President Morgan Tsvangirai Interview with SWRADIOAFRICA( Parts 1 and 2)

Ms V Gonda Interviews Pres M Tsvangirai (Pt One!)


Violet Gonda: Opposition leader Mr Morgan Tsvangirai is the guest on the programme 'Hot Seat'. Welcome on the programme Mr Tsvangirai.

Morgan Tsvangirai: Thank you.

Violet: Now Mr Tsvangirai Mugabe and his ZANU PF party plan to harmonise the Presidential election and Parliamentary election and move the Presidential poll from 2008 to 2010. The opposition has said it will resist this and launch a campaign for the 2008 Presidential election. First of all, how are you going to do that exactly?

Morgan Tsvangirai: Well, we as MDC have clear objectives as far as that proposal is concerned. Our first objective is to ensure that we as a party go on a campaign country-wide against such a proposal by mobilising the people to understand what this implies. The second objective is to ensure that together with the broad civic society we are able also to broaden the campaign to include our colleagues and partners in civic society. And thirdly, to insist that there shall be an election in 2008 under a new constitution remains our rallying cry for the nation to ensure that this crisis is not postponed by another three years.

Violet: Now, some agree that elections should be combined but they say that they should be extended from 2008 to 2010 to give people more time. Now, as the opposition, will you be ready if the elections are held next year as scheduled?

Morgan Tsvangirai: Violet, we will be more than ready. We have been ready since the formation of the party. That's why we beat Mugabe in the 2002 Presidential election, that's why we beat him in the 2005 Parliamentary election. What is only required is not the readiness of the opposition, what is required are the conditions under which these elections are being held. The free and fairness, the democratic control of national institutions like the electoral management systems, the police and the military. All that will ensure that the outcome is not pre-determined.

Violet: But still, again I ask, is there enough time for all these things to happen? You know, to fight for a new constitution and the opening up of the democratic space, because, the harmonisation process needs to be accompanied by serious reforms, as you've just said. Now, ZANU PF, Mugabe in particular, has made it clear that elections will be held in 2010. What is your concrete strategy, to ensure that this won't happen?

Morgan Tsvangirai: Well the defiance is characteristic of Mugabe, we have heard him before, but, when there is sufficient mobilisation of the people like in 2002 or at the time of the campaign for a new national constitution, he will succumb. There is no way he can continue to defy his own people and the people at large because we know this 2010 project has no support within his own party. And so is the nation. The nation is saying we face such a critical colossal crisis that to delay to resolve this issue by a free and fair election will only mean that we have condemned the people by another three years.

Violet: But Mr Tsvangirai, the flawed electoral process has been a major complaint of the opposition since the parliamentary election in 2000 and subsequent elections after that. Some say Mugabe can easily turn around and say 'fine, let's have the election next year as scheduled', how will you stop these next elections from being rigged?

Morgan Tsvangirai: Well the point is that I underlined the fact that we need an election under a new constitution and under a new electoral management system that will ensure that the vote is free and fair. It obviously poses a very critical question to the opposition to say at the right time do you participate in an election which is already pre-determined, or you insist that the election shall be conducted in a manner that is accepted internationally. This is the predicament, the dilemma that we face as a country. We want an election but we don't want an election under the current conditions because it will just mean that they will be rigged. So, it is a dilemma that we need to deal with and the people, I think, would insist, that in conditions where it is obvious that Mugabe has the full control of the rules and regulations of the elections, it's a futile exercise.

Violet: And, is it not prudent for your party or your parliamentarians to begin pushing in parliament for electoral reforms and use ZANU PF's denial in Parliament to launch mass action, that's what others would ask.

Morgan Tsvangirai: Well, the problem is that parliament has proven to be a worthless exercise in so far as you can make noise but Mugabe ensured that he had his two thirds in March last year, in 2005, and so the debate by the opposition is just merely an exercise in futility.
Violet: So others would then ask why you continue to participate in an ineffective Parliament that ZANU PF uses to railroad through draconian legislation. What is the point then, is this not a contradiction?

Morgan Tsvangirai: Well I think it's like participating in an election; what you do is you give some semblance of legitimacy to that process. But certainly, I have full confidence that that institution is working to the fullest benefit of the people other than just a conveyor belt of Mugabe's wishes.

Violet: You know, this is exactly the question that people keep asking. How is that institution working for the benefit of the people because Parliament is seen as ineffective and that the opposition should stop participating in Parliament? Just like they say you should stop participating in elections under what you say is an undemocratic constitution.

Morgan Tsvangirai: Well, I think that what one has to understand is that from time to time this position is reviewed by the MDC as a tactical question and not as a matter of principle. As a matter of principle we would like to participate in elections but on a tactical basis it's no use going into an exercise in futility like I have said earlier which you know has no effect, you can make as much noise as you want but still the ruling party is in defiance and in denial as to what are the real issues that the parliament should be doing.

Violet: Now it's been reported that some ZANU PF moderates want Robert Mugabe to go early, so what is your party doing to build consensus with these so called reformers in ZANU PF?

Morgan Tsvangirai: Well, we have extended our patriotic hand to say that all patriots must come together now at this critical juncture in the history of the country, to have one common purpose, which is one common purpose in so far as ensuring that the elections are conducted as scheduled. And, to put the country first beyond the party's interests and the individual's interest. I think this call has sympathies in ZANU PF and we would certainly be in a position of finding means and ways of working with those people in ZANU PF who want to see this thing be resolved.

Violet: Have you actually been able to talk to these so-called reformers in ZANU PF?

Morgan Tsvangirai: Notin a formalised way but in an indirect way, we know the feelings in ZANU PF are just as strong as within MDC about …

Violet: What about… Sorry?

Morgan Tsvangirai : about this 2010 project.

Violet: What about the issue of getting people to participate. Who is working on getting rid of voter apathy because it's been said, that ZANU PF strategy to suppress, ZANU PF has always used that strategy to suppress voter turn-out, so what is happening about that?

Morgan Tsvangirai: Well, I'm sure that occasionally, depending on the people's interpretation, certain elections they tend to be apathetic. But I'm sure that the people of Zimbabwe are ready for the Presidential election, were ready to participate in the Parliamentary election. So it depends on how the people interpret an election as useful or not. So whilst there is this conclusion that there is apathy, I don't think that come certain elections the people of Zimbabwe will wake up and interpret that their vote will make a difference.

Violet: But, is it not a fact that people right now feel despondent. As the opposition leadership how do you get rid of that feeling especially as it has taken six years to get people on the streets?

Morgan Tsvangirai: Well, the thing is it's not about just going and getting people on the streets. I think that there's romanticism about this 'get people on the streets' pre-occupation. What is important is to what extent are the people themselves realising that they are in a struggle against a dictatorship. It takes a lot of education, it takes a lot of mobilisation, and that's what we have been working at, with limited resources. As you know resources equal results; we are not as endowed as the ZANU PF government with all the resources, the communication and all the monopoly of communication at its disposal. We don't have that. So we have to come up with a strategy that is going to be ensuring that our structures on the ground, our education on the ground, our message on the ground has to resonate with the feelings of the people. So the despondency may appear artificial and academic, but the people on the ground are not despondent. They know that they have to tackle the dictatorship and unless they themselves are involved, nothing will happen.
Violet: But as the opposition, how come you are failing to use the energy of all those people who attend your rallies, to protest? Why are they not marching on the streets if they can attend rallies in their thousands?

Morgan Tsvangirai: It's a million dollar question. It also depends on the response of the State, which has been brutal, and, you can understand that fear is endemic in the people, and it is how to get rid of that fear, how to get rid of this regime which is totalitarian, which is controlling all their lives. That will make a difference. For us, fear is a slow process; it's a process that you engage in for people to remove fear. But, it's generally fear; nothing else.

Violet : But you know, many ordinary Zimbabweans we speak to say they don't see any practical options that the opposition has, you know, that you can possibly take to dislodge Mugabe because they say everything you have said, or you are saying even now, you have said before. In Parliament you are outnumbered, when you call for stay-aways or mass action people don't participate. So how do you believe you will do it this time?

Morgan Tsvangirai: No, it's not about this time. You know the problem is that people believe that there is a time in a struggle. Just go back to your history and see that there was an armed struggle that started in 1963. It's only up to 1980 that that stage of that struggle was an armed struggle. So, one, there are phases in a struggle and there are moments in that struggle that can be exploited. Right now, at the moment we have this issue that can mobilise all Zimbabweans; the issue of the 2010. And it's just a question of what are the issues that can mobilise people. But to say that you have tried this, it has failed, you have tried this, therefore it is a permanent failure, I don't think so.

Violet: But you know, sorry to go back to the same issue , everyone knows that Mugabe is holding on to power; you know he has militarised the State, he has refused dialogue because if there was any dialogue we would have seen some progress in the country and there is no progress right now. And then the Government has made it clear that those who participate in mass action would be dealt by force. So what is your plan for dislodging ZANU PF given these circumstances?

Morgan Tsvangirai: I think that it's a strategic question 'what is your plan', I'm sure it would be naive to say that you would be able to articulate a plan and say we are going to do one, two, three things without necessarily having ZANU PF also having a counter-plan. What I'm saying here is pure and simple. The people of Zimbabwe must realise they are in a struggle for freedom, and that this regime is not convincingly on the side of being a perpetual dictator for ever. What I'm seeing is that it can be defeated. It can only be defeated by the people of Zimbabwe . The right to be on the right side of history is to do the right thing, and that's what the MDC and all the democratic forces are doing. And, eventually the people shall prevail. I can't give a timeframe; I can only rely on our experiences on the ground, our ability and capacity on the ground to overcome some of the obstacles that ZANU PF places in the way. One of the things is that we cannot follow ZANU PF's agenda, we have to design an agenda for ourselves, as I have outlined in the objectives earlier on, and that's what we have to work on.

Violet: But you know right know on the ground in Zimbabwe it seems like there has been a lot of fragmented activism; WOZA are doing their thing, NCA is doing their thing, but you know there doesn't seem to be a spark to unite these forces and it seems one …

Morgan Tsvangirai: No there is, there is already a forum, there is already a platform where all the political parties in the opposition and the civic society are working together under the 'Save Zimbabwe' campaign, and we have a programme for the whole year that we have outlined together. And I hope that there will be no fragmentation as you say, but a united campaign with a specific programme co-ordinated by the 'Save Zimbabwe' campaign.

Violet: But as we speak, we hear WOZA demonstrating, we hear NCA demonstrating, but no MDC, no Save Zimbabwe Coalition?

Morgan Tsvangirai: Well the fact that we have a Save Zimbabwe Coalition does not mean that individual organisations cannot engage in protracted actions according to their own individual effort. But, at the end of the day when we co-ordinate the whole effort together, I am sure that it will have more impact.

Violet: And how would you answer people who say you promise things but they never materialise? You promised 'The Final Push', 'The Winter of Discontent', and at one point you said the MDC would not participate in future elections but you continue to participate in what you say is a flawed process. How do you respond to these statements?

Morgan Tsvangirai: Those are armchair critics. I don't promise anything. The fact that we said that there is a winter of discontent does not mean that the next day the action is there. I'm saying that as a programme this is where we are focusing on according to our agenda of the Congress. A winter of discontent can be a metaphor but it's being interpreted literally to mean that winter is from May to June therefore something must happen within that period. So I think that those are just people who are outside the sphere of the struggle who believe that things will come on a silver platter. It's not about what I say, it's about what we do.
Violet: OK, you said it was the agenda of the Congress, and one example was the Winter of Discontent, these are the timelines that you give as the opposition, so when …

Morgan Tsvangirai: But it was not a timeline, that's where you make a mistake. It was not a timeline, it was a metaphor making sure that people are mobilised as a discontent but not on a time-frame as to say that because winter is June to May therefore it should happen during that period. I said as a programme of action the democratic resistance of the MDC will start immediately as we finished our Congress in March and it's an on-going programme and we haven't abandoned that.
Violet: But it's over a year now since you said those things. When are we going to see the programme of action?

Morgan Tsvangirai: Well you wait and see, it's going to happen.

Violet: Are people in your party preventing mass action from taking place?
Morgan Tsvangirai: What is happening is that mass action or popular resistance takes various forms and popular resistance cannot be defined in a particular action, one activity. It is the on-going pressure that you apply on the regime and it takes various organisational and resource needs on the ground.

Violet: The reason I'm asking this Mr Tsvangirai is, you know, people would then ask, what is causing the delay, because it would be understandable if there was a divergence of reaction in the party.

Morgan Tsvangirai : Well there was no divergence, there is no divergence. I mean we are all agreed. We adopted as one of the party programmes that the only game in town was a democratic resistance programme. The delay assumes various constraints that the party has. For people in Europe to go on those massive revolutions that have taken place over the last two, three years, there was massive resource input in that. We don't have that advantage. We suffer resource limitations; sometimes a programme is limited because there are no adequate resources. You know it takes a lot of organisational input throughout the country to have that impact. It's not that the people of Zimbabwe have never acted in the past.

Tune in next Tuesday for the final segment.

Audio interview can be heard on SW Radio Africa 's Hot Seat programme (Tues 23 Jan).


Comments and feedback can be emailed to violet@swradioafrica.com



@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@


We bring you the second interview with Opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai. The Tsvangirai MDC announced recently it will be launching an election campaign for the 2008 election despite attempts by the Mugabe regime to move the Presidential poll to 2010. In this final segment, I started by asking Mr Tsvangirai if his party has a strategy to combat the current electoral laws

Morgan Tsvangirai: Well there is a lot of work that is already going by our legal committee on two fronts. One is the front on the constitutional principles agreed that are going to be adopted by the Party. And secondly, the legal constraints and the electoral conditions that make… (Inaudible due to phone problem)… sometimes deliberately undermine the electoral laws. So the legal committee is working and compiling. . .We will be going to court and we are discussing with ZEC some of the limitations and some of the malpractices that we have experienced. So we are taking that legal action in order to ensure that the legal framework is even. Whether we will succeed or not it’s up to the courts, but those are some of the actions that we are taking to ensure that there is a level playing field.

Violet: And on the issue of Mugabe and what’s happening in Zanu PF, how significant is Mugabe’s issue of appointing a successor to the strategy of the Opposition?

Morgan Tsvangirai: Well, he can appoint anyone who he wants, but as far as we are concerned, it’s not about the individual; replacing an individual face with another Zanu PF face. What we want is serious transformation of the electoral conditions and political conditions in the country. To us we don’t regard the change of guard, of individuals as transformation. We want to look at the constitution, we want to look at the electoral management system, we want to look at the reconstruction issues. And those issues are important because you are not necessarily looking at the face; you are looking at political culture.

Violet: And, what about the crisis in Zimbabwe that seems to be worsening because several experts are predicting a collapse of the state machinery, you know, a total collapse of the economy, and, civil servants being sent home. How would the MDC respond to this scenario?

Morgan Tsvangirai: Well, such a scenario is catastrophic for a country. I do agree that the statistics have shown colossal damage to our country in terms of economy and social fabric. Such a scenario would mean that the Opposition will have to articulate like we did about the Roadmap to the resolution of the national crisis. We continue to insist that is the path that can only save the country and those that are in Government must realise that this is the only viable route to the resolution of the national crisis. But such a scenario would be catastrophic

Violet: And what about the issue of the split in the MDC? Is there any possibility of reconciliation because observers fear that time is being wasted fighting each other and that…

Morgan Tsvangirai: No one has been fighting. We’ve never been fighting each other. Yes, there was disagreement, yes there was a splinter group, but there was an agreement that we shouldn’t throw stones against each other. There’s already a memorandum of agreement that has been signed in terms of how we relate to each other. There’s already been a team elected from our side to talk to the other side and I hope that they will see the need to engage that team, and, we haven’t got a report yet, hopefully there will be progress.

Violet: So would you meet with Mutambara who has in recent weeks been preaching reconciliation or rather co-operation between the pro-democracy groups?

Morgan Tsvangirai: I think that goes without saying. It’s not about meeting Mutambara, it’s about the agenda that we have set. We have said there is a team that we have assigned to talk to the other erstwhile colleagues of ours who have broken away and you cannot negotiate in public. Such a process would require a lot of confidence building and that’s the process we are doing. It’s no use talking about it, let’s go and go to the table and talk about how to move forward.

Violet: So there are talks that are underway, is that what you’re saying?
Morgan Tsvangirai: What I’m saying is that from our side we have got a team, we have a memorandum that we signed to ensure that there are no more these public acrimony, that people should sit down and talk, and, we hope that the other group will also appoint a team. That’s what we have been waiting. And, once those teams sit down they will be able to explore the areas of convergence and areas of divergence and try to narrow that and then come to the leadership of both groups to ensure that there is an understanding.

Violet: And, you know, some have asked that do you believe, as the leader of the Opposition, that you could have made mistakes. Do you feel culpable to some extent for the MDC split?

Morgan Tsvangirai: No, the question is that the MDC split was not an event, right. And that it was an accumulation of fault lines in the Party. In fact, I have kept the Party together up to that point. So, when people look at the split in the MDC they cannot justify the split by targeting an individual to say ‘you were responsible for it’, it was a process, and I think all the leadership in MDC, including myself, have to accept responsibility for the so called splinter, but, there were outside forces, there were outside big players influencing that split. So, one cannot point at the MDC and say ‘it’s because of the leaders’. I mean, I have to find out where somebody can point out that.

Violet: By outside forces, you mean Zanu PF? Infiltration?
Morgan Tsvangirai: There were a combination of factors, there were outside influences that’s all I can say from the Party, inside Zimbabwe, outside Zimbabwe. There were influences that motivated others to think that that was the only way to go.

Violet: And, do you also think that you have done everything that you can possibly do to stop violence in the Party and also on the issue of accusations about the Kitchen Cabinet?

Morgan Tsvangirai: Ya, those are just mild accusations that have no substance. It is the language that is used by my erstwhile colleagues and I don’t want to answer them on that. There is no violence in the Party; at least there is no violence sanctioned by the leadership. If there is sporadic violence in the Party it is not condoned by the Party; we deal with it. As to the Kitchen Cabinet, those are just accusations from people who have no substantive accusations.

Violet: And you know if the MDC comes to power, whether it’s 2008 or 2010, what strategy does the MDC have to consolidate the peace and security within the country given the fact that the security forces are a politicised institution?

Morgan Tsvangirai: Well, I think that that’s a major challenge for an in-coming administration of the MDC; how do you build confidence amongst the people. The only way you can do that is to establish the rule of law. Everyone has to behave in a manner that advances the rule of law. That there will be no violation of the law with impunity, that there is no retribution. That is going to be a vindictive programme of the MDC. We want to rebuild the country, we will have to focus on the reconstitution agenda, we have to demonstrate that we have the nation’s interests at heart, we have to build confidence across the political divide, we have to be tolerant.

Violet: You have from time to time called people to brace themselves for a sustained programme of democratic resistance. But, some people say, with all due respect, it seems like repeats of the same words that you’ve been saying over the years. Do you, to some extent agree that your performance has been disappointing as the Opposition?

Morgan Tsvangirai: Well, every leader has to be open to criticism and as far as I’m concerned, I’m not immune to criticism. But I certainly believe that I have performed. The fact that people want results yesterday without them participating cannot be blamed on the leader. It has to be blamed on the capacity of the people themselves, to realise that this is not a Tsvangirai struggle, this is a people struggle and that their involvement would make a difference. We have shown it before, that when people act together, when people are mobilised together over a common purpose the result will be substantial. So this is not a Tsvangirai problem, this is a people’s problem. And the people cannot stand on the terraces and accuse the leader for doing nothing.

Violet: But, do you agree that in any conflict situation, people do need leadership
Morgan Tsvangirai: That’s what we have provided. For the last six years we have provided that leadership and I am sure that the record is there for anyone to make an assessment

Violet: But, how do you get the people on to the streets, in other words what is your strategy at the moment in terms of forming a powerful movement because for the last six years people haven’t gone…

Morgan Tsvangirai: Well the Opposition movement has for the last six years provided the democratic resistance programme as a programme of a strategy of pressure on the regime. That’s a strategy and that strategy needs the resources, the support, the organisation on the ground and that’s what we are doing.

Violet: So would you say in a way that maybe people don’t want mass action because, you know…
Morgan Tsvangirai: What do they want?
Violet: ... because, if you say you’ve done this as an Opposition and it’s now up to the people some will say people are tired and hungry and pre-occupied with obtaining basic commodities. Do you think there is widespread support for action then, because we haven’t seen people taking to the streets?

Morgan Tsvangirai: Well, look, people have an option; either to submit to the conditions that they face or to stand up and be counted. That is the challenge that I give to the people; you stand up and be a challenge, don’t just complain and you cannot accuse other people of not doing anything when you yourself are not doing anything. So all I’m saying is that there is a challenge to Zimbabweans that freedom is not easy, freedom is not cheap.

As we have experienced in the armed struggle, those who have sacrificed, sacrificed with the full conviction that freedom has to be fought for. And, that’s what we tell the people and we try to build that confidence in the people to say no one is going to liberate you, no one is going to free you from the clutches of this dictatorship. People have to participate and there are so many things that can be done; training, educating people, motivating people. But, if people decide on their own individual that they will not do anything, well it’s those individuals.

Violet: I was going to say that if people don’t turn up do you think you will have a problem, which will hurt the long term prospects for growing the Party because the State has the capacity to easily crush any mass uprising. So, do you have any other alternative policies?

Morgan Tsvangirai: Violet, who in the imagination would have thought that the Soviet Union would collapse - if you were to ask with all that might of the army, the military might. But it collapsed with the full conviction of the people that it was no longer serving their interest. One day we will celebrate the victory of the people over this dictatorship. I wholly believe that.

Violet: And, before we go, do you have any final words?
Morgan Tsvangirai: Well, I don’t have any final word, I think we’ve exhausted what we discussed, the themes that you have raised. In 2007 there is an opportunity for Zimbabweans to mobilise themselves because of the rupture in Zanu PF about the succession debate, that provides an opportunity to the Opposition. Let’s go for it.

Violet: Is to some extent the Opposition waiting for Mugabe’s successor to come into place?
Morgan Tsvangirai: No, no, no. We are not waiting. I told you that the programme of democratic resistance is a programme of the Party, this is the Programme in town today, that’s the only game in town. And, that involves a number of work plans that we are putting in place because we realise that this regime, given it’s vulnerability at the moment and the divisions and the factionalism in Zanu PF provides the Opposition with an opportunity to rally the people to resolve the national crisis.

Violet Gonda: OK, thank you very much Mr Tsvangirai for agreeing to talk on the programme ‘Hot Seat’
Morgan Tsvangirai: You are welcome, thank you.
Audio interview can be heard on SW Radio Africa’s Hot Seat programme. Comments and feedback can be emailed to violet@swradioafrica.com

JOIN THE DEBATE ON THIS ARTICLE ON THE NEWZIMBABWE.COM FORUMS
newsdesk@newzimbabwe.com

Mugabe is a "gandanga" requiring other tactics!

From  nyatsimba_mutota@yahoo.com  
My problem is with employing "tabloid tactics" to bring down Gandanga fanika Mugabe. Now all we see are these so called "analytical" stories that carry too many inconsistencies, misconceptions and even lies. Its a joke to write about Zimbabwe to a Zimbabwean audience and put it wrong. It destroys the whole credibility about the article. This is why we have a serious gap between Africa and the west when it comes to Mugabe/Zimbabwe because such a story lacking in factual truth can fly abroad but not in Africa and SA. I mean tabloids tactics just embarass you, but I would like to see how a gandanga is being embarassed by most of these stories. Maybe Madonna will give up the baby, but even she goes on with her life.

It seems we seem to forget the basics of who we are and how we live when it comes to our own country. Perhaps its because we live in foreign countries, perhaps its because siding with western powers and media is the way to go, but what really does it do to Mugabe save for the fact that such stories add more coffers and time to organizations working in Zim?

When people talk of hunger at home, they do not talk of maize from white farms. Our population is mainly rural with more than 70% living in rural areas. The other 15-20% in town actually rely on subsistence farming for food so what really affects these people is drought not land redistribution. I mean we have had 2 serious droughts before with white farmers in place so whats new?

"The suggestion that drought was and is the cause of crop failures has been proved to be a false story put about by Mugabe in order to account for famine in Zimbabwe. Craig Richardson (Associate Professor of Economics at Salem College in the United States) in a comprehensive independent report tabled at the United Nations, proves conclusively that the only ‘drought’ in recent times was in 2001-2002."

The problem in Zimbabwe is leadership. We do not have concensus in what we want and how we want it. How to move and who we are as a people. We want land reform only in theory not practice. We want democracy in theory and only if democracy means removing Mugabe.

A lot of you Zim guys in SA even think that white people is the answer because you have not been exposed to the notion of doing it for yourself. Most of you attacked Arthur until you beat him into a pulp only for Biti and company to start having HOTEL rallies with Robertson and Robinson. Only for Biti and company to start calling for companies like Barclays to pull out! And we still Mugabe rigs the elections? Who in their right frame of minds would tolerate such nonsense?

In as much as I think its good to solicit for funding, we need to do so with firm understanding, belief and strong will of who we are and what we want as people. Tiri kufarira n'anga neinokwira mai!

STATE ABANDONS CASE MR TREVOR NCUBE!

Africa   Court 'abandons' case against Ncube ZimOnline and M&G Online reporters | Harare, Zimbabwe   25 January 2007 01:12 http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=296932&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__africa/   <A HREF="http://a.coza.com/event.ng/Type=click&FlightID=21230&AdID=37316&TargetID=947&Segments=432,433,434,435,436,437,438,439,459,826,1071,2926,3621,3680,3791,4193&Targets=947,2739,4121,4119&Values=25,31,43,51,60,72,84,91,100,110,150,185,208,283,298,463,2474,2512,2513,2680,2819,2828,3283,3309,3316,3317,3592,3785,3786,3798,4724,4907,5108&RawValues=TARGET%2CMGnBrN.Afr&Redirect=http://www.outsurance.co.za/default.asp%3fID=153&source=mandg&cr=105016101_220x240&cid=2" target="_top"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://banner.coza.com/2006/mg/banners/395213236_220x240.gif" width="220"></A> Zimbabwe's government "abandoned" its court case against Mail & Guardian chief executive Trevor Ncube on Thursday after it had prevented him at the end of last year from renewing his passport, claiming he was not a citizen of Zimbabwe. Ncube publishes the Standard and the Zimbabwe Independent in that country. "The initial argument has indeed been abandoned, having considered the correct position in law regarding his citizenship status," said a member of the defence counsel from the Attorney General's office. Ncube told the Mail & Guardian Online shortly after the judgement that his faith in the Zimbabwean judiciary had been vindicated. "The courts have stopped the gross abuse of power by the Registrar General, Mr Tobaiwa Mudede," he said. "However, more importantly, this decision by the court make it clear that all those Zimbabweans who parents were born outside Zimbabwe need not fear further harassment and abuse from the Registrar General's office regarding the legitimacy of their citizenship." Ncube estimated there are 1,5-million Zimbabwean citizens whose parents are of foreign extraction and who have lived in fear of being denationalised. "The attempt to use citizenship as a tool to fight perceived political enemies and to settle personal scores must be condemned in the strongest sense," he said. "I think the greatest winner today is the rule of law in Zimbabwe." Judgement The High Court ruled that Ncube is a citizen of Zimbabwe by birth, and that the withdrawal or cancellation of his citizenship by the respondents was "unlawful, null, void and of no force and effect". It ordered the respondents not to interfere with Ncube's possession and use of his passport and decreed that the passport be renewed within seven days of service of the court order. The respondents were also ordered to pay the costs of the court application. Justice Chinembiri Bhunu was highly critical of the conduct of the Registrar General's office. He said the Registrar General's refusal to renew Ncube's passport was contemptuous of a High Court order made in December 2005 interdicting government interference with Ncube's right to possess his passport. The Registrar General's statements suggesting that a subsisting High Court order was now irrelevant were "alarming", the judge said, adding that it was necessary to award costs on a higher scale as a mark of the court's displeasure. Stanford Moyo, Ncube's lawyer, had appealed to Bhunu to award costs at a higher scale, arguing that the respondents had taken a deliberate move to deny Ncube his citizenship without seeking advice from legal experts, including the Attorney General's office. 'Abuse of office' Moyo told the court that he commended the stance taken by the Attorney General's office, saying Mudede appeared to be the only obstacle in the case. He said Mudede's stance smacked of gross abuse of office. "There can be no doubt that that the applicant [Ncube] was subjected to unnecessary, unlawful and bureaucratic attempt to denationalise him by the respondent. "It's clearly an abuse of public office. It is commendable the [Attorney General's] office has taken the decision to abandon the Registrar General's opposition to this application." However, government lawyers argued that it had not been an abuse of office. They said delays in concluding the case were partly due to Ncube, whom they accused of dragging his heels in providing proof that he was a Zimbabwean citizen. "The onus was on the applicant to rebut this. He only did so about three days ago, in fact on January 23 2007. I urge the court not to penalise the respondents for an act that was deliberate," argued one government lawyer. Ncube, the publisher of the Zimbabwe Independent, the Standard and South Africa's Mail & Guardian, was contesting Mudede's attempts to strip him of his Zimbabwean citizenship on the basis that he is of Zambian descent. The Registrar General had argued that Ncube was a Zambian by descent, and his failure to renounce his Zambian citizenship within the prescribed period -- between July 6 and January 6 2002 -- meant he had automatically forfeited his Zimbabwean citizenship.

 

---

Examining Tekere's comments

http://www.zimdaily.com/news/125/ARTICLE/1245/2007-01-22.html

 

Mutumwa Mawere - Businessman

Mutumwa Mawere

The debate that has generated from the publication of Mr. Edgar Tekere's autobiography, A Lifetime of Struggle, and the historic link between its publication and the debate on Zimbabwe's constitutional options demonstrates the lack of depth and maturity that is systemic in many developing countries in general and Africa in particular.

The debate that has generated from the publication of Mr. Edgar Tekere's autobiography, A Lifetime of Struggle, and the historic link between its publication and the debate on Zimbabwe's constitutional options demonstrates the lack of depth and maturity that is systemic in many developing countries in general and Africa in particular. 

With respect to Mugabe and politics, we are now being told that he was a reluctant politician who had no mind of his own without any explanation as to what and how a person like Mugabe should have behaved in the face of an ivory tower created leadership vacuum in ZANU. 

One needs to understand and appreciate the views of those who seek to describe Mugabe as a coward on democracy and leadership and how any person who respects institutions and the role of the governed in selecting a leader of their choice ought to have behaved in the face of what should properly be described as an illegal and unconstitutional removal of Ndabaningi Sithole from the party that he helped found.

Yes, Zimbabwe is worse of today than it was at independence and yet that should not encourage political opportunism and a rewriting of history by those privileged to have been part of the country's history making. 

Zimbabweans are at risk and vulnerable to attacks by political vultures now more than ever given the political transition challenges that face not only ZANU-PF, the ruling club, but the country in general. 

The conversations on Zimbabwe in the post colonial era are pregnant with testimonials that the state of health of ZANU-PF is symptomatic of the general state of health of the country and as such the Zanufication of Zimbabwean politics seems to have been crystallised to an extent that there appears to be no life or discussion beyond the party's leader and the institution. 

If one carefully examines Tekere's statements that have been echoed by Enos Nkala, it becomes evident that after all Mugabe may possess the very misunderstood democratic values that the country appears to be in search of. 

It is for this reason that I read with interest Professor Moyo's opinion piece entitled: "Hysterical reaction to Tekere belies fear" in which he makes a number of observations that need to be interrogated in the interests of elevating the conversations that are necessary to better inform change in Zimbabwe and the kind of leadership values that should be expected of anyone seeking the highest office in the country. 

In addition, history may not judge our generation appropriately if we gloss over some historical events and subjectively record other people's stories in the interests of political expediency. 

The fact that Mugabe has remained in power for the entire post colonial period and that he is a towering figure in the politics of Africa should ordinarily inform us that we should avoid any intellectual dishonesty in our evaluation of the reasons underpinning his hegemony over the political landscape. 

This is what Professor Moyo had to say about the reactions from a number of archived politicians and political observers to Tekere's book. 

He observes that Tekere's autobiography makes three history-marking disclosures about how Mugabe rose into and remained in power to the point of becoming a terrible liability to Zimbabwe today. 

The Prof targets what he terms Mugabe's propagandists for attack by alleging that their interventions by providing their own recollections of the events described by Tekere is an abuse of the public media as if to suggest that if he were still the propagandist of Mugabe he would have shut them. 

I have always believed in conversations as a way of better understanding my friends and adversaries alike and believe that it is important that history is informed by both sides of the story. 

It may be true that Mugabe is an embattled leader but that should never be used as an excuse of frustrating debate.  In saying this, I am reminded that Zimbabweans should find a way of disagreeing with each other without being disagreeable to one another. 

In as much as Tekere is entitled to narrate the story of his lifetime of struggle in his own words through his own memory, I think the Prof and many of those who have chipped in the debate should allow the archived Rutanhires and the Commissioner of Police, Mr. Chihuri, to give their own narrations without labelling or targeting them.  

Intellectual intimidation is no different from the political hooliganism that people accuse the ZANU-PF government of engaging in. 

It is important, therefore, that those who purport to seek genuine change try to exhibit different values from those they seek to remove otherwise the prospect of Zimbabwe, the patient; ever waking up from this long sleep will be doomed.  It is instructive that the Prof has suddenly become the defender of Tekere as if he needs one. 

When the Prof was occupying the position of Chief propagandist of the government he never saw merit in giving Tekere the same space to make disclosures that would have been seen as tarnishing Mugabe's reputation and legacy. 

The disclosures in Tekere's book that the Professor feels have annoyed Mugabe's cronies are set out below:

Disclosure One

That Tekere played a leading role in paving the way for Mugabe's rise to the leadership of Zanu PF. 

It is difficult to reconcile this disclosure with the kind of values that should have informed the selection of leaders in any democratic club. 

I would have thought that the Prof as a learned gentlemen would have prefaced his analysis with an acknowledgment that it is wrong for any individual belonging to a club to claim that his/her rights are superior to the general rights of members to decide who should lead them. 

I have no doubt that if the Prof had been placed in Mugabe's shoes he would not have seen any problem in a scenario where a few individuals decided to co-opt Mugabe in the club without any consent from the general membership and then forty four years later to then be reminded that it was not the people who selected you but you were a product of the decision of a few wise people.

In trying to understand the history of ZANU as a democratic force that was established to fight against political and economic hegemony of a race-based cabal of wise persons, it is important that we critically analyse the actions of those who want their versions of history to be the only one in relation to how leaders in Africa ought to be selected. 

We need to ask critical questions that naturally should flow from the disclosure by people Zimbabweans should look up to like Tekere, Nkala, and others with a view to better understanding what values they seek to impart to contemporary Africa. 

Should leaders of political organisations be elected by members?  Should citizens have the right to choose who should lead them?  How should citizens or members of political clubs select their leaders?  Is it fair and just for citizens to surrender their sovereign right to choose their own government to an incumbent President?  Should Zimbabwe be a dynasty or a republic?  What are the obligations of a republic on leaders who believe that they should manufacture a President?   

I share the sentiment that Mr Rutanhire in seeking to advance this own version should not have insulted Mr. Tekere by alleging that he "went mad and formed his own party (Zum) in the past".   

It is this kind of attitude that limits the progress and altitude of not only the country but the continent. 

Yes, Tekere should have an opportunity to express his own views without fear or prejudice in as much as Zimbabweans must invest in an institutional framework that will prevent individuals above the people from claiming credit for manufacturing political leaders. 

If Mugabe has overstayed then surely Zimbabweans are culpable because we do not have any record of Mugabe being comfortable as a beneficiary of an opaque selection process or seeking to avoid elections. 

Yes, we can argue whether elections have been free and fair but no one can allege that Zimbabwe has missed an election because Mugabe or his lieutenants were afraid of the vote. 

It is important that history is properly recorded.  If Zimbabweans now find Mugabe objectionable after electing him, then it is important for intellectuals like the Prof to suggest in what way the country should respond while respecting the fundamental position that leaders must come from the people.

Having read what has been written about Mugabe by Tekere, it occurs to me that Mugabe's values have been consistent from the outset.   

According to the Prof, Tekere recalls in his autobiography that:

"Mugabe's road to power started after his return to Zimbabwe from Ghana, when he was approached and incorporated into the nationalist leadership under the NDP.

To attract his incorporation, Mugabe had not demonstrated any notable leadership qualities besides his impressive proficiency in pronouncing English words with an acquired if not exaggerated accent that leaves the uncanny impression that he is a highly learned person when he is not.

As to how and when Mugabe came to head Zanu, Tekere's autobiography recalls a fact, which has been corroborated by various independent sources, that he was elevated after the Kwekwe prison sacking of Sithole by his fellow leaders in mid-1974 in a vote spiritedly moved by Tekere and supported by Enos Nkala and Maurice Nyagumbo but opposed by Sithole himself with a cowardly abstention from Mugabe while Moton Malianga did not vote as he chaired the meeting to sack Sithole from the leadership of Zanu. 

About this Tekere recalls that "the votes were cast with three in favour of the sacking, one against (Sithole), and one abstention — Mugabe. Once more Mugabe did not want to "break" with his leader. His abstention was total. He sat silently in the meeting and did not raise a finger.

This is when he was appointed to head the party. For the structure was clear on this. Since the Vice-President, Leopard Takawira, had died, Mugabe, as secretary-general of the party, was the next in line. 

Sithole's dismissal from the presidency of Zanu by his colleagues in prison was communicated to all party structures, especially guerilla fighters, within and outside the country. Therefore subsequent seemingly landmark events, including the December 1974 "Nhari Rebellion", Chitepo's assassination in March 1975, the crossing into Mozambique by Tekere and Mugabe in April 1975, the October 1975 Mgagao Declaration and the letter of January 24, 1976 from the Dare reChimurenga signed by Josiah Tongogara, Kumbirai Kangai and Rugare Gumbo, were footnotes to the sacking of Sithole and his replacement by Mugabe through an indubitably courageous motion that was moved by Tekere in the presence of both Sithole and Mugabe. 

As such, only those who have been blinded by the whims and caprices of Mugabe's personality cult and who because of that have become either malicious or sycophantic can deny that Tekere "was instrumental in catapulting Mugabe to the helm of Zanu-PF".

The supporting evidence is unimpeachable.  In any event, it is clear from the public record that the October 1975 Mgagao Declaration sought to make Mugabe, who had already crossed into Mozambique with Tekere, only a spokesman and caretaker leader pending the release from prison in Zambia of Dare reChimurenga members who had been accused of murdering Chitepo and who were seen by the comrades in Mgagao as the real true leaders of the armed struggle who had inspired their declaration.

That is why the Mgagao Declaration referred to Mugabe as the "…only person who can act as a middleman". The difference between a middleman and a leader is like that of night and day."

Any student of democracy would agree that the behaviour of Mugabe appears to be consistent with anyone who believes in democracy. 

To argue that Mugabe should have been at the forefront of a coup de etat against Sithole and then proceed to criticise Mugabe for being a dictator can be best described as intellectual dishonesty. 

If the architects of Zimbabwe's democracy are themselves guilty setting a wrong foundation then history may never know that out of all the characters that have come to symbolise the struggle, Mugabe may be the most misunderstood leader by his own friends and countrymen. 

One would have thought with the passage of time, people like Tekere would understand Mugabe and the values that inform his choices.  In as much as the Prof has never understood the animal called ZANU-PF despite having been a member of its structure in the party and the government, it appears that Mugabe's values may not be in sync with the values of any power hungry person who has no respect for the will of the people. 

One has to recognise that in seeking to promote and entrench democratic values, Mugabe may have alienated himself from his colleagues who believe in democratic centralism as the guiding force. 

For me coming from the private sector, I do appreciate where Tekere, Moyo and Nkala may be coming from given that leaders of commerce and industry are rarely chosen by shareholders. 

Shareholders typically are never involved in the selection of executives and in the case of directors it is typical that directors co-opt their friends and not enemies and all shareholders have to do is to ratify the choices made.

 Zimbabweans should make the choice of whether they want leaders to come from directors or themselves as shareholders.

Disclosure Two

That, because Mugabe is basically an insecure heartless person given to brutal vengeance, he has over the years used the political power he got with a whole lot of help from his senior nationalist colleagues to marginalise and ostracise those very same colleagues who helped him rise to the helm of Zanu PF in the first place.

This is what accounts for the political misfortunes of the likes of Zanu stalwarts such as Nkala, Nyagumbo, Eddison Zvobgo and Tekere himself not to mention similar misfortunes of many others in Zapu including the late Vice-President Joshua Nkomo who was humiliated by Mugabe into submitting to a treacherous unity accord.

 In the circumstances, Mugabe has come to be surrounded by dodgy political characters along with other bureaucratic and media sycophants who are known for their malice and incompetence."

It is being argued that since Mugabe's legitimacy as a leader was a manufactured one, he should be eternally grateful to his principals and not the people who eventually elected his party at independence as a governing party. 

It is not clear from the Prof's comments, how Mugabe should have behaved in relation to his so-called principals particularly given that a President of country should act in the interests of the nation rather than partisan interests. 

In provoking discussion on Mugabe's legacy, I believe that it is important that Zimbabweans rise above personal issues and debate issues in an objective manner. 

I would like to believe that if Prof Moyo had been allowed to participate in the last election as a ZANU-PF candidate, he would not object to other people calling him names as shown above. 

Is it fair and just to keep reminding Zimbabweans of the undemocratic values that informed the liberation struggle without providing any insight into what kind of institutional framework is required by Zimbabwe to provide checks and balances to the kind of mess that is described in Tekere's book. 

In as much as the Prof wants us to believe that it was wrong for Mugabe to ditch his principals, would it also not be fair to use the same analogy for him in that he used the ZANU-PF party and government platform to ascend to power, albeit as an legislator for Tsholotsho.

 Would it be fair and just for the Prof to criticise the hand that profitably fed him?  If the Prof was Mugabe what should he have done in relation to the ZANU-PF stalwarts is a question that should occupy our conversations. 

Yes, Tekere's life in many ways demonstrates the other side of Mugabe.  It is important to draw lessons from Zimbabwe's rich political history and understand that when Nkala and others disagreed with ZAPU leadership, they proceeded to set up their own institutions to compete for political space without seeking to unseat Nkomo in ZAPU. 

They did not behave like what we have seen in the recent past where opposition parties have sought to disagree and then proceed to remain divided in the same party with two leaders without any courage to set up their own institutions. 

Tekere set up his own political organisations as it should be and was allowed by the same Mugabe to compete for national political space and the rest is history. 

If Mugabe is as evil as we want him to be then surely Zimbabweans must be honest with themselves and take responsibility for their own inadequacies.  It is wrong and naïve to blame Mugabe while congratulating each other on historical obfuscation. 

The crisis in Zimbabwe deserves better and Africa needs a Zimbabwe that is more intelligent than our intellectual and political leaders are displaying.

I have written previously on Imperial Presidency and having read Professor Moyo's article, I have had to change my thinking on the Zimbabwean crisis.  The crisis may ultimately be located in the minds of those who seek to confuse and rewrite history for self serving ends. 

Disclosure Three

That the blame for 90% of Zimbabwe's ills should go to Mugabe, not the much touted economic sanctions, and that there is now a critical and urgent need for bold leadership within Zanu PF with courage to tell Mugabe that he is now a liability to Zimbabwe and that he should retire and pass the baton to a younger and more imaginative leader.

Having read the articles on Tekere's book and the interest that it has aroused, I am now convinced that the governance crisis in Zimbabwe will take longer to resolve because it is patently evident that the foundation of the liberation struggle particularly in terms of political leadership and democracy is fundamentally flawed. 

This is not a problem unique to Zimbabwe but to the extent that Tekere has opened the can of worms it is incumbent upon Africans to take ownership of the problem in a holistic manner with a view to establishing a consensus on whether leaders should be help culpable while their followers allow themselves to rewrite history in a manner that perpetuates the crisis by misleading citizens into believing that they should not have a say on who governs them but the right should be reserved for self appointed godfathers.

  If we seek to argue that Mugabe is the only problem, we should also seek to critically examine to what extent we have also personally and collectively contributed to the crisis. 

I am persuaded to agree that even if Zimbabwe was not under any sanctions, the crisis would still be evident.  

Just to demonstrate the gravity of the Zimbabwean crisis and its location beyond the confines of Mugabe, I thought that it would be beneficial to step back and reflect on the following New Year messages for 2007 that were published on the internet. 

I have picked on three individuals in an attempt to show that there may be many realities in Zimbabwe that may escape our attention in an attempt to target Mugabe for political and not national interest expediency.

Reserve Bank Governor Dr Gideon Gono:

I aim to redouble my efforts this year. 2006 was a challenging year, but I am committed to the task at hand and challenge all Zimbabweans to help steer our country out of the current situation. This, we will do only if we are guided by honour, sincerity, integrity and purity.

The questions we need to ask ourselves is whether the Governor is himself an honourable person, a man of sincerity and integrity, and finally whether he is pure.  Yes, he wants every Zimbabwean to make suboptimal choices by buying the cheapest cars while he allows himself to enjoy the ultimate mobile luxury.

We are told that the board of the RBZ allocated him an S500 top of the range Mercedes Benz as a company car. 

He then proposed that the same car be provided to him as a loan effectively taking the asset out of the balance sheet of the Bank.  We are not told whether the policy of the bank was changed to allow all eligible staff members to have the same dispensation. 

We are then told that the car was then imported into the country and the Governor then decided to swap the car for an S600 that happened to be available in the market. 

No one attempts to explain why the board of the RBZ that is chaired by Gono would approve an S500 when it is evident that Gono was of the opinion that an S600 was the appropriate vehicle. 

We are also not told of who was the supplier of the vehicle.  Could it be someone who had benefited from the opaque fertiliser or wheat deals that have now become the order of the day?  Then we read from the Standard that Gono was living large with the most expensive car in town. 

The story is then rebutted by the RBZ using institutional money.  We are now told that the real car is the S600 with a V12 engine.

 When one reads stories like this against a background of an economic crisis, one is tempted to believe that it cannot be Mugabe alone who is the problem.  What has sanctions got to do with this kind of story? It is clear that even if Gono cannot go to Germany, Germany will come to him in form of an S600 luxury car. 

I strongly believe that Moyo would not have a problem with a public officer of a state institution like Gono appropriating himself a luxury car with no evidence of Mugabe approving such a deal. 

Can you imagine how many lives would be saved if Gono and the RBZ had decided to sacrifice his personal comfort to buy a car that requires foreign currency to purchase and maintain for better health care?  However, we are told that we should hold Mugabe culpable for the actions, tastes and appetites of people like Gono.

Property magnate and former Chinhoyi MP Phillip Chiyangwa:

My resolution is to get stinking rich and blow the minds of my detractors apart. The more money I make, the bigger the distance between me and them.

When you read the above resolution, you may be confused about the state of the Zimbabwean crisis. 

While many occupy their minds with the challenges of putting the next meal on the table others in the same country are thinking of getting stinking rich and blowing the minds of the poor. 

Who ever said that Zimbabwe was in a crisis when the velocity of primitive accumulation becomes the clarion call?  What would the Professor and Tekere say about the 2007 resolution and what should be the message to the increasing number of vulnerable Zimbabweans?  When you read the above statement would you be wrong in saying that Mugabe is not the problem for I do not believe that any 83 year old person would have the capacity and energy to know what the time is as they say. 

Even if Mugabe was not there, the problem may be in the appetite and attitudes that are difficult to change even with a change of government.  Yes, Chiyangwa represents a different reality but how many other Zimbabweans have been victimised for doing what he may be doing for personal interest.

  Yes, Gono who lectures about patriotism and nationalism is evidently silent on Chiyangwa begging the question of selective and self serving treatment of business persons.

Tsholotsho MP Professor Jonathan Moyo:

For me 2007 is a year for action and more action of the decisive kind not only within my personal sphere but also and even more importantly in national terms.

No one needs to remind Professor Moyo that 2007 is only a year for action by ZANU-PF and no significant national event is in the political calendar except decisions that have to be made by the ruling party for its own survival.

 I am not sure why the Prof is of the view that Zimbabweans should expect better and significant developments during this year.  If the Prof was wrong on Tsholotsho, can anyone seriously expect him to be right on 2007?  Only time will tell. 

Yes, the Prof got into political leadership as a nominated legislator by the same Mugabe and yet he did not have the courage to say no and prove himself without the umbrella of patronage that he now seeks to condemn.

  Maybe the Prof would see no problem if Mugabe appoints the future President of the country and the dangers of investing in appointed leaders are all too evident from the Prof's own short but remarkable record as the ultimate spin doctor and what many have described as the axis of evil.

I have previously observed that the only power people who do not have power is the power to be organised and not confused by simplistic messages. 

The air is pregnant with bad news about bad people making wrong decisions about the future of the country and yet there is no attempt to broaden the analytical and conceptual framework from the politics of the struggle to the politics of nation building. 

Yes, political machinations may have been acceptable during the liberation struggle but a nation that builds a future on conspiracy projects ultimately undermines itself than promote its strategic interests. 

The real enemies of Zimbabwe may not be the nations that have imposed ineffective targeted sanctions but Zimbabweans themselves who rightly or wrongly may have invested in values that are allergic to progress and transformation. 

 

Mutumwa Mawere  is a Zimbawean born South African businessman, he can be contacted on    mmawere@myafrispace.com

 

---

What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis of your email personality. Take the quiz at the Yahoo! Mail Championship.

Message from the "Concerned Zimbabweans Abroad!"

Mugabe is planning another clean -up. This is very unfortunate but I believe will send a strong messege to the United Nations for its failure to make a follow up of Anna Tibaijuka's damning report.

Why is nobody doing nothing to stop the madaness that has gripped our country? On Monday, the chairman of SADC was in Britain and was confronted by the courageous Free Zim Youths on the plans he had on countries like Zimbabwe. The reply was wishie washie.He just chewed his words and by the end of his replying statement, he had actually said nothing.

Who then shall save our nation? Demonstrations are met with live bullets, beatings and torture. I believe it is time we admit that we have failed to remove Mugabe democratically. So what now?

We need to stop another tsunami sweeping over our country. In the previous so called clean-up, children were killed, people got hurt, families broke up, many were forced into exile and some had to move into the rural areas to do nothing except retire at tenage stages. As untrained youths, what would one expect then to do in tyhe rural areas.

We in the diaspora have to act now and thwart any moves by Mugabe to destroy peple's homes again. I want to believe President Thabo Mbeki could act as the pivot to thwart the moves by the tyrant to get more people out of the country.

As CONCERNED ZIMBABWEANS ABROAD, we have already delivered a letter to the president of S.Africa citing our concerns over the move by the Zimbabwean governement to destroy more homes and the livelihoods of the poor.

It is very unfortunate that no neighbouring country is prepared to help us equip ourselves militarily. Not even any other country in Africa. We believe this is the only option left, if we do not have to wait till he is on the hearse to the Heroes Acre.

Where many are going wrong is that they think that Mugabe holds all power. It is a wrong assumption to make. The people hold the power and it is they who have allowed Mugabe to do what he has done. Many of the people have actively assisted in destroying the country. For a start, many actively assisted Mugabe destroy Zimbabwe's food security and supoporting infrastructure. In this way, they handed their power to Mugabe. Now the people have to beg Mugabe to provide food to feed their children. It is inconceiveable to imagine that a nation would not only allow, but its citizens would actively partake in destroying a country's entire future. We have brought this upon ourselves. If only we could take the time to look at ourselves in the mirror and acknowledged this one fact, then maybe we will finally take full responsibility upon our shoulders and, as individuals, do something about it. Unfortunately, we are nowhere near the point of recognising our collective irresponsibility.

There are many things that can be done to speed up change towards a prosperous and happy Zimbabwe. Of that, we have no doubt. Our future is in our hands. The problem right now is that we have become totemless and behave like servants, not citizens.

Jay Jay Sibanda
CONCERNED ZIMBABWEANS ABROAD ( 072 363 0700 )

Zimpolitics opposed to Opposition Unification!

Opposition Unification

The most Zanu like idea and non democratic idea there is!
 How do you call yourselves democratic yet embarking on a non democratic promotional campaign? Anyone who is calling themselves academic or politician seem to not understand what democracy stands for. What is this idea about removing choice?

 I know and understand what the current administration under Mugabe has not performed as well as expected and corruption and all that is destructive to the nation has taken place. We still should not be obsessed by Robert Mugabe. The focus on the president has taken energy and the ability to be innovative and creative (which was lacking already). It is not necessarily the inability for a president to run the country that takes a nation to what Zimbabwe is and going. It is the millions of Zimbabweans in the diaspora. Running from their responsibilities. As thinkers and innovators, businessman and civic organizations should have been creating an environment that is not conducive to corruption and perpetuation of incompetence.

A coalition is the road to a one party state. Mutambara and Tsvangirai should remain separate one or two more parties should join the field and citizens should be educated to vote their conscience and not what someone else think is the way to go. Mugabe can rule till he dies if Zimbabwean vote for him. And they should be allowed to vote for him if that is what they prefer. It is the members of paliament that matter. As long as the president does not have a majority and the constitution is followed and is for the people, one should not obsess on Mugabe. If there are crimes committed with a majority that is not Zanu then Justice should and will take its course.

It however appears to me that until the nation reeds itself of these Zanu like propensities we are destined to be like Kenya and the rest of the African States. Change from one dictator to another. As it is we all know that Tsvangirai and his predecessor from the other group are dictators in the making.

Businesses need to create jobs, legislators and civic organizations need to teach job skills and help start small businesses.

Civic organizations in Zimbabwe are little businesses that founders use to finance their businesses and feed their families rather than do what they have put themselves to be representing.

As much as mugabe is to blame for the state of the nation, it is time to get over him already and quit the obsession. We have a judicial system. It may not be were we want it to be but we have one. Gukura hundi for instance -- We can start prosecuting and filing civil suits and ask the international courts to start indicting the lowest ranking soldiers that we all know for a fact that they carried out the atrocities and follow the chain of command from there. A lot of these will not want to go down on their own so they will rat on the others and we follow the trail to Mugabe or at least someone higher up the chain. We can do this with everything - the media, city council, labor etc.

Lets do something that works and quit the finger pointing and obsessing on Mugabe. He may die in power and no one will know what to obsess on when he is gone. Leading to another state of paralysis.

4:16 AM, January 17, 2007
Zimpolitics can be found on www.zimpolitics.blogspot.com .