Some “respected” news agencies still refer to Zanu PF as Zimbabwe’s ruling party. Another did call Mugabe the “Zimbabwean tyrant”! Talk about accuracy issues in the media!!!

It is Tuesday evening, Valentine’s Day and for some reason I find myself watching Oscar Pambuka’s Melting Pot. In the studio he has a two chaps discussing youth empowerment. One is – perhaps predictably –  from Upfumi Kuvadiki, that notorious anti-investment outfit that shares the same degenerate  ideologies as Mbare’s Chipangano vigilantes.

It reminds one of how so many things are wrong in this country where political instruction from the elders has moved from the very tenets that saw young men once upon time in 1912 form Africa’s oldest political movement, or what stirred Ndabaningi and his contemporaries as valiant young men to take up the fight for a greater good, yet you have to ask yourself what these Upfumis have in common with the Robert Mugabe of 1963. What place do they have in Zimbabwe’s political history other than tales of grief, tales of how they broke down the walls which other compatriots tried to build? Has it not been recorded that the coming into government of the firm hand of Tendai Biti “coincided” with the economic stability that eluded the Zanu PF elites for more than two decades? This is no way is to extol the abilities of any mortal, but the facts stare right back us.

The language of the Upfumis is about empowering the youth, giving them USD5,000 to start their own business, economic emancipation, and a new form of capitalism. If only this were true. At least Oscar Pambuka to his credit did ask about the abuse of the funds where the young patriots are reportedly using the funds to buy crappy chattels. But still rather predictably, an Upfumi Kuvadiki rep was quick to dispute this claim, going on and on about lies being told about young beneficiaries of this largess. I have said this before that Zanu PF has made extinct the spirit of hard work: youths now know only too well that hard work is an alien virtue; after all, they are from that amoral stock where killing people who do not agree with your political beliefs are indeed a virtue! Young people are being taught that all you have to do is line up on the Zanu PF ticket and claim the resources of the land as your own simply based on the name of Robert Mugabe and Zanu PF.

A rather daft university student said to me the other day he had been elected into the Zanu PF youth chairmanship of some sort, and I asked him if he believed all that nonsense that came with allegiance to the party of blood. All he had to say for himself was: “My friend, you never know. What we want is to eat.” I shut my ears as he continued talking. And you just have to see the people who speak on behalf of the youth: fat cheeks and arrogant mouths when we all know the penury the majority of young people here live with as they continue the dangerous trek to South Africa despite reports that their fellow countrymen are being shoved into the Black Maria and deported as personas non grata. That is not to mention hundreds of thousands who seek honest lives by enrolling for higher education only to be kicked out of classes because they cannot afford the extortionate fees. Small wonder then that for the soul-less types, taking over white-owned mines and other business concerns is too good an El Dorado to resist. You still have to ask yourself how this youth empowerment drive seeks to address these issues as obviously not all youths are anarchists who want to reap where they did not sow. These clowns are just obsessed with being wealthy but apparently have no clue how to get there without taking over what someone else built ages ago.  They obviously do not have the knowledge gleaned from Aesop’s fables and the wisdom of their own father about imaginary riches. A bunch of morons by any other name. But I know they read this and say: “screw you; we are claiming what rightfully belongs to us!”

Why now you bozos?

The Zimbabwean opposition, that tired bunch, would first need to reinvent itself before it could lead an uprising.
And then there is Zimbabweans’ complicated relationship with Mugabe and Zanu-PF. Many suffer from a political version of Stockholm syndrome. Zanu-PF not only liberated Zimbabwe from colonial rule, before everything started unraveling, it also delivered some measure of prosperity. The Mugabe brand is a mix of irreparably damaged and historically glorious, and that confusing combination serves as a psychological block against revolt.

Read more from the New York Times blog

Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR) recently launched their publication titled “Zimbabwe’s Constitutional Drafts – Comparison and Recommendations”. In the foreword ZHLR notes that constitution-making is not a new phenomenon in Zimbabwean history, and that since independence Zimbabwe has had one constitution and three major draft constitutions. During the launch, ZLHR Director, Irene Petras said her organisation hoped that those involved in the COPAC process would use the publication as well as the SADC Protocols as guidelines for the constitutional draft.

The publication reviews key provisions of the three major constitutional drafts and seeks to set out critical issues which should be addressed in any constitution under various thematic areas.

Guest of honour, Human Rights defender Beatrice Mtetwa, also noted that Constitution making has become a habit in Zimbabwe. She deplored the conditions in which the current process was taking place, and said that if a constitution did result it would only serve as a transitional document.

The COPAC process has been marred by reports of violence, intimidation and coaching. These charges are largely levelled at ZANU PF and some factions of war veterans. Despite the appearance of heavily influencing the views included, ZANU PF has increasingly distanced itself from the current process.

A Central Committee report tabled by President Robert Mugabe at the party’s conference in Bulawayo last year, resolved that “ZANU PF reserve[d] the right to dissociate itself from a draft constitution which seeks to undermine the cardinal goals of our national liberation struggle and our national culture and values.” It is likely that this decision was informed by a critique prepared for ZANU PF COPAC Co-Chairperson Munyaradzi Paul Mangwana by Goodwills Masimiremwa and Jacob Mudenda, both of whom are technical experts seconded by ZANU PF to oversee the Constitutional process. The critique was allegedly leaked to an online news publisher. Subsequently the first four chapters of the draft Constitution were leaked and published in the Herald.

The critique alleges that the Constitutional drafters are misdirected, and are drafting a constitution informed by their individual values, characterised by reference to constitutions of other countries they admired. Further, Masimiremwa and Mudenda state that the drafters have not been given the National Report to use as a reference, thus the draft does not accurately reflect the views canvassed during the outreach programme. The issues of contention include the rights given to LGBTI persons, abolishment of the death penalty, expanding citizenship by birth to include citizenship by descent and allowing dual citizenship.

In Zimbabwe, it is clear that the opposition party MDC (MDC has lost the mojo and has been weakened by in-fighting) is not the party that will bring down Mugabe (as it was hoped), but expect a potential split within the ruling ZANU-PF party. As Mugabe’s health continues to deteriorate, we expect infighting as members vie for control and Mugabe’s position.

Read Ndumba Kamwanyah’s assertion that “Southern Africa’s ‘democracies’ do not produce citizens but subjects controlled by governments due to the hierarchical nature of the region’s politics, which demands obedience.”

Reading a report by the Research and advocacy unit this morning I came across an interesting fact, the most commonly reported perpetrators of political violence are non state actors. It’s not the first time I’ve read or seen this. A mini-documentary about political violence during the 2008 harmonised elections last year featured eminent political scientists stating the same fact.

Considering the long and emotional debates I’ve had with the war vet I am vexed that it’s taken such a long time to hit home. If the most commonly reported perpetrators are non state actors, why do we equate political violence to state sponsored violence? Clearly these are not the same thing. Knowing this, it is not then possible to consider that the State itself has assumed this indictment and so refuses to prosecute rather than risk the appearance of tacit acknowledgement. The fact of who is perpetrating the violence has been conflated with the state’s complicity by not acting to prevent and deter it. In the public and international mind it is the state, or rather the Mugabe regime half of the state, that perpetrates violence, leaving the actual perpetrators, who exploit political tensions to mask their activities, blameless. How do we deal with violence if at the outset we place the entire burden of responsibility on the wrong party?