Interview Part 6: Madhuku, Prof Ncube and Biti

Interview Part 6: Madhuku, Prof Ncube and Biti

• Interview Part 5: Madhuku, Prof Ncube and Biti

• Interview Part 4: Madhuku, Prof Ncube and Biti

• Interview Part 3: Madhuku, Ncube and Biti

• Interview Part 2: Madhuku, Ncube, Biti

• Interview Part 1: Madhuku, Ncube and Biti

• Trudy Stevenson: Under attack

• Gabriel Chaibva: Tsvangirai seeks unity with Zanu PF

• INTERVIEW Part 3: Raftopoulos, Moyo and Robertson

• Leaked: MDC proposals for resolution of Zim crisis

• INTERVIEW Part 2: Moyo, Raftopoulos and Robertson

• INTERVIEW Part 1: Jonathan Moyo, Brian Raftopoulos and John Robertson

• David Coltart statement on political future

• Paul Themba Nyathi: MDC, Zanu PF cross-pollination of cultures

• Coltart: Why I can't join Tsvangirai faction

• Jonathan Moyo: Beyond Budiriro, the state of Zim politics

• INTERVIEW: Zim opposition will not succeed without values

• New Zimbabwe.com Says: Budiriro results disastrous for opposition

• Paul Themba Nyathi: Dark day for democracy

• Prof Jonathan Moyo: Constitutional madness will not save Zanu PF

• Prof Welshman Ncube: Constitutional reforms recipe for disaster

• Dr Alex Magaisa: Constitution without Constitutionalism

• Lucas Nkomo: The right to revolt against tyranny

• Tawanda Hove: Constitutional reforms and MDC mess

• Alex Magaisa: Constitutional amendment spells doom for economy

This is the 6th and final part of an SW Radio Africa Hot Seat interview with the two secretary generals of the MDC factions Professor Welshman Ncube and Tendai Biti and NCA chairman, Dr Lovemore Madhuku. Violet Gonda asked the questions:

Broadcast on Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Violet: Thank-you for joining us on the last segment of the tri-partite discussions with some of the principle architects of the pro-democracy movement in Zimbabwe, namely the two Secretary Generals of the MDC factions; Professor Welshman Ncube and Tendai Biti as well as Civic Leader, Dr Lovemore Madhuku.

It was reported that on the sidelines of last month’s African Union Summit in Banjul, Gambia, the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, appointed the former Tanzanian President, Benjamin Mkapa as mediator in the Zimbabwean crisis. So, in this final segment, we ask the three, as stakeholders, for their thoughts on this development, starting with Professor Welshman Ncube.

Professor Ncube: Some of us have a fundamental problem with the outcome of the informal meetings between Kofi Anan and Robert Mugabe in Banjul as reported in the media, but these things are hardly ever on all fours as what is reported in the media. Sometimes what the media gets to report is what the politicians agree they will tell the media, whereas what might have taken place might be totally different. But, let’s operate on the assumption that what is reported is in fact, what happened. There’s a fundamental problem with it.

Firstly, there is a misdiagnosis of what the problem in Zimbabwe is. And, if the terms of reference of this mediator is an attempt to reconcile the Government of Zimbabwe and the Government of the United Kingdom, then it would be an exercise in futility for it has not correctly identified the nature of the crisis in Zimbabwe. And, to the extent that if you misdiagnose an ailment and you say a patient who is suffering from diarrhoea has a broken bone and you put a plaster on their arm, of course, you will not be able to treat the diarrhoea; it will go on and the patient might even die.

And, that is the problem with that agreement; it completely misses the point as to what the nature of the crisis is, and the nature of the crisis, as we have been at pains to point out, is that firstly you have a government in Zimbabwe which is at war with its own people and you need to address that issue. And, therefore, what you need to be doing is actually if one talks of the language of ‘building bridges’, you need to build bridges between the Government of Zimbabwe and the people of Zimbabwe. And, that is the critical thing; over issues of governance, over issues of human rights, over issues of disputed elections, over issues of legitimacy, over issues of a new constitution. It is those issues that must be addressed.

If you are appointing a mediator to the Zimbabwean crisis, it must be a mediator who must therefore bring the entirety of Zimbabweans together, starting with writing a new constitution, then dealing with the issues which have led to the existence of a disputed government or an illegitimate government in terms of the contested elections; POSA, AIPPA; name it, that is what is in dispute in Zimbabwe. The economic crisis, the social crisis are in fact the symptom of bad governance arising out of the dispute over fundamental freedoms and rights in Zimbabwe.

So, in short, Violet, what I am saying is that if the Mkapa terms of reference and mandate is to make peace between Tony Blair and Robert Mugabe, or the Government of Zimbabwe and the Government of Britain, then it is doomed to failure. It has completely missed the nature of the crisis.

Violet: Ok and Dr Madhuku, do you agree with what Professor Ncube has said that the Mkapa deal is not the right prescription for this crisis?

Dr Madhuku: Yes, I agree very much, but, for me to just add, it is actually an irrelevance altogether. So it’s not something that people must waste time on.

Violet: And, Tendai, what is the policy now for your Party regarding this matter, as some believe that Mugabe has out manoeuvred the opposition and South Africa?

Tendai Biti: Well, Mugabe doesn’t fool anyone and those who celebrate Mugabe’s mendacity and dishonesty, I think if you look at this issue, as the Prof. said, there is clearly a wrong understanding of the true nature of the crisis in Zimbabwe. And, the true nature of the crisis is not a bilateral issue between the former colonial power and Zimbabwe, so once you define it as that you have got a problem. Your second problem as well is that it’s quite clear, and you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to understand that Mugabe is at the core of the crisis; in Mugabe as an actor, as a wrong-doer, as a top-feeder himself, and for him to have the capacity of nominating or appointing a point person in a crisis that he is at the centre of, I think there is something fundamentally wrong. As we have said somewhere, you can’t be an umpire and a wicket keeper in the same game of cricket.

Thirdly, I think that any process towards addressing the crisis in Zimbabwe which does not involve Zimbabweans themselves, and which is why some of us view the issue of a constitution as essential because every Zimbabwean will be a shareholder, so that issue is irrelevant.

So any attempt that tries to deal with the Zimbabwe issue in a superficial level by appointing point persons whose terms of reference are ambiguous and innocuous will have a problem. And, then thirdly, on that issue, is that the region can’t be ignored. You can’t ignore the role of the SADC, you can’t ignore the role of the African Union, because Zimbabwe is an African crisis, and trying to by-pass all those bodies, the SADC, the African Union, and put them in a body: the United Nations which is not known for acting very fast, whose history and record on Africa is, to say the least moderate. If you look at the non action over Rwanda, when in July of 1994 over a million people, mainly Tutsi’s were massacred. If you look at the history of the United Nations in respect of the crisis in Somalia, the crisis in Southern Sudan; the crisis in Dafur at the present moment, I think only a fool would get excited by what happened in Banjul.

But, fortunately, as Madhuku says, I think the drivers and engine in the midfield of the processes and crisis in Zimbabwe are Zimbabweans themselves. So, we will not be fooled, and those who think Mugabe outplayed us, I don’t think know us really well.

Violet: And, finally, you know, some have asked why the visionaries and luminaries in the MDC are wasting time and breath and fulfilling Mugabe’s agenda by fighting each other. Now, does the old saying ‘there’s strength in unity’ still resonate with the MDC intelligentsia and pro-democracy movements in Zimbabwe Professor Ncube?

Professor Ncube: Of course it does, and there’s absolutely no doubt that a single MDC united will have a much better chance, a stronger chance of actually dislodging the regime than a divided MDC. As we said at the beginning, the only person who is laughing all the way to the bank in respect of all the things which are happening on the ground to us as the opposition movement, as the democratic movement in Zimbabwe, is Robert Mugabe and Zanu PF. So we are very, very alive to that.

Violet: Tendai Biti?

Tendai Biti: Well, I think as long as the vision remains alive and as long as all of us have hard looks to ourselves and in ourselves, I think time might heal us and I think that we should keep the flame alive. You know, I studied history; history is very funny; so many things have happened in history, so no one should write the democratic movement off. Far from it.

Violet: And Dr Madhuku?

Dr. Madhuku: Well, I agree. I agree with the two comments.

Violet: And, we have come to the end of this teleconference discussion. I would like to thank opposition officials Tendai Biti and Professor Welshman Ncube, and Civic Leader, Dr Lovemore Madhuku for their time. We hope our listeners found these discussions informative and explained the mindset of the pro-democracy movement in Zimbabwe.

Comments and feedback can be emailed to violet@swradioafrica.com
JOIN THE DEBATE ON THIS ARTICLE ON THE NEWZIMBABWE.COM FORUMS
newsdesk@newzimbabwe.com