Colletah, a Kubatana subscriber has just written to us with a demand that the Government of National Unity treat the issue of investigating human rights abuses with the respect it deserves . . .

Politicians in Zimbabwe say “Our call is to let bygones be bygones and for everyone and every entity to start anew and open a new page.”

I keep reading statements like the above about the situation in Zimbabwe. Where is logic in the people who are demanding that we forget about the past and get on to a new page. It is not possible to forget the torture in all forms that has gone on in the past political upheavals that have happened in the country. How do you think “OK YOU KILLED MY FATHER” but it does not matter that was yesterday, lets start a new page or “YOU RAPED ME” but let bygones be bygones and we start a new page.  Zimbabwe, please  be serious and be real. In post independent Zimbabwe it was “reconciliation” where the thinking was the same – lets forget and work together for Zimbabwe – now see the mess of letting bygones be bygones.

Zimbabwe  please Call a Spade a Spade and bring those that did wrong to face the music – that is logic.  This new page business is nonsense and we all know that life does not work like that.

The Global Political Agreement signed in September last year makes it very clear that it is a framework for a transitional government. However, Zimbabweans are not vigilant, we run the risk that our interim government will become our government for the next five years or more.

Someone recently sent us a very useful list of the steps detailed in the GPA that will lead to a new Constitution, to be followed by fresh elections to be held according to the terms described in that Constitution.  They also sent a timeline of when those steps should be taken, given the number of months the GPA provided for the various tasks.

The first step is that a select committee – to work on the Constitution – should be set up by 11 April. That’s just three weeks away. Play your part in ensuring Zimbabwe moves towards a people-driven Constitution and a democratically elected and established government. Put pressure on your representatives, and the heads of all three political formations who signed the GPA, to make sure they follow the timeline.

The Joint Monitoring and Implementation Committee (“JOMIC”) has been established to “ensure full and proper implementation of the letter and spirit of“ the Global Political Agreement. If you have any concerns about the implementation of the agreement, or the government’s adherence to the timeline for drafting a new Constitution, report your concerns to JOMIC. You can reach JOMIC rotating Chairperson Welshman Ncube on Tel +263 4 252782-3/94-5/846, Fax +263 4 736300 email: wncube@africaonline.co.zw  and cc to funsthole@yahoo.com

Steps towards a new Constitution

1. Select Committee be set up within two months of inception of a new government;
2. The convening of the first All Stakeholders Conference shall be within 3 months of the date of the appointment of the Select Committee;
3. The public consultation process shall be completed no later than 4 months of the date of the first All Stakeholders Conference;
4. The draft Constitution shall be tabled within 3 months of completion of the public consultation process to a second All Stakeholders Conference;
5. The draft Constitution and the accompanying Report shall be tabled before Parliament within 1 month of the second All Stakeholders Conference;
6. The draft Constitution and the accompanying Report shall be debated in Parliament and the debate conceded within one month;
7. The draft Constitution emerging from Parliament shall be gazetted before the holding of a referendum;
8. A referendum on the new draft Constitution shall be held within 3 months of the conclusion of the debate’
9. In the event of the draft Constitution being approved in the referendum it shall be gazetted within 1 month of the date of the referendum; and
10. The draft Constitution shall be introduced in Parliament no later than 1 month after the expiration of the period of 30 days from the date of its gazetting.

New election date then to be decided upon according to new Constitution.

Timeline for a new Constitution

Maximum 20 month process – Taking the number of months stated in the GPA and using the maximum time limits as the guide to building the calendar.

11 Feb – New Government
11 April – Select Committee to be set up
11 July – Convening of the first All Stakeholders Conference
11 Nov  – Public consultation process completed
11 Feb 2010 – Draft Constitution to be tabled
11 March – Draft Constitution and the accompanying Report tabled before Parliament
11 April – Draft Constitution and the accompanying Report debated in Parliament
18 April – Draft Constitution emerging from Parliament shall be gazetted
18 July – Referendum on the new draft Constitution
18 Aug – If draft Constitution approved in the referendum it shall be gazetted
18 September – Draft Constitution introduced in Parliament

New election date then to be decided upon.

When we told our SMS subscribers that the MDC had agreed to join the inclusive government, the response was largely relief. People sent us messages saying things like “Thank God,” “at last,” and “This is a good move.”

But three weeks into the new government, the cracks are beginning to show. The arrest and ongoing detention of Roy Bennett, Deputy Minister of Agriculture designate, is particularly worrying for many of our subscribers. Here are some of their responses to the news of his arrest:

As head of government Tsvangirai should enlighten us on the circumstances leading to Bennett’s arrest. Has he been criminal or an enemy of government? Why include him in cabinet when he has arrest warrant? Moreover I think there was a clause telling us to forget the past and open a new chapter in their speeches. If we need to prosecute for past crimes then the whole Zanu PF hierarchy should be arrested.

——

Bottom line. Bob has to go. Sorry

——
This is totally unacceptable. Let us walk out of this farce.

——

What charges are they arresting Bennett? Otherwise this inclusive government is a bluff. Tsvangirai might have been corrupted and sold out. The much needed rescue package is gonna not materialise. So the set up is a failure. We still at zero. If there is no selling on Tsvangirai ‘s part let him be the first protestant so that we have direction otherwise we need to further study the set up before we conclude anything.

——

Zanu is undermining the very fragile Political Agreement by arresting a Dep. Minister nominee. They always want to complicate situations. They should release him.

I’ve been thinking about this “inclusive government,” and about the notion that that MDC had no choice – that it couldn’t risk “defying SADC,” that it had to agree to the terms of the 27 January SADC Communiqué.

One problem with that whole theory is that it gives to SADC an authority that I don’t think it deserves. Granted, some heads of certain SADC countries respect the rule of law, treat their citizens fairly and promote justice at home. But since when has SADC been an honest, reliable broker when it comes to Zimbabwe? It’s always had a bias – as evidenced by the very fact that the Zimbabwe crisis has stretched out as long as it has. And it feels like Mugabe has a case of selective sovereignty. Mr You keep your Britain and I’ll keep my Zimbabwe suddenly cares what other countries think about what he does at home? Yeah, right.

It also comes back to this question of desperation. The MDC say they’re weren’t desperate to be in government, but their actions tell a different story.

Along these lines, Dale Doré sent in these comments recently which resonated with me:

In September 2008 the MDC was pressured by Mbeki into a deeply flawed agreement. For all Mugabe’s loathing and contempt for the MDC and its leaders, there are those in the opposition who still believe that a deal with Mugabe is their only option. Instead of believing in themselves, they believe in Mugabe’s omnipotence. Instead of sticking to their democratic principles as the route to legitimate political power, they believe that power can be shared with Mugabe. Instead of believing themselves to be the true heirs of democratically-won political power, they fear that Mugabe will form a government without them. Until and unless the MDC believe in themselves and move boldly to capture the high moral and political ground – nothing will change.

Even after Mugabe illegitimately grabbed the lion’s share of power, SADC has still put their trust in him to negotiate in good faith when implementing the power-sharing agreement. Instead of fair and unbiased arbitration, Mbeki and the SADC leaders have now placed the MDC in a lose-lose situation. If the MDC pulls out of the agreement, they will look like the spoilers. If they enter the agreement, they will be completely dominated by the very forces they oppose and make them complicit in Mugabe’s dictatorship. However, our first responsibility is not to Thabo Mbeki or leaders of other countries.

We must not sign any agreement to appease Mugabe, Mbeki or SADC. Our responsibility is first and foremost to the people of Zimbabwe. Having tried our utmost, but having failed to reach agreement, we must now put aside any kind of power-sharing deal, including that which SADC has put on the table. A bold, new approach is needed.

Read more here

I’ve been reading Padraig O’Malley’s Shades of Difference. It uses the life of Mac Maharaj, who according to Nelson Mandela, “ran the ANC’s underground in South Africa,” as a lens through which to discuss the anti-apartheid struggle. O’Malley introduces each chapter to set the historic or political context of that section of the narrative, and then Maharaj recounts a few years of his own autobiography. It’s clear, well written, and I’ve been so grateful for the insights that a story of that struggle can lend to Zimbabwe during ours.

I’m currently in the early 1980’s. Mac has served his 12 year sentence on Robben Island, after his conviction in the Little Rivonia Trial. And he’s escaped South Africa to rejoin the struggle outside the country. Meanwhile, the ANC’s progress has been slow. Frustrated by the pace of reform, and forced ever-deeper underground by the apartheid regime’s policies, the ANC is increasingly attracted to the strategy of armed struggle – despite its failures. In his introduction to Chapter 10, O’Malley credits the United Democratic Front (UDF)’s civil disobedience campaign with greater effectiveness than the armed struggle organised by Umkhonto weSizwe (MK) (Spear of the Nation). This despite the fact that it was 11 years from the formation of UDF to South Africa’s first democratic election.

Here are some excerpts:

The opposition to the tricameral parliament led to the creation in 1983 of the anti-apartheid United Democratic Front (UDF), a broad, non-racial grouping of about 650 affiliates with a total membership of more than 2.5 million who collectively put the emphasis on mass mobilisation and protest politics.

Meanwhile, the ANC had become addicted to the idea of armed struggle. The more it failed, the more the ANC pinned its hopes on guerrilla warfare and armed insurrection. The ANC’s armed struggle failed by almost every yardstick.

The post-1963 generation grew comfortable in exile. With no secure base from which to launch attacks on South Africa or to infiltrate operatives, getting MK cadres into the country was a disheartening process. There was no existing political underground in South Africa with which the exiled ANC could easily communicate. One estimate put the number of formal structures inside the country at fifty, the number of members at two hundred – hardly the makings of an adequate network.

As we start a new year – and thinking about Bev’s blog yesterday about the MDC’s need to rethink its strategy – I’ve been reflecting on O’Malley’s comments on the ANC in the 1980s – and what lessons we can learn for our situation today. If we replace the ANC with the MDC, South Africa with Zimbabwe and armed struggle with elections and negotiations, the paragraphs above sound eerily similar to what we are experiencing today.

The more elections and negotiations fail, the more the MDC wants to try them. The MDC’s structures are weak, and constantly under assault from the ruling party. Not exactly a recipe for success.

But discussing things with some colleagues yesterday, we realised – the objective of the MDC isn’t to oust the regime. The objective of the MDC, as a political party, is to win elections, get elected to power democratically, and to govern the country with the majority it has won. So, then, why are we surprised that they focus on elections and negotiations. I may think that’s a naively narrow strategy – since when is that small dicktator gonna share power equally just because we’ve politely requested that he play nice? – but it’s the strategy they’ve chosen. It’s even more naïve of me to expect otherwise from them.

Rather, thinking of Maharaj and O’Malley again, it’s time to take Natasha’s advice. Instead of looking for the MDC to restrategise, let’s look at how civil society can restrategise. The MDC wants to lead Zimbabwe’s democratic transition. But it’s not willing to lead the campaign to make the country ungovernable, so that the regime has no choice but to transition. If South Africa is anything to go by, it’s time for Zimbabwe’s UDF.

I was at Newlands Stanchart this afternoon getting my one green note of the day. It is less than a month after its introduction. But to just leave it there is tantamount to watching the animal called inflation gobble up all your savings without at least trying to salvage the little you can. Next to the ATM, there was a table that has been there since the beginning of the month and on it are photocopied forms that account holders are supposed to fill in and sign. Each time I have only managed to just glance at them. If they contained something to make my relationship with the bank a lot friendlier, I’d probably have already filled one in.

Today next to it stood an ‘official’ from the bank who was asking people in the queue if they had filled and handed in the form. He was practically ordering everyone who hadn’t to take a copy, fill it in and sign it. I was trying to remember what the form contained and I was sure I hadn’t filled it in because I simply felt it was not important. I walked over to the table and picked one up to refresh my memory. Oh yes, the Addendum to the General Account Terms. I was supposed to ‘hereby consent to Standard Chartered Bank disclosing information relating to me, including but not limited to details of my facilities, transactions undertaken and balances and positions with the bank to professional advisors, permitted parties and any court, governmental or quasi-governmental authority’ among others.

What a load of bollocks. Consent to what? What an insult. I mean, these guys do what they like with our accounts anyway. How often have we heard Gono saying he’s let loose his dogs to sniff out suspicious account holders? Doesn’t that entail delving into the account databases? Whose consent have they been seeking then?

Both myself and others dropped the forms and rejoined the queue. The surprised ‘official’ now literally demanded that we fill them in, saying that it was a requirement and there were serious consequences, but he wasn’t telling what. Seeing that wasn’t working, he changed tack to say we lose nothing by filling in the form. He rambled on and on to deaf ears. Well, the bank also loses nothing by taking those forms and shoving them you know where. What’s the worst the bank could do that we haven’t already seen? Close the accounts? They are practically useless anyway. You withdraw a useless $50 000 which by the way was my one trip to work with the new bus fare today. And you cant use the VISA swipe anymore because all the shops now demand straight cash or forex.

I am reminded of what Dr Alex Magaisa implied when he asked why don’t they negotiate in Mufakose? Individuals that are positioned to make critical decisions concerning the lives of the ‘people’ waste a lot of time and resources focusing on the insignificant things that don’t matter to the rest of us. They purport to represent us, pretend to consider our opinion yet unashamedly shove their wishes upon us. It is utterly exhausting. You’d think the least they could do is just shut up because they are beginning to irritate us like hungry mosquitoes.

Although it may be a far-fetched analogy, but the Stanchart form – like the agreement – to me is just a useless piece of paper that somebody wanted to make official but whose provisions they will manipulate and do what they like whether we sign it or not. I’ve chosen to not be insulted all over again. I also sincerely hope, that they who’ve ‘signed’ before are cognizant of the idiom – once bitten twice shy.