"The Obama administration is utilising the crisis in Iraq as an
opportunity to escalate the US war drive throughout the Middle East,
with Syria in the cross-hairs.."
Tichaona Zindoga
On May 28, US President Barack Obama gave a speech at the United States
Military Academy commencement ceremony at West Point. Many people
across the world appeared to interpret it as a climbdown by the US in
its global militarism, as part of a wider foreign policy thrust. That
may have been what Obama himself intended,
promising the graduands that they would be “the first class to graduate
since 9/11 who may not be sent into combat in Iraq or Afghanistan.”
The
landscape has changed, said he, “We have removed our troops from Iraq.
We are winding down our war in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda’s leadership on the
border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan has been decimated, and
Osama bin Laden is no more.”
He claimed America had “refocused our investments” in growing the economy.
How so ironic!
Less than a month later, the US is beating the war drum again and ready
to return to Iraq. Reports in the past week indicate that the US is
sending personnel to Iraq, a modest figure of less than 300 staff of
non-combats. (The next logical step is anyone’s conjecture.)
But
here is one thing that may yet tell us that Obama and the US have some
worst points — forgive the pun — to prove: a CNN report on June 19
quoted Obama as saying he did not need new permission to intervene in
Iraq.
There is something unsettling in the way the CNN reported the matter.
“I’ll let you know what’s going on, but I don’t need new congressional
authority to act”, President Barack Obama told congressional leaders
Wednesday about his upcoming decision on possible military intervention
in Iraq,” was how the network reported.
If one could not perceive
some emperor, with all the fine airs of a demi-god in this, then the
next part of the CNN report should be enlightening.
“The White House
meeting sounded more like a listening session for the top Republicans
and Democrats in the House and Senate about options for helping Iraq’s
embattled Shi’ite government halt the lightning advance of Sunni
Islamist fighters toward Baghdad that Obama is considering,” adjoined
CNN. The emperor was planning a war.
He did not say it.
Perhaps because he is not accountable to anyone, not even the US Congress.
The world knows that the US is planning a war. This is why Iranian
supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei over the weekend expressed strong
opposition to intervention in Iraq.
He said: “We are strongly
opposed to US and other (countries’) intervention in Iraq. We don’t
approve of it, as we believe the Iraqi government, nation and religious
authorities are capable of ending the sedition. And God willing, they
will do so.”
Elsewhere in the CNN article, it was revealed that
“170 US military personnel have been sent to Baghdad to assist in
securing embassy personnel inside Iraq, while another 100 moved into the
region to “provide airfield management security and logistic support,
if required”.
The report said: “A draft list of possible ISIS
targets in Iraq is being constantly reviewed and revised with the latest
intelligence, typical of any preliminary targeting operation, according
to US military officials who spoke on the condition of not being
identified. Compiling the draft list does not signal that Obama will
authorise such strikes, and several administration officials said the
President has yet to make a final decision.”
There is more.
There
are already manned and unmanned reconnaissance flights over Iraq to
collect up-to-the-minute intelligence on ISIS movements and positions,
all to ready the use of precision-guided weapons. Drones are also on
standby.
That sounds very scary and does not quite show the end of
military adventurism — or misadventurism — on the part of the US. So
it’s tough luck to the poor graduates at West Point who may have bought
the fat lie that they would be “the first class to graduate since 9/11
who may not be sent into combat in Iraq or Afghanistan.”
Exceptionalism
One must admit that the megalomania of US leaders forces them to do things to prove their worth and power.
It is something they call American exceptionalism, couched in the
belief that, “America must always lead on the world stage. If we don’t,
no one else will.” It should be noted that even in the West Point
speech, Obama appeared to be caught between a moralistic, anti-war
person and a war-mongering, archetypal American emperor.
It
takes you back to the Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech in 2009 where
he laboured over just war, etc, when he had been awarded a “peace”
prize.
Having told about the first group that would get into Iraq
or Afghanistan, he stated, repeating “a principle I put forward at the
outset of my presidency”:
“The United States will use military
force, unilaterally if necessary, when our core interests demand it —
when our people are threatened, when our livelihoods are at stake, when
the security of our allies is in danger . . .
“International
opinion matters, but America should never ask permission to protect our
people, our homeland, or our way of life.”
The latter statement resonates with the CNN report of June 19 cited above.
In
which case, the views of the likes of Khamenei and other anti-war
people do not matter. It may take a few weeks for the world to see the
war, with America in the thick of things, unravel.
This is because, in part, Iraq provides an entry into the Middle East and a go-get to Syria, and by extension, Russia.
“The Obama administration is utilising the crisis in Iraq as an
opportunity to escalate the US war drive throughout the Middle East,
with Syria in the cross-hairs,” wrote Patrick Martin and Joseph Kishore
on June 20.
The two postulate: “The war drive against Syria is
inextricably tied to the US and European-backed campaign against Russia,
a major Syrian ally. Opposition from Russia was a significant factor in
the decision by the Obama administration to temporarily pull back from
war against Syria last year. This was followed by the operation in
Ukraine to unseat a pro-Russian government and provoke a confrontation
with Russia itself.”
Olivier Knox, reporting on the announcement
to send troops to Iraq, said one reporter asked senior administration
officials whether “American strikes against ISIS be confined to Iraq or
could they reach into Syria”?
“The president is focused, again, on
a number of potential contingencies that may demand US direct military
action. One of those is the threat from ISIL and the threat that could
pose, again, not simply to Iraqi stability but to US personnel and to US
interests more broadly, certainly including our homeland,” one official
reportedly said.
“In that respect, we don’t restrict potential US action to a specific geographic space,” the official continued.
“The president has made clear time and again that we will take action
as necessary, including direct US military action if it’s necessary to
defend the United States against an imminent threat . . . the group
ISIL, again, operates broadly, and we would not restrict our ability to
take action that is necessary to protect the United States.”
Here is Knox’s own conclusion: “In other words: The United States might take its war against ISIS into Syria.”
Terrorism
Fighting terrorism — whether real, imagined or contrived — by the US
has almost given it the raison d’etre in the last 13 years.
At West
Point, Obama gave an indication of scaling down on senseless
bombardments on alleged terrorist targets and announced new strategy of
engagement, creation and training of proxies, which to him seem less
odious.
“For the foreseeable future, the most direct threat to
America, at home and abroad, remains terrorism, but a strategy that
involves invading every country that harbours terrorist networks is
naive and unsustainable,” he said.
Explaining further, he said:
“And the need for a new strategy reflects the fact that today’s
principal threat no longer comes from a centralised al-Qaeda leadership.
Instead, it comes from decentralised al-Qaeda affiliates and
extremists, many with agendas focused in the countries where they
operate.
“And this lessens the possibility of large-scale
9/11-style attacks against the homeland, but it heightens the danger of
US personnel overseas being attacked, as we saw in Benghazi.
“It
heightens the danger to less defensible targets, as we saw in a shopping
mall in Nairobi. So we have to develop a strategy that matches this
diffuse threat, one that expands our reach without sending forces that
stretch our military too thin or stir up local resentments.”
The strategy is already underway, with Africa the special frontier, and it would seem Obama has a point to prove here too.
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
Friday, March 14, 2014
Morgan Tsvangirai's Five Decision Points
It is hardly salutary for a
leader that is known for indecisiveness to be caught in any
uncomfortable situation that requires judgment.
Tichaona Zindoga
It must be worse for Morgan Richard Tsvangirai, leader of the opposition MDC-T, who now faces a five-way conundrum which will determine the fate of the outfit that currently is facing a second split under his watch.
How Tsvangirai will handle five critical decision points will define the course of politics in Zimbabwe and seal Tsvangirai’s place in the history of the country, for better or for worse.
Granted, since Independence in 1980, Tsvangirai has been the only politician that has managed to shake the political landscape that has been dominated by the liberation movement fronted by Zanu-PF and President Mugabe.
The formation of the MDC in 1999 provided excitement to a political culture that was beset by complacency and at some point even entertained the idea of a one-party state.
The MDC was supposed to be a worker’s party – and stayed true to the definition and ideology in the initial years, witness its support in urban areas, although there was a strong identification with the white farming community who provided the money, and Western ideologues.
In the intervening years, the MDC would shed off its worker base to become a melting pot of elements opposed to Zanu-PF, with Western interests becoming louder and louder while Tsvangirai fronted both Western and opposition interests.
The student movement, also under socio-economic stress, would look up to, and boost, the political muscle of Tsvangirai.
But the initial push failed in the period between 2000 and 2005.
Cracks began to emerge, resulting in the split of October 12, 2005.
Yet Tsvangirai retained the top seat and in 2008, aided by Western sanctions on Zimbabwe, the MDC leader had a taste of State power by securing a place in the inclusive Government.
It would prove a costly miss.
Five years later, in July 2013, his party dismally lost elections and the aftermath of the elections is set to test the character of both Tsvangirai and the opposition movement in Zimbabwe.
Infighting has again reared its head and Tsvangirai now stands at a crossroads: his next steps will shape the country’s politics forever depending on how he manoeuvres five questions.
Intra-party unity: The MDC-T house today resembles a Royal Rumble match more than it does a political party. For those unfamiliar with Royal Rumble, it is a wrestling TV show initially produced by the World Wrestling Federation, in which, according to one definition, a number of wrestlers aim at eliminating their competitors by tossing them over the top rope, with both feet touching the floor. The winner of the event is the last wrestler remaining in the ring after all others have been eliminated.
The wrestlers may form weak alliances but at the end of the day, all contrive to be the last man standing. MDC-T has all the ingredients of a Royal Rumble. Tsvangirai seeks by means fair and foul to be the last man standing. Will Tsvangirai pursue the Royal Rumble or will he call it to halt?
Diplomacy: Tsvangirai is not his sexiest at the moment to his Western donors and diplomatic friends, from the British Embassy to George Soros. Lately, he has been castigating these forces for interfering in the affairs of his party. Will he cut the umbilical cord with the Western founders and funders? What kind of policies will he pursue afterwards? It is a make or break decision that he has to take.
Tsvangirai may choose to continue playing the puppet, under even more constraining conditions, or choose to break free and court a new politician that can brag about independence. Either way the stakes are high.
Funding: This is closely linked to the above. It would seem Tsvangirai, already suffering from dwindling resources, has been toying with the idea of finding alternatives to Western funding.
Tsvangirai's (hapless) panacea: his supporters could sell goats and chickens to fund MDC so it becomes more independent. The only problem with that is there will not be any legendary seas to be conquered. There won’t simply be enough.
Grassroots support: The idea that Tsvangirai has grassroots support has been such a comforting prospect for him. When factionalism began to shake the party, Tsvangirai resorted to seeking solace in captive crowds and party thugs in Harare to reassure him.
Such gangs have been denouncing Tsvangirai’s internal opponents like Mangoma, even mocking him for being disabled. Tsvangirai loves that. They will kill for him. However, far from the mad, rented crowds, Tsvangirai will need to ensure that he has the numbers.
Already, if the party splits, it means that Tsvangirai will have roughly a third of the party’s supporters. Such a trajectory, honed by Tsvangirai himself, does not seem to promise a fruitful future for him.
Strategy: Whatever the outcome of the present malaise, the future of opposition politics will depend on what strategies the main party will employ amid the ever diminishing returns. Biti tells us that MDC-T’s “change” message is tired. Perhaps so too are promises of some rich white friends coming to rescue us poor Zimbabwean folk. The Western friends, if they still are, are broke themselves. Whither opposition?
Tichaona Zindoga
It must be worse for Morgan Richard Tsvangirai, leader of the opposition MDC-T, who now faces a five-way conundrum which will determine the fate of the outfit that currently is facing a second split under his watch.
How Tsvangirai will handle five critical decision points will define the course of politics in Zimbabwe and seal Tsvangirai’s place in the history of the country, for better or for worse.
Granted, since Independence in 1980, Tsvangirai has been the only politician that has managed to shake the political landscape that has been dominated by the liberation movement fronted by Zanu-PF and President Mugabe.
The formation of the MDC in 1999 provided excitement to a political culture that was beset by complacency and at some point even entertained the idea of a one-party state.
The MDC was supposed to be a worker’s party – and stayed true to the definition and ideology in the initial years, witness its support in urban areas, although there was a strong identification with the white farming community who provided the money, and Western ideologues.
In the intervening years, the MDC would shed off its worker base to become a melting pot of elements opposed to Zanu-PF, with Western interests becoming louder and louder while Tsvangirai fronted both Western and opposition interests.
The student movement, also under socio-economic stress, would look up to, and boost, the political muscle of Tsvangirai.
But the initial push failed in the period between 2000 and 2005.
Cracks began to emerge, resulting in the split of October 12, 2005.
Yet Tsvangirai retained the top seat and in 2008, aided by Western sanctions on Zimbabwe, the MDC leader had a taste of State power by securing a place in the inclusive Government.
It would prove a costly miss.
Five years later, in July 2013, his party dismally lost elections and the aftermath of the elections is set to test the character of both Tsvangirai and the opposition movement in Zimbabwe.
Infighting has again reared its head and Tsvangirai now stands at a crossroads: his next steps will shape the country’s politics forever depending on how he manoeuvres five questions.
Intra-party unity: The MDC-T house today resembles a Royal Rumble match more than it does a political party. For those unfamiliar with Royal Rumble, it is a wrestling TV show initially produced by the World Wrestling Federation, in which, according to one definition, a number of wrestlers aim at eliminating their competitors by tossing them over the top rope, with both feet touching the floor. The winner of the event is the last wrestler remaining in the ring after all others have been eliminated.
The wrestlers may form weak alliances but at the end of the day, all contrive to be the last man standing. MDC-T has all the ingredients of a Royal Rumble. Tsvangirai seeks by means fair and foul to be the last man standing. Will Tsvangirai pursue the Royal Rumble or will he call it to halt?
Diplomacy: Tsvangirai is not his sexiest at the moment to his Western donors and diplomatic friends, from the British Embassy to George Soros. Lately, he has been castigating these forces for interfering in the affairs of his party. Will he cut the umbilical cord with the Western founders and funders? What kind of policies will he pursue afterwards? It is a make or break decision that he has to take.
Tsvangirai may choose to continue playing the puppet, under even more constraining conditions, or choose to break free and court a new politician that can brag about independence. Either way the stakes are high.
Funding: This is closely linked to the above. It would seem Tsvangirai, already suffering from dwindling resources, has been toying with the idea of finding alternatives to Western funding.
Tsvangirai's (hapless) panacea: his supporters could sell goats and chickens to fund MDC so it becomes more independent. The only problem with that is there will not be any legendary seas to be conquered. There won’t simply be enough.
Grassroots support: The idea that Tsvangirai has grassroots support has been such a comforting prospect for him. When factionalism began to shake the party, Tsvangirai resorted to seeking solace in captive crowds and party thugs in Harare to reassure him.
Such gangs have been denouncing Tsvangirai’s internal opponents like Mangoma, even mocking him for being disabled. Tsvangirai loves that. They will kill for him. However, far from the mad, rented crowds, Tsvangirai will need to ensure that he has the numbers.
Already, if the party splits, it means that Tsvangirai will have roughly a third of the party’s supporters. Such a trajectory, honed by Tsvangirai himself, does not seem to promise a fruitful future for him.
Strategy: Whatever the outcome of the present malaise, the future of opposition politics will depend on what strategies the main party will employ amid the ever diminishing returns. Biti tells us that MDC-T’s “change” message is tired. Perhaps so too are promises of some rich white friends coming to rescue us poor Zimbabwean folk. The Western friends, if they still are, are broke themselves. Whither opposition?
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
Morgan Tsvangirai is now desperate man
It is now very telling that he appeals to his opponents, with nothing but his ego and fame as bargaining chips.
Tichaona Zindoga
Desperation; it’s like one can see the word written on the wall. It is a tough time for Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the opposition MDC-T. Having lost successive elections in the last 15 years, the last of which was on July 31, 2013, he now stares a split in his party as internal opposition to his leadership grows.
The reasons for this growth in opposition are largely because of his electoral failures and the manifestation of a repressive and undemocratic streak in his character.
Over the weekend, Tsvangirai made a curious call that betrayed his desperation as the captain of a sinking ship.
He called on ex-members who left the party and have gone on to form their political parties to come back to his “tent”.
He called on Job Sikhala, a one time legislator on an MDC ticket, who went to join a splinter party and later formed his own MDC-99, to come back into the fold.
He appealed to Welshman Ncube his bête noire in the acrimonious 2005 split; Professor Lovemore Madhuku, erstwhile comrade in the elusive “people-driven constitution”
(in Madhuku’s terms, of course) and now leader of a political party morphed from the National Constitutional Assembly.
The desperation is palpable.
It can be dissected in at least three ways: one, this is a call coming from a man defeated and hopeless.
Such a call could have sufficed — when made in good faith — before July 31.
Tsvangirai would not make such a call, or appeal with an acceptable degree of honesty, when he thought he was going to win the election.
It is now very telling that he appeals to his opponents, with nothing but his ego and fame as bargaining chips.
The second way in which Tsvangirai betrays desperation lies in the substance of the men he is calling on to join him.
They are all electoral losers and Lovemore Madhuku is even failing to set up the political party that he controversially conceived from the NCA.
The project already has been hit by desertions of (perceived) key personages like Takura Zhangazha and Blessing Vava.
Ncube may have been at the helm of an organisationally better MDC but he too proved to be an absolute failure ideologically.
And besides, Ncube has time and again refused, at least publicly, to go back to Tsvangirai owing to personal and ethical differences with the latter.
So, why would Tsvangirai make the appeal?
It may sound ironic that he seeks partnership with those outside when he is failing to hold on to members inside the party.
It can be noted, though, that Tsvangirai, in the unlikely event that these guys heed the call, requires some numbers around him to boost his ego, swell his party loyalty,
delay any precipitous congress or vote of (no) confidence and eventually push dissenters out.
Tsvangirai needs to buy time as he seeks to marshal his increasingly tenuous hold on the levers of power.
The third and probably most poignant indicator of Tsvangirai’s desperation is his invocation of God in his self-serving way, and seeking to project himself as a second pater.
He said at the rally: “God doesn’t destroy; God builds. If you do something wrong to your father and you are outside in the dark, he will call you inside the house. Don’t remain outside, come back to the others because you are a family member. If you stay outside you will die of hunger and be a destitute.”
Politics does not operate in such a godly manner; the skulduggery is rather too much.
Tsvangirai knows it.
When he invokes God and seeks to play the earthly father, he is being dishonest: in this case, he himself looks set to die of hunger and be a destitute.
He has to avoid it at all costs.
Still there is further evidence of desperation in Tsvangirai.
Money has become such a problem.
The donors have become sparse, scheming.
He now calls on ordinary people of Zimbabwe to finance the party, and his own livelihood.
That used to be the preserve of donors, who even financed his personal life.
How times change.
Two weeks ago he said: “Every member of the MDC must now contribute something for the struggle starting from March. We don’t want programmes to stop because we don’t have cash.”
And at the weekend he said: “It is high time that Zimbabweans underwrite their own struggle. You can’t continue to say to donors, ‘thank you’ all the time. If you are proud people you must be able to underwrite your struggle.”
Are these not the same donors and “rich friends” that he was once so proud of, that would bring in billions of dollars to resuscitate the economy and help the same poor people that Tsvangirai now asks to fund him?
And look who is now envying church pastors and competing for alms!
It is a desperate situation and while such times bring the best in some, they bring the worst in dear Morgan.
The latest turn of events brings to the fore the vacillating nature of Tsvangirai.
For those that care to remember, Tsvangirai, until recently, was angling for “national dialogue” which would pave way for another unity government.
During his “state of the nation” address on January 24, he said he had “sincere belief that the political dialogue will assist in developing national consensus on how to move the country forward,” beginning with a “meeting of stakeholders from different backgrounds”.
Or is the new coalition with Ncube, Madhuku and Sikhala what he had in mind?
For those watching him and events in the country with interest, they will realise that Tsvangirai, if on January 24, sought to project himself as changing the game and ready to alter the course of politics in the country, especially by forcing Zanu-PF to the negotiating table, it was just hot air.
That is why January 24 has quickly faded away from people’s minds.
In place of a national dialogue that would see him back to the apex of political play, Tsvangirai now realistically has to dally in the league of minnows like Job Sikhala, who for all is known, does not command any constituency beyond his circle of friends.
And hear how Sikhala shot back at Tsvangirai’s offer: “Tsvangirai knows my phone number. If he is serious, he should not grandstand at rallies; call me so that we can try to find common ground.”
Sikhala makes it clear he knows where Tsvangirai belongs.
He can afford to chide him for grandstanding at rallies, while making it clear that Tsvangirai has to climb down from his not so high horse and approach him.
And Sikhala will play hard to get, as they “try to find common ground”, too!
| Staring irrelevance...Morgan Tsvangirai |
Desperation; it’s like one can see the word written on the wall. It is a tough time for Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the opposition MDC-T. Having lost successive elections in the last 15 years, the last of which was on July 31, 2013, he now stares a split in his party as internal opposition to his leadership grows.
The reasons for this growth in opposition are largely because of his electoral failures and the manifestation of a repressive and undemocratic streak in his character.
Over the weekend, Tsvangirai made a curious call that betrayed his desperation as the captain of a sinking ship.
He called on ex-members who left the party and have gone on to form their political parties to come back to his “tent”.
He called on Job Sikhala, a one time legislator on an MDC ticket, who went to join a splinter party and later formed his own MDC-99, to come back into the fold.
He appealed to Welshman Ncube his bête noire in the acrimonious 2005 split; Professor Lovemore Madhuku, erstwhile comrade in the elusive “people-driven constitution”
(in Madhuku’s terms, of course) and now leader of a political party morphed from the National Constitutional Assembly.
The desperation is palpable.
It can be dissected in at least three ways: one, this is a call coming from a man defeated and hopeless.
Such a call could have sufficed — when made in good faith — before July 31.
Tsvangirai would not make such a call, or appeal with an acceptable degree of honesty, when he thought he was going to win the election.
It is now very telling that he appeals to his opponents, with nothing but his ego and fame as bargaining chips.
The second way in which Tsvangirai betrays desperation lies in the substance of the men he is calling on to join him.
They are all electoral losers and Lovemore Madhuku is even failing to set up the political party that he controversially conceived from the NCA.
The project already has been hit by desertions of (perceived) key personages like Takura Zhangazha and Blessing Vava.
Ncube may have been at the helm of an organisationally better MDC but he too proved to be an absolute failure ideologically.
And besides, Ncube has time and again refused, at least publicly, to go back to Tsvangirai owing to personal and ethical differences with the latter.
So, why would Tsvangirai make the appeal?
It may sound ironic that he seeks partnership with those outside when he is failing to hold on to members inside the party.
It can be noted, though, that Tsvangirai, in the unlikely event that these guys heed the call, requires some numbers around him to boost his ego, swell his party loyalty,
delay any precipitous congress or vote of (no) confidence and eventually push dissenters out.
Tsvangirai needs to buy time as he seeks to marshal his increasingly tenuous hold on the levers of power.
The third and probably most poignant indicator of Tsvangirai’s desperation is his invocation of God in his self-serving way, and seeking to project himself as a second pater.
He said at the rally: “God doesn’t destroy; God builds. If you do something wrong to your father and you are outside in the dark, he will call you inside the house. Don’t remain outside, come back to the others because you are a family member. If you stay outside you will die of hunger and be a destitute.”
Politics does not operate in such a godly manner; the skulduggery is rather too much.
Tsvangirai knows it.
When he invokes God and seeks to play the earthly father, he is being dishonest: in this case, he himself looks set to die of hunger and be a destitute.
He has to avoid it at all costs.
Still there is further evidence of desperation in Tsvangirai.
Money has become such a problem.
The donors have become sparse, scheming.
He now calls on ordinary people of Zimbabwe to finance the party, and his own livelihood.
That used to be the preserve of donors, who even financed his personal life.
How times change.
Two weeks ago he said: “Every member of the MDC must now contribute something for the struggle starting from March. We don’t want programmes to stop because we don’t have cash.”
And at the weekend he said: “It is high time that Zimbabweans underwrite their own struggle. You can’t continue to say to donors, ‘thank you’ all the time. If you are proud people you must be able to underwrite your struggle.”
Are these not the same donors and “rich friends” that he was once so proud of, that would bring in billions of dollars to resuscitate the economy and help the same poor people that Tsvangirai now asks to fund him?
And look who is now envying church pastors and competing for alms!
It is a desperate situation and while such times bring the best in some, they bring the worst in dear Morgan.
The latest turn of events brings to the fore the vacillating nature of Tsvangirai.
For those that care to remember, Tsvangirai, until recently, was angling for “national dialogue” which would pave way for another unity government.
During his “state of the nation” address on January 24, he said he had “sincere belief that the political dialogue will assist in developing national consensus on how to move the country forward,” beginning with a “meeting of stakeholders from different backgrounds”.
Or is the new coalition with Ncube, Madhuku and Sikhala what he had in mind?
For those watching him and events in the country with interest, they will realise that Tsvangirai, if on January 24, sought to project himself as changing the game and ready to alter the course of politics in the country, especially by forcing Zanu-PF to the negotiating table, it was just hot air.
That is why January 24 has quickly faded away from people’s minds.
In place of a national dialogue that would see him back to the apex of political play, Tsvangirai now realistically has to dally in the league of minnows like Job Sikhala, who for all is known, does not command any constituency beyond his circle of friends.
And hear how Sikhala shot back at Tsvangirai’s offer: “Tsvangirai knows my phone number. If he is serious, he should not grandstand at rallies; call me so that we can try to find common ground.”
Sikhala makes it clear he knows where Tsvangirai belongs.
He can afford to chide him for grandstanding at rallies, while making it clear that Tsvangirai has to climb down from his not so high horse and approach him.
And Sikhala will play hard to get, as they “try to find common ground”, too!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)