Tackling corruption is the cornerstone to Zimbabwe's future

Having read Eddie Cross' write up about his crystal ball, I am convinced that the MDC still have no clue on how to take Zimbabwe forward if they win. In fact one cannot be sure that they will handle a transition correctly. They have already failed dismally at their first opportunity to handle a transition in 2008.

The MDC must see beyond Mugabe.

If for a moment the MDC could get their eyes out of the long narrow pipe that only sees Robert Mugabe and Zanu-PF, then maybe they could see the rest of us Zimbabweans. Judging by Eddie's sentiments, their vision never progresses beyond defeating Zanu-PF to serving Zimbabwe. They are like a young couple that cannot see that beyond enjoying the sex there is something called 'looking after the family'.

As usual Eddie drones on about his wounded buffalo theory of Mugabe. Eddie, Mugabe is not the issue, we ordinary Zimbabweans are the real issue. Your party has never been convincing that they have our interests at heart beyond using us to get power from Mugabe.

Eddie makes two interesting revelations. The first is that it is Mugabe who is pushing not to break the current constitutional mandate which sees his term ending in June 2013. The other is that the MDC wanted to ignore that constitutional mandate until the conditions were right for them to win.

Excuse me. Who are the democrats here? The ones who want to follow the constitution come what may, or the ones who want to throw the current constitution into the dustbin because they are not sure of victory?

Eddie's language is also darkly ominous. He is promising the whole of Zimbabwe will have 'buffalo steaks' if the MDC wins. This is a not so well veiled threat that there will be a witch-hunt for Zanu-PF supporters, real or perceived. I wonder what kind of democracy it is that will be founded on a witch-hunt of opponents. Maybe be a Josef Stalin type of democracy.

Despite all their warts and moles, Zanu-PF are still Zimbabweans with a substantial level of support. True democrats will guarantee them their right to associate freely, not promise Stalinist purges of them.

It seems also my rantings and ravings about what ought to matter for Zimbabwe have been getting an ear. For the first time I have heard Eddie talk about a 'small government' of 20 ministers. By my standards 20 is still a huge number for a country Zimbabwe's size.

What still worries me is that, Eddie does not talk about limiting the ministers ability to free-load on government resources. One minister one car in five years, is my motto these days. Right now we have 77 ministerial level people who spend like 400 ministers.

Small government: It's no use having 20 ministers who spent like a 100 ministers.

It is no use having 20 ministers who spend like a 100 ministers. We will end up with exactly the same problem of too much money being spend aggrandising politicians and almost nothing being left for delivering services to the people.

If the British could fire a minister for merely riding a bicycle out of the wrong gate, imagine what should be happening in Zimbabwe where ministers, their relatives and even the girlfriends routinely drive through toll gates without paying.

Eddie also talks like a true politician - promising things he can never hope to deliver personally. He tells us that tourism will grow to 20% of regional arrivals. Yet he doesn't mention that the current economic recession will limit the ability of First World holiday makers to spend for some time to come. Greece, whose economy was highly dependent on tourism, is currently the sickest man in the European Union. This is not exactly the right time to be looking to tourism for economic emancipation.

Eddie also tells us the investors will pour money into mining with such an air of confidence that you would think he was giving them instructions on where and when to invest. Yet the truth is that commodity prices have been struggling to sustain investment in mining worldwide. Many of the biggest mining companies are already struggling because of marginal profitability.

The only thing most likely to attract investors is long term low cost in production. Zimbabwe might have a slight edge over South Africa in that its labour force is highly educated and less unionised. The removal of political uncertainties would help Zimbabwe, but it is not the ultimate panacea. A lot of other work still needs to be done to attract investment.

For example, in this day and age when email, and instant messaging are the cornerstone of business communication, it doesn't help that broadband connectivity is spotty and exorbitant. It costs $100 a month to get a 2GB connection in Zimbabwe. Sign on fees and annual fees are not part of this cost. The 10GB connection that I am using right now costs me about $15 with a free ADSL modem and not other hidden costs.

Political uncertainty is not the only inhibitor to investment.

Zimbabwe's infrastructure is also increasing run down and inadequate. Infrastructure designed for a population of 7 million is the same we are still using for 13 million people. Instead of improving the infrastructure, the government is rather using the inadequacy as an excuse to extort exorbitant fees from the public.

Eddie's language on land reform is also vague, I suspect deliberately. It just promises 'secure land tenure' but does not mention that the tenure is now practically contested between 180 000 black resettled families and 4000 white farmers.

Which of these two groups is Eddie promising 'secure tenure'. Obviously the vague language is designed to hoodwink one of the groups. I can only hazard a guess that Eddie promising secure tenure to his kith and kin. The black peasants are the ones being hoodwinked. The MDC needs their votes first before they can give back secure tenure to white farmers.

Most likely the black peasants will be returned to tenure-less communal lands where they were forcibly put by Eddie's colonial ancestors in the first place. That amounts to continuing to enforce the system of native reserves designed by colonialists to deprive blacks of any land rights and reduce them to a mere labour force for settlers. This was so starkly illustrated by the recent case of two chiefs who lost an attempt to challenge the granting of a lease to a private company on 'their' land.

My own view is that it is now impractical and potentially destabilising to try and uproot the resettled peasants. The issue that is best worked upon is fair compensation. The sticking question is by whom. Mugabe says by the British, since they were responsible for colonisation in the first place. I suspect the MDC will want to shift the compensation burden to the Zimbabwean taxpayer to appease their chief sponsors.

Peasants need secure and economically liquid land tenure too.

The MDC also says nothing about indigenization. The fact that colonial systems deliberately disadvantage blacks is not a figment of anyone's imagination. It is a reality of our history. I often mention how my family struggled in the native purchase areas without any support from the white government, and in the face of deliberate policies designed to hand advantage unfairly to whites such as selective pricing of produce.

Surely no one in their right mind will argue that the effects of those racist policies should not be mitigated against today. South Africa has indigenization in the form of BBBEE (broad based black economic empowerment). Therefore indigenization is not a policy unique to Zimbabwe.

Some form of black economic empowerment will need to be considered by the MDC. Zimbabwe is full of well educated youngsters who need support in the ventures they are attempting to start. The MDC is essentially saying these youngsters should not aspire to be entrepreneurs like Mark Zuckerberg. Rather, according to the MDC, they should only aspire to be employees, mostly as lowly farm workers.

I have no objection to the Zimbabwe economy being kick-started by foreign investment. However Zimbabwe can only derive maximum benefit if her people have ownership of a fair share of the economy. There has to be a mechanism for ensuring that a fair proportion of the profits remain in Zimbabwe. There also has to be a mechanism for capacitating Zimbabweans to be self reliant.

The whole MDC programme is founded on mere hatred of Zanu-PF, not any progressive thinking about the needs of Zimbabwe. To me that is a serious shortcoming. What is needed is in Zimbabwe is not mere replacement of a political party, but a committed tackling of the culture of corruption that now pervades every sphere of Zimbabwean life. Even headmasters are now routinely demanding bribes to allocate places in their schools.

When we get the hyenas out of the goat pen, we need to make sure we are not putting jackals in there.

Chiefs loose case in rural land dispute in Zimbabwe

Recently two chiefs took a local company that had been granted a land lease by the Masvingo Rural District council to court. Both chiefs were demanding compensation for violation of 'their' land by the company.

The problem is that the Chiefs do not understand the current land tenure system, otherwise they would never have wasted their time going to court. The land is not theirs. It belongs to the state. It is only the state in the form of Masvingo Rural District council, which could have taken the company to court.

They also do not follow history because if they had followed, and understood, the travails of Rekai Tangwena and his people, they would have understood that they are powerless. Even more recently if they could have followed the Chiadzwa happenings.

The bottom line, and rule of thump, is if YOU do not have a piece of paper called a deed of grant (title deeds) for the land you care calling your own, then the land belongs to the state, or to someone else granted tenure by the state.

The state is at liberty to do what it wants with the land including kicking the natives off, which is what happened to the Tangwena people and Chiadzwa people.

You do not have the power to challenge the state because in the eyes of the courts, if you don't have a deed of grant to produce before the court, you haven't proved the land is yours. You are absolutely no different from me coming from Chivhu to claim that Sviba hills is my land.

The court might listen to the circumstantial evidence of witnesses to try and make a decision but in this case the authority, the Rural District Council, had actually given Econet a lease. The RDC is the arm of the state (owner of the land) administering the land at district level, not chiefs.

The chiefs should remember that the land they live in is called Maruzevha a name which arises from Native Reserves. Under Southern Rhodesia native reserves were the Queen's Land, the personal property of Elizabeth Mountbatten nee Windsor (otherwise known as Queen Elizabeth II). Under Ian Smith's UDI and Muzorewa's Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, they became Tribal Trust Lands held in trust by the government. In Zimbabwe they became Communal Lands still held in trust by the government.

The natives (meaning the chiefs and their people) are allowed to stay on that land UPON THE GRACE of the owner. In the early days the phrase 'upon the grace of the Queen' was frequently used.

Kuti ndinyatsopedzeredza nemuchivanhu, Madzishe nevanhu venyu kugara kwamakaita haasi mano enyu asi kuti kunzwirwa tsitsi (upon the grace) nevaridzi vevhu iroro, Hurumende. Panguva yehutapwa ranga riri ivhu raQueen.

Note that this is in contrast to farmers all of whom had deeds of grant. Because of that, the farmers have the power to take the State to court. Chiefs don't.

Farmers have gone as far as to regional tribunals and other international law bodies because in terms of the Roman-Dutch law system, their deeds of grant are recognized as proof of ownership of the land.

Chiefs cannot do that, as these two chiefs have just discovered. They can not even go beyond the local magistrate.

The fact that the chiefs and their people are powerless to do anything against the state is not an accident. That is exactly how the colonial system was designed - taking away all rights from the natives while giving the settlers as much rights as they needed to deal quickly with any natives who chose to be troublesome.

What this means is that if anyone goes to the state and gets a lease from the RDC for say a chief's fields and homestead, the chief or anyone else is powerless to stop the RDC from granting the lease. The people of Tangwena had their homes bulldozed because the then Rhodesian state had decided to grant someone else the land.

That is the law as it stands. When our politicians agree to uphold 'the rule of law' they are effectively agreeing to maintain a system that doesn't recognise the land where 90% of the population have homes as the occupants' property.

That the politicians have failed to reform the system - over three decades - is part of the ignorance that I am always complaining about. Most of the politicians do not know the finer details of the system. They never even stop for a minute to think about it.

Some are even trying to abuse it like the colonialists did. There have been persistent rumours that certain powerful people in Buhera have been trying to move villagers to enlarge their fields.

The Herald is not to blame for the Anglicans' problems

After my recent postings about the Anglican saga, it has been explained to me that Kunonga's problems with the church started well before 2007.

According to the source, the problem started with Kunonga playing the race card against Tim Neil, during his election. He reportedly then proceeded to victimize a number of priests as well as appoint un-ordained and untrained people to posts which required ordainment and training.

The world media regularly refers to Kunonga as 'Mugabe Bishop'.

Kunonga was then charged with maladministration by the church, and summoned for ecclesiastical trial. According to the source that is when Kunonga played the political card and made overtures to Zanu-PF.

According to the source it this point it was inevitable that the church was going to split. He claims the real catalyst for the split was that the regional archbishop, Archbishop Malango who had been protecting Kunonga since 2001 retired and was replaced by Archbishop Chama.

Unfortunately, that is not the story as it has been told, not just in the Zimbabwe state media, but in the international media and in general.

The information above shows that Kunonga's problem had nothing to do with politics but abuse of power. It also makes it clear that political associations only came in when Kunonga was looking for backers.

The source claims that Kunonga's ecclesiastical trial was 'frustrated into abortion by [the Herald]'. That is a very myopic view. The Herald were not even party to the trial so I fail to understand exactly how they did that.

The Herald is not the Anglican church's public relations department. It cannot be expected to paint an accurate picture on behalf of the church. If the judges or whoever was at the trial ended up fighting among themselves, blame it on their own confusion.

Public relations does not work on auto-pilot

If one searches Google for the word Kunonga most of the news articles you come up with will refer to him as 'Mugabe bishop'. The Wikipedia page on him states that his main problem with Anglicans was 'his ardent support of Robert Mugabe'.

This is clear evidence that there is a wide perception out there that Kunonga's problems are as a result of his political views. Surely the Anglican church only have themselves to blame, not the Herald, for allowing that perception to dominate the truth.

If indeed Kunonga was being persecuted for his political views, then I would have absolutely no hesitation in condemning the Anglican church for trying to impose its political views on its congregation.

However if it was about the incidents which are now being cited of victimization of priests and general maladministration  then the church was absolutely right.

What I fault the church with is allowing the issue to be incorrectly characterised in the general media for long. It should have been made very clear long ago that Kunonga's problems had nothing to do with politics but his own maladministration of the Church.

Trying Kunonga for maladministration is proper; for his political views is human rights abuse

I am sure if that had been made clear, even Zanu-PF wouldn't have offered him protection. Much of the world out there believes Kunonga was targeted for supporting Robert Mugabe.

As we speak some some are trying to characterize his current travails as a humiliation of Zanu-PF. Yet judging by Herald reports Zanu-PF have clearly washed their hands of him.

By simply correctly and accurately communicating the real facts behind the Kunonga saga, the Anglican church could have saved their congregation a lot of gnashing of the teeth.

It is the job of the church to make sure its position is clearly communicated. Public relations does not work on auto-pilot.

Corruption and Patronage must go - otherwise Indigenisation and JUICE won't make a difference

Both Zanu-PF and the MDC are swinging into election mode. For us the people of Zimbabwe we have leant the lesson that election time is empty promise season. Political parties will say anything and everything that they think will get our votes. However we now know that their promises count for nothing.

In the midst of all the flowery rhetoric and lofty promises being made, I for one continue to sorely miss what I consider to be the basic tenets of good governance in Zimbabwe. My premise is that to have good governance we must end political patronage and the corruption it gives rise to.

The fundamental principle of ending patronage, is to reduce the government to as few ministers as possible. I have earlier shown that the number of Zimbabwe's ministers is astronomical compared to the world's leading economies and largest countries. I have also illustrated how the lifestyle of ministers compared to ordinary people is simply unsustainable.

The only reason why we have an astronomical number of ministries is that both parties, Zanu-PF and the MDC, feel that their high ranking members have to be rewarded with senior posts upon the party making it into power. This has got nothing to do with the efficient administration of Zimbabwe but an unjustified feeling of entitlement among politicians.

I first made this point when the two parties signed the GPA. Then I characterised them as hyenas and leopards negotiating of the goat carcass that is the welfare of Zimbabwe's people. The moment the announced the sharing of ministries I immediately complained that the number was too much. To prove my point, the country's economy has struggled to recover under the weight of the bloated GPA government.

As long as government is bloated, no matter how many JUICEs and Indigennisations we have, Zimbabwe will never prosper. All the money meant to circulate in the economy will be quickly siphoned off into private pockets.

Coupled with the problem that our politicians want to show off by importing very, very expensive luxury goods, money siphoned into the private pockets of politicians is quickly taken out of the country leaving the country with nothing.

As long as the problem of corruption, patronage and unnecessary extravagance is not tackled, we will never ever have a 100 billion dollar economy.


On the MDC's part, the JUICE plan is not a plan that is meant to turn around the Zimbabwe economy but a plan that is meant to buy votes this coming elections and no more. It is not a plan meant to achieve success for Zimbabwe but a plan meant to win power for the MDC.

The people who came up with this plan were answering the question, 'what do we tell these people so that they vote for us?'

They were not answering the question, 'what do we do to develop Zimbabwe?'

What happens to the economy after they win power is not guaranteed and can never be guaranteed. The only thing guaranteed is that they will get a lot of prestige and use it to make money.

All the countries that wait for others to come and invest are poor.

On Zanu-PF's part talk of indigenisation is mostly cover for well connected politicians grabbing going concerns and running them down. True indigenisation would entail fostering the growth of new black owned enterprises. However the party has thrown spanners into the works of growing black owned companies like they once did with Econet. Anybody who is not politically connected to Zanu-PF is treated as a threat.

Foreign investment is already happening. We have had companies mining granite in Mutoko for years. In Chiyadzwa while the Chinese are the most publicised, their are four mining companies one of them having Italian roots. The platinum and gold sectors are bustling with investment.

Yet all these investments are count for nothing because money is being wasted in a huge bloated executive as well as rampant corruption and personalisation of national resources by politicians.

What does the existing foreign investment means for ordinary Zimbabweans. For Chiyadzwa villagers it has meant being kicked out of their homes like dogs to allow for top politicians to make money through demanding lucrative kickbacks and cutbacks from the so called foreign investors.

Right now we are sitting with a problem of billions of tones of iron ore reserves that have been given away for a song to an Indian company.

The other serious problem we have is simple plain ignorance in the top echelons of government. A patently ludicrous manifestation of this ignorance is when several senior cabinet ministers were made to sit shoeless in front of a school drop-out in the belief that pure refined diesel would then flow out of solid rock.

It is the same kind of ignorance that saw a so called professor, giving away our iron ore reserves for a song.

A few years back the entire country was made to run around planting jatropha, which was supposed to be turned into bio-diesel. While it is possible for various plant oils to be refined into diesel, one needs to do thorough research and carefully consider any intellectual property issues regarding the process before just jumping in on the deep end.

The MDC's JUICE plan is loaded on futuristic promises but empty on current action. They forget that we are not new to futuristic plans and are not as gullible anymore. Zanu-PF took us through a series of five year plans. Going by the promises made then Zimbabwe should have been a first world country by now.

We even had something called housing for all by 2000. Going by the promises made then every Zimbabwe would have been living in a mansion by year 2000. Yet all we ended up with was Operation Murambatsvina.

Good plans for providing houses did exist. One such plan was the Pay for Your House Scheme started by the Ministry of Construction. That was a very good plan. However it was soon torpedoed by rampant corruption is bigwigs diverted pool funds to build their own mansions.

Even progress that had already been made has been reversed by corruption. Right now as I write this the railway line that had been electrified between Harare and Gweru has been stripped bare of copper catenaries in one the saddest stories of infrastructure destruction.

If rumours are to be believed this was all the work of our self-centred and greedy politicians. Imagine the sheer stupidity of taking a refined product already in use and selling is as scrap which needs to be refined and tuned into a useful product all over again.

We have been listening to lofty plans for 30 years. We are being fed lofty plans now. But nothing is ever going to come of them unless the fundamental problem of patronage, gravy train seat allocation and government bloatware is addressed.

That doesn't need a plan. All it needs is a simple cabinet reshuffle.

Nobody is right in the Anglican saga

With the ongoing Anglican saga let us start right at the beginning. The world church wanted Kunonga to be as critical of Robert Mugabe as Pius Ncube was.

Acrimony in the church grew to a point where Kunonga split from the mainstream church supposedly over homosexuality. However the bedrock of the split was politics with Kunonga being unwanted for being pro-Mugabe at a time when it was very fashionable in the international community to be rabidly anti-Mugabe.

The church does not erase a person's background and tradition. The church does not mask a person core cultural beliefs. Often it is church practices which are profoundly modified by tradition.

Kunonga and Pius Ncube's completely different approaches to critique of Mugabe are rooted in their different cultural and life experience backgrounds.

I am not trying to be tribalist but the first point of divergence on how the two view Mugabe is that Kunonga is a Shona like Mugabe while Pius Ncube is a Ndebele. That has got nothing to do with religion.

Recently Kunonga related how his family's wealth in the form of cattle was several generations ago expropriated without compensation by the white colonialist regime of the time (kuhesvurwa kwemombe dzekwaKunonga). It is obvious that part of his family history affected his outlook towards Mugabe's land reform which involved expropriating land from the descendants of white colonialists without compensation.

On the other hand Pius Ncube outlook towards Mugabe was more likely profoundly fashioned by the Gukurahundi disturbances of the early 1980s.

In their ignorance of all these things, the world church pushed Kunonga a tard too hard. They now wanted him to criticise expropriation of white land without compensation but where were they when his family's cattle were being expropriated without compensation. He lashed back and we now have an irreparably divided congregation.

Personally I am now a secular humanist, atheist and freethinker. This happened long before the Anglican church rucktions so has absolutely nothing to do with them. However my family have been Anglican church goers for generations.

My own grandfather and his brother Gideon Punungwe made contributions to the Anglican Church at St Marks Zimondi in Manyene. That was long before Kunonga and Gandiya's time. Now let's suppose I decide to go back into the church.

As the Anglican church stands now, if I side with Gandiya, Kunonga says I should not be allowed to go into the church that my grandfather helped build. If I side with Kunonga, Gandiya says I should not be allowed to go into the church that my grandfather helped build.

Who are they to tell me that? Both of them are mafikizolos and none of them ever worked with Anglican greats like the late Arthur Shirley Cripps (after whom Cripps Road in Harare is named) like my grandfather did.

Muri vanaani imi Kunonga naGandiya. (Who are you Kunonga and Gandiya). I know that definitely you cannot be men of God as you claim given the way you want to turn church followers into personal militia. Why do you have to force church goers to make a choice over your persons.

If you want to be politicians go and join the MDC and Zanu-PF openly. It is part of the freedom that the liberators of this country fought for that both of you are allowed to join the political party of your choice. Do not use the congregation to achieve your political ends.

The divisions in the Anglican church have nothing to do with godliness or lack of it. They are all about strong combative personalities unwilling to back down even if it means bringing down the church.

I am glad I am a sensible atheist.

The Primitive Mentality of the Middle East

The world we live in today is full of primitive beliefs that are difficult to comprehend for anyone who prefers to use scientific logic as their guiding thought process.

There is the primitive belief that keratin, the material that makes fingernails, can do the jobs of antibiotics, antifungals, antiparasitics and even sedatives.

There is the primitive belief that keratin, the material that makes fingernails, can do the jobs of antibiotics, antifungals, antiparasitics and even sedatives. All you need is a few shavings of it, so goes the theory. This belief has led to more than 500 specimens of an endangered member of Africa's big five, the rhinoceros being butchered for only their horns.

We are left totally perplexed and speechless by the carnage left behind by the primitive Asian belief that rhino horn is powerful muti (medicine) for everything from broken bones to the common cold. I personally am completely dumbfounded the total senselessness, as carcass after carcass of the majestic rhino is left to rot in the African veld.

If keratin has such powerful medicinal qualities, why don't they cut off their own fingers and toes instead of so senselessly and cruelly butchering our rhino.

Of course talk of primitive beliefs can never be complete without mentioning the cabinet of my own country, Zimbabwe, who were prepared to discuss the extraction of pure refined diesel from a granite outcrop in Chinhoyi. I wonder how they were going to tell the ancestors that they want diesel with a sulphur content of 50ppm.

It is a story that could have been easily dismissed as a fanciful urban legend had it not been for widely available pictures of senior government officials being washed with diesel by a school drop-out n'anga (traditional healer).

Perhaps the most deadly primitive belief we are faced with in the world to day is the apothegm that a two state solution is possible in the Middle East.

Perhaps the most deadly primitive belief we are faced with in the world to day is the apothegm that a two state solution is possible in the Middle East. My career is rather ironical in that I was first introduced to computers by the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (at an event called the Afro Arab Computer Camp in Harare in 1988). Twenty years later, I ended up working as a software engineer for a company owned by an Israeli. I have maintained some of interest in the goings on of the middle East for the past two decades.

I like going by simple logic, and my logic tells me that a two state solution will never ever be possible in the middle east. There are only two possible solutions, either a single state with equal rights for all human beings living in it, or genocide of the one group by the other.

In the modern era, the only way forward, is a single state with equal rights for all human beings. In my twenty years of interest in the Middle East, I have never been able to fathom why Israelis and Palestinians choose to remain marooned a couple of millennia in backward history. It simply doesn't fit in with the common sense of a right thinking modern era enlightened person.

A separation based on religion is irrelevant in the modern era where simple humanism is the cornerstone of future morality. A separation based on ethnicity and regional origin is also irrelevant five decades after Yuri Gagarin circumvented the globe in one and a half hours. This is an era when someone born in the Sahara can decide to make a living in Siberia and vice-versa. Either way, one can physically relocated in a couple of days.

When will the Middle East come to its senses?

To me it is therefore totally illogical and primitive, that religion and ethnicity are the main cause of divisions in the Middle East. Of course we can nit pick over the various other reasons now commonly cited for all the primitive senselessness that goes on in the Middle East. We can cite the occupation, blockage or the rocket firing and go into a chicken and egg debate, not about which comes first, but about which should end first.

However everything has its foundations in the fact that we have mainly Jewish Israelis on the one hand and mainly Muslim Arabs on the other - religion and ethnicity.Would countries like South Africa ever be able to exist if we were to quibble so much over ethnicity and religion.

When will the Middle East come to its senses? And realize one state is the only viable solution.

Zimbabwe needs NEW leadership across the board

The leaders of both the ruling AND opposition parties must be changed if Zimbabwe is to stand any chance of progressing.

Both sets of leaders have shown a gluttonous appetite for cronyism, with relatives and friends enjoying first class seats on the gravy train. This massive gravy train has run over the prosperity of the country leaving the welfare of the people in intensive care.

In Zanu-PF gravy train seats have been allocated largely on the basis of the 1970's liberation war credentials. In the MDC the seats have been doled out mostly on personal friendships, and judging by recent reshuffles in his office, by the disposition of Tsvagirai's loins as well.

Hanzi chiuno chaPrime Minister chikachinja zvachinoda, nevanhu vemuOffice make vanochinjawo. If the Prime Minister's loins change what they want then the composition of his office changes too.

Zanu-PF has reduced its leadership to a little more than a remedial class in governance.

Zanu-PF seriously hobbled by failure to renew its leadership. The party has been recycling the same individuals for three decades - and they want to blame the British for the complete stagnation of their fortunes. Can't they see the complete stagnation in their leadership leads to a stagnation of ideas?

Zanu-PF has reduced its leadership to a little more than a remedial class in governance, where people keep trying the same things and failing over and over. Where others like Mandela, Nujoma, Mbeki, Pohamba, Chisano, Muluzi and even Chiluba have come and gone the occupants of the remedial class are going nowhere.

I know Zanu-PF members like to blame the MDC for their misfortunes. The truth is they should be thankful that the MDC too are a bunch of lousy, directionless opportunists. Faced with more principled, astute and competent opposition they would have lost power a long time ago.

On the other side the MDC also like to blame Zanu-PF for all their misfortunes. They too should be thankful to Zanu-PF incompetence, especially in the economic sphere, for their mere existence and longevity. Had Zanu-PF been just a little bit more competent, then the usually apathetic voters would not have flocked to the MDC the way they did.

I was taken back by a speech in which Tsvangirai described the coming 2013 elections as 'the MDC's last chance'. Clearly the man is not thinking beyond himself. How can he describe his last chance to contest the presidential elections as the entire party's last chance.

It is a hallmark of the majority of African leaders that they do not have a vision of anything beyond themselves.

It means Tsvangirai doesn't have a vision for the party beyond his own political career. This takes us right back to my long standing conviction that the MDC is founded on opportunism. Their leader does not have a vision for the party beyond his own personal opportunity to challenge Mugabe. He does not have principles, ideologies and convictions which he wants to see the party carry forward even beyond his life time.

Surely the MDC needs leadership that has vision beyond personal opportunity. They too need a leadership change if their fortunes are to move from the realm of luck into the realm of strategy.

Maybe I am asking too much of the MDC. It is a hallmark of the majority of African leaders that they do not have a vision of anything beyond themselves. Even Zanu-PF is frozen in a leadership time warp because they scared of contemplating anything beyond Robert Mugabe.

The bottom line is that both Zanu-PF and their main challengers the MDC, do not have the most suitable leadership for Zimbabwe.

The brandpower of a movement should not lie in a person but in its ideology and its cause. That Tsvangirai is being kept in place largely because the MDC's western backers are scared he will take his brandpower with him, is testimony to the MDC's extremely weak ideological position.

This puts the MDC in a catch 22 situation because they sorely need a leader with more ideological vision if they are to survive beyond 2013.

The bottom line is that both Zanu-PF and their main challengers the MDC, do not have the most suitable leadership for Zimbabwe. The end result is that Zimbabwe is faced with another election term saddled with leadership that has no clear direction or clear ideas on how to take the country forward.

Zanu-PF is saddled with a matakadyakare (leftovers) leadership. The MDC is saddle with a mahandionioni (visionless) leadership. Zimbabwe is saddled with both these parties.

Debate on Zimbabwe Land Reform: 1

In the following email I was disputing a statement by Pat Anderson that "Europeans arrived and took land, developed it and large commercial farms appeared."

Already the way you put it is wrong. You talk as if blacks were not capable of developing large commercial mechanized farms. Remember Pat, at the time Europeans came to Zimbabwe in 1890, the Ford Model T had not even been invented so there was no farm mechanization to talk of.

At that time Africans were ahead of whites in terms of agricultural skill. They owned more livestock and they grew better crops. Whites, who were then running away from poverty and disease in Europe, actually relied on black produce in order not to starve. At that time blacks didn't even want to work for whites on mines or on farms which is why whites had to resort to a hated forced labour system called Chibharo (The Rape).

My maternal grandfather had to relocate from Njanja to Manyene in an attempt to get away from the Chibharo system. My grand-uncle Sekuru Madzorera used to tell how he had his hands tied together, tied to a saddle and then made to run behind a horse as he was corralled for the Chibharo system. These are people who I saw with my own eyes and whose stories I heard with my own ears.

Zimbabwe's agriculture developed to world class standards starting around the 1940s, ten years after the Land Apportionment Act robbed blacks of their land. It is a hurtful insult to suggest that blacks at that time couldn't develop advanced agriculture because of incapability. Yet it is very clear that they were forcibly held back by the racist system then in operation.

My own grandfather was one of the first farmers to grow wheat in Mutoro native purchase areas. White farmers used to come and buy wheat from him. He had to abandon the capital intensive crop because of lack of support for blacks from the system as well as plain discrimination such as selective pricing for produce based on race.

Whites could make money by buying produce from blacks at the 'black price' and selling it on at the 'white price.' Those are some of the practices that make whites appear to have been better.

They were not any better but they used violent repression to take the resources for themselves as well as hold back the blacks from the natural course of development.

Once people understand that point they will stop harping about whites having 'developed' Africa or being better farmers, but know that they actually held back Africa by preventing the population from advancing with the rest of the world at their natural pace.

Now Africa is having to start where the world was a century ago. That is not a condemnation of black capabilities but a condemnation of the oppressive system that was saddled upon the blacks.

As usual let me point that my sentiments are not the gospel truth but are based on logical consideration of the plainly apparent facts. Other are free to arrive at their own conclusions. However, as the facts stand, I strongly believe my own conclusions are substantially correct.

Open Letter to International MDC Funders

I know many of you hate Robert Mugabe with a passion. This epistle is not about praising Mugabe, but it is going to be critical of one of his rivals. Please lend me an ear.

This epistle is about a man whose qualities we all know are not up to standard. A man whose indecisiveness and lack of self-confidence is legendary.

Morgan Tsvangirai is not the best opposition leader that Zimbabwe could have. Besides his well known name, there is no other quality he exhibits that marks him as a leader. Let me remind you that his ending up as a leader was entirely opportunistic. He just happened to be at the right place at the right time.

Let me also remind you that the place where he was, he was put there by Zanu-PF. He was secretary general of the ZCTU during the years, when the labour movement was hand in glove with Zanu-PF, similar to the relationship between COSATU and the ANC today.

When one thinks back, you begin to get ideas of why Tsvangirai has proved to be so inept as a leader. With a propensity to minimize potential leadership challengers, Robert Mugabe would have endorsed for the ZCTU, a potential source for challenges, a leader least likely to be successful as a challenger. If that was his strategy, then we all have no choice but to add another feather to Mugabe's hat of cunning tricks.

Given the list of unbelievably bad management decisions, Zimbabwe's leadership has been open to any COMPETENT challenger for the past 15 or so years. While many would like to attribute Tsvangirai's inability to unseat Mugabe to dirty tricks, his own lack of strategic vision is the chief culprit. Perhaps that he is the main challenger was actually part of Mugabe's strategic vision.

In short Tsvangirai was a Zanu-PF faithful who saw an opportunity and took it, without any particular passion for a cause. That lack of passion is one of the reasons why the MDC seems so lethargic when it comes to being outfoxed by Zanu-PF.

The reason why Tsvangirai is leading the MDC today is because many of you believe he is the best chance for unseating Robert Mugabe not because he is the best leader for Zimbabwe. I have no doubt that even within his own party, there are many who are more capable than he is.

I also firmly believe that if the natural dynamics of leadership contests had happened without biased financial backing of one man by you, the MDC will have evolved a much better leadership than it has today.

You do not understand our politicians as well as we do. Some of us have been telling you from day one that those guys are after money. Remember also that they are not fools who will throw away the chance to enjoy the money they make, simply for the sake of fighting Zanu-PF. In their quest for your money they will tell you what you want to hear, not what they believe.

You have stuck with Tsvangirai not because he represents the best interests of the nation, but because he has been your best hope of advancing the interests of the white minority on whose behalf you have shown such tremendous interest in Zimbabwe.

Of course you are aware of his naivete, his gullibility and his manipulability. I believe those are exactly the qualities that attract you to him because you believe that once he has the right powers, you can use him to advance your narrow interests. Those interests are in no way guaranteed to be the same as the interests of the majority of Zimbabwe's people.

Given the power you have over the international media, you can always panel beat the message to whatever you want it to be. Like you are panel beating the message in Libya to make it sound positive when it is so, so depressing.

Do not think we haven't noticed how you abandoned the people of Libya to the vagaries of uncontrollable militias once your narrow interests were achieved. Indeed some of us believe that you like such a scenario because it leaves the people of Libya weak and unable to assert their will over their resources.

In the case of Zimbabwe, it is evident that a weak manipulable leader like Tsvangirai will be easier to manipulate and use him to prevent the people of Zimbabwe from asserting their will over their resources.

It also does not escape us that Zimbabwe is a useful testing ground for policies that might also be applicable to South Africa.

Your money is propping up a bunch of politicians merely opposed to Zanu-PF but not necessarily committed to greater democracy. You money is building a small elite that is competing with the Zanu-PF small elite. By encouraging these groups to fight and distract each other from running Zimbabwe, your money is worsening the plight of ordinary Zimbabweans.

In this way, you are part of the problem that Zimbabwe is facing.

Debating Eddie Cross's Fundamentals for the Future - Property Rights

The debate started with Eddie emphasising the need to pay for the land now. I pointed out to Eddie that if whites had paid for the land right in the beginning when they first took the land, we wouldn't be having any of the problems that we are having now.

In reply Eddie stated 'The Ndebele did not pay for a hectare of land in 1823 when they arrived – they just took what they wanted'. Eddie was clearly suggesting that whites had a right to take what they wanted.

I am very much tempted to simply reply to Eddie, 'so blacks have a right to take what they want now'. However such a retort simply does not paint the correct picture. Land reform can never be couched in terms of who has right to take what they want.

In the first place, Eddie is using entirely the wrong logic. The Ndebele did not massively displace people like whites did. He lives with the evidence of that right there in Bulawayo though he may not know how to recognise it. Most of what is called Matebeleland today is home to the Tonga, the Nambya, the Kalanga, the Tswana and the Venda tribes who up to the time European settlers came, had not been displaced by the Ndebele in any significant way.

What is called Mashonaland today was virtually untouched by Ndebele activities, with only parts of present day Masvingo and Midlands nearer to Bulawayo having suffered raids but not occupation and displacement. Also the area the Ndebele settled was at the boundaries of Shona and Tswana influence which means nobody had any particularly strong claims to it.

Secondly the Ndebele were not discriminatory to the extend that whites were. They incorporated people from neighbouring tribes into their own ranks. Of course like in any society there was classification but there was no absolute bar preventing those incorporated from rising within the society, like the Whites had their absolute colour bar.

In fact most of the people called Ndebele today are descendants of people incorporated from neighbouring tribes which is why their izibongo (totems) match almost one for one with totems used by neighbouring groups including the various groups that later came to be collectively called the Shona.

In contrast with white behaviour, most of the people in Zimbabwe today are not mixed race, simply because whites did their best to prevent inter-racial breeding. Whites did clandestinely father most of the coloured population, because of white men's lust for black women. However they mostly rejected responsibility for their offspring.

Most extended families today easily cut across tribes. I personally have relatives in Victoria Falls, Hwange and Filabusi who tradition requires that I should place ahead of unrelated Shona neighbours from my home district of Chikomba. Perhaps Eddie should have asked for a bit more education from Temba Bassopo-Moyo, who stated in one of his recent posts, that he is of mixed Shona-Nguni heritage. I bet Eddie did not even suspect that, whereas someone like me noticed the detail a long time ago just from looking at his name and surname.

Eddie should also understand that some Ndebele moved to settle within neighbouring communities without the use of violence. In my home district of Chikomba there is the Mpundumani family. As of today they are Shonas, speaking no other language but Shona, and following Shona customs in marriage and burial ceremonies. But they go by the totem Khumalo which, as many know, is the original totem of Mzilikazi himself.

In know this family very well because their grand-grand-matriarch is my maternal grand-grand-aunt. They are descendants of a man who settled in the area and married a local woman. Nobody really knows where that man came from but he said his totem was Khumalo. Even where whites, such as the Portuguese, settled amicably among the locals, they left behind known clans such as the VaNjanja whom I have talked about before.

Once you understand the prevalence of inter-marrying and cross-incorporation, among the various Bantu groups that migrated within the region, you will realise that it is impossible to ever compare any one of the Bantu movements, such as the Mfecane, of which the Ndebele migration was part, to the blatantly exploitative white settler colonialism.

Eddie's sentiments demonstrate that to this day, several centuries after they began colonising Africa, most if not all so called pure whites, are still blithely ignorant of the internal dynamics of the Bantu cultures surrounding them.

In fact whites do not even seem to realise that the Shangaani in south-eastern Zimbabwe and south-western Mozambique and the Ngoni in Southern Malawi also moved northwards as part of the Mfecane process which saw the Ndebele moving northwards.

Whites treated themselves as splendidly superior outsiders, which is why to this today they are still seen by most black communities as outsiders. In fact they still largely treat themselves, today, as splendidly superior outsiders. It is there very own choice, not something forced upon them by blacks. Blacks simply refuse to accept those feelings of splendid superiority to be de facto justified.

On the other hand, the Bantu quickly grow to see each other as locals because they inter-marriage and equality based interaction. Attempts to treat Ndebele as outsiders are usually arise from a narrative told from an incorrect white perspective, such as Eddie is trying to do in the statement above.

As evidence I cite the other Nguni-origin groups the Shangani and the Angoni whom whites show little interest in. Nobody would even realise that they ran away from Tshaka at the same time and for the same reasons as the Ndebele.

If you listen to the way white-influenced people talk today, you would think the Ndebele are less indigenous to Zimbabwe than the Shangaani are, or than the Ngoni are to Malawi. To call Eddie's statement above hogwash, would be an unbecoming insult to the bathwaters of a pig.

Sometimes we Bantu find it difficult to understand white mentality because they even reject their own descendants such as coloureds. In my culture it is total taboo to reject your own child, no matter whom you father them with. Every child is equal no matter what. There is no such think as an illegitimate child in Bantu culture. That is why the most important marker of relationship in Shona culture is paternal totem, not who the mother of the child was.

Eddie further claimed that, 'When my ancestors arrived there were less than 400 000 people living in the country – 90 per cent of it was just empty bush. You cannot undo history. Only build the future for all.'

How many were Eddie's ancestors? Maybe in the low hundreds. If you then base white land claims on numbers, what then gave them the right to claim the entire land ahead of the Bantu given that their numbers were even far fewer than the Bantu whom Eddie claims could not have owned the land because they were so few?

Secondly, what is Eddie's definition of 'empty'. Bearing in mind that the Bantu practised shifting agriculture with migratory animal husbandry practices as well. While the migrations were not annual in this part of Africa, groups shifted from time to time in search of better grazing. These migratory animal husbandry practices are still a source of conflict in some parts of East Africa.

Therefore land that Eddie's wants to define as empty for his ancestors to take, would have been land that was being left to recover for future grazing.

Lastly if the land was empty, how come Eddie's ancestors then found it necessary to forcible move blacks into native reserves and take some of their cattle (kuhesvura mombe) in an effort to limit the amount of land that blacks could use. If the land was empty, like in the Antarctica sense, then Eddie's ancestors could have moved in without ever interfering with the land use of blacks.

However Eddie's ancestors moving in was immediately a source of conflict, the First Chimurenga, the Matebele wars and others. This is a clear demonstration that the land was not empty but was occupied by people who did their best to defend it, despite being badly out-gunned then.

Why Zimbabwe's Economy Can Never Recover

Zimbabweans may be wondering why, no matter how hard they work, the country can never seem to progress. We have rightly earned a reputation for being among the most hard-working people in sub-Saharan Africa. Yet judging by the state of Zimbabwe's economy, our hard work counts for nothing.

The reason is that our politicians have been snoring on the job. They have also been taking us to the cleaners, robbing us dry. They have used the fruits of our hard labour (tax money) as a slush fund for their own luxury and self enrichment.

Perhaps the table and image below can help shed some light on why I conclude that our politicians are robbing us.

They clearly show that Zimbabwe has the tinniest budget (less than 1% of the Russian budget) yet has the highest number of ministers and deputies needing all sorts of perks and luxuries from that budget.

She also has the smallest tax base which means that there is virtually nowhere for a luxurious budget to come from. Zimbabwe's politicians are living completely out of the means of the country.

Country	Population (millions)	Budget (billions)	Ministerial    Positions	People per position (millions)	Budget per position (billions)	Unemployment	Tax Contributors per position
USA	312	3796	23	13.565	165.043	9.00%	6,172,200
UK	63	1096	22	2.864	49.818	8.10%	1,315,800
Zimbabwe	13	3.4	77	0.169	0.044	95.00%	4,200
China	1345	1970	35	38.429	56.286	6.50%	17,965,400
Russia	143	404	21	6.810	19.238	6.60%	3,180,000
Germany	83	409	16	5.188	25.563	6.00%	2,438,100

The size of Zimbabwe's executive relative to its population and budget is simply astronomical

For simplicity let us take the working age population to be exactly half a country's population. For the United States this means there are 6.783 million people of a working age per cabinet position (13.565 ÷ 2). Of these, 91% are employed (i.e. contributing tax to the national budget). Thus, on average, 6.172 million people are contributing tax towards the budget of each ministry.

In the case of Zimbabwe there are only 84.4 thousand people per ministry of a working age. Of these only 5% are officially employed. This means that 4200 people are contributing towards the budget of each ministry.

There are a number of things that are seriously structurally wrong with Zimbabwe based on the above data. First how can the country with smallest population have the largest number of ministerial posts. Well, we all know the answers – cronyism, political patronage and gravy train seat grabbing.

Secondly how can only 5% of the people be in a position to contribute towards the tax base of the country. I am not Einstein's brother but I can see that there is something seriously, seriously wrong with our tax collection system. Our tax net must have some very large holes that are allowing some really big fish through. This can be due to rampant corruption, simple incompetence by ZIMRA or an incorrectly structured taxation system.

If the 95% 'unemployed' people were truly without an income, there would be mass starvation evidenced by skeletal people all over the country. The truth is that the majority of them have an income which is simply not recorded by the tax system.

Judging the the perpetual traffic jams in Harare, which never used to happen six or so years ago, incomes are healthy enough for much more than 5% of the people to afford cars. If someone can afford a car surely they are gainfully employed and should be paying tax.

Thirdly there is strictly no room for patronage in Zimbabwe. The tax base is simply too small to support the number of political cronies that are being fitted in the cabinet. We are simply trying to run a super-link gonyet (30-wheeler truck) with a scooter engine.

It should therefore surprise nobody that all other services supposed to be funded by tax revenues are in various states of total collapse. The money that is supposed to provide these services, if managed very, very efficiently, is nearly all going towards supporting the political patronage system.

In the above table, Zimbabwe has by far the tiniest budget. Yet it has nearly 4 times as many ministers as the world's leading economies and twice as many ministers as China a country with 1.3 billion people. One of the hot topics in the current constitution making process is devolution, which means increasing the number of administrators for the tiny cash starved population of the country. To me, it simply doesn't make sense.

What this means is that ordinary Zimbabweans, you and I, will never be able to have reasonably comfortable lives unless the patronage system is heavily cut down. In the past I have advocated that Zimbabwe should have no more than 16 ministers. After looking at the above table I think that is still too much. I think we should have only ten or twelve.

The heavy, extravagant perks that are being handed to politicians for merely being politicians need to be eliminated. For the past year I have been trying to sing a 'one minister one car' tune whenever I can. In fact that should be one minister one car for the entire five year term.

The above table was compiled from data that is publicly available on Wikipedia and the CIA World Fact book. Currencies were converted to US dollars at ruling rate of the day in November 2012. If anyone feels that the data is not correct, please feel free to furnish us with your correct version of the data.

Zimbabwe's economy can only recover once our politicians understand that Zimbabwe is a small country with a small income and a tiny tax base, therefore it cannot afford to compete with leading economies in terms of providing perks and luxuries to political leaders.

There is no way that our political leaders can live like British monarchs, American moguls, Russian oligarchs or Saudi princes on the tax base and revenue stream that the country has. Yet that is exactly what they are all trying to do.

Merely changing the politicians from one set to another without fundamentally curtailing the patronage system will not change Zimbabwe's fortunes much.

Yes there might be a slight relief, due to better donor sympathy, but never a permanent improvement. We had a lot of donor sympathy is most of the 1980s but look where we ended up because of the patronage oriented system of governance we fostered.

Zimbabwe's problem in two images

The wealth of a country is showcased, not by the opulence of its ministers but by the comfort of its people. Zimbabwe's leaders are making sure that their own opulence is the sole evidence that the country is rich.

This is what we currently have in Zimbabwe.

I have absolutely no doubt that the following could be achieved with the same amount of money used to achieve the above.

Zimbabwe's problems go deeper than centralisation of power

Devolution has not been fully explained. My own thinking for a very long time has been that governors should be elected, like mayors. That would force them to be accountable to the local electorate not just a central leader.

Governors should also be given budgets to work with. We already have a system with such things as provincial roads and provincial hospitals. These could be directly run by provincial administrations under elected governors. Zimbabwe's cities already have such systems in place with Harare running Wilkins and Beatrice Rd hospitals.

The taxation model should also be tweaked to ensure that a portion of taxes collected by ZIMRA goes to the relevant local authority. The element of local taxation already exists through such things as land levy for titled land, and rates for urban properties. This has not been well administered or even fully understood by the government.

What we must also understand is that our problems are not just a result of the structure of our government. I think 90% of our problems are due to lack of diligence, dedication and effort to the national cause by our political leaders. Most of them spent more than half their time wheeling and dealing to enrich themselves, not paying attention to the job they claim to have volunteered for.

In a democracy leadership is a voluntary endeavour and anybody partaking it must know that there is an element of self sacrifice. Most of our leaders only look for the element of self-enrichment and no further. Many of the people who are participating in politics today, would not bother if the self-enrichment opportunity was removed.

As long as that selfish culture remains, it does not matter how many units we devolve Zimbabwe into. The majority of the people will still suffer. Even family units will suffer if the father selfishly indulges in beer and prostitutes while not buying food for his family.

Don't you witness some men buying heaps upon heaps of meat at gochi gochi places while their families at home are scrounging around for mufushwa, macimbi and harurwa (dried vegetables, mopani worms and edible bugs).

Responsible behaviour in our leadership is a necessity. Self sacrifice is also a necessity. But what do we witness today. Our leaders would not want to miss a single trip to Malaysia (kunodya nyika rutivi [destroying the countryside]) or Seychelles (kunodya gungwa rutivi [destroying the seas]). Yet some of the money could be used to buy medicines in clinics.

Our leaders will not leave any stone unturned to send their often dull children to very, very expensive universities in places like Australia, Hong Kong, Canada and so on. They also give them enough money to live extra-ordinarily lavish lifestyles.

Yet the teachers and lecturers who are supposed to teach our very brilliant children locally are paid peanuts. Our brilliant children are forced to read by paraffin lamp and candle-light while the often dull children of top politicians are frolicking amid multi-coloured disco lights, wasting money on clubbing.

Notice that I haven't mentioned a single person by name in this comment. Anyone who jumps up and decides to appoint themselves the target of these comments should just think of the saying 'Anyumwa bere nderake'. The one who is suspicious of the presence of a hyena must be the owner.

Fighting over Zimbabwe

Several months ago two young Zimbabweans were disqualified from reality show Big Brother Africa. The two Zimbabweans fought and undermined each other, for no good reason. The fight was not a spur of the moment thing, but a petty conflict that escalated and escalated.

In fact, the show's authorities were too lenient with the two for too long. All I can remember about their participation in the show is them throwing fluids of one kind or another at each other. The other participants grew muscles holding these two apart.

Well, I am not surprised. They behaved like a typical bunch of Zimbabwean idiots - take a good thing, fight over it until it is destroyed. They call it shaisano.

Talking about fighting over a good thing, what about fighting over the country itself? Do I need to mention any names? I am sure everyone knows who fought over our beautiful country until it was destroyed.

The eviction of two Zimbabweans from Big Brother Africa Stargame perhaps illustrates what is wrong with Zimbabwean attitudes. They fight each other to total destruction over petty issues.

We Zimbabweans exhibit levels of selfishness that are unbelievable. We take individualism far much more than a couple of miles too far. We seem to take delight in stomping each other until we all have no toes.

Elections are due within a year and it is clear that beds of thorns are being prepared for opponents. The 'if I can't have it, you can't have it too' rhetoric is already starting to goo over the political atmosphere.

At the end of the day it is the ordinary people who suffer the most. They are in for another round of bashing as politicians try to humiliate each other.

Proving Prince Harry's Manhood

Does Prince Harry really have to prove his manhood by shooting up Afghans. I think he would be better proving his manhood by stripping young damsels at strip poker.

Prince Harry was having fun striping young ladies in Las Vegas, and it looks like he is now being send to have more fun taking target practice on Afghans.

I know the whole routine involving telling us how he is fighting the Taliban. But the bottom line is that the West do not know exactly who they are killing in Afghanistan and Pakistan's tribal areas. They often claim they have killed Taliban only for the target to turn up alive later.

The West does not allow any close examination of who they are killing in the area because they themselves do not know who they are killing. They also do not care about the civilians, women and children caught in the crossfire.

Surely the British royal family must have better ways of proving the manhood of their menfolk, than fomenting wars in poor parts of the world and then sending their menfolk to have some target practice. It is a callous and disgusting manifestation of how cheaply they view OUR lives in the third world.

A man is frivolously stripping young ladies one week and the next he is being send to take target practice on our lives. Surely our lives can be as cheap as the banal activities of the Las Vegas strip.

I keep saying our lives because I am also a third world citizen and I plan on remaining one to the end of my days or until my particular patch of the third world rises to first world standards. I know very well what is being done in other parts of the third world can easily be done in my part of the world as well.

I did not design the emperor's costume so don't blame me for pointing out his nakedness. The pun with the particular individual we are discussing is entirely accidental but nonetheless appropriate.

Nonetheless the wars that the west are fomenting in many parts of the third world, are entirely pointless. I doubt if the West themselves even know why they are fighting those wars. I bet the primary reason is simply that they have the weapons and their politicians want to look tough.

In reality they end looking like manipulative backstabbers, who are misleading the entire world towards more, and more violent trouble.

It is a sad world where OUR lives in the third world have become an election commodity in the first world. First world politicians show off the biceps by lobbying a few bombs and missiles into third world populations whenever they wish.

Criticize the West too on Syria

The burden of expectation cannot only be on Bashir and his allies. That burden must be placed on the rebels and their allies as well.

Hillary Clinton is right. There should be consequences. But these should be consequences for the rebels and their sponsors. They are the ones primarily responsible for the deteriorating situation in Syria. The people who have financed a second centre of armed coercion are the ones responsible for the instability of Syria. They are the ones bearing more of the responsibility for the suffering of the Syrian people.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying the kleptocratic one family dictatorship in Syria is right. All I am saying is that those arming the rebels are not acting out of sincere concern for ordinary Syrian people. They are acting for their own selfish narrow ends.

The 'solution' for a hungry hyena's problem is not necessarily the same as the 'solution' for a trapped goat's problem, although the hyena might see a positive link in the circumstances.

The solution for Syria's ordinary people, is not sponsoring the rebels until they can defeat Bashar. In fact that is part of the problem.

Criticism should be sincere and honest. If criticism is allowed to become manipulative and scheming, then eventually people will loose faith in the schemers.

The West should stop shedding crocodile tears for Syria's people while conniving with the rebels to make the lives of Syrians hell by fomenting a war in their backyards.

Mazano kuna Save

Save, ndange ndichikumbira kumbokurumaiwo nzeve pakanyaya kadikidiki aka kanenge kari kuda kukunetsai.

Hongu Save mungagombuka zvenyu nezvakaitwa namuzvare Locardia. Asika Save zivaiyi kuti hakuna mukadzi asingarwe shanje. Pamakangopfimba vakadzi vari vaviri mungadai makatoziva kuti munofanira kugara makagadzirira kutonga nyanya dzeshanje.

Zvisinei hazvo Save chadeuka chadeuka mvuru yeguchu haiworerwi. Pave nenyaya yenyu apa pava kuda kuti imi muchidzikamisa pfungwa. Motsvaga zano rekupodza bopota rapinda munzanga yenyu. Nharo ihuni dzemudzambiringwa pabopoto. Dzinoita kuti rive mavirimi emoto.

Asiwo fungai pachikuru. Imi munozviziva wani kuti yatsika dope yanwa. Imi mungafunga kuti kwaKarimatsenga ndakatsika dope chete, asi mhuri yekwaKarimatsenga ichitoti makatobhaguja. Daka rakadaro haripedzwe nekunyombana. Dai iri hanzvadzi yenyu yakanzarwo, maisarodza mapfumo?

Rangarirai zvakare kuti nyaya dzerudo hadzidi kumhanya. Dzinopingirisha. Hamuonewo here kuti makamhanya pamakati nanzvei kwaKarimatsenga, gore risati rapera mabva manonombora futi kwaMacheka. Nyangwe dai uchidya zvinotapira zvinoda kuti munhu umbotura mafemo. Honai mava kukachidzwa.

Save, itai pachirume, vakai kitchen dzenyu mbiri paBuhera apa mokanda malady enyu pakitchen. Mapedza nazvo. Inga President Zuma vanongozviita wani.

Save, musakanganwa zvakare kuti makanoroora mumwedzi weMbudzi. Makanzi muripe imi mukati aiwa chiVanhu hachina basa. Zvino nhasi zvazvava kukumomoterai musatsvaga vamwe vekupomera. Pamakavambira rwendo rwenyu munopaziva. Ripai zvipere.

Chimwezve Save, musanyanyosanganisa munyu netsvigiri. Zvamanga maroora paChivanhu dai manga maramba makamira ipapo. Honai pamava kuda kupinza Chirungu ndipo ndipo pamabva masimudza mhepo dzirere zvadzo. Dzokerai kuChivanhu kusvika nyaya yenyu yadzikama. Izvi zvekufadza nyika nemuchato munozoita pave paya.

Save ndipo panguwo pandati pamwe ndingakubatsirai. Kana maona zano rangu risina rubetsero, aiwa munongosaira kwakadaro uko sedhumbu rechembere.

VaPunungwe

Explaining the Furore over Tsvangirai's marriage

Recently Zimbabwe was entertained to the best reality soap opera a country can ever have. Attempts by Zimbabwe's prime ministers to marry monogamously, were scuttled by a jilted lover, amid high drama, scandal and salacious exposure of the Prime Minister rather lurid sojourns, with members of the opposite sex.

Some of us were twisting and distorting our jaws with laughter so much that, we almost ended up requiring a plaster-cast to straighten them. Those of us who understand Shona customs, were understanding nuances of what was happening in minute detail.

Only when a white colleague in the UK said, with a rather confused air, she now understands what the furore was about, did I realised that drama must have been flying over the heads of a large portion of the audience who have no clue about Tsvangirayi's Shona culture.

In Zimbabwe you can have either a civil marriage (held under European Marriages Act during the colonial days) which MUST be monogamous.

You can also have a customary marriage (held under the African Marriages Act in the colonial days).

European marriages are held in church or in the courts and are immediately registered.

Customary marriages are usually held in traditional ceremonies at home. The vast majority are not subsequently registered. That is if marriage process is completed in the first place.

Customary marriages involve a very elaborate process which involves a number of steps. The steps can generally be broken down into three basic stages.

1. Approaching the family of the bride to ask for her hand in marriage.
2. Negotiating and paying the dowry.
3. Handover of the bride to the groom's family. This may take place even if dowry has not been paid in full.

Some marriages then go on to step number 4, though this is not considered necessary in our customs.

4. White wedding (so called because the bride's white gown).

This last step may, but no always, also involve registration of the marriage as a civil union. Usually the grooms family ask for permission for a white wedding during step two. If that is granted then step 3 and 4 may be held together and are presumed to be mere formalities.

You may be wondering, do poor people marry? Yes they do because the dowry does not have to be paid in full for the bride to be handed over. But then permission for a white wedding is usually denied.

There is also another variation of the process which involves the bride simply eloping without her family's permission. This is now far much more prevalent because of poverty.

In that case the process starts at step zero, notifying the bride's family that 'we have your daughter'. That step is called matsvakirai kuno or matsvangirayi kuno (search [for your daughter] with us). Now you know where Morgan's surname comes from.

Understand that by our Shona customs, you are not considered married by your families if you only have a civil marriage. You are derisively referred to as just doing kubika mapoto (literally 'cooking pots' - which is cohabiting). By strict customary standards, a civil marriage is considered invalid and is not recognized by both families.

Hence most Africans go through the customary process first. Even if it is not complete (dowry has not been paid in full) the grooms family must ask for permission from the bride's family to have the marriage registered, or to hold a white wedding. You cannot go ahead and just register the marriage without that permission.

In contrast the law, first written by Europeans, recognizes civil marriages but does not recognize customary marriages. Also court judgments have precedence over customary practices.

With Locardia, the woman who stopped his marriage, Tsvangirai went up to step 2. He paid US$35'000 dowry (a typical dowry is between US$2'000 and $10'000). Tsvangirai's delegation also asked for permission to hold a white wedding and were granted.

Theresa Makone who was part of the delegation is heard shouting joyfully 'Tapihwa muchato!'. (We have been granted permission for the wedding!) She is the co-minister of home affairs in Cabinet. What this means is that step 3 and 4 where now mere formalities. For all intends and purposes Tsvangirayi was married to Locardia.

However in the week after step 2 there was a huge political furor over Tsvangirayi marrying into a Zanu-PF family. The Karimatsenga family then quickly conducted step 3 handing over the bride without waiting for step 4 to be organised. In terms of Shona tradition, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this.

However because of the political furore, some people were now claiming the process was now being run by the CIO. That is hogwash. Traditionally the CIO would not have had a role to play. They are not Locardia's relatives. What happened, Locardia going to Tsvangirayi's rural home, is normal as per tradition anyway.

Also, according to some claims not denied by him, Tsvagirayi had already impregnated Locardia. That means in terms customary tradition Locardia was also entitled to kickstart the process at step zero - simply eloping to Tsvangirayi's home.

Thus the undisputed facts, proved by a video produced in court, are that Tsvangirayi had voluntarily gone up to step 2. He had also asked for step 4 and had been granted permission, so it was also a formality. Thus in terms of customary tradition Morgan was in a marriage to Locardia recognized by both his and the Karimatsenga family.

Tsvangirayi then made a U-turn faster than a MiG 21 in a dog fight. He announced in the press, not to the Karimatsenga family, that he was breaking up with Locardia. In our customs to divorce your wife you give a her a token called gupuro. This must be handed to her, in front of members of her family and the groom's family.

In case of heated disputes, the case may need to be taken to a traditional leader such as a chief or a headman. He would pass judgement to either allow the divorce or reject it. In cases where there are children born in the marriage, divorce is mostly rejected, unless the woman agrees.

In Shona culture it is considered not proper to ask a mother to leave her children. At the same time the children are considered to belong to the husband's family, and must stay with him. A divorced woman must go back to her family.

Tsvangirayi then went through the same traditional process for Elizabeth Macheka. There is nothing wrong with that because polygamy is allowed by customary tradition. That is to say he approached her family, paid dowry and apparently she was handed over to him because he has been travelling around with her. Thus step 1 to 3 had been completed.

Step 4, the white wedding was what was now being arranged. Tsvangirayi also intended to register this marriage as a civil union (European marriage) which must be monogamous.

At law European marriages trounce African marriages. Successful registration of Elizabeth's marriage would have automatically invalidated Locardia's customary marriage. But the law does allow for objection to a civil union within 90 days.

Locardia did jump the gun and appeal straight to the High Court. The High Court told her to go and object with the magistrate who granted Tsvangirayi the marriage licence. Her case was not completely thrown out as claimed by some.

The objection was lodged. The magistrate sustained the objection and withdrew his permission for Tsvangirayi to marry Elizabeth in a monogamous civil marriage.

I have read the magistrate's ruling in full, and I think it is pretty straight-forward. In terms of the marriages laws, Locardia's customary marriage would not prevent Tsvangirayi from marrying in a civil union. Remember these are laws which were designed to favour Europeans in the colonial  racist system.

However in terms of the criminal laws sanctioning the civil union would be allowing Tsvangirayi to commit bigamy, a crime. Annulling Locardia's customary marriage to allow the civil marriage could in theory have been possible. But that would have set a very bad precedent for women.

The vast majority of African women are in unregistered customary marriages. Many men resist entering into civil unions because of the legal restrictions placed upon their philandering activities. Others are unable because they haven't paid dowry portions big enough to get permission from the bride's family. Perhaps the biggest number, it is because they women simply eloped, and the husband cannot afford dowry.

Please let nobody try and insult us for not simply ignoring our families. It is our culture and we are proud of it. We will probably ignore it the day the British get rid of their monarchy, which according to some is fo no use. Besides the marriage process, has important ramifications throughout life, right up to the day of the burial of either spouse.

Culturally, not having a proper customary marriage is considered an impairment of dignity and may be met with stigmatization, hurtful mockery and jibes by family members. I have already said a non-customary marriage even if it is a registered civil union, is derisively and contemptuously referred to as kurova mapoto. Any self respecting Shona person, would want to be in a marriage that is accepted by their families.

This should also explain to many why Locardia fought tooth and nail to have her marriage remain relevant customarily. Remember in her affidavit she said she didn't object to Tsvangirai taking a second wife. It was a matter of upholding her personal dignity in the eyes of the community.

Those who are saying things were arranged by state agents are simply being shallow. Any woman would have done what she did. Most women cannot do it because they are too poor. They do not have the resources for legal action. They often fall victim to abandonment by philandering and scheming husbands.

Organisations such us the Legal Resources Centre, were primarily set up to try and help Zimbabwe's poor women who fall victim to men's shenanigans such as the one Tsvangirayi was trying to pull on Locardia - get a civil marriage to get rid of the old customary wife without a proper divorce settlement.

In Locardia's case it might seem frivolous because the marriage had not lasted, but this regularly happens to women who have been married for decades. They and their children are abandoned and find it difficult to get redress at law. Most don't.

A ruling simply annulling a customary marriage, to allow a civil marriage, without due process, would have completely stripped women of what little rights they have at law. Any man who no longer wanted his customarily married wife, could in theory simply find another woman and marry her in a civil marriage without proper divorce settlement.

I think the case highlights some of the senseless contradictions cause by imposing the values of one culture upon another without any thought to it at all. Tsvangirai was trying to exploit a loophole that some Zimbabwean men use to get rid of their customarily married wives without proper divorce settlement.

Believe me if Tsvangirayi did not have so many foes watching his every misstep, waiting to trip him up, he would have pulled this off without a hitch for Locardia only to discover many years later that she did not have a marriage. Many women only discover upon the death of the husband that he is in a civil marriage to someone they thought was a mere second wife and they are not entitled to anything.

Perhaps the greatest irony of the whole saga, is that after a very bumpy round robin ride, Tsvangirayi is exactly where the whole thing started, still married into a Zanu-PF family albeit a different one. However the round-robin ride has considerably jolted his moral standing, and caused maybe mortal damage to his political stature.

I wonder why his supporters couldn't just let him marry whoever he wished in the first place. In the end all that was achieved was to give opponents luxurious time to take pot-shots at his moral standing, I would say with considerable success, for absolutely nothing in return.

It was like asking a platoon to go for an exercise jog, between the opposing trenches during the first world war - take a risk for no good reason.

Those who are saying Tsvangirai defied a court order are wrong. He didn't because he married customarily whereby polygamy it is allowed. The court order was to stop a civil monogamous marriage.

However he may have perjured himself. He swore before the magistrate that he didn't have any impediment hindering his intention to enter a monogamous marriage, while he clearly knew about the Locardia marriage. He may argue that he didn't know he was required to properly divorce here. As we know ignorance is no defence at law.

He basically admitted to this marriage when he attached a $1 gupuro (divorce token) to an affidavit he tried to hand to the magistrate.

I do not know exactly why Tsvangirai tried to hand the token to a magistrate, because that is not how it is done. The magistrate stated that the wife to be divorced was not present to give her side anyway.

There is also another catch, a woman may simply refuse to be divorced. This usually happens where a woman has children. Refusing the token means that she may stay with the husband's family, and use their resources to look after the children, though the husband might subsequently deny her conjugal rights.

A woman, especially one you deflowered, might also refuse to leave. In our culture a woman is supposed to be a virgin upon marriage, thus a woman is allowed to claim that she can no longer get married elsewhere because you deflowered her.

While many found the whole saga humorous, the matter of customarily married women falling victim to scheming husbands is not a joke. The vast majority of Zimbabwe's marriages are unregistered customary marriages.

Many women only discover, upon the death of the husband, that they are not even entitled to the estate of the man they have been married to for life. He would be in a civil marriage with someone they thought was a co-wife.

Now that Tsvangirai's behaviour has highlighted the problem, I hope it can be non-partisanly tackled, in order to protect women and children.