| |
Back to Index
Violence
is the real enemy: Sokwanele comment on events surrounding Zimbabwe's
senate elections
Sokwanele
November 11, 2005
http://www.sokwanele.com/articles/sokwanele/violenceistherealenemy_11nov2005.html
Sokwanele is
an activist, pro-democracy, non-partisan movement, committed to
confronting tyranny, exposing corruption and bad governance and
promoting peaceful change in Zimbabwe by non-violent means.
It is important
that we set out our credentials thus and say precisely where we
are coming from before we comment on the contentious issue of the
Senate elections - a subject which to date has generated more heat
than light and has sadly proved hugely divisive among those who
are otherwise united in their commitment to ending ZANU PF misrule.
So that we are not misunderstood, we repeat that we are a non-partisan
group. We hold no brief to speak for any person or group either
within the MDC or civic society. Our core commitment however, from
which we will not be moved, is to the principle of non-violence.
In confronting the most violent regime which has ever ruled this
land, and which knows no other means to defend its hold on power
than by violence, we have consciously and deliberately opted for
the weapon of non-violence. This is our strength, not our weakness,
and we would persuade as many as possible of our partners who walk
with us the long and difficult road to freedom, to affirm the same
core principle. For in this rather than in any threat of a violent
uprising is ZANU PF most vulnerable and most threatened. They are
never short of an answer to violence, for here they are playing
on their "home turf". On the other hand they have no answer to active,
imaginative, persistent, non-violent resistance.
We have been
amazed at the amount of confusion caused by the Senate elections
issue. But more seriously we have been appalled by the extreme intolerance
shown by one side of the debate for the other - and remember, we
are referring here to those who have a common cause in ending ZANU
PF tyranny. Indeed there has scarcely been what we might dignify
with the name "debate" at all, for instead of a mature discussion
between those lobbying for and against participation in the Senate
elections, we have witnessed only hot blasts of vitriolic name-calling,
demonizing of those holding a contrary view, and the exchanging
of blatant threats of all manner of reprisals. Objectively speaking
we have to say that most of the vitriol and threats have come from
those who are passionately committed to non-participation and are
directed to those are persuaded in favour of participation. Robert
Mugabe and his cohorts are no doubt rubbing their hands in glee.
Just when ZANU PF was under the most intense pressure internationally
on the food issue and locally due to the collapsing economy, and
when the cracks within their own divided house were most apparent,
the opposition has generously provided an alternative spectacle
of abrasive disunity and confrontation.
The result of
all this has been that almost the only words heard above the uproar
in the opposition camp, have been words of abuse such as "gravy
train", "sell-out" and "traitor". Yet if only those who were hectoring
and sloganeering would just pause for a moment and actually listen
to what the others are saying, they would find that they share a
great deal of common ground. From the arguments we have heard both
for and against participation in the Senate elections it is our
observation that the following fundamentals are agreed by most if
not all on both sides of the argument
Within the dire
social and economic conditions now prevailing in Zimbabwe the introduction
of a Senate is a total irrelevance and a mischievous distraction.
Realistically it cannot be expected to contribute one iota towards
the solution of the massive and urgent problems confronting us in
a collapsing economy, with inflation surging ahead out of control
and with millions close to starvation - not to mention the need
to investigate and bring to justice the criminals responsible for
Operation Murambatsvina and other crimes against humanity. All are
agreed that not one starving individual, not one hapless victim
of Murambatsvina, will benefit because of the new Senate. On the
contrary the profligate expenditure on this new arm of the legislature
will only divert what little resources the country has left away
from feeding the hungry, housing the homeless and providing health
care for the millions of HIV-positive citizens.
Moreover there
is an almost total consensus among the opposition (and we suspect
also among the more intelligent and honest ZANU PF supporters) about
Mugabe's motive in rushing ahead to introduce the Senate. As Daniel
Molokele put it so aptly, it is to provide "additional carriages
on the ZANU PF gravy train". The fact is that Mugabe has an urgent
need to extend his depleted resources for patronage. Many failed
ZANU PF senior politicians, rejected by the electorate several times
over, have fallen off the gravy train and are clamouring to get
back on again. By giving them a helping hand up, Mugabe persuades
a few otherwise disgruntled old bull elephants (and a few cows ?)
from leaving the herd and causing havoc elsewhere. We suspect that
Robert Mugabe has not fooled anyone of intelligence as to his real
motives in setting up the Senate.
Likewise the
undignified haste with which he has moved to install his old cronies.
The manner in which he rammed Constitutional Amendment No 17 through
a Parliament which he had previously packed with his own compliant
supporters, denying any opportunity for serious consultation or
debate either inside Parliament or outside, has earned him and his
collaborators only the utmost contempt among freedom-loving, law-abiding
people, in Zimbabwe and the world over. MDC legislators resisted
the dictator's machinations mightily, but in the end they were overwhelmed
by the sheer numbers of those appointed to Parliament by ZANU PF
fraud in the March 31 election.
It is also common
cause that the whole electoral process is hopelessly flawed and
deliberately skewed towards a ZANU PF victory. Consequently whether
MDC contests or not, there can be no other result than a ZANU PF
landslide victory. The Zimbabwe Election Support Network chairman,
Reginald Matchaba-Hove, has said as much and no independent commentator
doubts it for a moment. Mugabe's team are past masters of the art
of rigging elections, and there is no reason to think they will
fail in the present instance. On the above points there is very
little disagreement among those whom we may broadly call the opposition,
including the MDC and all pro-democracy civic groups. The differences
of opinion only emerge when those intent on challenging the Mugabe
hegemony move on from these "given" factors towards developing a
strategy of response.
At this point
those against participation argue that we have reached the end of
the road on the electoral route to change. They say that the time
has come - indeed it is long overdue - to develop alternative strategies,
such as civil disobedience and mass action programmes, to deliver
change which will not come otherwise. They argue that it would be
inconsistent to fight against the 17th amendment to the constitution
in Parliament, as the MDC did, and then participate in the process
that they have (rightly) called a farce. And they claim that any
contesting of seats in the Senate would have the effect of legitimizing
the process - and, with it, the other ground acquired and now held
by ZANU PF fraud.
In our view
these are valid and powerful arguments against participation, and
of course there are others. We do not claim this to be a comprehensive
list.
Yet the fact
is that those who are in favour of participation can also advance
strong and persuasive arguments for their stance. Again we do not
seek to canvas all the points they raise, but would just mention
the following.
They claim that,
despite all the odds stacked against the MDC, there may still be
some mileage in the electoral route. They refer to the acute embarrassment
caused to ZANU PF by some of the revelations made by MDC legislators
in Parliament, for example on food security issues and on the favouritism
shown to Mugabe protégées in the matter of land distribution,
and point out that these revelations could not have been made outside
Parliament without exposing individuals to very great risk. Moreover
they are clear that they are not advocating the flawed electoral
process as the only route to change. Rather do they put it forward
as one of several different, non-violent means to be pursued along
with others. To the civil disobedience, mass action proposals they
say, yes, these too must be assessed and deployed, and as a matter
of urgency. They assert that there is nothing inconsistent in voting
against an Act in Parliament and then, when it is implemented against
their wishes, using it as a weapon to strike at Mugabe's monopolistic
powers. They say that not one inch of MDC-held political space should
be surrendered to the dictator without a fight. And finally they
strongly dispute the notion that to contest the Senate elections
is to legitimize the whole process.
This and more,
those in favour of participation say. Now we are not rehearsing
their arguments, or the counter arguments, with a few to persuading
anyone to change her or his mind. We merely make the point that
there are good and sound reasons which can be advanced both in favour
of, and against, participation. Indeed in making a difficult decision
in an almost no-win situation the arguments for and against must
be set one against another to decide where the balance of advantage
lies. Having done that people of both insight and integrity will
still come to different conclusions on this issue, and hence it
ill becomes anyone to rubbish the arguments of those who hold a
contrary view.
This is where
we have to take issue seriously with those, particularly within
the MDC, who are displaying just such an intolerance. We are dismayed
for example at the public stance of Morgan Tsvangirai. Granted that
he holds passionately to the opinion that his party should not participate
in the elections, and granted that he has excellent reason for so
thinking, by what right, we ask, is he entitled to impose his view
on the party. The MDC is to be congratulated on consulting as widely
as possible within the extremely limited time available on the views
of its grass-root supporters. The process was hardly adequate but
it was the best they could do in the given time. We are not aware
that any other party or civic group consulted as widely on this
issue, or at all. Moreover we understand that the debate in the
National Council meeting on October 12 was conducted in a mature
and open way, and then Council members voted - narrowly in favour
of participation. What happened next, with the MDC President refusing
to accept the vote, rushing out and lying to the international media,
both about the nature of the debate and the outcome of the vote,
was quite astonishing. If he could not persuade his party, represented
by its highest policy-making body, to accept his counsel as leader,
and if Morgan Tsvangirai could not bring himself to accept the democratic
decision of the party, then he should have done the only honourable
thing and resigned his leadership. We find Tsvangirai's conduct
then and subsequently, totally unacceptable - and would expect that
others committed to democracy and the rule of law would take a similar
view.
What now transpires
is that some of those committed to ensuring the MDC does not participate
in the Senate elections have resorted to the kind of tactics normally
associated with ZANU PF. Reports are surfacing of the use of threats
of violent reprisals, both before and after the October 12 National
Council meeting. Indeed our information is that some of those making
the threats, and in some instances using actual violence against
those perceived to be opposed to Tsvangirai, have purported to be
acting with his authority. Nor has Mr Tsvangirai sufficiently dissociated
himself from these bellicose youths. Which brings us back to the
dark and so far unresolved issue of violence in the MDC.
One of the core
values of the MDC since its inception six years ago has been the
party's commitment to non-violence. It is this commitment which
more than anything else distinguishes the party from ZANU PF, the
party of violence. Indeed we would suggest that it has been the
MDC's hitherto unswerving commitment to non-violence which has brought
it the huge support it enjoys with the people of Zimbabwe. Recent
events within the party however have cast doubt on its continued
adherence to this core value - perhaps we should say, the adherence
of some of its leaders to non-violence. Granted that within every
political party of significant size there will always be some who
will be tempted to try violence as a short-cut to success, the key
question becomes, does the party leadership show any tolerance of
this method? If the party leadership is united in affording zero
tolerance to such delinquent elements within its ranks there is
a good chance the party as a whole will remain resolutely against
violence. Sadly that has not been the case with the MDC.
In October 2004
for instance the MDC's Director of Security, Peter Guhu, was viciously
assaulted by a gang of youths within the precincts of Harvest House,
the party's headquarters in Harare. Guhu was severely beaten and
his assailants then tried to kill him by throwing him down the stairwell
from the 6th floor of the building. Surprisingly this assault and
attempted murder were not reported to the police. There were at
the time strong suspicions that the perpetrators of this crime enjoyed
the patronage and support of some senior, non-elected officials
who were known to be close to Morgan Tsvangirai. The matter was
investigated by an internal independent enquiry, but their findings
were not revealed to the party and, until the delinquent youths
had committed a further blatant crime of violence, they were not
subjected to any form of discipline.
On May 12, 2005
and the days following some of the same youths who had assaulted
the Director of Security went on the rampage again in Harvest House
and elsewhere, attacking members of staff. The attacks caused mayhem
and threw the party into disarray. The timing of the attacks, coming
just a few days before the start of the infamous Operation Murambatsvina,
was almost certainly not coincidental. Here was the main opposition
party, reeling under the impact of this "internal" strife at just
the moment it should have been ready to respond with energy and
passion to this gross human rights outrage. In the event we now
know that the response of the MDC leadership to this major challenge
(and political opportunity) was patchy and hardly inspiring. It
had lost focus at just the time it most needed to remain focussed
in order to confront the fascist state with the terrible reality
of their crime against humanity. In the months following, as the
suffering of the victims intensified, the voice of the President
of the MDC was hardly to be heard. And when speaking of this major
dislocation of the party we put the word "internal" in inverted
commas advisedly because the evidence suggests strongly that the
strife was introduced to the heart of the party by outside forces.
Who but ZANU PF benefited from this violence? And who had a better
motive therefore to instigate the violence than the CIO, now recognised
as the enforcement arm of ZANU PF? For which reason many in the
MDC are convinced that the party has been infiltrated to the highest
levels by the CIO.
So we have a
party that is suffering an increasing number of violent attacks
upon its own staff and members. That violence has the effect of
weakening and dividing the party just when the party should be united
and strong. There are strong indications that the violence is neither
spontaneous nor originating from sources within the party, but is
rather planned and orchestrated from outside. And, perhaps most
significant of all, the party leadership is slow to respond to the
threat. The culprits are not immediately expelled from the party
(though 14 of the youths were expelled by the National Executive
after the May 12 attacks). In short we have a situation developing
in which a party once unequivocally committed to non-violence is
starting to give violence a toe hold. It would call for strong leadership
from the very top echelons of the party to snuff out this dangerous
trend, but that leadership is not being given today. On the contrary
the threats made to those who refuse to rally behind the President
of the party on the Senate issue, are increasing daily.
Which brings
us back squarely to the question of violence and suggests to us
that the real issue facing the country today is not whether the
opposition should participate in the Senatorial elections but rather
whether we, collectively, will resort to the ZANU PF tactics of
intimidation and violence in order to ensure that our view prevails.
As we have already made the point, the Senate is of no consequence.
It is a non-issue. What matters is whether the opposition can remain
united around a non-violent policy and programme.
For consider
how the history of this land has been bedevilled by violence from
earliest times. By violence (and trickery) Cecil Rhodes took the
land from Lobengula. By violence (and the threat of violence) Ian
Smith perpetuated racist, minority rule. By the unbelievable violence
of Gukurahundi, Robert Mugabe crushed ZAPU and forced Joshua Nkomo
into an alliance that saw the effective disappearance of that party.
And, after three recent fraudulent elections, by violence and intimidation
Robert Mugabe continues his disastrous misrule. So if we ask, what
has violence ever achieved for Zimbabwe, the answer has to be, nothing.
Precisely nothing. On the contrary violence has only prolonged the
suffering of the people, replacing one brutal dictatorship with
another.
Which is why
it is now so critical that the MDC should close ranks and once again
affirm the principle of non-violence, both as a means of conducting
its own business and as a means of challenging and confronting the
violent regime of Robert Mugabe. For, make no mistake, the MDC as
a party of violence would offer no threat to ZANU PF at all. Indeed
it would offer ZANU PF just the pretext it wants to destroy the
party once and for all. Only as a party resolved to follow the path
of open dialogue, of consensual decision making, of tolerance, and
above all of non-violence, does the MDC offer a radical alternative
and therefore a real threat to the party of intolerance that is
ruled by fear, violence and personal greed.
Violence is
the real enemy, not those who take a different view to our own about
the strategic value of participating in the Senate elections. And
we would be pleased to see the MDC leadership, from Morgan Tsvangirai
down, acknowledge this and begin to focus on the real enemy.
Visit the Sokwanele
fact sheet
Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.
TOP
|
