Tuesday 18 February 2014

Tsvangirai missed three penalties and a free kick; as the other quota calls for his substitution. MDC-T faces a potential split.



The long time leader of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) sometimes named with an additional T to distinguish it from other smaller functions namely MDC-N and MDC 99. Coming from a very brave background of trade unionism, Morgan defied all odds to challenge the long time and tested leader from the liberation struggle Robert Mugabe.

Misheck Gondo

 Zimbabwe was slowly generating into one party state, the bravery of the students, church, youth and the trade unions of that time must not only be hailed but must be also given place in every Zimbabwean‘s heart. It was Tsvangirai among others who in the name of personal sacrifice stood the test of time; accepted to be leaders in a society epitomized by polarization, torture, hate speech, ‘disappearance’ among other ugly things that a dictatorship can be capable to offer to its citizens. 

It was Morgan among other who braved the rural people who thought that the liberation struggle was centered on individuals other than attributed to all gallant sons of the soil who sacrificed their precious lives in liberating Zimbabwe. 

It is of paramount importance to note that Tsvangirai, a brave leader of our generation did not launch this struggle alone, there were covert and overt cadres who were giving their much needed support to their leader- coming from party structures among other formations who shared the same values with one of the strongest opposition parties formed after Zimbabwe’s independence.

I believe the quest for democracy was deriving the MDC to do better in policy formulation and implementation, to correct what ZANU PF failed to do in their thirty years of leadership and complement what ZANU PF did best for the thirty year period. 

 Given the challenges that the economy was facing, the MDC attracted support from the people, it also drew support from western countries both in funding and in principle, though the western countries were there to protect their own interests and foreign policy, especially after the much queried fast-track land reform which was done haphazardly to counter the emergency of a vibrant opposition party. 

MDC faced its problems, quick to mention the split that brought the other MDCs.  Apart from other arrays of challenges a party can face all over the world, MDC had the chance to test the echelons of state leadership in the name of GNU, no doubt that the economy which was near to its knees and sink into oblivion due several governance factors was served when the Tsvangirai government agreed to join forces with the Revolutionary party, this has to, in every mind of a Zimbabwean be hailed as it saved not only lives but also souls.

All this was happening under the leadership of a gallant son of the soil Morgan Richard Tsvangirai, even President Mugabe tested his first time painful defeat in 2008 that led him to strategize his ‘peaceful’ come back that landed him at the helm of the government in 2013, leaving the long time opposition leader and former Prime Minister not only in a state of shock but also confused, as evidenced by the louder calls for him to step down.

True  fighter, democrat, leader, charismatic of our time; Nobel peace prize nominee among other names has in his fifteen years of leadership missed three critical penalties and a free kick in the political match. It is fundamentally correct to assert the notion that the political match is synonymous with football match in which goals are considered as a win rather than the style of play or the support you have, whether the match was played at home or away, soccer funds will better understand the synchrony and amalgamation nature of the beautiful game, the referee‘s decision is final, a team might have plaid a carpet game as Zimbabwe did with Libya recently, but the best team is that which scores even  in an unfair game. 

Mr. Tsvagirai missed three penalties in his position as the President of the MDC in a match with ZANU PF, that is in 2002, 2008 and his biggest loss of all in 2013 harmonized elections. In modern democracy the captainship must be taken by another team member. 

To hide under the auspices of rigged elections is not enough, as a party that was in an inclusive arrangement, while they were working hard to serve Zimbabweans, ZANU PF, the revolutionary party was busy mobilizing grassroots support, putting ‘rigging structures’ in place, and making sure that MDC endorses law that fast track their entry into power without visible violence as known. MDC supported the legislation that allows the voting of people who are not in the voters’ role to use voter slips, while they did not have any influence with ZEC operations or made it independent to guarantee transparency.

One wonders if the MDC have any sought of organized intelligence at all, it seems the party is running from a weak system premised on fragile framework and articulations of rumors that keep the notion of believing that, ‘people will just vote for us because they do not have options.’ The modern day politics requires a solid political framework that outlines the past, present and future strategies, clearly spelt with scenario analysis coupled with mitigation measures.

The failure of the MDC to predict the future has exposed their weaknesses as a party which many people could think they are capable of running a government. They lack of prediction of possible political outcomes and events can be attributed to a complete betrayal to the people of Zimbabwe who supported them for more than a decade and half.

Just on the polling day Morgan lamented the fact that the loser of the election should accept the results, however, just after his big loss, he sighted rigging , the corridors of rumors cited that Morgan and his team were advised of irregularities by SADC fathers among other analysts, but they chose the adamant way to victory. The victory unexpectedly went to ZANU PF‘s bhora mughedi series. 

Many people are questioning the political seriousness of the MDC as a  party, among other questions,  their flip-flopping answers to matters to do with their policies and values, this with regard to both domestic and foreign policy. Also, their clear road map on the security of the country, defending territorial integrity and sovereignty and the issue to do with homosexuality, land among other questions from the Zimbabweans.

Tsvangirai missed three penalties, yes, in unfair game, yes, what about a free kick near the sixteen area box. After the death of Susan Tsvangirai, immediately after such a national tragedy that came unexpectedly and questionably, Tsvangirai missed a free kick on the moral side. Instead of passing the ball to his players he chooses to pass it to the opponent for the reason well known to him. The quest for ZANU PF women gripped him, when MDC beautiful mistresses were expressing their romantic zeal to complement the sad leader to usher a political salvation to the hopeless Zimbabweans. 

He might have chosen to steak to old idioms of politics which goes by saying, “Takuvanyengera vakadzi vavo” which translate to, ‘we are now marrying or getting in love with their women’. I mean women in ZANU PF. In the modern day politics, issues of security are considered prime and critical, how on earth one would trust the daughter of an opponent, how on earth will one be strong in the hands of foreign intelligence.
One wonders were where his advisors, party leaders, among other close colleagues, there is a saying that goes by ‘, a leader is strong as followers’, not dismissing other idioms which goes by, ‘rudo ibofu..,moyo muti…,’ but in politics blindness leads to defeat. Is it that other leaders left him for blunders to counter him as a political strategy?

The calls for substitution has become more louder, it is true the party structures are divided over this issue from the apex to the ground, if not handled maturely we anticipate for the greatest split ever, even in the midst of ZANU PF power struggle and turmoil, if this split see the day, MDC might never rule Zimbabwe.
However, it is of paramount importance to note that there is nothing wrong in democracy to air different views and suggestions, as that done by Mangoma, Bennet, and Mudzuru among other silent voices. A democratic party must usher unquestionable full rights to freedoms among them the freedom of expression in which one expresses his or her issues without punitive measures, in a democratic atmosphere people are free to say their views or ideas without persecution. 

It is practical and evident that Mr Mangoma‘s letter is not only coming from him but there is a sizable number of cadres who are behind the change, and they want it as yesterday, other schools of thought are arguing that the Mangoma, Bennet, Mudzuru camp want to re-introduce the radical strategy of street protests among other, this can not be validated unless it comes from the horse mouth. The other quarter is alluding that the Mangomas has a new   strategy to tackle the Zimbabwean crisis and this strategy is being supported by long time donors of the party, a split will leave Morgan team without a cent.

 What the disgruntled cadres are doing is not wrong in the name of Zimbabwe and progress, but one need to ask them some questions before they take the radical root of early congress and immediate stepping down of Morgan, be it in 2014 or 2015. The first question would be, if they believe ZANU PF rigged, to what extent Morgan is held accountable to the defeat, what new tactics would the change team bring which they failed to advise Morgan.

I came across several contribution to the MDC-T leadership renewal debate, one of the contribution is; if not all are held responsible for the loss from 2002 until now, who then is responsible, is it Morgan alone?
The last question is to what extent the donors are controlling the MDC party, if they have any sort of control in the party, people should introspect deeply and  find other ways of expressing their democratic rights, If MDC is  controlled by donors will it be able to defend Zimbabwean sovereignty or it will sacrifice national values when there are in power at the mercy of foreign interests, as evidenced by what the most celebrated Mandela did to South Africa, little did people know that he was quick to sign any treaty from western countries, this cancerous diseases has been passed to preceding leaders such as Zuma who listens to the last western man he meets with. 

We do not say parties in government should have unpenetratable foreign policy but there must have policies with mutual benefits, gone are the days when Africans view countries from the west as their masters, but we are in the urge of equality, fairness, respectfulness among other guiding values.

The other assignment to the change team is to have introspection on the constitution of the party and follow that, with respect that Morgan was put by majority so he ought to be removed by majority which goes hand in hand with what the grassroots and party structures are saying. Whatever they are saying should also be constitutional and non-violent. One mistake which the MDC should not make is to think that it is the only opposition that people can trust, if it employs violence, suppressing of dissent voices among other undemocratic actions, it will definitely work against its survival and popularity.

 It is normal that at this stage; hate, plotting against each other, back biting and black mailing will become the order of the day to maintain status quo and grip, but the common denominator must be the vision for Zimbabwe, there is need to come out to negotiate on a strategy to save one of the strongest opposition party in the land, if MDC has managed in the past to negotiate with ZANU PF to serve Zimbabwe when it to formed2 the GNU, to what extent is it cumbersome to discuss among themselves to serve the party from split. 

The political tension in the MDC-T has come at a wrong time, the time ZANU PF is on a free fall in a corruption net, clueless on the implementation of a well crafted ZIM-ASSET, in this scenario western countries among other global players might shift their support to ZANU PF if the MDC prove to be radical to voices that raise concern on internal matters of the party, firing the team is detrimental to their quest for change. As already evidenced, EU has soften its stance on sanctions, which is a good move for the economy  and a bit refresher for ZANU PF, as they anticipate for more injection in form of investment.
Apart from showing each other the strength in grassroots mobilization, mobilizing district leaders in the party, power must be channeled to unity in diversity, at one point Morgan should pass the baton to others, not rushingly as the land reform program, but from a thoughtful process.

 I don’t support MDC, neither do I support ZANU PF, I am a supporter of democracy which is characterized by a multi-party system, not only that, but strong opposition that contributes to policy development and growth strategies that benefits the masses, a weaker opposition will result in heavy loss of gains which sprouted in the year 2000 reversed to a more unitary state without strong checks and balances which is extremely dangerous for our beloved motherland, Zimbabwe.

Let’s wait and see

Misheck Gondo is an International Relations Expert with the University of Zimbabwe (U.Z)

Tuesday 11 February 2014

Pro-poor strategy a myth or reality



By Misheck Gondo
The contemporary political economy has been epitomised by new terms that describe poverty, development, and growth.

Among these terms are strategies which are said to be used by most nations around the world, pro-poor strategy is one of the much featured frameworks being used as a political backbone by most African states.
One wonders if it is a strategy for real or one of the exit paths for politicians to draw people into thinking that they are part of the national cake. The term ‘pro-poor growth’ has recently become pervasive in discussions on policy development.
Despite widespread use of the term, there is much less consensus as to what exactly pro-poor growth means, let alone what its determinants are. According to Kakwani 2000, growth is pro-poor if the accompanying change in income distribution by itself reduces poverty.
However, this definition is rather restrictive; growth is pro-poor if the poverty measure of interest falls. Other school of thoughts have got the thinking that pro-poor encompasses a high growth rate of average incomes; a high sensitivity of poverty to growth in average incomes; and a poverty-reducing pattern of growth in relative incomes.
In simple terms, pro-poor is when the government set policies that uplift the poor, a situation in which any distributional shifts accompanying economic growth favour the poor, meaning that poverty falls more than it would have if all incomes had grown at the same rate, in this case the incomes of the poor grow at a higher rate than those of the non-poor.
The growth process is said to be “pro-poor” if and only if poor people benefit in absolute terms, as reflected in an appropriate measure of poverty.
There can be no doubts that economic growth is critical in reducing poverty. However, the question is what kind of poverty it reduces? Does it really improve life or it’s just more of the improvement obvious on statistical databases than in the real world, even though people are having a little bit more money?
The pro-poor strategy is in its real sense involving the poor in making policies, in decision making and further in implementation coupled by other tenants such as the rule of law, democracy and good governance in which the poor are not only free to participate in enacting policies but in enjoying the fruits of such policies as well.
The pro-poor strategy goes further in understanding the poverty level of a country and also knowing what measure of poverty should be used.
Understanding the characteristics of poverty is very critical in policy formulation, however most African countries, Zimbabwe included, tend to create a shield towards the growing poverty, shunning proper research to understand the causes of poverty; this is done to maintain the status quo, not willing to accept the real situation on the ground.
Failure to accept is one of the characteristics of developing counties such as Zimbabwe, instead of having internal introspection of challenges facing the economy such as: corruption, bad governance, hefty salaries for senior civil servants, the government tends to exponentially put blame on foreigners, to some problems that are internally focused, it is common knowledge  that every government must analyse the negative forces and external factors that have potential to worsen poverty levels in their country, but at the same time it has to put effective measures to consolidate its strength to eradicate poverty.
How can one reason on the fact that some individuals in parastatals are receiving more than 500 000 United States dollars in salaries, the money enough to pay more than 600 teachers, at the expense of service delivery.
Furthermore, nepotism is the order of the day which is being championed by the ministers, the case of Minister Chombo who is protecting an individual under suspension pending investigations of corruption.
Basing on false data most poor countries came out with what they call pro-poor strategies that are purely meant to blind the citizens in believing that the government is pro-people. In the case of Zimbabwe‘s pro-poor strategy in form of land reform program, the poor are far from benefitting from the scheme, yet elites are the ones taking the larger chunk of the national cake at the expense of the proletariat.
The other question is whether poverty eradication strategy differs in relation to the manner in which a nation is governed. Democracies and dictatorships are likely to create different policy choices. Although they are not perfect political institutions, each political arrangement is likely going to favour some group at the expense of the other.
Authoritarian political systems such as oligarchies, dictatorship, absolutist monarchies and autocracies concentrate power in the hands of the political minorities and tend to pursue economic policies that are favourable to these minorities called the ‘elitists’.
Using the Modern Theory, most nations in Africa are stagnated at a substance level, in which there is non-growth and they remain at pre-modern level income, this is due to governance challenges, ethnic conflicts, dependency, unclear foreign policies, and lack of political will among other tropical tenants that hinders effective growth.
In this set-up, the government craft ‘pro-poor’ policies that are meant to silence the majority who are poor, the policies will be implemented theoretically to the poor and practically to the elites, by so doing wealth accumulation is realised to those with political connections or those linked to the ruling class.
It will take much effort for the poor to realise that they are not part to any developmental strategy, but only being used to appear as if development is centred on them, if the poor later realise this, that’s were initiatives such as people‘s revolutions, wide protests, quest to change the ruling class will receive a wider and louder call.
The problem with changing the ruling class without changing institutions and policies is that most opposition parties in developing countries have the same characteristics with the ruling regimes in such a way that they seek to perpetuate oppression, accumulation of wealth, and corruption in hidden way, that will be done in a more sophisticated and ‘democratic’ manner in which laws will specify how thing should be done, yet on the ground there is perpetuity of the former.
Making growth more pro-poor requires a combination of more growth, a more pro-poor pattern of growth and success in reducing the antecedent inequalities that limit the prospects for poor people to share in the opportunities unleashed in a growing economy. The ideal combination will naturally vary with country circumstances. In some countries, attention can safely focus on the overall rate of growth to assure rapid poverty reduction.
Other wiser dictatorships use very good documents that are crafted by policy experts to obtain the confidence of the people, yet on the ground no resources will be available to support such blue-prints. Zimbabwe has adopted the ZIM-ASSET document that has several ways to take the economy back to its feet, if one goes through this document, the only option will be to have confidence in the ruling government, as it appears to be more pro-poor.
However, the question which is not addressed is how possible to achieve pro-poor growth in a nation with a negative foreign relations, yet the real growth is now termed under the auspices of globalisation, how then poverty is eradicated in a country with stratospheric rates of corruption emanating from the benches of the ruling class.
How pro-poor will be the agrarian reform in which one is allocated a piece of land without enough inputs and satisfying markets, taking a walkable example of our staple food which is maize, one needs not to be a mathematician to calculate the costs of farming and the price given by Grain Marketing Board (GMB) a government parastatal. One will not go further to interrogate the salary structures of such an institution.
Is the pro-poor strategy in developing countries a myth or reality? A question that needs an introspective analysis in relation to political economies of the world. However, there are many things that governments can do to assure more pro-poor growth. A high priority must be given to public action that can help poor people acquire the skills and maintain the good health needed to participate in the growth process.
Policies that help insure the poor can also help underpin their longer-term prospects of escaping poverty.  There are often biases against the poor in taxation and spending policies, such as in the allocation of infrastructure spending. Sound micro and macroeconomic policies and openness to international trade should be at the heart of pro-poor growth strategies, but this becomes a reality when the government is willing to shift its foreign policy to accommodate recommended international standards at the same time not compromising its right to sovereignty as enshrined to its domestic policy.
Some ingredients of sound growth and poverty reduction strategy are high savings and investments rates, resource mobility, and strong political commitment for improving economic welfare. The challenge for policy is to combine growth-promoting reforms with the right policies to assure that the poor can participate fully in the opportunities unleashed, and so contribute to that growth.
Get the combination of policies right, both growth and poverty reduction can be rapid. Get it wrong, both may well be stalled. The government should be willing to accept reality on the ground, prioritise dialogues with opposition parties in the country, and include the civil society, the youth, women and students among other in finding lasting solutions to frame up strategies that are pro-poor.
Let’s wait and see
Misheck Gondo is an International Relations Expert with the University of Zimbabwe (U.Z)