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.

Lesotho…some lessons for Zimbabwe

Lesotho…some lessons for Zimbabwe

Lesotho is a very small country, which shares a boarder with only one country, South Africa, which also completely surrounds it.  Because of its relative obscurity on the map, a lot of things go unnoticed in this mountain kingdom, which has a constitutional monarchy. Of the few times it has grabbed the worlds attention, it has often been on the back on unsavoury political upheavals, coup plots, attempts and actual coup d’états a history that only ended in 1998, after SADC ( led mainly by South Africa and Botswana) intervened.

The recent elections that brought to an end Prime Minister Pakalitha Mosisili are no doubt going to consider a key moment in Lesotho’s own democratic progress, given its soiled history. But even more important are the lessons that the historic election carries for the rest of the region, especially Zimbabwe, which has a troubled electoral history, and which will be headed for an election in the next 12 months.

It is clear that Lesotho is the latest addition to the barrage of nations who have taken their places as part of new wave of democratization. The election, while not perfect had some valuable lessons that countries like Zimbabwe can glean in terms of how to run an election, how to have collaborative partnerships with the international community, How Civic Society and official election management bodies can aid each other in pursuit of shared goals, and also how political parties can also collaborate to ensure that regime change takes place.

Given its political history which is littered with military interventions and meddling in civilian political processes, one of the biggest take outs from the last election in Lesotho is around the role of the military. What was the role of the military in these elections? Nothing. The Military in Lesotho has been able to reform itself from being a meddler and spoiler of democratic processes to a professional force that understands that they are entrusted with the very crucial role of protecting citizens with no major role in the electoral processes. A clear study in contrast with some elements of the Zimbabwean army, who have refused to accept the professionalism and loyalty to country not individuals that is demanded by their station. Choosing instead to operate as political commissars of ZANU PF, and their blant instrument of choice in repressing the people and their will as expressed in elections. This military madness by  just a few high ranking military officials is credited with saving ZANU PF from exiting the state in 2008.

Part of the analysis that is given where Zimbabwe is concerned is that, in 2008, had Mavambo, MDC N and MDC T bandied together, there is very little doubt that the defeat of ZANU PF could have been more decisive that it was, and there could be a different governmental configuration as we speak. The opposition bodies in Lesotho learnt that lesson well, and have been able to turn a seeming defeat into a victory by the opposition forces led by the All Basotho Congress (ABC).  Had the ABC and its 4 counterpart parties not taken this route, the Basotho Congress led by Former Prime Minister Mosili would still be in power today.  The lesson is therefore clear, that political parties in Zimbabwe, especially those other than ZANU PF, need to be aware of themselves and what they can be able to achieve as unitary elements, and see whether their collective intentions are not met better by a coming together of these different forces to face ZANU PF as a common force fighting a common enemy.

Another clear lesson from the Lesotho process is one that is meant for ZANU PF itself. It is a lesson that was given in October of 2011 by the Zambians, when Former President Rupiah Banda accepted electoral defeat paving the way for the ascension to power of President Sata. Mosisli’s acceptance of defeat, especially after his party clearly led on a party by party basis is a not only commendable but surely something that ZANU PF should be able to use to check themselves in the future. Part of the challenge that is there in Zimbabwe is largely because in 2008, the incumbent Robert Mugabe refused to accept defeat to a clearly more popular Morgan Tsvangirai. By 2008, cases of incumbant’s accepting electoral defeat on the African continent were few and far between, but what Lesotho, Zambia and Ghana have given us are close examples not only on the continent but in the region that this is possible, and for those who take this noble route, it has been proven so far that there is life after the presidency both for the former occupier of this institution and for the country.

Given Zimbabwe’s fear of foreign observors, Lesotho was able to show that seeking help in electoral processes and welcoming foreign observors is something that can assist in not only lending credibility to your processes but also in just ensuring that the electoral process is free, fair and effectual in terms of people expressing themselves and that the world can see this. The coordination effort of international observers that was led by the UNDP in Lesotho clearly showed the above. In addition to the above, the last Lesotho election also showed that Election Management bodies, have nothing to fear from civic society, and that if anything their collaboration can be something that is good for the integrity of the electoral process. The Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) in Lesotho worked closely with NGOs to conduct voter education, knowing that it lacked both the human resources and technical expertise, though they had the money. Zimbabwe’s own ZEC needs to take heed of this, and accept that they have nothing to fear except fear itself from accepting the help of clear talented groups like the Zimbabwe Election Support Network (ZSN) and the Elections Resource Centre (ERC). Civic society advocacy programmes and dialogues have helped in facilitating electoral reforms.

So inspite of its size, its own economic challenges and the fact that some of its citizens would rather integrate with South Africa, the “tiny” kingdom of Lesotho, has giant lessons for fellow landlocked SADC country Zimbabwe.

The Political Weaponisation of Disorder … ...reason for Zimbabwe’s predatory polity

The Political Weaponisation of Disorder …

...reason for Zimbabwe’s predatory polity

At the dawn of the new millennium, two scholars, one French Jean Pascal Daloz and the other hailing from London, Patrick Chabal, put together an interesting framework for the analysis of politics and political developments in sub-Saharan Africa. In their book, ‘Africa Works – disorder as political instrument’, they define a phenomenon they call the political instrumentalisation of disorder, as “when politicians maximise their returns on the state of confusion, uncertainty and chaos”. The foregoing definition and their further explanations on their framework of analysis is instructive for any one keeping a close eye on Zimbabwean political developments, and informs part of the analysis attempted below.

Disorder, is defined as a state of confusion or disruption of systematic functioning and neat arrangement. Similes to it include words with negative connotations like chaos, confusion, mess, disarray, shambles, turmoil, lawlessness, anarchy, and ruckus. Disorder is generally discouraged and considered to be an undesirable state, one, which is frowned on and looked down upon. In both Zimbabwean popular and traditional culture “ kushaya order” (disorder) is a damning indictment that can be detrimental to ones chances of love, getting a job, passing at school or generally doing well in many aspects of life. Not so in Zimbabwean Politics.

The undesirable state of disorder, is not just the order of the day, but is actually desired, and where it is absent, it is created or manufactured to ensure political gain.  To borrow Andreas Schedler’s phraseology, disorder is seen as a ‘valued horizon of attainment’ and not a ‘feared horizon of avoidance’. As such, in Zimbabwean politics, disorder seizes to be just a state of being, but a formidable weapon and instrument, especially in the hands of those who are anti-reform, anti-democraticratisaion, anti-change, anti-efficiency, in short…anti-order. In Zimbabwe’s polity, disorder becomes the social equivalent of a medical virus  - undesirable but not too harmful, until it is weaponised. It is this weaponisation of chaos and disorder in our politics that has often proved it hard to correctly understand the state and its main actors and their seemingly illogical decisions, political moves and even survival. Often times, Zimbabwe, as a political question has defied orthodox political theory, and even common sense. This is because the political weaponisation of disorder of necessity demands that common mores of logic and common sense are suspended because of the political windfalls that have accrued to those sponsoring anarchy and disorder.

In Zimbabwe , it has emerged clearly, over the course of a decade, that the merchants of disorder in our politics are primarily the hawks resident in ZANU PF. There are a thousand and one examples that can be sighted as a way of showing cause to the foregoing assertion. Take for instance the conduct of elections in Zimbabwe. Since the year 2000, the process of conducting elections, which ordinarily is supposed to be a systematic, predictable (in terms of process and not the outcome) and orderly process, has often been thrown into deliberate turmoil by bureaucratic bungling, political manipulation of integral processes, the introduction of political violence as part of the process, and of cause the disregard for basic rules of the electoral game. All the above, have thrown, not just the processes of elections, but the entire country into turmoil.

Of late a clear example of the weaponisation of disorder has been the COPAC Led constitution making process. In this process ZANU PF, has deployed its weaponised form of disorder from the get go. Remember the chaos that characterised the 1^st All stakeholders Conference from the 13^th to the 14^th of July 2009. From the bussing in and coaching of a disruptive and retrogressive political vanguard to make unreasonable submissions during the Outreach process, to the sponsoring of disruption on seemingly technical grounds, with clear political intent of disorder, during the drafting process and the submission of new issues post COPAC agreement on a draft. The intent, in all these actions, has been a deliberate attempt to sponsor disorder.  The stating of the bussing and coaching of people during the COPAC process, may insinuate, wrongly, that the deployment of disorder as a political weapon is the province of lumpen elements. Not necessarily. The transformation and deployment of disorder as a political weapon in Zimbabwe’s polity has primarily been the domain of studied political actors, scientists and practioners, who know exactly what they want to achieve through it. Pseudo academics of the ilk of Jonathan Moyo and Tafataona Mahoso have been the primary promoters of disorder through their empty arguments bent on a disruptive politics disguised as intellectual thought.

The Global Political Agreement of September 15 2008 and its resultant governing arrangement has also fallen victim to this retrogressive politics., disorder was carefully deployed to ensure that no progress is made with regards to meaningful implementation of the agreements that the three political parties represented in parliament entered into with the facilitation of the South African Presidency and SADC. The deployment of a weaponised form of disorder is also what has constantly stalled talks between the parties, implementation even of areas agreed on, and it is why Professor Author Mutambara is still Deputy Prime Minister in spite of being rejected by the people of Zengeza in elections on March 29 2008, and being rejected by members of the Political Party that he led at Congress in 2010. The political weaponisation of disorder is why President Robert Mugabe will agree to act on outstanding issues in private with Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, and then publicly act against the agreements. What is worse is also the public denouncement of violence and then in turn, condone, through inaction, acts of violence by members of his political party.

In the Zimbabwean polity, the deployment of a weaponised form of disorder for purpose of capturing and retaining power is not only relegated to the orthodox political field. It has since been transmitted to civil society (including the church and organised civil society). If one is a member of a social movement or NGO, they don’t have to look very far, sometimes, to see how “democratic” actors in democratic and progressive processes in these entities are constantly deploying disorder. But the most glaring example comes from the Anglican Church, where the illegitimate Bishop Kunonga, has adopted a very potent brand of politically sponsored disorder to deal with a legitimate and clearly more popular and more progressive Bishop Chad Gandiya. The instrumentalisation and weaponisation of disorder in the Anglican church has mirrored unfortunate trends from the orthodox political space, which include, but are not limited to, the politicisation of religion, the employment of violence in church matters, the barring of gatherings, and allegations of murder.

However, having made a clear case of the existence of this phenomenon of the instrumentalisation and weaponisation of disorder in our politics, the question that it begs is, to what end and is there a logical explanation to these clear deviations from basic social mores? Unfortunately, there is some rationality to these seemingly irrational actions, and a clear method to the madness that politically weaponised disorder presents. There are many reasons for the deployment of politically weaponised disorder where our politics and polity are concerned; I will mention only three here.

Firstly politically weaponised disorder in spite of some rational to its deployment is not premised on the need to reach some rational ends. The deployment and pervasive presence of disorder is in it self both a means and an end. It is a means to the stalling of progressive action and an end in that chaos as a state of affairs is generally where rogues come into their element. Political rogues thrive in situations of crisis and chaos, and would prefer that chaos to order on any day, because it allows them to act with impunity and continue with their shady dealings under the cover of anarchy. As such even when some arguments are sponsored to promote the disorder, you can be rest assured that this is a case of the devil quoting scriptures; the intent is not to make you a believer but to sway you from the path of righteousness. The most persuasive and reasonable arguments presented to deal with what would have been presented by way of argument, will not make the merchants of disorder move an inch, because what they want is the chaos itself, through the perpetuation of the politics of loud “NOs” devoid of reason.

Secondly, politically weaponised disorder is meant to halt democratic development and progress, leaving the status quo intact. This reason is principally because the assassins or gravediggers of the democratic order know that they benefit the most from limited movement and a return to the status quo. In context, ZANU PF has got no reasons to see the value of a new constitution. They see no value on implementing the reforms that the GPA promotes, which subsequent SADC resolutions of Maputo (November 4 2009), Livingston (March 31 2011), Windhoek (May 23 2011), Sandton (June 12 2011), and Luanda ( June 1 2012 )entail. Changes do not benefit them, and as such their disorder is deployed as a weapon to maintain the status quo, which presents them with continuous opportunities to being part of the state without upsetting the patronage system and the patron that are already in place.

Thirdly, the deployment of politically weaponised disorder creates uncertainty. Uncertainty itself becomes a good ally for assassins or gravediggers of the democratic order because of the benefits that it presents. Opponents in such a situation waste their time trying to get certainty on key issues. In Zimbabwe’s case the issue of when a draft will come out, when a referendum will be held, and when elections will take place, are issues that are shrouded in mystery and uncertainty. The intent would be to spring surprises on everyone (because of the sponsors of disorder’s sole proprietorship of key knowledge and information) while they are busy with trying to find certainty under conditions of uncertainty that have been deliberately created by disorder.

The notion of politically weaponised disorder is neither a new phenomenon nor exclusive to Zimbabwe, as Chabal and Daloz explain, it is an Africa-wide phenomenon. In spite of its prevalent use and sponsorship on the continent, politically weaponised disorder has always been defeated by a constant focus on enforcing order by progressives. In as much as you do not fight lies with lies (you fight them with the truth and truth doesn’t lie), disorder cannot be fought with disorder, it is best fought by its anti-thesis, order.

Order, in Zimbabwe’s case, entails the constant focus on reforms, constant campaigning to see processes through rather than hijacked or halted midway. Most importantly it entails exposing the merchants of disorder for who they are and what they stand for – retrogressive elements bent on standing still when there is a fire catching up with us and our natural instincts tell us to move on and survive. Such predatory and disorderly instincts do not bode well for the promotion of our country from its current state of democratic, economic and social disrepair to a more sane and progressive order.

OF BALLOTS, BULLETS AND REVOLUTIONS

The Ballot or the Bullet

In 1964, Civil Rights activist Malcolm X made a seminal speech, which is generally referred to as the “ The Ballot or the Bullet”. In the speech, he declared that 1964 would be the year of either the ballot or the bullet, and that black Americans needed to make their choice from the two. Malcolm, who was the more radical of the crop of Civil Rights activists at that time, made the case that freedom for the black man needed to be attained by any means necessary. At that time, the words he spoke transcended religion but were steeped in colour. The reason why the speech was seminal then, and is today is because the relevance of the question even after nominal freedom was attained for the black man on the African continent.

In 2011, a number of countries on the African continent were faced with similar questions around the ballot or the bullet. The unfortunate thing is that on the continent this question is often a Hobson’s choice, a choice that is non-existent as the answer has often enough proved to be both – the ballot and the bullet. This unfortunate circumstance, which has seen a number of countries being plunged into civil strife and prolonged fighting between siblings and countryman has been largely as a result of recalcitrant, ruthless, brutal, frugal and undemocratic regimes who deliberately place a low premium on the ballot, using the bullet to supress it.

In the recent past, cases in point from the continent would include but not be limited to The Ivory Coast, Kenya, and Madagascar. In addition to these countries, which answered, both, the continent is replete with countries in which the choice is non-existent in real terms. The consequences of the absence of regime change via the ballot have had dire consequences, and the countries that were party to the Arab spring are testimony to this. Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya for long periods of time were countries in which the option of changing regimes through elections was non-existent, leaving people with limited choices between, not the ballot or the bullet, but the bullet and the bullet, because often enough a choice to protest even peacefully, as can be seen from the Syrian experience is a choice of the bullet, with the protestor on the receiving end.

In the absence of the peaceful and constitutional contest for power through credible elections, the other options, as can be seen by circumstances that the “Arab Spring” countries find themselves in, are options that do not auger well for peace, stability and even democratisation itself. While the revolutions in Libya and Egypt are worth celebrating because of their ability to remove die in the cast dictators, the on-going life of protest and the insecurity that comes from having gun totting militants roaming free is not a choice that one takes easily, and shows the extent to which people were desperate for a new political order in these countries. While it is easy to talk revolution, and to salute revolutionaries, it is clear that in the 21^st century more civilised means of attaining freedom have to be given prominence.

In 2012, Zimbabwe is faced with the question that Malcolm x posed in 1964. Is this the year of the Ballot or the Bullet? On the strength of a lived reality by a lot of Zimbabweans during the war of liberation where the bullet was left as the only choice, and also the carnage that is currently taking place in Syria,  the challenges faced by the people of Libya and the instability in Egypt, it would seem like the ballot is the easy choice. In fact, where Zimbabwe is concerned the ballot should be the only choice.

The ballot, granted, was secured in 1980 through the bullet. The fact that the bullet was used to secure the ballot as a reasonable choice of going about political business shows how important the ballot is. Looked at in perspective, the struggle for self-determination and one-man one vote in Zimbabwe is one that a lot of people, some who are still in our midst, scarified a lot for. The estimated costs in Human life of the struggle for liberation in Zimbabwe is put at a conservative 30,000 while thousands came out of the war physically scared for life through one form of disability or the other, the number balloons to despairing levels if you include the mental scars of that revolution.

Having cost so much, the right for Zimbabweans to choose their leaders in a politically acceptable non-physical manner deserves to be protected. Common sense would dictate that those who lived through the reality of war would understand the value of protecting the gains of that struggle. But unfortunately as is often said, common sense is not always so common. 

Paulo Freire put it nicely when he postulated that due to political socialisation, there was always a danger that the liberator could easily become the next oppressor, because he or she has not seen any other way of governing. He postulated that for a lot of freedom fighters, “ to be is to be like, and to be like is to be like the oppressor”.

However, since the struggle for liberation was about liberating Zimbabweans, and contrary to popular history, was waged in different ways, not just by President Robert Mugabe and ZANU PF, but also by the generality of the black population, it is the responsibility of every Zimbabwean to safe guard the supremacy of the ballot. ZANU PF cannot be allowed to monopolise that history, and fighting credentials. It cannot be allowed to preside over the cannibalisation of our struggle through the process of allowing our 32-year-old revolution to consume its own children.

The struggle for liberation in this country, while being for land and empowerment of the majority population, was also about the sacrosanctity of the vote. In 1978, the Commander of the Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army (ZANLA) said, ‘Our demand is just and legitimate. We demand a free and fair election where international observers will oversee.’ Most of those entrusted with presiding over the new state in 1980 seem to be forgetting this, and need to be reminded not just by those who fought side by side with them, but by every Zimbabwean that we do not want the bullet in any way, shape or form as an option in our politics.

It needs to be unequivocal that the people of Zimbabwe, given a choice between the ballot and the bullet, declare that the struggle over that choice was fought and won in 1980, and that the Ballot is the only choice that will be entertained.

It is clear that a revolution is needed in Zimbabwe, but given the foregoing that revolution has to be a ballot revolution. Executing the Ballot revolution, is a simple 5 step process which every Zimbabwean can participate in irrespective of their physical built, sex, gender, race or liberation war credentials. It entails us fighting for democratic electoral reforms, demanding that violence plays no part in our politics, registering to vote, Voting In Peace (being a VIP) and defending our ballots against any attempts to subvert them. So we choose the ballot, and declare that Zimbabw

COMMONWEALTH FELLOWS APPALLED BY CONVICTION OF COLLEAGUE URGES COURT TO RECANT DECISION

COMMONWEALTH FELLOWS APPALLED BY CONVICTION OF COLLEAGUE URGES COURT TO RECANT DECISION

20 March 2012- Six Zimbabweans currently in London as Commonwealth Professional Fellows (CPF) hosted by the Royal Commonwealth Society (RCS) are appalled by the groundless conviction of six social justice and human rights activists on 19 March. One of those convicted was Tafadzwa Antonater Choto, who was awarded a Commonwealth Professional Fellowship in 2011 (CPF) but unable to take it up as she was arrested and her passport confiscated for allegedly watching video footage of the Arab Spring protests at an academic meeting convened in Harare.

Harare Regional Magistrate Kudakwashe Jarabini on Monday 19 March 2012 convicted Munyaradzi Gwisai, anti-debt campaigner Hopewell Gumbo, Choto, the director of the Zimbabwe Labour Centre, student leader Welcome Zimuto, and social activists Eddson Chakuma and Tatenda Mombeyarara of violating section 188 as read with section 36 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act for allegedly conspiring to commit public violence.

The six activists, were among 45 people arrested in February 2011, during an academic meeting where a video on the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt was shown, now await sentence, which according to their lawyers could be a fine or imprisonment for a period of six to ten years or both.

This is a clear case of political persecution of innocent human rights defenders meant to deprive society of the opportunity to learn the truth about alternative democratic processes that have proved to be popular on the African and Arabic continent.

_{Director of the Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition, McDonald Lewanika,} also a Commonwealth Professional Fellow, stated that, “The trial was a deeply flawed show trial meant to strike fear in the hearts and minds of bonafide Human Rights Defenders, who have been executing legitimate work in Zimbabwe to promote democracy, good governance and above all conscientising Zimbabweans of their constitutionally guaranteed rights.”

Lewanika added that, “From the beginning, the arrest, and the torture meted on the activists and their trial had all the hallmarks of political persecution meant to clampdown on dissenting voices.”

“Such medieval actions blemishes Zimbabwe as the only country which penalizes its citizens for merely watching television and discussing world trends and events,” said Kumbirai Mafunda, one of the Commonwealth Fellows, who is also a media and human rights campaigner.

With its disrespect of basic human rights and democratic standards, the government of Zimbabwe is increasingly isolating its Government and worst of all, its people from the rest of the world.

This is clearly part of the reason why Zimbabwean authorities elected to opt out of the Commonwealth so as to escape censure and scrutiny from their peers in light of Commonwealth values which uphold democracy, human rights, rule of law, and independence of the judiciary amongst others.

The contemptuous conduct of the police, who arrested and severely tortured the activists while in police custody to the flawed evidence relied upon by the State in court right through to the malevolent conviction and sentence portrays a government that is suffering from persecutory delusional disorder, which is typical of paranoid States.

Dhananjayan Sriskandarajah, the Director of the RCS also added that, “A lot of Commonwealth organisations are disturbed by this development. Many of us are working towards the eventual return of Zimbabwe to the Commonwealth of Nations are worried about the signal the conviction and sentencing of Tafadzwa and her colleagues sends about the Government of Zimbabwe’s commitment to Commonwealth principles and values. The RCS sympathises with the families of the six activists, and the brave lawyers who defended them.”

ENDS

For more information contact McDonald Lewanika on +44 7413471892