Why are we so blessed?

Sentamu, who is infamous for tearing his dog collar on TV vowing not to wear it again until President Mugabe left office.
Well, the man has apparently kept his word and last week he was back with Zimbabwe.
He wrote in a publication: “I took off my clerical collar and cut it up in an interview on The Andrew Marr Show on Sunday December 9, 2007. I said I would not wear it again until Robert Mugabe ceased to be in power in Zimbabwe. I made this prophetic statement as Mr Mugabe had slowly but surely cut the identity of the Zimbabwean people into tiny pieces. I did not expect still to be collarless five years on  . . .  . It is fair to say that I did not expect still to be collarless five years on. I’m even asked occasionally why I have forgotten to wear one — but my answer remains that this corrupt and oppressive regime has simply been allowed to carry on for too long.”
The “good” bishop called on countries that imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe not to ease them; criticised Zimbabwe’s draft constitution and what he felt was its cancellation of the right of Zimbabweans to appeal to a supreme legal body to protect their rights and chastised Sadc for dissolving the Sadc Tribunal.
He said: “By dissolving the Sadc Tribunal, the leaders of these nations have colluded with Mr Mugabe in his denial of justice to the citizens of Zimbabwe.”
Sentamu then hoped “to wear my collar again before too long, but it would be best if this is because free and fair elections have taken place in Zimbabwe, legally and peacefully removing from office the President who is responsible for so much violence and destruction.”
The second and third happenings relate to the issue of sanctions as the EU recently said it awaited the conduct of a referendum on a new constitution for it to consider lifting its embargo which position was later taken up by the US, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton embarked on a whirlwind tour of the continent.
Clinton also urged South Africa and Sadc to help “accelerate progress for finalising and adopting that constitution through a credible referendum and holding a free and fair election monitored by the international community.”
There a number of questions that flow from this expose, not least of which is the one posed in the beginning of this piece. It is quite confounding that Sentamu, who for what is recently known, has never set foot in Zimbabwe, can work himself to a frenzy like the one that he embarks on, much like the stranger in that tale that mourns more than the bereaved.
The fact is that Zimbabweans are working together in the GPA, although an imperfect arrangement, as is admitted by the principals themselves.
If reality has to be said Zimbabwe’s problems can only be corrected by Zimbabweans themselves. Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, even in his cynicism, says President Mugabe is part of the solution in Zimbabwe.
Why then does Sentamu want to lynch President Mugabe?
And where between Zimbabwe and Sentamu’s native Uganda are people’s humanity being “cut to pieces” there is “so much violence and destruction”?
And even to use his imagery, what kind of “identity of the Zimbabwean people” is being cut “into tiny pieces”?
Zimbabwe rejected and discredited the doom prophesies of its own errant religious leaders like Archbishop Pius Ncube, so why should we say hallelujah to a “prophetic statement” of Sentamu?
Pius Ncube might have had no honour here, but neither does Sentamu whose antics are purely political and fawning to his British masters. The same masters have tried to use jurisprudence of the likes of Sadc Tribunal to mollify their defeat in Zimbabwe. The tribunal’s dissolution can only make the likes of Sentamu cry to high heavens. It is understandable.
As the issue of the constitution cuts across these three mouths that I have exposed, it needs to be wondered just what it is in the constitution that these people are so interested in.
So, what are the interests of the West, and their lapdogs like Sentamu, in the constitution of Zimbabwe and its elections?
One needs to be extremely wary when the West begins to take interest in your affairs and processes.
Was it not Thabo Mbeki, in a seminal piece on Libya, who asked when the West had ever been truly concerned about encouraging genuine democracy in Africa, without being driven by self-interest?
In a discussion with Ambassador Chris Mutsvangwa recently about the West and its sanctions on Zimbabwe – whether they would be eased or not or when – he emphasized on this same point that international relations is driven by self interest.
So, what are the interests of the West, and their lapdogs like Sentamu, in the constitution of Zimbabwe and its elections?
One can think of the tricky issues that have been raised concerning the envisaged new constitution the provisions of which will make the electoral framework.
Talk of presidential powers, presidential term limits, homosexuality, dual citizenship or the “unpruned roughness” in the draft constitution that one columnist talks about this week.
This has to do with freedom of expression, the Press, the media, or broadcasting, or public broadcasting, or public media and the curious “right of establishment” for the broadcast media.
And with the line seemingly drawn in the sand between the MDC formations and Zanu-PF over the current draft, with the former wanting it voetstoots and the other objecting to it, what will be the stakes come the referendum, which the West so awaits with bated breath?