|
ONE is compelled to conclude that Professor Jonathan Moyo is ostensibly objective only when bitter.
No doubt, Moyo’s exposition of Zanu PF’s politburo in its current form and the limitations thereof provide one with an unprecedented damning indictment of Zanu PF by one of its very own cadres, the kind of which came only from the late Dr Joshua Nkomo before the Unity Accord.
What Professor Moyo has sought to do, and has done successfully, is explain to Zanu PF that indeed times are changing and that the party had better correspondingly change with them. Perhaps this is one amongst the many early signs of democracy for not only was Moyo’s article made available through internet sites, it was, in fact, one of the very few articles critical of President Robert Mugabe to have emanated from the state mouthpieces.
Whatever speculation there was about the internal troubles of Zanu PF, Moyo puts them to rest in his article when he explains that factionalism has become the order of the day in that party. Apart from Mugabe superficially denouncing factionalism and downplaying its extent no other person to my recollection had been on record confirming that factionalism existed let alone on the scale portrayed by Moyo.
All this while we were made to believe that factionalism was a term unique only to the MDC-T and that Zanu PF did not need to be reminded of the truism that anything anywhere was better off united than divided.
I am not sure how Mugabe must feel right now but there can be nothing worse than facing fierce opposition not only from without but also from within. Yet there is a general disinclination within his party to do things the democratic way. It is becoming increasingly clear that just as Mugabe has instilled sustained fear on the ordinary man and woman on the street he has also done the same with those around him who might occasionally find it instructive to question the status quo.
Instead of owing it to the people to salvage whatever there is left of Zimbabwe and work to better what could otherwise have been a worse situation, Mugabe continues to exhibit stunning detachment from the welfare of the nation. What we seem to get and get a lot of these days is the unashamed compulsion to have sanctions targeted at otherwise unforgivable individuals relaxed. What is worse: the relaxation of those sanctions is made a pre-requisite for any concession aimed at making Zimbabwe self-sufficient, democratic, safe and God-fearing.
By maintaining such a stance, what Zanu PF is effectively saying is: provided those sanctions abroad remain in place, we will likewise keep our sanctions on the people of Zimbabwe in place. Zanu PF must be told and told without equivocation that the destiny of the majority of Zimbabweans is not and cannot be linked to that of the evil few in our midst.
The indigenisation legislation is a preposterous one, and one that should not even be considered a possibility in circumstances such as ours. South Africa, for instance, can afford to enact and implement the Black Economic Empowerment Act but not even they would encourage BEE to have sweeping consequences the type contemplated by Indigenisation Minister Savior Kasukuwere.
I am not sure what policies the GPA under Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, has come up with but whatever they are I am certain this type of legislation is against the policy framework relevant to the Zimbabwe of today and could, accordingly, be set aside in any civil society with circumstances synonymous to ours for not being in consonant with the country’s present needs.
In the circumstances, it is rather presumptuous of Professor Moyo to conclude that every Zimbabwean, knowingly or unknowingly, is Zanu PF at heart. If anything, there is now more reason to conclude that every Zimbabwean and I mean every Zimbabwean, consciously or otherwise, is anti-Zanu PF.
Psychology Maziwisa
Interim President
The Union for Sustainable Democracy.
 |
Show/Hide comments
Show/Hide comment form
