Copac, the déjà vu, the Nobel

That Tsvangirai should trample on the legitimate voices of two million people via some inconsequential events and appear saintly is his way to gain legitimacy of a Nobel Peace Prize he so ill deserves.

(This, though, is not to legitimate the prize, whose record speaks for itself.

The point will be that Zimbabwe does not deserve that its name be dragged into that farce via an equally farcical campaign for the prize.)

The Herald

By Tichaona Zindoga

It has become almost customary for commentators, analysts and writers, this one included, to point to the on-off idiosyncrasy of the current constitution-making process, among its other less flattering attributes.

For all the good that has come out of the process, including winning the trust of donors who poured millions into the project and people expressing their views for what has been touted and hoped to become a people-driven outcome, the bad has however, inordinately loomed large.

This has prompted co-chair of Constitution Select Committee Munyaradzi Paul Mangwana to express disappointment over the tendency to dwell on the "negative" aspects of the exercise especially by the media.

Yet the drama just cannot leave the programme, for better or worse.

The biggest story of the past week has arguably been the call by the two MDC formations for a "negotiated settlement" in place of the views gathered from about two million people across the country since the outreach began last June and due to end this month.

The isolated incidents of violence that were encountered at a couple of the 42 meetings in Harare and prompted suspension of the meetings in Harare provided an excuse to try and ditch the whole programme.

Copac clearly stated that the suspension did not affect any other districts countrywide, including Beitbridge, Umguza, Kariba, Gokwe North, Buhera and Rushinga, along with other mop up operations.

But according to MDC-T spokesperson Nelson Chamisa, the programme that collected the views of two million people across the country during over 4 000 meetings failed what he called the "legitimacy test".

He said: "Our position as MDC is that the Copac outreach has failed to pass credibility and legitimacy test and to be a people-driven constitution.

"Therefore, relying on this material is a misnomer and misbegotten. The process was done Nicodemously and the environment was not conducive as it was marred by intimidation, coercion and fear," he said.

His party leader, Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai had already said that as "no party has a two thirds majority in Parliament", "no party will be in a position of imposing its will on constitutional principle".

He said at a function: "It will have to be ultimately a negotiated constitution, but the process of public participation was intended to ensure that no Zimbabwean across the political divide should be prevented from airing their views."

With the other MDC formation led by Deputy Premier Professor Arthur Mutambara spelling out that they have always been for the September 2007 Kariba Draft constitution that was crafted by lawyers of the three parties in the inclusive Government, it is deja vu.

It is the return of a document over which the two MDC formations gathered so much dust over despite having partaken of its coinage, perhaps Nicodemously, as Chamisa would say.

If the document, a supposedly Zanu-PF piece of terror, was so flawed and not people-driven, as the two MDC formations claimed only yesterday, it is just too bad because latter have contrived to conjure it up against people who rejected it and went the Copac way.

The coincidence of the call for the return of the Kariba Draft and suspension of further consultation with the scheduled resumption of meetings in Harare and Chitungwiza and subsequent close of the programme is notable.

Here is where "people" — a glittering generality which the MDCs in particular the one led by Tsvangirai like to exclusively refer to their supporters — were expected to air their views, if they have not done so already.

This suffices to say the people, to whomever they belong were expecting to air their views, like the rest of the country much in to spite the Nicodemously-written Kariba Draft, which the MDCs only now try to bring Nicodemously and resolutely belatedly.

The Nobel legitimacy

The reasons behind the move to foist the Kariba Draft or such other "negotiated settlement" have already been discussed in other platforms, giving little reason for repetition here.

Having moved around some meetings in Harare and witnessed first-hand people showing unreserved consciousness of their revolutionary destiny and role, this writer has an idea why it is convenient for some people to try to gag these heroic voices.

However, it is the coincidence of the latest constitution-making fiasco with the Nobel Peace Prize season, which has reproduced the name of Morgan Tsvangirai as a nominee, that is quite telling.

The fortuitousness, for those that believe the MDC-T did not deliberately foil the process to save its blushes, of the events of which Tsvangirai has tried to play the peacemaker is not hard to miss.

Nor are the incidents of "sponsored" acts of violence that have been ramped up in MDC-T affiliated media organisations.

That Tsvangirai should trample on the legitimate voices of two million people via some inconsequential events and appear saintly is his way to gain legitimacy of a Nobel Peace Prize he so ill deserves.

(This, though, is not to legitimate the prize, whose record speaks for itself.

The point will be that Zimbabwe does not deserve that its name be dragged into that farce via an equally farcical campaign for the prize.)

But the activities of MDC-T-affiliated organisations demonstrate the sequence of trying to bring legitimacy to Tsvangirai.

Take for example that three of Zimbabwe’s "top pro-democracy groups" — the Zimbabwe Election Support Network, Zimbabwe Peace Project and Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights producing a report alleging 2 359 reports of assault, intimidation, suppression of the freedoms of speech and expression among others, during the outreach in August only.

The tripartite Copac did not substantiate these reports.

The weekly Zimbabwe Independent led its recent issue with a story headlined "Army in renewed terror campaign".

Tellingly, the paper cited Tsvangirai as noting "with concern the militarisation of the process, interfering with a purely civilian process".

Tsvangirai alleged that "reports from all over the country show the heavy involvement of the military in the process" without offering to name who produced the reports and to what cause, which Copac in which he is represented failed to do.

He continued: "In rural areas, ordinary people were under siege from similar cases of military meddling. The military and state agents’ involvement must be investigated and the principals must meet immediately to map the way forward." That is the Nobel peacemaker in Tsvangirai.

It will be quite interesting to see him being rewarded for such fiction for which he intends to sacrifice the people’s voices.

So we have no blood?

So when Westerners talk of the alleged property rights of white commercial farmers, they conveniently forget the rights of Africans who were dispossessed by the same farmers and their forebears?

In fact, the white commercial farmers had no property rights to speak of for the simple reason that those rights were supposed to vest in stolen property.

The Herald

By Caesar Zvayi

THIRTY-SIX years ago, a young Portuguese law student and activist stole several items of furniture from the office of the dean of the faculty of law at Lisbon University, and took them to the headquarters of the underground Reorganising Movement of the Proletariat Party, of which he was a member.

The 18-year-old student, however did not receive the warm welcome he expected as party leader, Arnaldo Matos, reprimanded and ordered him to return the stolen property to the campus.

This incident occurred at the height of Portugal’s trying times under the regime of Marcelo Caetano, who was later deposed by carnation-wielding civilians and army rebels in April 1974 during a bloodless coup that lasted six hours, and that came to be known as the Portuguese revolution, or romantically — the Carnation revolution.

The theft of furniture was not to be the highlight of the young man’s political career as he later morphed into a seasoned politician, and is now former prime minister of Portugal and incumbent EU Commission president.

His name is José Manuel Barroso, the man who has maintained and defended EU sanctions on Zimbabwe even though they were imposed in a bid to protect stolen property.

For all his political savvy, Barroso does not seem to have learnt from that incident, 36 years ago, as he seems to be unaware that all stolen property, not just furniture, should be returned to its rightful owners.

And this includes even land pillaged during the colonial era which is what is at the core of the standoff between Zimbabwe and Britain in particular, and Zimbabwe and the EU in general.

Barroso despite that lesson earlier in his life has bought into British and American propaganda that their stand-off with Harare is about the quest for democracy and human rights.

He passes the biggest rights abusers of them all — the US and Britain as fighting to introduce these values in Zimbabwe while portraying President Mugabe as a repressive autocrat who stubbornly violates the rights of his own people.

The truth of the matter is that President Mugabe is fighting to preserve democracy in all its manifestations while Britain and its big brother Uncle Sam are fighting to subvert these values in Zimbabwe, continuing from where they left off during our 14-year struggle for independence, which was a lifetime compared to Portugal’s six-hour carnation revolution.

Well it’s not as if Barosso and his allies in the EU are unaware of what happens to stolen property or to people who destroy other peoples’ livelihoods for they made the Germans pay for their misadventures in World War I through a £22 billion reparations rap whose last instalment of £60 million was only cleared this Sunday ending 92 years of atoning for the destruction of World War I.

The £22 billion reparations were set by the Allied victors — mostly Britain, France and the United States of America — in the Treaty of Versailles on June 28, 1919 as compensation and punishment for the 1914-18 war.

Most of the money was earmarked for Belgium and France, whose land, towns and villages were devastated by the war, and to pay the Allies some of the costs of waging the war to repel Kaiser Wilhelm II’s armies. Individuals, pension funds and corporations also get the funds.

The initial amount agreed upon for war damages was 226 billion Reichsmarks, which was later reduced to 132 billion (£22 billion).

Western media reports say the remaining portion of the debt was cleared on Sunday.

The bill could, however, have been settled much earlier had Adolf Hitler not reneged on reparations during his reign, which actually came about on the back of German resentment over the scale of the reparations that culminated in the second Anglo-Saxon war, World War II.

The question is, since westerners see the need to compensate each other for wrongs, when are they going to compensate Africans for over 400 years of slavery, centuries of colonial pillage and decades of neo-colonial subterfuge?

Are we Africans united enough to present a formidable front to demand reparations from these rabble-rousers or are we going to continue to be divided, dominated and used against each other to further the interests of westerners?

This question is particularly pressing for us Zimbabweans given how gullible some of us have been over the past decade in failing to see how westerners have manipulated not only our country but its people to further their interests and those of their kith and kin who lost the land they pillaged to its rightful owners during the land reform programme.

It has to be noted from the outset that Zimbabwean law has no statutes of limitations (an enactment in common law that sets the maximum time after a wrong that legal proceedings may be instituted). We say mhosva hairovi (a wrong does not pass till righted) as such stolen property remains just that, loot whether the robbery was committed in 1890 or yesterday. It demands redress.

So when Westerners talk of the alleged property rights of white commercial farmers, they conveniently forget the rights of Africans who were dispossessed by the same farmers and their forebears?

In fact, the white commercial farmers had no property rights to speak of for the simple reason that those rights were supposed to vest in stolen property.

We all know that a right ceases to be when it infringes on the rights of others. This is why criminals are incarcerated for trampling on the rights of others in society.

As such by retaining control of 70 percent of the country’s arable land, the 5 000 white commercial farmers were infringing on the rights of 13 million black Zimbabweans. Surely that was not a picture any sane person could defend without looking ridiculous. The illegality of the western economic sanctions, therefore, does not only lie in the fact that they were imposed outside the purview of the United Nations but also in that they seek to protect non-existent rights that vested in stolen property.

Instead of applauding Zimbabwe for opting to share land with those who stole it, the westerners had the cheek to punish Zimbabwe through their illegal embargo that has decimated and constrained livelihoods for a decade when they should have been paying reparations. Zimbabwe should be compensated for the dispossession and reparations should be paid for the losses the country suffered since 1890, the same way the Germans were made to pay for their war games.

While we may not have the muscle to force the sabre-rattling westerners to pay us reparations or compensation for using our resources to build their countries, the least we can do as a people is ensure that we compensate ourselves by taking control of our economies and resources so that our wealth does not continue flowing to the west at the expense of our people.

Through ownership of the means of production we will be able to give our people better lives to undo the injustices of centuries of slavery and decades of imperialism and neo-colonialism.

The starting point for us Zimbabweans is shunning sell out politics and politicians who seek to preserve the interests of foreigners.

We need to support progressive people-centred programmes like the land reform programme and the indigenisation and economic empowerment drive.

Most importantly, we need to stop the heresy of western sanctions by not only speaking against them with one voice but also compiling a detailed analysis of the damage they have wrought over the years.

The childish grandstanding we have seen from the MDC-T leadership, some of whom — in this day and age — deny the existence of sanctions, does not help anyone in Zimbabwe.

caesar.zvayi@zimpapers.co.zw

Conservancies: Islands of colonial land tenure

If the problem lies with unrepentant rogue elements that resist change from a skewed colonial ownership structure depriving indigenous peoples of their rightful place in the sun, then the law must take its course.

At any rate, some of them have been noted for their most racist of actions rendering their properties some "Little Rhodesias" and "Little Englands" beyond the reach and unaffected by politics of majority blacks.

It implies that if they are not comfortable with sharing the resource that they have long enjoyed exclusive "right" to, a "right" that came into being through a wrong called colonialism, they should be vehemently be called to part with the same.

The Herald

By Tichaona Zindoga

SOMEONE once said that an unimplemented plan is as good — or bad — as no plan at all.

If this does not sound a little ruthless or uncompromising, it surely is one philosophy that helps eliminate some absurdities of life that have tended to dog societies and governments.

It is not unusual to hear of some "brilliant" plans and blueprints that are "gathering dust" in some Government office or another, or those that have been implemented somewhere else with success.

And as fate would have it, the problems that these supposed "brilliant" pieces of work should address lie festering, all too ready for a sick implosion.

Participants at a recent workshop on the Wildlife-based Land Reform Policy, which Government adopted in 2000 as part of the wider historic land reform programme were mortified when the Director General of the National Parks and Wildlife Management Authority revealed that the reform had failed to take off.

Parks, under the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources Management, is tasked with implementing the policy of wildlife-based land reform.

It will be interesting to put into context Director General Vitalis Chadenga’s shocking revelation.

He had begun with spelling out the background against which wildlife-based land reform lay, noting that the land reform programme in 2000 tended to concentrate on resettlement biased on crop and livestock production at the expense of wildlife production.

Under the programme, conservancies could not be allocated for resettlement purposes, elongating wildlife production as a preserve of a white minority.

Noting that wildlife represented "a viable land use option", Chadenga said that the policy on wildlife-based land reform sought to address this imbalance and ensure access by the majority to the wildlife resource.

With wildlife-based land reform, all land under conservancies and game ranches shall cease to be an exclusive right of the few, declares the policy, as those owning conservancies and ranches shall be required to surrender portions of the same to accommodate indigenous Zimbabweans

Chadenga then outlined "indigenisation options" in which ownership of conservancies and game ranches must change to reflect objectives of the land reform programme.

The three options are current (white) farmers teaming up with Parks and communities, current farmers teaming with communities and current farmers teaming with communities and private indigenous investors.

Then he dropped the bombshell: none of the above had been operationalised.

Among the problems was resistance by white farmers to accept the dispensation of wildlife-based land reform.

They also snubbed new players, thus refusing to cede land acquired and offered to 25-year leaseholders.

On the other hand, the Ministry had been issuing 25-year leases to persons that do not meet the criteria of demonstrable interest and experience in wildlife conservation, capacity for business and development, and ability to contribute to asset base.

Illegal settlements in conservancies had compounded the problem.

Overally, the implementation of the policy had been "poor and uncoordinated" as, besides Parks’ own limitations and omissions and commissions, Lands and Resettlement ministry had put for cropping land that was for wildlife production.

If it is to be owned that implementation of plans has been the bane of many plans and projects, the situation here is as outrageous. The Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources Management says there are 2 million hectares that are earmarked for wildlife-based land reform, of which none has been touched, apparently.

There are seven wildlife conservancies in Masvingo, Midlands and Matabeleland provinces.

These are Gwayi, Chiredzi, Midlands, Bubi, Bubiana, Malilangwe, and Save.

Chadenga revealed that only thirty 25-year leases, have been issued thus far, and that means with warts and all.

If the problem lies with unrepentant rogue elements that resist change from a skewed colonial ownership structure depriving indigenous peoples of their rightful place in the sun, then the law must take its course.

At any rate, some of them have been noted for their most racist of actions rendering their properties some "Little Rhodesias" and "Little Englands" beyond the reach and unaffected by politics of majority blacks.

It implies that if they are not comfortable with sharing the resource that they have long enjoyed exclusive "right" to, a "right" that came into being through a wrong called colonialism, they should be vehemently be called to part with the same.

In this case, the recently enacted law of Indigenisation, which requires that indigenous peoples take up 51 percent stake in any business venture, becomes handy.

No longer should sharing be a matter of choice but necessity and political and historical correctness.

It will be cruel to have a throwback to an earlier era of exclusive ownership of resources just when the country is beginning to reap rewards of the land reform programme characterised by surging growth.

Before land reform in 2000, the skewed land tenure meant that one percent of Zimbabwe’s population controlled 45 percent of all agricultural land, condemning the majority to arid and unproductive land.

If properly executed, wildlife-based land reform will be able to produce a success story of its own.

Yet there will always be problems that pertain to wildlife production as a business, and a delicate one for that matter.

It will only be prudent that persons that meet the ideal criteria that have been made be able to access land for wildlife.

In this regard, time is arguably not a factor, as rash issuance of leases to those that cannot deploy usefulness in the sector can only spell doom for the programme.

There is need for support for those who meet the minimum requirements to commence business, as in the case with seed animals, which the ministry says it can provide, and other relevant implements.

The problem that some people have settled themselves in conservancies, a reference mainly to the Chitsa clan, which has claimed parts of the Save conservancy, could be addressed amicably in the context of community participation.

Instead of being viewed as a problem, locals and communities represent legitimate entitlement to a resource they historically have been deprived of, and one which they understand, too.

It is only too racist and demeaning to view them as poachers and potential poachers and spoilers.

It has to be admitted that it is their continued marginalisation and criminalisation that might in fact lead to frustration and destruction.

Yet the success of community-based conservation projects over the years, in the mould of the Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources suggests communities are as good guardians of their environment as they are businesspeople in their own right.

As the policy suggests, share transfer to the likes of Chitsa clan represents not only an amicable solution but also a historically just and prudent initiative.

To be fair, especially to the poor folk at Parks who are tasked with the big challenge of moving reform in the sector, more time, consultations and resources are needed.

The fact that wildlife-based land reform is not a spatial or isolated event but a national, historical, economic and social one tends to dwarf the authority.

In which case it can be suggested that reform in the wildlife sector be treated with more seriousness, robustness and delicateness it deserves.

The juxtaposition of the wildlife-based land reform and the agrarian reform is also a telling one.

As it is well-known that the latter encountered some challenges in implementation, it is imperative that the former be trained to avoid the same pitfalls.

It will be illogical and tragic for the implementers of the programme to have seen or learnt anything.

Yet it should be realised that where we can afford to grow grass and let lie our pieces of land somewhere for use tomorrow or the day after, wildlife resources face acute danger of extermination and ill use.

No resource is expendable and the sooner and more resolute the programme of wildlife-based land reform is carried out the better.

tichaona.zindoga@gmail.com

SOMEONE once said that an unimplemented plan is as good — or bad — as no plan at all.

If this does not sound a little ruthless or uncompromising, it surely is one philosophy that helps eliminate some absurdities of life that have tended to dog societies and governments.

It is not unusual to hear of some "brilliant" plans and blueprints that are "gathering dust" in some Government office or another, or those that have been implemented somewhere else with success.

And as fate would have it, the problems that these supposed "brilliant" pieces of work should address lie festering, all too ready for a sick implosion.

Participants at a recent workshop on the Wildlife-based Land Reform Policy, which Government adopted in 2000 as part of the wider historic land reform programme were mortified when the Director General of the National Parks and Wildlife Management Authority revealed that the reform had failed to take off.

Parks, under the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources Management, is tasked with implementing the policy of wildlife-based land reform.

It will be interesting to put into context Director General Vitalis Chadenga’s shocking revelation.

He had begun with spelling out the background against which wildlife-based land reform lay, noting that the land reform programme in 2000 tended to concentrate on resettlement biased on crop and livestock production at the expense of wildlife production.

Under the programme, conservancies could not be allocated for resettlement purposes, elongating wildlife production as a preserve of a white minority.

Noting that wildlife represented "a viable land use option", Chadenga said that the policy on wildlife-based land reform sought to address this imbalance and ensure access by the majority to the wildlife resource.

With wildlife-based land reform, all land under conservancies and game ranches shall cease to be an exclusive right of the few, declares the policy, as those owning conservancies and ranches shall be required to surrender portions of the same to accommodate indigenous Zimbabweans

Chadenga then outlined "indigenisation options" in which ownership of conservancies and game ranches must change to reflect objectives of the land reform programme.

The three options are current (white) farmers teaming up with Parks and communities, current farmers teaming with communities and current farmers teaming with communities and private indigenous investors.

Then he dropped the bombshell: none of the above had been operationalised.

Among the problems was resistance by white farmers to accept the dispensation of wildlife-based land reform.

They also snubbed new players, thus refusing to cede land acquired and offered to 25-year leaseholders.

On the other hand, the Ministry had been issuing 25-year leases to persons that do not meet the criteria of demonstrable interest and experience in wildlife conservation, capacity for business and development, and ability to contribute to asset base.

Illegal settlements in conservancies had compounded the problem.

Overally, the implementation of the policy had been "poor and uncoordinated" as, besides Parks’ own limitations and omissions and commissions, Lands and Resettlement ministry had put for cropping land that was for wildlife production.

If it is to be owned that implementation of plans has been the bane of many plans and projects, the situation here is as outrageous. The Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources Management says there are 2 million hectares that are earmarked for wildlife-based land reform, of which none has been touched, apparently.

There are seven wildlife conservancies in Masvingo, Midlands and Matabeleland provinces.

These are Gwayi, Chiredzi, Midlands, Bubi, Bubiana, Malilangwe, and Save.

Chadenga revealed that only thirty 25-year leases, have been issued thus far, and that means with warts and all.

If the problem lies with unrepentant rogue elements that resist change from a skewed colonial ownership structure depriving indigenous peoples of their rightful place in the sun, then the law must take its course.

At any rate, some of them have been noted for their most racist of actions rendering their properties some "Little Rhodesias" and "Little Englands" beyond the reach and unaffected by politics of majority blacks.

It implies that if they are not comfortable with sharing the resource that they have long enjoyed exclusive "right" to, a "right" that came into being through a wrong called colonialism, they should be vehemently be called to part with the same.

In this case, the recently enacted law of Indigenisation, which requires that indigenous peoples take up 51 percent stake in any business venture, becomes handy.

No longer should sharing be a matter of choice but necessity and political and historical correctness.

It will be cruel to have a throwback to an earlier era of exclusive ownership of resources just when the country is beginning to reap rewards of the land reform programme characterised by surging growth.

Before land reform in 2000, the skewed land tenure meant that one percent of Zimbabwe’s population controlled 45 percent of all agricultural land, condemning the majority to arid and unproductive land.

If properly executed, wildlife-based land reform will be able to produce a success story of its own.

Yet there will always be problems that pertain to wildlife production as a business, and a delicate one for that matter.

It will only be prudent that persons that meet the ideal criteria that have been made be able to access land for wildlife.

In this regard, time is arguably not a factor, as rash issuance of leases to those that cannot deploy usefulness in the sector can only spell doom for the programme.

There is need for support for those who meet the minimum requirements to commence business, as in the case with seed animals, which the ministry says it can provide, and other relevant implements.

The problem that some people have settled themselves in conservancies, a reference mainly to the Chitsa clan, which has claimed parts of the Save conservancy, could be addressed amicably in the context of community participation.

Instead of being viewed as a problem, locals and communities represent legitimate entitlement to a resource they historically have been deprived of, and one which they understand, too.

It is only too racist and demeaning to view them as poachers and potential poachers and spoilers.

It has to be admitted that it is their continued marginalisation and criminalisation that might in fact lead to frustration and destruction.

Yet the success of community-based conservation projects over the years, in the mould of the Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources suggests communities are as good guardians of their environment as they are businesspeople in their own right.

As the policy suggests, share transfer to the likes of Chitsa clan represents not only an amicable solution but also a historically just and prudent initiative.

To be fair, especially to the poor folk at Parks who are tasked with the big challenge of moving reform in the sector, more time, consultations and resources are needed.

The fact that wildlife-based land reform is not a spatial or isolated event but a national, historical, economic and social one tends to dwarf the authority.

In which case it can be suggested that reform in the wildlife sector be treated with more seriousness, robustness and delicateness it deserves.

The juxtaposition of the wildlife-based land reform and the agrarian reform is also a telling one.

As it is well-known that the latter encountered some challenges in implementation, it is imperative that the former be trained to avoid the same pitfalls.

It will be illogical and tragic for the implementers of the programme to have seen or learnt anything.

Yet it should be realised that where we can afford to grow grass and let lie our pieces of land somewhere for use tomorrow or the day after, wildlife resources face acute danger of extermination and ill use.

No resource is expendable and the sooner and more resolute the programme of wildlife-based land reform is carried out the better.

tichaona.zindoga@gmail.com