The Rwandan Charade

RWANDA held elections on Monday with an outcome which was known well before the polls even closed. Paul Kagame, the Rwandan President and his government made it all but academic through their widely reported stifling of political opposition in that country. The opposition that did run against Mr Kagame and his party were largely thought to be aligned to his thinking in their political philosophy, bringing into question the validity of their challenge at the polls.

This East African country has been in a weird place politically since the 1994 genocide. The country has held one election prior to Monday’s vote. On that occasion Kagame won overwhelmingly. Rwanda is a widely praised country among Western countries but according to reports the political situation is less than laudable.

This election brings to question whether Rwanda can be legitimately acknowledged as a democracy or a dictatorship that flirts with democratic elements every so often to keep up its international image. Kagame has done a lot of economic good for his country and has tripled the country’s GDP since he came into office. He has attracted foreign investment which has assisted in rebuilding the country since the tragedy of 1994.

He has overseen the redevelopment of Rwanda and has led its wider acknowledgement on the world stage, but all this has been achieved at greater cost to civil liberties in the country. Recently a former military chief, General Kayumba, who criticized Kagame and subsequently sought exile in South Africa, was shot outside his home in Johannesburg, bringing into play questions over whether Kigali had ordered the attempt on the military chief’s life.

Talk or discussion of the 1994 genocide is taboo in Rwanda and is a sore subject for citizens and expatriates of that country alike. Some have referred to Rwanda as nothing more than a minority ethnic autocracy that is led by an uncompromising man who will not tolerate opposition of any kind. Talk along ethnic lines has largely been muted since the 1994 genocide but reports indicate that it may yet rear its ugly head yet again. This coupled with unresolved reconciliation issues may lead to greater problems for Rwanda in the future.

Kagame is also accused of formerly backing rebels in the East of the Democratic Republic of Congo and adding further problems to the attainment of peace in that region through his backing of those rebels. In his own country, Kagame has sidelined NGO’s and limited their role in Rwanda’s civil society. He and his government are accused of having had a hand in the assassination of some of his more vocal critics and political opponents. This once again brings into question whether Rwanda qualifies as a democracy or a well run dictatorship.

History has shown that when issues are repressed and debate is muffled, things eventually boil over and things get out of control. One way or another the essential question posed by this article will one day be answered by the people of Rwanda, for while they may be content today the unresolved issues of the past and present my bubble over in the near future.

Written by Tatenda Goredema Deputy Editor of Varsity Newspaper

The Political Take, from a Student's Perspective

As a student interested in politics, I was excited at the prospect of attending a sitting of the provincial legislature a few weeks ago. I had no particular expectations, but merely looked forward to watching the deliberations of the most powerful lawmaking body in the province.

Needless to say, I was quite disappointed with what I witnessed that Wednesday. While I acknowledge that one cannot base an informed opinion on the effectiveness of an institution merely by attending a single sitting, the style of the debates on key provincial issues did not leave a positive impression.

Disparaging personal comments were traded between the DA, ANC and ID benches, and intemperate and insulting language seemed to be the order of the day with the sitting becoming rowdy on occasion, detracting from substantive debate on key policy issues and casting doubt on the suitability of some members to call themselves legislators. It was like being at a House of Commons session where uncivil behaviour is condoned and expected.

These local politicians seemed to have no qualms about demeaning the seats they occupied on that day through their uncivil discourse, or their apparent lack of interest in the task they were elected to perform, which is, surely, serving the interests of the people of the Western Cape.

Being a student at the University of Cape Town, I was reminded of Student Assembly sittings; though the setting was different, the theme was much the same. I have, over the years, become accustomed to watching disputes between the DA's youth division (DASO) and SASCO (South African Students Congress) devolve into vitriolic, personal attacks.

It seems that politics in South Africa is about getting into power and then doing your best to show up your political opponents with the maximum exposure in the media.

Campaigning in 2009 revealed traces of this mentality as parties pretended to engage questions of policy usually by attacking their political counterparts' failures. The DA was and is a repeat offender in this department. Want to know DA policy? That would be the opposite of whatever the ANC has done or proposed - and don't forget to mention cadre-deployment and corruption a few hundred times.

It would be hard to discuss politics from a youth perspective without mentioning the incomparable Julius Malema.

He is a character steeped in controversy and often good for a sound bite or ten. He is the darling of the media because he cannot stop himself from saying silly things.
Yet, having attended a rally addressed by him once, I can understand his attraction to a part of the base of the ANC.

While it is true that he plays the race card and probably believes a lot of the nonsense he spews, it is equally true that he expresses what most black people think in this country. This is symptomatic of a people who still feel like outsiders in their own country due to an intolerable disparity in socio-economic rewards.

Like it or not, race is still a big issue in South Africa and will continue to be so for years to come until greater equality between races is achieved. I do not profess to be an expert on transformation, BEE or Affirmative Action but there is no doubt that they are necessary policies to level a playing field that for many years was unfairly tipped. There are continued debates to be had about the precise means of implementing these policies and their effectiveness, but there is no doubt in my mind that they are relevant and necessary.

An indication that race is still a tetchy issue at a student level is the acrimonious debate over UCT's plan to change its mission statement, a plan that rubbed many a student the wrong way and caused a fair amount of controversy on campus.

From a student perspective there is little appeal in becoming more active politically when the nature of debate in the political sphere is so uncivil and tainted by attacks on character.

It is true that compared to other countries, South African politics are clean and relatively cordial but more can be done to encourage participation of the youth. For if the leaders of tomorrow do not feel obliged to get involved with the task of governing and taking up the struggle of the disinherited and disenfranchised, then what hope can we have for the future?

Politics has been classified as one of the “dirtiest professions in the world”, along with law. I disagree. It needn’t be like that. Politics in its original sense is one of the noblest professions and has nothing to do with self interest, greed or point-scoring in the media. Politics is about improving the lives of people - but, somehow, that has been lost in the stampede to achieve personal ascendancy.

As long as the public perception that politics is filled with corrupt, self-obsessed individuals persists, confidence in politicians and politics will remain low and the goal of achieving a better life for all will remain elusive.

Although parties have different philosophies and beliefs, there must be a more congenial, respectful tone to debate to replace the rowdy discord which has become commonplace in South African politics.

For, as Winston Churchill once said, “if we open a quarrel between the present and the past, we will be in danger of losing the future.”


Written by Tatenda Goredema

Tatenda Goredema is the Deputy Editor of Varsity Newspaper

I Am My Brother’s Keeper

I WRITE this piece in light of the tragic crisis at the Horn of Africa that has descended into one the most embarrassing and threatening problems in terms of image-damage faced by the African continent. Somalia is one of the most dangerous and lawless places in the world, it is a country that has not had effective government since 1991, when President Mohamed Siad Barre was over¬thrown in a coup.

The country is in turmoil and is mostly governed by militia and warlords who have no apparent regard for the lives of their fellow Somalis. The most troubling thing about the crisis is not the mass deaths as a result of starvation and war, it is not the state of anarchy, it is not the dangerous domination of seas by warlords and pirates off the coast of the country, it is not the intense suffering that the peo¬ple of that country are subjected to. It is the relative passivity and lack of importance that the crisis and the country has been given on the African and world stage.

While crises in Zimbabwe, Iraq, Afghanistan and now Pakistan have been given premium focus in the media and at major world leadership conferences, Somalia has only recently been given attention due to the surge in the hijacking of ships off the coast of the country that has seen ships from various countries captured and held to ransom. Thabo Mbeki enjoyed praise across this continent mainly due to his initiation of the African Renaissance, which was founded on the premise of placing more emphasis on Africa helping itself and a broader scope being placed on inter-regional trade and development. Where is that concern with regards to a fellow African state in dire need of assistance? Apart from a failed American humanitarian mission in 1993, there have been no attempts to save Somalia from the tribalism and ethnic factionalism that have torn the country apart and thrown innocent people into the jaws of starvation and chaos.

There is a disease of dependence that plagues this continent: it is a dependence on Western powers to solve our own issues. When Kenya went into crisis last year, the strongest criticism came from the West and initial steps to negotiating a settlement were taken by America before Kofi Annan stepped in and helped to reach a settlement. When Zimbabwe began its land invasions and Mugabe stepped up his vitriolic rhetoric campaign against white landowners and people in general, the strongest condemnations and punitive measures came from the West. There is an arcane belief in Africa that the problems experienced by a fellow African state are the affairs of the people in that state. This is a belief that may have been acceptable and prudent years ago but when children and people are dying of starvation and being subjected to heinous acts we must feel a common obligation to do something. What else is the point of the AU or the African community? Albert Camus once said, “Perhaps this is a world in which children suffer, but we can lessen the number of suffering children; if you do not do this, who will do this?”

Thus African people and countries must do all they can to rein in the terror and violence that continues to engulf Somalia and neighboring Sudan and live up to the Latin saying that goes e pluribus Unum: “out of many, one.” This saying sums up the attitude that African people and states should take towards their fellow continent-dwellers: after all we are one continent, and by implication, one people.

Written by Tatenda Goredema

Tatenda Goredema is the Deputy Editor of Varsity Newspaper

White Politics of Hope and Change

Published on 17 March 2009

WHEN a political leader comes to campus, you don’t expect too great an attendance or hype, because let’s face it, apathy is a disease that has infected a large part of the student body at UCT. When Helen Zille came here two weeks ago, the Beattie lecture theatre was surprisingly packed to capacity. This is an impressive feat, and as I walked into the venue slightly late, I was amazed at the turn out. I immediately noted, however, that I was surrounded by mostly white faces.

This is not a bad thing at all, considering that white people are perceived to be the most apathetic people in the electorate. But for a party that has been trying to promote itself as multiracial and multicultural and that has been trying to get rid of the “just a white party” tag, this was not a good start to proceedings. Chris Ryall, a member of DASO and President of the SRC, did the introductory remarks and spoke briefly about the DA showing capacity to lead on a national level before Helen took the podium.

Once she got past the chanting and the language of platitude that is inherent in every politician in the world, the essence of the DA message became clear: the ANC is filled with cronyism and corruption, and in order to progress South Africans must vote DA.

The entire talk Helen gave seemed like déjà vu to me as it echoed what the DA has been
talking about for the past few years, no matter their showing in the polls. She went on and
on about corruption here and corruption there and even showed her academic skills by using a case study of the Durban public transport system, which was apparently afflicted by corruption recently.

All the while she was talking, I wondered when I’d hear about what the people who voted for the DA would win, or, at the very least, a substantive discussion of DA policies. Every accusation against the ANC only further diminished the message Helen delivered and what the party was running for in 2009. Helen seemed in particular to enjoy using “cadre-deployment” and “cronyism” in her description of the ANC’s term of governance.

While it is important to hold those in power accountable and ask pertinent questions with regards to taxpayer’s money and where it’s going, I think that, as a party trying to win an election, there should be more to your message than simply railing against the supposed or real abuses of the ruling party. The DA has been the official opposition for years and should by now have learnt that constantly attacking the ANC, especially when it’s needless, only serves to alienate black voters, which they desperately need if they are to get anything substantive outside the Western Cape.

There is a strong perception that the DA is just a white party representing white interests in this country. Building a campaign solely on the ANC’s perceived or real failures only serves to strengthen that belief in black communities. There is a reason why when COPE was established, the ANC took pleasure in branding it a black version of the DA. This is because, in most black circles, to be associated with the DA is tantamount to being sick with a terminal disease. In order to overcome this, the DA must drastically rethink its strategy. For, although the DA policy and manifesto look good on paper and the website is dazzling and the new logo, oddly resembling Obama’s, is pretty, no party has ever won anything in the world by merely achieving aesthetic beauty.

In other words, policy promises must be backed by realistic policy implementation plans, and the DA must shift from being a party of comparisons to being a party that at least shows some realistic potential to lead the country. Thus, no matter how much Xhosa Helen speaks on the trail, no matter how many townships she visits and dances at, her message and campaign will fall on deaf ears as long as the DA continues to work and campaign as a party in opposition rather than a party ready to lead.

Written by Tatenda Goredema

Tatenda Goredema is the Deputy Editor of Varsity Newspaper

An Unholy Alliance

Published on 17 February 2009

ROMAN historian Tacitus once wrote of the Roman Empire, “they made a desert and they called it peace.” The recent military intervention in Gaza by Israel was one of the most atrocious and vicious acts of heavy-handed violence committed by a nation and fills out what Tacitus articulated centuries ago.

The timing of the attack on Gaza and the ruthlessness with which it was carried out was appalling to say the least. The attacks came after the Israelis had closed access to Gaza for weeks, denying aid and food to be delivered to the area in light of the continued rocket attacks launched by Hamas into Israel.
While the actions of Hamas prior to the military intervention by Israel were repugnant, deplorable and deserving of punishment, Israel’s response was disproportionate and will almost certainly result in further instability in the region that may encourage increased terrorist activities.

The United Nations Security Council issued a cease-fire declaration and the international com¬munity, along with some conscionable Jewish people, strong¬ly condemned Israel’s actions. Israel promptly ignored the criticism and rejected the cease-fire, choosing instead to continue with its actions, and later declaring a unilateral cease-fire.

Perhaps one of the reasons that Israel feels it is immune to inter¬national criticism and UN declarations is because of its enduring and long-standing relationship with the United States - a relation¬ship that has permitted Israel to do as it pleased in the past.

In May 2008, George W. Bush proudly proclaimed in a speech to the Israeli Knesset, “America is proud to be Israel’s closest ally and best friend in the world.” He stated a view that has been prevalent since 1948 when David Ben-Gurion declared Israel’s independence and President Harry Truman was the first head of state to recognise Israel.

Bush went on to say of the Israeli people, “you have forged a free and modern society based on the love of liberty, a passion for justice, and a respect for human dignity. You have worked tirelessly for peace. You have fought valiantly for freedom,” a show of America’s refusal to acknowledge some of Israel’s obvious short¬comings with respect to its treatment of some of its Palestinian neighbours.

On 8 January 2009, the US Senate endorsed a non-binding resolution that supported Israel’s actions in Gaza, once again reaffirming the United State’s undy¬ing and unquestionable support for Israel. A week later, the lower House of Representatives passed a harsh bill designed to restrict aid to Palestine known as the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act by a lopsided margin of 361 representatives to 37.

Why would they ignore the obvious facts that they have at their disposal, documenting human suffering in Gaza? The answer lies in the fact that special interest groups have a lot of power in Washington. A group such as the American Israel Public Interest Group (AIPAC) has a lot of clout and provides indirect funding and support to many Senators and Representatives of both the Democratic and Republican par¬ties. Thus, when a vote on an Act or Bill that has direct reflection on Israel comes up, these politicians - who are beholden to their contributors - will ensure they are in Washington to vote, and will vote in favour of Israel.

In fact, the new US President addressed AIPAC in June of last year and used some strong rhetoric to attempt to sway the Jewish lobby group which had some doubts about his intentions for Israel. He stated, ‘our alliance is based on shared interests and shared values. Those who threaten Israel threaten us. Israel has always faced these threats on the frontlines. And I will bring to the White House an unshakable commitment to Israel’s security.’ He even went so far as to guarantee Israel an undivided Jerusalem, a highly controversial and ill-advised statement.

Guaranteeing Israel’s security is euphemistic talk in Washington for keeping Israel happy and doing whatever is necessary to ensure the Jewish vote is secure, in fact this is believed to be one of the reasons Harry Truman acknowledged Israel in 1948, against the wishes of his Secretary of State General George Marshall. Richard Nixon faced the same pressure as he tried to avoid uproar at Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger’s initial refusal to assist Israel with military supplies during the Yom Kippur war of 1973.

With tacit American support, Israel has expanded its illegal settlements and has effectively prevented Palestine from having a contiguous state, whilst preaching about a two state solution. This is one of the reasons lasting peace has been unattainable.

The only thing that sustains Israel’s intransigence is, America, its dearest friend. William Butler Yeats once wrote, ‘Think where man’s glory begins and ends, and say my glory was I had such friends’, how apt that is today for Israel.

Written by Tatenda Goredema

Tatenda Goredema is the Deputy Editor of Varsity Newspaper

2010 the year of Obamanation

With the recent gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey swinging in the way of the GOP, it is important to ask whether the so called ‘Messiah’ of American politics, Barack Obama, still has the shine he had as a candidate. The answer of course is that he does not. Although polls based on the president’s character reflect positively, his job approval ratings have dropped and the approval of his handling of key issues such as the Afghanistan war have dropped below fifty percent. He recently got his ambitious Health Care Reform Bill through the first tier of Congress, the House of Representatives, but he faces an uphill fight on trying to get it past the Senate whilst attempting to avoid a filibuster by Republicans who are strongly opposed to the bill.

President Obama came into office facing many challenges left by his predecessor, George W. Bush, and they encumbered the platform of policy promises which he had run on and presumably gotten elected for. If that wasn’t bad enough, he faced a Republican opposition that initially tried to put on a bipartisan face but eventually became bitterly opposed to the President and his ‘leftist’ policies. The opposition posed by the Republican’s is not in itself surprising because the history of American politics is that of the incumbent party and leader facing stiff opposition on his and their legislative agendas, regardless of whether they will better the lives of the citizenry or not. US politics thrives on opposition on issues such as Health Care and the debate at times before the passing of the bill through the House was arbitrary and disassociated from the substance of the bill and what the President proposed.

The recent elections in New Jersey and Virginia, regardless of how much the White House and the President seek to dispel it as not a referendum on Obama’s first year in charge, is a major warning to Democrats and the Obama administration for next years mid-term elections. President Obama made trips to both Virginia and New Jersey, campaigning for the Democratic gubernatorial candidates before the respective elections. Despite that they still lost and although the loss in Virginia might have been more anticipated than the loss in New Jersey, which must have been more of a blow. Virginia is regarded as a swing state and usually votes Republican due to its conservative citizenry, New Jersey however is a regular Democrat state which voted strongly in favour of Mr Obama last year in the general election.

Adding to all this is the fact that incumbent candidates, such as the Democratic Party had in both states, always face a tough challenge especially considering high unemployment figures and an economy still recovering from a terrible slump.

If President Obama wants to retain his hold on a majority in both Houses of Congress then he will have to act drastically to change the growing perception that he is more style than substance, starting with the war in Afghanistan, which he is yet to make a decision on in terms of either sending more troops or reducing the amount of troops. He isn’t helped by the fact that British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has decided to send more troops to the region and the Karzai government in Afghanistan is accused of widespread corruption, also a speech he made in March of this year calling the war in Afghanistan one of necessity has not assisted him either. The likely loss of the Democratic majority in the House and the Senate will hinder the President’s legislative agenda greatly and a resurgent GOP could pose a serious threat in the 2012 presidential election.

In the US president’s are judged on their ability to get legislation passed and the effectiveness of their leadership, thus if Obama cannot hold onto his party’s majority in Congress and cannot get his platform promises enacted, he will face an uphill battle on being an effective president and being remembered in history as one of America’s greatest Presidents.

Written by Tatenda Goredema.

Tatenda Goredema is the Deputy-Editor of VARSITY Newspaper.

Ideology versus efficiency

In South African politics one thing stands out prominently: the linkage between the ANC and the idea that it should govern from the left. There has been a lot of bluster and angry talk from COSATU around the green paper on national planning released by Minister in the Presidency, Trevor Manuel. Apparently the minister should consult unions before he does his job and comes up with policy proposals which are a mandated part of his job.

There is a terrible belief in this country that because a person was placed in a government position by the ruling party, that he/she must then think of the party’s ideology before doing his/her job. I have met Minister Manuel on two occasions and in those occasions when he was asked a borderline ideological question that questioned the ANC, he always answered from a partisan stand point. He is a party man through and through, yet COSATU hacks have the audacity to question his loyalty to the movement and openly attack him at conferences.

This recent bit of disagreement highlights a condition that affects certain people’s mentalities in this country, and that is the belief that a party must govern according to all of the promises made during campaigns. In reality this is impossible, for campaigning is nowhere near the same as governing. There is a saying in American politics that “you campaign in poetry and govern in prose.” This saying captures perfectly what most parties realize once they enter government: the reality of governance is that policy cannot necessarily be driven by ideology.

Looking at Barack Obama in the United States and his drive for health care reform, one gets the sense that this is not just a South African or African problem, but a global one. Obama promised that he would not sign a bill out of Congress on health care without a public option, one of the Democratic Party’s most valued ideological tilts in the debate on health care. Yet now the public option clause is optional in Obama’s administration and the inclusion of it would be a bonus rather a prerequisite for reform. George Bush also found out that ideology and governance don’t go together when he sought to privatize Social Security.

When the ANC came into power, they started off with the Redistribution and Development Programme as the economic policy, a policy that was designed to help the disinherited and main victims of the Apartheid regime. However the party soon realized that the programme did not work and would eventually lead to the state creating dependency.

When President Zuma announced Pravin Gordhan as Minister of Finance, I thought it was a brave and wonderful choice, for Mr Gordhan is not aligned to the ANC and is mostly a technocrat. Technocrats, in my view, are the best kind of government employee for they do not worry about upsetting constituents, or votes in upcoming elections. They focus on the job at hand and formulation of policies that better the country and its people. They are efficient and not beholden to alliances or party people who think they know better.

South Africa needs more technocrats and less ideologues. Ideology has a role to play in governance, but that role must be tempered with cold, hard realism that measures what is good for the country as a whole and what is good for the people. We cannot have a government that proposes to improve the lot of some people at the expense of the country’s reputation and credibility in the world.

Workers and unionists will argue differently; however, moderate socialism and the idea that government should exist solely to redistribute money to disenfranchised people and those who languish in poverty, is wrong and damaging. Whilst the idea of assisting the poor is noble and righteous, South Africa must avoid creating an attitude of dependency. The country must aim to build a developmental society that assists the poor with training and skills development as opposed to giving hand-outs. Governing along an ideological path alienates and divides people. It potentially creates unnecessary prejudices and should therefore, in my opinion, be left in the campaigning realm where it belongs.

Written by Tatenda Goredema.

Tatenda Goredema is the Deputy-Editor of VARSITY Newspaper.

Death of Conservatism

I recently had a conversation with a friend, and after discussing the ordinary things guys discuss such as beer, women and sport, we moved onto a discussion about conservative views and why they seem to be dissipating or becoming less prevalent. I was recently tagged a fascist for some of my centre-right views, and my friend had recently come back from a trip to California and told me the story of how the politics in the state are decidedly conservative on a of lot issues, whilst the social behaviour in the state is mostly liberal.

This could partly be explained by the fact that California has some of the wealthier inhabitants of the United States and the conservatives among them are more comfortable placing their trust in the party of big business, the GOP, rather than “tax-and-spend” Democrats who are forever accused of seeking to expand government and taxing citizens to do so. The state is currently under Republican Governorship under Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The slow decline of conservative practices and views across most of the globe may be attributable to globalisation and the many liberal philosophies that come with it, or to the idea that conservatism represents people who are anti-gay rights, anti-abortion, anti-feminism and elitist. For whatever reason, a lot of people think that conservatism is taboo and unacceptable in the 21st century, I respectfully disagree.

I happen to be a moderate conservative and believe in some of the principles that conservatism advocates, but I cannot say that I am elitist, anti-different ideas or prejudicial in any way. Instead, I am a moderate conservative who has strong views on what should be done about crime, the lack of a death penalty in the country, social iniquities, the slow death of cultural practices and beliefs due to the increased interconnectedness of the world.

I am against the flagrant promotion of violence and sex on television along with the promulgation of some American television programs that encourage the idea that it’s okay to be dimwitted.

Detractors and critics argue that to be conservative or to believe in some of the things I mentioned is to be naïve and ignorant, but I respectfully disagree. I view a lot of issues in the world through political spectacles and the heavy defeat of the Republican Party in the 2008 elections in the US was a signal that in order for people in that country to believe in conservatism again and put Republicans back in the spotlight in the House of Representatives and the Senate, conservatism needs to be repackaged and promoted differently, the soonest opportunity coming next year.

In this country, few people complained when Bheki Cele was appointed National Police Commissioner and spoke of getting tough on crime, yet the language and tone of rhetoric he used was very much conservative in a country that is mostly viewed as left wing and liberal with a ruling party that advocates left wing policies.

The advent of the GEAR economic policy under the erstwhile President Thabo Mbeki was fairly conservative in its principles of promoting trade and allowing the markets to be independent and promoting Foreign Direct Investment ahead of redistributing wealth, as initially proposed by the ANC when it first came into power. The practice of inflation targeting, which has been widely denounced by trade unions, is another example of conservative practices that seem to sit well with a large portion of the well off populace.

These practices prove to me that although ultra conservatism and far right views are unpopular and often denounced, some conservative principles still linger and are acceptable. Thus, it seems to me that some of the dissent targeted at conservatism is based on a measure of ignorance; thus, learning and discussion is the only way to dispel the cloud of misinterpretation around the philosophies of conservatism. As Thomas Jefferson once said, “If we can enlighten the people generally, tyranny and the oppressions of mind and body will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day.”

Written by Tatenda Goredema.

Tatenda Goredema is the Deputy-Editor of VARSITY Newspaper.