ZANU PF ‘chicken to change’
Last Updated on Wednesday, 28 March 2012 16:35 Written by Administrator Friday, 23 March 2012 08:51
The past week has been eventful with the conviction of the ‘Harare 6’(aka the 'Zimbabwe 6' or 'Egypt 6') on the 19th of March 2012 and their subsequent non-custodial sentence on the 21st of March for allegedly ‘conspiring to commit public violence’ after watching a video on the Arab Spring.
What has emerged from the trial of the six is the apparent fear of ‘people power’ exhibited by ZANU PF in response to its waning political supremacy and the continued use of the judiciary system to frustrate efforts by well meaning citizens to exercise their democratic rights.
Since the beginning of the Arab Spring in 2010, post- independent Africa has awoken and united against dictatorships. Events of the past two years including the demise of the dictatorships in Tunisia and Egypt; the fight for fundamental freedoms in Libya and subsequent demise of Muammar Gadaffi; the protests against the Malawian government and against the bid for re- election by Senegalese President Abdoulaye Wade and the victory of Zambian opposition leader, Michael Sata; bare testament to the growing derision for the old regimes and dictatorships and the nostalgia for change.
ZANU PF has been in power since independence and is conscious of the fact that they have failed as a government to bring sustainable development to Zimbabwe resulting in growing unrest and displeasure with and within the political party and its octogenarian leader President Robert Mugabe. The admission by Magistrate, Kudakwashe Jarabini and Prosecutor, Edmore Nyazamba that Zimbabwe is a troubled nation and that any show of dissatisfaction could spark unrest shows how the government is bent on discouraging the emergence of a combined force against the ruling elites.
During aggravation, State Prosecutor, Edmore Nyazamba said,
‘Even if revolts did not take place in Zimbabwe, the court should take into account the historical background which our country shares with Egypt, both former British colonies, the revolt in Egypt started at Tahrir Square while here the six planned to convene at Africa Unity Square, there were economic hardships at the time in Egypt, these are the same conditions prevailing in Zimbabwe...’
Nyazamba however deliberately forgot one crucial similarity between the countries; The unpopularity of the Mubarrak dictatorship which ruled Egypt at the time and the similar unpopularity of the Mugabe dictatorship currently ruling Zimbabwe (ZANU PF undoubtedly wields more political muscle in the ‘marriage of convenience’) coupled with the growing dissent among civilians.
The similarity above is undoubtedly the most important which stirred the Egyptian revolution and which could stir a hornet’s nest in the Zimbabwe. In passing sentence Magistrate Jarabini admitted that the political situation in the country is a time bomb,
‘It is of paramount importance to take note that the prevailing political environment was conducive enough to easily incite.... the timing was deliberate, taking advantage of the fact that clips were shown and played in almost all television stations which could have easily ignited riotous conduct not only by the accused (activists) but by opportunists and hooligans. ’
ZANU PF through its functionaries within the judiciary admitted that there is a general dissatisfaction with the political party and the growing demands for leadership renewal. As civil society organisations highlighted, what was on trial was the very idea that the government can be overthrown and not that the Harare 6 committed any crime. In which independent country is watching a video criminalised? Despite Jarabini painstakingly arguing that the crime is not watching the video but the intentions behind watching that video, it is evident that the video ignited fear in Mugabe, ZANU PF and its functionaries. The intention of the trial was to instil fear in all Zimbabweans such that no one would ever dream, let alone think about questioning Mugabe’s authority. This is the reason why State Prosecutor Nyazamba likened Mugabe to the biblical Moses and threatened the activists with ‘stoning’ and ‘swallowing by the earth’ for questioning his authority.
The questions which arise however are; Why do we hold elections when we cannot even criticise the government and demand accountability? Is it not a democratic right of all Zimbabweans to elect their representatives freely and without intimidation? Doesn’t democracy encourage scrutiny of public office holders? What is the purpose of the constitution which protects all fundamental freedoms including the freedom of expression and which highlights the need for the holding of periodic elections when these very aspects of democracy are criminalised?
ZANU PF’s fear emanates from its continued thirst for power which is in contradiction with the people’s desire for political reform and change. Political movements which have challenged Mugabe’s power since independence including the late Dr. Joshua Nkomo led Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU) in the 80’s and the Zimbabwe Unity Movement (ZUM) led by the late Edgar Tekere have been vilified and rubbished by Mugabe and his sympathisers. Even those within ZANU PF who have challenged the octogenarian leader such as Simba Makoni, Dzikamai Mavhaire and Dumiso Dabengwa have been censured or pushed out of the party.
It is apparent that ZANU PF is attempting to contain growing dissent, through archaic and colonial style means with the victimisation, conviction and sentencing of the Harare 6 acting as a warning to Zimbabweans to desist from organising protests against government. For ZANU PF, this route is easier to take than addressing the root causes of the dissent which are bad governance and illegitimacy. Or in the words of the State Prosecutor, the ZANU PF controlled judiciary ‘does not want to be caught sending the wrong message to the public that in Zimbabwe people can protest as they wish.’ In reality, the message which the judiciary wanted to send was that any discrediting of the government or attempts to do so will cause a strong backlash from the state.
For a country which boasts of having attained independence thirty two years ago, the suppression of the people’s rights is a reversal of the very essence of the liberation struggle. Wanting the President to retire is not treason and advocating for the removal of a government is equally legal. Prosecution by persecution, which ZANU PF has perfected over the years, is by its very nature a colonial tactic used to smother citizens’ fundamental freedoms. But then again, will ZANU PF’s continued silencing of the citizens yield any positive results? Only time will tell...