Find us on Google+

Saturday, 30 June 2007

Eye on Zimbabwe, 2nd Edition

We recently read in the media that Zimbabwe has gazzetted the Indigenisation and Empowerment Bill, which moves majority control of "public companies and any other business" to black Zimbabweans. I struggled to find the document on the web so I uploaded it here.

**Update
Times Online reports that Pius Ncube, the Archbishop of Bulawayo has called on Britain to invade the country and topple President Robert Mugabe. In his words : "I think it is justified for Britain to raid Zimbabwe and remove Mugabe . We should do it ourselves but there’s too much fear. I’m ready to lead the people, guns blazing, but the people are not ready.”

28 comments:

  1. "I think it is justified for Britain to raid Zimbabwe and remove Mugabe . We should do it ourselves but there’s too much fear. I’m ready to lead the people, guns blazing, but the people are not ready.”

    In most countries in the world, that is called treason.

    These are the people who would lead Zimbabwe?

    ReplyDelete
  2. It would only be considered treason if a "social contract" exists between the majority of the people and the Government.

    The question is whether such a contract exists. In other words, is the Zimbabwean Government legitimate in the eyes of its own people. Does it exist because it has de-facto power over the nation or is it power derived from the masses?

    I think Ncube's position and that of many Zimbabweans I meet is that the existing Government has no legitimacy.

    I am not supporting his position, I am simply seeking to understand where he is coming from!

    ReplyDelete
  3. okay as africans how are we going to "intergrate"with our white africans who have every right to be africans as us?

    the only reason the zim issue is going this far is there is "unagreed way to deal with white africans"

    this is like the middle east,what are the repucursions of supporting the other color.you are either with us or against us.(bush)

    mugabe has made it difficult for leaders to deal with him. the wealth he is sharing is good at the moment to black zimbabweans,is it going to be good in 10years time?

    people in zimbabwe have to look at the near future,then decide whether mugabe is right or wrong.

    THESE GUYS HAVE HATRED IN THEIR HEARTS FOR THE PAST.IT'S NOT THE FUTURE BUT THE PAST.THE FUTURE LOOKS SO DARK ITS SCARY!(mandela)

    didn't they learn from zambia in the 80's.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Countries should only intervene in genocide situations.

    For example, in Sudan then it would be a good idea to intervene. In Iraq it would have been a good idea to intervene in the 1980s (but instead the US supplied arms for the genocide).

    If you look at Iraq the situation was really bad under Sadam but after the invasion it got worse. 1 out of 7 people have had to leave the country because of the sectarian violence. That is a dangerous situation for all the surrounding countries.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous,

    I am fairly agnostic on that difficult question of when is it right to intervene. But it seems to me that we cannot ignore that there are benefits to pre-emptive action.

    It seems to me that there are times when pre-emptive action has achieved good e.g. in Sierra Leone. There was clearly no genocide there. And pre-emptive action by the British helped to prevent one from taking place.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It would only be considered treason if a "social contract" exists between the majority of the people and the Government.

    It is considered treason in any country, at any time.

    Think of all the Zimbabweans who would die in the process. And for what? To install Morgan Tsvangirai, at the barrel of a foreign gun?

    How is that for legitimacy, or a social contract?

    The question is whether such a contract exists. In other words, is the Zimbabwean Government legitimate in the eyes of its own people. Does it exist because it has de-facto power over the nation or is it power derived from the masses?

    It doesn't matter. There were elections, which at first were declared to be free and fair.

    Otherwise, Zambia and the United States should be open for foreign invasion.

    If there are other problems, those are civil issues, that should be solved by the MDC or any opposition party politically.

    But to install neoliberal sellouts, to flog off the country's assets, and to start throwing African people off the land, to reinstate white farmers, would be to invite a true war of independence.

    A government installed like that, truly would have 0% legitimacy.

    ReplyDelete
  7. in any country they should be no intervention.

    are you implying that the people in that country are stupid not to solve their problems.

    other interested parties should use their influence in minimising the power that is abused by the parties involved.

    the best way to solve conflicts is promote information for people to make their minds as to what they want.if you intervene you run the risk of being blamed for the conflict.

    look at iraq the coalition forces thought by bringing "freedom" to iraq was good,the people don't even uderstand what is freedom.

    for example an islamist woman is covered on the face just like our women are wear loose clothes,to hide their figures.to some people this is mistreating women but that is our culture.we must understand why and be convinced its the right thing.

    mugabe is doing the "right thing" to the black zimbabweans but is doing "wrong thing" to the white zimbabweans,and what do the people believe in?

    ReplyDelete
  8. MrK

    ”Think of all the Zimbabweans who would die in the process. And for what? To install Morgan Tsvangirai, at the barrel of a foreign gun? “

    First, I don’t think the invasion of Zimbabwe would lead to a massive loss of life.

    Secondly, some have argued that people are losing their lives already through starvation and so forth.

    Thirdly, post invasion settlements should be detached from the apriori reasons for invasion.


    ”It doesn't matter. There were elections, which at first were declared to be free and fair.”

    First, there’s no unanimity that the elections were “free and fair”.

    Secondly, Hitler and others had popular mandate, but that does not mean you cannot invade. The EU stopped giving money to the Palestinian Authorities even when Hamas was elected. There are plenty of other examples. The world should feel free to act when states fail their own people even if they were elected.

    ”If there are other problems, those are civil issues, that should be solved by the MDC or any opposition party politically” .

    This assumes that people are able to. This is not necessarily the case. As Archibishop Ncube notes, the people want to but are unable to. In such a case, the international community should be able to step in.

    ”But to install neoliberal sellouts, to flog off the country's assets, and to start throwing African people off the land, to reinstate white farmers, would be to invite a true war of independence.”

    Again a couple of different arguments here.

    First, I don’t share the neo-liberal approach. See the latest blog on Easterly’s attack on the IMF and Worldbank. I don’t believe in top down development.

    Secondly, I don’t see why foreign invasion should lead to reinstatement of white farmers. In Sierra Leone the British never stayed.

    Thirdly, land reform is irreversible in Zimbabwe. I cannot envisage a scenario where White farmers get their land back. I don’t even think they want to go back.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Arthur

    ”In any country they should be no intervention.
    are you implying that the people in that country are stupid not to solve their problems.”


    No my view is that the people of Zimbabwe want to get rid of Mugabe but the state is using all the machinery at its disposal to suppress them.

    This is why over millions of Zimbabweans have fled the country to nearby South Africa in search of better livelihood.


    ”the best way to solve conflicts is promote information for people to make their minds as to what they want.if you intervene you run the risk of being blamed for the conflict.”

    In a normal country yes. But Zimbabwe is a failed state. There’s no point in using information when the state has a huge machinery at its disposal. Those are long term solutions. Poor people are dying in Zimbabwe, the West should intervene. The only reason the countries in the West have not intervened in Darfur and Zimbabwe is because there’s nothing there. What Ncube and others have argued is that “humanity” alone should be enough reason to act.

    ”look at iraq the coalition forces thought by bringing "freedom" to iraq was good,the people don't even uderstand what is freedom. “

    I say look at Sierra Leone and other places, where intervention led to peace and the society is now more stable. Taylor is in the Hague being tried for war crimes and the people can now live in peace.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Cho,

    First, I don’t think the invasion of Zimbabwe would lead to a massive loss of life.

    You mean like Iraq? Do you think the ZANU-PF cadres and politicians are just going to retire quietly? Or maybe they'll learn from the Iraqi's how to best use roadside bombs.

    Secondly, I don’t see why foreign invasion should lead to reinstatement of white farmers. In Sierra Leone the British never stayed.

    Thirdly, land reform is irreversible in Zimbabwe. I cannot envisage a scenario where White farmers get their land back. I don’t even think they want to go back.



    Old colonials always want to go 'back'. It is human nature.

    From the MDC manifesto:

    An MDC government will have to deal with the emotive issue of land and there is simply no easy way to deal with this if we are to see any sort of recovery in this key sector of the economy. While the MDC has some sympathy with the need for reform in the commercial farm sector it rejects completely, the illegal and destructive manner in which this reform exercise has been carried out by the regime.

    To redress the injustice done to existing land owners under the reform process and to start the recovery process in the agricultural industry, the MDC will immediately appoint an independent Land Commission with a 5 year mandate to investigate the situation in respect to farm land, establish ownership and initiate a properly planned and managed reform process in all areas of the country. The mandate of the Commission will include the communal areas, forestry reserves and all commercial land holdings.

    The MDC will respect all legal land title deeds and ensure that the financial and legal rights of such landowners are fully respected and enforced. Existing landowners will be encouraged to resume farming as soon as possible and will be given every assistance to do so. Special Courts will be set up in all major centers to assess compensation claims for losses incurred during the “fast track” land reform operation and the State will be responsible for such claims. These Courts will also deal with disputes over land rights.


    They want to turn back land reform. It is in their manifesto.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The URL to this page is:

    http://www.mdczw.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48&Itemid=32

    ReplyDelete
  12. how can you prove that the people want to get rid of him?

    there is no way to prove this in african politics how unpopular someone is.

    they have been leaving even before, maybe if they didn't leave they could join the masses and force matters.how many zimbabweans have been living abroad.

    the reason this is happening is because people have not been informed well. even if you remove him what guarantee is there that the next person won't use this "ignorance" to further his agenda?

    sierra leone and liberia are totally different. there was BLOODSHED involved in those conflicts and that is reason to use force.maybe we should say he is a terri=orists

    how can you prove hunger when other people can attest of living well. the international community will view this as discontent(rightword?) of the opposition trying to get to power using help.

    ReplyDelete
  13. how can you prove that the people want to get rid of him?

    Elections.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Arthur,

    the reason this is happening is because people have not been informed well. even if you remove him what guarantee is there that the next person won't use this "ignorance" to further his agenda?

    And we already know the agenda of the MDC (see their views on land reform above).

    The MDC no more have a plan for the economy than the MMD had in Zambia, in 1991.

    Their election will lead to the eviction of the 250,000 people who have been resettled during the land reform program, the selling off of Zimbabwean parastatals and the country's assets - all of course in the name of 'privatisation' and imitating the MDC. 'We know what works' - as in colonialism.

    We don't know there are 'millions' of Zimbabweans who have fled the country. That is just an assertion made by the Rhodie press. But I would not at all be surprised, if this number will be used to cover up the eviction of the 250,000 'squatters' who were resettled for the land reform program.

    Don't trust Zimbabwean opposition parties who will not distance themselves from (in fact, thoroughly identify themselves with) Rhodie claims on African land.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "You mean like Iraq? Do you think the ZANU-PF cadres and politicians are just going to retire quietly" - MrK

    My impression of the ZANU-PF crowd is that they are also tired of Mugabe. But the key for me is how you intervene. I would much rather prefer that the West gave more support to those within ZANU-PF to bring change from within. Regime change does not have to involve gun boats. You can bring change with minimal intervention. I don't think the West have really made an attempt to unseat Mugabe from Power. If they had done he would have gone by now.

    "They [MDC] want to turn back land reform. It is in their manifesto". - MrK

    I agree that the MDC manifesto seems to be lacking in substance. However their approach to the land question through setting up a commission looks sensible. I don't know whether they realise that the pressure they face from within to deliver an equitable solution to indigenous Zimbabweans.

    I can see Zimbabwe getting worse under MDC before it gets better. The question is whether MDC would make it get better. This is difficult to deduce. Its also possible that Western backing for MDC could dry up by the time they get in power. The Geo-Politics are shifting constantly. China is the big player now everyone has to court. 10 years from now IMF and World Bank will probably become irrelevant as institutions.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "they have been leaving even before, maybe if they didn't leave they could join the masses and force matters.how many zimbabweans have been living abroad." - Arthur

    There are 6 million Zimbabweans in South Africa for example. These are large numbers. Whilst Zimbabweans have always been on the move the rate of departure has been much greater in recent years.


    "how can you prove hunger when other people can attest of living well. the international community will view this as discontent(rightword?) of the opposition trying to get to power using help.
    "
    - Arthur

    I don't even think MrK disagrees that there's much hunger in Zimbabwe. A new report this week said the shops have emptied. Even Mugabe admits this. No one is saying there's no problem in Zimbabwe. What they are saying is that the International Community is to blame for the sactions. Other naturally blame Bob. So hunger is definitely there!

    ReplyDelete
  17. My impression of the ZANU-PF crowd is that they are also tired of Mugabe.

    Not as tired as they are going to be from their 'colleagues' in the MDC.

    But the key for me is how you intervene. I would much rather prefer that the West gave more support to those within ZANU-PF to bring change from within. Regime change does not have to involve gun boats.

    As we have seen, the west has it's own agenda. In the case of the IMF, it is to put in place a puppet government that will not rock the SAP boat.

    In the case of ex-rhodesians, the british aristocracy and western corporations, it is to get Zimbabwe's land back.

    None of them are interested in the democratically expressed will of the Zimbabwean people.

    Which is the only legitimate voice that matters in this case.

    Why don't the west ensure that elections when held are free and fair? Because then they would risk the people of Zimbabwe voting ZANU-PF.

    Look at what happened in South Africa. The entire western and white owned South African media were betting that the population would be outraged that President Mbeki dared to question the AIDS establisment and was (as they saw it) slow in implementing access to ARVs.

    However, when election time came around, the ANC received the biggest vote of confidence ever. Why? Because they represent the people. Because they built more houses than ever before.

    Somehow, the need for houses never registered in the white, well to do media, which was obsessed with HIV/AIDS and teaching Thabo Mbeki a lesson.

    They were taught a lesson in return.

    And the same is true over Zimbabwe. Those 250,000 people who were resettled were real. They were not 'Mugabe's cronies', as the mantra is.

    Is there a better explanation for the majority of rural Zimbabweans supporting Mugabe, than 'they were misinformed'?

    The people really want land. This is what is missing in all the debates about Zimbabwe, and it is missing, because it is about the interests of the people of Zimbabwe, not western interests, Rhodie interests, corporate interests, or the IMF's interests.

    The wishes of the real people of Zimbabwe, not some opportunistic MDC stooges, are what is missing from the debate.

    You can bring change with minimal intervention. I don't think the West have really made an attempt to unseat Mugabe from Power. If they had done he would have gone by now.

    All western intervention in Zimbabwe is illigitemate. The time for legitimate western intervention was in 1965, and we all know which side they chose then.

    I agree that the MDC manifesto seems to be lacking in substance.

    But it is telling. In fact, their lack of economic policy substance itself speaks volumes.

    They are there to do nothing but restore white rule. They have no plan for the economy. Their plan is to get to power.

    However, they are very clear about turning back land reform. (See above.)

    However their approach to the land question through setting up a commission looks sensible.

    You're missing the point. The whole point of setting up a land commission is to return the land to it's former ownership.

    They say so explicitly - Special Courts will be set up in all major centers to assess compensation claims for losses incurred during the “fast track” land reform operation and the State will be responsible for such claims. These Courts will also deal with disputes over land rights.

    That is, losses to whites, not to the African majority, which has been languishing in what used to be called 'native reserves' for many decades.

    Their intent is clear, and clearly stated.

    I think the MDC think they can skate by, by offering jobs and economic stability to the urban masses. The problem is that the majority of Zimbabweans are rural, and that they do not like them. That is why they are ready to prove their fairmindedness by bludgeoning the 250,000 resettled farmers.

    But it is a recipe for civil war - not just western induced hyperinflation.

    Look at what happened in Iraq. So many people have died and so much ethnic/religious hatred aroused that didn't exist before, that it is questionable whether it ever will be one country again.

    I can see Zimbabwe getting worse under MDC before it gets better. The question is whether MDC would make it get better. This is difficult to deduce.

    Cho,

    The only thing the MDC have to offer Zimbabwe is an end to economic sanctions.

    Nothing else. You can read their manifesto online. They are (when in need of an ideology beyond the nihilistic need to grab power for power's sake) unreconstructed neoliberals. They are going to see to it that whatever domestic economy and production Zimbabwe has, is wiped out by foreign competition (remember "Life And Debt"). They are going to sell off anything that belongs to the state - not to 'bring development', but to comply with the IMF/WB desire for a one world corporate rule.

    This is difficult to deduce. Its also possible that Western backing for MDC could dry up by the time they get in power.

    Hardly, they are the west. They are western interests.

    China is the big player now everyone has to court. 10 years from now IMF and World Bank will probably become irrelevant as institutions.

    Which is why the MDC would provide the west with a non-Chinese wedge in Southern Africa.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Here is the MDC's ode to neoliberalism:

    http://www.mdczw.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=34&Itemid=32

    Macro Economic Policies.

    The basic policies for sound management of a developing economy such as that found in Zimbabwe are well known and developed. Such a policy framework is applied in all progressive and developing economies including many of Zimbabwe’s neighbors. The MDC remains committed to adopting and implementing such policies when it takes power in Zimbabwe.


    That would be Zambia, and the MDC. But also listen to what they say - they would not do anything differently than has been done around Zimbabwe. In other words, they have no ideas of their own.

    What is more, they pretend that the policies of the MDC have been successful, that they have not left the majority of the people behind, and that this is something to be emulated.

    Again, the only thing the MDC has to offer Zimbabwe, is an end to sanctions from their masters, the IMF.


    This would include market based managed exchange rate, lifting exchange control as soon as markets stabilized, interest rates that protected and encouraged savings and stringent controls on the fiscal regime. Price controls would never be used by an MDC government to try to reduce inflation as this treats the symptoms rather than the cause.

    - no restrictions on imports, wiping out Zimbabwe's manufacturing companies
    - high interest rates, prohibiting borrowing and economic expansion
    - preferring savings over investment
    - less government spending (although I don't hear them talking about reducing the size of government, or Zimbabwe's 30 or so ministries)
    - no price controls, the one good thing they mention


    Instead, an MDC government would foster open competition between firms and ensure that all basic necessities were maintained in free supply.

    No mention who could afford them - which is the downside of letting the market decide prices. Prices may become a true reflection of supply and demand, but they do not guarantee that they are within the majority's income range.

    And the MDC don't say one word on increasing people's income.

    Local monopolies would be required to face import competition if they are unwilling to allow greater competition in local markets.

    Local monopolies, that would be parastatals?

    You increase competition by encouraging more companies to enter a market place, not by throwing open the border to heavily subsidized foreign goods.

    Again, they miss the crucial focus of economic development - production.

    They have no ideas on how to increase the amount of goods and services that are produced in the economy.

    Protecting and nurturing local markets, regional cooperation, empowering the ordinary people to engage in the economic life of the country are alien concepts to them.

    Their policy prescriptions come from the Washington DC and Geneva.

    This would be the future of an Zimbabwe under the MDC.

    ReplyDelete
  19. MrK

    "They say so explicitly - Special Courts will be set up in all major centers to assess compensation claims for losses incurred during the “fast track” land reform operation and the State will be responsible for such claims. These Courts will also deal with disputes over land rights"

    Yes I did wonder about that statement. Very cryptic!
    It did occur to me that they could be thinking of planning to turn back the clock.

    You are right I that their economic plan does not move beyond ending sanctions. After that it seems that they would let the IMF dictate the game as it were.

    It seems to me that the Zimbabwean people are cost between a rock and a hard place. There's no doubt Bob needs to go, but the chaps who may replace him look suspect as well.

    What is your view on what should happen? And why does Bob cling onto power as if he has the monopoly of wisdom?

    ReplyDelete
  20. It's a slap in the face of the rural population. I think the MDC can get by with their white support, and some support in the cities.

    Which, more than vote rigging, is why they can't win the majority of the vote.

    At which point any pretence of 'returning Zimbabwe to democracy' becomes a very hollow phrase.

    ReplyDelete
  21. That appears to be the case.

    But my questions on Bob still stands.

    Is it not the case that Mugabe is an autocrat who has no equal in the region?

    Isn't time in your view that he stepped aside?

    ReplyDelete
  22. The MDC statement (isolated from surrounding context) that, "Local monopolies would be required to face import competition if they are unwilling to allow greater competition in local markets," does not sound entirely unreasonable given the increasing concentration of previously competitive domestic industries becoming wholly controlled by single companies.

    Livestock processing for meat consumption is the most recent industry to see elimination of market competition. The Herald reported, "meat supplies continued to trickle in from the Cold Storage Company to some butcheries in the city yesterday. The CSC now has the sole responsibility of buying livestock from producers after Government revoked licences of all private abattoirs last week," on 17th July.

    Similarly of concern are recent statements that as a part of the agricultural mechanisation programmes, government has become the sole legal purchaser of agricultural machinery imports, ostensibly for "quality control" purposes.

    The concept of anti-monopoly legislation seems beneficial to development of local SMEs as long as the language of the policy statement is interpreted to mean that current monopolies would not be forced to face import competition provided that they did make willing efforts to allow domestic competitors equal access to markets. Large established companies are much more likely to favor competition from smaller local firms than larger international outfits capable of "loss-leading" and "dumping" to gain disproportionate access to market share. This would seem to be preferable to outright privatization of parastatal companies currently constraining competition by locally owned private firms in certain industries.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Yakima,

    The MDC statement (isolated from surrounding context) that, "Local monopolies would be required to face import competition if they are unwilling to allow greater competition in local markets," does not sound entirely unreasonable given the increasing concentration of previously competitive domestic industries becoming wholly controlled by single companies.

    But we already know that they are fans of liberalisation and privatisation, the way it was applied in Zambia.

    In other words, they will throw the border open for a multinational corporation to become the main player in the Zimbabwean markets.

    Shoprite, anyone?

    If 'liberalisation' (which after all is just a word) means support for many local companies to compete against eachother, than of course I'm all for it.

    However, within the neoliberal, IMF led mindset, liberalisation means throwing open the borders, getting rid of tariffs, not protecting local industries, not caring if imported goods are heavily subsidized in their country of origin, etc.

    It will, in fact, lead to new monopolies, but this time by non-Zimbabwean companies. Ask yourself this - since liberalisation, how many supermarket chains does Zambia have? After liberalisation, Zimbabweans can have Shoprite too.

    And it isn't even useful to remind the MDC - hey, you're depending on the IMF too much. This is their ticket to power. They are going to do everything the IMF tells them to do, as long as they will be in power. That is why they don't have any ideas of their own.

    Is returning land to Rhodesian 'farmers' the only thing they can think of? How about the rights of rural Zimbabweans to own their own piece of land? How about the injustice that was done to them by evicting them from their land - which went on as late as 1973.

    The concept of anti-monopoly legislation seems beneficial to development of local SMEs as long as the language of the policy statement is interpreted to mean that current monopolies would not be forced to face import competition provided that they did make willing efforts to allow domestic competitors equal access to markets.

    That would be great. I would be in favour of it, if this was the format.

    However, has the MDC ever mentioned anti-monopoly legislation? On the other hand, they have expressed admiration for the (neoliberal) policies of Zimbabwe's neighbours.

    That means throwing open borders, low or no import tariffs, etc. Free trade, as interpreted by the IMF. Which of course means no restrictions on corporations, which anti-monopoly legislation would be.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Cho,

    That appears to be the case. But my questions on Bob still stands. Is it not the case that Mugabe is an autocrat who has no equal in the region? Isn't time in your view that he stepped aside?

    I think that should be up to the people of Zimbabwe. If all efforts would be directed at making sure that no one can question the outcome of the upcoming elections, that would be the best outcome.

    Presuming of course that all the parties in question, including abroad, would be satisfied with the expressed wishes of the people of Zimbabwe. Which I seriously doubt.

    Also, Robert Mugabe is an old man. He is in good health, but at some time, even he will have to hand over the reigns of power.

    When it comes down to it, what I don't like is the idea that the IMF or the neoliberal establishment can determine who the president of Zimbabwe is. That they can overthrow a government by isolating it financially.

    That is something that should never be allowed to happen again.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "If all efforts would be directed at making sure that no one can question the outcome of the upcoming elections, that would be the best outcome".

    Out of interest how do you think this could be achieved?
    It sounds like an impossible task to me.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "The Cabinet Task Force on Price Monitoring and Stabilisation ordered that all fuel coupon sales be stopped forthwith and that fuel should only be accessed through approved outlets.

    Cde Mpofu, who is also the Minister of Industry and International Trade, said Noczim had since been designated the sole dealer in fuel.

    'All fuel should proceed through Noczim, which we have mandated to deal with fuel,' he said."
    Herald, 20/7/07

    To his credit, Gono makes a passionate plea against establishment of the new fuel monopoly, however the odds against the government listening this time are increasing faster than the price of diesel.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Out of interest how do you think this could be achieved?
    It sounds like an impossible task to me.


    There should be more monitors, from neutral countries, there should be preparations of the elections long before they happen.

    There are ways of ensuring that elections are free and fair.

    And if they are, sanctions should be lifted against the state of Zimbabwe. And the 'Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act' should be repealed.

    With the right Democrat in the White House, that should be possible.

    ReplyDelete
  28. MrK,

    I am confused.
    You say "There are ways of ensuring that elections are free and fair." Your previous post was more subtle ""If all efforts would be directed at making sure that no one can question the outcome of the upcoming elections, that would be the best outcome".

    I took that to mean you thought the elections have always been free and fair but that what is needed "acceptability". Is that stil your position or have you changed. You seem to be questioning the fairness of the process :)

    If the issue is one of "acceptability" then whose "acceptability" are we seeking? You seem to focus on external acceptability as opposed to internal acceptability - e.g. MDC accepting. Surely you are not suggesting MDC are the Republican's poodle?

    ReplyDelete

All contributors should follow the basic principles of a productive dialogue: communicate their perspective, ask, comment, respond,and share information and knowledge, but do all this with a positive approach.

This is a friendly website. However, if you feel compelled to comment 'anonymously', you are strongly encouraged to state your location / adopt a unique nick name so that other commentators/readers do not confuse your comments with other individuals also commenting anonymously.