Zimbabwe opposition unworthy of stripes

 As for intelligent criticism, zero — especially when the opposition is led by one Morgan Tsvangirai.
If anything, the opposition is guilty of simply opposing for the sake of opposing.

Face of opposition...Morgan Tsvangirai

 
Tichaona Zindoga
Zimbabwe’s opposition, whose face is the Movement for Democratic Change led by Morgan Tsvangirai, is pretty useless in a number of respects.
They have just lost elections — that is number one — and are ever diminished when the year 2008 presented them with the golden opportunity of initiative when they commanded a slim majority over Zanu-PF.
It had somehow gone according to book that MDC-T would “force” Zanu-PF to the negotiating table and then “capture power from within”.
But after five years in Government in which MDC-T and another MDC faction were a joint parliamentary majority, they came unstuck.
In 2013, the opposition surrendered the majority in a fashion that ensured that Zanu-PF got more than the two-thirds it needs to do whatever it wants, so to speak.
The “kingmaker” in the other MDC faction, Welshman Ncube is no more a factor in the body politic.
The second reason that the opposition in Zimbabwe is a useless bunch is contained in the regret that was held by former US Ambassador to Zimbabwe Christopher Dell who decried its lack of talent and unity.
He said that with a different cast in the opposition leadership, the country would have seen regime change, which of course is what the US and its allies desired.
The third reason why the Zimbabwean opposition in its current configuration is not worth its salt lies in its qualitative nature.
It will be useful to highlight what an ideal opposition is like and what roles it should play, to understand the vacuity of the MDC-T.
On October 27, 1949 a Canadian lawmaker John G Diefenbaker presented a paper entitled “The Role of The Opposition in Parliament” outlining the ideal functions of opposition.
“When it properly discharges them the preservation of our freedom is assured. The reading of history proves that freedom always dies when criticism ends. It upholds and maintains the rights of minorities against majorities. It must be vigilant against oppression and unjust invasions by the Cabinet of the rights of the people. It should supervise all expenditures and prevent over expenditure by exposing to the light of public opinion wasteful expenditures or worse.
“It finds fault; it suggests amendments; it asks questions and elicits information; it arouses, educates and molds public opinion by voice and vote. It must scrutinise every action by the government and in doing so prevent the short-cuts through democratic procedure that governments like to make.”
He said the opposition that discharges its responsibilities “becomes the responsible outlet of intelligent criticism”. There is a caveat.
“The opposition cannot oppose without reason. Its alternative policies must be responsible and practicable for it has a responsibility to the King to provide the alternative government to the one in power.”
An analysis of Zimbabwe’s opposition today in light of the above reflects badly on the politicians.
It is worse in light of the call by MDC-T to join Zanu-PF for another ruling coalition where it has shown more of a desire to jump into the gravy train rather than hold out and play credible opposition and alternative government.
Today, with all the sleaze and reports of malfeasance flying around, the opposition has not taken the initiative. It is as if the country does not have an opposition, a strong one, which people thought the MDCs were.
It has refused the lifeline thrown to it. It will not show the nation it will constitute better rule, free from corruption and cronyism and patronage.
Zimbabwean opposition has not been able to educate the populace, as prescribed above, or taken ownership of any compelling national discourse or governing ideas. Maybe aside of the drive for a new constitution, which initiative it today cannot claim for title to anyway, the opposition cannot say it has really done anything since 1999.
As for intelligent criticism, zero — especially when the opposition is led by one Morgan Tsvangirai.
If anything, the opposition is guilty of simply opposing for the sake of opposing. That is why, for example, they will pigheadedly deny the existence of sanctions against Zimbabwe when there is a whole law enforcing the embargo in the form of Zidera among other declared and undeclared punitive instruments.
The heckling and other forms of disorderly conduct that the nation has witnessed in the opposition tell of an opposition without cause.
Given the above, the only way Zimbabwe may migrate from misgovernance and other ill-practices is through the reform of the ruling party by and of itself. It is a tricky call.
But it also presents an opportunity for Zanu-PF to self-introspect and reform, to show that it is serious about serving the people and not corrupt officials. The people will be watching; expectant.
The opposition is in a limbo.
And like one member of the UK Parliament would have said, “It is not a long step… (from) a complete (opposition) dictatorship.”

Eddie Cross: A strange advocate for equity

He has described the historic process as an “illegal assets grab” and remains opposed to black people’s land ownership and economic participation.He cannot profess parity now.

Hypocrite...Eddie Cross

Tichaona Zindoga
Could this be true, or some sense has contrived to fool my understanding?
Such could be the reaction if one were to come across a February 3 article by MDC-T’s Eddie Cross in which he speaks about equity, God, care and humanity.
Cross’ submission was based on a research on the subject of social equality where Japan is the most equal society in the world with Brazil and South Africa the most unequal.
Then Cross tells us the virtues of equity.
“It’s important because if you view humanity as God does, each person is a special creation that has value for its own sake and therefore has value and deserves recognition, care and respect. Giving people dignity and worth is a goal that is always worth pursuing – either as a society or as an individual,” he says.
He recalls an incident in which George Bush Sr was selected as the candidate for the Presidency and he stood and in hand “a small Mongoloid boy – a grandson”, who was seemingly unaware of the crowd and his oddity. That would have earned Bush Cross’ vote if Cross were a voting American.
Cross then recalls his own magnanimity during his time as CEO of a “major company” when he facilitated the conversion of a “tea boy” into an entrepreneur, serving more quality teas and cakes and sandwiches.
“In the process he increased his income but the greatest impact was that we gave him dignity and purpose,” says Cross.
“At the root of the process of building a more equitable and decent society is concern for those at the bottom of the pile. At the heart of Christianity is a concern for the poor and disadvantaged. Most in our materialistic societies view this as charity, it’s not…”
It will be useful to test Cross’s Christianity, God, humanity and care for “those at bottom of the pile”.
Patrick Bond, author of a 1998 book, Uneven Zimbabwe: A Study of Finance, Development and Underdevelopment, in 2000 wrote a paper on Eddie Cross and the economic thrust of the MDC party of which Cross was the economic secretary. Bond said Cross came “from a faction that has long supported the introduction of structural adjustment, and which applauded Mugabe for turning to free-market policies during the 1990s.”
Despite a decade of failure, Cross told a weekly in 1999 that: “We in industry believe that the only way to make a significant impact is to comply fully with the IMF conditions.”
Then in a speech entitled Zimbabwe at the Economic Crossroads: Which Way Forward, he railed against Government’s efforts to cushion the ordinary man captured in the Millennium Recovery Programme.
He described it as “toilet paper… worth nothing. Complete junk.”
Apart from advocating for Government’s non-interference “in the way in which people manage their lives”, and reduced levels of taxation, Cross touted privatization.
Said Cross: “We are going to fast track privatisation. All 50 government parastatals will be privatised within a two-year time frame, but we are going far beyond that. We are going to privatise many of the functions of government. We are going to privatise the Central Statistical Office. We are going to privatise virtually the entire school delivery system.”
Workforce would drop from 300,000 to 75,000 in five years.”
That was 2000.
Anyone with honesty and decency cannot mention equity and God in the same line as IMF or Esap.
Structural adjustment and IMF programmes sever State social responsibility for the profit of a few corporates and individuals. Inequality goes up. The rich become richer, the poor poorer.
That is the privatization that Cross wanted to “fast track” if and when MDC-T got into power. Whence this’ piousness today?
It is hypocrisy.
Remember it was the same Cross that enjoyed the Zimbabweans’ suffering preferring to “let the bus crash and burn” if MDC-T could not have power?
Power to do what? Commit the country to the politics of IMF and privatization!
Cross has been against programmes such as the land reform that benefitted millions of blacks Zimbabweans.
He has described the historic process as an “illegal assets grab” and remains opposed to black people’s land ownership and economic participation.
He cannot profess parity now.
Nor does Cross he like indigenisation. “It is all nonsense,” is what Cross wrote on indigenisation on July 13, 2012,“we do not have the expertise and technology to run these firms and we certainly do not have the money…”
The “we” of course never meant himself, the Great grandson of the GW Cross, a pioneering Rhodesian.
It meant the black man forever to work for white master.
But that is to be expected.
It only becomes queer when his other corner of the mouth begins to talk equity, God, Christianity and those “at the bottom of the pile”.

How France continues to live off Africa

In what meaningful way can any of the 14 CFA countries be said to be independent? If this isn’t illegal and an international crime, then what is? What is it going to take for this state of indentured servitude to end?
How much have the CFA countries lost as a result of this 50-year (and counting) “agreement”?
Do French people know they’re living off the wealth of African countries and have been doing so for over half a century? And if they know, do they give a damn?

Siji Jabbar
Just before France conceded to African demands for independence in the 1960s, it carefully organised its former colonies (CFA countries) in a system of “compulsory solidarity” which consisted of obliging the 14 African states to put 65 percent of their foreign currency reserves into the French Treasury, plus another 20 percent for financial liabilities.
This means these 14 African countries only ever have access to 15 percent of their own money! If they need more they have to borrow their own money from the French at commercial rates.
And this has been the case since the 1960s. Believe it or not it gets worse.
France has the first right to buy or reject any natural resources found in the land of the Francophone countries.
So even if the African countries can get better prices elsewhere, they can’t sell to anybody until France says it doesn’t need the resources. In the award of government contracts, French companies must be considered first; only after that can these countries look elsewhere. It doesn’t matter if the CFA countries can obtain better value for money elsewhere.
Presidents of CFA countries that have tried to leave the CFA zone have had political and financial pressure put on them by successive French presidents.
Thus, these African states are French taxpayers — taxed at a staggering rate — yet the citizens of these countries aren’t French and don’t have access to the public goods and services their money helps pay for. CFA zones are solicited to provide private funding to French politicians during elections in France.
The above is a summary of an article we came across in the February issue of the New African (and from an interview given by Professor Mamadou Koulibaly, Speaker of the Ivorian National Assembly, Professor of Economics, and author of the book “The Servitude of the Colonial Pact”), and we hope they won’t mind us sharing it with you influx.
Currently, there is the awkward case in Abidjan where, before the elections, former president Gbagbo’s government wanted to build a third major bridge to link the central business district (called Plateau) to the rest of the city, from which it is separated by a lagoon.
By Colonial Pact tradition, the contract must go to a French company, which incidentally has quoted an astronomical price — to be paid in euros or US dollars.
Not happy, Gbagbo’s government sought a second quote from the Chinese, who offered to build the bridge at half the price quoted by the French company, and — wait for this — payment would be in cocoa beans, of which Cote d’Ivoire is the world’s largest producer.
But, unsurprisingly, the French said “non, you can’t do that”.
Overall the Colonial Pact gives the French a dominant and privileged position over Francophone Africa, but in Côte d’Ivoire, the jewel of the former French possessions in Africa, the French are overly dominant.
Outside parliament, almost all the major utilities — water, electricity, telephone, transport, ports and major banks — are run by French companies or French interests. The same story is found in commerce, construction, and agriculture.
In short, the Colonial Pact has created a legal mechanism under which France obtains a special place in the political and economic life of its former colonies.?
In what meaningful way can any of the 14 CFA countries be said to be independent? If this isn’t illegal and an international crime, then what is? What is it going to take for this state of indentured servitude to end?
How much have the CFA countries lost as a result of this 50-year (and counting) “agreement”?
Do French people know they’re living off the wealth of African countries and have been doing so for over half a century? And if they know, do they give a damn? When will France start paying back money they’ve sucked from these countries, not only directly from the interest on cash reserves and loans these countries have had to take out, but also on lost earnings from the natural resources the countries sold to France below market rates as well as the lost earnings resulting from awarding contracts to French companies when other contractors could have done things for less?
Does any such “agreement” exist between Britain and its former colonies, or did they really let go when they let go? — This Is Africa.