Devolution: What You Said

Devolution: What You Said

PROPOSAL: Samuel Sipepa Nkomo

• Minister outlines plan to divide Zimbabwe into five regions

• Lovemore Madhuku: Defining mechanisms of constitution-making

• Lovemore Madhuku: Constitution is word of the people

• ZCTU to campaign for rejection of new constitution

• Madhuku, Tsvangirai meeting fails to heal rift

• Sikhumbuzo Dube: Madhuku cannot impede reforms

• NCA vows to oppose constitutional reforms

• Zimbabwe announces committee for new constitution

• Jonathan Moyo: While Zanu PF has legitimacy but lacks credibility, NCA lacks both

Posted to the web: 27/05/2009 17:12:03
WATER Resources Minister revealed on Monday that the MDC will back proposals for devolution of power which will see the country divided into five provinces, each with a budget and parliament of its own (read story).

He is a selection of your comments on the proposal:

Editor - If this is the brightest idea coming out of MDC, it just shows clearly whose agenda this is. Please people you need to read more than just follow foolish things like dividing Zimbabwe along which lines. Why divide the country along such lines because these lines themselves are faulty and are lines of colonialism? Why waste resources which can be pulled together to build a stronger country, instead of fighting for someone else agenda?

In the UK devolution has not worked, yet they are the ones who continue talking about dividing other countries up. Divided we fall, should make sense here, because they will come with strings attached here, and who benefits from this? Not the Africans.

This is just sounding like Europe is still pushing for their agenda to divide Africa -- check the DRC saga. Wake up Africans come up with your own plans instead of repeating the same old same old mistake of following what the white man says, as if its God who has spoken.

Dr Themba Ndlovu
Political Scientist

Editor - I personally do not support this idea to devolve power to regions, doing so would further divide the people of Zimbabwe. This is very unreasonable and unacceptable. This issue does not deserve debate as many people in these regions will be disadvantaged. What guarantee is there that resources would be fairly distributed in these regions?

People should STOP being so power hungry. We have to work towards uniting the people of Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe is a small country that does not deserve all this partitioning. We have been divided culturally for a long time and some people in Zimbabwe don't even speak Ndebele nor Shona and they claim to be Zimbabweans.

I remember one time when the Ndebele people were advocating to divide Zimbabwe into two countries. What’s that? By allowing this to happen, we are going back to history where Lobengula and Sekuru Kaguvi could not see each other. That's promoting tribalism as far as I am concerned.

Let’s concentrate to build a better Zimbabwe with jobs and a sound health system to suite the 21st century. I can see that individuals have hidden agendas here. What are MPs and Ministers for? These people represent provinces and constituencies. Their responsibility is to advocate on behalf of people living in these provinces. Therefore let’s keep the provinces we have and forget about regions. We all need to work towards improving the economy, not dividing the country.

Having many parliaments in Zimbabwe will not function well and would rather create more problems. We do have a parliament that is not functioning effectively at present. If we can't manage one parliament properly, how can you manage more? Varume, why create more problems for the people of Zimbabwe.

Let’s think straight ladies and gentlemen.

Sincerely,

Concerned Citizen.

Editor - I think establishing regional governments is good for our country. The plan is a clear roadmap to democracy. I think Zimbabweans should support this idea as it is going to be fruitful not only to us but to other SADC states.

Lazarus Sauti

Editor - It is a long overdue undertaking. History has shown, the world over, that a centralised political and economic power structure such as exists in Zimbabwe today, inevitably leads to abuse of the same. In the case of Zimbabwe, one only has to travel around our beloved country to see for oneself the results of centralisation of power in Harare.

Having said that, our Zimbabwean people stand only to gain greater political, socio-economic strength in diversity – the secret of USA’s indisputable greatness in all spheres of human endeavour.

I thus strongly support the proposal to enshrine devolution of political and economic power in the Constitution of Zimbabwe.

E U Zikode

Editor - Now this is the quintessential solution that will lead us to the promised land of our New Zimbabwe! This formula is the basis on which the American society enjoys sustained and robust development in their standards of living. Allow the people their inalienable liberties to take a more intimate ownership of the governance of their local communities.

Let us not waste this window of opportunity to get it right once and for all. 29 years of centralised governance and political dominance (perceived or real) by one region has certainly gotten us nowhere!

Mazhiya
Iowa, USA

Editor - This is a tribalistic initiative from people with tribalistic agendas. The fact is there for everyone to see that Ndebeles are tribalists, and I wonder why the MDC is supportive of such a hated idea. The mere fact that a Ndebele, Sam Sipepa Moyo (sic), initiated and motioned that speaks volumes.

Verengerai Mavesere

Editor - Zimbabwe is too small a country to be divided into five regions. Comparing Zimbabwe to the South African scenario ignores the fact that some provinces in South Africa are as big as Zimbabwe, one of which is the Western Cape. Now if Zimbabwe is to be divided into five regions, it is like diving Western Cape into five regions which is not feasible administratively and the South Africans have not done that.

The matter of dividing Zimbabwe into five regions is not new; it is the same matter that the Ndebele people have raised for the past twenty-five years. Their fundamental issue being Matabeleland is being marginalised in development terms by central government as they feel not much resources are committed to the south western provinces of Zimbabwe.

Probably the most sticking issue being the fact of the underfunded Zambezi Water Project which if engineers were sincere they would tell the truth that the energy that is required to pump water from the Zambezi water basin to Matabeleland makes the project unviable completely. But such facts are often hidden behind tribalism and opposition political expediency in that the MDC is well informed on the feasibility studies of the project but they want to get fake votes out of uninformed Ndebele people.

By nature, the Matabeleland region is semi-arid region which other than coal deposits and a few other whose future economic value in light of global pollution is not very clear. So agriculturally, you may rear cattle but the cattle ranching is not very intensive and in the absence of abundant water, the region is not fully packaged naturally to sustain itself and therefore it depends on others. Now the other regions that Matabeleland is supposed to depend on have not done well
for reason not limited to droughts etal, so by and large there is a lot room for regional dependency as can be supported in a central administration.

Now if the people of Matabeleland clamour for regionalism or ‘federations’ under such a background, really it is a matter of misinformed greed by some personalities in which Sipepa Nkomo is one.

The Europeans are breaking their national boundaries as in the Euro and forming not federations but a huge unified block, but down down south an uninformed colleague is dying to see Zimbabwe split into miniature sized districts! When the article affirms that even Tsvangirai supports regionalism, what is the meaning of that? I thought this is an issue for the constitution and the makers of which are the people of the Great Zimbabwe in which Tsvangirai is a one out of thirteen million. I don’t see how Tsvangirai’s like or dislike of it will influence the people-driven constitution.

If such thoughts of a regionalised Zimbabwe come from the thoughts of a failed politician, he failed to make the grade in Zapu, and failed again in Zanu after unification, and failed again in MDC before the split, and failed again in MDC–M and now he is trying federalism so that maybe he can campaign for regional head. What are the chances that he will fail? If he failed four times in a row what makes score good this time using the same failed political resume? I can swear by heaven, I can give Sipepa Nkomo a time warranty of a million years ahead that Zimbabwe shall not be a federation or a similitude of it as he is planning this time (regionalism).

Bantu Nzira

Editor - I am sad when people just accuse Ndebeles of tribalism with no regard to their take on the politics of tribe in Zimbabwe. Ndebeles consider Kalangas, Sothos, Vendas, Tongas and Shonas as equals in the province. The only bone of contention is there is no chance a Ndebele can get a farm in Beatrice, Zvimba and such areas but we have many Shonas in our midst.

Devolution will make it so that all resources are enjoyed at source - there is war in the Niger Delta for the same reasons. Why should some in Harare exploit diamonds in Marange to the exclusion of the locals? Similarly, Hwange profits need to be accounted in Hwange.

The happy point is people shout on rooftops that Matabeleland has no resources etc but would die to keep it part of the union!

Mkambo

Editor - I support this according to the minister, it seems as if everything is done in Harare. If we have devolution, that will lift the burden of travelling.

Gratitude

Editor - We are not even through with the current quagmire we are in and yet more ministers and prime ministers are being mooted. When is it going to be the turn for the marginalised Zimbabweans to be considered?

Zimbabwe is very different from SA. They have the money to sustain such a situation and guess what, we do not! All this plagiarising of ideas should stop, out leaders are not thinkers at all, I can see that now. It seems like they want to create little fiefdoms.

Tinashe Madamombe

Editor - The idea of regional government in Zimbabwe is long overdue. The idea was once chronicled by the late Rev. Ndabaningi Sithole on his return from the US in the early 1990s and was ridiculed. Maybe this was still too early given the political immaturity of the population at the moment. The Rev. was citing the United States of America as reference. He even suggested the redistribution of land to all needy and went on to make calculations of the shares each citizen would get.

What happened in the country just less than a decade of Sithole’s proposals demonstrated the Rev. was right but his plans were not executed well because no one wanted to give him the right respect he deserved and no one from the leading elite bothered to sit and share with him.

I personally urge all Zimbabweans to support this good cause for the development of our people and country as a whole. What we only need to be careful of always is not to rush before sufficient planning to avoid unnecessary negative effects as a result of this. The example of South Africa can help us a lot since this is African and very close to us that we are free to consult and exchange notes as brothers. I think this is very positive and needs our political maturity to be exercised. Party politics here should be put aside because this is an issue emanating from our local needs.

David Tinarwo

Editor - I fully support this and believe its long overdue. We can then have elected regional governors.

Misheck Hogwe

Editor – Firstly, I think this was overdue. It was supposed to have been done in 1980. Zimbabwe is a small country and 10 provinces are unnecessary. The five provinces would share the budgetary amounts allocated according to the population in each province. That way you can monitor how the provinces are doing -- whether under utilising or over utilising the funds.

In a nutshell we would not have the cries happening now of regions blaming government of under-developing certain areas in favour of other areas politically. The onus is on the residents of that province to make sure that service delivery and development is achieved in these provinces.

Martin

Editor - This is the only answer to unite the country. In the present situation, only one or two regions benefit from whatever revenue the government gets. The full development is only in Harare such that when you go to other regions you may think you are in a different country.

This therefore is the major divider of the country. I like the noble view of Hon Sipepa Nkomo as he has pointed exactly where the problem is. I'm for this idea and believe it can spread total development throughout the country.

Nkululeko Sibanda

Editor - I feel this is the greatest news I have heard from Zimbabwe in years. I think I speak for many when I say that devolution as suggested by Sipepa Nkomo is long over-due and the status quo has for a long time been used by Zanu PF to control not only people but the destinies of people in a manner that is not beneficial to the nation as a whole.

I think we should welcome this proposal and I feel it will benefit all the people that have been marginalised by those in central government by helping them choose their leaders, allowing them to decide their development agendas and long-term objectives. I hope such progressive ideas will continue to come out of the new MDC government and above all will be able to come to fruition.

Saying all this, I am sceptical that everyone will welcome this idea, there are questions of how it would be decided, will it be voted on by MPs or will there be a referendum, what will be the basis of distribution of funds, will regions of high productivity get more etc? I think we need more details.

Editor - I totally disagree with the minister on this one. The idea would entrench tribalism in our country. He seems to have issues already. What’s wrong with Harare? We know some regions in the country are dry and are agriculturally unproductive. Will they survive on coal?

Unsigned

Editor - I think that is a great idea from the minister. Logically that will bring the following benefits to our country.

1. Easier accountability – the individual local governments will be fully accountable for their actions and cannot blame someone else for underdevelopment in their regions.

2. Workable relationships with local people – bringing the government closer to the people (in a region) means the government can come to understand the people’s needs better than how it is now.

3. Increased efficiency – since local governments will be working solely for their regions they tend to be more productive, whilst competing with other regions.
4. Reduced marginalisation – the use of local governments means no region will cry of being marginalised when they do their own budgets and developments that benefit their regions.

5. Reduced bureaucratic red tapes - since most processes will be approved and implemented locally, the need for a long chain of procedures which delay implementation will be removed.

Well there are many advantages to this, similar to those in any decentralised system. If the whole thing, though originating from a political perspective, is not politicised, it will benefit our country greatly.

Ezekiel Charika

Editor - This has the benefit of raising personnel who can address issues in the regions more passionately because they come from there.

• Regional governments can help focus attention on more grassroots issues than a remote central government.
• The central government can spend more time focusing on more global issues.
• More democratic voice is given to citizens in regions than at present.
• Effects of overstaying demagogues like Mugabe will be ameliorated.
• Let’s hurry up and devolve the government NOW.

Francis Mavhunga

Editor – The proposal is a waste of the country's precious resources as it will increase government expenditure. We already have governors for these provinces, let them manage the process of resource requirements and distribution. SA is 10 times bigger than Zimbabwe. Why are we copying them? We must have home-grown policies that match our resources.

The current GNU is too large and is suffocating our economy. If Matabeleland is lagging behind Minister allocate more resources to it! Don't create problems in trying to solve others. The next thing you will hear clamours for independence. The divisions promote ethnicity and more confusion.

Zachary Tambudzai

Editor - What Sipepa Nkomo is advocating is a logical approach to the problems bedevilling our nation. Devolution of power from the central government does not only provide the nations with alternative leadership, but also maximises the national intellectual resources that are available. It increases the chances of developing the nation faster that the bureaucratic apparatus that is in place.
This will provide the quickest exit from this quagmire we in as a nation. Local ministers will be made accountable faster than it will take currently. I support this idea.

However, it is not a new idea. Agripa Madlela and his group supported by Cont Mhlanga had this idea as one of their manifestos during the failed resurgence of ZAPU. They called it federalism. The term used was not cutting, but Nkomo seems to put it correctly and it sounds well.

Greanious A. Mavondo

Editor - This is a noble move I have long waited for!!

Thandazani Ndlovu

Editor - Zimbabwe is a very small country with less than 13 million of which half of the population is outside. We don’t need to do this. You can’t compare us with big countries like South Africa, with a population of about 50 million. To be honest this is madness!

Ranganai Moyo

Editor - We are behind Minister Samuel Sipepa Nkomo, it is the right thing to do that every region must have its own parliament.

Fungai Nyimbi

Editor - A good plan really, each region to be responsible for their own developments.

Sibonginkosi Mabhena

Editor - In principle, this is a brilliant idea although obviously it is not the priority at this point in time. I think we all know that the most important thing for now is to get the country 'moving' again. This exercise costs money but indeed it has advantages only if it gives real power to the grassroots and through this model, sustainable development can be achieved.

I only hope that whenever this eventually happens, we should refrain from using these names as they are now. These names have seriously negative tribal connotations and they are a direct derivation of the colonial settler government and as we know, the idea was to sow the seeds of disunity through the divide and rule philosophy.

I do understand that Zimbabwe is made up of different tribal groups which is a source of diversity and strength and has to be celebrated, however, this can be used by opportunists and forces of reaction to the detriment of our country. As rightly alluded to in the news article, if we emulate the South African model, then the tribal nomenclature of our regions is not an option.

ABJ

Editor - This I think is the problem with the whole of Africa. Our leaders tend to be guided by short-sighted populist perspectives that are driven by a desire to be seen to be doing something by their local constituencies and not by a long term vision of greatness.

If more than 200 years ago, the founding fathers of the US did not see in their imagination the great nation it is today, it would have never happened. To quote someone I listened to a week ago – If you do not see it before you see it, then you will never see it.

The concept that the honourable Minster is talking about is indeed a workable concept in terms of propelling development but for me, we should be applying it at the Africa or at least SADC regional level. We should not be looking downwards and preoccupying ourselves with village level grievances and squabbles, I think it’s high time Africa gets leaders who are preoccupied with building a great society out of its potential and this will not happen if African leaders’ perspectives are locked within the arbitrarily drawn boarders of their small nations (which in the case of Zimbabwe is even smaller than the original Nation as it was defined by the natives).

I think we should be thinking about Zimbabwe being one region, Zambia another, Malawi another, etc – with a single government at the Southern Africa level, if Africa is too big for our imagination. Developing regions that are supposed to stand alone as economic units should be done on the basis of the economic potential of these territories to cause the establishment of an economy that can provide for their populations and not on tribal basis.

The world has moved on from thinking along tribal lines and Zimbabweans, and indeed all Southern Africans need to wake up from their slumber and realise that the global trends are such that we should be talking about economic and political integration at the Southern Africa level and not be preoccupied with the Mashona or Matabele regional issues. In my view, our political leaders must be lifting our sights higher than this old and now very blurred divide.

For instance, in his area of responsibility, the minister should be working together with his counterparts in Southern Africa in thinking about how we can integrate water resources management at the regional level to ensure access to adequate productive water for our economies – agriculture, industry, consumption in urban, rural etc. Of course he should be looking at these issues at the Zimbabwe level but with a perspective that looks for a regional approach in the long run.

For as long as we all say this level of integration is not workable, we are guided by the arbitrary boundaries and we will never be competitive at the global level against the likes of Europe that is fast integrating in spite of boundaries that have existed for longer than ours, America which realised this and did it 200 years ago, India which did it in 1947 at independence and China which did this a long time ago.

We need to wake up as Africans and see that we are keeping ourselves down by looking downwards around our feet instead of looking further afield and explore new possibilities in the way we structure our society to derive greatness from what god has already given us – immense natural resources.

Kevin

Editor - I like the idea but he needs to expand and explain it more for it to be fully understood. We cannot just follow what South Africa does without looking at the full impact of the division. And whose culture exactly is he talking about, because some of us are neither Shona nor Ndebele?

Dineo

Editor - This really will be to the best interest of our country. We will see meaningful development around the country and not skewed development restricted to Zvimba (Mash West) only. Centralised government has failed in Zimbabwe and it's time we abandon it. A suggestion: unlike appointed MEC in South Africa, let’s have our MEC/governors who are elected representatives. This will usher a new era of democracy. Good thinking MDC! God bless these plans!

Ephias

Editor - I don’t think that is a good idea as it is anathema to nation building and integration. It is prone to create exclusive regional allegiances at the expense of national allegiances. The problem with our case is that such regions will directly comprise of ethnic groups i.e (Mashona)land, (Manica)land, (Matabele)land.

Josephine Nhongo-Simbanegavi

Editor - I am totally in support of anything positive that comes out of Zim right now. However, I am a bit concerned when everyone wants Zimbabwe to be "like South Africa". Let’s bear in mind the mere fact that we have been ranked better than South Africa before and therefore we should base our new developments not on the way South Africa intends to do things or implements its various policies, but rather on the way things will be achievable for the nation of Zimbabwe.

This is not to say we must totally ignore the good coming out of South Africa -- we definitely need to improve our infrastructure just like South Africa's. Our national competitive advantage lies in avoiding violence as a final solution at all costs.

I support you Mr Minister, I feel these things should be discussed inside first before they are brought to us because they will create unnecessary tension unintentionally.

Anything for Zim

Editor - I do support the minister’s proposal with regards to regional governments. However, the Minister needs to realise that with the decentralised government model, he cannot retain the current provincial names that are based on ethnicity. These names were and are part of colonisation and they managed to divide Zimbabweans. The two names that can be retained are Midlands and Masvingo, the rest need to be changed.

The name changes should be left to the regional governments, with the people participating in the name changes. However, there should be strong guidelines as to what the names should be and should not be. This should be done in consultation with the national government. South Africa changed the names of the provinces when it decentralised power. If the minister is using SA as an example, then he must go all the way like South Africa did instead of proposing half measures.

Kennedy Murire

Editor - I agree to the Minister’s way of thinking that Zimbabwe should be administered regionally. This would provide a fair way of sharing wealth and not the Bambazonke style.

Alfred Mbondiya

Editor - The basis for devolving power to the provinces should not be sorely on narrow tribal cultural preservation. It ought to be based on the need to entrench collective leadership by involving the people on the ground to shape their destiny by actively participating in conversations which affect their well being.

It should be recognised that some provinces are comparatively richer than others, and therefore will result in differences in provincial revenue base. How is this going to be tackled?

Zimbabwe is a very small country which cannot even afford two vice presidents, two vice-prime ministers, the senate and the current bloated cabinet. To subdivide the country again and create regional parliaments could prove very costly in my view.

The issue that some provinces are not receiving adequate development should be tackled head on within the current structures of government. A mechanism of ensuring that the provincial governor’s office is beefed up and revamped makes more sense to me. A transparent framework of ensuring that all provinces receive equal proportion of development money will need to be developed and implemented.

Though Matabeleland provinces are vocal on lack of development, there has not been any meaningful development in other provinces like Masvingo and Manicaland. The problem is therefore that of a culture of lack of accountability and general government failure in delivery of development projects.

I know Matabeleland people are the sponsors of this idea, for they believe that their legislature will be functional as evidenced by the efficient operations of the Bulawayo City Council. My point is that I’m not against the whole idea of empowering regional institutions, but the idea of creating massive administrative structures regionally to me is not cost competitive.

A governor’s office with a developmental mandate can achieve what a bloated regional parliament can. We can then ensure that Governorship roles are not filled by political appointees, but elected officers accountable to the electorate than their political masters.

So I agree to disagree - yes we need provinces to be the champions of their development, assisted by an able and lean central government, but I disagree that we need a full parliament sitting in minuscule and impoverished provinces, because instead of improving the people’s lives, it will worsen their plight.
That is how I see the issue.

Mushavanhu

Editor – It’s a brilliant idea although it may look like it’s based on tribal zones. South Africa has the same scenario but it has not been viewed as such. Devolving power to the regions is a process of devolving power to the people. We would expect further devolution of power to the lower ranks like Rural District Councils, Villages etc. That is what is called self-governance which was the slogan during the war. It’s unfortunate that Zanu PF abandoned that and went into Stalin’s or Mao’s model of power centralisation. Norway has similar governance structure it works quite well.

K. Ramachela

Editor - Great move indeed. I always wondered when somebody would come up with such an idea for Zimbabwe. Progressive nations like South Africa and the USA, among others, have such a system, and it is working very well.

It is easier and more effective for a regionally-based governments to plan more carefully with their small budget allocations and address the needs of their particular region -- prioritising the most pressing developmental needs, which obviously differ in each region/province, than have one central government making decisions and imposing them on everyone with a possible misconception that the needs of every region are the same, which is tantamount to administering headache medication to all patients, some of whom have stomach aches instead, simply because the generality of the patients complain of headaches.

The role of central government becomes that of creating national policies and developmental goals, and leave finer planning details and implementation to regional governments who report progress to the central government. A success model by one region can be used as a model by other regions, or indeed the nation.

There is also the inherent benefit of allowing more input by others, including experts, into each region's development planning, and spear-heading possible competition for best performing regional governments, and creating performance benchmarks for every other region. Such input by others and competition in performance is not possible with the current set-up.

Evarestus

Editor - From Matabeleland’s view point it sounds good, but the question is: can the country afford it? Having parliaments in each province?

Harare’s affluence will become more apparent anyway.

Will these governments be able to source their own funding? From central government? From the donor community?

At the moment Ignatius Chombo interferes in local councils, how will central government not interfere again?

Tinashe Mutsungi Shoko

Editor - I think Zimbabwe is far too small to afford a central government and national ministers, on the other hand spending money on regional parliaments and governments. First people should look at our GDP as well as population and compare to examples like South Africa which they want to use. For example, the economy of SA’s Gauteng Province only is bigger than that of our beloved Republic of Zimbabwe.

We are in dire need of a performing government which can resuscitate our economy and explore ways of building it with a united approach. This thing of wanting capitals in Gweru, Bulawayo etc only seekS to bring the tribal issues on the table at a crucial time when all Zimbabweans must have the same feeling and view, regardless of their tribe, race, political affiliation, religion etc.

What should be addressed is that development should be spread to all corners of the country like Binga, Tsholotsho, Chirundu, Mwenezi, Guruve and Gokwe, to name but a few. The reason we have Provincial Governors and MPs is that they should take the leading role in ensuring that their respective constituencies are getting enough share of resources for development thus no need for regional parliaments and all.

Please we don’t need hundreds or thousands of ministers. It’s a non starter.

John Dore

Editor - I think this is a good, long overdue decision, especially on the African continent. There are many different languages, cultures etc that have had to co operate due to the boundaries set by colonial governments and after colonialism this normally resulted in civil war and the like.

Had the colonialists split it all up like this, the number of "states / provinces" that could and most probably would have declared independance from the country would have been great and Africa would have consisted of hundreds of small countries. I don't however think that this will be the case today with all the globalisation going on, except in extreme cases like DRC, Sudan and Somalia.

The entire central government, parliament etc will have to downsise drastically when regional parliaments are set up. It will be one of the better things to do for the country to start moving forward again. The previous government relied on the central government for better control of the entire situation. I say go for it.

Editor - The devolution thing is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE. Even if I wanted to support the constitutional issue led by non-MPs (the NCA line), I will totally oppose it because of this issue. Zimbabwe cannot be put on the Yugoslavian path. This is a hidden agenda to break the country and will never be tolerated. I was not active in the constitutional issue but now I am awake in order to resist this attempt.

Zimbabwe is one and shall remain one. The South African argument is totally useless and does not apply to Zimbabwe. Those who like the SA model should relocate to South Africa and not import apartheid elements into Zim. Nada. Hazvinyatsoita izvozvo. I advocate for one nation with one Zanu-free central democratic and accountable administration.

Brenton

Do you support the minister's plan to devolve power to the regions? E-mail your comments to debate@newzimbabwe.com

JOIN THE DEBATE ON THIS ARTICLE ON THE NEWZIMBABWE.COM FORUMS
newsdesk@newzimbabwe.com