The best Zimbabwe news site on the world wide web




Change cannot wait for Madhuku's post-election ambitions

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

LOVEMORE Madhuku, presumably on behalf of the National Constitutional Assembly (NCA), has attempted to justify why Simba Makoni poses a more significant risk to the change agenda than the removal of President Robert Mugabe.

While accepting that in the current Zimbabwean constitutional order there is nothing to disable Makoni, like Tsvangirai, from participating as Presidential candidates, he makes the case that Makoni should not benefit from the same constitution that allows Mugabe and Tsvangirai to enter the race as individuals seeking a direct mandate from the people of Zimbabwe.

The construction of Madhuku’s argument, published in the Financial Gazette last week under the title “Makoni hijacking the struggle”, raises a number of troubling questions about not only the agenda of the NCA but about his understanding of the existing constitution as it relates to the office of the President and the basis on which such a person is legally created.

The hypothesis presented by Madhuku is that the change agenda is about ending the dictatorship of an ill-defined Zanu PF regime by ushering what he describes as a “genuinely democratic dispensation”. To the extent that Makoni is historically associated with Zanu PF, he then argues that he is a fake and anyone who dares support him is necessarily an enemy of change.

It surprising that Madhuku’s construction of the change agenda resonates with Mugabe’s own construction in so far as the participation of Makoni in the race. They both believe that any credible Presidential candidate has to be pre-qualified by a political party fully knowing that there is no constitutional impediment on Makoni running as an independent.

Madhuku rightly poses the question: how should civic society relate to the Makoni initiative? He chooses to call it an initiative and not an exercise of Makoni’s constitutional right. He then raises the question whether it should be the business of civic society organisations to pronounce their preferences among contesting presidential aspirants?

What is evident from Madhuku’s analysis is that he genuinely believes that his participation in the constitutional movement has uniquely endowed him with extra constitutional rights to know better what is in the national interest.

He makes the case, like Mugabe, that based on his superior values, beliefs and principles, Makoni’s decision to participate as an independent Presidential candidate is fundamentally misconceived. He then proceeds to conclude that the so-called initiative has no grassroots support as if to suggest that the only way to become a President of Zimbabwe, contrary to the provisions of the constitution, is to seek an endorsement from civic society organisations (CSOs) who now have arrogated to themselves the rights ordinarily reserved for citizens in any constitutional democracy.

If Madhuku cannot respect the current Bill of Rights enshrined in the constitution of Zimbabwe, then what are we to expect from the so-called people-driven constitution that he has been advocating? Who are the people in Madhuku’s world? Could it be the case that people like Makoni would be stripped of rights under his proposed new order?

A case is also made by Madhuku that the so-called Makoni initiative misunderstands the nature of the responses required to address Zimbabwe’s deepening political crisis. It is not clear from Madhuku’s analysis how and why Makoni’s candidature alone will necessarily compromise what he describes as a fatally defective electoral process.

If the sole purpose of the election is to preserve the status quo, then why would Madhuku find it acceptable for Tsvangirai to participate and not Makoni, and for that matter anyone else?

He then makes the conclusion that: “Elections under the current constitution cannot deliver change whatever the credentials of the contestants and however sophisticated their strategies. Until Zimbabweans put their energies together and push the current regime to embrace a genuine and people-driven reform process that leads to a democratic constitution, power will not change hands through a mere election. Participation in the elections on March 29 cannot be for the purpose of winning power. It can only be for any other good reasons.”

Based on the above construction, he then argues that power will not change hands under the current constitution but finds it acceptable to urge people to go and vote not for change but only for a particular party and Presidential candidate.

While purporting to accept that the elections are a farce he makes the case that it does provide a platform for Zimbabweans to make a statement against the Mugabe regime's sins and sees it as a stepping stone to a new phase in the struggle for change.

In order to justify his political bias, he strangely makes the case that the election must be a statement in support of a set of values, beliefs and principles, which guide his version of post-election struggle for change in Zimbabwe. While accepting that Tsvangirai’s leadership may not be what Zimbabwe requires, he nevertheless concludes that to the extent that he symbolises the founding values of the movement, he deserves support. Surprisingly, he does not attempt to give Mugabe and Makoni the same benefit of the doubt.

Having gone to a great lengths to justify why Tsvangirai and not Makoni should be supported, Madhuku makes the case that a vote for either Morgan Tsvangirai or Simba Makoni can only be for other good reasons. He exposes his agenda in supporting Tsvangirai that this election will seal his fate, opening a window for new leadership of the change agenda. In other words, Madhuku needs Tsvangirai to fail so that he can have new currency in the post election period.

There is nothing in Madhuku’s analysis to suggest that he is motivated by a genuine desire for change or more fundamentally a new constitution, rather, it is evident that his kind of politics is about partisanship instead of principle, and the past instead of the future.

It is remarkable that Madhuku has the audacity to make the argument that this election should be about the "No. 2 position" and not about removing President Mugabe from office. He concedes that the vote will not count but he nevertheless needs the election to justify a post election agenda that he strongly feels will be distorted by any force of reason emanating from Makoni’s intervention. He appears to be making the case that Tsvangirai has been a reliable partner in the politics of confusion and endless bickering.

While one can appreciate the role the MDC has played over the last eight years in breathing life into many non-state actors including the NCA, it is extremely irresponsible for Madhuku to attempt to recommend the continued suffering of the Zimbabwean people for what appears to be self serving reasons.

On Tsvangirai’s viability as President of Zimbabwe, this is what Madhuku had to say: “Tsvangirai represents the route we have been following since 1997. He is, as a person, not the answer. He represents the answer and must be supported. A vote for Tsvangirai's presidential bid is a statement against a "reformed Zanu PF" agenda. It is important that this statement be made against Simba Makoni and his group because their set of beliefs distorts our post-election agenda of a total assault against the system.”

Madhuku appears to be preoccupied by the post election construction than by the prospect of the election yielding the kind of change Zimbabweans have been yearning for and deserve. It is evident that he is constructively working for Mugabe to win so that his broader agenda can have a new lease of life.

Instead of focusing on removing the stumbling block to Zimbabwean progress, Madhuku is now arguing that Mugabe is not the real problem but Makoni and Tsvangirai. He makes the case that Makoni is so naïve that he would enter a race whose outcome is genuinely predetermined. If anything, Makoni’s participation has helped in confusing Mugabe to the extent that he does not seem to have a coherent message anymore.

The 2000 draft constitution presented an improvement but through the efforts of people like Madhuku, it never saw the light of day. And now, on the eve of a historic election, we find Madhuku again on the side of Mugabe arguing that chaos can replace the ballot as a change mechanism. If Zimbabweans were inclined to follow Madhuku’s suicidal politics of using the so-called grassroots people to replace institutions of government, then surely the last eight years could have demonstrated otherwise.

Who will benefit from the post election economic and political trauma? It is important that Zimbabweans reflect on what is at stake on 29 March and proceed to constructively work to ensure this election be a decisive one. Surely, if Zimbabwe at the minimum has a new leader, that will mark a new chapter in the history of the country.

The country needs a new leader and the only constant thing since independence is President Mugabe and there can be no doubt that a new leader will open new possibilities for the country. It is never too late to convert Madhuku to a genuine democrat who can rise above personal interests. Zimbabwe is too important to be converted into a football that can be kicked around for political expediency.

Mutumwa Mawere's weekly column is published on New every Monday. You can contact him at:

All material copyright
Material may be published or reproduced in any form with appropriate credit to this website