Arise ye workers from your slumbers
Arise ye prisoners of want
For reason in revolt now thunders
And at last ends the age of cant.
Away with all your superstitions
Servile masses arise, arise
We'll change henceforth the old tradition
And spurn the dust to win the prize.
So comrades, come rally
And the last fight let us face
The Internationale unites the human race.
So comrades, come rally
And the last fight let us face
The Internationale unites the human race.
No more deluded by reaction
On tyrants only we'll make war
The soldiers too will take strike action
They'll break ranks and fight no more
And if those cannibals keep trying
To sacrifice us to their pride
They soon shall hear the bullets flying
We'll shoot the generals on our own side.
No saviour from on high delivers
No faith have we in prince or peer
Our own right hand the chains must shiver
Chains of hatred, greed and fear
E'er the thieves will out with their booty
And give to all a happier lot.
Each at the forge must do their duty
And we'll strike while the iron is hot.
Eugene Pottier
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Social democracy
a political ideology of the left on the classic political spectrum. The contemporary social democratic movement seeks to reform capitalism to align it with the ethical ideals of social justice while maintaining the capitalist mode of production, as opposed to creating an alternative socialist economic system.[1] Practical modern social democratic policies include the promotion of a welfare state, and the creation of economic democracy as a means to secure workers' rights.[2]
Historically, social democracy was a form of evolutionary reformist socialism[2] that advocated the establishment of a socialist economy through class struggle. During the early 20th century, major European social democratic parties began to reject elements of Marxism, Revolutionary socialism and class struggle, taking a moderate position that socialism could be established through political reforms. The distinction between Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism had yet to fully develop at this time. The Frankfurt Declaration of the Socialist International in 1951, attended by many social democratic parties from across the world, committed adherents to oppose Bolshevik communism and Stalinism, and to promote a gradual transformation of capitalism into socialism.[3]
Social democracy, as practiced in Europe in 1951, was a socialist movement supporting gradualism; the belief that gradual democratic reforms to capitalist economies will eventually succeed in creating a socialist economy,[4] rejecting forcible imposition of socialism through revolutionary means.[4] This gradualism has resulted in various far left groups, including communists, of accusing social democracy of accepting the values of capitalist society and therefore not being a genuine form of socialism[4],instead labeling it a concession made to the working class by the ruling class. Social democracy rejects the Marxian principle of dictatorship of the proletariat and the creation of a socialist state, claiming that gradualist democratic reforms will improve the rights of the working class.[5]
Since the rise in popularity of the New Right and neoliberalism, a number of prominent social democratic parties have abandoned the goal of the gradual evolution of capitalism to socialism and instead support welfare state capitalism.[6] Social democracy as such has arisen as a distinct ideology from democratic socialism. In many countries, social democrats continue to exist alongside democratic socialists, who stand to the left of them on the political spectrum. The two movements sometimes operate within the same political party, such as the Brazilian Workers' Party[7] and the Socialist Party of France. In recent years, several social democratic parties (in particular, the British Labour Party) have embraced more centrist, Third Way policy positions. This development has generated considerable controversy.
The Socialist International (SI) is the main international organization of social democratic and moderate socialist parties. It affirms the following principles: first, freedom—not only individual liberties, but also freedom from discrimination and freedom from dependence on either the owners of the means of production or the holders of abusive political power; second, equality and social justice—not only before the law but also economic and socio-cultural equality as well, and equal opportunities for all including those with physical, mental, or social disabilities; and, third, solidarity—unity and a sense of compassion for the victims of injustice and inequality. These ideals are described in further detail in the SI's Declaration of Principles.[8]
Historically, social democracy was a form of evolutionary reformist socialism[2] that advocated the establishment of a socialist economy through class struggle. During the early 20th century, major European social democratic parties began to reject elements of Marxism, Revolutionary socialism and class struggle, taking a moderate position that socialism could be established through political reforms. The distinction between Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism had yet to fully develop at this time. The Frankfurt Declaration of the Socialist International in 1951, attended by many social democratic parties from across the world, committed adherents to oppose Bolshevik communism and Stalinism, and to promote a gradual transformation of capitalism into socialism.[3]
Social democracy, as practiced in Europe in 1951, was a socialist movement supporting gradualism; the belief that gradual democratic reforms to capitalist economies will eventually succeed in creating a socialist economy,[4] rejecting forcible imposition of socialism through revolutionary means.[4] This gradualism has resulted in various far left groups, including communists, of accusing social democracy of accepting the values of capitalist society and therefore not being a genuine form of socialism[4],instead labeling it a concession made to the working class by the ruling class. Social democracy rejects the Marxian principle of dictatorship of the proletariat and the creation of a socialist state, claiming that gradualist democratic reforms will improve the rights of the working class.[5]
Since the rise in popularity of the New Right and neoliberalism, a number of prominent social democratic parties have abandoned the goal of the gradual evolution of capitalism to socialism and instead support welfare state capitalism.[6] Social democracy as such has arisen as a distinct ideology from democratic socialism. In many countries, social democrats continue to exist alongside democratic socialists, who stand to the left of them on the political spectrum. The two movements sometimes operate within the same political party, such as the Brazilian Workers' Party[7] and the Socialist Party of France. In recent years, several social democratic parties (in particular, the British Labour Party) have embraced more centrist, Third Way policy positions. This development has generated considerable controversy.
The Socialist International (SI) is the main international organization of social democratic and moderate socialist parties. It affirms the following principles: first, freedom—not only individual liberties, but also freedom from discrimination and freedom from dependence on either the owners of the means of production or the holders of abusive political power; second, equality and social justice—not only before the law but also economic and socio-cultural equality as well, and equal opportunities for all including those with physical, mental, or social disabilities; and, third, solidarity—unity and a sense of compassion for the victims of injustice and inequality. These ideals are described in further detail in the SI's Declaration of Principles.[8]
Beating Mugabe at his own game
IMPATIENT with the political blundering of the Movement for Democratic Change led by Morgan Tsvangirai, a brave Catholic archbishop Pius Ncube promised to put on his “best robe” and “march with Zimbabweans against Mugabe’s blazing guns.” Not only that, but the fearless bishop also disclosed that he was “praying for Mugabe’s death”.
Understanding that Ncube, a man equipped with a will of steel, meant business and could have confronted Mugabe’s regime in a suicidal but effective march, Mugabe sent the Central Intelligence Organisation to record the archbishop’s bedroom activities.
The revelations were explosive and damning. The archbishop, who is sworn to celibacy, was caught on camera performing felatio on women and the wild pornography was broadcast on national television. Humiliated and disgraced, the brave bishop failed to surmount the bad publicity and was effectively silenced.
Before Ncube, some Zimbabweans in Zanu PF, fed up with Mugabe’s genocidal and disastrous rule, proposed that an intelligent statesman, the theologian and scholar Canaan Banana must be brought forward to replace Mugabe. Banana, a combative theologian who once proposed “to rewrite the bible”, was an imposing challenger for Mugabe who was battling dwindling popularity.
A CIO agent Jefta Dube came up and accused Banana of sodomising him. The theologian was humiliated, tried, jailed and finished.
The same fate awaited Zanu Ndonga leader Ndabaningi Sithole who was tried and convicted of allegedly trying to assassinate Mugabe in 1997. He died three years later a broken man.
The spooky way in which Mugabe treated Pius Ncube, Canaan Banana and Ndabaningi Sithole is cinematic of how he handles political challengers that he fears and cannot fault in any other ways besides exposing and criminalising their lower sides.
So far, by ordinary appearance, Mugabe’s hold on political power in Zimbabwe looks like the firm grip of an octopus. With Morgan Tsvangirai boycotting here and scoring political on-goals there, while appearing rudderless on any clear political way forward, Mugabe has so far appeared a skilled political macavity who is slippery like a fish in water.
Besides the understandable excitement and optimism encouraged by the rise of Welshman Ncube, a decorated legal mind and political strategist to the leadership of MDC and the increasing prominence of Dumiso Dabengwa, a seasoned warrior who has summered and wintered in the struggle, most Zimbabweans are, like Pius Ncube, “praying for Mugabe’s death.”
Unlike the tearful and somber South Africans who called prayer meetings, lit candles and held night vigils upon hearing that Nelson Mandela had been taken ill, most Zimbabweans prepared to party, and “prayed” for the worst when rumors circulated that Mugabe’s life was in danger in Malaysia. It is a widely-held belief among disillusioned and tired Zimbabweans that Mugabe’s death will bring Zimbabwe closer to democracy, peace and orderly governance.
I write in this article to argue that Mugabe, as a personification of the historical, political, legal and economic crisis in Zimbabwe must be solved alive and solved so totally that even his ghost need not be feared. I also write to observe that there are many political and historical landmines that lie buried around a possible Mugabe death at this moment.
Besides acting and appearing strong, Mugabe is ailing physically and a weakling politically who is hostage to his securocrats and economic hangers-on in Zanu PF who are using his name and symbolism to hold on to the benefits of economic and political power that come with it.
A Socratic observation of the political and historical circumstances that surround Mugabe’s hostage status indicates a strong possibility that upon his death, an extremist Mugabeist political cult might rise and in his name torment Zimbabwe more than Mugabe ever did in his lifetime.
Minus the fact that Mugabe’s death is likely to unite the cracking Zanu PF, his replacement is likely to outdo him in Mugebeism to prove that he or she can fit into his big genocidal boots. Mugabe’s death in office undefeated and unprosecuted for his crimes will give the many genocidal offenders in Zanu PF a legal argument that they conducted genocide under legal instructions of the late Commander in Chief.
Besides that, the removal by death of Mugabe from office as things stand cannot in any way translate to victory or political power for the opposition in Zimbabwe, his death can only perpetuate rather than weaken the wicked Zanu PF genocidal agenda.
The many Zanu PF hardliners who continue to show fanatical and near cultic support for Mugabe are not Zimbabweans who love and honour “a dear leader.” It is a collection of fearful beneficiaries of Mugabe’s violence, corruption, patronage and pillage who stand to lose their freedom, wealth and even lives in the case of his departure.
These are Mugabe’s zealots who have raped, murdered, robbed and stolen in the name of Mugabeism and are most likely to be thrown into extremism upon Mugabe’s death and run down Zimbabwe in a bloody civil war if not managed strategically by the political opposition.
Contrary to their pretensions and posturing, these zealots are not courageous but dead afraid. They include some of Mugabe’s top ministers and service chiefs in the military and intelligence echelons. They have access to arms and other state resources which make them a formidable, though not indefatigable force. If handled with adequate political masonry, they can prove to be a small political quantity whose fears and weaknesses can be exploited to assure victory.
That Zanu PF has feuding factions cannot be doubted. Mugabe has remained as the leader by playing them against each other and ensuring that they all report to him. It is the political spinelessness and ineptitude of Morgan Tsvangirai that he has totally failed to attract any of these factions to his side and permanently crack and finish Zanu PF.
Observations of cultic behaviors and tendencies suggest that Mugabe’s death might actually unite these factions who might then rally behind his appointed successor, and in his name sentence Zimbabwe to turmoil. Whoever will replace Mugabe is most likely going to desperately try to prove his worthiness to fit into Mugabe’s “strongman” political template by exceeding Mugabe in violence, cruelty and genocidal inclinations.
If the political opposition in Zimbabwe in that case does not employ political craft and gamesmanship, Zimbabwe might be taken back politically by many years.
It is a well understood Zanu PF plan that Mugabe should not suffer the indignity of being replaced alive and being out of office and powerless. This is mainly to allow him to cling to the immunity from prosecution for crimes against humanity and escape possible harassment by political opponents.
Mugabe’s death at the moment would be a natural and somewhat dignified escape from justice to the comfort of the grave. Those securocrats that Mugabe used to commit genocide will then remain with the argument that they were sent to slaughter civilians by a head of state, which is a lousy legal argument but a sound political excuse.
Those opposition politicians who have a genuine interest in solving the excesses of Mugabeism in Zimbabwe should look at confronting him in his lifetime, and not wait for death that might strengthen rather than weaken him.
It appears clearly from the evidence of previous elections that electoral defeat alone is not enough to remove Mugabe from office as he is most likely to ignore the results and stay on. Even his death at this point in time cannot dethrone Mugabeism, it can only hide Mugabe from prosecution; give his securocrats legal leverage while the genocidal system persists in power.
Mugabe’s only survival tactic in politics is violence and the tried and tested manipulation of the fear of death that politicians like Tsvangirai suffer from, often leading to boycotts when the country needs real leadership.
The solution to this will be found by politicians who will mobilise the many Zimbabweans into self defence mode against the few youth militias, soldiers, police and war veterans who are instructed to intimidate the people. As soon as these hired forces are overwhelmed by the many Zimbabweans who are prepared to die for freedom, precedence has it that the armed forces are known to turn around and join the people. This takes reckless and suicidal leaders who understand that under the shadow of death is where freedom normally hides.
Mugabe will be removed by politicians who will surmount the fear of death and breathe courage to the population. Leaders who will, with their trusted people power and large numbers, demolish Mugabe’s thin fortresses of violence and extract freedom and justice from the sinking regime. In his lifetime, Mugabe must see the colour of defeat, taste the bitter cup of justice and smell the freedom of his victims.
The removal of Mugabe from office will not be a beauty pageant or a picnic but a wrestling match with the gods that only those leaders with the jihadist ingredient and suicidal element need to attend. Too much love for life or too much fear of death are qualities that are not needed in the political theatre that will uproot the titanic tyranny in Harare. Praying and wishing for Mugabe’s death is not enough, not even voting in huge numbers will help, what is needed is the conquest of the fear of death and then Mugabe will be Tunisiad and Egypted from State House.
Paying Mugabe in his own currency by standing up pound-for-pound to his violence is a political choice that Zimbabweans should be seriously thinking of, or otherwise stop wasting time in preparing for elections whose results Mugabe will ignore.
Understanding that Ncube, a man equipped with a will of steel, meant business and could have confronted Mugabe’s regime in a suicidal but effective march, Mugabe sent the Central Intelligence Organisation to record the archbishop’s bedroom activities.
The revelations were explosive and damning. The archbishop, who is sworn to celibacy, was caught on camera performing felatio on women and the wild pornography was broadcast on national television. Humiliated and disgraced, the brave bishop failed to surmount the bad publicity and was effectively silenced.
Before Ncube, some Zimbabweans in Zanu PF, fed up with Mugabe’s genocidal and disastrous rule, proposed that an intelligent statesman, the theologian and scholar Canaan Banana must be brought forward to replace Mugabe. Banana, a combative theologian who once proposed “to rewrite the bible”, was an imposing challenger for Mugabe who was battling dwindling popularity.
A CIO agent Jefta Dube came up and accused Banana of sodomising him. The theologian was humiliated, tried, jailed and finished.
The same fate awaited Zanu Ndonga leader Ndabaningi Sithole who was tried and convicted of allegedly trying to assassinate Mugabe in 1997. He died three years later a broken man.
The spooky way in which Mugabe treated Pius Ncube, Canaan Banana and Ndabaningi Sithole is cinematic of how he handles political challengers that he fears and cannot fault in any other ways besides exposing and criminalising their lower sides.
So far, by ordinary appearance, Mugabe’s hold on political power in Zimbabwe looks like the firm grip of an octopus. With Morgan Tsvangirai boycotting here and scoring political on-goals there, while appearing rudderless on any clear political way forward, Mugabe has so far appeared a skilled political macavity who is slippery like a fish in water.
Besides the understandable excitement and optimism encouraged by the rise of Welshman Ncube, a decorated legal mind and political strategist to the leadership of MDC and the increasing prominence of Dumiso Dabengwa, a seasoned warrior who has summered and wintered in the struggle, most Zimbabweans are, like Pius Ncube, “praying for Mugabe’s death.”
Unlike the tearful and somber South Africans who called prayer meetings, lit candles and held night vigils upon hearing that Nelson Mandela had been taken ill, most Zimbabweans prepared to party, and “prayed” for the worst when rumors circulated that Mugabe’s life was in danger in Malaysia. It is a widely-held belief among disillusioned and tired Zimbabweans that Mugabe’s death will bring Zimbabwe closer to democracy, peace and orderly governance.
I write in this article to argue that Mugabe, as a personification of the historical, political, legal and economic crisis in Zimbabwe must be solved alive and solved so totally that even his ghost need not be feared. I also write to observe that there are many political and historical landmines that lie buried around a possible Mugabe death at this moment.
Besides acting and appearing strong, Mugabe is ailing physically and a weakling politically who is hostage to his securocrats and economic hangers-on in Zanu PF who are using his name and symbolism to hold on to the benefits of economic and political power that come with it.
A Socratic observation of the political and historical circumstances that surround Mugabe’s hostage status indicates a strong possibility that upon his death, an extremist Mugabeist political cult might rise and in his name torment Zimbabwe more than Mugabe ever did in his lifetime.
Minus the fact that Mugabe’s death is likely to unite the cracking Zanu PF, his replacement is likely to outdo him in Mugebeism to prove that he or she can fit into his big genocidal boots. Mugabe’s death in office undefeated and unprosecuted for his crimes will give the many genocidal offenders in Zanu PF a legal argument that they conducted genocide under legal instructions of the late Commander in Chief.
Besides that, the removal by death of Mugabe from office as things stand cannot in any way translate to victory or political power for the opposition in Zimbabwe, his death can only perpetuate rather than weaken the wicked Zanu PF genocidal agenda.
The many Zanu PF hardliners who continue to show fanatical and near cultic support for Mugabe are not Zimbabweans who love and honour “a dear leader.” It is a collection of fearful beneficiaries of Mugabe’s violence, corruption, patronage and pillage who stand to lose their freedom, wealth and even lives in the case of his departure.
These are Mugabe’s zealots who have raped, murdered, robbed and stolen in the name of Mugabeism and are most likely to be thrown into extremism upon Mugabe’s death and run down Zimbabwe in a bloody civil war if not managed strategically by the political opposition.
Contrary to their pretensions and posturing, these zealots are not courageous but dead afraid. They include some of Mugabe’s top ministers and service chiefs in the military and intelligence echelons. They have access to arms and other state resources which make them a formidable, though not indefatigable force. If handled with adequate political masonry, they can prove to be a small political quantity whose fears and weaknesses can be exploited to assure victory.
That Zanu PF has feuding factions cannot be doubted. Mugabe has remained as the leader by playing them against each other and ensuring that they all report to him. It is the political spinelessness and ineptitude of Morgan Tsvangirai that he has totally failed to attract any of these factions to his side and permanently crack and finish Zanu PF.
Observations of cultic behaviors and tendencies suggest that Mugabe’s death might actually unite these factions who might then rally behind his appointed successor, and in his name sentence Zimbabwe to turmoil. Whoever will replace Mugabe is most likely going to desperately try to prove his worthiness to fit into Mugabe’s “strongman” political template by exceeding Mugabe in violence, cruelty and genocidal inclinations.
If the political opposition in Zimbabwe in that case does not employ political craft and gamesmanship, Zimbabwe might be taken back politically by many years.
It is a well understood Zanu PF plan that Mugabe should not suffer the indignity of being replaced alive and being out of office and powerless. This is mainly to allow him to cling to the immunity from prosecution for crimes against humanity and escape possible harassment by political opponents.
Mugabe’s death at the moment would be a natural and somewhat dignified escape from justice to the comfort of the grave. Those securocrats that Mugabe used to commit genocide will then remain with the argument that they were sent to slaughter civilians by a head of state, which is a lousy legal argument but a sound political excuse.
Those opposition politicians who have a genuine interest in solving the excesses of Mugabeism in Zimbabwe should look at confronting him in his lifetime, and not wait for death that might strengthen rather than weaken him.
It appears clearly from the evidence of previous elections that electoral defeat alone is not enough to remove Mugabe from office as he is most likely to ignore the results and stay on. Even his death at this point in time cannot dethrone Mugabeism, it can only hide Mugabe from prosecution; give his securocrats legal leverage while the genocidal system persists in power.
Mugabe’s only survival tactic in politics is violence and the tried and tested manipulation of the fear of death that politicians like Tsvangirai suffer from, often leading to boycotts when the country needs real leadership.
The solution to this will be found by politicians who will mobilise the many Zimbabweans into self defence mode against the few youth militias, soldiers, police and war veterans who are instructed to intimidate the people. As soon as these hired forces are overwhelmed by the many Zimbabweans who are prepared to die for freedom, precedence has it that the armed forces are known to turn around and join the people. This takes reckless and suicidal leaders who understand that under the shadow of death is where freedom normally hides.
Mugabe will be removed by politicians who will surmount the fear of death and breathe courage to the population. Leaders who will, with their trusted people power and large numbers, demolish Mugabe’s thin fortresses of violence and extract freedom and justice from the sinking regime. In his lifetime, Mugabe must see the colour of defeat, taste the bitter cup of justice and smell the freedom of his victims.
The removal of Mugabe from office will not be a beauty pageant or a picnic but a wrestling match with the gods that only those leaders with the jihadist ingredient and suicidal element need to attend. Too much love for life or too much fear of death are qualities that are not needed in the political theatre that will uproot the titanic tyranny in Harare. Praying and wishing for Mugabe’s death is not enough, not even voting in huge numbers will help, what is needed is the conquest of the fear of death and then Mugabe will be Tunisiad and Egypted from State House.
Paying Mugabe in his own currency by standing up pound-for-pound to his violence is a political choice that Zimbabweans should be seriously thinking of, or otherwise stop wasting time in preparing for elections whose results Mugabe will ignore.
Dinizulu Mbikokayise Macaphulana is a Zimbabwean journalist studying in Lesotho. He can be contacted on e-mail: dinizulumacaphulana@yahoo.com
MDC youths elated by court ruling
Bulawayo-MDC youths are elated by the High Court’s relief ordering Deputy Prime Minister Arthur Mutambara to stop masquerading as the party’s president.
High Court judge Justice Nicholas Ndou last Wednesday granted interim relief to the MDC led by Welshman Ncube, who was the first applicant, and secretary-general Priscilla Misihairabwi-Mushonga (second applicant) which interdicted Mutambara from exercising any function vested in the president of the party, until the finalisation of the case.
A faction loyal to Mutambara (respondent) is challenging the rise of Ncube to the MDC presidency.
MDC youth assembly secretary-general Discent Collins Bajila yesterday said they were delighted with the High Court order.
“We are elated by the High Court’s decision to bar, ban and exclude Mutambara from masquerading as MDC president,” he said.
“In our view, the High Court has reaffirmed the decision of congress that Mutambara is no longer fit to lead any institution. We thus hope that it will now dawn on President Robert Mugabe that Mutambara is even unfit to lead anywhere on this earth.”
He said Zanu PF was the one causing confusion in their party.
“We are convinced beyond reasonable doubt that this entire hullabaloo is because of Zanu PF’s interference in the internal politics of our party,” said Bajila.
President Mugabe has refused to fire Mutambara to pave way for Ncube. He is reported to have categorically refused to appoint Ncube as deputy premier in place of Mutambara.
Bajila said they did not believe there was any leadership dispute in the party as all matters regarding the life of the MDC for the next five years were concluded at congress in January.
He said Mutambara’s allegations of procedure not being followed at the congress were baseless.
“While many people have been fooled into believing that the absence of certain people at congress made it unconstitutional, as Mutambara has said, the truth is to the contrary,” he said.
“Mutambara himself was elected into office in the absence of the then president Morgan Tsvangirai, the three incumbent chairpersons namely Isaac Matongo (national), Lucia Matibenga (women) and Nelson Chamisa (youth) and 31 other national council members. Therefore there was nothing unconstitutional about Ncube’s election as it was done more carefully than Mutambara’s.”
Bajila added they applauded the “wisdom of the MDC national council” when it resolved to “donate Mutambara to Zanu PF”.
www.newsday.co.zw
High Court judge Justice Nicholas Ndou last Wednesday granted interim relief to the MDC led by Welshman Ncube, who was the first applicant, and secretary-general Priscilla Misihairabwi-Mushonga (second applicant) which interdicted Mutambara from exercising any function vested in the president of the party, until the finalisation of the case.
A faction loyal to Mutambara (respondent) is challenging the rise of Ncube to the MDC presidency.
MDC youth assembly secretary-general Discent Collins Bajila yesterday said they were delighted with the High Court order.
“We are elated by the High Court’s decision to bar, ban and exclude Mutambara from masquerading as MDC president,” he said.
“In our view, the High Court has reaffirmed the decision of congress that Mutambara is no longer fit to lead any institution. We thus hope that it will now dawn on President Robert Mugabe that Mutambara is even unfit to lead anywhere on this earth.”
He said Zanu PF was the one causing confusion in their party.
“We are convinced beyond reasonable doubt that this entire hullabaloo is because of Zanu PF’s interference in the internal politics of our party,” said Bajila.
President Mugabe has refused to fire Mutambara to pave way for Ncube. He is reported to have categorically refused to appoint Ncube as deputy premier in place of Mutambara.
Bajila said they did not believe there was any leadership dispute in the party as all matters regarding the life of the MDC for the next five years were concluded at congress in January.
He said Mutambara’s allegations of procedure not being followed at the congress were baseless.
“While many people have been fooled into believing that the absence of certain people at congress made it unconstitutional, as Mutambara has said, the truth is to the contrary,” he said.
“Mutambara himself was elected into office in the absence of the then president Morgan Tsvangirai, the three incumbent chairpersons namely Isaac Matongo (national), Lucia Matibenga (women) and Nelson Chamisa (youth) and 31 other national council members. Therefore there was nothing unconstitutional about Ncube’s election as it was done more carefully than Mutambara’s.”
Bajila added they applauded the “wisdom of the MDC national council” when it resolved to “donate Mutambara to Zanu PF”.
www.newsday.co.zw
Monday, February 21, 2011
"President Ncube"
Can Zimbabwe ever have a Ndebele President?
By Mduduzi Mathuthu
BARACK Obama’s historic election as the first black US president has captured the world’s imagination and projected America as a beacon of democracy where the idealism of its founders remains alive.
Trumping centuries of prejudice and racial cleavages, Obama’s seminal achievement redrew America’s political map and confounded generations of hitherto sure-proof political wisdom. But could such a feat be replicated in Zimbabwe’s own politics? How feasible is the prospect of a Ndebele president, Nambya, Tonga, Venda, or mixed race, disparagingly still officially referred to as ‘Coloured’ almost 30 years since the end of white colonial rule?
Mduduzi Mathuthu opens the need for this bold debate in Zimbabwe through this article.
IN THEIR hugely revelatory book, MUGABE, David Smith and Colin Simpson (1981) record how Lord Soames - the British-appointed transitional governor of Rhodesia - summoned Robert Mugabe in 1980 to raise concerns about “intimidation by his supporters in certain areas, notably in Manicaland…”
This was in the run-up to Zimbabwe’s first elections in 1980 which pitted Mugabe against his main opponents — Joshua Nkomo (PF-ZAPU) and Bishop Abel Muzorewa (UANC).
The charge sheet against Mugabe was an impressive one. One incident, recorded in then Fort Victoria (now Masvingo), particularly strikes me. Smith and Simpson write on page 181:
“It was from Victoria Province that the worst evidence had come - and more damagingly for Mugabe, it had come from his old ally Joshua Nkomo. Nkomo told the governor that three of his workers, a candidate called Francis Makombe and two helpers, were putting up posters in Chibi tribal trust land near Fort Victoria when they were abducted by two gunmen who identified themselves as ZANLA ‘fighters’.
“The three of them were marched off to nearby villages, the peasants assembled and ordered to ignore Nkomo’s party. The gunmen, Nkomo said, then told the crowd that Mugabe’s party had equipment to detect how people voted. Anyone who voted for any candidate other than Mugabe’s would have their heads cut off.
“The two helpers were beaten, the candidate was last seen with burning coal being stuffed down his throat.”
On page 187, Smith and Simpson - both former Africa correspondents for UK media organisations - reveal how Soames confronted Mugabe over the violence. Nkomo said he could simply not campaign in many parts of Mashonaland for fear of reprisals, Lord Soames declared.
Mugabe seized on this at once, Smith and Simpson write.
“Look Lord Soames,” Mugabe said. “I’m not new to this game, you know. That’s my part of the country, Manicaland, that’s mine. The fact that Nkomo can’t campaign there is down to the fact that I control it, I’ve had a cell there for five years. Is it surprising that people don’t turn out there for Nkomo? Would I go to Nkomo country (Matabeleland) and expect to raise a crowd there? Of course I wouldn’t.”
I was reminded of Mugabe’s reference to “Nkomo country” while listening to Barack Obama’s victory speech after becoming the first black President of the United States on November 4.
Obama said by voting him into power, and so overwhelmingly, Americans had “sent a message to the world that we have never been a collection of Red States (traditional Republican Party-leaning States) and Blue States (traditional Democratic Party-leaning States): we are, and always will be, the United States of America.”
Whatever Mugabe meant, it is clear in his mind he had a picture of a political landscape defined by tribe. The logic of his argument to Lord Soames, which justified the use of violence against Nkomo’s supporters, was that a Ndebele leader’s political ambitions should be contained within the boundaries of Matabeleland, and by the same token a Shona leader should only seriously mobilise in Mashonaland.
Tragically, Mugabe’s segmentation of Zimbabwe into “Nkomo country” and “Mugabe country” still holds, and will remain political currency for a while. For that reason, the miracle of the American election - translated in Zimbabwe to mean the election of a President from a minority tribe - is as distant as the last page of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.
In the 1980 elections, Mugabe inevitably swept the Mashonaland vote and Nkomo did likewise in Matabeleland. The order was repeated in the 1985 elections - held under extreme violence in Matabeleland as Mugabe sent troops into “Nkomo country” in a bid to crush the ZAPU leader’s backbone.
Mugabe, having himself partitioned the country between himself and Nkomo in 1980, finally got to exercise full control of the land when he, using violence, forced Nkomo to abolish ZAPU and join a unity government in 1987, as his deputy. For the first time, Zanu PF would carry the “Nkomo country” vote, which came to pass in the 1990 and 1996 landslide victories.
When Nkomo died in 1999, his supporters were in an invidious position. He had reluctantly taken them into the bowels of Zanu PF, and now they had no political home. There was no Nkomo, and there was no serious “Nkomo country” political organisation to embrace their vote.
This ‘decision time’ would coincide with the formation of the MDC, which itself had assembled an impressive group of “tribal” representatives from the region. It genuinely looked a movement equipped to crash through Mugabe’s tribal barriers.
In the 2000 parliamentary elections, the former “Nkomo country” would swing en masse behind the MDC - claiming 21 of the 23 seats in Bulawayo, Matabeleland North and Matabeleland South.
The novelty of the MDC was its integration of respected leaders from Matabeleland, who were infused with other leading figures from Mashonaland, to form what genuinely looked a national party representative of the young and old, rich and poor, Shona and Ndebele, black, white, Asian, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled - to paraphrase Obama.
A question arises. Would an MDC led by Gibson Sibanda - who, by virtue of being president of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU), was senior to Morgan Tsvangirai (secretary general) — have been a threat to Zanu PF in “Mugabe country”? Unlikely!
Some will say “common sense” - read tribal reality — prevailed, and Tsvangirai became MDC President with Sibanda taking a junior role. That way, the MDC could go on the offence in “Mugabe country” while also courting support in “Nkomo country” where the Ndebele minority was amiable, for lack of options, to political accommodation so beautifully represented by Nkomo’s capitulation in playing Mugabe’s surrogate - even if to save his people from killings and curfews.
It should also be remembered, as Smith and Simpson point out, that Mugabe pulled out of the Patriotic Front - backed by Zanu’s central committee - which should have contested the 1980 elections, partly because he knew he would partition the country on tribal grounds, and secure his majority anyway.
Smith and Simpson record, on page 158, how at one session in late 1979, Josiah Tongogara “made his final plea for dropping the name Zapu and Zanu and running simply as the Patriotic Front. The war, he said, had not been about personalities or parties but the removal of discrimination and oppression.
“To a silence that was rare in any of their meetings, Tongogara insisted that it would be ridiculous for Zanu to refuse to consider Nkomo as a leader of the Front after they had sat down and negotiated alongside him for 14 weeks in London. Tongogara knew then that he’d lost. He was more disappointed than angry, and did not resist when he was dispatched - before the meeting which formally took the decision to campaign alone - to guerrilla camps in central Mozambique…”
Again, a question begs to be asked. Was Mugabe a better leader than Nkomo, who by the way was more senior to him in the struggle?
The conditioning of the Zimbabwean people to see politics through the prism of tribal goggles would again be represented by the MDC split of 2005.
In a subliminal perpetuation of the “Nkomo country” and “Mugabe country” paradigm, the breakaway faction of the MDC composed mainly of MPs from the Matabeleland region sought a Shona leader to make them competitive in Mashonaland. The chief qualification for that leader was tribe.
And Tsvangirai, in response, sought a Ndebele deputy to deliver him votes from “Nkomo country”. Again, the outstanding qualification for that deputy being tribe.
Whether these approaches are successful then becomes a question of strategy, resources and viability projection. But it’s inescapable that the plan is a tribal balancing act that ultimately establishes the minority as junior partners in the national political discourse.
National political leadership in Zimbabwe remains the preserve of the Shona majority. A Ndebele leading a political organisation is so readily labelled either a tribalist or a separatist seeking to avenge past wrongs by Mugabe. Nkomo was labelled a terrorist, and those who have come after him are cast as divisionists seeking to derail the freedom train or are simply starved of resources to get their message across. Those from minorities leaning towards the main Shona-led parties are “progressives” who tragically soon discover that their progress has a ceiling. This is the state of our nation we dare not deny.
Other than through war or some act of God, it is difficult to see how a minority leader can win an election in Zimbabwe. It is largely because Mugabe’s doctrine of “Nkomo country” and “Mugabe country” was executed so methodically as to leave the nation permanently divided and condemned to an eternal pursuit of elusive oneness.
Our neighbour, South Africa, has had two Xhosa leaders - Mandela and Mbeki - despite Zulus forming the majority. It is because they understood, to paraphrase Tongogara, that the struggle was not about tribe and personalities but “the removal of discrimination and oppression”.
For the country’s own good and future health, Zimbabweans must make deliberate choices to reverse this calculated segmentation by Robert Mugabe. The onus is no less onerous than on the people of Matabeleland who need to regroup and end their political prostitution for the measly reward of political accommodation.
In the same way that affirmative action is being employed to reverse imbalances in resource allocation between the poor black majority and remnants of the colonial order, Zimbabweans have a collective responsibility to cultivate healthy politics that guarantees opportunities for all who are qualified for the task.
There are no easy solutions, but I am in no doubt that the process should begin with a model of progressive reverse segmentation, moving towards a genuine unification of our national movements
Mduduzi Mathuthu is the Editor of newzimbabwe.com where this article was originally published.
BARACK Obama’s historic election as the first black US president has captured the world’s imagination and projected America as a beacon of democracy where the idealism of its founders remains alive.
Trumping centuries of prejudice and racial cleavages, Obama’s seminal achievement redrew America’s political map and confounded generations of hitherto sure-proof political wisdom. But could such a feat be replicated in Zimbabwe’s own politics? How feasible is the prospect of a Ndebele president, Nambya, Tonga, Venda, or mixed race, disparagingly still officially referred to as ‘Coloured’ almost 30 years since the end of white colonial rule?
Mduduzi Mathuthu opens the need for this bold debate in Zimbabwe through this article.
IN THEIR hugely revelatory book, MUGABE, David Smith and Colin Simpson (1981) record how Lord Soames - the British-appointed transitional governor of Rhodesia - summoned Robert Mugabe in 1980 to raise concerns about “intimidation by his supporters in certain areas, notably in Manicaland…”
This was in the run-up to Zimbabwe’s first elections in 1980 which pitted Mugabe against his main opponents — Joshua Nkomo (PF-ZAPU) and Bishop Abel Muzorewa (UANC).
The charge sheet against Mugabe was an impressive one. One incident, recorded in then Fort Victoria (now Masvingo), particularly strikes me. Smith and Simpson write on page 181:
“It was from Victoria Province that the worst evidence had come - and more damagingly for Mugabe, it had come from his old ally Joshua Nkomo. Nkomo told the governor that three of his workers, a candidate called Francis Makombe and two helpers, were putting up posters in Chibi tribal trust land near Fort Victoria when they were abducted by two gunmen who identified themselves as ZANLA ‘fighters’.
“The three of them were marched off to nearby villages, the peasants assembled and ordered to ignore Nkomo’s party. The gunmen, Nkomo said, then told the crowd that Mugabe’s party had equipment to detect how people voted. Anyone who voted for any candidate other than Mugabe’s would have their heads cut off.
“The two helpers were beaten, the candidate was last seen with burning coal being stuffed down his throat.”
On page 187, Smith and Simpson - both former Africa correspondents for UK media organisations - reveal how Soames confronted Mugabe over the violence. Nkomo said he could simply not campaign in many parts of Mashonaland for fear of reprisals, Lord Soames declared.
Mugabe seized on this at once, Smith and Simpson write.
“Look Lord Soames,” Mugabe said. “I’m not new to this game, you know. That’s my part of the country, Manicaland, that’s mine. The fact that Nkomo can’t campaign there is down to the fact that I control it, I’ve had a cell there for five years. Is it surprising that people don’t turn out there for Nkomo? Would I go to Nkomo country (Matabeleland) and expect to raise a crowd there? Of course I wouldn’t.”
I was reminded of Mugabe’s reference to “Nkomo country” while listening to Barack Obama’s victory speech after becoming the first black President of the United States on November 4.
Obama said by voting him into power, and so overwhelmingly, Americans had “sent a message to the world that we have never been a collection of Red States (traditional Republican Party-leaning States) and Blue States (traditional Democratic Party-leaning States): we are, and always will be, the United States of America.”
Whatever Mugabe meant, it is clear in his mind he had a picture of a political landscape defined by tribe. The logic of his argument to Lord Soames, which justified the use of violence against Nkomo’s supporters, was that a Ndebele leader’s political ambitions should be contained within the boundaries of Matabeleland, and by the same token a Shona leader should only seriously mobilise in Mashonaland.
Tragically, Mugabe’s segmentation of Zimbabwe into “Nkomo country” and “Mugabe country” still holds, and will remain political currency for a while. For that reason, the miracle of the American election - translated in Zimbabwe to mean the election of a President from a minority tribe - is as distant as the last page of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.
In the 1980 elections, Mugabe inevitably swept the Mashonaland vote and Nkomo did likewise in Matabeleland. The order was repeated in the 1985 elections - held under extreme violence in Matabeleland as Mugabe sent troops into “Nkomo country” in a bid to crush the ZAPU leader’s backbone.
Mugabe, having himself partitioned the country between himself and Nkomo in 1980, finally got to exercise full control of the land when he, using violence, forced Nkomo to abolish ZAPU and join a unity government in 1987, as his deputy. For the first time, Zanu PF would carry the “Nkomo country” vote, which came to pass in the 1990 and 1996 landslide victories.
When Nkomo died in 1999, his supporters were in an invidious position. He had reluctantly taken them into the bowels of Zanu PF, and now they had no political home. There was no Nkomo, and there was no serious “Nkomo country” political organisation to embrace their vote.
This ‘decision time’ would coincide with the formation of the MDC, which itself had assembled an impressive group of “tribal” representatives from the region. It genuinely looked a movement equipped to crash through Mugabe’s tribal barriers.
In the 2000 parliamentary elections, the former “Nkomo country” would swing en masse behind the MDC - claiming 21 of the 23 seats in Bulawayo, Matabeleland North and Matabeleland South.
The novelty of the MDC was its integration of respected leaders from Matabeleland, who were infused with other leading figures from Mashonaland, to form what genuinely looked a national party representative of the young and old, rich and poor, Shona and Ndebele, black, white, Asian, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled - to paraphrase Obama.
A question arises. Would an MDC led by Gibson Sibanda - who, by virtue of being president of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU), was senior to Morgan Tsvangirai (secretary general) — have been a threat to Zanu PF in “Mugabe country”? Unlikely!
Some will say “common sense” - read tribal reality — prevailed, and Tsvangirai became MDC President with Sibanda taking a junior role. That way, the MDC could go on the offence in “Mugabe country” while also courting support in “Nkomo country” where the Ndebele minority was amiable, for lack of options, to political accommodation so beautifully represented by Nkomo’s capitulation in playing Mugabe’s surrogate - even if to save his people from killings and curfews.
It should also be remembered, as Smith and Simpson point out, that Mugabe pulled out of the Patriotic Front - backed by Zanu’s central committee - which should have contested the 1980 elections, partly because he knew he would partition the country on tribal grounds, and secure his majority anyway.
Smith and Simpson record, on page 158, how at one session in late 1979, Josiah Tongogara “made his final plea for dropping the name Zapu and Zanu and running simply as the Patriotic Front. The war, he said, had not been about personalities or parties but the removal of discrimination and oppression.
“To a silence that was rare in any of their meetings, Tongogara insisted that it would be ridiculous for Zanu to refuse to consider Nkomo as a leader of the Front after they had sat down and negotiated alongside him for 14 weeks in London. Tongogara knew then that he’d lost. He was more disappointed than angry, and did not resist when he was dispatched - before the meeting which formally took the decision to campaign alone - to guerrilla camps in central Mozambique…”
Again, a question begs to be asked. Was Mugabe a better leader than Nkomo, who by the way was more senior to him in the struggle?
The conditioning of the Zimbabwean people to see politics through the prism of tribal goggles would again be represented by the MDC split of 2005.
In a subliminal perpetuation of the “Nkomo country” and “Mugabe country” paradigm, the breakaway faction of the MDC composed mainly of MPs from the Matabeleland region sought a Shona leader to make them competitive in Mashonaland. The chief qualification for that leader was tribe.
And Tsvangirai, in response, sought a Ndebele deputy to deliver him votes from “Nkomo country”. Again, the outstanding qualification for that deputy being tribe.
Whether these approaches are successful then becomes a question of strategy, resources and viability projection. But it’s inescapable that the plan is a tribal balancing act that ultimately establishes the minority as junior partners in the national political discourse.
National political leadership in Zimbabwe remains the preserve of the Shona majority. A Ndebele leading a political organisation is so readily labelled either a tribalist or a separatist seeking to avenge past wrongs by Mugabe. Nkomo was labelled a terrorist, and those who have come after him are cast as divisionists seeking to derail the freedom train or are simply starved of resources to get their message across. Those from minorities leaning towards the main Shona-led parties are “progressives” who tragically soon discover that their progress has a ceiling. This is the state of our nation we dare not deny.
Other than through war or some act of God, it is difficult to see how a minority leader can win an election in Zimbabwe. It is largely because Mugabe’s doctrine of “Nkomo country” and “Mugabe country” was executed so methodically as to leave the nation permanently divided and condemned to an eternal pursuit of elusive oneness.
Our neighbour, South Africa, has had two Xhosa leaders - Mandela and Mbeki - despite Zulus forming the majority. It is because they understood, to paraphrase Tongogara, that the struggle was not about tribe and personalities but “the removal of discrimination and oppression”.
For the country’s own good and future health, Zimbabweans must make deliberate choices to reverse this calculated segmentation by Robert Mugabe. The onus is no less onerous than on the people of Matabeleland who need to regroup and end their political prostitution for the measly reward of political accommodation.
In the same way that affirmative action is being employed to reverse imbalances in resource allocation between the poor black majority and remnants of the colonial order, Zimbabweans have a collective responsibility to cultivate healthy politics that guarantees opportunities for all who are qualified for the task.
There are no easy solutions, but I am in no doubt that the process should begin with a model of progressive reverse segmentation, moving towards a genuine unification of our national movements
Mduduzi Mathuthu is the Editor of newzimbabwe.com where this article was originally published.
A leader who thrives among raw talent and flourishes in dull environs
By Silence Chihuri
POLITICAL national leadership calls for original thinking, malleable character and most importantly, the ability to judge and deduce a sustainable way forward from a given state of affairs.
One needs to stand his own ground and have an independent mind that is not parasitic when it comes to ideas and initiatives. It is a massive challenge to be a political leader.
When Morgan Tsvangirai switched careers from Trade Unionism to politics, this was a sea change because he boarded a totally different vessel. In Zambia Fredrick Chiluba made the same misjudgement of likening Trade Unionism to politics and almost plunged Zambia into an abyss.
Coming back home Tsavngirai has had a great opportunity to develop, perfect as well as display his leadership credentials but has failed to do so convincingly.
When the MDC was formed in 1999, it was a great idea put together by Zimbabweans whose main and broad objective was to offer the people of Zimbabwe a competitive political and democratic situation.
However, as soon as Tsvangirai assumed the MDC mantle, he very quickly and notably narrowed the scope of the MDC party’s appeal especially to the broader Zimbabwean intelligentsia, academia and business class. Under his leadership, the MDC agenda has been largely to disloge Zanu PF from power and nothing meaningful has been explored beyond that so as to excite and entice a broader following. Also, the party has struggled if not failed to enlist the membership and the much needed contribution of, or any keen interest from the Zimbabwean business moguls most of whom have assumed a very remote following of the party’s progress. The only business interest has obviously emanated from the natural desire to see the direction the country would take under an MDC government and nothing else.
A very disturbing kind of politics has enmeshed itself at the heart of the party in the nature of an inferiority complexion. The idea has been to ensure the party shies away from real talent and the much-needed diversity of minds while preferring a blind-lead-blind scenario. One such very disappointing example is the manner in which Tsavngirai has blunderingly thrust the inexperienced Nelson Chamisa at the heart of the party by appointing him the spokesperson and secretary general all rolled in one.
Chamisa is the nauseatingly ambitious MDC MP for the Kuwadzana constituency in Harare. Whether such an appointment is in acting capacity or to fill-in a vacuum for an interim period of time, it does not matter because this is the party’s engine and should only be entrusted into the hands of a mature person not a political half-bake like the Honourable MP. What Tsvangirai could be doing with Chamisa apart from regularly throwing him in to deliver those repeatedly reshuffled sound bites at most of his rallies, is to actually groom Chamisa and help him (if he can), to nature his career until such time he is seasoned enough to assume a such serious position and role in a party of the magnitude of the MDC. I particularly thought the youth apprenticeship was an ideal starting point Chamisa.
Tsavingirai has never made a secret of his fascination with Chamisa and that is not my problem here but surely for him, as President of a party with such potential as the MDC to be so dependent on the likes of Chamisa for inspiration is quite disturbing. If Chamisa is all the MDC as a party can assemble as a stand-in spokesperson and secretary general, then surely divine intervention should be sought urgently. No wonder that Chamisa has caused so much damage to the party during the few days he has been marauding in his newly found capacity. There is nothing personal here but this is our country that I am talking about and it may be further ruined while we all watch. This surely has to be checked. Tsvangirai has simply demonstrated yet again the limitation of his judgement, the narrowness of his appeal and most disturbingly, his inferiority complex. He seems to thrive among raw talent and flourishes in dull environs.
When the party got so sharply and openly divided, Tsvangirai was supposed to raise his game as leader and demonstrate real and capable leadership. But alas, the man dismally failed much to the irritation and chagrin of Zimbabweans who surely deserve better. In handling the crisis, Tsvangirai has largely depended on tutelage from his ensemble of advisers much of whom it seems, could actually do with advise. As a result, valuable opportunities to mend the differences have been missed and the party is now all set for a real split while the leader has been all ears to opportunists who have been ensconcing themselves in the newly created workspace.
Silence Chihuri is a Zimbabwean and lives in Scotland. He can be contacted at silencechihuri@hotmail.com
POLITICAL national leadership calls for original thinking, malleable character and most importantly, the ability to judge and deduce a sustainable way forward from a given state of affairs.
One needs to stand his own ground and have an independent mind that is not parasitic when it comes to ideas and initiatives. It is a massive challenge to be a political leader.
When Morgan Tsvangirai switched careers from Trade Unionism to politics, this was a sea change because he boarded a totally different vessel. In Zambia Fredrick Chiluba made the same misjudgement of likening Trade Unionism to politics and almost plunged Zambia into an abyss.
Coming back home Tsavngirai has had a great opportunity to develop, perfect as well as display his leadership credentials but has failed to do so convincingly.
When the MDC was formed in 1999, it was a great idea put together by Zimbabweans whose main and broad objective was to offer the people of Zimbabwe a competitive political and democratic situation.
However, as soon as Tsvangirai assumed the MDC mantle, he very quickly and notably narrowed the scope of the MDC party’s appeal especially to the broader Zimbabwean intelligentsia, academia and business class. Under his leadership, the MDC agenda has been largely to disloge Zanu PF from power and nothing meaningful has been explored beyond that so as to excite and entice a broader following. Also, the party has struggled if not failed to enlist the membership and the much needed contribution of, or any keen interest from the Zimbabwean business moguls most of whom have assumed a very remote following of the party’s progress. The only business interest has obviously emanated from the natural desire to see the direction the country would take under an MDC government and nothing else.
A very disturbing kind of politics has enmeshed itself at the heart of the party in the nature of an inferiority complexion. The idea has been to ensure the party shies away from real talent and the much-needed diversity of minds while preferring a blind-lead-blind scenario. One such very disappointing example is the manner in which Tsavngirai has blunderingly thrust the inexperienced Nelson Chamisa at the heart of the party by appointing him the spokesperson and secretary general all rolled in one.
Chamisa is the nauseatingly ambitious MDC MP for the Kuwadzana constituency in Harare. Whether such an appointment is in acting capacity or to fill-in a vacuum for an interim period of time, it does not matter because this is the party’s engine and should only be entrusted into the hands of a mature person not a political half-bake like the Honourable MP. What Tsvangirai could be doing with Chamisa apart from regularly throwing him in to deliver those repeatedly reshuffled sound bites at most of his rallies, is to actually groom Chamisa and help him (if he can), to nature his career until such time he is seasoned enough to assume a such serious position and role in a party of the magnitude of the MDC. I particularly thought the youth apprenticeship was an ideal starting point Chamisa.
Tsavingirai has never made a secret of his fascination with Chamisa and that is not my problem here but surely for him, as President of a party with such potential as the MDC to be so dependent on the likes of Chamisa for inspiration is quite disturbing. If Chamisa is all the MDC as a party can assemble as a stand-in spokesperson and secretary general, then surely divine intervention should be sought urgently. No wonder that Chamisa has caused so much damage to the party during the few days he has been marauding in his newly found capacity. There is nothing personal here but this is our country that I am talking about and it may be further ruined while we all watch. This surely has to be checked. Tsvangirai has simply demonstrated yet again the limitation of his judgement, the narrowness of his appeal and most disturbingly, his inferiority complex. He seems to thrive among raw talent and flourishes in dull environs.
When the party got so sharply and openly divided, Tsvangirai was supposed to raise his game as leader and demonstrate real and capable leadership. But alas, the man dismally failed much to the irritation and chagrin of Zimbabweans who surely deserve better. In handling the crisis, Tsvangirai has largely depended on tutelage from his ensemble of advisers much of whom it seems, could actually do with advise. As a result, valuable opportunities to mend the differences have been missed and the party is now all set for a real split while the leader has been all ears to opportunists who have been ensconcing themselves in the newly created workspace.
Silence Chihuri is a Zimbabwean and lives in Scotland. He can be contacted at silencechihuri@hotmail.com