adminbalancing in governance issues that makes a nation practice the rule of law while creating a conducive environment for observance of human rights, peace and stability.
On the other hand we are told by the merchants of hope (the West) that for the above to happen, African governments must reform their security and media houses so as to create a level playing field in elections; an environment without which elections in African countries will never be free and fair.
It is surprising that those who colonised Africa and subjugated Africans during colonisation now talk of fairness. Sadly, the very people who want to see fairness in African electoral processes create unfair environments by imposing sanctions and funding political parties such as the MDC formations and civil society organisations such as Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition, Zesn, Idazim and ZLHR, among others, to cause political conflict and confusion.
The funding of these organisations that claim to be apolitical and non-partisan is done through USAid, Danida, Soros and many others. The legions of these institutions’ staffers are heavily paid and their operations are financially sponsored by the West. The objective of funding civil societies and surrogate political parties is to cause political conflicts and confusion so as to effect regime change in targeted countries.
The Herald of Wednesday June 12 2013 published a story titled “MDC-T Launches Litigation Crusade” which exposed that Chris Mhike, a lawyer with Atherstone and Cook, a white legal firm that provides the MDC formations with defence lawyers on most of their court cases, chaired the meeting.
Reading the contents of the story and going through the lists of attendants, that included the MDC-T spokesperson Douglas Mwonzora and secretary-general Tendai Biti, one could not be faulted for viewing the Indaba as an Indaba for crafting a treacherous grand political strategy rather than a litigation strategy.
Surprisingly, those who attended this political indaba under the guise of a litigation indaba are the most vocal on wanting Zimbabwe to carry out security and media reforms before elections can be held.
Both Mwonzora and Biti were crafting strategies to defend their party position together with members of civil societies and NGOs who are supposed to be apolitical and non-partisan. The same NGOs and other non-state actors attended a political gathering where the PM invited them to come and get political posts in the MDC-T.
Political analysts agreed that the MDC meeting, which the civil societies, which claim to be apolitical and non-partisan, attended was highly political in nature. This clearly demonstrates that most of the civil societies and neo-liberal legal firms are MDC political associates who asymmetrically hide behind the names of their organisations for operational expediency.
In the book “Another American Century” Bill Clinton said “As we work for peace, we must also meet threats to our nation’s security including increased dangers from “outlaw” nationals, terrorists and other nations. We will defend our security wherever we are threatened by whomever regardless”.
Surprisingly, when states in Africa proclaim to defend themselves from outlaw nationals, America and the surrogate internal civil societies view the security sector as partisan and political. Sadly, if the above is done by any African state the West and civil societies condemn such states for not abiding with the rule of law and tenets of democracy.
The main idea of the MDCs’ demand for security and media reforms is to sway people to believe this foreign propaganda that is spread by treacherous local reactionaries that are recruited from the educated elites and are heavily paid to bastardise their own nationals.
The main focus here is not about free and fair play but for causing political confusion in order to effect regime change. The joint treacherous political work of the MDC formations and civil societies and NGOs defies security logic and calls for the awakening of security institutions to be ruthless with outlaw nationals as the case is in America.
It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that civil societies in the third world countries, Zimbabwe included, are bent on causing political confusion, which results in regime change. How can institutions that practice political alienation such as shown by ZLHR, Zesn and CZC’s open political association with MDC formations, call for media and security reforms when they themselves have not reformed?
Fellow citizens, the PM and MDC formations have threatened to boycott the elections if Zanu-PF ignores media and security reforms. One wonders why the civil society and ZLHR are not advising the MDCs that both the old and new constitutions do not have a single word on rights to boycott. Is this not because the boycott is in line with their litigation strategy?
According to the minutes of the litigation strategy published by the Herald, one can conclude that the objective of the Indaba was to craft a strategy of causing political crisis in Zimbabwe by rubbishing the judiciary system. Ironically, the PM in the presence of ZLHR had the audacity of blaming Zanu-PF for committing national suicide if it went ahead declaring election dates as demanded by the Constitutional Court.
l Panganai Kahuni is a political socio-economic commentator.
Online Reporter