In June 2001 I wrote that the political tide in Zimbabwe had turned and that the process of change was inevitable. Nothing has happened since then to alter my view except that we are now only two months away from a watershed election that will enable Zimbabweans to vote into power a man who has a vision for a new non violent, peaceful, transparent, democratic and prosperous Zimbabwe. That man is Morgan Tsvangirai. Because of the hardships that virtually all Zimbabweans are experiencing at present there are many who find it hard to believe that Morgan Tsvangirai can become President of Zimbabwe, much as they desire that to happen. Mugabe has, after all, said that Tsvangirai will "never, ever" rule and is doing all in his power to make that prediction a reality.

2001 has been a very tough year for most Zimbabweans. We knew it would be that way, and warned of it. The last few months have been the toughest: rampant inflation, increased violence, politically motivated detentions, selective application of the "law" and the passing of new unjust laws and policies have combined to plunge many into the depths of depression.

Very little that ZANU (PF) has done has come as a surprise to us. The events of this year have not been random or unplanned. On the contrary they have been part of a deliberate campaign by Mugabe and to subdue the Zimbabwean people. Mugabe has used a combination of physical and psychological measures to crush opposition to his tyrannical rule. The physical measures are fairly obvious: bombing the Daily News, threatening the Judiciary, murdering, beating and detaining members of the MDC, forcing farmers off the land, assaulting and displacing thousands of farm workers and raiding businesses and industry.

The psychological measures are less obvious but far more effective in undermining morale. And there have been many; indeed the pervasiveness of all the measures is staggering and requires listing. The passing of the Citizenship Act mid year and its deliberate misinterpretation by the Registrar General ("requiring" people to renounce a mere entitlement to citizenship of another country) has thrown many into a frenzy. The insidious threat of immediate eviction of farmers, and the barring of them from reaping their crops already planted, posed by Statutory Instrument 338 in November caused many farmers to lose all hope. The termination of Radio 1, and its subsequent replacement by first "Sport" and then, ridiculously, "Spot" Radio was deliberately done to depress people who enjoyed their programmes. Then there are all the rumors deliberately fed into the system: "10000 Libyans in the country as part of hit squads", "arms imported to deal with the opposition" and even the pathetic "Coltart evacuates family". All of these are designed to depress and to induce a sense of panic.

One would have thought that, having introduced such a wide array of measures, he would have succeeded in crushing opposition to his rule. However the last few weeks have seen Mugabe’s regime resorting to new, and increasingly desperate, measures. They have murdered their own as a pretext to detain, and brand, the MDC as "terrorists". The Public Order and Security Bill, "POSB", has been introduced in Parliament to prevent criticism of the President, to stifle peaceful forms of protest (such as civil disobedience) and create State of Emergency conditions without actually having to declare a State of Emergency. Likewise the "no" Access to Information Bill has been introduced with the clear intention of silencing independent journalists and the media. Finally, in a complete negation of the liberation struggle cry of "one person one vote", ZANU (PF)’s proposed amendments to the Electoral Act will make it harder for Zimbabweans to register as voters and more difficult for Zimbabwean civil society to observe and monitor the elections. All of these betray Mugabe’s sense of panic – he is are no longer confident that he can win an election even if it is fought in the extremely unfair conditions, which prevailed in the 2000 Parliamentary election. As draconian as these measures are, more than anything else they constitute an admission by ZANU (PF) that their violent and unlawful strategies have failed and they are now in deep trouble in the run up to the Presidential election.

For all the depression felt by many Zimbabweans the fact remains that this regime would not be resorting to such extreme measures if Mugabe were confident of winning the election. If those committed to democracy feel depressed it is nothing compared to the desperation and paranoia prevailing in the Mugabe camp, which is due to three critical factors working against them.

In summary these are: (1) the incredible turn around and support of the international community in the course of 2001, (2) the amazing courage and determination of Zimbabweans to secure change in the face of violence and tyranny and (3) the emergence of a government in waiting, led by a charismatic and competent leader, ready to lead Zimbabwe to a peaceful and prosperous future.

It may seem trite but Zimbabwe cannot survive without the support of the international community. Zimbabwe is relatively weak, landlocked and oil-less. Correspondingly both ZANU (PF) and the MDC cannot survive without the support of the international community. ZANU (PF), because it cannot hope to restore the economy and govern in the long term without that support. The MDC, because it does not have the physical power itself to guarantee a free and fair election. The views of the International Community regarding what is happening in Zimbabwe are therefore equally important to the MDC and ZANU (PF). ZANU (PF) needed the international community to buy its argument that land is the core issue and that it is an innocent actor. The MDC needed the international community to buy its argument that good governance is the core issue.

It was with this in mind that Mugabe selected his cabinet. For example his choice of Jonathan Moyo as Information Minister was not made with Zimbabweans in mind but rather with the international community, and especially SADC, in mind. When ZANU (PF) came within a whisker of losing the June 2000 election they realized then that they would battle to win the first-past-the-post-countrywide Presidential election. To win they would have to implement the fast track land programme and increase levels of intimidation and violence. But it recognized early on that it would have to create elaborate smokescreens because it could not embark on such schemes with impunity unless ZANU (PF) could portray itself as a relatively innocent actor. Mugabe knows that he will still have to govern Zimbabwe after the election and that he will not be able to do so without international assistance. In other words not only did ZANU (PF) have to get the international community to buy its argument as to what the cause of the strife within Zimbabwe was, but also it had to get the international community to turn a blind eye to abuses of human rights so that Mugabe’s government would be recognized and aid would flow after the election. And so Jonathan Moyo’s task has been to convey to the world that ZANU (PF) is merely responding to people pressure for land and that Morgan Tsvangirai and the MDC are unreconstructed "terrorists". If the international community, and especially SADC, bought into ZANU (PF)’s argument, ZANU (PF) could subvert the electoral process with impunity. Mugabe cynically calculated that the West would apply a different standard to Zimbabwe ("African elections are violent") and that African nations would be sympathetic to the argument that the land invasions were uncontrollable and that in any event the MDC was just as violent as ZANU (PF). In other words he calculated that he would be able to get away with bludgeoning his way to electoral victory and that the international community would simply forgive and forget after he resumed the presidency.

The MDC has had to counter massive internal and international propaganda of ZANU (PF) that land was the core issue, that the violence was not of ZANU (PF)’s making but part of "spontaneous demonstrations" by landless people and that the MDC was a violent neo-colonial outfit designed to return Zimbabwe to Rhodesia

The MDC has faced a daunting task to overcome this strategy. Not only is Zimbabwe a tiny country with an inconsequential economy on the world’s forgotten continent, but also it had to contend with western skepticism and ignorance. Added to that it was up against a government that was prepared to use millions of taxpayers’ money to employ lobbyists. But the MDC has won this battle.

To demonstrate this it is appropriate to start with the United States of America. Both ZANU (PF) and the MDC recognized that the approach of the USA was critically important, not just because it is so powerful but in particular because it holds so much sway in South Africa. That is why ZANU (PF) employed American lobbyists Cohen and Woods and subsequently Andrew Young to do its bidding in Washington. Cohen and Woods had much fertile ground to work with when they started. Successive MDC delegations to Washington in 2000 found that many influential members of the all-important Congressional Black Caucus still viewed Mugabe as a "liberator". Others had bought into the ZANU (PF) line that the chaos was the result of an unresolved colonial, and racial, legacy.

The tragic events of September 11^th initially appeared to make the MDC’s task harder. The international media turned its attention elsewhere and it seemed to many hoping for democratic change in Zimbabwe that Mugabe had the perfect cover. But our fears have not been realized for, far from it going off the radar screen, Zimbabwe has come into sharp focus in the minds of many influential Americans since the 11^th September.

The first inkling of this was given when United States District Judge Victor Marrero handed down his 130 page judgment on the 30^th October 2001 in the case brought against Mugabe for damages by Adella Chiminya, Maria Stevens and others who have lost loved ones at the hands of Mugabe’s thugs. Judge Marrero found that Tapfuma Chiminya, David Stevens and the other loved ones were, because of their support for the MDC, "extra judicially murdered …by operatives of ZANU (PF) operating in concert with or significantly aided by high-ranking Zimbabwe government officials acting outside the color of state law". However the Judge found that he could not grant judgment against Mugabe because he enjoyed head-of-state immunity. The Judge was clearly pained by this and as he said "the enormity of the atrocities". Accordingly he qualified his judgment by stating:

Then significantly the Judge, who sits in New York, made a telling link between the case at hand and the events of 11^th September by stating:

Having made that link of terror the Judge concluded by calling for the law to "stand ready to adapt as appropriate, to shape, redress and remedy so as to answer measure for measure the particular evil it pursues" and granting judgment against the only entity he could, namely ZANU (PF). I have dwelt on this judgment because it illustrates what informed ordinary apolitical Americans think about what is going on in Zimbabwe, who is responsible for terror in this country and what should be done about it. The judgment also decisively placed Mugabe on the wrong side of President Bush’s fence dividing those who oppose and those who support terrorism throughout the world.

Ironically both Mugabe and Jonathan Moyo have further compounded their predicament since the beginning of November. Mugabe, in an emotional speech given on the 18^th November, said that he would not be dictated to by those "in their tall towers" in the West and accused Tony Blair of being involved in acts of terrorism in Zimbabwe. In mid November the ZBC, which falls under Moyo’s command, started mimicking CNN’s by-line "The fight against terrorism" to describe ZANU (PF)’s crack down on the MDC. These actions demean America’s legitimate fight against real terrorists and lost Mugabe any remaining friends he might have still had in America.

The first sign of this loss of support was given in the photograph of Jesse Jackson congratulating Daily News editor Geoff Nyarota (who had just received a press freedom award in Washington) on the 28^th November. Jackson, it will be recalled, has been in the past a Mugabe apologist. Jackson’s action in meeting Nyarota was a harbinger of things to come. In early December the House of Representatives was called upon to vote on the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Bill. ZANU (PF) thought that the Congressional Black Caucus would vote against it. But in a truly historic vote the Bill passed by 369 votes to 11. Not a single member of the CBC voted against it and the 369 affirmative votes included every informed and influential member of the CBC. So much for Mugabe’s assertion that this is only a racist Jesse Helms Bill! The action of the CBC in this regard demonstrates the determination of all Americans to fight terrorism in whatever forms it appears and is a damning indictment against Mugabe. The strong language used by highly respected former Chairperson of the CBC, Donald Payne, in supporting the language must have shaken Mugabe and ZANU (PF) to the core.

The signing of the Zimbabwe Democracy Economic Recovery Bill (ZIDERA) into law by President Bush just before Christmas completed the transformation, in the minds of Americans, of Mugabe from African statesman to tyrant and marked the beginning of a new chapter. The Act in itself is graphic evidence of the failure of ZANU (PF)’s propaganda campaign and an acceptance that the lack of good governance in Zimbabwe is at the core of Zimbabwe’s crisis. More worrying for Mugabe and his henchmen is the fact that ZIDERA signals America’s determination to assist in the democratization of Zimbabwe. If Mugabe does not hold free and fair elections there will be dramatic consequences for the ZANU (PF) elite in the form of personal sanctions. Gone too is Mugabe’s argument that the Zimbabwe crisis is simply a spat with its former colonial master, Britain. Finally, America’s lead will have, and already has had, a powerful influence over the way the EU, SADC, and the Commonwealth deal with the problem.

The transformation of the EU’s approach to the Zimbabwean crisis over the last year has been equally remarkable. At the beginning of 2001 France, Belgium and, to a lesser extent Spain, were not convinced that the MDC’s version of what lay at the core of Zimbabwe’s problems was correct. That attitude was complicated by the fact that France and Belgium appeared to be reluctant to jeopardize their relationship with Mugabe because of concerns related to Zimbabwe’s involvement in the Congo. Without the support of France and Belgium, forthright action against Zimbabwe in the EU would have been difficult if not impossible. The turn around of France and Belgium on the 29^th October, when they voted with the rest of the EU to invoke Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement (the precursor to sanctions against Zimbabwe) surprised many of us in the MDC and was deeply shocking to ZANU (PF) – they just never believed that their erstwhile friends would do such a thing. The depth of their shock was displayed when Mugabe walked out (in a huff) of a meeting with senior EU ambassadors in Harare on the 23^rd November. This is the man who used to be able to charm world leaders and who has successfully pulled the wool over the eyes of democratically elected leaders for decades. He finally lost his cool and let his guard down because he realized that the game is up. The bottom line is the EU is now also an avowed enemy of ZANU (PF) and former supporters of the party such as Sweden are vilified. The reason: the EU also has firmly rejected ZANU (PF)’s propaganda line and is demanding that there be free and fair elections and good governance. If there are not Article 96 will be pursued vigorously.

Zimbabweans have been extremely critical, with good cause, of the Commonwealth over the last two years. It all started with Secretary General McKinnon’s disastrous assurance given just before the June 2000 election that Mugabe would act decently. Since then there have been a succession of wishy-washy Commonwealth statements and actions (or more appropriately inactions) that have discredited the organisation. It is not surprising that ZANU (PF) until recently were happy to have the Commonwealth monitor Zimbabwean elections. The strongly worded statement, that the situation constituted a "serious and persistent violation of the Commonwealth’s fundamental political values", emanating from the Commonwealth Ministers’ Action Group (CMAG) on the 20^th December would have shocked ZANU (PF). CMAG resolved to review the situation at its next meeting, to be held on the 30^th January 2002, and Zimbabwe has been placed on the formal agenda of the meeting, in itself a statement that the Zimbabwean crisis is now sufficiently serious to merit special attention. Not even the Commonwealth now buys into ZANU (PF)’s agenda.

Accordingly by the end of 2001 a broad coalition of the United States, the EU and the Commonwealth emerged. All are determined to ensure that Zimbabwe has free and fair Presidential elections. The only apparent source of comfort to ZANU (PF) was the statement issued by some SADC Ministers on the 12^th December welcoming the "improved atmosphere" in Zimbabwe. ZANU (PF) has made much of this statement, which has led many to believe that SADC is going to look the other way and allow ZANU (PF) to abuse the electoral process. Whilst there is no doubt that some SADC countries, which are themselves undemocratic, support ZANU (PF) it would be wrong to assume that the SADC Ministers’ statement represents the views of the most influential countries in the region. It is pertinent to note that Ministers from Angola and Namibia dominated the SADC meeting and that Ministers from South Africa and Botswana left the meeting prior to its conclusion.

Indeed far from SADC looking the other way there are signs that democratic leaders in the region are increasingly concerned about Zimbabwe. Festus Mogae, the President of Botswana, openly criticized Mugabe and his war veterans in an interview in the Sunday Times on the 11^th November. During the week commencing the 26^th November President Mbeki spoke out against what was happening in Zimbabwe on no less than 3 separate occasions. On the 20^th December a high ranking ANC delegation arrived in Harare for talks with ZANU (PF) and prior to its arrival the SABC announced that part of its mission was to secure free and fair elections. It is highly significant that neither party at the conclusion of the talks made any press release and save for one article in the Herald claiming, without any supporting statement from the ANC, that the ANC was in solidarity with ZANU (PF), the ZANU (PF) propaganda machine has been remarkably quiet about the visit. If anything the government controlled media and Jonathan Moyo have spent most of December criticizing South Africa. In the December 18^th edition of the Chronicle there was a vicious cartoon portraying Nelson Mandela as a lackey of Bush and Blair. In Parliament on the 18^th December Jonathan Moyo said: "Those who see the likes of the BBC, CNN and SABC as voices of democracy are either naïve or plain mad". Subsequently Moyo stated in a press conference that the South African media were still under the control of apartheid forces. Throughout December there was a sustained attack on the ANC in the Herald implying that it was now being influenced by, and had sold out to, the New Nationalist Party. Clearly ZANU (PF) now perceives the ANC as an enemy because it too is insisting on a fair electoral process.

The real test of who is in control of SADC and what the most powerful States in SADC think about the Zimbabwean situation will be shown when the SADC Heads of State meet in Malawi on the 13^th January. Whatever happens there however what is now clear is that a very powerful coalition comprising the United States, the European Union, an overwhelming majority of democratic Commonwealth countries and the two most powerful neighbours of Zimbabwe, South Africa and Botswana, has emerged during the course of 2001. This coalition is determined to ensure that free and fair elections take place and has come to the conclusion that whilst the land issue is an important unresolved issue, the principal problem is the absence of good governance. The MDC now has the most powerful and influential countries on earth singing from the same hymn sheet as it and this particular hurdle is now firmly overcome. There will be no going back on the international community’s insistence that free and fair elections be held in compliance with the SADC Electoral Norms and Standards as passed by the SADC Parliamentary Forum in Windhoek in March 20001. ZANU (PF) will only snub that insistence at its peril.

One final thought: once a politician, or a political party for that matter, is marked as a pariah the stain is indelible. There is now nowhere for Mugabe to hide. Either he complies with the international community and holds elections in compliance with the SADC Standards, in which case he will lose by a mile, or he does not, in which case if he manages to win the result will not be recognized by the countries which count in the region and the world in any event.

Of course it doesn’t matter what the international community thinks if an overwhelming majority of people within the country concerned back the policies of its government. History shows us that regimes, which enjoy the backing of a significant majority of its people, can ride the storm of international opprobrium for some time, especially if they have strong economies. Zimbabwe, to put it mildly, does not have a strong economy and so if Mugabe is to fly in the face of world opinion he will need the support of a significant majority, not just to win the election but also to endure the hardship of international isolation.

In the run up to the 2000 Parliamentary election I speculated about three possible scenarios. The first, and most negative from an MDC perspective, was that the MDC would win a majority of seats in the cities but because of intimidation would only win a smattering of rural seats and as a result would only win about 30 seats countrywide. The second was that the MDC would win convincingly in the cities and in certain rural areas that were traditionally anti ZANU (PF) and would garner between 50 and 60 votes. The third was that the MDC would win the cities and all rural areas aside from ZANU (PF)’s heartland and in doing so would win a Parliamentary majority of between 80 and 90 seats. In all my talks given at the time I believed that the second scenario was the most likely. The reason I mention this is that at the time I did not make outlandish predictions. I firmly believed, from the evidence before me at the time that ZANU (PF)’s intimidation of certain areas was still effective and as a result we could not win in those areas. Furthermore it was apparent that ZANU (PF) was still sufficiently unified to retain substantial support in its heartland.

From the evidence before me now I believe that, despite intimidation, electoral fraud and dirty tricks, there could well be a landslide victory in favour of MDC President Morgan Tsvangirai. I say so for the following reasons:

1. The MDC and Morgan Tsvangirai are now known and respected by both Zimbabweans and the international community (including SADC) whereas in 2000 they were not. The MDC came from ground zero to win 57 seats and 46% of the vote. That was achieved without a single elected structure in the party aside from the National Executive. The people of Zimbabwe now know there is a viable alternative government in waiting comprised of a young dynamic leadership committed to non-violence and the establishment of a genuinely democratic order.

2. The MDC’s overwhelming support in urban areas is rock solid. The 82% majority achieved in the Bulawayo Mayoral election will be repeated in Harare, Gweru and Mutare. The recent victory in the Chegutu Mayoral election (right in ZANU (PF)’s heartland – and it is important to recall that we lost the Parliamentary seat in Chegutu in 2000, so we have gained ground) shows just how extensive our support is in urban areas.

3. The MDC’s overwhelming support in the rural areas of Matabeleland has grown since the 2000 elections. Matabeleland North Province voted "Yes" (in favour of ZANU (PF) in the February 2000 referendum) and it was somewhat of a surprise when the MDC won every seat in the Province in June 2000. The reason for the surprise is that people in the Province suffered the brunt of the North Korean trained Fifth Brigade’s brutality in the 1980s. It is a Province still traumatized by those horrors. ZANU (PF) threatened a return of the Fifth Brigade in 2000 but it did not work. Since then ZANU (PF) has not been able to carry out its threat. Whilst ZANU (PF) has deployed army in the area to intimidate people they simply cannot afford to replicate the actions of the 5 Brigade because we live in a changed world – and the people living there know it. From information coming in to the MDC the rural people of Matabeleland will vote even more convincingly for President Tsvangirai than they did for individual MDC candidates. Let it not be forgotten as well that they also have far more reason to vote against Mugabe than they did against individual ZANU (PF) candidates. Mugabe after all is perceived by voters in the region as the architect of the 1980 atrocities.

4. People living in the southern part of Midlands Province have a very similar outlook to those living in rural Matabeleland. That was demonstrated in the June 2000 elections when the MDC won all the Midlands seats south west of Kadoma. That support remains secure. In addition we are greatly encouraged by growing levels of support in the south east of Midlands including Zvishavane and areas bordering Masvingo Province (for reasons which will be explained later). We lost some of these constituencies heavily in 2000 and so the turn around in support has been remarkable. The only part of Midlands which remains problematic is the north west, the Gokwe area which has been heavily intimidated by ZANU (PF). But even there courageous MDC activists are holding the line and we will, at the very least, pick up the same number of votes we did in 2000, even if that is not a majority in those areas.

5. In June 2000 we won all the seats in Manicaland along the eastern border by comfortable majorities save for Chipinge South, which was won by the ZANU Ndonga party. ZANU Ndonga, which up until his death in December 2000 was led by veteran Nationalist Ndabaningi Sithole, has held the Chipinge South seat with a large majority for over a decade. When Sithole died he should have been buried in Heroes Acre in Harare because of the major role he played in the liberation of Zimbabwe. However because of Mugabe’s vindictive and petty nature he was not and so was buried in the Chipinge district, Mugabe did not, obviously, attend the funeral but MDC President Tsvangirai did. In doing so Mugabe lost a great deal of support to Tsvangirai in this area (the two Chipinge seats have approximately 100,000 eligible voters between them). It is doubtful that ZANU Ndonga will even field a Presidential candidate. The MDC lost the western Manicaland seats by narrow majorities, including of course President Tsvangirai’s Buhera North seat (a loss subsequently set aside by the High Court due to irregularities). Since June 2000 MDC support in most of these areas has grown dramatically and, for example, President Tsvangirai is attracting massive crowds to his rallies in Buhera. In other words it now appears that the known quantity (see paragraph 1 above!) is now overwhelmingly popular. And finally who would criticize a bit of parochialism in these areas if they were to vote for a homeboy for President of Zimbabwe?! Whilst it does not always work – Al Gore lost in Tennessee – all the indications are that Manicaland Province will vote overwhelmingly for a local candidate as Texas did for George Bush.

6. The three Mashonaland rural Provinces are ZANU (PF)’s heartland as demonstrated by their by-election victories there during 2001. It would be overly optimistic to expect President Tsvangirai to win a majority of votes in these Provinces which combined have a total of some 1,4 million registered voters. However what was significant about the 2001 by elections is that the MDC despite violence, bussing in of ZANU (PF) voters (which cannot be done as successfully in the Presidential elections) and electoral fraud, still managed to secure some 40% of the vote. Simple arithmetic shows that even if this trend continues Mugabe’s 60% of the vote in these areas, say 840000 votes, will almost be set off entirely by Tsvangirai’s vote in Harare alone (80% of the 800000 registered voters = 640000). But there are recent signs that Mugabe cannot even be assured of maintaining the margin enjoyed in 2000. The MDC victory in Chegutu must have stunned Mugabe for Chegutu is in Mashonaland West Province and only some 50 kms from Mugabe’s rural home – one can’t get much closer to the heart than that. The point is that even if Mugabe does secure a majority, even an overwhelming majority, in these areas it is simply not enough to overcome the deficit he faces in other areas.

7. I have deliberately left the most heavily populated rural Province, Masvingo, until last. In 2000 the MDC won only 2 seats, Masvingo Central, an urban seat, and surprisingly Bikita West, a rural seat, the latter by a whisker. Bikita West was lost by the MDC to ZANU (PF) in a violent and fraudulently run by-election in January 2001 but, importantly, maintained its core support in that by-election. The MDC also won the Masvingo City Mayoral election in mid 2001. However in most of the Masvingo seats contested in 2000 the MDC lost fairly heavily. Things have however changed and once again Mugabe is his own worst enemy. Eddison Zvobgo is a veteran Nationalist politician and a ZANU (PF) stalwart. Prior to 2000 ZANU (PF) used to boast that Masvingo Province was "one party territory" and it would be fair to say that Zvobgo was the linchpin of the Province, if not its "King". Zvobgo to this day remains highly popular throughout Masvingo Province. However Mugabe inexplicably dropped Zvobgo from the cabinet and from the ZANU (PF) politburo in 2000 and since then Zvobgo has been in ZANU (PF)’s political wilderness. Zvobgo has even been ridiculed in the government-controlled press. In the Chronicle dated 7^th January 2002 a ZANU (PF) cabinet minister as "an absent child of the party". These actions have clearly angered many people in Masvingo Province and it is doubtful if that they will vote for Mugabe in the same numbers as voted for individual ZANU (PF) members in June 2000. For example Zvobgo alone secured some 14000 votes to secure his Masvingo South Constituency; Mugabe is hardly likely to secure similar support, if any at all, in that Constituency given the way he has treated Zvobgo. But it gets worse for Mugabe. A Gallup poll conducted late last year showed a massive swing in support towards the MDC and Tsvangirai and the results of that poll have been borne out by the superb turn out at rallies in the Province addressed by both MDC President Tsvangirai and Vice President Gibson Sibanda. It must be stressed that this is a Province of some 600,000 registered voters. Even with its support in 2000 ZANU (PF) only secured 48% of the vote countrywide. If Masvingo changes its allegiances even slightly in favour of Tsvangirai that will give him a landslide victory countrywide.

The net result of this painstaking exercise of going through the country Province by Province is that it demonstrates that the MDC and its President Tsvangirai now enjoy majority support in some two thirds of the physical area of Zimbabwe and the support of some three quarters of the population. If one takes a map of Zimbabwe and one draws a line eastwards starting at Lake Kariba, on the north eastern boundary of Binga constituency, continuing up the eastern boundary of Gokwe in a north westerly direction to eventually encircle Harare, continuing in a southerly direction (to exclude Chikomba Constituency) and thereafter northeastwards to end at the Mozambique border north of Nyanga, one will see the extent of MDC’s support. An overwhelming majority of people who live south of that line now supports the MDC and President Tsvangirai. Everything below that line includes all the cities and most the rural areas. North of the line only includes the Gokwe area of Midlands Province and the three rural Mashonaland Provinces.

In the face of this, and only just over two months away from the Presidential election, all ZANU (PF) has to offer the people is violence. ZANU (PF)’s principal campaign platform of land to the people has been exposed for what it is, a sham. During the Christmas recess I have personally witnessed in two entirely separate areas, hundred of kilometers apart, occupiers having moved off land already occupied to plant crops in their communal land fields. Whilst that is obviously not the case countrywide even taking ZANU (PF)’s distorted figures only some 100,000 people have "benefited" from the so-called fast track land programme. Even those have simply been dumped on land without being given title, without the provision of water, schools, clinics and roads. In other words the vast majority of the some 6 million eligible voters have not benefited one iota from what is the nub of ZANU (PF)’s platform, indeed they are struggling more than ever before. In recent weeks it has emerged that many of the best farms have been reserved for Mugabe’s cronies. So much for "land to the people"!

ZANU (PF) has simply not addressed the key issue that is affecting everyone in the country, namely the collapsing economy and increasing poverty. Ironically even the ZANU (PF) campaign advertisements published in the last few days acknowledge this: "Say no to artificial shortages!" – "Vote for price controls!" The advertisements are an admission that under Mugabe’s government there are shortages and high prices which need controlling. Hardly a great reason to vote for the person responsible!

Finally violence is increasingly counter-productive for ZANU (PF). The people of Zimbabwe have simply had enough and their level of anger now far surpasses their level of fear. In short they simply want a change and a new start, not the same old man for another 6 years. And for those who agree with my assessment but who fear that the election will be rigged let me say the following. Rigging the election is undoubtedly part of Mugabe’s plan but can only succeed if the margin is only a few tens of thousand votes. There were strange figures that came out of some of the rural Mashonaland rural constituencies in 2000 where the ZANU (PF) vote appeared to have been bolstered. However even with that rigging ZANU (PF) had a deficit of some 70,000 votes against the combined total of the opposition. We are now two years on and the actual margin of defeat for Mugabe is going to be much more than 70,000 (it will be hundreds of thousands if Masvingo Province votes either for Tsvangirai or simply does not vote at all). A deficit of several hundred thousand votes makes rigging enormously difficult.

A final word is necessary regarding the mood of the Zimbabwean people. The MDC has, in the last few weeks, brought a succession of cases to the High Court to level the playing field. As a result of case we have managed to get the numbers of new prospective voters who have registered. There are some 700,000 new registrations! One of the arguments advanced by the Registrar General’s office for their inability to supply us with a copy of the voters’ roll was because they had only managed to process to date some 80,000 of the these new registrations! Rest assured that the vast majority of these 700,000 new voters are not particularly happy with the present regime and they have not registered for fun. Why else do think government has made it so difficult for people to register? The people are ready.

The people being ready is one thing; having a decent candidate to vote for is another thing entirely. Which leads me to the coup de grace in the form of Morgan Tsvangirai. Whilst I have known MDC President Tsvangirai since 1992 I have only got to know him well since being invited by him to join the MDC in 1999. Getting to know him has been a sheer pleasure. He is a man of great intellect, integrity, courage, compassion and humour. In fact I firmly believe that in Mr. Tsvangirai we have a truly great leader who will become a statesman of world renown. I have consistently impressed by his wisdom in tackling tricky issues and by his commitment to a vision of a non-racist, non-sexist, democratic Zimbabwe.

It is hard to convey why I have so much admiration for Tsvangirai. A few random examples of his character may help. When our child Bethany was born in September Tsvangirai took time off his hectic schedule to phone me to say "makorokoto" (Shona for congratulations). When I was concerned in November by the death threats I had received a meeting with him restored my equilibrium. When some of our younger members went over the top in campaigning for positions last year in Harare, bringing the MDC into disrepute, Tsvangirai dealt with the issue quickly, resolutely but fairly and put the party back on track. When he was ambushed twice last year he remained absolutely calm and focused. He does not have an ounce of racist blood in veins. He is truly a great leader and Zimbabwe will be blessed to have him as President.

Some skeptics may argue that my own experience is all very well but Tsvangirai is not known by the Zimbabwean people and we may well end up like the Zambians, lumped with a President very few people want. After all the people of Zambia were also ready for change. Over 80% of those eligible to vote turned out to vote in the recently held Parliamentary and presidential elections. Over 70% of those who voted, voted against the so-called ruling party candidate, Levy Mwanawasa. The will of the people was denied however because, despite all the opposition’s claims of rigging, even on the Zambian government’s own figures Mwanawasa won with only 28,7% of the vote. The dreaded "Kenya syndrome", namely the inability of the opposition to coalesce around a single candidate, did in the Zambian people. The "Kenya syndrome" is more likely to occur in countries where ethnicity is a major factor or where the opposition is unable to produce a single candidate who stands head and shoulders above the rest of the opposition candidates. The latter problem is exacerbated when a good opposition candidate does not have the backing of a strong party behind him or her.

Fortunately Zimbabwe does not suffer from any of these blights. Ethnicity will not be a factor in our elections as far as the MDC is concerned. The MDC team of President Tsvangirai and Vice President Sibanda attracts support countrywide and in both urban and rural settings. Ndebele people have thronged President Tsvangirai’s meetings in Matabeleland in 2001 and Shona people have done the same for Vice President Sibanda in meetings held recently in, for example, Zaka in Masvingo. If anyone will have a problem attracting support from specific ethnic groups it will be Mugabe whose chickens are coming home to roost. Mugabe will battle to attract support in regions he has alienated such as Matabeleland, Masvingo and Manicaland. Indeed Mugabe was the MDC best candidate ZANU (PF) could have offered because he is so intensely disliked by various ethnic groups throughout the country. We were absolutely delighted that the ZANU (PF) Congress decided to stick with the soon-to-be-78 year old Mugabe. The problem for ZANU (PF) is compounded in Matabeleland in that his only possible Ndebele Vice President running mates, Msika or John Nkomo, did not even dare to contest seats in Matabeleland in the 2000 elections cognizant of their inability to win. Both are deeply unpopular in Matabeleland in stark contrast to Vice President Gibson Sibanda who won his seat with a majority of over 80%.

What then of the prospect of multiple candidates from other parties as happened in Zambia? In the 2000 elections ZANU (PF) secured 48% of the vote, the MDC 46% and the balance went to a variety of small opposition parties, the main one being ZANU Ndonga which secured the only other opposition seat of Chipinge South. There are only three other political parties of any consequence namely, the UANC led by Bishop Muzorewa, ZAPU and the Liberty Party (both regional parties based in Bulawayo). All three attracted minimal votes and many of their candidates lost their deposits in the 2000 elections. ZANU (PF) has been desperately trying to promote candidates from these parties and it has been intriguing to see how, for example, the government controlled Chronicle newspaper in Bulawayo has been promoting the fortunes of Paul Siwela, the Secretary General of ZAPU who appears to have desires to contest the Presidential election. His plans to contest were dealt a bit of a blow when the ZAPU Central Committee recently decided that it would not field a candidate in the election. Since that decision was taken the Chronicle has done its utmost to discredit Agrippa Madlela, the ZAPU President who, one would have thought, would be ZAPU’s logical candidate, but who believes that ZAPU should not contest the election.

The same tactic is being employed, with similar lack of success, to get Wilson Khumbula MP to stand as ZANU Ndonga’s Presidential candidate. Khumbula until recently was the President of ZANU Ndonga. He has been suspended from the party and there are strong indications that ZANU Ndonga will not want to field a candidate. So despite ZANU (PF)’s best efforts to split the opposition vote by assisting the campaigns of a multiplicity of opposition candidates they will not succeed. If anything President Tsvangirai will pick up votes from the supporters of these small parties, especially from the largest of them all, ZANU Ndonga. In sum this will in essence be a two horse race. In any event our electoral laws are different to Zambia in that in Zimbabwe the winning candidate has to win a majority of votes cast and if a majority is not achieved in the first ballot then the two top candidates have to contest a second ballot against each other. So at the end of the day this will be a straight contest between Tsvangirai and Mugabe.

Another important reason why the opposition vote will not be split sufficiently to usher Mugabe back into power by default is because in MDC President Tsvangirai Zimbabwe has got a charismatic candidate the opposition and civil society can coalesce around. Having been a highly successful Secretary General of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) prior to his election as President of the MDC, Tsvangirai has a very high and positive profile that transcends the ethnic, class, racial and gender divide. My personal experience of Tsvangirai is shared by hundreds of thousands of Zimbabweans countrywide. In a word he is Presidential and it is not hard for Zimbabweans to conceive that he would be a good President. Even if other opposition candidates do stand none will have the presence or profile of Tsvangirai.

But it is the backing of an effective party that is the most compelling reason why our election will be different to the Zambian election. The MDC since its formation in September 1999 has been subjected to a literal baptism of fire at the hands of ZANU (PF) and its surrogate police force and CIO. We have now had over 90 of our supporters murdered by ZANU (PF) thugs; virtually every single MDC MP has been either detained, or assaulted, or had his or her house searched, or received death threats. The MDC has been subjected to the most bizarre selective application of the law. Charges have been fabricated against MDC leaders and prosecuted vigorously whereas ZANU (PF) leaders who openly advocate murder are not even arrested. The electronic media is brazenly the mouthpiece of ZANU (PF). And so it goes on. But the reality is that, despite all of this harassment (in fact perhaps because of the harassment) the MDC is now stronger than it was in June 2000. Not only do we now have elected structures countrywide but also we now have the capacity and ability to govern.

Unlike ZANU (PF) which is trapped in its one-track mind of its disastrous "fast track land programme" the MDC has developed comprehensive policies to turn Zimbabwe around. President Tsvangirai has spent the last six months progressively unveiling the MDC’s economic, health, education and labour policies (to mention a few). All these policies have been formulated in consultation with experts from the relevant sectors of Zimbabwean society and have been hailed by serious commentators within Zimbabwe. The MDC has unveiled a three-year recovery plan that President Tsvangirai will start to implement as soon as he has been inaugurated in April.

But the MDC is more than just a body with good structures and policies - most importantly it has spirit! I have just had the pleasure of attending the MDC’s Annual Conference that was held in Gweru on the 22^nd December. I have three words to describe the Conference: joyous, hilarious and constructive! There was absolute (and heartfelt) agreement that Morgan Tsvangirai and Gibson Sibanda shall comprise our Presidential team unlike the deep divisions within the ZANU (PF) camp regarding Mugabe’s candidacy. Most of the meeting was devoted to debating and agreeing on key policy issues such as tackling the economy, dealing effectively with the Aids pandemic and restoring the rule of law unlike the ZANU (PF) Congress which only seemed to discuss Mugabe’s declaration of war on the Zimbabwean people. In stark contrast to the tone of the ZANU (PF) meeting prayer and a recommitment to the principle of non-violence marked the MDC Conference. As a white Zimbabwean I felt profoundly privileged to be part of the proceedings of a movement that is non-racist and has a vision for not only a new democratic Zimbabwe but also a new beginning for Africa. I feel excited about the prospect of serving under Morgan Tsvangirai’s Presidency.

I have always said that this battle to bring genuine democracy to Zimbabwe would not be easy and that the more cornered Mugabe and ZANU (PF) felt the more vicious they would become. That holds true now more than ever before and we are under no illusions how tough this final stretch will be. But we are now on the final lap. Before the end of this week Mugabe is obliged, in terms of the Electoral Act, to announce the date of the election. The election has to be held by the 17^th March and Mugabe’s present term of office expires, come what may, State of Emergency or none, at midnight on the 31^st March. In other words as I write the election is less than 70 days, or 10 weeks away.

Anyone who has run a marathon will tell you that the final few kilometers are the hardest; every joint aches and one cannot believe that one will finish, but finish we will, and that is all we have to do now. The international community now understands clearly what is going on in Zimbabwe and will do all in its power to assist the transition to democracy. The people are ready, silently and patiently waiting to cast their ballots. And finally the next President of Zimbabwe, Morgan Tsvangirai, is ready. All we have to be make sure that we are registered and ready and able to vote in March.

Many people ask in meetings whether Mugabe will allow President Tsvangirai to take office once he wins pointing to Mugabe’s oft repeated statement that the MDC and President Tsvangirai will "never, ever" govern. Not only has Mugabe not learnt from Zimbabwe’s own recent history (Rhodesian Prime Minister Ian Smith said there would "never be majority rule in a thousand years only to be proved wrong a short time after making that statement), but he also commits the terrible mistake of assuming that he is god and able to guide the course of history. History is replete with examples of dictators who believe that they will rule forever. In just the last 60 years Mussolini, Hitler, Idi Amin, Ceuscescu, Mobutu and Milsovic spring to mind. All had grand plans, all were extremely vicious and irrational at the end, but all were swept from power. Mugabe can plan as much as he likes but ultimately he has to deal with the people and God.

I will conclude by quoting verses from my favourite book of the Bible. These verses from Isaiah 40 have sustained me for many years:

It is not easy being in the middle of a whirlwind as this dictatorship is swept away and I understand fully how many in Zimbabwe, especially those in the farming community, feel completely at the end of their tether. But I believe with all my being that if we remain steadfast, do what is right and trust in the good Lord we will be sustained and our strength will be renewed sufficiently to see us through this transition to democracy. God bless you and keep you all this New Year.

David Coltart MP

7^th January 2002.

The views expressed in this letter do not necessarily reflect the views of the MDC.