Western democracy is a deliberate distortion of reality!

Comrades and Friends.

There are a number of things that have happened in our society that has prompted us to question our judgement, our behaviour and the whole concept of democracy. For example; in 1980 we all celebrated the leadership of Mugabe with such euphoria that any feelings to the contrary were not acceptable yet today we are lamenting the viciousness of the same man. What happened? Who is to blame for letting a monster into office?

Many say democracy is the rule of the people, what I wish to know is; what happens when the majority is wrong. In a real democracy the expectation is that, what the majority wants rules the day! So, if the majority believes that one plus one is equal to three, that should sail through despite known knowledge to the contrary!

Who should therefore restrain society from making bizarre choices? This brings me to the core of my thinking. The rule of the people does not exist in the absence of political, social and economic parity; rather what exists is the continual aspiration by human beings to progress away from a state of deficiency towards a state of happiness.

Deficiency is relative to one’s knowledge. Since knowledge is also dependent on the environment, by extrapolation deficiency is also relative to the environment. In this regard, poverty- which is a deficiency in what is perceived as basic-is qualified differently depending on one’s environment. Since nearly everybody in America can afford a cell phone; it might be viewed as being poor if one does not own a one. There is however a bushman in Kgalagadi who does not know what a phone is; so failure to possess something that one has no knowledge of does not necessarily amount to deficiency.

There are basic needs that are common across humanity; food, water, shelter and clothing. These determine the threshold of human needs. At any moment in life; unless by voluntary deprivation, every human being seeks to have them. These make up the atomic unit of happiness.

Happiness or good life is a perceived state of parity between one’s desires and what one owns. As basic needs are met, humans tend to shift their attention to other needs that knowledge necessitates. The more advanced our knowledge and aspiration of good life, the more our needs. That is why people have different desires in life.

The American Declaration of Independence lays what is accepted by many as the basis of democracy:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

The equality spoken of here is that of access to power and not that they have equal power. Power cannot be created or destroyed but can be changed from one form to another. In modern day life, there are certain predetermined enablers of access to power that offers an advantage to other people. These include environment, inheritance, intellect and they can force those of lesser circumstances to unwillingly give up competing for power.

When people are born they do not have the same ability to control the environment around themselves. It is true that in a democracy people have certain inalienable rights like life, liberty and pursuit of happiness but in all non-suicidal human beings the desire to live supersedes the desire to be happy. Nevertheless, because of the basic needs some people would stumble or get stuck in the struggle to live while those from advantageous environment go ahead to pursue happiness.

Those who are left wallowing in the basic struggle to live are always in an altered state of consciousness, and are unable to ascend the aspiration ladder. This ultimately means that they forfeit or postpone their opportunity to access power.

When people forfeit their right to power, somebody takes their share. The person who takes that power unfortunately does not have the authority to use that power. In other words he does not have the justification or the right to use that power. So he needs to come back to he rightful owner of that power so that he/she authorises him to use that power.

So elections however free they might be are not a process of collectively and voluntarily using people’s power to make a decision; rather, they are a way of giving authority to somebody who has, due to other advantages illegally claimed their power.

Most of those who claim power illegally do not seek the authority openly; rather they use a proxy amongst those in deficiencies - one whom they assist to rise from the manacles of deficiencies- so that people are hoodwinked into believing that one of theirs has now ascended to help them.

So, when we look at Mugabe, we realise that he was extracted from society and people authorised him to use their power for pursuit of happiness of certain other people whom he protected for 18 years until they dumped him for another proxy.

Since then people have been authorising the abuse of their power either by Mugabe or by the new proxies. Both sides have been feeding people with half truths and half lies; consequently people have been committing their authority to people who wrongly claim that they would alleviate their dire deficiencies.

As stated above; those whom they give authority are always pre-occupied with the pursuit of their personal happiness and not their concerns.

For example, those in MDC whom we thought had the conscience to make moral choices, chose to accept the blatantly expensive Mercedes Benz as parliamentary packages despite the humanitarian (threat to life) situation in Zimbabwe.

Nelson Chamisa is quoted as saying: “It’s a symbol of authority and power … If you don’t have it; people will think you don’t have power. They feel good when they see one of their own in power.”

HL Mencken once said “If experience teaches us anything at all, it teaches us that a good politician, under democracy, is quite unthinkable as an honest burglar.”

So Comrades and Friends remember, Western Democracy is the rule of some people for some people by the authority of the people!

Creative leadership the best way to overcome hypocrisy and treachery!

Before the current Government of National Unity, proponents of the theory of exclusive governance were of the belief that an MDC government in Zimbabwe would signal the end of Zimbabwe’s economic quagmire. This was premised on the assumption that once MDC gets into power, western governments particularly USA would pour economic aid into the government’s coffers. Today, we are wallowing in the realisation of the painful truth about the basic rules of engagement with these countries.

There are a few lessons to derive from this:
1) The interests of USA in Zimbabwe go beyond the desire for good governance
and democracy.
2) USA is not a friend of MDC, rather MDC was perceived as a front to create
an alternative American influence in Zimbabwe.
3) Zimbabweans are their own liberators.

The hypocrisy shown by America is a clear betrayal of its allies. It remains therefore, MDC’s responsibility to extricate itself from the precarious situation that it is in today. There are two options; either to betray the hopes of the people of Zimbabwe by reclining into its previous subservience to American ideologies or to churn a new dispensation that unites the willpower of the people of Zimbabwe in creating alternatives to the status quo.

I am in support of the latter. The reason why the world is trembling at the manacles of the current Global Recession is because most countries are over-dependent on American existence. Thus, when America sneezes the whole world coughs. The recession however has served to remind us that America is not as immune as it claims to be and therefore economies need not sleep but seek alternatives to American interventions.

So, in the face of this unwillingness by western powers to assist in the economic revival of our country what then can we do?

The situation now demands brains that are able to educate, lead and produce in hostile conditions. There are a few points that we need to note. Firstly, society remains in a state of rest or continuous random and aimless motion until a force is exerted to it. Secondly, every human being has a motivation within himself which remains dormant until a drive is exerted to give it direction. Lastly, human beings tend to conserve their energy unless if expending it entails a bigger reward to self.

What this basically means is that naturally human beings are lazy but have a potential to produce if there is an opportunity for them to gain more at individual capacity. Unfortunately, the dynamics in our culture doesn’t reward individuals for mobilising people to solve the tough problems facing them, rather; people are willing to mobilise themselves in pursuit of a solution postulated to them by another person. So in this regard; Zimbabwe needs a leadership that can harness the individual energies of its people and re-channel them towards a collective pursuit of specific and achievable national goals.

There is no doubt that for this to be attainable the government should uphold the principles of democracy. What the government should actually appreciate is that humans naturally want to feel free and that there is always a craving by humans to criticize and oppose that which they do not own or have interest in. So, in all its interventions the government should seek not to compromise the basic freedoms of its nationals and also formulate these interventions in a manner that encourages ownership by the people. Lastly, the government should then ensure commitment by protecting private investments.

What I am saying is that if the government is able to identify its priority areas, collect data and required knowledge, find allies across the boundaries of authority and design a strategy that gets people to re-examine their values; I see no reason why Zimbabwe can fail to retain its status as the bread-basket of Africa.

What comes into my mind right now is that Zimbabwe simply needs to get agricultural production up on its feet. The dollarisation of the economy has helped to stabilise the market. In the mean time the market can be left to float so that business regains its viability. What is more important is to ensure that the limited resources that are available be channelled towards the revival of SEEDCO, Dorowa mine, Sable Chemicals and Zimphos so that come the 2009 rainy season Zimbabwe will have enough seeds and fertilisers for the season.

Given the high unemployment rate in Zimbabwe today it is clear that the government no longer has a tax-base to derive funding for its day-to-day activities. This situation should spur it into being inventive. One way is to tap from its human resource exports. In this regard the government can engage all its citizens working abroad to see ways by which they can assist in the rebuilding of the country.

With over a million Zimbabweans in formal employment across the world and over three million people in the diaspora, Zimbabwe has a potentially fertile ground to tap from. Of importance is the need to convince Zimbabweans in the Diaspora to remit their foreign currency to Zimbabwe and also to invest in Zimbabwe. Even though remittances do not directly add to Government’s budgetary resources, they raise the level of national saving and add to the availability of foreign exchange for the day to day transactions.

Secondly, as in the case of Eritrea government can compel all Zimbabweans in formal employment outside the country to pay ‘voluntary’ tax; even 0.5% of their earnings per month and as an incentive, residential stands in urban areas would be developed which would then be offered to those who would have consistently remitted tax when the cumulative value of their remittances reach a certain value.

Central to all these interventions is also the need to create institutions that are ethical, morally upright, transparent and accountable. This means that if Zimbabweans in the Diaspora are to remit any tax, they need assurances that their money is going directly towards meeting the developmental commitments of the government and not into the pockets of some corrupt officials. So in line with such a vision institutions like the Reserve Bank and Zimra would need a complete overhaul.

These are just some of the ideas that are flying within my head but what I am clear about is that given the current circumstances Zimbabwe simply needs visionary and creative leadership for it to sail out of predicament that it is in.

Beware of false prophets

Has anybody ever wondered why the dull always celebrate the fall of the bright? Why the poor enjoy the demise of the rich or why failures usually relish the episodes when the successful stumble?

How many times have we encountered people who discourage us from executing certain positive ideas simply because they feel it’s impossible? And; how many people have we seen in our society who feel that if something is not done their way it is bound to fail?

I have encountered many of these in my short life; from my family to my numerous schoolmasters to fellows in the struggle. I still remember the heated argument that I had with my mother when I told her that I no longer wanted to go to school but rather wanted to study at home. My mother sold clothes and other wares for us to go to school. She had always wanted the best for us, that’s why I ended up at Mutare Boys High School despite the cost of fees there.

I could see how she struggled to raise such amounts and I offered to transfer to Serima Mission whose fees was half that of Mutare Boys High. She gave in after a struggle. Life got tougher and tougher and I offered to drop out from Serima, she refused. Fortunately I was suspended from school for disobeying orders and I ended up staying at home for four months. I wrote my A levels and I passed.

I talk about this freely with my mother now and she has grown to understand why certain people do certain things that certain people would be unable to do. That is the uniqueness that exists in us. Unfortunately, society does not appreciate this exclusivity rather it views it as being a renagade.

Along the way, I have also grown to appreciate age, wisdom and intelligence. I respect my elders because they deserve my respect. I know that sometimes age comes with wisdom, however; sometimes it comes alone. Wisdom means the ability to use a known solution to a known or similar problem. Intelligence means the ability to prescribe a new solution to a new problem or to prescribe a better solution to a known problem.

Armed with these experiences, my intellect and my drive to be creative I have confronted the challenges that we have in our struggle head-on. I have made enemies because of my conviction that the truth should be told except where one is bound by a code of ethics that dictates that there be confidentiality. We should not fear to reprimand each other even if it means confrontation.

In our struggle, we have had circumstances where resources fall in the hands of the greedy, where failures are entrusted with the responsibility to make the society successful and where the dull are supposed to churn a vision for society. In all these circumstances conflict has been inevitable.

Closer to reality, we have people who have had the privilege to be at certain positions that allow society to listen to them when they speak. Some actually have the ability to influence public opinion. What happens when these people use their status to mislead people into pursuing futile and infertile objectives?

I mean, what should happen when people who call themselves leaders of the civil society discourage MDC from joining the Government of National Unity, MDC defies them and joins, today they are the ones at the forefront demanding positions in the same GNU which they were vehemently opposed to?

What should happen to our learned Constitutional Expert at NCA who seems to believe that a good constitution for the country cannot be in place unless it is done his way? The aspect of collective opinion is dependent on how information is passed to a body of people. Society gets a combined impetus only after complex concepts are chewed for them to consume. Whose responsibility is it then to chew? What should happen when a political space is occupied by people who dogmatically stall progress because the status quo has more benefits to them than when there is change?

What happens to the have-nots when the haves stand on top them and tell them our pain is the labour-pain for prosperity? Who should tell them it’s a lie? What should happen to the learned professor who presides over the downfall of the education system and tells the youth that they are fighting for their rights?

It pains me today that the people whom we respect are the ones punishing us. They went to school; today they do no care if we don’t have school. They have business but they tax us when we seek to start ours. They have jobs in big offices but they do not care if we lose ours. They have a life but they do not care when we die. These are the people we call our elders, WISE and INTELLIGENT elders?

Society has eyes, children have tears and the boys have ears. The old are shaking at the events in Madagascar, they know; the youth are like dynamite, once there is a matchstick, be assured of chaos!

I rest, but I have made my point: BEWARE of false prophets!

ZIMBABWE: A CAPITALIST STATE IN TATTERS Only mediation between Mugabe and the Queen of England can save it

(Please Note this article was written and published on 23 June 2008, I posted it here for regurgitation. It is always good to look back and see where we were and where we are today!)

The current crisis in Zimbabwe has been done a great disservice by the enormous existence of narrative journalism which has evolved into outrageously subjective propaganda serving different motives and interests. The dearth in informed and analytical discourse has not helped matters either. The result has been a permanently polarised and paranoid public opinion that is in most cases misinformed or half-informed much to the satisfaction of the hands behind the drive. Many a time, we have been confronted by questions that need to be addressed with sober judgement, but because of the political jackets that we wear we have been unable to utter the right sentences, rather we have been forced to reverberate the propaganda or risk isolation or loss. In this article however, I intend to take off any political jacket that I may be associated with and articulate the Zimbabwean crisis from an independent position.



First of all Zimbabwe was built and moulded using a democracy template. It was envisioned to be a democracy. In this regard it was visualised as having, The State, The Government and The People. I mean a politically organized society, with a central authority, operating over a territory that monopolizes the legitimate use of force and has a wide range of policy competences (employment, environment, health, product safety, domestic security, research/development, etc.) which it discharges through a few individuals that get their mandate through public consensus.



The State 1980 - 1999



The question that we ought to explore in our quest to elucidate the source of conflict in Zimbabwe is; who is the State in Zimbabwe? The only way we can truly define the State in Zimbabwe by evaluating the distribution of property from 1980 up to today.



At independence, the large-scale commercial farming sub-sector of 6,000 white farmers, owned 15.5 million hectares, more than half of which lay in the high rainfall agro- ecological regions where the potential for agricultural production is greatest. On the other hand the small-scale commercial farming sub-sector comprising 8,500 black farmers held 1.4 million hectares of agricultural land located mostly in the drier agro-ecological regions. Finally the communal areas, inhabited by the bulk of the populace of 4.3 millions people worked 16.4 million hectare of agricultural land, 75 percent of which was located in the drier agro- ecological regions where the soils are also poor. This qualifies the 6 000 as the agricultural elite of Zimbabwe.



Secondly we may need to look at financial property and mining rights. There is a long list of companies that contribute to the balance of payments of foreign governments notably the British government: British American Tobacco,Barclays Bank, Standard Bank, Stanbic Bank, Standard Chartered, CABS Building Society, Old Mutual (insurance and real estate), Rio Tinto (gold miners), Anglo American Corp (agro-industry and mining), Impala Platinum, Zimplats (majority owned by Impala), Freda Rebecca (gold miners), Falgold (gold miners), Metallon Gold, Aquarius Platinum, Rio Tinto (Murowa diamond mine), Mimosa Mining Company (platinum), River Ranche Diamond Mine, Unki (platinum), Murray & Roberts (construction), Border Timbers, Hippo Valley Sugar Estates, Triangle Sugar Estates, Chevron, BP (British Petroleum), Shell, David Whitehead (textile), Edgars Stores (clothing), National Tyre Services, Delta Corporation (beverages), Circle Cement (Circem), Price Waterhouse, Bata Shoe Company, Spar (grocery chain),Coca-Cola among the long list. Thus the vast British interests qualify it to be part of the State.

We also have to take a closer look at the interests and claims of rights by the ZANU PF (at individual and collective level) whose tentacles stretch from Jongwe printers, M & S Syndicate, ZUPCO, Dairiboard through the Nuanetsi ranch to all those that Emmerson Munangagwa runs on behalf of individuals in ZANU PF. In this regard, Mugabe, Munangagwa, the Mujurus, Nkomos, Chiyangwas and a whole lot of others within the ZANU PF congregation qualify to be part of the State.

Summarily, up until 2000 the State consisted basically of three groups; white commercial farmers, the British state and the ZANU PF moguls. Nevertheless, the white commercial farmers (the majority of whom were British) and the British State because of lineage and economic symbiosis behaved as one. For lack ofa better term I will refer to this grouping as the British/white State heretofore.

As Engels puts it,

"The second distinguishing feature is the establishment of a public power which no longer directly coincides with the population organizing itself as an armed force. This special, public power is necessary because a self-acting armed organization of the population has become impossible since the split into classes.... This public power exists in every state; it consists not merely of armed men but also of material adjuncts, prisons, and institutions of coercion of all kinds, of which gentile [clan] society knew nothing...."

The State fortified its existence through the use of specialised bodies like the army, police, CIO and prisons.

To me, the crisis in Zimbabwe started at the Lancaster House in 1979 when the British and ZANU PF reached a blatant agreement meant to perpetuate the strength of the status quo. Joshua Nkomo asked three vital questions:

"The essential questions we have posed constantly to ourselves and which we insist must be understood by all seriously concerned with a solution include the following:-

…
2. Whose army shall defend Zimbabwe and its people? It must be noted here that 60% of the present white army are mercenaries.
3. Whose police force shall protect the people of Zimbabwe?
9. What will be the future of the people's land?"

The British answered by allowing Mugabe to control the Army and the Police but at the same time inserting the Section 16 which guaranteed the immoral perpetuation of flawed distribution of property in its favour, at least for 10 years.



The complexities of defining the Zimbabwean State unravel when we look at the control of the specialised bodies of power. The deposed State gave up military power and allowed Mugabe to build his army according to his own will and Mugabe responded by ensuring that loyalty becomes the basis of conscription into that army. This explains the isolation of the ZIPRA forces and the subsequent clashes typified by the Entumbane battle.



The power of the gun allowed Mugabe to force the State to give him a say in its affairs thereby making him a beneficiary and a player. Concessions were again made, the Old State and the New Military Order united. This explains the joint operations between the white farmers and the Army in Matebeleland from 1980 to 1987. It also explains the token control that was given to "The ZANU PF state" over major companies in the name of indigenisation and black empowerment.



Mugabe became the custodian of British imperialism. As Stromm puts it "the government continued to give political statements of intent by announcing agricultural revisions such as the Land Acquisition Act (1985), but in reality the whites were co-opting government into their main stream, rather than vice versa". This collusion became a well-oiled oppression machine.



ZANU PF and The British connived at Lancaster house to legitimise banditry. At the centre of the crisis in Zimbabwe then was property. They used political power to appropriate and expropriate property that had not been generated within any economic platform. Through political power they conspired to draft laws to legalise and confiscate the property from the supposed rightful owners. Thus, today we find ourselves in a quandary because of their deeds.



What made things work out well for the first ten years? The State and the government were in tandem. The State financed the urgent activities of the government in return for protection. With this perfect relationship, the state found no reason to wish for a change of characters within the government, rather its generous involvement ensured that there was excess capital which pacified the government and ultimately the people.





Summarily, the events after the Lancaster House agreement point to a grand plan which included the gradual conscription of the custodians of the specialised bodies of power into the mainstream thereby guaranteeing perpetuity of the elitist order.



Evolution of the ZANU PF State



Within the ZANU PF assembly existed classes of status which determined the level of influence and ultimately the quantity of benefits from the interaction of the ZANU PF state with British/white state and also from the exploitation of natural resources.



The early years after independence, only a few elite in ZANU PF notably; Mugabe in his capacity as the Prime Minister, Mujuru as the Commander of ZDF, Mnangagwa as the Minister of State Security, Sekeramai as the Minister of State (Defence) in the Prime Minister's Office, were in direct influential relationship with the British/white state and represented the ZANU PF State.



Another few, notably those who did not have military background but had been influential in the struggle for independence were allowed to form the bulk of the government. These did not have a direct influence on the dealings of the state rather; they acted as the intermediary between the people and the state obviously taking instructions from Mugabe and others, who were part of the Zimbabwean State.



The government without those in the State was not powerful. They did not have the power to buy nor confiscate property for personal use. This scenario resulted in the development of a gap between those around Mugabe and those in the government. With progression of time, the people in the government realised that the only way to get property was through "robbery" especially in the dominions in which they had power, i.e. ministries. This heralded the looting that we have grown to associate ZANU PF with, which includes the Willowgate scandal, the Ziscogate scandal, the War Veterans Fund scandal to name but a few.



At the core of most the problems that Zimbabwe has had is the aspect of appeasement. The British/White State sought Mugabe's continued backing through pacification. They chose at the least, to remain silent about many atrocities and iniquities of ZANU PF against the people of Zimbabwe mostly because they (ZANU PF) on the other hand protected their interests. Typical examples were the low-tone voices during the Matebeleland crisis, the one-party state proposal and the violence against Zimbabwe Unity Movement.



The elitist strata in ZANU PF began to blatantly manifest itself at the turn of the first decade of independence. The freedom fighters who had laid their souls for the country on the belief that freedom would bring them prosperity began to see that the "chefs" had forgotten them. Their enemies during the struggle were getting even richer and richer. This prompted the formation of the Zimbabwe National War Veterans Association in April 1989.



There were also growing anti-government sentiments by the general population of Zimbabwe as witnessed by the support given to the ZUM-an opposition party. One of the reasons was the failure of the government to address the land disparity in the country. For ten years the government had only managed to resettle about 71 000 households on about 3.5 million hectares a number way below the demand.



Diminishing support from traditional supporters signalled a need for redress. Mugabe sought to deal with the grievances within the legal framework, which resulted in the crafting of a number bills and laws like the War Veterans Administration Bill (1991), the War Veterans Act (1992), Land Acquisition Act (1992) and War Victims Compensation Act (1993). This was a significant departure from the norm and it unsettled the British/White State as exemplified by the objections of the Commercial Farmers Union to the LAA.



In a gesture of its willingness to continue with the symbiotic arrangement ZANU PF approved the Economic Structural Adjustment Programme which for all its complexities sought to reduce the burden of financing government expenditure from the State by instituting a number of reforms including privatisation and reduced subsidies. Unfortunately, it coincided with the 1990---1993 drought which brought a scourge on the nation.



More and more pressure continued to pile on Mugabe, and the open calls for his departure from the helm of ZANU PF by the likes of Eddison Zvobgo and Dzikamai Mavhaire moved him to cocoon himself by loyalists. Consequently, the ZANU PF state began to pull loyalists and abandoned friends from the dust towards it. In appeasement, the ZANU PF state in 1997 impulsively approved the disbursement of a one-off lump sum of Z$50 000 each which was not budgeted for.



Government expenditure increased but the burden fell on the British/White State and the workers of Zimbabwe. The worst was to come when in June 1998 Mugabe sent the first of the eventually 11 000 soldiers into the Democratic Republic of Congo. As usual the load fell on the British/white state and the workers of Zimbabwe. It is alleged that the funds that the Zimbabwean government eventually used in the DRC conflict was money that was originally earmarked for poverty alleviation and resolving the land problem. One thing for sure, the penchant for spending by ZANU PF did not augur well with the interest of both the British/white state and the workers.



Inflation soared, the Zimbabwean dollar tumbled and life became expensive. Workers were angry at the tax policy of the government whilst the ex-combatants and peasants united in their displeasure of the government's land policy. The echoes of the growing impatience with the government reverberated even through the former tpraise-singers of Mugabe like Simon Chimbetu who sang "zuva raenda" (It is late- in apparent reference to the late resolution of the land question) and Thomas Mapfumo who sang a song entitled "Set The People Free". The calls climaxed with invasion of Igava farm by the Svosve people in June 1998.



The food riots that followed hit the final nail on ZANU PF and heralded a new era where the trade union increased its political presence in Zimbabwe. The signal was that ZANU PF's time in government was up.



Mugabe was left with only one option for him to stay in power; to persuade the British/white state to sacrifice on the key question of land. More blatantly Mugabe sought to compel Britain to pay for its own loss, while allowing him to entrench his rule.



The 1998 Land Donor Conference in Harare was the turning point in that it heralded the first incident of direct British rebellion towards Mugabe. 48 countries were represented including Britain and an agreement was made to set up a taskforce of major donors to work out the modalities for a two-year Inception Phase of the Land Reform Program. Britain refused to join the taskforce insisting a consulting firm undertake an initial economic returns analysis of the programme and assess how far it would alleviate poverty among the poor in Zimbabwe.



This excuse was not without basis given the history of ZANU PF in abuse of donor funds for personal aggrandisement; however there could have been other reasons. Firstly, the 118 farms that were on offer were mainly owned by the British/white state and any successful implementation of the redistribution could have been the beginning of a long phase in which the British/white state would cede control of the Zimbabwe state to the ZANU PF state. Secondly, there had emerged a possibility of change within the political landscape of Zimbabwe as more and more people shared anti-ZANU PF sentiments.



Still ZANU PF sought to deal with the land question in a manner that was not going to largely alienate it from the British/white state. Again it sought to deal with the question of property within the legal framework provided for by the Land Acquisition Act (1992) but met stiff resistance form the white farmers. For example, when Government designated 1471 farms for compulsory acquisition in December 1997 a total of 1393 objections were received of which 510 were upheld. For the remaining 883 farms Government had to go through lengthy judicial processes.



Seeing its impending departure from power, largely because of the British/white state's unwillingness to sacrifice, ZANU PF began the process of transfer of power. The first attempt was Constitutional referendum which was rejected mainly at the instigation of organisations like the National Constitutional Assembly which was largely a coalition of disgruntled groups in Zimbabwe. It brought together the workers, students, peasants and the white commercial farmers.



What should be noted here is that, whilst the Constitution was rejected there is evidence that it was not rejected by the majority because of its inadequacies on the land question but its failure to clearly deal with the issue of the president. People wanted change in leadership because they felt short-changed by Mugabe and this also coincided with the same feeling within the British/white state.



This coalition was viewed by ZANU PF as an attempt by the British/white state to destroy its existence which actually was true. Upon realising this ZANU PF decided then to forcibly eliminate the British/white state's control over property. All along ZANU PF had sought to transfer property ownership through economic acquisition but because this had failed, it resorted to acquisitions based on power and coercion.



The Constitutional Amendment Number 16 of 2000 was an attempt similar to the Lancaster House agreement which sought to legitimise the forceful acquisition of property.



So, by December 2000 ZANU PF had finished setting up the framework for a cohesive unilateral state that controlled the government, had the power to influence laws, influence policies and had a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. This is how the powerful ZANU PF State entrenched itself in Zimbabwe.



Emergence of the Movement for Democratic Change



As noted above, a number of factors united the workers, students, peasants and the British/white state against ZANU PF. The victory of the "NO" vote in the constitutional referendum in 2000 gave the NCA the momentum to progress towards a fully-fledged movement that could challenge the ZANU PF hegemony politically.



The MDC was formed primarily as a front against Mugabe. It was a baobab tree with multiple satisfactions. Those who wanted shade got it, those who wanted fruits got them. In this regard, the workers found it as a front against exploitation, students as a front against deprivation of academic freedoms, peasants as a front against deprivation of the basic right to land, the white farmers as a front against ZANU PF expropriation of property and Britain as a front against ZANU PF interference with its economic interests.



Thus at its inception, MDC represented a coalition of disgruntled groups all united by the presence of a common enemy. Indeed for a time the coalition worked, as shown by the massive support it got from the electorate in 2000 and 2002 elections.



One major point of note here is that, of all the five groups listed above only the white commercial farmers and the British state could sustain the financial requirements of the movement, hence their blatant influence in the policy frameworks developed by the movement and the ambiguous ideologies that dogs it.



The strength of this partnership came under test when Mugabe implemented the controversial Fast Track Land Reform exercise. Generally, Zimbabweans agreed that there was urgent need to redress the disparities in land distribution and even MDC acknowledged this fact; however its inability to concisely articulate this issue has led many to believe that it is not committed to resolving the issue in favour of the black majority. Even its written policies seem to be engulfed in the quagmires of diversities under its umbrella;



"When the MDC forms the next government in Zimbabwe, it will accept neither the status quo that existed prior to 2000 nor the position it will inherit after eight years of mayhem and destruction by a criminal elite." (A new Zimbabwe, a new Beginning; Policies of the Movement for Democratic Change 2008)



The emergence of MDC as a political challenger to the ZANU PF government increased the complexities of the crisis in Zimbabwe. It managed to take the rift from the level of the State, to the government and in the end to the people of Zimbabwe.







The crisis in Zimbabwe defined





The crisis in Zimbabwe today is about power. Since 1998, the two former allies have been fighting an economic battle where, ZANU PF sought to destroy the control of the British/white state over Zimbabwe by unilateral plunder and expropriation of its assets whilst the later sought to cripple the capacity of the ZANU PF State to fund the activities of the ZANU PF government by sabotaging its production capacity. The long-term intention of the British/white state is to ensure the withering away of the ZANU PF State and eventually government, both of which would be replaced.



The purpose of the MDC in this struggle is to allow the British/white state to counter the ZANU PF State's ability to seek legitimacy through popularly elected individuals. This has been ZANU PF's trump card, for ; all its deeds have been punctuated by the rhetorical reference to "The people of Zimbabwe's will".



Unfortunately, now that ZANU PF has been rejected by the same people it used to hide behind; it seems the struggle has been taken from the economic level to the military level. The question is whether the British/white State is willing to fight at that level.





The solution



Except in a revolution or violent overthrow of an incumbent government conflicts of this nature can only be solved through negotiations. There has been an effort towards this but it seems the negotiations have been between the ponies of this struggle. The MDC does not have the capacity to make swift decisions that are not approved by the British/white State, at the same time Chinamasa and company cannot make the same without the approval of the Mugabe-led ZANU PF State.



The best solution within the current capitalist setting is for Zimbabwe to have negotiations similar to the Lancaster House Conference in which the two States sit to iron out their differences and draft a clear modus operandi and guidelines of interaction that do not prejudice any of the sides. Both ways sacrifices and compromises have to be made but whatever they would agree, they should ensure that they decisively address the issue of property rights and land tenure because along time it would again erupt as tool for oppression and suppression of innocent people.



It is only when the two States have resolved their differences that a proper functional government can be constituted; either through the ballot or off the ballot. As it is now, the crisis continues and only the rabble bears the pain!

Tribute to Gandi Mudzingwa

Many a times people wait for the worst to happen for them to come out and appreciate the good works that their fellows have done. Humility and dedication is usually noticed after death, rather society seems to have eyes only for those who have charisma. Who could have pointed at Mai Tsvangirai as one of the most influential change advocates in Zimbabwe, but here we are today wallowing in the realisation that we had an angel amongst us but she is gone!

It is after this introspection that I have realised that, the responsibility lies on those who have worked with somebody to public eulogise his works so that society realises the value of his existence. Those who worked with Jestina Mukoko did it and today we all respect her, so did those who worked with Roy Bennet. So on this regard; I will chronicle what I know of Gandi, what he has done for me and other activists and what he has done for the struggle.

Today, four months after his abduction in Msasa area Gandi Mudzingwa is still in custody. He was detained at Chikurubi Maximum Prison before he was moved to Avenues hospital because of his deteriorating health. He is charged with recruiting people for banditry, insurgency and terrorism training in Botswana.

The first time I met Gandi Mudzingwa was in May 2003 just before the fate “Final Push”. He was in the company of Dennis Murira and Last Maengahama. Then he did not strike any difference in me because he didn’t talk much during that meeting.

I later worked with him on many occasions and to be frank he is the person who necessitated my very first face-to-face meeting with Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai in 2004.

It is a fact that many people in MDC who did not come through student activism are sceptical of student leaders. Gandi is the one of the very few people in MDC whose office was open to us when we were students. Yes, he was an aide of President Tsvangirai and his duties did not include entertaining us but he never showed that.

One occasion that he showed this was when Collen Chibango, Arthur Masuka and Killion were arrested for demonstrating against the Treason charges against Mr Tsvangirai. As the then Chairman of the UZ MDC branch I approached Harvest House for legal aid and was referred to one Musekiwa who took the whole day without doing anything. I later called on Nkululeko Sibanda who referred me to Gandi and within a very limited space of time he had engaged the services of a lawyer from Kantor and Immerman.

Of course, I later learnt that although he had not made a name as a student leader, he had been involved in a number of demonstrations against the government even though he was on government scholarship in Russia. This was at the height of Gukurahundi. Contrary to the belief that he is a relative of Morgan Tsvangirai, it was after these demonstrations that he caught the eye of Morgan on one of his early visits to Russia. Since then they have worked together.

This is not the first time that Gandi has been arrested on a number of occasions since 2000 but this has not deterred him from serving the struggle.

It is my hope that with this little information I can also spur others into coming out to condemn the continued detention of this man and two others namely Shadreck Manyere and Kisimusi Dhlamini.

My thoughts are with them

A rare show of good leadership from both Tsvangirai and Mugabe!

Whilst leadership is generally defined as a process of social influence in which one person is able to enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task; I wish to define good leadership as the meticulous use of power and influence to guide other people towards a positive objective. This time I think both Mugabe and Tsvangirai have shown good leadership that this country has been yearning for.

Tsvangirai is the president of MDC and the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe. He has power, clout and influence. There is no doubt that he has millions of disciples who look up to him for light, to them he represents the alpha and omega of their ambitions. Without implying anything, there are people out there who can be dared into saying “Tsvangirai is my shepherd I shall not want!”

It would have taken just a sentence from him for Zimbabwe to explode: “This was planned to kill me!” We were all anxious for his word. Emotions were high, suspicion was at its highest and the atmosphere was charged. For any power-monger this would have represented a ripe situation for cheap point-scoring but like a visionary he chose a different path. He calmed them, he decisively allayed any suspicions and he diplomatically diffused the tense atmosphere.

This and this alone differentiates him from Raila Odinga. When confronted with an opportunity to get rich but at the expense of a life and we choose to remain poor but with a life to cherish that’s what I call being righteous!

Robert Mugabe is the president of ZANU PF and the President of Zimbabwe. He has power to influence who gets what, when and how. There are people who have done horrible things in the name of Robert Mugabe. There are many of his supporters who have been inspired by his violent speeches. In 1982 he said “ZAPU is like a snake that has entered a house, the only way to deal with it is to hit the head” and we saw what happened in Matebeland thereafter.

We heard him say “tinodashura” (we bash) when Morgan Tsvangirai was assaulted by the police in 2007. He pardoned those who killed during the 2002 elections. He at the most urged his supporters to beat MDC supporters in June 2008 and at the least watched and did nothing about the persecution of MDC supporters by his supporters. On all these occasions he had an option to make a better decision but he chose not.

To highlight the difference, when he condemned violence before the March 2008 elections; we witnessed the most peaceful and tolerant election ever imagined in our country.

When he stood in front of the congregation at Mai Tsvangirai’s memorial service and condemned violence, he signified a major shift towards good leadership. His mere presence at the clinic and the memorial sent a message of solidarity even down to his supporters. For once no one in Zimbabwe celebrated death of a fellow human being; even The Herald was in a state of mourning!

Let us not under-estimate the significance of Edwin Tsvangirai’s words “I want to thank his excellency the President of the Republic of Zimbabwe for the kind words that changed my understanding of him." This is a testimony of how good leadership can easily sway public perception towards that which is good.

To show how deep this depiction of good leadership from both Mugabe and Tsvangirai has influenced public behaviour we may need to draw comparison on the death of Elliot Manyika and that of Rtd General Zvinavashe.

Many MDC supporters felt it was a punishment for Manyika to die but today we see a nation that is grieving for death of one of its gallant sons. We have chosen to ignore the bad that he has done, like the proclamation that the Office of The President is a straightjacket. Rather, we have chosen to celebrate the good that he has done like his sacrifice during the liberation struggle and his commitment to uplifting the education standards in Zimbabwe.

That is what good leadership can bring to our country; unfortunately it had to take the life of Mai Tsvangirai to open our eyes to it.

Let me close by urging all Zimbabweans to turnout in the same numbers and in the same spirit at the burial of Rtd General Zvinavashe he deserves our respect.

With all my love!

They killed Susan Tsvangirai, no doubt about it!

Constant mistrust, constant mobility and constant vigilance is the advice I gave to fellow comrades when they opted to enter the Government of National Unity with ZANU PF. Today I mourn the death of Mrs Susan Tsvangirai and I repeat the advice; constant mistrust, constant mobility and constant vigilance.

Many would want us to believe that this was just a normal accidental accident, I will not buy this. I have reasons to. I know my enemy. I know how he operates and I know how ruthless and cunning he is. This has Z ANU PF in capital letters written all over it.

Cdes, do you remember what happened in 1975 in Zambia. Who killed Herbert Chitepo? Well officially it was a car bomb planted by the Rhodesian forces but who can explain to me why it only happened when somebody had been released from jail after détente?


Do you remember how Webster Gwauya, Henry Hamadziripi and many more were tortured and kept in dugout prisons in Mozambique for simply questioning the conduct of Robert Mugabe in 1978. Emmerson Munangagwa and Robert Mugabe presided over the kangaroo court that found them guilty. I am speaking here of a system that knows how to swallow its own people whenever they question the built of the same house they are in.

ZANU PF comrades is a octopussian system that knows no mercy nor man except those at its core. It has little regard for life whether innocent or dirty. All it knows is the art of death and covert operations.


I want to prove to you today that the death of Mai Tsvangirai was not accidental, rather it was a well-planned attempt on Morgan Tsvangirai’s life. Firstly, this comes at a time when ZANU PF has realised that they can no longer continue to hold ultimate power in the presence of Morgan Tsvangirai. There is no other option but to eliminate him.

Time was ripe now and the setting had been managed. ZANU PF has great plotters but I think this time they went too far with their elaborate plan. Firstly, they know very well that the world would be asking questions like:

They could have killed him before so why would they do it now given the GNU?

To answer this question; ZANU PF tried on many occasions to kill Mr Tsvangirai but most of the time it was half-hearted. It was so because Mr Tsvangirai posed little danger then to the hegemony of ZANU PF. To them, they still had total control and the existence of Mr Tsvangirai was in no way a threat to their existence. All this changed after the March 2008 elections. Since those election results it has dawned on ZANU PF that Mr Tsvangirai means nothing but an end to their domination. The refusal of the Germany company to assist Reserve Bank in printing worthless money, pressure from neighbouring countries and the solidarity given to MDC by many entities across the globe served to hammer the nail on ZANU PF. Morgan needed to be exterminated.

But ZANU PF is not an idle mind, it has very complex thinkers and strategists. Killing Tsvangirai was always a last resort; rather there existed other means by which they could curtail the MDC momentum. They are there for all to see. They sought to immobilise him by refusing him a passport, they trumped up mercenary accusations by bombing their own police stations. They arrested Gandi Mudzingwa, Jestina Mukoko and many more to try and discredit Tsvangirai as a bloodthirsty and unpatriotic war-monger. This failed.

They were forced by global and public pressure to enter the power-sharing deal. Mugabe was clear even on September 11. He had been forced. They have continued to frustrate the whole process of transition, unfortunately the more they try the more they realise Morgan is resilient and unwilling to walk away from the deal.

They have seen the potential of MDC to deliver at a time when the country is crying for a saviour and that alone is not acceptable. So, it has become the priority of ZANU PF to derail the agreement so that they retain unilateral power. Why is Gandi Mudzingwa still behind bars? He is collateral. What about Roy Bennet – a bargaining chip! But MDC is also saying “This time NO NO NO!”.

The only option now is to eliminate the head and face of the struggle. So indeed, there is a GNU on paper but in reality MDC is a threat to ZANU PF and can never be tolerated.

But there is no sign of ZANU PF here, the car they collided with is from USAID?

Like I said, these are elaborate thinkers; unfortunately we now know their behaviour. We have studied their trends and we know them. The Herald reports that Mr Tsvangirai’s landcruiser was hit by a truck belong to an American aid agency. Let us revisit a number of events that ZANU PF has been involved in before.

In February 1982, when arms cache were discovered at Ascort and Hampton farm, ZBC-the state broadcaster – was at hand to report the discovery! Emmerson Munangagwa actually flew from Harare so that he would be there when it happens. Who had told ZBC? Was ZAPU, with one of the country’s best trained intelligence expert Dumiso Dabengwa so dull to the extend that they could hide such a massive horde of arms at such a publicly accessible farm like Hampton? Why was Nkomo not told yet only the night before he had met Mugabe, and had also travelled on the same plane with Munangagwa and Sekeramai to Bulawayo. I know the arms cache was planted by ZANU PF to give credence to the impending pesercution of the Ndebele and Nkomo in particular.

In 2001 we had the case of Cain Nkala who ZANU PF at an instant including Robert Mugabe blamed MDC for his death. I still remember the event so vividly as it was broadcast live on Zimbabwe Television. Who can forget the sight of a visibly terrorised Khetani Sibanda as he pointed exactly on the shallow grave that Nkala had been buried alledegly by the MDC youths. So many questions have been asked. Why was ZBC present? Who had invited them? Why was ZBC that confident that indeed Sibanda would lead them to the place where Nkala was buried. There was a reason and that’s ZANU PF for you.

There are many covert operations which Zimbabwe’s CIO has undertaken on behalf of ZANU PF. Remember the Ari Ben Menashe and Morgan Tsvangirai’s alledged plot to kill Mugabe? Typically, ZANU PF seems not to be a part of all these events yet we know that it has invisible hands controlling the show. The motive was to undermine Morgan’s moral standing.

Who silenced Arch-Bishop Pius Ncube? We all know what happened but we choose to be quiet about it because; just as the CIO intended it to be, it is shameless. We are told it was the husband who engaged a private investigator to plant surveillance equipment in Pius Ncube’s house but we know it was ZANU PF. How can a private investigator afford such expensive material in a country where the police force fails to raise enough to buy speed detectors? Even the husband could not have afforded to pay such services. It is known- they did it.

How many within ZANU PF have died mysterious deaths; Josiah Tongogara, Willie Musarurwa, Chris Ushewokunze, Zororo Duri, Maurice Nyagumbo, Moven Mahachi, Border Gezi, General Gunda , Peter Pamire and many others. We are all made to believe they are just normal accidental deaths or suicides. But why is it that all these people at one point in time would have represented a threat to the continued hold on power by Mugabe?

Just to ask: who is accused of shooting Perence Shiri – Frank Muchirahondo a driver for USAID. Who is accused of causing the death of Susan Tsvangirai – a USAID driver. I smell a rat. There is no sign of CIO or ZANU PF- PERFECT!

I can go on and on by here it is: believe what you want but here is the advice I give to Morgan Tsvangirai – tsuro haiponi ritsva kaviri (You don’t dodge death twice!). Do not trust these people; remember constant mistrust, constant mobility and constant vigilance.

Rest in Peace Susan

We will always remember and cherish the motherly part that you showed to us!

Should I return to Zimbabwe?

I have followed the events back home with keen interest and hope. A new government has been unveiled and efforts seem to be underway to address the humanitarian challenges that Zimbabwe is facing particularly the cholera outbreak. I remember Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai saying that he would put incentives to attract medical professionals who have left the country in their thousands. As a medical laboratory scientist I instantly started weighing the option of packing my bags and returning, unfortunately it seems there isn’t much to convince me that going back to Zimbabwe would be the best decision.

There are many things that a professional has to consider before he or she decides to join or in this case rejoin an entity. When I left Zimbabwe there were circumstances that had driven me to leave my country of birth, have these changed? Let me examine them.

I left the government of Zimbabwe in November 2005. My salary then was about US$40. At that time it was enough to buy my groceries, transport me to work and nothing more. Indeed we were some of the highly paid civil servants then because despite the shortages of basic commodities one dollar could buy 2 litres of cooking oil.

When I look at the situation today, all civil servants were given $US100 as vouchers but 2 litres of cooking oil is about $4, which means that in 2005 I was actually getting more than which I would get if I decide to go back. Further to this; I am getting a lot more in my current employment. So, which would be better to stay or go. As for me; I might choose to go back because money is not everything but is there a guarantee that if I go back home I will not die a pauper?

The prime reason that drove me from the civil service was the unprofessional and political nature that it was taking. In October 2005 Dr Obadiah Moyo who was the CEO of Chitungwiza hospital tried to force the laboratory to concoct results so that we could corroborate his allegations of a dysentery outbreak simply because Mugabe wanted the then Mayor of Chitungwiza out. I understand Dr Obadiah Moyo is still the CEO of Chitungwiza hospital and I ask: will professionalism return if the health delivery system remains in the management of all these ZANU PF apologists and zealots?

I examine the behaviour and composition of the Health Professions Council in particular the Zimbabwe Medical Laboratory and Clinical Scientist Council. This is a body that must regulate my profession and do so in a transparent and professional manner but how many bear the scars of its political nature. Imagine a body that charges registration fees that is thrice the salary the same government is giving to a scientist. Where do they think one would get such money? I fought a long and protracted battle to secure a certificate of good standing which sucked even the Zimbabwe Lawyers For Human Rights all because I did not subscribe to its partisan behavior. The same people still occupy these offices; how will I work with them knowing fully their orientations and ruthlessness.

These are just my circumstances but some are common across the professions. So in as much as we are patriotic and feel for our people; it still remains suicidal to return to Zimbabwe unless of course some real reforms are done to the whole service delivery system. Will this happen? I wait.