Letters - Zimbabwe
'Invasion' of ZimbabweBy Madalitso M. Phiri
Friday July 18, 2008 [04:00]
Please allow me to respond to Choolwe Mweetwa's 'Invasion' of Zimbabwe article in last Friday's Post. The historical jargon of land, imperialism and the west has been pushed more than the real issue of the two elections of 2008 in Zimbabwe. I believe Zimbabwean voters are intelligent enough to defend their country on any of these fronts.
However, Mugabe’s behaviour and the way he managed these elections shows he has been trying to push his country and the entire SADC region into a war situation more than any one else.
The mediation effort by Thabo Mbeki leaves much to be desired. The AU Summit in Egypt was another missed opportunity for Africa and indeed Zimbabwe. Why did that council of Heads of States fail to see concerns raised by its own observer mission on the ground in Zimbabwe concerning these elections? How?
Can, Robert Gabriel Mugabe be made to account for: delayed presidential poll results of March 2008 elections; making calls for a re-run of presidential elections before the first results were out; calling for a re-run of elections after the 21 days window as stipulated by the law.
Also, can he be held responsible for: declaring he would not relinquish power even if he lost the elections on June 27 2008; going on a war path against those who did not vote for ZANU-PF and Mugabe on March 29, 2008, “You have to correct your mistakes or vote for full scale war of the 1970s”; disenfranchising voters by displacement due to political violence.
All these facts are there in The Post between 14/06/08 and 18/06/08
In all fairness, how does the Mugabe regime and those who support it expect us to accept them as part of the democratic family in Africa? Haven’t they condemned themselves as outcasts by their own actions?
Please, tell Mugabe to go back to the polls free from violence and such glaring errors.
After that, we can listen to him if he wins. Not now! The ideas of power sharing, government of national unity and the Mbeki-style trouble-backing mediation efforts of not seeing a crisis even when it is clear, are all efforts aimed at taking Africa from democratic governance and democratic elections.
Zimbabwe boasted they have ratified and domesticated the SADC principles of democratic governance. Let them be made to walk the talk, period! If the elections were managed well, we would not be talking about Mugabe or Zimbabwe!
Labels: NEOCOLONIALISM, ZIMBABWE
posted by MrK @ 6:39 AM
1 Comments:
COMMENT - I am getting pretty sick of the MDC and it's santimonious use of facts. Land, imperialism and the west are not 'historical jargon'. Anyone who thinks that British and American interest in Zimbabwe is about elections is deluding themselves. These countries could not care less about the democratic content of elections anywhere, even in their own countries (the US more so than the UK though). What they are interested in is Zimbabwe's natural assets - it's land, it's mines and the fact that Zimbabwe defied the IMF and western interests in the DRC. LonRho did not set up the $100 million LonZim fund because they are interested in the will of the Zimbabwean voter being expressed. They set up that fund because they anticipate the MDC once it comes to power, privatising the parastatals and mines, as the good western cronies, excuse me, neoliberals, they are. Bush can't spell Zimbabwe, and he certainly was not interested in the expressed will of the voters of Florida and Ohio, but he is interested in the outcome of the elections in Zimbabwe? The government of Iraq has asked them to leave, and so far Bush has not complied - his successor John McCain wants to stay there 'for a hundred years', irrelevant of what the Iraqis want. Are these the champions of democracy in Zimbabwe?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home