FinGaz
Nelson Banya, Njabulo Ncube & Kumbirai
Mafunda St
Unity hopes dashed as Tsvangirai digs in
MOVEMENT for
Democratic Change (MDC) leader Morgan Tsvangirai has poured
cold water on
prospects of a speedy reunification with a splinter faction of
the party
despite a congress resolution that the fractious party works "for
the unity
of all genuine cadres to the struggle."
The former trade unionist, who
was reinvigorated by the support of over 15
800 delegates who attended his
camp's congress and reaffirmed his leadership
at the weekend, appears eager
to lead the MDC in a war of attrition against
his former colleagues now led
by polished academic Arthur Mutambara.
But analysts have warned that only a
united opposition can dislodge the
ruling party from government. ZANU PF,
which has remained intact despite
being riven by factionalism, has further
consolidated its grip on power
since the MDC's October 12 split.
Former
University of Zimbabwe student leader Mutambara has made overtures
for the
reunification of the party, which split right down the middle
following the
emergence of sharp differences over participation in the
November 2005
senate elections.
Hopes for a détente were raised last Sunday when
resolutions read out by
newly elected party secretary general Tendai Biti
did not include the
expulsion of Gibson Sibanda, Welshman Ncube, Gift
Chimanikire, Gertrude
Stevenson, Paul Themba Nyathi and a host of MDC
Members of Parliament who
have thrown their weight behind the splinter
faction.
It had been speculated that the omission of the expulsion
resolutions had
left the door open for re-engagement between the two
factions.
The party had, prior to the reading of the resolutions, passed a
resolution
to expel Sibanda, Ncube, Stevenson and Chimanikire, while giving
a 14-day
ultimatum to all 'rebel' MPs to submit themselves to the party's
disciplinary process. Failure to do so would lead to expulsion, the congress
resolved.
"What I know is congress resolved that they were dismissed from
the MDC. We
wish them well wherever they are. In fact I prefer not to talk
about them,"
declared Tsvangirai as he categorically ruled out unity between
the two
factions..
The opposition leader, President Robert Mugabe's most
serious challenger
since independence in 1980, has, however, sent
conflicting signals over the
contentious subject.
In his opening remarks
on Saturday, a conciliatory Tsvangirai magnanimously
acknowledged the
pioneering work of his estranged colleagues.
"Allow me, congress, to note the
work done by my colleagues who have chosen
not to be with us today, but who
pioneered and
contributed to the growth of the MDC and this democracy project
together
with us for years.
"We say to you all: Thank you for your
contribution to this struggle. Thank
you for your courage. Thank you for
risking life and limb to try and rebuild
Zimbabwe. We have not forgotten
that contribution. You taught us valuable
lessons."
If Tsvangirai sounded
valedictory in his message to his former comrades, it
is perhaps because he
believes the party's split was, as he said in the same
speech, a "temporary
diversion." He seems to view his rivals in the other
MDC camp as
inconsequential comrades who have fallen by the wayside and can
be packed
off nonchalantly.
"I am happy to note that we have dealt with this temporary
diversion by
surrendering the party back to you today. You are the rightful
owners of the
MDC. The choice is up to you.
"You have to take corrective
measures and sort out the leadership squabbles
at the top," Tsvangirai
thundered to applause.
However, when he stood up to make his acceptance
speech and formally
introduce the new leadership after Sunday's elections,
Tsvangirai said the
new leadership was tasked with establishing unity within
the party, saying:
"These men and women have the responsibility to reunite
the MDC."
Political commentator John Makumbe said Tsvangirai's attitude
towards his
rivals had clearly hardened after the weekend congress.
"The
attitude seems to have hardened. Tsvangirai's camp has demonstrated
that
they may not have money, but they have the support of the membership.
"It
could be a bit difficult to reconcile the two, unless Mutambara gets off
his
high horse and admits that Morgan is the president of the MDC. Mutambara
will have to work with Morgan as a regular member of the party," Makumbe
said.
Takura Zhangazha of the Media Institute of Southern Africa said the
fact
that the weekend congress had strengthened Tsvangirai's hand meant
prospects
for reunification with the Mutambara faction were
dimmer.
"Tsvangirai's faction feels triumphant. Any potential for
reunification
might arise if the other faction succumbs to the dictates of
the Tsvangirai
faction, but they are still defiant and have resolved to go
it alone.
"The differences are too sharp and they are personal, not based on
principle," Zhangazha said.
"They are going to fight each other, but
that's more like lofty politics and
we will see legal challenges which,
however, will play into ZANU PF's
hands."
Dave Coltart, the legal brains
behind the MDC over the past six years, has
proposed an amicable divorce to
avoid a protracted court process.
"What deeply concerns me at present is the
attitude, which appears to be
adopted by both sides that only their faction
is the legitimate MDC. I have
also been concerned by the intolerance
displayed by both sides towards each
other; it appears that both sides
refuse to recognise that the other side
has the right to exist.
"If the
vying claims to legitimacy are not settled by mediation they will
have to be
settled in the courts. If the Zimbabwean courts are entrusted
with the role
of settling these issues that in itself will play directly
into the hands of
the Mugabe regime," Coltart wrote in letters to Tsvangirai
and Sibanda last
month.
He has also warned against the expulsion of the MDC's MPs by either
faction,
saying this would precipitate by-elections each camp could scarcely
afford.
FinGaz
Crisford
Chogugudza
THE period following the attainment of independence in
Africa gave birth to
politics of ethnic balancing on a grand scale following
protracted wars of
liberation, the rationale being among other things to
create political
stability and guarantee civil obedience.
In Southern
Africa, ethnic balancing was part and parcel of the organisation
and
stabilisation of liberation parties. In particular, the people of
Zimbabwe
were primarily bound together by the idea of a common enemy, in the
name of
the brutal white colonialists at the time. There was no Ndebele or
Shona
during the war, they were all freedom fighters.
To begin with, in Zimbabwe
the concept of ethnic accommodation or balancing
became popular after the
split of the original ZAPU which was a very strong
multi-ethnic party whose
membership was characterised by a diversity of
languages and cultures,
Ndebele and Shona being the dominant factors. Dr
Joshua Nkomo became the
first leader of the original ZAPU on merit and the
issue of tribe was
secondary. His style of leadership transcended the tribal
and cultural
divide and was admirable. His lieutenants were equally
competent and worthy
of the positions they held. These include Dr Samuel
Parirenyatwa, Nikita
Mangena, Lookout Masuku, Dumiso Dabengwa, Josiah
Tongogara, Leopold
Takawira, Ndabaningi Sithole, Herbert Chitepo and Robert
Mugabe among
others.
The issue of Ndebele and Shona which is being opportunistically
adulterated
by vana mafikizolo (late comers) has negatively affected the
political
landscape of Zimbabwe today. The point that comes out clear and
strong here
is that tribe was never the overarching factor in determining
who leads the
liberation movement otherwise Joshua Nkomo would never have
had the
opportunity to be at the helm. Nkomo was a Kalanga from Kezi.
Whatever
happened after the split of ZAPU and the formation of ZANU
everybody knows
that.
It was after the civil war and the unity accord
that ensued when the issue
of ethnic balancing became a salient feature of
politics and politicking in
Zimbabwe. This follows a period of general
mistrust between the two
liberation parties and the notion by ZANU that as
the governing party they
deserved to occupy all the influential posts. The
Ndebeles were relegated to
second rate politicians and in some cases it was
ironic to see an educated
and inspiring Ndebele politician deputising some
uneducated and incompetent
Shona.
It is against the above background that
l argue against ethnic balancing
because it has never been an egalitarian or
fair process. Ndebeles
constitute about 20 percent of Zimbabwe's population
and surely this is a
significant demographic representation to provide a
President in Zimbabwe in
the near future given the chance. There is a very
subjective mentality in
Zimbabwe that Ndebeles should never be allowed to
rule Zimbabwe in the role
of president because of their minority status. It
is true that some elements
within the Shona ethnic group have popularised
this negative perception.
In other countries, progressive l suppose, in as
much as the majoritarian
view is understandable in terms of the election of
leaders, it does not
always follow that top leaders should come from the
majority tribe. For
instance in South Africa, Presidents Mandela and Mbeki
are both Xhosa
speaking but the largest tribe is Zulu where the vice
president comes from,
Chiluba of Zambia came from a minority tribe, so did
Kaunda. Chissano of
Mozambique came from a minority tribe, Presidents
Museveni and Kagame of
Uganda and Rwanda come from minority tribes. Former
Kenyan President Moi's
Kalenjini tribe is a minority in Kenya.
It is
clear that the issue of ethnic majority is not a major determinant as
to who
should be president. Ethnic considerations can be ignored for the
sake of
quality and substance in leadership. It should not be given that if
one is
Shona one is guaranteed of leadership ahead of a capable Ndebele who
may be
better qualified. If one wants to make wild parallels, even in the UK
the
heir to Blair's throne Dr Gordon Brown is a Scot and so is Sir Menzies
Campbell, the leader of the Liberal Democrats. It should be noted that
politics of ethnicity have deprived Zimbabwe of some of the best brains
simply because their ethnic affiliation is 'not politically correct'.
Who
knows, may be if we had some of these brainy Ndebeles in influential
posts
our problems could have been eased. Gibson Sibanda suffered the fate
of
being a leader from the minority when he lost his influence to Morgan
Tsvangirai, as did Welshman Ncube and many other capable cadres from the
Ndebele tribal divide.
Under the current situation, it would need
attitudinal political changes of
seismic or cataclysmic proportions for
Zimbabwe to have the first defence
forces chief, chief justice, police
commissioner, registrar general, UZ vice
chancellor or foreign minister and
president who is Ndebele, not because
they are not there but they will not
be allowed to get there. It is
unfortunate that those who dare publicly
challenge the status quo are
branded tribalists, but in a healthy society
issues such as deprivation of
leadership opportunities on the basis of
ethnic background should be openly
deliberated. The nationurgently needs a
healing process before genuine
discourse on the above matter
progresses.
Time has come to accept that we are all equal as Zimbabweans and
that no one
tribe is anointed to rule. The recent elections in the
anti-senate MDC prove
my point of ethnic deprivation of top posts, the
highest post that a Ndebele
person was allowed to have is that of vice
president which is ascribed not
based on meritocracy. This scenario
inevitably compromises quality, people
should just be given a free rein to
contest posts they feel they are
qualified for and let the best person get
the post. In ZANU PF it is the
same scenario as in the opposition - aspiring
Ndebele politicians can only
be guaranteed the post of vice president and
anything better than that is
taboo.
This essay is not supposed to ignite
ethnic tensions as has been advocated
by those people of the likes of
overzealous clergymen and traditional
politicians from the establishment.
This is an eye opener to all Zimbabweans
who see things from a rational
spectacle.
Food for thought
Crisford Chogugudza is a political commentator
based in North London, UK
FinGaz
Mavis Makuni Own
Correspondent
When a scandal is unearthed, the people can be certain that it
will not be
swept under the carpet
IN its March 19 issue, the South
African weekly newspaper, the Sunday Times,
published a revealing story
about a problem that is prevalent in many other
African countries - the
failure or unwillingness of government officials to
take conflict of
interest issues seriously by adhering to agreed codes of
conduct.
Following an investigation by the country's auditor-general,
Shauket Fakie,
it emerged that at least 14 ministers and deputy ministers
had not declared
their business interests and directorships in private
enterprises. Those
caught in Fakie's ethics dragnet, according to the
paper's own
investigations, include Deputy President, Phumzile
Mlambo-Ngcuka, who was
found to have undeclared interests in a company known
as Lesila.
Mlambo-Ngcuka was embroiled in another controversy last year when
she was
accused of abuse of privilege involving the "hijacking" of a jet
plane to
transport her family and friends to a holiday in a foreign
country.
Under South Africa's parliamentary code of conduct, ministers and
legislators who fail to declare their business interests and directorships
face disciplinary measures in the form of fines imposed by parliament and
also by their party if they are members of the ruling ANC. The South African
legislature's rational for imposing penalties against culprits as quoted in
the Sunday Times is that: "MPs are in a powerful position to influence
high-level decision-making. There may be times when their personal or
business interests conflict with their role as elected officials
representing the public interest."
South Africa is a land of some
superlatives - such as being the biggest
economy on the continent and
producing Nelson Mandela, the most iconic and
revered elder statesman in the
world today. However, it is also a nation of
some considerable negatives. It
has some of the highest figures for crime
and HIV and AIDS infection
rates.
As if to confirm that it also has one of the highest incidences of
rape, the
latest disclosures about the breach of parliament's code of
conduct come
amid the sensational trial of former deputy president, Jacob
Zuma, for
allegedly raping a young woman described as a family friend at his
Johannesburg residence. On top of this, Zuma's trial on corruption charges
in an unrelated case is pending.
Since the end of apartheid and the
advent of Uhuru in 1994, South Africa has
been hit by numerous scandals
including those involving Mandela's former
wife, Winnie. Former minister
Tony Yengeni was in the limelight for all the
wrong reasons a few years ago.
A racket involving the abuse of travel
allowances by ministers and
government officials and a number of other cases
of impropriety have been
widely publicised.
The excesses, corruption, avarice, influence peddling,
abuse of privilege
and other scourges that have been reported in South
Africa are in fact more
prevalent in some countries on the continent that
have received more
negative ratings for corruption from the global civil
society organisation
spearheading the fight against graft, Transparency
International. What sets
South Africa apart, in spite of enjoying a better
rating than most other
nations, is its willingness to look at itself, warts
and all.
When a scandal is unearthed in South Africa, the people of that
country can
be fairly certain that it will not be swept under the carpet, as
is the norm
in other African countries. In some of these countries,
commissions will be
set up with great fanfare to investigate improprieties
but once the findings
implicate big fish or their cronies, these initiatives
die a natural death.
It is due to the transparency and vibrancy of the South
African political
system that a heavyweight like Zuma can be tried for his
alleged crimes
while his own party is in power.
This glasnost or openness
is part of the bounteous legacy Mandela has
bequeathed to his nation. From
the moment he re- emerged into the public
consciousness after 27 years
behind bars, the former South African
president's life has been an open
book. As a result, the citizens of many
African countries probably know more
about Mandela than they do about their
own secretive and ivory tower bound
heads of state. Contrary to the belief
of some leaders that an autocratic
and disdainful attitude towards their
subjects is the best way to exude
power, Mandela is revered for his
humility, accessibility and sheer
humanness.
Last week, Mandela, who has in the past not hesitated to talk
candidly and
openly about personal matters such as his divorce from Winnie,
his courtship
of and marriage to Graca Machel, his battles against
tuberculosis and
prostate cancer and his only surviving son's death from
AIDS, added another
anecdote that serves to further validate his status as a
human being like
the rest of us. He told the director of Oscar winning South
African film,
Tsotsi how he and his friends were tsotsis (thieves) who stole
pigs in Qunu,
Mandela's rural home in the Eastern Cape, when he was a
teenager.
The moral of the story is the capacity of human beings to change.
"Some of
the leaders of this country and elsewhere in the world started with
misdemeanours of all kinds but as they grew up, they became responsible
people who have served our country very well," he said.
Beginning with
his decision to set up the Truth and Reconciliation
Commission to enable
South Africans of all races to confront their ugly past
under the brutal
tyranny of apartheid to his announcement that he would step
down after only
one term of office as president, Mandela has always walked
the talk.
And
contrary to all the speculation about Thabo Mbeki having ulterior
political
motives in sacking Zuma, it is difficult to imagine him having the
cheek to
cling to power when his current term expires in 2009 after his
predecessor
set such a spectacular example not only for him but also for
leaders across
Africa.
It sometimes sounds like a tired cliché to say that leaders should
lead by
example but the case of Mandela proves that this approach can pay
dividends
and stand a country in good stead.
Fakie said about the
ministers involved in the violation of the code of
ethics referred to above
that he hoped corrective measures would be taken.
It is easy for ordinary
South Africans to believe his statement because
parliament has meant
business in the past and fined those caught violating
its rules and
procedures. It is a far cry from what happens in most other
African
countries where officials will go to great lengths - and expense -
to
deceive their people about fighting corruption when, as its main
beneficiaries, they actually do not want things to change.
FinGaz
Takura
Zhangazha
THE two congresses of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC)
have come to
pass as the controversial and interesting events that they were
amid the
celebration of personalities and attendant claims at being the
"real MDC".
Arguments, laden with comparative insinuations about which
congress had the
greater number of delegates or the highest numbers of civil
society
representatives and diplomatic corps had filled the pages of
newspapers in
bids to ascertain which of the two resonates more with the
"people".
These were valid issues that needed constant debate and discussion
from any
Zimbabwean concerned with the future of the opposition in the
country, let
alone with the future of the processes of democratisation. But
now that the
energies for the holding of the two congresses have seemingly
subsided and
it is now back to the seemingly routine politics of seeking
ways and means
of confronting the ZANU PF regime, we must place into
perspective the
national significance of the main opposition in its split
format, as well as
the potential implications for the future of Zimbabwean
politics.
I shall seek to explain the major questions that the two congresses
seem to
have presented and these pertain to legitimacy (who is the real
MDC?);
agreed upon plans of action for democratic change (resolutions of
congresses); and the newly elected leadership of either faction.
Issues
of legitimacy in opposition parties are not new in Zimbabwean
politics. From
the days of PF ZAPU, through to ZUM, the legitimacy of an
opposition party
has always been measured against the seats it garnered in
Parliament or the
potential support it had in the immediate run-up to an
election. Both
factions of the MDC meet this criterion. They both have seats
in Parliament,
even though these were acquired after a unified election
campaign in early
2005. In the occurrence of the two congresses, the issue
of "who is the real
MDC?" was touted on a regular basis. It had the
aforementioned dimension of
trying to ascertain which sitting Members of
Parliament were on whose side
and possibly why. It also had the added
dimension of trying to assess the
constitutionality of the congresses and
who would attend them.
This was
against the backdrop of a High Court judgment rescinding the
suspension of
Morgan Tsvangirai and effectively rendering the Arthur
Mutambara faction's
congress illegal. Regardless, when the Mutambara/Ncube
faction held its
congress, the issue of legitimacy shifted significantly
from that concerning
legality or numbers of MPs in support or attendance, to
one which dwelt on
the numbers of delegates in attendance. The 3 000-odd
delegates that
attended this faction's congress was probably a hard won
number, but all the
same it was significant in that they indicated that they
had some form of
"grassroots support".
The debate for the Tsvangirai faction, and rightly so,
then became about
trying to get a greater number of people attending its own
congress. This
they achieved last weekend, much to the chagrin of the
Mutambara camp, which
declared that it was never an issue about numbers, but
about programmatic
issues for the future of Zimbabwe, a point which must be
taken with a pinch
of salt.
I contend that the numbers in attendance at
either congress were important
due to the format the split had taken. The
split was seen in the public eye,
among other considerations, as a question
of "who is the real MDC?" and
there is nothing that moves political
perception such as numbers. The
Tsvangirai faction, without doubt, proved to
be more legitimate on this
basis but even then, the higher turnout, was
partly due to a commitment from
its membership to the leadership of that
faction as well as a clearly well
managed political event aimed at proving
that Tsvangirai, if not in charge
of the "real MDC" is at least in control
of a larger version of it.
The second issue that I wish to consider is that
of programmes of action or
resolutions that emerged from these congresses.
The Mutambara camp had a
critical issue on its mind, that of finding a
"replacement" for Tsvangirai
and this was clearly understandable given the
fact neither of the persons in
that camp felt they had enough national
stature to equal that of Tsvangirai.
To that extent, the way forward was a
quasi rebirth of the MDC with a
mythical figure at its head in the form of
Mutambara.
The congress, held in Bulawayo, therefore did not espouse a
significant
programme of action because, by and large, its main aim was to
present an
alternative leadership to that of the Tsvangirai faction.
Its
nationalistic tone, slightly reminiscent of ZANU PF's narrow-minded
nationalism, was more of a defensive one and did not necessarily equate to
any new ideas being placed on the table. As such, when its members left the
congress, they felt more able to complain about the lack of adequate food,
among other necessities because the euphoria of a "way forward" had eluded
them or perhaps, had not been articulated well enough.
The Tsvangirai
camp was also concerned with the issues of leadership and
filling of the
positions left by those who had fallen out with them. The
critical issue was
however the fact that their congress was held after that
of the pro-senate
faction and as such, based on comparative analysis, they
decided to ensure
that their congress was not just about leadership contests
but also had a
hue of greater seriousness about the way forward.
As expected, Tsvangirai
took centre stage and essentially highlighted his
critical way forward to be
one of mass protests and leading from the front,
allied together with civil
society in the drive for a new democratic
constitution. This way forward, as
supported by the over 15 000 people in
attendance would easily have greater
resonance than that of the
Mutambara-led faction.
Added to this, the
distinct legitimacy of Tsvangirai and company was the
recognition of their
history in this particular struggle over the last seven
or so years. The
public were better placed to receive such a declaration
from Tsvangirai,
whom they would remember and know with greater ease than
they would
Mutambara. As such, the politics of the "way forward" was reliant
on the
critical consideration of which leader espoused it, together with the
numbers that were in attendance.
For all the media reports that emerged
after the Tsvangirai faction's
congress, there was actually no distinct
coverage of issues concerning food
shortages or accommodation problems
(which undoubtedly there were) but more
of reports around the way forward
and the support it received.
This point leads to the final issue which I wish
to bring to the fore, that
of the emergent leadership of either faction.
Whereas Mutambara has been
lauded and viewed by some as a "messiah" of
sorts, it is quite debatable
whether he can match the stature that
Tsvangirai clearly has with the people
of Zimbabwe. That the pro-senate
faction's congress chose Mutambara to lead
them is not a bad thing in itself
as it is their democratic right to do so.
What is amiss however, is good
political judgment. As it stands, it is
difficult for an ordinary Zimbabwean
to easily dismiss Tsvangirai for
Mutambara, given the former's presence on
the national scene during all
major elections since 2000 as well as his
trade unionism in the late 1990s.
This difference between the two leaders is
succinct in that it shows that
there is a perception among the people of an
ongoing process of struggle,
and that one cannot just wake up and attempt to
captain a ship's after it
has been through so many storms with an incumbent
captain. Tsvangirai, for
many, is the legitimate alternative to President
Mugabe, never mind what the
latter says or whatever apparent mistakes he has
made.
The other leaders selected by either congresses are largely tapping
upon
their legitimacy with the members of their respective factions from
branch
level upwards. They shall have to perform in order to be legitimate
nationally and outside of their party structures. In either of the two
factions' new leadership, there shall be need to engage the public at a more
visible level, as well as to be able to stomach all the dangers that come
with greater national visibility.
In conclusion, I reiterate a number of
factors that need to be considered
about the two congresses. The first is
that they were by and large, events
in which each faction sought to outdo
the other through a greater show of
numbers as indicative of greater
legitimacy. Both factions were probably
hoping for the dismal failure of the
opposite congress. It therefore became
for a while, and as the congresses
progressed, a struggle for individual
ascendancy over and above that of a
struggle for the democratisation of
Zimbabwe. But be that as it may, there
is obviously hope that one of the
factions will, now that the personality
clashes have subsided, re-engage the
masses in true selfless leadership
format. The second point is that the
practicality of a declared way forwards
is perhaps the most important. The
way forward will need the will and
dedication of those that seek to
challenge ZANU PF hegemony and the need to
ensure the people back them. And
lastly, there is no such thing as the 'real
MDC'. There is just us, the
ordinary people of Zimbabwe, 'Waiting for
Godot'.
Financial Gazette
(Harare)
March 22, 2006
Posted to the web March 23, 2006
Audrey
Chitsika Property Reporter
Harare
THE $972 billion allocated for the
National Housing Construction programme
by government in the 2006 budget is
far below what the country needs, the
City of Harare has said.
Harare
town clerk Nomutsa Chideya, said the capital city alone required
$1.86
trillion to fund its planned building projects for this year.
Harare has
been building more houses, but demand continues to outstrip
supply by far,
with the housing waiting list growing to more than 200 000
from the 164 432
recorded in December 2005.
Chideya said housing schemes launched under
Operation Garikai had also
benefited from the funds, adding that council
hopes to complete the
installation of water and sewerage reticulation
systems soon.
"Hopley and Whitecliff are City of Harare's schemes, which
will benefit from
some of the funds. Part of the money will be used to
connect the two sites
to water and sewerage reticulation," he
said.
The government has a National Housing Policy that governs all
housing
projects. The policy allows private sector participation in the
delivery of
new housing, as well as the participation of private community
based
organisations and individual investors.
But lack of adequate
funds by individuals, private sector and private
communities to purchase
building materials and to pay for labour has seen
many housing projects
failing to get off the ground, while the completion of
other projects has
been delayed.
The city has tried to cushion prospective homeowners from
problems besetting
the construction industry by providing them with serviced
stands or
easy-to-pay schemes.
Economists and property analysts have,
however, recommended that the city
council avoid relying on the fiscal
budget for its projects.
Rashid Mudala, an anast with First Mutual
Limited, said the council should
not use the money from the national budget
for water and sewerage
reticulation but should use its own
resources.
"The council is charging high revenue rates and that money
should be enough
to pay for the residents' water and sewerage
reticulation.
"If the council is to rely on government funds, this will
widen the budget
deficit for the nation, so they must not rely too much on
government
donations but try to limit government expenditure," Mudala
said.
Financial Gazette
(Harare)
March 22, 2006
Posted to the web March 23,
2006
Tinashe Mawerera & Kumbirai Mafunda
Harare
CHILDREN of
three ZANU PF councilors, among them a teenager, have allegedly
benefited
from the distribution of houses and stands under the
government-sponsored
Operation Garikai in Ruwa.
Ruwa Board officials told The Financial
Gazette this week that the
councilors altered an initial list of 110
beneficiaries drawn from the town
council's nine wards by all councilors at
a meeting convened late last year.
Councilors from both ZANU PF and the
MDC had drawn up a list made up of 12
displaced people from each ward, which
did not include the councilors'
children as beneficiaries.
But a top
executive with the Ruwa Board later prepared another list, which
omitted
some of the MDC councilors' nominees and replaced them with some of
the ZANU
PF councilors' children, it is alleged.
The revelations come to light at
a time when Local Government Minister
Ignatius Chombo, who early in the year
ruled out irregularities, has
conceded that some senior government
officials, politicians, legislators,
council officials and their relatives
had abused the scheme.
Although the government emphasised that the scheme
is designed to benefit
people who were left homeless after last year's
destruction of "illegal"
structures, there has been rampant abuse of
Operation Garika regardless of
the fact that most of the affected families
are still sleeping in the open.
Investigations by The Financial Gazette
show that the initial and altered
list was prepared in November and
addressed to Harare Metropolitan Province
Governor David
Karimanzira.
However the amended one--which was signed by the Ruwa Board
chief executive
Juliet Makombe--was prepared early last month, some few days
before the
official handover ceremony, which was presided by
Karimanzira.
Among some of the disputed beneficiaries are Joyce
Gukwe, the teenage
daughter of Councillor Stella Gukwe, Memory Nyakwima, the
daughter of
Councillor Captain Elias Nyakwima and Paradzai Bimha, the son of
Councilor
Alice Bimha.
MDC councilors said efforts to challenge the
discrepancy by moving a motion
at a council meeting in February failed as
Nyakwima, a former army personnel
and now a ZANU PF official abruptly
declared the meeting closed. The
Property Gazette could not verify the
allegation at the time of going to
print. Later on another attempt to bring
the irregularity to Karimanzira's
attention and a request to delay the
allocation date while they worked on
settling the issue yielded nothing, it
is further alleged.
When confronted by the MDC councilors, the ZANU PF
councilors are alleged to
have argued that the wards represented by the MDC
councilors in Windsor Park
and Zimre Park were not affected by Operation
Murambatsvina. But MDC
councilors charged that beneficiaries who took up the
MDC councilors' slots
have their home addresses in the same suburbs.
FinGaz
Rangarirai Mberi Senior
Business Reporter
Proposed changes to shareholding being viewed as
seizures
MINES have warned government that the proposed changes to the Mines
and
Minerals Act, giving it control of mines, were being viewed as outright
seizure of their investments, as such a law would hand government 40 percent
of all companies' profits for free.
Mines Minister Amos Midzi has
been given a comprehensive report that shows
how his proposals to take over
51 percent of all mines would affect mining.
The mining groups warn the
proposed law would freeze bank support to mines,
sending output plummeting
and causing massive job losses.
"(The proposals) mean any major player
interested in investing in energy
minerals, platinum and diamonds in
Zimbabwe can do so only as a minority
shareholder to government. For every
US dollar already invested by any
shareholder in energy, platinum and
diamonds, government shall be entitled
to US$0.25 without any capital
outlay. This represents an immediate loss of
value of funds invested in good
faith by companies and individuals who
showed support for the country by
committing their funds," the meeting
heard.
"Mines believe that investors
will find this decision hard to live with. No
large scale miner would carry
out exploration with the intention of setting
up a mine where he does not
have control," the miners told Midzi.
Platinum and diamond mines would become
quasi-state owned companies where
government would be in charge of
appointing the board and management, the
mining groups said.
Support from
financial institutions and direct investors would cease if the
law was
passed, mines warned. Output would be frozen at current levels and
would
immediately start to decline upon the passing of the law.
As mines closed
down, they said, mining's contribution to the fiscus would
shrink. There
would be an eventual dependence on subsidies from the fiscus
"as has
occurred in the steel industry", the meeting was told.
Metallon Gold
Zimbabwe, the country's largest gold producer, has confirmed
industry
worries by announcing a deferment on planned projects at How Mine -
the
largest of its five mines - and also at Redwing mine, citing concern by
its
foreign bankers.
In last week's meeting, miners told Midzi: "In considering
indigenous
participation, sources of funding and the risks involved are the
major
factors."
Cancelling special agreements would further knock already
battered investor
confidence, and government was neglecting the fact that,
as a majority
shareholder, it would be required to source most of the
foreign currency for
expansion and greenfield projects.
Chile, Argentina,
Brazil, Zambia, the DRC and Tanzania have previously
nationalised their
mines, but all of them have reversed such policies after
watching their
mining industries collapse. The Chamber of Mines has
previously said
Zimbabwe was attracting large investors because its mining
laws-up to
now-had been the most investor-friendly in Africa.
FinGaz
Chris Muronzi Staff
Reporter
THE government is reported to be eyeing 25 percent of David
Whitehead, but
controlling shareholder and chief executive Edwin Chimanye
says the leading
textile firm does not require the involvement of the state
in its business.
It emerged this week that the Permanent Secretary in the
Ministry of
Industry and Trade, Christian Katsande, summoned Chimanye to his
office this
week and urged the David Whitehead boss to start talks with the
Industrial
Development Corporation for it to buy 25 percent of the company's
stock as
part of efforts to rescue the company.
Sources said Chimanye
told the government to put its offer in writing so
that the textile firm's
board of directors would consider it formally.
They said David Whitehead
viewed the government's overture as undue
interference.
The move by the
government comes a few weeks after Industry and
International Trade Minister
Obert Mpofu, Policy Implementation Minister
Webster Shamu and newly
appointed Chegutu mayor Martin Zimani toured the
company and held meetings
with shareholders, management and the workers'
committee.
There was
uncertainty at David Whitehead last month after President Robert
Mugabe
addressed a campaign rally for the town's mayor, at which he picked
on the
textile company - the largest employer in the town - over alleged
poor staff
welfare.
While the Zimbabwean leader deplored the situation at David
Whitehead,
state-owned enterprises have continued to bleed the fiscus -
contributing to
the current high levels of inflation.
A few months ago,
the government had targeted full control of local
fertiliser companies,
proposing to amalgamate them to form a National
Fertiliser Company. The
plans were later abandoned.
Until Chimanye's Guscole took over the business,
David Whitehead was owned
by Lonrho. The company has not been spared by
Zimbabwe worst economic crisis
since independence, highlighted by an
inflation rate of 782 percent.
David Whitehead requires foreign exchange,
which is not available, to
replace ageing equipment and secure raw material
supplies. The domestic
market for textiles and clothing has also shrunk,
leaving the business with
no option but to export. But Zimbabwe's skewed
exchange rate system has
rendered exports unviable.
Contacted for
comment, Mpofu confirmed the meeting between Chimanye and
Katsande, but said
the government was still to make a decision on whether to
participate at an
equity level in David Whitehead.
"From our assessment, we realised that they
need support and have to
consider the decision to take equity. But no
decision has been taken as yet
by the government on David Whitehead. A
technical team has been tasked to
compile a report and do a due diligence
exam into the company so that we can
make a decision to take equity or give
financial assistance so that they
boost capacity," said Mpofu.
FinGaz
Staff Reporter
ANZ
back in court
THE Minister of Information and Publicity, Tichaona Jokonya,
will be named
as the respondent in an application to the High Court by the
Associated
Newspapers of Zimbabwe (ANZ) for the publishing house to be
deemed
registered, ANZ management announced on Tuesday.
The
application will be filed tomorrow.
The move, which had been expected
following the March 10 deadline stipulated
by the law to resolve the matter,
was announced in an interview with The
Financial Gazette by ANZ legal
adviser Mordecai Mahlangu.
"It will be a court application and not a chamber
application. We are taking
this step reluctantly as a last resort," said
Mahlangu. "It will seek an
order declaring the applicant duly registered,"
he added.
The application was postponed from Tuesday to tomorrow because ANZ
chief
executive Sam Sipepa Nkomo was not available to sign the papers. He is
expected back in the country today.
Speaking before leaving the country
on Tuesday, Nkomo said the matter had
been under consideration since March
10 when the deadline for its
determination expired.
The ANZ chief said
the minister's failure to respond to two letters
appealing to him to
interpose had left the company with no option but to
resort to
litigation.
"We are going to ask the court to either declare us duly
registered or,
alternatively, to compel the minister to appoint an ad hoc
board to
determine the fate of our application," Nkomo said.
The move by
the ANZ follows last week's admission by the executive chairman
of the Media
and Information Commission (MIC), Tafataona Mahoso, that his
board was
disabled from further dealing with the application.
The MIC has twice refused
to grant ANZ registration.
On February 8 2006, Justice Rita Makarau nullified
an earlier decision of
the board denying ANZ a licence, and further declared
the entire board
disabled from involvement in the case.
She reaffirmed an
earlier order by Chief Justice Godfrey Chidyausiku, which
found Mahoso to be
biased against the applicant. But Makarau added that the
entire board had
been tainted by the chairman's bias.
With the board barred from dealing with
the matter, the fate of the
application shifted to the minister, who is the
appointing authority. The
expiry of the deadline on March 10 meant that the
minister was in breach of
the Access to Information and Protection of
Privacy Act (AIPPA), which
stipulates 30 days for the determination of an
application.
Although in the past the focus was on ANZ's defiance of AIPPA,
which led to
a number of court challenges, at least three of which ruled in
favour of the
company, it is the first time that the minister stands accused
of breaching
AIPPA, Zimbabwe's universally condemned media regulation
instrument.
Observers said this week the paradox of the impending legal
contest is that,
after Justice Rita Makarau's landmark judgment, it could
have been avoided.
Failure by the minister to foresee where the judgment
would lead was a sad
indictment of the nation's attitude towards the
administration of justice,
they said.
The Daily News would need at least
$1 trillion to re-launch should it have
its ban lifted.
The Independent
Media Trust (IMT), majority shareholder in ANZ, has issued
an international
appeal for funds to help re-launch the paper.
IMT chairman Norman Nyazema
said re-launching The Daily News would take at
least six months at a cost of
Z$1 trillion.
Much of the paper's capacity to publish had gone and it would
be like
starting from scratch, Nyazema said.
FinGaz
Rangarirai Mberi Senior
Business Reporter
WARREN Buffet, the world's smartest investor, has been
talking about eternal
optimists in his latest investor notes: "They behave
like the fellow in a
switchblade fight who, after his opponent has taken a
mighty swipe at his
throat, exclaimed, 'You never touched me.' His
adversary's reply: 'Just wait
until you try to shake your head'".
The
Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ) must be sending the same message to the
stock
market. After delivering a series of swipes with a sharp blade to the
Zimbabwe Stock Exchange (ZSE)'s throat, the bank is daring the market to
make the next move.
Now only the bravest - and the greediest - can dare
move outside the herd
now huddling scared in the money market.
Three rate
hikes and two jerks of the statutory reserves have given bank
boss Gideon
Gono the upper hand over the stock market for the first time in
months.
But like Buffet's victim, Gono's targets believe his swing has
missed. He
cannot sustain real rates over inflation for long, they
say.
His rate hike policy is already past its elastic limit, and he cannot
raise
statutory reserve requirements any higher without sending banks into a
fresh
crisis. But the harshest sceptics say that could be the whole
point.
"Maybe this will only stop when he gets two or so casualties," quipped
one
fund manager last Friday.
Most central banks worldwide despise stock
market "exuberance" as it betrays
gloomy inflation expectations. In April
2005, Gono wagged a long finger at
bankers at a meeting, sending shares
plummeting. But the market soon raced
back up after he did not back his
threats with action.
This year, stock market investors brought home gains of
125 percent in
January. Hours ahead of Gono's January 24 speech, the market
rose 3.11
percent. A day later, the ZSE beat the 40 million mark for the
first time
with a 14.2 percent rush.
Gono had appeared to concede defeat
in January, hinting at a softening of
his aggressive rate policy. He said:
"On an ongoing basis, the bank's
accommodation rates will be revised,
consistent with levels deemed to be
appropriate, based on projected
inflation profiles, at the same time
minimising the adverse effects of the
interest rate instrument to the
productive sectors."
But lately, Gono has
been brandishing the switchblade freely, and the market
has failed to beat
its January 27 peak and is now trading at its lowest
levels this year. The
strongest indication of just how scared the market is
to "shake its head"
came last week when shares kept heading lower despite
softer rates. But even
as over $5.5 trillion moved out of the market on
Monday in statutory reserve
payments by banks - after yet another swoop of
Gono's switchblade - some
analysts still maintained that Gono had still
missed.
"Yes, rates will go
up because of this deficit. But I am looking medium term
here. Can the RBZ
keep this kind of grip on the market forever? With the
last inflation
figures (782 percent in February), and especially the
month-on-month figure
(27.5 percent), you can't convince me that this will
last past April," an
analyst said.
In three weeks' time, March inflation figures will be out.
Treasury Bill and
investment rates would be higher then, according to
dealers.
How high those two numbers go will be what determines whether Gono's
mighty
swipe has missed, or whether market kingpins will be advised to take
Buffet's
advice and not move their heads.
FinGaz
Kumbirai Mafunda Senior
Business Reporter
ZIMBABWE'S commercial banks, which have to surrender
the bigger part of
deposits they take to the central bank, have hiked
minimum bank balances on
savings accounts, citing rising transaction
fees.
Most banks have begun asking customers to beef up their accounts by
100
percent from $250 000 to $500 000. They reason that the fee increase is
designed to align their prices with rising costs.
The banks list rising
transaction costs that include monthly service charges
and Automated Teller
Machine (ATM) use.
Bankers told The Financial Gazette this week that accounts
with stumpy
balances are very costly to maintain while the operating costs,
including
information technology systems, stationery and employee work time
are now
higher than the revenues used to maintain them.
They reasoned
that the increase in minimum bank balances would act as a
catalyst to more
meaningful savings among customers and reduce the loss
experienced by the
banks from operating low balance accounts.
But the recent hike in minimum
bank balances is contrary to a central bank
directive to maintain bank
balances at a ridiculously low $25 000. The
Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ)
took the measure as a means of promoting bank
use.
One of the country's
leading commercial banks, Stanbic, defended the
adjustment of its minimum
savings accounts balances this week saying while
it fully supported the
regulatory minimum balance of $25 000, changes in the
bank's cost structure
had necessitated all savings accounts to maintain a
lien of $500
000.
"The increase has been necessitated by an increase in ATM fees for both
Stanbic and Zimswitch users resulting from ATM maintenance and switch fees,
which have gone up by over 158 percent since October 2005," said Tanaka
Marotsi, a spokesperson for the bank.
She said since Zimswitch is
currently charging $48 770 per transaction it
would imply that where a
customer withdraws the full daily limit of $8
million through Zimswitch
ATMs, it would cost Stanbic $195 000, a charge
which is way above the
stipulated $25 000 minimum balance.
"Our experience is that a customer will
transact a minimum eight times per
month on either Zimswitch or Stanbic ATMs
resulting in minimum transaction
fees of $349 000 per month," Marotsi
said.
"These charges are debited to the savings account post the transaction
and
they result in unauthorised overdraft for most of our customers. We
could
have charged penalty interest on such overdrawn savings accounts,
however,
in view of the prevailing high interest rates, we feel that our
customers
would not be able to sustain penalty interest charges," she
added.
Marotsi said Stanbic had increased the lien on savings accounts -
which is a
right to retain possession of another's property pending
discharge of a
debt - to $500 000 to cushion its customers from high penalty
interest
rates.
"This will ensure that the account does not fall into an
unauthorised
overdraft position," the spokesperson said.
Marotsi also
revealed that other transaction charges, which are beyond the
bank's control
such as the mandatory government levy had also risen to $500
per
transaction.
However, economic analysts note that the higher minimum account
balances for
traditional checking and savings accounts could increase the
cost of banking
and kill the incentive to save particularly low-income
earners.
Nonetheless, while some customers and critics expressed dismay at
the
increases, bankers and other economists said the higher fees, which
mostly
affect small checking or savings accounts, will help pay for new
services
and finance better products.
"We have to ensure that the savings
make sense," said a top banker who
preferred anonymity. The banker said that
due to rising inflation, now
running at 782 percent and one of the highest
in the world, a savings
account with $250 000 would earn much less than it
did in previous years
"There is a cost to maintaining these accounts . . .
and very small accounts
are not profitable," he added.
Daniel Ndlela,
economic consultant at Zimconsult says it is unrealistic for
the RBZ to peg
minimum balances at $25 000.
"Banks are going suffer as institutions," said
Ndlela. "How will they pay
their workers?" he asked.
FinGaz
Rangarirai Mberi Senior
Business Reporter
THOSE unpatriotic people who accuse Zimbabwe of being a
nation of losers
that never leads the world in any field have obviously
never looked at the
world inflation rankings.
Zimbabwe - whose
annualised rate of inflation soared to 782 percent in
February - outpaces
everybody on that front, beating the likes of Nauru,
which has the lowest
inflation in the world at -3.6 percent. That's probably
because nothing ever
happens on that Pacific island anyway. Then you have
the Libyans, second
with inflation at -1 percent.
Other notables are the Japanese at sixth with
-0.2 percent. And still their
central bank, the BoJ, has the nerve to end
its ultra-easy monetary policy
and is now rumoured to be close to lifting
rates to a massive 2 percent.
World lending rate rankings were hard to come
by, but at over 500 percent,
it's a safe bet on Zimbabwe beating the world
in the commercial lending
stakes as well.
And while they were busy
slapping sanctions on Zimbabwe, the Euro-pean Union
and the British have
been left with inflation of only 2.2 percent. Their US
allies are tied at
103 with the likes of Benin and the Cook Islands with
inflation at 3.2
percent. Then Cuba, that last bastion of Communism whose
economy is carried
by the cigar and US dollars from Miami, is at number 130
at 4.2
percent.
Equatorial Guinea, the country whose leader had his hide saved by
Zimbabwe
two years ago, has inflation of 5 percent and is ranked
148.
Zimbabwe has little competition in the Southern African region. Namibia
is
at number 46 with inflation at 2.7 percent, Zambia has 17.2 percent,
Mozambique has 14 percent while there was horror in Botswana last week over
the rise of inflation to a new high of 17 percent. South Africa, the
continent's biggest economy that is targeting annual growth of 6 percent,
had a Consumer Price Index of 5 percent in February and is ranked at number
140.
Then comes Zimbabwe, proud holder of the much-sought-after wooden
spoon at
the bottom of the 223-country survey, with inflation of 782
percent.
Closest rivals are Iraq, but they are way back in the field with
their puny
40 percent, so they would have to print a lot more Iraqi dinars
if they want
to catch up any time soon.
FinGaz
Personal Glimpses
with Mavis Makuni
THE uncooperative and disdainful response of
the deputy Minister of
Environment and Tourism, Andrew Langa, when
approached by the press to
comment on his use of a National Parks lodge as
his personal residence, that
way prejudicing the department of revenue it
should collect from paying
guests, underscores how deeply ingrained the
culture of unaccountability and
impunity has become within government.
A
Sunday paper reported last weekend that Langa was booked indefinitely into
a
refurbished lodge near Lake Chivero for which the Department of National
Parks and Wildlife Management should charge $3.2 million per night. When
asked to comment on this questionable arrangement, Langa saw no reason to
bother explaining anything to the reporter, whom he proceeded to tell off.
"Who gave you that information? Go and get that comment from your source, I
can't talk to you about my personal life", the paper quotes the deputy
minister as saying.
Langa's dismissive attitude towards the reporter
betrays a lack of
appreciation for the role of the press as a watchdog with
a responsibility
to ferret out and publicise the actions of government
officials. This, if
Langa does not know, is because public officials, who
are servants of the
people, must be accountable for their conduct,
especially when the
expenditure of public funds and use of public facilities
is involved. It is
therefore not a matter of Langa's "personal life" but a
matter of legitimate
public concern when the deputy minister uses his
position to gain access to
benefits that he is not entitled to.
The
deputy minister, like all government officials, receives allowances,
including one to cover housing, all financed by taxpayers. These
over-burdened taxpayers are therefore not exactly thrilled when these
officials elect to have the best of both worlds by splurging on opulent
lifestyles while the rest of the populace is barely able to make ends meet.
Langa, who is from Matabeleland, could argue that it was difficult to find
affordable accommodation in Harare but he should put himself in the shoes of
a penniless retrenchee struggling to give his family a roof over their heads
after losing his abode to Operation Murambatsvina.
No mercy was shown
towards the victims of this operation by allowing the use
of public
buildings such as school halls as temporary shelters even at the
height of
winter and the rainy season. What the general public wants to know
is if the
hearts of those in authority were so hardened in respect of people
they had
deliberately rendered destitute, why should the rules be bent to
cater for
the extravagant tastes of government ministers? Remember the case
of
Matabeleland North governor, Thokozile Mathuthu, who not long ago
covertly
got herself ensconced in a five-star hotel in Bulawayo at the
painfully
exorbitant expense of the over-burdened taxpayer?
She was only shamed into
vacating these opulent, self-allocated lodgings
after the press exposed the
scandal, enabling President Mugabe to step in
and put his foot down. What is
even more disturbing is that Mathuthu and
Langa's cases may only be the tip
of the iceberg. How many other ministers
are operating like a law unto
themselves and simply throwing their weight
around to grab whatever they
want while the majority of Zimbabweans are
living below the poverty datum
line? More importantly, can the flames of
graft, corruption and avarice now
engulfing the nation still be doused, if
as it seems, the running of
government is now such a free-for-all affair
that there are no controls and
rules? Matters of indiscipline and
impropriety are dealt with on an ad hoc
basis only when they are exposed by
the press but the permanent solution
should be to have an enforceable code
of conduct in place.
Of late some
ministers have railed against the public for blaming President
Mugabe for
the chaos in the country, saying the real culprits are some of
his corrupt
and inefficient ministers. The obvious, inescapable question is
why the head
of state is keeping these known culprits in his administration.
The buck
stops with him and just as he gets the credit when things are going
well,
the brickbats are also aimed at him when a chaotic and repressive
dispensation becomes the order of the day as the case now.
His Excellency
may not have noticed it, but most of his ministers and
officials behave as
though they have something to hide, particularly in
their dealings with the
media. When approached for information or
explanations on touchy issues
involving their conduct they resort to
threats, sarcasm or the
self-righteously indignant but false claim that the
issue at hand is
personal. Hapless reporters from the independent media
approaching ministers
for reactions and comments on specific issues have
been told, "Go hang", "I
know you are working for foreign interests", "I
don't want to speak to you,
write what you want", or "I don't speak to
reporters from your
newspaper."
Others simply switch their cell phones off or threaten to sue
when reporters
ask probing questions about their roles in public matters and
events. If,
for example, a public official is reported to have resigned when
he hasn't,
should he not simply explain the situation rather than feign
defamation and
threaten litigation? Surely democracy can only thrive where
there is free
communication of information about the decisions and actions
of government.
The maze of government needs to be explained and clarified to
the ordinary
Zimbabwean and ministers and other public officials have an
obligation to
bridge the gap through the media.
When they get hot
under the collar when asked routine or even difficult
questions pertaining
to their portfolios or their conduct, they are not
doing His Excellency any
favours. They are actually making government more
remote from the voters'
reach and enhancing perceptions that it is
unresponsive and even hostile.
And yet these unforthcoming officials will
also hit the roof if frustrated
journalists obtain the same information they
are withholding from
alternative sources.
It goes without saying that there is a great need for a
more efficient,
democratic, friendly and transparent transmission belt. This
is the only way
the people can get problems solved or grievances known. The
prevailing
situation where ministers and other officials openly refuse to
submit to
public scrutiny because they know they can get away with it with
impunity
inevitably breeds corruption, influence peddling and abuse of
power. What
Jefferson said more than 200 years ago still holds true today.
No nation
should expect to be ignorant and free.
FinGaz
Comment
ZIMBABWE would have
noticed how The Fingaz came in for some flak for its
front-page anchor story
on the projected grain deficit this year.
Government spin-doctors,
obsessed with guiding journalists in search of the
truth and informing the
public, got bent out of shape over the article
sourced from the US
Department of Agriculture.
That they decided on picking this paper apart is
hardly surprising. Any talk
of a failed harvest is a hot-button political
issue. This is something
government would rather have a veil drawn over no
matter how factual and
accurate it might be. And it is not difficult to see
why.
It is out of line with the political and economic thinking in government
as
it bodes ill for the land reform exercise where the law of the unintended
took hold when influential politicians reduced the initiative to a land grab
orgy while crippling input shortages have raised the spectre of hunger. It
however goes without saying that it is largely the chaotic land reform
programme that plunged the economy into an unprecedented crisis. And there
is no gainsaying it. But it would be unpalatable to admit as much.
This
is why the Ministry of Agriculture headed by Joseph Made has over the
years
lied to the dregs of infamy about the country's food security
situation at
incalculable cost to the nation which has so far had to fork
out a whopping
US$135 million to finance grain imports.
It is also the reason why that crazy
assortment of government apologists -
among them those political chameleons
who over the years have turned into
any colour that was useful to them and
are now trying too hard to endear
themselves to the establishment - will not
hear of any bleak outlook
especially from American and British institutions.
Yet it is the same
western organisations that in the past gave the lie to
official assurances
that Zimbabwe had produced adequate food when they came
up with more
accurate projections. Thus piercing self-serving government
secrecy over the
food security situation after the nation had been lulled
into a false sense
of food self-sufficiency. A case in point, without
necessarily raking over
the coals, is when we were told that the country had
produced 2.4 million
tonnes of maize in 2004 when it had produced a paltry
600 000 tonnes. The
Ministry of Agriculture's off-the-mark projections were
probably after those
infamous aerial surveys or assessments of one or two
farms. Suffice to say
the country has not yet recovered from that
debacle.
Yet these are the people that we are being asked to rely on for
credible
information on the country's food security situation? How do we
trust
someone who, under darkness, looks into a few lighted closets and
concludes
that the light is shining outside? There is no denying that the
Ministry of
Agriculture is not a credible source of information where grain
projections
are concerned. The less said about Made's projections the
better. Ditto the
"award-winning" Grain Marketing Board.
On the eve of
his 82nd birthday, President Robert Mugabe himself darkly
hinted at the
spectre of a grain deficit for the very same reasons given a
fortnight ago
by the US Department of Agriculture - the sub-optimal
utilisation of land
resulting from a shortage of critical inputs. He knows
that successive
agricultural seasons have been blighted by the shortage of
seed, fertiliser,
tillage facilities and fuel. It had nothing to do with
London, Washington
and Brussels. But no, to the government apologists, among
them some of the
country's most affected intellectuals, it is the Americans
and their British
colleagues who are to blame for the chaos in agriculture.
Really!
Or is
the information on the projected harvest as provided by the US
Department of
Agriculture not permissible simply because an American
institution compiled
it while Zimbabwe's institutions take all the time in
the world to compile
such strategic data? Can the spin-doctors vouchsafe
that the A1 and A2
farmers put the targeted two million hectares under
maize? Did the EU-US
conspiracy fetter the farmers or they were hamstrung by
those in charge of
agriculture in Zimbabwe?
It is trite to state here that The Fingaz holds no
brief for the Americans,
British and EU. But we find it incredible that
government spin-doctors still
maintain the lie that Zimbabwe's economic woes
are solely the product of
sanctions and have nothing to do with skewed
economic policies which have
created distortions that the ruling class and
its cronies continue to
ruthlessly exploit to the hilt.
They know as much
as everybody else that the issue of sanctions has been
cynically turned into
a propaganda tool to justify the economic
haemorrhaging the country has gone
through during the past six years. Yet
they continue to ignore the impact of
detrimental policy reversals and
contradictions as well as the destruction
of commercial agriculture -
through a badly managed land redistribution
exercise - on which the
reassuringly resilient economy stood for all those
years. Which leaves all
and sundry wondering as to when the Zimbabwean
leadership will accept
responsibility for what is going on in the country
instead of blaming
everyone else but itself.
FinGaz
Geoffrey
Nyarota
I WISH to start by tendering my most profuse apologies to the
esteemed
readers of this publication that for reasons totally beyond my
control I am
forced to do a Tafataona Mahoso on them today. For the
uninitiated this is
the act of subjecting newspaper readers to articles of
exceeding length.
I will take every precaution, however, to ensure that
this article is both
imbued with wholesale relevance and totally devoid of
tedium.
This response to the scurrilous attack on my persona which was penned
by one
Michael Mtungwa of Johannesburg and published in last Friday's issue
of The
Independent is published in The Financial Gazette today for two
reasons.
I am not entirely convinced that The Financial Gazette is a CIO
newspaper,
despite the spirited assertions of its commercial rival, The
Independent.
The journalists at The Independent have so far not furnished
the public with
empirical evidence to back the allegations they have
repeatedly levelled
against their major rival. In any case in Zimbabwe's
politically volatile
environment it has become increasingly difficult to
discern who is CIO and
who is not with any certainty. The CIO has
systematically permeated
virtually every facet of our daily existence.
It
is my suspicion, fast becoming a conviction, that Michael Mtungwa is not
Michael Mtungwa, that this is the assumed name of some hired hatchet man too
scared to be associated by name with the virulent defamation that he caused
to be published in The Independent. The onus lies on those who seek wantonly
to tarnish my reputation for personal benefit to prove that Mtungwa exists
in real life. A picture would do the trick. For the uninitiated Mtungwa is a
Kalanga name which could easily be mistaken for a Shona name. The intention
to deceive is, therefore, obvious.
My article was published in The
Fingaz. It would be interesting to hear why
Mtungwa submitted his response
to The Independent. A professionally-run
newspaper would refuse for ethical
reasons to publish responses to articles
which appeared in different,
especially, rival publications. In this case
the editors of The Independent
created a practical dilemma for those of
their readers who don't read The
Financial Gazette. Sales of the rival
newspaper, the Fingaz must have
suddenly increased after this munificent
promotion by The Independent.
I
have been flooded with messages of support from people who read my
article.
Mtungwa, or whatever his real name, is the only respondent to
attack me
personally. My article had little to do with Mtungwa and less to
do with The
Independent. I criticised Welshman Ncube, whom Mtungwa defends
obstinately,
and Arthur Mutambara. I was also critical of Morgan Tsvangirai,
whom Mtungwa
continues to dismiss with reckless flourish of hand, even as he
moved
political mountains in Harare over the weekend.
This assault on me by Mtungwa
is only the latest episode in a series of
events that date back to 1990 when
I arrived at The Financial Gazette to
assume the position of executive
editor. A couple of months earlier Trevor
Ncube, the executive chairman of
The Independent, had been recruited from
the University of Zimbabwe, where
he was a junior lecturer, to understudy
outgoing editor Clive Wilson. At the
last minute, publisher Elias Rusike
decided Ncube was not ready to edit any
newspaper, having no previous
journalistic experience. He side-stepped him,
approached me at Zimbabwe
Newspapers, and appointed me instead.
It is an
open secret that Ncube has never forgiven me for his humiliation by
Rusike.
One-and-a-half years later Rusike dismissed me from the position,
saying
staff members were not happy. In my own assessment the only member
who was
not happy was Ncube himself. He said this to me constantly and made
me feel
guilty that I was his boss.
While Rusike was forced to settle out
of court for wrongful dismissal, my
erstwhile deputy rushed into the now
vacant office. He never uttered a word
in sympathy or out of concern or just
idle curiosity.
When I was dismissed from the Daily News in 2002 in similarly
suspicious
circumstances my then deputy editor, the highly principled
Davison Maruziva
immediately resigned in sympathy once he realised that the
reasons cited for
my departure by chief executive Sam Sipepa Nkomo were a
load of claptrap.
The Daily News never recovered.
When Maruziva and I
launched the Daily News in 1999 the first salvo fired
against the fledgling
newspaper came, not from the government, as would be
expected. Ncube's
Independent fired that first salvo. When I left the Daily
News four years
later Ncube's newspaper, the Standard was on hand to fire
the parting shot,
courtesy of a most scurrilous attack on a professional
colleague who was
down and not given an opportunity to defend himself.
Someone in the company
then imposed a blackout on news about me and that was
supposed to be the end
of me.
We have all since moved on in our respective lives. Ncube has become
an
adventurous publisher with publications on both sides of the Limpopo.
Expectation would be that he becomes magnanimous in his victory and his
magnificent achievement. Sadly it appears he seeks to continue to torment me
by allowing Mtungwa to attack me in his paper. Ncube seems to believe that
his power as publisher can legitimately be used to fight personal vendettas,
with the public obliged to buy as news the frenzied invective of instant
correspondents such as Mtungwa. He believes he is powerful enough to defame
with total impunity.
Whether acting spontaneously or on instruction,
Mtungwa levels thinly veiled
accusations against me of complicity with the
infamous Gukurahundi. He does
not offer a shred of evidence to back his
assertions. Mtungwa seeks to
punish me for daring to state the obvious in
respect of Professor Welshman
Ncube, with whom I have regularly corresponded
for three years in a bid to
avoid the break-up that finally occurred in
October. I gave up in November
but held onto the correspondence.
I leave
readers to make their own judgment on the many specious accusations
made
against me by Mtungwa such as that he is "frightened that Nyarota's
views
mirror the opinions of many people in civic society and among
intellectuals
in Zimbabwe today, some of whom he mentions by name." Mtungwa
must explain
why such a healthy situation frightens him.
Mtungwa accuses me of failing to
chastise Tsvangirai for alleged violence.
Yet he says, "Not even one of our
boisterous civic groups condemned that
orgy, because doing so would have
cast aspersions on the moral authority of
Tsvangirai." It is possible that
Mtungwa sees orgies by Tsvangirai where
civil society groups don't see them.
Surely, it is his own perception of
orgies that should be subjected to
scrutiny.
Mtungwa accuses the Chronicle under my editorship of failure to
express the
tribulations and despair of the people of Matabeleland yet he
refers in the
same breath to Gukurahundi as "an act of lunacy that was
ignored by the
whole world". So the Chronicle was not an isolated case,
after all? He
states that I am one of the editors of the Chronicle during
the Gukurahundi
era. Does my predecessor have a name that the public might
be interested in
knowing?
Mtungwa says what makes my article worse is the
fact that it was published
on March 9 a few days before March 13, the day,
23 years ago, on which
Joshua Nkomo fled Zimbabwe for the United Kingdom. Is
he really serious?
With due respect to the late Dr Nkomo, how many
Zimbabweans either remember
or commemorate the anniversary of his flight
from persecution by ZANU PF?
For the record, my article in its original form
under the heading "MDC
conflict" was submitted to the Standard which belongs
to Ncube on Wednesday
December 28, 2005 as the MDC internecine war raged
countrywide. I believe
that it failed to pass the paper's stringent
"pro-Senate" test and was duly
spiked. Two months later, Arthur Mutambara
arrived back in the country to
take over Welshman Ncube's rebel faction of
the MDC. I gave the article a
new angle and submitted it to The Financial
Gazette. They were happy to
publish. That it came out a few day's before
Mtungwa's important
commemoration is purely coincidental and totally
irrelevant.
I deny that I ever sought in my article to justify the senseless
mass
murders committed in Matabeleland by the Mugabe government. All I
stated was
that it was mischievous to visit those crimes committed by
President Mugabe
on 11 million Shona people. Mtungwa's mind appears to
conclude in mysterious
ways.
Mtungwa then accuses me of making "the same
accusation of regional focus
against Zapu 2000, but astonishingly leave out
the ZUD, a Harare-based
grouping that never made any pretensions to being
national". My simple
argument was that the people of Matabeleland rejected
Zapu 2000, a
regionally based politically party, in 2000, suggesting that
they were more
mature than some of those radicals who claim to represent
their interests. I
could not, in any way, have cited Margaret Dongo's ZUD to
convincingly
illustrate this particular point.
Mtungwa must appreciate,
again with due respect, that there must be millions
of Zimbabweans, some in
Matabeleland, who may spend a day without thinking
once about the
Gukurahundi atrocities. Some of these issues need to be
raised and debated
openly before our country is thrown again into ethnic
conflagration through
the activities of a few irresponsible characters such
as Mtungwa.
When I
made reference to the 300 victims of President Mugabe's rule after
2000
being mostly from parts of Zimbabwe other than Matabeleland I certainly
did
not suggest that the people of Matabeleland should therefore forget
their
own trauma and suffering in the 1980s. My point was that all those who
challenge the tyranny of ZANU PF should recognise that they are all regarded
as enemies by that party. They should, therefore, bury their own cosmetic
differences to form a united front against the ruling party's tyranny. If
Mtungwa has any particular problem with such thinking then he should stick
to whatever he did for a living before he ventured into totally strange
territory last Friday.
If the meaning now claimed by Mtungwa is what he
genuinely understood from
my statement then it is quite clear that I write
beyond his level of
comprehension.
Mtungwa accuses those, myself included
presumably, who waited until they
realised that Tsvangirai still has
support, before attacking his opponents.
If I was given such choice, I would
rather stick to this group for
self-survival than associate with those who
realise that Tsvangirai does
command grassroots support yet they still
dismiss him as becoming an
irrelevant factor of opposition politics.
"It
is the common language of the Zimbabwean press that the MDC is ZANU PF's
biggest challenge since independence?" Mtugwa complains bitterly.
The MDC
won 57 seats in parliamentary elections held in 2000 and nearly
unseated
ZANU PF. That is how it established its status as the biggest
challenge to
ZANU PF since independence. The next biggest challenge
manifested itself
when PF-Zapu secured 20 seats in 1980. The problem with
Mtungwa is that he
views every Zimbabwean issue or situation through
Gukurahundi eyes. Such
emotional thinking cannot be progressive.
Finally, Mtungwa declares that the
various editors and opinion leaders (here
read Chronicle editor) who helped
President Mugabe cover up the crimes of
the Gukurahundi atrocities should be
charged with genocide when the time
comes.
I have no problem with
appearing before a properly constituted Truth and
Reconciliation Commission.
But I obviously would refuse to be subjected to
media kangaroo courts where
desperate rivals sit in judgment.
During my six years in Bulawayo I never
came across any academic or civil
society leader who either cheered
President Mugabe on or happily looked away
when the Five Brigade rampaged
through Bulawayo and Matabeleland, not that I
ever saw Gukurahundi rampaging
through the streets of Bulawayo. But then I
could have been looking the
other way as suggested by Mtungwa.
I deny vehemently that the Chronicle ever
urged the Five Brigade to
slaughter Ndebele peasants, as is now being
claimed by a few reckless
individuals with a bee in their bonnet.
This is
a preposterous allegation which is made without offering a shred of
evidence. Such evidence would, in any case, have been published in the
report of the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace in 1989. It is
defamatory to suggest that I ever cheered Robert Mugabe, Enos Nkala and
Perrence Shiri as they caused people to be massacred. Can that be
possible?
The Chronicle did urge the deployment of the army against the
dissidents who
were marauding through the countryside of Matabeleland and
massacring poor
villagers and farmers and generally causing havoc and
mayhem. If today these
same people are now Mtungwa's heroes, then he should
be forced to explain.
To those who are not motivated by hatred and malice the
difference is vast.
That the Chronicle, like every other newspaper or news
medium of the day,
did not acquit itself commendably in terms of providing
adequate coverage of
the Gukurahundi atrocities cannot be denied. I accept
full responsibility
for how the Chronicle covered the atrocities. But I
accept such
responsibility in the context of the state of emergency then in
existence
and the curfew which the government declared over the affected
areas.
Why does Mtungwa not refer to these factors? Because he does not want
the
truth to stand in the way of his scurrilous attack on me?
I also
accept responsibility, fully cognisant of the fact that when Donald
Trelford, editor of the London Observer, published details of the
Gukurahundi story in his paper in the safety of London, after he visited
Matabeleland, he was humiliated and nearly fired by his publisher Tiny
Rowland. Even Prince Charles took the poor Trelford to task for his
article.
As Mtungwa himself states categorically, the world was not
interested in the
plight of the victims of Gukurahundi at the time. The
much-lauded CCPJ
Report was only published in 1999.
It is typical
cowardly strategy to let the known perpetrators of Gukurahundi
go scot-free
for two decades before suddenly discovering a more convenient
villain in the
person of the editor of a government-owned newspaper. I
challenge Mtungwa to
challenge Perrence Shiri.
At the material time I was just as petrified of the
ruthlessness of the Five
Brigade as any other person living in Matabeleland,
including Mtungwa,
assuming he was born. At least throughout the Gukurahundi
era I never
witnessed or heard of a march of protest against the atrocities
staged by
those who now speak with the wisdom and courage of
hindsight.
More importantly, I did not view my appointment at the Chronicle
as a
suicide mission. When I eventually risked my life during the Willowgate
Scandal on behalf of the people of Zimbabwe and was subjected to harassment,
humiliation and deprivation did I ever hear from Mtungwa?
As for Ncube,
when he was my deputy at Fingaz I never heard him voice the
concerns now
raised by Mtungwa with such emotion and venom. When he took
over the paper
as editor I have no recollection of him ever carrying that
particular flag.
If he ever waged that campaign in the Independent and the
Standard it must
have gone largely unnoticed.
The power of a publisher derives from the public
perception of him as a
principled person, committed to justice and fair
play. Publishers who allow
their papers to be used to mount vicious and
malicious attacks on innocent
individuals and organisations ultimately
undermine the credibility and the
viability of those publications.
Last
week I sent good-natured email to Ncube asking him for his portrait to
include in my forthcoming book, Against the grain, Memoirs of a Zimbabwean
journalist. Ncube wrote back to say his personal assistant would attend to
my request.
"On a completely different subject," he went on to say
menacingly, "I wish
to let you know that I disagree with you strongly
regarding views expressed
in an article that appeared in The Financial
Gazette. I will touch base with
you on this when I have time."
I never
heard from him again. Instead Mtungwa spoke.
As the launch of my book in July
approaches I have become increasingly
apprehensive that efforts will be made
to discredit me by jealous rivals.
Mtungwa's article is not a genuine
attempt to expose those responsible for
the Gukurahundi atrocities.
Mtungwa's effort at finding scapegoats for
Gukurahundi in order to cover up
for the perpetrators of these heinous
atrocities is shameful and
pathetic.
Newspaper publishing cannot be the most profitable business venture
in
Zimbabwe today. Newsprint and production costs keep escalating. While
advertising revenue is the mainstay of newspaper publishing, during an
economic recession advertising budgets fall victim to vicious slashing. More
critically, when people struggle to survive, their appetite for expensive
and elitist newspapers diminishes. This is particularly true when the
newspapers in question are driven by certain narrow-minded political agendas
or are so clearly out of touch with the political environment in which they
exist as they circulate in the leafier suburbs of Borrowdale and Gunhill,
far away from the wretched peasants of Nkayi and Lupane, on whose behalf
donor funds are sometimes accepted.
It would be challenging to
investigate how some newspapers continue to
flourish, especially after they
miraculously escaped unscathed the
vicissitudes of the capricious former
minister of information, Professor
Jonathan Moyo.
Meanwhile, let us all
join hands as Zimbabweans to challenge the tyranny of
ZANU PF. So God help
us.
lGeoff Nyarota is the founding editor of the now-banned Daily News
FinGaz
National Agenda with
Bornwell Chakaodza
"I NORMALLY sell not more than seven out of the 20
copies of The Sunday
Mirror that I get each week but today (Sunday March 19,
2008), all 20 copies
are sold out", said a visibly elated newspaper vendor
at the corner of Kwame
Nkrumah Avenue and Angwa Street in
Harare.
Asked why there was such a change in his fortunes as far as The
Sunday
Mirror was concerned, he responded forcefully: "Tsvangirai! You see,
their
front page story headlined 'Tsvangirai pulls coup on Mutambara' did
the
trick. For the first time they reported the way The Standard, The
Financial
Gazette and The Zimbabwe Independent normally do, reflecting the
national
mood and calling a spade a spade".
He added: "Look at those
heaps and heaps of The Sunday Mail . . . No takers.
Zimbabwe Newspapers and
the Zimbabwe Mirror Newspapers are depriving us of
our livelihood because
they are a hard sell. You know mukoma that the more
papers we sell the more
commission we get but with these government-owned
papers, it is a hard
slog."
Almost as an afterthought he concluded, "The Mirror newspapers are as
bad as
they come. It is better with The Sunday Mail and The Herald because
we know
that people buy them for the classifieds and sports otherwise tainge
tichidya nhoko dzezvironda".
I have quoted this particular newspaper
vendor at length not only because
newspaper vendors are the experts when it
comes to what sells and what does
not but also to show that Morgan
Tsvangirai's popularity and support is not
only confined to the more than 15
000 delegates who attended the MDC's
two-day congress in Harare but that
support is also reflected across the
length and breadth of the
country.
Observing the sheer numbers of delegates from Matabeleland,
Masvingo,
Midlands and Mashonaland Central for example, I asked myself: "Who
has
remained with that arrogant, rude and political upstart called Arthur
Mutambara?
Two days ago my family and I visited Guruve District in
Mashonaland Central
Province where Gift Chimanikire and myself hail from and
the talk on most
people's lips was Tsvangirai and last weekend's MDC
congress. "He is our son
with an independent mind of course, but quite
frankly he has lost his way,"
said an elderly man from Chimanikire Village.
So much for the grassroots
support that the MDC faction led by Mutambara
commands not only in
Chimanikire's home turf but in all provinces of the
country.
The real truth though is that we are witnessing the demise of the
Mutambara-led faction of the MDC. Not only is the "overgrown student"
confused as to what he intends to do but he is far removed from the struggle
and the suffering of Zimbabweans. For starters, their Bulawayo congress last
month was attended by a paltry 3 000 delegates. Gibson Sibanda could not
finish his speech because the last pages were missing, prompting him to say
an embarrassing 'thank you' in mid air. Generally, their congress was badly
organised. We are entitled to ask these pro-senate chaps: If you could not
organise things at the level of a mere congress, what more a whole country
like Zimbabwe? The mind really boggles!
If and when - more when than if -
the so-called pro-senate dies a natural
death as it surely will, I do not
think that I and most Zimbabweans will be
among the mourners. My only advice
to Arthur, Welshman, Gibson, Gift, Paul
and other misguided elements is
this: Repent. It is never too late to repent
for there is more joy in heaven
over one or three sinners who repent than
multitudes of them.
Now to
Tsvangirai and the authentic MDC. It is heartening to hear Morgan say
that
this time around he and his colleagues are prepared to go into the
trenches
and lead physically from the front in the fight for a free and
democratic
Zimbabwe. The natural state of mankind is freedom. And the proof
is the
lengths to which Zimbabweans went to gain it during the liberation
struggle
and the lengths to which they will go to regain it now that it has
once
again been taken away from them.
Last weekend's congress must have opened
Tsvangirai's and many other
people's eyes to this reality. There has been a
feeling in the air for a
long time now that change must come. ZANU PF's rule
has been a wasteful and
costly ambition particularly during the last six
years of the national
crisis.
The one fundamental weakness of the MDC
before the split was the fact that
it was a movement fractured into two main
wings, each with divergent views
on the way forward. Some believed in
militant direct action while others
believed in the slower course of
changing public opinion. There was no
unanimity on the best way to confront
the current regime of President Robert
Mugabe.
One lesson that the MDC
should learn is that Zimbabweans are looking for
heroes to inspire them, for
people prepared to suffer alongside them and for
leaders willing to face the
consistent state terror waged against them. The
time to prattle on about
this and that without translating the rhetoric into
some form of sustained
peaceful resistance is long gone.
Of course, confronting the ZANU PF regime
would be no tea party. Politics is
power and not many people would give up
power easily. What needs to be done
is to consider very seriously the whole
idea of peaceful resistance. The
last thing that anyone wants to see is this
country sliding into anarchy
like Somalia (among a number of African
countries) did. Peaceful resistance
will in the end force all the country's
political leaders to sit down and
resolve the crisis before it spirals out
of control. I do think that among
the majority of Zimbabweans, there is an
unprecedented degree of consensus
on the nature of the problem and on the
nature of the solution.
The severity of the problems in this country testify
to the urgency
confronting us for committed and practically oriented
leadership. The
question being asked by many people now is: the people who
have been elected
to lead the MDC - do they have the intellectual capacity
and the stamina to
lead this nation in the event of ZANU PF disintegrating?
For example, can
Thokozani Khupe, the newly elected MDC vice-president hold
fort in the
absence of Tsvangirai? Does she have what it takes to lead a
complex and
such a highly educated Zimbabwean society? What about Isaac
Matongo - the
man who has retained the chairmanship of the MDC: does he have
the qualities
of leadership and the intellectual wherewithal required to
lead this
country? I am not talking about addressing political rallies but
the serious
business of running a country.
Being part and parcel of the
then boys' network in the ZCTU should not be
the sole reason for appointment
or election to top leadership in the MDC - a
movement that millions of
Zimbabwean count on to help them realise their
hopes and aspirations for the
future. It will be a big strategic mistake on
the part of the opposition
leadership not to be inclusive of Zimbabweans in
and out of MDC who have a
demonstrable track record, character, integrity
and credibility in the eyes
of the generality of Zimbabweans. Some of the
top leaders in the MDC have
neither the credibility nor the brains to write
home about.
In terms of
courage and pioneering work in beating the ruling ZANU PF party
at their
game in their so-called rural strongholds during the 2000
parliamentary
elections, my heart goes out to two women: Hilda Mafudze, the
then MDC MP
for rural Mhondoro and Evelyn Masaiti, the then MDC MP for rural
Mutasa.
With all the violence and intimidation that characterised those
elections,
it was not an easy ride for them. It was far far easier to take
on ZANU PF
in the urban constituencies than in those far flung and remote
constituencies. Such women of courage must not be forgotten.
In
conclusion, my purpose in this article has been threefold: to acknowledge
the real MDC given the evidence on the ground and for this authentic
opposition party to examine and learn from the experiences of the past six
years and finally to hold Tsvangirai accountable for what he is promising to
do. Pain and a price attends any progress that is going to be made. The road
between will hardly be a smooth climb. If Zimbabweans are to wrest progress
from the chaotic situation that we find ourselves in right now, a martyr or
two might be unavoidable.
But it is our hope and prayer that with the
best will in the world, it would
be unnecessary to have martyrs.
borcha@mweb.co.zw
FinGaz
Perspectives with Jonathan
Maphenduka
IF recent press reports are anything to go by, the government
is actively
working to bring about sweeping changes to the Access of
Information and
Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA), Zimbabwe's media
regulation instrument.
Recent reports suggest that the government has
agreed to remove offending
clauses and sections in AIPPA, which resulted in
the closure of three
newspapers since the Act became law in 2002.
The
reports quote freely from "informed sources" who attended an African
Union
human rights organ in Banjul, Gambia, last December.
According to sources
quoted in the reports, Zimbabwe, under pressure from
the African Charter on
Human and People's Rights, is now willing to
institute changes to the Act to
remove repressive sections or clauses in
AIPPA, and Information and
Publicity Minister Tichaona Jokonya is said to be
in the process of
effecting changes to the draconian piece of legislation,
sections of which
merely complement the dreaded Public Order and Security
Act
(POSA).
Against these expectations, Jokonya has been reported as saying the
media
was a weapon of self-destruction. This statement, if the minister was
reported accurately, has been taken to refer to only a section of the
industry, which continues to bear the brunt of an Act that has been applied
selectively to cow and destroy the private media industry in the
country.
If the minister is indeed working to bring about sweeping changes to
AIPPA,
that would be a great day indeed for the beleaguered private sector
industry.
But watchers of government policy trends are sceptical. The
government has
never shown itself to be willing to be influenced by the
weight of public
opinion even in a matter of such great public interest as
the application of
AIPPA.
To the government, inflexibility is a virtue
rather a vice, while moving
with the weight of public opinion is considered
a weakness. But this
unyielding attitude is fraught with some problems for
the government. It is
the making of the economic chaos now prevailing in the
country, with
devastating poverty and other social evils for the majority of
the
population.
The problem facing the country is that its government is
unwilling, if one
may borrow Justice Makarau`s now celebrated pronouncement,
"to take
prisoners" in its war against its perceived enemies. To the
government it
must be a fight to the bitter end. If you do not take
prisoners in a theatre
of war then you must kill them off or be
killed.
This appears to be the guiding philosophy of a government that has
run out
of initiatives to find a lasting solution to the current problems
gripping
the country.
In its confrontation with the independent media,
the government maintains an
argument of silence, which, everyone knows will
not lead to any conclusion
or resolution of matters of mutual
concern.
There is an urgent need, therefore, for the government to take the
initiative to end the impasse by removing the causes of this impasse. The
government needs to work with all players in the industry to find a lasting
solution to the problems affecting the industry. Most of these problems have
been caused by AIPPA to the great detriment of the country.
Solution to
these problems does not lie in working only with interests in
the public
media. The answer lies in an all-embracing initiative to resolve
outstanding
issues. AIPPA has affected the private sector more than any
other, and
government should recognise this fact and consult the sector`s
representatives.
These remarks assume that government is willing to
resolve the problems
spawned by AIPPA, which has been used as an instrument
of victimisation.
Glaring injustices have been meted out against the private
media without any
one lifting a finger to redress the situation. The
argument of silence
prevails.
The Minister of Information and Publicity
inherited an extremely untenable
legacy left by his predecessor, but is he
willing to exorcise Jonathan Moyo's
ghost from the scene of his new
responsibility to tackle the problems facing
the industry, or does he seek
to maintain the status quo and become a
strange bed-fellow with a man most
Zimbabweans yearn to forget?
The idea of an independent media council is
laudable, but let first things
be done first. No amount of wishful thinking
will, however, make the
proposed council independent as long as AIPPA
remains in its present form.
The instruments of the Act that negate the ideal
of an independent media
commission or council must be removed before there
can be any hope of an
independent body overseeing the industry.
Those who
have been in the industry for any length of time must know that
self-regulation has been the norm in this country since the establishment of
the first newspaper in the country at the turn of the last century.
But
the industry now exists in an environment in which other people prefer
regulation by law, and in pursuance of this policy, AIPPA was promulgated.
We now know the results of the past three years of its existence and what
this means, not only to the industry, but for the country's future
well-being as well.
It is imperative that all sectors of the industry
should work together
towards removal of those sections and clauses of the
Act that inhibit the
growth and prosperity of in the industry as a whole.
The industry should
stand united against those who want to drive a wedge
between the public and
private sectors to confuse by remote control.
The
Act as it is, is riddled with pitfalls, ambiguities and inconsistencies
all
of which have been used to frustrate the dispensation of justice to all.
Citizens have been victimised, robbed and workers left destitute, all in the
name of AIPPA.
It is a fact of life that the Act has been applied
selectively to ride
roughshod over the rights of the private media sector.
It is also true that
sins of omission have been committed to frustrate
citizens seeking to enter
the industry.
A classic case is that of the
Africa Tribune Newspapers whose only default
was its balance sheet. The Act
says a successful applicant for registration
is entitled to l2 months grace
to, it is implied, find money to operate.
In the ATN case the "only" reason
registration was denied was that the
balance sheet did not meet the
"perceptions" of the Act to qualify. So the
promoter of a media service
provider that had been purchased as going
concern was not given time to find
the money.
There are others, but let us for now spare the reader the details.
The Act
has been manipulated to ensure citizens failed to qualify for
registration.
Where in the world is an applicant required to produce a
balance sheet as a
pre-condition to registration?
The tragic sadness of
it all is that for over 100 years without AIPPA, this
country has done
exceptionally well.
But for the first time in the history of the country, the
population has
known real deprivation, pinching poverty affects the majority
of the people,
and health services have collapsed for most of them and also
for the first
time in the country's experience unknown diseases like cholera
now ravage
the people in all centres of population
This has come as a
great shock for the people of Zimbabwe who have always
associated cholera
with what is disparagingly called banana republics, and
not their own
country.
FinGaz
No Holds Barred with Gondo
Gushungo
Myopic politics spoils it for Zim
THE International Monetary Fund
(IMF) a fortnight ago refused to restore
Zimbabwe's voting and related
rights as well as access to the Fund
resources. And it stated its reasons
which are not the subject of discussion
here.
This decision, coming
as it did after the country had paid more than US$210
million in GRA funds
owed to the IMF, raised a hue and cry among Zimbabwe's
incredibly
foul-mouthed, narrow-minded, prejudiced and obstinate politicians
who pass
for nothing but articulate ignorance.
The IMF's widely expected decision, to
the delight of the hardliners, gives
the politicians the opportunity to
complete the critical encirclement around
those that "misled" the nation to
repay what it owed. Thus those who
spearheaded the repayment of those
arrears, particularly Reserve Bank of
Zimbabwe governor Gideon Gono and
Finance Minister Herbert Murerwa, are the
targets of this sudden, strong,
negative reaction over the issue. There are
so many knives in their backs
but they do not know whose hands are holding
them.
Even some so-called
intellectuals known for their soporific articles by
whose side newspaper
condolence columns and the telephone book would be a
strong cup of tea, have
joined in the bandwagon of criticism. Just as well
Zimbabweans have come of
age and do not confuse real life with politics
anymore, otherwise they would
be hoodwinked into believing that there is
some justification for this
political backlash.
The politicians, who see the IMF not only as the face of
imperialism but
also as a self-appointed international central bank or a
powerful and
disapproving political institution imbued with missionary zeal
for fiscal
rectitude, are arguing that the IMF's decision to deny Zimbabwe
its voting
rights is the reason why the country should not have bothered to
repay what
it owed the Fund.
With all due respect to these politicians,
theirs is a myopic and uninformed
view. Suffice to say, their thinking,
which is muddled by fads and
misleading politicking emotions, betrays
ignorance of the underlying
realities of the IMF issue.
The question is:
did Zimbabwe owe the IMF? If so, then it had to pay,
period! It has to do
with ethics and integrity.
The decision to repay the arrears in question was
therefore informed by the
bigger picture - the objective of blocking
Zimbabwe's expulsion from the IMF
and the regaining of voting rights at that
juncture was and is in essence
inconsequential.
Admittedly financial
support from the international monetarists is still on
ice but in the end
the IMF did not slam the door on Zimbabwe, thus the
repayment achieved its
goal. I believe that the move underlined the extent
to which Zimbabwe
cherishes its membership of the Fund.
Of course this observation will
certainly stir controversy and worse still
political ridicule from the same
self-serving ZANU PF politicians from whom
the threat of expulsion provoked
a muted response. The politicians have in
the past pretended that Zimbabwe's
political and socio-economic life would
remain unshaken with or without the
IMF balance of payments support at a
time when the country was facing
payments difficulties. Yet nothing could be
further from the truth.
The
far reaching adverse implications that could have befallen Zimbabwe had
the
GRA arrears at the Bretton Woods institution not been cleared prior to
the
IMF Board meeting held on March 8, 2006 are clearly lost to the voluble
politicians. They seem to forget that metaphorically speaking, no country is
an island. And Zimbabwe is no exception.
Expulsion from the IMF would
have sent a damning and ominous signal to the
international community that
Zimbabwe has its needle well and truly stuck.
This would be a red flag that
would not escape the notice of international
fanciers most of whom have been
sitting on the fence, maintaining a
wait-and-see attitude as regards
Zimbabwe.
All I'm saying is that while what the IMF itself can give Zimbabwe
as
balance of payments support could be the proverbial drop in the ocean, it
is
much more important in that key international financiers take their cue
from
the Fund. Its presence is widely seen as a seal of approval. The truth
is
that without the IMF's stamp of approval, no matter how many times
Zimbabwe
passes the begging bowl around, no international financier will
twitch. It
is as simple as that and the evidence is there for all to
see.
It is pertinent to state here that most countries under the IMF are not
borrowing from the institution but still these countries, big and small,
jealously guard their membership of the Fund. This is precisely because of
the direct signalling effect such continued membership has to the investor
community.
Equally important is the fact that more and more donor and
other
humanitarian funds are being indexed on an individual country's
standing in
global financial institutions, of which the IMF is a critical
one. I do not
have to belabour the fact that such a good standing has to be
nurtured and
expanded on through honouring the country's debt obligations
with the
international community.
The politicians who find the magical
influence of populist phraseology too
strong to resist do not seem to
realise that with expulsion, Zimbabwe would
find it increasingly difficult
to sustain, let alone, penetrate export
markets particularly in those
regions where there is strong anti-Zimbabwe
sentiment.
It is instructive
to note that around 40 percent (amounting to US$480
million annually) of
Zimbabwe's exports are currently destined for Europe,
the United States of
America and Canada, which regions strongly voted
against Zimbabwe at the
last meeting. It therefore is clear from the
foregoing that expulsion would
have set a credible basis for these countries
to legitimately escalate trade
sanctions against Zimbabwe, forcing the
country's dwindling export markets
to find alternative sources of those
products they import from it.
Those
with an elementary understanding of economics will know that a country
whose
financial standing in the global markets is under threat or whose
credit
rating has been reduced to junk status, risks losing its export
markets. It
is a matter of prudence for any business that supplies of raw
materials or
even finished products be constantly reliable.
There is therefore a
compelling case for those who say that Zimbabwe did the
right thing in
repaying the IMF. In the intricate global space of intense
risk management,
no country can afford to be classified as one that
deliberately reneges on
its obligations to trading and financial
counterparts as its national
policy.
Those of us who were born and bred in the rural areas know only too
well
that a household which borrows salt from its neighbours and openly
reneges
cannot expect to continue getting salt or any other requirements
even from
those who are friendly to it. It is even worse if the villager
speaks or
publicly expresses the mere thought of regret for having repaid
what was
truly due to others! Yet this is exactly what the dishonest ZANU PF
officials who have turned the IMF issue into a political football wanted
Zimbabwe to do. The mind boggles.
But with politicians like these as key
government ministers, is anyone still
surprised with government's Band-Aid
approach to serious issues and its
obsession with wasteful pork-barrel
projects meant to ingratiate the ruling
ZANU PF with what it considers to be
strategic political groupings?
The day many people would like to
forget
EDITOR - Many households are weeping. Why? ZESA is at
it again. The guys at
ZESA have failed to execute their duties and Sunday
March 19 2006 is a day
that many households in Harare would like to quickly
forget about.
Electrical appliances were damaged because of continuous
interruptions in
power supplies around Harare (most probably around other
towns). Gata and
Nyambuya have exhibited incompetence and unprofessionalism.
Gentlemen what
are you doing in those portfolios of yours? Whose job is it
to inform the
public about inconsistent power cuts and that they should buy
surge
protectors? I guess you just do not want to advise members of the
public
about buying surge protectors because in a way it will be admitting
that you
have failed to execute your duties.
I urge all those people who
have very sensitive electrical devices to buy
surge protectors to ensure
that no further damage is caused to your valuable
appliances. To those whose
electrical appliances were damaged, I can only
say you know the responsible
gentlemen, but I would also urge you to buy
surge protectors. They only cost
about $2 million, a cheap price to pay
compared to the cost that you are
likely to incur when repairing your
damaged appliances.
To Gata and
Nyambuya, I say God is watching and do not say that I did not
warn you. What
goes around comes around. You still have time to repent and
apologise to the
masses for the losses that you were responsible for. If
legal action was to
be taken against you then we could be talking of
billions if not trillions
of dollars. I advise you gentlemen to leave from
the warpath that you are on
and make peace with the people.
Chikonamombe
Mhara
Harare
----------------
Company bosses prostituting
honesty
EDITOR - Reading the latest batch of quoted company
results, one is struck
by the various chairmen's sheep-like use of the word
"challenges".
How sad they prostitute honesty and integrity by failing to
call the
situation for what it is. "Challenge" by definition is optional. We
have
government economic policy induced "problems", "disasters", "meltdown",
"tragedy", "economic mess" etc. etc.
And then to add insult to injury
they try and make excuses, no doubt to try
and "keep in the government's
good books" by attributing the "challenges" to
a poor agricultural season as
a result of drought. Rather, viable
wealth-producing farms, mostly with
facilities to overcome droughts were
destroyed. Period! It's time the
captains of commerce and industry found the
guts to set an
example.
J.K. Morris
Harare
-------------
Liberation from
lies
EDITOR - The MDC congress was a delirious display of
people power when they
reaffirmed their faith in Morgan Tsvangirai's
leadership and new office
bearers. Months of pent-up frustration emanating
from lies by the
regionally-based Mutambara group came to an end last
weekend when genuine
MDC delegates chose new leaders whom they entrusted
with the power to change
their future.
The congress also made it clear to
ZANU PF and the Mutambara group that the
charismatic Tsvangirai is the
critical ingredient for an alternative future.
Before the historic congress,
the MDC was like the pilot of a plane that has
lost an engine but now the
congress has shown the people that they have the
power to determine their
future.
Frank Matandirotya
Chivhu
-----------
Let's not burn our
bridges
EDITOR - In this day and age of rapid access to
information I find some of
your headlines not only misleading but verging on
being downright
untruthful.
Take for example the UN secretary general's
comment on Zimbabwe when he was
in South Africa last week. Your heading was:
Annan lashes out at Zimbabwe
govt. A cursory search on Google for news on
Zimbabwe revealed how some
other news agencies reported Kofi Annan's speech:
Annan plans mission to
Zimbabwe soon. - Business Day; Annan praises S
Africa's role over Zimbabwe
crisis - Reuters AlertNet; Annan to help resolve
Zimbabwe's problems. - Mail
& Guardian Online; Annan to pay special
visit to Zimbabwe - Independent
Online.
The first thing we as Zimbabweans
need to do is to love ourselves first. Too
much negativity will never get us
from where we are to a point where we
begin to solve some of our economic
problems.
We Zimbabweans in the diaspora have vigorous debates about our
country but
not to the point of denigrating kumusha. It would be so easy for
many of us
to burn the bridges that join us to Zimbabwe and some of your
reckless
headlines will inevitably drive some of us and especially our young
people
from having any residual affection for the land of their parents.
Jesus said
"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" Matthew
22:35.
Fellow Zimbabwean
living abroad
UK
----------
Spoilt
ZANU PF brat
EDITOR - I think it is disgusting for your paper
to keep telling the already
fed-up Zimbabwean populace about individuals
like Saviour Kasukuwere, a
spoilt child of ZANU PF.
What has he ever done
to prove that he has Zimbabwe at heart besides being
at the forefront of
political machinations, and boasting of ill-gotten
wealth. Why is it that
the so-called "Third Chimurenga" has one small
class - The ZANU PF elite -
as its only beneficiaries?
We thought land redistribution was for the
indigenous people only to
discover that the povo was just being used as they
were later pushed out
after being accused of supporting the
opposition.
Fed-up
UK
-----------
Mutambara is just what the
doctor ordered
EDITOR - Professor Arthur Mutambara's arrival
at the leadership-haunted
Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) sends a clear
signal to President
Robert Mugabe that his time is now up.
Mutambara is a
tried and tested revolutionary with all the necessary
qualities of a
national leader.
President Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai cannot be allowed to
take all
Zimbabweans for a ride at a time we should start building
Zimbabwe.
The sudden loss of direction and adoption of dictatorial tendencies
by
Tsvangirai is a sad development. Tsvangirai is fine as an opposition
leader
and not as a state president. Zimbabwe won't get anywhere under
Tsvangirai's
leaderdship.
The future of Zimbabwe lies in a visionary,
intelligent, vigilant, tactful
and vibrant leadership that can offer
solutions for the problems bedevilling
the country. We all agree that
President Mugabe must go but what do we have
in place to tackle the problems
faced by the people.
Mutambara is just what the doctor has prescribed for an
embattled country.
Contrary to some street analysts who have described
Mutambara as an
academic, the man is capable of tackling the present regime
head-on.
Kurauone Chihwayi
Harare
------------
Will Tsvangirai
give David a chance?
EDITOR - They say history repeats
itself. This means that in order to
understand the future of our country we
need to take a look at the past.
Remember Moses started the struggle that led
Israel out of Egypt, but it is
Joshua who took them to the promised land. It
was Joshua Nkomo who fathered
ZAPU, but it was Robert Mugabe who became
Prime Minister. Even more still,
it was Sithole who led the revolt against
Nkomo and formed ZANU, but it is
Mugabe who is now President. History is
very stubborn and has this tendency
to repeat itself.
History says no
founding president of a party can become president of our
country. To
understand this theory, we need to go back a few thousand years.
For 40 days
King Saul and the whole army of Israel were intimidated by a
giant called
Goliath. Goliath, who stood almost 10 feet tall, defied the
armies of
Israel, making them look cowardly and foolish. For 40 days they
tried but
failed to defeat him. Goliath, who is described as a "champion" in
the
Biblical text, positioned himself between the two armies and challenged
the
Israelites to send out a warrior to challenge him. If that man won, the
Philistines would become the subjects of Saul's army. If Goliath won, the
converse would occur.
For 40 days, Goliath issued his challenge, but no
man would dare him.
Meanwhile young David was busy looking after his
father's sheep. He fought
and won many battles in the wilderness, against
lions and bears. Nobody knew
about these victories since they were not in
the battle front and away from
the public eye. Most importantly, these
battles were seemingly unrelated to
the real battle against Goliath in which
King Saul and the army of Israel,
including David's four brothers were
engaged.
One day David decided to go to the battle front to see how his
brothers were
doing, and to bring some "bread and grain". He saw Goliath and
he remembered
how he had fought and won against the bear and the lion. He
knew his time
had come. He asked King Saul for a chance to have a go at
Goliath.
What? After leading Israel through so many battles and recording so
many
victories? After being intimidated by this giant for 40 days and trying
my
best to bring him down, a little boy is now asking me to stand aside so
that
he can take a chance? This was ridiculous to King Saul. After all, Saul
was
the tallest and the largest in the army of Israel, and therefore he was
the
only one who could stand a chance against Goliath.
But a little boy
called David wanted to take his chance. Since no other
soldier was willing
to fight the giant Goliath, King Saul reluctantly agreed
and took off his
heavy iron coat and gave it to David. David put it on,
jumped around and
realised that it was too heavy for him. David rejected the
king's offer of
armour and a sword and went out to fight Goliath with a
slingshot and five
smooth stones. He knew that to defeat Goliath he needed
something different,
not just an imitation of what Goliath already had.
With the first stone
Goliath was dead. The situation in this story is
analogous to the current
situation in Zimbabwe. King Saul (Tsvangirai) has
been fighting Goliath for
the past six years. However this giant called
Goliath has managed to survive
using intimidatory tactics. Suddenly a young
boy called Arthur (David) has
arrived on the scene. He has just been
shepherding his father's sheep in the
diaspora, from where he has been
sending "grain and bread" to his brothers
in the battlefield. Whatever he
has been doing seems to be unrelated to the
battle against Goliath in which
his brothers have been bruised and
battered.
The question now is: will King Saul stand aside and give David a
chance?
Will King Saul offer his armour to David? Does David have the
shepherd's
armour and a sling with which to attack Goliath? Saul looked at
Goliath as
too big to hit, hence he was intimidated for 40 days, but David
looked at
the same Goliath as too big to miss.
The difference between the
success and failure of the two men was in how
they interpreted the sheer
size of Goliath. To one he was too big to hit, to
the other too big to miss.
In my view Tsvangirai was the only giant in the
MDC who could stand a chance
against Goliath (Mugabe). However a new boy has
arrived and he deserves a
chance.
He is a "mighty man of valour" who should not be underestimated by
reason of
his age, or the fact that he has been in the diaspora. Tsvangirai
and
company have been fighting President Mugabe for so long that they have
started to imitate the same person that they are trying to
remove.
Dictatorial tendencies have begun to show up, and the "handiende
syndrome"
or the "founder member" disease synonymous with ZANU PF is
beginning to
manifest itself. According to the MDC constitution Tsvangirai
has only one
more presidential term left and it is now almost certain that
he might try
to change the constitution to prolong his stay at the MDC
realm.
His plan of attack is now to boycott certain elections, while
participating
in others, and to pursue an unnamed form of "democratic
resistance",
meanwhile causing a lot of confusion with his indecision and
lack of clarity
in the process. Clearly his bag of ideas is now running on
empty. Tsvangirai
and his lieutenants are breathing fire about the fact that
an "outsider" is
trying to become MDC president when he is not a founder
member, exactly the
same way that ZANU PF brags about, and hero worships its
founder members.
Often President Mugabe (Goliath) has emphasised that his
successor must have
a history of the liberation struggle, exactly the same
way the MDC is going
on about those who have been fighting the dictatorship
in the last six
years. What then can you say to our army commanders when
they say that they
can not allow anyone who did not go to war to be
President?
We have no moral ground to oppose them. They are simply applying
the founder
member politics that you are applying in your own party. He who
digs a pit
for others will fall in it. Sadly this is a "Zanunification" of
the
opposition, to quote Brian Kagoro.
Tendai Serima
New
Zealand