|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 Zero crisis in the African National Congress
By Reginald Gola
30 September 2008
Whatever the detractors of the South African National Congress think of the choice of Galema Motlanthe as interim president of the republic, following Thabo Mbeki’s resignation, there is no doubt that a democratic process was strictly adhered to.
Indeed, Motlanthe’s leadership qualities have shone beyond the confines of the ANC as evidenced by the multi-party reaction to his election in parliament on Thursday the 25th of September in Cape Town.
Motlanthe’s triumph didn’t only serve as a wake-up-call for those members within the ANC and opposition political parties with a narrow view, which did not go beyond former president Thabo Mbeki. The Democratic Alliance’s desperate trick to tap the prophets of doom failed, along with Joseph Seremane, the candidate they fielded to square-up against Motlanthe.
Did they really expect Seremane, a black horse rejected within the Democratic Alliance’s own ranks for the party presidency, to get the nod ahead of Motlanthe?
Not surprisingly, Seremane secured the Democratic Alliance’s fifty votes and nothing more, while Motlanthe flew high with two hundred and sixty nine votes to secure the presidency of the republic. The forty spoilt papers confirm that Seremane was not a man of presidential material.
The ANC has ridden high and kept its dignity against malicious slander thrown at it by the opposition parties. Ignorance, and there has been a lot of that of late, has seen a significant number of both opposition and uninformed ANC factions, investing much energy in malicious and sometimes, defamatory activities against the new leadership of the party.
One political clown, Bantu-Bonke Holomisa shamelessly referred to a well constituted ANC urgent meeting which finalized the re-call of the then, president Thabo Mbeki, a “kangaroo court”. This was despite the fact that it was the ANC that recruited, groomed, deployed, and re-deployed Thabo Mbeki all his life.
Hellen Zille, of the Democratic Alliance, has desperately tried to advance the doctrine of unfairness in the Mbeki affair and advocated for Mbeki’s side of the story. Zille must be told in no uncertain terms that the issue of who leads the ANC remains an internal matter, and internal proceedings.
Mbeki is a seasoned and highly respected ANC cadre who has been retired in the best interests of the organization that he has worked for all his life. Opposition parties must desist from peeping over the fences of the ruling party and organize themselves into governments-in-waiting in readiness to win the next election. A sensible pipe dream!
Hellen Zille’s is so politically naive she is not even aware that ANC president, Jacob Zuma, is a bona fide South African subject to the same constitution that governs all citizens of that country. Malice driven, she has desperately called for JZ’s head at all costs. For Zille, Jacob Zuma must be herded to the gallows with all the best available short-cuts.
The Democratic Alliance has even vowed to engage its own vodooistic legal proceedings against Jacob Zuma in the event that justice prevails in his {Zuma}’s favour. Jacob Zuma has already been found guilty before trial! This is direct confirmation that South Africa has successfully nurtured token opposition. The calibre of the current opposition is too flimsy, dangerous for governance and, therefore, the public must be protected against such.
The Democratic Alliance stance further confirms that there will be no sensible opposition in South Africa until such a time that the ANC disintegrates.
Jacob Zuma presides over a full-fledged democracy in the ANC, a democracy highly sensitive to all forms of injustice, a system that nurtured a rare breed of cadres of Thabo Mbeki’s texture; humble and loyal in both good and bad times. Therefore, he who has the power to appoint equally wields the power to disappoint without fear or favour.
ANC adversaries, such as General Bantu-Bonke Holomisa’s who stage-managed alleged massive converts to his United Democratic Party from the ANC, will always be a peripheral figures in South African politics. No wonder Bantu-Bonke has adopted cheap Robert Mugabe tactics with his baseless claim that he has managed to convert eight hundred and fifty ANC members to his party! Shame on you General Bantu-Bonke Holomisa.
The opposition has kept its fingers crossed for a possible split within the ANC. It has tried to mourn the Mbeki departure more than Mbeki himself for the sole reason of sensitizing him to what it dims as grossly unfair and humiliating handling of his resignation by the ANC leadership.
The opposition had an opportunity to call for Mbeki’s early departure over his HIV/AIDS blunder which could have received a ready and urgent international ear. The opposition also failed to meaningfully challenge Mbeki over his handling of the Zimbabwean political crisis.
And when Manto Tshabala-Msimang (nicknamed 'Dr Beetroot’) advanced her poorly researched “beetroot” thesis, the South African opposition kept on clapping hands in parliament. By the way, Dr Beetroot, has now been re-deployed to the presidency.
*Reginald Thabani Gola is a Zimbabwean political analyst, a civil society and human rights activist.
He can be contacted on Cell. 00267 75040090
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 Mugabe 'lectures' Khama on diplomacy
By Reginald Gola
22 September 2006
The Thabo Mbeki brokered Zimbabwe power-sharing deal signing ceremony between the two Movement for Democratic Change formations and ZANU PF became a great opportunity for Mugabe to reach Botswana’s president, Lt. General Seretse Khama Ian Khama directly over his uncompromising position on Zimbabwe's violent one-man presidential electoral race, and its out-come.
Mugabe and cronies were highly disturbed with the late Zambian president, Levy Patrick Mwanawasa, Liberian president, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, and Botswana’s Khama straight jacket political vocabulary on Zimbabwe. Mugabe is used to either perennial silence, or praise even where it is not due.
In the 80s, when Mugabe sent over twenty thousand Ndebele people “biting the dust” in shallow graves and disused mine pits, he continued to receive various leadership accolades and honorary degrees from across the globe. And so far those atrocities have become water under the bridge for the SADC, the African Union and the United Nations.
The brave and consistent swipe by Botswana’s minister of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation, Phandu Skelemani, and that of the Zambian Minister of Foreign Affairs against the clumsy state of affairs in Zimbabwe, and a self-anointed head of state, were considered to be a breach of protocol by the Mugabe inner-circle. To Khama, Mugabe said; “No! Presidents don’t talk just like that against fellow-presidents. In public! We talk at SADC and the African Union as presidents…”
Mugabe went outrageously astray from the occasion for the better part of his speech, and there was visible impatience or embarrasment on the faces of the delegates including his wife Grace, also known as “amai Teaspoon ye Sugar” for master-minding the cheap and false claim that Zimbabwe’s Prime Minister designate, Morgan Tsvangirai, had struggled to sell the country at a give-away price of one teaspoon of sugar to the former colonial masters.
Old age comes with impaired vision. Mugabe has failed to understand a very straight statement from the above named critics of his primitive rule. The statement was simply that Mugabe was, by then, not a head of state, but the leader of Zimbabwe’s notorious ZANU PF party; a former liberation movement that had allowed itself to sink to the level of a terrorist movement against the citizenry.
The protests against Mugabe’s dictatorship were within the provisions of all the three principal custodians of good governance, that is the SADC, the African Union and the United Nations.
President Khama and others were simply observing the provisions of the above organizations charters. Selective justice is what Thabo Mbeki comfortably, refers to as “an African victory”.
What in Rwanda, Somalia and the Sudan, these institutions have referred to as genocide, in Zimbabwe they have comfortably shifted goal posts, and referred to it in many names ranging from sovereignty, crisis, no crisis, violence requiring Mbeki quiet diplomacy, and later, “an African victory”. All that president Khama was being lectured on, was that “…Boy, if I rig the next election by whatever means that I might find fit, you must stay clear of my victory… like others do. .. Remember we are only talking twelve months away…Get me well and tell the same to that seriously indisciplined and highly undiplomatic minister of yours, … That Phandu Skelemani … Pass the word to Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, and the Zambians too…If you want war with me … please come out in the open! … I am ready…” While Thabo Mbeki would like the world to believe that what has happened in Zimbabwe is an “African victory”, a victory to be alluded to, the truth is that it is the institutionalization of “African electoral fraud”.
It is the trivialization of the electoral process. Africa, the SADC, the African Union and the United Nations framework that took fatal short-cuts to recognize Mugabe as head of state at a time that he had committed electoral fraud in broad daylight, at a time when he still wielded a machete and a bayonet against the citizenry which had democratically cast him into the political grave-yard, at a time when his hands were still dripping with fresh citizenry blood, is a shocking story and a great and grave sign of moral decay within the SADC, the African Union and the United Nations organizations.
These organizations are already borrowing excessively from the code of the jungle that govern the third world. These organizations are now over-crowded with birds of the same feather, tyrants. Mafia-type of gangsterism is so much in evidence at the SADC, the African Union and the United Nations.
It sounds impossible and unacceptable; and yet possible; and acceptable, that on losing the election, tyrants can imprison all those who dare oppose them, torture them, rape the defenceless women, kill them in horrible ways, burn their bodies and dump them in shallow graves ……intimidate their way back to power … And the SADC, the African Union and the United Nations would, very nicely, ask the offending tyrant to accommodate his democratically winning opponents in a government of national unity. {Petina Gappah, Mail & Guardian, 25 – 31 July 2008} Africa has made political nausea inflicting history over the Zimbabwean genocide. Mbeki has packaged dust-bin legacy which he calls “an African victory”.
Reginald Thabani Gola is a Zimbabwean political analyst, civil society and human rights activist. He can be contacted on 00267 75040090
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 The dynamics of Zimbabwean politics
By Silence Chihuri
05 September 2008
ZIMBABWEAN politics has always been very adaptive and fluid when it comes to dealing with difficult national questions. When the struggle against discrimination kicked off in earnest in the 1950's with the formation of the Rhodesian African National Congress in 1952, there were all the tell-tale signs that it was going to be a long and difficult process.
This is why the long walk to the independence that came about in 1980 was littered with the formation, re-formation, break-up as well as re-union of political parties and politicians alike. This was done in the search of the right leaders as well as the right calibre of movements to champion the cause for independence. On the same token the individuals as well as the political movements that were not up to the job were left on the wayside of our national politics. There are quite many of them.
When the MDC was formed in 1999 it was welcomed as a necessary political movement to steer Zimbabwe from a dictatorship to multiparty democracy. The new party was welcomed in similar fashion to the way ZAPU and ZANU had been embraced by disfranchised Africans, as liberation forces to steer the country from minority white rule to plural democracy.
Just as during the struggle against colonialism, there were bound to be splinter parties stemming out of the MDC. When the MDC split in 2005, there were at first mixed views about the reasons behind the split, among ordinary Zimbabweans. Within the party itself, supporters went either side of the divide.
People close to the MDC had to make very hard choices as to what really mattered in the national cause. This was why a significant number who had initially sided with the Mutambara MDC faction, went back to the wing of the MDC that would emerge as the main one led by founding President Morgan Tsvangirai.
When the MDC split, both factions had a somewhat fair share of party heavyweights as well as founding figures. However, in due course the weight of some of the heavy weights would be drastically reduced to lightweights.
At the time of the split, there were a lot of people who felt that Tsvangirai had not handled the whole thing properly, especially the fateful vote that set the split mode in motion as well as the after math. I was one of those people and my main bone of contention stemmed from what I thought was Tsvangirai's failure to rein in Welshman Ncube in the earlier stages, just before the split.
I was particularly incensed with the way Ncube had clearly sought to undermine Tsvangirai during their last trip to Europe and the UK while the party was still united. It was there for all to see and the members of the then MDC UK executive were clearly unhappy about that.
However, on the whole, the trip was a resounding success because we organised one of the biggest ever rallies addressed by Tsvangirai in the UK, at Friends Hall in London. But we could that the party was tottering on the brink of a split because the Secretary General and the president were clearly at logger heads. But most importantly, we could see that the problem was definitely Ncube because we had clashed with him before on other issues over which we felt he was over-arching on.
Tsvangirai was due back to the UK in the coming weeks after that animosity filled trip. I was going to be involved in organising that trip. I wanted to set things straight with him so I phoned him in Harare to discuss the trip and the other issues. I told him about the need to deal with Ncube before they came again but Tsvangirai told me that Ncube had to be left to the people to judge and only time would tell.
However, that trip never happened because the MDC split up and the rest is history. I explore this further in my impending book, Zimbabwe - The Road to Ruin. I just said to myself what sort of party president is this who won't do anything about his errant Secretary General only leaving him to the people? I asked myself, what people?
When Ncube was roughed-up by fellow MDC members, so such that he had to go into hiding for days, I wondered if that was what Tsvangirai had meant when he said he would leave Ncube to the people? As it later transpired, Tsvangirai actually meant that the people of Zimbabwe would have a referendum on Ncube's political career in their own time.
According to Tvsangirai, it was not up to him to cut short Ncube's supposedly promising career and have another Zimbabwean's political blood on his hands. Effectively Tsvangirai left Ncube to posterity. That is one thing I failed to see then but I now see very clearly because had Tsvangirai fired Ncube from his coveted post of SG, every Zimbabwean, maybe including myself, would have accused him of ending the promising career of an emerging politician.
But come March 2008, the people of Zimbabwe, Matabeleland to be specific, gave Ncube and overdue red card. I don't know how many times I told Ncube that his politics no matter how seemingly colourful, was not inspired by national advancement, but rather personal self interest. I was proven right as well because regardless of how seemingly confident Ncube was to win a parliamentary seat, he was defeated by Thokozani Khupe.
The post March 29 08 events also drew parallels between the politics of the 1970's and now. Even after the split of the MDC when I joined the faction led by Mutambara, my main reason was the stagnation of ideas in the party. I thought there was a need for a rejuvenation of ideas within the MDC! I am adamant I was not the only one who felt like that at that time. But I was equally clear that any new direction would never come from Ncube.
I made it very clear and in no uncertain terms to Mutambara when he came on the scene that if he did not deal with Ncube effectively then this whole rejuvenation and re-unification of the MDC thing would never happen.
In a matter of weeks I was satisfied that it was not going to happen and I left that faction with my colleagues and we issued a statement to that effect. Ncube was the one who was running the show and that is why there was never going to be any prospect of the two MDC factions being re-united.
But even then, I still doubted Tsvangirai's capability to be an effective leader because he had not dealt effectively with Ncube. However in March 2008 Tsvangirai's idea of dealing with Ncube was brought into full action in the form of a resounding rejection of the Bulawayo legislator by his own people. The people dealt with Ncube according to Tsvangirai's political manual.
The other faction was never about Mutambara because he was not and is still not the one in charge. Instead, it is Ncube who is in charge and this is why even after losing his parliamentary seat he is still commanding a lot of essential duties. No matter what happens from now and how the protracted negotiations between the MDC and ZANU PF would be concluded, it has been made abundantly clear that at least Tsvangirai has taken the right stance on the kind of power arrangements that need to be made between the MDC and ZANU PF, post March 29.
This is what has won a lot of former Tsvangirai doubters over to his side. At the moment there are a lot of people who do not necessarily belong to the MDC but are firmly behind Tsvangirai. These are people who were never on his side before March 2008.
*Silence Chihuri is a Zimbabwean who writes from Scotland. He can be contacted on 07706376705 or silencechihuri@googlemail.com
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 Stupid Zimbabwe talks going nowhere fast
04 September 2008
By George B.N. Ayittey
FOLKS, I don't know about you but I have been fervently ticked off by these blow-by-blow accounts of these on and off again, never-ending talks. I am so angry. An African country is being destroyed right before our own very eyes and we seem to be totally incapable of doing anything about it. So much misery, so much suffering and it is so unnecessary.
The talks have collapsed. I could crow about this, saying "I told you so." But that would be hollow or meaningless when there is massive suffering in Zimbabwe. Two questions about the talks:
What are these talks about? Land redistribution? Colonial injustices and legacies? It is about POWER. Now we know who are the real zombies who kept insisting on land redistribution, western colonialism and imperialism. They have all been fooled because these factors are NOT on the negotiating table. The talks are about POWER-SHARING, damn it.
Didn't we hear that two new MEDIATORS - one from the AU and the other from the U.N. - have been added? How come we have not heard from them and only from Thabo Mbeki? Snookered again, huh?
Albert Einstein once defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. These talks have been going for at least eight bloody years and they are still talking. Look, human patience is not inexhaustible.
But leave Mugabe alone; he is not the problem. We know what he wants. It is we in the opposition, and those who want change in Zimbabwe who are the problem. It is painful to criticize the opposition because it might sound like rubbing salt into their wounds. But we must be honest with ourselves and be willing to face the painful fact that we made some tactical blunders. We must accept this reality and readjust our strategies accordingly.
BLUNDER No. 1: Divided Opposition Front
How in hell do we present a DIVIDED opposition front to Mugabe? How, how, how? We were outfoxed when Mugabe rolled out and shepherded Arthur Mutambara to the negotiating table. What motivates Arthur more: His own personal lust for power or the welfare of the Zimbabwean PEOPLE? And if Mugabe has brought in Arthur, why didn't we call his bluff by insisting on bringing in Simba Makoni, church leaders and civil society group leaders because that's where Morgan's real power lies?
Maybe, each of the three parties - Arthur, Mugabe and Morgan - are so obsessed with POWER and distribution of cabinet positions that they don't care one hoot about the massive suffering of the Zimbabwean PEOPLE. If so, let them talk, talk, talk and talk about who gets what cabinet post and some "Charles Taylor" or "Laurent Kabila" will emerge from the bush to knock some sense into their heads.
BLUNDER No.2: Government of National Unity (GNU) is FLAWED
Sometimes, Zimbabwe's opposition leaders behave as if the country was the only one colonized by Britain. As such, they adamantly refuse to pay much attention to the experiences of other African countries and are bent on "re-inventing" the wheel.
Regarding power-sharing talks in a government of national unity (GNU), this has never worked in post colonial Africa. It never worked in Angola, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Sierra Leone, or Sudan. Even in South Africa, it lasted for only one year, when the de Klerk National Party pulled out of the ANC in 1996.
In Kenya, the GNU is in intensive care unit. The reason why GNU has such a dismal record is simple: Jostling arises over the distribution of cabinet positions. Nobody is satisfied with what they get and the wrangling continues. Everybody wants the ministry of defence and finance portfolios. To satisfy everyone, more cabinet positions are created, which inevitably leads to the swelling of the bureaucracy. Kenya now has 92 cabinet and deputy ministers!
So why should the MDC go along with GNU? Even if a GNU can be crafted, no incumbent will cede more power to the opposition leader and take a junior position. It has never happened in post colonial African history. So should the MDC even go for this?
BLUNDER No.3: Not knowing the enemy
The first rule in warfare is to know the enemy. You must know the strengths and weaknesses of your enemy. You do not, I repeat, you do not fight an enemy on the turf on which he is strongest. For example, the military has an awesome superiority in weapons but they are numerically inferior,
constituting less than 0.1 percent of the population in any African country. So you don't fight a military regime in the urban areas where they are concentrated. You s-t-r-e-t-c-h them geographically. Get it?
Let me ask you this: What are the weaknesses of the Mugabe regime? Scratching your head? So tell me this, how do you defeat an enemy when you do not know his weaknesses and are fighting him on the turf on which he is strongest? That is exactly what the MDC has been doing.
It is Mugabe who is calling all the shots. He decides when to resume and end the talks. He decides when to re-open Parliament and the MDC goes by his playbook and falls in line. This is absurd.
BLUNDER No. 4: Ineffectual opposition tactics
Of course, we all want peaceful, non-violent resolution to the crisis in Zimbabwe. Engaging the Mugabe regime in dialogue is the preferred option. But should that fail, we must have Plan B, C, or D. It seems the opposition has no such alternative plans. To be sure, street protests - as in the Philippines, Nepal or Thailand are out of the question. But are street protests the only internal options?
There are other non-violent options. Shut down the civil service. Shut down the internal transportation system. Shut down the universities. Civil servants strike, doctors strike, lecturers strike, students strike, newspapers strike, farmers strike, etc. etc.
The MDC has not considered these intern alternatives because it is wedded to an externalist strategy. Besides, it seems to be suspicious of CIVIL SOCIETY groups or other stakeholders, believing that it alone can deliver change.
Of course, we all know that the MDC faces formidable odds, not to mention the vicious attacks, beatings, imprisonment, and the torture MDC officials have endured. At least, four attempts have been made on Morgan's life. We all remember his swollen face and lacerations after he was severely beaten up in 2006. All that is etched in our collective memory.
Nonetheless, we have to be honest with ourselves. This crisis erupted in 2000 and since then, the PEOPLE have patiently waited for change or an improvement in their living conditions. But nothing has been achieved by the opposition. And patience is not inexhaustible. If the MDC can't deliver, the
people will start looking elsewhere.
The MDC needs to do some serious "soul-searching" - a self-critical analysis. Its tactics aren't working. A clear distinction needs to be made between an objective and the tactics or means of achieving that objective. Criticizing a tactic as ineffectual does not mean one is opposed to the objective.
The current MDC tactic is flawed. It seems to rest solely on seeking recognition of Morgan's March 29 electoral victory from African leaders, SADC, regional leaders and the broader international community, as well as support from the same to pressure the Mugabe regime to cede power to the
MDC-T. There are so many problems with this strategy:
It is externally-oriented. Quite apart from the diplomatic hoops such a strategy must jump through - for example, the risk of being seen as interfering in the internal affairs of a sovereign country - rare has been the case where external factors instigated political change in a post colonial African country. Beginning in the early 1990s, ALL political changes in Africa occurred from within. Even though the West eventually imposed sanctions against apartheid South Africa, change in that country came from within when the Convention for a Democratic South Africa (CODESA) was convened.
The logistics of securing international sanctions, condemnations and embargoes are daunting. How long do you think it would take the United Nations to impose sanctions against the Mugabe regime, assuming no country would veto that resolution? How long do you think it would take, say the U.S.or Britain, to send a "Kissinger" to talk Mugabe out of power? Since Zimbabwe is land-locked, the most effective sanctions would be AFRICAN. Neighbouring counties can seal their borders, cut communication and power lines. But how long do you think it would take the neighbouring countries to do this? 10, 20 years? No, till hell freezes over.
SADC, AU, and African leaders are totally hopeless and useless when it comes to effecting political change in another African country. Do I even have to say this? If you know this already, then what is the point of going to these bodies and leaders for help in effecting change in Zimbabwe?
Even then, international sanctions don't move dictators. They never toppled Saddam Hussein, Kim Il Sung of North Korea, Castro of Cuba, Abacha of Nigeria, Ghaddafi of Libya, among others.
Rarer still is foreign intervention. The only occasion the United Nations intervenes is when an African country has totally collapsed: Somalia (1992), Liberia, Sierra Leone, Congo DR. Three cases of African intervention may be noted: Libya into Chad (1976), Tanzania into Uganda to topple Idi Amin
(1978) and Ethiopian into Somalia (2006). Zimbabwe hasn't totally collapsed, nor is any neighbouring willing to invade.
For the MDC to stick bull-headedly to externally-driven forces for change in Zimbabwe is insane. Morgan keeps hopping around from one African capital to the next, achieving NOTHING, except tepid assurances of support and sympathy.
Time is not on the side of the MDC. People are rapidly losing faith in its ability to deliver change. And if people lose faith in the MDC, they will start "looking elsewhere" - even at rebel leaders.
*George Ayittey is a prominent Ghanaian economist, author and president of
the Free Africa Foundation in Washington DC.
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 Zimbabwe - the plan comes unstuck
By Eddie Cross
28th August 2008
When MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai refused to sign the agreement already approved by both Mugabe and Mutambara two weeks ago, it is certain that the one person who was not surprised was Mugabe. He knew from the beginning that Tsvangirai would never agree to the post of Prime Minister with responsibility but no power.
In fact the wily old devil had been negotiating for a long time knowing that when the final crunch came, Tsvangirai would walk away.
But the plan started to unravel before he had any opportunity to gloat. The MDC did not just refuse to sign but put in an alternative that in their view was practical, consistent with the outcome of the March 29th elections and workable. The second development was that Mr. Mbeki did not automatically endorse the idea of a unity government between Zanu and the Mutambara faction of the MDC. Instead he said that the problem would go to the SADC summit that weekend for arbitration and that he would go on from there.
Even so Mugabe was still confident - he knew how to handle his detractors in the SADC and was a past master at subterfuge. At the summit Tsvangirai ran into a situation where he faced not just a recalcitrant Mugabe, but also Mutambara and Welshman Ncube who made it clear, in both the plenary and the closed sessions that they were backing Mugabe in this situation. They argued that we were being unreasonable in not signing the deal as they had already done and that if Tsvangirai continued to refuse to sign up, they would go into a unity government with Zanu PF.
Mutambara played the role of "power broker" claiming that he held the balance of power between Zanu and the MDC and would use that influence to ensure that a unity government under Mugabe would have a majority in Parliament. As you can imagine this created severe difficulties for Tsvangirai and his team as well as for our many friends in the region.
So the SADC summit decided to test the Mugabe/Mutambara hypothesis and get them to convene Parliament and see who ended up controlling the House of Assembly. Mbeki called for the formal opening of Parliament and in 10 days this was put into effect. After a delay of 5 months Parliament was called and on Monday the new Members of Parliament and the Senate were sworn into office.
The issue at stake was quite simple - who controlled a majority in the lower House and therefore the third arm of the State? Behind the scenes activity was intense. Both Zanu and the MDC Mutambara held caucuses with their representatives and tried to whip them into line. Threats were made against those expected to rebel against the Party line and the regime pulled out all the stops to try and whittle down the MDC majority. They attempted to bribe MP's they issued warrants of arrest against others and there were blatant attempts to threaten and intimidate.
The MDC went to great lengths to protect their legislators - people in hiding were given security and moved to safe houses, MP's were ordered to switch accommodation at the last minute to ensure their safety overnight. On the day, those MP's who were under threat (15 of them) were transported to the Parliament and then smuggled into the building via a back door.
Those using the front door, even with diplomats watching, were arrested - one escaping and making it into the building and the other two being hauled off to the Central Police Station. We managed to get one out of police custody in time for him to be sworn and to vote, but we were one short when we convened at 10.00 hrs.
After the swearing in, we were asked to elect a Speaker by secret ballot.The atmosphere was electric - the tensions between the MDC, many of whom were new, and the Zanu PF benches were palpable.
Zanu PF were supremely confident. I voted and then walked out of the building with a Zanu PF
legislator. He said to me: "You know what is happening in there?" he pointed back at the House."You are going to lose this vote, we have bought many of your people and you cannot win against a disciplined Zanu-PF!" I grunted in reply: "Wait and see".
At 13.30 hrs the place erupted - MDC had won the vote for Speaker by 110 votes to 98. We then went on to elect his deputy and this was also MDC. We now controlled the lower House and the Parliamentary Committees. Under our
constitution the Speaker is the third most important post in the country. When the President is incapacitated he acts as the President until a new President is elected. Zanu PF was completely stunned - it was their first defeat in the House for 28 years.
The majority of the Mutambara MP's and 4 Zanu PF legislators voted for our candidate. The first major defection by Zanu PF legislators since we entered the fray in 2000. It gave the MDC control of the House and a clear response to the question raised by the SADC leadership. It also meant that Mutambara is probably finished politically and that Mugabe's plan to form a unity government with him and to then move on without Tsvangirai, controlling a majority in the House that Zanu PF could gradually increase by eliminating MDC legislators, in tatters.
Mbeki was not long in responding and called for the talks to resume to deal with the remaining issues. There is not a great deal to talk about - 98 per cent of the agreement has been wrapped up and it's just the central aspect of the power and authority of the Prime Minister and the issue of the governors and the special Senate seats (5) that are outstanding.
Mugabe must now face his regional mentors against the background that he has lost an election, held a run off election that was not recognised by the region and is in limbo politically. He has also now lost control of the Lower House and faces grave difficulties in securing support for his legislative programme, including budgets.
It would appear that the plan for a unity government has more or less collapsed. Mugabe was holding back two Senate seats and two governor positions, I suspect as rewards for Mutambara and Ncube. I also hear that Emmerson Munangagwa was set to be appointed to the watered down position of PM and that they would then implement the deal and claim legitimacy from the SADC process. Instead they are again thrown into the lion's den with a hungry, angry lion and no defence.
Eddie Cross is a Zimbabwe member of parliament for the Movement for Democratic Change |
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 OPINION
Mugabe's power ploy
By Richard Dowden
July 26 2008
It is clear what Robert Mugabe wants to see from the talks with the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) that began in South Africa on Thursday. On December 27 1987 he sat down with Joshua Nkomo, the leader of the Zimbabwe African People's Union (Zapu) and signed a unity accord. It followed seven years of sustained violence against Nkomo's party in which some 18,000 people died.
The creation of a government of national unity made Nkomo vice-president. Three Zapu leaders were given cabinet posts. They might as well have been hamsters in a cage on Mugabe's desk.
This is what Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the MDC, must remember as he sits down at the talks. Like Nkomo, his party has been battered, with many of his MPs dead, in hiding or facing charges, and more than 1,500 officials in prison.
The mediator, Thabo Mbeki, and other African presidents would be happy with a deal similar to the 1987 accord. But will the MDC be able to arm-wrestle a deal that leads to Mugabe stepping down or to free and fair elections - or even a joint Mugabe/Tsvangirai control of the state and its security apparatus? The question, as Humpty Dumpty said, is: who is to be master?
Much is being made of the Kenyan model forged earlier this year when the country exploded after a stolen election. Raila Odinga, who most neutral observers considered to have won, accepted the post of prime minister under Mwai Kibaki's presidency. But Kenya is different.
The security apparatus remained largely unengaged, if not neutral, in Kenya's violent January. Kibaki is no Mugabe, and Kenya's politicians are more cynical. In return for a slice of the power pie, they traded in their loyalty to principles and voters.
In Zimbabwe everyone in the power structure has been appointed by Mugabe, all are loyal members of Zanu-PF. Several of the military and security bosses have pledged their refusal to allow Tsvangirai to come to power. Their "right to rule" comes not solely from their "conquest" of the country by war against white rule, it is also because many Zimbabweans voted for them.
In the March parliamentary elections, Zanu-PF gained more votes than Tsvangirai's MDC. Even discounting rigging and bullying, the unpalatable fact is that there is still popular support for Mugabe and those around him.
Is it conceivable that some time in the near future - two weeks to complete the talks is an unlikely deadline - prime minister Tsvangirai will say to Emerson Mnangagwa, the man who organised the reign of terror since the March election, that it is time to retire? Could he tell General Philip Sibanda that he is no longer head of the army?
Miracles of reconciliation, peace and power-sharing have happened before in Africa but this is not credible. Mugabe and his cronies have allowed the country to be destroyed in order to hold on to power. Talks, for Mugabe, are not about reaching a compromise, they are a time-wasting ploy while he prepares for more war, or a tool for retaining - even extending - power.
What strengths does Tsvangirai have? The support of millions of Zimbabweans and a stubbornness that the flaky Nkomo lacked. Support from western countries is a double-edged sword. They provide financial, technical and diplomatic support but they also give Mugabe a cause - anti-imperialism – to unite his allies. And their power is waning.
The Chinese and Russian veto of the American UN security council resolution calling for sanctions against Mugabe last week marked the full stop at the end of the west's exclusive post cold war domination of Africa. They cannot rescue Zimbabwe.
Much weight was put on the rest of Africa in sorting out Zimbabwe but the African Union ducked its responsibilities at its summit in Egypt last month and passed the buck back to Mbeki. His power as president of South Africa is ebbing daily.
The African National Congress, now dominated by allies of Jacob Zuma, is removing Mbeki's allies from positions of power and is setting up a parallel ANC negotiation. In the next few months we may see South Africa begin to take the Zimbabwe crisis seriously.
But can Zimbabwe's economy wait? It is sliding quickly into subsistence and starvation with guns and mobiles. There are no buffers, just endless decline. Tsvangirai knows that confidence and financial support will not return without his say-so. But the ruling elite are not troubled. Some make good money out of Zimbabwe's ruin.
They are shifting their money overseas; sending the Zimbabwe dollar on down. They can always bring a little foreign exchange back and buy a few trillion dollars to pay servants and purchase food and black-market fuel. The only question is how long the government can produce money to pay its troops, police and thugs?
For different reasons, both sides may play for time. At present whatever moral and political strength Tsvangirai has, Mugabe is in power. Unless something inside Zanu-PF happens to unseat him, the battle for democratic change in Zimbabwe is far from over.
*Richard Dowden is director of the Royal African Society. His book: Africa Altered States, Ordinary Miracles is published in September
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 UK’s cruel snub to exiled Zimbabweans
By John Sentamu, Archbishop of York
July 13, 2008
We pass them on the streets and sit by them on the bus, but most of us are unaware that across Britain today are thousands of people who have fled Zimbabwe because of the brutal atrocities of Robert Mugabe's regime.
Those Zimbabweans who have come to Britain are among millions who have fled their country in fear of their life and who dare not return. They are doctors and teachers, farmers and businessmen.
They are people who want to work, who want to restore some dignity to their families, who want to return home when Mugabe - as he surely will be – is finally kicked out of office.
I know of one teacher who has been here for four years, living hand to mouth, thanks to the charity of church communities. When he applied for
asylum he was turned down because nobody believed things were as bad as he claimed.
Today, while we now see he was telling the truth, he is in limbo, neither able to return home nor to make a home here. For at least 50 others it is even worse, they are in detention - one has been incarcerated for two years. This threatens to make our government's protestations about conditions in Zimbabwe sound hollow.
Russia and China have now vetoed United Nations sanctions against Zimbabwe, and the African Union must act to ensure that a new imperialism from such countries doesn't exploit the situation in Zimbabwe. And while I applaud Gordon Brown for keeping up the pressure in the international community to isolate the Mugabe regime and end the abuses of its people, there is a saying that "he who comes to court must come with clean hands".
If Britain calls for sanctions against Zimbabwe, which I support, it must at the same time do right by those Zimbabweans who have fled to this country. What kind of humanity is it that says, grudgingly, you can stay here if it's impossible to return home, but you must lose your dignity? You may be skilled, willing and energetic, but you must do nothing. Why should exiled Zimbabweans be compelled to twiddle their thumbs when they could be contributing to Britain by being allowed to work?
"Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' " said Martin Luther King. "Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' Vanity asks the question, 'Is it popular?' But conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' " Acting to restore the dignity of exiled Zimbabweans may not be politic or popular but it is the right thing to do.
Of course we must distinguish between criminals who have fled here – and must be deported - and those who have exhausted the asylum system. We should give those people a year and a day's leave to stay, so that they can escape this dehumanising limbo, find education and employment, and prepare to return on the day that Mugabe is gone.
When Ian Smith declared independence for Rhodesia in 1965, I was a student attending a church conference with Yoweri Museveni, who today is president of Uganda. We were outraged at what Smith had done and Museveni went to see the leader of the conference, saying we must protest. He was told that this is not what Christianity was about, we were there to learn about Jesus and the Bible.
Museveni said if we could not protest, then we were leaving, so three of us left. I have been working for the freedom of the people of that country ever since, the breadbasket of Africa which Mugabe has turned into a basket case.
It is sickening to watch Zimbabwean judges refusing to hear Morgan Tsvangirai's case that the elections have been rigged, when they know
perfectly well they were. To see Mugabe taking an oath of office while holding the Bible is little short of blasphemous. But if this is corrupt religion, there are many courageous people of faith in that country who have not come under Mugabe's spell. Some are bishops who will be here soon for the Lambeth conference of the Anglican communion.
The media will inevitably focus on divisions around human sexuality but most of our time will be spent discussing global justice for the poorest countries, the environmental crisis and how people of different faith traditions relate to each other. These bishops represent thousands of unsung heroes and heroines in Christian communities around the world who are working for justice every day, often at great personal risk. They believe, as I do, that justice will come to Zimbabwe too.
Mugabe was right when he said that only God could remove him. No tyrant lives for ever. No cruel regime lasts. God puts down the mighty from their seat and raises up the humble and meek. And he uses ordinary people to do this.
Mugabe will not last. I vividly remember another tyrant, Idi Amin. He butchered many of my fellow citizens but is long gone and Uganda is on
course to a peaceful future. That will happen for Zimbabwe too.
In the meantime we in Britain must ensure no Zimbabwean is destitute on our streets, must provide them with dignity until they can return home. Jesus never called the Samaritan "good", that was just what he became known as later. But now is the time for Britain to become a good Samaritan to the people of Zimbabwe. For anyone who is in need is my neighbour.
*Ugandan born, John Sentamu, is the Archbishop of York, in the UK
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 We will reject GNU rooted in genocide - Mutambara
By Arthur G.O. Mutambara
19 June 2008
Robert Mugabe's political strategy in Zimbabwe is very clear. He wants to win the Presidential run-off on the 27th of June 2008 by any means necessary, and at any cost. The brutality of the methods and tactics being employed has been extensively documented.
The key elements include political violence, intimidation of opponents, displacement of voters, elimination and harassment of polling agents and party campaigners, and arbitrary arrests and incarceration of political leaders.
There is electoral cleansing taking place in Zimbabwe. Opposition activists, members of civic society and ordinary citizens have borne the terrible brunt of this brutality.
Mugabe strategy
After winning the run-off, Mugabe will not only control the Presidency, but the Senate as well. According to Section 33 of the Zimbabwean Constitution the institution of Parliament consists of two structures, the Senate and the House of Assembly. The two MDC formations working together hold the majority in the House of Assembly with 109 seats versus 97 belonging to ZANU-PF, which is now the new opposition.
In the Senate, the combined MDC strength is equal to that of ZANU-PF at 30 seats each. Hence, of the total 270 elected seats in both the House of Assembly and Senate, the two MDC formations have a 12 seat majority over ZANU-PF. In this regard, they hold claim to the moral authority of representing the will of the people.
However, in addition to the 60 elected Senators, the Zimbabwean constitution gives the person elected as President the power to appoint up to 33 members of the Senate: 10 Provincial Governors, 18 Chiefs, and 5 extra Senators. It is clear therefore that the balance of power in the combined Parliamentary institution consisting of the Senate and the House of Assembly depends on who is elected as President. If Mugabe wins, ZANU-PF will overturn MDC's elected majority.
In addition to controlling the Presidency, ZANU-PF will effectively control the Senate with 63 legislators against the combined MDC strength of 30. The ZANU-PF majority of 33 in the Senate will wipe out the MDC's majority of 12 in the House of Assembly. This is why Mugabe is obsessed with winning this Presidential run-off come hell, come sunshine.
From this position of strength, ZANU-PF and Mugabe will then want to engage the opposition as weak junior partners, even though the MDC collectively enjoys majority support of the electorate. They will not negotiate now, before the run-off, because they are in a much weaker position. They lost their parliamentary majority and Mugabe came second in the 29th March 2008 harmonized elections.
The bargaining power obtained from winning the run-off is so critical to them. With this victory, they might even dangle a Mugabe departure, where his successor from ZANU-PF is elected national President by a joint sitting of the House of Assembly and Senate in which they will have a majority of 21. The Mugabe exit will be meant to pacify those in the international community who view Mugabe as the symbol and personification of the Zimbabwean crisis. This is the ZANU-PF political strategy.
The parliamentary succession is provided for by Amendment 18 to the Zimbabwean Constitution. This is why individuals who are keen to succeed Mugabe through this arrangement are orchestrating his violent re-election. While they are trying to protect themselves from prosecution for corruption, human rights violations and crimes against humanity, they are also driven by unbridled ambition and self interest. Unfortunately they are compounding their risk as they pursue the retention of power at any cost.
It is abundantly clear that there are efforts to steal the Presidential run-off by any means necessary. Mugabe has already threatened war in the event of his electoral defeat. The challenge is what are we going to do if Mugabe and ZANU-PF impose themselves on the people of Zimbabwe? What is the appropriate response to the ZANU-PF strategy by Zimbabweans, Africans and the international community?
If Mugabe, whom we charge with committing violations of human rights in pursuit of political power, cannot ensure a free and fair election, SADC, AU and the international community must hold him accountable. The winner of an unfair and unfree election must be under no illusions with respect to the implications of such criminal conduct.
Those that govern must do so with the consent of the governed. The will of the people must be sovereign. Consequently, the victor in a fraudulent vote will neither have the legitimacy to govern, nor receive recognition internally or externally. There should be neither recognition nor support from SADC, AU and the international community for such a criminal and failed State. More importantly we, as the Zimbabwean opposition, will not recognize a national leadership produced by a fraudulent process.
We will not enter into any negotiations with such an illegal regime. There will be absolutely
no compromise, retreat or surrender on this position. No one should force the Zimbabwean political parties, who won a majority of the votes in the 29th March 2008 elections, into negotiations with an illegitimate ruler. We hope that Mbeki and other African leaders are listening carefully and understand our disposition clearly. We mean what we are saying, and we will walk the talk.
SADC, AU and the international community should not even contemplate coming to us after the almost certain fraud on the 27th of June 2008. There will be no engagement with an illegal government. We will not give legitimacy and dignity to the illegal regime by seeking an accommodation with them. They will run the country on their own. They will have to salvage the collapsed economy on their own. Zimbabweans will not accept a government of national unity (GNU) rooted in illegitimacy and accomplished through genocide.
The international community, AU, SADC and SA must understand this without equivocation or ambiguity. The Zimbabwean opposition will never be part of such a shameless betrayal of values and principles. What we believe in is an inclusive government based on a free and fair poll. Nothing else is acceptable.
SADC, the AU and the UN must clearly indicate and explain to the Mugabe regime the consequences of a stolen election, as outlined above. The key message should be that there will be neither recognition nor support. There will be total isolation. This communication must be done both privately and publicly. The personal liability, with respect to national and international laws, of individuals who are directing and executing the violence in Zimbabwe should be clearly articulated.
When all is said and done, Zimbabweans shall be masters of their own destiny. We cannot outsource the management of our public affairs to foreigners. We must close ranks in this darkest hour. The pursuit of a peaceful, prosperous and democratic Zimbabwe requires the involvement and commitment of every citizen.
The starting point is working together to ensure that the outcome of the upcoming election is accepted by all Zimbabweans, both winners and losers. Clarity about the meaning of, and the response options to, a stolen election is imperative. History will never absolve us if we equivocate and prevaricate. The outside world can only help us help ourselves.
The Struggle Must Continue.
*Arthur G.O. Mutambara is the president of the other faction of the Movement for Democratic Change. The other faction is led by MOrgani Tsangirai
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 Mugabe gearing up to steal the election
By Douglas Alexander
08 June 2008
I BELIEVE there is a duty for the strong to help the weak; that to walk by on the other side is just not an option. Thankfully, after 10 years in which development and the alleviation of poverty have been at the heart of the British government's agenda, nobody can accuse the people of this country of that crime.
And yet Robert Mugabe, having dragged his country down into the slough of poverty and deprivation, is compounding this. His people are suffering. The international community stands ready to help and indeed has been helping. And now, having abused and impoverished his fellow Zimbabweans, he is blocking the help they so desperately need. Having tried to crush his people he is now denying them a cure.
Up to four million people in Zimbabwe rely on food aid supplied by international aid agencies. By ordering those agencies to suspend their operations, Mugabe is putting lives at risk. He is, quite simply, using hunger as a political weapon as he tries desperately to cling to power. This deliberate decision to target the poorest and most vulnerable people is beyond contempt.
All this comes at the end of the week when Mugabe had the effrontery to try to lecture world leaders at the international food summit in Rome. I travelled back to Glasgow this weekend from that meeting and talks in Cape Town with the South African finance minister, Trevor Manuel, and the president of the ANC Jacob Zuma. In my discussions I stressed the need for aid agencies to be allowed free and unfettered access to the people most in need.
The truth is that, despite his claims in Rome, Mugabe's ruinous land reforms have brought Zimbabwe to its knees and left his people in desperate straits. Once the breadbasket of southern Africa, the fertile soil of Zimbabwe now lies fallow, untended and unfarmed.
Mugabe blames the collapse of agriculture on Britain, the old colonial power. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Department of International Development spent £40m on humanitarian aid last year - bypassing the abhorrent regime to deliver help to the people.
Most international aid is delivered by non-governmental organisations, such as Oxfam and Save the Children. But, in past weeks, the security forces have made it nearly impossible for the aid agencies to do their job. The reason is simple: if Mugabe can limit the access of foreigners to large swathes of the country, he can also limit the information reaching the outside world.
That would mean the appalling violence and intimidation which is scarring preparations for the run-off in the presidential elections could carry on without fear of consequences. The suspension of aid is a deliberate political strategy. At the same time, opposition activists are being beaten up and Mugabe's opponent Morgan Tsvangirai faces constant harassment.
British and US diplomats trying to check reports of intimidation were this week blocked from doing their work.
No wonder the Zimbabwean government has still not said it will let independent observers monitor the long delayed final phase of the elections. The game plan is obvious: Mugabe and his henchmen are gearing up to try to steal the election. No amount of recounts could change the result of the first round voting. That left the opposition Movement for Democratic Change as the biggest party and gave Tsvangirai a clear lead over Mugabe.
The result clearly stunned Zanu-PF, which has governed since independence in 1980. But its hardline leadership was not ready to release its hold on power.
Over the coming weeks the crisis is likely to get worse. If Mugabe wins the run-off, I fear for the future of his people. They are the real victims of his despicable political manoeuvring. In the coming days, Britain and the international community will continue to do all we can to keep aid flowing.
We will work with our partners in the EU and the UN to ramp up the pressure on the regime to allow the aid agencies to feed the hungry. We will continue to press for international observers to be permitted to monitor the elections and we will continue to encourage the efforts by neighbouring countries to seek a solution to this crisis.
As he has become more despotic, Mugabe has shown even greater disregard for his citizens. It doesn't have to be this way.
We in this country and the international community are not walking by on the other side - yet Mugabe seeks to push us aside. Our aid is not for him, but for the Zimbabweans he makes suffer. But he will find our path is straight and our resolve will not be deflected.
Douglas Alexander is the UK's International Development Secretary
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 South Africa 2008: Xenophobia unpacked
By Mutumwa Mawere
23 May 2008
The celebration of Africa Day provides yet another opportunity to reflect on what it means to be an African and for whom is the continent intended to serve.
South Africa is the youngest country in Africa and yet it has only taken 14 years to expose the extent to which the notion of African citizenship is contestable and perishable.
When one thinks of who is truly a South African, the answer is complex reflecting the historical, psychological and cultural dimensions of the matter.
A white person from Poland, for example, is readily assimilated into the South African society than a Mozambican born black African.
The recent black on black violence in South Africa may ultimately be a symptom of a deep seated problem that may have its roots in the foundation of the colonial and apartheid state. At the core of the apartheid state was the proposition that civilization had a racial context and content to the extent that a black person’s contribution to nation building was marginalized.
Accepting this proposition necessarily creates real and devastating consequences for black Africans who may be as adventurous as their white colleagues to cross borders and sell their services in countries that the colonial system did not define as their authentic home.
In terms of migration of black Africans the post colonial experience has not elevated their status and standing to the extent that xenophobia becomes a real and significant threat to the creation of a United States of Africa.
Who is an African? It may at face value be a simple question but it is at the core of the dispute in South Africa whose relevance is not restricted to South Africa. South Africa is not the first country in Africa to expose its violence against black born in sister African countries. But what makes the current situation in South Africa important is that the country is too important economically and politically in advancing the African project for anyone to ignore the implications arising from the black on black violence.
To date in South Africa the only violence targeted at whites has been largely defined as criminality and hence the elevation of crime as one of the single most important variable in contemporary South Africa.
The migration of black Africans to South Africa is not accidental as was the migration of white people from Europe. Whereas Europeans are generally perceived to add value to nation building their black counterparts are largely regarded as parasites.
South Africa has provided an African home to many prominent Africans who would otherwise have been domiciled in traditional destinations for diaspora Africans i.e. Europe, Australian and the Americas.
It is not in dispute that such Africans have brought with them capital, skills and experience. Furthermore, they do contribute to the fiscus for the debate on xenophobia to be misconstrued as if blacks have not added value to the success of the post apartheid state.
The history of South Africa and the peculiar role of black South Africans in it have created a distorted and dualistic economic structure whereby black skills were not developed deliberately to create a permanent need for white skills.
It has been recognized that for South Africa to grow, it requires an infusion of skills and yet a logic seems to have developed that such skills should not be in the form of fellow black Africans.
Although the post colonial Zimbabwean experience has produced an absurd outcome it cannot be denied that valuable skills needed for any country in South Africa’s condition have been created at great social and economic cost. Such skills are universally portable and it is not surprising that South Africa has been the major beneficiary.
What is significant is that notwithstanding the 3 million Zimbabweans living and working in South Africa, no attempt has been made to organize such a constituency into a political force in the country in as much as the Jews, for example, in America have organized themselves.
About 20% of the Zimbabwean population has its roots from South Africa in as much as a significant proportion of the South African population has its roots from other African nations. If the ugly face of xenophobia demonstrated so far in South Africa is allowed to take root, it poses a threat to many South African businesses that have targeted the rest of the continent as a market for growth.
If South African mining, commercial and industrial groups who have the luxury of exporting their skills are then prevented from doing so as a reaction to xenophobia, I have no doubt that this will not be in the interests of South Africa.
The apartheid system had its own rational in terms of the living arrangements between blacks and whites. It was and still remains unthinkable for black and white people to live together in the same townships. The distance between large black townships and white suburbs shows the extent to which whites were aware of the potential danger of living close to blacks and thereby expose poor blacks to the extent of their economic gains and affluence.
What seems to be a problem is that most of the black immigrants have no system in place to allow them to choose where they can live and as such they are easy prey to their local black citizens.
What makes the xenophobia issue so complex is that we still have black African Presidents who argue that their country’s resources must be reserved for indigenous nationals? If this argument is accepted then the seeds of xenophobia must be rightly located in the reckless language of African politicians.
It is also significant to note that even in the case of South Africa if there were no Zimbabweans taking the few jobs such jobs would be available to blacks and not given to other foreigners.
The post colonial experience has further exposed the hypocrisy of African political economy in that non-black foreigners are readily embraced to exploit natural resources while blacks are targeted and in many cases externalized.
Who owns Africa’s resources? I am confident that if the real construction of Africa’s wealth was known the nature and context of xenophobia would take a different tone.
English people in South Africa created Old Mutual in 1845 and the Afrikaners got angry and created their own Sanlam but in post colonial Africa, we still have to witness the positive anger of black Africans and may be one day in our lifetime we will see the emergence of an inclusive black mutual.
*Mutumwa Mawere is a businnessman who lives in South Africa.
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 Democracy is not a privilege
By Pallo Jordan
19 May 2008
In the ANC's continuing interaction with the political parties in Zimbabwe, we have warned against the subversion the rule of law as we have about the heightening of tension.
We have also warned against the temptations of recklessness that could easily precipitate armed conflict. We have consistently appealed to the values and norms that the national liberation movement in Zimbabwe waged struggle to attain - the values of democracy; accountable government; the rule of law; an independent judiciary; non-racialism; political tolerance and freedom of the media.
Not a single one of these values was observed under British colonial rule, let alone under the UDI regime of Ian Smith and his cronies. We consider it a scandal that they are now being undermined by the movement that struggled to achieve them.
Consequently I was deeply shocked, if not alarmed, by an article on Zimbabwe from the pens of Eddie Maloka and Ben Magubane carried in City Press on Sunday 4 May 2008.
I was shocked by the suggestion of the two authors that the criteria we normally employ in judging the behaviour of governments are extremely flexible and are so malleable that what we judge as criminal in one instance we should find quite acceptable, even defensible, in another.
I thought it was common cause, within the ranks the ANC that the legitimacy of a government derives from the mandate it receives from the people. That mandate is usually expressed through free and fair general elections. What is more, we have also insisted that these are principles applicable to all countries, including Zimbabwe.
Anyone familiar with the history of European colonialism in Africa and Asia knows that at the core of the colonialist project was seizure and control over the natural resources of the colony. In the white settler colonies of Africa, like Kenya, Zimbabwe and Namibia, seizure of the land was invariably the means of acquiring such control. The reproduction of the long quotations from The Guardian in the City Press article thus serves no other purpose but to remind the forgetful of that reality. But, the information they contain adds neither light nor weight to the principal thrust of the two authors' line of argument.
Underlying the line of argument which the two authors advance is the suggestion that since the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) came into existence after independence, that political formation is necessarily suspect. They try to buttress this by suggesting that given that, like Britain, the revanchist "Rhodesian" whites, the USA and the European Union, the MDC is not happy with the ZANU (PF) government, there is an indissoluble link amongst them and they all must be pursuing the same agenda.
Proceeding from these highly flawed premises, they go on to argue that it is therefore incumbent on anti-imperialists to support ZANU (PF). There are disturbing parallels between these two writers' line of argument and the all too familiar ones emanating from former US Presidents like Teddy Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan and, in our day, George W Bush. Step back a little, invert the names, and the line of reasoning can be seen for what it is.
Justifying unqualified US support for right wing dictators in Latin America, Teddy Roosevelt declared:" Somoza (the former banana-republic dictator of Nicaragua) is a bastard, but he is our bastard!" The authors also deploy the same guilt by association, so loved by anti-Communists and other rightists when they repress dissent. Virtually echoing the sentiments of Senator Joe McCarthy: "If someone sounds like a duck, associates with ducks, and walks like a duck, can it be unfair to infer that he is a duck!"
But perhaps the most alarming suggestion of all is that opposition to ZANU (PF), irrespective of its merits, is ipso facto illegitimate and necessarily counter-revolutionary, and therefore pro-imperialist.
The questions we should be asking are: What has gone so radically wrong that the movement and the leaders who brought democracy to Zimbabwe today appear to be its ferocious violators. What has gone so wrong that they appear to be most fearful of it?
Maloka and Magubane brush such questions aside with a breathtaking recklessness. To invoke the memory of Patrice Lumumba in this context can only be an example of woolly thinking. Lumumba, let us remember, was democratically elected by the majority of the Congolese people. To subvert the will of the Congolese, as expressed in general elections, the imperialists stage-managed Mobutu's coup, kidnapped Lumumba and had his enemies murder him.
The same applies to Salvador Allende of Chile. The CIA subverted the expressed will of the Chilean people by staging a coup to overturn the democratically elected government of Chile.
Maloka and Magubane want us to ignore the will of the Zimbabwean people, as expressed in elections, and do what the imperialists did in Congo and Chile. Such action, they claim, would be anti-imperialist. In other words, we must behave like the imperialists to demonstrate our commitment to anti-imperialism.
Rather than raising and attempting to answer such tough questions, they skirt around them by marshalling a mixture of emotive arguments and outright political blackmail, again reminiscent of the far-right and its adherents. You are either with ZANU(PF) in the anti-imperialist camp, or against it (and therefore with Blair, Bush, the DA, etc).
If that has familiar ring, it is because the Bush administration has employed it repeatedly in support of its aggressive actions against all and sundry. To quote them: "You are either with us, or against us!"
It cannot possibly be right that, while we in South Africa expect our democratic institutions to protect us from arbitrary power, we expect the people of Zimbabwe to be content with less.
If ZANU (PF) has lost the confidence of a substantial number of the citizens of that country, such that the only means by which it can win elections is either by intimidating the people or otherwise rigging them, it has only itself to blame.
Nobody doubts the anti-imperialist credentials of ZANU (PF), but that cannot be sufficient reason to support it if it is misgoverning Zimbabwe and brutalising the people.
I do not support the MDC and my track record in the struggle against imperialism speaks for itself, but I differ most fundamentally with Maloka and Magubane. It is precisely my commitment to the anti-imperialist agenda that persuades me that our two comrades are wrong.
We will not assist ZANU (PF) by encouraging that movement to proceed along the disastrous course it has embarked on. Offering it uncritical support because it is anti-imperialist will not help ZANU (PF) to uncover the reasons for the steep decline in the legitimacy it once enjoyed. That party would do well to return to its original vision of a democratic Zimbabwe, free of colonial domination and the instruments of that domination - such as arbitrary arrests, police repression of opposition, intimidation of political critics, etc.
Given the outcome of the recent elections, ZANU(PF) should surrender power to the party that has won. Any attempt by ZANU (PF) to cling to power through overt or covert violence will only compound its problems by stripping it even further of the legitimacy it won by leading the Zimbabwean people in their struggle for independence, freedom and democracy!
*Pallo Jordan is a member of the ANC National Executive Committee (NEC). This article is written in his personal capacity.
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 A rescue package for the stricken of Zimbabwe
By Michael Holman
April 2 2008
If bravery shaped reality, Zimbabwe would be starting a new era. In the face of thuggery and in defiance of years of state intimidation, the country’s opposition has swept the election board. But it would be premature to celebrate the political demise – and foolish to underestimate the resolve – of the 84-year-old Robert Mugabe, the man who has led Zimbabwe from independence in 1980 and who has since delivered it into the abyss.
In the days ahead we shall learn whether Zimbabwe is poised to return to democracy or whether it is in the throes of a slow-motion coup, as heavily manipulated “official” results are delivered to a disbelieving public, with the security forces ready to intervene.
It was always likely to be thus.
Hopes that Mr Mugabe would accept defeat at last Saturday’s poll have been fuelled by a form of wishful thinking that defies both human nature and political gravity. It seemed improbable that a man who has flouted democracy for so long would respect the verdict of the ballot box and that he would not contrive to rig the official outcome.
As the realisation sinks in that the president is likely to fight from his bunker rather than accept defeat, there will be the usual cries that “something must be done”. But what, precisely? Any talk of expanding the ineffectual targeted sanctions against the regime borders on the absurd: the country is already in a state of economic collapse. What is more, sanctions seldom work – as Rhodesia itself showed. It took a guerrilla war to secure its transition to Zimbabwe.
Others will call for military intervention. But who will take on the task? To suggest the African Union, unable to cope with Darfur, is risible. South Africa? Hazardous. Remember that President Thabo Mbeki and Mr Mugabe are not “comrades in arms” – their guerrillas fought each other during Zimbabwe’s liberation war and there are old scores to settle.
Furthermore, the record shows that interference in Africa, whether by outsiders or Africans, has usually been disastrous, whatever the motive – ideological (the US in Zaire, the Soviet Union in Ethiopia), humanitarian (the US in Somalia) or well-intentioned (Tanzania in Idi Amin’s Uganda).
So what can be done?
If you lack a stick, then use a carrot. As Zimbabweans prepare for a final heave, their bravery needs to be supplemented by hope: hope that stems from evidence that their future will be marked by a rapid improvement in their wretched circumstances.
Of course, long-term recovery measures must be decided by Zimbabweans themselves; but short-term relief can be assembled in days. Preparation should take the form of an emergency aid conference, convened irrespective of the outcome of the current crisis, ready to be implemented when democracy returns. Donors would be asked to make public commitments to funding or supplying Zimbabwe’s desperate needs: fertiliser for agriculture, raw materials and spare parts for industry, medicines for clinics, fuel for transport.
On the agenda would also be ways to kick-start the country’s hard-hit tourist industry, once a leading foreign exchange earner and an important employer. Perhaps this could take the form of a one-off offer to foreign visitors of a holiday, at cost, in one of Zimbabwe’s many game parks.
Britain’s Department for International Development should invest the £30m (€38m) it has earmarked for an orderly land reform programme in a commercial farming centre, located on the Mozambique-Zimbabwe border, where dispossessed farmers might regroup to use their expertise.
Meanwhile, newspapers could lead an appeal for books; magazines and academic journals could provide free subscription to the country’s schools and universities and libraries.
This package of measures would be published and made available to every Zimbabwean, telling them what the future holds. Who better to co-ordinate the programme than the Commonwealth, that near-moribund association of 50-odd countries, linked by a history of association with Britain? It was a Commonwealth summit in Lusaka, Zambia’s capital, in 1979 that helped lay foundations for Zimbabwe’s independence elections the following year.
The organisation has allowed Zimbabwe to drop off its agenda, using Mr Mugabe’s withdrawal from membership in 2003 as an excuse for shameful neglect. Let the Commonwealth lead the exercise that could redeem its failure and offer help as well as hope to the brave people of Zimbabwe.
Two birds, one stone.
*Michael Holman is a journalist and writer who grew up in Zimbabwe, at a time when the country was still known as Rhodesia. He lives in London but still travels frequently to Africa and writes occasional columns for the FT and Times online. This article first appeared in the Financial Times.
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 Why Makoni is the next president
By Ibbo Mandaza
28 March 2008
THE discerning analyst of an electoral process such as that underway in Zimbabwe needs to keep the eye on the ball, be wary of the media hype and the accompanying barrage of advertisements on the part of the well resourced ZANU-PF and the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC-Tsvangirai), and always remember that it is the numbers at the poll that will determine the outcome on Saturday.
A three-sided contest would have benefited Morgan Tsvangirai's second bid for the presidency. But, sadly, this is not to be. With (President) Robert Mugabe a rank outsider with four percent or less of the vote, the race is clearly between Tsvangirai and Makoni.
This is where the numbers game becomes central, especially if one understands that, beyond Harare Province, which is its traditional stronghold, the MDC (Tsvangirai) remains quite marginal elsewhere, even though it will have made inroads in the rural areas, thanks to the virtual collapse of ZANU-PF in the latter.
A careful analysis of the rural areas will reveal the extent to which voters therein have moved more easily from ZANU-PF to Makoni's Mavambo-Kusile-Dawn than to MDC (Tsvangirai).
This is also because the MDC had in the previous elections not been allowed a free rein by ZANU-PF and, understandably, many rural folk may not have known of Tsvangirai and his party until this late hour. Here is where Makoni appears to have cashed in on a rural population that is so enthralled by this energetic man, the genuine smile that has become almost the hallmark of his campaign, and the eloquence - in the mother tongue - with which he has delivered his message of hope and renewal.
Those who have seen and heard him know what I am writing about; and even if George Charamba and his people at Zimpapers and Zimbabwe Broadcasting Holdings have succeeded in sustaining a media blackout on Makoni's campaign, that will obviously not have mattered for most of a rural sector for whom The Herald /The Sunday Mail and ZBC are as scarce as maize-meal, salt and sugar. So, I would give Makoni at least 60 percent of the rural vote, which stands roughly at a total of four million voters.
Besides, my survey confirms in general that Makoni is ahead in the following provinces: Matabeleland North, Matabeleland South, Bulawayo, Midlands, Masvingo and Manicaland; and will also have benefited from the collapse of ZANU-PF in Mashonaland West, Mashonaland East and Mashonaland Central, even if Tsvangirai will also have made substantial inroads into these three provinces.
Of course, the media is a thing of the urban areas, so disproportionately exaggerated in terms of its outreach and influence, especially when the latter is presumed national and dominant. Not surprisingly, the pervasive impression that Morgan Tsvangirai is ahead of Makoni is based almost solely on Harare and the media hype - not to mention an advertising campaign the likes of which the urban areas have not experienced during previous elections - which magnifies a candidate beyond the reality that translates into numbers on polling day.
So, Makoni's star does appear eclipsed behind that barrage of Tsvangirai's advertising campaign, which his Mavambo-Kusile-Dawn could never match given the very limited resources at the latter's disposal. However, the new kid on the block should take at least 50 percent of the vote in Harare, 70 percent in Bulawayo, 60 percent in Gweru, 80 percent in Mutare, 50 percent in Masvingo, 80 percent in Chinhoyi, 50 percent in Marondera and 60 percent in Bindura.
To be modest, Makoni will at least share the urban vote (of roughly two million voters) with Tsvangirai; and considering that most of the business and professional classes - including those in the civil and uniformed services - are likely to view Makoni as a softer landing this time round, the Mavambo-Kusile-Dawn man might even have the edge over Tsvangirai in Harare province, which has a total of about 900 000 voters.
One could easily get carried away with numbers, a senseless exercise, perhaps, when election day is hardly two days away. All the same, this might help to temper both rampant speculation on the part of some and premature euphoria in other quarters. But the main purpose of this contribution is to highlight what I believe to be the qualities of the man who should succeed to the office of the President on March 29, as well as the historical and political circumstances, which favour Makoni's chances in this regard.
In another contribution last week, I made reference to Makoni's rare intellect, a gift, which has no doubt been the foundation of his professional accomplishments as both a chemist and industrialist; but also contributed to the development of those leadership qualities that have seen him become student leader in the early 1970's, a chief representative (in Western Europe) of the National Liberation Movement in the late 1970's and, at the age of 29, the youngest minister in Zimbabwe's post-independence Cabinet in 1980.
The four years spent in the formative and heady days of the new State will have provided him with enormous experience and exposure in the affairs of government and development policy, while also preparing him for the subsequent decade (1984-94) spent in international diplomacy, as the Executive Secretary of SADC in Gaborone, Botswana. With such experience and exposure to international affairs, Makoni should have found his place back in Cabinet when he returned home in late 1994.
But this was not to be, as everything was being done by the powers that were to keep him on the margins of the state, not least because it was during those days, and even earlier, that Makoni was being touted, at home and abroad, as a strong contender for the top post in the land. So, he was expediently shunted - and, perhaps, even cold-storaged – to Zimbabwe Newspapers as managing director, for two years during which the company did so well and yet, at the end of which, Makoni was unceremoniously given the boot.
There were largely political reasons behind this, some of which were no doubt linked to the perception, especially at the highest place in the land, that Makoni was increasingly being talked about as a possible successor to President Mugabe. However, this development compelled Makoni to turn to the private sector where he has been ever since, as both a thriving entrepreneur and farmer.Except for the two years (2000-2002) when he was called back as minister of finance, a position from which he bravely resigned when he could no longer work with President Mugabe. Indeed, he might have made a difference to the flagging Zimbabwean economy had he been afforded the opportunity by President Mugabe.
The 30 years of exposure to statecraft, international diplomacy and entrepreneurship, gives Makoni more than an edge over Tsvangirai. This is a consideration, which many a voter, in both the urban and rural areas, will not miss. Makoni is better equipped, in terms of leadership skills, to put together a Cabinet as part of the Government of National Unity that he has already espoused in his election manifesto; and knows more intimately what should be done and how best it will be effected in order to redeem Zimbabwe from the abyss in which (President) Mugabe and his government have left our Motherland.
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 Makoni speaks about his presidential mission
March 24th 2008
I decided to run for Zimbabwe president in July 2007. It was after Robert Mugabe had announced in March - long before any of the processes required for a person to take leadership of the party had been set in motion - that he would lead the party into the next election.
It was then that I convinced myself we needed urgent renewal, and that I needed to do something to bring it about. I began a process of consultation with a wide cross-section of people within Zanu-PF and outside.
I went to Mugabe to tell him there was a growing desire for renewal among some of his party members, renewal of leadership in the party and in the country, and that there was a feeling this should come from within the party.
I was frank with him, and told him that I was prepared to stand as president. I also told him there were people who supported my decision to move in. He took note.
I won't be in this presidential campaign alone. There will be many more of us - a great many of us. But I am not standing in the name of any party; I am standing as an independent. I would have wanted to stand on a Zanu-PF ticket, but that opportunity was denied to any other cadre within the party.
I believe my chances in the elections are very good - overwhelming even. I am confident of beating Mugabe. Zimbabweans are going through such stress and tension because of the myriad economic problems in the country, such as poverty that affects more than 80% of the population, and rampant unemployment, especially among the young.
I urge all those who yearn for genuine renewal and improvement in our conditions - those who, like me, yearn for the restoration of a united nation, for genuine national reconciliation, for our proper place in the region and the global village - to come forward and participate in the forthcoming elections under our banner.
But let me also encourage those others in Zanu-PF who have been, and are still, working with us in this project for national renewal, to remain steadfast and not be intimidated. I don't feel threatened. My security is among the people.
Mugabe may have been elected at the December congress [the main agenda of which was to confirm his candidature for the presidency], but let me tell you this. When the full facts of the processes that led to that congress are made public, people will understand why this decision has been necessary. Questions will be asked of the legal secretary, the secretary for administration and the political commissar.
I am asked: "Where are your alleged Zanu-PF party supporters?" But what is this notion that people have, this belief that I was ever going to parade people in front of the cameras? My consultations were not only with people in the leadership of Zanu-PF but with all the people of Zimbabwe, at a grassroots level.
I have come out and said that Zimbabwe's crisis is the result of the failure of our national leadership, so I don't understand it when people still expect to see me parade in public members of this very same leadership, who are responsible for these same failures. Wouldn't that be a contradiction?
I have stood for hours in cash queues with ordinary people; I know first-hand the tribulations they suffer, standing out there for long periods of time just to withdraw a measely $5million. The people who matter most are the people who are going to come out on March 29 to deliver a verdict.
No Zanu-PF officials have approached me to launch this challenge. I am nobody's tool or agent. I had views of my own, that we were long overdue a change of leadership. And I found that there was some significant support for that change. I urge people not to be duped by the falsehood that I am a Zanu-PF ploy.
I am asked why I waited until July 2007 to challenge Mugabe when I had seen the rot set in long before. But if you look at the record of all my public pronouncements, during the years I served in government and since leaving government, you will realise what I have always been about.
I wanted to see a return to the original principles we held as a party at independence, when the president told us to turn our swords into
plough-shares and establish an equitable and prosperous society. Those values are still relevant now. It is just the leadership's deviation from those values that I'm seeking to reverse.
Until the last minute I continued in Zanu-PF working towards a return to those original values. I persevered only in the hope that there would be some renewal of our party. Zimbabwe's ruling party has a history, but it must also have a future.
Judging by the responses to my announcement to run for president, I do not anticipate anything short of a landslide. The enthusiasm is palpable.
I do not make any distinction between urban and rural constituencies. Why do we always want to categorize our people? Why do we herd them into paddocks? All of them are Zimbabweans, and all of them yearn for the same thing, which is an immediate renewal of our country. We should not create unnatural barriers.
I have been criticised for being vague on policy and strategy. But what I will not do is make high-sounding promises to the people of Zimbabwe. I want to emphasise this. I am not going to give them a reel of menus and recipes. What I am offering is an opportunity to make changes, and to have real empowerment.
I am not going to stand in front of the people and say: "I will build a road here, a house here, a dam there." I cannot make such promises. There are 14 million Zimbabweans, and what I am about is offering each one of them the chance to once again make the best out of their opportunities, a chance to realise their full potential.
Mugabe's government made many lofty promises, but it was a mistake to believe any of them would be delivered. My economic priority would be to get the land producing again. We could get all the fertiliser from China, India and so on, but the task would be to get our own Zimbabwean companies going again. Manufacturing capacity is down, primarily because companies cannot source raw materials. There will be a need for technological overhaul in our industry, and we will need to recapitalise our factories.
The most important thing is to get our people re-engaged, and to restore their confidence, such that there will be no need for a parallel market, or the need to pretend there is a formal market when one no longer exists. This economy can still be turned around.
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 Simba Makoni has demonstrated he is genuine
By David Coltart
I have read the letter published in the Cape Argus on the 17th February 2008 written by my friend and colleague Roy Bennett in which he accused Zimbabwean Presidential candidate Simba Makoni of complicity in various crimes against humanity perpetrated by the Mugabe regime because of his
association with Zanu PF.
Both Roy Bennett and I served in the BSAP, the Rhodesian Police force, in the 1970s during the civil war fought by ZANLA and ZIPRA against the Rhodesian Front government. Whilst there were undoubtedly atrocities committed by the guerrilla armies, the BSAP played a major role in maintaining white minority rule and during the course of the war torture was also systematically used by the BSAP against captured guerrillas and their supporters.
Despite the fact that we served in the BSAP, we were both elected to Parliament in 2000 by an overwhelmingly black electorate who were prepared to forgive us for the fact that we were members of an institution which had prolonged white minority rule and the oppression of black people. I have always been humbled by the deep reservoir of forgiveness and goodwill shown towards me by black Zimbabweans, who were prepared to look beyond my past and who were prepared to judge me on my more recent record.
Likewise the miracle that unfolded in South Africa in the early 1990s occurred because Nelson Mandela and the ANC were prepared to forgive the National Party and leaders like F.W. De Klerk for their role in apartheid.
Much of that spirit of forgiveness stemmed from the fact that Mr de Klerk was prepared to humble himself by giving up the trappings of power and to turn away from the evil past of apartheid. The combination of the spirit of forgiveness, on the one hand, and the turning away from evil, on the other, contributed greatly to the healing that took place in South Africa in the 1990s.
Zimbabwe is in a similar place of distress as South Africa was in 1990. Our problems are so grave and seemingly intractable that we will not be able to save our land unless all responsible and patriotic Zimbabweans display a similar spirit of forgiveness and turning away from evil.
It is in that context that Roy Bennett's attack on Simba Makoni is so unfortunate. He accuses Makoni of being complicit in the Gukurahundi genocide, the Murambatsvina atrocity and other human rights violations, through his silence. He blames Makoni for the fact that he is unable to return from exile and for the fact that SADC norms and conditions have not been implemented in Zimbabwe.
What is undeniable is that Simba Makoni has been in Zanu PF since independence but that alone does not make him complicit. In my capacity as Director of the Bulawayo Legal Projects Centre in the 1980s and 1990s I played a leading role in the investigation and reporting of the Gukurahundi genocide which culminated in the publication in 1997 of the report "Breaking the Silence" by our parent organisation the Legal Resources Foundation.
Simba Makoni was never implicated in the Gukurahundi. Indeed our investigations revealed that it was perpetrated by a relatively small cabal around Robert Mugabe. Many even in the military itself did not know exactly what was planned and what happened.
As regards Murambatsvina the facts are that Makoni resigned, in an unprecedented and brave act, from cabinet in 2002, well before Murambatsvina took place. We also know that the reason he resigned was because he disagreed with a host of Zanu PF policies. We also know that he has fought a lone battle within the Politburo trying to reform Zanu PF from within. In the past year he has spoken out publicly against Zanu PF's abuses including the shocking torture of Morgan Tsvangirai and other opposition leaders in March last year.
We may criticise him for staying within Zanu PF for so long but it is an unjustified cut to say that he has agreed with all that has happened in Zimbabwe since independence.
Even if I am wrong in my assessment of Makoni's past, what we know for certain now is that he has broken from Zanu PF in an astonishingly brave move. His manifesto indicates that he stands for the right things, including national reconciliation and a new democratic constitution.
In my view this courageous move should be supported, not criticised. Now is the time for us all to display the same degree of forgiveness afforded Roy Bennett and me by black Zimbabweans. The quid pro quo is that Simba Makoni must show that this is a genuine turning away from Zanu PF's evil past – but I think he has already demonstrated that through his actions and words of the last few weeks.
Now is also the time for all patriotic Zimbabweans to work together to bring Robert Mugabe's ruinous and brutal dictatorship to an end.
*David Coltart is a member of Parliament in Zimbabwe, for the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). He has been a human rights lawyer in Zimbabwe since his return to the country in 1983.
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 Cry the beloved Zimbabwe
By Netsai Matambanadzo
28 February 2008
Throw a stone in Lagos and you are bound to hit a graduate, but throw a stone in Zimbabwe and you are guaranteed to hit a millionaire – a jobless millionaire or even a homeless millionaire, for that matter. We have become an object of ridicule. Imagine a country with all those millions floating around and not a single one of them is worth a dime. Is that not ironic?
What really happened in Zimbabwe one might ask? This is a rhetorical question. The answer is simple: we have allowed an impenitent liberation movement masquerading as a political party and led by a callous and narcissistic man to run the country for far too long.
Zimbabwe should be one of the richest countries in Africa. We have natural resources in abundance, which could generate considerable income for the country if investors were comfortable with the country’s political stability and investment climate. And we could also generate a lot of foreign currency from the tourism sector, if tourists didn’t have any misgivings about what is going on in Zimbabwe. Ironically, our economy, which in the late 1950s was bigger than that of rich countries in the Far East, including Singapore, continues on a downhill path to self-destruction. Are we just going to sit down and watch?
The future is bleak at the moment. But could Simba Makoni be a revolutionary? His emergence as an independent candidate has caused a stir and is very much still under scrutiny. One may ask: - Could it be one of Mugabe’s tactics - to divide and conquer? A massive shift in votes on the MDC side is a certainty as voters who are already confused [by the split] could vote in Makoni. It may also be that Makoni has made his millions, built an empire and is now embarrassed to be aligned to the tyrant.
Some observers have stated that Makoni’s emergence a couple of months before the March 2008 elections is a carefully choreographed charade used to distract Zimbabweans from achieving the goal of better governance.
Either way, I think Tsvangirai and Makoni should put their heads together to form a coalition, do a bit of horse-trading and fight the elections on a common platform – a la Pakistan. Slobodan Milosevic was forced out of power by the people of the Kosovo but we have nothing like the resolve of the Albanians.
It is not that my compatriots lack what it takes to sweep a tyrant out of power. The fact of the matter is that the post-independence years which ushered in the passing of colonialism and imperialism culled our people into euphoria and a mistaken sense of security much especially as this phase came to be marked with economic prosperity and our people were not expecting this sudden shift to political depression. Mugabe has sprung an element of surprise upon us but our people are being galvanised into action.
The struggle is proving hard and arduous but we shall continue to resist. I do not expect Zimbabweans who are living in exile in South Africa, America and across much of Europe to turn in propaganda for the repressive structure that our octogenarian tyrant has erected in the country. Are they not witnessing the downward spiral of once vibrant economy? Are they blind to the large pool of professional men and women who have deserted our beloved land to labour a pittance in foreign land? Have they not heard how the helpless rural folk, townsmen and women who are being compelled into voting for ZANU PF?
Surprisingly, whenever there is a conference on Zimbabwe in London, a small group of Zimbabwean men who have made it their business to strut round European capitals shelling out Mugabe’s propaganda, on why the country is failing, turn up and hail themselves to be the die-hards of Zanu-pf. One wonders why these self-proclaimed and paid agents of the Mugabe regime do not go back home to enjoy the loot in company of their Master! Can these conscienceless agents not see that Mugabe has turned our beloved fatherland into a prison house?
On a different note, I wish to relay an exhortation to the resident and youth of Zimbabwe to remember that your mobile phones and daily perks if you are a ZANU PF supporter are not going to bring you ultimate freedom and dignity.
Wake up you the Youth of Zimbabwe - whether you are living in and outside the country! I know your voices and protestations are being muzzled by the tyrant’s henchmen and secret police. But do not give up. I can see hope on the horizon. Cry out for your country. Do not be afraid. You may not be ready to embrace martyrdom but already a sizable number of our people have already been brutalised if not martyred.
The time is now people of Zimbabwe. We have suffered enough at the hands of these greedy, and ruthless politicians who continue to live lavishly at our expense.
Mugabe is a selfish geriatric very close to the brink of insanity and has a flagrant disregard for the rise of his people. He needs to pass over the mantle to a fresh stalwart who can guide Zimbabwe into a new dispensation to use a Christian analogy. Can we get our passing tyrant to adopt the 4 ‘As’ strategy as defined in one of my favourite songs (Forever Begins by Common)?
“…confusion: need a solution? Blend and stir, stir and blend the pot of humanity, sift the ingredients of acknowledgement, apology, amendment, atonement”.
Mugabe should acknowledge that he has failed his people. Mugabe should apologise for his blatant disregard for human rights. Mugabe should express remorse for the Gukurahundi atrocities. Still he claims affinity with the Christian tradition. Could he honestly engage in penitence and atonement for his deeds - restitution to be given and the injured party be made whole.
*Netsai Matambanadzo is a Zimbabwean student currently based in London, UK. She can be contacted on her email: nadah22000@yahoo.com
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 What fate awaits Zimbabwe at the ballot box?
By Brian Moyo – Editor Touch Base Africa
23 February 2008
Sooner or later, all nations discover that the people they have entrusted with the power to govern them have fallen short of the ideal. That in itself is a painful realisation. But in the case of Zimbabwe the lesson is made all the more painful by the fact that the ruling party, Zanu-Pf came into power in 1980, on the back of incredible national sacrifice. Even more regrettable is the notion that only one man had somehow won himself the divine right to rule the nation, come what may.
Zimbabwe is in the middle of a great national tragedy in which a whirlpool of every imaginable economic illness has become a daily nightmare.
This week, currency traders in Zimbabwe’s informal, but thriving market quoted the exchange rate at one British pound to 26 million Zimbabwean dollars. It’s anyone’s guess what they will quote on the day the country goes to the polls, but it is a safe bet that the pound will be worth much, much more than that.
Yet Mugabe was full of confidence when he spoke on Zimbabwe television on 21 February 2008, proudly proclaiming that he would trounce the opposition! Then in a moment of utter disrespect for Simba Makoni, one of his three rivals for the job of president, he proclaimed him to be worse than a prostitute!
Why? Is it because Makoni had the audacity to step outside Mugabe’s sphere of influence and declare himself an independent candidate? One wonders why Mugabe didn’t tell Zimbabweans that Makoni’s challenge doesn’t frighten him because Zanu-Pf has better policies than Makoni’s own manifesto.
The idea that, Makoni by choosing to disassociate himself with Mugabe in order to seek a fresh course action for the country, amounts to prostitution is probably the most tangible evidence there is that Mugabe knows that he has no new hope to offer the country after more than 28 years at the helm.
Misery has sculpted indelible lines on the faces of thousands of jobless youths, with university degrees in their pockets, and all we can hear from the president of a nation, no less, when challenged at the ballot box is to refer to his challenger as a prostitute!
Surely Zimbabwe is bigger than Zanu-Pf; which simply put, is not a national institution but a party of individuals who share common political principles. < | | | | |
