Welcome to the place where peace is just the talk of the day! As you make comments remember the motive that you are writing, PEACE.

Monday, 30 December 2013

The shocking conspiracy to assassinate Robert Mugabe

Land tenure in Africa is slowly becoming a benign factor to the success of the economy, Identity and resolving of conflict. To the West of Africa we have Ivory Coast whose moral economy is referred to as tutorat. This means that one who has been given a plot of land contracted a permanent and unlimited duty of recognition toward the giver, usually the autochthonous holder of the land rights.

This took place without any paper evidence and there was more value attached to this process than that which takes the form of using papers as a form of proof. The problems arising here are that the people who participate in this transaction to act as truth tellers may end up dying and it will be impossible for future generations to prove identity of ownership of land. This can lead to the confusion that exists in the present. There is a confused framework of land but it has a history.
Down to the south of Africa we have Zimbabwe, a land in which the issues regarding resettlement have gained international media attention. Robert Mugabe, being the pioneer, has lead to this country to have the reputation of being one of the few countries in Africa where Africans own their own land, and in huge numbers.

The model that he has employed to give his people ownership has not been popular. This is because it has been dismissive of international law and lead to a number of human rights violations towards the white farmers. Studies suggests that the new settlers will soon reach the potential of the white farmers in percentage yield and the food basket is going to be more diverse.
Through the policy of land eviction, he has gained the hero status in most of Africa and opposition from the West. This, he claims, was not his idea of policy but that he pursued a possible resolution for 7 years with the Britons. After the election of Tony Blair, there was dismissal of his proposals and this was the beginning of the hate and love relationship between the continents. I still believe he did the right thing but in many ways, but a leader who sees violence but does not condemn it is not worth leading. This is because he creates a violent youth who will eventually teach the young nothing but violence.

Violence is not one of the factors used to measure economic development.

This has lead to more violence and the opposition from Morgan Tsvangirai devised a ploy of his assassination. The evidence is out. The fact that an African leader can threaten the leadership that brought about his independence and freedom of expression is mind-boggling. Are we still going to kill ourselves even after independence? To what end? Can there be leaders who care about development of the people and less about power? We need a resolution that will ensure proper transition of property rights in this growing population without shedding of blood.

Who will lead us?

- See more at: