significant investment in fear to the extent that their legitimacy in power becomes a product of manipulation rather than a genuine expression of the preference of citizens.
If we really care about Africa’s future we have no choice but to critically study how Obama has defied logic not by being afraid of the power of the estalishment but his ability to use the instruments of democracy to instil hope and not fear in citizens. What Obama has shown is that when citizens have a reason to believe in change the impossible can happen not in another lifetime but in our lifetime and on our terms.

The people shall govern how true and hollow this statement can be depending on which address you are located in Africa. In South Africa, the branch delegates of the African National Congress demonstrated that it is possible for people to take ownership of their own future without the assistance of violence. Africa has been waiting for the Obama/Odinga/Zuma medicine for a long time. Independence from the exclusive politics of colonialism was meant to be the ultimate dividend for the suffering African masses but we are all too aware that this has not been the case not because Africans are not smart but they have been outsmarted by their own political servants who believe that no change is change.

This Obama/Odinga/Zuma story has provided a good starting point for those African citizens who are privileged to make choices about who should govern them this year. This year belongs to Zimbabweans who for the past 28 years have not known what change is in a seemingly democratic environment where citizens have been given space to express themselves but for some reason the outcome has been as predictable as sunset follows sunrise.

Change has been an integral part of the Zimbabwean conversation but for the past eight years even the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) would agree that they have failed to capture the hopes of the millions of Zimbabweans who really need a break from the politics of fear and division. If any party that purports to advance the cause of change for a sustained period and fails to deliver then it is incumbent upon people to reflect carefully on the kind of change that they are being promised. Deferred change is effectively denied change.

When the storm in Iowa was over, Obama was standing and he demonstrated the kind of leadership that Zimbabwe wants. Even those who promised a better Zimbabwe eight years ago must accept that they are partly responsible for giving Zimbabweans the kind of change that they have no faith in. Indeed, many Zimbabweans have voted with their feet over the last eight years confirming that the menu was too limited and monopolised.

Is it the case that the kind of change Zimbabweans wanted cannot be obtained through democratic means? Or is that the kind of leadership that Zimbabweans have been exposed to has failed to capture their imagination in the same way that Obama/Zuma/Odinga have managed to do in their own countries? What confidence do Zimbabweans have in change following the apparent consensus between ZANU-PF and MDC about the changes in the Constitution and laws that Tsvangirai is now attempting to disown? How credible is the change when the very change agents that purport to represent the excluded masses do not seem to know what they want and stand for?
We now hear of threats of boycotting the elections on the premise that a new constitution is required. Surely, if agreement on a new constitution was a deal breaker, then people need to be informed why Tsvangirai and his colleaagues in parliament saw it feet to become part of the change they do not believe in. Why have amendment number 18 only to be replaced by a new constitution when the very amendment sought and has achieved the objective of shortening the term of the current Parliament to coincide with the end of President Mugabe’s term? In other words, President Mugabe’s mandate will end in March and both ZANU-PF and MDC will have no mandate to extend the Presidential and Parliamentary term with a constitutionally ill-defined transitional term.

Zimbabweans have demonstrated that they are either too afraid to express their opinions about the kind of change they want to see or that the kind of leadership that is available makes them too nervous to do what Zuma/Obama/Odinga’s supporters have been able to eloquently demonstrate. Odinga and his supporters have been able to instil fear even in the minds of the establishment to the extent that President Kibaki’s team is no longer as cohesive and confident as it should be.

The opposition in Zimbabwe has failed to generate the same kind of anger that has been displayed in Kenya leading people to question the DNA makeup of Zimbabweans. What is it about Zimbabweans that they will choose to surrender their future to two bulls who can’t seem to agree on anything while their future is being aggressively eroded?

Yes Zimbabweans got the change that they did not want to see. Over the last eight years, the opposition has been the loser and ultimately Zimbabweans have been too trusting to the extent that they believed naively that the so-called icons of change and hope had a plan to deliver them from poverty. Can Zimbabweans look themselves in the mirror and honestly say that if there was a contest between President Mugabe and Tsvangirai they will get the change they can believe in? If the answer is no, then it is not too late to go to the drawing board and reflect on what the future generations will say about this generation that is going to be privileged to make the defining decisions about what kind of society Zimbabwe should be and who should govern it and for whose benefit.

Finally, through Obama, Americans have demonstrated that the only power people who have no power or feel alienated from the politics of yesterday and fear is the power to organise. The fact that Tsvangirai is still threatening to boycott the elections after having been part of the SADC talks that have produced what he now chooses to describe as cosmetic changes means that he is telling Zimbabweans that he is not ready for the fight.

There can never be a wrong time to do the right thing. Does the MDC have the mandate to extend the suffering of the Zimbabwean people through a legally problematic transition that they are proposing? If MDC and ZANU-PF have been at one in agreeing to the so-called cosmestic changes can they be trusted to make the real and required fundamental decisions about the future of the country? The last eight years have brought about more suffering and exclusion to allow Zimbabweans to ask themselves whether the moment is not now to think out of the box and organise for change in March so that the decisions about the future can be restored where they belong.

Leadership must be earned and Zimbabweans will be foolhardy to ignore the well established track record of the known change/no-change agents.