|
Writers Articles And Opinions |
|
|
|
22 May 2009 By Reason Wafawarova Harare — The
jejune May 15 resolution by MDC-T's national executive
might have been a jaunty political move designed to
showcase a semblance of political muscle; gaily
targeted to impress the people who attended the
Mucheke Stadium rally -- but in all reality the
jeopardous move did not do the opposition leadership
any good.
The resolution seeks the upholding of the Global
Political Agreement by members of the inclusive
Government by referring to what we hear are
outstanding issues back to Sadc and the African Union.
This is despite the fact that MDC-T's national
executive itself did not bother to respect or uphold
the same GPA which established the Joint Monitoring
and Implementation Committee as the authority to
recommend the course of action to take on matters
involving the implementation of the agreement.
The Prime Minister, who spoke two weeks ago in South
Africa in his capacity as a member of the Executive,
was quite different from the MDC-T president who stood
as a "worker" of the national executive before what
could have been a demanding crowd at Mucheke Stadium.
The two personalities obviously dwell in the same body
and are addressed by the same name of Morgan
Tsvangirai, but they clearly stood opposed to each on
the matter of the outstanding issues.
The PM personality is the constructive being that
assured the world that 95 percent of the outstanding
issues had already been addressed and that himself and
President Mugabe were men of integrity who did not
want to be associated with failure, adding that
despite what some people may believe, President Mugabe
was "part of the solution".
The Mucheke-man personality was a timorous leader
incapable of asserting authority over an excited group
of subordinates, who in their moment of self-awarded
grandeur, decided to be the judges and executioners of
the GPA with unmitigated disregard to the powers and
mandate of JOMIC.
Thanks to the intimidating crowd and the eccentrically
whimsical rally atmosphere, this Mucheke personality
reduced a well-respected and brave party leader to a
mere "worker" of the bunch that comprised the national
executive of the party he normally leads as president.
The surface picture we are supposed to adopt here is
that this was the epitome of democratic principle and
that the wishes of the party were adhered to.
That makes perfect sense until we assume that the
executive must have been intimately briefed on the
details of the 95 percent of the progress that the
world was told about by the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe
in South Africa two weeks ago.
It can only be an insane group of people that would
decide to take 5 percent of outstanding issues to the
AU, or these are sane and rational politicians who
know a lot more than what the Prime Minister told the
world.
It is not really good for a party in Government to
allow a situation where members of its decision-making
body get impassionable to the point where they can
believe that only their opinion must carry the day.
What we are faced with here may not be as simple as
who is permanent secretary in which ministry, who is
ambassador of Zimbabwe to which country, or who heads
the central bank or the Attorney-General's Office.
It may not even be a matter of which human rights have
been violated or even the much vaunted "return to rule
of law".
These are all the stated interests which, in reality,
are not the same as the real interests. The real
interest in having political appointees replacing
career civil servants as heads of ministries is to
advance political and partisan interests and this is
dressed up as a move to bring transparency and
accountability.
The real interest in replacing career diplomats with
political appointees is to ensure that the foreign
policy of Zimbabwe can be hijacked to fall in line
with the interests of certain countries whose
resources and tactical support is a benefit to some
members of the inclusive Government.
Yes, the stated interest is to extend the letter and
spirit of the GPA to all spheres of governance.
The real interest in seeking the replacement of the
central bank governor is to advance an economic
manoeuvre that will allow certain financiers and
donors enough room and latitude to manipulate domestic
policy to the benefit of such interest groups as the
former commercial farmers and others whose desire is a
docile Zimbabwe. The real interest in replacing the AG
with a political appointee from favoured quarters is a
hazardous move designed not to uphold the laws of the
land, but to systematically and vindictively target
certain people through a selective application of the
law.
The sham justice of the post-Iraq invasion era easily
comes to mind on this one.
These interests are what some members of Zimbabwe's
political fraternity may view as their own domestic
wishes and aspirations.
In terms of ranking of priorities, these interests are
really secondary to what the real powers of this world
hold as interests in as far as Zimbabwe is concerned.
The conventional task of doctrinal managers is to
protect power and those who wield it from scrutiny
and, most importantly, to deflect analysis from their
rational planning in pursuit of the real interests
they serve.
Discussion about the inclusive Government must in this
sense be diverted from the real progress on the ground
to some noble intent like protecting the rights and
welfare of prisoners or the rights of political
activists.
These are genuine concerns that any sane person must
take seriously, but that is beside the point.
The real point is that the plight of prisoners in
Zimbabwe is being used for the benefit of those whose
real interest is to assert their influence by
selectively blaming certain groups of people for ills
that are otherwise a sum result of the embargo and
political persecution of the Zimbabwean leadership by
Western governments in the last 10 years.
Just like it was necessary to protect the doctrine
that Iraq would have been selected for invasion even
if the world's energy resources happened to be in
Southern Africa, it has been necessary to protect the
doctrine that Zimbabwe's economy would have collapsed
anyway even if the World Bank and the International
Monetary Fund had maintained credit lines and balance
of payments support for the Southern African country.
It is very difficult to understand why the West
assumes that the Zimbabwe military is ready to leave
office if only they can be assured of immunity from
prosecution for alleged crimes.
The assumption to be taken on this one is that there
are some people who naively believe that a change of
government in Zimbabwe can restructure the liberation
legacy upon which the defence policy of the nation is
based.
That is what is called dangerous thinking.
But all this is in the context of protecting the
doctrine that portrays the official enemies of the
West as monsters that are natural candidates for
international criminal trials.
For insisting on recovering Palestinian territories
seized by Israel, Syria became an official US enemy
and was listed as a terrorist state, despite
Washington's own acknowledgement that Syria had not
been implicated in any terrorist activities in many
years.
Bill Clinton offered to remove Syria from the
terrorist list if Damascus agreed to support the
US-Israeli peace plan for the Middle East.
This did not happen and Syria was further punished by
the imposition of more sanctions through the United
States' Syria Accountability Act that was signed into
law by George W. Bush in 2003. SAA and the so-called
Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act are
strikingly similar sanctions laws where Syria is
supposed to produce what the US calls accountability
and Zimbabwe under ZDERA is supposed to produce, to
the satisfaction of the US, what we should all call
democracy.
SAA is a sanctions law to coerce Syria to support
Israeli brutalities and ruthlessness in Gaza and the
occupied territories of Palestine while ZDERA is a
sanctions law designed to coerce Zimbabwe into
reversing land reforms.
The doctrinal slant on SAA was the reference to United
Nations Security Council Resolution 520, calling for
respect for the territory of Lebanon. According to
America, Syria had definitely violated the UN
resolution by keeping its forces in Lebanon. This was
despite the fact that the US and Israel readily
accepted Syrian forces in Lebanon in 1976 when their
task was to massacre Palestinians, and in 1990 when
the US was building a coalition to invade Iraq. The
only country named in the UN resolution was Israel,
but that fact was ignored and there was no call for
sanctions on Israel.
The principle here is that Lebanese sovereignty must
be defended only if the occupying army is from a
country America opposes, but is dispensable if the
country is a US ally.
Zimbabwe's democracy must be defended only if the
interests of business and white commercial farmers are
threatened by pro-people policies.
The calls we hear about the need to protect human
rights, the so-called political persecution of Jestina
Mukoko and other accused persons appearing before the
courts, as well as the call for the removal of certain
public officials are all part of the stated interests
which are dressed in the lexicon that may attract both
legitimacy and support from sections of the public.
However, these stated interests are way different from
the real interests.
This drivel about engaging political appointees in the
civil service and diplomatic missions is truly
ill-advised and sets a very bad precedent for future
governments. Surely, it is more advisable to implement
a policy of apolitical conduct of duty by civil
servants than to politicise the civil service by
filling posts with political activists and cronies.
The reported skirmishes in the Zimbabwe National Youth
Council elections are a clear sign of the fatuity of
engaging political activists in matters to do with
national duty.
Those who think the machinations to hijack the
inclusive Government for the advancement of external
interest are impalpable are cheating themselves in
broad daylight.
It is plausible that the PM has committed himself to
see through all efforts in making the inclusive
Government work.
Those who seek to throw spanners in the works by daily
claiming to be the torchbearers of moral righteousness
are the real danger to this arrangement.
It is incumbent upon politicians from all the parties
in Government to commit themselves to the service of
the people and not only to sharing political power and
the privileges that come with it.
The need for reforms in policy implementation,
accountability, justice, law enforcement,
professionalism and service delivery cannot be over-emphasised.
It is the backbone of this governance structure that
we call the inclusive Government.
Let no ambition, political interest, ego or greed be
allowed to undermine the prospect of happiness for the
people of Zimbabwe.
We cannot, as a country, continue to blame the
vultures that come to prey on our own rottenness when
we can easily deny them the prey by creating life
among ourselves instead of carcasses. Corruption,
partiality, disparity, ineptness, incompetence and
dishonesty must be rooted out and only by committing
to the eradication of these ills can credibility be
earned from the people of Zimbabwe. Rhetoric about
democracy, human rights, sovereignty, or even the
liberation legacy will not and cannot fool people into
happiness and the sooner the politicians realise this
the better for the country.
The only way for politicians to prove themselves is
not by eloquent addresses at public gatherings and
rallies, but by way of delivery of tangible benefits
to an expectant population such as ours.
It is homeland or death! Zimbabwe we are one and
together we will overcome.
EsinIslam.Com
|
Save
Add Comments To This Story