THE CAT IS OUT OF THE BAG...

For years now, Zanu PF (ZPF) has claimed that the MDC is seeking to reverse the ‘gains’ of the land reform programme. They have used it to scare rural communities into voting for them. Now ZPF has finally acknowledged that the land reform is not working and that they are no ‘gains’ from the land reform.

This past week Dr Herbert Murerwa for the first time let the cat out of the bag by confirming that the government has taken land from ‘new farmers’ and given it back to the former white owner. The reason for doing this was that the black beneficiary of the land reform programme was not using the land. One hopes this will be the norm rather than the exception. There are many farms where there is hardly any production going on so the government should give the land to people who have the capacity to farm. This should not be about black or white farmers but rather the ability to invest in the farm and to make effective use of the land. The ZPF approach was about taking land from white farmers and giving it to black ‘farmers’. The only criteria for taking away land from you was because you were white and the only criteria for giving land to you was because you were black. This is wrong.

I do not think that we should return to the pre-2000 status quo but I think that those farmers who only had one farm especially those who were given a certificate of no contest when they bought their farms after independence should return to their land. The reason why I opposed the pre-2000 land ownership was because it left almost all of the arable land in the hands of the white farmers. It cannot be justified that 1% of the population controlled 90% of the arable land. There was, therefore, need for reform. It would be naive for people to say there was nothing wrong with the land ownership in our country before 2000. I also think that the current situation with regard to land in Zimbabwe is unsustainable. There are reports of senior political and military figures having multiple farms. If the intention of the land reform was to empower the majority of Zimbabweans then it has failed miserably. The President and his wife each own farms while there are millions who do not have land. I do not subscribe to the notion that we should have more farmers. I subscribe to the thinking that instead of dividing up the farms into smaller holdings we should have a farming community that reflects the makeup of the population i.e. the majority of ownership of the estimated 4000 to 5000 farms should come from the majority in the population. I also subscribe to the idea that we should have a one (wo)man one farm policy and that there must be a maximum farm size. The maximum farm size should be determined by those who are qualified to do so. It should not be a political decision.

There is also something wrong with the approach ZPF is taking now. If we are to believe this is the beginning of a new chapter in the ZPF land reform then they are again seeking a quick fix solution. It is almost like Murerwa wants to sort out the mess by bringing back the white farmers. What this ignores is the fact these farms have been vandalised and cannibalised. The infrastructure has been damaged such that those returning to their farms will need help. I am going to state the obvious here. The reason why white farmers have done well over the years is the investment into farming infrastructure and mechanisation by the white minority governments; a system of financial support that helped the settlers to improve their farms. Before the land reform when you bought a farm it was a going concern. Now most of the farms are no longer working. Replacing one owner with another will work where the farm is still intact but where the farm is derelict then government should develop a soft loans system to help the farmers bring the farms back to life. ZPF should not think there is a quick fix to the mess they created in farming.

Anyone who cares to read the MDC policy on land since 1999 will discover that the party has consistently said that the pre-2000 land tenure was unsustainable and needed reform. The MDC were the first to clearly outline their policy on land even before the 2000 Constitutional Referendum. The policy also included plans to support the new farmers until they became established. Their argument with ZPF has always been the manner in which the ‘reform’ was done. ZPF had no plans so the reform was done in a haphazard way.

Finally Murerwa’s statement clearly shows that ZPF accepts the land reform in its current form is not working. All the more reason for having a Land audit in order to know who owns what land and what they are doing with it. What, then, is the way forward for Zimbabwe’s farming? The answer lies in all stakeholders accepting that the current land ownership model is not working. Those who have benefited unfairly from the land reform programme should be forced to give up the land. This land should then be given to people with the financial and technical ability to run a farm regardless of their politics, religion or ethnicity. The government should mobilise financial resources to support those who get the land to help them in their farming. There is also need to give title deeds to the new owners to allow them to use the land as collateral. Having title deeds will encourage people to invest in the farms. Here is hoping that the realisation in ZPF that the land and agrarian reforms have not worked will make the party more amenable to the idea of a land audit.

Of Robert Mugabe’s threats and the impact on the economy

Zimbabwe is an exciting place. You can’t beat the way we shoot ourselves in the foot. There has been a lot of debate surrounding the merits and demerits of the targeted sanctions. The sanctions have been blamed for all our economic ills and the absence of foreign direct investment (FDI). Then in one swoop Robert Mugabe removed whatever little chance we had of FDI by threatening to take over companies in revenge for the targeted sanctions.

Any foreign investor watching Robert Mugabe’s speech in Mutare will have deduced that if you invest in Zimbabwe your investment is only safe if your government is in good books with Zimbabwe. This failure to distinguish between individuals and their governments or countries of origin has been our biggest problem. Using business people as a pawn in our fight with western governments is wrong. What the Chinese, Indians and other potential investors will ask themselves is: What will happen when Mugabe is annoyed with their governments? The answer is manifestly clear in Mugabe’s statement to the Zanu PF (ZPF) conference. If we don’t like your government we will take away your business. With hundreds of countries around the world falling over each other to create investor friendly policies one cannot see any serious investors coming to Zimbabwe.

We have been here before. The land reform was another example of a badly thought out policy that was premised on revenge. ZPF and Mugabe had a quarrel with the then British government and they took their ire on all the white farmers. Every white farmer became a pawn in the power game between Zimbabwe and Britain. I leave it to others to judge whether the land reform policy has been a success in achieving its aims. However, the lesson that we should have learnt from our land reform programme is that we should not have policies driven by anger or any other emotion. Policies should be thought through and carefully planned. This has not been ZPF’s strength over the years – war vet payments, farm invasions, murambatsvina, and now this...

Once again ZPF is looking for a populist policy to shore up their falling popularity. Faced with certain defeat in 2000 they came up with the violent land reform programme. This gave them a reason to visit violence on all people on the farms. While the media focussed on the farmers who were killed or savagely attacked, the narrative ignored the suffering of the farm workers. It largely ignored the violence that was visited on them for daring to oppose ZPF in the constitutional referendum. The real beneficiaries of the land reform have been senior ZPF and security people who now have several farms. Now ZPF has come up with another populist policy designed to hoodwink voters into thinking that they care about Zimbabweans. This new policy as written by Mugabe at the ZPF conference will once again benefit the ZPF big fish. They will throw lots and divide the spoils among themselves while ordinary Zimbabweans live in the clutches of poverty. It will be another reason to visit violence on the people of Zimbabwe.

Someone in ZPF should tell Mugabe that he is putting the final nail on Zimbabwe’s coffin. We have had a decade of destroying the economy. The GPA had allowed us to arrest the decline but now that Mugabe believes that power, by any means, is better than protecting our future the little gains are about to disappear. I know some people will accuse me of saying that native Zimbabweans have no capacity to run these companies. I am not suggesting this at all but I am stating that whatever we do, we need FDI if our economy is to grow. The (un)intended consequences of Mugabe’s rant at his party’s conference will be to scare away investors. If the intention is to punish the Americans and the British then inadvertently this policy will scare away foreign investors.

If Mugabe was one who listens to advice then I would have offered my advice but he is stubborn and allergic to advice so I will not waste my advice on him. However, there are those in his party to whom he might listen. These women and men should tell him he is making a mistake. Those in ZPF who love Zimbabwe must act against Mugabe. I wish.

Lessons from the failed England World Cup bid

There is understandable anger in England after the country failed to win the right to host the 2018 Football World Cup. There is no doubt that England presented one of the best technical and commercial bids for the 2018 World Cup. This was in the FIFA report. Understandably England will feel that after losing out to Germany in 2006 they would have a claim to host it after 44years of waiting. This is especially so when one considers that Germany which hosted the 1974 has already had a second bite of the cherry.
I am convinced that after the Charlie Dempsey debacle in the voting for the 2006 World Cup all people of goodwill should have roundly condemned the FIFA way of doing business. However, there was silence or half-hearted protests when South Africa was clearly cheated of the right to host the World Cup. There is no evidence that bribes were paid but it is difficult not to believe the conspiracy theorists who believe that Charlie Dempsey was given incentives so that he would refuse to vote as instructed by his Confederation. I am highly sceptical of Dempsey’s explanation that he abstained because “...the pressure from all sides including "an attempt to bribe" him had become too much for him.” I am convinced that the real reason was to make sure that the vote would not be decided by the President’s casting vote. Knowing that Sepp Blatter was likely to vote for South Africa they connived to have Dempsey to abstain. This was probably not the first time that people had been offered favours in return for voting or in this case not voting. Everyone knew that South Africa had been cheated but it was not influential enough for people to call for an enquiry into the FIFA voting system. It was accepted that Germany had won and nothing was made of it.
However, by not challenging the injustice of the 2006 situation Football Associations around the world legitimised FIFA’s way of doing business. FIFA Executive Committee acts with impunity knowing that they are accountable only to themselves. England, USA and Australia who feel aggrieved by the FIFA voting system for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups have finally experienced what it feels like to know that decisions in football have nothing to do with football. We have allowed FIFA to be the judge and jury in all matters football. I think that if football lovers around the world do not demand transparency from FIFA then we will continue to see decisions like the ones for the 2006 and 2018. We demand transparency from our political and business leaders why is it wrong to demand openness and transparency from football’s governing board – FIFA.
What today’s decision underlines is that any country that dares challenge FIFA risks losing in a very embarrassing way. From now on countries wishing to host the World Cup will have to muzzle their media in order not to bruise the egos of the FIFA Executive Committee. This is frightening prospect! Should the world allow 24 men to use their power to stop legitimate questions being asked about their business dealings? Is it right that we stop the media from asking questions so as not jeopardise our chance of hosting the World Cup? The fear of the FIFA Executive Committee was so evident in England where a nation that strongly believes in media freedom was so cowed that there was a concerted effort to stop the broadcasting of the Panorama programme on FIFA corruption. It was strange for a nation that a few months ago was celebrating The Telegraph for outing the MPs expense scandal; a nation currently engrossed in the 250 000 documents leaked from the US State Department by Wikileaks was imploring the BBC to delay the airing of the Panorama programme so as not to upset the all powerful FIFA Executive Committee. Until we trim FIFA’s omnipotence the whole footballing world will forever be beholden to the 24 men who make up the FIFA Executive Committee. We will be so scared of digging up any dirt on the Executive members in case our nation will one day want to bid for the World Cup.
This is not about the England 2018 bid but about the dangerous precedent set by the events of the last few weeks. To quote Edmund Burke “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." The evil that is in the FIFA empire is thriving because good (wo)men have chosen not to do anything about. We must demand accountability from FIFA without fear or favour. We demand accountability from all our national and international organisations hence we must demand accountability from FIFA. We need to unravel the murky and secretive world of FIFA business dealings.

What happened to the Zimbabweans’ fighting spirit?

"There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is an idea whose time has come." Victor Hugo

To have or not to have elections in 2011 that is the question? There have been compelling arguments put forward for both having and not having the elections. I have been grappling with this difficult question for the past few weeks. Every time I have found myself going back to the question: What ever happened to our fighting spirit?
Zimbabweans have been variously described as meek, passive and lacking in fighting spirit by several political and media commentators. It is difficult for me to accept that Zimbabweans have no fight in them. These are the people who, in their different ways, rose up against the evil and supremely armed Rhodesian system. As communities, Mujibhas, Chimbwidos and guerrillas they stood up against the oppressive system that treated them as second class citizens in their homeland. They were not intimidated by the fact that Ian Smith controlled the army and the police. They were not stopped by the fact that Smith was prepared to use violence and the arms of war to stop them from achieving their dream. They stood up to him and other Rhodesians.
It is this that makes it difficult for me to understand the defeatist attitude that seems to have engulfed our nation. Zimbabweans have been cowed down by Mugabe and ZPF to the extent that they have accepted their lot. Everyone knows that elections will be violent; that ZPF will use the army, police and militias to subdue the people. No one would wish to see what happened to people in cities and villages during the 2008 election happen again. But for how long are we going to wait? What guarantee is there that if we wait 2, 3 or 5 years the situation will change? Some arguments seem to suggest that people have completely given up the hope of taking on Mugabe. We seem to be happy to pick up the crumps from Mugabe’s table. There is a long list of political commentators, politicians, journalists and ordinary people who believe it is best to let the unease ‘peace’ that we are currently enjoying last than try to dislodge the ZPF regime. People are quick to point to the fact that things have improved; business is recovering and some international aid is flowing into the country. Why put all this at risk by having an election?
My answer is that we need to have a government directly elected by the people not one cobbled together by politicians under a tree. We need to have a President who makes decisions because he has the people’s mandate not one who owes his presidency to a compromise by politicians. As Zimbabweans we fought a difficult war of liberation for the right to choose our leaders. We must, therefore, dig deep into that fighting spirit that defined us during the liberation struggle. We should not allow Mugabe to kill this indomitable Zimbabwean spirit that helped us fight against all odds. Zimbabwe should be bigger than the politicians and their political parties. We should not be intimidated by the fact that Mugabe and ZPF control the army, police and militias. We should not be stopped by the fact that Mugabe and ZPF, like Ian Smith, are prepared to use violence to maintain the status quo.
Zimbabwe should have elections and the time frame should not be dictated to us by those who use violence and those who threaten violence. I am quite happy for people to argue that systems are not yet in place to run an election so we should delay them. But for people to advocate that we postpone elections indefinitely because we fear violence is unacceptable. Violence has been allowed to define our lives and I think it is time that we take control of our lives again. We fought for this freedom and we must defend it with our lives. The time has come for us to reclaim our homeland from the small clique of politicians who think that they can ride roughshod over us forever. This is an idea whose time has come and we must stand up to be counted.

We risk handing it to ZANU PF again.

Constitutional reform in Zimbabwe has gathered momentum with the outreach programme trying to capture views of Zimbabweans all over the country. This good work has, however, been overshadowed by ZANU PF thugs beating and scaring people away from participating in the outreach. Like always ZANU PF is scared of people power. When people come together to shape the future of our country ZANU PF is scared.

On the sidelines of the Outreach programme another debate is raging. People are arguing over the ‘best’ way to re-write our constitution. There are very good arguments on both sides of the debate but we risk taking our eyes off the ball and focusing on the sideshow. I have great respect for Dr Lovemore Madhuku and the civil society constitutional movement represented by the NCA. The NCA has done a great job in bringing ordinary people into the constitutional debate. I have my reservations about the current approach but it represents a real chance for constitutional reform in our troubled nation. The naked truth is that we need a new constitution not as a panacea to our political problems but as one of the building blocks towards a real democracy. On its own a constitution can never ensure a functional democracy but it can be the beginning.

What I am worried about is that those who really want constitutional reform are at each other’s throats leaving ZANU PF to laugh all the way to a rigged referendum. ZANU PF is happy with the current Constitutional dispensation and will give anything to maintain the status quo. The re-hiring of Jonathan Moyo as a ZANU PF adviser should serve as a warning to all of us. Faced with certain defeat against democratic forces movement in the 1999 referendum he shifted the goal posts. He knew that there was no chance of people voting with ZANU PF so he included things that people did not like so that they would vote against the draft constitution. In doing so we delivered the result that ZANU PF wanted - the return to the patched up Lancaster House constitution. In one stroke Jonathan Moyo and Godfrey Chidyausiku delivered to ZANU PF the victory they were craving for. The same scenario is about to repeat itself again. While civil society is busy campaigning against the ‘undemocratic’ manner in which the reform is being done, ZANU PF is busy forcing people not to take part in the process. Both these measures will result in fewer people engaging with the process and as a result a poorer product at the end of the process. The reason why ZPF want the Kariba Draft is that it keeps most of the controversial presidential powers in the person of the President. The plan in ZANU PF is to deliver a constitution that has controversial provisions so that people will once again vote against the new constitution.

How then do we deal with this problem? We have to set ourselves benchmarks that will allow us to support the new constitution. Even with flaws a new constitution is better than the patched up Lancaster House constitution. Some of the key things I would like to get out of this process are:

1. To enshrine the supremacy of parliament over the executive
2. That all senior appointments in government and quasi government bodies by the executive are ratified by both houses of parliament
3. That the President does not have power to override parliamentary legislation except in an emergency and that such temporary legislation is ratified by parliament within 21 days
4. That all judiciary nominations are subject to ratification by parliament through its Judicial Services Committee
5. That we have a fixed term parliament
6. That Presidents are limited to two five year terms

If we can ensure that these values are in our new constitution then we would have gone a long way in changing the politics of our country. This will ensure that the checks and balances on the executive are there. I am not saying we should throw the baby away with the bath water if some of these measures are not in the final draft constitution. Rather I am saying that we should keep an open mind and make a judgment as to whether the new constitution helps to change our political landscape for the better even though it omits some of the provisions we would have wanted included.

However, if we choose to fight each other and oppose the new constitution then we risk giving ZANU PF the right to ride roughshod over us for another generation. It is in ZANU PF interests to maintain the status quo and the infighting among the democratic forces plays right into their plan. The lesson we should take from 1999 is that it is better to adopt a new constitution with some flaws and then hope that we can refine it over the coming years. There is no guarantee that a constitution that includes all the things that different interest groups are pushing for will be a good constitution.

Let us stop ZANU PF by coming together and working together to influence the constitutional process. When the constitution comes to a referendum then we should push for a Yes Vote if we think that it reduces the Executive’s powers especially those of the President. I urge the NCA and its Civil Society partners to do the right thing by ensuring that we do not have another five years of the patched up Lancaster House Constitution. ZANU PF will laugh all the way to the ballot box if we do not reform the constitution.