THE STATE, DEMOCRACY AND THE FUTURE OF ZIMBABWE

(written in 2008)
The situation in Zimbabwe today represents to different opinions the complexities of class perception and more importantly the predictable trajectory of political power especially in the presence of a shifted center of mass. Whilst the behavior of the ruling class in Zimbabwe is typical of any in a troubled state, it is imperative that its actions towards the general populace be stripped in isolation then comparatively be juxtaposed to the presence of another political force acting in resistance to its existence and finally be compared to the general dictates of political order in a democracy. This way we can appreciate the political quagmire that the country is in, the possible solutions and lastly identify the possible players in the creation of a new dispensation for the country. In this regard we need to dissect the STATE, appreciate the concept of DEMOCRACY and finally relate the two in a bid to make a prognosis for the country.

In any country, the State is a powerful institution that has extracted itself from society and placed itself at a position higher than society so as to create a big brother’s hand to either restrain class struggles or in its plain sense suppress any discontent that may arise from the general populace against the ruling class. The State acts as the central reserve for the society whose main function is to collect the proceeds of production and then redistribute them according to, when the system is sympathetic; the needs of society or in extreme cases; the wishes of the State.

When the state extracts itself from society does it continue to bear a reflective color of the society or does it change? To answer this question we need to discuss the reasons that gave rise to its existence anyway. In this regard we need to appreciate three basic characteristics of human behavior:
1. There is natural human tendency to compete for resources
2. There is a general belief of possible extinction of resources
3. There is a widely acceptable phenomenon of natural kleptomaniac hoarding
which is usually referred to – rather politely- as saving for the future.

With this in mind we can state that when the resources to compete for are abundant as compared to the need, there exists a general respect for territorial integrity amongst the players. This abundance may also pacify the parties in the face of the ever-present probability of future deficit because the perception would be that the danger would probably be not within their lifetimes or probably that of their children too. In the same context the need to save for the future is not over-emphasized because of the assured availability through time. For example, no one in Zimbabwe right now is making a fuss about hoarding sand (used in building) simply because of its abundance vis-à-vis the number of people in need for it.

When the resources become scarce, there exists now a struggle for their control. There is definitely a need to save for the future. Unfortunately in this quest to gather the resources, there is usually a clear disregard for personal sovereignty as the powerful encroach into the territories of the less powerful. Along the way the less powerful are overridden and are forced to subscribe to the terms of the powerful. As the competition increases, the powerful make concessions amongst themselves to ensure a consolidation of power. Through common predicament and out of common comradeship the less powerful also seek to unite to resist the intrusion. So out of the need to control resources there arises a continual and persistent friction between the powerful and the less powerful. A good example is the Chiadzwa Diamond fields in Marange; the people of Marange used to live peacefully in that land before the discovery of diamonds, nevertheless upon their discovery, the place was secured and the original (the less powerful) people were moved out of their place by the powerful.

In all this confusion, the powerful seek to create order in the gained territories. This they do by formulating rules. In other words; they gain power (i.e. the conferring ability to distribute resources to one’s choice using one’s discretion). With the advancement of the process of resource-hoarding and the ever-present threat of loss of the gained resources, there arises the need to enforce the need to enforce the rules that govern the conduct of the less powerful within the prescribed territories of those who govern. It is this scenario and eventually the need to maintain alliances as powerful as ever coupled to the sophistication of human development and the ever multiplying force of resistance which compels the powerful to forge a universal force to administer the exploitation of the gained resources- which in this case is known as THE STATE!

In simple terms then, THE STATE is a grouping of powerful individuals who have through force or other means amassed resources beyond their capacity to utilize them and now through certain seemingly justifiable exploitative means seek to use the less powerful to add value to these resources solely for their benefit while purporting to be custodians of the society. These individuals call themselves kingmakers and they use all those objects they always refer to as belonging to the State like police, army and intelligence to consolidate power and also appoint who rules and who doesn’t.

So as we look at Zimbabwe (The State) and Zimbabwe (The Democracy) it becomes necessary that we define the relationship of the two and whether both can exist at the same time or whether there are limits that have to be put on the other for the other to flourish. In actual fact the question we need to answer is whether full democracy can be achieved when there is a State!

Many have been inebriated by the ever-so-popularized definition of democracy:

Democracy is the rule of the people by the people for the people. The fundamental features of democracies include government based on majority rule and the consent of the governed, the existence of free and fair elections, the protection of political minorities, respect for basic human rights, equality before the law, due process, and political pluralism


These are Utopian conditions which apply only in a world which has no competition. Human beings respect each other as long as their ambitions don’t converge at a common object. Once they do then there is always that rush to be the first to reach the destination and definitely the satisfaction of having outpaced the other cannot be underestimated. So can there ever be a rule of the people by the people for the people where there is competition for resources?

Firstly, the initial motive behind “Democracy” is to create a state that has got a colour of society. A state that does not represent class conflict but a general convergence of human interests. May we propose then that democracy in its virgin sense is a system of governance where the society extracts certain individuals from “within” society and confer them the responsibility to maintain order in the distribution and exploitation of resources. Can this state ever be present?

Do people in a democracy have the choice to change the order created by the State? Plainly, can people peacefully change the state in a democracy? Can we propose again that, in all these democracies citizen-participation is allowed only as far as the changing of characters within the government is concerned but as many obstacles are put to discourage the change of characteristics of the governance systems? Can citizens just wake up and say they no longer want the current hierarchy instead they want another animal X or Y with totally different composition and functions? This is treasonous!

Can we again propose that in reality, democracy does not represent participation of the people in the creation of a ‘better’ people’s state but the continuous and regular change of characters in the public face (government) of the state so as not to unmask the perpetual faces that make up the State?

May we pose and ask; in a democracy who is more powerful, the people or the Rockefellers of America, United Fruit Company of Latin America or De Beers in Botswana?

Can someone just erupt from nowhere and decide to lead the people in a democracy? No! The State would not allow that. Actually there are well-laid requisites for one to qualify to lead a democracy. These are laid out by the State through its crew of kingmakers (Ford Foundation, Heritage Foundation etc in USA). They ensure that whoever comes in maintains the order and guarantee the protection of the State whilst pacifying the majority of the people. Some of the prerequisites are as follows:
- You should be from a rich and acceptable family
- You have war credentials (i.e. you have at one point in your life shown that
you can risk your life to protect the interests of the State)
- You have reached a certain level of guided education that makes you value infrastructure more than the freedoms of the common man.

But amidst all these hidden facets, why does democracy seem more acceptable to the people?

Democracy is attractive because on face value it involves a compromise between the governors and the governed. It presents a mutual understanding where the governed offer to respect and recognize the legitimacy of the State in return for freedoms and provision of basics from the proceeds of exploitation of the resources. So a democracy would always be viewed as true when the State through the government is able to provide basic goods to the people at the same time protect individual freedoms.

Now, Is Zimbabwe a democracy or not? If it is then what can be done to make it a better democracy? If it isn’t then what can be done to make it one? These are questions we need to deal with now that we have defined the State and Democracy.

Structurally, Zimbabwe remains one of the best possible democracies in the world. Functionally though it is one of the worst. So it remains upon an individual to choose an angle he or she wishes to view the Zimbabwean democracy.

In one of my conversations with John Trimble a lecturer and Pan Africanist America; he pointed out that ZANU PF is one of the most democratic parties in the world. His assertions were based upon the fact that ZANU PF has structures from ward committees up to the Central Committee, all of these serving to represent the people.

To this I disagree because; instead of these structures acting as tributaries for inflow of ideas they function as broadcasting outlets serving only to amplify the decisions of the Central Committee. The only time these structures are involved in the process of decision-making is when they sit in a tent at the annual congress and in a populist manner give credence to dubious and autocratic decisions by way of public proclamation. So in actual fact ZANU PF has got a very effective network of information dissemination not a representative democracy.

Structurally again Zimbabwe has all the facets of democracy- a parliament, cabinet, presidium and other organs of the state. It holds elections regularly and timeously and this is important in any democracy. Functionally though there is no independence of the judiciary, there is no impartiality in application of the law; citizen participation is restricted to pro-government activities. So Zimbabwe is an autocratic democracy!

What went wrong in Zimbabwe?

Zimbabwe was like any other real democracy up to 1997. The state and the government were clearly demarcated. The government enjoyed the support of the State (the white farmers and industrialists) at the same time the government consulted with the State before any major decision. They were in tandem.

The problems started when the government failed to appreciate that the Zimbabwean State was just an extension of other bigger States through the likes of ; British American Tobacco, The Oppeinheimer family, British Petroleum, Rio Tinto etc. These have many interests in many countries including the Democratic Republic of Congo (then Zaire). So who was Mugabe to stop the influence of these institutions in such a rich country, after all he was supporting a known Marxist Laurent Kabila who in 1965 had accepted the help of Che Guevara in the fight against Mobutu. Pan-Africanism is only allowed on paper but not when it conflicts with the interests of the world superpowers. The CIA does not easily forget.

Secondly the government was supposed to distribute the few resources that the State made available to the people in a manner that did not compromise the State’s existence. How painful it could have felt for the State to see the government dishing out millions of United States dollars to non-productive people calling themselves war-veterans. After all these are the people who had disrupted the perpetuity of the Rhodesian hegemony. The loyalty of this government was becoming questionable.

In this regard the State sought to discard this unreliable government. Thus began the long struggle. The Zimbabwean dollar tumbled, the cost of basic commodities shot up, public despondency followed and a state-oriented party was formed. These events were a clear conspiracy of the Samora Machel Avenue barons, the Wall Street moguls and their typical running-dogs who later formed the opposition.

What followed next was something that is atypical of these splits. The government went away with the State machinery- army, police and Intelligence. This was very unusual, but quite obviously caused by the intellect and foresight of the government which had managed to integrate its Marxist guerillas in the State machinery.

So the split of the State and the government created an amusing scenario. A state in search of a government and a government in search of a State. The State has money and international backers whilst the government has a powerful army but no money nor international backers. The State is trying to starve the government so that it creates a ripe situation for civil uprising and at the same time the government is using State machinery to suppress any such activities.

The biggest problem that Zimbabwe faces today is a government that also functions as the State. It seeks to control all the resources and at the same time administer their distribution. Zimbabwe then is falling back into the feudal times. What is about to happen is a situation where for some time elections in Zimbabwe would be useless until the government has finished the process of transferring resources. Thus the characters in the government shall continue to lead until they are financially and politically capable of being kingmakers on their own right.

What are the options for Zimbabwe

The government on its own would take a very long time to create a State. Unlike the 1896 situation where white settlers grabbed land and immediately became rich and powerful it is virtually impossible for characters in the government to do that. Whatever they steal, they should do it in a clandestine manner in order not to invoke public outcry. Thus to amass enough wealth through this method they have to take a long time of good calculations and execution.

An option that exists for the State is to create its own force. This would eventually lead to civil war and hopefully because of the abundance of resources and support they would be able to sustain a longer struggle. Because of the infrastructure that is there war would be even more costly that is why they do not fancy it.

The other option is the return to pre-1999 situation where the State was the State and the government the government. The talks between ZANU PF and MDC as plain as they are, are just a clear attempt towards this. The reconciliation of the State and the Government is the only way that both parties may benefit; unfortunately because of the constant mistrust and hate that exist this remains a mammoth task. Secondly there are people who have made gains in this situation and therefore would want a continuation of the current situation.

The last option is that of Representative Administration. It involves the creation of a society whose state is decentralized and would eventually wither away. It is a scenario where Zimbabweans choose to agree that the purpose of a government is to administer the equitable distribution of the natural resources of the country. It enables each individual to have access to basic services and commodities but allowing for creativity and innovation in society. This option is least favored by both the Government and the State because it means a total loss on their part; but it also means a society of less aggression. In short this is a Zimbabwean form of a social revolution. We call this ZIMISM and we believe is the future for Zimbabwe.

How the Diaspora can drive the regime change agenda in Zimbabwe

In my last article I proffered that Zimbabwe is completely in the hands of ZANU PF and that there is no hope for a free and fair election as long as the current cabal is intact. It seems however that many who read the article found it logical to conclude that if elections would not present a change in government, then an armed conflict would be the only way to institute structural changes. I believe there is another way that could be effective, clean and constructive.

Remember I talked about an attempt by ZANU PF at creating a new State that has foundations on its ruling elite. What ZANU PF’s inner circle is primarily seeking to do is to build an empire that has the ability to control both the national resources and the government. In controlling the national resources this group will be able to freely operate and multiply its wealth. They know they will not be able to freely operate in future if they do not have security, thus they romped in the core of the military into the inner cabal. What is left now is to ensure that they have the ability to influence who gets into government and who does not. This will be easy for them in future but not now.

If the inner cabal which revolves around Mugabe, Munangagwa and Mujuru is left unchecked by 2020, all major companies in Zimbabwe will belong to them. Right now all productive land in Zimbabwe belongs to them. They now control the primary mode of production. They now literally control the raw resources of Zimbabwe including minerals. What they are doing now is to take control of all other companies in the country. They talk of indigenization when they know that in 2008 they reduced all Zimbabweans to paupers by literally freezing all the money that they had in banks.
The plot from 2004 was to print paper money which they would use to buy foreign currency on the black market and stash it somewhere else. They allowed inflation to spiral because it was necessary to have all other Zimbabweans as beggars so that they would not in future pose as threats in the competition for resources. What we are seeing now is an attempt to clean dirty money and make it acceptable into the economy whilst asserting their influence over all other people in the country.

Indigenization demystified

The inner cabal through its banker Gideon Gono managed to collect money though the black-market at virtually no cost because they bought it with worthless paper. It is estimated that they amassed approximately US$ 2 billion over the four years. Since 2006 ZANU PF through proxy companies has been mining diamonds and secretly selling them to the Chinese and other eastern countries. The money did not go into State coffers but straight to ZANU PF. It is estimated that they make about $1.7 billion annually through the diamonds. That is about $6.8 billion over 4 years. What this means is that ZANU PF has about $8.8 billion stashed somewhere outside the official economy of the country. This money is dirty money which they can easily lose for example if for some strange reason China’s policy towards Zimbabwe changes assuming the money is in Chinese banks.

So the next stage is now to spruce the money, make it clean and send it into the official market as legit. They know that it will be a very tough decision for United Kingdom to impulsively freeze the operations of companies like Anglo American Corporation, Rio Tinto, Barclays Bank and Standard Chartered Bank which have their origins in that country. Zimbabwe has about 600 of such foreign companies. ZANU PF came up with the controversial indigenisation law which requires all foreign companies to shed 51 percent of their stakes to indigenous Zimbabweans.

ZANU PF knows that every other Zimbabwean who was not within the ZANU PF system in 2008 is now a pauper. They have $9 billion waiting to be used in the crusade. By law, all the 600 companies will cede 51 percent to ZANU PF. This time they are not going to seize companies without compensation, they are legally going to pay for the 51 percent using dirty money. If applied with speed ZANU PF will be controlling all the land and all the companies in Zimbabwe very soon.

So the concept of indigenization although very attractive to poor Zimbabweans is not meant to benefit them but to assert the authority of an inner cabal of ZANUPF. We have helped to build this empire through our sweat which was bought through worthless paper.

The toothless government in 2020

When the dust settles, sanctions will not make much sense. Production will grow. ZANU PF will now be able to invest in agriculture. This will be simple, ZANU PF will now be controlling the chain of wealth creation. They will be able to farm tomatoes on their farms, instead of selling them at Mbare Musika , they will now be able to make rich pickings at Unilever which they would own. The tomatoes will be made into Royco which they would sell and again make rich pickings through OK Zimbabwe which they will also own.

Eventually the issue of running around in parliament and government will become too tedious and dirty for the inner cabal. They will then be willing to shed offices of the government to other acceptable individuals who will be screened so that they would not put the cabal’s interests at risk. The State will then be able to pacify general Zimbabweans through fringe benefits associated with a reviving economy. Eventually jobs will be available as the companies grow and reinvest in other sectors.

When people begin to get food they will begin to worry about who is ruling them. So the final stage will be to create another political party that is again controlled by the inner cabal. This party will challenge ZANU PF in elections and win. It will be acceptable because it will in other words be another ZANU PF although with a different name and different personalities. The net effect of development is that the inner cabal’s interests will still be protected. Eventually we will have a bi-partisan country run and controlled by monsters.

Building an alternative to the ZANU PF State

I have gone to this length so that we can all appreciate the seriousness of ZANU PF. At face value the only way to stop ZANU PF is to take up arms and topple them. This is not attractive neither is it feasible because Zimbabweans are fresh from war and they know how destructive and painful it is. Secondly, for an alternative army to be built there is need for resources. Already MDC and NGOs in Zimbabwe have milked western donors since 1999 and signs of donor fatigue are showing as it becomes apparent that it is improbable for MDC to rule Zimbabwe. Lastly, there is minimal immediate gain for the West in Zimbabwe. War in Zimbabwe will be a liability to them as they would also be expected to bear the burden of rebuilding a ravaged country. Smart regime change remains the only acceptable option for them.

The hope for smart regime change lies in the Zimbabwe Diaspora. Zimbabwe has approximately 2 million people who are outside the country. This body of people is very important economically. There hasn’t been a strategy to harness the economic power of the diaspora especially from the pro-democratic side of the political divide. The importance of Diaspora remittances in propping up economies cannot be understated. Phillipines received about $16 billion from it Diaspora in 2008 whilst Ethiopia received about $780 million in 10 months in 2010. It is this strength that we ought to harness for us to create an alternative and rival State in Zimbabwe.
There are some assumptions that we have to make before positing the alternative solution. We are going to assume that of the 2 million people outside the country only 25 percent are formally employed or are productive. We will also assume that on average only 200 000 are able to spare a minimum of $1000 which can be used for investment purposes.

What we need is a Collective Investment Trust that has the ability to raise capital, engage in business, create and multiply wealth. If initially 1000 people are found who are willing to invest at least $5000 each into the CIT over a period of a year (2012), the Trust will be able to raise $5 million over that period. This money would be spun through short-term , high-turnover investments coupled to startup of sustainable businesses that need limited capital injection in the diaspora.

There is a lot of untapped business potential in the world that the Trust can exploit. A lot of brilliant business ideas are dying because we do not have access to capital. The Trust would act as an investment vehicle for its beneficiaries which are primarily the 1000 people. As the empire of the Trust grows it begins to initiate formation of other investment vehicles be it other Trusts, companies or corporations which would be under its wings but whose drive would be to harness the financial power of the diaspora through providing a platform for Zimbabwe-centric investment opportunities. Let’s assume that 200 000 people decide to invest at least $1000 into business entities controlled by the CIT. It means the Trust will have access to $200 million in raw capital. We will assume this process takes a year.

We have to remember that every human being wants a return on his investments. So for avoidance of doubt I am not suggesting an ujamaa or a compassionate entity. I am suggesting a complete profit-making empire whose primary objective is to make income for its beneficiaries but aiming at taking over the economic structures in Zimbabwe.
Investment after 2014 would be two pronged in that; the external investment will be solely to make maximum profit whilst internal investments would be aimed at starting up business along politically strategic but profitable lines. For example, Zimbabwe does not have an efficient payment gateway that has the capacity to support online transactions. We ought to look at the relationship between PayPal and Ebay to get an insight. Ebay provides a platform for people to sell and buy merchandise all over the world . PayPal processes the payments that happen so that if one buys something in Thailand yet resides in Uganda, he can send money easily by the click of the computer button. Ebay owns Paypal and most of the $2.5 billion profit made in 2010 were driven by business done through PayPal.

Zimbabwe does not have any company that has been operating these services and because of sanctions Ebay and Paypal are not accessible to inland Zimbabweans. This is just one of the many fields that are awaiting exploitation. How strategic is both Ebay-like and Paypal-like business in Zimbabwe? Introduction of these technologies will provide employment to a significant number of people which is a positive to our people. In terms of the overall political objective it means a significant angle of influence will be in progressive hands.

We will need investment into all sectors that would allow us to exert an influence in future. Investment within the country will be limited in terms of company size but expanded in terms of sector coverage. This will be done so as to avoid loss due to the possibility of expropriation by ZANU PF. The drive will be through proxy entities that are wholly owned by Zimbabweans. We need to get insight and advice from business people who have managed to stay afloat in Zimbabwe despite their opposition to the system for example Strive Masiiwa who owns Econet Wireless.

The need to have small companies scattered across sectors is to provide competition to ZANU PF where it already controls and to lay an early claim to stakes in areas it has not explored. In future, we will be able to inject capital into these companies so that they can effectively compete and possibly outwit ZANU PF owned companies in these sectors. In niche areas we will be able to silently and covertly exert our dominance.

External investment will also be aimed at capacitating the movement in areas that may become important in future exertion of force. These include military technology, satellite technology and general advanced technology. This may not be important today as this thrust is none-physical and non-military. In future we may need to counter the aging ZANLA/ZIPRA influence through provision of substitutive military influence that would enable the army to move away from obsolete methods to professional and modern methods. This will allow us to exert our military mighty on the security apparatus in the country.

The advantage that the Diaspora has over ZANU PF is that they are not subject to sanctions. They have the ability to exploit the global village without restrictions related to the current political situation in Zimbabwe. This means that the pace of growth emanating from external engagements will be much faster than that of ZANU PF . Assuming that the return from investments is 100 percent per annum then the empire can reach a $1 billion mark in 4 years.

This growth is important only if it is not coupled to a growth on ZANU PF’s empire. So it is important to maintain the economic pressure on ZANU PF so that they do not have a chance to trade meaningfully. Political pressure will be piled too to foreign companies operating in Zimbabwe either to scale down or leave. It will also be important to forge an alliance with the owners of these multi-national companies so that once ZANU PF begins to release the dirty money into their coffers they can alert the international community so that we can reclaim the money.

Is MDC necessary in this

The purpose of MDC in all this is to hold fort and continue to stall ZANU PF progress. We need MDC so that we continue to have meaningful retardation of ZANU PF’s cruise to total control. We need the MDC also to provide hope to those within the country even though it will be hard for it in its current form to wrestle power from ZANU PF. We will need to bring on board those within the MDC who have the mental and financial aptitude to sustain the crusade. It is anticipated that if MDC does not gain power in the next election donor fatigue will creep in meaning that the fluidity of the party will be compromised. The MDC would be encouraged to invest in the project so that over time it will be able to derive from the return on investments to fund its operations. This would allow us to exert a Zimbabwe-centric agenda on the party and to build on certain ideas that would have been unpopular with the current party donors. The relationship with MDC will be dependent on how open the party is to visionary leadership otherwise we will run the risk of having the economic thrust being tainted by controversies that may not be needed especially in the early years. In the event that MDC does not provide a desirable platform then an alternative vehicle will be formed that will be able to assert its power in due course.

Who Organises the Diaspora
Organising people to initiate idea is difficult given that naturally human beings have a fear of being pioneers. It will take a few willing individuals to commit themselves to the initial stages. An attempt to launch one such Investment Trust in Botswana attracted 45 Zimbabweans in 2009. This goes to show that people are willing to commit their funds to anything that will generate wealth for them. Organisations that have been formed to represent the Zimbabwean Diaspora should be approached so that they can influence their organized networks towards investment. These include the Global Zimbabwe Forum and the Development Foundation for Zimbabwe (DFZ).

In conclusion
What I have proffered here is an attempt to build a capitalist approach to toppling a dictatorship. The question that many who have a leftist inclination will ask is; what difference exist between the state that we will seek to build and the state that ZANU PF is building since both have no inclination towards the masses? The answer is simple; we will be doing this in good faith. We cannot bring all humanity to a point where they own equally but we can create an environment that allows humanity to flourish. Remembering that we are targeting 200 000 people initially, it is our hope that with the growth of the trust more people within the empire will be empowered to explore other business avenues thereby ensuring an evolution of a ruling class from a working class. The policies of the emergent government will be protecting the rights of workers and all the people of Zimbabwe.

No hope for free and fair elections in Zimbabwe

Recent events in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya elicited calls for a non-military and mass-based revolution in Zimbabwe. These calls were largely by Zimbabweans living outside of the country. The Movement For Democratic Change (MDC) despite calls for its participation did not call for nor support the action then called for the 1st March 2011, rather the party said it remained committed to the Government of National Unity willing to pursue a yet-to-be-announced Zuma roadmap to free and fair elections. It is this stance that drew this article. What are chances of a peaceful, free and fair election in Zimbabwe? Given the history of violence and intimidation in past elections, what are the chances that this will not recur?

State Security vs The People
In March 2008 elections MDC made significant parliamentary gains. On paper they became the ruling party. Mr Mugabe lost to Mr Tsvangirai in the presidential elections. Reports indicate that Mr Mugabe had lost by a margin that allowed Mr Tsvangirai to become the president of the country; however after a long delay official results showed that although Mr Tsvangirai had won, the margin warranted a run-off election. The election was set for June 2008 but what followed was a horrific run of terror by all state security organs and ZANU PF supporters. 183 MDC supporters were killed during that time. None of the perpetrators were brought to book; rather Robert Mugabe in Clemency Order No. 1 of 2008, issued in June 2008 offered amnesty to perpetrators.

It is important to analyse the civil-military relationship in Zimbabwe. Civil-Military Relations broadly describes the relationship between the general population and the military authority of the country. The civil population is usually represented by a given civil authority preferably chosen through an election. In an ideal democracy, the military although autonomous in function is largely under the control of civilian authority. In this state, the civilian authority recognizes the supremacy of the military in the use of force whilst the military willingly submits itself to civilian authority. What this means is that; the military, even though it knows that it has the ability to forcibly rule over defenseless civilians agrees to be controlled by them. Core to this is professionalism and neutralism.

In Zimbabwe, there is a military structure that was derived from partisan entities that include liberation forces like ZANLA and ZIPRA. These were armed forces that had strong allegiances to political parties ZANU and ZAPU respectively. Today, the top structure of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces is dominated by former combatants of these liberation forces. The same applies to the police, intelligence and prisons. General Constantine Chiwenga, Lt General Phillip Valerio Sibanda, Air Marshall Perrance Shiri are all former ZANLA/ZIPRA veterans. Commissioner General of the Zimbabwe Republic Police, Augustine Chihuri is a former ZANLA combatant. Happyton Bonyongwe, the Director General of CIO and Rt Major General Paradzayi Zimondi, Head of Prison Services are both former ZANLA combatants. Commanders of all the Brigades of ZNA are former ZIPRA/ZANLA combatants.

This scenario serves the interests of ZANU PF best. The relationship between ZANU PF authority and the security apparatus is amicable. The trend seems to show that after retirement most of the senior members of the security system enter mainstream politics on the ticket of ZANU PF. Examples that come to mind are Air Chief Marshal Josiah Tungamirai and Rtd Lt General Vitalis Zvinavashe who are both late. They were both in the ZANLA High Command before independence.

Given this blatant partisanship of the security apparatus will any future election win by MDC be recognized by the security system of the country? To help us understand the skewed civil-miltary relationship let us revisit the statement by Rtd Lt General Zvinavashe on the eve of the presidential election in 2002.

“Let it be known that the highest office in the land is a 'straightjacket' whose occupant is expected to observe the objectives of the liberation struggle. …We (the military) will, therefore, not accept, let alone support or salute, anyone with a different agenda that threatens the very existence of our sovereignty, our country and our people."

The constitution of Zimbabwe states clearly the qualification of a President. Nowhere are the expectations as pointed out by the Generals written in the constitution. The statement clearly showed that the military had become larger than the people. Any choice that did not fit the description by the generals wouldn’t have been accepted regardless of the support by the people.

This was a testimony of the partisanship of the security forces in Zimbabwe. It did not come as a surprise then when Mr Tsvangirai won elections in March 2008 that the security forces were not amused.

ZANU PF has always labeled MDC as a puppet of the west with no ability to maintain the sovereignty of the country. The army seems to believe the same to be true. Is this belief genuine or it is just an excuse to continue hanging on to power? What are the chances that former ZANLA combatants would ditch their fellow pre-independence leaders for a man of little anti-colonial struggle credentials like Morgan Tsvangirai?

It is known that all commanders of the army are appointed by the president. Logically the president appoints people who will be loyal to him. The constitution is clear on these appointments, what is critical however is that even though the commanders are loyal to the president, they have a moral obligation to respect the citizens of the country. In this regard, despite individual political beliefs, they are expected to execute their duties professionally without discriminating anyone of different political beliefs. This is where the security services are lacking.

The new ZANU PF State
It is also important to evaluate the structure and composition of the state and government for us to predict whether ZANU PF will be able to accede to free and fair elections. Firstly, it is important again to differentiate the State and the Government. In short the State is the people, the systems, the laws, the resources, the territory and the intangibles like sovereignty. The Government is the set of individuals who run, manage and execute the programs and policies of the State.
The State in Zimbabwe owns the military, police, judiciary, jails, hospitals, schools, companies etcetera. The government of the day is supposed to run and manage these. The logic here is that; the state comprises of people and the government is chosen by the same people to administer their interests.
We have situation in Zimbabwe where the State and the government are hard to differentiate. The people in the government have become more powerful than the people. In other words, we now have a new State that recognizes only a few privileged people and serves only the interests of those privileged few. The laws of the country are being applied selectively depending on preferences of people in the government. The people are unable to remove offending representatives.
This State has the ability to exploit national resources without prior approval of the people as long as the ZANU PF politiburo agrees to it. For example, a finite national resource like land is being used to pay musicians for singing praises to the government. We have a minister like Ignatious Chombo who has amassed wealth through illegal exploitation of finite natural resources. When the people demand his investigation, the police is unwilling to because it is owned and run by the kith and kin of Chombo.

What then is the probability that someone who is not willing to protect the interests of the new owners of the State would be allowed to take over the government?
Critics will point out that already MDC is part of the government. Reality however shows that MDC is not part of the government that runs the new State, rather it is being allowed to run the remnants of the old State. For example, the police that is usually under the minister of Home Affairs is now reporting directly to the President bypassing Theresa Makone who is an MDC minister. She does not have power to direct the police to investigate the owners of the new state. The nominal power she wields is only for purposes related to the old State.

Tendai Biti runs the ministry of finance. He administers only that part of government that controls the proceeds of the old State. The financial muscle of the new State is controlled by Gideon Gono. That is why Gono sits in the JOC and not Biti.
Given this scenario it is clear that ZANU PF will not accept a free and fair election in Zimbabwe because it would accelerate the disintegration of the State that it is building. Given the vast wealth they have amassed so far, the ZANU PF stalwarts are willing to sacrifice unimportant people in the old State for them to cling on to power.

The Zuma Roadmap
MDC is banking on a roadmap that is being prepared by the South African President Jacob Zuma. What are the chances that ZANU PF will abide by the recommendations?
In 2002 a Commonwealth troika comprising of Thabo Mbeki, Olusegun Obasanjo and Tim Howard announced the suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth due to the violence and human rights abuses in the run-up to the 2002 elections. In 2003 Mugabe pulled Zimbabwe out of the Commonwealth.

In 2004 SADC Adopted the Mauritian Protocol on Elections. Zimbabwe held its Parliamentary elections in 2005. These were supposed to be held in line with the SADC guidelines but a lot of irregularities were noted. South Africa however declared the process free and fair despite glaring flaws.

When 79 white commercial farmers approached the SADC Tribunal in a bid to stop compulsory acquisition of land by the Zimbabwe government and the tribunal ruled in their favor, the Zimbabwe government responded by pulling out of the Tribunal.
These examples show how arrogant the ZANU PF government is. Whenever the government comes under international scrutiny it responds by unilaterally ending any relationship that could have given credence to such scrutiny. Secondly, the South African government has an amicable see-no-evil relationship with ZANU PF as shown by their “silent diplomacy” even in the presence of compelling human rights abuses.
Given the demonstrated arrogance of ZANU PF and its biased relationship with the South African government, what are the chances that any roadmap will be followed when it seeks to limit the intransigencies of ZANU PF?

A glimpse of the current GPA might give us insight. ZANU PF has maintained its dominance over MDC by dictating what is and is not implemented. The issue of the governors, issue of Roy Bennet, appointment of permanent secretaries, issue of Gono and the issue of Tomana are evidence of clear ZANU PF supremacy over MDC in government. What has been the response of South Africa- the supposed guarantors of the GPA?

The Election Commission
Elections in 2000, 2002 and 2005 were presided over by Tobaiwa Mudede who many allege to have played a part in rigging all of the elections. He remains the Registrar General even up to today as an affirmation of ZANU PF’s supremacy.
Robert Mugabe appointed Justice George Chiweshe as chairman of the Zimbabwe Election Commission. He presided over the 2008 elections and declared them free and fair despite the atrocities. What more did Zimbabweans expect from a former ZANLA combatant, ZANU political commissar and a former Brigadier General of the partisan Zimbabwe National Army?

His loyalty to Mugabe was unquestionable and he was rewarded in august 2008 when he was promoted by Mugabe to the rank of Rt major general. He was further promoted by Mugabe to be the Judge President of the High Court despite protestations by MDC .
The current Zimbabwe Election Commission retained Joyce Kazembe and Theophilus Gambe from the previous commission that dubiously allowed the re-election of Mugabe. The loyalty of the current chairman Simpson Mutambanengwe is hazy. All we know is that he was a member of ZANU’s Dare Rechimurenga before he fled for his life to Malawi after supporting the Nhari rebellion in 1974. He later joined the UANC and became a member of the Zimbabwe-Rhodesia government. He was part of the Zimbabwe-Rhodesia delegation to Lancaster House Conference in 1979. After independence he was appointed by Mugabe to the bench. He was later seconded to Namibia by Mugabe. When Justice Paradza was arraigned before the courts in 2006, Mugabe called on Mutambanengwe who had already retired to come and preside over the case.

Without insinuating that Simpson may be loyal to Mugabe, we know that rarely does Mugabe allow the appointment of a person of questionable political loyalty to such an important commission. It remains to be seen if the commission will be able to resist political manipulation.

In conclusion, the stance that MDC has taken to commit itself to upcoming elections is tantamount to political suicide. The structures that have retained Mugabe to power over the past decade are still intact. The army, police, intelligence and prisons are still in total control of ZANU PF. A few individuals in ZANU PF still maintain a firm grip of the State. There are doubts on the impartiality of the Election Commission. It is safe therefore to say that until such a time when Zimbabwe opposition has the power to dismantle the structures of power built on ZANU PF loyalty; there won’t be any free and fair elections in Zimbabwe.