http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8675 Zimbabwe and the Power of Propaganda: Ousting a President via Civil Society y Michael Barker lobal Research, April 16, 2008 Email this article to a friend Print this article Zimbabwe is a strategic country for the United States because events in imbabwe have a ignificant impact on the entire southern Africa region.” (US Agency for nternational evelopment, 2005) In 2002, America’s key democracy manipulating organ the National Endowment for emocracy (NED) layed a vital role in supporting the temporary ousting of Venezuela’s emocratically elected resident Hugo Chavez, so given their current interests in Zimbabwe it is ritical to ask two uestions: “what are their reasons for interfering in Zimbabwe’s affairs, and econdly, should rogressive activists be concerned about these interventions?” The simple answer to these questions is that numerous neoliberal governments are nterested in imbabwe not because of democracy, but because they want to remove the thorn in heir side that is resident Robert Mugabe. Moreover, while the West views Mugabe as a tyrant that eeds to be emoved from power, it is critical that progressive activists not living in imbabwe problematize oth the corporate and alternative media’s portrayal of Mugabe and Zimbabwean olitics, and their wn government’s manipulative interventions into other countries affairs. Indeed ot every tyrant s a tyrant. For example, the same US National Security Strategy that identifies resident Mugabe s a tyrant also identifies President Chavez as a “demagogue awash in oil oney”. [1] However, while both Mugabe and Chavez are clearly thorns in the US dministration's side they resent unwanted irritations for very different reasons. For instance, since oming to power in 980, Mugabe who has long been considered a useful ally of Western elites has een showered with ilitary aid – much of which (between 1980 and 2000) came courtesy of the ritish government – hile throughout the 1990s Mugabe embraced harsh structural adjustment policies nd undertook rutal military excursions in Zaire which together wreaked havoc on Zimbabwe's conomy. et as a result of the growing tide of popular resistance to Mugabe's evastating – Western ormulated – land reform policies, in 2002, no doubt as a last ditch attempt to aintain his ading grasp on power, Mugabe shirked his post-colonial neoliberal 'advisors.' onsequently, most ikely owing to his straying from the Washington Consensus, Mugabe (and imbabwe) is being unished by the international community, and imperial democracy manipulators are ow seizing this pportunity to destroy the last vestiges of the popular people power movement hat liberated hodesia from colonialism. This 'transitional' process of course involves acilitating the ouster f Mugabe and ensuring his replacement with a Western-backed neoliberal lternative, that is, the ovement for Democratic Change. owever in Venezuela's case, when Chavez was elected president in 1998, apitalist elites (both ithin and outside of Venezuela) vigorously opposed his presidency, and shortly hereafter with he aid of the National Endowment for Democracy in 2002 they organized a coup to emove him from ower. As fate would have it this temporary coup was quickly reversed by a assive show of people ower, and in January 2005, after ongoing public displays of popular support gainst ongoing apitalist attacks on Chavez's presidency, "Chavez declared his political rogram to be ocialist". Consequently, it is important to remember that while the overnment's of both Mugabe nd Chavez are being targeted for regime change, they clearly present themselves s very different horns in the US government's side. As the case of 'democratic' interference in Venezuela has been well documented, his article will rovide a critical – although by no means exhaustive – investigation into the omplex issues aised by the current political interventions by foreign organizations into imbabwe’s political ffairs. Initially, this article will examine how ostensibly progressive ainstream media have cted as imperial flak machines to legitimize ongoing inference in Zimbabwe. ubsequently, it will emonstrate how Western governments’ carried out an overt cultural war to uccessfully manipulate imbabwean civil society, and will then conclude by recommending how concerned itizens might best urther the protection of human rights in Zimbabwe and elsewhere. The Liberal Propaganda Machine “For Washington a consistent element is that democracy and the rule of law are cceptable if and nly if they serve official strategic and economic objectives.” (Noam Chomsky, 005) As in other countries selected for ‘regime change’ by the democracy manipulating stablishment, emonizing the target government is a vital part of any propaganda campaign. For xample, the nternational mainstream media and the National Endowment for Democracy have, nd continue to lay, a vital role in working to undermining the legitimacy of Venezuela’s resident Chavez. Likewise, for many years now, both these groups have also waged a relentless ffensive against imbabwe’s President Mugabe. Indeed, with regard to Zimbabwe’s 2005 elections, ritish-based media atchdog Media Lens contrasted the media’s coverage of Zimbabwe’s elections with hose that took lace in Iraq. Media Lens correctly pointed out how: “Claims of democratic lections in Iraq were ot just nonsense, they were self-evident nonsense, repeated by every major edia entity in the and.” A few months later, however, when elections were held in Zimbabwe, Media ens observed that omehow “the media regained their mental faculties and were able to identify bvious flaws in the rocess”. As Media Lens’ surmise: “Where elementary common sense conflicts with he needs of elite ower, journalists collapse into a Dumb and Dumber consensus.” Given the parallels between ‘democratic’ interventions in Venezuela and imbabwe, it is fitting hat in an earlier Media Lens article, they illustrated how Channel 4 news eporter, Jonathan ugman, interviewed Maria Corina Machado, a leader of Sumate – a group which eceived support from he National Endowment for Democracy to oust Chavez – and described her “as a civil rights ctivist’, citing her as the source for his claim that ‘government critics’ are fearing another imbabwe here’.” This is an example of misinformation, pure and simple. In 2002, George Monbiot – one of the lonely token dissidents at The Guardian UK) – pointed out hat problematically the “view of most of the western world’s press” is that [t]he most evil man n earth, besides Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden, is Robert Mugabe”. [2] ndeed, as ritish-based radical historian Mark Curtis also points out: “The official theology has it that Zimbabwe is the only repressive regime in frica – since it is n official enemy, it is the subject of endless media articles while Mugabe is correctly) seen as total despot. Nigeria, on the other hand, is a key ally and oil-rich state hich our companies enefit from – therefore it wouldn’t be right to mention obvious facts such as hat the military n Nigeria is complicit in far more deaths in recent years than even imbabwe’s.” An alternative history to “Mugabe as despot,” which is rarely aired in the lternative media, let lone the mainstream media, is provided in some detail by Gregory Elich, who in 002 wrote: “As Zimbabwe descends into anarchy and chaos, land is irrationally seized from roductive farmers, e are told. President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe is portrayed as a dictator bent n driving his ation into starvation and economic disaster while benevolent U.S. and British eaders call for emocracy and human rights.” He observes that it wasn’t so long ago that the “management of the economy in imbabwe was highly egarded in Western circles.” Indeed, from day one of Zimbabwe's 'democratic' ransition in 1980 and the beginning of Mugabe's presidency), Zimbabwe's new found 'independence' as conditional pon accepting the provisions of the British-led Lancaster House Agreements that effectively tymied any meaningful attempt at land reform." Moreover the 1979 Lancaster House Conference that undermined the liberation ovements demands for and reform was chaired by British Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington, an ndividual who has more ecently served as a founding patron of the Zimbabwe Democracy Trust (see ater). [3] ubsequently, much to the delight of his Western advisors, Mugabe colloborated ith the World Bank nd International Monetary Fund to effectively ensure that no meaningful land eforms eventuated. s Elich observed, when Zimbabwe moved to liberalize its economy in 1991, dopting the World Bank esigned Economic Structural Adjustment Program, the immediate result was pleasing for Western nvestors” but the “result was a disaster for the people of Zimbabwe.” By the end of 2001, however, President Mugabe announced that Zimbabwe were itching the Structural djustment Program, which Elich notes, combined with the land reform program his overnment aunched in 1997, and “coupled with the statement that sectors of the economy ould be placed on a ocialist path, only increased the sense of outrage among Western leaders.” eemingly Mugabe the despot’ was rebelling against neoliberal advisors, an action defined by eoliberal governments as espotic. Such language is an example of the Western command of doublespeak: hile Mugabe is a espot, leaders who oversaw the putsch that has led to the slaughter of over ne million people n an illegal act of aggression, that was vigorously opposed by their electorate’ are democrats. Given this background it is no surprise that the international media demonizes resident Mugabe, nd, beating the drum along with all manner of ‘democracy promoting’ and ‘human ights’ groups, elegitimates Zimbabwe’s election. [4] For example, just over a week before the 008 election, uman Rights Watch added to the anti-Mugabe chorus by publishing a report that oted that Repression, Intimidation, Electoral Flaws Threaten March 29 Vote”. Yet onsidering the close ties hat exist between Human Rights Watch and the National Endowment for Democracy t is fitting that any of the nongovernmental organizations that they used to document human ights abuses in imbabwe are also funded by the NED (see later). A good illustration of this ymbiotic NED-Human ights Watch relationship is provided by the reports’ reference to a Reporters ithout Borders another group that is intimately linked to the work of the global democracy anipulating ommunity) press release that was released on February 26, 2008 that highlight[ed] its concerns ver a growing government crackdown on the independent media”. Non-Governmental Organizations and ‘Democracy’ Networks “Perhaps Zimbabwe has reached the low-point of its democratic development, but I ould echo the pinion of the recently departed American Ambassador, Christopher Dell, ‘things ill change oon.’” (Dave Peterson, 2007 – the senior director of the NED’s Africa program) Like the misnamed National Endowment for Democracy, the US Institute for Peace USIP) plays an mportant role in exporting low-intensity democracy globally. However, unlike ts better known democratic’ counterpart far less critical attention has been paid to the work f the USIP, even hough in 1990 Richard Hatch and Sara Diamond described it as a “stomping ground or professional ar-makers” with a board of directors that “looked like a who’s who of ight-wing ideologues from cademia and the Pentagon.” While I will not be extending Hatch and Diamond’s critique, in 2003 the USIP ssued a report itled “Zimbabwe and the Prospects for Nonviolent Political Change”, which mongst other things ocumented the rise of the non-profit sector in Zimbabwe. The report suggests hat: “In the late 1990s, civic coalitions began to emerge, build consensus, and gain ollective trength around the need for nonviolent political change…This newer focus of on-governmental rganizations (NGOs) on governance, advocacy, and political change departed ignificantly from the arlier civic orientation. This change is at the heart of concerns by government nd some social ritics that NGOs are involved in politics, and are too closely aligned with, nd compromised by, estern donor interests.” Despite their evident concern with compromising NGOs, the USIP itself is one of he US overnment’s most important democracy manipulating organizations, thus the USIP hould be forgiven or failing to mention that they too are intimately linked to at least one imbabwean opposition roup. Thus the current chair of the USIP, Chester Crocker, was a founding atron of the Zimbabwe emocracy Trust – and Crocker also happens to have served as US Assistant ecretary of State for frican Affairs from 1981 to 1989, and is currently a member of the Secretary of tate’s Advisory ommittee on Democracy Promotion. The Zimbabwe Democracy Trust was initially set up in April 2000 in the UK although it is now ased in the US) and the Trust describes itself as a “non-partisan pro-democracy roup set up to ampaign internationally for the rights of Zimbabweans to live in civic peace nd freedom”. [5] ther ‘democratic’ patrons of the Trust other than Crocker include former Tory oreign Secretaries alcolm Rifkind, Douglas Hurd and Geoffrey Howe. Moreover, even the mainstream edia acknowledges hat this “prominent group of British and American politicians and businessmen – any with energy nd mining interests in Zimbabwe – are behind an international organisation to und opposition to he regime of Robert Mugabe.” More interesting still, the chair of the Zimbabwe Democracy Trust, Lord Renwick f Clifton, served s the British Ambassador to South Africa from 1987 to 1991 (and then as mbassador to the United tates from 1991 to 1995), having demonstrated the weaknesses of economic anctions (in his 1982 ook of the same title) he was then placed in a crucial position to help oversee he ‘democratic’ ransition in South Africa. [6] This transition was facilitated by various emocracy manipulating iberal foundations, like the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations; so it is fitting hat Lord Renwick resently acts as the vice-chairman of investment banking for David ockefeller’s JPMorgan Europe). (Lord Renwick serves on a number of boards including those of BHP illiton and Harmony old.) Finally it is also noteworthy that Julie Doolittle, Zimbabwe Democracy rusts’ dministrator, is the wife of Representative John Doolittle (Republican-California) nd that their inks to convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff caused enough concern for their home o be raided by the BI in April 2007. Returning to the USIP report, the USIP notes that the “[t]wo major impacts” of he increased civic rganizing during the late 1990s “were the ‘no’ vote on the Constitution and the mergence of pposition politics in the form of the MDC Movement for Democratic Change].” ndeed they go on to ote that: “In 1997, several civic organizations formed the National Constitutional ssembly (NCA) to press or a constitutional reform process driven by grassroots demands and popular articipation... nlike the more collaborative strategies employed by civil society in the early 990s, the NCA dopted a directly confrontational approach to government in its demands for a ew people- driven onstitution. The strength of its organizing and its ability to fill meetings ationwide prompted government response: the establishment of a government Constitutional ommission and a parallel rocess to develop a new constitution. With the government announcement that a eferendum would be eld on the commission's draft constitution, the NCA organized a surprisingly ffective ‘no’ vote ampaign, which won 54 percent of the vote.” The USIP adds that this was the “first major defeat of ZANU-PF government”, and hey point out hat the “NCA was closely linked with the MDC, as the party's leadership had een very active ithin the NCA before 1999.” So it is very noteworthy that in 2006 the NCA eceived their first rant from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED); however, even before then he NCA had eceived ‘democratic’ support from groups like the German-based Friedrich aumann Foundation, xfam, and the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency. The NCA’s democratic’ onnections have intensified more recently, as from October 2007 until January 008, the oordinator of the South Africa office of the NCA, Tapera Kapuya, became the irst Zimbabwean to ct as one of the NED’s Reagan-Fascell Democracy Fellows. While based at the ED, Kapuya – who had ormerly been an original working-group member of the World Youth Movement for emocracy – worked o develop “new strategies and opportunities for involving youth in the struggle or democracy in imbabwe.” Controversially, Kapuya has also co-authored a report in 2006 with the head of he South frica-based Centre for Civil Society, Professor Patrick Bond – who is also an ditor-at-large for he progressive academic journal Capitalism Nature Socialism. [7] Furthermore, he report in uestion titled “‘Arrogant, Disrespectful, Aloof and Careless’ - South African orporations in frica”, was sponsored by George Soros’ Open Society Initiative for Southern frica. [8] Here it is also important to point out that the Centre for Civil Society (CCS) as even stronger democratic’ ties as the former spokesperson for the NED-connected Zimbabwe lection Support etwork (see later), Everjoice J. Win, serves on the CCS advisory board. Everjoice is also a irector of the ‘democratic’ Association of Women's Rights in Development, and s the nternational head of women's rights with Action-Aid International, a NGO that eceived more than ifty percent of their funding from the British government.) In 2003, Professor ond also ublished a chapter in a book, whose other contributors included the coordinator f the Crisis in imbabwe Coalition (see later), and the chair of Transparency International Zimbabwe) – for urther details, see footnote #5. Finally it is ironic to note that, in 2005, rofessor Bond o-authored an article with Virginia Setshedi (from the Freedom of Expression nstitute, see ater) that examined how “Trojan Horse NGOs Sabotage the Struggle Against eoliberalism.” Like the NCA, Zimbabwe’s main opposition party, the Movement for Democratic hange (MDC), is also losely tied to the democracy manipulating community. Indeed, in February 2002 onsultants from he ‘democratic’ Albert Einstein Institution met with Zimbabwean opposition roups, which included he MDC, with sponsorship for the event provided by the core NED grantee the nternational epublican Institute. While it appears the NED has not provided any direct upport to the MDC, the ED’s British counterpart, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD), has een one of the ost influential democracy manipulators in Zimbabwe. Writing in 2002, Gregory lich observed that: “WFD has been involved in over 80 projects aiding the MDC, and helped plan lection strategy. It lso provides funding to the party's youth and women's groups. The Foundation onsiders ‘the evelopment of political parties as one of the key areas for our support and ssistance,’ and in 000 it provided the MDC with $10 million. No figures are available since then, ut the flow of oney has continued unabated, and some ZANU-PF officials indicate that the MDC ad received at east $30 million by the beginning of 2002. According to analysts, the majority of the MDC's funding originates from abroad. assage of the olitical Parties (Finance) Act in Zimbabwe in 2001 made it illegal for olitical parties to eceive financing from abroad, thus requiring the MDC to be more circumspect bout the extent of ts financial support from Western sources. The need for such legislation was rgent, as the nflux of Western money was grossly distorting the political process. The ffect, however, was erely to drive such contributions into the shadows.” (See the full article for ootnotes) [9] One ‘democratic’ individual linking the MDC to the NCA is the human rights awyer, Yvonne ahlunge, who co-founded the MDC and has also served on the board of the NCA. In ddition, ahlunge was a founding member of the Zimbabwe Women Lawyers' Association and he NED-funded imbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights. In 2003 Mahlunge served as a Cape Town fellow t the democratic’ International Center for Transitional Justice. Revisiting once again the USIP report, its examination of NGO’s in Zimbabwe ontinues: “Conflicts over strategies, relationships with government and the MDC, and truggles for power ithin existing organizations have also created a demand for new forms of civil ociety activism nd cooperation. The Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition, established in 2001, is a road coalition of ore than 300 NGOs and 15 national coalitions presently working on various ronts to facilitate he development of a proactive and broad-based agenda and process for change.” Thus it makes sense that the Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition (Crisis Coalition) is lso linked to the democracy’ crowd, because in 2005 they received a grant from the NED to “hold onthly public eetings and bimonthly township meetings on issues of food insecurity, the ecurity forces, and he upcoming elections”; and to “organize a media campaign that will seek to rovide alternatives o state-sponsored media.” The following year they then received a further $50,000 from the NED to amongst ther things reduce citizen apathy in Zimbabwe by providing opportunities for public protest nd debate.” The urrent chair of the Coalition, Arnold Tsunga, is an internationally celebrated uman rights ctivist, who received the 2006 Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders, ut he is also the ice president of the International Federation for Human Rights – a group whose ork is supported y the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, Rights and Democracy (the Canadian ersion of the ED), the Ford Foundation, and the Heinrich Boll Foundation. As mentioned earlier – see footnote #5 – in 2002 (at least) Transparency nternational (Zimbabwe) hair, John Makumbe, also acted as a director of the Crisis Coalition; and the ormer coordinator f the Coalition, Brian Kagoro, presently serves as Action-Aid’s regional policy nd advocacy anager for the Africa region. Another ‘democratic’ connection is manifest in ladys Hlatywayo, an dvocacy officer with the Crisis Coalition, who in 2007 served as a Cape Town ellow at the nternational Center for Transitional Justice. Furthermore, just two years arlier, the Crisis oalition’s information and advocacy officer, Philip Pasirayi, served as fellow t the nternational Center for Transitional Justice; his link to this Center is oteworthy as he was imultaneously a member of the National Constitutional Assembly, and he had reviously worked as a eporter for the Daily News of Zimbabwe (see later), and as a media researcher or the Media onitoring Project Zimbabwe (MMPZ). While not funded by the NED, MMPZ is funded y other democratic’ bodies like the US Agency for International Development and the pen Society nitiative for Southern Africa. The Monitoring Project links to democracy anipulators are tronger still as it started as a “joint initiative of three organizations”: the edia Institute f Southern Africa (MISA)-Zimbabwe (see later), Article 19 (an organization hich between 1996 and 997 received three grants from the Westminster Foundation, and in 1997 obtained single grant rom Rights and Democracy), and the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace in imbabwe. The Crisis Coalition list their partner organizations on their website, one of hich, the imbabwe Election Support Network (ZESN), received a grant from the NED in 2004 o “train and rganize 240 long-term election observers throughout Zimbabwe” and “produce onthly reports for istribution to the media as well as the national and international community”. 10] The US Agency or International Development’s website also presently advertises how they are supporting the ESN in its efforts to ensure transparency in the electoral process for the pcoming 2008 lections.” Moreover, two of this Networks four founding members have received ED aid, the oundation for Democracy in Zimbabwe in 1998, and the Zimbabwe Human Rights ssociation Zimrights) in 2004 and 2006; while both groups have also received money from he Westminster oundation in 1997 and 1998. The chair of the ZESN is Reginald Matchaba Hove – nother “leading uman rights activist” – who in 2006 received the NED’s coveted annual democracy ward. On top of his he is the chair of the Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa, and [p]rior to 1999, he as the chairman of Zimbabwe Human Rights Association”. Another noteworthy board member of the Zimbabwe Election Support Network is ashweat Mukundu, who lso serves as the vice chairperson of the Crisis Coalition, and heads the Media nstitute of outhern Africa (MISA)-Zimbabwe. MISA was launched in 1992, and it is a on-governmental rganization with members in 11 of the Southern Africa Development Community ountries, and in 997 they received a grant from the Westminster Foundation. In 2004, ED-connected media scholar llen Hume described MISA as the “top monitoring organization in Africa” which as received 800,000 from the US government: furthermore, according to their 2005 Annual eport, MISA eceived most of their funding from European governments, as their three largest onors, in order f magnitude, were the Royal Danish Embassy DANIDA ($0.8 million), the Swedish nternational evelopment Cooperation Agency ($0.6 million), and the Royal Norwegian Embassy ORAD ($0.5 illion). In 2006 MISA-Zimbabwe received their first grant from the NED which mongst things nabled them to “host a series of four provincial meetings with the Zimbabwe nion of ournalists”. In 1999, along with Article 19 and the Catholic Commission for Justice and eace, MISA helped aunch Media Monitoring Project Zimbabwe, with funding provided by US Agency for nternational evelopment amongst others. The Media Monitoring Project works “with the Civic lliance for Social nd Economic Progress (CASEP) on social and economic issues, and the Zimbabwe lection Support etwork (ZESN) on electoral issues and the media.” Finally MISA is also listed s a collaborating rganization with the Media Foundation for West Africa (which is based in hana). Incidentally ive of the ten media groups listed as having a collaborative relationship with he Media oundation for West Africa have received funding from either the NED or the estminster oundation. Another ‘democratically’ compromised group that works closely with MISA is the outh Africa-based reedom of Expression Institute, as in 1998 the Westminster Foundation gave them grant to help hem publish ten issues of its monthly newsletter Update. Moreover, the nstitute’s website notes hat their work is supported by the aforementioned Centre for Civil Society, the pen Society oundation for South Africa, and the Open Society Initiative for Southern frica. [11] Originally ormed in 1994 through the merger of three media groups, [12] the Freedom of xpression Institute, ike the Centre for Civil Society, does not appear to exhibit close ideological inks to democracy anipulators: for example, in May 2005 their executive director, Jane Duncan, ave a talk titled Neo-Liberalism: The Media and Ideology” at a workshop organized by the Southern frica Centre for conomic Justice. Yet despite the Freedom of Expression Institute’s seemly rogressive credentials t is important that the Institute renounce their historical ties to the estminster Foundation as oon as possible, as what better way for the Foundation to legitimize it’s work han by obtaining he passive support of a progressive group like the Freedom of Expression nstitute. [13] >From the Trojan Horse’s Mouth Speaking before the before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations' ubcommittee on African ffairs in July 2007, Dave Peterson, the senior director of the NED’s Africa rogram observed hat, in Zimbabwe, the NED has been “successful in building a strong and vital rogram of support o civil society, including the media, political parties and trade unions.” He dds that: “…the question of national sovereignty is perhaps most acute here. It is not ED's mission to romote ‘regime change.’ As distasteful as governments such as that of ZANU-PF nd Robert Mugabe ay be to some, our program is committed to democratic reform, no matter who is n power. Nor is ED exporting some secret, American imperialist agenda, as is sometimes alleged. ED is strictly ommitted to peaceful, open and transparent methods of political engagement. We re guided by our artners on the ground. Every one of our grants, including each recipient and he funding amounts, an be found in our annual report and on-line. Another key aspect of the ndowment is our ndependence.” Peterson then goes on to list the NED’s “local grantees, such as the Zimbabwe lectoral Support etwork, the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights, the Media Institute, and the risis Coalition, mong others,” noting that these groups appreciate the NED’s “willingness to upport vital core osts, such as salaries, rent, and equipment, which allow groups to survive espite hardship, and nable them greater freedom to identify other sources of funding and support.” 14] The total sums f money involved are relatively speaking quite large, and while the NED istributed around $1 illion to Zimbabwean groups in 2006, since 2002 the US Agency for International evelopment has contributed nearly $600 million to humanitarian operations in Zimbabwe”. Clearly the democracy manipulators play a vital role in sustaining (some) issenting voices in imbabwe, especially those that are widely heard of in the international media. owever, this begs he questions: (1) “what is happening to those progressive activists who hallenge the government nd do not work with democracy manipulating organizations?” and (2) “are these ndividuals ilently disposed of by the Mugabe government and, if so, where is the outcry in he international ress, or are they simply ignored by all?” These are critical questions that emain unasked and herefore unanswered. It is also worth contemplating how unions in Zimbabwe might have evolved without ED interference. ince 2000 the NED has provided $0.8 million to the American Center for nternational Labor olidarity – a group which is better known as the AFL-CIO’s Solidarity Center – o work with the imbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU). [15] Peterson describes the ZCTU as arguably the eading institution of civil society in Zimbabwe”, and with no hint of irony he dds: “the ZCTU as been careful to remain non-partisan, and has also avoided direct assistance rom the U.S. overnment.” Fortunately there already exists a well developed literature ritiquing the vital ole that labor unions fulfil in promoting imperialism, so it is concerning that n July 2007 the eader of the MDC, Morgan Tsvangirai (who is also the former head of the imbabwean Congress of rade Unions), was in Britain visiting the Trade Unions Congress (TUC) eadquarters to rally upport for his political campaign against Mugabe. [16] Yet this link makes more ense when it is nown that in 1996 and 1997 the TUC themselves also received funding from the estminster oundation to undertake organizing work in Hungary, Nambia, and Russia. Human Rights Watch and Democracy Manipulators in Zimbabwe As mentioned earlier many of the groups that Human Rights Watch rely upon to ocument human rights buses in Zimbabwe are tightly linked to the democracy manipulating stablishment. This of course hould be no surprise given that Human Rights Watch’s founder, Robert L. ernstein, is currently he chair of the NED-funded Human Rights in China. Thus, in their most recent eport on Zimbabwe, nder “Police Involvement in Incidents of Intimidation and Violence against the pposition, tudents, and NGOs in 2008” they provide two examples of oppression, one of hich involves a ED-funded group. They note: “On February 14, 2008, police raided the offices of the Crisis in Zimbabwe oalition (Crisis oalition) looking for Marvellous Khumalo, advocacy officer for the Zimbabwe ational Students nion (ZINASU). Marvellous Khumalo is a student who is running for a arliamentary seat for the DC (Tsvangirai) in St Mary’s constituency, Chitungwiza, Harare. … “In another case, police beat and arrested 25 members of the organization estoration of Human ights in Zimbabwe (RoHRZ) in Harare on January 25, 2008, as they marched to rotest against epressive legislation and police harassment of the MDC.” As the second group, Restoration of Human Rights in Zimbabwe, has yet to be ntroduced within this rticle it is important to note that it is the sister organization of the ritish-based Zimbabwe igil Coalition, a group that was “set up” in 2002 by the Central London Branch f the Movement or Democratic Change after suggestions from Roy Bennett, MDC MP and Tony Reeler f the Amani rust. Later sections of the Human Rights Watch report point out that: “The independent (non-governmental) election monitoring body Zimbabwe Electoral upport Network ZESN) and nongovernmental organizations such as the Zimbabwe Peace Project ZPP) have expressed erious concerns over political interference in the distribution of free gricultural equipment under the government’s farm mechanization program) and state subsidized maize nd seed from the overnment’s Grain and Marketing Board (GMB).” Human Rights Watch refers to the two groups as providing “credible reports” wing to their stensible independence, which unfortunately only refers to their independence rom the government hey are criticising, but not from foreign governments. Indeed as mentioned lready, ZESN received ED aid in 2005, while two of the nine members of the Zimbabwe Peace Project are inked to the ED, these are ZESN and ZimRights. [17] Although the Zimbabwe Peace Project does ot have a ebsite, a web search revealed that in 2007 they received a $70,000 grant from he Canadian nternational Development Agency. Furthermore, another member of the Zimbabwe eace Project, the ivic Education Network Trust, is headed by an individual named Wellington bofana. This nformation is noteworthy because in 2003 Mbofana served as a Cape Town fellow t the ‘democratic’ nternational Center for Transitional Justice, and “sits on several boards, ncluding the Media onitoring Project of Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe Peace Project, and Zimbabwe Election upport Network”, nd he has also held a leadership role at ZimRights. Later still in Human Rights Watch report on Zimbabwe, they obtained evidence of uman rights buses from another NED-funded group, Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR). 18] Finally, in he section of their report focusing on press freedom in Zimbabwe, Human Rights atch observes hat: “The government’s determination to ensure that there is no independent daily ress is exemplified y the case of the Daily News, Zimbabwe’s only independent newspaper, which was hut down by the overnment in 2003. Despite claims by the government that it would consider the aper’s eapplication for accreditation under the new laws, the government has stalled, nd at this riting the paper’s application has yet to be heard by the courts”. This example is particularly interesting because in 2003 the Daily News won the democratic’ eporters without Borders’ Fondation de France Prize – a prize that is regularly iven to media roups (or individuals) that work closely with the NED. (In 2005, Reporters ithout Borders eceived a grant from the NED to "strengthen free press and drecrease press buse in Eritrea, imbabwe, Somalia, and Cote d'Ivoire.") The Daily News was launched by Geoffrey yarota in 1999, nd it “quickly became the largest selling and most influential newspaper” in imbabwe. Therefore, t is significant that Nyarota – who “now lives in exile in the United States rom where he ublishes thezimbabwetimes.com” – was awarded the Committee to Protect ournalists International ress Freedom Award in 2001. [19] In addition, the following year he received he World ssociation of Newspapers Golden Pen of Freedom award, from 2004 to 2005 he erved as a fellow at he US-based democracy manipulating organization the Carr Center for Human ights Policy, and he s presently a director of the ‘democratic’ World Press Freedom Committee. (The aily News closed perations in 2004 after “constant harassment by state monitors” and is now eing published by the mnesty International’s Irish section.) Finally, worth mentioning is the work of another award winning ‘democratically’ inked media utlet, Zimbabwe’s SW Radio Africa. In 2005, the British-based SW Radio Africa eceived the nternational Press Institute’s Pioneer Award – an award that is normally given o NED-linked edia outlets – making it the first externally broadcast media group to receive he award. SW adio Africa first started operating in December 2001, and according to iplomatic sources they re funded by the USAID’s Office of Transition Initiatives. Furthermore, from 005 to 2006 Violet onda, a “producer and presenter for the news section of SW Radio Africa,” erved as a fellow at he Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL) at Stanford niversity. This is articularly noteworthy because the Director of the CDDRL is Michael McFaul, an ndividual who appens to be a director of the NED’s International Forum for Democratic tudies, and is a trustee f both Freedom House and the Eurasia Foundation. [20] Ending Inhumanitarian Interventions As Edward Herman and Frank Brodhead (1985) demonstrated in their classic book, emonstration lections, the manipulation of electoral politics has long served as a vital eans to legimitate oth antidemocratic foreign policies and politicians. Yet, as Herman and rodhead note in their ook, in all cases the “public relations triumphs” of such demonstration lections only eventuate by virtue of a level of media cooperation that amounts to propaganda service.” 21] In the eyes f ruling neoliberal elites, there are ‘legitimate’ elections (e.g. Iraq) and here are illegitimate’ elections (e.g. Zimbabwe), but whatever their decision (yay or ay) the nternational media can always be relied upon to manufacture consent for their mperial masters. oreover, as this article has also shown, the development and selective support f independent edia outlets (and NGOs more generally) by ruling elites, is yet another ritical foreign policy ool that is used by Western governments’ to facilitate the ouster of unfriendly’ governments’. In part, this process of media manipulation helps explain why progressive social ovements, hallenging the status quo in Western democracies, are so regularly denigrated y the mainstream edia and politicians; while those groups whose interests are already aligned ith, more easily ncorporated into, or of marginal importance to the policy frameworks of owerful political and conomic elites are more readily supported by the media. This occurs because the edia in the West re powerful corporate actors themselves and are staunch defenders of the status uo, and their nterests are one and the same as those of transnational capitalism. onsequently, it is readily pparent that Western media systems are not fulfilling their democratic role ithin Western ocieties, and are, in fact, acting instead in ways that work to undermine opularly understood onceptions of democracy. Yet the most problematic part of this dire situation s that even rogressive activists often become sucked up into the extensive ‘democratic’ etworks and stories ropounded by the international democracy manipulating establishment. Indeed, riting in April 007, Gregory Elich reminds us that: “Western liberal-left critics demand more meddling by the U.S. and Great ritain in the affairs f Zimbabwe, under the delusion that Western-imposed regime change would be a democratic’ act. It s only corporate and elite interests that would be served, for Zimbabwe’s crime n the eyes of ashington is that it jettisoned the ruinous structural adjustment program everal years ago, ejected the neoliberal economic model and redistributed land on a more quitable basis. It is not ack of democracy in Zimbabwe that worries Western elites; it is the fact that emocracy has roduced a government that those in the halls of power in Washington and London ish to remove. hat the West wants is to overturn democracy in Zimbabwe and impose a government f its choosing.” Understanding the problems of such NED compatible delusions is of course key to ountering the nsidious influence of antidemocratic democracy manipulators on democratic ovements worldwide. owever, there are many barriers that prevent progressive activists from eveloping such nowledge, not least of which is the fact that many progressive activists and cholars see no roblem in uncritically accepting money from antidemocratic philanthropists – be t the NED or the ord Foundations – so long as there are “no strings attached.”This is of course ne of the reasons hy groups like the NED have been so successful in manipulating civil society. It should be recognized that philanthropy – be it liberal or conservative – is n fact a crucial eans by which elites exert their cultural hegemony: a process of domination hat is all the more owerful because capitalism's Left hand is truly invisible to nearly all rogressive scholars and ctivists. This ‘invisibility’ of capitalism's Left hand stands in sharp ontrast to the Right and of capitalism, which although often referred to as the invisible hand of he market, should ore appropriately be referred to as the visible hand owing to the obvious way n which apitalists must lend a hand to one another to undermine competition in the arketplace. As Nefta Freeman of the Institute for Policy Studies’ Social Action & Leadership chool for ctivists observes, Western policies against Zimbabwe “are not motivated by any esire to see emocracy or justice for the people of those countries” instead they are motivated by the need to ominate and exploit the labor and resources of those countries.” He adds: “Yet any on the estern Left cannot accept this fact.” Freeman explains why this happens: “A practical reason is that most of this Left works through non-profit rganizations or NGOs. And ecause most get their funding from, either their government, a corporate oundation, or some rich ndividual(s) with no interest in seriously challenging the system or world rder, the West has ffectively co-opted the Left by funding its activities. They then are torn etween biting the and that feeds them – that is, speaking complete truth to power – or cquiescing to merely an cceptable level of protest against them by speaking only select truths to ower.” [22] Thankfully breaking capitalism’s stranglehold over the financing of social hange can be done so ith relative ease. However, while progressive activists are usually more than appy to remove apitalism’s Right hand from their necks, they will not necessarily be lining up o loosen its eft hand, as, rather than seeing it as their executor, all too often they dentify it as their eans of support. In many ways such unreflective responses to elite anipulation can be compared o Stockholm syndrome – whereby the victim comes to identify with, support and, ndeed, love their ppressor. Thus, it is easy to understand how progressive activists, sufferering rom this yndrome, can easily fall victim to the lesser known Lysenko syndrome, which enerates a disposition to develop theories and conclusions congenial to power and rthodoxy” exerted by iberal philanthropists and has thus produced a resistance to the fact that here is a funding ilemma. Counteracting the influence of either of these syndromes first requires hat progressive oices indentify their presence in their midst. Once this is done the ‘simple’ ask that remains or all citizens is to create a vibrant civil society that relies upon good will ather than big ills. Michael Barker is a British writer based in Australia. Most of his other rticles can be found ere. Notes [1] “Outposts of Tyranny.” According to the 2006 US National Security Strategy: It is the policy f the United States to seek and support democratic movements and institutions n every nation and ulture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.” Since 2002 they bserve that US uccesses in ending tyranny include Afghanistan (where “the tyranny of the aliban has been eplaced by a freely-elected government”), and Iraq (“a tyrant has been toppled; ver 8 million raqis voted in the nation’s first free and fair election”). However, the report oes on to note hat tyrannies still exist in “nations such as the Democratic People’s Republic f Korea (DPRK), ran, Syria, Cuba, Belarus, Burma, and Zimbabwe”. [2] Occasionally less propagandistic analyses appear in The Guardian (UK), as eumas Milne wrote n 2002: “Perhaps taking its cue from the government, most mainstream British edia coverage of he Zimbabwean crisis has now abandoned even a veneer of even-handedness, as eporters and resenters have become cheerleaders for the opposition MDC.” However, as Media ens noted in a ecent interview: “People talk about the Guardian comment editor Seumas Milne as radical force – ut he won’t publish Pilger. We’ve asked Milne why and he refuses to answer. So ur best living issident – obviously one of the all-time greats - is required to write a ortnightly column in he New Statesman which reaches a few thousand people. So why is he treated ifferently to [Naomi] lein and[George] Monbiot? Because he’s honest about the media – he criticises he Guardian, he raws attention to the vital role of the entire liberal media establishment in rimes against umanity. So he is persona non grata. The same is true of Chomsky.” In April 2008, Stephen Lendman wrote an excellent article titled “Media isinformation and the BC,” which concludes by examining the “BBC's War Against Mugabe.” Also see ustralian-based eason Wafawarova’s useful work as the Zimbabwe Metro’s chief political olumnist. [3] For a detailed account of the Lancaster House Conferernce see, Jeffrey avidow's A Peace in outhern Africa: The Lancaster House Conference on Rhodesia, 1979 (Westview ress, 1984). nterestingly, Davidow who served as the head of the liaison office at the U.S. mbassy in Harare, imbabwe, from 1979 to 1982, had formerly served as a U.S. political observer in antiago, Chile, rom 1971 to 1974 (that is during the ouster of Allende), and he went on to act s the U.S. mbassador to Zambia (1988-1990), U.S. Ambassador to Venezuela (1993-1996), and s the U.S. mbassador to Mexico (1998-2001). Since 2003, Davidow has been the president of he Institute of he Americas, an organization that was “founded in 1983 to improve the pportunities for and elationships among companies and individuals who currently conduct or hope to onduct business in he Americas”. [4] In 2000 the BBC ran an article headlined “Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe trongman”, while in October 007 the Guardian was still referring to him as the “Zimbabwean strongman”. In uly 2007, the uardian in reference to a story about the government attack on Morgan svangirai, the leader of he Movement for Democratic Change opposition leader, noted: “The beating was an ct of igh-profile brutality and intimidation, even by the standards of Robert Mugabe, he 83-year-old reedom fighter turned despot presiding over Zimbabwe's accelerating implosion.” lso see Stephen Gowan’s (2008) article “State, media, and NGOs collaborate in haping public pinion on upcoming Zimbabwe elections”; and (2002) “Media using double-standard n covering imbabwe election”. In another useful article, Gowans (2002) “Mugging Magabe” otes: “Zimbabwe's itler Wages War Of Land, screamed the headline in The Globe and Mail (Toronto) f April 8, 2000.” ther interesting articles include, Alice Thompson, “Murderous Mugabe should be reated like bin aden”, The Daily Telegraph (UK), December 1, 2001; Richard Dowden, “Zimbabwe - ime for Mugabe to o?”, The Economist, January 24, 1999. [5] The website of the Zimbabwe Democracy Trust was redesigned in 2004 by webtec – “a leading rovider of multi-lingual content management systems,” who had already been orking with the Trust or four years. Swebtec have developed various pro-democracy websites for imbabwe, including that f the ZWNews (a media outlet that appears to be sponsored by the Zimbabwe emocracy Trust) and he Accountability Commission Zimbabwe. In 2004, the Director of the latter outh African-based roup was the human rights lawyer Gabriel Shumba. The previous year both abriel, his brother ishop Shumba, and MDC Member of Parliament, Job Sikhala, were arrested and llegedly tortured in imbabwe. At the time Gabriel was a member of a group called the Zimbabwe Human ights NGO Forum. t the time of Gabriel’s arrest, member organizations of this Forum included the egal Resources oundation (which obtained a grant from Rights and Democracy in 1992), ransparency International Zimbabwe), Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (which received NED funding in 005 and 2006), and imbabwe Human Rights Association (which received funding from the Westminster oundation in 1997, 998, and 2004, and funding from the NED in 2006). Interestingly, the chair of Transparency International (Zimbabwe), John Makumbe, s even cited in he American alternative media as a “respected professor of political science” ith no mention of is link to the democracy manipulating group, Transparency International. In 002 Makumbe was also board member of the ‘democratic’ Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition, and published n article titled Zimbabwe's Hijacked Election” in the NED’s Journal of Democracy. In 2003, akumbe published a hapter in Richard Cornwell’s edited collection, Zimbabwe’s Turmoil: Problems nd Prospects – a ook that was published by a group which receives funding from many ‘democratic’ ources including the British government) called the Institute for Security Studies; ther notable ontributors to Zimbabwe’s Turmoil included Patrick Bond, and Brian Kagoro who t the time was the o-ordinator of the Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition (see later). [6] As Professor Joan Rolefofs observes: “In the case of South Africa, the hallenge for Western lites was to disconnect the socialist and anti-apartheid goals of the African ational Congress. oundations aided in this process, by framing the debate in the United States nd by creating ivil-rights type NGOs in South Africa. In 1978 the Rockefeller Foundation onvened an 11-person tudy Commission on US Policy Toward Southern Africa, chaired by Franklin homas, President of the ord Foundation; it also included Alan Pifer, President of the Carnegie orporation of New York. n Eastern Europe, the 1975 East-West European Security agreement, known as the Helsinki Accords’ rompted the foundations to create Helsinki Watch (now Human Rights Watch), an nternational NGO or monitoring the agreements; Rockefeller, Ford, and Soros Foundations are rominent supporters.” oan Roelofs, “Foundations and Collaboration”, Critical Sociology, Volume 33, umber 3, 2007, .497. [7] Given the progressive nature of the journal Capitalism Nature Socialism, hich is linked to wo of the main scholars who critique liberal philanthropy, Professor Joan oelofs and Professor aniel Faber, it is ironic that Professor Bond seems not to understand the ntidemocratic nature f the company he is keeping. Last year the Centre for Civil Society reposted ne of my Znet rticles with my permission: however, at the time I was unaware of the Centre’s democratic’ ties. [8] In 2004 Tapera Kapuya published a report through Patrick Bond’s Centre for ivil Society itled, “Conditions Necessary for a Free and Fair Election in Zimbabwe.” [9] For a critical analysis of British interference in Zimbabwe, see the imbabwe Ministry of oreign Affairs report UK Policy on Zimbabwe (2004). Another useful critique of oreign nterventions in Zimbabwe is provided by the British-based anti-imperialist ewspaper Lalkar nline, see “Zimbabwe Will Never be a Colony Again” (2004). A more recent xamination Zimbabwean urrent affairs is provided in Stephen Gowans’ (2007) excellent CounterPunch rticle, “Mugabe Gets he Milosevic Treatment: What's Really Going On in Zimbabwe.” [10] On April 1, 2008, the BBC reported that: “The Zimbabwe Election Support etwork, a coalition f civil society organisations, said its random sample of poll stations ndicated Mr Tsvangirai ad won just over 49% of the vote and Mr Mugabe 42%.” [11] The Freedom of Expression Institute’s 2000-01 Annual Report also cknowledges the support hey received from the Westminster Foundation, the Friederich Ebert Stiftung, he Heinrich Boll tiftung, the Konrad Adenhauer Foundation, the Canadian High Commission, and the merican Embassy. 12] The three groups that merged to form the Freedom of Expression Institute ere the Campaign or Open Media, the Anti-Censorship Action Group, and the Media Defence Trust. [13] Unfortunately, to date the Freedom of Expression Institute has not esponded to emails sent y this author regarding their ‘democratic’ links. [14] In April 2007: “The Woodrow Wilson Center Africa Program and the Open ociety Institute osponsored a briefing with Zimbabwean civil society and opposition leaders.” he four panellists t this event were Akwe Amosu (who is the senior Africa policy analyst for the pen Society nstitute), Grace Kwinjeh (who is the Deputy Secretary for International elations for the ovement for Democratic Change), Lovemore Madhuku (who is a lawyer and chair of he National onstitutional Assembly), and Otto Saki (who is the acting Director of the imbabwe Lawyers for uman Rights). Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights has received a single grant rom the NED for 50,000 to “ensure that proper restitution reaches communities affected by peration urambatsvina, a culture of human rights is established, and the rule of law and air dministration of justice is restored in Zimbabwe.” In 2007, Roselyn Hanzi, a former consultant for Zimbabwe Lawyers’ for Human ights served as a ape Town fellow at the ‘democratic’ International Center for Transitional ustice. In addition, anzi was a former “intern at Zimbabwe HR NGO Forum and just completed an nternship at the nternational Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) in Tanzania. Ms Hanzi received er Master of Law egree (Human rights and Democratisation) from the University of Pretoria in 006, and a Bachelor f Law, with honours, from the University of Zimbabwe in 2003.” [15] The Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) received their largest NED rant worth $0.4 illion in 2006. It is also noteworthy that the ZCTU’s chief economist (and ormer Director), odfrey Kanyenze, presently serves as a director of George Soros’ Open Society nitiative for outhern Africa. Kanyenze is joined on the Open Society Initiative’s board of irectors by other democratic’ individuals three of whom include: Fidelis Edge Kanyongolo (who ormerly served as a irector of the Media Institute of Southern Africa), Elinor Sisulu (s currently he media and dvocacy manager of the Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition’s Johannesburg office, and s married to ANC ctivist Max V. Sisulu), and Immaculee Birhaheka (who was honoured with the ED’s annual democracy ward in 2006, and is also the co-founder and president of the NED-funded group, romotion and upport of Women's Initiatives). [16] Indeed as Labour Party member Laura Bruni reported in April 2007, she articipated in a demonstration outside the Zimbabwean High Commission organised by the TUC and CTSA [Action for outhern Africa to show solidarity with the Zimbabwean Congress of Trade nions.” (For further etails of the TUC’s support for the ZCTU, see here.) [17] The Zimbabwe Peace Project was formed in 2000 and is headed by Jestina ukoko. While it is nclear whether Jestina M. Mukoko is one and the same as Jestina Mukoko – she orks as the rogrammes manager of the Zimbabwe Civic Education Trust. Ironically the 2006 eport, that emonstrates that the Zimbabwe Peace Project is linked to two NED-funded groups, as titled Politicisation of Aid.” [18] Human Rights Watch noted that: “Irene Petras, the director of ZLHR, nformed Human Rights atch that two MDC freedom marches in Mutare could not take place in January hen the police ssued prohibition orders. Despite appeals, the Mutare magistrate’s court ecided to allow the arty to congregate but not to march through the town.” [19] In 2006 Geoffrey Nyaro published the book Against the Grain: Memoirs of a imbabwean Newsman, nd in 2006 he also attended the 7th International Conference on North Korean uman Rights and efugees – a conference that was also attended by the NED’s president Carl ershman. [20] The BBC’s “Zimbabwe: Media guide March 2008” points out that Reporters ithout Borders placed Zimbabwe 20th from the bottom in its 169-nation 2007 Press Freedom ndex.” The BBC report lso observes that: “The Zimbabwe chapter of the Media Institute of Southern frica MISA-Zimbabwe) said the amendments were ‘cosmetic’, as the government ‘retained he same epressive clauses that give the state the power to determine who can work as a ournalist in imbabwe’.” The report adds that: “A long-awaited ‘independent’ media regulation ody, the Media ouncil of Zimbabwe, was launched in June 2007.” The three members of this ouncil are the Media onitoring Project Zimbabwe, the Media Institute of South Africa's Zimbabwe ranch, and the imbabwe Union of Journalists. [21] Herman and Brodhead note that: “In recent decades U.S. concern over and ponsorship of lections in Third World countries has shifted markedly toward their use as ropagandistic and ublic relations (PR) instruments. Most notably, ‘free elections’ have been used o reassure the .S. home population, defuse domestic opposition, and, in effect, ratify ongoing .S. nterventionary strategies.” Edward Herman and Frank Brodhead, Demonstration lections: .S.-staged elections in the Dominican Republic, Vietnam, and El Salvador (South nd Press, 1985), . x., p.3. Also see Kenneth E. Bauzon’s (2005) excellent “Demonstration Elections and the ubversion of emocracy”. [22] It is interesting to note that the group that Nefta Freeman is linked to, he Institute for olicy Studies,which is heavily reliant upon the largesse of the liberal funders hat he ritiques. Finally, it is worth pointing out that Sam Moyo, the Executive irector of Zimbabwe’s entre for Agrarian Studies, and coeditor of the recent book Land and ustainable Development in frica (Zed Books, 2007), serves on the activities advisory committee of the nternational evelopment Economics Associates (IDEAs). IDEAs was formed in 2001, and is a network of conomists critical of the mainstream economic paradigm of neo-liberalism” whose dvisory board ncludes critical scholars like Samir Amin: thus it is noteworthy that rganisations that have funded IDEAs by providing core support or sponsoring particular activities nclude UNRISD, Ford oundation, UNDP and ActionAid." Michael Barker is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research rticles by Michael arker