I am currently developing a Ward 7 (Harare City Council – Strathaven, Avondale, Alex Park, Gun Hill) directory, so people who live here can also buy and play here. It’s about building community, getting to know your neighbours. I walk from shop to church to police station to school to sports club to next shop, and get the contact details for public consumption.

I am amazed at how many places, mainly shops, but even a hospital; do not want to give out information.

“What do you want to know for?”
“Why should we tell you?”
“We can’t give that information out”
“What will you do with it?”

Is this the legacy of thirty years of democracy? That Zimbabweans are so mistrustful that they will not tell the public what the phone number of their shop is? Do they believe ‘Big Brother’ is watching them with CCTVs, Internet devices, etc? Is there some conspiracy I am unknowingly a part of by gathering their (not even private) information?

Or do Zimbabweans simply mistrust their government (unity or otherwise), and have such fear of the ‘authorities’. Most public establishments have a posted on the sign board outside on the street – which is why I have gone in to talk to them – but they are afraid to let anyone take any details. Has the government grown so far away from the people … a favourite phrase from so many liberation speeches of the 50s and 60s, (from Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address)? We want a “government, of the people, by the people, and for the people”. And what have we got? A government of elites, by elites, for elites; we have ‘Representatives’ that do not drive or walk the same streets, do not buy in the same shops, do not have children in the same schools, do not see the same doctors, as us.

Or do I look like a Nigerian spammer? Is it just me they don’t trust? Why is there such fear, belligerence, refusal, denial, and hostility, towards giving the community information that will make them find you, come into your shop, and buy something?

Not anticipated by many, it looks like Zimbabwe’s new constitution has ushered in an era full of uncertainty and insanity. Call them radical thinkers or progressive minds or just disruptive minds; all these minds are contributing to the political circus of Zimbabwe. Just like in any circus, if a show starts to lose the audience, the producers quickly change the script – something that I think producers of Zimbabwe’s political circus should do.

The debate hosted by Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition yesterday on the recent Constitutional judgement exposed political weaknesses all round. It also exposed the habit of just issuing out press statements without action, which has been long been adopted by civic organisations.

The circus really began when the courts ruled in favour of the private citizen who had filed the lawsuit and ordered that elections be held by 29th July.

The panic and lack of strategy exhibited by the opposition parties in response to this ruling made me realize I was not the only one who one lacks knowledge of the constitution. The same constitution we endorsed without knowing its contents is now coming back to haunt us.

Caught napping again, Zimbabwe’s opposition parties began to scurry for cover, taking defensive positions. Among the noted defensive lines is the issue of “reforms”. On this one I would side with the progressive minds at Bumbiro house. These guys have been calling for these reforms for ages but nobody listened only to be labeled disruptive minds by those who now eat at the high table in Parliament. For how long will the nation wait for reforms and the continued mediation of President Zuma? I don’t think even Mr Zuma will have the power to reverse the decision taken by the courts but will just tell the GPA principals to hold free and fair elections.

The nation has been in election mode for some time and the continued backtracking by the opposition has been giving arsenal to ZANU-PF’s campaign strategy. The reality is that the so-called free and fair conditions being called for by Civil Society and opposition parties will not happen in the short timeframe given by the court.

So where is the plan “B” if there is one?

Here is Simukai Tinhu, a political analyst based in London, writing on the Guardian:

Zimbabwean president Robert Mugabe has announced that he will hold elections before the end of July – ostensibly respecting by a recent court ruling but in effect over-riding calls for political reforms before the vote takes place.

In the coalition government, Mugabe’s Zanu-PF has stalled reforms over the last four years by diverting attention towards the removal of western sanctions. It is now inconceivable that the changes necessary for a free and fair vote will be instituted in the next few weeks, and Morgan Tsvangirai’s Movement for Democratic Change (MDC-T) will have to find another way to defeat Zanu-PF.

Here’s some suggestions:

1. Embrace populism

Buoyed by the ‘Africa rising’ narrative, nationalism is on the rise across the continent, and Zimbabwe is no exception. In recent elections in Zambia and Kenya, the victors – Michael Sata and Uhuru Kenyatta – ran sustained anti–western campaigns that drew the support of the young and educated.

If the opposition wants to succeed, they might as well embrace nationalism and adopt a position where they argue that they are the best guarantor of the independence legacy that has been betrayed by Zanu-PF. In other words, this time around Tsvangirai might need to wage a more populist, more aggressive campaign that might even be reminiscent of Mugabe’s tone (though moderated).

Tsvangirai should also attempt to convince some of Mugabe’s softer supporters that he can secure the gains of the current regime, such as land reform. This will put Zanu-PF in a defensive mode, and deprive them of ammunition to attack Tsvangirai as a neo–imperialist agent. The trouble with adopting such a strategy is that it needs time, and there is precious little of that if elections are indeed to be held by the 31 July.

2. Undermine Zanu-PF

Another pillar of the opposition efforts should be undermining Zanu-PF party unity. Currently, the aging president skilfully manages a brittle internal balance of power between various factions. But maintaining such a balance is extremely difficult and a great deal of it is done via patronage politics. Undermining elite cohesion by bringing key individuals into the fold of the opposition is likely to achieve two objectives. This tactic not only brings with it patronage networks, but also the former stalwart’s votes, and experience. Second, and at a psychological level, drawing party stalwarts counters the narrative that Zanu-PF’s unity is invincible.

3. Form a coalition of the opposition

One realistic campaign strategy remains: a coalition of opposition forces. The main opposition party (MDC-T) continues to be adamant that it will win on its own. Tsvangirai’s party seems oblivious to a mountain of complex of problems it faces; a dwindling support base, unequal level playing field, circumscribed regional and international support, a surge in Zanu-PF popularity and also a crowded opposition space with reportedly 28 eight candidates vying for the presidency. MDC-T needs to be realistic and understand that joining a coalition is crucial.

It is crucial that the MDC-T doesn’t try to go it along. The opposition has failed in the previous elections despite odds being slightly better than today. In fact, no single political party has successfully challenged Zanu-PF’s stranglehold on Zimbabwean politics since independence.

A coalition would not only change the fundamentals of Zimbabwean opposition, but also the very terms in which the Zimbabweans think about and define national politics. So the best way of topping Mugabe is for the opposition to combine its efforts, resources and votes.

4. Choose your partners carefully

The MDC-T, despite its faults in coalition government, remains the anchor of the opposition and should therefore take a lead in any negotiations. Building a strong coalition should be limited to the MDC-N (led by Welshman Ncube) to back Tsvangirai as the presidential candidate. Ncube is a polarising figure and is perceived as being vocal on behalf of the voters from Matabeleland and the Midlands regions. But it is precisely because of this quality that he is in a unique position to mobilise votes from these two regions.

Drawing Simba Makoni (Mavambo/Kusile/Dawn) and Dumiso Dabengwa (Zapu-PF) into an alliance might be problematic. Politically both men were creations of Zanu-PF and still benefit materially from ancient Zanu-PF patronage networks. It is not unreasonable that some see Dabengwa and Makoni’s political parties as proxies created by Zanu-PF to disrupt the strength of the opposition.

The differences between the MDC-T and MDC-N leaders are fundamental. Ncube accuses Tsvangirai of being weak on democratic and leadership credentials, while the Tsvangirai accuses Ncube of being provincial. Each sees himself as best suited to be president.

5. Be generous

To create an environment for constructive dialogue, relations between Tsvangirai and Ncube need to be reset. Tsvangirai must desist from making statements that risk pushing Ncube’s party further away. It is important to remember that Ncube is one of the architects and ideologues of the original MDC. Instead of ridiculing him, Tsvangirai should acknowledge his contribution and treat him as a friend who must be embraced. He also needs to acknowledge Ncube’s growing influence and support in the Matabeleland and Midland regions.

In extending an olive branch, MDC-T must attempt to address some of Ncube’s legitimate grievances. Ncube remains convinced that Tsvangirai and his inner circle worked to block his ascent to the top of the party. Ncube also alleges that MDC-T has deliberately undermined his party by labelling it as “tribal” or provincial.

Whilst the above are manageable problems, more difficult is the discussion of who is going to be offered what as part of the strategic partnership. The main MDC must be seen to be generous in what it offers. Ncube’s party will seek assurances on key positions in return for backing the coalition, as they cannot be expected to relinquish their independence without getting tangible offers in return. Equally, the MDC-N leader will need to display humility and self discipline.

Despite their differences, a coalition of the opposition is a possible and viable strategy. The two parties have a convergent interest of getting rid of Mugabe. We also have to remind ourselves that in the 2008 presidential elections Ncube urged his supporters to vote for Simba Makoni. Such an unprecedented overture shows his pragmatic side and that he is open to negotiations.

6. Don’t falter. Not forming a coalition is not an option

Failure to form a united opposition is a prescription for defeat. The MDC-T is trailing Zanu-PF in polls, and no one who is seriously concerned with political and electoral strategies can afford to ignore these, no matter how flawed or old they are. Not only do the polls show that Zanu-PF support has surged, but most importantly the party may use these numbers to justify a rigged electoral “win”. Poor shows at rallies, an unequal level playing field and circumscribed regional and international support also counts against the MDC-T.

Politics needs ideals and policies, but most crucially a sense of direction. Zanu-PF is corrupt, ruthless and violent, but nobody can accuse Mugabe’s party of being directionless. They alone seem to know how to get what they want in the next elections and they may well be rewarded for that. Their adversaries should be wise enough to draw together and substitute competition for political union. A coalition coupled with an effective campaign strategy offers the best chance.

Groupon Inc former CEO was fired on 1 March 2013 and he said, “After four and a half intense and wonderful years as CEO of Groupon, I’ve decided that I’d like to spend more time with my family. Just kidding – I was fired today. If you’re wondering why… you haven’t been paying attention, from controversial metrics in our S1 to our material weakness to two quarters of missing our own expectations and a stock price that’s hovering around one quarter of our listing price, the events of the last year and a half speak for themselves. As CEO, I am accountable.” This is what he wrote in a memo to the people of Groupon. What attracted me here is that he wrote in the most candid way that most of us struggle to do.

On 11 October 2010 Newsday published a story entitled ‘perpetrators apologise for political violence. In Matebeleland South, Zanu Pf member Makheyi Ncube lifted up his hands in front of the whole community and confessed his involvement in the 2008 election violence and the people were appeased by the humility he showed. Here is a man who did not choose the finger pointing solution but rather went head on with the problem in question. 2008 stands out as a very bad year in the history of Zimbabwe and I am surprised that there is no political party which has stood up to accept not even a single wrong.

Zimbabwe lost more than 300 hundred lives to political violence. Sometimes I get so angry to the extent that I feel that I have to be alone at a secluded place because some of the stories we had prior to the June 27 elections were so painful. Zimbabwean politics has in the past three decades lacked men of valour who not only think of today but uphold a quality of forecast and goal. If an honourable man apologises, he will only look stupid today but he knows the value of time and process of healing. In five years time when he starts preaching peace and campaigning again for re-election, it is easy for the people to see the sincerity in his talk because he is a man who sets a precedent of standing for the truth rather than justifying evil behaviour.

I am not a politician by profession myself but the bible that I read in John 8 vs 32 says to both me and the politicians that, ‘And you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free’. If a politician knows the overwhelming evidence that his supporter killed someone (truth), what more soothing (free) would he need in his campaign camp than this?

I think a man who does not accept his own failures is just but an ignorant liar and should never be taken seriously because if he falters, the next thing is that he wants to craft a patch to make it an excuse to cover his own junk. Only noble and patient men do the honourable thing to accept their flaws. In Shona people say, ‘munhu anomira patsvina dzake’ (a man stands with his own dirt). The moment you try to justify your wrong doings, you will force other innocent people to step in and deal with your dirt.

A question was asked during an election reporting workshop concerning how journalists and civic organisations can report or walk the fine line between bringing knowledge to the people and not attract the wrath of the authorities who have criminalised voter education.

It highlighted the problem many have with the conditions that prevail as the country prepares for elections whereby while political parties are encouraging supporters to vote on one hand, and on the other institutions expected to play a role in ensuring that the same voters make informed decisions being fettered by the threat of imprisonment.

Anyone seeking to make inroads into remote rural areas for example to “educate” voters does that at their own peril, and it has to be queried how then a people known to have no access to radio, TV and newspapers are supposed to participate in processes they have no clue about.

It could well be a replay of the referendum where voters merely followed instructions from their political parties and vote for issues they have no clue about.

And because this is a high stakes poll, we can expect all voters to be denied by the usual suspects all the information they need to make informed decisions.

This buttresses the charge that rural folks are “instructed” or “persuaded” with brute force who to vote for, and we have already read about Jabulani Sibanda “frightening” villagers in Lupane, which is just the beginning of worse things to come.

Common sense would tell you that the period in the run-up to elections provides insight into the credibility of any poll, and Sibanda’s reported actions in rural Matebeleland only serve to cast more doubt into the country’s – or Zanu PF’s seeing that he is a Zanu PF functionary – commitment to creating conditions “ideal for a free and fair election.”

And because these rural constituencies have rather unflatteringly been labeled as “unsophisticated” they are seen as very malleable in the hands of political hoodlums, and it is here where an informed voter can take charge of their political circumstances and indeed political future.

Thus we hear exhortations from some quarters that the rural folks must remain docile and allow themselves to be herded to rallies but make their choices known inside the voting booth!

A famous Tony Namate cartoon back in the 1990s actually has a peasant woman mischievously winking as she puts her “X” on a candidate contesting against Zanu PF, and while such commentary did indeed help magnify the extent of what has become a post-independence millstone around our necks, Zanu PF has still been able to claim the vote, raising questions whether if at all rural folk “vote freely.”

But it’s a debate that will take forever as some have already opined that Zanu PF has never allowed defeat to stand in the way to claim victory!

It thus has become a well-worn cliché that access to information is the bedrock of all electoral processes and democracy, yet we find ourselves doing the same things over, and over but still expecting to get different results.

It is essentially because of this that some of the most vocal people you meet in the street criticizing the status quo go to the pub instead when other citizens join long queues under the blazing African sun to cast their vote!

Another issue to look out for again this year would be the spread of newspapers, which areas they reach as they seek to report about the pre-election climate.

Yet one thing that has precedence is the “outlawing” of certain titles from certain areas where reading a particular paper has in the not-so-distant past been a punishable offence with vigilantes using cudgels on fellow villagers for merely reading a newspaper of their choice.

To an outsider it sounds crazy, but this is what we can expect in the coming months, that is if it is not happening already.

An important book that takes a critical look at the state of democracy in Zimbabwe was published early this year and is an invaluable tool in assessing our political landscape as the country eyes elections later this year. Compromise or Compromised? An Assessment of Democracy in Transitional Zimbabwe published by the now defunct Institute for Democracy in Africa (Idasa) “is intended to set the benchmark for democracy to be measured against in the future” and “the hope is that citizens…can use the Democracy Index to assess and debate the state of their democracy” (p.1).

Kudakwashe Chitsike, who co-edits the book with Amy Eaglestone, writes that the “purpose of this book is to analyse the state of democracy in Zimbabwe since the signing of the Global Political Agreement” (p.2). It uses Idasa’s Democracy Index and scores each question addressed by contributors between 1-10:

1-4 / inadequate or falling short of the democratic ideal
5 / stable but insufficient
6 / stable and inadequate
7 / improving
8-10 / excellent and also close to the democratic ideal

It can only be hoped that as we approach elections, attitudes by political elites toward the electoral processes do change as scores in the Elections and Democracy Index did not inspire any confidence in these processes. For example the question “do all citizens believe that their vote is secret” scored 2 out of a possible 10! Then, “to what extent do citizens believe that the electoral system reflects the will of the people” also scored 2 out of a possible 10!

Chitsike explains that “this Index is different from previous democracy indices … as it looks at democracy in the perspective of gender… In Zimbabwe, participation in democratic processes for women is an uphill battle as the domination of women practiced at family level is carried into the public arena.” (p5).

This therefore is a welcome book especially now when the new Constitution seeks to mainstream gender and bring more female visibility to the country’s body politic. It is also a welcome addition to the body of knowledge of the country’s false steps to inclusive politics and democratic processes as it will be used a reference point for checks and balances in keeping vigilance on any false promises the political elites make to the citizens.

The book is divided into five sections, namely Participation and Democracy which scores a low 3.4 average, Elections and Democracy (2.9), Accountability and Democracy (2.2), Political Freedom and Democracy (2.9) and Human Dignity and Democracy (3).

The two editors and six contributors are drawn from diverse backgrounds that include human rights, law, development and their rich field experience offers refreshing insights into contemporary Zimbabwe’s political landscape. It will be a useful tool for anyone who seeks to steer the country from the opprobrium it has attracted in the past 15 or so years and make informed decisions that indeed seek to create a better Zimbabwe. It’s not too late.