Backlog June 25: Power Trippin

This woman's simply written piece about living a rugged life in the jungle, with a tribe untouched by modernity, got to me.

Getting back to the very basics in life does give you a different perspective on things.
It's all about needs not wants.
It shows you that people are more important than things.

In a way I would like to mirror that author's sentiments, by commenting on the joys of the simple life, but the mirror is fogged a bit in this (swamp/) jungle. Superficially, there are great similarities in our experiences - we're both caught dodging away from civilization into a place where cell phones are futile, porcelain toilets are unheard of, and where the slow pace of life forces you to reconcile an internal hurry - but there is no excessive vetting needed to recognize that here, nothing is so simple, nor do the needs of people become more important to the power-holders than the need for things. I’m sure that it was for the sake of BBC’s Magazine readership that she spared comment on anything political, but I’ve got to wonder where this idyllic jungle tribe survives in a state of simplistic people-centered needs that are unfettered by violence and calamity. I sit wondering if any communities within this dark and green continent continue to exist in apolitical isolation, living untouched by the crises of the world, most specifically those of Africa, surrounding them.

Mugabe's tyrannical grip on Zimbabwe and the staggering political/election violence was the talk of our office all morning. When I inquired what he felt the bottom line of the violence, obfuscations, and unending power grasp was, a Kenyan colleague didactically asserted that the despot's rule, which brought independence to Zim, is a case of the African dictator “gone bad.” Acknowledging that power corrupts, and that the octogenarian Mugabe will keep “winning” his power until he dies or until someone kills him, my colleague told me of the theories of why he holds on so tightly and engages in such atrocities, the most amusing being that Mugabe’s current (and second) wife has become used to the lifestyle of first lady and he therefore can’t retire, before positioning that “there are so many ways to kill a rat - you can trap it, skin it, or bury it alive; do you think Garang was just an accident?”

Eventually this devolved into an hour long debate on the role (and, in turn, value) of democracy in Africa. One colleague argued, rather obstinately, that democracy was not made for this continent and that the greatest violence and human suffering came as a result of post-colonial installations of democratic systems. I asserted that this western paradigm of democracy is meant to be an equalizing force, to bring higher social, economic, and political opportunity to more and more people, ahe told me that the highest indicators of human welfare occurred under African dictators. The lightbulbs of Libya’s Qadaffi, Uganda’s Musevni, Sudan’s Bashir, and countless others went flashing in my mind at the lunacy of this comment, and I couldn’t help but inquire why this coworker was engaged in this line of work if he believes such.

What to do about Zimbabwe came back to me just as fast however. UN or an AU deposition? In the face of Iraq’s terrible failure? Colleague X argued for a return to pre-colonial borders and traditional governance structures. Not going to happen. Another suggested highly coordinated sanctions – and given the recent moves on Pyongyang, I could maybe take this as an option. Maybe it’s the voice of activists and critics that will create change (ahem, Mandela). Or maybe hitting them where it hurts is the option - nice work on that cricket ban, guys. Or maybe SADC should step it up - Gaaaaahh!

(thanks Pernille)

Whatever the answer to getting Mugs out and something sane in, I find the complexity of Mugabe’s flinchless grasp and reign of terror– in my opinion due to power hunger (and a wee bit of madness, and not just being evil, able to derive joy from hurting others, nor due simply to poverty or gullibility, as another blogger suggested) in which any means become justifiable – to exemplify why we need political structures designed to limit individually held power. Given that systems where legitimacy is derived from shared investment and participation, through which culpability is more deeply embedded, I still feel lost on my colleague's advocating for dictatorships. In a continent – and world, for that matter -plagued by densely concentrated power holders, how can progress be felt in any other way but democracy?

Garrison Keillor put it far more eloquently than I am able:

"The fear of catastrophe could chill the soul but the social compact assures you that if the wasps come after you, if gruesome disease strikes down your child, if you find yourself hopelessly lost, incapable, drowning in despair, running through the rye toward the cliff, then the rest of us will catch you and tend to you and not only your friends but We the People in the form of public servants. This is a basic necessity in a developed society. If you are saddled with trouble too great for a person to bear, you will not be left to perish by the roadside in darkness. Without that assurance, we may as well go live in the woods and take our chances. This is Democratic bedrock: we don't let people lie in the ditch and drive past and pretend not to see them dying."

And while I agree with Friedman’s op-ed this morning, and believe that “people have to fight and win their own freedom, and that’s what gives their institutions legitimacy,” I think people – and sovereignty arguments - reach a breaking point. Give us all a break Mugabe.

Anyway, here is an interesting online community of Zimbabwean activists: http://kubatanablogs.net/kubatana/

Kombo and Jeff, I’m thinking of you and yours and hope for positive changes for your homeland.