ThruTheEyesOF Letugo: 2nd All Stakeholders Conference on Constitutional ...

ThruTheEyesOF Letugo: 2nd All Stakeholders Conference on Constitutional ...: Over the course of the last two weeks and especially the week that has passed, the issue of the Prime Minister’s “Nuptials” to E...

2nd All Stakeholders Conference on Constitutional Reform: 9 imperatives for Success

Over the course of the last two weeks and especially the week that has passed, the issue of the Prime Minister’s “Nuptials” to Elizabeth Macheka has been the most dominant media and indeed public issue. Without rekindling that popular discussion and debate, I am glad that it is now behind us. I am glad that this is behind us because, instead of serving as just a moment of great celebration for the re-entry of our Premier into to the institution of marriage (which a friend of mine calls a program for the Stabilisation of Adult Personalities), it has served amongst other things, as a fruitless distraction from pertinent national questions. While the Prime Minister was priming himself for his corrective moral (and eventual defiance) act, and the Central Intelligence Organisation (CIO) were allegedly rolling out their plan to disrupt that big day, there were several things of national significance and of consequence to our lives, taking place.

Not least amongst these, was the climb down by ZANU PF, in the middle of the dust and the smoke, to agree to go to the Second All Stakeholders Conference with the COPAC Draft of July 18 2012, on condition that the National Report will be tabled at the same conference. The Movement for Democratic Change (MDC T), was quick to come out with a retort that welcomed the climb down, but not on the condition stated - of tabling the National report. Again, setting up the Second All stakeholders Conference as a no holds barred political showdown. In any other country, this would not be an issue, people differ all the time, and they negotiate their differences and come up with compromise solutions that allow everyone to emerge a winner. Heck, in most democratic societies, people actually understand that there is no democracy without compromise. NOT in Zimbabwe. It is clear that because of the tenor of discussions and proceedings so far, that if a clear set of conditions and rules are not abided by, the Second All Stakeholders Conference, can easily turn into a blood bath of tremendous proportions.

2 of the 3 COPAC Chairs, Speaker of Parliament and Senate Presiden

The only way that this can be guarded against is through the firm and committed agreements by stakeholders to the process on a clear modus operandi at the conference. Without this, the Second All Stakeholders Conference may just be another waste of not just money, but also valuable time.

Like any other democratic process, the Second All Stakeholders Conference must be subject to predictability of process, with clear objectives and outcomes articulated and anticipated. Just like in sport, the rules of the game need to be clear before the game actually takes place. We can’t make them along the way without every foul being turned into a penalty. The obvious handicap stems from what the Global Political Agreement (GPA) does not say more than what it says with regards to this key part of the process of Constitutional Reform. It states the following:

                 

“The draft constitution shall be tabled within 3 months of completion of the Public consultation process to a second All Stakeholders Conference”.

Given our experience from the ^First All stakeholders Conference, this vagueness is less of a blessing than it is a curse. It is a litmus test on the commitment of political leaders to putting the country first and ensuring that a clear way of operating at this conference is determined in a way that moves the country forward – not backwards. 

In my humble opinion the following need to be considered seriously by Zimbabweans and COPAC in planning for the Second All Stakeholders Conference, as key imperative for success:

1.     Clear time frames. This has been a constant malady with regards to the Global Political Agreement. There are claims to be following a Road map to elections, whose date is not known, and now, there are agreements and preparations for a Second All Stakeholders Conference whose date is not known. The Second All Stakeholders Conference must be allowed to set a new tone in the conduct of Political business through ensuring that the dates and timing of it are not the preserve of political elites. All Stakeholders need to plan for it not just ZANU PF, which on the 14^th of September had its Commissariat structures holding a mobilisation workshop on how to present the party position at the Conference. Or the MDC T, which called its structures to launch a “Yes” Campaign for a referendum whose date is not known to the public.

Transparency around these key process starts with breaking down the monopoly of information by Political actors on the timing of key processes. If they too do not know, then it is time to set these key dates up, starting with the electoral timetable and timetable for reforms, with the dates of the Second All Stakeholders Conference being amongst the key markers. We have already discovered that the state of confusion and disorder that is sponsored by uncertainty is exactly what Andreas Schedler meant when he talked about disorder being seen by politicians as a ‘valued horizon of attainment’, not a ‘feared horizon of avoidance’. But this must stop, in order for us to move forward, order must be the order of the day.

2.     An inclusive dialogue on how to have a truly transparent and beneficial process: The Second All Stakeholders Conference, unlike other elements of the Constitution Making Process is a multiple stakeholder process, which includes interests and parties beyond COPAC and political parties. Discussions and plans for it and the Modus operandi should be an inclusive process that allows representatives of a cross section of Zimbabweans to be part of the planning process.

3.     A Real Commitment to Civic Society Participation: There was a commitment that was made but not properly followed through at the First All Stakeholders Conference to have delegates to it in the following Proportions, 70% Civil Society, 30% Political Parties. This has to be abided by, noting that political parties include more than those parties, which are represented in Parliament. COPAC also needs to allow legitimate apex organisations of Civic Society like, NANGO, to determine who is civil society, not the Political Parties who can easily form NGO’s overnight. Business must be included, noting that the previous allocations seemed to have ignored them and that classic definitions of civic society exclude the state and capital.

4.     Agenda setting by The Broad Church of stakeholders: Stakeholders as mentioned above must be the ones who set out a clear agenda and program for the Second All Stakeholders Conference. The above will allow us to move away from the ‘loiter and linger’ strategy that political parties have been subjecting us to at the expense of National Progress.

5.     Popularising the COPAC Draft of 18 July 2012. The Herald has already serialised the ZANU PF amendments, in an act that fortifies impressions that have always been there that instead of being a public newspaper it is just a propaganda tool for ZANU PF. COPAC needs to make its Draft of 18 July readily available to all and sundry in forms and languages that people can access. There can be no meaningful national debate and discussion if people do not know what they are debating or discussing.  The Draft is available on the internet, but this is not enough given the low internet penetration levels in the country which have been reported to be around 11%

6.     NO Violence. Measures must be put in place to ensure that there is no violence at the conference and that if it occurs it will not be tolerated through non-partisan policing. Part of this, is an agreement on process with no tolerance for those who try to operate outside the process.

7.     Commitment to tolerance, patience and progressive debate. Political party supporters are notorious for being amongst the most intolerant groups of people in the country. It has to be noted that this is a national process on which the future of not just the Constitution Making process, but the country hinges on. Lastly,

8.     Unfettered Media Access to the Event: If the process is to be respected and assist in enhancing the constitution making process, both local and international media need, of necessity, to be allowed to cover the event without let or hindrance.

9.     SADC and the AU MUST observe the process. This has already been suggested and dismissed as an invitation to outsiders to supervise our own process. This rebuttal is dishonest. The Global Political Agreement (GPA) itself, which is the instrument that gives life to the Second All Stakeholders Conference, is not just a domestic affair it is a continental affair.  The African Union, as represented by its Commission Chairperson, the Southern African Development Community (SADC) as represented by its Chairperson, and the Facilitator – Former President of the Republic of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, appended their signatures to the agreement. Having them observe the process is not to invite foreigners to an internal process, but it is an act of acting in the spirit of the conference, which seeks to bring “All” stakeholders to the table. 

Continued arguments around sovereignty especially by ZANU PF are dishonest and a pure act of chicanery – Zimbabwe has already ceded its sovereignty in many ways, largely attributable to them. We have lost sovereignty over our currency (we use the US Dollar), lost food sovereignty (the World Food Program estimates that 1,6million citizens of the former bread basket of Africa, are in need of food aid) and lost political sovereignty (our country is being governed by an agreement that was facilitated by the African community not necessarily the will of the people). Not to mention how economically, our country has fallen prey to what Stephen Marks and Fironz Manji (in their Book, African Perspectives on China in Africa) call the new policy of China, which he argues has shifted from

Cold War ideology to a more classical pursuit of economic self-interest in the form of access to raw materials, markets and spheres of influence through investment, trade and military assistance - to the point where China can be suspected of pursuing the goals of any classical imperialist.

Because of the above, any vaunted talk of sovereignty where Zimbabwe is concerned is more show than substance because our politicians know that through their actions they have mortgaged the country to SADC and the AU politically and China economically. What is more important for them to realize, if they are serious about the sovereignty of the country, is that, the Constitution Making Process and the full implementation of the GPA are attempts at gaining back our sovereignty. But for now it is what is.

The above 9 points may not be enough to guarantee a positive Second All Stakeholder Conference, but their consideration, nay, their implementation will go a long way in ensuring that we move our country forward and not backwards.

If there was a time, when greater patriotism was called for, it is now. Our politicians are called to action, with the interests of the country at heart, beyond parochial partisan interests. The Second All Stakeholders Conference will be a stern test on whether our country wants to write a constitution for the nation or for particular political parties.

There are those who have already dismissed the possibilities of a successful Second All Stakeholder Conference because of what they have seen in the past and in the present. These people are justified in their skepticism, but this country needs ‘greater fools’ – people who believe that success can be achieved even if the odds are stacked against them, and others have failed. It may seem foolhardy and crazy to expect that the Second All Stakeholders Conference can come out with some meaningful result. But as an Apple Macintosh  advert once proclaimed as part of their “Think Different” campaign in 1997 ‘ the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do’. Now Apple Inc. is the most valuable company in the world.

BEYOND PLATITUDES AND SLOGANS…GIVE US A REAL NATIONAL DEBATE

BEYOND PLATITUDES AND SLOGANS…GIVE US A REAL NATIONAL DEBATE

This week I had the opportunity to be told 3 stories by a legal legend and Constitutional Reform and Constitutionalism Guru, Former South Africa Constitutional Court justice, Albie Sachs. All 3 stories where about constitution making and constitutionalism. In the first story, he spoke of how the ANC National Executive Committee chaired by Oliver Tambo, had made a strategic decision before 1994 that they would facilitate that the next constitution would be a South Africa n Constitution, not an ANC Constitution. To that end they would not go back to South Africa with a constitution from exile but would go and encourage a meaningful national debate on the subject that carried the different complexions of the rainbow nation. The second story, was about the choices that confronted them post 1994 as the ANC. He said they had choice between having US Constitutional model (some legal checks on power but promoting personal power and leadership), (peoples power constitution (revolutionary party takes over the state, government and society) and a post dictatorship constitution, and how the NEC opted for a less formal constitution and one that did not necessarily protect power and privilege – which they identified as a post dictatorship constitution. The 3^rd story was about the Community Law Centre and how it helped to entrench constitutionalism.  All these stories were profound, and impressive, as I am sure any encounter with a luminary such as Sachs is, but it left me with a bad sense about my own country’s experiences around constitutional reform and the territorial nature of engagements around the subject.

Over the last couple of weeks, as a Zimbabwean and a democracy activist myself, I have grown fatigued by attempts of so called Political Analysts and Experts who have been commenting sometimes at length on the constitution making process and the new draft, but without really saying anything. The kind of input that has been given acres of space in newspapers and on other media platforms, is fitting of a cause celebre like the draft constitution, but the input itself on the subject is hardly worth the ink used to write it. This is because at the heart of the contributions is the continuation of a political culture that takes people for granted and assumes that the masses live in mental dark rooms knowing  nothing, and wait for instructions from the enlightened on what to do even without any justification. Most of what we have been exposed to so far, does not help people make an informed choice on the draft constitution because a lot of the contributors either lie or do not make it clear what people have to choose from or between.

Hiding behind academic titles and assumed expertise, the public has been subjected to a process of appropriation of the national debate on the draft constitution by those who believe they are either technically or politically more superior than the rest of us. What has emerged, instead of a meaningful constructive national debate on the draft, is an elite conversation that is well propelled by the media as guardians of the formal transcript of what is happening in our country. This middle and upper class take over of national discourse, by people in political society and in civic society ignores the reality that democracy and issues of national importance such as the constitution making process should not be the preserve of political society or indeed political society in conversation with some elements of organised civic society.  Inputs into the debate thus far seem to be products of a gramscian thinking, which is almost irrelevant, that assumes that the subordinate classes (subalterns) consent to the thought and other forms of leadership by residents of the hegemonic and political and economic elite classes. While this kind of thinking and its promotion is, well, understandable from the Authoritarians in our midst, what is surprising and unacceptable is an assumption of the same by the “democrats “in our midst.

This is precisely so because one of the key tenants of democracy is deliberative discussions and or informed deliberations. Now, informed deliberations of necessity entail that we jump over slogans and get to the meat of matters. Platitudes alone as part of arguments, are all show with no substance and do not help anyone except those with an agenda far from objective deliberation and settlement of issues.

Take Dr. Simba Makoni for instance, a respected Political Leader in our country, leading an opposition political party, who speaks, like a typical politician about the draft. He says

“the people of Zimbabwe deserve a 21st century best practice consituation not a cut and paste, and what we have here does not qualify as a 21st century best practice constitution. There is a fear that if we don’t have this current one, we will go back the Lancaster house, I would say better the devil you know than the one you don’t know.”

The above makes for a good sound bite, and while we are all entitled to our opinions and putting them across as we wish, surely Zimbabweans also deserve more than that. While Zimbabweans deserve a “21^st Century best practice constitution”, they also deserve constructive engagements based on facts and citations on the draft itself in terms of what makes it not a “ 21^st century best practice constitution”. For an Academic Doctor and a political leader to just use blanket, overarching generalisations and end there is to perform an act of academic dishonesty, because it doesn’t tell us anything as an expectant audience. It is to hide behind the veil of academia while saying nothing and hoping that because you are a doctor, people will value your input and accept it as fact none the less.

Dr. Makoni is not the only one who I believe has been guilty of sharing platitudes without giving us any meaningful debate on the draft. Those in support of the draft, have often times been heard to say that the “ draft is better than Lancaster”. Few have bothered to articulate In what way is it better than Lancaster. To what extent does it meet the democratic test both in terms of what it carries, how it was developed and how it is crafted from a language perspective?

A clear example of “experts” and “analysts” doing a disservice to the public can be seen from two people who have both advocated that the draft be thrown into the bin, De-facto ZANU PF spokesperson Professor Jonathan Moyo and Political Analyst and NCA spokesman, Blessing Vava. On his Blogg, Vava argues that the draft must be voted against because it retains huge powers in the President, something, he argues correctly, a lot of Zimbabweans have been fighting about. He writes:

“In the draft nothing  has substantially  changed with regards to the powers of the president as we are being made to believe. If anything the powers have been expanded only the term limits which have been reduced.”

 Then comes professor Moyo, who agrees with Vava that the draft should be fought, and one of his reasons, wait for it,

"It strips the executive of all powers and leaves it as a clerical branch of government,"

So who is telling the truth? While these two gentlemen agree on a course of action, their reasons for it clearly fight each other. This is made worse by the fact that besides these two gentleman stating these things, even the academic does not spell out how executive powers are stripped by the constitution let alone, why it is a bad thing warranting that the draft not be supported. Clearly, both men have a political agenda, and are simply looking for premises to pursue their political agendas without having the decency of a meaningful fact based debate.

Political parties have not been left behind in this exercise in dark whole type politics. Dabengwa and his ZAPU, Makoni and his Mavambo, Job Sikhala and his MDC 99, Rugare Gumbo and Jonathan Moyo and their ZANU PF, have all jumped onto the band wagon of dismissing the draft because” it does not carry what the people said in outreach”. Again organised political actors are allowed to have opinions, but they should also learn the value of a meaningful debate beyond sharing these slogans. In what way where the peoples voices ignored? Was the outreach process itself, given what we know a bout it, a platform where people shared freely, openly and objectively, such that their voices from that process warrant being respected? From what perspective is a constitution drafted- from inputs by the people, from inputs by constitutional drafting experts, based on international standards or what?

What is also a bit disturbing about these champions of the “ peoples voices” is that the vast majority of them, perhaps with the exception of ZANU PF, were rejected by the people as their leaders and representatives at the last elections, and have a combined seat total in parliament of …ZERO, in both houses. And they purport to know what we said and can say that what we said is not there in the draft even before we say it our selves. This is part of the challenge of our Politics, there is always someone wanting to speak for you even when you can do so your self.  This is not to say they cannot be part of the discussion as equals, they should be, but they certainly should not be allowed to dominate that discussion.

I was recently accused of kowtowing to the MDC T, but I have to say this because it is true. The MDC T in my opinion seems to have tried to at least articulate the reasons why they support the draft, complete with a list of what they called the good, the bad and the ugly about the draft. The MDC led by Professor Welshman Ncube, also stated their reasons for supporting the draft and also their areas of reservations, which they had to cede on because it was a negotiated process.

If everyone could follow the example of Professor Madhuku Dr. Magaisa, WOZA and Minister Tendai Biti, I am sure we would have a much more beneficial debate on this question. Prof. Madhuku has made it clear that his tool of analysis is process oriented and that because they faulted the process they cannot and will not okay the content. There is no pretense there of whether the draft is good or bad, unless perhaps as an extras. Dr. Magaisa has developed an illustrious blog, where he engages with the content of the draft and explains it, in a qualified manner as a participant in part of the process (an unnecessary qualification, in my opinion, because one way or the other participation of Zimbabweans indifferent ways has been stated to be a hallmark of a good process). As the late Chinese Paramount leader, Deng Xiapong once said “ I don’t care whether it’s a black cat, or white cat…as long as it catches mice".

My point is not that people should not make judgements on the draft. They should…but judgements must be informed by sound, substantiated arguments and citations from the draft itself. To do anything else is to take people for granted. To subject people to platitudes and slogans is to take people for granted. To substitute the people and make judgements for them is to take people for granted.   To make platitudes and slogans that are more show than substance is to take people for granted. We deserve a meaningful national debate on the draft constitution before we climb on top of mountains screaming YES or NO. 

ThruTheEyesOF Letugo: THE NEXT ELECTIONS IN ZIMBABWE: A BREAKTHROUGH EL...

ThruTheEyesOF Letugo: THE NEXT ELECTIONS IN ZIMBABWE: A BREAKTHROUGH EL...: THE NEXT ELECTIONS IN ZIMBABWE:  A BREAKTHROUGH ELECTION, WARRANTING BREAKTHROUGH LEADERSHIP The next elections in Zimbabwe, have been...

THE NEXT ELECTIONS IN ZIMBABWE: A BREAKTHROUGH ELECTION, WARRANTING BREAKTHROUGH LEADERSHIP

THE NEXT ELECTIONS IN ZIMBABWE:  A BREAKTHROUGH ELECTION, WARRANTING BREAKTHROUGH LEADERSHIP

The next elections in Zimbabwe, have been called by some ‘watershed elections’, while others have called them ‘decisive’. While the above characterisations are correct, in my opinion the next elections, likely to take place within the next calendar year, will be breakthrough elections.  Breakthrough, in the sense that they hold the possibilities of changing political epochs and arrangements, ushering in a new value system in the way that our country is governed. The significance of the next elections is higher than the transitional elections of 2008, which facilitated the onset of the transition through some democratic openings and eventually ushered in the Inclusive(transitional) government. They are, in my opinion only second to the founding elections in 1980, which got us into our first republic. Some have argued that it has been lack of leadership or what Nelson Mandela, at the height of the violence in June 2008, called a tragic failure in leadership, that has landed us in the near Hobbesian state of nature where life is short, nasty and brutish.  Because the next election will be a breakthrough election, it will also demand breakthrough leadership.

The supreme contest for political power is often considered as ascendency to leadership at the highest level, and in Zimbabwe’s case that ascendency is often associated with costs. Costs, that positions of service to the nation, calls to leadership and visioning should not attract. They include but are not limited to the use of political violence, rigging elections, beating people into submission, and at worst extra judicial killings and enforced disappearances.

In the old days, where the best warriors and conquerors led the world, and where barbarism was a right of passage to rule, that could have been acceptable but in the 21^st Century, where political contests are supposed to be contests of ideas and visions as well as hearts and minds of the people, the idea of violent capture of power is conspicuously out of place.

While we have a very thin slate to choose from, with the likelihood being that we will have to choose a President from the current leaders of the main political parties at the moment, we still have to subject even these few candidates to clear demands for breakthrough leadership and  a new set of leadership values that are predicated on democracy and inclusivity, while driven by a clear vision and the ability to inspire and influence. Leadership, should address first and foremost an understanding that real leadership is about influence, and that those who aspire to lead us must influence us to do so rather than beat us into doing so. The use of violence as a way of ascending to a political position of leadership, is an archaic way of doing political business that belongs to the past. In 2013, we would like to see leaders who inspire people to follow them, persuade people to follow then, and influence people to follow them. Force is not an operational word here neither is it a pre requisite to this process. John C. Maxwell in his Irrefutable laws of leadership says that “ To be a leader, a person has not only be out front, but also have people INTENTIONALLY coming behind him, following his lead, and acting on his vision”. Breakthrough leadership is about enrolling and engaging rather than conscripting.

The flip side of the leadership as influence equation, is also that people should not just wait for positions in order to lead, because leadership is also not just about positions, but also about the disposition of leadership. As we look to our breakthrough election, those aspiring to lead us should understand that real power will not come from their position of authority or titles but from their authenticity and their ability to relate with the people, including those who will occasionally fight against them.  Maxwell adds that  “it is not the position that makes the leader, it’s the leader that makes the position”. As such our leaders cannot and should not wait to be Presidents or MP’s to lead, we need to be able to see their leadership in practice from stations they occupy within or without the state. The leadership and leadership qualities should be discernible at a micro, meso and macro levels.

If those who want to lead cannot be faithful over little, how can we expect them to be faithful over much? Or as Deprose. Muchena, a Zimbabwean born expert on Leadership puts it,” one cannot be a crocodile outside their home, when they are a lizard inside their own homes”. In leadership, nothing proves ones ability to lead others more than what they do every day in their own lives. Unfortunately in Zimbabwe, ‘leaders’ lives are barricaded in secrecy, and when that veil attempts to be removed it is often met with great repression on those who try. While in cases where we are given access to information on ‘leaders’ daily lives, it is almost always contrived, either to paint a good image or to taint as part of the bad way in which we practice politics.

One of the challenges that face African leadership generally, especially in young countries like ours is a failure to break with the past, and preaching a sense of entitlement because of the past. The shona have an apt saying in answer to that ‘matakadya kare haanyaradze mwana’ (what a child ate yesterday will not keep him or her quite when she is hungry today). This is not to say that records do not matter, they do, and often enough they are what allow us to trust in abilities to deliver in the present and the future, but they are not enough. As we go to a breakthrough election, part of the leadership challenge that faces those aspiring to lead us is their ability to move us, as a people, from seeing our world as it was and as it is, to the world as it should be under their leadership. In other words, without the ability to express a vision for the future, the qualities of anyone who seeks to lead are questionable. Lofty promises of future patronage rewards do not constitute a vision, so this is not an appeal for false promises and platitudes. Breakthrough leadership demands that Leaders be able to present us with a vivid mental picture of where we can be with their leadership and we need to be able to see that they try to live the vision now in their own lives. With our kind of challenges nothing short of proactive, visionary and inspiring leadership will help us. Morgan Tsvangirai was once chided for dreaming about occupying state house; it made for good political jokes but showed that at least he had the capacity to dream. Martin Luther King Junior had a dream. The war of liberation was won on the basis of a dream for a free country where whites and blacks were equal, it was a powerful vision and dream, dismissed as impossible once, but attained eventually through the efforts of Robert Mugabe and others. Indeed, ‘if one cannot dream why should one sleep, and if one cannot pursue their dreams why should you wake up? ‘.

As we go to our breakthrough election, part of the leadership challenge for aspirants is the extent to which they have the ability to enhance the possibilities of rule by the people for the people. Some Political scientists have argued that , “it is that government that governs best, which governs least”. These may seem like platitudes that brainwashed dreamers and proponents of democracy spew out, but it is also an integral characteristic of the kind of breakthrough leadership that should be a factor in us choosing who next presides over our key institutions. We need leaders, who understand that they will gain our love, respect and gratitude through not amassing authority by giving it away. Our breakthrough, as a country will come through us realising that we do not need other power hungry despots but leaders who understand that ultimately people want to lead themselves and their lives. The situation that is prevailing now where newscasters and propagandists think they can project power and leadership through constant reminders that President Mugabe, is “ the head of state and government, commander in chief of the defence forces” and ‘chancellor of all state universities’, portrays a picture of one who wants to amass authority instead of sharing it, especially in a country with some of the smartest people in the world.  Such situations create opportunities for one of two things, either pure genius or absolute failure. In our case, it seems to have been the later.

The next chapter in our country’s history demands breakthrough leadership, leadership that appreciates that people seek to contribute. As such leadership should pay attention to talent and cultivate it through sharing responsibility, power and authority. A country that is led by 1 person and a bunch of acolytes is doomed to fail in spite of the talent of the one leader or his or her vision. As we approach breakthrough moments, we need leaders who facilitate leadership at every level, and appreciate that in as much as success breeds successors, leaders breed leaders, after all one is only as good as the 5 people around them.  The time for personal rule or big man politics is as archaic as the notion of leading through physical conquest. Part of our breakthrough and the breakthrough leadership required should be focused on building strong institutions and not promoting strong men.

So as we move towards the breakthrough election, we will need to pay particular attention to leadership aspirants who thrive on inspiration, show wholesome leadership, and visionary leadership. We may fail to find it, if that happens; we can find solace from the fact that leadership is not a function of positions. As such we can try as a people to provide leadership ourselves in our various stations, and hope that the political leaders can follow. After all, one cannot lead, if they cannot follow. If that doesn’t work, we can derive strength from what Wael Ghonim, once an ordinary Egyptian, promotes in his book, Revolution 2.0 , that “the power of the people is greater than the people in power” and take responsibility to lead, because at potential breakthrough moments, like the next election, how respond individually and collectively will determine the legacy of our country. With breakthrough opportunities the possibilities of set back are also there, we can choose to act wisely and make 2013 a historic breakthrough year, or poorly and make it just another year of set back as has been previous lost opportunities.

ROBERT MUGABE…WHAT HAPPENED?... ...GABRIEL, BUT NO ANGEL.

ROBERT MUGABE…WHAT HAPPENED?...

...GABRIEL, BUT NO ANGEL.

This year (2012) in  April, I had the occasion,  to sit on post-screening panels of the film,  Robert Mugabe what happened?by Simon Bright. The screenings were at Royal Commonwealth Society, The University of Sussex  and  the Platinum movie house Oxford, as part of the Oxford Documentary Festival.

I have seen a couple of reviews that have been done on both the film  and the post screening discussions. This contribution is not an answer to these previous reviews, but rather an attempt to add to the body of knowledge on it, and give my own thoughts on both the film and questions that have emerged from screening discussions.

My First port of call is  to acknowledge that in spite of whatever imperfections the film might have, it is well made and focuses on a subject that is relevant for Zimbabwe. Given our political environment, public discussions on Mugabe - what is wrong with him and how this came to be, can be fairly dangerous subjects. It is even more dangerous to speculate about what may happen after he is gone. However given the fact that he has held the highest political office for the last generation, his own advancement in age, evident health challenges and the reality of mortality, these subjects are not only relevant but natural and should be engaged in various ways, which is part of what the film does.

The film reads like a concise history book, exposing the public to a nuanced history of the country, from the colonial days, UDI, the struggle for independence to the different phases of post colonial Zimbabwe. In this effort, a lot of audiences benefit from a context that is seldom given when doing an analysis of events in and of Zimbabwe and Robert Mugabe. A commendable attempt at balance by the filmmakers, which assists in what is seldom, the context free single story on Zimbabwe and Mugabe himself based on events of the last 12 years.

Given the complexities of Zimbabwe’s challenges, the question has been asked, is it fair to lump everything on Mugabe. In my humble opinion, there is no one who personifies Zimbabwe’s slump, decay, degeneration and collapse into a state of continues crisis, more than Mugabe himself. As a person, who has been at the helm of the country’s leadership for the last 32 years, clearly, all things good and bad have to be laid on his door step. With leadership comes not just the perks but also responsibility, and the responsibility for the crisis in Zimbabwe lies in a lot of places, but none, more than with Robert Mugabe himself. Over the last 32 years, his exploits in turning Zimbabweans into an educated people, and the sunshine phase of post liberation Zimbabwe, do very little to overshadow the fact that in that same sunshine period, there was a political attack that had a clear ethnic slant of genocidal proportions that took place. The fact that the man, clearly had the gift of the garb, does nothing to erase from history the fact that even the first election in a free Zimbabwe was almost called off because of his resort to violence as was the case in many other elections to follow. There is little that his impeccable liberation war credentials can do to erase the fact that besides  claiming to having brought democracy to Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe has been the fiercest fighter of peoples freedoms, and an unfortunate turn coat, who has together with his cohorts, betrayed the essence and objectives of the same liberation struggle that he led. In short, in spite of his middle name, Gabriel, Robert Mugabe is no angel.  So yes, it is fair and proper to focus our attention on him, as not just the personification of the crisis in Zimbabwe, but also dictatorship personified.

In light of the above, there is therefore credence to the theory that Paulo Freire and others have posited that in most cases those fighting for freedom are not necessarily well intentioned, that their fight really is to occupy the state and become the next oppressors. No where is this more clearer than in Zimbabwe, where the liberation movement is still in power, and is credited with the biggest crisis that this country perhaps will ever see.

The film  presents to audiences a black and white picture of a person who has changed. Now while this is a commendable effort on the part of the filmmakers, it turns the film into a classic tale of a “ good guys gone bad”. But given what we know of the man and how he has presided over leadership responsibilities, the question needs to be asked if this is an accurate portrayal.  It is arguable that where Robert Mugabe is concerned, there are certain changes and continuities that deserve a closer look than what the film does. It has been argued that people do not change, circumstances do and people adapt to them. Is this not the case, where Robert Mugabe is concerned? The years that we glorify as the good years, the first 15 years after independence, are the same years, where he had his “moment of madness” with the Gukurahundi. These are the same years that we had attempts to have a one party state in Zimbabwe, and where   Mugabe’s government brought us the scourge of neoliberalism through their engagement with the IMF and World bank with catastrophic results for our economy and the nation at large. So is the question really Mugabe what happened? Did anything happen, or there were times when the people of Zimbabwe and the world wittingly or unwittingly turned a blind eye to consistent patterns of brutality, dictatorship,and a short tolerance level to opposition that Mugabe has consistently shown over time.

The film uses a wide cast of journalists, civic society actors, political actors, an academic and a childhood friend to assist the process of thinking through the question of what happened to Robert Mugabe. The critic has been that there is no one who is close to Mugabe who is part of the film. Now, given the circumstances, this is obviously a difficult task,  because those who are close to him are relatively inaccessible, but more importantly, because those who are close to him think the guy has done no wrong. They   believe that the government and Mugabe have no  role  in the malaise that has visited the country, blaming sanctions and everyone else, except themselves and their master. Now what point is there to discuss the question of what happened to Robert Mugabe with them, when they feel that there is nothing that happened to him, and that he continues to be revolutionary leader leading the continental anti-imperialist garrison.  Besides, who can be a better spokesperson for Mugabe, besides  himself, whose utterances and actions are given wide coverage in the film.

Related to the above, questions have been asked about those critiquing Mugabe. The theory that is posited is that the same question that the film asks of Robert Mugabe, can be asked of Professor Madhuku, Dr. Makumbe, Opposition leader Simba Makoni and ZCTU Faction President Lovemore Matombo. But is it even a question worth asking?  Have their transgressions equalled in consequences and scale to what Robert Mugabe has done? Seriously, can Madhuku’s alleged experiments with constitutional manipulation in the NCA be equated to Robert Mugabe’s follies and the ruin that he has placed on a country that was once considered the “ jewel of Africa”? I have no intention of excusing any of the commentators, but there is a real question of comparability that needs to be considered, and frankly,  the assertion that these people are approaching the ‘court with dirty hands’ and should thus shut up, is a poor attempt at shutting down debate on the clearly larger questions around Robert Mugabe. The beauty of that argument is that it acknowledges that Robert Mugabe is  Rogue or has gone Rogue, partly answering the question raised by the film. To seal it off, I believe that it is conventional wisdom that two wrongs do not make a right, and again, in spite of whatever transgressions that Madhuku or Matombo can be blamed for, they do not turn Gabriel Mugabe into an angel.

The film, “ Robert Mugabe, what Happened” is not a perfect film, but which film is? In my opinion the film is valuable addition to the body of knowledge that exists not only on Robert Mugabe but also on Zimbabwe. It defies the notion that is peddled everyday by ZANU PF that suggests that history ended with the liberation struggle. This it does through a wonderful weaving of pre and post independence footage on the man, his struggles and character.

It touches a bit on the land question and to enthusiasts it does this sparingly. Clearly the Land question still remains an open book in our current political and economic discussions. The film does perhaps something that is not expected from a white film maker, living in England, which is to show how in 1979, Mugabe almost stopped the Lancaster house talks over the land issue, only to be forced back to negotiation table through arm twisting by regional leaders. All the while also stating how Britain initially reneged on its commitments on the matter only to later offer support with strings attached. No one disputes this narrative,   progressive or realistic denies the reality of the land reform program, its necessity and inevitability.  As an open chapter, what is left to deal with? There are several things, primary amongst them a land audit to ascertain where we stand on the matter as a country given the fact that we are an agro based economy and to put paid to allegations that some chiefs have amassed more than their share of the land. Secondly, is perhaps the development and deployment of a depoliticised, objective and progressive thinking on the matter, which has been absent, and as a result has led to the continuous manipulation of the land issue as a political weapon based on falsehoods and calculated political manoeuvres.

As a born free, I find the film as a useful narrative on things that I didn’t live through and some, which I was too young to understand. Having said that, this does not disqualify me as a commentator, but rather allows me not to fall into the trap of a time warp where analysis is trapped and restricted only to a current or a historical perspective.

The question that the film raises is  relevant and couldn’t have been asked at a better time. Robert Mugabe, will always be  different to many, revered liberator to some, brutal dictator to others. His contribution to the liberation of the country from colonialism is huge, his sacrifices revered and appreciated. But in spite of all that, Robert Gabriel Mugabe, has certainly been no Angel Gabriel during his long tenure that is now nearing a generation.