Happy New Year!

What is your resolution about how you’ll get involved in making change happen in 2011?

Comment back, or email info[at] kubatana [dot] net

Even when the GNU was inked in 2008, progressive, cerebral and visceral analysts – and even pseudo-intellectuals – greeted the marriage of inconvenience with the same cynicism that Zanu PF game planners are considering the outcome of what many see as this rushed election.

Reasonable men and women wondered how Zanu PF- a nationalist and rightwing party – could capitulate to any demands placed on the table by the MDC, and this based on previous pronouncements that they did not see any reason why in their opinion people with no liberation war credentials could be allowed to rule the country. And now we have Khaya Moyo and Chihuri speaking the language of Chinotimba we pretend to be surprised, only because another election is looming despite popular opinion that this will be the death of us as the conditions for a credible elections are palpably absent.

In this newest discourse on the future of the country, the issue then becomes what has to be done to have a consensus that the country can go head and have elections, not to mention the referendum. Based on what we already know about the Zanu PF collective and the congenital and abysmal attitude to democracy and the people’s right too choose a government of their own, it would be safe to say that what has been missing in this crisis is outside leverage to make Mugabe bend.  Yet we also already know Mugabe’s attitude toward outsiders “interfering”  in the internal affairs of “his” country.

What choices then do Zimbabweans have on the face of these apparently intractable contradictions as defined for the whole nation by Mugabe and Zanu PF? You get Jonathan Moyo saying the MDC will never win an election, and you have to ask what informs such careless statements: who is voting, the people of Zimbabwe or Zanu PF? Obviously Zanu PF will never vote for the MDC, and in an election where only Zanu PF elements vote, you can guarantee an MDT thrashing – much like the June presidential run-off farce – but for God’s sake it does not work that way and you somewhat understand why Zanu PF would insist on having these elections, because they figure there wont be any MDC supporters to vote thanks to the patriotic efforts of Jabulani Sibanda and Chinotimba!

But then it has to be asked for how long Mugabe and Zanu PF are going to ride roughshod over the wishes not only of Zimbabweans but standards set by the international community which has – albeit feebly – tried to steer this country to placid waters? Imagine the progeny of Zanu PF hawks embracing the same militancy half a century after Zimbabwe’s independence and telling us that no one without liberation war credentials is fit to rule! You then understand the belligerency Africa has seen in its many troubled spots where obdurate nationalists and despots are responded to by matching militancy from frustrated opponents who decided the ballot was just but a fart in the wind as far as the nationalist despots were concerned.

Another thing that has brought the rather unnecessary stretching of this crisis, some contend, is the mediation by SADC and how useless the whole exercise has been since the Mbeki years. International relations and diplomacy efforts only work when local parties involved in negotiations see themselves as equals, after all this is what has brought to an end some of the continent’s most atrocious human crises. Zimbabwe however offers an example that negotiations can drag for centuries as long as one party to the negotiations obsesses about entitlement to political power despite the good intentions of mediators to make repair the limping country.

Meanwhile, with this insistence on elections by Zanu PF, we do not have to brace ourselves that the victory Zanu PF is already claiming will be disputed: we already know that the mediators will persuade the MDC to accept a Zanu PF victory while those who voted for change and the international community who question the outcome will be told once again to go to hell. And where does that leave the ordinary man, woman and child? Well, just blame the MDC for not being tough enough on Mugabe and Zanu PF, yet you still have to empathise with those so-called MDC hardliners who were – and still are – against this marriage that has inconvenienced us all when we could be using our brains to understand better things other than how Zanu PF the party Simon Khaya Moyo so much extols lost the bush war plot, how this neo-patrimonialism crap came to make supposedly good man bad.

I saw and wept the other day at the response to Gabon’s run-off election where results were torn in front of television cameras by an official from the party that was sensing sure defeat, and you understand Zanu PF’s thesis that they will never accept an electoral outcome that does not favour them as a culture from the Dark Ages where the rule and the will of the people has no place in their definition of self-rule and self-determination. The question obviously becomes, why hold elections if you are not going to accept the results? Chinotimba answered that already in a Newsday interview:

That’s how we do things in Zanu PF!

The Harare Residents Trust recently issued this letter to councillors in Zimbabwe’s capital city:

Dear Councillor

I hope this letter finds you well. Firstly the Harare Residents Trust (HRT) is greatly disappointed due to the fact that we just discovered by coincidence about your meeting today. As HRT, we anticipate that as our elected leader you side with the struggling resident of Harare. The residents of Harare are facing serious problems at community level with particular reference to service delivery. Communities continue to bear the brunt of a collapsed road network, street lighting, refuse collection, polluted water, burst sewerage pipes, overgrown grass in public spaces, dilapidated social infrastructure, and unsustainable bills.

Not to mention ineffective representation of residents in local government issues. Below are the suggested figures from communities:

• Refuse – $ 1, Rentals – $5, Water -$2, Sewerage reticulation – $2, Cemetery charges – $10

• Maternity fees- Zero, Supplementary charges – $1, Clinic charges – $1 for consultation

• Parking in CBD – $1 per day, Hall booking – $25

• Library fees -$1 per month, Flea market – to reduce by 50% current rates

• Council schools – to reduce by 40%

• Salaries and administration – the residents want the city to reduce by 20 percent its workforce in the 2011 City budget

The HRT through its community advocacy work is communicating the wish and aspirations of communities. The HRT challenges you to think seriously on these issues or suggestions raised by the communities. This will enable Harare residents to participate in the issues that affect them on a daily basis. This is critical as poor and unaffordable services being offered currently to areas are impacting negatively on the welfare of the vulnerable and disadvantaged members of Harare communities which include women, children, the unemployed youths, the elderly and the disabled to mention a few.

The HRT strongly believes in the principles of social justice, participation, transparency and accountability and these fundamental issues should be prioritized and attended to through your esteemed office. We believe in a “bottom up approach” to local governance rather than a “top down approach”.

It’s “TIME OUT” for ineffective representation at local government level, poor community service delivery and a lack of action on your part as our councilor. It’s also time for you to realize and appreciate that “leadership is more of a responsibility rather than a privilege”.

At a media roundtable discussion on “Constitution in Transition: The Role of the Media“, which was facilitated by Professor Andrew Arato, various issues where discussed with regards to the current constitution making process in Zimbabwe. Various media groups attended the discussion including Kubatana.

Public participation in the on going constitution process is the only way we can have a people driven constitution. People need to understand that a constitution is a document that will be used by future generations. Currently Zimbabwe is using the Lancaster House constitution which has been amended 19 times, so in order to come up with a better constitution than the Lancaster one every Zimbabwean should be given an opportunity to have his/her views heard. On the issue of the role of media in Zimbabwe, I liked Professor Arato’s comments when he said “media as a monitoring tool can help to change behaviour of politicians in the constitution making process”. Media and civil society can play a role in the constitution making process by sensitising the public. I believe a lot needs to be done by media in publishing contributions from different sectors of our society rather than to hear a one sided story, especially from a political party trying to campaign.

Recently in Kenya they had their constitution making process and finally came up with a new constitution.  Social media played a major role. I believe new media can play a significant role in Zimbabwe especially in this era where people can now have access to Internet even on phones. We should not underestimate the power of new media.  Since the 2008 political violence many people in Zimbabwe developed this anti politics stance and a lot still believe that even the current constitution making process is only for politicians. The only way to change this kind of attitude is to raise awareness of the importance of the constitution making process so that there is full participation from every Zimbabwean. Since the consultation process is done we are now entering the collation of the information so that final draft can be produced.  People need to have access to the Lancaster house constitution, the 2000 draft (the one which was rejected), the Kariba draft and the final draft, which will be published soon so that they understand the difference and make decisions that best suit them. The role of media in this process is to ensure information reaches the people so that when we go for referendum no one can say I didn’t know what I was voting for.

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!

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