• South Africa criticises Commonwealth over Zimbabwe
• Bye-bye Bob
• National Budget Akin to a Ship Without Radar
• Do you want a new Presidential election within 90 days?
• Pull-out clearly shows Mugabe*s lack of commitment to democracy
• Daggers out against Tungamirai
• Foreign envoys face the boot
• Firm loses challenge to GMB’s monopoly
• ZANU PF clings to Mugabe legacy
• Ruling party conference a mere talk shop
• 2003 a bad year for Zimbabweans
• Shumba’s candidature sparks row
• Re-engage the IMF
• NOTE BOOK
• A re-look at stigma and discrimination
• Constitutional review remains a top priority
• Farmers turn down compensation

Zimbabwe is isolated, Africa divided

BETWEEN the ceremonial planting of trees, traditional dances and a speech by
England's queen, two questions paralysed last week's meeting of leaders of
the (formerly British) Commonwealth in Nigeria's capital, Abuja: what to do
about Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe; and how to explain the continuing
support for him by the one man who could sink him, South Africa's President
Thabo Mbeki. After three days of talks, there was an answer to the first:
the 51 leaders agreed to prolong Zimbabwe's suspension from the
organisation, because of its government's oppressive ways.

Mr Mugabe, who had not been invited to the Abuja jamboree, will be banned
from future meetings. He declared that he would, in any case, leave the
Commonwealth and turn his back on the “unholy Anglo-Saxon” alliance which—he
says—runs it. So Zimbabwe follows the example of apartheid-era South Africa,
which quit the Commonwealth in 1961 rather than treat its people decently.
(Three other countries—Fiji, Nigeria and Pakistan—have been suspended for
mounting coups or hanging dissidents. Pakistan is still out.)

Zimbabwe flouts nearly every principle that the Commonwealth promotes. In
September, for instance, club-wielding Zimbabwean police shut down the
country's only independent daily paper. Last week Mr Mugabe said it was time
again to use “some measures of force” against his opponents. Members of the
Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), Zimbabwe's opposition, were in Abuja
showing grisly videos of what usually happens when Mr Mugabe makes such
threats.

Mr Mugabe's economic incompetence causes even more misery. On December 3rd,
the IMF finally decided to expel Zimbabwe, citing its government's
unwillingness to do anything about an economy that has shrunk by 40% since
1999, inflation of 526% and a populace so impoverished that two-thirds of
them depend on foreign food aid. The country's finance minister cheerily
predicts that the economy will shrink by another 8.5% next year. The country
has one of the world's highest rates of HIV: around 34% of adults are
infected. Hundreds of thousands of Zimbabweans flee abroad every year.

Yet quite a few leading Africans, particularly South Africa's Mr Mbeki,
still turn a blind eye to Mr Mugabe's shortcomings. The African Union and
the Southern African Development Community have yet to criticise him in
public. And Mr Mbeki is still campaigning to have him appeased.

Indeed, Mr Mbeki tried to oust Don McKinnon, the Commonwealth's
secretary-general, who made no secret of wanting Zimbabwe to stay suspended.
South Africa lobbied to replace him with an aged Sri Lankan, Lakshman
Kadirgamar, whose bid was rebuffed by 40 votes to 11. “We could not let
McKinnon trample over us,” grumbled a South African official. Mr Mbeki then
fought for Zimbabwe's suspension to be ended, only to be defeated on that by
a similar margin, with only the countries of southern Africa (and not all of
them) lined up against the rest.

South Africa has always argued that its “quiet diplomacy” over Zimbabwe is
the only way to preserve some influence over Mr Mugabe and thereby encourage
him to talk to his political opponents. Things may be bad now, goes the
argument, but Mr Mugabe could make them a lot worse.

Mr Mbeki has other concerns, too. He seeks re-election, probably in March
next year. Some of his own voters like Mr Mugabe's rants against
“genetically modified” foreigners and enjoy his attacks on Zimbabwe's tiny
white-skinned minority. Mr Mbeki also resents outsiders, such as Britain's
Tony Blair, meddling in his region.

Perhaps more importantly, Mr Mbeki does not think that Zimbabwe has an
alternative government in the offing. The leader of the four-year-old MDC,
Morgan Tsvangirai, is slow-moving, inexperienced and repeatedly outfoxed by
the government. Though popular, easily winning more votes than Mr Mugabe in
last year's stolen presidential election, Mr Tsvangirai has failed to rouse
sustained mass protests, not least because demonstrators fear being shot. Mr
Mbeki seems to dismiss Mr Tsvangirai's frequent arrests and trial on capital
charges as no more than the usual impediments that African dissidents face.

The good news is that fewer Africans now think this way. Nigeria's
president, Olusegun Obasanjo, who promised to “leave no stone unturned” in
his search for a solution, said he would send an envoy to see Mr Mugabe
before Christmas.

Financial Gazette (Harare)

DOCUMENT
December 11, 2003
Posted to the web December 11, 2003

Harare

ZCTU critique of the 2004 National Budget

On Thursday, November 20 2003, the Minister of Finance and Economic
Development, Dr Herbert Murerwa, presented the 2004 Budget to Parliament.

In critiquing the proposed Budget for 2004, it is necessary to begin by
looking at what the National Budget is about. A Budget is an annual plan
which allocates resources on the basis of the national priorities as set out
in the medium-term development plan or strategy. In this regard, the Budget
breathes life to the development objectives as outlined in the development
strategy.

Sadly, for Zimbabwe, the 2004 National Budget is not anchored on an
identifiable development strategy. The National Economic Revival Programme
(NERP), which was launched by government in February 2003, is not even
mentioned in the Budget statement, giving the impression that the Budget is
not particularly influenced by any coherent development strategy. Even the
Prices and Incomes Stabilisation Protocol signed by government, business and
labour on January 30 2003 is not mentioned. In the absence of a coherent
development strategy, the Budget is akin to a ship without radar, depriving
it of the required vision, direction and compactness.

As the Budget statement points out, the rest of the world and SADC countries
are generally performing reasonably well, with world output estimated to
grow by 3.2 percent in 2003 and 4.1 percent in 2004, while global inflation
stands at only 1.6 percent in 2003 and a projected 1.8 percent in 2004. The
average rate of growth of output in SADC for 2003 is 2.6 percent, with an
average inflation rate of 15.3 percent in 2003 projected to decline to 8.1
percent in 2004.

In sharp contrast, output is estimated to contract by 13.2 percent in 2003,
with inflation, which is currently at 526 percent (October 2003) projected
to shoot to about 600 percent by December 2003 and 700 percent by the first
quarter of 2004 in Zimbabwe.

This suggests that there is something unique about Zimbabwe that is
adversely affecting its performance. The National Budget argues that
sanctions are the reason behind the poor performance of the Zimbabwean
economy. This explanation is way off the mark. Existing sanctions are
targeted at individuals and were only adopted in 2001, when the economic
decline was already under way since 1997. We strongly believe that once the
diagnosis of the problem is wrong, so will the proffered solutions. It is,
therefore, important to get the diagnosis right.

Fortunately, government, business and labour jointly examined the causes of
the crisis and identified what has to be done in the Kadoma Declaration,
which was initially put together in November 2001 and revised in February
2003. The Kadoma Declaration makes it clear that deteriorating governance,
social and economic exclusion are largely behind the current crisis.
Accordingly, it emphasises the return to good and inclusive governance, the
de-politicisation of national institutions and workplaces and the
normalisation of relations between Zimbabwe and the major development
partners as a basis for sustainable economic recovery. The Kadoma
Declaration rightly points out that without a return to good and inclusive
governance, and return to normalcy in terms of international relations, it
is difficult to address the current problems. In this regard, in the absence
of a return to normalcy, inclusive and good governance, de-politicisation of
public institutions among others, it will not be possible to turn the
economy around.

No Budget on its own can, therefore, return the economy to a normal footing,
while at the same time redressing the socio-economic ills of social
exclusion and mass poverty.

Unlike the 2003 Budget statement that boldly criticised some government
policies (price controls and interest rate and exchange rate policy), the
2004 Budget ducks these issues (presumably for self-preservation granted
that a Cabinet reshuffle is looming).

While the 2004 Budget statement correctly identifies inflation as enemy
number one, it lacks any concrete measures to address it. There are no
measures in the Budget statement to stabilise the economy and promote
recovery, especially in the productive sectors of the economy, and chiefly
agriculture and manufacturing.

The Budget provides no clear policy position on key areas, namely, interest
rate policy, exchange rate policy and overall development thrust, constantly
referring the country to the Monetary Policy Statement to be issued by the
Governor of the Reserve Bank in mid-December 2003. In fact, the Budget
statement provides a misleading forecast regarding inflationary trends,
projecting that inflation will start declining after the first quarter of
2004, when it contains no clear anti-inflation measures.

Furthermore, there are promises regarding fiscal discipline and inflation
targeting, which were made in the past but were not achieved. For instance,
the inflation target for end of 2003 is 96 percent, yet it is projected to
reach 600 percent by December 2003. In fact, continued recourse to domestic
financing of the Budget deficit will further fuel inflation.

The Budget lacks concrete measures to address unemployment and mass poverty,
and generally is not gender-sensitive; neither does it recognise the special
needs of disadvantaged groups such as children, youths and people living
with disabilities. While it indicates that the private sector will be
harnessed in areas such as infrastructural development, provision of social
services and public enterprises, it fails to tease out the social
implications of cost recovery and resort to unfettered markets in these
areas, which often harm the poor and disadvantaged.

Allocations for social protection are grossly inadequate, considering that
at least 80 percent of Zimbabweans are living in poverty. The Z$70.9 billion
allocated for social protection translates to Z$7 707 per person per annum
for each of the 80 percent of Zimbabweans living in poverty. The Z$48
billion vote for drought relief works out at Z$5 911 per person per annum
for each of the 70 percent of Zimbabweans living in rural areas and
vulnerable to drought.

Clearly, areas of social and economic rights, namely, food security,
adequate health care delivery, good education, adequate housing and
transport and provision of utilities at affordable cost are not given
priority in the Budget.

The Budget prioritises national defence and security at a time the region is
enjoying unprecedented peace. The Z$854 billion allocated for wages and
salaries in defence and security is more than the Z$701.2 billion allocated
to the Ministry of Health and Child Welfare. The allocation for health at
11.6 percent of the total vote, is lower than the 12.1 percent for 2003.

While tax relief measures such as the extension of the tax free salary from
Z$15 000 to Z$200 000 per month, extension of the tax-free component of the
bonus and retrenchment package are welcome, they will soon be irrelevant in
the context of hyperinflation and delayed application (in cases such as the
new tax threshold it will only apply on January 1 2004, when inflation would
have risen to a projected 700 percent). With the tax-free salary pegged at
Z$200 000 a month and the highest tax rate of 45 percent applying from
salaries above Z$375 000 per month, implying the tax bands are very narrow
and salary adjustments will push workers into a higher band, eroding the
take-home component.

In the 2003 Budget statement, the minister promised to remove the AIDS Levy
by January 1 2004. However, the 2004 National Budget statement is silent on
the AIDS Levy. We expect it to be scrapped as earlier indicated.

It is our considered view that in drafting the 2004 National Budget, the
Minister of Finance and Economic Development was more pre-occupied with his
political survival given the anticipated Cabinet reshuffle as evidenced by
the lack of concrete measures and not being critical of wrong-headed
government policies on price controls, interest rate and exchange rate
policy. In this regard, the 2004 National Budget is a do-nothing budget
characterised by a clear attempt to pacify the President by adopting his
approach to economic management (e.g. blaming sanctions/foreigners for our
problems, fixing interest rates and the exchange rate). It is, therefore, a
resigned/surrender/conformist Budget which focuses on political survival as
evidenced by the prioritisation of defence and security at the expense of
the real issues affecting ordinary Zimbabweans. It is, therefore, a classic
case of much-ado-about-nothing.

Given the above, it is in the public interest for Parliament to reject the
2004 Budget as it currently stands. It is, therefore, necessary to put in
place an urgent stakeholder process to revisit the whole Budget on the basis
of the challenges facing the nation: reining in inflation and stabilising
the macro-economy, putting in place measures for recovery, employment
creation and poverty alleviation. The Budget must, of essence, prioritise
the social and economic rights issues such as food security, health, and
education, housing, transport, provision of utilities among others in a
gender-sensitive manner.

The Budget should consciously seek to integrate the formal and non-formal
sectors (including the informal economy) through empowerment initiatives, as
recently undertaken in South Africa. This approach will promote a
broad-based, inclusive, gender-sensitive and human-centred (pro-poor)
development strategy.

Meanwhile, government should urgently seek to return the economy to a normal
footing by among other things, embracing dialogue with the main opposition
parties and restoring relations with the international community. The
proposed Anti-Corruption Commission should be established as a matter of
urgency.

      DEMOCRACY - citizens governing themselves, letting the people vote,
letting the majority decide - it all sounds so simple and so easy.

      The real power of a referendum, however, is not found in casting a
ballot on a question presented by government. The real power is in the right
to call a referendum on any issue, at any time.

      In a democracy the power to call a referendum should rest in the hands
of citizens, not in the hands of government." (Andre Carrel: "Making Local
Democracy Work")

      I believe that in these few simple sentences by Canadian author Andre
Carrel, lies the solution to Zimbabwe's problems.

      We need to demand that a referendum be held urgently and the question
posed should be: "Do Zimbabweans want a new Presidential election within the
next 90 days?"

      For the last three and a half years Robert Mugabe and ZANU PF have
been insisting that Zimbabwe is a sovereign state and is operating
democratically.

      At each violent and destructive step of their recent governance, ZANU
PF have insisted that they are doing what the people of the country want but
they do not let the people of Zimbabwe voice their opinions.

      So we must ask just exactly whose wishes and needs they are serving.
In the last three years there has been a litany of opposition to Zimbabwe's
ruling party’s policies.

      It began in 2000 when the people voted NO in a referendum proposing
constitutional changes.

      President Mugabe addressed the nation and said that he accepted the
will of the people and promptly went ahead and amended the constitution
anyway.

      Then we tried to make our voices heard in the 2002 Presidential
elections but ZANU PF and Registrar General Tobaiwa Mudede were having none
of it. We expressed our concerns through the only independent daily
newspaper but the ZANU PF government were having none of that either and
closed the paper down.

      We turned to the courts for legal rulings but they too proved
pointless because police and law enforcement agents refused to obey court
rulings and that became another platform from which our voices were
silenced.

      On a score of occasions Zimbabwe's political opposition and civic
society have called people to go out on the streets and let their voices be
heard. Time after time Zimbabweans have done so and they are met with tear
gas and baton sticks, water cannons and prison cells.

      There are not many options left for Zimbabwe now. Over the weekend in
what became a

      disastrous Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, Zimbabwe was
suspended indefinitely from the organisation.

      Without calling a referendum and without the mandate of 11.5 million
people, Robert Mugabe again decided alone for what he sees as "his country"
and pulled Zimbabwe out of the Commonwealth.

      Zimbabwe needs to hold a referendum, the people must demand it
immediately. We need to be given the opportunity to voice our opinion so
that we can have a say in our future. We may no longer be members of the
Commonwealth but we are still members of the United Nations, SADC and the
African Union.

      The mandate and burden of responsibility now falls on the UN, SADC and
the AU to help the ordinary people of Zimbabwe.

      Throughout the disastrous weekend at Abuja the whole African continent
has suffered because of Zimbabwe.

      Talks about aid, trade and development have been cancelled thanks to
arguments about whether or not to exclude Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth.
Some African leaders insisted in Abuja that African problems be resolved by
Africans.

      If those same leaders feel strongly enough about the desperate plight
of ordinary Zimbabweans will they help us now to solve our own problems?
Will Presidents Mbeki, Chissano, Mogae, Muluzi and Mwanawasa put their words
into action and demand that a free and fair referendum be held immediately
in Zimbabwe and that the outcome of this referendum be adhered to?

      President Mugabe has repeatedly insisted that Zimbabwe is a democratic
and sovereign state. If he means it then he will not object to a referendum
whose question is simple: "Do you, the people of Zimbabwe, want a new
Presidential election within 90 days?"

      By The Litany Bird

      THE decision by Zimbabwe’s ruling ZANU PF party to pull the country
out of the Commonwealth should be seen as an indicator of the lack of
commitment to democracy and principles of good governance.

      In voluntarily keeping Zimbabwe out of multilateral groups critical of
his regime, Mugabe and his ruling elite are making an attempt to keep
themselves away from scrutiny and from being called to account for the way
they are treating their own people.

      What is quite ironic about Mugabe’s decision to pull from the
Commonwealth is that almost all the codes of democratic governance he has
been defying were designed as part of the Harare Declaration developed
during his tenure as Chairperson of the Commonwealth.

      Much more disturbing in his latest anti-imperialist rhetoric are
assertions that democracy and freedoms are foreign to Africans. These
developments are strikingly reflective of Mugabe’s loosening grip on power.

      He stands now exposed for what he really is: a despot bent on going to
the grave under the rubble of every significant gain, now destroyed, that
Zimbabwe had achieved in two decades of post-colonial rule.

      He is a dissident on a mission to divide the world and set it against
itself. For most pro-democracy movements in Zimbabwe, Mugabe’s decision
carries two solid meanings.

      One, in the absence of multilateral monitoring which has been done
largely by the Commonwealth, Mugabe is more likely to increase his
crack-down on them – this time with even fewer consequences.

      On the other hand, the movements have earned even greater legitimacy
because Mugabe has been exposed once again despite efforts by more powerful
players like South Africa to protect their long time liberation struggle
ally.

      But perhaps the most significant outcome of the Commonwealth debate on
Zimbabwe was that, contrary to Mugabe’s assertions, the lines of his
supporters and detractors do not fall neatly along the North/South or
black/white divides.

      This revelation can only help build further resistance. Mugabe’s
tactic has been to discredit the opposition and bring in emotionally charged
red herrings to distract the population at home and the international
community from the harsh realities of the depth to which his has sunk the
country.

      Mugabe’s unilateral decision to pull out of the Commonwealth has real
consequences for average Zimbabweans. Zimbabwe is in a grave humanitarian
crisis.

      We have amongst the highest rates of people living with HIV/AIDS,
currently standing at an estimated 35 percent of our 12.5 million people.

      Most of the people affected are in the age groups 15-35 exposing
Zimbabwe to a catastrophic demographic implosion. There are almost no
measures to mitigate this crisis.

      Education and prevention campaigns are weak and old fashioned. NGO and
aid agencies working in the area are heavily censored and muffled as the
government encourages and practices stigmatisation.

      Treatment is virtually unavailable and nonexistent even in the urban
areas. With trade relations in freefall and inflation officially pegged at
525 percent, but estimated to be 1000 percent by independent economists, the
economic implications are obvious.

      According to the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions, average wages have
fallen to an estimated US$20 per month, down from an average of US$350 only
4 years ago.

      Most industries have been grounded and unemployment has reached
alarming proportions, estimated at 80 percent. The entire health sector is
in a state of total collapse.

      Doctors and nurses have been on strike for better wages and working
conditions for the past four months. With no medication coming in and most
equipment not working, hospitals are virtually nothing more than death
chambers.

      Zimbabwe had managed to earn a reputation for having the second
highest skilled labour force per population in Africa, second only to Ghana.

      This has been eroded as Mugabe clamped down on academic freedom. The
education system has been heavily politicised.

      Most of Zimbabwe’s skilled people have fled the country en masse to
enjoy the freedoms of some of the same countries Mugabe so often derides.
Constant deportations of Zimbabweans are becoming more than just an
annoyance for neighbouring countries.

      Botswana deports an average 1 000 Zimbabweans every week, and South
Africa deports many times more at their own expense.

      Meanwhile Zimbabwe’s political elite is shielded from all these harsh
realities. In a statement to his ruling ZANU PF during last weekend’s
extravaganza, which cost some Z$1.3 billion (US $1.6 million using official
exchange rates, or US$220 000 using more realistic rates), Mugabe dismissed
the Commonwealth.

      He accused it of maintaining Orwellian double standards, stating that
“some [members] are more equal than others.” The irony of this statement is
inescapable, especially when we consider that most of Mugabe’s strongmen’s
families have escaped Zimbabwe and live and study in friendly countries.

      South Africa hosts a number of them. At the University of Natal,
Durban where I study, almost 90 percent of the Zimbabwean student population
belongs to Zimbabwe’s elite ruling club, among them is Mugabe’s nephews
shunning away from the disasters that have befallen our education system at
home.

      Despite the contradictions of the Commonwealth federation, its members
play an important role in providing relief. Most of our public institutions,
particularly education and health, have been surviving on huge grants from
some Commonwealth member countries.

      Zimbabwe has been receiving, despite the suspension from participating
in the Commonwealth in the past year, commendable support for relief
programmes directly funded by some Commonwealth members especially in the
areas of HIV/AIDS prevention programmes, drought relief and health,
cushioning Zimbabwe from a massive humanitarian disaster.

      After Mugabe’s arrogant posturing on the Commonwealth, it remains to
be seen whether these supports will be cut off completely, plunging the
country into an even deeper crisis. The demands of the Commonwealth on
Mugabe have been quite modest, the result of compromise between South Africa
and governments more critical of Mugabe’s regime.

      Recommendations of the Troika assigned to monitor the situation
revolved mainly around the opening up of dialogue between Mugabe’s ruling
ZANU PF and the popular opposition led by Morgan Tsvangirai, the Movement
for Democratic Change.

      The situation in Zimbabwe carries clear indications of the end of
Mugabe’s rule. Everything seems at odds with him. Even those that once
sympathised with his arguments now see clearly that not all of Zimbabwe’s
problems can be blamed on Western machinations, that it is his
responsibility to save the country from further ruin and the Southern
African region from instability.

      Though his decision to pull out of the Commonwealth might seem to save
him from scrutiny, it should not stop member countries from individually and
collectively holding Mugabe responsible for the injustices he metes out to
his people.

      The international community has a new opportunity to provide practical
support to Zimbabweans in their quest rebuild a just, democratic and
peaceful nation. This would be a welcome change from the embarrassing
posturing and protectionism of the African Union and Southern African
Development Community, which have failed to play a constructive role in
resolving the crisis.

      The pro-democracy movements in the country should also seize the
opportunity to intensify their fight. Recent developments remind us that
sustained, organised, mass-based resistance is necessary to defeat this
tyrant.

      Such a truly mass movement will also create a base on which
international support becomes effective and on which the foundations of a
new democratic dispensation in Zimbabwe can be carried forward.

      By Tapera Kapuya.

      Kapuya is a former University of Zimbabwe Student Union secretary
general (expelled from the University in 2001 for leading student protests
for academic freedom) now studying at University of Natal, Durban South
Africa

      12/11/2003 6:56:52 AM (GMT +2)

      The Zimbabwean economy is at what can only be described as a puzzling
crossroads characterised by a disillusioning, tough and desperate situation
for Zimbabweans whose economic well-being has been seriously compromised.

      The analogy of a crossword puzzle with only half the clues and no
black squares would not be far fetched because the government seems to be at
sea as to how to wiggle out of the awkward economic scrapes. This is
seriously threatening the eggshell-thin veneer of stability the country is
enjoying.

      It is, indeed, a dire situation despite what politicians are saying in
a desperate attempt to assuage the general perception that the government
has neither the strategic vision nor the wherewithal to turn around the
economy. The government has its needle well and truly stuck on this one. We
are therefore hard-pressed to believe that a new and realistic vision for
the economy could be born out of this unfolding tragedy.

      Nothing seems to be going right for Zimbabwe against a background of
lingering concerns over high levels of inflation, an unstable exchange rate
regime, crippling fuel and food shortages, collapsing industry and commerce
and the inherent job losses, among other negatives.

      In fact, the battered economy is also likely to take a turn for the
worse given that the International Monetary Fund, with which the government
has been haggling and playing hardball over key policy issues has, like we
predicted last June, effectively slammed the door on the beleaguered
country.

      This, although widely expected, could not have come at a particularly
irksome moment for the country. Critical foreign money which fled the
country as risk-averse investors accustomed to the strings and arrows of a
stable market took the flight to safety, is unlikely to return any time
soon, because the IMF decision to dump Zimbabwe could only but fuel negative
perceptions. And unfortunately perceptions are taken as a reality in
business.

      International support or the little that was left of it is, therefore,
set to evaporate. Without the IMF, from which other international financiers
and backers get their cue, the shine has disappeared from Zimbabwe as an
attractive investment destination. In the eyes of the international
community, Zimbabwe is a pariah and rogue state with a serious democratic
deficit. The economic fall-out of this development could only be too ghastly
to contemplate especially given the sweeping nature of the economic downturn
touched off three years ago.

      If nothing else, this provides telling and luminous evidence of a
nation in distress. It is against this background that we feel it is
imperative for the government to bite the bullet and knuckle down to the IMF
conditions to help reverse the country’s flagging fortunes, or the economy
will, as surely as the sun rises from the east and sets in the west,
continue to cave in.

      We have said it before and we will say it again, we do not accept the
mystique of the IMF nor do we hold any brief for some of its outworn
shibboleths. But the IMF could, for all its sins, together with
well-thought-out austerity measures, be just what the doctor ordered.

      12/11/2003 7:28:47 AM (GMT +2)

      UNTIL recently, CZ saw no reason what-so-ever to walk from one end of
Harare to the other comparing prices . . . it was not necessary, for in his
view, the prices were more or less the same. Not any more!

      Last week the scribe wanted to buy his ageing grandmother some drugs —
three drugs to be specific — and like someone whose financial muscle is
increasingly atrophying from repeated inflationary attacks, he had to shop
around.

      From the first pharmacy he approached, he got a quotation of $60 970
for the three drugs. The next gave him a quotation of $45 288, the next, one
of $58 719 and the next that of $65 775 — all for the same drugs. Curious
like a monkey, CZ thought it was important to explore further. The next
pharmacy gave him a quotation of $53 550 and the one that followed gave him
a quotation of a cool $128 900. Guess what, he finally bought the drugs for
only $37 200!

      Chances are that all these pharmacies are getting the drugs from one
source at the same price and when they are selling, all of them are making
profits. One really wonders how some businesses calculate their profit
margins.

      After this experience and a half, CZ told himself that come whatever
may, henceforth he will not just pay for anything without comparing the
prices/charges.

      SO sanity has finally returned to Munhu-mutapa Building — the
Department of (Mis)Information and (Bad) Publicity in the Office of the
President and Cabinet — to be quite specific! The mandarins in this office
at long last finally agreed with the rest of Zimbabwe — no matter how out of
touch they really are — that the kongonya dance accompanying the latest
propaganda jingles "Sendekera Mwana Wevhu" was salacious (insalubrious) for
a straitlaced society like ours. They decided to agree that at that rate, we
were fast degenerating into a nauseatingly permissive society?

      So what was all the hoo-ha from Munhumutapa Building about when
churches, traditionalists, ZUJ and other concerned citizens of this country
voiced concern about the dance?

      Everyone was on the defensive — everyone, the British-trained George
Charamba, Munyaradzi Hwengwere, Munyaradzi Huni and the professor . . .
everyone! They said there was absolutely nothing wrong with the kongonya
dance. To them, everything was fine!

      So why did they choose to sanitise the videotape if it was clean from
the start?

      Because we know that the man behind all this really has an ego. The
offensive video is being gradually replaced with a more acceptable one. He
knows very well that if he was to suddenly pull it off air, people were
going to notice and cry victory. We are all waiting for the day the kongonya
dance is finally removed from our screens . . . after all the rains that are
mentioned in the song are just too late to avert another drought!

      WHY does the National Railways of Zimbabwe (NRZ) still insist on
running its passenger trains when most passengers end up finishing their
journeys by other means of transport after the parastatal has dumped them in
the middle of nowhere without a clue about what would be going on?

      About two months ago, the company said it was suspending its passenger
train service because of the shortage of fuel — fine and dandy. And about
two weeks ago, it announced that it was going to run the passenger train
service three times a week, only for passengers to realise that when the
company said three times a week it had realised that it needed at least two
days to run a train from say, Bulawayo to Harare. Because of this, it cannot
run more than three services a week between the country’s major cities.

      This is really disgusting, to say the least. The service is just too
shoddy to describe. It is worse than no service at all!

      NRZ should either learn to provide a good service or it should provide
no service at all because it is pointless for travellers to spend days in
the bush without any food or water.

      Thank you!

      cznotebook@yahoo.co.uk

      12/11/2003 7:22:44 AM (GMT +2)

      AS the HIV and AIDS campaign 2003-2004 gathers momentum since its
launch on December 1 in Murehwa, the nation needs to pause and reflect on a
clear national agenda in the fight against the stigma and discrimination
associated with the pandemic.

      HIV and AIDS-related stigma is one of the major obstacles in the fight
against the pandemic.

      Many people are living with HIV and AIDS and about 10 percent of 1.82
million people infected do not know their status because of a lack of HIV
testing and counselling facilities, families lack of appropriate information
or due to fear of stigma.

      Stigma relates to deep-rooted social mores; mainly myths and taboos
that are strongly associated with the disease.

      These elements are taboos that many find difficult to talk about
openly.

      The general discomfort about discussing the societal "taboos" in many
communities in Zimbabwe is compounded by high levels of ignorance, denial,
fear and intolerance about the disease itself.

      This potent confluence has led to rejection and even aggression
against people living with HIV.

      They have been openly disowned by their families or asked to leave
their homes, while others face overt and covert forms of discrimination in
receiving medical care.

      In some instances, people with AIDS are being denied basic rights such
as food, shelter, health care and are dismissed from jobs they are perfectly
fit to perform. They are rejected by their communities, or by their own
families.

      Access to care for people and families affected by the HIV and AIDS
pandemic is another area of concern.

      People living with HIV are isolated in special wards, refused health
care or even neglected or rejected by medical and social staff.

      Stigma is a double-edged sword at individual and community level. It
entails a process of learning how to cope and deal with the stigma
experienced from society but also calls for the recognition of strategies to
overcome internal stigma or self-stigma.

      The fear around stigma leads to silence, leading to death. It
suppresses public discussion about AIDS and hinders people from finding out
their status. It can cause people — a mother breastfeeding her child or a
sexual partner reluctant to disclose their HIV status — to risk transmitting
HIV instead of attracting suspicion of living with the virus.

      In the workplace, stigma and discrimination is showcased in different
forms: firing of those known to be living with HIV and instances where
employers demand HIV testing before recruitment or communicating the results
of HIV diagnosis or test.

      Stigma and discrimination can lead to depression, lack of self-worth
and despair for people living with HIV and AIDS. However, it is important to
note that it is not only people living with the disease who are endangered
by this fear and prejudice.

      The issues raised here need a serious look at how the nation can focus
and intensify the war against stigma and discrimination.

      Culture has to be explored as a source of stigma. In a commuter
omnibus, a mother who is under the Prevention of Mother to Child
Transmission programme is forced to breastfeed her baby for fear of the
custodians of culture who insist that she should breastfeed the baby.

      It is fear and stigma that will drive the woman to succumb to the
pressure to go ahead and breastfeed even though she has been told not to
breastfeed her baby.

      Cultural sentiments in a country like Zimbabwe are that every child
has to be breastfed or the mother risks name-calling, rebuke and rejection
of being arrogant and uncultured.

      In our national agenda we need to be very cognisant and mindful of the
retrogressive elements of our otherwise beautiful culture.

      We know of people to day, in this environment that is awash with
information on the spread of the virus, who still believe that they can
become infected by mosquito bites, or by sharing the same toilet or even
working in the same office with infected people. Thus they believe that the
only way to avoid this is to physically shun them.

      The nation is faced with a serious task of moving away from a simple
information, education and communication approach to behaviour change
communication.

      Behaviour change communication emphasis is on developing tailor-made
messages and approaches that promote and sustain individual and community
behaviour change.

      This approach will set the tone for compassionate and responsible
interventions that give clear insights to the socio-economic impact of the
pandemic.

      Behaviour change will facilitate not only a transformation of one
individual, it will also focus on the rest of the community to deal with
those facets that fuel stigma.

      Exploring and revisiting confidentiality has to be tackled too, to
effectively deal with stigma and discrimination. Confidentiality fuels the
culture of silence and fear. It conceals, keeps and wraps HIV in a box like
a present for the unsuspecting.

      As Christmas draws near, women in the rural areas await patiently and
prepare for the return of their spouses from their places of work in the
towns, mines and other places. With them the spouses bring many Christmas
presents such as new clothes for the children and the mother and foodstuffs.

      It might just happen that one of the precious presents that the spouse
will receive is a hidden present — a result of unfaithfulness as the spouse
has not been faithful over the long periods of absences from his partner. In
the comfort of confidentiality, the spouse might choose not to be
confidential.

      A national agenda has to look at confidentiality and ensure that HIV
and AIDS are treated as any other disease and avoid concealing it and giving
it the stigma it has amassed.

      Genuine involvement of people living with HIV and AIDS is one of the
most powerful strategies to reduce stigma.

      Empowering them to speak openly about their status and be part of the
development and implementation of HIV and AIDS projects is central to any
successful national or community response to the pandemic.

      Reducing the stigma of HIV will need a concerted effort from every one
in society, especially from people living with HIV and AIDS; healthcare
workers; the media; religious bodies; and political leaders.

       .. Jabulani Sithole is a researcher and documentation officer with
the National AIDS Council.

      12/11/2003 7:21:52 AM (GMT +2)

      I HAVE previously written a lot on constitutional review, particularly
in the context of the now overdue talks between ZANU PF and the Movement for
Democratic Change (MDC), but this week I wish to look at the constitutional
question from a rather different but complementary perspective.

      I had intended to write about the need by all opposition political
parties and civil society to re-claim the liberation war legacy which has
been "privatised" by ZANU PF, but many of my regular readers who appreciated
my last two contributions (like they do all my contributions) on
fragmentation of the people’s resistance thought more should be said on
that.

      One asked me to shed more light, for the benefit of him and other
readers, by identifying the methodological differences within the
pro-democracy movement and why I say most of them are "imagined" and
"perceived".

      The other, a very critical woman, agrees with me that the major reason
why the pro-democracy movement is being fragmented is because of failure by
opposition political leaders and civic leaders alike to identify a common
programme that cuts across various sectional interests and thus make it
possible to create a popular front against the establishment, but she
challenged me to articulate my view on what such a programme is or ought to
be.

      Many simply commented that my contributions are "instilling some sense
of positiveness in stating categorically the people’s hopes and
aspirations", to borrow a rather flattering phrase from one of my regular
readers who is himself also a writer.

      To address the concern of the first reader, the major methodological
difference is found in those who argue that we must focus on
political/regime change first and then deal with the constitutional question
afterwards and those that argue that constitutional change must precede or
at least facilitate regime change. The former opinion is prevalent among
members of the opposition MDC. They argue that the government, after the
referendum, demonstrated that it is not serious about constitutional review
or anything else and that for us to have a new democratic constitution and
good governance, we must eject that government from power first.

      But our legal structure is tipped in favour of the incumbent regime
because in a presidential election, and indeed in any election in which his
party is contesting, the President is a player as well as a referee because
he has a constitutional power to issue directives, otherwise known as
statutory instruments, which can change fundamentally. The electoral law
regime works to his party’s advantage. The difficulty of removing the
current government under the current constitution and electoral law regime
has already been demonstrated in previous contributions.

      It is a fundament of free and fairness that players must not
simultaneously be referees.

      The prevalent opinion within the MDC is also crystallised by the
mindframe that President Mugabe stole the election in 2002 and that he and
his government are "illegitimate" and they, therefore, can not engage an
illegitimate government on constitutional matters, but ironically they want
to engage the government in talks that seem only bent on power transference
without addressing the fundamentals of good governance and democracy through
a people-driven constitutional review process.

      The MDC fails to realise how even the 2000 general elections were
stolen by virtue of the President’s constitutional power to appoint 30 MPs
by special procedure. Noticeably, most Cabinet ministers are people who have
been appointed into Parliament by the President. Whose interests do these
people serve? Those of the people or those of the President or both?

      When the interests of the President and those of the people clash,
whose interests take precedence? These questions also go to the root of the
legitimacy of the Zimbabwean Parliament itself and by implication to the
root of the legitimacy of laws that come from that house. The President’s
constitutional power to appoint 30 MPs by special procedure is a violation
of the principle of one-man one-vote which is the cornerstone of any
democratic political system.

      Those who say regime change must precede constitutional change argue
that we must deal with the government’s legitimacy crisis first and this can
only be resolved by the MDC’s presidential poll petition. As we all know,
judgment in the preliminary hearing has been reserved and it may be reserved
indefinitely. Meanwhile, the people’s hopes and aspirations for a change for
the better are also shelved and there appears to be no end in sight to their
ever increasing suffering.

      Before I deal with the constitutional review perspective, I want to
refer briefly to another body of opinion. There is another group which
argues that at the moment people are concerned about "bread and butter"
issues and are less concerned about governance issues and the "elitist
obsession" with a new constitution. A majority of this group is found among
trade unionists and workers’ representatives at various levels.

      This group seeks to engage in reformist politics — fighting for wage
increases, better working conditions, price controls, cost of living
adjustments and so forth through demonstrations, strikes, lock-outs, sit-ins
etcetera.

      Then comes another group of constitutional reform activists and those
who interact with me at a personal level know that it is with this group
that I personally identify. We argue that the crisis in this country is a
crisis of governance and this argument has not had any credible rival in
sight. The constitution sets the structure for governance. If the
constitution is defective, governance can even be worse — rotten. Abuse of
the electoral process and enactment of unjust and undemocratic laws like
POSA and AIPPA using an undeserved parliamentary majority are issues of
governance.

      We argue that the current constitution gives too much power to the
President and that this power has been used to stifle resistance and silence
dissent. The legal and political landscape is tipped in favour of the
incumbent regime and there is no way we can effect regime change without
targeting the source of its political authority — the constitution, which
has made it very difficult, if not impossible to remove the ZANU PF regime.

      As a result of this realisation, we think that the first step towards
resolving this complication is to level the political playing field, open up
democratic space and create an environment conducive for free political
contest through a new democratic constitutional, and political dispensation.

      We argue that there are no such things as "bread and butter" issues
which are divorced from issues of governance. Political, policy and
governmental decisions have a direct bearing on the availability or
otherwise of bread and butter on our tables.

      The situation obtaining in Zimbabwe at the moment is such that it is
myopic and parochial to seek to restrict oneself to fighting for short-term
concessions from the regime without looking at the whole political and legal
superstructure that sustains the establishment. With sanctions biting,
coupled with economic mismanagement, unbridled corruption, graft and fiscal
indiscipline, there is a very definite limit to the economic concessions
(bread and butter) that the government can give to the people at the moment.

      The treasury is as bankrupt as the political system and that is why
the government cannot deal with the problems of the striking doctors and
nurses, resulting in total collapse of the health delivery system. The
government has no capacit better chances of a breakthrough than in the case
of a blunt call for regime change.

      We have always maintained that POSA and AIPPA have a "constitutional
pedigree" to the extent that they interfere with our fundamental rights and
freedoms and that they should be looked at in the context of other similar
drastic laws like the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act, the
Official Secrets Act and the Executive Presidency itself as an institution,
with its wide powers over the army, police and other security organs. A lot
of people don’t know that the President has vast drastic constitutional
powers which he has used sparingly so far but which he can use lavishly when
he deems it fit.

      If the progressive movement is persuaded that the crisis in this
country is one of governance and that these laws have become an obstacle to
true democratisation, is it not elementary that the obstacles must be
removed if we are to achieve our goal? We must fight for the repeal of these
laws and indeed the fundamental law because they stand in our way. This is a
time for us to take a political route and approach the law in a political
way because these pieces of legislation are themselves political.

      The point is that in the context of POSA and AIPPA, the rule of law
argument must be interrogated because, in my opinion, it is now
retrogressive for it has the effect of sanctifying the current legal
superstructure which is patently inimical to our interests. Whose interests
does the rule of law serve if the rule of law means robot-like obedience to
POSA and AIPPA?

      For the record, (lest Kembo Mohadi’s boys might find it worthwhile to
pay me a visit or invite me to one of their stations) I am not inciting
anyone to break the law but for anyone, who, out of conscience believes that
it is a better evil to willingly break an unjust law on a point of
principle, than to sheepishly obey such a law, then POSA and AIPPA are cases
in point.

      Before the referendum, all in the pro-democracy movement were united
by the desire to have a new democratic and people-driven constitution. That
project is still pending and if we have been at one point united under that
same cause, what divides us now? Isn’t it imperative that we reconstitute
and rediscover that unifying spirit in the presence of which popular power
triumphed over government machinations in 2000?

      Zimbabweans have witnessed a lot of violence since 2000 and a lot of
divisive things have happened since then. A constitutional review process,
by its very nature, provides a comprehensive moral framework conducive for
reconciliation and a healing of wounds. It also has a massive unifying
influence. A new constitution is about legality and legitimacy; it is about
morals and ethics; it is about our values as a society. We can not unite
because we don’t have common values and standards against which to
distinguish right from wrong.

      I sincerely believe that constitutional review or the democratisation
agenda, if adopted by the rest of the progressive movement, has the capacity
to enable us to create a popular front. Better still, it is an agenda that
appeals to a significantly wide spectrum of liberals within ZANU PF itself
and to that extent there are better chances of a breakthrough than in the
case of a blunt call for regime change. In addition, the response of the
government to political pressure to change the laws of the country could be
presumably less heavy-handed than to political pressure to remove the
incumbent government from power.

      It is obviously extremely likely now that ZANU PF will not engage the
opposition and civil society before the next general elections for that’s as
far as the election petitions can go. So our premise in the constitutional
reform movement is that we have been cheated before to participate in
previous general elections without a new constitution and a new electoral
law regime and we cannot afford to be cheated again in 2005.

      Only a democratic constitution can give the broadest section of
citizens a role in resolving the crisis we are facing.