THE STRUGGLE FOR REAL CHANGE IN ZIMBABWE: The challenges and the solutions.

The biggest challenge that we face as champions and agents of social and economic change is that of building a coherent set of ideas that are timeless, pragmatic, sustainable and achievable. These ideas should reflect the perpetual endeavour by humankind to be free and equal. In this article, I will try to examine this challenge and also postulate some solutions.

A lot of demonisation has gone around the world about ZANU PF’s behaviour in Zimbabwe but at the same time it seems as if it is only ZANU PF that owns the good ideas about how life ought to be in my country. We have a situation where ZANU PF does horrible things in the name of Pan-Africanism and Socialism. At the end of the day Zimbabweans have begun to associate these ideas with the tainted image of ZANU PF to the extent that they are willing to settle for anything outside of this as an alternative.

Is there anything bad about Pan-Africanism and Socialism? To me, these ideas are constants which we need as yardsticks for human evolution towards an ideal and civilised society. However, because of a variable in the form of ZANU PF, many of us have become paranoid of the concepts much to the detriment of the struggle and to the advantage of the capitalist vampire. So, how do we extract the ideals of the struggle from the grip of ZANU PF, spruce them and again sell them as the rallying point of our struggle for emancipation?

This is where we need to expose the intricate hand of the capitalist in turning us from an enthusiastic, dedicated and united people to a withdrawn, sombre, resigned and careless people. Is it practical that Zimbabweans who bravely fought the longest and bloodiest struggle against colonialism could so suddenly turn into cowardly servants of dictatorship? No, Zimbabweans are not cowards but there is nothing for them in this power struggle – so why fight?


The U.S as part of the problem
The biggest blame that I lay on the United States is its treacherous and coercive behaviour when dealing with Africa. The desire of the U.S in Zimbabwe which of course is consistent with its capitalist objectives has never been to see the social or economic development of ordinary Zimbabweans, rather its intentions were meant to entrench and sustain a capitalist hegemony in Zimbabwe especially led by big American corporations.

Firstly, a closer analysis of the Economic Structural Adjustment Program (1991-1994) would reveal the conspiracy between the Zimbabwe Government and the World Bank to undermine the livelihood of general Zimbabweans. Although the package came veiled under the cosy intent to promote higher growth and to reduce poverty and unemployment, it was the strategy that raised more questions than applauses.

1. How does retrenchment of civil servants result in increased employment?
2. How on earth can removal of maize subsidy to the generality of the people be expected to increase their standards of living?
3. How does the reintroduction of health and school fees help develop the disadvantaged child?
Since the World Bank is (by default) owned by the United States and also since US has the biggest quota in IMF I find the United States equally responsible for the mismanagement of the Zimbabwean economy and for dehumanising the poor of Zimbabwe.

Secondly, the other excuses by the IMF and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development for stopping financial support to Zimbabwe in 1999 raise more questions than answers:

1. Undemocratic tendencies by Mugabe- Since independence has Mugabe ever been democratic in his rule? Where was the IMF when the Matebeleland massacres occurred? Where was IMF and the World Bank in 1990 when ZUM was brutalised and the likes of Patrick Kombayi were shot? If this isn’t pure hypocrisy, where did the WB get the guts to approve the US$125 million loan to Zim in 1992?

2. Zimbabwe’s involvement in Democratic Republic of Congo- I do not justify the reasons that I gather Mugabe entered DRC for but it has been common knowledge that Zimbabwe had been on many peace-keeping and other military operations in Africa before the DRC. Why was DRC that important? I guess this question is beyond the scope of this article but suffice to say Mugabe tampered with the long-standing interests of the American capitalists which dated back to the days of Mobutu. Why hasn’t Angola been punished by the IMF or WB despite its continued involvement in DRC?

I am of the conviction that these were just excuses to punish Zimbabweans for choosing the path of social equality at the expense of the capitalist interests.

Lastly, after carefully studying the excerpts of declassified CIA material, I cannot help but be convinced that the complexities of our struggle in Zimbabwe have been brought about by a clear American hand that would rather have a docile, pro-American party ruling Zimbabwe instead of a truly revolutionary and people-oriented alternative to ZANU PF. I will dwell more on this.


I find it worthwhile to refer to the Memorandum Prepared by the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the COURSES OF ACTION TO COUNTER COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF GHANA, GUINEA AND MALI (31 January 1962). I will particularly, concentrate on the recommendations:

“The following courses of action, lying primarily outside of the capabilities of the US Military Establishment, would enhance our position in Ghana, Guinea, and Mali, and would contribute to the success of the courses of action listed in paragraph 8 which utilize primarily the resources of the Military Establishment.

a. Expose by all means [less than 1 line of source text not declassified] Communist Bloc activities in Ghana, Guinea, and Mali, which are inimical to the rights and aspirations of the individual. (This program should be carried on not only by the appropriate US agencies, but by the use of the third party principle.)

b. Discredit [less than 1 line of source text not declassified] Communist oriented or Communist trained governmental personnel. (The third party principle should be used to the fullest extent.)

c. Assist [less than 1 line of source text not declassified] pro-Western opposition parties, individuals, or refugee groups in gaining prestige and in building a strong opposition movement to Communism.

d. Assist pro-Western groups in gaining control of news media by [less than 1 line of source text not declassified] providing funds and assistance.

e. Assist personnel in categories c and d above, in gaining prestige by orientation visits to the United States.”
By carefully studying the implications of the above prescriptions one cannot help but wonder whether the same strategies are not being applied today in Zimbabwe. Whilst, I do not have anything against the exposure of human rights abuses in Zimbabwe, I find it rather fishy that there is a constant and unrelenting coverage of only the bad in Zimbabwe and never the good. This program is clearly being carried out by the now so ubiquitous civic organisations that are directly linked to the US agencies that operate in the country.
The huge media coverage and the open carpet that exist for Movement for Democratic Change makes it quite impossible for one not to suspect that as was the resolution in 1962, there could be a direct symbiotic relationship between this party and the US. Many radio stations have also erupted notably the VOA’s Studio 7 and SWRadioAfrica which for all the good they say they are doing never beam any positive news about Zimbabwe.
There are many Zimbabweans who have been invited to the US for prestigious awards and other program including the current president of the MDC, Mr Tsvangirai. The purpose of these people is to spur others into activities that necessitate the removal of the current regime in the hope that they too may also be recognised by the US. However, only those that prop up the ideas of the capitalist get recognition; the same reason why people like Munyaradzi Gwisai of the International Socialist Organisation Zimbabwe would find it difficult to get American recognition despite his gallant stance against the regime.
Finally on this note, I want to affirm the point that the 1960s strategy is still being used in Africa, including the laws that were passed then for the purposes of curtailing the spread of communism. It does not need a divine stimulus for one to see the similarities between the above and the contents of ZIMBABWE DEMOCRACY AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT OF 2001 (ZIDERA):

“Sec 5: Support for democratic institutions, the free press and independent media, and the rule of law.
(a) IN GENERAL.—the President is authorized to provide assistance under part I and chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to—
(1) Support an independent and free press and electronic media in Zimbabwe;
(2) Support equitable, legal, and transparent mechanisms of land reform in Zimbabwe, including the payment of costs related to the acquisition of land and the resettlement of individuals, consistent with the International Donors’ Conference on Land Reform and Resettlement in Zimbabwe held in Harare, Zimbabwe, in September 1998, or any subsequent agreement relating thereto; and
(3) Provide for democracy and governance programs in Zimbabwe.
(b) FUNDING.—of the funds authorized to be appropriated to carry out part I and chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for fiscal year 2002—
(1) $20,000,000 is authorized to be available to provide the assistance described in subsection (a) (2); and
(2) $6,000,000 is authorized to be available to provide the assistance described in subsection (a) (3).”

America as part of the solution

America can still be a valuable positive asset in our struggle only if becomes pro-people and allow for the people of Zimbabwe to choose a path for their own freedom without coercion or duress.

Sustainable change in Zimbabwe can only come if the people choose to move in tandem not only united by a common enemy but also by a common goal and vision. The only way we can build a common goal and vision is when we cease to be survival scavengers. Right now it is a matter of priorities; people simply have to choose between “politics of the stomach” and “national politics”, the former obviously taking precedence.

Although USA would want to hide behind a finger and proclaim that there are no blanket sanctions against Zimbabwe it is clear to all and sundry that this is not the case. To prove this point, I will quote the US Ambassador to Zimbabwe, James Mcgee when he was asked by Violet Gonda of SWRadioAfrica about the removal of sanctions against Zimbabwe:
“The financial sanctions that have been brought against Zimbabwe are there for a good reason and the good reason is the fact that Zimbabwe has refused to pay back the loans outstanding to this country. They have refused to service their debt and that is why there are financial sanctions against Zimbabwe. You are not going to find any international lending institution willing to lend money to Zimbabwe because Zimbabwe has a long track record of not paying this money back.”

By extrapolation; indeed the sanctions are there, and also the US is using its muscle in international financial institutions to deny Zimbabwe access to loans. So, dull as we may be, it is clear that the US, has been acting as the saviour on the public arena yet behind the scenes is busy cooking us (the general Zimbabweans) in a hot pot.

It is this nicodemus behaviour that has been retrogressive to our struggle. I therefore urge the Americans to lift these sanctions so that Zimbabweans can have food and other social services. This would allow for soberness of the brain and a clear conscience which are both important in building consciousness and commitment to the struggle.

We are also encountered by a dearth in leadership simply because of the American strategy of assimilating all potential revolutionaries into its system by the lure of the dollar. This is typified by the fact that nearly all former radical student leaders are employed by various civic organisations which are funded by USAID or other American institutions like NED. This has stifled intellectual discourse as most of them lose their innovative conscience and begin to echo counter-revolutionary and structuralist ideas consistent with where their bread is buttered.

I believe the liberation of Zimbabwe can be spurred by the intelligentsia of the society which at this point is being uprooted in its infancy.

America should provide unconditional support to the struggle as a matter of moral commitment to the liberation of Zimbabweans regardless of our ideological differences. This contemporary analysis applies also even to other Western countries especially United kingdom.

Having said this, I doubt that America as harsh and ruthless as it is can be that generous or benevolent to this struggle; rather, we are on our own and only our faith and commitment will free us.

Extracting the values of the struggle

Yes, like the Movement for Democratic Change correctly points out; our struggle is for democracy but which kind of democracy? We are fighting for a democracy that understands our values and foundation as a people, a democracy that appreciates our history as a people and also commits to our vision as a people.

These values are stated below:

1. Zimbabwe is a sovereign state whose independence shall never be tempered with.
2. Zimbabwe comes first, Africa second and the World third
3. Zimbabwe is for Zimbabweans, everyone else is a brother
4. Zimbabwe is Zimbabwe by virtue of its boundaries, history and culture.
5. The voice of the people of Zimbabwe is the voice of God.

Having understood these, the democracy that we are fighting for would then appreciate a number of facts that exist in our society. These facts include, tribal and linguistic diversity, poverty, racial diversity, colonialism and its legacy, religious multiplicity and a lot others. This democracy should therefore be able to address these without bias, vengeance or fear guided by our general vision of a free, united and prosperous Zimbabwe that exists based on principles of egalitarianism. Pragmatically, this democracy should be in a position to build a united movement of all Zimbabweans and then weed a path that this movement would follow, confident of the fact that that path would lead them towards their collective destination!

Am I not echoing a lot of things that ZANU PF has used against us? Indeed I am, but the fault is ours; we are the ones who have allowed ZANU PF to bastardise our values. We allowed ZANU PF to define to us what patriotism is, we allowed it to monopolise the liberation struggle, and we allowed it to own our heroes and our history. It is a shame that even MDC has been caught up in this maze of ignorance to the extent that it views anything that extols our anti-colonial liberation struggle as detrimental to its struggle.

Defining the Democracy

What type of government do we need?
1) The government should be a reflection of the wishes and aspirations of the people of Zimbabwe
2) The government should be a true representative of the people of Zimbabwe
3) The government should be one that is directly accountable and answerable to the people of Zimbabwe
4) The government should be elected by popular vote
5) The government should be appointed by the people and be removable by the wishes of the people.

What type of governance do we need?

If the government of Zimbabwe is defined within the above confines, then how should it govern the country?

- The distribution of Zimbabwean resources should be a true reflection of the demographic distribution of the people of Zimbabwe. (More resources should go to where more people are settled.)
- Priority should be given to uplifting the lives of the majority of the people of Zimbabwe. In this respect, the government should give priority to provision of basic needs before thinking of profit.
- The transactions of the government with the people of Zimbabwe should not be aimed at making profit but to provide for them- profit comes from foreign interactions.
- It is the obligation of the government to ensure the protection of the poor from the machinations of the rich.
- The government should have an obligation to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor.
- The government should only be a trustee and steering committee to administer the country’s resources and diligently and impartially distribute them to the people in a manner transparent and acceptable to the people.

The seven policies we need

- One man one vote
- Multiparty democracy
- Free education
- Free health
- Free access to land
- Equal access to employment
- Workers should benefit from their labour.








How would the government implement these?

One man, One vote

- There would be representation of the people from the village committee up to the national structures.
- The parliament should be made up of people chosen by the people of a given constituency
- The drawing up of constituencies should be based upon the following
• Common neighbourhood
• Common lifestyle
• Common welfare
• Common beliefs
- Elections are run by an independent commission that is funded from the coffers of the government and made up of respectable people/individuals of good moral and social standing. All classes of people should be represented and the choices should be endorsed by the people through their representatives at microcosm level.
- Every man’s vote would be counted as equal to everybody else’s.
- Representation of the people would be ultimate and by popular vote, this would mean;
• A minimum of 66.6% of the electorate should vote in any election; if less than that this number turns out for any election, then the result would be null and void a rerun would be done after further education and lobbying of the electorate.
• The winner of an election should be a convincing representative of the people of his constituency. In this case he/she should garner more than 50% of the cast votes. If there is no one with a simple majority then the elections should be rerun between the top two representatives.


Multiparty Democracy

- There would be no repression or suppression of political views, ideas or beliefs in which every citizen would be allowed to participate politically in any national agenda as allowed by agreed laws of the country.
- Every party would be granted equal access to state facilities like media, security etc
- Every party would be allowed unreserved access to the people as is acceptable by commonly agreed laws of the country.
- Every party would be allowed access to state resources based upon the percentage of the electorate it represents.


Free education

- there would be free access to basic education
- The government would subsidize secondary and tertiary education; the amount of subsidy should be such that every child who wishes to continue with education would do so without stress.

Free health

- There would be free access to health facilities
- Every person would be granted specialized health care at a cost that would be sustained by the government of Zimbabwe. ( Every Zimbabwean has a right to the resources of the country, when the government sells the country’s gold; there is a percentage of it for everybody thus this percentage should go towards sustaining the livelihoods of the people of the country)

Free access to land

- Every Zimbabwean citizen would have access to land depending on the type of lifestyle of that person. In this regard, those in the urban areas would be given building stands free of charge, which shall be theirs and for their families. Those in rural areas whose life is sustained by agricultural activities would be given land to farm on reasonably fertile lands which can sustain them and the nation too.
- The purpose of the government is to oversee that the land is equitably distributed based upon need and to ensure that no one owns benefits at the expense of others.
- Commercial agriculture would be encouraged and the lands reserved for such would not be interfered with in the process of land redistribution.

Equal access to employment

- Every Zimbabwean who has reached the age of majority and wishes to be employed would be employed based upon his/her ability and qualifications.
- People of the same qualifications would have equal opportunity for any job.
- People doing the same job at the same establishment with the same qualifications would be entitled to the same treatment.

Workers should benefit from their labour

- The government would put policies that ensure that workers benefit from the profits of their labour. This particularly includes:
• Gazetting from time to time realistic minimum wages in line with the costs of basic needs.
• Stipulating a certain percentage to be shared from every company’s annual profits by its workers.

- There would be laws enacted by common agreement to protect the workers from abuse and misuse.


How do we organize ourselves towards this type government?


- A movement of the people should be formed
- it is the responsibility of the intelligentsia of the society to strategize and educate the people on what needs to be done and why it is supposed to be done.
- The people should own the revolution and through public agreement choose their own leaders.
- The leadership of the movement should abide by strict conduct and seek to uphold the values and principles of the revolution
- Education is the greatest weapon against the facets of oppression; therefore in the anticipation of the revolution the movement should put more effort on educating the people of Zimbabwe.
- Every Zimbabwean has a responsibility to sustain the revolution.
- The power of persuasion rather than the power of coercion should be used in all the engagements of the Movement.
- Violence should not be tolerated within and without the movement: We have more to lose in hostility than in diplomatic engagement but ……...

Conclusion

I have sought to unravel the complexities that we face within the struggle for total emancipation in Zimbabwe, I have also tried to extract and compact our values as a people and finally to postulate a way forward. It is not my wish to demoralise those who are fighting today nor is it my wish to alienate anyone from his supporters; however it remains my humble conviction that the path that the current players are taking leads nowhere but to doom and the sooner we, together with the international community realise it the better.

The struggle continues…!


Freeman Forward Chari
Secretary General
Zimbabwe Youth Movement

CHANGE WE DESIRE: Democracy without transfer of wealth is meaningless.

Each time that I pose to check the content of our struggle, I am confronted by one question- what are we fighting for? Some say freedom: but how many times have I heard people shouting, what is freedom with hunger? How many people have I heard saying Smith was better than Mugabe? Some say democracy: but if democracy is the rule of the people by the people for the people why is it that so many things are being agreed upon and implemented without the people ever knowing? In short, we are frustrated with the lives that we live and we think that by transferring power from Mugabe to Tsvangirai our lives will be better.



When we talk of better, we are saying from this point, I will move to another point that is bigger. We expect a translational growth. So the question I ask again is: in 1998 my father had a total wealth amounting to US$20 000, today his wealth is around US$5 000, in the event that political change occurs, from which reference point will he measure the betterness of his life? If he was seeking political change in 1998 because he felt his government then was stifling growth, what will stop him from seeking political change if his wealth stagnates at US$18 000?



The point I am trying to put across here is that, what we are primarily fighting for is not political power but wealth. The reasons why we may seek political change are dynamic. In 1998, we wanted Mugabe out because he had failed to deliver on the "wealth aspect" of promises of the liberation struggle. Today we want him out because we are uncontrollably loosing wealth on an hourly basis.



Why is it then that when our wealth stagnates or when we get poorer we seek political change? It is because of Democracy! We expect that when we choose people to represent us, their choice of decisions should reflect the needs and aspirations of the people. Now, when we choose you because we aspire to be wealthier; and after a certain period of time we realise that we haven't grown; we are left with no option but to chuck you out of that office. What we do not ask ourselves is whether the failure of that person is because he made wrong decisions or because he could not make the right decision. We do not ask ourselves; if he couldn't make a decision is it because he is dull or because he is incapacitated to.



This takes me to the core of my thinking. If we elect somebody but in the course of his duties he stumbles on a challenge that needs radical use of power but discovers that his power is actually limited what happens? Do we go back and check as the electorate, the collective strength of our power. If so, do we also check the collective strength of our power relative to other powers that exist within our dominion?



Power is the basic energy needed to initiate and sustain an action or the capacity to translate intention into reality and sustain it. It is that which confers the ability to influence decisions, about who gets what resources, what goals are pursued, what philosophy is adopted, what actions are taken, who succeeds and who fails. If we can only change characters that govern us but our power is limited when we wish to change the distribution of economic wealth and the policies that govern such then we are not our own rulers. And therefore democracy as by its definition would be non-existent.



So, what do we need? We need the ability to choose whoever we wish to govern us, but more importantly we need the ability to confer that person with real power to implement our policies without restriction whatsoever.



What does this entail to the current Zimbabwe struggle? It means that as a people we have to first of all identify the reason why we are poor and why we are becoming poorer by the day. Secondly, we poster the solutions, thirdly, we choose our governors and mandate them to deal with the reasons in the way that we have postulated for them.



To me, wealth is the collective value of what one owns apart from his body and mind. The biggest impediment that we as Zimbabweans have had under Mugabe is that, there is nothing meaningful to own for a common man because everything meaningful is already owned by somebody! We could not venture into commercial agriculture because all the land was being owned by some few people. We could not tap into the produce of these commercial farmers because; either all grain had to be sold to Grain Marketing Board or the same farmers had prior network supply contracts. For example, Triangle Ltd would never, under any circumstances sell a bundle sugarcane to me so that I could resell at Mbare Musika because it was more interested in creating more wealth by making brown sugar, which they would not sell directly to me so that I could sell at a cheaper price but with a profit, rather they would supply N. Richards (Pvt) Ltd which is a wholesaler, that would not sell to me as an individual but would supply OK foods (Pvt)Ltd. So, the common man has been on the margins of the agricultural wealth-creation chain of Zimbabwe.



The same happened in any other sector that you might think of. When Rio Tinto (Pvt) Ltd mined gold at Renco Mine, I am not allowed to purchase that gold and resell it even if I have the resources to. Rather the Reserve Bank has the sole right to buy from them. Since mining is considered illegal for individuals in Zimbabwe, it meant then that as a common man I continued to be on the margins of the mining wealth in Zimbabwe.



So, real democracy should mean real power to the people. Indeed, we want land reform but not all of us want that land. Some of us want to take advantage of the produce from this land, thus we seek reform of the way agricultural-oriented business is done in Zimbabwe. We need mining reform, yes; but we also need a reform on the way mineral-oriented business is regulated and managed.



So in conclusion; our struggle is about control of the mode of production, it is about the distribution of wealth and the liberalisation of the mode of creating wealth. It is not about power but about real power. It is not about the right to vote but the strength of that vote!



Aluta Continua!!!

Coming soon ......!