Topic: 2008 - Change or Continuity?

Venue: Quality International Hotel

Date: Thursday, 31 January 2008
Time: 17:30 to 20:00 Hours
Speakers: Mr. Simon Badza - Political Scientist (University of Zimbabwe),
Honorable Dr. Lovemore Madhuku - Chairman, NCA.
Chairperson: Charles Mangongera

Simon Badza
May I begin by observing all protocols in relation to each and every one of you E-eh in
discussing the topic under study I always prefer to start by stressing that mine is simply a
number of attempts to describe, explain perhaps try and predict Zimbabwes past through
describing Zimbabwes past international relations to the present and try to explain them
as well as predict how they are likely to evolve in the future. My thesis is that
Zimbabweans international relations in the last ten years since 1997 to December 31st
2007 have been determined, shaped as well as influenced by the prevailing conditions in
both the domestic and international environments which the Zimbabwean state perceives
as very hostile and unfavorable for its own survival. As such state security concerns
which I would rather call regime security and I think here many people contests this idea
of national security because I think its party because there is no clear separation between
the state and the party and neither the state and the president. Theres a very thin
separation between those institutions and therefore many people contests the notion of
national security, state security, state security or regime security.

So arguing that state security has been and shall remain in the foreseeable future the most
important objective of the countrys international relations priority number one.
Therefore environmental determinism has been, is and shall be the key to Zimbabwes
international relations. What do I mean by that, what I mean by that is its like a
chameleon getting into a bush, if the dominant colour of the vegetation is green it also
turns green inorder to survive. If its brown it changes accordingly to the circumstances,
the key is survival and sovereign, independent and secure and integrated state. Ill just
brief you on into the characteristics of the main features of the current international
systems which I argue has remained anarchic. In other words theres no chaos unfolding
under the previous international systems particularly the Cold War. It was at least
predictable we all know what the world was characterized by. So Im saying Zimbabwe
still finds itself in a post-Cold War and post -9/11 international environment that is also
still dominated by the much disliked USA unipolar position. Its a fact that after the end
of the Cold War the US apparently became the permanent super-power. Its a fact but that
was necessarily susceptible because there are many emerging centres of power that are
threatening to contest that.

In such an unfavourable international system, the policies of the USA and its allies have
occasssionally tended to be unilateral and in open disregard of the United Nations (UN)
Charter and International Law. Operation Iraq Freedom that most of us as youre aware
of which I feel rather than bringing freedom to Iraq because it was dubbed operation Iraq
Freedom, I think to me it was a question of the Iraq people jumping from the frying pan
to Saddam Hussein in the fire of the US led coalition of will. So it did not bring freedom.
In such an international environment, where Zimbabwe finds itself, the UN
Organizations, international Law or even regional organizations can appear not to be no
longer able to guarantee the survival of small states particularly those that find
themselves in adversarial relations with the remaining super-powers- the USA, and
Zimbabwe happens to be one such country that has been in an adversarial kind of
relationship with super-powers. And obviously in these circumstances, the principle of
national interest and self help become the cornerstones of state survival.

Environmental determinism has in the past guided Zimbabwes international relations

and will continue to do so including even in the domestic sphere where you find the state
facing unprecedented levels of pressure not only from opposition political parties but also
from Civil Society organizations that at times tend to take the state will perceive as a
confrontational approach in addressing different issues itself. So inspite of such a
pessimistic view of the current international systems, small states have no choice but to
continue their commitment and support to international and regional organizations as
well as international law. So states like Zimbabwe have no choice but to continue
working through regional organizations and sub-regional organizations as well as
international organizations to which they are members before multilateralism best
guarantee their survival in the circumstances. So Ill look at Zimbabwe relations and the
UnitedNations.The first thing that we need to remind each other of is that the United
Nations is generally believed to be the creation of the US. Some people call it an
American project, and it has never been Americas objective to have a United Nation that
would tie its hands

So the US again is the major contributor of the UN budget (about 75%), its a fact and
therefore whenever necessary it often uses the organization in pursuing its self-interests.
The USA only abides by and respects provisions of the UN Charter to the extent that they
do not interfere with its national interests and approaches of pursuing and safeguarding
them. As in the past, the UN has neither been able to nor, is it likely to be able to restrain
the USAs freedom to pursue its defined goals especially those of regime change. Some
people call it democracy by force, war on global terrorism which some people in the
middle East prefer to call War of terrorism because of the methods that the US
government has used particularly if you look at what is happening in Iraq where even
non-combatants civilians or non-legitimate targets have been victimized and in
Afghanistan its the same thing. Some people would call it non war on terrorism but war
of terrorism because the US is using terror in fighting.

The perception of the UN about the Zimbabwe leadership may have been badly, infact
has been badly tarnished by lasting years trend in violence in the country especially on
the March 11 received wide coverage, both domestic and international. On that day the
leadership of the main opposition political party MDC and some Civil Society activists
appeared to have been portrayed as the main and intended or legitimate targets of the
security forces crackdown. It was no wonder therefore that even the UN Secretary
General Ban Ki Moon, expressed his displeasure when he made a statement impliedly
condemning the government the government of Zimbabwe for alleged Human Rights
violations. But this is exactly what the USA and its Western allies wanted. It is my view
that the US and its allies were waiting for, for such a pretext so as to put Zimbabwe on
the agenda of the UN Security Council, merely as a formality to create the necessary
pretext for the so-called Humanitarian intervention to protect innocent people under the
so-called Responsibility to protect whose usual end is regime change.

Let me say something about this concept of regime change. Regime change has taken the
overturn that it has done especially in Zimbabwe specifically because of what Ive
mentioned earlier on that Zimbabwe is a pariah state. Theres no clear separation between
ZANU PF and the government, between the state and the ZANU PF just like between the
state and the leadership, it seems its just one opium. This is exactly why when people
talk of regime change, they dont necessarily mean change of government seal of politics
but because of the distortion prevailing in our context then people automatically take it to
apply change of leadership.

So Zimbabweans in 2008 therefore have to make frantic efforts at improving its image,
perhaps through avoiding similar incidences. The month of March like I said has now
become synonymous with Shakespears The Aides of March in Julius Caesar. But even
within the UN, while the third world which constitutes the majority of UN membership,
will still be relied upon for its support on Zimbabwe government, the same still has no
much influence over US decisions especially in worst case scenarios .At best the most
and the third world voice in the UN will only condemn USA unilateral tendencies but not
stop them. Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, testify this. In my own opinion but despite
this sad reality, Zimbabwe will and naturally should be expected to continue working
with the third world especially through the NAM forum.

Zimbabwe and the AU, now my view is that although these countries should be taken
into different contexts, you would find that most African governments regardless of their
revolutionary history credentials are now generally perceived as rigidly conservative. The
AU in my view just like its predecessor the OAU still operates under the same
customary/traditional principles or values.Intra-African solidarity and international
relations have always been traditionally premised on Pan African solidarity and the Do
unto others as you would want them to do unto you principle, that if you allow or help
strangers to divide and rule us then you should always know that you are the next target.
As such United we stand and Divided we fall, has been and will continue to be the rule
in 2008 and even beyond. This will especially be imposed upon the so-called New/young
generation of African leaders (Joseph Kabilas and General Khamas if he joins them. So
predictably for as long as Zimbabwe remains fully committed to actively support the AU,
there is likely to be continued unlimited guarantees of political support, the rest of
African countries. Turning to what happened in the events leading to the 8th of December
regional summit. You saw the controversy surrounding the attendance by the
Zimbabwean head of state. The EU was deeply divided some African countries arguing
that the Zimbabwean issue should not be the central/topical issue on the agenda. The
African countries openly arguing that Africa is united, theyll speak as one, speaking as
typical Africans guided by the values that I have indicated earlier on.

But the Zimbabwean state should also not be under-estimating the political and economic
power of its adversaries to exploit the economic and political weaknesses prevailing in
most African countries, to deprive of this kind of critical support that it still needs. In my
own view the USA has all the terms especially, in terms of material support to actually
buy them out so as to sell out. So Zimbabweans should not immediately expect its
African third world allies will continue until finito to support it because national interests
will always determine each countrys international relations. So Zimbabwe will be
proceeding cautiously in the awareness of the centrality of self interests in interstate
cooperation.

Zimbabwe and SADC. In relative terms the SADC region as a collectivity is now the
most stable in Africa and may now be tentatively regarded as a regional security
complex, that it is a region that is now so closely integrated that it is a region that it
would be unrealistic and improper to consider the security of any one country
exclusively. Impliedly it is now more of a security community in which cases threats to
the national security of any SADC member state will also be threats to the security of any
SADC member state will also be threats to the security of the entire region and therefore
common security. With the mutual Defence Pact, the protocol on security, politics and
diplomacy, SADC support to the Zimbabwean state will be absolutely guaranteed.
Remember SADCs handling of the Aides of March whose result is the Mbeki led
talks. Clearly the same principles guiding AU also guide intra-state relations. Thus SADC
will stress its indivisibility and speaking with one voice as well as acting as a bloc. SADC
threatened not to attend the EU Summit if Zimbabwes leadership was excluded or
anyone else other than the president himself was to be admitted. SADC had threatened to
boycott so they now speak with one voice.

But however in supporting the Zimbabwean State, SADC as a bloc will informally and
quietly pushing for some minimum positive reforms in the form of change without
regime change. No SADC country would want to see, let alone facilitate opposition
takeover in Zimbabwe as that would increase and encourage the chances of opposition
takeovers throughout the region therefore the SADC unofficial rule remains: Let what
happened in Zambia and Malawi not change any further and remain there, on the North
of the Zambezi in the region will result in the beginning of the end of all
revolutionary/national liberation movements-cum political parties in the sub-region.
Zimbabwe has always been aware of the self-interests, self-help and permanent interests
rules of international relations. It is aware too of the fact that SADC states may not be
very immune from these principles, let alone indefinitely. Thus it is most likely that in
2008 Zimbabwe will take the risk and cautiously embark on the necessary, albeit
dangerous road towards change without regime change. Thats my prediction but again
let me hasten to say that my assessment of the Zimbabwe state at least the leadership is
that it is not comfortable with simply imitating what others do just because it is able to do
so. So politics in Zimbabwe I think they have to look into it. It may not be possible to
have the change without regime change at the time we might be expecting it because it
may also be dangerous to prematurely do so especially in the major speeches of George
W. Bush he has never let the Zimbabwe issue out. If you remember the 62nd session of
the UN General Assembly in Zimbabwe, the Burma, North Korean , Zimbabwean and the
Cuban government were actually merging and naturally I would expect the government
of Zimbabwes type to continue jealously guarding against its own security and
everything else will unseat until and unless those perceiving real concept of UN survival
are removed then it can start considering doing the so-called fashionable trends in other
African countries of change without regime change

Okay Ive spoken of SADC countries as a bloc, allow me to speak of SADC countries as
individuals. As I see that theyll continue to remain Zimbabwes true allies. South Africa-
is apparently the most militarily and economically powerful country in Southern Africa
and perhaps admittedly even in Sub-Saharan Africa and remain so for the foreseeable
future provided Jacob Zuma who has won as the President of the ANC most likely
becomes the successor of the president of that country, maintains the Mandela approach.
Currently paraded as an ideal model of Western liberalism on the continent, it
nevertheless supports the Zimbabwe leadership under the SADC framework. After all,
Zimbabwe is credited for actively contributing in ending Apartheid. However,
considering the influx of economic and political refugees from Zimbabwe and the issues
related to illegal immigrants and crimes, South Africa may also now be increasingly in an
uneasy position of supporting the idea of an early change without regime change
framework.

Botswana-May also be in the same position as South Africa hoping for an early change
without regime change. It appears not to be interested in sacrificing its relations with
western countries especially the USA and Britain. In 2003 there was a course that was
supposed to be funded by the USAID which was supposed to have taken place in the
USA and all delegates were going to be funded provided that no delegates from
Zimbabwe was either going to attend or was going to attend or they would fund
themselves for that no amenity. And SADC excluding Botswana resisted that temptation
and refused to send a delegate unless Zimbabwe was included but two days later
Botswana wrote a letter to the US government to say that unfortunately it was not part of
the decisions by SADC to say that SADC will not attend. So Im trying to clearly indicate
the position Botswana may find itself. It is not very very comfortable with what is
happening in Zimbabwe but it is also not very comfortable facilitating persuasions to the
government of Zimbabwe to consider change without regime change.

The government of Mozambique, it is often said that Mozambique is Zimbabwes oldest

and best friend, I dont know how far true that is, and it is said this friendship dates back
to Zimbabwes liberation struggle when Machel literally sacrificed Mozambique inorder
that Zimbabwe was free. But Zimbabwes economic situation some people would say is a
blessing for Mozambiques young economy. Allow me to use the word young economy
because its coming from a civil war backgrounds Zimbabweans continue to flock to that
country for scarce commodities and even better paying jobs Im told teachers who say
they are paid less than US$100 parallel market rates. Zimbabwean teachers are paid less
than US$100 here, if they go to Mozambique the minimum salary for a degreed person is
an equivalent ofUS$500.And Im also told it has attracted even the oldest profession in
the world. In October I traveled to Mozambique and I found myself in a country full of
ladies from Zimbabwe and of them were not killing birds in terms of remuneration, of
course this will strain relations with gender activists but it is a fact. I asked them where
are going and somebody said where are you coming from. Its no longer profitable to
work under this profession in Zimbabwe, its more profitable to work in Mozambique
and then you convert your Metcaish into US dollars and then you come back and open
your shop and then you start your trips to South Africa. So can see how Mozambique is
benefiting, its economy is booming as a result of economic challenges. I understood
politicians dont like the word crisis, I attended a conference on the economy of
Zimbabwe in which the master of ceremony stressed before the end of the speech that all
those with papers in which they have the line which says, Zimbabwes economy is in a
crisis can you please remove the word crisis and put decline in the place of the word
crisis .And I said but does it remove the situation on the ground., it doesnt anyway
thats politics.

Tanzania-It will continue supporting the Zimbabwean state again relations between the
two countries date back to Zimbabwes liberation struggle and will continue growing in
all facets. Some people say Namibias decision to join the SADC allied forces in the
DRC was because Namibia always wants to find itself on the Zimbabwean side.
Although of course people say indirectly it was fighting literally for the Caprivi Strip
distance.

Okay the DRC in my view cannot forget Zimbabwes contribution to its prevailing
relative peace and stability. It is also still bound by the Mutual Defence Pact it signed in
April 1997 with Zimbabwe, Malawi and the DRC under the DRC allied forces
framework. So you have within the Mutual Defence Pact another Mutual Defence Pact.

Zambia is an old and all-time friend of Zimbabwe, it will continue supporting Zimbabwe.
Malawi will also continue in their individual capacities as well as other SADC member
states.

Zimbabwe and the Commonwealth. I dont want to repeat explaining the relations that
led to the straining of relations between Zimbabwe and the commonwealth and obviously
they revolve around perceptions of good governance, Human Rights and political issue.
So Zimbabwe will remain outside the commonwealth for as long as that body
consistently remains dominated by the white commonwealth. I dont know if Im making
sense, some people say the only consistency of the Commonwealth has been its
inconsistency. The reason is why is it at times the Human Rights that are being violated
in Zimbabwe and they dont matter much when they are being violated in another country
like Uganda. Pakistan, Kenya recently for their strategic roles for the western world
Pakistan and Kenya are still members of the commonwealth. I havent heard the
commonwealths position on he Kenyan issues and its election but Im sure if that was
happening in Zimbabwe and if Zimbabwe was still a member of the commonwealth
come March 29, that if that happens Zimbabwe would be kicked out of the
commonwealth immediately. But in Kenya as you have seen the commonwealth have
taken a softer stance just as the US has also took a softer stance when Benhazir Bhutto
was put initially under house arrest for about two weeks on attempted assassination and
finally the materialized assassination. I remember the US Defence Secretary saying
theyre stuck over the Pakistan issue. So youll find than within the commonwealth there
are certain countries that will always not be touched however they behave specifically
because they continue to play strategical roles within the framework of western countries.
And as long as the commonwealth will continue to be dominated by the white
commonwealth under the influence from the US Zimbabwe will remain outside the
commonwealth thats the issue. 2008 will not be different from the 2007 year.

The European Union (EU) the current relations with the EU are likely to continue
although some EU countries that include Portugal and Italy appear to differ with the
British over the issue of Zimbabwe. The recent EU-Africa Summit held in December
2007 is a clear testimony .Thus as a body, the EU may maintain its sanctions against the
government of Zimbabwe but at individual level, bilateral relations will be maintained.

Zimbabwes relations with the US, Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. I agree
that the relations with this bloc are certainly going to continue to be sour/bad if not even
worsening, given that these countries still maintain their policies over Zimbabwe and
even the recent trend of sanctions over various types that are now even targeting the
children and relatives of Zimbabwes elite. For one thing all these western countries share
a lot in common (values, norms, practices, perceptions and at times approaches to
problems they consider as a danger to their world .The USA ambassador to Zimbabwe to
Zimbabwe recently (19 January 2008) is quoted to have said that We are only ready to
re-establish full diplomatic contact with the Zimbabwe government provided that our
conditions for good governance, a return to the Rule Of Law and the respect of the
citizens right to freedom of expression are respected. This trend will last for as long as
the current government or administrations and the most dominant personalities on both
sides still prevail.

However it should be noted that the change of leadership does not necessarily and
automatically translate into change of policy positions in international relations. True
Blair changed the British policy on Zimbabwe, just like Sarkozy changed the French
policy towards USA. The Blair Brown and Christopher Dell-James McHill cases are the
most telling cases of continuity rather than change. Thus Zimbabwe may have to guard
against prematurely celebrating the recent exit of John Howard in Australia and of
George W Bush, come November 2008.Remember Churchills rule We in the West
have no permanent friends or enemies but interests.

Zimbabwes relations with the IMF and WB.

Zimbabwes relations with the IMF and WB is a reflection of, and is conditioned by its
relations with the USA its Western allies. It is bad will likely to remain so in 2008 as they
were in 2007 specifically because they will continue to stress our conditions of what
constitutes good governance, Human Rights, Rule of Law and Freedom of expression.
These institutions are dominated by great powers super interests that fund them because
theyre the major contributors to these funds.
Zimbabwes Look East Policy. The Look East Policy in which China and countries such
as Iran appear to have been the most dominant friends of the Zimbabwe State, has
literally been the latters respite, the only photocopy in the circumstances of our
unprecedented pressure from the West. Since it was declared in 2003, The Look East
Policy will continue confrontational policy positions of the regime change regarding
the Zimbabwe state. So increasingly the Chinese will continue to solidifying their stance
on Zimbabwe, they will continue befriending Zimbabwe even if the UN together with
such powers as Russia will continue to support Zimbabwe and threaten to express or
exercise their veto powers on any proposed revolution concerning the Zimbabwe issue.
China and Iraq in particular have assisted Zimbabwes agricultural sector especially
through the supply of mechanization equipment and fertilizers. They have also assisted
Zimbabwe in the transport and telecommunications sectors as well as the mining, defence
and security sectors.

Internal Leadership and its perceptions about the International Environment.-In a

unipolar international environment that has increasingly because so unpredictable,
naturally, the internal leadership appears to be under both real and credible threat from
the unprecedented pressure from the West led by the USA, Britain, White
commonwealth, and admittedly, even some African countries particularly those under the
leadership of the so-called Young/New Generation of African Leaders. As mentioned
earlier on the UN that is dominated by US hegemony and even international Law, can no
longer be guaranteed upon for the state survival. SADC, AU and third world solidarity
and of course the Look East Policy which was both inevitable and necessary in the
circumstances, have all helped in sustaining Zimbabwe in these trying moments. Theyre
likely to continue with the orientation in 2008.But it may not always be possible and easy
to continue receiving this level of political support/solidarity indefinitely. I will be
prudent for the Zimbabwe state to voluntarily strategically transform itself in 2008 for it
to recover its lost status not only in Southern Africa but the continent and indeed the
whole world.

My view is about why the President may prefer or be persuaded to remain in office. First
I always tend to believe that people who consider themselves and are considered by their
fellow citizens as true revolutionaries normally dont retire because to do so will be to let
people down. Yeah thats my interpretation people who have been made to think they are
true revolutionaries normally dont retire because to do so is to let people down. They
would want to remain in office so that they may have ample time to see the revolution in
their own eyes. Retiring may be a sign of physical weakness and even political cowardice
and very few politicians would want to display that type of cowardice. Third retiring
should not be seen as merely fashionable, it should be contextualize. Infact it should be
carefully conceived. It should neither be too early nor too late. It largely depends on
whether or not a credible and dependable successor is not only available and comfortably
willing but also on whether or not he will continue with the revolutionary mission. In my
own opinion retiring prematurely or simply as a result of outside pressure may leave the
party not only down and out, but also in shambles. See what happened to Kanu in Kenya
President Arap Moi decided to appoint Uhuru Kenyatta as his Successor moreso the
members of Kanu Senior guys actually left and joined Kibaki and Yoruba rainbow
coalition so I said the President of this country would not want to see this country
escalate into the Kenyan scenario. There should be continuity and sustainability
assurances of the party after the departure of the founding president. Next the retirement
package including, most critically security assuarances. Precisely have to guard against
the Chiluba-Mwananwasa Syndrome or even those in the so called international
community particularly USA and Britain stubbornly invoking crimes Against Humanity
charges and therefore fears of the Milosevic syndrome, and though not least. It looks like
Zimbabweans especially those who support ZANU PF may prefer a very dignified exit
for the founding President. Not what has been happening in other African countries were
the founding president is humiliated or embarrassed, its un-African I think.

Lastly, the claimed, Im taking risks, the claimed ZANU PF party squabbles, be they real,
imagined or externally instigated, are naturally inevitable and perhaps even necessary in a
political party that claims to be truly democratic and of course in the prevailing
circumstances. Such developments may allow for a smooth, natural selection process that
will likely result in the identification of the most ideal successor to the founder president,
one who will guarantee continuity of the revolutionary path. Change in Zimbabwe,
whether or not with regime change, will certainly have a strong and mostly positive
impact on Zimbabwe, international relations and in turn, it is likely to also impact
positively in its domestic policies.2008 in my own view should not be allowed to be
worse than 2007.But this will only be possible if Zimbabweans will be able to bury their
differences, mutual suspicions and fears and begin in earnest to work together as one
people united in diversity. Thank you very much.

Lovemore Madhuku.
The issues of whether changes or continuity Ill be very brief because some of the
comments have been made and most of you do attend public meetings that we address.
Only about two days ago I was at a public meeting where we were talking about issues
that relate not necessarily on the topic but the country in general. So its quite normal for
MPOI to have such a topic.

Its common to say were starting a new year lets debate whats likely to happen and that
should be encouraged in any society so I welcome the topic. I think there will be change
and in some aspects and continuity in other aspects so it depends on what aspects youre
looking at. Like now the scenario is quite commendable so we cant say there will be
change in 2008 or there wont be change in 2008 unless if we look at which areas I have
to write and then Ill have to focus on that. Thats what Ill be looking at, political issues
of the country. Ill definitely be looking at what is happening at the country at the
moment. Make no mistake therell be changes therell be continuity in a number of areas
etc but lets be clear, what was there which is going to changes or may change? When we
want to talk of change or continuity well have to say okay this is what is there. We might
actually disagree on what is there and once we disagree on what is there we may never
agree on whether there is any change or continuity. And in Zimbabwe there are some
people who would like to run away from facts, so once that happens it becomes more and
more problematic. So I think the organizers must be clear here, they shouldnt assume
that we know what is in Zimbabwe at the moment. This thing of putting your heads in the
sand and pretend that there is a lot of water, no electricity black outs, and pretend
everything, is okay, is usual, its very common these days. But I want to summarize here
in terms of 2007, I want to read the statement I liked here. In 2007 Zimbabwe was
presided over by corrupt and brutal and dictatorship whose only interests was preserving
its hold on power, mapanzwa here ipapo 2007.

Thats where we want to investigate that is there going to be change or continuity on that
point, of course we might need to take a few seconds to say well theres evidence of this
clear brutality. I can tell you word by word I said brutal, corrupt, dictatorship; you can go
into all those things is that right? The brutality is something that is common cause here.
Now only here the MDC was very brutal, they came up with a freedom March last week
isnt it? What the courts said was that its agreed that you can have your rally somewhere
there at rotten row but youre not going to march through town. Then the MDC said to
the judge our people are already gathered at Harvest House and other places so what
should we do, should we air into space, so your worship how do we handle this thing?
Then he said fine allow them to move peacefully into that place so they were told to
proceed with their march but the MPs addressed them and told them that they couldnt do
that. You know that, that March was regarded as a demonstration it was brutally
suppressed. Some were beaten up and admitted in hospitals.

There are some people who would want to run away from that fact, please note there was
that thing in Zimbabwe. Last week some Zimbabweans moving peacefully from Harvest
House to some place/portion of Harare were interrupted, there was tear gas over the
place. But look at the other one, the number of people who were marching or going to
that place was quite a small drop as compared to the so-called million men and women
march. The million men and women march in support of our president reigned havoc;
roads were barricaded since morning etc. I would very much want to hear comments
from people please comment on that, how did you view that kind of situation, is there any
justification for it? Because the argument was that it was not going to be violent, they
knew someone had prophesied there wasnt going to be violence.

But Im just showing you some evidence of brutality, its a recent example there were
some young people on Friday after that week who tried to have a demonstration from
small organizations that had just been formed and they were brutally beaten and 25 of
them were hospitalized. I think most people here might not know that. Corrupt you
know it, Zimbabwes foreign currency reserves are constantly declining. And do you
know why they keep the official rate, can you imagine that a US$ can be equivalent to 30
000 Zimbabwean dollars which at the moment no-one even talks about. But we have a
government that keeps on telling you that, that is the official rate. Can the RBZ get all
this money from people? If youre a government official and you want foreign currency
you simply get your US$30 000 then you go and sell it at the parallel market. It happens
in the country everyday. Have you ever heard of that if youre in government you have to
support party decisions so that you can get that 30 000 Zim dollars.
If Simba Makoni wants foreign currency he gets it all at that rate. You think he can form
a party, he can get money at 30 000 Zimbabwean dollars then he goes and make
consultations elsewhere President Mugabe knows that. Hell say the other day you got
US$50 000 and how much did you pay for it this month. So what other person would you
prefer who can better me? We knew from day one that there was never going to be any
party from that quarter, these guys are surviving on corruption everyday. Everyone in that
official position gets money at that rate everyday. Its called corruption, dont call if
official corruption.

Then where are our diamonds and gold (Zimbabwes)? You go there and you hear from a
South African media saying theres been a drop in Zimbabwean gold production. A drop
in gold production? Theres no such thing, all our gold is going into foreign pockets do
you hear me? That is what is happening everyday. Now theres no corruption that can
exceed this because all these so-called camps in ZANU PF, i.e. the Mujuru and
Mnangagwa camps are there as a result of these diamond mines hence corruption.
Mnangagwa was the one that was tapping gold from the DRC now theyve built
mansions and mansions and they have a lot of money, while the likes of the Mujurus are
the ones who are taking diamonds from Chiyadzwa and so on and so on, it happens
everyday. Dont be afraid to say out all these things do you hear me?

So this regime is corrupt and brutal and everyone is involved there, dont take sides i.e.
the Mujuru camp Mnangagwa camp, because these camps are associated with the levels
of corruption. Some do it in the name of clean corruption. If you think you can get US$1
at 30 000 Zimbabwean dollars .If your mother falls sick and has to get medical attention
then youll have to go into the streets to look for US7m, 8m, 9m to get US$1 yet
somebody sitting there in an office somewhere there can afford it. So that is what is
happening there in the country theres brutality, corruption and dictatorship. I think you
know it, isnt that true? If you look at our economic situation, someone told me that they
no longer use the term economic decline; yet its clear theres economic collapse here in
Zimbabwe. The economic crisis is known as the suffering of all people all over, and that
includes having no access to water as it stands theres no water to drink. The other day I
walked around in town looking for bottled water to drink in the shops but there was
nothing. There was no water and no electricity, the whole town through the CBD yet they
lie to you that this and that has happened that why youre having these water cuts and
power cuts.

You know what there are no jobs here etc and so there are increased flights of Zimbabwe
out of the country, everyone wants to go out. You go to the Embassy you see queues and
queues of Zimbabweans wanting to leave the country and I know that today or the day
before yesterday some were arrested in South Africa, heard Zimbabweans are taking a
hard life chance South African but some of those who were arrested are being assisted by
the Methodist church which is giving them accommodation. Theres huge suffering of
Zimbabweans and social dislocation, we all know these things. Zimbabweans are being
separated, one of the breadwinners will be out there while the other one will be here, so
you see marriages are breaking up, you know these things. People dont attend funerals of
their loved ones anymore because they cannot travel from the UK to Zimbabwe because
they cant come and go back so youll have to watch your fathers funeral on a video
tape. Can there be any sin worse than that if you run a country on that basis?

The country is run by a brutal and corrupt dictatorship, that is what we experienced in
2007.So clearly this is what we want to check whether there has been change but I think
we can summarize that. But however the regime says it has reasons for its brutality it says
its in defence of our sovereignty, if you want to get these reasons from time to time
youll read them from a column in the Herald written by this guy called Nathaniel
Manheru, he is the one who ensures that every Saturday the regime speaks out to people.
To those who are interested you can carefully go through that column i.e. Nathaniel
Manherus. Its biased though but have time to read it; its a clear thing He writes in the
herald and everything he writes is in defence of our sovereignty and the targeted
sanctions against dictatorship and for that reason were all suffering.

They run and control the media, myself I use the herald for gathering intelligence, for
instance if I want to know what is happening, I check all the copies of the herald and
assess what they want to ask me. So sometimes you comment and sometimes you dont.
So I keep that relationship to just gather information just to know what will be transpiring
in the corridors and so on. Today they were saying comment on the performance of the
MDC and I said no ways (laughter). I dont expect to get evidence from these guys but
anyway they are my best friends these guys at the herald. Youll also see that sometimes
they are getting your points right but some of them will not be related to the subject
matter. That one in which they said Mugabe was going to win the elections because I said
so was a lie. But what Im saying about the regime?, is change going to happen?

All the opposition and political parties and Civil Society have been clamoring for change
in 2007.Theyve done a good job in that regard, there are of course two trends in 2007,
one of course was to have him go at all costs and it didnt matter who was going to
become the next president because all the people just wanted him to go. So there is the
Mugabe must go because that is mainly being championed by the MDC then the other
groups, of course they want Mugabe to go but they differ in terms of how that process
must be achieved. They argue that first you must have full genuine democratization
because under a full genuine democratization, Mugabe will go so its a matter of which
one comes first. So those were the trends in 2007 and we want to see whether those will
change in 2008.

Are we clear there on the Mugabe must go campaign? The opposition thinks that at all
costs he must go and be replaced by anyone. All the deals that are being done are all in
efforts to ensure that he goes, and that is what complicated 2007. Now I think my
colleague was talking about 2007 so the battle in political summary in 2007 was issues
related to reforms that must take place whether these reforms will reduce the death rate or
not is something else but as far as we all know there was change thats why the talks
came into being. The SADC negotiations/talks came into being on the basis of the
realization that Zimbabwe requires some form of reform, and that kind of reform process
that Zimbabweans needs had then to respond to either to the Mugabe must go campaign
or the democratization process, those two things.
What happened then was that SADC really wanted a situation where they would not be
substantial change in both politics and talks. What they wanted was a situation where
they would preserve the Mugabe regime at all costs thats my view. Actually I agree with
him to some extent and I think that SADC belongs to what he termed change without
regime change and so I support that position. There must be change in Zimbabwe and
that must be on the terms of President R.G. Mugabe. You must understand that position,
change must take place but that change must be on the terms of president R G Mugabe.
The SADC mediation efforts was all about understanding Mugabe and trying to turn the
negotiation table ndizvoka. So that was the role of Mbeki, the role of Mbeki was to try to
maneuver that etc. Unfortunately the MDC did not understand that position that was the
problems in 2007.They were completely lost. They were from day one meant to ensure
that change must eventually take place in Zimbabwe on the terms of President R. G.
Mugabe.

Now I can tell you that now in Kenya where theres a crisis, when Koffi Anan went there
the first thing that had taken place was that there had been public meetings between
Kibaki and Odinga. Koffi Anans role in the Kenyan crisis was to bring these two parties
to the negotiating table which is now taking place. There are teams from both sides but
those teams have to be officially launched and the official launch was that between the
two parties. Here Mugabe made a point; Ill never meet Tsvangirai that is a term so that
was written into the talks that therell never be a meeting between Mugabe and
Tsvangirai. Then term number two of course youve heard that Mugabe said I dont want
all my points to be heard by any person ndizvoka, so lets discuss in secret, others thought
Mbekis efforts failed. No Mbeki has been mediating in so many places, but has there
been secrecy or quiet diplomacy in the DRC? You know hes a political scientist. When
Mbeki was championed in the DRC process where South Africa was mediating in, it was
an open dialogue in which everyone was included. Mbeki has been to all these places, the
likes of Cote Divore etc so thats why I am saying these things, Im not lecturing to you,
you know these things. Those were open processes so in Zimbabwe why the secrecy?
The quiet diplomacy of South Africa is a Zimbabwean aspect, I would want to find a
political scientist or a follower of events in South Africa who will tell me that quiet
diplomacy is a South African way of doing things, thats a lie do you understand me. It is
only a South African way of doing things vis--vis Zimbabwe, hence quiet diplomacy
and so forth.

The next point i.e. number 3.The isolation of the MDC from the civic partners, can you
get that point, you only talk to the MDC and the ruling party. This attempt was like,
you know flattering, so trying to equate ZANU PF and the MDC is flattering. The MDC
is only equal to the ruling party ZANU PF when it is surrounded by its other allies,
ndizvoka, you have the Civics there, you have the trade unions there, you have the
churches there and the Tsvangirais there. If you combine them then thats when they will
be the same. So if you take that ring, that of Welshman Ncube and others and on their
own then they are not equal to ZANU. And so there was that element about the flattery in
the agreements/talks. So I think that in 2007 it was the talks engineered by SADC but
with one objective of ensuring that you do it on the terms of the President of Zimbabwe,
so thats what are we expecting in 2008?

I think that one was made publicly clear that the purpose of the South African mediation
was to ensure that you get an election in 2008 whose outcome will not be contested. The
South Africans laid out purpose is to ensure that the outcome of elections in Zimbabwe
will not be contested. But we now know that for example there is a serious controversy
surrounding the 2008 election. The first one- the dates of elections, It was said that the
opposition wanted them to be held sometime in June or after June while the ZANU PF
insisted that elections were not going to be postponed and would be held in March as
scheduled as the president had said. ZANU PF also said they will not accept a new
constitution before the elections, they have always said that. I think that at one time we
were told there would be a new constitution that was being negotiated in South Africa
and that was going to be placed before the elections. We now know that is not going to
happen, ZANU PF has come out in the open saying that they will accept a new
constitution after the elections that is what they are saying. I think its been publicized.

When we criticized the opposition in terms of amendment number 18, we were told of
course that this is merely a starting point we will be able to get a new constitution come
the elections, that did not happen so the elections in 2008 will be contested in the sense
that they will not be accepted by all Zimbabweans as free and fair even though they will
have been held. So we will get to the elections in 2008 in March 28/29 as the date has
been set but that election is far from being called a credible election. It will be held in the
same way that the previous elections have been held. So in terms of continuity there will
be continuity in the way elections are run in Zimbabwe. Some of you thought that
Mudede was no-longer a player, in the elections, some of you went around saying we
have succeeded, Mudede is out. Now they made it a point he explains what he is going to
do. I think he appeared on Television two days ago addressing a press conference. Then
yesterday he flighted an advert in the press about seven pages long, where he had made
inserts of the inspection centers and at the bottom it was signed T. Mudede. I mean
why sign its not a law of Parliament but just a piece of information, those are the
standards.

I dont want to intimidate Zimbabweans but therell be no change, Mudede is there, so

dont allow them to go about saying anyone whose got problems must contact Mudedes
office. So continuity will be there, youll also see one guy who is just going to pop out of
the blues called Mariyawanda Nzou. Hes just going to emerge and the nest thing youll
be hearing is, the sub-committee called elections this and that is to be chaired by
Mariyawanda Nzou. Those same faces will be there so if you see them then you should
know the election is going to be stolen if I see them Ill begin to fear that maybe ZANU
has won. So therell be continuity in the manner in which elections are being conducted
and so forth and so forth so you will expect this position. More fundamentally ZANU
will do this without any respect for the law; the president promulgated the structural
instrument for announcing the dates before even promulgating the structural instruments
telling the people the boundaries of the constituencies. As we sit at the moment the
delimitation report has not yet been gazaetted. Under our law once you access the
delimitation report then 7 days pass after amendment number 18 the president will get the
final report then that final report must then be gazaetted. Then dates for the elections will
then be announced after everyone has become aware of the boundaries. Can you imagine
that upside down thing? He simply told us theyll be nominations on the 8th of February
and that they ha given political parties the reports. How about those people who do not
have political parties who are interested in contesting, and how about independents and
other parties yet to be formed? Under our law you can form a party a day before the
elections, its allowed. So the reason for gazetting this thing under the logic of the law is
to ensure that every Zimbabwean is in a position to tell what the boundaries are and to
make the decision to form a party or not to form a party.

There will be continuity in the way elections will be run in the country and of course
when the elections take place Mugabe will still remain president, so whether he is
announced the winner or whatever you may call it, he will still remain and be declared
the president of Zimbabwe on 31 March, isnt 29 March the date set for the elections. On
31 March hell be declared the President of Zimbabwe and be installed and he wont go
the Kibaki way, his installation will be done in time, with other people coming in
possibly Zuma. It will be that way; the MDC will get some seats. Its maximum number of
seats will be 80 I havent yet started prophesizing but that is what will happen. MDCs
maximum number of seats will be 80 while ZANU PFs minimum number will be 130. In
ZANU we have a minimum number but in the MDC we have a maximum number, there
is no minimum for the MDC. What Im basically saying isnt going to change, Im
making an analysis based on the distorted political environemt.Its just a question of
seeing who will get which seats etc.

After this therell be all-night prayers in ZANU PF for Mugabe to retire. Some will go to
nangas etc I said 2008 isnt it, so that is what is going to happen. So there will be prayers
for Mugabe to retire and take advantage of amendment number 18 which says when the
president retires or dies then the parliament will elect a new what? A new President. So
the two factions in ZANU PF are battling it out if you follow them clearly they are
looking at amendment 18. So whats happening is that the Mnangagwa camp has to get a
number of MPs to their sides all these primaries that you see being prepared for primaries
are really faction ridden do you understand that? Each of the MPs wants to get back into
parliament. So thats why Mnangagwa will still go back again to campaign for that
constituency. He lost there in 2000 in Kwekwe, and again in 2005 so hell go back again
in 2008 in Kwekwe. His expectations are that hell win. Hes supposed to win because
hes the leader of that faction and Mujuru obviously will not get a seat. But the idea ends
in prayers and all sorts of things for Mugabe to retire and so on, then therell be no
change within ZANU PF up to the congress in 2009 thats when therell be change. I
think many people will still want Mugabe to remain the President of the party. So dont
even expect that Mugabe will step down, the congress in 2009 will tell him to continue.

But therell be chaos, we are obviously going to say that amendment number 18 is not
legitimate so you cant become president its better you rig the election. Those who try
and cheat those ones are fine because at least they have some legitimacy. Lets all agree
as Zimbabweans whoever gets into an election and cheats at least theyll be some
semblance that whoever is voted for comes through parliament, so we wont accept that
point and therell obviously be some chaos in the country. Those marches that you saw I
can tell you that a lot of policemen are own our side, for the soldiers well I think they are
still dull but they need time. If you see any change coming through amendment number
18, then know that therell be chaos in this country, we will not accept a president to run
this country, who has either not been elected or has cheated these elections. There are no
two options either you are elected in a free and fair election or you cheat in an election,
anything outside that you must not run the country

So I will expect that up to 2009 if the present situation should deteriorate that is when
you can expect change in Zimbabwe but there will be development in the opposition,
after the election. The opposition will re-organize itself I think that they will see and learn
a lot of lessons, they have the capacity to learn a lot so I expect that after the elections the
opposition will become quite competent to the cause for a movement that pushes for a
democratic people-driven constitution not that one which Chinamasa calls a people
centered constitution. So the opposition will re-configure around the issue of a people
driven constitution thatll be the rallying point. We wont in 2008 be cheated by people
who constantly lie to us and make empty promises, no what matters is whenever there is
a shortage of food well just go and clamour for a people driven constitution ndizvoka. If
theres shortage of water in Mabvuku well organize people in Mabvuku to demand for a
people driven constitution although they will later address that problem. So there will be
a huge movement after the elections which will be united around the cause of genuine
democracy and in that movement therell be all Civil Society, opposition and others.

There are other elements in the opposition in 2008, who will be thrown away and that
doesnt include Tsvangirai. There are some who go about fooling themselves in the MDC
that if Tsvangirai loses in the March elections then he will have failed dismally. Nothing
of that sort will happen do you hear me. If Tsvangirayi is cheated before the election we
will try and support him after the election to continue process of change. In 2008 there
wont be new leaders of the opposition those people are day dreaming everyday
especially those who belong to Welshmans faction they think they can become president
of a movement through boardroom decisions. There will be no leaders emanating from
boardroom meetings. A-ah let me repeat that again; did you get that point I said in 2008
therell be no leaders emanating from where? From boardroom meetings. Leaders will
emerge from MDC, so far theres only Tsvangirayi who is the people choice all these
other people should forget. They can cheat him now but Im sure thatll be debatable
because of the processes that are going on right now so lets wait after March 29, he will
have learned and those around him who are progressive will have done the same. So I
expect that theyll be able to make real reformed processes.

Myself Ill be backing this big movement that will be pushing for a democratic
dispensation. And that one will confront Mugabe, those are my last points. So in 2008
theyll be massive unrest in Zimbabwe and it will not come just after the elections, we are
going to tell people not to go to the streets. No we dont want a Kenyan scenario here, no
to Kenya here in Zimbabwe do you understand me. There is no Kenyan scenario thatll
happen here. There are some fools in the opposition who think they can just make people
go to the streets and do a Kenyan situation. No ways we cant have people dying for
nothing but well have people die or genuinely fall for real causes. Mugabe is surely in
support of this election election and hell definitely emerge the winner so dont get
surprised on 31 March when Mugabe gets announced as president. So we are going to tell
people not to go to the streets about the election itself but wait 2-3 weeks and go to the
streets demanding for a genuine reform.

Therefore I want to appeal to some of the activists in here who belong to the opposition
parties, this country doesnt need to be led by misguided people who when defeated at the
polls will urge others. Its obvious elections will be cheated. Tsvangirayi is not going to
become president on 31 March 2008, that is not going to happen under the current
framework and we dont want people to be killed when they demanding for things that
wont happen. I want to make that point over and over again, Zimbabweans must die for
real causes. Mugabe also wont be in power for the next 2 years, and that wont be
because of his death. He is going to suffer real problems from the movement of the
people. People are suffering everywhere so with proper co-ordination which is going to
happen in April, May, June and so on you should expect real problems but we will be
advocating for chaos. Chaos means going to the streets in numbers protesting so thats
what we are expecting, it doesnt mean that every Zimbabwean will have to be present
for us to cause that chaos. We dont need many Zimbabweans if we get 5000, 9000, that
will be enough to cause change. This country will be ungovernable, we wont accept that.
Some of us are going to get arrested etc but we will try and make it ungovernable
demanding genuine reform so if ZANU PF wants a new constitution, they must know
that a new constitution means new elections under a new constitution and government
under that constitution. So we will have this, if they agree with us thatll be fine, so that is
what will happen. Thank you very much.

Questions from the floor.

1. I must say I appreciate the way in which Mr Badza tried to portray our current
situation. But I want to take issues with the way in which he tries to portray
Zimbabwe as a victim of Americas symbolic tendencies. E--eh clearly a person
of his academic credentials couldnt have forgotten the circumstances in which
Zimbabwe finds itself, its a pariah state. As far as Im concerned the issue of our
country is not Zimbabwe vs. USA but Zimbabwe vs. rationality, Zimbabwe vs. all
these things. Then he also mentioned the aspect of the incumbent being given or
lobbying for a dignified retirement as it were. When he talked he mentioned the
prematurely. I think as far as Im concerned 28 years is enough for somebody
whose been ruling the country in a good way or not to retire. So when he talked of
other countries having post outerior motives against Zimbabwe, I think the way
he portrayed it is a bit super plus. In as much as it is disastrous. Zimbabwe is a
victim and I think everyone knows what is happening so as much as you may try
to be patriotic as possible Mr Badza e-eh dont forget the other side, Zimbabwe is
a pariah state because of all these things.
 2. My question is on the opposition, as far as we all know its like there are two
factions in the MDC, one which believes in getting into elections whether it is not
free and fair and one which does not believe in that. Now were getting into an
election and the question is, are we going to see one of them changing i.e. either
contesting in an election which is not free and fair or not contesting in an election
which is not free and fair which is a change from the previous position. What Im
saying is that Mutambaras faction believes in getting into an election whether its
free and fair, but Tsvangirais faction since the last time says they dont believe in
going into an election which is not free and fair.So Im my question is, in this
coming election are we going to see a change in these two factions either by going
into an election which is not free and fair or the other way round. I thank you.

Responses

Simon Badza.
Thank you very much my brother, e-eh I should actually feel very comfortable to
congratulate you for actually being able to exercise your right to freedom of conscience
and expression. I was just doing the same and I dont think it is healthy for Zimbabweans
to think the same way and seeing things in the same way, sometimes we need conflicts
and I think this type of forum is actually to enable such a process because I think it is out
of such a forum or conflict situation that perhaps new solutions will emerge. Having said
that allow me to answer your two questions i.e. that I have exaggerated the fact that
Zimbabwe is actually being victimized by the US. This is not a secret and normally for a
government like the US I agree that the reason is because of domestic politics, how
Zimbabwe is being governed. It hasnt started with the US victimizing Zimbabwe.

You must also be aware of the fact that these are capitalist countries, they have long term
interests anywhere in the world, they want to invest, they want markets, cheap sources of
raw materials, and the only enabling environment for their capitalist endeavours is to
create a democratic environment which is dependable, which is predictable and which
guarantees their investments. But the way they are pushing for such an enabling
environment for the investments and everything is actually being done in a way in which
perceives the US to be very confrontational. Ill tell you that at the moment if the US
administration decides to soften its position towards Zimbabwe, youll see the
government of Zimbabwe also improving its governing processes. And this is also
worsened by the fact that for the first time Zimbabwe is faced by a very credible Civil
Society and opposition in the form of MDC. So the Zimbabwe government is found in a
tight corner where it has domestic forces that are fighting to remove it from power that it
perceives as being funded by the same super powers that have always portrayed it as a
dictatorial regime although it may be a dictatorial regime those are interesting issues.

I know you want to accuse me of being wrongly patriotic about Human Rights, I agree
with most of the things you said. But again you need to contextualize these things e-eh I
think it emanates from how the Land reform programme was embarked on. How it was
implemented. Ive always argued that the Human Rights exercises that accompanied the
Third Chimurenga in my opinion were inevitable in the circumstances given the long
time within which Zimbabweans especially those who benefited from it were kept
waiting, and how the Zimbabwean government also used that election as a ticket to win
the 2002 elections. So the Human Rights violations were inevitable and perhaps I would
say even necessary in the circumstances that there is no revolution without bloodshed
unless if you dont want to call it the Third Chimurenga then you can it something else
then itll have to be an evolutionary process if it is to be peaceful.

Okay the US government has not hidden its stance on Zimbabwe. Over and over again
theyve actually openly and in public have said, Zimbabwe is a threat to US interests in
Southern Africa and their policy is just like what they did in the Russian/USSR during
the cold war, they want to contain the Zimbabwean style of revolution from extending
from beyond its boarders and they would want to make sure that the Zimbabwean style
revolution should never be a model that should be emulated by its neighbours. And
therefore they take every necessary and appropriate measures to make sure that the
Zimbabwean revolution in the form of the Third Chimurenga is used as a case study of
failed radical nationalism and they have many approaches to do that. What you hear
being announced in public media at UN forums is simply the open; theyve called it
operation underway. Youll see this information if youre alive 70 years from now, thats
when theyll classify this information of how they were conducting this campaign
towards removing President Mugabe from power.

I know of course Zimbabweans are suffering, Im also suffering and if anything Im here
because I know Ill be paid for making this presentation, but at the moment
internationalize your suffering and you bring in players from outside especially how the
Zimbabwean crisis has revolved. Theres no way in the world where youll see any
regime in the world that will create an enabling environment thatll safeguard Human
Rights at the expense of what they believe to be state rights and usually state rights are
rights to its security, its a continued survival. Theyll only extend Human Rights when
they are secure like Dr Madhuku was saying were still going to continue suffering.
Human Rights are still going to continue being abused, its inevitable and I think the
administration will see it as necessary as long as it guarantees its survival.

Prematurely at times if you remember what I said, I said they were my humble opinions
and I said they were going to be perceived as premature in the sense that this is a leader
who regards himself and is regarded by people within and without Zimbabwe as a
revolutionary leader and therefore to retire partly as a result of, I mean time is a relative
thing, the same thing with the second coming of Jesus, the Messiah. You said in the end
of the world is coming, Jesus is coming soon, how soon nobody knows these are relative
issue its a matter of time. So I dont know how I should put these as long there are
threats to his own security whether real or perceived he will remain in office, and hell
not retire early. Again I support Dr Madhukus view; he said everything will be shaped
and determined by his own health not the constitution. I wouldnt expect him to get out of
power through the final push if you allow me to use that vocabulary.
One reason why Zimbabwe will not get into a Kenyan scenario is because Zimbabwe
doesnt have an enabling environment for a Kenyan scenario. The reason why Kenya
evolved into what it is today is because the environment was so enabling. Their cell
phones are working they have no network problems in Kenya and satellite TVs are all
working; there are no queues for cash and basic needs and shortages. So as long as the
Mazowe earth satellite remains operational we are like to get into a Kenyan scenario. But
knowing the systems as I want to think I do. If things get to a point where they start
manifesting into a Kenyan scenario we are likely to see a complete shutdown, therell be
no electricity, no cash, no water so that youll spend more time focusing on basic needs
and not politics you see. And you shut down everything even the internet.

You saw what President Musharaf did in Pakistan, he closed the internet even the TV
some could still watch TV, of course those with broad bends those who can defy
boundaries I mean they struggle in such environments. So were less likely to see an early
retirement and the fact that 30 years is too much I think I respect your opinion that Fidel
Castro has been in power for I dont know how many years although I think 40
something to 50 something. Although he is not going to remain there, there are
indications that he is going to hand over power to Rau Castro his younger brother. So we
are likely to see a situation whereby the decision of whether or not to remain in power is
likely going to be determined by the environment in which President Mugabe finds
himself. Thats my opinion.

Lovemore Madhuku
Okay I think I disagree very much with the view that we will not be able to achieve
change here outside the framework. I think those are two different views that are there.
There will be change in this country achieved by Zimbabweans pushing the Mugabe
regime out. We will not be flying or running away and so on in that manner but change
will definitely come via the forces on the ground that will be organized. The notion that
the regime that is there and will remain and be able to maneuver people is what is marked
the difference in terms of the politics, those who have followed opposition groups or
Civil Society groups, who want to achieve change normally believe in that there are
others who dont believe in that change. I think thats what was clearly said but definitely
in this country Ill be very much enjoying myself at a time when academics like you will
now be analyzing the new situation. They will now be trying to see where it came from.

And also to explain, the word Kenyan situation may actually be thrown around in
discriminatory. The Kenyan situation is when people respond to the election rigging by
flocking to the streets and then having violence you get that point, that is what we mean
by Kenyan. unlike the other one where ordinary people go to the streets and advocate for
reform and so on. We dont necessarily have to go on a continuous basis but over a
period ndizvoka.You do it this week and 2-3 weeks down the line you put pressure here
and there, not a Kenyan situation. Thats what were going to be fighting for here in
Zimbabwe not that the other one i.e. the Kenyan one. Ive already said no to it where
people say the next minute on 31March you go to the street and say the Zengeza seat has
been stolen and start up violence, no, that is not what we would expect because that is not
what the stealing is going to be. But we will be advocating for the Zimbabweans to do
more like a final push time but without having to do it in one week but over a continuous
period. Today we do it and can go back to our work and then after 3, 4 days down the
line, and gradually I think over the course of the year we will have achieved change. That
is the position.

Moreover about the elections, I think the two factions will go together, Im sure youre
now aware that the two factions are uniting over the elections. Your question about
whether there is Mutambaras group or Welshmans group all I can simply say is that
there are no two factions over the election thing. Theyll both be going to elections as one
party/MNC. And thats whats going to be happening and so forth. And dont read too
much into the divisions of the MDC right, theyre not going to be much different when
the time comes. Like now theyve to face an election which is inherently unfree and
unfair ndizvoka, inherently undemocratic so I dont expect that in the coming elections
your question applies unless if a miracle happens. Tsvangirai is said to be against the
elections but hes currently not here, Im sure everyone knows he was out of the country,
so theyll have a meeting on Sunday thats what we hear what will come out of the
meeting but it appears that the party on the ground on Tsvangirais group is preparing for
elections and theyll unite with the Welshman group to have one MDC and therefore one
election, thats what is likely to happen. Obviously I think they have decided that
Tsvangirai will be the candidate while Mutambara will take a Parliamentary role. Thank
you.