Once in a while you have a bunch of politicians who come out and comment that the inclusive Government is not functioning well, yet they have spent the last three years that government, meeting weekly in Cabinet and working together across the political divide, enjoying the niceties of incumbency.
The Zimbabwe Guardian
By Tendai Midzi
As 2012 creeped in, I could not help flash back to the past three years. The process of growth is an inevitable one and certain truths unfold as each day passes. For me it was sort of an epiphany.
I have had time to travel the length and breadth of Zimbabwe to see “the situation on the ground” as many would say.
There is a particular tragedy in our politics.
While the leadership has changed – an oft abused term – and started working together for better or worse in the inclusive Government, their followers have become more divided, the media outlets more unreasonable and the political commentators sound more ridiculous as they misfire on almost every issue.
The reason is that many of these outlets and commentators do not know what is taking place in the political offices. They do not know what I would call the “poisoned politics” of Zimbabwe.
Once in a while you have a bunch of politicians who come out and comment that the inclusive Government is not functioning well, yet they have spent the last three years that government, meeting weekly in Cabinet and working together across the political divide, enjoying the niceties of incumbency.
Anyone who endures something that is dysfunctional for three years, must be dysfunctional themselves.
They pay lip service and fool the people once in a while that “change is coming”, that elections will be held “next year”.
Change is inevitable. It happens daily. It cannot be a policy agenda. No one day is the same as the other, so this change mantra is outdated and outmoded.
This is a slow-burn process aimed at managing the chaos they (politicians) created in the first place.
They give people false hope that things will change “next year” and elections are coming. Its been “next year since 2008.
In the meantime, they get hefty perks and luxuries brought by their offices.
The ever-so-gullible public is told many never-ending stories, and they still believe them.
The Zanu-PF – MDC-T and MDC divide is now just an illusion. There’s one government led by President Mugabe with everyone else coming next in whatever power order.
There are politicians who make up that government and peddle many stories about divisions – divisions that exist only in the media and in commentators’ heads, not in the hotels, restaurants and beer-drinking places that politicians meet away from the glare of the public.
I refer to politicians from all political parties that make the inclusive Government.
One would ask what unelected Arthur Mutambara and his MDC-M are doing in office today. Nelson Chamisa frets about iPads and national security issues. The iPad is the most insecure gadget as it backs up on iTunes anyway and it is a tragedy that he does not know this – as minister of information technology.
The promised Zanu-PF indigenisation has become a mirage and a tool that is often dangled to either shut critics up about the direction the country is taking. It has become Zanu-PF’s major embarrassment now – not knowing whether to go forward with it, or abandon it.
I met one mining investor in Zimbabwe who told me that a “certain minister from Zanu-PF” had told him that “we have to proceed with indigenisation because we have legislated for it”. What a tragedy!
Meanwhile, prime minister Morgan Tsvangirai has been wielding his manhood at various young women in the country and not owning up, has become confused about which policies to support or not support within government and spends time managing personal problems.
No-one really understands what he does on a daily basis, or what the MDC-T stands for anymore, besides opposing government policies of which it is part of.
Finance Minister Biti pays legislators $2 million, but fails to bail out Air Zimbabwe. He now seems deflated and has lost his mojo and is not the fiery idealist we saw in 2000-8.
Unelected Welshman Ncube and his MDC-N no longer speak directly to the people, except for flash appearances by Priscilla Misihairabwi-Mushonga once in a while, refuting media stories.
The elusive and illusive Job Sikhala of the so-called MDC99 is in the media for the wrong reasons accused of immigration-related money-making scams.
Various politicians in Zanu-PF who are on Western sanctions are worried about their future and would rather maintain the status quo than make major changes that would move the country forward.
In the meantime, media organisations and political commentators still think they have the clue.
How can you have an answer for such chaos? Commentators and media organisations can only have an answer if they are being paid to push a particular line of thinking, otherwise who would maintain sanity in this political chaos?
The only people who are making Zimbabwe function are those hard-working people who have created the informal economy that keeps that country afloat.
The government has failed to create an enabling environment for anything sensible to function.
The politicians on each political divide know what the score is. Politics is business in Zimbabwe. It is a money-making scheme and politicians worry about which next scheme they can pull using their power and which car they can buy this year.
Those who defend them stand to lose ultimately, like the thousands who died in vain during the 2008 elections defending various politicians’ beliefs.
This is the tragedy of Zimbabwe and politics has become the opium of the masses.
The country needs a “complete overhaul”, a complete change of leadership, if it is to survive in the 21st century, otherwise it will just remain as that country that had a lot of potential and learned people, that all came to naught at the end.
Friday, January 6, 2012
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Zimbabwe's anti-violence crusade
The MDC-T seems afraid of having President Mugabe and PM Tsvangirai under one roof because it impales the myth of President Mugabe being a perpetrator of violence, principally against PM Tsvangirai.
The likes of Mwonzora would rather President Mugabe and PM Tsvangirai drink tea privately, out of the view of the majority, so that propaganda around them holds and washes.
By Tichaona Zindoga
A few years ago, it was hard to imagine President Mugabe and MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai under one roof.
On the one hand was a revolutionary par excellence who fought colonialism for the benefit of the majority black people of Zimbabwe while on the other was a man perceived to be on a mission to reverse the gains of the liberation struggle.
Yet despite these differences, or because of them, the two protagonists came together to form what is now known as the inclusive Government which also includes the other MDC faction.
The inclusive Government has given rise to interaction and tea-drinking moments among the principals, which many a wannabe national leader would die for.
This state of affairs has been a huge paradox: while the leaders drink tea and perhaps discuss their personal matters, their supporters have not found such a common ground.
There have been numerous incidents of inter-party violence countrywide, although the incidents have not been as bad as sometimes portrayed by some parties and the media.
It is said some sections within political parties have been supportive, funding even, violent elements and activities.
This is despite principals’ call for an end to violence.
For the specific reason of inculcating within top party officials the spirit of shunning violence, the parties last November convened an anti-violence indaba.
The historic indaba brought the three parties’ national executives (MDCs) and Zanu-PF’s central committee.
President Mugabe, Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai and MDC leader Professor Welshman Ncube addressed the indaba.
For some reason, one could conclude that this was but an extended version of principals drinking tea in their official moments.
This is because no plebian of the village and ghetto were present.
That the parties have decided to broaden the table to include the grassroots is something as commendable and marvelous – if it comes to pass.
It has been confirmed that the three parties will hold joint rallies and educate citizens on the need to tolerate each other.
The fantastic idea here is to see people of different persuasions agreeing to disagree and disagreeing without being disagreeable.
This is very utopian.
Will we see this in the praxis of Zimbabwe’s polarized politics?
This is a brave new world.
It is a mature world: a world in which political parties sell ideas on whose strength they should access or retain office.
In turn, recipients thereof, for onward transmission have to bank on the ideas’ cogency to win converts to their side or strengthen existing belief in their cause.
President Mugabe said as much at the November indaba.
Did he not as well say something about turning swords into ploughshares reminding one of the great reconciliation at Independence?
In fact, he said, if he could let Rhodesian strongman Ian Smith, who was responsible for the deaths of about 50 000 blacks of this country, he surely could coexist with the Tsvangirais of this world.
What is now important is to see these meetings come to fruition.
It is on this one point that one gets worried, especially if you read the statements attributed to MDC-T spokesperson, Douglas Mwonzora.
Mwonzora was concerned about “what capacity the principals will be addressing the people”, “what order they will speak”, and “the message and how it is going to be communicated” during the rallies.
"However,” said Mwonzora, “the substance of the principals' proposed campaign must address the question of selective application of the law by law enforcement agents."
It is not unjustified for one to get the feeling that Mr Mwonzora and the MDC-T are already trying to throw the spanners into the envisaged joint rallies by trying to set the agenda of the meetings.
The history of the parties has shown that negotiations among parties over a minor thing like the agenda can take long, sometimes unduly.
If the parties and principals did it in November, what will be the difference?
Do the statements by Mr Mwonzora not qualify for the genus of positions held by the so-called hardliners?
If the conditions set by Mwonzora are not met it follows that the meetings will not take place or MDC-T will boycott the meetings.
MDC-T is not new to boycotts.
One gets the feeling that the party is not really interested in the anti-violence interactions.
MDC-T is in the habit of playing victim of political violence.
Logically, a party that wants to see a poisoned atmosphere bettered would jump at the very opportunity to help the situation.
This is perhaps less to do with showing the victim status than to show genuine commitment to ending the acrimony.
If the super victim develops cold feet at the moment of reckoning, it raises more questions than answers.
Granted, the joint rallies are not going to be mass trials but a platform for building mutual respect so that senseless violence will not occur in the future.
A party that ostensibly abhors violence as to make it a precondition for a “free and fair” poll should naturally be unequivocal about the prospect of anti-violence rallies.
There are observations that flow from Mwonzora’s arguments.
First, the MDC-T seems afraid of having President Mugabe and PM Tsvangirai under one roof because it impales the myth of President Mugabe being a perpetrator of violence, principally against PM Tsvangirai.
The likes of Mwonzora would rather President Mugabe and PM Tsvangirai drink tea privately, out of the view of the majority, so that propaganda around them holds and washes.
Secondly, it can be deciphered from Mwonzora’s conditions that he wants his boss to speak last and and carry the word of the day.
Thirdly, and connected with the second, Mwonzora seems to want the messages delivered his party’s way – the accusatory way.
All this indicates that the MDC-T is likely to approach the matter with an open mouth and shut mind, a well-worn accusation against the party.
The party will try to seek political mileage out of a matter of national interest, that is, which transcends party lines.
We saw it November, as Tsvangirai took it to the podium on his blame horse, only for a mature President Mugabe to pour water on the needless high temperature.
After all is said and done, it is to be hoped that interactions will continue and spread to live television and let leaders argue over policy and what future they want for Zimbabwe.
The voters will be so informed.
The likes of Mwonzora would rather President Mugabe and PM Tsvangirai drink tea privately, out of the view of the majority, so that propaganda around them holds and washes.
By Tichaona Zindoga
A few years ago, it was hard to imagine President Mugabe and MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai under one roof.
On the one hand was a revolutionary par excellence who fought colonialism for the benefit of the majority black people of Zimbabwe while on the other was a man perceived to be on a mission to reverse the gains of the liberation struggle.
Yet despite these differences, or because of them, the two protagonists came together to form what is now known as the inclusive Government which also includes the other MDC faction.
The inclusive Government has given rise to interaction and tea-drinking moments among the principals, which many a wannabe national leader would die for.
This state of affairs has been a huge paradox: while the leaders drink tea and perhaps discuss their personal matters, their supporters have not found such a common ground.
There have been numerous incidents of inter-party violence countrywide, although the incidents have not been as bad as sometimes portrayed by some parties and the media.
It is said some sections within political parties have been supportive, funding even, violent elements and activities.
This is despite principals’ call for an end to violence.
For the specific reason of inculcating within top party officials the spirit of shunning violence, the parties last November convened an anti-violence indaba.
The historic indaba brought the three parties’ national executives (MDCs) and Zanu-PF’s central committee.
President Mugabe, Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai and MDC leader Professor Welshman Ncube addressed the indaba.
For some reason, one could conclude that this was but an extended version of principals drinking tea in their official moments.
This is because no plebian of the village and ghetto were present.
That the parties have decided to broaden the table to include the grassroots is something as commendable and marvelous – if it comes to pass.
It has been confirmed that the three parties will hold joint rallies and educate citizens on the need to tolerate each other.
The fantastic idea here is to see people of different persuasions agreeing to disagree and disagreeing without being disagreeable.
This is very utopian.
Will we see this in the praxis of Zimbabwe’s polarized politics?
This is a brave new world.
It is a mature world: a world in which political parties sell ideas on whose strength they should access or retain office.
In turn, recipients thereof, for onward transmission have to bank on the ideas’ cogency to win converts to their side or strengthen existing belief in their cause.
President Mugabe said as much at the November indaba.
Did he not as well say something about turning swords into ploughshares reminding one of the great reconciliation at Independence?
In fact, he said, if he could let Rhodesian strongman Ian Smith, who was responsible for the deaths of about 50 000 blacks of this country, he surely could coexist with the Tsvangirais of this world.
What is now important is to see these meetings come to fruition.
It is on this one point that one gets worried, especially if you read the statements attributed to MDC-T spokesperson, Douglas Mwonzora.
Mwonzora was concerned about “what capacity the principals will be addressing the people”, “what order they will speak”, and “the message and how it is going to be communicated” during the rallies.
"However,” said Mwonzora, “the substance of the principals' proposed campaign must address the question of selective application of the law by law enforcement agents."
It is not unjustified for one to get the feeling that Mr Mwonzora and the MDC-T are already trying to throw the spanners into the envisaged joint rallies by trying to set the agenda of the meetings.
The history of the parties has shown that negotiations among parties over a minor thing like the agenda can take long, sometimes unduly.
If the parties and principals did it in November, what will be the difference?
Do the statements by Mr Mwonzora not qualify for the genus of positions held by the so-called hardliners?
If the conditions set by Mwonzora are not met it follows that the meetings will not take place or MDC-T will boycott the meetings.
MDC-T is not new to boycotts.
One gets the feeling that the party is not really interested in the anti-violence interactions.
MDC-T is in the habit of playing victim of political violence.
Logically, a party that wants to see a poisoned atmosphere bettered would jump at the very opportunity to help the situation.
This is perhaps less to do with showing the victim status than to show genuine commitment to ending the acrimony.
If the super victim develops cold feet at the moment of reckoning, it raises more questions than answers.
Granted, the joint rallies are not going to be mass trials but a platform for building mutual respect so that senseless violence will not occur in the future.
A party that ostensibly abhors violence as to make it a precondition for a “free and fair” poll should naturally be unequivocal about the prospect of anti-violence rallies.
There are observations that flow from Mwonzora’s arguments.
First, the MDC-T seems afraid of having President Mugabe and PM Tsvangirai under one roof because it impales the myth of President Mugabe being a perpetrator of violence, principally against PM Tsvangirai.
The likes of Mwonzora would rather President Mugabe and PM Tsvangirai drink tea privately, out of the view of the majority, so that propaganda around them holds and washes.
Secondly, it can be deciphered from Mwonzora’s conditions that he wants his boss to speak last and and carry the word of the day.
Thirdly, and connected with the second, Mwonzora seems to want the messages delivered his party’s way – the accusatory way.
All this indicates that the MDC-T is likely to approach the matter with an open mouth and shut mind, a well-worn accusation against the party.
The party will try to seek political mileage out of a matter of national interest, that is, which transcends party lines.
We saw it November, as Tsvangirai took it to the podium on his blame horse, only for a mature President Mugabe to pour water on the needless high temperature.
After all is said and done, it is to be hoped that interactions will continue and spread to live television and let leaders argue over policy and what future they want for Zimbabwe.
The voters will be so informed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)