Maputo — Milly Katana is one of 20 members of Commission on HIV/AIDS and Governance in Africa (CHGA), which was established last year by United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan. She is a long-time HIV/AIDS activist from Uganda and a founder of the Pan African Treatment Access Movement, PATAM. She shared her views on African leadership in the fight against the HIV/Aids challenge in an interview with SouthScans David Coetzee during the Commission meetings in Maputo.
One of the functions of this commission is to examine issues to do with governance in the face of the HIV/AIDS challenge. How will the commission accomplish this?
Governance is important and HIV is touching the most critical part of governance and this relates to people. Im convinced that our leaders have a critical role to play here - what are their attitudes to HIV; what do they understand of the impact HIV has on their work and their communities; what do they understand of the future of their people now that we have HIV. I see this commission teasing out those details.
I dont want us to do the economic reports that UNECA [the UN Economic Commission on Africa] does all the time, but we need to identify specific areas. We need to say: 'You President Museveni, this is where you need to put more effort; you President Mbeki, stop this nonsense - this is where you have to put the effort'.
We commissioners are free and we can say what we believe in. My job is not at stake if I tell President Mbeki that what he is doing as far as HIV is concerned is completely untrue and he needs to change. So Im looking at the commission coming up with very, very clear recommendations on the relationships between our leaders' attitudes and their actions.
Our actions depend on what we believe in - if I as a church leader dont believe in condoms then in my action strategy I will deliberately get condoms out of that package. And inasmuch as we are looking at leadership at the commission level we use the term 'Top 100' - the president, ministers and members of parliament. But I would love to expand it a bit broader to a framework of leaders at different levels.
I give an example of the leader of a health clinic - or me as an activist. Im a leader in my own work because there are people who believe in me. What is leadership but the ability to influence other people?
But what of the attitude of the national leaders?
We are dealing with denial of different magnitudes. We are dealing with denial of the fact that five million South Africans are living with HIV. That hits the president in his face - because he thinks he is powerless to do something about it. He got overwhelmed; then he decided to go underground and now we are pushing him to get up - but he has face to lose.
Is this a problem with other national leaders?
I think it is generally true, but in varying degrees and depending on somebodys past performance. My president, President Museveni, wont deny HIV because he came out openly, but some of the actions he takes are in a denialist style. If for instance he says his army is not an army of sick people because he believes so much in the army and he cant believe his army are sick people.
And because it may take resources from the army and give it to the health sector?
Exactly so it is very complex, but from this time I think we can help our leaders look to the other side, not look at themselves firstly but look to their people and the responsibility they have towards those people.