All those howling in protest please cite the facts, not the conspiracy theories, to prove me wrong. Yes there have been numerous allegations, claims, theories and claimed conspiracies of how Zanu-PF rigs elections, but not a single one of these has ever been proved.
In fact I have no recollection of even one instance, when clear coherent facts were ever presented to make a convincing case. Whatever allegations are made, they fall apart the moment they are subjected to detailed examination.
So in reality most of the allegations are a little more than losers' sour grapes.
One allegation often cited is that Mugabe did not win 2008. This is often accompanied by the unfounded claim that Tsvangirai was the winner. On the contrary, there was no clear winner in March 2008, necessitating either a coalition or a rerun. Tsvangirai did not understand the position and thought he had won outright. He hadn't.
He later chickened out of the rerun, leaving Mugabe to claim the mandate unchallenged. Recognizing the deep divisions among the people, and the disputed conditions of the rerun, Mugabe still went into coalition with Tsvangirai.
So the truth is that Tsvangirai is the one who doesn't have an electoral mandate for anything but is occupying his position purely by negotiation. In fact he is named prime minister specifically as part of an agreement that was supposed to expire three years ago.
He is the one who, if anyone can claim so, was imposed on Zimbabweans by SADC which is one of the reasons he keeps running to them to try and prolong his stay in office and the consequent access to a luxurious lifestyle. That is also the reason he doesn't care for a proper electoral mandate because he does not have one, and does not have the confidence that he can obtain one.
He doesn't want the agreement that put him in power to expire until he has the best possible chance of winning. That is why he is basing the next election on demands for ever-shifting 'reforms'.
Elections must be held before his current mandate expires on July 31, as determined by the Constitutional court of Zimbabwe. If that date passes, believe me the backers of Mugabe's opponents will quickly turn around and say you do not have a mandate anymore so we are not going to recognize you.
He would be a fool to allow himself to be delayed beyond that date. Once that happens, his detractors will have him exactly where they want him - without a mandate. Psychological warfare tactics are being used to manipulate him into that position.
Moreover these reforms are not really meant to improve democracy in Zimbabwe but are being pushed to try and give a single particular party the best possible advantage. 'Reforms' are only deemed necessary only if they are believed to help the MDC-T, end of story.
I have got one question. Do 'reforms' supersede the Zimbabwe Constitution? Anyway, what are these reforms? Can anyone outline them in point form? If the point list made in 2009 and the one in place now were to be put side by side, will they be the same?
Mugabe's opponents are not sure that their proteges will get power through the vote. So to circumvent the people, delay elections beyond the current electoral mandate, then simply recognize anyone you want, because no one has a mandate anymore. Once they recognize whoever they want, simply give them money to prop them up. It happened in Libya.
The greatest strategic imperative in Zimbabwe right now is to preserve peace and stability. The preservation of stability will allow the people to gradually re-grow the economy. As long as the key resources are in their hands and control the people will reap maximum long term benefit, as opposed to the short term benefits of quickly handing over resources to others.
The greatest threat to stability is foreign sponsored destabilization as happened in Libya and is happening in Syria. Therefore a careful and clever foreign policy is necessary to starve off such nefarious sponsorship of destabilization.
When one looks at Libya and Syria, it is clear that the destabilization, euphemistically called 'international intervention', is not meant to help the countries but rather induce them to self-destruct. It is classical divide and rule.
In the case of Zimbabwe what counts in her favour is that you cannot militarily destabilize Zimbabwe without destroying the South African economy. Zimbabwe sits right on top of South Africa's transport routes to key markets and sources of raw materials in the north.
Any instability in Zimbabwe will rub off on South Africa itself with its potpourri of 11 major ethnicities some highly suspicious of each other. If things start going wrong, South Africans can easily start fighting along tribal and racial lines. There are indications that some, particularly hardcore Afrikaner racists, are chomping at the bit to set up separate states. Already they have enclaves, Orania and Kleinfontein.
Whether we like it or not, Zanu-PF have their hands on the most important levers of power. Prying off their fingers has to be carefully and intelligently managed, not just for Zimbabwe's sake but for the sake of the region.
Look at what is happening in Syria. What was claimed would be a quick deposition of Assad by Western favoured rebels is turning into a regional conflict, whose outcome nobody knows. However the destruction wrought upon Syrian infrastructure will take decades to overcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment