Architects of poverty: Why African capitalism needs changing (2009)
By Moeletsi Mbeki
Picador Press Africa
ISBN 978-1-77010-161-6

WHENEVER one reads Moeletsi Mbeki, it is difficult to believe that he is the son of revered nationalist ANC leader, Govan Mbeki.
“Nationalism in Africa has always paraded itself as a movement of the people fighting for their liberation. Its fight was always for inclusion in the colonial system so that it too could benefit from the spoils of colonialism,” writes Mbeki.
One would not believe he was ‘bred’ by ZANU PF in Zimbabwe during his father’s incarceration in South Africa during apartheid.
His lack of faith in the African governing system is internationally known as he has often said the continent was better governed under colonial systems.
On the other hand, it is simply ironic that it is the same colonial powers who imprisoned his father for over two decades because he spoke against their injustices while Moeletsi lived sheltered and protected by ZANU PF.
Today he is affiliated with Western think-tanks and it seems he views association with nationalism and ZANU PF as a stain on his Harvard résumé.
The inequalities during the colonial era were so oppressive that black people in his country despite receiving meagre salaries compared to their white ‘countrymen’ were required to pay the electricity bill without the electricity which was a privilege of the white families.
He has been known to oppose not only his brother, former President Thabo Mbeki’s pan-African policies and world views, but black governance as a whole.
In 2009 he wrote his book, Architects of poverty: Why African capitalism needs changing in which he attacks empowerment policies by African governments like Black Economic Empowerment and Land Reform Programme.
Even as he attacks these institutions he does not provide realistic solutions as to what should be done that in the end his book becomes just an angry tirade against black governments.
Mbeki is however, correct to point out that social welfare grants provided by the white elites as consolation in the form of Mandela aid is creating dependence and under-development among black South Africans.
“At least a quarter of the population receives social grants that would not be available if South Africa were not rich in minerals,” he writes.
On the Land Reform Programme he also acknowledges that the land was the reason why the black masses joined the war although he twists it as another gimmick to garner votes.
Mbeki does not however, provide a solution given the racially skewed system of ownership and control inherited by most black governments.
He instead agitates that these resources should be used to create jobs.
Yet it is fairly common knowledge that for decades the Land Reform Programme was thwarted by the Western governments and their monetary organisations.
They realised that if Africans were to begin competing for resources, they would suffer terrible losses.
From South America to Africa, there have been causalities each time a leader attempted to nationalise resources from Mossadegh in Iran to Lumumba in the Congo.
His celebration of assassinated Congolese leader Patrice Lumumba and toppled Ghanaian Pan-Africanist Kwame Nkrumah is not sincere.
Mbeki is a capitalist and Western sympathiser who when it best suits him, masquerades as a forward thinking pan-African.
On one hand he acknowledges the role of the neo-colonial economic policies designed to service the financial interests of an elite few, but chiefly the imperial powers.
Then on the other hand, he sympathises with them, “even the mighty Western oil companies have not escaped the destructive power of Africa’s political elites.”
There is need for Mbeki to do proper research on how these oil companies work.
They will bribe, blackmail and if necessary go to war to get the resources as they have done throughout the world or they directly and indirectly fund wars and civil strife to further their agendas.
He mistakenly thinks that the Zimbabwean opposition party created in England is the brainchild of the public.
In his book he describes the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) a ‘people created party’.
This kind of inaccuracy perhaps borrowed from some bitter ex-Rhodesian notes leads him to misguidedly conclude that African leadership often supports President Mugabe because of their, “short sighted leadership coupled with fear of the emergence of more democratic political forces in Zimbabwe that might threaten the status quo of southern Africa’s established political elites.”
I am sure after the exposure of the MDC and massive loss that highlighted people’s lack of confidence in the Western-founded and funded party, Mr Mbeki is squirming in shame for he openly expressed admiration for the MDC.
The reason why President Mugabe is revered has less to do with what the leaders benefit from him, but rather what he represents.
His stance on Africa is the wish of many leaders who may not necessarily be bold enough to come out and declare their support and distaste for Western interference in African matters.
His ability to have survived character and economic assassination is what draws the respect of the Southern African Development Community and the African Union.
No man is an island and therefore no policy is foolproof, but considering all the elements that are up against African leadership in this era of once again resource bargaining, I would think Mugabe has done his bit.