I listened with disgust the other day to a woman and two men justifying why one of the men had fondled a woman’s breasts in public. The woman in question was a total stranger. While the young man claimed he was drunk when his hands strayed and groped a strange woman’s bosom – an offence that subsequently saw him do community service as his just desserts – the young scoundrel still insisted he believed what he had done was not wrong. His female interlocutor agreed.

They all agreed the woman had invited it, and I could only guess if she had with her a sandwich board with an appeal to that effect! The female in this conversation incredulously asked why the offended woman was the only female “who is always” molested. It turned out one of the men who had groped her for free thrills was an off duty cop at the local drinking hole where the second incident had also occurred. So she invited it! I suppose the violated woman must have had that voluptuous, nubile, adrenalin-rushing, eye-popping, pant-bulging, curvy body that screamed for men to fondle her, so who could blame these men if they only responded in the manner nature ordered?

There was outrage in South Africa recently when touts and taxi drivers thought they could define women’s dress code and punished “skimpily dressed” women by stripping them, then pointing laughing at the naked woman. It is such behaviour that was being extolled by these people.

I sat and listened silently and my mind went on overdrive as I made parallels with our present political circumstances where men, women and children have “invited” the wrath of Zanu PF militias by simply voting for a party of their choice. As the discourse on Zimbabwe’s post-2000 political narrative that has been defined by coercion rather than persuasion and has rendered all democratic precepts – fundamentally that of the ability to exercise one’s franchise without paying for it with brutal violence – the woman’s body as an object of men’s sexual pleasure presented for me a fascinating analogy.

While attitudes have changed among progressive African societies that wife battering belongs to the annals of those Neanderthal men (perhaps a la that cute Flintstone dude dragging the wife) the very fact that there still exists folks who justify these acts surely strengthens the case for those radical courts that would demand the amputation of that part of the anatomy that would compel one to rape.

Same with politics: how do we justify the battering of opponents on the sole “charge” that they decided to take destiny by its horns and vote for a better future. If these acts can be justified, then surely we can justify the violation of women in the manner of that imbecilic young lout.

And these louts abound these days and are giving fashion a bad name donning party regalia emblazoned with that mustachioed and bespectacled darling of the international talk shops. They have also been spotted running their hands all over stupefied teenagers also wearing those loud t-shirts, and a friend quipped the other day that the pregnancies in the making will produce nothing but more fist-waving!

But back to the lager lout. How would he feel if his own sister came home shedding tears and telling a story about having been groped by some drunk? Would he not take an axe and spear and confront the pervert? Stories abound about the circumstances under which recent elections were held, and these are stories that bring tears to one’s eyes even though the testimonies are from total strangers.

The violation of human rights exists on many levels, and wherever such violations occur, it can only be described as tragic if not moronic if justifications of any sort are brought forward. If a woman can be fondled by a stranger in public for whatever reason (as if any is needed), if a voter can be clubbed to death on allegations they did not vote wisely, does that not scream for the total revisiting of what makes a superior being in the whole created order.

The intolerance of alternative views in Zimbabwe’s political discourse as defined by the so-called veterans of the struggle has obviously cascaded down to the lowest echelons of our society. It is just as that great wise soul Confucius noted many ages ago that the model of good behaviour begins at the top.

When we were lying trussed up outside our garage one of them came and piddled all over my head. After that they pulled me down onto the ground they pulled me by my hair. I just saw a huge bunch of hair in his hands.

. . . these are the words of Angela Campbell, aged 66. Listen to audio interviews with Ben Freeth and Angela Campbell, survivors of recent Zanu PF violence, on the Kubatana web site. Photographs are also available.

Back in 2005 Michael McFaul wrote an interesting essay entitled Transitions from Postcommunism. It’s worth reading today in the light of our collective failure to get rid of the regime in Zimbabwe.

The author cites seven important factors which led to a change in government in Serbia, Georgia and Ukraine. McFaul acknowledges that many other factors come into play but focuses on the following as essential:

A semi-autocratic regime
All autocratic regimes are vulnerable to collapse at some point. But which kinds of autocracies are more vulnerable than others? Some observers posit that semi-autocratic or “competitive authoritarian” regimes are more open to democratization than full-blown dictatorships, while others argue that semi-autocracies or partial democracies can actually do more to block genuine democratization by deflecting societal pressures for change.

An unpopular incumbent
A second necessary condition for democratic breakthrough in all of these countries was the falling popularity of the incumbent leader. In Serbia, polls put Milo¡seviæ’s popularity at less than 30 percent by the summer of 2000.7 In Georgia, 82 percent of respondents were saying as early as 2001 that the country was going in the wrong direction, up from 51 percent the year before. Kuchma’s approval ratings plummeted during his last year in office.

A united opposition
A united opposition—or at least the perception of one—is a third factor that appears crucial for democratic breakthrough, although the extent of unity varies widely enough across the cases that one may question its necessity as a factor. In Serbia and Ukraine, unity before the election was critical to success; in Georgia, less so.

Independent electoral-monitoring capabilities
A fourth condition critical to democratic breakthrough in Serbia, Georgia, and Ukraine was the ability of NGOs to provide an accurate and independent tally of the actual vote quickly after polls had closed.

A modicum of independent media
A fifth critical element in Serbia, Georgia, and Ukraine was the presence of independent media able to relay news about the falsified vote and to publicize mounting popular protests. For years, such media outlets and brave individual journalists had been reporting the misdeeds of semi-autocratic incumbents. At the moment of breakthrough, autonomous media remained vital in triggering change despite the incumbents’ last-ditch efforts to hang on to power.

Mobilizing the masses
A sixth critical factor for democratic breakthrough in Serbia, Georgia, and Ukraine was the opposition’s capacity to mobilize significant numbers of protestors to challenge the falsified electoral results.

Splits among the “guys with guns”
A seventh and final necessary condition for success is a split among the “guys with guns,” meaning the state’s military, police, and security forces. A segment of these must distance itself far enough from the incumbents to show that the option of violent repression is risky if not untenable. In all three cases such a split developed, though its size as well as the threat of violence varied from case to case.

The author rightly points out that the presence of only a few of these factors is unlikely to cause the same results. And he reminds us that “A more popular or more clever and ruthless autocrat might have been able to outmaneuver the democratic opposition. A less-organized electoral-monitoring effort in any of these three countries might not have been able to convince people to take to the streets. Smaller numbers of protestors in the streets might have led to outcomes that looked more like Tiananmen Square in 1989 than the big and peaceful wins for democratization that actually happened.”

I spend a fair amount of time walking in and around the city centre and have established routes, largely to avoid getting turned around (more honestly I mean lost).  On a recent excursion, I had to stop by an NGO located deep in the city centre.  I decided the best route was to walk behind Eastgate along Robert Mugabe Road, which is not a road I walk along often because it just seems sketchy and more dangerous.  I was heading east toward the Avenues.  As I navigated the hustle and bustle, I experienced first-hand something I’ve only been told about.  And my gosh it’s true what they say.  That road is packed full of forex dealers.  All right out in the open.  Men, women, and children standing a mere meter apart in a line that felt like it stretched from here to kingdom come.  I didn’t change money, but did think about whether these thousands of forex dealers purposively chose Robert Mugabe Road for their base to signal who has brought their profession into existence.

I also thought about the law and that I was walking amidst a hotbed of criminal activity.  Of course, residents and visitors in Zimbabwe have become accustom to the reality that individual economic sustainability in Zimbabwe requires routinely breaking the law.  I used to have a twinge of naivety and thought it was only foreigners and middle-class and wealthy Zimbabweans who illegally changed forex by the hundreds.  But there on Robert Mugabe Road were Zimbabweans from all walks of life changing forex, mostly in small amounts like $5 or $10.  It’s the reality, nothing can be done.  But still, it’s a crime and it leaves an unsettling feeling in my stomach.

Robert Muponde wrote an interesting article astutely suggesting, “violent crime in Zimbabwe is a manifestation of political manipulation. It is not part of the social fabric.”  He provided historical and cultural reasons, and as common, he made jokes. Pockets have no cash and cars lack fuel leaving pickpockets and carjackers without a crime to commit.  While it’s true, particularly in comparison to South Africa, violent crime rates in Zimbabwe are low.  Admirably low, yet ironic given the amount of state-sponsored crime Muponde points out.  I can’t help but think there’s reason to read with caution Muponde and his “court in the people’s hearts… inherited from the past… about culture and tradition…about conscience.”  Back to Robert Mugabe Road.  With all those forex dealers, it’s full of crime.  You might even say it’s a vibrant culture of crime.  Sure, it’s crime necessary for survival, it’s seemingly not violent, and given the volumes of people involved, it’s been normalized.  It’s also a fine line, particularly when you start incorporating phrases like the social fabric, moral fibre, and culture.  I think there are deeper meanings when the law is routinely broken every single day. It’s the question I often pose in my blogs:  What will be the long term effects with so many otherwise law-abiding people having been brought into the fold of criminal activity?  Somewhat in jest, will the folk tales 50 years from now be about powerful and wise village chiefs who gained their prestige through black market forex dealing in Harare?

Political analyst and commentator Moeletsi Mbeki couldn’t have given a more apt analogy of the circus surrounding the ‘diplomatic’ handling of Mugabe and his illegitimate occupation of the presidium, especially by the AU, in a television interview with Debra Patta on 3rd Degree. He alluded to Mugabe as the naughty boy in the school playground who is rude to fellow boys, rude to the prefects, as well as the teachers and headmaster. The other boys, who probably would have loved to do the same but are too scared, are often so ‘besotted’ by his pranks, they urge him on/encourage him. Most notable of these boys is South Africa, as seen during the existence of the Commonwealth, after Zimbabwe had held elections that were widely declared not free and fair. South Africa was most vocal in defending Zimbabwe from being expelled from the Commonwealth. No doubt South Africa did the same thing at the AU summit in Sham, my mistake, Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt.

Moeletsi Mbeki lambasted the very concept of a GNU being recommended as the peaceful and only solution by the AU. He argues that Kenya set a really bad precedent that sought to legitimise governments that had outright been rejected by the majority, but just wouldn’t leave and would make everyone’s life hellishly miserable until they were granted ‘leeway’ to share power. Recently, the Secretary-General of Rencontre Africaine pour la Défense des Droits de l’Homme (RADDHO) said, “The election situation in Zimbabwe is unacceptable. What is the point of having elections in Africa, if it always ends up by a power-sharing system? The Kenyan example should not be a model for Africa.”

African governments advocating so-called GNUs ought to be ashamed of themselves as this defeats any semblance of democracy.

Moeletsi Mbeki also pointed out that the political and economic crisis in Zimbabwe would likely remain unresolved for a long time because the AU, and indeed the rest of the countries in Southern Africa, remains divided over what to do with Mugabe. There are also those who continue to revere and remember him as the great statesman who did not tolerate colonial rule. Sadly, those who see him in that light are many.

Binyavanga Wainaina in an article titled Throwing fuel on a dying fire says, “Mugabe’s primary source of power becomes the power we give him. The man is bouncing around Zimbabwe with the energy of a five- year- old powered by Duracell… the New York Times will headline him. The BBC and George Bush too. Mugabe is getting the attention no African leader ever gets. He is a big deal. And this is his fuel…”

Indeed, it is the people around him that allow this circus to continue. Michela Wrong in her article How a continent missed its moment asks: “But what did the international community really expect of the AU? Any organisation that includes among its elder statesmen Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak (27 years at the helm), Gabon’s Omar Bongo (41 years) and Equatorial Guinea’s Teodoro Obiang (a modest 29) will have problems lecturing members on the merits of democracy, as Mugabe himself pointed out. Exactly which recent elections could they have held up as models? Kenya’s? Nigeria’s? Ethiopia’s?”

The AU dubbed the ‘dictators’ club’ is a toothless dog protecting the egotistical interests of a cruel few. We are so tired of the same rhetorical statements. Just how many more people have to die before the AU or the UN Security Council actually do something? Why is it that all the whiteheads at the AU (save for Mwanawasa) seem to concur that a GNU is the only way forward? Many justify GNU as the only route that will avoid yet more bloodshed but it just smacks of the old guard protecting personal and future self interests. Once the concept of a GNU gets adapted as normal in Africa none of those old men will relinquish power easily.

Apart from the fact that a GNU does not address the problems of Zimbabwe or acknowledge the will of the Zimbabwean people, it also further entrenches the Kenyan precedent that will mean in future, holding any election will be a ritualistic waste of time. And what a joke Africa will become.

Amidst all this is the electorate for whom decisions are being made in high places. The Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) has masqueraded as a will-of-the-people party. The challenge for them now is explain to the people what a GNU will entail should they eventually decide to enter negotiations with Zanu PF. Failing this, many Zimbabweans will perceive it the ultimate betrayal if they just jump in head first without engaging and consulting the electorate. Nelson Chamisa, spokesperson for the MDC, says the party already has a position paper on how they want any talks to proceed. Many of us are interested in its contents.

For some of us, a GNU controlled by Mugabe simply communicates that our votes did not count, that we have no say in our own governance and that in the future democracy will never matter again. In fact, right now we do not need a GNU. We need solutions to deal with stubborn old men who won’t let go of what’s not theirs.