The Zimbabwe Situation

August 17, 2009

Interview broadcast on August 6, 2009

SW RADIO Africa presenter Lance Guma of the “Behind the Headlines” programme interviews Abednico Bhebhe, one of the three legislators expelled from the Arthur Mutambara MDC.

The Mutambara MDC expelled the three legislators after accusing them of undermining the party and its leadership. Nkayi South MP Abednico Bhebhe, Njabuliso Mguni (Lupane East) and Norman Mpofu (Bulilima East) have since taken the dispute to the Supreme Court after the High Court dismissed an initial application. Guma spoke to Bhebhe and sought to trace the background to the dispute.

Lance Guma: Hello Zimbabwe and welcome to another special edition of Behind the Headlines. This week we have as our special guest the Member of Parliament for Nkayi South Abednico Bhebhe. Now you will be aware that the Mutambara MDC has expelled three Members of Parliament including Mr Bhebhe and Njabuliso Mguni the MP for Lupane East and Norman Mpofu the MP for Bulilima East. So what we are trying to do today on the programme is to trace the history of this dispute and just have a rough idea of what happened then and what is happening now. Mr Bhebhe, thank you very much for joining us.

Abednico Bhebhe: Thank you

Guma: Okay, when did the problems begin? We know the MDC split up in 2005. But in terms of problems within the Mutambara MDC that have led to this, when would you say the problems started emerging?

Bhebhe: The problems started emerging soon after the split in 2005 because some of us were very much strong on the issue of us renegotiating our re-engagement or coalition with the Morgan Tsvangirai side because the people on the ground did not understand what the cause (of the split) was and why we failed to solve our differences and merge the party together. So there was pressure from the ground, there was pressure from the electorate because they believed that when we come together as one formation or as one party or as a coalition, we were going to be sure that we would beat Zanu-PF hands down.

Even if you add the results that came out on the 29th of March 2008 elections they were actually showing that if we had gone into the elections as a united force we were going to be in government right now. So the actual problems started then, because there were some within the leadership that believed that there was no way we could come together with the Tsvangirai formation and as I speak right now those same people within the leadership they are saying there is no way that they can work with Tsvangirai. So it is actually some egos that are destroying the hopes of Zimbabweans.

Guma: Did they give any particular reason why they were objecting to working with the Tsvangirai MDC?

Bhebhe: Of course the strongest reason was the obvious one that after the vote that was taken on the 12th of October (2005) Tsvangirai defied the vote and decided to go against the vote. So they are still holding onto that. But our argument is that even in a family, a wife and husband, they clash sometimes, the other would even pick up his bags and go to his original home but that does not mean that two people that have come together, that have lived together for quite some years cannot resolve their differences and come together. But we are seeing that happen in politics. It is one of those things that some people might, in my own belief, some people are actually holding on to that to make sure that they benefit the then ruling party Zanu-PF.

Guma: A lot of people who have been following this story say matters really came to a head when Lovemore Moyo was elected the Speaker of Parliament and that your party was very unhappy that several of its legislators had voted for Mr Moyo instead of their preferred candidate, Paul Themba Nyathi. Is it true that this is what really changed the dynamics within your party and people started looking for people to fire?

Bhebhe: Yes, but let me clear up something first before I answer that question. The problem with politics in Zimbabwe is that it is so much aligned, it has followed the trend of Zanu-PF for so many years such that the politics in Zimbabwe is about, if you talk of the party you are talking about the leadership, but unfortunately if you are talking about the party, it should be the people, the card-carrying members, the sympathizers, together they form a party but unfortunately the situation in Zimbabwe does not show that on the ground. It is actually the leadership that claims that they are the party.

In this instance we were shocked right to the bone marrow that on the eve of voting for the Speaker of Parliament we were told directly by Zanu-PF that our leadership had agreed that we were going to vote for the Speaker of Parliament with Zanu-PF instead of our colleagues that we have got the same ideology which is MDC-T.

We were actually shocked to learn that and knowing that we were representatives of the people from our constituencies it was very difficult for us to stomach that and vote with Zanu-PF, lest we go back to our constituencies and we fail to explain to the people why all of a sudden we are seeing Zanu-PF as a darling now. So that was where the problem started. And apparently knowing we had people that voted for us we had to do the wishes of the people. And the wishes of the people were, we were supposed to negotiate for anything that we had to do in Parliament, we are supposed to negotiate with the Tsvangirai formation, not Zanu-PF.

So we then decided to listen to the people. Unfortunately, because the leadership are actually not listening to the people, of which as it is today they lost the elections because they are not keen to listen to the people and they tried to force us not to listen to the people that voted for us and whip us into line to vote with Zanu-PF.

We, therefore, refused to vote with Zanu-PF and we don’t regret why we refused to vote with Zanu-PF. As far as we are concerned we are heroes in our constituencies because we listen to the people and not the leadership. And the leadership we told them point blank that will not happen. If it is anything to do with Zanu-PF we are not going to be part and parcel of that decision and then things came to a head. All that is being said…inaudible…. between out party and MDC-T is all fallacy. The truth of the matter is that these people don’t want to come out in the open that they have actually indirectly joined Zanu-PF and they are pushing us to join Zanu-PF. Therefore we are saying, as long as they are trying to push us to join Zanu-PF, we are not going to do that, we would rather leave politics than join Zanu-PF.

Guma: Now the MDC-M secretary general, Professor Welshman Ncube, described you and your colleagues as an enemy within. Would you say that is fair criticism because he is saying if you were pursuing an ideology that is different from the party leadership you effectively constituted an enemy within?

Bhebhe: Unfortunately, that is the opposite because if we are an enemy within, we constitute the majority within the party. So the one who is supposed to be an enemy is the one who is in the minority. In this case Welshman Ncube is a minority in the party. If he claims that we are an enemy, then he is the enemy himself because he is the minority in the party. He does not command the support that we command.

Right now he went and organized two rallies in Nkayi where there were two T-35 trucks that were supposed to be ferrying people around for a celebration, that don’t know what he was celebrating and he slaughtered a beast each in those two rallies that took place on Saturday and Sunday. And to my surprise or his surprise or whether he knew it his first rally he got 38 people with two T-35 trucks that were supposed to ferry people and on the other one he got 61 people with again the two T-35’s that were supposed to ferry people.

It just shows his an enemy within the party.

If he insists that we are an enemy, let’s go back to the people instead of going to the press, instead of abusing the laws like Zanu-PF has always done.

Guma: A lot of people were shocked when Tsvangirai appointed you to his cabinet and following a lot of pressure and political maneuvers he eventually made a u-turn and dropped you from that cabinet line up. Can you maybe just remind our listeners, what exactly happened and who exactly objected to you being a minister in this new cabinet?

Bhebhe: Unfortunately, what happened is that two weeks before the announcement by Tsvangirai was made I was actually told by the Prime Minister himself and then I informed my President who is Arthur Mutambara who actually agreed with me and he went on to have a conversation with Morgan Tsvangirai and they agreed that I should be appointed. But, unfortunately, Arthur Mutambara had a lot of pressure from his colleagues, particularly Welshman Ncube, Priscilla Misihairambwi and Fletcher Dulini Ncube. He had a lot of pressure and (because of) that pressure he decided to rescind his earlier decision with Tsvangirai that I should be appointed.

And to add salt into a bleeding wound it was Mutambara who went and lobbied Robert Mugabe. When they sat as three principals Mugabe as well refused, saying that he was not going to appoint me, neither nominate me nor swear me in.

Guma: So matters have come to a head, three MPs expelled, yourself, MP Mguni and MP Mpofu, you’ve since taken the matter to court arguing that proper procedures were not followed. What do you mean by that in terms of procedure, why do you feel aggrieved?

Bhebhe: Right, first and foremost when you are talking of procedure, our aims and objectives, the aims and objectives of the party are very clear. They hinge on democracy, transparency, accountability and fair justice. Those are the four pillars of our aims and objectives of our party and in that regard the National Disciplinary Committee is one of the organs of our party. Being one of the organs of our party if they are to enquire anything about a mishap or about any allegations they are supposed to enquire within the structures of the party. Here I’m talking about the wards, the branches, the districts, and the province.

So in that regard (Lyson) Mlambo did not consult those structures. He then decided to punish us without consulting these structures on the ground. This is why we are saying that thing was kangaroo and that thing was not legitimate and that thing was flawed. That’s one. The second thing is the accusations that are leveled against us are not true. There are no structures that have been merged with the Tsvangirai formation as they are alleging. We have not addressed any rally in the constituency denigrating the leadership. So if they insist that we addressed a rally and denigrated the leadership, they should prove to us by going back to those structures, because all the rallies that we conduct in our constituencies are organized by the structures.

They should go through those structures and enquire whether we did address those rallies. The third thing is we demanded that right if you are accusing us of anything can you tell us who is the complainant? That’s one. Can you show us your witnesses or give us your statement and be precise on the charges that on a particular date, at a particular venue this is what you said and these are the witnesses so that we answer to that and then in the same process we are able to organize our own witnesses to come and testify in our favour.

So that did not happen. When we tried to insist to Mlambo that no, let’s have the names of those people that are complainants, lets have your analysis of the inquiry. He refused and insisted that he is not going to tell us who the structures are. Then we were so shocked and worried that look unless and until our party is operating on the level of Zanu-PF were CIO’s are made to follow behind people and investigate them, then we are not going to be part and parcel of that kind of a kangaroo court cause we need things that are transparent and accountable like what is required by our own constitution.

Guma: Okay so we will await with keen interest the conclusion of that court hearing but just my final question, your party has already written to Parliament advising that you are no longer MPs. This obviously means maybe we will be having by-elections very soon and the agreement that stops the major parties from competing against each other, we understand expires around the 15th September. After the 15th of September do you see yourself contesting in your constituency, maybe under the Tsvangirai MDC, what are you likely to do then?

Bhebhe: I will deal with that question when the 15th of September has gone past. But for now I can tell you the issue of writing a letter to Parliament was so scandalous, it was between Mlambo the chairman of the disciplinary committee and Welshman Ncube the secretary general. They actually abused their offices to do that kind of an exercise. The National Council has not sat to review or endorse our expulsion but already Welshman Ncube has already written to Parliament. That is in violation of our own constitution. (The National Council a week after this interview eventually met).

So if the secretary general can be allowed to violate the constitution willy-nilly like that, then we don’t have a party at all. We have got a company, a private company that has got a chief executive, who is secretary general. In this case he has to consult; he has to actually have the endorsement of the National Council for him to be able to write to Parliament. In the first place the secretary general does not take instructions from the National Disciplinary Committee neither does our constitution allow him to take instructions from that committee, but he only takes instructions from National Council. So why as a lawyer he needed to do that, God knows?

Guma: If I can just squeeze in one more question. What is the position of the other seven MPs who were not affected by this disciplinary hearing? Do you have the support of your colleagues? Do you have any idea what their position is on this matter?

Bhebhe: Out of the seven MPs I can safely tell you that four MPs are sympathizing with us, they are behind us and that is a fact and it is known it is there for everyone to confirm that actually four MPs are behind us. Even those other three some of them are sympathetic but the problem is that they are timid, they are cowards, they cannot stand up and say they are in support of us.

Guma: That was the Nkayi South Member of Parliament Abednico Bhebhe joining us on Behind the Headlines. MP Bhebhe, thank you very much for being our guest.

Bhebhe: Thank you.

© MSF
Rian van de Braak, MSF Head of Mission in Zimbabwe

In February, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) released the report “Beyond Cholera: Zimbabwe’s Worsening Crisis” (Download the report here here) to alert to the humanitarian crisis ravaging Zimbabwe, most visibly expressed by the unprecedented cholera outbreak, which claimed thousands of lives. Now, six months later, the cholera outbreak has died down and the new unity government has passed its first half year. How is the medical situation today? What has changed and what are the challenges, Zimbabwe still has to battle? MSF Head of Mission Rian van de Braak about the current situation in the country. In MSF’s February report, we read that Zimbabwe’s Health System is in a total state of collapse. Health facilities had to close down for a lack of drugs, supplies, and staff. What is the situation today?

“Things have been improving bit by bit over the last couple of months. The multi-donor retention scheme, which includes small salaries for health staff, has helped to bring some health workers back to hospitals and clinics – especially in rural settings. The lack of drugs and supplies is still a problem; despite the fact that stocks have increased on a central level in Harare, transporting them to the clinics is a huge logistic constraint. Also many of the health facilities have now started to ask fees from the patients, which make access to health care for many people unaffordable. In Epworth, one of our project areas, for instance, women now have to pay $50US for antenatal care services – an amount impossible to pay for most residents.”

The historic cholera outbreak, infecting nearly 100,000 people up to date, has been a major concern over the last year. In fact, it started exactly a year ago, in August. Since May, the numbers have been going down, does that mean the threat is over?

“No the threat is definitely not over; everyone expects cholera to be back – latest with the next rainy season – because the root cause for the outbreak has not been addressed adequately yet. The dilapidated water and sewage systems are still a major problem. Several aid agencies are drilling new boreholes in cholera hotspots, which is an important contribution to safe drinking water. But for the big cities like Harare, the problem is of an enormous scope. Dealing with those causes before the next rainy season will be a race against the clock.

“Nobody knows how big the next outbreak will be, but we are ready to respond immediately. We have the necessary stocks in country and a contact list of all the extra 250 Zimbabwean staff who we recruited for the last outbreak. They are well-trained and experienced by now and many of them would be ready on short notice. Additionally, we have been distributing cholera kits to 50 of the most remote clinics we have been working with, and trained the health staff on how to intervene when the first cases arrive. We also distributed 11.000 hygiene kits and reached more than 40.000 households with our hygiene promotion.”

© MSF
MSF patients awaiting their ARVs at Murwira Clinic, a decentralised clinic in Buhera district, southeastern Zimbabwe. MSF mobile teams visit once per week to treat HIV+ patients in the surrounding area. When the MSF mobile teams arrive, it is the busiest day of the week by far at the Murwira clinic. Here the patients wait outside the clinic for lack of room inside the main waiting room.

The socio-economic crisis prevented a lot of people living with HIV/AIDS from access to medical care, and many who were on treatment to continue it properly. With a prevalence rate of an estimated 15.3 percent this is a major concern in Zimbabwe. How is the situation now?

“In this area the problems are still huge. There are more than 400 people dying in Zimbabwe everyday of AIDS-related causes. To put things in perspective: there were around 4.000 cholera-related deaths in total during the nine-months outbreak. With AIDS we have that number of casualties within ten days, every ten days, again and again.

“MSF projects are implemented in cooperation with the Zimbabwean Ministry of Health and set-up within the national health structures. Currently, they are ensuring medical care to more than 42,000 HIV positive patients, out of whom around 27,000 are receiving anti-retroviral (ARV) therapy. But again, only about 20 percent of the people in need of ARV treatment are currently obtaining the medication in Zimbabwe.

“The main source of financial support for the Zimbabwean health sector in relation to HIV/AIDS is the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Due to political and administrative challenges however, this funding has come to a temporary standstill and with it the dearly needed scaling up of the national ARV program. As long as this problem is not solved, thousands of HIV positive patients are deprived of the treatment they urgently need.”

© MSF
An MSF national staff doctor examines a child at Murwira Clinic, a decentralised clinic in Buhera district, southeastern Zimbabwe. MSF mobile teams visit once per week to treat HIV+ patients in the surrounding area. One in five adults in Zimbabwe is infected with HIV and too few of those in need can access antiretroviral therapy. Patients are increasingly missing appointments and interrupting their treatment because they cannot reach the few clinics left functioning due to high transport costs and unreliable service. To respond to this problem, MSF has begun decentralising treatment, making services more accessible, especially in rural areas like Murwira.

What about the food situation? In February, the peak of the hunger season was reached with over five million Zimbabweans facing severe food shortages, depending on international aid. What do you see in your project areas today?

“In general the peak of the hunger season is over again. While we had around 150 children in our Therapeutic Feeding Centre in Epworth every day during the peak season in December/January, numbers now went down to 10 to 15 children a day.

“Another concern with regards to malnutrition, however, is the situation in Zimbabwean prisons. During the cholera intervention we were granted access to two prisons to assist in dealing with cholera inside these institutions. There, we were confronted with a severe situation of malnutrition.

“We started an emergency intervention with therapeutic feeding for the most seriously malnourished inmates, supplementary feeding for the other prisoners, and basic water and sanitation activities to ensure the provision of clean drinking water. The intervention has been expanded recently to six of the most affected prisons we found after a rapid assessment of 15 institutions in the Midlands and Mashonaland provinces.”

Would you say that your ability to work has improved under the new government?

“In a number of respects, our ability to work has improved substantially. Our counterparts in the government are seeking cooperation with international NGOs on the ground, especially in the area of health, water and sanitation, and nutrition. The fact that the Ministry of Justice openly admitted their problems and lack of supplies within the prison system and were appreciative of our support to the prisoners can be seen in this light.

“So we definitely see positive signals but it remains to be seen if the remaining barriers for NGOs, such as the lengthy process to receive temporary employment permissions for international staff, the necessity for foreign doctors to undergo a three months rotation in a Zimbabwean clinic before being granted hands-on work, or the possibility to receive registration as an NGO in Zimbabwe, will be lifted accordingly. This is important to effectively carry out our work and to motivate other NGOs to come to the country and assist the Zimbabwean people in coping with the enormous needs.”

In your opinion, what is to be done to improve the situation in Zimbabwe and which are the challenges ahead?

“Zimbabwe is in dire need of substantial humanitarian aid to get itself back on its feet. Although the rock-bottom situation of December/January has been overcome in large parts, the population still does not have adequate access to health care, people continue to die of AIDS in outrageously high numbers and the next cholera outbreak is at the doorsteps. The donor community should review the conditionality of releasing humanitarian funds and target them as much as possible to the areas most in need and with direct impact for the population itself.

“In addition, the government needs to further reduce bureaucratic obstacles for international NGOs and increase the humanitarian space for aid organizations to assist the struggling Zimbabwean population. At this point in time, Zimbabwe urgently needs all the help it can get to make sure the population no longer suffers needlessly.”

Click here or ALT-T to return to TOP

Mugabe could have some cause for concern over Zuma's visit to Dos Santos

Comment from The Cape Times (SA), 17 August

Peter Fabricius

Does Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe regard President Zuma's state visit
to Angola this week with satisfaction or concern? It would be revealing to
know. Angolan President JosÃ© Eduardo dos Santos and Mugabe have so far been
major allies in the same camp in the Southern African Development Community.
President Mandela fought bitterly with Mugabe over the latter's
determination to maintain his pre-1994 supremacy in the region, by clinging
on to control of SADC's crucial security apparatus. Mugabe was evidently
trying to maintain his old Front Line States, (FLS) dominance in SADC, which
he was then losing to SA. And Angola was with him while SA became the
informal leader of a progressive, democratic camp. Meanwhile, SA and Angola
fell out separately over several other issues, including the ruling MPLA's
feeling that the ANC had never thanked it enough for its support during the
liberation struggle, SA's anger at Angolan military support to Laurent
Kabila to help him conquer President Mobutu Sese Seko (when SA was trying to
get the two to make peace), and Luanda's suspicions of SA's efforts to
persuade it to make peace with its own rebel enemy, Jonas Savimbi.

Although President Mbeki warmed towards Mugabe, SA's quarrel with Luanda
remained unhealed; the two biggest powers in the region were estranged. This
week Zuma will remedy that with his first state visit. It is possible to
speculate freely, along the lines of the infamous Browse Mole Report by SA
intelligence analysts, that Zuma will be repaying Dos Santos for the help he
received in defeating Mbeki for the ANC leadership at Polokwane. But whether
true or not, no such dramatic motive is really necessary to explain the
visit. It can be seen as merely rectifying a diplomatic anomaly. And the
visit is surely not mainly about Zimbabwe. As Ayanda Ntsaluba,
Director-General of the Department of International Relations and
Co-operation, has explained, it is largely about building economic ties, and
Zuma will be taking the largest business delegation that SA has ever sent
abroad. SA hopes to get some of the major post-war economic reconstruction
business under way in Angola. SA also hopes to persuade Angola to harness
its military prowess to Pretoria's own peacekeeping efforts on the continent
(rather, it remains unsaid, than Luanda using its military muscle on
freelance adventures). But if Zimbabwe is not high on the agenda or even
officially there at all, it is hard to imagine that it will not be discussed
during the visit. Early next month SADC will hold its annual summit, and
reviewing the progress of Zimbabwe's unity government will be a major item
on the agenda.

On the face of it, Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai and his Movement for
Democratic Change might be alarmed by the rapprochement between SA and
Mugabe's erstwhile close ally Angola. But that assumes Zuma will fall under
Dos Santos's spell. What if the opposite occurs? Zuma has made it clear in
private in the past that he disapproves of much of Mugabe's undemocratic
behaviour, though he has so far done nothing in office to confirm that. Yet
two weeks ago he told Tsvangirai that he would take up with Mugabe
Tsvangirai's complaints about Mugabe thwarting the full implementation of
the unity government agreement. Then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
indicated, after meeting Zuma, her satisfaction with the way the Zuma
administration was handling Zimbabwe, having said before that she would urge
Zuma to curb Mugabe's "negative influence" on the unity government. This
suggests that Zuma told her he intended taking a tough line with Mugabe. One
presumes he would not want to mess with Clinton by offering her vague
promises he did not intend to keep. Meanwhile, the Angolan government itself
broke ranks with Zimbabwe somewhat last year by criticising the way Mugabe
was re-elected. Perhaps Mugabe is also a little anxious about this week's
visit.

Click here or ALT-T to return to TOP

Heroes' Acre must be closed

http://www.thezimbabwetimes.com/?p=21187

August 16, 2009
Tanonoka Whande

IT IS time to shut down Heroes Acre and save us from mindless speeches and
uncouth pontificating.

It has become a place where a bigoted head of state hurls insults at
everyone in and outside Zimbabwe except his own family.

Robert Mugabe has not only soiled the Heroes Acre with his speeches but by
the choice of people he decides to bury there.

The Heroes Acre has become an embarrassment to relatives of those unjustly
elevated to undeserved heights and a monument of despair to those whose
deserving relatives were shunned.

It was, of course, expected that the late Vice President Joseph Msika would
be buried at the national shrine.

But surprisingly, comments from Internet writers and readers have ignited;
once again, the debate on who is responsible for declaring or bestowing
national hero status on citizens and what criteria is used.

Because of our pious tradition, people feel uncomfortable and reluctant to
question "the decency" of a deceased but the majority of people who lie at
the Acre are politicians, most of them being people of dubious credentials.

The situation is made worse by the fact that Zanu-PF's so-called politburo,
a party appendage composed of hand-picked stooges from Mugabe's political
party, decides who is and who is not a national hero.

The result is that the Heroes Acre continues to slowly fill up with
mediocrity as "entry requirements" are always lowered for personal and
political expediency.
Zanu-PF says that heroes are those who "subordinated their personal
interests to the collective interest of Zimbabwe.They accepted and endured
pain, suffering and brutality with fortitude even unto death."

The MDC, which has now engaged in their own "attend this funeral and not
that one" game, says that hero status must be conferred by an
all-stakeholders' body with no single subjective interest in the conferment
of such national status on any individual.

But I do say, and I submit for your judgment, the fact that if Zimbabweans
can be allowed to offer a binding definition of a national hero, about 80
percent of the "heroes" lying at the Heroes Acre would be demoted, with most
carted away to unknown places for reburial.

If we hold the contributions made by these people up for the nation to see,
most will run into credibility problems thick as caskets.

Initially, the Heroes Acre was a shrine that Zanu-PF and PF-Zapu concurred
to erect in honour of fallen distinguished participants in the war of
liberation.

Having won the war and living with civilians, they noticed that there were
other people in civil society who made equally important contributions to
the war effort or to society without having left Zimbabwe.

Commendably, the two parties made amendments to consider and include such
people.

They did not, however, invite civil society and the generality of the
citizens to also recommend individuals for the honour.

So now, we have a situation where a group of hand-picked men and women from
one political party sits down to consider and deliberate on such status.

Keep in mind that this politburo only considers awarding such status after
its party's district or provincial committees or structures have recommended
to them that the deceased be considered for such an honour.

Then the Politburo members, reminiscent of Catholic bishops entering the
Conclave to elect a new Pope, stream into Zanu-PF Headquarters to take tea
as they deliberate on a citizen's status.

Mercifully, on electing their hero the politburo does not send a smoke
signal like the Catholic Bishops do, but they issue a statement announcing
the arrival, in a coffin, of a new hero.

The politburo is really a non-essential group that is not even a government
body, is not national and is not adequately representative of Zimbabwean
society. It has no constituency, but it decides who is a hero as if heroism
is negotiable.

So far, they have only granted heroism to politicians of a certain
persuasion; those strongly aligned to Mugabe. Mugabe finds no heroes outside
his party. Most people at the heroes Acre are lucky to be there.

I don't believe in luck myself. I believe people make their own luck.

Josiah Tongogara, Joshua Nkomo, Herbert Chitepo, Jason Moyo, Leopold
Takawira, Jairos Jiri, Nikita Mangena and a host of others made their own
luck.
They did not need to be declared national heroes by Zanu-PF because they
were heroes even before they fell; their heroism is self-evident. Their
heroism need not be explained or deliberated upon.

And now, here we are and we see that the presence of some people at the
national shrine highlights the unjust omission of others.

Conversely, the absence of some well-deserving people at the Heroes Acre
mocks the presence of many people buried there.

The manner in which Zimbabwe's national heroes are identified and declared
is fraudulent in intent, in design and in execution.

Most of the people interred at the shrine are Mugabe's former allies and
cabinet ministers. Keep in mind that one is not elected but is appointed to
a cabinet post. And this is done to reward an individual for loyalty,
ability or such qualities. That is quite normal.

But then, when a Zanu-PF appointed cabinet minister dies, he is declared a
national hero. In short, therefore, Zanu-PF cabinet ministers have national
hero status bestowed upon them as a reward for having accepted an earlier
reward.
It is simply bogus.

I predict that many families will one day be asked to reclaim the remains of
their sons and daughters from the Heroes Acre for reburial elsewhere. If a
nation has no say in the identification of its own heroes, it is folly to
believe that those who are literally appointed to heroism will be regarded
as such by the people.

Heroism is not bestowed; heroism is earned and cannot be denied. It is born
from the selfless sacrificing of one's own self to one's people.

Do we remember how Guy Clutton-Brock, the only Caucasian to be so honoured
by Zanu-PF, came to rest at the Heroes Acre?

South Africa and African National Congress' Joe Slovo died on January 6,
1995. There was every indication that after less than a year in office, the
new ANC government was going to acknowledge and honour a white son as a hero
of their liberation struggle.

Zimbabwe was 15 years old at that time and Zanu-PF had never come across any
white man to qualify for the honours.

Clutton-Brock died three weeks later on January 28, 1995 and after a few
months, Mugabe did the unusual thing of personally flying to the United
Kingdom to beg for and bring back some of Clutton-Brock's ashes which were
then interred at our Heroes Acre on August 11, 1995, more than six months
after his death.

The government, and this now includes the MDC, must simply refer the
declaration of national heroes to the people.

The practice has been nauseatingly politicized and is clearly being abused.

There are, of course, a few people we hold in the highest esteem at the
Heroes Acre. But Mugabe's conceited manner of anointing heroism takes away
the reverence from otherwise deserving people.

What Mugabe is doing at the Heroes Acre is to identify the suspects in the
murder of Zimbabwe. And that, I dare say, will be of great help to the
nation one day.

The Heroes Acre should just be closed down because it is a lie. Few who lie
there capture the true spirit of a Zimbabwean hero; many of our heroes are
buried elsewhere, with no recognition at all, making Zimbabwe the real
national shrine, not the Heroes Acre.

Click here or ALT-T to return to TOP

Zimbabwe: death of real politics looms

http://www.zimbabwejournalists.com

16th Aug 2009 21:44 GMT

By Chenjerai Chitsaru

THERE was a time, not so long ago, that ordinary citizens were keen on
politics. They didn't believe politics as the exclusive preserve of
politicians. After all, without ordinary citizens, who would the politicians
mount their soap boxes for? The birds and the bees?

At that time, people were gutsy enough to speak their minds on politics,
even on commuter buses. I once heard a man exclaim: "How can Mugabe call
Tekere a (expletive deleted)? They walked together to Mozambique. That man
paid his dues to the struggle, same as Mugabe did."

That took place before the presidential election in 1990, when Tekere
challenged Mugabe for that presidency.
At one time, there was so much corruption in high places, ordinary people
lost interest: it wasn't their welfare the politicians wanted to take care
of, but their own. So, people concluded, why didn't they worry about their
welfare too, to the exclusion of everything else?

Many ordinary citizens, customarily law-abiding and tax-paying, decided they
too could break the law. As the people involved in dealing with crime - blue
and white collar) - were too busy lining their own pockets, many people got
away with.murder.

Today, most people don't talk politics on the commuter buses. "What's the
use?" someone asked, "Even these new guys are only interested in their
welfare, not ours."

The "new guys" belong to the MDC. After the scandal of the vehicles offered
by Gideon Gono, people thought here was something distinctly "Zanu PFish"
about the scramble for the vehicles.

The MPs were quite unabashed about their gross misbehaviour. One of them was
heard to snort: "I didn't get into this thing for my health, you know," he
is reported to have said. "I want my snout into that trough too."

So, on the commuter bus today, you hear one woman speaking on the cell
phone: "But why did you call me at midnight? What? You wanted to find out
who I was with? We are divorced. You remember? You divorced me, for goodness
sake!" She hung up on him, with a loud unprintable curse.

On another bus, the conductor was in trouble with the passengers. He kept
asking: "Vamwe vacho! (The others!)" This is a polite reference to those who
hadn't yet paid their fare.

In the stream of abuse aimed at him, one man asked if he was married. When
he said he was, the next question was: did he have any children? He said he
had one, just three months old.

How did he know if this was his child? He was silent for a minute, and then
he said: "I just know. I believe in God. My wife believes in God." The next
question sent everybody in the bus into hysterics:
"What's God got to do with it?"

In case the people calling themselves the principals of the Global Political
Agreement are unaware of it, ordinary people have it up to their gills with
the pussy-footing, double-dealing and stone-walling that has riddled their
negotiations.

All three play the blame-game to the hilt. In the meantime, life gets more
and more difficult for ordinary people: not talking politics is the least of
their worries. Most have no jobs, no food, no health care, no water, no
electricity, no housing - no money.

The chances are that if an election were held today, the percentage poll
would be disastrously low, to the extent that international observers might
call for fresh elections.

Mind you, this would not be unusual for an African election.

In most cases, people are so disillusioned with politics, they actually
prefer to stay away from the polls - it's a waste of time, they fear. We had
such a period in Zimbabwe. Zanu PF ensured voters were so intimidated,
threatened and beaten up they had no choice but to vote for the ruling
party - which, in turn gave them nothing for their vote, but more empty
promises and more bashings, if they raised their voices in protest.

The advent of the MDC on the political scene promised so much. It was not
the first time people's hopes were raised. Remember the Zimbabwe Unity
Movement? Remember the Forum Party of Zimbabwe, headed by the late former
chief justice, Enoch Dumbutshena and Washington Sansole, among others?

Not until Morgan Tsvangirai emerged at the head of the MDC did people feel a
real stirring of their consciences. Zanu PF, rather typically, saw the MDC
going the same way as the other parties - nowhere fast.

Ten years later, the opposition is in the government with Zanu PF, This is
as uncomfortable a situation as it can get. Getting into bed with Zanu PF is
a perilous adventure. The MDC has discovered this by now. What it may not
have cottoned onto is the likelihood that it could soon turn into a copycat
of Zanu PF.

It is not that people expected it to be so squeaky clean as a political
party it could be mistaken for an African version of the most pacifist of
the Buddhist sects. No. It would be a political party. It would be a
Zimbabwean political party, with the same political baggage as any other
political party bred in a cauldron of racist violence. It would be a party
in a country whose first years of independence were bathed in the blood of
its own people - 20 000 lives lost in needless, insane internecine
blood-letting.

It would confront a ruling party that was so committed to violence its
leaders did not see any other political party triumphing over it - unless it
managed to surpass its own obsession with crushing underfoot everything in
its path to bloody glory.

Zanu PF is a party which has shown the people of Zimbabwe that it has no
qualms whatsoever about using force to triumph. There are among its leaders,
people who believe it has gone far enough along this path.

What they have to ensure is that it goes no further than this, or the real
danger is of the country itself disintegrating into so many little pieces.
People have spoken nervously of the imminent descent into the same level of
savagery as Somalia or the DRC.

Both achieved independence in 1960. There must be only a few alive today
who remember the precious few years of peace and prosperity shortly after
that year.
Zimbabwe had a period of relative peace and prosperity after independence in
1980, barring the years of the so-called "dissident menace", during which 20
000 lives were lost - needlessly.

Somalia has Mohamed Siad Barre to blame for its bloody fate, as the DRC has
Mobutu Sese Seko to point to as the author of its tragedy.

It's entirely up to Robert Mugabe, Morgan Tsvangirai and Arthur Mutambara,
who of them wants to be fingered as the instigator of Zimbabwe's descent
into that same sort of hell.

Click here or ALT-T to return to TOP

Safeguarding a new Zimbabwean constitution: the amendment clauses

By SANDERSON N MAKOMBE

A lot of scrutunity has been laid on the current process to author a new
constitution for Zimbabwe. There is no doubt that the process could have
been refined and be accommodative to divergent views expressed by other
prominent stakeholders. However as the process is moving on, it is
imperative that much vigour and attention be channelled as well to one of
the most important clauses in a constitution, the amendment clause. For
failure to put a clause that will protect the constitution from abuse will
inevitably undo all the good work that would have been put in producing an
acceptable document.

Constitutions are amended for a variety of reasons, some noble, reflecting
the need to adapt to changing times and needs of a nation and some,
unfortunately in Africa, due to selfish needs of sitting ruling parties
seeking to perpetuate their hold on power. There is a fine balance needed in
achieving national objectives and personal objectives for those in power and
in most cases selfish needs of incumbent regimes prevail. The most common
constitutional amendment in Africa has been the abolition of two year term
limits for presidents. Those in power will seek to entrench themselves and
would not want to relinquish it after the end of their terms, in most cases
nurturing dictatorships.

In Zambia Chiluba wanted to amend the constitution so he could run for a
third term in 2001.However that bid was defeated as civic groups vehemently
opposed it and many members of the MMD.No motion was ever raised in
parliament to that effect.Bakili Muluzi of Malawi tried the same trick but
failed to garner the two thirds majority needed to effect constitutional
changes ,so did president Olusegun Obasanjo whose bid was blocked by
parliament in 2006.Ugandan president Yoweri Museweni orchestrated the
removal of the two term limit in 2005 when he was reaching the end of his
second term.Gnassingbe Eyadama of Togo managed to scrap the limit in 2002,so
did Gabon in 2003 which allowed Omar Bongo to run for unlimited terms.
President Idriss Deby of Chad was allowed to run for 3rd term in 2003 after
forcing an amendment, whereas in Cameroon in 2008 the same limiting clause
was removed allowing Paul Biya to run for third term in 2011.Algeria
abolished the two term limit in 2008 to allow Abdelaziz Bouteflika ,who has
had two five year mandates since 1999 and will be eligible for re-election
in 2014.Namibia’s Sam Nujoma was the beneficiary intended for removing the
limit in 1999 though he subsequently did not run for a third term in
2004.This trend is not peculiar to Africa alone.Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and
lately the Russian constitution was amended extending presidential term
limits. The current Zimbabwean constitution does not have presidential term
limits .It is one area worth deliberating whether in our new constitution we
should have a limiting clause.

A constitution is supposed to be a living document in purpose and in value.
Thus constitutional interpretations change with the passage of time
reflecting the society’s progression [purposive approach]. That flexibility
in interpretation allows the country to move on sometimes without the need
to consistently change the contents of the constitution. There are positives
for having an entrenched constitution. It fosters society’s values and
founding principles and protects the supreme law from the whims of
politicians. There are two ways in which constitutions can be altered, that
is wholesome or peacemeal.Wholesome entitles having a new constitution
replacing the existing one in whole. Brazil has had seven constitutions
since its independence in 1822, Mexico has had six [since 1857] whereas
Venezuela has had twenty six.Peacemeal is the most commonly used method and
is when certain sections of the constitution are amended leading to a
patched constitution. The USA constitution, which is probably the oldest
constitution in the world, has been amended twenty seven times in its more
than 200 years of existence. India has amended its constitution ninety four
times in sixty years and Zimbabwe has amended its constitution nineteen
times in twenty nine years since independence. The current Zimbabwean
constitution as amended by amendment No 19 of 2009 is the highlight of
constitutional amendment madness .It is the only constitution in the world
that state by name who the occupier of the Prime Minister’s office is, that
is PM Morgan Tsvangirai.If, God forbid, PM Morgan Tsvangirai is killed,
removed or incapacitated that he wont be able to discharge his duties,
Zimbabwe will need to amend the constitution for someone to take over that
post. If someone is subsequently elected [without amendment] who is not
another Morgan Tsvangirai, that will be unconstitutional. The election will
be ultra vires the constitution. How absurd.

Reflecting its supremacy, most amendment clauses require a two thirds
majority to amend the constitution. The requirement for an absolute majority
rather than a simple majority was designed in theory to safeguard the
constitution from the whims of current regimes. It was hoped such a number
meant that thorough debate would have precedented the voting and that all
divergent views would have been accommodated. In addition it also sets the
difference between a normal act of parliament and supremacy of a
constitutional provision. For, a normal act requires a simple majority to
pass through in most jurisdictions whereas a constitutional amendment
requires an absolute affirmative vote. Other writers use the terms flexible
and rigid constitutions basing on the amending process. Flexible if only a
simple majority is required as in the UK [the UK does not have a codified
constitution. The doctrine of supremacy and sovereignty of parliament mean
no law in theory is above an act passed by the UK parliament. However this
is not true legally speaking as European Union law is supreme] and an
absolute majority as in Zimbabwe. In global south, there has been dominant
ruling parties with little opposition or fragmented opposition. Party
cadres, including MPs are always required to tow the party line, even if
they could have serious doubts as to the essence of a constitutional
amendment. Failure to tow leads to being kicked out of the party and losing
your parliamentary seat and more probable, ending of their political
careers. This is a price most politicians are not prepared to pay meaning
the absolute majority requirement has not saved any purpose except in a few
countries.

Zanu PF has had absolute majority in parliament since 1987 [after the Unity
accord and removal of the 20 seats reserved originally for the whites in the
Lancaster House constitution] to 2000 and in that period sixteen amendments
were made to the constitution. The bulk of the amendments were done to
entrench Zanu PFs hold onto power and drive the country towards a one party
state. Even if Zimbabwe was not officially declared a one party state, the
current laws and set up of the institutions of government and controls are
replicas of a one party state system. There was no public participation in
those amendments and our opinions were not sought to whether we agreed or
not. Constitution amendment No 16 of 2000 is the epitome of the negativity
of an absolute majority in such a skewed political landscape. The last thing
the 2000 Zanu PF dominated parliament did was to call all its MPs for
amending the constitution to provide for compulsory acquisition of farm
lands. It is the same clause that Mugabe put in the constitutional draft
prepared by the government appointed Chidyausiku commission in February 2000
before it even went to the referendum. It should be noted that the draft was
supposed to be a collection of the views of the citizens and collated
through the thematic committees set to prepare the draft. If in the thematic
committees there was no demand for that clause, whose interests was Mugabe
representing in amending the draft then? That clause has been the dominant
Zanu PFs campaign theme since 2000 up to now and the results are there for
all to see.

The current constitution requires any amendments to be voted affirmatively
by two thirds of both houses of parliament. This is provided by Sec 52[5] a.
This provision covers all sections of the constitution. It is my submission
that Zimbabwe moves away from this two thirds majority clause because of the
precise reason that it is subject to abuse. Some might argue that with the
emergence of the MDC there are checks and balances and no party between them
have the numbers. Two scenarios persuade me to say this. Firstly Zanu PF
knew they would lose a run off against PM Tsvangirai in the last stolen
election of 2009, that’s why they reverted to their most efficient
campaigning tools, coercive mobilisation, torture, murder, arson, rape,
kidnapping and intimidation assisted by state machinery and institutions.
There is no evidence that in future elections Zanu PF would not do the same.
And they might not be bothered if MDC withdraws like what happened in the
run off. They will conduct elections which the lesser parties will partake
and they will forge ahead with a parliament they dominate thereby also deal
with their succession issue.
Secondly, if a free and fair election is made possible in Zimbabwe with MDC
allowed to freely campaign nationwide without hindrance and with equal
access to airwaves, I have no doubt that MDC will win more than a third of
the seats they contest. Whereas that will be good for us MDC members, there
is no guarantee that we will in future not behave like what Chiluba tried to
do and try to manipulate the constitution to entrench our power [a
possibility].

The solution is to have a two thirds plus clause. This has been applied
mostly to federal states of which Zimbabwe is not. However am positive that
unitary states can also adopt this formula to safeguard the vanguard
sections of their constitution from abuse without necessarily inhibiting
progress by making constitutional amending a near impossibility. The South
African constitution requires a two thirds majority in National Assembly as
well as a supporting vote of six of the nine provinces represented in the
national council of provinces [Sec 74[2] to effect constitutional changes. A
bill amending the founding values as stipulated in Section 1 of the SA
constitution actually requires a seventy five percent majority.
Australia through Sec 128 of its constitution states that amendments must be
approved by a referendum after securing an absolute majority in both houses
of parliament and secondly that this be approved in a referendum by majority
of electors nationwide and a majority in a majority states. Forty four
proposals to amend the constitution have been voted at referendum and only
eight have been approved.

India requires two thirds of the Lok Sabhan and the Rayja Sabha [the two
houses of parliament] for some of its clauses whereas some just need a
simple majority. It further requires amendments linked to distribution of
legislative authority between the federal executive and the states to be
amended by special majority and a referendum. Amending the USA constitution
requires a two thirds majority in both houses of congress. In addition the
amendment should be affirmed by three quarters of the states or by the same
fraction of state conventions.

Zimbabwe has fairly static provinces and am sure this formula can be
utilised to safeguard our constitution. There are certain sections in the
constitution that goes to the heart of the founding principles, our values
that identify us as a country, as citizens and our institutions and these
require that the generality of the populace be consulted and have a say when
there is a proposal to amend them. These include sections like defining the
Republic of Zimbabwe, supremacy of the constitution, our bill of rights, the
tenure of the presidency, prime minister and executive, parliament,
independence of the judiciary and other independent commissions established,
and the no impunity clause. Whenever there is a parliamentary bill proposing
amendment of these sections it should be required that such a clause be put
to a public referendum and be affirmed by at least seven of the twelve
provinces in addition to the two thirds requirement. Other sections could be
amended normally. This way we ensure that the constitution is not easily
manipulated by politicians.
If a people driven process is the panacea to authorship and ownership of the
process and the end product, surely the same is true when amending the
constitution. Public participation remains paramount.

The writer can be contacted at smakombe@btinternet.com

Back to the Top
Back to Index

Questions about power sharing agreement arise in Zimbabwe

State media says Constitutional Commissions put on hold

MDC unaware commissioners' nomination suspended

Tsvangirai tells of frustration at rate of change in Zimbabwe

MDC denies responsibility for sanctions

Parties to chair constitution making committees

Bhebhe says Ncube is the problem, not Mutambara

MDC Director General acquitted

MDC legislator dies after contracting flu

Banks start issuing chequebooks again

Minister's husband dies after attack in June

Zimbabwe's Toll Gates Launch Tuesday

Zimbabwe unveils US$1b road project

Confusion reigns over media commission

Expelled MPs appeal to Supreme Court

Soldiers Beat Resident For Playing Anti-Mugabe Ringing Tune

Zimbabwe's fibre optic implementation intensifies

Investor from South Africa to Inject $100m in Zimbabwe Mineral Mines

Zimbabwe's ailing rail system affecting country's export trade

Residents irked by Mayor’s defensive statements on purchase Mercedes

Doctors' strike threatens to reverse health care gains

Air Zimbabwe in brink of collapse

No one should take us for granted, says President Tsvangirai

Zanu PF in desperate bid to mislead the world

Are we beyond cholera and the crisis in Zimbabwe?

Mugabe could have some cause for concern over Zuma's visit to Dos Santos

Heroes' Acre must be closed

Zimbabwe: death of real politics looms

Safeguarding a new Zimbabwean constitution: the amendment clauses