What choices does Mugabe have now? Stepping down is definately not an option... so, for now, he is just waiting.
Hello. So, now what is happening?
He is waiting. I mentioned, perhaps not in this forum, that in
four days the mood would be lost. Four days have gone (maybe I got
the time wrong) but he is waiting for attention to leave Zimbabwe,
then he will steal the election. Again. And the opposition (led by
the MDC, or not led as the case may be) will sit around and do
nothing. Lots of talks, going to the courts, and all that excuse
for inactivity, but they will do nothing.
But does he have
a choice? On one level you feel sorry for him. Although in the real
world it is impossible to feel sorry. He cannot step down. He is
riding the tiger. And many are on that tiger with him (the
military and the corrupt elite). How can he step down? He cannot
trust any local persons - any more than they could trust him. He
stands the very real risk of 'next stop, the Hague'. Him and many
others in power (on the tiger). He cannot trust the neighbours.
(Any more than they can trust him). Charles Taylor going to
'exile' in Nigeria is a glaring factor in that equation. Off goes
Charlie for a nice little corruptly and bloodily earned rest in a
place
where he is guaranteed safety, and suddenly, he is behind
bars in Europe!
So what choice does he have? Stay in power (he
and his gang), where the means of violence are readily available
(and they do have degrees in violence, the University of Edinburgh
cannot take those degrees from him), or shuffle off defeated (even
if a 'dignified' defeat), and wait for violence to be done to
you (not that the ICC will ever sentence anyone to death)? So what
choice - use power (in the rawest sense of the word) from a
position of power, where you can mete it out with a limited chance
it will come back and bite you, or leave, to a place where there
is a good chance that it will come along and bite you? And this is
not a question he is asking alone.
So a run-off. Note the
difference between the vote and the count. There is every
indication that the vote will go against him. It was an apathetic
turnout at the real elections. The run off will not be apathetic.
And there was a large number of pro-incumbent votes out from
loyalty (a term used loosely to indicate those riding the same
tiger as the incumbent) at the real election. This will not be a
vote that can be relied on again. Makoni has survived this long,
it shows you can leave the party without being hammered into the
ground.
And then the count. There is massive experience
amongst those with the degrees in violence with this. The ground
work is being laid. The War Vets are being called out. The ZEC is
being accused of irregularities (a cover story). A recount of 16
constituencies is being called for (again, a smoke screen). And
a recount of the Presidential vote is being called for (how you
can have a recount before you 'know' what the count is???) All
ground work for a 'better' result being warranted.
However,
as I also said, a change has happened.
My Masters paper was on
Banda leaving Malawi. I noticed that Banda used
party secretaries-general as scapegoats. He would 'allow' them to
do his bidding (i.e. suppress all revolt, dissent, etc) and then
'discover' that they were 'mean evil people', and, for his beloved
people he would credit the Secretary-General with all the blame
and have them removed. Eventually (after years and Dick
Mutenje) people stopped wanting to be the party Secretary-General,
and those who unfortunately were just did not seem to be able to
do his bidding. So Banda lost a tool. A method. A mechanism to
stay in power. But it had worked in the meantime. Banda stayed in
power until he was 94 (approximately) and had a brain tumor.
I
think he has done the same with Zanu PF. While he has retained power,
he has now lost, or is losing, the party. The military coup that
we have been subjected to (I use 'military' to define those who
were the old ZANLA High Command) is very near the surface now.
Since 1997 (or even 1996), the minister in charge of every
uniformed and armed ministry (Army, Air Force, Police, Prison
Services, National Parks) was a 'retired' soldier. Since sometime
in the 2000s (possibly 2004) every single Permanent Secretary in
every single ministry was a 'retired'
soldier. And more recently
(2006 or 7?) the Joint Operations Command (JOC) has been meeting
regularly with our president. Who tells who what to do in
these meetings? We are controlled (maybe not ruled) by a military
junta.
So what is the solution? I do not know. That is joy
of being an 'activist. You can say what is wrong, without having
to say (or do) what will make it right. Having said that, at least
I have had my say. Getting the 'facts' out into the open, and
discussing them, will at least lead to an understanding of the
problem. And only if we understand the problem, can we come up
with a 'correct' (or best) solution.
Zvakanaka, Michael.
Trackback(0)
 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comments
Show/Hide comment form