Psychology Maziwisa, wrote to the editor of Zimbabwe Democracy Now suggesting, among other things, that “ZANU PF is an oppressive movement that the people of Zimbabwe must now be liberated from.” Read the full article below:

If there is one myth that must be resisted, and resisted with all the contempt it deserves in 21st century African politics, it is the desperate and unwelcome myth that a liberation movement, however much loathed, can unashamedly claim to have an inherent and unqualified monopoly over the governance of a country and that any dissenting voice, no matter how genuinely disillusioned, is a political charade whose only intention is to perpetuate a colonial past.

It is a calculated and arrogant way of pursuing politics and any leader who uses it as a justification for clinging to power at that moment turn themselves into tyrants. Honestly, they will have only themselves to blame if anyone raises the middle finger at him!

At the very least, it is an insulting myth. Insulting because it presupposes that the people of Zimbabwe are so naive they needed Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Gorge W. Bush, Barack Obama and the wider international community to tell them that the government of Robert Mugabe can no longer provide the very basics of life. Yet any other responsible government,anywhere in the world, would ungrudgingly consider it to be fundamental to good governance to provide food, health, education and personal security.

We did not need Tony Blair to tell us that scores of innocent, vulnerable fellow citizens were tortured and killed simply and only in order to secure allegiance to ZANU PF. The people of Zimbabwe do not recall Tony Blair standing by as his security officers mercilessly pounced on opponents. Nor do they recall Gordon Brown looting our country of its resources and stashing them away in huge individual off-shore accounts. Thanks to the targeted sanctions that will not be going anywhere anytime soon (delegation or no delegation), some of those monies have been rendered indefinitely inaccessible to those who have stolen them.

Nor was it George W. Bush who hired the North Koreans to train the notorious fifth brigade with a view to killing, torturing, raping and humiliating anyone who seemed suspicious: men, women and even children. It was not Barack Obama who bulldozed the only form of shelter many Zimbabweans had and left hundreds of thousands homeless. Indeed, since millions cannot afford a television set, many in Zimbabwe will die not knowing what Blair, Brown, Bush and Obama even look like.

The truth of the matter is that it has become increasingly questionable whether there is much difference, if any at all, between the political system of Ian Smith which ZANU PF managed to ‘liberate’ us from and its replacement.

The terrible circumstances under which the people of Zimbabwe have been made to live are all part of the sad proof that life under a liberation movement is not necessarily better than life under colonialism.

Indeed, in Namibia, SWAPO (a former guerrilla movement that led the country to independence in 1990) has been at the centre of gross human rights violations and in a typical fashion has managed to downplay its extent. It was SWAPO that imprisoned thousands of its own members in dungeons in southern Angola in the 1980s allegedly for spying on behalf of South Africa. Despite it being a basic requirement of justice that people be proven guilty before they can be deprived of their liberty, these people were not even brought before a court of law to be fairly tried!

For ZANU PF, like SWAPO, violence has become the automatic and standard response to dissent.

In South Africa, the ANC is unlikely to lose support any time soon mainly because it is viewed by millions of South Africans as the party that brought liberation to that country – and correctly so. The liberation movement syndrome is as much alive there as it is — not in Zimbabwe — but within ZANU PF for they have now become their own supporters. The difference between ANC and ZANU PF, however, is that while the former has enjoyed legitimacy since 1994 derived from free, fair and credible elections, the latter has constantly and consistently stolen the ballot and stolen it at monumental cost for the people of Zimbabwe.

When ANC members depart from accepted standards, they are swiftly and openly rebuked. Indeed when Julius Malema attempted to be a little Mugabe, President Jacob Zuma effectively cautioned him: Not in South Africa my boy! He described Malema’s behaviour as “unacceptable”, “totally out of order”, “against ANC culture” and deserving of “consequences”.

A single party — be it one with liberation roots or not — is more than welcome to rule for millions of years provided it has the genuine consent of the masses to do so. That is the basic idea behind democracy. ZANU PF does not, cannot and will never again have this sort of consent from the people of Zimbabwe.

To borrow the lyrics of the much revered and my most favourite international music icon Akon, what contemporary Zimbabweans are fighting for is, ‘….a free, uplifting world’. Clearly, that world is not achievable under a ZANU PF government. It has not been for the last three decades.

For a single group of people to hold an entire nation to ransom is no longer a welcome way of doing politics in today’s world. It is unwelcome because it results in a political landscape that does not offer citizens real and credible means to express themselves as the sovereigns of a constitutional, parliamentary democracy.

The only thing that distinguishes the traditional war of liberation from the current struggle is that, while we fought against Ian Smith and his alien allies yesterday, today we are fighting against one of our very own. It is a fight, however, that we seek to conclude through democratic means. Never shall we resort to the use of force in order to attain our freedom. Force, violence, intimidation, abduction and foul play are all tactics of the enemy. To resort to violence in this struggle would be to demean our freedom.

Let us continue fighting the good fight in the best way we can: peaceful demonstrations, gatherings, petitions and the myriad of other democratic mechanisms. We are our own liberators. The silver lining for us is the unfailing reality that everything with a beginning comes to an end. One thing Robert Mugabe cannot escape is the never-faltering ticking of the passage of time – and his time is evidently running short now.

A liberation movement is not one that liberates its people and then, with fiendish pleasure, proceeds to oppress those very people for three decades and counting. It is one that genuinely seeks to free the people from the vice of repression — whether that is repression by Ian Smith or by Robert Mugabe. Accordingly, it can no longer be open to ZANU PF to regard itself as a liberation movement. If anything, ZANU PF is an oppressive movement that the people of Zimbabwe must now be liberated from.

Psychology Maziwisa, Interim President, Union for Sustainable Democracy

We have just received this comment from SFM broadcaster Soneni Gwizi. She hopes that her speaking out will also encourage other communicators to keep to values of telling and writing the truth. Speak out!

I am a news maker not a gossiper
I am a story teller not an entertainer
I am an activist not a trouble maker
I am a communicator, i write what i have heard, seen and what is to come.
I am a broadcaster not a commentor
I speak factual realistic issues not biased,
I am a friend not an enemy

Kubatana recently received the following press statement from Voice of Democracy on the subject of the (alleged) forthcoming New Zealand cricket tour to Zimbabwe:

There is a fine line, as the international community knows full well, between supporting democratic change in Zimbabwe and collaborating with a dictator. Zimbabwe’s Minister of Sport, David Coltart, seems to believe that New Zealand has an obligation to play cricket in Zimbabwe (New Zealand Herald, 23 March 2010). We disagree. New Zealand should stick to its principles, ignore Coltart, and shun Zimbabwe’s dictatorship.

In his article, David Coltart repeats a claim he made in December 2008 that going into government with Robert Mugabe was the ‘only viable non-violent option’. This was untrue then – as it is now. As one commentator wrote, the MDC had a ‘fistful of options’ for peaceful democratic change which were squandered when they reinstalled Mugabe to the fullness of his abusive powers.

Coltart then adds insult to injury by making such disingenuous claims that Zimbabwe’s Inclusive Government has “made remarkable progress in the last year” and that the political agreement “is gradually being implemented in its entirety.” This is not remotely true, which is why the European Union renewed its targeted sanctions against those members of Zimbabwe’s government accused of gross human rights abuses.

Indeed, if Coltart listened to himself he would be hard-pressed to recognise the lawyer who opposed human rights abuses in Zimbabwe for the last 27 years. It seems incredible that he now claims that there has been a “massive downturn in the number of human rights abuses” when ZANU(PF) is busy reestablishing the very bases in rural areas that unleashed such horrific violence during the June 2008 presidential elections.

He claims that maladministration and racism in cricket is being addressed, when the same top officials who were responsible for that corruption, racism and abuse of power remain firmly in place. It is all the more painful when he lauds cricket’s collaborator-in-chief, Heath Streak. Our heroes are Andy Flower and Henry Olonga who forfeited their cricket careers because they took a principled stand against the dictatorship.

Coltart is right in one respect: if the New Zealand team decides to come to Zimbabwe they will be welcomed with remarkable warmth and friendliness by our patron of Cricket Zimbabwe – Robert Mugabe! Dictator 1: New Zealand 0.

I have heard rumours of Members of Parliament who visit their constituencies only to campaign during elections. They are never seen, or heard of again. These are the same parliamentarians who last year refused to take vehicles from local company Willowvale Motor Industries – which could have used the boost in sales – and instead opted to import vehicles from various sources; no doubt duty free. This little exercise carried out in the name of ‘allowing our MPs to fulfil their duties’- one of which I presume is regularly visiting the people they represent – cost the taxpayer US6million.

At present 80% of our population is rural earning less than US$100 per month, well below the poverty datum line. It is this 80% of our population that was used to justify buying ‘all terrain’ vehicles for MPs. Meanwhile, the International Red Cross estimates that approximately a third of Zimbabwe’s population is in need of food aid.

With the Constitutional hullabaloo that is engulfing the nation our honourable parliamentarians are carrying out consultations with the people. Both Houses with a combined membership of 276 have adjourned to do their civic duty until mid June. Parliamentarians are being paid US$300 per day in addition to their regular government salaries and privileges.

Lets say that these consultations began after Easter. And let’s be generous and give our parliamentarians the weekends off. That would mean that they should be in consultations with us, ‘the people’, for approximately fifty-four days.

Now multiply 276 honourable members of parliament by 54 days living on 300 dollars a day . . .

Call me crazy, but that seems to be a hefty price to pay for the privilege of having my Member of Parliament give me what I hope will be a ‘non partisan’ explanation of constitutional issues. Even if taxpayers aren’t the ones to foot the bill for the consultations, surely the parliamentarians themselves should question their right to demand so much money. But I suppose that would suggest that our politicians are actually in politics to make a tangible change in Zimbabweans lives. Plainly speaking, they’re in politics because politics in Zimbabwe is a business. It has nothing to do with the electorate. Having an electorate simply legitimises the presence of white-collar criminals in parliament and government.

In an encouraging move, Prime Minister Tsvangirai used his weekly newsletter column to speak out on tolerance of difference, and effectively responded to the anti-homosexual remarks attributed to him in The Herald recently. Thank you Tsvangirai for clarifying your position on tolerance of difference. Does this mean we can expect to see sexual orientation included with race, gender, tribe, culture, and political affiliation in the Constitution as areas of prejudice which Zimbabwe will not condone?

Here is an excerpt from the letter:

There can be no place in the new Zimbabwe for hate speech or the persecution of any sector of our population based on race, gender, tribe, culture, sexual orientation or political affiliation. All of us are entitled to our own opinions on certain values and beliefs, but in order to move our nation forward and achieve national reconciliation and healing, we have to uphold and foster the fundamental principle of tolerance, including tolerance of people that have chosen to live, believe and vote differently from ourselves. For too long, many of you, my fellow Zimbabweans, have not had the freedom of choice. Our new constitution shall be the cornerstone of a new society that embraces this particular freedom of choice and tolerance of both majority and minority views.

This is just one of the powerful photos from the recent ZimRights photo exhibition, Reflections. Despite Zimbabwe’s inclusive government, and claims of “progress” in opening up Zimbabwe’s democratic space, this exhibition has faced numerous challenges. Read and see more here.