I laughed my lungs out reading President Mugabe’s words to encourage women of Zimbabwe to have babies. “We want more children. Give us more children you women. Muri kurambirei navo? Mimba makapirwei? Aiwa musanyime (Why are you refusing to have children when you have the wombs. Do not be stingy).

Many have attacked the President for encouraging this in such an economy. Talk of HIV, poor health care facilities, unemployment … the list is endless. Some have affirmed his words saying increased numbers will mean increased strength for the nation. I was really touched in the sense that the President’s ‘joke’ portrays the African belief that failure to have a child should be blamed on the woman.There are many childless marriages in the country and in some where adoption is not an option for them, the husband remarries another wife to bear children for him. But who said a childless marriage means the woman is barren or is at fault?

It’s not always that one gets to enjoy news details from the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC). Well, I thoroughly enjoyed hearing this on radio  last night: “Professor Authur Mutambara was denied audience with President Zuma…”

When will Mutambara learn to get off? In his crazy bald head he firmly sees himself as Zimbabwe’s future president and those who saw him “awaiting his turn” to meet President Zuma must have wondered whose constituency he was representing. I can imagine that, because President Mugabe has “allowed” him to bumrush the GPA, the garrulous fop must have pleaded with President Mugabe to let him meet Zuma! The ambitious fool forgot that Zuma would, as the courts decided already, meet his in-law, Welshman Ncube, the same man Mutambara would have liked President Zuma not to talk to! Talk about a useless bald head.

Just for kicks, I leave it to ZBC: “Professor Authur Mutambara was denied audince with President Zuma…” Dimwit.

Will the constitution in the making help bring about free and fair elections in Zimbabwe? Will it help restore democracy? Will it provide the political checks and balances that are crucial for real democracy? Many think not. There’s already talk that the next election in Zimbabwe will bring about GNU the Sequel. What is waiting in the wings is yet another elite political deal made between two parties too attached to power and position, than honouring the democratic process.

Here is an article by Dale Dore. Worth a read I think.

What is David Coltart saying?

In his reply to Ben Freeth’s letter, David Coltart said that the land provisions are “racially discriminatory and should never be in any modern democratic constitution.” He also said that even worse than these land provisions was that “far too much power is still vested in the executive.” In other words, the constitution abrogates fundamental human rights and does not contain the necessary checks and balances to constrain Presidential powers. Yet, Coltart argues that we cannot “pick and choose” which elements we like, and urges us to accept the constitution in its entirety or risk subverting the whole process. His argument is baseless on a number of counts.

The first is that human rights and the separation of powers, amongst others, are not minor elements but the core pillars upon which a democratic constitution stands or falls. Remove one of those pillars and the whole edifice of the constitution crumbles. Equally worrying, is that the constitution specifically contradicts the rulings of the SADC Tribunal which were based on international customary law and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. As ZANU(PF) systematically discredited and dismantled the Tribunal, the MDC did nothing but maintain a shameful silence. Now Coltart is asking the people to do that same: turn a blind eye to grievous flaws inserted into the constitution at the behest of those who militate against the Tribunal and international law.

The second argument Coltart uses is that if we do not accept this deeply flawed document we will play into the hands of ZANU(PF) hardliners. But, hold on a minute …  are the people of Zimbabwe being asked to judge the draft constitution on its own merits or to make a political decision? Is Coltart asking us to blindly accept the founding law by which we are to be governed, and to vote along party lines for a document conceived through an elite political pact? Just because Jonathan Moyo is rejecting it for political reasons, do the people of Zimbabwe also have to accept it for political reasons? But there is more. By my reading of the constitution, the MDC has already played into the hands of the hardliners by capitulating on human rights, executive powers, and the question of justice.

The third argument on which Coltart can be challenged is his notion that the draft constitution will lead to more accountability, more democracy, and the loss of power by hardliners. This is an odd claim given that, by Coltart’s own admission, the new constitution makes “the fundamental error of thinking that men can be trusted with power.” Indeed, it is possible that such unconscionable executive powers could remain in the hands on Robert Mugabe or his successor. If so, this is hardly likely to lead to a loss of power by hardliners. But even this misses a central point. The constitution (whether it is the new or old) and the rule of law are irrelevant to hardliners. If Robert Mugabe blatantly disregarded the last constitution, why should he abide by the new one? By what constitutional authority, for example, does the President instruct the police to defy court orders and ignore their constitutional duty to protect the people from atrocities committed by his party supporters? The truth of the matter is that they subverted the old constitution and then inserted the offending clauses in the new draft constitution. Is this what Coltart’s is trying to sell us as “an all out bid to protect people”?

The fourth argument Coltart advances is his now infamous line that “we just do not have any other options.” This is his ‘killer quote’ to convince any doubters that unless we, like the MDC, compromise with a regime that has brought nothing but poverty, humiliation and misery – and which created a Diaspora that has conveniently been denied the vote – matters will only get worse. The MDC won elections and ceded power because ‘they had no other option’; they legitimised the seizure of farms based on race because ‘they had no other option’. When Mugabe refused on budge on any GPA reforms, they joined him by calling for the removal of sanctions because ‘they had no other option’. Although the MDC has given in on almost every major political decision, including principles of natural justice, Coltart denies the charge of appeasement. Instead, he claims there is no non-violent “practical alternative”. Perhaps this is because he mistakes non-violence for pacifism and collusion rather than as a mode of struggle and resistance against tyranny.

But now, we the people do have an option to decide upon whether or not to adopt the draft constitution. We must deliberate and discuss the merits and flaws of the draft constitution rigorously and openly. We must decide whether any president should be trusted with such sweeping constitutional powers. If necessary, we should sink this rickety and leaky ferry and start afresh with a sturdy and seaworthy vessel of state that can confidently withstand the constitutional gales and storms that lie ahead. But, above all, we must not be blackmailed into accepting the unacceptable.

Dale Doré
Harare, 28 July 2012

New from Freedom House.

In Zimbabwe, democracy must be driven from below

With a constitutional referendum and subsequent national elections drawing near, Zimbabwe is poised to enter an exciting and highly uncertain period. However, if left in the hands of the current political elites, the creation of a democratic Zimbabwe remains unlikely at best.

Once an inspiring example for the African continent, Zimbabwe under independence fighter Robert Mugabe and his Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) has become the epitome of a dysfunctional, corrupt, despotic country. Stability during the first years of independence was followed by violent suppression of the Ndebele ethnic minority in the 1980s, increasing authoritarianism and economic decline in the 1990s, and outright dictatorship in the past decade—characterized by political violence, land grabbing, electoral fraud, and the abuse of state resources. The climax of this process came in 2008, when Mugabe’s regime, having lost parliamentary elections and facing the loss of the presidency as well, embarked on a campaign of violence against the opposition and its supporters. The crackdown killed scores of people and led opposition presidential candidate Morgan Tsvangirai to drop out of a runoff vote against Mugabe. Facing intense brutality and regional diplomatic pressure, Tsvangirai’s Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) was forced to accept a power-sharing government of national unity, with Mugabe remaining in place as president.

The MDC, ZANU-PF, and the country’s security apparatus have many more interdependent interests now than in 2008. What binds these three unlikely and reluctant partners together is a shared commitment to preserving their participation in a power-sharing agreement at the expense of any true political and social reforms. And the more uncertain the political situation becomes, the more they will need and rely on one other.

ZANU-PF is in many ways a perfect reflection of its longtime leader: old, rigid, authoritarian, and desperately clinging to the trappings of power as its founding ideology fades into history. It can no longer rely on its traditional bases of support, whether within Zimbabwe or among its liberation-era comrades in the region. The suspicious death last year of former army chief Solomon Mujuru, the husband of Vice President Joice Mujuru and a reputed “kingmaker” in the party, put the spotlight on bitter rivalries within the ZANU-PF leadership. Years of mutual distrust, personal avarice, and criminal interests are ripping the party apart. After the most recent Politburo meeting, ZANU-PF had to publicly threaten its own officials in the hopes of consolidating the party structure for one last run at national glory.

The MDC also seems to have lost its coherence and sense of direction. For all the initial optimism it inspired, the party is afflicted by the weaknesses of a typical junior coalition partner, ceding ground on an endless series of important issues. These have included an increase in the number of ZANU-PF ministers, the replacement of the attorney general and the reserve bank governor, and targeted sanctions against ZANU-PF leaders. The political and economic reforms championed by the MDC, including work on upholding freedoms of expression and association, have stalled. Even when nominal progress is made, it is followed by prolonged delays in implementation and compromise solutions, as with the process for drafting a new constitution, the centerpiece of the MDC political program. The MDC and its leadership are at times openly resentful of their support base, including human rights groups and civil society, wrongly interpreting constructive criticism and insistence on reforms as evidence of insufficient loyalty and support. The MDC is also terrified of the security forces’ potentially brutal response if it were to opt out of the present power configuration, meaning much of the party’s effort is devoted to preserving its participation in the unity government and its relationship with ZANU-PF.

Unlike the two main parties, the security apparatus appears to be organized and focused. Brimming with confidence as a result of ill-gotten diamond wealth, it is ready to kill with impunity, burn down homes, and torture opponents as needed. It is also motivated by fear, however, with the overriding objective of avoiding investigation by the International Criminal Court. The “securocrats” have undeniable influence over ZANU-PF and the MDC alike. Amid the near-collapse of Mugabe’s regime in 2008, the military wrested control of the state structure from ZANU-PF, infiltrated the party in alarming numbers, and assumed key positions of power, all while encouraging predictions of an outright military coup. Indeed, the only thing averting a coup is the fact that average Zimbabweans—including traditional ZANU-PF stalwarts and lower-ranking military and police personnel—truly despise the army and police commanders. Thus the securocrats remain dependent on ZANU-PF’s civilian facade and the MDC’s enduring veneer of credibility.

So what is next for Zimbabwe? The MDC could once again win a nationwide election, though recent rumors suggest that it would endorse another unity government to preserve “stability” and mitigate the risk of potential conflict with the securocrats. ZANU-PF could again attempt to hijack the elections through fraud and violence, but would likely back off if faced with hostility from regional leaders. For their part, the security chiefs could kill and torture scores of opponents and attempt an armed coup, but this would jeopardize their personal, long-term economic interests, making support for another government of national unity an attractive alternative.

Sadly, the current political stalemate and lack of reforms could go on indefinitely. If the dream of a democratic Zimbabwe is ever to come true, the country’s citizens, whether they sympathize with the MDC or ZANU-PF, will have to start pushing their representatives to actually represent them, to be accountable and socially responsive, and to build a legitimate political system founded on free and fair elections and the rule of law.

Vukasin Petrovic, Director of Africa Programs, Freedom House

The lengthy interview of Welshman Ncube published by Sunday Mail does make the case for bit of reality check for some politicians. When asked his honest opinion about what he sees as prospects for his party in the coming election, if he considers his formation a government-in-waiting so to speak, Ncube threw modesty to the wind and declared he believes he will win.

Look, nothing against any ambitious politician or human being for that matter, but it did highlight many things wrong with all efforts to usher in a truly government of the people without yet another flawed poll that has only spawned collation governments across the mother continent. Afro-pessimists say some irrelevant politicians throw their hats to the ring being only too aware of the possible benefits of being incorporated into the government on some technicality or frivolous claim to represent one region, ethnicity or another.

Welshman’s bitterness is all too palpable in all interviews one reads, and he still considers himself relevant to national politics, perhaps that is one of the reasons why accusations of him being a tribalist always creep into these sit-downs his has with scribes because by asking why he still imagines his relevance it is thought or seen to be ineluctably tied to his belief that there just has to be a chap from Matebeleland in the political scheme of things. But that’s for federalists, regionalists, devolutions to prove at the polls. These things are for some reason always understood that way because Ncube still apparently has to prove his claim of any representation of the people from that region seeing that he himself is not an elected MP or Senator.

He has been asked if he will consider any united front for political parties to come together and battle Mugabe from one corner, and it is only folks who have not followed Welshman’s politics who ask that question in the first place. He still does not have convincing answers as to why he let Mutambara make what was essentially a unilateral decision to back Simba Makoni in the past polls or indeed why Mutambara took the helm at the “smaller faction of the MDC”. By now he knows the old adage that there are no permanent friends in politics, not even permanent interests as Jonathan Moyo has shown. But one thing emerges from all these claims of relevance to national elections not only for Welshman Ncube but also those populist politicians who seem to want to ride on the back of the history of Matebeleland and whip up people’s tribal emotions even, that the people by now know better that the time for splitting votes is long gone, what the country needs, and which Zanu PF is painfully aware of, is a group of people who have relevance to the future of Zimbabwe. And these are politicians who bring to the electorate not stories of perpetual justification why they are engaged in gladiatorial politics and deserve the people’s vote but those whom the Zimbabwean people have no second thoughts investing their time under the scorching African sun to cast their vote as informed by the proverbial bread and butter issues.

For now, in numerous conversations in the streets of Bulawayo, without any pretense to scientific methodologies, questions have emerged if it is at all true that regional representation is an issue for that woman whose kids know not bread with butter, that Ndebele-speaking Nuts university graduate walking the streets as a loafer, that guy right there who for the umpteenth time has been given pairs of shoes by his employer in lieu of his pay cheque. Those are the bread and butter issues.

A comment from the streets on the lifting of sanctions:

The EU has decided to lift targeted sanctions imposed on Mugabe and his cronies? No doubt to become major players in the economic life of Zimbabwe, no doubt to vie with the Chinese in resource plunder. Right time 4 them but betrayal for Zimbabwe. Oil the Zanu-PF machine and what future 4 democracy with a rejuvenated gerontocracy. With friends like these… truly sad. – Samir