The day is finally here! We will begin our long awaited journey to Mozambique within a matter of hours! As hard as I may have tried, I could not sleep with all the excitement reaching its greatest height in the past several hours. Months of planning and anticipation all boil down to today! The adrenaline is in full swing; I'm going to Africa!
The excitement is only natural after such intense preperation. Never did I picture myself taking in so much information across such a wide spectrum of disciplines- film, language,history, and of course, politics! And these were only the ones that we covered as a group. My team members and I (all part of the healthcare group) have done our own studies to prepare for this trip, just as other groups (culture & religion, Education and legal systems, and elections) have done their individual study.
In the past week, I had the opportunity to meet with a medical expert who has worked with the Health Alliance International organization in Mozambique for several years. Dr. Johnathan Cohn, an infectious disease doctor, who also works at the Wayne State Medical School. It is through Dr. Cohn that I learned of the role of the Ministry of Health in Mozambique. Dr. Cohn spoke of the dilemma faced by the Minister of Health. While he wishes to provide basic care to as many people as possible in the country, and wishes to make advancements in medicine available in the local hospitals- he is forced to watch foreigners (countries providing aid to Mozambique) run his department since they feel that since they are donating money to Mozambique's healthcare system, they should have the right to decide how and where it is used. In this process, many doctors and nurses either work two jobs (since the government positions pay only a fraction of jobs through private organizations), or they all together are switching to private organizations, leaving fewer and fewer individuals to contribute to the development of national healthcare. So the Minister of Health struggles with finding ways to make doctors and nurses continue to work for the government (with lower pay) rather than accept private offers, as these individuals find ways to best support themeselves and their families comfortably.
Dr. Cohn also mentioned the corruption that exists in all the Ministeries, and at the same time stated that the corruption is far less in the Ministry of Health. He spoke very highly of the previous Minister of Health-Pascoal Mocumbi, and his efforts to support the introduction of anti-retroviral therapy. The most interesting thing I noted from the meeting with Dr. Cohn was the fact that he said despite any and all corruption, and difficulty providing care to the masses, Mozambique has done a decent job of working through the HIV/AIDS epidemic (even through years of civil conflict). For a country with such limited resources and great conflict, they have made efforts to treat 130,000 people with anti-retroviral therapy of the 1.5 million that are infected with the virus. In terms of healthcare, there are many issues to be dealt with by the country, especially the incoming party after elections, but I thought it was great to see yet another aspect in which Mozambique is considered a success story. This has now been a common thread through all that I have met in preperation for this trip- from Pitcher, Manning, and now Dr. Cohn, people really do see Mozambique progressing in all areas rather than being dismantled after Indepedence.
It is so incredible to see a country slowly but steadily working to provide care for its people. After all, this concept is at the heart of democracy. And it makes me realize how much we take even the basics for granted. Efforts are now being made to integrate HIV/AIDS care and possibly treatment into the primary healthcare system in the country. While I feel that donors should play an advisory role in the implementation of policies, I think it is necessary for health professionals to take advantage of their education and provide aid in developing countries around the globe. This is truly one of the reasons why I wish to become a physician. As a physician, it will be my duty to help those struggling in developing nations, to help those who lack the most basic necessities. I hope to visit the MSF site (Doctors Without Borders) in Maputo, as someday I wish to be a part of this wonderful organization. I never imagined having an opportunity to see/visit an MSF site before graduating from medical school! I also hope to be able to see various organizations in action (from a completely foreign operation to an entirely Mozambican operation) and see what more can be done by donors as well as the government to improve healthcare in Mozambique. This is what I truly wish to accomplish through this trip-along with democracy, to see the practice of medicine beyond our borders.
Mozambican Elections 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Today we are going to be visited by Carrie L. Manning, author of The Politics of Peace in Mozambique. I must say that I am being spoiled, having the opportunity to meet with not one but two leading experts on Mozambican politics who happen to be the authors of our main texts in the course thus far. It is not just another “meet the author” day, but a time to see the text we have read come to life as the writers themselves present key points. It also gives us the unique oppertunity to raise questions that came up along the way while reading.
I think Manning does an excellent job of clearly answering the question: why Mozambique. What is the significance of this country over many of the other African nations. She states many times that Mozambique has “provided the United Nations with its only real success story in Africa” being free of armed conflict since its independence in 1975. And this I think is important to recall as we move forward reading all sorts of literature-that our main purpose for examining Mozambique is to learn from the “war-to-peace process of democratization” that was simultaneously carried out with structural reform of Mozambique's economy.
I found the section on Renamo as a political party quite interesting as I have been trying to understand the ways in which Renamo came about for some time now. Anne Pitcher also gave some perspective as to the development of Renamo, but I feel to have a better and clearer idea after reading Manning's The Politics of Peace in Mozambique. It gives an idea as to why Renamo made certain demands, and how coming “from the battlefield”, it was necessary to gain certain loyalties. Both Pitcher and Manning point out the significance of Renamo as a poilitcal party, and the fact that it cannot just be dismissed from consideration since it does have a significant number of supporters. Manning also refers to one of the challenges of Renamo being its srtuggle to establish itself as a formal political party. The image of Renamo being no more than a group of “South African-run “armed bandits”' was truly a problem that was still around during the negotiations. And this image is what created problems when it came time to raise funds for the party. I found it particularly interesting to hear that at the core of Renamo's transformation was money “to be able to create conditions to funciton.” It really shows how far money can go. Money was needed to bribe those with appropriate skills and buy off those who were not needed. Manning does state however, that possibly Renamo did not spend time thinking about attracting voluntary followers due to its military background.
Manning also mentions the the financial aid provided by outside nations, and at one point mentions the interactions of the political actors and the institutions they are building being dependent upon the constraints created by donor dependency. I would like to hear from her further in class about this donor dependency, and overall I am interested in knowing what Carrie Manning has to say about the upcoming elections.
I think Manning does an excellent job of clearly answering the question: why Mozambique. What is the significance of this country over many of the other African nations. She states many times that Mozambique has “provided the United Nations with its only real success story in Africa” being free of armed conflict since its independence in 1975. And this I think is important to recall as we move forward reading all sorts of literature-that our main purpose for examining Mozambique is to learn from the “war-to-peace process of democratization” that was simultaneously carried out with structural reform of Mozambique's economy.
I found the section on Renamo as a political party quite interesting as I have been trying to understand the ways in which Renamo came about for some time now. Anne Pitcher also gave some perspective as to the development of Renamo, but I feel to have a better and clearer idea after reading Manning's The Politics of Peace in Mozambique. It gives an idea as to why Renamo made certain demands, and how coming “from the battlefield”, it was necessary to gain certain loyalties. Both Pitcher and Manning point out the significance of Renamo as a poilitcal party, and the fact that it cannot just be dismissed from consideration since it does have a significant number of supporters. Manning also refers to one of the challenges of Renamo being its srtuggle to establish itself as a formal political party. The image of Renamo being no more than a group of “South African-run “armed bandits”' was truly a problem that was still around during the negotiations. And this image is what created problems when it came time to raise funds for the party. I found it particularly interesting to hear that at the core of Renamo's transformation was money “to be able to create conditions to funciton.” It really shows how far money can go. Money was needed to bribe those with appropriate skills and buy off those who were not needed. Manning does state however, that possibly Renamo did not spend time thinking about attracting voluntary followers due to its military background.
Manning also mentions the the financial aid provided by outside nations, and at one point mentions the interactions of the political actors and the institutions they are building being dependent upon the constraints created by donor dependency. I would like to hear from her further in class about this donor dependency, and overall I am interested in knowing what Carrie Manning has to say about the upcoming elections.
From the very beginning, as I began to inquire about the political systems in Mozambique, I recognized similarities between Mozambique's government and the government of Pakistan (my country of origin).
The first thing that comes to mind is that I originate from a country with a very perplexing politcal system to say the least. This continues to challenge me as my politcal knowledge/understanding is very limited. This past week we have been examining the poilitcal architecture of Mozambique and then comparing this system with that of our country of origin. This involved becoming familiar with Pakistan's formal institutional architecture first.
In the current parlimentary system of Pakistan, the President is the head of state, the Prime Minister is head of government, and there is a multi-party system. Executive power is exercised by the government, while the Legislative power is mainly in Parliament. In Mozambique, the President selects the Prime Minister, but in the Pakistani system, the Prime Minister is elected by the National Assembly (which itself is elected by the people). The President of Mozambique is both head of state and head of government, and of a multi-party system. Executive power is exercised by the government. Legislative power is in both the government and the Assembly.
In both Pakistan and Mozambique, the President may only be elected twice for a five year term in office. Mozambique has direct Presidential elections while the President of Pakistan is chosen by an electoral college that consists of the Senate, the National Assembly, and the Provincial Assemblies. Members of the National Assembly and Provincial Assemblies are directly elected by the people in competitive multi-party elections. Members of the Senate are indirectly elected by the provincial assemblies.
The most appealing thing about Mozambique's political system is the election of the President by the people, for this is truly a democratic practice. While the people are the ones to elect the members of the National Assembly in Pakistan, I feel that ultimately it is the Assembly that determines who rules the nation (as they elect both the President and the Prime Minister). The least appealing aspect of Mozambique's system is the fact that the President selects his or her Prime Minister. In the American system, this is similar to the position of Vice President. But I think that to some extent this limits the distribution of power as the Prime Minister most likely is from the same party as the President. In the Pakistani system, the President and Prime Minister have usually been from opposing Parties, and this allows for further distribution of power.
Pakistan has had a long history of alternating times of electoral democracy and authoritarian military government. The transition to democratic elections in Mozambique have so far been a permanent change after the country's first democratic election in 1994. In the case of Pakistan, there has been great instability as authoritarian rule is attempted to be replaced by democratic practices, which last only a short period of time before the government is overthrown by the military. The last general elections of 2008 are still questionable regarding the degree of fairness and equality. While it is not entirely reasonable to compare developing countries such as Pakistan and Mozambique (with fairly new democracies) to countries such as the United States with older and much more established democracies, it is fairly legitimate to compare the two developing democracies of Pakistan and Mozambique. I am inspired by Mozambique's successful attempts at implementing democracy after gaining independence only in 1975, while Pakistan has been stuggling with adapting core democratic practices even though it has been independent since 1947. I see democracy in Mozambique as a sort of model for countries in turmoil, such as Pakistan, to follow.
The first thing that comes to mind is that I originate from a country with a very perplexing politcal system to say the least. This continues to challenge me as my politcal knowledge/understanding is very limited. This past week we have been examining the poilitcal architecture of Mozambique and then comparing this system with that of our country of origin. This involved becoming familiar with Pakistan's formal institutional architecture first.
In the current parlimentary system of Pakistan, the President is the head of state, the Prime Minister is head of government, and there is a multi-party system. Executive power is exercised by the government, while the Legislative power is mainly in Parliament. In Mozambique, the President selects the Prime Minister, but in the Pakistani system, the Prime Minister is elected by the National Assembly (which itself is elected by the people). The President of Mozambique is both head of state and head of government, and of a multi-party system. Executive power is exercised by the government. Legislative power is in both the government and the Assembly.
In both Pakistan and Mozambique, the President may only be elected twice for a five year term in office. Mozambique has direct Presidential elections while the President of Pakistan is chosen by an electoral college that consists of the Senate, the National Assembly, and the Provincial Assemblies. Members of the National Assembly and Provincial Assemblies are directly elected by the people in competitive multi-party elections. Members of the Senate are indirectly elected by the provincial assemblies.
The most appealing thing about Mozambique's political system is the election of the President by the people, for this is truly a democratic practice. While the people are the ones to elect the members of the National Assembly in Pakistan, I feel that ultimately it is the Assembly that determines who rules the nation (as they elect both the President and the Prime Minister). The least appealing aspect of Mozambique's system is the fact that the President selects his or her Prime Minister. In the American system, this is similar to the position of Vice President. But I think that to some extent this limits the distribution of power as the Prime Minister most likely is from the same party as the President. In the Pakistani system, the President and Prime Minister have usually been from opposing Parties, and this allows for further distribution of power.
Pakistan has had a long history of alternating times of electoral democracy and authoritarian military government. The transition to democratic elections in Mozambique have so far been a permanent change after the country's first democratic election in 1994. In the case of Pakistan, there has been great instability as authoritarian rule is attempted to be replaced by democratic practices, which last only a short period of time before the government is overthrown by the military. The last general elections of 2008 are still questionable regarding the degree of fairness and equality. While it is not entirely reasonable to compare developing countries such as Pakistan and Mozambique (with fairly new democracies) to countries such as the United States with older and much more established democracies, it is fairly legitimate to compare the two developing democracies of Pakistan and Mozambique. I am inspired by Mozambique's successful attempts at implementing democracy after gaining independence only in 1975, while Pakistan has been stuggling with adapting core democratic practices even though it has been independent since 1947. I see democracy in Mozambique as a sort of model for countries in turmoil, such as Pakistan, to follow.
It was only our second official class meeting and we were fortunate enough to be visited by Anne Pitcher, the author of our text, Transforming Mozambique: The Politics and Privatization, 1975-2000. Although there was much excitement in the air, I was a bit nervous to be in the presence of a scholarly writer. And it just so happened that I was one of the first to enter the room while Ms. Pitcher was already present setting up and ready to go. She immediately calmed my nerves by letting me know that the yellow fever vaccination was not essential for Mozambique. I also found Professor Pitcher very down to earth, eagerly sharing her experiences with our class and sharing tips for our upcoming travels. I don't know about my classmates, but I am most definitely setting aside money for shrimp at the restaurant Professor Pitcher hinted towards multiple times! Professor Pitcher's presentation about Mozambique's poitical history was also very understandable and engaging.
One thing that particularly stood out in my mind was the fact that Professor Pitcher mentioned that in the 3rd democratic election in 2004, there was a successful transfer of power within Frelimo to Armando Guebuza for the presidency. The very first time I was introduced to this project, it was mentioned that President Joaquim Chissano was a successful former president of Mozambique who was elected for two terms consequtively, after which he decided to step down. Soon after meeting with Professor Pitcher, I read a piece by Carrie Manning in which it says that the Mozambican constitution states that the maximum number of terms a president can serve is two years. Professor Pitcher, knowing about our anticipated visit with former President Chissano, thought it would be interesting to (politely) inquire why President Chissano stepped down after two terms. I am now very much interested in finding out why he really decided to end his presidency- it may just be that he truly was just abiding by constitutional regulations. Professor Pitcher also mentioned that governments and politcal figures usually want to consolidate any and all power. And this is something I have witnessed in my home country of Pakistan.
What is the meaning of “Democracy” for me?
I think Robert Dahl said it best- that “democracy” has meant different things to different people at different times and places. For me, the first thing that comes to mind when thinking about democracy is not the institution and procedures, but rather the outcomes. Freedoms and liberties are one goal of democracy, and the institutions are a way to achieve these goals. I feel that the protection of our individual rights, such as the freedoms of speech, religion, and assembly are all necessary for a truly democratic government. Here in the United States, we are fortunate enough to have such individual freedoms, and actually be able to practice them. We are made aware of our individual freedoms from a very young age and though many politicians across the globe promise them, and many constitutions state them, there is a multitude of nations containing individuals whose rights have not always been granted.
Even if individuals in developing nations might not understand the institutional procedures of democracy, I feel that there is a human desire which may create support for democracy as a way to achieve these goals. I feel the people in Mozambique feel the same. The results of an Afrobarometer survey indicate that people in Africa associate deomcracy with the system of electoral college, but know that there is more too it. The real meaning of democracy for these people lies in what it produces-freedom, rights, and liberty. Even in poorer nations such as Zambia and Malawi- with low literacy levels, living standards, and limited access to media-most citizens refer to rights and liberties when questioned about democracy. Also, as mentioned in Democracy-A View from the Village by Maxwell Owusu, “we now know . . . that free and fair elections must be linked with reasonable economic security for every citizen.” I feel Mozambicans appreciate the ability to voice their opinions, but do not wish to compromise their security while doing so. Election time can stir many civil conflicts, and this is probably one aspect of the democratic process that Mozambicans, as well as citizens of other nations experiencing similar difficulties, wish they could all together avoid and still be able to get to the end result of attaining individuals freedoms and liberties.
One thing that particularly stood out in my mind was the fact that Professor Pitcher mentioned that in the 3rd democratic election in 2004, there was a successful transfer of power within Frelimo to Armando Guebuza for the presidency. The very first time I was introduced to this project, it was mentioned that President Joaquim Chissano was a successful former president of Mozambique who was elected for two terms consequtively, after which he decided to step down. Soon after meeting with Professor Pitcher, I read a piece by Carrie Manning in which it says that the Mozambican constitution states that the maximum number of terms a president can serve is two years. Professor Pitcher, knowing about our anticipated visit with former President Chissano, thought it would be interesting to (politely) inquire why President Chissano stepped down after two terms. I am now very much interested in finding out why he really decided to end his presidency- it may just be that he truly was just abiding by constitutional regulations. Professor Pitcher also mentioned that governments and politcal figures usually want to consolidate any and all power. And this is something I have witnessed in my home country of Pakistan.
What is the meaning of “Democracy” for me?
I think Robert Dahl said it best- that “democracy” has meant different things to different people at different times and places. For me, the first thing that comes to mind when thinking about democracy is not the institution and procedures, but rather the outcomes. Freedoms and liberties are one goal of democracy, and the institutions are a way to achieve these goals. I feel that the protection of our individual rights, such as the freedoms of speech, religion, and assembly are all necessary for a truly democratic government. Here in the United States, we are fortunate enough to have such individual freedoms, and actually be able to practice them. We are made aware of our individual freedoms from a very young age and though many politicians across the globe promise them, and many constitutions state them, there is a multitude of nations containing individuals whose rights have not always been granted.
Even if individuals in developing nations might not understand the institutional procedures of democracy, I feel that there is a human desire which may create support for democracy as a way to achieve these goals. I feel the people in Mozambique feel the same. The results of an Afrobarometer survey indicate that people in Africa associate deomcracy with the system of electoral college, but know that there is more too it. The real meaning of democracy for these people lies in what it produces-freedom, rights, and liberty. Even in poorer nations such as Zambia and Malawi- with low literacy levels, living standards, and limited access to media-most citizens refer to rights and liberties when questioned about democracy. Also, as mentioned in Democracy-A View from the Village by Maxwell Owusu, “we now know . . . that free and fair elections must be linked with reasonable economic security for every citizen.” I feel Mozambicans appreciate the ability to voice their opinions, but do not wish to compromise their security while doing so. Election time can stir many civil conflicts, and this is probably one aspect of the democratic process that Mozambicans, as well as citizens of other nations experiencing similar difficulties, wish they could all together avoid and still be able to get to the end result of attaining individuals freedoms and liberties.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)