Diplomacy can triumph in Zimbabwe and the future belongs to us not Mugabe – Rashweat Mukundu
On 28 January South Africa’s e-TV showed pictures of emaciated Zimbabwean prisoners and rural families, many sick and dying from lack of food and medication. The pictures and accompanying news story were a stark reminder of the dire situation in Zimbabwe at the time that Southern Africa leaders had completed a meeting on finding a lasting solution to the crisis in Zimbabwe.
The e-TV story is particularly interesting as it shows in clearer terms the issue(s) in Zimbabwe, that the crisis is about livelihoods and people. While a lot has been written about how the crisis is man made, and Mugabe’s intransigence and his total disregard of any civilised political processes, the issue in my view remains that the people of Zimbabwe have reached the end of the tether and cannot hang on any longer. While the SADC summit was concluded in South Africa, reports were already emerging on how the MDC has not consented to the communiqué and how the breakthrough, is after all a false one. This message of doom was conveyed mostly by the foreign media with newspapers as the Telegraph in the UK carrying opinions supporting the MDC not to join Mugabe in a unity government. This kind of news has a chilling effect on the majority of Zimbabweans local or in the diaspora, for its says only one message, that is more suffering and an increasingly uncertain and dark and darker future. This brings back the question of what these talks are really about. Despite my misgivings about the leadership of South Africa in this process, I agree with Kgalema Motlanthe that we cannot afford to go on talking and talking and that these talks should focus on simply saving the lives of the people of Zimbabwe first and everything else later. No one is fooled that the MDC received a raw deal from Mugabe and SADC. The questions that remains to be answered is what options the MDC has, what can the MDC do to overcome the support that SADC openly shows for Mugabe. My view is that the MDC right now has no choice but to join the unity government with its headlights on beam. The MDC now needs to go above ZANU PF both morally and in political strategy and define itself as a party of the future. I argue that the MDC now need to join the goverament and simply help lives and restore some sort of dignity and normalcy to the lives of Zimbabweans.
The MDC at the moment needs to go into the unity governments to salvage the little of what is left of Zimbabwe, as well as work on a new constitution that reverses the damage of the past eight years as well set a future course guaranteeing our rights as well independent institutions for elections and other pressing issues. This agenda does not need the MDC to have Ambassadorial post among other issues. The MDC need to look at its role in the unity government as transitional and not permanent. There is no way this process, flawed as it is, can be seen as the ultimate solution to the crisis in Zimbabwe but a process towards a final resolution addressing issues of free and fair elections at some point. The transition in Zimbabwe, the MDC should note, will be slow and painful but the journey has to be taken nevertheless. For Christians the death of Christ on the cross was a painful journey that had to be taken, but was certainly not the end of the process but simply part of it and the final victory is coming. The MDC need to make full and effective utilisation of the social service and economic ministries it holds to stabilise Zimbabwe, gain experience in running a government and prepare for the future. Joining the unity government, however painful, gives the opposition a chance to carry out its political programmes in peace. One thing is clear about ZANU PF and Robert Mugabe. Not only is he 84 years old and therefore half way into being an ancestor and spirit medium for his family and party, but Mugabe is and should not be seen as part of the future of Zimbabwe. He unfortunately bestrides the door of transition and a way has to be found to sidestep him and move forward. The success of the MDC in the unity government is depended on what the party will do with that little power and an acknowledgment that the unity governments is part of and not the transition. The MDC still need a robust political programme that guarantees its continued linkages with its grassroots support both urban and rural.
A key stumbling block that the MDC needs to overcome is the pessimism that come from western capitals. This pessimism is rooted in the understandable loathing of Robert Mugabe. The MDC is however better counselled by history, that sometimes what maters in the life of any given state are its interests. Mugabe did not mutate into a dictator overnight. He was one in 1980 and did commit heinous acts against the Ndebele community in the 1980s. Then there was no talk of Mugabe quitting. The likes of Tiny Rowland even threatened to fire editors of their newspapers in London who reported the atrocities in Matabeleland. Any given state is better protected by its people, healthy and without disease and hunger. Mugabe has weakened Zimbabwe and our abilities to move forward as a people, the MDC cannot afford to maintain this path by going for broke. The call by some media organisations that the MDC should not join the unity government negates the suffering that the people of Zimbabwe are going through. Another aspect that the MDC needs to remove from its psyche is that the unity agreement as process will not succeed without monetary support from the west. That in my view is neither true nor a sustainable proposition noting how the west is now burdened with its own economic challenges. The future of Zimbabwe lies not in generous aid but normalising the economy, resuscitating agriculture, education health, and more importantly taming corruption. History and present international crises must counsel the MDC that the world is far less concerned about Zimbabwe in comparison, say to Gaza. The geo-political significance of Zimbabwe is such that we can all die and the world moves on as if nothing happened. One million people died in Rwanda and the world moved on. Less that two thousand died in Gaza and the world almost came to standstill from the UN, Washington, London, Johannesburg, Lusaka to Paris. African governments, all quite on Zimbabwe, had something to say about the deaths of the Palestinians. Over 3000 have died in Zimbabwe and not many, except Raila Odinga and Botswana, said anything. That is the painful reality of our own world. It is good to then evaluate how far we can rely on outside to help to get us out of the malaise that ZANU PF has thrown us in. Diplomacy then is best placed to serve us and move us forward. The future belongs to us not Mugabe. //End//
Wednesday 28 January 2009
Candid Comment: Judiciary not Beyond Criticism
Candid Comment: Judiciary not Beyond Criticism -
Friday, 16 January 2009 10:21 - Zimbabwe Independent
THIS week High Court Judge-President Rita Makarau lambasted some legal practitioners who she says criticised the judiciary in foreign media.
No particular story or legal practitioner was mentioned but those who have been following the human rights abuse cases in Zimbabwe, and lawyers who have braved state intimidation to stand with the victimised, can easily put some faces to the legal practitioners concerned.
Zimbabwe is not living in normal times and the Judge-President and others in the judiciary cannot pretend otherwise.
Zimbabweans from all walks of life have been victims of state thuggery and the judiciary has been complicit in this by failing to invoke legal protection when asked to do so.
Many in civic society, the opposition and indeed many voices critical of the government of President Mugabe cannot say they have received justice in Zimbabwe. Any criticism of the judiciary is thus on the basis of its failure to dispense justice.
The judiciary has been willing tools in the circus of phantom treason charges and dozens of conspiracy theories of Zanu PF in which individuals — who are invariably found innocent at the end of the day — have been subjected to the most inhuman treatment.
If not willingly consenting to the enforcement of the repressive measures of Zanu PF, one can conjecture that the judiciary is itself a victim of Zanu PF — fearful of what might happen to them.
One cannot but relate the composition and character of the current judiciary to the events leading to the resignation of Chief Justice Anthony Gubbay, followed by many other senior judges.
Earlier there was the desecration of the High Court by war veterans who danced on top of court desks and chairs during the inquiry into the looting of the war veterans fund.
When senior Zanu PF and government figures say they will defy the courts should they not like their rulings, the judiciary has remained silent.
The judiciary in Zimbabwe has undergone major changes in which one finds it difficult to say the citizens are being served. In fact the ruling elite has created its own judiciary to serve its interests.
It is therefore proper, Madam Judge-President, for those disaffected to highlight their concerns. For laypersons like me, there is no way we can know what is happening unless those who interact with the courts speak out against the serious regression in the protection of citizens.
In this regard the judiciary is not being undermined when people criticise it but is in fact being called upon to respect and adhere to its constitutional duty, which is the upholding of the law, and more importantly the protection of citizens from arbitrary arrest and detention.
That is all that the judiciary is being asked to do. Citizens of Zimbabwe now realise that once Zanu PF decides you are going to suffer there is nothing you can do, and more frighteningly there is little the judiciary is prepared to do.
Many cases abound where the judiciary has failed in this regard. In looking at the current crisis in Zimbabwe we also need to mention that the judiciary is inherently compromised by its almost parasitic reliance on the executive for handouts and survival.
How many judges double as farmers and other dealmakers? Who buys cars for judges and under what legal provisions?
All these issues are not lost on citizens. The same questions I am sure were asked by citizens who lived under the Smith regime and indeed in apartheid South Africa, as to whether they received justice and under what laws?
Criticism of the judiciary in Zimbabwe is therefore not something that the judiciary can wish away. It is real and if the stories in the media are inconveniencing judges it is well and good.
The lawyers referred to by the Judge-President are perhaps talking to the foreign media because of laws such as Aippa that have decimated the Zimbabwe media. The judiciary upholds the same laws as just and constitutional despite the suffering they cause to the citizens of Zimbabwe.
All this is being played out right in front of our eyes. The call is therefore for the judiciary to stand up and protect the rights of citizens, or be judged harshly by posterity.
BY RASHWEAT MUKUNDU
Friday, 16 January 2009 10:21 - Zimbabwe Independent
THIS week High Court Judge-President Rita Makarau lambasted some legal practitioners who she says criticised the judiciary in foreign media.
No particular story or legal practitioner was mentioned but those who have been following the human rights abuse cases in Zimbabwe, and lawyers who have braved state intimidation to stand with the victimised, can easily put some faces to the legal practitioners concerned.
Zimbabwe is not living in normal times and the Judge-President and others in the judiciary cannot pretend otherwise.
Zimbabweans from all walks of life have been victims of state thuggery and the judiciary has been complicit in this by failing to invoke legal protection when asked to do so.
Many in civic society, the opposition and indeed many voices critical of the government of President Mugabe cannot say they have received justice in Zimbabwe. Any criticism of the judiciary is thus on the basis of its failure to dispense justice.
The judiciary has been willing tools in the circus of phantom treason charges and dozens of conspiracy theories of Zanu PF in which individuals — who are invariably found innocent at the end of the day — have been subjected to the most inhuman treatment.
If not willingly consenting to the enforcement of the repressive measures of Zanu PF, one can conjecture that the judiciary is itself a victim of Zanu PF — fearful of what might happen to them.
One cannot but relate the composition and character of the current judiciary to the events leading to the resignation of Chief Justice Anthony Gubbay, followed by many other senior judges.
Earlier there was the desecration of the High Court by war veterans who danced on top of court desks and chairs during the inquiry into the looting of the war veterans fund.
When senior Zanu PF and government figures say they will defy the courts should they not like their rulings, the judiciary has remained silent.
The judiciary in Zimbabwe has undergone major changes in which one finds it difficult to say the citizens are being served. In fact the ruling elite has created its own judiciary to serve its interests.
It is therefore proper, Madam Judge-President, for those disaffected to highlight their concerns. For laypersons like me, there is no way we can know what is happening unless those who interact with the courts speak out against the serious regression in the protection of citizens.
In this regard the judiciary is not being undermined when people criticise it but is in fact being called upon to respect and adhere to its constitutional duty, which is the upholding of the law, and more importantly the protection of citizens from arbitrary arrest and detention.
That is all that the judiciary is being asked to do. Citizens of Zimbabwe now realise that once Zanu PF decides you are going to suffer there is nothing you can do, and more frighteningly there is little the judiciary is prepared to do.
Many cases abound where the judiciary has failed in this regard. In looking at the current crisis in Zimbabwe we also need to mention that the judiciary is inherently compromised by its almost parasitic reliance on the executive for handouts and survival.
How many judges double as farmers and other dealmakers? Who buys cars for judges and under what legal provisions?
All these issues are not lost on citizens. The same questions I am sure were asked by citizens who lived under the Smith regime and indeed in apartheid South Africa, as to whether they received justice and under what laws?
Criticism of the judiciary in Zimbabwe is therefore not something that the judiciary can wish away. It is real and if the stories in the media are inconveniencing judges it is well and good.
The lawyers referred to by the Judge-President are perhaps talking to the foreign media because of laws such as Aippa that have decimated the Zimbabwe media. The judiciary upholds the same laws as just and constitutional despite the suffering they cause to the citizens of Zimbabwe.
All this is being played out right in front of our eyes. The call is therefore for the judiciary to stand up and protect the rights of citizens, or be judged harshly by posterity.
BY RASHWEAT MUKUNDU
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
