Seeking justice in Zimbabwe: Mugabe deserves his day in court

Robert Mugabe, the former president of Zimbabwe must be a happy man even in his “retirement”. Having been deposed through a military coup in November 2017, the former president has cut a lone figure at his blue roof mansion in the leafy suburb of Borrowdale.

Months after his ousting, the former president vented anger and frustration describing the events of the November 2017 as unconstitutional. In the days leading to the 2018 elections, he shocked even those in ZANU when he appeared to endorse MDC Alliance Presidential candidate, Nelson Chamisa when he gave an exclusive press conference highlighting that he was not going to vote for his tormentors. On Election Day he received a rousing welcome in Highfield when he went to cast his vote. All this was taking place against a background where Mugabe’s 37-year rule was marked by disappearances, extrajudicial killings and arbitrary detention. How people forget. What is even unfortunate is that in the current discourse, no one seems to ask pertinent questions on the need for justice to people who even today remain victims of Mugabe’s violent rule. For now, the prospects for a criminal prosecution of Mugabe in the Zimbabwe look somewhat distant. Some have expressed fears that a trial so quickly after the coup could be destabilizing, while there are also questions about Zimbabwe’s current capacity to deal with historical abuses.

Once Zanu, always Zanu

The late Professor John Makumbe (may his soul rest in eternal peace) once remarked in 2009 during a public meeting at Ambassador Hotel that the problem we had in Zimbabwe is Mugabe. He went on further to reveal that the ZANU PF that had become notorious for not reforming was a system that was deliberately created by Mugabe to serve his interests alone. Professor Makumbe did however highlight that the only thing that was working against Mugabe was his age and pointed out that either death or military coup will one day depose him off this comfort.

Recently former First lady Grace Mugabe revealed that President Emmerson Mnangagwa chartered a plane for her while she was in Singapore to attend the funeral of her mother. In a move that appeared to prove that the former had indeed come to terms with the fact that he was no longer president, Mugabe went on to reveal that it was time to put behind events of November last year in which he resigned just before conclusion of his impeachment proceedings by Parliament. Mugabe remarked that “There was an election, Zanu-PF was represented by Emmerson Mnangagwa and (Nelson) Chamisa represented MDC Alliance and results came out saying the person who won was Emmerson Mnangagwa and I said now it’s clear,” said Mugabe.“You can’t dispute it. It is now clear. What had been in dispute has corrected through the election results. We have accepted the result and we hope that we will continue respecting the will of the people. The gun does not and should not lead politics,” he said. In his comment especially where he retorts that “the gun does not and should not lead politics”, Mugabe is maintaining that his ousting was unconstitutional and that future engagements between him and Mnangagwa will be premised on that fact.

The endorsement by Mugabe justifies the widely held notion that former ZANU PF members must always be treated with suspicion as in the past several ex-Zanu pf members have struggled to cut the umbilical cord from the party. When Mugabe realized that the MDC Alliance had failed to wrestle power from ZANU PF he put his selfish interest ahead of everything else. The latest move by Mugabe is no surprise as in recent months he had appealed that his blue roof mansion was falling apart, harassment of his wife and delay in the processing of his benefits and the person to address all his problems is Mnangagwa.

The latest move by Mugabe is pregnant with life lessons that have to be prioritized. Firstly for President Mnangagwa, trying to seek Mugabe’s endorsement by offering unnecessary luxuries is doomed to fail. It is an anathema to democracy and allows dictatorship to reign supreme. It only benefits those at the top and unless all conflicting parties are satisfied, which is impossible, it only encourages factions within his party to demand what they believe is due to them. More to the point, Mugabe himself has a reputation of not forgiving his enemies. The gesture extended to the former president can give him enough space and time to regroup with his G40 cabal which will continue to seek to destroy the party from within.

Secondly, for the opposition party (MDC Alliance) the endorsement of Mnangagwa by Mugabe serves as a lesson to remind people that there is no one who leaves ZANU PF permanently. Due to the factions within the party, falling out of favour does not necessarily mean that one will not retrace their roots at some point in their political life. The political landscape is littered with examples of people (ie Joyce Mujuru) who have failed to cleanse themselves from their former party. Going forwad, if there is need for alliances (which I doubt) there is always need to carry out scenario mapping exercises that incorporates the “what ifs” of politics and make sober judgments.

Thirdly and lastly, for the ordinary citizen it will be critical to begin to hold government to account on its expenditure. Where did Mnangagwa get the resources to chart a plane for the former first lady? In the wake up of cholera and typhoid outbreak, would it not be prudent for the President to prioritize health care? Citizens and other various stakeholders within their various spaces would do well holding government to account.

In the final analysis, Mugabe must be hold to account for past atrocities he committed during his tenure. It won’t be today and it may not be next year or even the year after that. But one day, the political and legal conditions for justice for Mugabe and his cronies will be met. It will take a lot of work to make that day happen, but there’s no shortage of effort and energy in Zimbabwe to realize justice for Mugabe’s crimes.

Rawlings Magede writes here in his personal capacity. He tweets at @rawedges and contactable on vamagede@gmail.com

2018: It’s the People vs the Old Guard

Recently, ZANU PF National Political Commissar, Engelbert Rugeje gave an exclusive interview to the Herald where he was buoyant over the mobilization capacity of ZANU PF ahead of the 2018 plebiscite. He spoke at length about a “spider web” campaign strategy, a campaign that he said focused cells in a way that link them together just lie the spider does.

However recent developments within ZANU PF primary election processes have exposed Rugeje as some losing candidates accuse him of rigging elections against them. After the shambolic primary elections, there was a lot of disgruntlement within ZANU PF. Among the disgruntlement were a section of war veterans who accused Rugeje of sidelining them. It even got worse as the politburo ordered a rerun of primary elections in some constituencies.

The war veterans even sought audience with President Mnangagwa in Harare where they expressed the sidelining of war veterans who were aspiring for political office. By agreeing to meet war veterans, Mnangagwa acknowledges that war veterans remain a key player in ZANU PF political jigsaw. Their capacity to mobilize communities through intimidation tactics have given birth to communities that are fearful. Past episodes of political violence continue to remind local communities of how far the ruling establishment can go in retaining power at all costs.

The war veterans have arm-twisted the ruling party on numerous occasions just to get their demands met. In most instances they have threatened to decampaign the party and this has worked as they have managed to manipulate circumstances to extort trinkets. What remains undeniable is the fact that after the military coup of November 2017, ZANU PF is at its weakest. No one within the party has a clue of how they can master and implement Mugabe’s tactics that kept him at the helm for so long. Never in the history of ZANU PF have we witnessed such intimidation and violence during primary elections. What is even revealing about the infighting and disunity within ZANU PF is that the party has no capacity in running and managing internal party fissures. The divisions and conflicts created by primary elections present another opportunity for a protest vote (bhora musango) as witnessed in 2008.But any hope within those disgruntled in ZANU PF that the need to repeat the primary elections would unite warring parties and create a better quality process will turn out to be overly optimistic. Instead, the second run of the primary elections were controversial as the first as fresh evidence has already emerged that those who helped Mnangagwa ascend to power will now be uncontested as is the case in Norton.

Added to this, there appears to be no shift from the Mugabe era as demonstrated by an excessive concentration of authority in individuals which has enable enabled the formation of imperial-like presidencies. It has reinforced power relations that make ZANU PF members mere recipients of the party’s largesse (where available) rather than active members. Surprisingly, it is not only ZANU PF that has presided over sham primary elections.

Age vs Experience

Opposition party, MDC-T is yet to conclude its primary elections. What is unfortunate is that its primary elections have been marred by reports of vote rigging, intimidation and in some cases open violence. There is a war of attrition between the old generation and the young party leaders over the selection of candidates in the primary elections. Given by developments in Mabvuku and Harare West, it seems the young generation has gained an upper hand by dislodging senior party leaders in primary elections. However, the major weakness of such a move is that there appears to be no mechanism in place to blend the “old guard” and the young leaders. The process is also devoid of any measures that ensure that even disgruntled “losing” candidates remain in the party. In my view this presents a recipe for frustration and disaster. While it’s important to thrust young leaders into key constituencies, the process requires precision and tact so as to accommodate everyone. Added to this, there is some value that Legislators who have served in Parliament for some years can still bring. Since it’s not yet uhuru for opposition parties, there is no need to create confusions that birth protest vote or force some legislators to become independent candidates. ZANU PF enjoys more than two thirds majority in Parliament and if MDC-T fails to do internal laundry on its candidate selection criteria, then they risk even losing its traditional seats especially urban constituencies (Harare West, Mabvuku etc.).

There is no doubt that citizens are frustrated by the current administration. The new dispensation has failed to live up to its billing as we have continued to see protection of corrupt politicians, a culture of impunity and the lack of political will to tackle critical issues. In rural areas, the ZANU PF machinery remains oiled as Traditional leaders and ZANU PF structures have intensified voter intimidation. Added to this, independent Commissions such as the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission that are supposed to cut the umbilical cord from ZANU PF and demonstrate genuine independence have remained heavily compromised. Repugnant pieces of legislation such as the Public Order and Security Act (POSA) have remained in place even though they contradict some provisions of the constitution.

For the ordinary citizen, it’s a tough choice to make. The confusion that currently characterize opposition politics has generated contentious public debates that have become swan songs with some people highlighting that the lack of political tolerance will become the nemesis for opposition. On the other hand, you have a clueless regime that has mastered sloganeering as a panacea for the ailing economy. In the final analysis, it is important to highlight that the people in their diverseness will have the final say come election time.

Rawlings Magede is a Pan Africanist who writes in his personal capacity. He tweets @rawedges and contactable on vamagede@gmail.com

To be or not to be: Mugabe’s latest headache

“I had once asked him directly, “What is the supreme organ in Zimbabwe? He had answered:” The supreme body in Zimbabwe is the central committee of ZANU PF”. I told him that could not be so: that the supreme organ of the country could only be its elected parliament”. This is the conversation between Joshua Nkomo and Robert Mugabe contained in Joshua Nkomo’s book “The Story of my Life”. The conversation between the two was before the Gukurahundi massacres.

It’s clear from the conversation that Robert Mugabe did not start acting outside the law later in his reign. What is even coincidental, is that the same Central committee that he branded as the Supreme organ is the one that recalled him from government in November 2017. After a careful reading of the book, the reader gets a deeper understanding of the person of Mugabe, his flaws and strength. The personal experience of Father Zimbabwe as he narrates suffering at the hands of Mugabe goes on to show how Mugabe would not allow anything stand in his way in consolidating his position and firm grip on power. Good book, good read. Rest in Peace Father Zimbabwe.

Why can’t Mugabe get it?

Former deposed President Robert Mugabe, has been making the headlines lately. For the first time after his ceremonious removal from power, the former president had chosen to remain silent for reasons best known to himself. In recent weeks however, Mugabe has treated those who care to listen with revealing dossiers of how unhappy and troubled he is after the military coup. During a recent interview, he lamented the unfair treatment by the current administration that range from ill-treatment of his wife, delay in pension pecks etc. The personal tragedy that befell Mugabe in November 2017 does not deserve sympathy but must constantly serve to remind him of the broader entrenched trend of repression, brazen disregard for democratic rights that his administration had normalized for the past 37 years.

His plea to regional groupings such as the African Union, SADC has fallen on deaf ears as it seems that no African leaders shares some sympathy for him. Today, the once seemingly invincible dictator who at one point described himself as the Hitler of the times, is detested and lampooned by the common man. His unconstitutional removal from power was well celebrated even by opposition parties. For many years, Mugabe’s legacy of tyranny and violence characterized Zimbabwean politics. Many opposition party supporters were killed in cold blood, maimed and killed by Mugabe as he continued his firm grip on power. The Mugabe that the citizens were accustomed to would abduct political opponents and rig elections. Today Mugabe cuts a lone figure in the wilderness and laments about people killed during the coup and the need to return the country to what he terms a “constitutional democracy”. These are the same things that he never upheld during his long tenure. The old dictator must now find a hole and hide out of shame and stop lecturing the country about democracy.

Enter NPF

Last week, a picture of Robert Mugabe, Jealousy Mawarire and Ambrose Mutinhiri went viral on social media and further confirmed media reports that Mugabe indeed was in support of the formation of a new political party, National Patriotic Front (NPF). While for now the structure of NPF is not yet known, the party only has a spokesperson (Mawarire) and former Minister of State for Mashonaland East Province, Ambrose Mutinhiri as its president. What remains unclear is why Mugabe chose not to be its president given that last year he had been endorsed by all the country’s 10 provinces as ZANU PF presidential candidate. Mugabe appears too careful to announce his decision to join or front a new political party. In a newspaper article recently, Mugabe revealed that Mnangagwa had promised to discuss with him an array of issues once he came back from a state visit to the DRC.Mugabe also knows that for all benefits that are due to him to be swift, he needs the cooperation of Mnangagwa so I don’t see him joining any opposition party.

The impact of the Official Secret act

Added to an array of problems for Mugabe is the archaic colonial-era Act; the Official Secrets Act [Chapter 11:09]. This Act was promulgated on 27 February 1970 by the minority colonial regime for among other purposes, “prohibit(ing) the disclosure for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of Zimbabwe (then Rhodesia) of information which might be useful to an enemy; to make provision for the purpose of preventing persons from obtaining or disclosing official secrets in Zimbabwe; to prevent unauthorized persons from making sketches, plans or models of and to prevent trespass upon defence works, fortifications, military reserves and other prohibited places.” The penalty for disclosure of state secrets under Section 4 of Zimbabwe's secrecy law is imprisonment for up to (20) years, a fine, or both.

Over the years, ZANU PF was hit by massive desertions as party cadres fell out of favour with Mugabe and subsequently fired. Many names such as Edgar Tekere, Margaret Dongo, Didymus Mutasa, Joyce Mujuru and more recently members of the G40 cabal. None of the above members at any point dared to expose the intricate details of how ZANU PF ran its affairs that kept it in power for so long. The only one who came close more recently was Didymus Mutasa who revealed that after the 2008 elections, he was on his was to his rural home to make room for an MDC-T government. While Joyce Mujuru has remained actively involved in opposition politics,she has failed to win citizens heart because of her failure cut the umbilical cord from ZANU PF and to provide firsthand information on how the 2008 elections were rigged given that she was the country’s Vice President.

All this owes to the fact that all these former cadres are away of the consequences of the Official Secrets Act in the event of it violation. As tyrant who had ruled for 37 years, Mugabe finds himself bound by the dictates of the Official Secrets Act. It is quite revealing that Mugabe was too general on revealing the statistics of people killed during the coup but only mentioned it in passing. This is because he is aware of the implications of this act and even more damaging is the fact that he presided over the killing of his political opponents since independence so making damaging revelations might implicate him in some of the atrocities committed by his government.

In the final analysis, Mugabe remains beholden to the whims and directives of the current administration. For now, he will desperately choose to hold to the little dignity he thinks he still has and try to use it as a trump card to convince Mnangagwa that he needs his blessing before the elections. For Mugabe. It’s a tough choice, if he chooses to become part of opposition, he risks serious persecution. The days ahead will be interesting

The writer, Rawlings Magede is a Pan Africanist and writes in his personal capacity. He tweets @rawedges and contactable on vamagede@gmail.com

President Mnangagwa’s visit to DRC deplorable

This past week, President Emmerson Mnangagwa visited his “brother”, Joseph Kabila, the current illegitimate President of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The visit by Mnangagwa was part of his regional adventure to brief his Democratic Republic of Congo counterpart Joseph Kabila on the transition that led to the end of former president Robert Mugabe's rule last year. According to the state-owned Herald newspaper, Mnangagwa held a closed-door meeting in Kinshasa with Kabila.

Mnangagwa visit to the DRC comes after weeks of engagement with other regional countries such as Angola, South Africa, Mozambique, Namibia and Zambia. In understanding the intended purpose of Mnangagwa “closed door” meeting with Kabila, it will also be good to look at the deep-seated problems currently devilling the DRC. According to the country’s constitution, Kabila’s mandated term ended back in December 2016. However, his administration simply failed to organize elections and has embarked on various attempts to keep the president in power. His refusal to respect the constitution prompted widespread non-violent urban protests, which were met with harsh repression and deadly force. To date the DRC, remains engulfed in a crisis owing to the failure by Kabila to respect the constitution.

AU, SADC silence on the DRC shocking

Botswana became the first country to explicitly call Kabila, to step down. As most African leaders maintained a stony silence in response to Congolese leader Joseph Kabila’s determination to postpone elections and extend his stay in office, Botswana President Ian Khama’s government shot straight from the hip.

“Some political leaders refuse to relinquish power when their term of office expires,” he said on Twitter. “It is clear that such leaders are driven by self-interest, instead of those of the people they govern. The Democratic Republic of Congo is a case in point”. In my view, President Khama must at least be commended for being vocal on countries that disrespect the constitution. During the Mugabe era, Khama crossed swords with fellow African leaders many times after they remained mum on the lack of democratic culture in Zimbabwe. And today, Khama has once again voiced his frustration over the blatant disregard of the constitution by Kabila.

For 17 years, DRC has lurched from one crisis to another. In all this, Kabila has been assisted by an array of actors – including donors, multinationals and international institutions – who have tolerated and enabled his abuses. These actors have unfortunately prioritized stability over democracy which unfortunately the Congolese people do not have at the moment.

Following the violent and heavy repression on protesters who expressed disapproval of Kabila’s continued grip on power, the reaction from much of the international community contrasted sharply with opinion in Congo. There was a deafening silence from some international quarters, while others urged all parties to refrain from violence. Such calls however neglect the deep seated problems of the lack of constitutionalism in the DRC that continue to dog the DRC till this day. To date, Kabila has reneged on two deals to get him to leave office and the silence from regional bodies such as the African Union (AU) and Southern African Development Community (SADC) has been sickening to say the least.

Why ED visited DRC

Both Kabila and Mnangagwa have some similarities. They all face the heavy burden of legitimacy. They all came to power via the use of the military and they continue to serve as “illegitimate” leaders at the mercy of the military. While Mnangagwa’s visit was meant to drum up regional support and issues of legitimacy on his Presidency, they are both aware of the onerous task that lies ahead. On one hand, Kabila is reluctant to call for elections and step down. If he goes this route, that will signal the end of his 17-year tenure as President of the DRC.On one hand, Mnangagwa presidency has somewhat been quite controversial. His desire to rebrand ZANU PF has seen the 75-year-old president creating false hope and expectation. His 100 days in office has not yielded any tangible reforms. Added to this, in his 100 days in office, he has managed to “charm” the international community by promising to undertake serious reforms around elections and the economy. Any reasonable observer will conclude that Zimbabwe needs an all hands on deck approach to build a truly prosperous political and economic environment, one predicated on a foundation of justice and accountability. It is difficult to deny the negative impact that the military coup in Zimbabwe has had on the country’s social and political stability. ED has a lot of work ahead of him including the holding of a genuinely free and fair election this year, and if not much of the country will remain shackled, unable to break the hammerlock of an increasingly retrograde regime. Both “illegitimate” presidents know that indeed 2018 is judgement day for them and this even explains why they even conducted closed door meetings possibly to strategize.

Soon after the closed door meeting with Kabila, ED remarked, "I feel home away from home. President Kabila is a brother to me, I am his elder brother, he is younger, but of course he is my elder colleague. “He has been president for some time, but we are actually family and I am very happy to be here in the DRC and I was briefing my brother about this transition that has taken place in Zimbabwe and committing the new administration to consolidate our already excellent relationship."

What is saddening is the fact that our own media back home has failed to unpack the improperness of ED’S visit to the DRC.Whether it was done in the spirit of briefing Kabila about “transition” in Zimbabwe, visiting an individual who has failed to respect his own people’s constitution is deplorable and more or less exposes ED as an individual who embraces the blatant violation of constitutions. If anything, if ED is serious about issues of constitutionalism and democracy he must join hands with the lonely voice of Khama in calling for the stepping down of Kabila.

In the final analysis, Kabila is not the President of the DRC, regional bodies and the International community must appreciate this. The crisis in the DRC is desperate and neglected by regional groupings such as SADC and the AU. With several African set to hold election this year, will SADC and AU ensure that elections in African are peaceful, free and fair given that they have failed to act decisively on the current crisis in the DRC? I don’t think so!

Rawlings Magede is a Pan Africanist and writes here in his personal capacity. He tweets @rawedges and contactable on vamagede@gmail.com

.

Devolution is constitutional, not tribal

Cameroon today is engulfed in a crisis owing to the unresolved issues of devolution between Francophone and Anglophone states. The root of this problem may be traced back when political elites of two territories with different colonial legacies-one French and the other British-agreed on the transformation of a federal state.Unfortunately,such arrangement failed to provide for equal partnership of both parties and failed to appreciate the cultural heritage and identity of each but turned out to be a transitory phase to the total integration of the Anglophone region into a strongly centralized, unitary state.Eventually,this created an Anglophone consciousness: the feeling of being marginalized, exploited and assimilated by the francophone dominated state, and even by the whole francophone population as a whole. The ongoing protests in Cameroon over this have been met with violence and arbitrary arrests by the government but unfortunately this has failed to address the issues raised by protestors (need to devolve). Save a thought for Cameroon.

Wither devolution?

Section 264 of the new Constitution of Zimbabwe provides for the devolution of governmental powers and responsibilities. It is the same clause from the Constitution which has courted controversy over the need to speed up the implementation of devolution in the country. One of the objectives of devolution as enunciated in Section 264 is to give powers of local governance to the people and enhance their participation in the exercise of the powers of the State and in making decisions affecting them. There is a general feeling among the people domiciled in Harare that they are marginalized and neglected even when it comes to framing of their own provincial or institutional budgets. The example of Cameroon saves as an example of the degree of damage and fissures created by the lack of devolution. The serious one being marginalization.

One unavoidable debate within Matabeleland is the issue of marginalization and unfortunately the government of the day has chosen to ignore or address fissures created by marginalization. Most of the issues raised by people there at least in my view are valid. For example, having grown up in Bulawayo myself for the better part of my childhood, I remember how the issue of the Zambezi-Bulawayo project was very topical during primary education day. Today, water remains a problem because the project is still to be completed. So I think at times when engaging in such debates, there is need for a soberer approach.

Unfortunately, the debate on this key and yet pertinent issue has been met with widespread criticism by people who have argued that devolution will divide the country. In my view, the fact that its provided for in the constitution means that there is some form of consensus among the populace that devolution must be implemented. Arguing that the government must devolve is actually a positive step that can helps address issues of marginalization, underdevelopment and poverty. It is also positive to note that government has always seen the need to devolve right from independence. After independence the government was somewhat committed to the need to decentralize. The Prime Minister’s Directive of 1984 underscored the need for decentralization by ensuring that the country has dual structures socially, economically and politically, relicts of the colonial past. It then became necessary to restructure local government through: Creation of new Ministries and deconcentrating of other e.g. The Ministry of Local Government and Rural and Urban Development (MLGRUD), Legislative changes and directives to democratize and strengthen local government and Participatory organizational structures to permit local participation in development planning. The Prime Minister stated how villages through the Village Development Committees (VIDCOs) and headed by the village head are supposed to define local needs, wards through the Ward Development Committees (WADCOs) headed by a district Councillor and covering six villages. Given developments that unfolded over the years, particularly related to the Traditional leadership institution by ZANU PF, decentralization was shelved in pursuit of narrow political goals. The Traditional leaders who are supposed to play key developmental roles are now active members of political parties or in some way furthering the interest of certain political parties in direct violation of section 281 of the constitution.

Besides this, government introduced the growth point strategy soon after independence in 1980 with the aim of transforming rural services and business centers into vibrant economic hubs for rural development. The growth pole strategy aimed to decongest urban centers by elevating some business centers to growth point status in order to curb rural and urban migration with work opportunities and the provision of basic essential services available at growth points. While government can be lauded for such an initiative, over the past years we have not seen growth points becoming economic hubs or facilitating adequate services. This owes to the neglect by government to provide adequate budget allocations.
Of course it must be noted that while growth points have enjoyed relative success by creating employment, infrastructure development, better health facilities, they have not done enough to complement government’s efforts to decentralize. To date, people who live close to growth point still have to bear high costs to access social services such as better health facilities etc. Most of these growth points resemble ghost towns where basic offices such as the Registrar General’s office operate under capacity owing to budget constraints. Such challenges have hampered any prospects for devolution.

Controversies around Devolution

The most peddled debate on devolution has been the serious issue of marginalization. The question is how can government then ensure the active participation and contribution by all citizens at every level in society? This can be addressed by decentralizing its activities and ensuring that people are not relegated to just being mere observers only but participants.Zimbabwe is littered with examples were citizens or locals in a specific community have been sidelined either in developmental projects or initiatives. Projects like road and dam construction have been tendered to private players since the successful completion of projects, for example, the construction of Tokwe Mukosi Dam in Masvingo Province. Some of the decentralization efforts by government are half -hearted and piecemeal, for example in Zimbabwe forest management remains a preserve of the RDCs and the Forest Company whilst local communities are restricted to the use of non-timber products for revenue generation.
In some seemingly devolved institutions such as VIDCOs and WADCOs meaningful participation has remained theoretical since the institutions only serve to shape policy of the top-down approach emphasized by the government in power. To even exacerbate the situation, most VIDCOs and WADCOs are only existing in theory and the few that remain operational are now captured by political elites.

Way forward

Government must comply with the constitution and devolve. However, this must be done in a sector-specific pattern and this will involve detailed investigations into how each sector should be organized and identify appropriate fiscal and institutional frameworks necessary. Decentralization without thoroughly understanding the local, social, economic, physical and institutional conditions often generate opposition among local groups – distant administrators (in Harare) cannot know the complex variety of factors that affect the success of project in local communities throughout the country.
Added to this, government must swiftly move in to resolve conflicts between institutions, such as WADCOs and VIDCOs and traditional institutions which have dealt rural development a severe blow. The two have conflicting mandates and jurisdictions resulting in power wrangles at the expense of developmental targets. Central government must also be downwardly accountable to local level authorities and it has the responsibility of clarifying laws, mediating major disputes and providing guidelines and means to assure the inclusion of marginal groups.
In the final analysis, devolution is inescapable from whichever lenses you view it from. The voices of those who voted for it during the constitution making process must be respected. Choosing to do otherwise will be a gross violation and a disregard of the people’s voice.
Rawlings Magede writes here in his personal capacity, his views are his own. He tweets @rawedges and contactable on vamagede@gmail.com

Corruption and the politics of patronage in Zimbabwe

While we were coming to terms with the reality of a military takeover in Zimbabwe on 15 November 2017, the new President of Angola, President João Lourenço was deviating from his predecessors’ stance on corruption and cronyism. He first fired the entire board of Angola’s state oil company Sonangol, including its chair Isabel dos Santos, daughter of former President Dos Santos.

The adage of not biting the hand that feeds you rings true in Africa. The one who appoints might never disappoint as long as one plays cleverly to the whims and directives of the appointing authority. When Lourenco was appointed as successor by the former President, critics of the Dos Santos administration predicted that the new elect was going to continue where Dos Santos left and protect his interests. But alas, the new President has deviated from the set norm and has gone on to try and cleanse and usher in a new dispensation. Of interest the firing of 60 government officials and heads of the state diamond firms (Endiama and Sodiam) highlight how the new President is willing to get rid of cronyism that had crippled the country. His swiftness in dealing with the Sonangol rot also shows his ambition for the nation given that oil accounts for 45% of the country’s GDP, 75% of government revenues, and 98% of foreign exchange income. Enough about Angola.

Although President Mnangagwa meteoritic rise to the highest office in the land was unconstitutional (at least in my view) his stance on corruption has been welcomed by citizens. It is true that corruption had crippled prospects for economic revival and the countless roadblocks mounted by the police demonstrated how corruption has become institutionalized even by authorities who are supposed to enforce the law. President Mnangagwa approach to corruption has somewhat been different from Lourenço’s in the sense that there appears to be a selection application of arrest by the corruption body, Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission (ZACC).

In November 2017, the President Mnangagwa called on people who illegally externalized money to return the money within three months. He also highlighted that there will be a three-month period in which people can return the funds without any fear of prosecution. However, after the three-month period elapses, the authorities will start making arrests. This in my view was progressive. In the subsequent months’ senior politicians such as Ignatius Chombo, Kudzai Chipanga among other high profile officials were arraigned before the courts facing numerous counts of corruption. At the time of writing this piece, former Foreign Affairs Minister Walter Mzembi and erstwhile Energy and Power Development Minister Samuel Undenge are the latest high profile politicians to be arrested by the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission (ZACC) on charges of abuse of office. Though the fight against corruption is laudable, but when it appears to target only politicians linked to the G40 cabal while seemingly protecting others, then it becomes worrisome.

In my last installment I noted that the President’s cabinet was uninspiring as it appeared to be a rewarding exercise for his loyalists and cronies who had facilitated his ascendancy to the throne. A lot of Ministers in the mold of Obert Mpofu and Supa Mandiwanzira were named is his cabinet. This again generated a lot of debate since some of the ministers have been implicated in cases of corruption.

Will the President Act on his cronies?

The recent scandal involving Supa Mandiwanzira, the Minister of Information Communication Technology and Cyber Security who stands accused of criminal abuse of office or corruption is a litmus test for the President. Mandiwanzira allegations were leveled against him by former Netone CEO, Reward Kangai who allege that Mandiwanzira engaged a South African firm for consultation services without going to tender as is standard procedure. Kangai as Netone CEO at the time was then shocked to receive an invoice for $4m which he claims that neither he as CEO or the other board members knew about. It is this scandal that pushed Kangai out of Netone after he refused to honour the invoice claiming it was illegal for him to do so. He further claims that he alerted Netone chairman and the chairman told him that the parastatal had to protect the minister. The most glaring derive from the graft within parastatals especially the overarching roles that government Ministers have in the running of parastatals is not only endemic but has done much more to undermine growth and discourage investment. The Mandiwanzira case will prove the President’s sincerity on corruption as it involves one of his own.

Wither the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission?

Every time I have come across the work of this commission, its either it will be accused for investigating government officials in order to settle ZANU PF factional wars or high sounding nothing threats through its Chairperson, one Goodson Nguni. What is even worrisome is the fact that Nguni himself has in the past been accused of corruption. There are several politicians who are under investigation by the commission. For example, the findings of the ZIMDEF scandal were never publicized. What is even more worrying being that ZACC has coincidentally instigated a series of arrests against politicians who in the past opposed Mnangagwa ascendancy to the Presidency.

The reports that Minister Mandiwanzira is under investigation by the ZACC must not excite any progressive citizen rather it must expose the lack of independence and inability of the Commission to deal with cases of corruption decisively due to continued interference by politicians. The Mandiwanzira scandal represents a test for the new President due to the fact that the evidence of Mandiwanzira illicit involvement is there for all to see.

In the final analysis, corruption and not sanctions have caused serious hemorrhage for our economy. The no-tolerance call to corruption by the President must be lauded. Beyond the call, the President must put words into action and prosecute even his cronies who have/will be implicated in corruption and graft. The days ahead will have more eyes.

Rawlings Magede writes in his personal capacity.he tweets @rawedges and contactable on vamagede@gmail.com