According to his wife, Elena Brito, “he died around 9 pm due to a heart attack.” His weight was 35 kilos, his body mass index was below 10 percent and he showed clinical signs of hypothermia critical.

Britos made several hunger strikes since July 2, 2009, protesting against the expropriation of his lands, in Bolivar state (south). About 24 hectares of land were taken from him by the authorities in 2003, and in which he grew yucca and watermelons. The latest hunger strike he had begun was on March 1.

The Government had accused Britos of being mentally unstable and the opposition of trying to take advantage of his protest for political gain in the general elections on September 26th. Despite claims of such strategic capitalization, one cannot argue that the authoritarian regime of Hugo Chavez has wielded nationalization as a political weapon to aggregate power and in his efforts to wildly push an ALBA doctrine slowly decreasing in support, leaves casualties, like Mr. Britos, in his wake.

In recent months however, their thought leadership with regard to pragmatic cultural progression has been severely weakened by prejudice, fear and frankly, illegal interventionism both from targeted sects here at home and by larger organizations abroad. I am speaking of course of the Anti-Homosexuality legislation.

The bill, which flatly criminalizes the homosexual practice, is slowly working its way through the legislature, prescribing the death penalty and other harsh punishments for the community in Kampala and throughout the nation.

President Yoweri Museveni has rightly asked the authors to “soften” the bill but the administration has yet to make significant headway against a propaganda regime out to condemn homosexual behavior as sodomy and proud Ugandans as heathens. Mr. Museveni understands the geopolitical ramifications, the shutting-off of aid from governments and charitable campaigns, should this unfortunate legislation come to pass.

Martin Ssempa, who pastors the Makerere Community Church in Kampala, has largely ushered in this movement of intolerance. Ssempa, perhaps fueled by an Evangelical movement from the United States who visited months before he began his tirade, has run a brash campaign of hate which nears consent of murdering innocent Ugandans, let alone depriving them of their fundamental human right to freedom of expression.

Peter Tatchell, British MP and the London-based human rights campaigner, has supported the efforts of Ugandan activists to oppose the Anti-Homosexuality Bill.

“Congratulations to the many brave Ugandan activists – gay and straight – who are campaigning against the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. This issue is much bigger than gay rights. It is a civil liberties issue”, he stated. “The opponents of the Bill are defending individual freedom and liberty; the right individuals to live their lives as they wish, without state diktat, interference and repression.“

“Much of the impetus for this Bill has come from right-wing evangelicals in the US. They have poured money and dishonest homophobic propaganda into Uganda. Their lurid, exaggerated and sometimes downright untrue claims about gay life are fuelling homophobic sentiment. They are exploiting the poverty of Uganda to fight the battle against homosexuality that they are losing in the US.”

Arcadia Foundation founder Betty Bigombe has mediated between warring factions in the face of immense personal harm on the ground in Uganda. She understands the challenges in finding common ground. Rarely has there been such legislation that will pose the kind of cataclysmic ramifications we shall see with regard to trade and economic prosperity, ramifications that will affect all walks of life. Ssempa’s single-mindedness will not let him comprehend that there are many working parts to a functional democracy and though entitled to his opinion, his work is detrimental to our overall development.

The USIP and the Arcadia Foundation, organizations in which Ms. Bigombe participate and indeed have founded, have helped shine a light on troubled areas of the world and educated international audiences as to what their rights are and what role the government must play to uphold them. This proposed anti-homosexuality law has drawn international rebuke precisely due to the threat of these rights being stripped and indeed if processed in to law, would cause their star’s light to dim.

“We have embarked in earnest on the process on a national healing and integration, for the sake of our children and prosperity,” President Robert Mugabe said in a national address in the capital, Harare, marking National Heroes Day.

“I want to urge all of you to note that the process reconciliation is national. It does not seek to ferret out supposed criminals for punishment but calls all of us to avoid the deadly snare of political conflict,” Mugabe said.

After a first round of elections in which Mugabe lost to current Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, who heads the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), violence mainly targeting the MDC erupted, prompting Tsvangirai to pull out of the race.

Mugabe eventually won the second round of voting, but was never recognized by the Southern African Development Community and a coalition government was formed.

Turning to the West, Mugabe said the sanctions imposed on him and his cronies in 2002 are responsible for the suffering of Zimbabweans.

He accused the European Union and the United States of “not being sincere” in the dialogue that has started since the formation of the coalition government last year.

“No sooner had we started the re-engagement than we realized that the EU is far from being sincere, as the bloc keeps on shifting posts. The EU and the U.S. are keen to have our people continue suffering under the evil sanctions,” said the 86-year-old leader.

Reverting to his decades-old rhetoric, Mugabe furthered the notion that the sanctions imposed by western bodies were in reality an effort to recolonize the nation. “We must not be timid to defend them (sanctions). I say sanctions must go. Zimbabwe will never be a colony again,” Mugabe said. He added the nation’s economy is growing steadily but is crippled by the sanctions.

TEN REASONS WHY KENYA SHOULD VOTE “YES”

By Evans Monari

All indications point to the proposed constitution being approved by majority of the voters. And here are just ten reasons, why we in Kenya should approve the document and maybe convince the persons still opposing the document.

The national referendum for the proposed constitution is scheduled to be held on August 4, 2010. On that day, Kenyans will vote “yes” or “no” to the question “do you approve the proposed constitution?” it is provided by the Constitution of Kenya Review Act of 2008 that if more than 50% nationally and at least 25% in 5 of the 8 provinces vote “yes” the proposed constitution will be promulgated into law. There is general consensus that the country needs a new constitution, but the question is what kind of constitution does the country require to enable it grow from its current status to new realms of development in line with the developed world?

And does the proposed constitution meet this historic need? Does it augur well with our socio-economic needs and the unstable political reality?

A constitution is the charter that guides the country towards the destination it has chosen. And below are just ten of the major reasons why we as the people should vote ‘yes’ for the proposed draft- the draft which meets the needs and demands of our country. (The list is in no way exhaustive neither exclusive).

1) Strengthened Judiciary

The PC will strengthen the judiciary. The current constitution provides that Judges of the High Court should be appointed by the President with the consultations with the Judicial Service Commission. All the members of the JSC are presidential appointees. And therein lies the perception that some judges are appointed to further the President’s agenda. This is one of the main reasons that the public has lost faith in judiciary. And it is still clear to our minds that in the year 2007, the Orange Democratic Movement claimed that it could not go to court to challenge presidential elections since the judges were deemed to be pro-president. This lack of trust in the judiciary played a major role in fuelling and igniting the disastrous post election violence. These scenarios will be avoided once the draft constitution is enacted since chief judges (Chief Justice and Deputy Chief Justice) will be vetted by National Assembly. All other judges will be appointed in accordance with the recommendation by Judicial Service Commission whose composition is more democratic, most of the members having been vetted by Parliament. The process of appointing and removing judges is more clear and defined unlike the current scenario. Apart from the usual superior courts of record (High Court & Court of Appeal), a Supreme Court will be formed which will be a rung higher than the Court of Appeal. It’s insincere of the church and the no camp to use Kadhi Courts as laid out in Article 170 to mislead some citizens. Whether the draft is rejected or adopted, Kadhi courts will remain in our laws. The decision of Jesse Kamau & Others ‘invalidating’ the Kadhi Courts in the current constitution has not been given effect and it’s not live to the prevailing social-political situation which should always be a key element of decisions of such magnitude.

2) Land & Property Rights

Article 40 guarantees the right of every citizen to acquire and own land and/or property subject to limitations on non-citizens. The article goes further to even protect intellectual property rights (copyrights, patents and trademarks). The same article provides that such benefits shall not accrue to illegally acquired land. Therefore, the whole of Chapter 5 on land and environment should be read in the light of article 40 (which is one of the clauses which cannot be amended without a referendum). The whole of chapter five will be a big step towards protection of land rights and the era of illegal incisions and acquisitions should come to an end. Environmental rights are now enshrined in the constitutional, a big step forward.

3) Lean Efficient Cabinet & Controlled Presidency

In the proposed constitution, the powers of the presidency have been drastically reduced in comparison with the current constitution. Parliament will have more oversight in how the government is run. The president will not be allowed to appoint more than 22 Cabinet Secretaries (Ministers). The fact that cabinet secretaries shall not be sitting members of parliament means that they will not have political patronage and therefore can be hired and fired with no fear of losing political patronage. This will avoid the situations in the past where ministers engaged in corruption could not be sacked since the president feared losing the ministers political following. The issue of ministers claiming that their people are being targeted whenever they are faced with misconduct shall come to an end.

4) Reformed Attorney General’s Office

In the current setting the attorney general sits as a minister, a member of parliament, the principal state prosecutor and the chief legal advisor to the government, amongst other roles.
In the proposed setting, the office will be reconstituted with Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney General. Occupants of both offices will be vetted by parliament. The DPP will, be an independent appointee with legal teeth to freely prosecute cases on behalf of the public. The attorney general will be reduced into a government advisor amongst other ancillary roles. This is a big step in promoting governance in the country.

5) Devolution

The country will have two tier devolution. The country will be divided into 47 counties (Schedule one). Each county will have its local government with its executive. A senator from each county will form the upper house of parliament which will be referred to as senate and the lower house the national assembly. A specific allocation of funds will be allocated to the county and the county government will use the funds for local development. People will have more say in how the ‘national cake’ is shared and how the actual subdivision at the county level will be more democratic than what we have.

6) Legislature

Parliament will be composed of the Senate and the National Assembly. This will be a check and balance in itself since laws must be approved by both houses. Members of Parliament will be paying taxes since the proposed constitution provides that all persons shall be liable to have their salaries and allowances taxed. Furthermore, members of Parliament will not be able to increase their salaries as and when they wish. Parliament will also be required to make laws that do not derogate from the constitution unlike the current situation where Section 47 gives Parliament an ambiguous mandate on how far it can amend the
constitution.

7) Human Rights, Abortion & International Law

The proposed bill of rights is one of the best any country can ever get. It covers not only civil political rights but also socio-economic rights and third generation rights. Right to education, food etc will see the government being taken to courts whenever such rights are violated. And the onus will be on the government to prove that it has taken all the reasonable steps to provide such rights. Further the police powers (both literally & legally) are curtailed and courts are required to be pro-human rights. Furthermore, this chapter cannot be amended without the approval of the people in a referendum.

Article 2(5) and Article 2(6) imports international law to be part of the country’s norms. This is perfectly in order to allow the country develop in line with international best practices and it simply means that the government will not be entering into international agreements that it is not willing to honour.

Abortion is not permitted (Article 26) unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother or allowed under any other written law. This provision has been twisted on the light of Article 2(5) and 2(6) to mislead persons that abortion is allowed. This cannot be further from the truth. International law which will be a part of our laws recognizes the twin doctrines of cultural relativism and universality. Cultural relativism stipulates that local settings should be considered before international norms (being pushed by universalism) are given effect. Therefore a court of law is unlikely hold abortion legal in the proposed constitution.

Citizenship, Family Rights & Marriage

The proposed constitution allows dual citizenship. This has been in the offing for a long time. And the discriminatory provision that women could not confer citizenship to their foreign husbands has been cured. And finally citizenship cannot be lost through marriage, which is a big step forward. Article 45 (1) provides that the family is the natural and fundamental unit of society. It provides that a valid marriage can only be between persons of opposite sex. It goes ahead to recognize customary marriages. This is a progressive step of embracing the common grounds that families are essential and that our society does not recognize homosexuality. And why are some church leaders selectively ignoring this in their ‘no’ quest?

9) Taxation, Economic Development and Public Finance

For the first time, as laid out in Article 201, the country will have principles guiding its administration of public finances. Equitable share of national resources will be key in our country to promote balanced growth. The public debt (which is currently spiraling out of control) will be administered more openly. Taxation & government expenditure must be towards spurring economic growth. Central Bank of Kenya will be more open to scrutiny.

10) Progressive Constitution and Political Reality

Since the clamour for a new constitutional order has been ongoing for three decades now, it’s only right for the process to come to an end. The proposed constitution is a big improvement of the current document. It is heavily borrowed from the South African Constitution (1966), Canadian Charter and the German Basic Law of 1945. It is promoting democracy, good governance and the rule of law. Politically, it will be unwise for the country to go to the national elections of 2012 with the current constitution. The proposed constitution will promote investments in the country, creation of jobs (due to reduced corruption and good business atmosphere), greater freedom and general development of the country.

Terse words, made all the more intimidating by the idea that this is a clear and tangible promise more than a threat.

The answer is fairly simple, according to the Washington Post’s Jackson Diehl: Zuloaga’s statements about Chávez were hardly criminal, and years of government investigations had turned up nothing else prosecutors could plausibly use against him. But that, of course, was not the response of Chavez’s henchmen. Within days of the broadcast, an investigation against the businessman that had been abandoned was reopened; charges were filed. On June 11, a judge ordered Zuloaga arrested and confined to one of the country’s high-security prisons.

Continued, as excerpted by the Washington Post:

By then, the 67-year-old owner of Globovision, an all-news channel that is now the only alternative in Venezuela to government propaganda, was no longer in the country. Like Globovision’s minority owner, another businessman whose bank was taken over by the government three days after the arrest warrant, Zuloaga sought refuge in the United States. Last week he and his son, whose arrest was also ordered, were in Washington, where they were considering making a request for asylum.

“It never crossed my mind that I would be forced to live someplace besides Venezuela,” Zuloaga told me in an interview. “But I can’t be of much help to anyone if I am in a high-security prison. And I think it’s public knowledge that all of the institutions of justice in Venezuela are controlled by the president.”

Zuloaga’s own cases offers vivid proof of that. Judges who have dared to rule in his favor have been summarily fired; charges have been blatantly concocted to serve Chávez’s whim. The case that forced him into exile concerns not the criticism the caudillo complained of but a claim that the broadcaster, who also owns a car dealership, was guilty of “hoarding” his inventory — a charge so ludicrous that Chávez’s own attorney general had dropped it, before scrambling to revive it after the televised diktat.

The attack on Globovision betrays Chávez’s desperation. Alone in Latin America,Venezuela’s economy continues to plunge sharply downward; inflation is at 30 percent; violent crime is soaring. Zuloaga’s journalists have devoted much of their attention in recent weeks to a scandal concerning the spoilage of tens of thousands of tons of food imported by the regime — at a time when shortages of basic goods are widespread.

Worst of all for Chávez, an election — for the National Assembly — is scheduled for Sept. 26. Five years ago a foolish opposition boycott turned the congress into a rubber stamp for Chávez. This year, having hammered together a unity list, the anti-Chávez forces think they could win a majority of the seats. That’s certainly what polls show. The outstanding question is what the government will do — beyond a district gerrymander that has already been imposed — to skew or steal the election.

Silencing Globovision appears to be the beginning of Chávez’s answer. “Legally there is no way the government can close Globovision,” Zuloaga said. “But that doesn’t mean there won’t be an arbitrary decision. Chávez has been trying in any way he can to control the screens of Globovision. They want to inspire fear more than they want to win votes, because they know they have run out of money to buy votes with.”

The crackdown is not without risk. Globovision, seen in more than 2 million Venezuelan homes, is popular. The government’s shutdown of another opposition broadcaster, RCTV, in 2007 provoked nationwide demonstrations and gave birth to an opposition student movement. Already, the arrest order against Zuloaga has caused considerable international condemnation, including from the U.N. rapporteur on free expression and the State Department, which called it “the latest example of the government of Venezuela’s continuing assault on the freedom of the press.”

Zuloaga says Globovision will go on, “as if we are going to be on the air forever.” He, meanwhile, will hope that Chávez cannot do the same. “I really believe what is happening in Venezuela is unsustainable,” he said. “I don’t think people can accept that the quality of life continues to do down the drain. How can that keep on happening?”

The value of social investments in emerging markets and why western companies looking to expand should consider making it a core instrument of their business plans is tackled in the latest book by Harvard Business School professors Tarun Khanna and Krishna Palepu, “Winning in Emerging Markets: A Road Map for Strategy and Execution“.

The pair have spent over a decade studying how international companies operate in emerging markets, in particular India and China and claim that ”institutional voids” exist in emerging markets, from the gaps in the judiciary to labour market and education limitations; the two recommend that Western businesses assess these gaps as prospective business opportunities.

The professors then note that emerging market entrepreneurs make social investment decisions not simply for moral reasons but because filling these voids is “imperative” for their businesses. We tend to agree from the perspective of political stability equating to economic prosperity and international investment.

While talking to Prof Khanna in London recently, he said: “[American economist] Milton Friedman is reported to have said: ‘The business of business is business.’ I am saying, ‘Not really’.You may be Procter & Gamble and selling soap but if you are in India you may also have to do housing. I am saying that it might very well be in your shareholders’ interests that you deal with shortages of housing.”

He added: “It is self-serving in the long run. Companies will slant what they contribute in a way that favours them. But they are still providing their expertise.”

The book also contains a large number of case study examples of companies that have exploited this idea well, such as India’s Tata Consulting, and those that have struggled, such as Microsoft in China and Wal-Mart in Korea.

It notes that the list of corporate towns in India and China is a long one, but they are also common elsewhere in Asia. They echo the 19th century role played by large Western firms such as chocolate makers Hershey and Cadbury in the US and UK.

“You are becoming seen as a corporate citizen and over time that builds you some currency to participate. Most companies have taken 10 to 15 years to work this out,” said Prof Khanna.

He added that if companies do not feel comfortable with tackling “voids” they should seriously consider not entering the market at all.

Prof Khanna is conscious that Western multinationals may feel uncomfortable with the idea of direct, branded social investment. It could smack of economic imperialism.

But he added: “The mistakes of the past have informed this caution. It is a good thing because they don’t want to repeat the mistakes. But it’s the wrong lesson to draw as they can be agents of change. In instance after instance, there is an acceptance that there’s value to be added.”

Kris Taenar Wiluan, founder of Indonesian oil and gas services company PT Citra Tubindo, has built hospitals, sports centres, schools, orphanages and provided health care in the north Indonesian island of Batam, where he operates.

He said: “I think a lot of multi-national companies are starting to realise that this is part of the business.“

Sixteen months after the launch of the power-sharing government, the Zimbabwe Media Commission gave five groups permission to operate. Its action came after months of lobbying by journalists, publishing companies, and from within Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai’s Movement for Democratic Change (MDC).

Until last week, the MDC’s partner in government, ZANU-PF, (the party of President Robert Mugabe), had been reluctant to allow potentially hostile new publications to appear on the streets, challenging the state-supported Herald’s dominance. Pressure for the move came from South Africa’s president Jacob Zuma, who is the official mediator between the two parties.

“As a party we have always advocated for media freedom and we are happy our dream has been realized especially with the help of our friends … from South Africa,” said Jameson Timba, deputy minister of Information and an MDC member. “There was a need to open the media space.”

Alpha Media Holdings hopes to be the first company to hit the newsstands when its NewsDay publishes on June 6. It has been running dummy editions with a fully staffed newsroom and printing presses on hand ready for the ZMC’s decision.

Planning to join that publication will be Modus Publications, Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe, Fruitlink Ventures, and the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions – the only other groups to apply for licenses.

The commission, which is chaired by Godfrey Majonga, a former Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corp. newsreader, gave the go-ahead last Wednesday, but analysts believe the decision was taken high up in the ZANU-PF hierarchy, and possibly by President Mugabe.

“I’m sure they [MDC] played a part, but the decision would have come from ZANU-PF,” says ZoeTitus, regional programs manager at the Media Institute of Southern Africa. “The decision to bring in draconian media laws in the early 2000s was brought in by them and was probably made in the president’s office…. Zimbabwe is under intense scrutiny at the moment and its democratic credentials are under the microscope, so this was a factor.”

With daily papers costing $1 and Sundays $2, Ms. Titus said a decreasing number of people can afford to get their information from newspapers.

“While the world celebrates we should remember that there has been no change in the broadcast sector, which is strictly state-owned and controlled,” she says. “Newspapers serve their function, but many people get their information from television and radio and those areas have not been opened up, although we are optimistic they will.”

The five organizations plan to publish five newspapers – four dailies and the unions’ weekly – that could create as many as 500 jobs. Journalists will automatically be accredited once they are employed by the newspapers. No reporter at any of the approved publications has so far been refused documentation.

ournalists will still be subject to strict legislation, such as the Access to Information Protection and Privacy Act 2002 (AIPPA), engineered by one-time Mugabe ZANU-PF loyalist Jonathan Moyo. Journalists blame him – a former information minister – for bringing in draconian legislation such as AIPPA and the 2002 Public Order and Security Act. Among AIPPA’s provisions is the requirement that reporters wait 90 days for government information, while POSA gives police sweeping powers to ban meetings and marches and arrest reporters who attend them.

The restrictions, plus criminal defamation laws, resulted in the closure of many media outlets, including the independent Daily News, in 2003. That newspaper is now to be resurrected.

Seasoned media watchers say reporters will still need to tread carefully.

“The move to give other organizations the right to publish other than state organs is a welcome move, because most of the journalists on the streets and those abroad will get jobs,” says Barnabas Thodhlana, a former associate editor of the Daily News on Sunday as well as the founding editor of NewsDay.

But he adds, “the same actors who banned The Daily News are still in government and will do anything to make sure journalists don’t exercise their watchdog status on the government. There is need for extreme professional conduct on the part of journalists. They need to check and check again their facts to avoid publishing falsehoods.”

Harare media consultant Jealousy Mawarire says that “progressive forces” in government influenced the licensing decision. “But to a larger extent it is the realization by ZANU-PF that the media no longer reach the general populace and have no influence on politics,” he argues. “If you look at broadcasting, for example, only 43 percent of the country can access the television and radio stations in operation.

“ZANU-PF is very aware that the economy can’t sustain so many newspapers on the market because of the under-performing economy. Many of these newspapers will close down due to viability problems,” he adds. “We have few advertisers who can match the arrival of so many players.”

Zimbabwe Journalists for Human Rights chairman Pedzisai Ruhanya agrees. “I think the inclusive government responded to the pressure of reforming the media,” he says. “They had to be seen to be doing something about it because it is one of the items in their GPA [Global Political Agreement]. The other thing is that there is a high possibility that elections will be held next year and this is part of leveling the playing field ahead of the polls. The next election should be credible and this is part of trying to live to the international standards.”

But companies are nonetheless positive about the future. ALPHA Media chief executive officer Raphael Khumalo. whose stable has The Zimbabwe Independent and The Standard, says they are ready. “Obviously these are exciting developments,” he says. “What we have been waiting to do in two years we are now able to immediately. It will be our wish that we will be able to report on issues that affect Zimbabweans in the townships and in the rural areas.”

Ugandan lawmaker Adolf Mwesige led the commission and, according to the New York Times, “said that virtually all clauses in the legislation were either unconstitutional or redundant, and that any other clauses should be placed in another bill dealing generally with sexual offenses.” Mwesige told the paper, “If we proceeded, it would definitely provoke criticism, and rightly so.”

Indeed, international outrage and criticism from human rights groups and objections from major donors like Sweden, prompted the Kampala government to be wary of the bill. In mid-January Museveni issued a statement distancing himself from the bill. He appointed a cabinet committee to review the bill. On May 7, the committeerecommended that the bill be withdrawn.

The committee’s report found that the bill has “technical defects in form and content” and that many of the clauses are either unconstitutional or redundant of existing laws. Furthermore, the committee recommends deflecting negative attention away from the bill by changing its title or combining it with Uganda’s existing law, the Sexual Offenses Act.

Only Clause 13 of the anti-gay bill — which addresses the promotion of homosexuality — “was worthy of consideration,” according to the report.

The bill won’t be dead until it is officially dropped or voted down by the Ugandan parliament. This is expected to happen within weeks, Mwesige told the Times.

We certainly agree with Mr. Capehart that “it’s sad and enraging that a bill so hateful, so backward, so wrong came so close to becoming law.”

Judge Chinembiri Bhunu found Bennett not guilty of all charges: banditry, sabotage, terrorism and insurgency.

“He is now a free man,” lawyer Trust Maanda said. Bennett could have faced the death penalty.

“I hope that sanity is now creeping into the system and we can now start concentrating on delivering better lives for the people of Zimbabwe,” Bennett told reporters from Harare.

The latest in what could be the shocking conclusion of the Bennett saga may bode well for rule of law in the former breadbasket of Africa. If the judiciary mechanisms are now sane, oiled and running, not stale and rusted from political paralyzation and secret shadow committee initiatives, foreign investment may slowly start to funnel in.

Bennett, a white farmer whose land was seized during Zimbabwe’s controversial land reform program in 2000, has long been a thorn in the side of Mugabe’s Zanu-PF party.

He has been thrown in and out of jail several times.

The MDC intended to make him deputy agriculture minister in the national-unity government between the former opposition and the president’s party, but Mugabe refused to swear him in.

He said Bennett first needed to be cleared of all charges.

The MDC has always maintained that the case against him was political and that Bennett was being persecuted and not prosecuted.

It remains to be seen whether Mugabe will swear in Bennett now that charges against him have been dismissed.

“Mugabe has to swear me in now,” Bennett said Monday. “My party has made it very clear that they expect nothing less.”

The Zimbabwean followed the news with less than elation. “This is core evidence and proof that Zanu PF will rather use the residual state resources fighting Bennett and MDC than feeding the poverty stricken masses of Zimbabwe. We have always maintained that Bennett was innocent, but was only subjected to persecution by Zanu PF functionaries who are still confusing white Zimbabweans with eighteenth century invaders.”

Jamestown Foundation correspondent

In his April 15, 2010 article in Foreign Policy Magazine, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili wrote about the significant progress his country has made in nation-building and consolidation of a liberal democracy.

In the piece entitled “Failed No Longer,” Saakashvili touched upon almost all aspects of Georgia’s internal development, foreign policy priorities, security issues, international engagement and, of course, the hurdles erected by Russia’s current leadership to obstruct Georgia’s freedom of choice.

The article appeared at a time when a high-profile Nuclear Security Summit, hosted by U.S. President Barack Obama, was taking place in Washington, DC in which the Georgian president was a participant. That was the reason why analysts working on Georgia-related issues paid particular attention to the part of the article that mentioned Georgia’s efforts to “break up numerous uranium smuggling attempts.”

But there was at least one revelation in President Saakashvili’s publication that also deserves due consideration and analysis. “Very early in my presidency,” Saakashvili wrote “then Russian President Vladimir Putin called me to say that he would be ready to accept our new Georgian regime, as long as … he could name our ministers of interior and foreign affairs.” Apparently, this conversation took place sometime in early 2004, shortly after the Rose Revolution – a peaceful popular protest in which the corrupt regime of Eduard Shevardnadze was ousted and liberal reformers led by U.S.-educated Saakashvili came to power.

It is not the first time that President Saakashvili openly talked about his phone conversation with Putin. Speaking to the Georgian public and media he had mentioned the Russian leader’s ‘offer’ before but, arguably, he never spoke of this in the international press.

Georgia’s de-Sovietization has been manifested in several directions but a comprehensive police reform has been by far the most illustrative example. Although the reforms carried out in the education, justice, economic and the public service systems are no less significant, the transformation that the Georgian police have undergone under Minister of Internal Affairs Vano Merabishvili truly leaves nothing to remind of the Soviet past or Russia’s present. Instead of a Soviet-styled force having almost no public support and deeply marred in corruption some six years ago, now Georgia has a police trusted by 81% of the public, according to the opinion poll conducted by the International Republican Institute (IRI) nearly one month ago. For comparison, the same survey gives 57% to the Georgian president’s administration and 56% to the government.

Any westerner traveling across the countries that once belonged to the Soviet Union would say that police both in form and function are almost identical in all of them – except for the Baltic nations and Georgia – and have little semblance of what police really represent in the West. Russia and most of the post-Soviet states still even officially call their police force a militia (militsia) as in the old-Soviet times and their uniforms have only slightly changed if at all.

In Russia’s public discourse, interest toward Georgia’s police reform has been coupled with even bigger fascination with Georgian Minister Merabishvili’s persona and “sovereign rights.” He has been interviewed by Russian journalists more often than ever before and his laconic expressions have been broadly debated in the Russian press. One might even argue that a Merabishvili myth is being created in Russia, drawing on enigma and suspicion similar to those attached to Pyotr Stolypin, Russia’s reformist minister of the interior and then-prime minister under Tsar Nicolas II at the beginning of the 20th century.

On March 29, one of Russia’s widely-read newspapers, Kommersant, broadly covered Georgia’s police reform conveying to Russian readers the success story of Georgia’s Western-style, “top-notch” and “high-tech” law enforcement agency. The online edition of the newspaper even put out the musical advertisement that Georgian police use to recruit young officers.

Russians have reason to look to the Georgian police for inspiration and as a blueprint for comprehensive reform. According to Kommersant, only 22% of Russians trust their police, a force which is considered by the public as corrupt and inefficient. In his recent article published on April 4, Stephen Sestanovich, an influential Russia expert at the Council on Foreign Relations wrote on the merits of Georgia’s police transformation and advised Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to follow suit.“Only one political leader in any post-Soviet state has ever attempted this kind of institutional upheaval, and the comparison is an ironic one for Medvedev. For that leader is … Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia, who soon after becoming president in 2004 fired more than 80% of the country’s police officers…But however awkward the parallel may be, there are lessons in it for Medvedev. Saakashvili’s reform succeeded precisely because it was so radical.”

Let’s imagine that Georgia had had a Putin-appointed minister of internal affairs. Not only would that have meant the lack of even basic internal sovereignty, but would also have ruled out the possibility of any reform. That is how sovereignty and modernization are intertwined in Georgian reality and that is why Putin so vigorously opposes both.