|
Back to Index
This article participates on the following special index pages:
Strikes and Protests 2007/8 - Index of articles
To
march or not to march: the issues
Joram
Nyathi, The Zimbabwe Independent
January 25, 2008
http://allafrica.com/stories/200801250612.html
That government
would ban the MDC's "Freedom
March" on Wednesday was predictable. What was not predictable
was that the police allowed it in the first place, and that the
MDC believed it could hold a march with such a nebulous agenda in
the centre of Harare.
There are a number of
possible reasons why the MDC march was banned. One is the fear of
violence, which is the official line given by the police. It is
barely plausible, but a reason nonetheless, given that once the
people are out on the streets it is difficult even for those who
mobilised the march to control them. The result could be mayhem,
with the opposition blaming the usual "rogue elements"
and Zanu PF "infiltrators" while the police will use it
as "proof" that the MDC is "a violent party".
The other reason is that
the police still believe they are the final authority in sanctioning
public gatherings. They still control how we should exercise our
democratic rights even when no life or property is under threat.
In other words, while the Sadc-initiated talks are concerned with
expanding the democratic space, Zanu PF and the police believe there
is a set date when the gates should be flung open to all.
The third reason
was perhaps to thwart the MDC's foolish "revenge" march.
Since Zanu PF's "Million
Man March" in support of President Robert Mugabe's candidacy
in the March elections, there has been agitation that the MDC should
be allowed to hold its own "Million Man March" now dubbed
"Freedom March".
It is a battle of wills
and Zanu PF couldn't countenance the spectacle of the MDC marshalling
more marchers than it did in November.
The MDC has a right to
hold such a march as the official opposition. I have only two reservations
about its merit: why copy what Zanu PF is doing when there is no
obvious national benefit? Secondly, since the MDC is still dithering
about participation in the elections, what is the merit of displaying
to the world 10 million men a majority of whom are not registered
to vote? Isn't that to psyche the world for a phoney MDC victory
when the party will boycott the elections or, if it takes part,
it may not mobilise the same number of voters, and claim rigging
on the basis of street marches?
This brings me to the
MDC's gamut of demands as contained in its notice of the "Freedom
March". They want a new constitution; food and jobs; free and
fair elections; real money and restoration of our dignity; water,
electricity and medical drugs; and affordable health, transport
and education.
The little information
I have on the deadlock in the talks between Zanu PF and the MDC,
the "sticking points" are a new constitution and a postponement
of elections. I thought these would constitute the crux of the march.
But the MDC thought a
mixture of everything was the way to go - they want to pick real
money, jobs and quality education off the streets of Harare.
The trouble with this
medley is simple: it blunts the "sticking points" in the
ongoing talks. We are now confused about what these are: a new constitution
or a transitional constitution or a postponement of the polls or
water and electricity? Understandably, the National Constitutional
Assembly has said it will not ride on this omnibus driving around
Harare. It would rather stay its course for a people-driven constitution.
But the MDC can't miss
an opportunity to demonstrate that it is close to the pulse of the
nation, that it is with the people and understands their immediate
needs. Cash, drugs, personal dignity, health, transport and education
are all valid demands but belong to a different time and platform.
My point is that when
you hold a march you are demanding something specific and deliverable
and this should not be confused with electioneering. The MDC is
spot-on on a new constitution and a postponement of the elections
because these constitute a direct impediment to its quest for power.
President Mugabe can reject these but it's not beyond his power
to deliver them in one day. But the MDC is vague and muddled in
its demands, blowing hot and cold in the hope that it can use the
talks as an affirmative action project to power.
Issues like
education, transport, drugs, health and cash at this moment belong
to organisations such as the Consumer
Council of Zimbabwe, the Zimbabwe
Congress of Trade Unions and other civic groups. The MDC should
use these as campaign material by telling supporters and potential
supporters how it wants to tackle them. How do you march against
the policy deficiencies of a rival party which you should use as
campaign material?
These are the issues
it should be addressing at its 300 rallies, not in a once-off march
when critical elections are less than two months away. We want to
know how it intends to deal with these chronic and pervasive problems
which the Zanu PF government has clearly failed to solve.
But the message one gets
from the party's list of grievances is that the MDC has not evolved
from a protest movement into an opposition party ready to govern.
For its part, by banning the MDC march, the Zanu PF government has
exposed two things: that it is dealing in bad faith in the inter-party
talks and that it is dead terrified of the MDC. It's good ammunition
for the opposition.
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
|