Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (42364)	9/6/2002 12:20:45 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 281500

You mean this one? Yes, I did. I just doubt his proposed solution: >>>Arab countries such as Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey must step in and provide the ground peacekeeping muscle "Muslims helping their Muslim brothers."<<< is doable. While we are on things that piss me off, the way the Army is using SF is a major one with me. I have been reading Military news of their use to cut grass, repair barracks, do recruiting, act as "Centurians" for various "Perfunmed Princes of the Pentagon," etc. at a time when we are very short SF world wide. We spend as much to train these guys as we do to turn out "Top Guns," and they are difficult to replace. One thing I do enjoy about the SF is that you cannot get one to talk to the media! lindybill@learnedtheirlessoninNam.com

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (42364)	9/6/2002 2:29:44 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Here's an interesting PoliSci article, speaking of "warlords"...The term "warlord" makes me think of fingernails scratching on the blackboard....Reminds us yet again of man's inhumanity to man. The Professor who wrote this piece defines "warlordism" as follows: But a dictionary definition of "warlord" is that it is a "military commander exercising civil power by force". The spectre of warlordism in Zimbabwe Professor Masipula Sithole 2/8/01 2:32:53 AM (GMT +2) fingaz.co.zw KLP NOTE: This is an interesting African Financial and News source just scanning it... fingaz.co.zw LET us discuss the uncomfortable before it gets here in an effort to stop it from getting here. For the wise, prevention is better than cure. The foolish will cause an ailment in the hope they will be able to stop it. In politics this is often a risky affair. This and the next contribution are about the spectre of warlordism in Zimbabwe, a risk of a civil war we should avoid at all cost. Characteristically, I asked a student of mine to define "warlordism" for me. This is his attempt: "`Warlordism' is a term that defines a political situation where a country splits into several groups that engage in several conflicts/wars within the same country. Each group usually has a leader who commands the war and is the warlord, hence the term `warlordism'." He went on as if to repeat himself. Yet, no, he was adding a new element, that of "rebellion". "Warlordism' is a contrived word that is coined from the term `warlord'. A warlord can be simply defined as a leader of a factional group that is involved in a civil war within a country and is usually a rebel." He went on to particularise the "phenomenon" as "relatively new" in Africa, quoting examples: "This is a relatively new phenomenon that has emerged particularly on the African scene. Typical examples of warlords are Mahommed Farah Aideed of Somalia and Jonasi Savimbi of Angola." Then an idea came to mind to ask this chap for examples from the Zimbabwe "political scene". What did this chap have on the back of his mind? Was he detaching Zimbabwe from the "new phenomenon on the African political scene"? I wondered. Three days elapsed. Then I asked the mischievous question. Only to find that it was on "top" of his mind when he answered: "Of course, Prof, I have often wondered myself if Zimbabwe is not on the verge of warlordism," adding: " Is Chenjerai Hunzvi not a warlord, I wonder? What about Joseph Chinotimba? Or Endy Mhlanga?" To which I replied: "Of course, tikasachenjera, Chenjerai Hunzvi might develop into a warlord. Vese zvavo, all of them, plus more. Even the 'Prince' himself. After all he is 'Commander-in-Chief' with war credentials of sorts of his own!" I went on, not entirely sure of what it was I was saying. But a dictionary definition of "warlord" is that it is a "military commander exercising civil power by force". The key to this dictionary definition is the "exercise of civil power by force." Is there "warlordism" in Zimbabwe? In other words, is civil power in Zimbabwe exercised by force? Of course, all "civil power" in any country is exercised by force or threat of force. It is the amount and frequency of force used by a regime that gives it its character as a militaristic or civilian regime. The more frequent military force a regime uses to maintain its rule, the less civilian that regime becomes. Whether the person who presides over the regime is a civilian or military becomes academic. Is the ZANU PF regime militaristic or civilian? Has it relied on force more than civilian structures to maintain its rule? How frequently has it used force to maintain its rule? That is the question. There are those who will argue that the ZANU PF regime has always been militaristic, notwithstanding the periodic elections it has conducted since independence in 1980, or, for that matter, since the "controversial Dare rechimurenga election" of 1973 in exile during the liberation struggle. ("Controversial" since, for the first time in the history of the ZANU, the military wing of the party had a dominant say in the leadership of the party). In other words, civilian control of the party was lost or has remained problematic since the early '70s. He who controlled or had the support of the military wing of the party controlled the party and, subsequently, the country. This is where the present leadership has been, by all measure, smart. This has always given it a decisive advantage over its opponents, both from within the party and from outside it. The use of the military or paramilitary wing of ZANU PF has always been accentuated during elections, whether general, presidential, or by-elections. These are occasions when the hold on power is under review, questioned and challenged. On the other hand, there are those who will argue that, to the contrary, the military establishment has always supported a civilian leader who is popular with the people. That throughout the liberation war, ZANLA supported those leaders that had sprung into positions of leadership with the support of the people. After independence, military support to the leadership was and is given to a popularly elected leadership and government after every election. In other words, our military has, hitherto, supported a legitimate leadership and government because these came to power through the support of the people. This is to say, he who has the support of the people has the support of the military. What has all this to do with the spectre of warlordism in Zimbabwe? Nothing and everything. (We shall attempt to explain why next week). •Professor Masipula Sithole is a lecturer of political science at the University of Zimbabwe