None of the other SADC leaders would have been very happy to have Mugabe in their midst, he has disgraced the region, undermined our reputation as a progressive democratic group of States that should be taken seriously when it comes to the questions of democracy, openness, security of assets and the rule of law. For most Zimbabweans, the man once regarded, as a hero of the liberation struggle is now a failed despot.

When you dine with the devil you better use a long spoon - in our case that has not really been an issue until the last few days when MDC leadership have at last come face to face with Mugabe in the negotiations. But on Sunday we had the first really substantive exchange with Mugabe since the talk’s process began more that 15 months ago. They took place at the Rainbow Towers Hotel in Harare and the first session lasted 14 hours.

At the next session on Monday afternoon the talks ran into what always was going to be the major sticking point, who was going to drive this transition? No agreement was reached and the parties agreed to break away to think through the issues. When they gathered on Tuesday Mr. Mbeki presented Morgan Tsvangirai with a draft text that had already been agreed and signed by Mutambara and Mugabe. He took the text to his team and on return he tabled an alternative MDC version of a draft final text.

He told the other parties to the talks that as far as the MDC was concerned, this was the core of the arrangements for the transition and that the MDC would not change its stance significantly. Mugabe belligerently threatened a unity government with Mutambara and said Morgan would be excluded from such an arrangement. Morgan walked out of the talks and left the building.

Mbeki then spent some time explaining to the other two leaders why a deal without Morgan’s signature on it simply would not fly. He announced that he would take the dispute to the SADC leadership for mediation when they met in Johannesburg on Saturday. Then he flew to Luanda to consult President dos Santos.

On Saturday and Sunday the talks have gone on more or less continuously - with neither side moving very far. We could have told Mr. Mbeki some days ago that MDC would not move from the position that it had agreed at the outset. This is a negotiation to enable the orderly transfer of power from Zanu PF to MDC and to create space for that process through a transitional arrangement that would end when a new constitution had been agreed and promulgated. That process would be followed by our first free and fair election under a universal franchise since 1980. The latest position is that Mr. Mbeki has announced the talks are to continue under the guidance of the SADC Troika until a deal is reached. The issue dividing the parties is tantalizingly narrowly based; it’s really just the question of powers and duties for the President and the Prime Minister. But it is the key issue and the whole deal revolves around the question.

As we have always said, there is no purpose in negotiating an agreement just to have the outcome repudiated by the international community who in the end are going to be asked to pick up the tab for Mugabe’s delinquency. Since this has been the main point of contention from the beginning, I am surprised Mbeki had the nerve to even float the arrangements that he did for the structure of the new government - he should have known better.

But the one thing the past few days have shown is that Mbeki has to have a deal and is willing to go to great lengths to get the final hurdles resolved. If he can, it will save South Africa from having to deal with the floodtide of refugees that are on their way to South Africa and the possibility of losing the World Cup in 2010 as well as what is left of his personal legacy after 8 years in office as President.

As for the rest of us stuck at home and glued to our radio and television sets, we can do little except wait and pray. But of one thing I am completely sure - the vast majority of Zimbabweans are saying to us - ‘vasbyt’ - do not give in and do not allow Mugabe to retain any sort of residual power and influence. I am amazed at the near total consensus on that position across the country.

When it became known that Mutambara had signed a deal with the regime, there was outrage in all parts of the country. I can imagine that Mutambara himself must have felt the blast of hot air! Certainly our mails have been full of condemnation and worse. He tried to deny that he had done a deal, but both Mbeki and Mugabe confirmed that he had agreed to share power even if Morgan walked away.

So now we wait and watch. I have been telling people that if they see that Morgan has agreed to a deal then they can take it that it is all over. The MDC will run the new government even if at the same time it has to work together with Zanu PF. If no deal is struck then we will walk away even though we dread the thought of what it will cost all of us. But for us there is simply too much at stake and we will do this in the memory of all those who have died and suffered in the past 10 years during our struggle for democracy and freedom.

We can sense that even if we do have to walk away from a deal, that the end is now in sight and that time is running out for the monsters that have destroyed our country. We can see that it is only a matter of time before we can celebrate the dawn of a new Zimbabwe.

The post colonial state was a product of a protracted civil rights struggle and I would like to think that many would agree that the Zimbabwe of today is not exactly what the struggle was meant to help establish.

On paper, Zimbabwe is a democratic state but if there is a more potent threat to Zimbabwe’s constitutional order, Mr. Charamba, President Mugabe’s chief spin doctor, would top the list.

He writes a weekly column that is published by the state controlled daily newspaper, the Herald, in which he expresses views that exposes the extent of the collapse of the semblance of a constitutional order that is normally expected in a democratic society.

Having followed some of Charamba’s articles, I have come to the inescapable conclusion that in as much as many people may believe that President Mugabe is the sole poison pill to national progress, the real problem lies in our generation of which Charamba can count as my contemporary but whose views pose a much more significant problem for Zimbabwe to extricate itself from the avoidable humanly created economic and political quagmire.

President Mugabe is on record saying that the destiny of Zimbabwe can only be shaped by its citizens who ultimately should own the nation building project. At the core of the foundational principles of the post colonial state was the notion that citizens would create their own government and express their wishes through the constitutionally defined channels.

It was never part of the deal that the constitution would be cynically interpreted to allow a single individual to monopolize state power even in the face of monumental failure and then rely on state power to intimidate citizens into believing that there is no alternative than to surrender their sovereignty to an exclusive club with the monopoly of abusing the media to advance views that threaten the very constitutional order that the President purports to uphold.

Although ZANU-PF has dominated the post colonial era, it cannot be said that the framers of the constitution of Zimbabwe intended to create a situation where the ruling party and the state would be one thing. Indeed, reading the diatribe of Charamba confirms that either he is unaware that the state belongs to citizens and ZANU-PF should be nothing but a club of believers and members or he thinks that citizens should be mere pawns that are occasionally used to legitimize through the electoral process a predetermined outcome.

It seems odd that a civil servant working for the people would openly insult his masters without whose sweat and taxes the state would not exist and ultimately he would be in the ranks of the condemned majority poor.

Although he uses the name Manheru, his cover has already been exposed. He is, evidently, not afraid to air his partisan and often offensive views as would any rational civil servant working as a permanent secretary for a state institution.

The head of the civil service under a properly functioning democratic order would ordinarily be apolitical and the name Permanent Secretary was deliberately chosen to highlight the permanency of the job. In other words, the change of a government would ideally not have any impact on the civil service.

It cannot be said that Charamba behaves like a civil servant rather he behaves like an intellectual terrorist armed with the venom that can only be expected from a political commissar. It is evident that Charamba has reached a point of no return and he has chosen to identify himself as a revolutionary civil servant prosecuting a national democratic revolution that so far has failed to confer real benefits to citizens.

To the extent that Charamba appears to believe that democracy, rule of law and human and property rights are a nuisance, it is reasonable to ask why President Mugabe, his principal, would subscribe to elections if the outcome of such democratic experiments could produce undesirable outcomes.

Although the constitution of Zimbabwe is clear and deliberate in terms of the bill of rights, the last 28 years have created an atmosphere of fear where citizens who may aspire to be considered for political office are easily dismissed, vilified and scandalised by so-called civil servants.

Would Charamba be prepared to serve any other person than President Mugabe? Is it in the national interest for a highly opinionated civil servant to be on the payroll of the state rather than the party?

Zimbabweans have allowed their civil service to be polluted by political prostitutes who have no respect for the constitutional order that their masters purport to respect.

Some have argued that due to externally influenced factors, Zimbabwe should suspend the democratic order so that the state is not accountable to its masters, the citizens, until the so-called bilateral dispute with the former colonial master is resolved.

We can see in the actions of Gono and Charamba that they have accepted that any other democratic choice expressed by the people of Zimbabwe would not be acceptable if it did not yield a predetermined outcome.

ZANU-PF is supposed to be a juristic person in its own right with a separate and distinct existence from the state. However, Charamba whose position in the party is not known appears to have stepped into the shoes of Professor Moyo to act in a Nazi-style manner with no regard to the constitutional consequences effectively making the state an agent of the ruling party.

Ideally, any government should belong to all the citizens and transparency would be the only basis on which a state can function in a democratic order.

In the minds of Charamba and similar sycophants it seems that they have accepted that citizens should not have a right to question government actions and even peoples’ representatives in parliament like Butau are exposed to the worst form of intimidation.

I read Charamba’s article entitled “Zim: Lessons from a splitting rainbow” that was published by the Herald on Saturday, 5 January 2008. Charamba is characteristic style was not interested in state matters but with the threat to ZANU-PF of an alleged project to broaden the menu of political options available to Zimbabweans in the forthcoming elections.

It is not surprising that Charamba would hold Simba Makoni, a member of the politburo of ZANU-PF, in contempt only because of allegations that he may be considering becoming a candidate in the 2008 elections.

Ordinarily any civil servant working for the state in a democratic order would be indifferent to political contestants but this is no longer the case in Charamba’s Zimbabwe.

Charamba has no shame in using Makoni’s taxes against his democratic right to make himself available if nominated to stand as a candidate.

Who would have thought that the country that the likes of Chitepo, Tongogara, Joshua Nkomo, Ndabaningi Sithole and others would end up a hostage of people like Charamba and his ilk.

He dismisses Makoni using the state newspapers without allowing citizens to make their own informed choices. If Makoni is disqualified because of incompetence I am not sure what rational Zimbabweans would say freely about the performance of the state over the last 28 years under Charamba’s boss?

Charamba then goes on diminish the role played by Ibbo Mandaza whose record in the post colonial state is well established. I am informed that Mandaza worked for the state for 10 years and it is irresponsible for anyone working for the same administration to seek to undermine the record of a former colleague just because he has chosen to exercise his constitutional right to seek to advance the cause of change.

I should point out that I hold no brief to represent both Makoni and Mandaza but find it unacceptable that Charamba would arrogate to him the role of a custodian of the national democratic revolution project in a partisan manner.

If it is true that Makoni is associated with a project that would increase the available choices for Zimbabweans notwithstanding his alleged questionable credentials, anyone who loves Zimbabwe and is cognisant of the current policy bankruptcy and rudderless navigation would support such courage.

Is it not strange that it now takes courage to even accept to be a candidate for political office in post colonial Zimbabwe, a country that rose from the womb of colonial oppression?

I am not sure what the heroes and heroines buried at the heroes’ acre would think of Charamba’s views against Tsvangirai, Chibhebe and others who have taken it upon themselves that Zimbabwe needs a change of direction.

The real reason for me to write the article is partly to address the comments made by Charamba in response to my article that exposed the hypocrisy of the RBZ in the ongoing Butau saga. This is what Charamba had to say:”Mawere, poor Mawere!To have an opponent like Mutumwa Mawere is a blessing. You never struggle for feedback. I am sure Charamba relishes his tango with him. I mean if such a pithy line on Butau is acknowledged so profusely, so sanctimoniously, so expansively, who needs to cast lots to tell where and how the blow has fallen and has been received respectively? What piqued and hurt this born-again South African? A mere reference to fugitives who run and run until they unfailingly hit the shores of Albion? Fugitives who know no other land to run to? And he dares talk about Gono and patronage. He, of all people? What business did he start here without Zanu-PF and Government guarantees and patronage? Let him not push his luck too far, this clever-for-nothing bitter charlatan.

Tizvinyore. Ngaati pwee. Icho!He obviously sees me as an opponent which is expected from any civil servant that does not understand the role of the state. It is wrong for Charamba to see my criticism of the manner in which he is politicising the civil service as personal. I am sure that if the Public Service Commission still exists in Zimbabwe, the comments made by Charamba about Butau and other so-called fugitives would be of concern warranting disciplinary action.

As long as Charamba is an organ of the state it cannot be acceptable that he thinks he is above the law. He makes the statement above that his comments about the role of the West in allegedly undermining the interests of Zimbabwe was not targeted at me and, therefore, I should stay out of the fray as if to suggest that people are only entitled to comment on matters that affect them personally.

Charamba recklessly uses the term “fugitive” to describe not only Butau but Makamba, Mushore, Makoni, and others and attempts to make a distinction between the so-called fugitives that are domiciled in the shores of Albion and those domiciled in Africa suggesting that the term has territorial application.

The use of the term fugitive to describe the circumstances of Butau and others is not only mischievous but irresponsible. According to what has been published so far in relation to Butau, it is evident that he cannot be classified as a fugitive for to be a fugitive one would have to fall in anyone of the following categories:

1. If one has run away from Zimbabwe when charges were being formulated against him;
2. If one has breached any bail given to him;
3. If one has escaped from prison
4. If one has left Zimbabwe to avoid any legal process;

Charamba is fully aware that all that Butau has done is simply to exercise a constitutional right to require the government of Zimbabwe to act in terms of the law if he is to face charges in Zimbabwe. We all know what happened to Kuruneri, Makamba and others who after being unlawfully placed on remand were eventually acquitted by the courts.

Would Butau have been treated any differently from Kuruneri, a former cabinet minister, who only last week was set free by a Supreme Court judge? Kuruneri’s circumstances are not different from the allegations against Butau. What is striking is that Kuruneri, Butau and Makamba are all from Mashonaland Central Province where Vice President Mujuru comes from giving credence that the selective targeting of people by Gono may be driven by an ulterior motive.

To the extent that the Zimbabwean police are looking for Butau for the purpose of investigating certain allegations, he cannot be considered to be a fugitive. He ran away from nothing and in any democratic society it would be unacceptable for citizens to be presumed guilty before the intervention of the judiciary. The outburst of Charamba goes a long way towards confirming that Zimbabwe is no longer a democratic state in which the separation of powers doctrine is applicable.

If a duly elected Member of Parliament and a Chairman of the powerful Budge and Finance Committee is susceptible to intimidation then citizens have reason to be concerned. Butau has not left Zimbabwe to avoid any legal process but like Joshua Nkomo before him came to the conclusion that things have fallen apart and no interests of justice would be served by exposing himself to what the likes of Kuruneri endured.

It is interesting that Charamba is of the view that Butau ought to have been included in the sanctions list and is angry that the British chose to omit his name. Why would the government of Zimbabwe be concerned about a sanctions list when the official position is that they are illegal? If Butau is not on the sanctions list, then how can President Mugabe blame the same ineffective sanctions on the economic collapse?

I am sure that Charamba is aware of the call by a state Prosecutor, Mr. Tawanda Zvekare, in the Manjoro case in which Butau is alleged to have facilitated the procurement of foreign currency for an investigation to establish the circumstances surrounding the release of more than Z$7 trillion by the RBZ to Flatwater Investments, a shelf company. He urged the court to give an order for thorough investigations into the matter saying the central bank should have verified the suitability of Flatwater Investments to be contracted to procure tractors for the mechanisation programme before releasing the money. Charamba should be concerned like any loyal and honest civil servant about what Manjoro said in court regarding the mandate he got from the RBZ to import tractors from a pre-selected foreign supplier, Michigan Tractors, a company allegedly connected to Gono. If Mr Zvekare can openly blame the RBZ, as reported by the Herald, for disbursing Z$7 trillion without undertaking any due diligence on the beneficiary, then why is it that Charamba sees no problem in focusing his attention on the RBZ?

With respect to the RBZ’s role in the Butau saga, this is what Zvekare had to say in court:
“The firm contracted Manjoro to source foreign currency on the black market on their behalf, who also subcontracted several runners like (fugitive MP David) Butau to assist him. The rest of the money given to Manjoro is not accounted for and the rest of the money he gave to his friends is also not accounted for. What we have now is a grand theft involving the RBZ itself.I find it incredulous that a whole central bank of a country would release trillions to a company on the strength of a mere letter, which was not verified. This marks of a conspiracy between the central bank and the company to steal all this money.

Right from the RBZ to the lowest runner at Road Port no mercy should be accorded them. The court should give an order for thorough investigations right up to the central bank to avoid a situation whereby the courts would be only dealing with runners instead of cash barons and baronesses.”

Even President Mugabe would agree that if what Zvekare said is true about the RBZ then it would not be in the national interest for him not to take responsibility for the decay.

Charamba then challenges my views on Gono and the mafia-style operations of the RBZ. He alleges that my business was started with ZANU-PF and government guarantees and patronage and then fails to expose how such patronage manifested itself. Surely, for a spin doctor like Charamba it should not be difficult for him to expose me. Why try to protect the public from knowing the truth about my businesses? If my businesses were corruptly acquired, then surely Charamba should not hesitate naming my accomplices? Why would Charamba seek to expose Butau and then refuse to expose my alleged benefactors?

He threatens me not to push my luck too far suggesting that if I heed the message then he will have no incentive to tell the public the truth about me. I am challenging Charamba openly to expose any information that may be available to him substantiating his baseless allegation that I acquired Shabanie Mashaba Mines (Private) Limited in 1996 using a government guarantee. It is important that Charamba grows up and walk the talk. The public deserves to know the truth.

Previously published in African Hopes Blog

I must say I never trusted MDC faction leader Arthur Mutambara from the start,everything is wrong about a man who spends two decades in the diaspora,shut out of the public never saying anything about developments in his home country only to come back at the eleventh hour claiming to be the saviour.

But recent developments in which Mutambara said they are prepared to strike a deal with Mugabe’s ZANU-PF party is more revealing about a politician we have known for little over two years. This event has shaped his political image.

“Political image is like mixing cement,” said US Democratic Party nominee Walter Mondale. “When it’s wet, you can move it around and shape it, but at some point it hardens and there’s almost nothing you can do to reshape it.” This statement rings true of Mutambara.

In the next years regardless of the outcome of these talks people will never forget this great betrayal by Mutambara. Any attempt to repackage himself to cut a new and winning impression after these talks will be a damp squib that won’t work.

Mutambara should have realized that even if they agreed with ZANU PF,it was suicidal to say this in public. Politicians survive through knowledge of how to maintain a balance between which information is available to the public and which information is kept hidden. Mutambara failed in that balancing act.

Mutambara’s utterances and calling Tsvangirai names revealed not only pride but arrogance. As a prominent political analyst, George Will once observed: “A politician’s words reveal less about what he thinks about his subject than what he thinks about his audience.” Mutambara revealed his condescending attitude towards the Zimbabwean majority which supports Tsvangirai,its a costly revelation,one that could consign him to political oblivion one way or the other.

Mutambara has alienated himself from his faction’s core voting block. Its public information that his faction derives its support from rural Matebeland. The faction’s electoral successes in these two provinces could be attributed to their political strategy one in which Tsvangirai and his candidates were portrayed as ‘traitors’ and tribalists.

Being born and raised in Matebeland South, I remember an incident during my school days. It was at a prize giving ceremony, those who went to school in Zimbabwe know about those events where achievers in different fields be it academics and sports are rewarded. So it happened that I won a prize for excelling in Ndebele and as my name was being called out I could hear people murmuring,I knew why, my name sounded strange. I was shona.

What I am trying to explain is that the scars of tribalism cut deep in Matebeland, people are still traumatized by traitors like Enos Nkala and Naison Ndlovu and the Gukurahundi genocide is still fresh in minds. People still don’t approve ZAPU’s marriage with ZANU. They feel they have been left out and the politicians do not really care about them.

The tragic history of Gukurahundi,broken trust,betrayal and government abandonment defines the politics in those regions and the political language that resonates includes the code words; ngumthengisi, traitor, opasi, kathenjwa. Economics in rural Matebeland is not a huge deal because most bread winners work in South Africa and Botswana. So some politicians understand these code words and use them to their benefit and through this strategy the Mutambara faction won.

It will take more than one or two political cycles to win back rural Matebeland people’s hearts and their faith in government and politicians. But one thing is clear, Mutambara’s image is now tainted with one of more of those code words.

They say he who sups with devil should use a long spoon, Mutambara used a short one and is now too close to ZANU PF for comfort.

Promising political leaders in Matebeland have seen their political careers go up in smoke because they had aligned themselves with ZANU PF. ZANU PF is an anathema and anyone who aligns himself with the a party of blood is bound to get burnt.

Like I said politicians in Matebeland understand the dynamics and the political landscape there and that is why you saw a stampede by some of the elected officials to distance themselves from Mutambara ’s bed hopping with ZANU PF,they understand its political suicide.

The damage has been done,cast in stone an epitaph that reads,’ Here lies Arthur Guseni Oliver Mutambara…’.

Visit Asher ’s website www.mutsengi.com to read more about his views and commentary on Zimbabwe’s politics

The message which starts with high sounding nothings on strategic management clearly plagiarized from Western management textbooks ends with shameful western bashing that exposes the true agenda and new colors which surprisingly Mutambara tries to hide; that he is a new zealot disciple of Mugabe and ZANU PF and a legendary political prostitute who can sell principles and conscience for the sake of a position in government

History has clearly shown that Mutambara is a desperado who can do anything and everything for the sake of a title. This is why he still fancies himself as a leader of the MDC Ncube faction when every fool knows that the real power in this faction is Welshman Ncube.So what will stop Mutambara from hallucinating to please Mugabe merely for him to be called Deputy Prime Minister in the same way his faction jumped onto the Makoni bandwagon when they thought that he was going to win the elections in March?

In the imbecilic article, Mutambara bashes the west especially Britain and America accusing them of double standards and interfering in Zimbabwean affairs. He shamelessly parrots the ZANU PF propaganda that the west wants to impose Tsvangirai as the leader of the country when he says, “How does a western country pronounce that they will not recognize a government unless it is led by a particular leader without undermining the credibility and integrity of that leader”

Mutambara must stop fooling himself that if he is politically illiterate, then he can cheat each and every Zimbabwean. The west has never demanded the imposition of any leader but like the millions of Zimbabweans who categorically spoke on the 29 th of March, the west has only demanded the respect of the Zimbabwean people ‘s will as expressed in the only free and fair election on the 29 th of March when the people endorsed Tsvangirai to lead the country.Mutambara and his faction were buried by the people’s political tsunami hence the ramblings of a loser that Mutambara is and forever will in Zimbabwean politics given his damaged political brand

The western nations never declared before the elections that they will accept a particular leader but made it clear that they will recognize any leader that emerges from a free, fair, peaceful and credible election. Every global citizen worth his salt is aware that the only legitimate election held in Zimbabwe is the March 29 and nothing else. The circus of murder rape, torture and violence of June 27 one man race is null and void and the west is right that they will only recognize the will of the people as expressed in March.

The west did not observe the elections in Zimbabwe. The Africans, whom Mutambara tries to glorify in his position seeking article as represented by SADC and the AU, concluded that the so called election of June 27 did not reflect the will of the people of Zimbabwe. So on which basis does Mutambara claim that the west wants to impose a leader in Zimbabwe? The west, as many Africans have done is to stand shoulder by shoulder with the people of Zimbabwe so that their vote on March 29 must count

Even USA democratic presidential candidate, Barack Obama, addressing the great Berlin rally made it clear that, “the right of the Zimbabwean voter must be defended by the whole world” That is why in essence, the west and African countries that have not recognized Mugabe‘s sham June 27 so called election have steadfastly called for the recognition of the people’s will as expressed on the 29 th of March.

Even, the mediator, Mbeki told the G8 that there is no legitimate government in Zimbabwe. If Mutambara had won the election on March 29, the whole world would have still demanded that those results become the cornerstone of the power architecture in any negotiated settlement.Mutambara must realize the cardinal rule in politics that power can only come from the people and not negotiations by losers. The people of Zimbabwe spoke on 29th March and no amount of propaganda from Mutambara who chickened out of the presidential race to avoid a humiliating drubbing and was totally rejected in a mere constituency in Zengeza can wish this away.

Mutambara also shockingly glorifies the violence that occurred in the run-up to the circus of June 27 by saying that anyone who condemns that dastardly and barbaric violence as, “moralizing nonsense” This can only be the shenanigans of a loser who is angry that the people of Zimbabwe rejected him and thus is happy that they were murdered, beaten and raped

Mutambara also embrace ZANU PF propaganda of sanctions line, hook and sinker when he questions the inclusion of Joseph Made in the sanctions list arguing that Made was not involved in violence. Mutambara is clearly unaware of the doctrine of guilty by association. Even in corporate law there is what is called vicarious liability. If Made was not indeed involved in violence as Mutambara claims, he should have publicly denounced and disassociated himself from it and his ZANU PF party in the same way former ZANU PF MP for Zvishavane , Pearson Mbalekwa courageously and publicly disassociated himself from ZANU PF violence during the ruthless Operation Murambatsvina.Silence when violence is committed in the name of the party you belong to means endorsement, Mr. Mutambara.Throughout history, politicians are held accountable for the errors of both omission and commission

Mutambara also attempts to say that the UN sanctions are a result of the land question. What he fails to appreciate is that the ZANU PF government has expropriated all land and is failing to produce spawning massive hunger and famine in the country. Most of the dispossessed farmers have settled in Mozambique, Zambia and Nigeria where they have managed to improve agricultural production in those countries because of their skills. The west does not survive on Zimbabwean land. They have complicated advanced farming skills and resources. This is why all the humanitarian aid in terms of food feeding the starving Zimbabweans is a donation from the western nations

In fact, Mutambara must understand that modern economies are no longer land driven but technology driven that makes the west able to produce much food through advanced technology leading to intensive agriculture and high output per unit. That is why there has never been a single food riot in the west despite the unraveling global food crisis

All in all, it is interesting to note that we have losers like Mutambara whose 10 MPs in the House of Assembly have made it clear that they will never vote with ZANU PF especially given the genocide they committed in Matebeleland, desperately trying to define the future of our nation. What happened to your so called generational mandate you always parrot? Why did Mr. Mutambara fail to tell Mugabe that the time for his generation is over and he must retire?

Garikai Agenda Chimuka is a Zimbabwean writing from the Netherlands

The Movement for Democratic Change has always been a people’s project. We seek nothing but the best interests of the people of our country.

Tragically, Zimbabwe has become one of the worst man-made humanitarian disasters of a new and hopeful century. At least two million Zimbabweans have already fled our homeland. An estimated half million Zimbabweans have already died of starvation, malnutrition and preventable disease.

Because of the failed policies of ZANU PF, five million Zimbabweans now face starvation and famine. We cannot allow this to happen. All of us must provide decisive leadership.

My Fellow Zimbabweans, on March 29 you voted for change. You have been clear. We will not betray you. In this respect, the MDC entered these negotiations full of hope. We put aside our grievances and reached out to ZANU PF for the good of the people.

However, any dialogue to save our country must take place in an atmosphere of mutual respect and tolerance underpinned by our shared patriotism and desire to stop the suffering, and build a prosperous future for our children.

Let me be clear, MDC entered these negotiations seeking a transformative and healing solution to the deep-seated political and economic crisis facing our country. Our objective is simple – a peaceful resolution to the crisis that respects the will of the people.

The MDC remains committed to participating in any meaningful and genuine dialogue that urgently moves this process forward.

We knew negotiations would be difficult, but a resolution that represents anything other than the will of the Zimbabwean people would be a disaster for our country. We are committed to a solution that recognizes that the people spoke on the 29th of March 2008 - a solution that ensures tangible deliverables are put on the table of Zimbabweans. A solution must thus put the people first, not leadership positions and titles.

Our members of parliament and councillors, indeed Zimbabweans of all political persuasions, are part of the transformative process. We need a government that transfers power to the elected representatives of the people to carry out the people’s mandate for change.

In the immediate days ahead, we have a historic opportunity to choose between hope or hatred, cooperation or conflict, prosperity or poverty, the will of the people or selfish interests. In short, we
seek a new Zimbabwe that will provide food, jobs, dignity and healing to all our people.

To accomplish this, we need to look forward together. Only by working together can we transform our society. Only by working together can we rebuild our nation.

Although there are many dimensions to our crisis, there is one immediate and urgent step that is required:

Our people continue to face a profound humanitarian crisis. We know you are suffering. Without further delay, we are demanding that NGOs be allowed to resume humanitarian assistance – distributing food, medicines and life-saving assistance. This destructive policy of banning humanitarian assistance can be reversed with one letter.

The Zimbabwean problem is an African problem that requires an African solution. This weekend’s SADC Heads of State Summit in Johannesburg is yet another opportunity for our African brothers and sisters to offer us a hand at this decisive moment. In his role as facilitator and as incoming SADC Chairman, President Thabo Mbeki must insist on ensuring that the Zimbabwean issue is put to rest. Most importantly, President Mbeki must ensure that humanitarian assistance is resumed immediately. In addition , civic society that has been barred must be allowed to operate.

We hope that as facilitator, President Mbeki will ensure that the issues that continue to divide us at the negotiation table are resolved as soon as possible. Creativity, leadership and vision is essential in this delicate stage.

In closing, let me reiterate three points – first, we have always been committed to dialogue as the only way to resolve the current political impasse; second, we remain committed to reaching an agreement that upholds the will of the people; and third, we remain urgently concerned about the humanitarian crisis and ask for President Mbeki and SADC’s immediate assistance in securing the resumption of aid to our starving, sick and dying people.

I thank you.

May God Bless Zimbabwe.

In the final analysis this is a straight fight between Thabo Mbeki and Zanu PF - the former has to secure an agreement that is acceptable to the MDC and also to the international community. The MDC has to accept the deal if it is to secure the approval of the general population and the latter if the
international community is to then agree to fund the stabilisation and recovery of the Zimbabwe economy.

The position of Zanu PF has always been quite clear - if they accept such a deal it means two years of working with the MDC in a junior capacity - with the MDC holding the reins of power and then at the end of the transitional period facing an election under free and fair conditions with a free press,
no violence or intimidation, an independent election commission and international observers.

In such an electoral process it is likely that Zanu PF would cease to exist as a political party - at least in the House of Assembly and perhaps in all local government Councils. Like the National Party in South Africa at best they would end up as a minor player. More immediately and of great concern
to all of their leadership and many hundreds of others, they would face a independent Judicial system and possible prosecution for either human rights abuse, political violence and murder or corruption.

When viewed like that this always was going to be a power game. After all that is politics. We will know today what the outcome has been and I remain convinced that Mr. Mbeki will have to get a deal - he simply cannot go back to South Africa without agreement and must therefore use his very considerable power as President of South Africa, to force Zanu PF to accept its fate.

What happens if he fails? That has always been a possibility - many have said a probability. Those skeptics have argued that he simply does not have what it takes to exercise power at this level. That he does not have the moral authority or the leverage to force compliance. I disagree - he has
always had the power to do so and has chosen not to use it up to now. I agree with Tony Leon when he said on SA television this morning that this thing could have been fixed 8 years ago and the long nightmare of the past decade avoided. But that is easier said than done. Right now its high noon
on Main Street.

If he fails this test then what happens to the rest of us? If I was on the Zanu side I would not come out of this with any optimism - if anything I would be tempted to start to pack my bags and leave. If they do not sign today, Zanu PF is really finished. They have no legitimacy; their administration will not be accepted by anybody of significance. The SADC and possibly the AU will ostracize them. Sanctions will be further tightened on their leadership and the collapse of the economy will continue - eventually
making it nearly impossible to live here.

Millions will flee to other countries - 80 per cent to South Africa where they will destabilize a fragile social system and security. The local security forces will disintegrate, eventually threatening the security of what remains of the regime. Capital will flee the country and little or no investment will come in to replace it and starvation and hunger will haunt what remains of the local population.

Most commentators would predict that the regime could not last more than a few months under such conditions. I am inclined to agree but we could simply slide into anarchy and chaos with Zimbabwe becoming a pitiful failed State of the worst kind - unable to feed or care for the majority of the people
and only a small minority remaining at home.

What are the chances of a violent end to the regime - in this country I think minimal. We do not have any neighbors who might allow bases for an armed rebellion, we have no arms and even if the armed forces took matters into their own hands the result would not be recognised or accepted. It would be futile. Biti was about right when he was asked what MDC would do if they could not get what they wanted - he replied “we would let them stew in their own juices”.

What if Mbeki does put his foot down and gets a deal? Then I would expect the leaders to clear the deal with their respective parties and then a final agreement to be prepared and ready for signing in South Africa at the SADC summit on Saturday. After that we would have the opening of Parliament on
the following Wednesday followed by the House voting on the legislation to give effect to the agreement and then the new Government being appointed by the 1st of September.

If the transitional arrangements are acceptable to the international community then I would expect things to happen quite fast - by the end of September the basic outline of things to come would be in place - the Reserve Bank would have acted to start to stabilize the economic and monetary system, the emergency programme to get recovery under way would be in place and people should begin to see real things happening on the ground.

In six months I would expect inflation to be down to single digits and the economy should start to exhibit real growth for the first time since 1998.

The dollar will strengthen and exports begin to recover. Investment inflows would be positive - again for the first time in a decade and tourism would begin. The contrast between these two scenarios is so great that I find it difficult to believe that Mr. Mbeki can do anything behind those closed doors in Harare except tell the Zanu delegation that their future is sealed and they have no option but to sign.

I would like to reiterate that I am not a politically oriented musician, I do not support any political party and as such do not sing for any politician. My music is about Zimbabweans and for them.

I was surprised the first time that I heard that certain of my songs had been banned from the airwaves because they were perceived to be politically incorrect. I did not waste any time when I learnt about this. I went to the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Holdings (ZBH) to enquire about this new development.

At ZBH I held a meeting with the then Chief Executive Officer, Munyaradzi Hwengwere who professed ignorance at the said ban. Hwengwere told me that Disc Jockeys (DJs) at radio stations had the liberty to play whatever songs they preferred and that it was not ZBH’s policy to blacklist particular songs.

It was disheartening to learn that the highest authority at ZBH could not help me, and that the banning of my particular songs were to the discretion of presenters. But I had doubts over Hwengwere’s explanation.

If I can point out that the last five years have been my worst in as far as my artistic career is concerned. Since when I released the album Hodho, which has several blacklisted songs, I have had negative articles in the state media who have gone all the way to show that I am a spent force. The independent print media has tried to give me coverage, but now with the absence of the Daily News which was shut down in 2003, my print coverage has been limited.

ZBH’s banning some of my songs saying they were politically incorrect, has led to some quarters thinking I am sympathetic to the opposition political parties. The result is that I have lost a number of my fans who do not want anything to do with politics. I have had to cancel a number of live shows in areas dominated by the ruling party as they threatened my person.

My story is one of growing up in the rural areas, then surrounded by war. I learnt to survive the hard way early. I have a lot of stories to tell from my childhood to where I am today. My music is a recording of events as they occur. I sing about my environs and people are free to interpret my songs the way they feel. It is unfortunate that with the current political, social and economic problems affecting the country, every song that I have released has been reviewed to suit a particular existing condition. If I sing about holding on to power, people think I am singing about the current President. But there are many people holding on to power – in companies etc. If I sing about change, people think I want the ruling party to be replaced.

The real sad thing is that our sole broadcaster, ZBH has also fallen into this mischief. The station has misinterpreted several of my songs and classified them as politically incorrect. I have several new music videos which I have prepared and given to ZBH for arial promotion but they have never been played. In making follow ups to my music videos, I have received conflicting statements on why they are not being played.

But I have high hopes that art stays longer and that with time my music will be played. I am eagerly awaiting that time when the airwaves will be free to play my music and hopefully that of other musicians who have been affected by this informal censorship.

The Zimbabwe censorship board has not come up with any spelt guidelines as to what we should sing or not. What they have done is to let broadcasters decide what they want played and what they do not want played. This has left the ZBH with a monopoly to blacklist songs it sees as politically incorrect.

My situation and that of other musicians has been made worse by the fact that we do not have independent radio and television stations that can offer alternatives. This situation has affected the smooth promotion of my products through the electronic media.

I still continue to work hard and promote my music through live shows around the country. What I have said to myself since my music began been censored is that I would continue to record music in the format I have been all along. I will not change my style, I will not tone down my lyrics and I will continue to sing about issues affecting the people of Zimbabwe.

I sing for Zimbabweans, and rightly so I sing in my native Shona language. I do not sing in English, and in singing in my native language I endeavour to be as elaborate as possible in my messages.

People who replace my lyrics with those that suit them are worsening my predicament with ZBH and government, but it is my hope that one day the broadcaster will accept my music for what it is – entertainment.

It is my hope that my music will remain provocative and create debate among the Zimbabwean society. As a musician I have the duty to serve my people, to sing about what I see around me, to sing about one man’s injustices to another, to rebuke those who manipulate others by virtue of being in powerful and authoritative positions.

Governments the world over censor music, and my case is not a unique one. But as my music is being censored there are fans who have remained loyal to my compositions and they have supported me through and through.

A lot has happened in the past and I have had no chance to come out in the open to give my side of story, luckily I have this time around. The next time, I will be talking about my once banned music receiving airplay on radio and television. Like the late great reggae star Bob Marley sang: “Time Will Tell”.

This article was written in connection with a seminar on Music Censorship in Zimbabwe held at Mannenberg Jazz Club in Harare

Although it is 28 years later, there is a lot of wisdom, institutional memory and revolutionary best practices that we have not sufficiently leveraged for the advancement of our nation. These key aspects from our heroic revolution provide inspiration and education applicable in both the private and public sectors. Not only did our heroes create a solid foundation for the construction of our nation-state, they also crafted a rich fountain from which we can feed our minds.

Effective Execution of Strategy

The armed struggle was about effective implementation planning and execution. Yes, there was strategic thinking, logistical planning, tactical considerations, and effective consultations. However, at the end of the day the guns had to blaze. One of the major constraints in modern management, both public and private, is paralysis by analysis. Decision-making is slow and the execution is ineffective. Government departments are littered with extensive economic plans, strategic blueprints, and project proposals, all put to waste by lack of implementation planning and execution. If there had been a feasibility study carried out before the decision to wage the armed struggle in the 1960’s there would have been no liberation war.

If Nelson Mandela had done a cost benefit analysis and a net present value assessment before joining the ANC or launching MK, the African icon we celebrate today would not have existed. Sometimes you have to jump from the pan into the fire and implement. The rubber must hit the ground as quickly as possible without being bogged down by endless investigation or examination. ZANLA and ZIPRA fighters were about effective execution of the armed struggle. They did not spend time pontificating over the efficacy of an armed response or bleating that the odds were stacked against them. They waged war. While Josiah Tongogara and Nikita Mangena were strategic thinkers and master tacticians, their greatness as guerrilla leaders was defined by effective execution of the armed struggle.

The problems most emerging market governments and businesses have are two-fold; either too much planning without implementation, or ineffective execution. We need to embrace the dictum: Never forget implementation, it is the last 98% of the task. Execution is the discipline of getting things done. It is a systematic process of rigorously discussing the how’s and what’s of the work, tenaciously following through, and ensuring impact and accountability. A brilliant strategy, a blockbuster product or breakthrough technology can put you on the competitive business map, but only solid execution can keep you there. You have to deliver on the strategic intent. Enterprises fail because they go straight into structural reorganization, while they neglect the most powerful drivers of implementation effectiveness.

One such a lever is effective flow and management of information. This includes task details, intelligence about the competition, organizational metrics, bottom-line numbers and message discipline. The other driver is defined around decisions rights. This refers to responsibility and accountability for decisions and the corresponding actions. There must be decisiveness and not second guessing of actions to be executed. Line managers or leaders must be involved in making operational decisions.

They must also be sufficiently empowered to deal with ambiguities, uncertainties and unforeseen circumstances. There must be alignment of incentives with strategy, performance based differentiation, effective recognition of high flyers, and emphasis on non-pay incentives, while emphasizing unique and not generic assessments. Structure must follow strategy, and there must be provision for lateral transfers, frequent promotions, balanced delegation, and broad span of control.

In engaging all these drivers of effective execution there must be total buy in, accountability and ownership by the top leadership. There must be clear timelines, milestones, and incentives. There must be effective institutionalization through awareness, education, training, change management, and adequate communication. The adage, “if you cannot measure it, you cannot manage it,” reigns supreme. Consequently, there must be systematic and structured ways of evaluating success through metrics, analysis and feedback systems.

The Essence of Self-Selection and Sacrifice

Another key lesson from the liberation struggle is the importance of self-selection and sacrifice. People were not elected or forced to join the war effort against the oppressive and racist Rhodesian regime. Instead they volunteered to fight for the collective interest, and in the process forgoing personal opportunities and individual success. They were arrested, detained imprisoned, and indeed some of them died. Two heroes perfectly exemplify the notions of self-selection and sacrifice. Herbert Chitepo, the first Black barrister in our nation, could have enjoyed the immense opportunities presented to him in the country, region and world, but he chose to abandon self-interest in pursuit of the bigger picture. He died in the process. Similarly, Dr. Samuel Parirenyatwa, the first Black medical doctor in the country, chose to self-transcend, while giving up on personal comfort, pursuits and gratification. He also paid the ultimate price.

As the best of our generation pursue business, corporate, academic and other private interests within and outside the country, what lessons are they drawing from Chitepo and Parirenyatwa? Are we suggesting we have better options and more important things to do than these two heroes had? What do we need to do, both as a polity and a society, to make public service attractive to our young and able people? Of course we need outstanding business leaders, entrepreneurs and academics, but surely we need to attract some of our best human capital and technocratic capacity to the electoral and democratic processes.

We cannot outsource the task of our public governance to mediocrity and expect to be globally competitive as a nation. In any case, the personal and corporate brands are a function of the national brand. Given our current damaged national brand, there is neither a single corporate (domiciled in Zimbabwe) nor a business leader that is globally exalted. Why should anyone respect a company or an individual that originates from a country with nine million percent inflation? We all need to take a vested interest approach in redeeming, salvaging and transforming our nation so that we can reconstruct our country brand. While this is clearly in our national interest, it also serves our personal and corporate aspirations.

On Redemptive and Revolutionary Violence

As we remember our heroes we must be very clear on the acceptable norms and standards of a democratic society. Violence, or the threat of it, is not an acceptable part of competitive political discourse. We should never again witness the psychological trauma, brutality, and dehumanization that characterized our polity in the past four months. Any attempts to paint this mindless, state sponsored violence in the tradition of the liberation struggle should be dismissed with the contempt it deserves. The experiences of Gukurahundi and Murambatsvina should be understood as a total negation of the heroic revolution we exalt today. The liberation war was about a popular armed insurrection by the people against an illegal and racist regime. It was not a war by the state against its citizens, in pursuit of the retention of power. Our heroes were involved in revolutionary combat for the collective good. Theirs was redemptive violence. As we commemorate their sacrifices we must also resist the temptation to embrace the Rhodesian and racist interpretation of history that equates the redemptive violence of ZIPRA and ZANLA fighters to the murderous shenanigans of the Selous Scouts; the revolutionary war efforts of Herbert Chitepo to the repressive violence of Ian Smith. There is a fundamental difference. One cannot equate activities of the Allied Powers in the Second World War to Hitler’s violence. This is the context in which we celebrate our heroes who violently smashed the ugly illegitimacy of Ian Smith and his Rhodesian racists.

Putting the West in its Place

Heroes Day also provides an opportunity for us to evaluate and put into context the role of the Western World in the affairs of our country. As we currently struggle to establish a peaceful, democratic and prosperous Zimbabwe there has been a lot of interaction with the international community, in particular the West. We appreciate the moral, diplomatic and material support our democratic forces and organizations have received from Western institutions and governments. Under globalization Zimbabwe cannot be an island unto itself. Even our radical transformation into a globally competitive economy will depend on leveraging global strategic partnerships, while unlocking synergies from, and moving up, global value chains. However, we take exception to the irritating ignorance, political insensitivity, double standards, and patronizing arrogance that characterize Western diplomacy with respect to our country.

How does a Western country publicly pronounce that they will not recognize a government unless it is led by a particular leader without undermining the credibility and integrity of that individual? How do you include on the list of the top thirteen people to be sanctioned by the UN over disputed elections in Zimbabwe, an individual such as Dr. Joseph Made, who lost in those elections and was not involved in the problematic Presidential run-off campaigns? How do you have the foolish naïveté to justify his inclusion by saying he was responsible for destroying Zimbabwe’s agriculture? Are we taking Zimbabwe to the UN over the land question? So all this fuss is about white farmer interests in Zimbabwe?

Well, that is not our agenda. We are sick and tired of the hypocrisy, double standards, racism and downright dishonesty. The West must not hide its true motive. Where are the Western democratic demands to Egypt, Angola, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Israel, Pakistan, and Kuwait? Moreover, what does the record of the US and UK in Iraq, Afghanistan, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay teach us? What are the lessons from the ghettos of Chicago, New York and Los Angeles? Who took out Patrice Lumumba, Salvador Allende and Kwame Nkrumah? Who created and nursed Mobutu Sese Seko, Sadam Hussein, Manuel Noriega, Jonas Savimbi and Osama Bin Laden?

More significantly, since it is our Heroes Day, why is it that there is not a single ZIPRA, ZANLA, MK or APLA fighter trained in the US or the UK? Why? Why did the Western lovers of democracy and freedom not extend arms of war to Africans in pursuit of the same? We thought the slogan was “Give me freedom or give me death!” and the clarion call “The price of freedom is death.” Western Europe and the USA did not train and arm Zimbabwean freedom fighters. They left the task to the “evil regimes” of China, Cuba, Russia and Eastern Europe. How ironic! Is there an apology for this malignant neglect? If there was no Western motivation to support our liberation war then, why should there be any attention paid to our democratization efforts now? Do not give us the moralizing nonsense about violence. Both the US and French revolutions were bloody. Hitler was driven out by violence, and so was Saddam Hussein, just yesterday. What we needed in order to deal with Ian Smith and Pieter W. Botha were arms of war, pure and simple. Our heroes were right.

We understand Henry Kissinger very well when he paraphrases Lord Acton and says; “America does not have permanent friends, only permanent interests.” Every time a Western leader or diplomat speaks about a developing country they must repeat the essence of this Kissinger dictum first and then articulate their national position. Of course each nation seeks to optimize its national interest. What is criminal is trying to hide this motive behind lofty ideals of democracy, freedom and good governance. It is imperative that the West openly declares its economic, strategic, and geo-political interests in Zimbabwe.

For the record our angry rebuke of Western bungling is not just driven by principles, values or pursuit of the puritanical. It is about impact and results. For the democratic forces in Zimbabwe, Western double standards and dishonesty have actually damaged our cause and cost us immensely. Western governments have undermined our legitimacy, strengthened our opponents (the dictatorship), removed our moral authority, and ruined our effectiveness and standing among Africans.

As we finalize the political settlement to the impasse in our country, we have heard sentiments from the West indicating that they will look at the agreement and decide whether it is acceptable to them. Who are they, to superintend, judge and grade a collective decision by Africans? It is not the place for Western governments or their institutions to determine whether the agreement is right or wrong. It is strictly none of their business. We will brook no nonsense on this matter. What is essential is for Zimbabweans to agree, own the processes, and buy into the settlement.

There is something completely disrespectful, contemptuous and patronizing in the Western attitude that Zimbabwean leaders might actually sign the wrong agreement. What Western arrogance does not seem to appreciate is that the leaders most undermined by this Western imbecilic thinking are those that the West supposedly supports. How do you give your favourite leader such a vote of no confidence? To add insult to injury you impose sanctions in the midst of the negotiations. How can this be an expression of faith in African efforts to solve African matters? On our Heroes Day, we say shame on you!!

Towards A New Dawn

As we celebrate and honour our heroes, it is befitting that Zimbabwe is sitting on the threshold of transformative change. We have a national political agreement that seeks to bring all our people together irrespective of party affiliation. This compromise solution, a suboptimal answer, with its glaring and attendant limitations is the best temporary measure to extricate the country from its worst situation. It is the price we pay for peace, national healing and restoration of human dignity. However, it is imperative that those involved in driving this agreement take cognizance of the fact that it is an arrangement meant to effectively and efficiently deliver services to the people. Hence, the implementation planning and execution will have to be done diligently. This is not a settlement for the sake of settling, through meaningless accommodation.

We are settling so that we can salvage, stabilize, recover and more importantly, transform our economy. We need to create and build an expanded middle class of new taxpayers and entrepreneurs through rapid reconstruction and industrialization. Hence, there is need to underwrite this agreement through diversified sources of both domestic and foreign direct investment, balance of payment support and multi-lateral institutional engagement.

There must be a comprehensive economic strategy that includes infrastructural development, natural resource mobilization, local processing of all minerals, economic empowerment, value-added manufacturing, industry-wide beneficiation, optimum leveraging of the Diaspora, and moving up both the skills and global value chains. For this economic framework to deliver, it must be grounded in good governance, a democratic culture, pluralism and competitive politics, all envisioned and built on the solid foundation of a new people driven democratic constitution.

The journey towards a peaceful, democratic and prosperous nation has just begun. It will require a new crop and genre of gallant fighters.

We are a heroic people. Our history inspires us.

(Prof Arthur G.O. Mutambara is the President of a breakaway faction of the Movement for Democratic Change).

Mandela’s name will remain etched in the history of South Africa as the first President of a constitutional democratic order and yet his legacy may not be correctly contextualised unless he pronounces his opinion on the fate of Mr. Jacob Zuma, the current popular President of a party that has helped transform him from an ex-political convict to a global brand and icon, as he enters the final mile to the statehouse.

It was significant that both President Mbeki, Mandela’s successor in the state as well as the party, and Zuma were at the joyful celebration.

Although Zuma described Mandela as the glue that held the organisation together as well as an icon to the nation, it would be naïve to overlook the leadership crisis that faces the party and the fact that the glue has not worked in ensuring a seamless transition between Mbeki and Zuma.

The fact that Mandela is alive to witness Zuma’s tribulations and be privy to the alleged conspiracy by a state controlled by the party he calls his own is important in testing the strength and resilience of the foundations of the post apartheid order’s values, morality and principles. All that Mandela represents has the risk of being undermined irreparably if the current state of affairs in the party and state continues unabated.

It is ironic that SADC appointed Mbeki to be the mediator in the Zimbabwean political crisis and yet he has not been able to rise to the occasion in his bitter and toxic dispute with Zuma.

Nothing can camouflage the antipathy between Zuma and Mbeki and what they purport to stand for. Unlike Mugabe and Tsvangirai, Mbeki and Zuma hail from the same movement that can claim credit for Mandela’s remarkable legacy. They share a common political heritage and yet surprisingly such a heritage did not train them to efficiently manage the succession question.

What is it about African politics that in the post colonial era, the value system that informed the liberation struggle seems to be perishable and disposal? Zuma spoke of Mandela’s high level of discipline and it is evident that such discipline has not been transmitted to his successors.

Although Zuma acknowledge the existence of what he termed: “organisational challenges” within the party it is remarkable that the weight of Mandela’s character has not been brought to bear on the challenges and obstacles that he confronts before taking the reigns of state power.

Mandela’s legacy risks being better understood outside the corridors of the ANC unless he positively intervenes in the matter.It was significant that Zuma make the remark that a “leader must put others before him/herself” effectively isolating Mbeki as an egotistic leader given that such a description can hardly be used in relation to Mandela.

Zuma absolved Mandela from taking any responsibility for the crisis by saying: “Your legacy is a book for all to read. If we do not learn, it cannot be your fault.” Surely, if Mandela had invested in building a strong moral foundation for the party to deal with the challenges of a post apartheid state, it cannot be accepted that he bears no responsibility for the current challenges the party finds itself in.

Even Mbeki referred to Mandela as someone who is a hero to the people of Africa and yet Africa finds itself challenged by the big moral questions of the day. What really is Mandela’s legacy to Africa if he cannot instil the same discipline and spirit of reconciliation in his party that he has been universally credited for?

Why would Mandela choose to describe the ANC as a great organisation fully aware of the divisions that are ripping the organisation apart? The party is at a crossroad and yet the moral compass is missing in action.

Mandela made the remark at the celebration that: “It is now in your hands to uphold the best and the noblest of that history.” While it may be argued that Mandela is no longer relevant in shaping the destiny of the party that he loves so dearly, it cannot be right to hold the view that as a founding father of the post apartheid state he has no role to play in ensuring that the party continues to respect the ideals that made the organisation attractive to him.

Mandela also correctly observed that: “I would be nothing without the ANC. I thank the ANC for having given meaning to my 90 years on this planet.” However, if the ANC is breaking at the seams because of leadership challenges and ideological confusion, it is important that Mandela urgently intervenes in the crisis rather than leaving it to COSATU, SACP and other role players.

The celebration of Mandela’s life and contribution to conflict resolution is well deserved but ultimately his legacy will stand or fall on how he prepared his own organisation to deal with nation building and organisational challenges.

The post apartheid order needs its own set of values and Mandela has a role to play in shaping the minds of a generation that has been blinded by past injustices to the extent that the future risks being relegated to fate.

The ANC continues to lead the nation and ironically the party appears to be less united at a time when the country is urgently in need of leadership to tackle the poverty challenges.

The party needs to demonstrate that it should continue to be trusted as a leader in the march to a better South Africa. The need to protect, defend, consolidate and advance democracy within the party and in national life cannot be overstated as the need for Mandela to continue to use his moral authority to help heal the deep and growing wounds.
The courts can do their part only if voices of reason like Mandela add their weight to the resolution of the crisis.

Already the judiciary and the legislature have been sucked into the contestation for power in the party with disastrous consequences on the constitutional democratic order premised on the doctrine of the separation of powers between the three organs of the state.The principle of collective leadership and inclusiveness that Mandela spoke about is not evident in the ANC that Mandela may not live long to be a part of and influence. Should he use his remaining days to provide leadership on these defining questions?

While many may argue that Mandela belongs to the past, it cannot be right for him to talk in the abstract about collective leadership and inclusivity when the facts on the ground suggest otherwise.

Rightly or wrongly, Zuma and his large support base believe that he is a victim of a state-sponsored conspiracy. Mandela, Mbeki and Zuma all fought hard and sacrificed much for democracy for them to end up seemingly hopeless while the country is yearning for decisive leadership.

Mandela’s fundamental commitment to creating a better life for all, particularly the poor and marginalised risks being undermined by the actions of his successors while he reduces himself to a spectator in a tragic drama where the actors are his own protégés.

The post apartheid state continues to be challenged by poverty and deprivation and yet significant state resources are being diverted to pursue what appear to be personal and vindictive agendas.

In order to end poverty and give meaning to Mandela’s legacy, we have no choice but to redouble our effort to put in place programs and actions that address the real issues of the day rather than who are up and who are down in the political silo. Together with Mandela we can and must do something before the culture of intolerance and ideological manipulation takes root.

The Movement for Democratic Change is and remains a people’s project, with the strategic objective of completing the business of the struggle for national liberation. Over the next few days, we will provide the various policy position of the party, indicative of our readiness and preparedness to govern in accordance with the best interests of the majority of our people. Our struggle is not merely a struggle against, but it is most importantly a struggle for an ideal.

This this alert, we provide our policy position on the Land Question in Zimbabwe and also provide how we will attend to the issue.

In this alert please find our Lands and Agrarian Reform Policy and our Agricultural Recovery Strategy.

Continue reading for policy details.

LANDS AND AGRARIAN REFORM POLICY

Resolving the land question once and for all to ensure that no Zimbabwean will ever go hungry again

Vision

A New Zimbabwe where the land conflict is resolved once and for all and land as a finite economic development resource, is equitably distributed and productively utilized making Zimbabwe the regional bread-basket in land use and agricultural production.

Values for MDC Land Reform Policy

The MDC’s core values on land reform are:

1. Food security and job creation.
2. Equity and equality
3. Transparency
4. Accountability
5. Justice
6. Fairness
7. Integrity
8. Sustainability and productive land use

The MDC Land Policy

The MDC’s Land Reform Programme will be based on the matrix that recognizes the country’s unfortunate colonial history of plunder and wastage and the need to deal with historical injustices. In this regard, the MDC takes note of the acquisitions of land that have been done by the Zanu PF regime between 2000 and 2006. That land reform was chaotic and outside the rule of law.

That being the case, the MDC must rationalize the situation by ensuring that there will be no return to the pre-2000 status nor will the present regime of wastage, corruption, under utilization and multi-ownership be preserved.

To undertake this rationalization, the MDC will through an Act of Parliament establish a Land Commission whose mandate is to:

* Carry out an independent audit of land to establish the physical and legal status of all holdings.
* Based on the principle of allocating land to all Zimbabweans irregardless of one’s political affiliation, gender and/or race; one-man-one farm; need and ability, implement and coordinate a rational and participatory all inclusive and well planned resettlement programme.
* Design and define the recommended minimum and maximum land holdings per region.
* Ensure the enactment of laws that guarantee the ownership of one household per one land holding.
* Introduce an equitable Land Tax to discourage land wastage and multiple farm ownership
* Carefully manage the transition to a people driven and human centred land market.

Agro-Industrial Transformation

The MDC recognizes the fact that the acquisition of land is not an end in itself and therefore recognizes that the ultimate economic liberation of Zimbabwe will only occur after the destruction of the dual enclave economy and the transition of our country into a modern industrial State.

Thus fundamental to our land policy is the need to free the country from direct reliance on land and agriculture but an industry and technology and software. In short, the complete transformation of our country to a New Zimbabwe.

Agrarian Reform

While Land Reform is regarded as a programme for the transfer of control, ownership and tenure of agricultural land, agrarian reform necessarily has much broader scope, seeking to restructure the entire agricultural sector and industrialize the rural areas to make them productive and wealth generating.

* The MDC will embark on a rapid agricultural recovery programme that will ensure the restocking of the national herd.
* The MDC government will have a deliberate policy to support communal and small-scale farmers and women to become productive members of the farming community and to ensure food security

Agricultural Institutions

The MDC Government will:

* Expand and upgrade all agricultural training institutions in the country.
* Encourage and support the role of women and youth in agriculture

Compensation

The MDC government recognizes that there should be just and equitable compensation to all farmers whose land was acquired since the year 2000. However, the Zimbabwean economy does not have the capacity to offer the just and equitable compensation while at the same time driving the economy forward.

In this regard, the MDC government will internationalize the issue of compensation so that multilateral institutions and bilateral countries inextricably connected to the Zimbabwe crisis will bring in their resources to adequately compensate the erstwhile land owners. It is important to note that the international community has previously made binding understandings as far as such support is concerned.

Land Tenure

Zimbabwe has a varied tenure system covering four main areas: -

* Communal
* Resettlement
* Small scale commercial farming areas
* Large scale commercial farming areas

The MDC recognizes this reality on the ground and therefore takes land tenure reform as a continuous and ongoing process not as a once off activity. The MDC Land Commission will investigate the situation in respect of farmland, communal lands, forestry, and all commercial land holdings and recommend a reform process in all areas of the country including land tenure systems. However land under the MDC government will be held under one law for all forms of ownership, state, communal and private with some government protection for communal farmers. The MDC will ensure that there is comprehensive land legislation in place that allows both for private ownership of land secured through title deeds.

Agricultural Recovery Programme

The MDC has developed an Agricultural Recovery Program to ensure a rapid recovery of the agricultural sector as in as short a period as possible. Key elements of the program are: -

* Identification of the areas with good agricultural productivity, focusing mainly in the communal, the resettlement areas and small-scale commercial farmers. This will be for the production of both maize and small grains.
* Plan for the provision of inputs such as seed, fertilizers, and draught power to the identified farmers.
* A comprehensive strategy to re-establish all veterinary controls and systems for animal health. This is essential to facilitate the resumption of exports on a secure basis.
* Facilitation of private sector partnerships for the production of all key agricultural commodities. For successful implementation of the Agricultural Recovery Programme, MDC recognizes that consultation with and active participation by the various stakeholders will be crucial. The stakeholders include but are not limited to farmer’s organizations, input suppliers, seed growers, NGOs, agricultural experts, traders, financial institutions, millers and other agro processors.

Agricultural Institutions

Realizing that a sophisticated agricultural industry is achieved only by a supportive institutional infrastructure, the MDC government will invest resources to rehabilitate and reform public marketing agencies, research and teaching institutions and public agro-based financing institutions.

Research

The MDC government will maintain the Agricultural Research Council as an independent, non-political body. The Council will advise government on all aspects relating to agricultural research (new breeds, seed varieties, GMOs etc, will recommend the provision of grants for research by central government, and will also solicit grants from agriculture associations and development partners. Government grants would be tied to agricultural research to benefit the small-scale resettled farmers who may not be able to afford research output of their own.

Training

All agricultural training institutions will be placed under independent councils selected from the agriculture industry. These institutions will be expanded in order to ensure that there are adequate numbers of trained personnel to take the many opportunities to be created in the farming sector by the land and agriculture programmes. Government will support agricultural training through the same facilities that are available to students at universities and colleges. These activities will be the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture.

Extension Services

The MDC government will provide basic extension services to all farming communities through a system of extension agents who will work with local farm communities and research establishments. Particular regard will be paid to extension services in small-scale resettlement and communal farming areas. Private sector firms with interests in the agriculture industry will be encouraged to support extension services to commercial farmers.

Marketing Services

The Grain Marketing Board will remain a part of central government but will be required to operate on commercial principles and will no longer hold a statutory monopoly over grain and oilseed marketing. However, the GMB will be required to maintain a network of depots throughout the country and to act as residual buyer of food grains and oil seeds. It will also be required to maintain strategic stocks of basic foods and to provide storage facilities to the private sector.

Local, regional and international commodity trading plays a crucial role in triggering socio-economic development and wealth creation in Zimbabwe. The MDC government will play a non-interventionist, regulatory role in ensuring a competitive pricing environment that creates conditions conducive to investment in the sector, putting in place, however, mechanisms that will protect vulnerable groups.

AGRICULTURAL RECOVERY, ZIMBABWE 2008-2013

Introduction

Agriculture is the backbone of the economy of Zimbabwe. Exports of tobacco, beef, cotton, horticulture and sugar have always provided the much need foreign currency that supported the rapid economic growth in the first 15 years of independence. The industry food and textile relied heavily on agriculture for inputs. Further, agriculture relied on a well managed and effective agricultural input program that was based on a self sustaining retail system enabling most farmers to access inputs on time.

Strategy

Zimbabwe’s agriculture would need a two fold strategic plan that could stabilize the agricultural sector in the first year (2008/09) and subsequent 5 years (2009-2013).

I. Review of the current general state of agriculture in Zimbabwe, crop, livestock and horticultural production in both rural and resettlement areas

1. Review the current input delivery system to both rural and resettled farmers in former commercial farmland. The input delivery system is currently dominated by government.

2. Review the current commodity marketing systems especially the role of government and the Grain Marketing Board and impact on productivity of the sector.

3. Review the state of agricultural research and extension. These were key to technology generation and dissemination that supported growth and development of the sector.

4. Review the current rural retail network for sustainable distribution of inputs to farm communities

5. Review the state of agricultural infrastructure such as irrigation and tobacco processing units and horticultural greenhouses

6. Identify solutions and make recommendations for adoption and implementation by the new government

II. Recovery:

Two parallel strategies would need to be implemented, a) short and, b) medium to long term for agricultural recovery.

II. a. The short term strategy would be for the 2008/09 season. The current season (2007/08) failed due lack of inputs and drought. This creates a need for immediate revival of production and stabilization of the sector in the 2008/09 cropping season.

The objective is to ensure that farmers have access to inputs of required quantities and quality at the correct timing. The main objectives are however as follows:

1. Liaise with input suppliers and establish their capacities to produce and supply adequate quantities of seeds and agrochemicals

2. Review and identify key input retail networks that increase access farmers’ access to inputs.

3. Review and identify effective distribution networks that will deliver inputs to retail networks by mid to end September 2008.

4. Develop an input marketing and distribution monitoring system to ensure inputs do not find their way to the informal markets.

5. Develop a subsidized input pricing system that enables every farmer to access inputs through the retail system. No free inputs. Farmers could pay a subsidized price supported by donor. 20% of the current donor food aid could provide such subsidy.

6. Institute a land preparation support scheme to ensure that land is adequately prepared in time for the farming season.

7. Identify and support areas for irrigation schemes to ensure agricultural productivity all year.

8. Identify and recommend collaboration between NGOs and the extension service to provide immediate support to farmers in the immediate season

9. Develop immediate modalities for support of horticultural and tobacco production

10. Recommend a commodity pricing system that is consistent with world markets.

II. b. Medium to long term, (5 year strategic plan) that also looks at land reform and support for the agricultural input industry.

The objective is to ensure sustainability of productivity in the next 5 years. The main objectives are:

1. Review the current land reform and its long term impact of agricultural productivity and social security.

2. Review and recommend a need for a land commission that will over see the land rationalization of land ownership in Zimbabwe

3. Develop and recommend guidelines to a sustainable land tenure system that is acceptable to all Zimbabweans to do away with current dual production system of rural and commercial farming.

4. Develop and recommend a system of input subsidy that is phased out over a period of 5 years.

5. Develop and recommend systems and ways to increase farm productivity in rural areas.

6. Review the current capacity of inputs suppliers, seed producers, fertilizer manufacturers and wholesale and retailers in providing a permanent and sustainable supply of such inputs.

7. Recommend measures of support to inputs industry to increase capacity.