This morning, Newsday reported on the infamous National Youth Service programme, in particular plans to incorporate its graduates into the civil service. The youth service, according to ZANU PF politburo member Jacob Mudenda was established . . .

“to teach the youth political direction. The youths have always played an important role in campaigning for the party. They should also be given jobs.”

With the collapse of the education system and the flight of anyone who is able to the diaspora, Zimbabwe seems to be left with mindless thoughtless zombies. These same zombies, who’s unemployment level is over 90%, are primed for exploitation, whether they themselves recognise it or not.

With the revival, or at least debate about revival, of National Youth Service Centres (no mention has been made about reform) it appears that ZANU PF is readying itself to campaign for the undeclared, yet to be funded 2011 elections. The issue of the ‘people-driven’ constitution, all the rage a few months ago, has been forgotten and given a back seat, even by civil society and MDC-T, who were the biggest proponents of that pointless exercise.

The negotiated settlements, were thrown out the window giving ZANU PF, with it’s militarised institutions the upper hand.

The people of Zimbabwe should be afraid. The GPA doesn’t matter, the Government of National Unity is anything but, and politically naïve opposition parties have learnt nothing from the past twelve years.

Recently, there have been increased calls from various quarters in society for investigations into the alleged corruption of high-ranking officials in the government of Zimbabwe. In an unexpected turn of events, new demands are emerging, seeking an extension of this exercise to include scrutiny of the activities of HYPer-Opinionated-Citizens-Readily-Ignoring-Their-Every-Sins or HYPOCRITES.  Statistics show that many of the country’s citizens subscribe to the principles of this body (TI-Corruption Perception Index).

In a letter – a copy of the five-page document is in our possession – concern was expressed over the acceptance of HYPOCRITES’ questionable and widespread behaviour, which was clearly corrupt and underhanded. “We have observed that numerous dubious transactions are undertaken on a daily basis between HYPOCRITES and public officials. Payments are most frequently made to traffic police and to civil servants who issue identity and travel documents”.

HYPOCRITES were also accused of paying large sums to obtain learners’ and drivers’ licences.  Part of the letter reads:

“These payments, which are made for selfish gain, also reflect the blatant disregard for the safety of others in society.  With the right amount of cash, untrained ‘drivers’ are given free rein to maim and kill innocent road users.  Of course, the traffic officer can also be paid to report the incident as an ‘unfortunate’ accident.”

The letter also queries how HYPOCRITES have the means to make these payments.  Given the prevailing economic conditions and meagre salaries in general, the amounts paid were not justified. Payments to physicians were singled out for being exorbitant for various practices – issuing inauthentic medical reports, performing illegal procedures and hijacking medical equipment from state institutions for use by their private patients.

“In many instances, the HYPOCRITES who make these payments are well-off. They do not pay off officials out of necessity but to increase the comfort of their lives. The poor do not have electricity in their homes, let alone the means to pay employees of the power utility authority to excuse their homes from being affected by load shedding.”

“We are aware that the examples we have cited are the least of the rot, which runs deep,” says the letter. “Giving money to an official for a ‘coke’ is just the tip of the iceberg.  HYPOCRITES have been known to build one or five mansions on illegally acquired council land and they regularly import fleets of luxury vehicles duty-free.”

The writers of the letter stated that they were aware that HYPOCRITES had shown great outrage at recent revelations and allegations of corruption by senior state officials. Some were even behind the calls for investigations. This profession of beliefs and opinions that the HYPOCRITES themselves do not hold or live up to was strongly castigated as insincere. “Only HYPOCRITES take stationery from the office for their children, and then complain that government officials grab national assets for their personal use.  HYPOCRITES buy pirated music and movies and then get outraged that government officials seize ownership of assets without paying for them.”

The letter concluded with a demand for a full investigation into the extent of corruption in the country. The sweeping exercise would cover government officials and citizens at all levels. “If anyone is found guilty of corruption, it is proposed that legal proceedings be taken against them all, without fear or favour!”

Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Media, Information and Publicity, George Charamba, has stated that there will be no issuance of broadcasting licences to private players.

This despite the fact that it are more than two years since the signatories to the Global Political Agreement claimed, among other things, to be “[d]esirous of ensuring the opening up of the air waves and ensuring the operation of as many media houses as possible.”

The Zimbabwe Association of Community Radio Stations (ZACRAS) issued this response to Charamba’s statement:

ZACRAS response to George Charamba’s report to the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee

The Zimbabwe Association of Community Radio Stations (ZACRAS) is dismayed by statements made by the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Media, Information and Publicity, George Charamba, that there will be no issuance of broadcasting licences to private players.

According to Charamba, the government has no intention of issuing licences to private players in the near future until it has developed the capacity to monitor and regulate the activities of the new players. The Zimbabwe Independent of 12-18 November 2010, reported Charamba as having made these remarks when he appeared before the Media, Information and Communication Technology Parliamentary Portfolio Committee.

Recently, the Minister of Media, Information and Publicity, Webster Shamu, was reported as having acknowledged the need for the liberalisation of the airwaves so as to usher in independent radio and television stations. ZACRAS is now disturbed by these conflicting statements from Charamba. Charamba is a civil servant who is supposed to implement government policy, whereas Shamu enunciates these policies. The question which therefore comes to mind is who is running the Ministry of Media, Information and Publicity; a government Minister or a mere Secretary?

Charamba went on to add that the current levels of investment in broadcasting infrastructure in the country creates no room for new entries as espoused by the Global Political Agreement (GPA). Presently, two of ZACRAS’ members, Radio Dialogue in Bulawayo, and CORAH in Harare, are equipped with broadcasting equipment which will enable them to start broadcasting once they are granted licences. Last year, Minister Shamu visited Radio Dialogue and was impressed by the station’s state of preparedness for broadcasting.

In 2005, the Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe (BAZ) invited applicants for broadcasting licenses. The question which one therefore asks is why BAZ would take such an initiative if the broadcasting infrastructure was really not permissible for entrance by new players?

The policy makers’ denial of licencing new broadcasting players is a blatant disregard of citizens’ right to access information from diverse sources. Attitudes such as these are not only retrogressive but are a major stumbling block towards the creation of a diverse and pluralist media environment. The delay in the proper reconstitution of BAZ, and the perennial piecemeal amendments to the repressive media laws, on its own, stands as testimony of a lack of political will on the part of policy makers to liberalise the airwaves.

The broadcasting frequency spectrum is a public resource. As such, it should be accessed by those who have means to utilize it and not be restricted by the dictates of those who seek political mileage.

ZACRAS acknowledges the need to regulate and monitor the use of the broadcasting frequency so as to guard against its abuse. However, it is ZACRAS’ view that frequency management and use should not be detrimental to the needs and aspirations of citizens.

It is ZACRAS’s conviction that the government has no part in regulating and monitoring the operations of broadcasters. ZACRAS believes that there is need for the setting up of an independent broadcasting regulatory authority. The independent broadcasting regulatory authority should be mandated with monitoring and regulating the broadcasting industry through issuance of licences and maintaining checks and balances on licence holders.

Needless to say, the selection into the independent broadcasting board should be done upon consultation with all relevant stakeholders and be as transparent as possible. Transparency will ensure the creation of a legitimate board whose operations are devoid of partisan political, economic or individual interests.

It is ZACRAS’s belief that instead of monitoring and regulating broadcasters, the government should concern itself with creating a conducive national policy framework for broadcasters, upon consultation with all concerned stake holders.

The establishment of community radios is an essential part of development, as it enables communities to devise development initiatives and strategies to tackle pertinent issues such as agriculture, mining, health, education, water and sanitation. To this end, ZACRAS remains committed to promoting the creation of an environment which promotes the establishment and licensing of community radios in Zimbabwe.

Promise Mkwananzi suggests that massive protests by Zimbabweans will be the only way to get rid of the Mugabe regime. In his article below he appeals to the MDC to restore and strengthen their support with “grass roots oriented” organisations like ZINASU, the NCA and the ZCTU. Of course it’s questionable how much of a real constituency any of these NGOs actually has. But recently at the Progress in Zimbabwe conference held in Bulawayo, social and political commentator John Makumbe said that dictators do not hand over power through democratic means. Listen to John here, and read more of Promise below:

ZANU PF has repeated its mantra that they will not allow MDC-T to rule the country. The seriousness of their utterances can only be ignored at one`s own peril. This is exacerbated by an even more worrying development of declaring Robert Mugabe President for life. These are no illusionary rumbles, ZANU PF means it. This makes it clear that whatever reforms, if any, will be reached, the election will simply be another terrific war. Despite that, MDC will win that election because ZANU PF has no more support base whatsoever. Thus, in my view, you could for example repeal POSA, AIPPA etc but still retain the same undesirable conditions which they created, or even worse. This is because ZANU PF is not going to adhere to the normative legal/political/constitutional/ frameworks. They are just going to bar MDC rallies without any pretence of any sort of legal basis. They will either simply say you cannot meet or just send police and militia to come and beat the hell out of you, without having to explain anything. If they do this once or twice, you will be sure that MDC rallies will be a no-go area. ZANU PF will simply ignore international condemnation from the West while SADC/AU will just watch and declare the elections as unfair but still recognize Mugabe as President. They might even suggest fresh negotiations aimed at another GNU with ZANU PF in charge. Nevertheless, in a secret ballot, the MDC will and can still win the elections. In this dramatic scenario, I am trying to illustrate how much it will not be enough to simply rely on the normative democratic institutions alone. From the look of things, winning an election will not enough for one to govern. However elections provide a very good basis to launch a mass uprising against Mugabe and drive him out of office for good. This is especially so if Mugabe would, despite his violent campaign still lose the election dismally.

This by the way is a very likely scenario.  The first round of elections in 2008 provides a perspective. Soon after the election counting was done and rumors began to filter that the MDC had won the election. Impeccable sources have it on record that many in ZANU PF were preparing to flee. However, because the MDC still believed so much in the goodness of ZANU PF they helped calm the people by urging them to be patient until the results were officially announced. One might argue that this was a strategy to ensure that there is no chaos, which could provide ZANU PF with an excuse to declare state of emergency and suspend the results altogether. On hindsight, the calmness did not work in favor of the MDC. In fact, it allowed ZANU PF time to recuperate, re-strategize and launch a massive come back. ZANU PF went ahead to operate a de-facto state of emergency, leading to a violent June sham. We all know what happened. In 2002, again the MDC restrained its supporters, urged calm and hoped that Chidyausiku would nullify Mugabe`s victory. Of course Chidyausiku did not and will not that.

That is the premise of my argument: that under an authoritarian regime; you cannot rely on normative institutions alone. There is need for that extra push to be provided by the masses. The big question of course is whether the people are ready for such a costly enterprise, and my answer is yes, why not. The leadership must mobilize conscientize and prepare the people for this. There is no alternative to this. This would include mass protests such as stay aways, boycotts, demonstrations etc-compounded with the election defeat; such a situation will put Mugabe regime in a weaker position and will provide the international community with enough bases to pressure Mugabe to step down. It is also my contention that the rank and file of our coercive state machinery is sick and tired and want change. However, before the civilians can shake the corridors of ZANU PF rule, they remain limited in what they can do.  That is why it has become so imperative for the MDC to restore its relations with its grass roots oriented alliances such as ZINASU, NCA,  ZCTU and others who will be very crucial in this seemingly impossible task. There is need for further deliberative engagement!

A recent statement from Reporters Without Borders:

Bill would restrict public access to official information

Reporters Without Borders calls for the withdrawal of bill which is about to be submitted to parliament and which would allow the authorities to block public access to official documents including judicial decisions, new legislation and public records.

Announced on 22 October and called the “General Law Amendment Bill,” the proposed law’s sole aim seems to be to place additional obstacles in the way of access to information and thereby hamper the work of the media even more.

“Drafted by members of the coalition government’s Zanu-PF wing, led by President Robert Mugabe, this bill would just aggravate the already precarious situation for Zimbabwe’s media,” Reporters Without Borders secretary-general Jean-François Julliard said. “It is a political manoeuvre designed to prevent any critical examination of the government’s actions.”

Julliard added: “The bill is extremely dangerous as it would allow the authorities to adopt unjust measures without anyone knowing and without anyone being able to protest. It shows that the government is rejecting transparency in favour of secrecy and abuse of authority.”

Under the proposed law, the publication of any government document would require prior permission from the authorities. A human rights group or a journalist, for example, would need the justice minister’s permission to publish a judicial decision affecting the public’s rights. This would restrict the ability of ordinary citizens to monitor what the authorities do and, as such, it is contrary to the principles of good governance.

The bill’s announcement has coincided with a number of developments in recent weeks that have raised concerns about a renewed crackdown on the media. The government announced at the start of this month that no licences would be issued to new radio or TV stations. Two journalists, Nkosana Dhalmini and Andrison Manyere, were arrested while covering a public debate at the end of last month and were held for two days.

And an arrest warrant was issued last week for The Zimbabwean editor Wilf Mbanga in connection with an article critical of President Mugabe that was published after the 2008 elections. Mbanga has lived in London for the past six years.

Zimbabwe already has two laws that throttle free expression. One is the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA), adopted in 2002. The other is the Interception of Communications Act, adopted in August 2007. The coalition government made significant efforts to limit their negative effects earlier this year, for example, by issuing licences to several privately-owned dailies. This bill constitutes a major step backwards.

I recently had the privilege of being at the ‘Progress’ in Zimbabwe conference organised by the Mass Public Opinion Institute, Bulawayo Agenda and the University of Johannesburg.

Various national, regional and international speakers participated, including: Amanda Hammar, Bill Freund, Blair Rutherford, Blessing Karumbidza, Brian Raftopoulos, Charity Manyeruke, Claude Kabemba, Easther Chigumira, Erin McCandless, Godfrey Kanyenze, Ian Phimister, Ibbo Mandaza, John Hoffman, John Makumbe, John Saul, Jocelyn Alexander, Josephine Nhongo-Simbanegavi, Joy Chadya, Kirk Helliker, Kumbirai Kundenga, Lionel Cliffe, Luise White, Mike Davies, Richard Saunders, Rob Davies, Roger Southall and Showers Mawowa.

Some of the stand out comments for me included:

• John Makumbe on The Parties & Their Politics: In Southern Africa, no liberation movement has ever handed power over to another political party. It is therefore obvious that liberation movements are necessarily dictatorial. So it is naïve to expect to remove them from power through democratic means. Any dictator who is susceptible to removal from power through democratic means is not a dictator. More

• Brian Raftopoulos on Labour’s Past, Present and Future: Raftopoulos discussed the ways trade unionists have tried to use an industrial relations discourse in order to avoid political intervention. Trade unions in Zimbabwe, as elsewhere, are very much children of the Enlightenment – they are very much those who have pushed for universal rights, and have often fought national repression through a recourse to a call for universal rights. This was interpreted by some as labour becoming ensconced in a kind of cosmopolitan Western discourse. Raftopolous found this wrong on two scores. Firstly, it misses the long historical precedent of this kind of discursive framework within labour – it’s not a new thing. Secondly, it assumes that because there is some agreement between international positions and the position of the labour movement in Zimbabwe, that the latter is complicit with imperialism. This is to assume that that whole project can be defined by how it is understood from outside, without looking at the local dynamics which are generating and producing those particular discourses. More

• Ibbo Mandaza on ‘Intellectuals’ and Progress in Zimbabwe: Radical scholars were systematically exorcised from positions of influence over the state. Mugabe’s Zanu PF is right wing, despite its anti imperialist rhetoric. The international community is less concerned about democracy and human rights than they are about stability. Thus, if it is accepted that there is a level of stability now as compared with 2008, this is accepted as “progress.” More

• Easther Chigumira on Landed Economies – Farming & Farmers Then & Now: Responding to Blessing Karumbidza’s presentation, Easther Chigumira questioned his convictions that farming “then” (as in the 1980s) is really so different from farming “now.” She noted there is still multiple farm ownership, still patronage, still bifurcation, but it is by class, not race. Key institutional structures, such as markets, are weaker than they were in the 1980s. Thus, she said, she was not as optimistic about new farmers, particularly given the long term degradation of the environment which has happened in the process. There is gold panning, sand mining, organised by suitcase farmers. Is that really progress? More

• Kirk Helliker on Civil Society – Strategies for Emancipation: Helliker argued that much of the conflict in contemporary Zimbabwean society is a discourse around state politics. The struggle is a struggle for state power. This, he said, marginalises more democratic radical popular movements – like the land movement – captured by state and delegitimisesd by liberals. He agreed that just because trade unions develop a position towards the state, and international capital develops the same position, this doesn’t necessarily that there is some sort of alliance, or that the trade unions are in the in pocket of international capital. However, he cautioned, there is a similar risk of reductionist thinking if you argue that the land movement was just an election ploy. This reduces the agency of rural people and war veterans to being simply pawns of Zanu PF. More

• Luise White on Zimbabwe Compared – ‘Progress’ in the Rest of Africa: White warned that governments of national unity simply reinvent the one party state with more international clout than the one party state has had since the 1960’s. She said this is retrogressive. There is now a single party apparatus that has access to international funding and donor participation. More

For a full listing of write ups and audio files from the different sessions, view the ‘Progress’ in Zimbabwe conference index page