A post-election conversation with Mugabe

A post-election conversation with Mugabe

• Doubts aside, Tsvangirai now best bet for a New Zimbabwe

• African mines remain theatres for foreign operators

• Mugabe's self-help constitutional order

• The New Zimbabwe is almost upon us

• Zimbabweans have spoken, and the message is in the detail

• Mugabe's re-election would be disaster for private enterprise

• Zimbabweans at the polls: the great debates

• 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
(www.mmawere.com)

AT THE 73rd Ordinary Session of his former ruling party’s central committee, held on Friday, May 16, President Robert Mugabe made a number of significant observations on his and Zanu PF’s dismal electoral performance.

To the extent that President Mugabe is a generally misunderstood person, it is important that we use the remaining weeks leading to the decisive run-off elections to reflect on his own post-election analysis and implications thereof on the resolution of Zimbabwe’s political and economic crisis.

Although Zanu PF has still to officially concede defeat in the parliamentary election after the unsuccessful attempt to reverse the election through a recount, followed by yet another scheme to use the judiciary to achieve the same result, President Mugabe accepted at the said meeting that one of the reasons the party lost was that it had entered the elections with lethargic structures.

It is instructive that it was President Mugabe who set the timetable for the elections presumably on the advise of the his intelligence team. Unlike the other three contestants, President Mugabe had the state machinery at his disposal and conceding that such arsenal was wanting in the epic battle confirms the existence of a failed state.

Even after casting his vote, President Mugabe was confident that his party would do exceptionally well to the extent that no contingent investment as required by law was made for financing the run off election resulting in the unfortunate post election drama that has had the effect of permanently impairing any residual claim to legitimacy that he may still have.

Whatever happened to the boisterous Mugabe? When will he start respecting his own people in terms of the choices they make? This election was supposed to be a referendum on his rule and, therefore, no one would have expected the incumbent to seek to assign blame on third parties than stand on his own record.

In this first instalment of a conversation with President Mugabe using extracts of his speech as recorded in the Herald online edition published on Saturday, May 17, 2008, it is appropriate to start the conversation with the following words which when properly read suggests a defeat concession:

"We went to the elections completely unprepared, unorganised and this against an election-weary voter. Our structures went to sleep, were deep in slumber in circumstances of an all-out war.

They (structures) were passive; they were lethargic, ponderous, divided, diverted, disinterested, demobilised or simply non-existent. It was terrible to see the structures of so embattled a ruling party so enervated.

As leaders, we all share the blame: from the national level to that of the branch chairman. We played truant; we did not lead, we misled; we did not encourage, rather we discouraged; we did not unite, we divided; we did not inspire, we dispirited; we did not mobilise, we demobilised. Hence the dismal result we are landed with."

If one accepts that President Mugabe’s post election analysis is valid, it represents a serious indictment not only on him as the Commander in Chief but also his own party. What is strange is that no heads have rolled in the face of such embarrassing concession. If President Mugabe got it wrong in the first election, what will it take to reverse his fortunes?

When the election date was announced, it was Morgan Tsvangirai who pleaded for a postponement without knowing that he would be the beneficiary. It never occurred to me that even President Mugabe was not ready as well.

We now know that notwithstanding the control of the state machinery, Zanu PF is essentially a disorganised party that was not prepared to go to battle fully cognisant of the stakes involved. This leads any rational observer to legitimately ask what kind of leader is President Mugabe who would commit his troops to battle without a clear plan of action?

President Mugabe accepted that the voter is election weary and I have no doubt that his audience would have silently asked why the President would have arrived at this conclusion without providing an explanation that it may well be the case that through his actions the voters have lost any hope of reclaiming their future through the ballot.

If anything, the manner in which the post-election ballot counting and attendant bizarre announcements is enough to discourage citizens from participating in important decisions that affect their future.

It is really an indictment to find at this historic hour President Mugabe, a person whose life was purportedly dedicated to democracy, clinging to power while acknowledging that his house is not in order principally because he has failed to deliver the kind of Zimbabwe citizens expected to see.

After 28 years in power, it is evident that no rational conversation is possible in Zanu PF for if it existed, one would expect the party members to have expressed a vote of no confidence immediately after the President had delivered a speech that sought to blame the infantry not the general for defeat. Why would anyone need a leader who abdicates and seeks to blame others for lack of organisation?

While President Mugabe accepts that the party structures went to sleep in battle, he nevertheless contradicts this version by seeking to blame imperialists for his own inadequacies. When will members of Zanu PF wake up to the fact that they are leaderless in as much as the nation has accepted that Zimbabwe urgently needs a leadership renewal?

If any general comes to the conclusions after losing a battle that his army was passive, lethargic, ponderous, divided, diverted, disinterested, demobilised or simply non-existent then you know it is time to replace the general. Who would want to go into another battle with such a leader at the helm? Is it not surprising that President Mugabe would still want to go for another battle after ridiculing his own troops?

When Makoni chose to enter the race, it is now evident that he must have applied his mind about the state of the party and whether in fact it had the kind of leadership to successfully execute the battle. Although President Mugabe will never take responsibility for failure, it is clear that the problem of Zanu PF and Zimbabwe is a leadership one.

Zanu PF lost because it no longer has a leader and it is unfortunate that this kind of conversation will never take place in the party as long as Mugabe is allowed to continue to pontificate while the country is burning.

Surely President Mugabe cannot seriously maintain and acknowledge that he played truant, did not lead, he misled, he did not encourage, he did not unite, he divided, he did not inspire, he dispirited, he did not mobilise and then seek to continue leading the charge for progress and change.

By accepting that the dismal result that visited Zanu PF and himself was a direct result of a leadership vacuum, it would not be unreasonable to expect President Mugabe to stand down and accept that there can be no better time than now failing which the people must and should send the message of the fierce urgency to change leadership and leave Zanu PF to sort out its own internal challenges without continuing to drag the nation down with it.

President Mugabe is a complex man and many have wondered what kind of mind informs his actions. If anything, his speech at the central committee exposes the fact that he may no longer be the same person that his supporters think he is.

If one accepts that the fountain of President Mugabe’s power is the party that he now acknowledges to be disabled through lack of leadership, then one has to accept that the same leadership can no longer be trusted to lift the country up.

Zimbabwe is too important to leave in the hands of a leader who by his own admission has failed his own party but would not accept that the country is a victim of the same mediocre leadership.

President Mugabe is always at his best when he plays victim but the country requires a new conversation for the future battles to be fought in advancing the cause of the nation will not be successfully executed without a change of leadership and direction.

The mere fact that President Mugabe can be allowed by his party to dream aloud clearly shows that his fate can only be decided decisively on June 27 through the ballot.

As the countdown continues to the hour of change, the need to continue the conversation with President Mugabe in this virtual world cannot be overstated.

The inevitability of change must be made obvious to President Mugabe through meaningful conversations with him based on his own words given that such conversations are risky and life threatening in Zimbabwe.

In the face of impending humiliation, violence is readily used as a substitute for rational discourse and, therefore, it would be dangerous to succumb to a reality that suits a general who has no value to add even to his own party by accepting to be silent when through his words there is enough ammunition to lubricate and energise the change agenda.

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