Voting for change in Zimbabwe

Voting for change in Zimbabwe

• Can an independent win in Zimbabwe? Yes he can!

• Makoni: puppet, Zanu PF agent or national hero?

• Who is behind Makoni? Please count me in!

• Obama v Billary Clinton: lessons for Africa

• If Zuma is corrupt, who isn't?

• Charamba gives civil service a very bad name

• Be the change that you want to see

• The paradox of African liberation and change

• Zimbabwe and the Jacob Zuma factor

• The EU-Africa relationship post-colonialism

• Beyond Lisbon: setting the African agenda

• Implications of Zuma winning ANC presidency

• Africa's enduring economic apartheid

• Does indigenisation threaten law of succession?

• Defining the role of the state in post-colonial Africa

• Mushore's ordeal and the Zimbabwe we want

• Does rule of law pose a threat to Africa?

• Capitalism may challenge the poor, but it gives them hope

• The Africa we want: out of time?

• Africa: From Berlin to Lisbon

• The turning point that never was

• Zimbabwe's turning point

• Black Economic Empoerment project gone awry

• Africa's bitter harvest

• Africa's real brand ambassadors

• Indigenisation: a case of hypocritical manipulation?

• Can Africa's brand ambassadors please stand up?

• Is Zimbabwe a candidate for economic surgery?

• Zimbabwe's leadership paradox

• Rhodesia not so good

• Wither Zimbabwe?

• Investing in fear: Mugabe's economic revival plan

• Mugabe takes over as leader of the opposition

• Mugabe under siege: a failed ideology or conspiracy?

• Robert Mugabe's fate

• Without a cause, Africa's progress stunted

• Kofi Annan and the outsourcing of Africa's future

• The Africa we want

• Africa's development challenge: from civil to platinum rights

• 2008 may already be a done deal

• To quit or not to quit: the leadership question

• Business sector cannot remain indifferent to political question

• Gono plays Pope and Cop

• Trust and succession politics in Africa

• Robert Mugabe and Ian Smith: two of a kind

By Mutumwa D. Mawere
(www.mmawere.com)

ZIMBABWE is at the crossroads and after all is said and done, the country’s hopes are now pinned on only four individuals who have qualified as candidates for the post of President.

Unlike the United States where the President’s term is limited to two four year terms, the current Zimbabwean constitution provides for a life President as long as the person submits himself/herself to elections. Like the US constitution, the Zimbabwean constitution provides for the direct election of a President.

The last 28 years have convincingly demonstrated why Zimbabweans urgently need a new constitution to deal with the manner in which an individual can manipulate a whole country and remain in power while purporting to be a super democrat.
What is certain in the US during this November election is that President George Bush’s name will not be on the ballot. It is evident that change is high on the agenda of all the aspiring candidates in the US.

Although there may be no consensus as to the scope and nature of proposed change in America, there is consensus that President Bush’s style, policies and programmes must change and the new President has to reconnect the majority of Americans to their government.

It is generally agreed that President Bush has failed to make people believe in their government and were it not for the constitution, I am confident that Americans would still have exercised their minds on what kind of government they want by removing the current administration.

I have chosen to locate the Zimbabwean democratic challenges in the American style of democracy fully cognisant of the fact that there exists no consensus if it is the best form of government to use as a model for any developing nation.

However, it is important to acknowledge the manner in which political parties have endured in America and how the system has managed to open doors to people like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to even dream of becoming President without the incumbent calling them names.

We all know that Obama, Clinton, John McCain, and Mike Huckabee are not Presidents of their respective parties at the moment and yet the system allows them to seek the mandate of their parties in an open and transparent process. If Obama were a Zimbabwean, President Mugabe would have already found a label for him solely meant to demonstrate that the Zimbabwean promise has no relevance to him.

I also chose Obama and Clinton for this article because they come from the same party and are both offering change to the American people. Although they may have different visions, strategies and tactics, what is remarkable is that they can both say proudly that they are Democrats. In the case of Zanu PF, the Simba Makoni issue has demonstrated that if you are Zanu PF, then you must accept that President Mugabe is the saviour and it is suicidal to even dream of offering your name to the party and nation as a candidate.

Both Clinton and Obama share one ideology and they do not have to be afraid of competing with anyone in the party as is the case in Zanu PF where the so-called faction leaders i.e. Emerson Mnangagwa and Joice Mujuru vanished into submission leaving Makoni to assume the mantle of change. Even the Republicans are for change in as much as Zanu PF members are overtly and covertly agitating for change.

The last 28 years have shown that it is difficult if not impossible to unseat President Mugabe from his party. I have no doubt that the same phenomenon must have occupied the minds of the founding fathers of the two dominant US political institutions when they decided to put in place a mechanism in which any member of the party could rise from the ranks and become a nominee for the party without any power-hungry incumbent like President Mugabe intimidating him/her.

The inability of African institutions to allow citizens to realise their dreams to become the first citizens of their countries has contributed in keeping many citizens cynical of political processes. The propensity to use tired arguments to score political points is high in Zimbabwe and already it is clear that President Mugabe has had to refine his election message to target and discredit not only Tsvangirai but Makoni as well.

In the case of Zimbabwe, it has become customary that politicians are reluctant to run on their record; rather they thrive on throwing mud at their opponents. What Obama in particular has managed to do is to energise people who ordinarily would surrender their democratic right to choose their government to believe that they have the power to do the improbable.

Of Zimbabwe’s four Presidential candidates, only two were not on the political radar screen of Zimbabweans. Makoni and Langton Towungana were not expected to be candidates in this election. It was generally expected that President Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai would square up for the second round.

President Mugabe has been smart in defining his opponents rather than running the country. It appears that politics in contemporary Zimbabwe has been reduced to a game with President Mugabe as the grandmaster while the country is burning.

Makoni and Tsvangirai are both committed to change. The last 8 years have failed to bring change. Makoni’s candidacy has exposed the futility of seeking to change Zanu PF from within. Makoni has raised alarm bells to many in Zimbabwe who genuinely believe that anyone associated with Zanu PF is incapable of change. When he says he still considers himself a member of Zanu PF and accepts that he had to be fired not because of any major policy difference but solely because he was not allowed to run on the party ticket, it confuses many people who were excited about his candidacy.

What people are looking for is straight talk. What kind of change is being promised? There has been talk of a National Authority, forgetting that people are looking for a leader to offer direction. It is generally accepted that President Mugabe governed the party supported by the party structures including the politburo and the country, with the support of his chosen cabinet.

While it is accepted that collective responsibility is the modus operandi of any organisation, it is important for any change agent to specifically highlight the missing dots and what he/she did to demonstrate a departure point. It is not sufficient to say I am Zanu PF while accepting that the party was rightly or wrongly at the centre of undermining citizens’ human and property rights.

When the government targeted me, I did not wait for the right opportunity to fight back but chose to pursue legal remedies fully knowing the implications. When the parliament of Zimbabwe ratified the draconian Presidential decrees that were used to nationalise my assets, I accepted that both MDC and Zanu PF parliamentarians were at one in creating a new constitutional order that allows the state to expropriate private property without compensation.

My experience has shown me that across the seemingly political divide between MDC and Zanu PF, there is a lack of a common value systems where justice is not blurred by political perceptions. I am now acutely aware that the infringement of my rights is not as important as removing Mugabe from office but in my own ordeal, it is one more reason why Zimbabweans must fix the problem by ensuring that one of the four and we all know who, does not make it. Can you imagine five more years under the great leader?

Over the last four years, I have interacted with Patrick Chinamasa, Arafas Gwaradzimba, Edwin Manikai, Peter Moyo, and Mirirai Chiremba as agents of the government of Zimbabwe. Chinamasa, Manikai and Moyo purport to be lawyers and yet the evidence that has been adduced in the various litigations I have instituted in South Africa, Zambia, UK and Zimbabwe confirms that Chinamasa is behaving like a gangster, albeit camouflaged in state clothes.

I do not expect Makoni to know the manner in which a party he believes in has been reduced to an animal farm. I have not personally spoken to Makoni over the past five years and I am not sure what he knows or doesn’t know but I should like to believe that if he knew, he would come to the inescapable conclusion that President Mugabe and a well known list of his abusers of rights must be made accountable. I am for targeted actions rather than blame the party for actions perpetrated by known individuals.

When I support change it is because I have personal experience of how bad governments operate and how private individuals benefit from a corrupt and decaying system. I am also fully aware that there are many well meaning people who privately support change but are afraid of losing what they have. I am one of the early examples of how a misguided party and government can behave and my experiences serve to discourage many black entrepreneurs from challenging the status quo.

I hope that Makoni will be able to sharpen his message to clearly articulate precisely why he believes that believable change should only be at President Mugabe’s level. Over the last four years, I have had the opportunity of interacting with many people involved in the change agenda. What has been striking is that the position that they have taken is that my fight against the government of Zimbabwe is solely motivated by a desire to get my assets back. Using this simplistic approach, a conclusion has then been reached that I have no vested interest in justice and change.

Instead of the opposition exploiting our unique experiences of being subjected to injustice by a black and not a white regime, the opposition may not have a compelling case against Mugabe and Zanu PF for change. Surely, the story of black victims of Mugabe (BVOM) is important in better articulating why five more years of oppression is not in the interests of the country. Many consider Mugabe a hero for the manner in which the land reform has been executed. There are few black examples that may serve to demonstrate that beneath the veneer of racism is an underlying antipathy against private property rights and rule of law.

What is ironic is that the propaganda that started with Jonathan Moyo against prominent blacks has resonated with the opposition. What I am not sure of is whether the same propaganda has blurred Makoni’s own vision about what aspects of change need to be in place if confidence in government has to be restored among Zimbabweans.

Obama and Clinton’s grasp of issues and how such issues are important to the American people highlights the importance of African politicians not to take for granted their voters. It is important for both Makoni and Tsvangirai to present a common approach to change and within it offer their different visions about how Zimbabwe would be better off under either of them.

The world and even President Mugabe is already aware that no change is possible from the status quo. President Mugabe’s message is no different from what people have been subjected to while the economy has been sinking at a faster rate than anywhere else in the world.

Mutumwa Mawere's weekly column is published on New Zimbabwe.com every Monday. You can contact him at: mmawere@global.co.za
JOIN THE DEBATE ON THIS ARTICLE ON THE NEWZIMBABWE.COM FORUMS
newsdesk@newzimbabwe.com