Opinion / Columnist
Nothing wrong with Tambo's interview of Mugabe
09 Jun 2013 at 19:07hrs | Views
Why did Dali Tambo's interviewing style of Robert Mugabe deserve such vitriolic attack from Verashni Pillay, wonders ANC chairperson Luther Lebelo.
The article by Mail & Guardian Online's deputy editor Verashni Pillay "Why Dali Tambo's Robert Mugabe interview was just PR" herein has reference.
After reading the article twice, I remained wondering what is it that Dali Tambo did so terribly wrong to receive such vitriolic attack from your deputy editor? Like many before whom Dali Tambo interviewed, why is Ms Pillay so angry that Dali Tambo did the same to Mugabe? She states in her article that "Mugabe is no neutral figure, and trying to show his 'softer side' is a doomed mission if one does not at least acknowledge his mistakes - mistakes that have adversely affected a country, a region and millions of people."
What is not neutral about Mugabe or differently put? Who is neutral and what does Verashni mean by being neutral? Is Ms Pillay or the M&G neutral? Why is it so wrong if Mugabe - who has been at the receiving end of Western monopoly media - states his side of the story and have us, the freely thinking citizens, decide whether he is a monster, as the media wants us to believe, or a caring father, as the interview shows?
Tony Blair and George Bush slaughtered, maimed and cost untold pain and suffering to over 500 000 people in the last 10 years through their trigger-happy wars. Would Verashni feel similarly bitter if they were interviewed? Tony Blair was declared a hero after his term in office, has written books, was made an ambassador to the world and has visited South Africa, so why didn't we hear the same noise from Ms Pillay and her peers about Blair?
"Mistakes that have adversely affected a country, a region and millions of people." What mistakes was Dali Tambo supposed to expose about Mugabe, mistakes by whose standards and judgment? Who makes Ms Pillay think that her own opinion of Mugabe is the opinion for all? I thought Ms Pillay has learned that the majority of straight-thinking people have seen the cynics of the West and her attempts to vilify Mugabe. I thought she would have been aware of that contrary to her propaganda which it seems she is about to believe.
To remind you Verashni, according to the World Bank, Zimbabwe is among few or the only African country whose economic growth is tipped to surpass 5%. Also Zimbabwe's farmers, the majority of whom are African, thanks to Mugabe, produces over 200 000 tons of maize compared to the 100 000 tons produced by previous farmers. That Zimbabwe is and remains the only country in Africa where indigenous land has been returned to its people. This is contrary to the Western whoopla that all major monopoly capital are 51% owned by the indigenous people of Zimbabwe and that the same companies, including huge mining, banking and industrial conglomerates have complied and are happily doing business in Zimbabwe.
Ms Pillay went on further to say - referring to Robert Mugabe's wife Grace - that: "Grace, after all, is someone who has been photographed spending huge amounts of money in the shopping capitals of the world, while her country's bank reserves ran dry and her people starved." Ms Pillay blames Dali Tambo for allowing Grace Mugabe an opportunity to explain what took place. How can that be fair? Isn't Ms Pillay supposed to know that the natural rules of justice promotes the audi alteram patterm - a right to state one's case, irrespective of how much hatred she feels towards the Mugabes? Grace still has a right to state her case.
Ms Pillay went further to attack Dali Tambo for saying this about Mugabe: '"He is warm, charismatic and very humorous ... I feel, honestly, a pride in that man and I think that he has been misunderstood and ill-judged by a lot of the press. He's made mistakes but in general he's going to go down in history with a very positive perspective from Africans." What gives Ms Pillay such a conceit to attack Tambo for raising his opinion while she keeps raising hers in her article? Will the fact that the late author Heidi Holland, in her book Dinner with Mugabe, describes Mugabe the same way as Dali, change Ms Pillay's views?
I applaud Dali Tambo for his commitment to fairness by having interviewed Mugabe. It helped me make a clear judgement of him. It is the arrogance of people and certain Western media and powers to suggest that they, and they alone, are the paragons of truth and anyone who seems to think different, must be viciously attacked. For as long as we have people like Dali Tambo, we will one day unmask the global propaganda which reduces people as those not deserving to even imagine the doors of heaven.
Luther Lebelo
ANC chairperson - Liliesleaf Farm branch
Hockeinheim Estate
Kyalami
The article by Mail & Guardian Online's deputy editor Verashni Pillay "Why Dali Tambo's Robert Mugabe interview was just PR" herein has reference.
After reading the article twice, I remained wondering what is it that Dali Tambo did so terribly wrong to receive such vitriolic attack from your deputy editor? Like many before whom Dali Tambo interviewed, why is Ms Pillay so angry that Dali Tambo did the same to Mugabe? She states in her article that "Mugabe is no neutral figure, and trying to show his 'softer side' is a doomed mission if one does not at least acknowledge his mistakes - mistakes that have adversely affected a country, a region and millions of people."
What is not neutral about Mugabe or differently put? Who is neutral and what does Verashni mean by being neutral? Is Ms Pillay or the M&G neutral? Why is it so wrong if Mugabe - who has been at the receiving end of Western monopoly media - states his side of the story and have us, the freely thinking citizens, decide whether he is a monster, as the media wants us to believe, or a caring father, as the interview shows?
Tony Blair and George Bush slaughtered, maimed and cost untold pain and suffering to over 500 000 people in the last 10 years through their trigger-happy wars. Would Verashni feel similarly bitter if they were interviewed? Tony Blair was declared a hero after his term in office, has written books, was made an ambassador to the world and has visited South Africa, so why didn't we hear the same noise from Ms Pillay and her peers about Blair?
"Mistakes that have adversely affected a country, a region and millions of people." What mistakes was Dali Tambo supposed to expose about Mugabe, mistakes by whose standards and judgment? Who makes Ms Pillay think that her own opinion of Mugabe is the opinion for all? I thought Ms Pillay has learned that the majority of straight-thinking people have seen the cynics of the West and her attempts to vilify Mugabe. I thought she would have been aware of that contrary to her propaganda which it seems she is about to believe.
To remind you Verashni, according to the World Bank, Zimbabwe is among few or the only African country whose economic growth is tipped to surpass 5%. Also Zimbabwe's farmers, the majority of whom are African, thanks to Mugabe, produces over 200 000 tons of maize compared to the 100 000 tons produced by previous farmers. That Zimbabwe is and remains the only country in Africa where indigenous land has been returned to its people. This is contrary to the Western whoopla that all major monopoly capital are 51% owned by the indigenous people of Zimbabwe and that the same companies, including huge mining, banking and industrial conglomerates have complied and are happily doing business in Zimbabwe.
Ms Pillay went on further to say - referring to Robert Mugabe's wife Grace - that: "Grace, after all, is someone who has been photographed spending huge amounts of money in the shopping capitals of the world, while her country's bank reserves ran dry and her people starved." Ms Pillay blames Dali Tambo for allowing Grace Mugabe an opportunity to explain what took place. How can that be fair? Isn't Ms Pillay supposed to know that the natural rules of justice promotes the audi alteram patterm - a right to state one's case, irrespective of how much hatred she feels towards the Mugabes? Grace still has a right to state her case.
Ms Pillay went further to attack Dali Tambo for saying this about Mugabe: '"He is warm, charismatic and very humorous ... I feel, honestly, a pride in that man and I think that he has been misunderstood and ill-judged by a lot of the press. He's made mistakes but in general he's going to go down in history with a very positive perspective from Africans." What gives Ms Pillay such a conceit to attack Tambo for raising his opinion while she keeps raising hers in her article? Will the fact that the late author Heidi Holland, in her book Dinner with Mugabe, describes Mugabe the same way as Dali, change Ms Pillay's views?
I applaud Dali Tambo for his commitment to fairness by having interviewed Mugabe. It helped me make a clear judgement of him. It is the arrogance of people and certain Western media and powers to suggest that they, and they alone, are the paragons of truth and anyone who seems to think different, must be viciously attacked. For as long as we have people like Dali Tambo, we will one day unmask the global propaganda which reduces people as those not deserving to even imagine the doors of heaven.
Luther Lebelo
ANC chairperson - Liliesleaf Farm branch
Hockeinheim Estate
Kyalami
Source - m&g
All articles and letters published on Bulawayo24 have been independently written by members of Bulawayo24's community. The views of users published on Bulawayo24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Bulawayo24. Bulawayo24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.
