WESTERN ‘democracy’ has limited and inhibited progress and development in developing countries; it is a lie. 

It sounds like a good thing but is, in fact, a tool used by so-called super powers to suppress weaker nations. 

The powerful and influential use their economic and political power to dictate what ‘democracy’ is.

For example, America’s richest individuals’ list includes many people whose ancestors were known slave traders and these are the chief proponents of ‘democracy’. 

American companies, like Jewish Agency, were involved in catching and sourcing Africans and making them ready for market. 

In England, the Barclays brothers, who started the much famed Barclays Bank, were slave dealers who made their fortunes through direct slave trade revenue. 

In countries, like Zimbabwe, fairness and humane treatment of all citizens was brought to the black majority through armed struggle. 

Programmes, like the land reform and resettlement, led to the empowerment of the black masses. 

This decision was not ‘democratic’ as far as ‘democracy’, according to the West, is concerned, but it was best for the Zimbabwean indigenes. 

Instead of making progress by empowering the masses through correcting historical wealth imbalances that occurred through the advent of slavery and colonisation, we are coerced to accept only that which is born out of ‘democracy’. 

Because former Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe was at the helm during the Fast Track Land Reform Programme, he was called a dictator and his decision was called autocratic. 

They ignore the fact that the masses and owners of the land did not have access to the resource which rightfully belonged to them.

Was the willing-buyer willing-seller agreement, agreed at the Lancaster House talks, democratic?

The reality is that, there is no one-size-fits-all when it comes to systems of governance. 

Each nation has its own history and problems that need a customised way of solving them. 

Yet ‘democracy’ is made to seem like the ideal system for all and is forced down our throats. 

‘Democracy’ dictates that there are numbered terms under which a chosen president can actually serve in his or her office. 

What if a president has served two terms but is still needed by his people and is actually doing well! 

Rwanda and China were faced by this exact situation and they both chose to ignore the dictates of Western ‘democracy’ and kept their leaders in office.

In reality, Western ‘democracy’ limits and inhibits progress and development in developing countries, like Zimbabwe.  

There are more scientific ways to run a country that are more guaranteed to bring success than ‘democratic’ means.

Let us look at some systems more compatible with our nation than ‘democracy’.

Meritocracy is one such system; it is simply putting people in positions according to merit. If one is good at something, and one is a citizen, one should be placed in an office that allows him or her to serve in the suitable field. 

This system has been employed in some of the most ‘undemocratic’ nations on earth, yet they have turned out to have the fastest growing economies in the world. 

These include China and Singapore.

Another system which can work concurrently with the above is a one-party State system. Africans have been groomed to hate one-party States yet many of them have never given them a chance. 

In the case of Africa, traditional systems of governance were employed until the advent of colonisation, after which Western colonial regimes ruled over us

The peace and harmony enjoyed by nations, like China, that have a one-party system has yet to be enjoyed in Africa which always goes to party, parliamentary, presidential and other elections, spending precious time and resources on campaigns. 

All that energy, time, labour and resources can be applied to achieve more useful and tangible goals than just winning elections. 

As it turns out, some of the individuals who get elected become better at winning elections than actually doing their jobs as evidenced by opposition parties that win council elections.

This we have witnessed in Zimbabwean cities and towns where the councils are run by the MDC, in its many manifestations.

The MDC elected officials have spent years without attending to infrastructural and social welfare issues until it is time for campaigning. 

Allowing opposition parties to exist leaves room for foreign interference, especially by former colonial powers.  

Acts of sabotage and even treason become more possible through these opposition players and we are forced to embrace them in the name of ‘democracy’.

Which brings me to the last system I would like to present, namely a people’s republic.  

Many Muslims have Islamic republics whose constitutions are simply the dictates of their religion _ knowing their Quran is knowing the law of the land. 

The general populace thus become like officers who can conduct citizens’ arrests.

China has a people’s republic which is aimed at serving the people and is technically led by a socio-Maoist doctrine. 

In China, the middle class is ever growing and they are enjoying high standard bus, train and cycle stations, roads and track systems. 

In Zimbabwe, our culture values human life. 

The mere existence of our traditional doctrine of ubuntu/hunhu (humanness) demands that we have a republic and Constitution based on it so that the citizens may comprehend it inside out.

Thus is it prudent to run our affairs using our own, and not foreign, systems.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here