Obama versus Billary Clinton: lessons for Africa

Obama versus Billary Clinton: lessons for Africa

• If Zuma is corrupt, who isn't?

• Charamba gives civil service a very bad name

• Be the change that you want to see

• The paradox of African liberation and change

• Zimbabwe and the Jacob Zuma factor

• The EU-Africa relationship post-colonialism

• Beyond Lisbon: setting the African agenda

• Implications of Zuma winning ANC presidency

• Africa's enduring economic apartheid

• Does indigenisation threaten law of succession?

• Defining the role of the state in post-colonial Africa

• Mushore's ordeal and the Zimbabwe we want

• Does rule of law pose a threat to Africa?

• Capitalism may challenge the poor, but it gives them hope

• The Africa we want: out of time?

• Africa: From Berlin to Lisbon

• The turning point that never was

• Zimbabwe's turning point

• Black Economic Empoerment project gone awry

• Africa's bitter harvest

• Africa's real brand ambassadors

• Indigenisation: a case of hypocritical manipulation?

• Can Africa's brand ambassadors please stand up?

• Is Zimbabwe a candidate for economic surgery?

• Zimbabwe's leadership paradox

• Rhodesia not so good

• Wither Zimbabwe?

• Investing in fear: Mugabe's economic revival plan

• Mugabe takes over as leader of the opposition

• Mugabe under siege: a failed ideology or conspiracy?

• Robert Mugabe's fate

• Without a cause, Africa's progress stunted

• Kofi Annan and the outsourcing of Africa's future

• The Africa we want

• Africa's development challenge: from civil to platinum rights

• 2008 may already be a done deal

• To quit or not to quit: the leadership question

• Business sector cannot remain indifferent to political question

• Gono plays Pope and Cop

• Trust and succession politics in Africa

• Robert Mugabe and Ian Smith: two of a kind

By Mutumwa D. Mawere

BOTH Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are democratic Presidential nominees and their emergence as the front runners of their party represents a historic and defining moment in American history.

Since the founding of the republic, the White House has been the exclusive preserve of white males and the thought of an African American and a white female, albeit a former First Lady, being prospective custodians of American values, interests and way of life was certainly not in the minds of the founding fathers of the USA.

The intersection of race and gender in American political life and its dominance in the 2008 elections has to be understood in a broader context of the evolution of the country’s democratic order and the consequences of the civil rights and women suffrage movements.

Without the civil rights movement, Obama would not even have dreamt of being a President of the USA and no one since the late Martin Luther King has tested the sincerity of the American constitutional order in living up to its promise to all its citizens than Obama.

When King chose to dream of a day on which Americans would be judged by the content of their characters than by the colour of their skins, little did he know that Obama will rise to the challenge in the lifetime of King’s civil rights contemporaries like Andrew Young, Jesse Jackson and others.

I have no doubt that King would have been proud of Obama and yet Andrew Young feels strongly that Obama is not ready for the mantle, choosing to describe former President Clinton as the first black President and, therefore, Obama has nothing to hurry for since black males have already had their share and now it is time for a female, i.e. Senator Clinton.

Andrew Young rightly or wrongly feels that Senator Clinton has the necessary experience and maturity to stake a claim on the Presidency than Obama although he makes no attempt to explain what kind of experience the architects of the republic had in mind when they framed the constitution and in it failed to locate the qualification criteria for a President.

What is evident in the American constitution is that there is no requirement for a prospective President to write an examination on what he/she would do if they were elected. It is also common cause that in this year’s election, no candidate has ever been a President and, therefore, the question of experience would ordinarily be irrelevant in making a choice between them.

It would be wrong to argue that the mere fact that Senator Clinton is a spouse of a former President makes her more qualified than any of the other candidates. What is significant, however, is that for the first time, the democrats have chosen to challenge the American psyche by seriously considering Obama and Clinton who represent a departure from the “business as usual” of politics.

Barely a year ago, Obama’s candidature was not taken seriously and even Senator Clinton, given her known disposition on the issue of race, considered him to be a jolly good fellow and, in fact, supported his entry into mainstream politics in as much as I presume she would have supported, for instance, Jesse Jackson’s candidature. However, of late it is emerging that beneath the seemingly liberal posture of the Clintons is a deep seated patronising and racist attitude that only Obama’s serious candidature could have managed to expose.

Now the issues of race and gender are in the open and it is not white men who are questioning the wisdom of having the first African American President but women in general and even some of the civil rights movement founding practitioners.

Senator Clinton would also not have been a candidate were it not for the women suffrage movement, but it has taken a long time for the possibility to even remotely be imaginable.

As an African, I am deeply moved by the capacity of the American system to evolve and even allow people like Obama and Clinton to dream of becoming a CEO of the most powerful country of our time.

The background of Obama surely could not have prepared him for the highest office in the land, as my own background did not prepare me to occupy the business address that I now call my own.

Senator Clinton can count on her husband, Bill, who is increasingly becoming a co-candidate and exposing how false his credentials are on the question of race. In advancing the interests of Senator Clinton in the democratic primaries, Bill is arguing that Obama should and must not be trusted in as much as many of us should and must not be trusted to be in business. Yes, we are told that we need experience, we are aggressive, we are corrupt and, indeed, we are too ambitious.

The message is clear -- Obama should know his place. The attitude displayed by Billary Clinton is no different from that displayed by incumbent African Presidents against their opponents. The public is easily poisoned to believe that in order for anyone to be President, he must be intelligent and must be capable of solving national problems forgetting that it is not the President’s job to think for citizens or create a state that can compete with citizens.

No country is ever developed by conversations that take place in corridors of power, rather it is the product of the efforts of citizens. In many African countries, the candidature of Obama and Clinton would be unthinkable and, if anything, they would have been condemned to prisons for just imagining that they were competent enough to assume the job of President.

Many white liberals think the same way as the Clintons about Africans. A position is easily taken that Africans cannot rise to the occasion and frequently an assumption is made that solutions to national challenges must originate from the head of the President. In fact, instead of supporting and investing in the change they want to see, they often would rather not be involved in African politics.

It is unfortunate that the Clintons have chosen to see Obama as a competitor than a fellow revolutionary in the quest to extend the perimeter of democracy in America.

Whoever becomes President between the two of them will have far reaching implications in terms of redefining the architecture of power in America and energising people to become engaged in politics.

There is no doubt that Obama’s audacity has brought hope to many who thought that the American constitutional order was not relevant to him. The mere fact that he is accused of not having the necessary experience makes him an ideal candidate to test the sincerity of American values in terms of the Bill of Rights enshrined in their constitution.

If America can produce Obama and Clinton, surely Africa will sufficiently be challenged to look at itself and think out of the box in terms of leadership. How many of the leaders of Africa think that they are indispensable? How many of their supporters think rightly or wrongly that leadership should be reserved for the select few?

America has been a role model for many and the fight between Obama and the Clintons only serves to undermine the purported superiority of the American system and its ability to open opportunities to all. The role of hope in nation building cannot be disputed.

Africa’s founding fathers were like Obama; told that they could never unseat the brutal colonial system. But history has shown that with hope, anything is possible. We are all products of hope and I have no doubt that anyone who is observing the American electoral system would agree with me that its capacity to energise citizens to take ownership of their destinies ought to be emulated in Africa.

We own our own future and yet trust other people to shape it. The Africa we want to see can only be the product of own efforts and no state can ever be greater than the collective efforts of its citizens. We are the citizens of Africa and the time is now for us to seriously and critically examine whether we are living up to the expectations of future generations who will look back and ask the question what you did or did not do to make our continent a place of opportunity and hope.

Mutumwa Mawere's weekly column is published on New Zimbabwe.com every Monday. You can contact him at: mmawere@global.co.za
JOIN THE DEBATE ON THIS ARTICLE ON THE NEWZIMBABWE.COM FORUMS
newsdesk@newzimbabwe.com