Tag Archives: history

Is It Time to Break All Bonds of Fellowship?

We are currently standing in the long shadow of history. As we move through 2026, we find ourselves just a few years away from the 100th anniversary of the Great Depression (1929–2029). It’s a sobering milestone that forces us to look at the cracks in our current global foundation and ask: Are we about to repeat the same mistakes, or are we capable of a radical redesign?

The phrase “breaking all bonds of fellowship” sounds like the prologue to a dark ages revival. But in a world where old alliances are fraying, it might be time to stop mourning the “old way” of doing things and start building something that actually fits the 21st century.


The Transatlantic Wobble: US-EU Relations on the Brink

For decades, the US-EU alliance was the bedrock of global stability. Today, that bedrock is looking more like shifting sand. Relations are currently under exceptional strain, with many analysts suggesting the partnership is on the brink of collapse.

Between transactional bargaining, tariff threats, and a growing European desire for “strategic autonomy,” the “special relationship” is in marriage counseling, and the sessions aren’t going well. Europe is realizing it can no longer outsource its security and economic certainty to a partner whose domestic politics are increasingly unpredictable.

The Ghost of Isolationism

This isn’t the first time the United States has flirted with pulling back the curtains and locking the front door. The U.S. tried the isolationist policy before, most notably during the interwar period.

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 serves as a grim reminder of what happens when major powers treat global interdependence as a nuisance. It didn’t protect the American economy; it deepened the global agony. However, we have to acknowledge a hard truth: it is a different world from 100 years ago. A century ago, “going it alone” was a choice; today, with our hyper-integrated supply chains, cyber-dependencies, and shared climate risks, “isolationism” is less of a policy and more of a slow-motion economic suicide pact.


Alliances Still Matter—But They Need to Shift Shape

If the old bonds are breaking, we shouldn’t try to scotch-tape them back together. We need to reshape them. The alliances of the future shouldn’t be based on “big brother” dynamics or cold-war relics. They need to be:

  • Reciprocal: No more one-way dependencies.
  • Resilient: Built to survive political mood swings in any one capital.
  • Localized: Focused on regional strengths and mutual growth.

“If ‘fellowship’ means blind loyalty and one-sided expectations, then yes, it deserves to be broken. But if it means shared problem-solving, then we don’t need fewer allies—we need better-structured ones.”


The Europe-Africa Pivot: From Empire to Equal Partnership

Perhaps the most significant “shift” available is the relationship between Europe and Africa.

A hundred years ago, there was a “fellowship” of sorts between these two continents, but let’s be honest: it was built on empirist principles, extraction, and colonial hierarchy. It wasn’t an alliance; it was an occupation.

Today, the opportunity is entirely different. As the transatlantic link wobbles, the bridge between Europe and Africa must be strengthened—but this time, on equal, mutually beneficial terms.

Beyond Slogans: Real Trade and Skills Exchange

A modern Europe-Africa alliance isn’t about “aid”; it’s about rational statecraft.

  • Trade: Europe needs diversified supply chains; Africa needs industrial capacity and infrastructure investment that respects sovereignty.
  • Skills Exchange: Europe faces demographic aging, while Africa possesses a massive, talented youth population. If managed through safe, legal, and reciprocal pathways, this is a win-win for global innovation.

The Cultural Bridge: Speaking the Same Language

For too long, the cultural exchange has been a one-way street. Africans already share many European cultures and languages through history and education. To reach true “equal terms,” Europe must be prepared to meet Africa halfway.

It is time for European diplomatic and commercial institutions to treat major African languages like Zulu, Swahili, and Hausa with the same strategic importance as Mandarin or Spanish. Learning these languages isn’t just a polite gesture; it’s a serious investment in building trust and accessing some of the world’s fastest-growing markets.


The Verdict

We don’t need to break all bonds of fellowship. We just need to break the ones that no longer serve the reality of 2026. By moving away from the “paternalistic” models of the past and toward a multilateral, reciprocal partnership between Europe and Africa, we might just find the stability that the old world is currently losing.

The next decade will reward those who can redesign their alliances before the old ones finish collapsing. The next decade will reward blocs and regions that can:

  1. reduce single-point dependencies,
  2. build credible regional capacity,
  3. treat partnerships as two-way value creation,
  4. keep channels open even when politics gets loud.

In that world, a strengthened Europe–Africa alliance—built deliberately on mutual benefit rather than imperial memory, may be one of the most strategically sensible “new shapes” of fellowship available.


Can Federalism Save Zimbabwe? Key Insights and Challenges

1. What is Federalism?

Federalism is a system of government in which power is constitutionally divided between a central (national) government and regional (state, provincial, or territorial) governments. Both levels of government have sovereignty in certain areas.

Examples:

  • United States: States have powers over education, policing, taxation, etc.
  • Nigeria, South Africa, Germany, India: Federal structures where provinces/states have their own legislatures and constitutions to varying degrees.

Key feature: The division of powers is constitutional and cannot be easily taken away by the central government without a constitutional amendment.

2. How does Federalism differ from Devolution?

So: Federalism = shared sovereignty. Devolution = delegated authority.

3. Can Federalism work in Zimbabwe?

Zimbabwe is currently a unitary state. The 2013 Constitution allows for “devolution” (Chapter 14) but in practice, the central government retains tight control. Provinces have Provincial Councils but very little fiscal or legislative autonomy.

For federalism to work:

  • The constitution would need restructuring to guarantee provinces/regions legal autonomy.
  • Provinces like Matabeleland, Masvingo, Manicaland, Midlands would get more power over their own resources, budgets, and policies.
  • National government would focus on “federal matters” like foreign policy, defense, currency, and national infrastructure.

Challenges:

  • Political will: Current ruling elites benefit from centralization.
  • Resource sharing: How to distribute wealth from resources (e.g., platinum in Mashonaland, gold in Midlands, agriculture in Manicaland, tourism in Matabeleland).
  • Fear of secession: Federalism could be seen as a step towards breakaway states (e.g., Matabeleland grievances).

4. Will it improve the standard of living for the marginalised?

Potentially, yes – if properly implemented:

  • Local accountability: Provincial governments closer to the people may respond better to needs (water, schools, roads).
  • Resource control: Regions could manage and benefit from their own resources instead of relying on Harare.
  • Reduced marginalisation: Provinces like Matabeleland, often neglected, could design policies to directly address local challenges.
  • Economic innovation: Regions could try different development strategies instead of a one-size-fits-all policy from the capital.

But risks remain:

  • Corruption: Federalism doesn’t automatically eliminate corruption—local elites could still capture resources.
  • Capacity gaps: Some provinces might lack the skilled administrators to govern effectively at first.
  • Unequal development: Wealthier provinces (e.g., with mineral wealth) may advance faster than poorer ones. A strong revenue-sharing formula would be essential.

✅ Bottom line:

  • Federalism offers more permanent, constitutional power-sharing than devolution.
  • In Zimbabwe, it could empower regions, address historical marginalisation, and improve standards of living if linked with transparency, strong institutions, and fair revenue distribution.
  • But without political reform and safeguards against corruption, federalism alone won’t be a silver bullet.