The Mwonzora-Khupe Group do not stand for constitutionalism

I wrote this before the events at MRT House (formerly Harvest House) had escalated. Obviously today's events reinforce my views as expressed below. Khupe and Mwonzora have always claimed that they are the constitutionalists and that they follow the rule of law. The rigged Supreme Court judgement gave them a sense of legitimacy. However, the use of police and army to takeover MRT House suggests that they are not winning the battle for hearts and minds. They are now burning the house down because they know that the 2014 structures are not with them. 

The criticism levelled against Tsvangirai in the MDC saga is that he failed to follow the MDC constitution in appointing Mudzuri and Chamisa as Deputy Presidents. The criticism levelled against Chamisa is that he didn’t follow the constitution in becoming leader of the party after the death of Tsvangirai. Some may even consider this to be fair criticism.

When Tsvangirai died, Mudzuri, Khupe and Chamisa all claimed that they were the legitimate Acting President of the party. They tried to outclass and outmanoeuvre each other. Chamisa prevailed. I wonder what would have happened if Mudzuri had prevailed? On which side of this fight would he be? Equally, I often wonder what would have happened if Khupe had prevailed?

I have tried to believe the sincerity of those that claim Tsvangirai didn't follow the MDC constitution in appointing Chamisa and Mudzuri. I have also tried to believe the sincerity of those that claim the court restored constitutionality in nullifying these appointments. I have struggled to. I am struggling even more when I look at the current actions by Khupe and Mwonzora which suggest that this is not about constitutionalism. It is not even about restoring legitimacy and constitutionality in the party but rather it is about getting rid of Chamisa! It is about making sure Chamisa cannot challenge them (Mwonzora and Khupe) knowing very well that they cannot win against him. Hence the targeting of his person and his allies. Last week, Mwonzora 'expelled' Chamisa from the MDC T for belonging to another party. However, none of the MPs who have pledged allegiance to him have been expelled. Coincidence?

Tsvangirai, even when allegedly not fully following the MDC constitution, continued to involve his party's National Executive and National Council and to consult the masses on policy. Or at least he made an attempt to work with the party structures. Chamisa (for all his alleged failures to follow the constitution) has led the party with the help of the National Executive and National Council. Even his elevation to party President (whether one agrees with it or not) was done by the National Council and then by congress.

Now contrast this with the actions of Mwonzora, Khupe and Komichi since Supreme Court judgement (aka Covid judgement). The Supreme Court ordered the party to return to the 2014 structures (a stupid order in my opinion). Everything was to go back to 2014 (obviously one can’t bring the dead back to life). Post this judgement it is interesting to note how the Mwonzora group has been selective in defining what constitutes the 2014 structures. Actually, the group has involved a group of less than 10 people in all the decisions so far (this is based on there being no public record of any meetings of the 2014 MDC structures being held since the Supreme Court judgement). The Mwonzora-Khupe Group has not convened a single meeting of the 2014 National Council or the 2014 National Executive. Lovemore Moyo was the National Chairperson in 2014. It follows that if we are using 2014 as the reference point, then Moyo is the chairperson for the purposes of the Supreme Court judgement. Like Khupe, he left the party after the death of Tsvangirai. Therefore, if Khupe can return as Acting President then Moyo should return as National Chair too. But the Mwonzora camp claims (without any sense of irony) that he is no longer a member of MDC T. This absurd situation was wrought in the Supreme Court when it set a reference point (2014) that cannot be practically achieved.

I am not offering a legal opinion here but my own interpretation of the events in the Supreme Court. I am not a lawyer but I am a person with common sense. To illustrate the absurdity of the Supreme Court judgement, one only has to look at the fact that the court ordered the party to go back in time; to turn back the hands of time even though they knew it was impossible to do so. In focusing on the 2016 actions by Tsvangirai while ignoring the subsequent events, the court expressed a political opinion. A non-political judgement would have taken into account everything that happened since 2014. However, this is what the ‘learned judges’ have ruled and ordered. It is what it is. So now let us look at how Mwonzora’s group are operationalising the judgement.

Since the judgement Mwonzora, Khupe and Komichi have acted unilaterally without consulting the 2014 structures. They continue to make decisions as if the court invested all power in this small group of individuals. Yet the Mwonzora group are honourable persons defending the MDC constitution.

All decisions are being made by this small group of people claiming to act for the 2014 structures. When a large group of those who constituted the 2014 National Council asked for a meeting of the 2014 National Council they were ignored. Yet the Mwonzora group are honourable persons defending the MDC T constitution.

When challenged about their statements prior to the Supreme Court ruling, Mwonzora and Komichi give unsatisfactory answers. Legal scholars will help me here: If the Chamisa and Mudzuri appointments to Deputy Presidents were irregular, what is the status of the decisions taken by the party when the two were in post as Deputy Presidents? Are they valid? Are they binding?

In the many months leading to Tsvangirai's death Khupe (the constitutionalist) didn't attend meetings of the National Executive or the National Council because she disagreed with Tsvangirai's decision to form the Alliance. Even though the majority supported the idea of the Alliance, Khupe (the democrat) couldn't bring herself to support a majority decision. Yet the Mwonzora group are honourable persons defending the MDC T constitution.

The Mwonzora group still can't bring themselves to support a majoritarian approach to decision making as evidenced by their failure to convene a meeting of the 2014 National Executive and National Council. They continue to plan and act as small group as if the court gave them power to act unilaterally. Yet the Mwonzora group are honourable persons defending the MDC T constitution.

Instead of acting with the authority of members and elected leaders of the 2014 structures by consulting them and convening meetings of such structures, the Mwonzora group is making decisions without the people. They are speaking for the people without the people. Yet the Mwonzora group are honourable persons defending the MDC T constitution.

By operation of law (bad law in my opinion), the MDC T party is currently under the leadership of the 2014 structures. This means the decision-making process as outlined in the party constitution must involve the 2014 structures. Where decisions are to be made by the Executive, then the 2014 Executive must make decisions. Where decisions are supposed to be made by the National Council, then the 2014 National Council must make those decisions. Not Khupe. Not Mwonzora. Not Mudzuri. Not Komichi. Not even a collection of these individuals should be making decisions. Instead the 2014 structures should.

So, by their actions, the Mwonzora group are not democrats. They are not interested in the MDC constitution. They are only interested in the provisions that will put them in power. For a long time, we have been told that Tsvangirai and Chamisa didn't follow the constitution. We have been told that they should have followed the constitution. There is definitely a case for criticising the two leaders. Yet I find it odd that there is deafening silence from the same critics when the Mwonzora group (the constitutional champions) blatantly violate and manipulate the MDC T constitution to suit their interests. It seems to me the insistence on following the MDC constitution only extends to decisions made by Tsvangirai and Chamisa but not those of the Mwonzora group. The media and the political commentators are culpable in this too.

The irony is that the Mwonzora group is now using necromancy, coercive state institutions (soldiers and police) and violent youths to move their agenda forward. Yet there is silence from the critics. Tsvangirai and Chamisa are lambasted for using youths to subdue opponents. Yet there is silence when Mwonzora does the same. The double standards! When the same standards are applied to Tsvangirai, Chamisa and the Mwonzora group it is difficult to see how Mwonzora’s group can be said to be following the MDC constitution.

In my opinion, the Mwonzora group is even worse in that they are not even consulting the structures; they are not even asking the structures to rubber stamp their decisions. Instead they are acting without regard for the constitutional provisions. The truth of the matter is that Mwonzora’s group are not honourable persons seeking to protect the MDC constitution and/or to follow the provisions of the said constitution. They are opportunists!   

The children whose name is not Mugabe

As parents we have a natural instinct to protect our children from danger. Anything that threatens the lives of our children makes this instinct kick in. We immediately go into the protect mode; lash out at the threat.

It is in this light that we should understand Grace Mugabe’s reaction to the alleged plot to bomb her family’s business and the ‘plot to kill Chatunga’. She reacted like any parent would. I must hasten to say that threatening to kill anyone is wrong and must never be condoned.

However, there is something that is manifestly clear in the statements by the First Lady. It is only when her children are threatened that she cares. As a public figure, who is the wife of the President of the Republic, one would expect her compassion to extend beyond her own family. One does not expect her to care less about her family but to care about all families. When she spoke passionately about the plot to kill her children, it struck most people that this kind of passion has never been seen when the children of her compatriots were faced with such threats.

Her husband has threatened to kill other people’s children for daring to oppose him. He has unleashed shadowy state organs on the people of Zimbabwe; visiting untold horrors on those who dared to stand in his way. Conservative estimates say that about 20000 Zimbabweans were killed in Matabeleland and Midlands for ‘supporting’ dissidents. The victims of this horrible crime against humanity were someone else’s children, someone’s husband or wife, someone else’s parent. The only difference is that they were not Robert Mugabe’s children. They were killed because they were perceived to be enemies of her husband. I understand that this was before the First Lady’s marriage to Robert Mugabe but I am yet to hear Grace Mugabe show compassion for the mothers who lost their children, children who lost their parents or for children who were killed as a direct result of her husband’s policies. Instead we have seen her appear to be working closely with the Gukurahundi denier, VP Mphoko. You can draw your own conclusions.

In the years since the 1999 launch of the MDC Party thousands of Zimbabweans have been killed, maimed and displaced for supporting a political party other than Robert Mugabe’s ZPF. The killings were political; motivated by political differences. Those killed, those left for dead and those who were left permanently disabled were targeted for their politics. The violence visited upon Zimbabweans by ZPF members in 2008 with the implicit and explicit blessing of her husband was truly terrible. If we are to believe the alleged attempt to bomb Mugabe’s Dairy business and the alleged plot to kill Chatunga Mugabe then the motivation appears to be political differences. Those charged with attempting to bomb the Mugabe business are said to belong to an obscure Zimbabwean political party. We are told, by The Chronicle, that those plotting to kill Chatunga include the military and a faction of the ZPF party. This would make the plot politically motivated and driven by political differences. It is, therefore, telling that Grace Mugabe’s instinct to protect has only kicked in to protect her biological children. This clearly suggests that children whose name is not Mugabe do not matter. The children whose name is not Mugabe can be killed for political reasons because their lives matter less than Grace’s. Otherwise how can we explain the fact that Grace and Robert Mugabe have not been moved by the politically motivated disappearance of Patrick Nabanyana, Paul Chizuze and others? How else would you explain the silence and, at times, callous reaction of the Mugabes to the death of hundreds of MDC activists such as Tichaona Chiminya and Talent Mabika? How can we explain the Mugabes’ lack of compassion for the Dzamara family? We can only conclude that Grace Mugabe only cares about her own children (Russell, Bona, Robert Jnr and Chatunga). She only cares about the threat to those of her own blood.

A few weeks ago Zimbabweans watched as bulldozers demolished homes built near the main International Airport in Harare. This followed complaints by Robert Mugabe that the homes were an eyesore. The President’s minions removed the eyesore by making families and children homeless. There were obviously some legal and planning issues with this settlement but one must not forget that these people were sold the land by ZPF land barons. Like Grace Mugabe, these parents’ natural instinct to protect drove them to build homes for their families; safe places for their children. But unlike Grace’s these were children whose name was not Mugabe hence they didn’t deserve the mother-hen protection we now see her giving to her children.

It is this that makes it hard to for us empathise with Grace Mugabe’s natural instinct to protect her children; the fact that she is happy for her family to perpetuate their stay in power through the killing and maiming of other people’s children. To her, the children whose name is not Mugabe are fair game! The children whose name is not Mugabe also matter. When they are threatened we should all seek to protect them. They, like Chatunga, should not be killed because of political differences. As long as the Mugabes indirectly and directly promote violence against those who oppose them in their own party and in the opposition I cannot find it in my heart to feel sorry for Grace Mugabe. As long as Robert and Grace Mugabe continue to show contempt for the children of others, the lives of their political opponents and the children whose name is not Mugabe it is difficult to feel compassion for them in the face of threats to their children’s lives. This may explain the callousness that you see in the comments on social media. All children’s lives should matter not just those of children whose name is Mugabe.

As a parent, I completely understand Grace Mugabe’s reaction to these threats but, as a Zimbabwean, I find it nauseating that this side of her has only come to the fore because someone has threatened her flesh and blood.

© Gabriel Gidi

Make your vote count on July 31

In June 2008 there was a belief that Simba Makoni had a chance of winning the Presidential election. People invested their votes in him. He garnered 8.3% of the valid votes. It turned out that these votes were the difference between Tsvangirai winning a majority in the first round and the country going to a run off. There are clear parallels between the situation in 2008 and the situation obtaining in 2013.

I am not suggesting that in 2008 Simba Makoni was a bad presidential candidate but that he was not a viable candidate. He did not have a realistic chance of winning the election. The coalition between Welshman Ncube and Dumiso Dabengwa creates a situation similar to the 2008 scenario. It brings into the election a presidential candidate with little or no chance of winning the 2013 election; a candidate whose share of the vote will be small but significant in stopping the march to a new Zimbabwe. There are people who are planning on investing their votes in Welshman Ncube as a presidential candidate. While there is nothing to suggest that Ncube is a bad presidential candidate there is clear evidence that he has no realistic chance of winning the July 31 election. Whether we like it or not this election is a two horse race between Morgan Tsvangirai and Robert Mugabe. The other candidates are just spoilers. This has nothing to do with abilities or inabilities of Welshman Ncube as a candidate but reflects the realities on the ground.

Recent utterances by Dabengwa in Chikomba should concern all those who are trying to vote for change. At a rally in Chikomba Dabengwa claimed that he supported Makoni in 2008 in order to block the imminent win by Tsvangirai. Dabengwa is reported to have said, “I think we achieved what we had set ourselves to achieve and that is to make sure Morgan did not win that election…” One can read in this that Dabengwa knew that Makoni was not going to win election but wanted to stop the march towards a new Zimbabwe. Dabengwa has chosen to endorse and support Welshman Ncube knowing very well that he has no chance of winning the presidential election. Is this another attempt by Dabengwa to stop Tsvangirai from winning the election? I believe it is.

I advise the people of Zimbabwe not to vote for Welshman Ncube as a presidential candidate. Our target in this election is to stop ZANU PF from winning power again. We should not help ZANU PF in rigging these elections by voting for Welshman Ncube whose agenda is to stop Tsvangirai winning the election. The selfishness exhibited by Dabengwa in 2008 appears to be the same selfishness driving Ncube in 2013. Dabengwa hoped to get into government through the back door by ensuring that there was no overall winner of the 2008 presidential election. It would appear Ncube is hoping for a similar outcome.

Voting for Welshman Ncube is voting for Robert Mugabe. While the people who will vote for him are not directly voting for Robert Mugabe they are definitely giving Robert Mugabe an advantage. I know that all people who are planning to vote for Welshman Ncube want change; they want a new Zimbabwe. The people voting for Welshman Ncube are patriotic Zimbabweans who are fed up with ZANU PF rule. It is for these reasons that they should make the difficult decision to support the only viable alternative to Robert Mugabe. Tsvangirai has enough nationwide support to defeat Mugabe. No other candidate in this election has the national stature to win against Mugabe. Despite loud pronouncements that Ncube is in this election to win it, we all know that he can only come a distant third to Tsvangirai and Mugabe. Dr Simba Makoni has put the nation before his ambition and has endorsed Morgan Tsvangirai. Makoni is arguably the best President that Zimbabwe never had but he is not selfish. He knows that the democratic struggle is about removing the thieving, corrupt and murdering ZANU PF regime from power. He also knows that the man capable of removing Robert Mugabe at this present time is Morgan Tsvangirai. He is the most popular political party leader in Zimbabwe at this time. That is why Dr Makoni has chosen to support Morgan Tsvangirai.

A friend once said ‘I absolutely hate Morgan Tsvangirai but I am going to vote for him and the MDC in order to remove ZANU PF from power’. This is the attitude that Zimbabweans need in this election. In order to make our votes count against ZANU PF we must vote for Morgan Tsvangirai in the forthcoming elections. All those who want to see change in Zimbabwe must cast their vote for Morgan Tsvangirai. Make your vote count!

No more slogans

As Zimbabwe hurtles towards another election whose outcome is likely to be contested I sat down to reflect on the political journey that we have been on for more than thirty-three years. The Zimbabwe that we helped bring to life has not turned out the way we thought it would. Like midwives Zimbabweans prepared for the delivery of the new country. We were there during all stages of pregnancy, labour and the early postnatal period; a community of midwives with each of us doing our part in bringing about the birth of Zimbabwe.

In 1980 the baby finally arrived. We were ecstatic. It was, therefore, fitting that at the ‘baby welcome party’ a legend performed to welcome this special baby. Bob Marley did not just perform but he also wrote a special tribute to the new baby. The song ‘Zimbabwe’ sums up what drove communities - men, women, young and old – to take up arms against a system that made them second class citizens in the land of their birth. The opening lines, ‘Every man gotta right to decide his own destiny, / And in this judgement there is no partiality’ were poignant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7g-niDevcU

Once we were free we started the difficult task of transforming our nation, the laws, the public services, the education system, the health system, etc. We did a brilliant job in those early years; major improvements in education and health led to the improvement in the quality of life for all Zimbabweans. The five year development plans and other slogans summed up what we were trying to achieve as a nation. Then we caught the bug; the bug that infects those who have been in power for too long – self-preservation and the desire to keep power at all costs. The tune changed. It all became about slogans- ‘Pasi na…’, ‘Pasi ne…’, ‘Pamberi na…’, ‘Pamberi ne…’ etc. The baby turned on the midwives! Instead of transforming lives the government now focussed on preserving power. Action was replaced by slogans and jingles – we were sucked into a cultist support for those in power.

As we reflect on the last thirty-three years we now need to say to the party that has ruled us for all this time – slogans will not be enough. We need to make it clear to them that we do not eat slogans. For thirty-three years they have stripped us of the power that we fought for; they have lined their own pockets from the public purse. For more than thirty years they have used slogans to entice us to support them; those who refused were beaten, maimed or killed. Chenjerai Hove deals with the idea of sloganeering effectively in the Mail and Guardian article titled ‘Zimbabwe's war of empty slogans’. Hove poignantly observes that, ‘As the country faints under heavy economic and political burdens, the politicians would rather punch the air with empty slogans and worthless promises that are so unrealistic  that even illiterate villagers wonder how a politician can be so dumb as to promise a bridge where there is not even a  river.’

It is now time to say we will not be swayed by empty slogans. Zimbabweans need to demand actions rather than slogans; they need to demand the right to determine their own destiny. We must not allow the violent slogans to distract us from our collective search for the freedom that we fleetingly enjoyed in the 1980s. Some politicians believe that Zimbabweans are stupid, passive and incapable of seeing through their empty slogans. It is now time to say ‘We won’t take your slogans no more!’ We need to state clearly that we are not going to be swayed by violence, threats or slogans – we are going to be swayed by policies, ideas and actions. I have written elsewhere about the need for us to disabuse ourselves of the notion that we are unable to change our situation. Once we reject the sloganeering and we vote for policies and practical ideas then we will force our politics and politicians to change.

It is to the legendary Bob Marley that I turn to once again. His song ‘Slogans - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZSihzPBt2A ’ says,

  Wipe out the paintings of slogans all over the streets (ooh, ooh, ooh), confusing the people while your asphalt burns our tired feet.

 I see borders and barriers, segregation, demonstration and riots (ooh, ooh, ooh),    a-sufferation of the refugees, oh-oh, when, when will we be free?

We can stop the asphalt burning our tired feet, we can refuse to be confused by empty slogans, we can refuse to be divided by a cabal of politicians’ slogans and we can take down the ‘borders and barriers’ that stop us working as a collective to achieve real freedom. The answer to Marley’s ‘When will we be free?’ lies in us refusing to be used, refusing to accept empty slogans and in working together. The individuality and selfishness promoted by belonging to political parties needs to be subservient to the needs of our country. We must sing like Marley:

Oh-oh-oh, we can't take your slogans no more,

 can't take your slogans no more,

 can't take your slogans no more,

 no more sweet talk from-a culprit,

 no more sweet talk from the hypocrites.

As Hove states, ‘When Zimbabwean parties campaign, they usually produce a chain of newly invented, juicy slogans and clever political sayings rather than persuading voters with substantive issues, analysis of community and national problems and solutions.’ For a long time we have allowed ourselves to be sweet talked into voting people into power; for a long time we have taken slogans without question. We need to vote for people who engage with the substantive issues of our time; those who diagnose community and national problems in order to come up with practical solutions. The time has come to say to our politicians ‘Can’t take your slogans no more!’

It is difficult to believe in Kick It Out

For the ‘Kick It Out’ Campaign to be effective black players have to believe in it...

Most football managers in the English Premier League have criticised Reading’s Jason Roberts for refusing to wear the Kick It Out warm up T-shirts. The thinking seems to be that all players and managers should support the campaign even though it has clearly failed. Black players are the victims of racism in football. To force them to support a campaign that has clearly failed in its mandate is to misunderstand the reason why the campaign was set up in the first place. Listening to Sir Alex Ferguson talk about how he was embarrassed by Rio Ferdinand’s refusal to wear the T-shirt you would think that he is the one whose family has been subjected to twelve months of abuse. As I watched Alex Ferguson’s interview in which he promised to punish Rio Ferdinand for daring to stand up for his personal beliefs I realised how it has escaped our largely white male football managers that black players are the victims. Alex Ferguson does not seem to care that, despite denials Rio Ferdinand’s England career was effectively ended in order to prolong John Terry’s. Very few commentators believed Roy Hodgson when he said that Rio had been left out for ‘football reasons’. It seems to have escaped him that Chelsea FC chose the first weekend of the Kick It Out campaign week to announce that John Terry would remain their captain. What message does this send to black players in the game? What message is it sending to our children? What does it say about the commitment to eradicate racism in our football?

Premier League managers need to come down from their high horses to realise that this campaign has become a joke. Even those black players who wore the warm up T-shirts have no faith in the campaign. Most did it for fear of being subjected to disciplinary action by their clubs. At Manchester United they probably feared the famed hair dryer treatment from Sir Alex. If his reaction to Rio Ferdinand’s snub is anything to go by then God help any player who chooses to go against Ferguson’s wishes. As a black person, if I was a footballer, I would not wear the disgraced T-shirts.

There is a feeling among football fans in some sections of society that the FA kicked John Terry’s disciplinary case into the long grass for almost a year because they wanted him to play at the European Championships. The revelations this week that the police and the Crown Prosecution Service did not tell the FA to delay their disciplinary proceedings against Terry lend credence to this conspiracy theory. The four match ban also reinforces the view that the FA treated Terry with kid gloves. The way the John Terry case has been dealt by both the FA and Chelsea FC leaves a lot to be desired.

The Kick It Out campaign has shown that it has neither the power nor the influence to bring about change in the plight of players suffering racist abuse. When the campaign’s name changed from ‘Kick Out Racism from Football’ to just ‘Kick It Out’ it may have lost its focus on racism. Kick It Out helps those in positions of authority at different clubs in England and Wales to feel good about themselves because they are doing something about racism in football. The fact that the organisation is a toothless bull dog does not matter because clubs can point to the campaign as leading the fight against racism in football. Fighting racism is not about T-shirts or about campaigns. It is about attitudes; about actions. Clubs should not force players to do what is against their conscience just so that they feel good about themselves. This is too serious an issue to be trivialised like that!