Reason Wafawarova May 23, 2008
The important Greek philosopher, Aristotle, laid the foundation for democracy by defining it as the rule of the people, by the people and for the people. This is a fantastic foundation that has an undisputable appeal to both aspiring politicians and those people who hanker for freedom and justice. However the concept seems to be easier to preach than it is to practise.
On this foundation the wretched of this world have for many years aspired on a promise of democracy the same way religion has made believers live on a promise of eternity and everlasting happiness. The only difference is that religion, especially Christianity and Islam; clearly tells us that Paradise and Heaven will come after death. We are however told by politicians that democracy is here and now with us.
Those who lead nation states and the world on the basis of the politics of democracy have an astonishing way by which they call any political system that safeguards their power and wealth a democracy. The question of democracy as an illusion is no more inadmissible than the question of democracy as a reality.
There are scholars who have propounded interesting schools of thought from the Aristotle foundation. Some have concluded that democracy is the political orientation of those who favour government by the people or by their elected representatives. Others have said that democracy is the political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them.
In both schools of thought there are two common features, electing and representation. The electoral process is supposed to be the only free and fair method by which the people can both govern and monitor their governance system. In this context the electoral process must be under the control of the people and the elected representatives must represent the wishes of the people.
Following this logic, the electoral commissions and bodies running elections in different countries are supposed to be under the control of the citizens and all the decisions taken by governments are supposed to be the decisions of the people.
By this logic, the people of Zimbabwe endorsed the repossession of their land from white settler farmers, according to the politicians that embarked on that policy just like the people of the United States, Britain and Australia endorsed the war on Iraq in 2003, according to Western politicians.
Looking at the above example, there is the ominous irony that the Zimbabwe government, together with many other governments, will insist that the Iraqi War is not only illegal but also against the wishes of the people of the Western countries engaging in that war. Equally the US-led Western alliance will insist that Zimbabwe’s land reform programme is not only illegal but also against the wishes of the people of Zimbabwe.
Looking at the electoral systems of the above-mentioned countries it is interesting that the US-led Western alliance accuses the Zimbabwean government of manipulating the electoral process in a manner often described as unfree and unfair. Equally the Zimbabwean government will always insist that corporate powers and tough laws heavily manipulate the Western electoral system.
Communist parties are largely banned in many of the Western countries and the laws banning such political parties can hardly be described as giving the people total control of the electoral process.
In Australia, for example, the Howard government was openly supportive and sympathetic to the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions, funding it heavily in a fight for what the Australian government saw as the right of workers – rights that were said to be heavily denied the workers by the Zimbabwe government.
Back home John Howard just fell short of banning the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU). Howard’s Industrial laws, now largely adopted by the Rudd government, contain provisions known as “Work Choices Agreements” where industrial action is punishable by a fine of no less than AU$3000 a day for each participator or at least two years imprisonment.
Added to this, the law empowers “anyone directly or indirectly affected” by the strike action to lay charges against any of the participators. This law hardly reads like anything close to the rule of the people, by the people and for the people. Needless to say, the law does not sound like part of legislation to be found in a country that boasts of a renowned democracy.
It would appear what is good for ZCTU in Zimbabwe cannot be good for ACTU in Australia, if one were to base their judgement on Australia’s Work Choices Agreements, hardly agreements at all from any number of angles one might choose to look.
If the Zimbabwe government were to manage the rise of the neo-liberal opposition MDC the way the West managed the rise of Communist parties in their own countries there is no ruling out that the consequences might be drastic in the least. One just needs to imagine a ban of the MDC and any similar parties on the grounds of the “national interest” as was done in the West.
The US presidential campaign for the November election has begun in earnest despite Hillary Clinton’s mortifying insistence on running all the way to the winning line even long after her rival has crossed the line. To some, especially to the US ruling elite and their Western allies, the race we are about to watch – the race between John McCain and Barack Obama – is the compendium of democracy.
It is the shining example that must serve as the light for democratic pagans like African politicians and their Arabic cousins in the Middle East.
However, some Americans like the renowned linguist and scholar, Noam Chomsky are clearly unamused with American democracy and they will maintain that the world’s most powerful state is not exactly the most democratic.
Said Chomsky on August 30, 2004, “The US presidential campaign only points up the severe democratic deficit in the world’s most powerful state.”
Chomsky argues that US citizens are, without choice, quadrennially presented with the choice between major party candidates who were born to wealth and political power (Obama might be an exception to this one), attended the same elite universities, joined the same secret society that instructs members in the style and manners of the rulers, and are able to run because they are funded by the same corporate powers.
This is just an illustration of the fact that the United States, long involved in alleged “democracy-building” a mission and doctrine that has resulted in lethal adventures across the world, badly needs to revitalise the democratic process at home.
The US, much as the rest of the West, has become a country that considers it sensible to describe a request by the people as “politically impossible” or “lacking political support.” This effective erosion of a democratic culture means what the population wants does not matter.
There were a million marchers against the Iraqi war in Australia just before the war started but the Howard government went to war regardless. There have been even bigger crowds in the US and Bush has pursued his war ambitions regardless.
Thomas Patterson’s 2000 Vanishing Voter Project conducted at the J.F. Kennedy School of Government revealed that 53% of Americans felt that they had no influence on what the US government does. If this is what is found in a country that claims to lead the world in democracy then what is expected of the those governments often labelled as “emerging democracies” or “lacking democracy”?
While some politicians will manipulate the democratic process through corporate power, media deception and tough laws others will use physical coercion, military power or overt state power to manipulate the democratic process. This is what renders the principle of universality useless. Everyone is found wanting, and the US doctrine of exceptionalism simply has made the world more chaotic than ever before.
The masses under the threat of overt state power are often portrayed as living in undemocratic countries, and also as victims of undemocratic governments – something that cannot be denied. Those whose democratic rights are thwarted by corporate power, media deception and tough laws like the anti-terror laws are portrayed as living in leading democracies and the media does not tire in reminding them to appreciate that they are lucky to live in successful democracies.
To prove the point these people are always shown images of the suffering people in so-called Third World countries and they are told that they could easily be in the same situation if it were not for the democratic nature of their political leadership.
The genius of Western democracy is to establish a political system that renders policy irrelevant, with the media and advertising concentrating not on issues but on qualities like the candidate’s style, personality and such other irrelevances.
The political parties devolve into marketing systems for elite candidates and they also develop mechanisms to screen candidates coming from the grassroots and from the working class.
When leaders come from the grassroots like what happened with Lula da Silva of Brazil and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela it is hardly ever upheld as democracy in Western commentary.
Rather, the democracies are countries like the US – a country described by Chomsky as “a repressive state, with tremendous inequality and concentration of wealth and media power, and extreme hostility of international capital and its institutions.”
Now we are told that Obama has funding three times more than that of John McCain and it is on that basis that the US is likely to have their next President. And these rich and powerful owners of corporate wealth will ensure that their sponsored President will not allow the rest of the world to have governments that serve popular interests like what Chavez is doing in Venezuela.
Such governments are not good for international capital and have to be stopped by all means. The idea is to create corporate democracies across the world. These are democracies that make people feel like they are totally dependant on the genius of their governments and not on their capacity to make collective decisions good enough for their own welfare.
One of the reasons many of the politicians in the West are so sceptical about Jacob Zuma of South Africa is that he hails from the grassroots, never mind the wealth he has accumulated through politics.
Deplorable and appalling as the current so-called xenophobic anti-immigrants chaos is, its motivation seems to be an expression of people’s feelings. In that context the ugly and brutal attacks on foreigners by South Africans can actually be described as more democratic than the Bush directed brutality on Iraqis.
The politics behind the irrational and absolutely brutal actions by the South African crowds are more democratic in terms of how the barbaric decision was taken. One would wish the South Africans were doing something more beneficial to their cause than merely being vindictive and brutal to people who are suffering just like themselves.
Zimbabwean masses went on a collective move in repossessing their land in 2000 and this was called lawlessness and now we see South Africans taking a collective decision to do what they think is justice over the immigrant-exacerbated competition for jobs and this has been called xenophobia.
The point here is that the current world order does no give an opportunity for a true democratic dispensation. It only allows for a democracy that is controlled by politicians and their partners in business.
True democracy is not only a threat to dictatorships and despotic regimes but also to capitalism and neo-liberal policies. In fact is the biggest threat to imperialism.
It is hoped that true democracy will prevail one day.
Castor, Bogmarsh and Taurai
In this piece I explained in detail about corporate democracy and how it works in the West and NOT in the defunct USSR.
Take time to read this May 2008 piece and you may understand more where I am coming from.
http://rwafawarova.com/?q=content/democracythe-paradise-our-minds#commen...
South African Communist Party statement
SACP Statement on the latest developments in Zimbabwe
Tuesday, 24 June 2008 14:44
The SACP is extremely concerned at, and disturbed by, the latest
developments in Zimbabwe, including the increase in violence directed
at opposition members and supporters, the arbitrary arrest of
opposition leaders, the trade union movement, and other sections of
civil society, now culminating in the withdrawal of the MDC from the
Presidential run-off.
The SACP strongly condemns the decision by the Zimbabwean government
to proceed with the elections this coming Friday under these
conditions. Such a decision can only create further chaos and
instability and it is not in the interests of the Zimbabwean people.
The SACP therefore calls upon SADC to make an urgent intervention to
create conditions for a free and fair election, including urgent
measures to speedily adopt a new constitution, putting an end to
politically orcherstrated and all other forms of violence, and end the
use of state security organs to serve the electoral and political
interests of the ruling party.
It is for these reasons that the SACP pledges its continued solidarity
with the struggles of ordinary Zimbabwean workers and the poor for
democracy and the reconstruction of the economy of that country. It is
not for us to choose which party must rule Zimbabwe, but we are in
solidarity with the struggle for conditions to be created for the
people of Zimbabwe to freely exercise their choice.
The SACP has over the recent years consistently pointed out and warned
at the deteriorating situation in the country, and called for the
Southern African Development Community (SADC) to intervene and insist
on the strict observance of its own protocols on free, fair and
democratic elections.
At the heart of the crisis in Zimbabwe has been, a degenerating
ZANU-PF, characterised by use of the state as a means to accumulation
by elites located in the state, the consequent abuse of state
resources, gross mismanagement of the economy, thus leading to a
growing gulf between the government and the people. This has led to
the alienation of key former constituencies of ZANU-PF from this once
heroic liberation movement, culminating in the loss of elections by
ZANU-PF on 29 March 2008. Consequently, the very arms that were used
to fight a heroic and justified struggle against British colonialism
have now been turned against the people. This is the tragedy of a once
promising revolution led by ZANU-PF.
Much as imperialism will always try to undermine all progressive
revolutions in order to establish neo-colonial regimes in its former
colonies, it is disingenuous for ZANU-PF to blame all of its problems
on imperialism. How come that in the 1960s and 1970s imperialism
failed to win the majority of the Zimbabwean people onto its side, but
now, according to ZANU-PF, the people are being successfully
'manipulated' by these imperialist forces? Any revolution that begins
to turn its guns on the people is surely a revolution in deep trouble,
and requires serious self-reflection by the liberation movement
itself.
It is also a fact that during the mid-1990s the ZANU-PF government
itself colluded with the imperialist structural adjustment programmes
imposed on the people, with sections of the elite benefitting
handsomely in the privatisation and outsourcing of state services.
This was the beginning of the seeds of the destruction of the
Zimbabwean revolution.
It is clear to us that with the latest developments Zimbabwe will
never be the same again. But of serious concern to us is a danger of
Zimbabwe getting into a self-destructive and violent cul-de-sac.
The SACP strongly believes that it is Zimbabwean people themselves who
must take the lead in resolving the problems of that country. They
have tried to do so through their vote in the last elections, but this
is being deliberately undermined and frustrated by the government.
We also call for the immediate release of all opposition leaders that
are detained and for an end to the harassment of all other activists
who are targeted because they hold different views to that of
government.
The SACP will throw its weight behind the mass activities that COSATU
will be engaged in and we will intesify our solidarity work, in
collaboration with all progressive forces, in our quest to find
lasting solutions for the crisis of Zimbabwe.
Issued by the SACP.
Contact:
Malesela Maleka
This is the ONLY
The RSA Communist Party is the only truly unbanned Communist Party from a capitalist state that I know.
My site is worth
My site is worth $1408.9.How much is yours worth?
Some hard facts about this election: Morgan's Letter
Attention: Honourable justice Chiweshe
The Chairman
Zimbabwe Electoral Commission 7th Floor, Century House
HARARE.
Dear Sir,
Re: PRESIDENTIAL RUN-OFF ELECTION SCHEDULED FOR THE 27TH
JUNE 2008
I write this letter to advise you that for reasons set out in this letter, it is no longer possible for the holding of the Presidential run-off election set for the 27th June 2008. In my considered view, the conditions presently obtaining throughout the country make it virtually impossible for a proper election envisaged in both the Constitution of Zimbabwe and the Electoral Act [Chapter 2.13] to take place. This being the case, the election scheduled for Friday 27th June 2008 cannot be an election as provided for by our law and accordingly, it will be a nullity if it were to be proceeded with. Section 107 of the Electoral Act deals with the withdrawal of candidature from a Presidential election. Subsection 1 thereof provides that a nominated candidate for election as President may, by notice in writing addressed to the Chief Election Officer withdraw his or her candidature before 21 days from the day or first day as the case may be on which the poll in an election to the office of President is to be taken. This section in my respectful view does not apply to a Presidential run off election. Section 110 (3) provides that where two or more candidates for President are nominated, and after a poll taken in terms of subsection (2) no candidate receives a majority of the total number of valid votes cast, a second election shall be held within 21 days after the previous election. It is quite clear therefore that Section 107 (1) was clearly not designed for a presidential run-off election as it would not make sense to expect a candidate from a presidential run-off election to give 21 days notice of his/her withdrawal where such election has to be held within 21 days anyway. Section 107(3) makes it much more clearer that Section 107 does not apply to a presidential run-off election. It provides that:-
"where a candidate for election as President has withdrawn his/her candidature in terms of this section, the sum deposited by or on his behalf in terms of subsection (1) of Section 105 shall be forfeited and form part of the funds of the commission".
No money was ever deposited for the Presidential run-off election in terms of Section 105 by any candidate. Furthermore, there has been no rules prescribed for the conduct of a presidential run-off election and in particular the notice period set for the withdrawal of candidature by a participant. Accordingly, any candidate wishing to withdraw his candidature is free to do so at any time before such an election. In any event, as I have already pointed out, the election set for the 27th June 2008 is not a proper election but a nullity. In the circumstances, the question of the withdrawal from such an election and the notice thereof cannot be an issue.
REASONS FOR WITHDRAWAL
In terms of Section 61(4) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission is obliged by law to ensure that elections are conducted efficiently, freely, fairly, transparently and in accordance with the law. Section 3 of the Electoral Act sets out in detail the principles which must govern democratic elections. This Section provides as follows:- "Subject to the Constitution and this Act, every election shall be conducted in a way that is consistent with the following principles-
(a) the authority to govern derives from the will of the people demonstrated through elections that are conducted efficiently, freely, fairly, transparently and properly on the basis of universal and equal suffrage exercised through a secret ballot; and
(b) every citizen has the right-
(i) to participate in government directly or through freely chosen representatives, and is entitled, without distinction on the ground of race, ethnicity, gender, language, political or religious belief, education, physical appearance or disability or economic or social condition, to stand for office and cast a vote freely;
(ii) to join or participate in the activities or and to recruit members of a political party of his or her choice;
(iii) to participate in peaceful political activity intended to influence the composition and policies of Government;
(iv) to participate, through civic organisations, in peaceful activities to influence and challenge the policies of Government;
and
(c) every political party has the right-
(i) to operate freely within the law;
(ii) to put up or sponsor one or more candidates in every election;
(iii) to campaign freely within the law;
(iv) to have reasonable access to the media".
What has been going on in this country immediately after the elections held on the 29th March 2008 is a clear testimony that the elections scheduled for the 27th June 2008 cannot be held efficiently, freely, fairly, transparently and in accordance with the law.
On the 21st May 2008, after having noted the sad events that were happening, I instructed my Legal Practitioners Dube Manikai & Hwacha to write a letter to you setting out in detail various concerns which were an impediment to the holding of a free and fair election. For ease of reference, I attach a copy of the said letter. Sadly, that letter was neither acknowledged nor responded to. In my view, if your commission had taken steps to abide by its constitutional mandate, the situation would have probably not worsened. Regrettably, the situation since the letter from my lawyers has worsened to such an extent that no proper election can be carried out. I set out below few examples of the adverse conditions that vitiate the holding of a free and fair election as envisaged in our law:-
1. THE FAILURE BY THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION TO ENSURE FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS
Your Commission has failed to discharge its mandate in the following respects;
1.1 Your Commission failed to declare a winner of the Presidential elections as provided for in the Third Schedule of the Electoral Act. This point was well articulated by my lawyers in their letter of the 21st May 2008 and I associate myself with the submissions made in that letter in regards to this issue. In my view, a Presidential run-off election should have been conducted after due compliance by your Commission and in particular the Chief Election officer with this Section.
1.2 Your Commission has failed to stop and/or condemn continued utterances by senior Zanu PF officials including Mr Robert Mugabe to the effect that irrespective of the election result, Mr Robert Mugabe was not going to move out of his office. The failure by your Commission to condemn such utterances right from the beginning clearly encouraged Zanu PF, war veterans aligned to Zanu PF, senior Zanu PF officials and Mr Robert Mugabe to make it their theme during their campaigns that a President does not come to power through the electoral process but rather through the barrel of the gun. This theme which has become pervasive thoughout the Zanu PF campaigns makes people wonder whether we are in an election or in a war.
1.3 Your commission failed to abide by the provision of the Electoral Act when it failed to conduct the presidential run-off election within 21 days from the date of announcement of the presidential elections results conducted on the 29th March 2008.
2. VIOLENCE
The violence currently obtaining in this country which has resulted in numerous deaths, destruction of homes, displacement of various people and injuries to people is something that is clearly in the public domain. As of today, the country has recorded at least 86 deaths, 10 000 homes destroyed , 200 000 people displaced and 10 000 people injured.
The victims have been MDC supporters. The violence has been clearly state sponsored and carried out in most cases by members of the Zimbabwe National Army and ZANU PF militia. It is true that in some instances our supporters have fought back, inmost cases in self defence. Because of our inability to access the rural areas, the above statistics may be understated.
If this present scenario is compared to the period towards the 29 March harmonised election, it is evident that the conditions on the ground have fundamentally changed for the worse. The above statistics clearly show that the electoral environment is not conducive to the holding of a free and fair election.
3. THREATS OF WAR
Throughout its campaigns, Zanu PF has threatened that there will be war if an MDC win in the presidential run-off is pronounced. Mr Mugabe made it quite clear recently that power cannot be taken by a pen but by a gun. War veterans aligned to him have articulated this position throughout the country. These sentiments were echoed by senior Zanu PF officials including the President's wife when she clearly made the point that even if I was to win, I was never to set my foot at the State house. Mr Mugabe also came out on National television encouraging his party members to conduct a war-like campaign. These kind of threats coming as they did from Senior Zanu PF officials including the President of Zanu PF should certainly be taken seriously. Indeed, these threats were taken seriously by our population with the result that a free and fair election is something that cannot be dreamt of under these conditions.
4. PARTICIPATION OF THE UNIFORMED FORCES IN ZANU PF CAMPAIGNS
It is common cause that the Zimbabwe National Army through its senior officers has actively campaigned for Zanu PF and continues to do so. This has been the position with the Zimbabwe Republic Police where senior officials have publicly campaigned for Zanu PF. As if this was not enough, the senior officers of the uniformed forces have forced junior officers to vote for President Mugabe. On the 18th June 2008, my lawyers wrote to you advising you of these developments and the fact that officers from the police, prisons and the army were forced to apply for postal ballots. These officers from the reports we have received have already voted in the presence of a senior officer and were forced to vote for Mr Robert Mugabe. I attach herewith a copy of my lawyers letter dated 18th June 2008 which letter as usual was neither acknowledged nor responded to. In the circumstances, one cannot talk of a free and fair election which can be conducted on the 27th June 2008.
5. INTIMIDATION
The level of intimidation which is currently being subjected to our population particularly in the rural areas is alarming. People are being forced to attend Zanu PF meetings during the night. People are being told to record serial numbers on the ballot papers and disclose them to Zanu PF official who are responsible for carrying out the intimidation. These incidents have been brought to your attention but unfortunately nothing has been done by your Commission by way of assuring the voters that their votes are secret as was the case during the run up to the March harmonised elections. Infact, the voter education campaign which was reasonably conducted during the run up to the March 2008 harmonised election has not been repeated. You have simply allowed Zanu PF, war veterans aligned to Zanu PF and Robert Mugabe to scare the people by suggesting quite clearly that presidential run-off vote is between a choice of war and Robert Mugabe.
In my view, there can never be a free and fair election under these circumstances.
6. NON-ACCESS TO MEDIA
The law clearly provides that a political party is entitled to enjoy reasonable access to the media. My party booked space for its advertisements with Zimpapers newspapers namely Herald, Sunday Mail, Chronicle, Sunday News and the Manica Post which adverts were to commence on the 13th June 2008. We were advised that our publications could not be published because of the shortage of newsprint. What surprised us was that Zanu PF's campaign advertisements are being carried in these newspapers on a daily basis. We also encountered problems with our electronic advertisements with the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Holdings which effectively resulted in our failure to have access to media. This is in sharp contrast with what occurred during the run up to the March 2008 harmonised elections where we were given reasonable access to the media. The importance of media advertisement in any election is quite critical and it is for this reason that media access was specifically provided for in our law. Without this right, there can be no free and fair elections.
7. THE BANNING OF MDC RALLIES AND MEETINGS AND DISRUPTION OF MDC MEETINGS
Since I launched my campaign for the presidential run-off elections, I have encountered numerous difficulties occasioned by agents of the State. I have been detained at police stations on numerous occasions and thereby denied time to campaign. Our meeting and rallies have been banned by the police. We have had to approach the High Court on no less than 3 occasions for the court to intervene to enable us to go ahead with our rallies. On the contrary, Zanu PF is being allowed to conduct its campaign rallies even during the night. In the few cases that our rallies have been allowed to go ahead pursuant to these Court Orders, Zanu PF supporters have disrupted such rallies. On Sunday the 22nd June 2008, our star rally in Harare, in respect of which a High Court Order had to be applied for to proceed with such rally was disrupted by Zanu PF supporters. Clearly it is impossible for any political party to campaign let alone to exist without being allowed to have access to the voting population. In these circumstances, it cannot therefore be said that the environment presently obtaining is conducive for the holding of a free and fair election.
1. DISENFRANCHISEMENT OF VOTERS AND LACK OF ACCESS TO RURAL AREAS
As you are aware voting in the Presidential election is constituency and ward based. In other words no person can vote outside his or her constituency and ward. The massive displacement of people already referred to herein (mainly from rural to urban areas) will result in the disenfranchisement of these people. The confirmed reports we have received confirm that there has been massive and systematic confiscation of national identity documents of our supporters by ZANU PF militia and people claiming to be war veterans. Until our supporters are able to replace these identity documents (which cannot be done by Friday 27 June 2008) they are obviously not going to be able to vote.
Furthermore, more than two thousand of our polling agents throughout the country have been arrested and kept in custody on flimsy allegations. They will certainly be unable to vote. We have trained replacement polling agents, but unfortunately we cannot possibly make arrangement for their deployment in rural areas as it is common cause that the rural areas have virtually been sealed off by ZANU PF militia, some members of the Zimbabwe National Army and people claiming to be war veterans. We will therefore be unable to deploy polling agents at more than 50% of the polling stations in rural areas. Certainly there can be no pretence of holding a free and fair election under these conditions.
From the foregoing and indeed due to several other reasons not necessarily covered in this letter, it is quite clear that no proper election can be held under the present conditions. The present conditions constitute a good example of conditions that vitiate the holding a free and fair election. My party and I have been giving serious consideration to this whole issue for some time, during which time it was hoped that a semblance of a conducive environment may be created as has been the case with other elections where we have participated under protest. The situation obtaining now is very different from what has been experienced in this country since independence. The violence, intimidation, death, destruction of property is just too much for anyone to dream of a free and fair election let alone expect our people to be able to freely and independently express to free themselves. For this reason, my party and I have resolved that we cannot be part to this flawed process. For the avoidance of any doubt the presidential election question remains unresolved until such time a free and fair election is held.
We accordingly urge you to abide by your mandate clearly spelt out in our constitution and in particular ensure that a proper environment conducive for the holding of an efficient, free, fair, and transparent election is held in the shortest period of time possible. It is only in that kind of an election that my party and I will participate in.
By copy of this letter ZANU PF's candidate Mr. Robert Mugabe, the Chief Election Officer and your Commissioners are advised accordingly.
Yours sincerely,
Morgan Tsvangirai
PRESIDENT,
MOVEMENT FOR DEMOCRATIC CHANGE.
Cc: Mr. R. G Mugabe (ZANU PF Headquarters)
Cc: ZEC Commissioners
Interesting
DO we all remember this letter?
The first principle of democracy
Reason, your articles are too long, or lacking in structure, or something. You seem to be using the harangue as a method of persuasion. Please, stop shouting at us. And stop using long, long lists of woolly accusations in place of a clear argument.
Look, it is true that the US democracy has many faults, as do other Western democracies; and Chomsky is right to say that power in the US is too heavily influenced by large corporations.
But the fact remains that these following are the two foundational principles of any democracy, of any attempt to even begin to empower ordinary people, of any government for the people:
(1) The people MUST, MUST, MUST have the right to dismiss their rulers without war, blodshed and revolution. They must have the power to remove leaders from office by purely political means.
(This is a power that we really do have in the US. Presidents DO step down. They serve for eight years and no more. They lose elections and are removed from office. Their powers are limited. It may be true that corporations continue to wield influence whoever is in power, but this ability to vote people out still makes a HUGE difference, no matter what Chomsky says. Imagine if Bush ruled the US for 28 years!! Imagine if he ruled until he was 84!!!)
(2) There MUST, MUST, MUST be freedom of speech and of the press. People must have the right to cricize their governments, to form opposition parties without harrassment; to oppose the government without being called traitors, lackeys, stooges, etc. This is a power that we genuinely have in the US. Chomsky himself proves it. In Zimbabwe a Chomsky would be murdered by the police.)
These principles alone do not make a system perfect. But they are an absolute minimum for anyone who wants to even begin the task of opposing tyranny and imperialism. The US at least has these minimal principles. For that reason it is possible here to make some progress, from time to time, however slight, in the fight against oppression, inequality, and injustice. Our record in the treatment oif our own citizens, at the very least, is really not so bad. That is why millions and millions of people all over the world dream of living here.
Zimbabwe lacks these minimal principles of democracy. The people simply do not have the power to remove the president by political means. Only revolution and war, or natural death, will ever remove Mugabe, and he has said as much quite explicitly. HE CANNOT BE REMOVED BY POLITICS..
Second, people simply do not have the right to criticize the government in Zimbabwe, or to form opposition without harrassment, or to engage in critical debate with the government without being accused of treachery.
The fact is that when you accuse the opposition of being traitors, stooges, neo-colonialists, imperialists etc etc etc (yawn yawn yawn) you are killing that second fundamental principle of democracy. You are in effect declaring that genuine, honest and patriotic opposition to the government is impossible, unthinkable, inconceivable. Under these conditions the fight against tyranny and imperialism CANNOT EVEN BEGIN — and you yourself are promoting, supporting, and cheering for the unchecked abuse of power. To oppose imperialists you must first allow people simply to oppose those in power. You can't grab power and then declare that the other guy is the imperialist, but not you, so its OK for you to murder your politicial opponents! That just makes YOU the imperialist.
When Zimbabweans have the real right to remove their president, and real freedom of speech — at last one tenth as much as we have here in the US — then the quesiton of whether it is a truer or better democracy than the US can at least begin — until then the question is moot and a waste of breath. Without those two principles in place you have tyranny, plain and simple. Nothing can change that basic fact. Nothing will make it go away. It is the ugly elephant in the room that you keep ignoring, even though he is sitting on everyone.
Agreed
Agreed totally. You highlight the strengths of US democracy but that does not take away the weaknesses I highlighted. Together we bring up the trus story of the US.
Adam
I believe Adam has genuine concerns for democracy in Zimbabwe. The point I was making here is that corporate democracy and the power of elites in the West are no substitute for people's power or for true democracy.
We are coming to a time when Zimbabweans will be able to run their own affairs without undue influence from corporate power or the influence of the Western elites.