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!

A recent statement from Reporters Without Borders:

Bill would restrict public access to official information

Reporters Without Borders calls for the withdrawal of bill which is about to be submitted to parliament and which would allow the authorities to block public access to official documents including judicial decisions, new legislation and public records.

Announced on 22 October and called the “General Law Amendment Bill,” the proposed law’s sole aim seems to be to place additional obstacles in the way of access to information and thereby hamper the work of the media even more.

“Drafted by members of the coalition government’s Zanu-PF wing, led by President Robert Mugabe, this bill would just aggravate the already precarious situation for Zimbabwe’s media,” Reporters Without Borders secretary-general Jean-François Julliard said. “It is a political manoeuvre designed to prevent any critical examination of the government’s actions.”

Julliard added: “The bill is extremely dangerous as it would allow the authorities to adopt unjust measures without anyone knowing and without anyone being able to protest. It shows that the government is rejecting transparency in favour of secrecy and abuse of authority.”

Under the proposed law, the publication of any government document would require prior permission from the authorities. A human rights group or a journalist, for example, would need the justice minister’s permission to publish a judicial decision affecting the public’s rights. This would restrict the ability of ordinary citizens to monitor what the authorities do and, as such, it is contrary to the principles of good governance.

The bill’s announcement has coincided with a number of developments in recent weeks that have raised concerns about a renewed crackdown on the media. The government announced at the start of this month that no licences would be issued to new radio or TV stations. Two journalists, Nkosana Dhalmini and Andrison Manyere, were arrested while covering a public debate at the end of last month and were held for two days.

And an arrest warrant was issued last week for The Zimbabwean editor Wilf Mbanga in connection with an article critical of President Mugabe that was published after the 2008 elections. Mbanga has lived in London for the past six years.

Zimbabwe already has two laws that throttle free expression. One is the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA), adopted in 2002. The other is the Interception of Communications Act, adopted in August 2007. The coalition government made significant efforts to limit their negative effects earlier this year, for example, by issuing licences to several privately-owned dailies. This bill constitutes a major step backwards.

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

Christmas decorations are up in most supermarkets indicating that the festive season is just around the corner and that mindless spending on food, drink and gifts can begin.

Had I the financial means I would add onto my Christmas shopping list Hugh Masekela’s song ‘Send Me’ and mail a copy of the track to every politician in office. This idea was inspired after reading Tawanda Chisango’s glowing review about the track’s rich Afro Jazz sound and moreover, its positive message. Describing the song as “spiritually uplifting” my immediate thought was that it would surely have some impact in reviving our seemingly lifeless statesmen to some noticeable action.

Primarily, I am hoping that the mere title of the song ‘Send Me’ will remind politicians that they have mandates to fulfil, as given by their constituents. All too often, it happens that public servants develop amnesia once elected into office and they forget that national, and not personal, development is paramount. In bestowing ‘Send Me’ as a gift perhaps our elected office bearers would remember that they were indeed sent, by us and for us. Maybe then we could get a bit more from them than ribbon cutting or the signing of yet another memorandum of agreement with ambiguous benefits for the masses.

Chisango writes: “The song is about someone … who is asking … to be sent so that they may be there when all the problems have been solved”. I imagine how nice it would be to have elected officials who actively find solutions to problems (or challenges, if we must use the more politically fashionable term), and not the more usual case where the politicians are the problem. Masekela’s song could inspire those in office to stop the tirades and the finger pointing in a westerly direction. After all, the purpose of putting politicians in power is not so that they can list the problems obvious to us all, but that they can find solutions to them.

But to fix a problem, you have to know that it exists and to do this you have to be in touch with the situation on the ground. Chisango explains that the person in the song is willing to go everywhere to assist the situation – to the railways, taxis, shebeens, buses, and the whole country. I admit that this is a tall order for our honourable representatives, who typically only visit their constituencies during election periods when they are garnering votes. How does one keep in touch with reality when they are surrounded (and shielded) by beefy bodyguards, heavily tinted car windows and nine-feet thick concrete walling? However, I believe that a new political norm is possible where statesmen actually live in the real world, amongst their constituents and assisting to better all our lives.

Although Masekela’s song is centred on being sent to tackle the HIV/AIDS pandemic, its message makes it relevant to all difficult circumstances that require the intervention of a champion or advocate. Elected officials take note. Being ‘honourable’ is not only a title that comes with the job; it indicates that there is a job to be done. The honour comes from being chosen and sent as a reliable campaigner for the people, to confront every difficulty no matter its size or its source and to improve circumstances for all of us.

You can download Send Me here

Internet fever has gripped so many people in Zimbabwe in the past month. There is now a scramble for those phones that can make one get connected. I’m telling you business is now booming downtown in Harare where cheap phones are found. These phones come in different sizes, shapes and weights. Some are even duped to think that the bigger the phone the faster it can get you on the Internet. On the other side it seems the companies in the business of cell phones services and the Internet are out to make a killing by charging exorbitant prices.

As a means of sharing information and communication, I think the Internet as a medium for communication is good, be it on your phone, laptop and desktop machine at home or work. Since the world is now a global village business transactions are now mostly carried out on the Internet. By just walking around town you can see people with phones in their hands trying to get a feel of the World Wide Web. When my mom heard about the Internet she also wanted to have it on her Nokia 1200.

My biggest worry is not about the Internet charges or how expensive the phones are. It’s about the dangers to children of the Internet on phones. A lot of information can be passed around via the Internet and my recent visit to an Internet café reminded me of this notice which was hanging on the wall advising customers that viewing of illegal sites is prohibited. This automatically struck the back of my mind trying to figure out if companies offering internet service especially to phones have put measures that restrict access to illegal sites and downloading of illegal content from the net.

The Internet can be a wonderful resource for kids. They can use it to research, communicate with each other, and play interactive games. As any comprehensive source of completely uncensored and often times erroneous information, the Internet is not an expert teacher or insoluble source of information. Nor is it really designed for children. The Internet is just another facet of socialization for the new generation; as always, common sense and a level head are the best safeguards but as a responsible parent you wouldn’t expect your 8-year-old kid to be level headed. With hopes of better prospects outside the country, young people may be tempted by online human traffickers. I know after reading this article some people may ask “How safe is the Internet for our children?”  Well the answer to that I am still trying to look for myself because just like my fellow countrymen we are still to appreciate the Internet on our phones.

Research shows that the majority of domestic Internet users in developing countries like India, South Africa, Kenya, Philippines and Pakistan access the Internet from a mobile phone rather than a PC. Zimbabwe as a developing country with over 6 million cell phone users, the chances are that 50% of these users will be accessing information via the Internet. By just looking at these statistics the Internet will be good for communication, business and socializing because imagine someone from Mukumbura reading today’s paper on the phone.  So lets welcome this intervention with open arms and use it to the benefit of our country.