Excellent article on post-Mugabe

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
25,134
Points
83
It might prove to be the same as 37 year old establishment remains the same with no end to the plight of a country and its people.

Justice Malala: Future uncertain for Zim

November 20, 2017 Justice Malala


JusticeMalala.jpg
It is so tempting to jump up with joy and ululate with the oppressed people of Zimbabwe. For decades they have been brutalised by the oppressive regime of Robert Mugabe.

On Saturday, as millions of jubilant Zimbabweans flooded the streets of Harare and other centres, hugging soldiers and thanking them for finally acting, tears rushed to one’s eyes.

As the images were beamed across the world it was tempting to say that finally a new uhuru (freedom) has arrived in Zimbabwe.

It would be foolish to do so. Zimbabwe has been a country of false dawns and dashed hopes since Mugabe took power in 1980.

Nearly four decades after it gained its freedom and inspired us here in South Africa to soldier on, however, it remains a country for and of old men.

It is in the grip of these old men. It cannot shake them off.

That is why events of the past two weeks in Zimbabwe need to be viewed with caution and scepticism, but not a loss of hope. Freedom is coming to Zimbabwe, yes. But it will not be brought by the fired and soon to be reinstated Vice-President Emmerson Mnangagwa. It will also not be brought by General Constantine Chiwenga, the man who led the army in its actions last week.

These are the old men who, with Mugabe, have terrorised Zimbabwe and her people for 37 years.

They are the problem, not the solution.

Mnangagwa has been a member of the Mugabe inner circle since liberation.

In the 1980s Mugabe and his regime sent troops to Matabeleland allegedly to quell insurgents aligned to Mugabe’s rival, Joshua Nkomo.

A curfew was imposed, communities were starved, people were murdered in their thousands – all by the very army that today says it is against Mugabe’s wrongdoing.

Mugabe.jpg

People watch at a bar in Harare, Zimbabwe, as President Robert Mugabe addresses the nation on television
Picture: Reuters/ Philimon Bulawayo
Surrounding Mugabe were the likes of Mnangagwa and Chiwenga.

In the 1990s, Zimbabwe fell ever deeper into economic, political and social despair.

It is at this time that the judiciary and other institutions were stripped of their independence. Judges fled.

Young people who dared raise their voices were arrested, tortured and harassed. It was a harbinger of worse to come.

The 2000s saw an even more arrogant and power-mad Mugabe. The 2002 election was stolen through violence and coercion. The period immediately afterwards was horrific: journalists were driven out of their homes and jobs, newspapers were shut down and opposition voices fled.

These atrocities happened while Mnangagwa was Mugabe’s strongman.

Mnangagwa is a mini-Mugabe.

He was Mugabe’s security chief during the 1980s when the Matabeleland massacres took place.

Chiwenga is worse. He may be the chief of the army in Zimbabwe but he is not a soldier of the people but a Zanu-PF enforcer.

In 2008, when it became clear Mugabe was losing the parliamentary elections to the MDC’s Morgan Tsvangirai, Chiwenga said he would not salute the opposition leader if he became president.

Is this someone paving the way for a democratic dispensation? No.

These two men carried out the “coup” of the past week to continue Zanu-PF’s looting and patronage of the past four decades, not for the millions who flooded the streets on Saturday. What now for Zimbabwe? This is a country that can be fixed very quickly. But that will depend on whether Mugabe’s departure will usher in a genuine democratic dispensation. Zimbabwe’s journey remains uncertain.

The road to a great Zimbabwe will be longer than many of us expect, and full of twists and turns.

The struggle now is to ensure that power moves from Mugabe to a transitional structure swiftly.

Then on to a new, open, genuine democracy that waves goodbye to the “old men” and old ways around Mugabe.

A new beginning needs new leaders and thinking – not Mnangagwa, Chiwenga and cronies.

On Saturday, opposition leader Tendai Biti tweeted: “Tomorrow might be a nightmare BUT today we breathe freely.”

Sadly, it is not yet uhuru for Zimbabwe. Handled badly, the country’s tomorrow might yet be a nightmare.
 
Mugabe outsmarted his generals - why he would not resign
2017-11-20 08:32


26800c4fe82a4789b760937a4e9a3a0e.jpg

Robert Mugabe (AP)

Multimedia · User Galleries · News in PicturesSend us your pictures · Send us your stories




Related Links
Analysis: More evil to come for Zim under Mnangagwa
fabfabd4bdbf4e5ab2398667c69328af.jpg


Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe is teaching his comrades in the military a hard lesson that a half-coup will not achieve full results, or the intended results for that matter.

Since the dramatic takeover by the military in Zimbabwe, it has become clear that a bloodless coup d'état will not remove him from power.

Led by the chief of the military and former Mugabe ally, General Constantino Chiwenga, the coup was clearly intended to place Mugabe under siege and then persuade him to resign in a comradely way. It has thus far only proved that the word 'persuasion' does not work well with the word 'coup'.

It makes no sense to stage a military coup and then open negotiations to persuade the targeted leader to walk away. The normal flow of events of a military coup is that the targeted leader is forcefully removed and sometimes expelled from the country. The strange thing about the Zimbabwean coup is that the soldiers went halfway in, and then attempted to revert back to the political process and asked Mugabe to leave office.

Being the cunning leader that he is, Mugabe simply figured out that his comrades in the army lack the will to go all the way and remove him by force.

Firstly, there still might be a strong bond between him and the senior members of his party who turned against him. Hence, they will not fully humiliate Mugabe, the liberation hero by forcefully removing him from power.

Even more interesting, is that Mugabe's detractors might be aware that the oldest head of state in the world is still popular enough that humiliating him in an open, forceful manner could backfire.

There is, however, a more sinister reason why the military only went halfway in attempting to remove Mugabe.

Had they gone ahead and announced that Mugabe is removed and succeeded by Emmerson Mnangagwa, for example, the military would have then had to deal with the consequences of a coup – even if that coup would have removed the controversial Mugabe.

When a coup is undertaken, it means that the political or constitutional process of addressing leadership change is interrupted. Therefore, whoever gets installed as a leader immediately after the coup, will serve as a transitional or caretaker leader pending elections.

When a coup is carried out, there ought to be elections as soon as possible. This is meant to refresh the political mandate to return to the normal political process.

The problem that the Zimbabwean military generals were faced with – which also made it difficult to summarily throw Mugabe out – is that they had no intention of refreshing the political mandate through free and open elections.

In this case, free and open elections would not guarantee them their continued hold on power. What if their candidate did not succeed? What if the elections were organised by an independent transition body overseen by the global community? Those are some of the uncertainties they would have taken into account in the manner they removed Mugabe.

To deal with this matter, the Zimbabwean military decided to suspend Mugabe's government, and then reinstate it just for the purpose of him having to anoint a civilian leader, Mnangagwa.

But Mugabe wouldn't have any of that. He is actually daring the military to go ahead and complete their coup against him or go back to their barracks and allow him to continue to manage the succession politically.

The military tried to use a coup to remove Mugabe, while doing it in a way that would ensure they do not incur the cost of staging a military takeover. This is why they were at pains to explain on national TV that what has happened is not a coup, but a mere correction.

Even if Mugabe has been removed as a party leader, it is clear to anyone that the political process that removed him from his party was presided upon by the military. In all this, the opposition party in Zimbabwe are mere spectators as state institutions are used to manage a succession process within Zanu-PF.

Mugabe, on the other hand, has taken a strong position that the military cannot have its cake and eat it.

His message is that you either follow the constitutional process through which to manage succession or you use a military coup; you cannot have it both ways.

- Ralph Mathekga is a Fellow at the SARChI Chair: African Diplomacy and Foreign Policy at the University of Johannesburg and author of When Zuma Goes.
 
It might prove to be the same as 37 year old establishment remains the same with no end to the plight of a country and its people.

What's happening and will happen in Zimbabwe will never occur in Zikapore. Because Sinkies are softies. They don't have the cajones to do what's right by their conscience (if they have one.)
 
Back
Top