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!

This madness must stop

Robert Mugabe’s God complex is beyond ridiculous. We all know that he believes that he was divinely ordained to rule over Zimbabweans; that his supporters and cronies believe that he is the messiah but this law that forbids us from calling him whatever names we choose is manifestly stupid. A Stalinist law that stops Zimbabweans in a free and independent Zimbabwe from candidly criticising the Head of State of their country has no place in a democratic society. Even the messiah was called names.

In the past year many Zimbabweans from all walks of life have been arrested and charged for insulting Robert Mugabe. Many have languished in police cells for weeks or even months just for sharing their honest opinion of Robert Mugabe. Many opposition activists, MPs and political leaders have been picked up by the police for calling Mugabe names. And yet ZANU PF wonders why Zimbabweans have deserted their party in droves! The people of Zimbabwe have no interest in a leader who has ‘an unshakable belief characterized by consistently inflated feelings of personal ability, privilege, or infallibility’. They do not want a leader who refuses to admit the possibility of error or failure, or who regards their personal opinions as unquestionably correct (Adapted from Wikipedia). They want a human being who accepts that he can fail and that people have right to criticise him.

Why shouldn’t we be able to say ‘Mugabe is old and senile’ or ‘Mugabe must go’ or ‘Mugabe chibva; Mugabe chifa; Mugabe chienda’? Why shouldn’t we wish him dead to avenge our relatives, friends or colleagues who were killed by his supporters for refusing to support him? Is there any justification for a law that protects an individual from criticism when they occupy the highest political office in our land? Mugabe’s hubristic view of himself has created the mess that Zimbabwe faces today and we should be free to call him ‘stupid, deranged, or old’. If we want to pray for his death then so be it. If we want to engender feelings of hostility towards or cause hatred, contempt or ridicule of the person of Robert Mugabe or make abusive, indecent or obscene statements about or concerning him then it is a free country. That is what we fought for. That is why we supported the liberation struggle. We did not participate in the liberation struggle to engender the supremacy of an individual or group of individuals; we participated to create an egalitarian society in which all men (women) are equal.

We have allowed Mugabe to get away with so many things. It is now time to tell him that he is not a god or a messiah; that we will call him whatever we please because Zimbabwe will never be a colony again.         

Now they are on top!

Much has been written about the recent Freedom House/ Mass Public Opinion Institute opinion poll survey which has shown that ZANU PF (ZPF) is now, arguably, the most popular party in Zimbabwe; that Robert Mugabe will easily win the next election against Morgan Tsvangirai. The survey shows that Mugabe has a 12 point lead on Tsvangirai. The caveat is that 40% of the respondents to the survey refused to reveal their voting intentions. It is not clear whether those polled are registered voters or what impact the fear of political violence has had on the results. There are people on both sides of the debate who have dissected and analysed the results of this survey as well as the implications of this survey on the Zimbabwean body politic so I will not go down this well trodden path. I want to focus on the impact these results could have on the philosophy, policies and actions of ZPF. I present here a very hypothetical scenario!

ZPF has used coercion and violence since the 1985 elections. On the explicit instructions of the then Prime Minister Robert Mugabe people were ‘evicted’ from their homes in Glen View, Glen Norah, Highfields and other high density suburbs because they were suspected of being supporters of Nkomo and Muzorewa. Violence and intimidation have been ZPF’s modus operandi and have progressively become worse as their fortunes waned. Those who have had the misfortune of being the target of ZPF thugs will know that they were prepared to do anything to shore up their party’s fortune. Many civil servants in rural areas were forced to buy ZPF cards, attend ZPF rallies and to contribute financially to the upkeep of the party in order to be safe. Refusing to do so was a death wish. At one point the MDC even encouraged its members to buy ZPF cards as an insurance policy against violence. Now that they have a double digit lead in the opinion polls the time has come for ZPF to renounce violence; to disown Chipangano, rogue war veterans and other merchants of death. ZPF has used the intelligence, defence and security personnel from the CIO, the ZRP and the ZDF to terrorise people in cities and villages into voting for them.

Now they are on top! They are, arguably, the most popular party in Zimbabwe so we expect them to build on this momentum without resorting to violence. If ZPF believes the results of this survey and if they believe that their ‘star’ is rising once again then they will stop intimidating people into supporting them. If Mugabe is sure to win then there is no need for violence. We can now look forward to the party not trying to stay in power through manipulating the Constitution making process or deploying violent thugs to beat people into submission. We can now look forward to elections where soldiers stay in the barracks; where the police are defenders of people rights rather than violators of human rights. This survey gives ZPF an opportunity to redeem itself by fighting elections on the basis of ideas rather than fists, knobkerries and machetes. As the most popular party in the country they know that the majority of the people support them so they just need to consolidate this support without burning people’s homes.

The silver lining to these results may be that Zimbabwe can be healed from the violence that has blighted our nation for more than ten years. The results of this survey give us a chance to have a peaceful general election. When the MDC was the top party in Zimbabwe they didn’t need to force people to attend their rallies. People attended even at great personal risk because they supported the party. ZPF, having made a spectacular rise to the top of the rankings, will no longer need to round up people to attend their rallies; they will no longer need to force teachers and school children to attend their rallies. People will come because they genuinely support the party. But it all depends on ZPF. Their actions will tell us whether the results of this survey are to be believed. If violence and intimidation of political opponents continues then Zimbabweans will make their minds up as to whether to believe the results of Freedom House/ Mass Public Opinion Institute opinion poll. We live in hope.   

Constitutions do matter

An article on the ZBC website posted on the 27^th of March 2012 suggests that ordinary people in Zimbabwe do not think that a new constitution is a priority. They posit that the people are more interested in ‘bread and butter’ issues than in a new constitution. While it is true that a new constitution on its own is not a panacea to our political and socio-economic problems, it is also true that the supreme law governs how we are governed by those we elect to power. In that sense I would argue that a new constitution is a prerequisite if we are to deal with the plethora of problems affecting our motherland.

I am not a legal scholar so I will avoid making legal arguments. However, my understanding of a constitution is that it allows us to increase or reduce the power that we give to the arms of government – the executive, the judiciary and the legislature. A good constitution allows people to put safeguards as well as checks and balances on the people we elect to power. The current constitution allows the President to have unlimited executive powers that mean that he can make judicial appointments after ‘consulting’ the Judicial Services Commission, which he also appoints. Under the current constitution the President appoints the Defence Forces Chiefs, the Commissioner General of Police, the CIO Director, etc without oversight from anyone. Therefore, the people appointed to these posts are answerable to the President rather than the people of Zimbabwe. This is what has created the problems that are bedevilling our country. A new constitution allows us, if we choose, to take these powers from one person and give them to Parliament. It allows us, if we choose, to give parliament oversight over all Presidential appointments. Any Presidential appointments would need to be confirmed by parliament before taking effect. This would mean an extra layer of checks to ensure that the President does not use the resources of the state to reward his cronies.

It would help illuminate this discussion if we knew what question or questions were asked the participants in this survey. It would also help to know how many people were asked the question to establish whether this is a representative sample. More importantly it would be important to establish the gender, education, religion, political views of the participants. However, this will make the discussion complicated. Let us stick to the simple argument put forward by the writer of the ZBC article. Let us examine the premise of the writer’s argument which is that, “Ordinary Zimbabweans say the current constitution making exercise, which has gobbled millions of dollars, is not a priority in a country where the majority of people are concerned with bread and butter issues.” This suggests that the writer/researcher is concerned about the cost of writing a new constitution at a time when that money could be directed to other ‘worthy causes’. If the survey question(s) were framed based on this premise then you would expect anyone living on the fringes of the Zimbabwean economy to say a constitution is not a priority when asked whether the money could be directed to other causes such as the failing water and sanitation in the capital city. But this argument is flawed because it assumes that because writing a new constitution costs a lot of money then we should not invest in it. The same argument could be made about elections. Elections cost millions which could be directed at improving the generation of electricity or to give loans to the new farmers. Following this logic, then elections would not be a priority for ordinary Zimbabweans. That indeed is absurd. There is a case to be made against the process and the end product of this process but that does not make rewriting our constitution a worthless exercise.

An unnamed person is quoted on the ZBC website: “I don’t even know how this constitution is going to benefit me, what I want at the moment is survival and I think government should prioritise hunger alleviation and improving our welfare,” said one Harare resident. The reason we have been reduced to ‘survival’ and ‘welfare’ is because those we entrusted with the levers of power made decisions on our behalf. In our name they made decisions without having to consult us that led to the economy haemorrhaging to death. The powers given to individuals and entities by the Zimbabwean constitution determine how they exercise power over us. It is, therefore, true that our current political and socio-economic situation is a direct result of our constitutional dispensation. The laws that we have in Zimbabwe have been shaped by the interaction between our politics and our constitution. I know some will argue that the constitution has been subverted as well as serially amended by the Zanu PF government but that is exactly the reason why we need to rewrite the constitution. The constitutional amendment that created the overarching Executive Presidency which is now part of our current constitution has allowed the President to wield more power than that of both houses of parliament. An individual can legislate and overrule all our elected representatives because our constitution allows him/her to. This is not about Robert Mugabe but about both the present and the future. If Robert Mugabe loses the next election his successor will still have the absolute monarchist powers that have been largely responsible for the crisis that we are currently going through. So I would want to say to Harare resident and others – Constitutions do matter. If we are going to shape the society that we want then the best way to articulate our values, beliefs, norms, etc is to have a new constitution.

I know that there are a lot of problems facing ordinary people in our country but we need to put the constitutional debate in context. Costs are not everything. We need to look at the Cost-Benefit analysis to get a clearer picture. I think that whatever money we spend on Constitution making or elections is money well spent if this helps to shape the political direction that we want our nation to take. We should not let those who want the preserve the status quo in the constitutional dispensation scare us by quoting the costs out of context. Once we go down this road we will have others arguing that because elections cost money then holding elections regularly is not a priority. I hope that it is only a minority of our people who hold similar views to those of residents quoted in the ZBC report because Constitutions do matter.

Zanu PF politicians protecting their ill-gotten fortune

One has often wondered what drives senior Zanu PF (ZPF) and security people who  are prepared to use violence to keep Robert Mugabe in power. We are constantly reminded of the nationalist credentials of those at the top of the ZPF side of government and at the top of the military machine (police, army, CIO). They often claim that they are protecting the country from those trying to give away the country to the British and American imperialists.

Now these claims have been put to question after Phillip Chiyangwa clearly stated why the ZPF big wigs and top military men are afraid of Mugabe losing power. In an article dated 21st November 2011 he is quoted in the Newsday as saying, “There is no Zanu PF politician or relative of the President with riches who feels safe (if Tsvangirai won) because MDC wants to pounce on us and on our businesses”. This clearly shows how under Mugabe they have been allowed to do their businesses without any oversight. The ‘lootocracy’ that Mugabe and ZPF created in their more than thirty years in government could be under threat if a new government comes to power. Anyone whose business dealings are above board would not fear the coming of a new government but those whose sudden fortunes cannot be explained have a lot to fear from the election of a new government. Men and women who have worked in public service for the last twenty to thirty years now have million dollar business empires that are not commensurate with their earnings in the last thirty years. Where did they get this kind of money?

The violence that we have witnessed in recent elections has nothing to do with ‘protecting the gains of the liberation struggle’; it has nothing to do with the fear that a new government will return the country to whites and imperialists. This is not an attempt to protect Zimbabwe. It is an unashamed attempt to protect the businesses and riches of the Zanu PF politicians or relatives of President Mugabe. The merchants of death and violence sponsoring and authoring violence in cities and villages are motivated by nothing other than selfish interests. The families that have lost homes and family members because they support the opposition MDC haven’t been targeted because they pose a threat to Zimbabwe but to the ‘riches’ of Mugabe’s men. What has been dubbed the Third or Fourth Chimurenga is a war to ensure that ZPF politicians are not asked to account for how they got their ‘riches’.

It is sickening that ZPF is willing to make Zimbabweans suffer in order to protect the riches of the few. The selfishness is staggering. This is how much ZPF politicians and the President’s relatives have lost touch with the ideals of the liberation struggle. Gutsaruzhinji is now Gutsavakuru. Judging by the tone of Chiyangwa’s address we can expect a bloody election campaign as ZPF politicians and their hangers on in the politicised army, police and secret service seek to keep ZPF in power. They will murder, torture and maim Zimbabweans to protect the riches of the ZPF ruling class. God help us all!

Mugabe's Dilemma

These are interesting times in ZANU PF (ZPF) as the party grapples with the fallout from the leaked US diplomatic cables. Wikileaks has finally caught up with ZPF. All the ZPF singers had a field day when the first cables of the conversations between US diplomats and members of the MDC were published. There were enthusiastic calls for people to be charged with treason. One of the loudest proponents of this course of action was Jonathan Moyo, MP. One wonders what he thinks now that it has been revealed that he also spoke to the Americans; even calling for regime change.

For a party that expelled Tracy Mutinhiri because of suspected links to MDC T (a lawfully constituted and registered political party) to not do something to people who dared to speak to the ‘hated’ Americans would be unbelievable. It would be hypocrisy at its highest for ZPF to expel Mutinhiri and yet do nothing to senior leaders who prostituted themselves to the Americans. So what will Mugabe do? Will he expel all the rebels who clearly feel that he has become a liability to the party and to the country?

One of the hawks in ZPF, Didymus Mutasa, is quoted in the media suggesting that those who engaged the US diplomats should be sanctioned. This issue will play right into the feisty succession debate currently engulfing the former ruling party. What must be playing on Mugabe’s mind is the potential of this tearing apart a party that is already fragile from the reported infighting. Chances are that if senior members of the party are suspended or expelled on the basis of the leaked cables then the infighting could potentially become a full on war which leaves the party terminally wounded. ZPF is a sick party and is unlikely to survive the upheaval that faces the party as it seeks to deal decisively with the ‘traitors’ who shared party secrets with US diplomats.

One way to deal with this would be to discredit the leaked cables as untrue and unfounded. This would allow ZPF to move on without having to do anything. However, discrediting the cables means that ZPF cannot then use them against the opposition. The ZPF Attorney General Johannes Tomana’s attempt to charge opposition politicians on the basis of evidence from the cables would automatically fall away. I am reliably informed by people with a greater understanding of Zimbabwe’s criminal law than mine that Tomana’s chances of successfully prosecuting the cases was nonexistent but it didn’t matter as long as it was MDC people being persecuted (prosecuted).

Another problem for Mugabe is that up to now he has maintained the myth that it is people outside ZPF who were calling for his departure. He has always claimed that it is the western ‘puppets’ in the MDC who have been pushing the agenda for regime change. This has now been shown to be the myth it has always been. The recent leaked cables reveal that significant numbers of ZPF officials want him to go. There is a growing consensus in Zimbabwe and in ZPF that Mugabe has become a liability. This is significant because it means that Mugabe can no longer claim that it is only Tsvangirai and other opposition leaders who want him out. It takes away the argument that we have heard ad nauseum from Mugabe and his party. The list of people who are reported to have spoken to the Americans reads like the Who is Who in ZPF and they all want Mugabe. Those of us who have always wanted Mugabe and his party to leave power will feel vindicated that even those closest to him feel that his time is up.

The other thing that has been revealed by these cables is that despite their public protestations people in ZPF want to impress the Americans. This could explain the anger in ZPF over the issue of targeted sanctions. Those in ZPF seem to have been competing for the approval of the mighty USA. The coming weeks and months will be interesting. We will keep watching the space!

A Lybian transitional authority that includes Gaddafi will be a farce

The African Union (AU) has once again shown that it is a club of leaders who are largely out of touch with the aspirations of the African people. In an effort to protect its major benefactor, the Union is now proposing a Kenyan/Zimbabwean-style government of national unity for Lybia. The colonel himself sensing an opportunity has quickly dispatched his spokesperson to tell the world that Gaddafi is ready to negotiate with the rebels. What Gaddafi knows is that if a Kenyan/Zimbabwean-style transitional authority is constituted then he will remain in power. His powers will remain largely unchanged. Where was Gaddafi in the last six months? Why didn’t he offer to negotiate before he was on the run?

The African Union has protected and consolidated the power of those who lost elections in Kenya and Zimbabwe. The transitional authorities in both Kenya and Zimbabwe were about Kibaki and Mugabe rather than the people of Kenya and Zimbabwe. It will be a farce for Gaddafi to emerge from whatever ‘hole’ he is hiding in to lead Lybia again. I agree with many other commentators who say that the AU is on the wrong side of history. We have seen how the ‘national unity’ government in Zimbabwe has not been able to achieve its intended aims because of Robert Mugabe and his Zanu PF. Once he had been saved by his friends in SADC and AU it was business as usual for Robert Mugabe. The GNU gave Mugabe legitimacy and gave him a strong negotiating position which hitherto he did not have.

Lybians should resist this blatant attempt by the AU to give a lifeline to Gaddafi. Only a few days ago Gaddafi was calling the freedom fighters rats and calling for their deaths. Now that he is cornered he is now trying to pretend that he is prepared to negotiate. It is common knowledge that once his attempt to make Lybia an Arab nation had failed Gaddafi embraced the AU and invested huge sums of money in the organisation. The AU budget has relied on the benevolence of the Lybian strong man for many years now. It is, therefore, impossible for the AU to be impartial in this conflict. The AU is not interested in the aspirations of the Lybian people. The organisation owes its very existence to Gaddafi and his vision for a United States of Africa so it will do everything possible to keep him in power.

It is farcical for the AU to suggest that Lybians do not know what is good for their country. Thousands left their homes, jobs, universities and families to join the ‘rebel’ army. Some left the comfort of life in Europe and America to join the freedom fighters because they believed that Gaddafi should be removed from power. They did not join the war in order to allow Gaddafi to return as head of a government of national unity. Mooting a transitional authority for Lybia that includes Muammar Gaddafi is like kicking the people of Lybia in the teeth. Gaddafi has made his own bed and he should be allowed to lie in it. The AU should stay out of Lybia.

Time to reflect on the meaning of Independence

In a few days we will be celebrating 31 years of ‘freedom’ from colonial rule. The word freedom implies that people are free; free to do as they please within the law. Free to participate in the political discourse of their country without the fear of being brutalised. I am not sure that as Zimbabweans we can claim to be free in this sense.

31 years ago Zimbabwe became a state ‘…which governs itself independently of any foreign power’ (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary). This gave us the power ‘…to make laws, to execute and to apply them: to impose and collect taxes, and, levy, contributions; to make war or peace; to form treaties of alliance or of commerce with foreign nations….’ A new state with a majority government was born. We set out on a journey to the future.

I vividly remember the euphoria that engulfed the nation when ZANU PF came to power in 1980. Everyone was flapping their arms like a cockerel to show their joy that Jongwe had won. For the first time the majority black Zimbabweans had a say in how they were governed. As a grade 1 pupil I didn’t understand what this meant but I clearly understood that the people were happy. My teacher then, Miss Muganhu (later Mrs Kadhani) walked into class that day flapping her arm and with a huge smile. As I grew up I was to always associate that smile with the joy that people felt at gaining independence.

The euphoria translated into delivery as in the first decade of independence Robert Mugabe led a government that declared a policy of reconciliation, built more schools, funded universal primary education, and implemented many other policies that changed people’s lives. There was hope. I am a product of the heavy investment in education. Those of us who went to school and university after 1980 suddenly found ourselves with opportunities that had been closed to non-whites during the colonial period. The work of ZIPRA and ZANLA in the liberation struggle was paying off. Zimbabwe was prospering.

So 31 years on what is there for those who took advantage of the opportunities presented to them by independence? What is there for our children? ZANU PF gave us an education; they made us aware of the power of one man one vote. ZAPU and ZANU introduced us to democracy through the 1980 elections. It is ironic therefore, that both ZAPU and ZANU have collaborated to take away the power of our vote. In the post 1987 era ZANU and ZAPU became ZANU PF and they have systematically taken back the powers that we wildly celebrated in 1980. Now the country that started with great promise is a shadow of its former self. Many of those who went round flapping their ‘wings’ in 1980 are in their fifties and sixties. They should be looking forward to peaceful retirement but instead they are being kept awake by two things; the prospect of extreme poverty in retirement and the fear of being branded a member of the opposition. Those of us who are younger are kept awake by the fact that while those able to vote in 1980 got a chance to change the way they were governed and who governed them we cannot do that now because a cabal of ZANU and ZAPU leaders have conspired to take away this right from us. They gave us an education but their policies have taken away the jobs. They introduced democracy to our parents who in turn inculcated it in us but now they are taking away our votes.

It is this light that we have to reflect on the 31 years of independence. The joy we felt in 1980 has dissipated. We feel cheated. We are effectively under a new colonialism authored and finished in 1987 by ZAPU and ZANU. Those who freed us from the chains of colonialism have now chained us to a rogue nationalist agenda that forces us to support ZANU PF or die. The power of our vote has been removed as those tasked with adjudicating the electoral contests are not impartial. Your vote has full value or double value if you vote for ZANU PF but it has half or no value if you vote for the opposition. 31 years on millions of the born free generation are living in foreign lands running away from the economic and political meltdown presided over by the liberation parties. 31 years on the born free generation watches in horror as those who promised a land of milk and honey are enriching themselves while the masses are languishing in poverty. This is the legacy that ZANU PF has bequeathed us. 31 years of ‘liberation’ have no meaning for most young people. While much was achieved in the early years of independence the last ten years have been largely forgettable.

An Empty Birthday

Today (21st February 2011) marks Robert Mugabe’s 87th birthday. He has lived long and many have remarked on how healthy and spritely he is. One hopes that as he looks back on nearly 9 decades of health and life he will take time to reflect on what he has done to Zimbabwe.
Life expectancy in Zimbabwe has been reduced to thirty seven for most Zimbabweans mainly due to Zanu PF policies. Most government hospitals, clinics and health centres have been reduced to ghosts of their former selves. Thousands of nurses and doctors have been forced into economic exile because Mugabe’s government chose to pay his Green Bomber militias better than teachers and nurses. Some had to run away from their rural health centres because Zanu PF ‘youths’ wanted to kill them. This left Zimbabwe with an understaffed and underfunded health care system.
While Robert Mugabe has had a fruitful and ‘successful’ 87years on earth, hundreds of thousands of children have died in the decade between 1999 and 2009 because they could not access health care. Thousands of mothers died in childbirth because they could not afford to go to hospital. While his health is properly looked after by doctors and nurses in Malaysia and Singapore thousands of Zimbabweans are dying because they cannot access or afford proper health care. Many young people in Zimbabwe will not live to the ripe old age of 87 because of a variety of factors; chief among them the Zanu PF government policies of the last decade. This is the legacy that Mugabe has bequeathed to the children of Zimbabwe.
In his 87years on earth Robert Mugabe has achieved a lot in terms of education. We are constantly reminded of his many university degrees. Those of us who graduated from state universities in Zimbabwe will know that his degrees (earned and honorary) covered half the front of the graduation booklet. I have nothing against his achievements except that he took away from Zimbabwe’s children a chance to achieve the same. Robert Mugabe prides himself as the boy from Kutama (the village) whose mother worked hard to help him get a good education. It is, therefore, ironic that through his scorched earth policies many teachers ran away from village schools because Zanu PF ‘youths’ threatened to kill them for choosing to support the MDC. In some cases teachers were beaten to pulp just for being suspected MDC supporters. Now Zimbabwe’s children can no longer write a Robert Mugabe rags to riches type story for themselves because there are not many qualified teachers in rural schools. Some talented teachers are working in bars and restaurants, construction, warehouses while some are caring for the elderly in foreign lands because they were driven away by politics and poor pay. Thanks to Robert Mugabe. The quality of teachers has been drastically reduced ever since colleges started recruiting teacher trainees based on their political affiliation rather than academic qualification.
As we look back on the 87 years of Robert Mugabe’s life on earth we can’t help but reflect on his thirty years in power. How the hope and euphoria of the 1980s gave way to the anger and disappointment of the 1990s and beyond. While he has lived for nearly 9 decades, thousands of young and middle aged men and women perished in Matabeleland and the Midlands. Their only crime was being different from Mugabe. While he enjoys today with his wife and children, thousands of Zimbabwean families are without a father as a direct result of Mugabe’s policies – Patrick Nabanyama, , Trymore Midzi, Talent Mabika, Tichaona Chiminya, Milton Chambati, Titus Nleya and many others who have remained faceless and nameless. Political violence has robbed children of the chance to see their fathers live to a ripe old age. Mugabe’s merchants of death have torched homes, murdered opponents as well as destroyed families.
I hope when Mugabe sits down to eat cake with his family, friends, cronies and supporters he will realise what an empty 87th birthday it is. Empty because the people are not celebrating with him; they are not praying for many more. It is an empty birthday because Zimbabweans can never aspire to a life half as long as his. A sad birthday to you Mr President!

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.