Ground Zero – 120 Broadway

A bitter wind drives
The sweet acrid stench
Of hateful men
Deep into my soul.

Sharp shards of steel
Greet the eye
Burnt, twisted, fragile
Grotesquely straining upwards
Towards what might have been –
And what was.

Fires burning deep within
Yield papers swept away
Heavenwards….
The forlorn remains
Of ideas crushed.

Somebody’s “vitally important” memo
Now irrelevant
Fluttering by the 33rd Floor
Defying the pull of Wall Street
Hustling below.

White angels dancing
In the air
Strangely liberated
Not bound now by files
Convention, form and time.

David Coltart
New York

Posted in Biographical | Leave a comment

A critique of the Zimbabwean Broadcasting Services and Political Parties (Finances) Acts

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association

On the 3rd April 2001 the Zimbabwean Parliament “fast tracked” two controversial bills, namely the Broadcasting Services and Political Parties (Finance) Bills despite strenuous opposition from the Movement for Democratic Change. The Leader of the House, ZANU(PF) Minister of Justice Patrick Chinamasa went to extraordinary lengths to get both bills passed. The previous week he successfully moved for the reduction of the period for the consideration of one of the bills by the Parliamentary Legal Committee from 26 days to 4 days. At commencement of debate Minister Chinamasa moved the suspension of Standing Orders relating to consideration of an adverse report from the Parliamentary Legal Committee and the stages for the consideration of bills. Both actions in themselves were extraordinary: the Legal Committee (comprising incidentally a majority of ZANU(PF) members) had declared that the Broadcasting Act was, in several respects, unconstitutional and the right to debate an adverse report the next sitting day was denied; the latter compressed the debate of all three stages of both bills (normally debated on separate days) into one day. Neither bill concerned matters of immediate national importance – the old Broadcasting Act had been declared unconstitutional 6 months previously and Zimbabwean legislation had allowed foreign funding of political parties for 21 years. Despite all these irregularities and the legitimate objections of the opposition and civil society ZANU(PF) used their majority to ram both bills through the House. This paper now outlines why the MDC objects to both Acts.

Broadcasting Services Act

Zimbabwe, and before it Rhodesia, has endured an absolute broadcasting monopoly by the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation which has been a propaganda mouthpiece of the ZANU(PF) government. Zimbabweans’ rights to freedom of expression, as enshrined in section 20 of the Constitution, have been systematically violated for Zimbabwe’s entire 21 year history in that the ZBC only gives voice to ZANU(PF) views. In 1996 a company Capital Radio (Pvt) Ltd was established with the specific purpose of challenging the constitutionality of section 27 of the Broadcasting Act that gave the ZBC a monopoly. At the end of September 2000 the Zimbabwean Supreme Court declared section 27 unconstitutional and within days Capital Radio commenced broadcasting from a hotel in Harare. Government responded by immediately issuing draconian new Presidential Powers Broadcasting Regulations and seizing Capital Radio’s equipment, effectively closing down the station. The Broadcasting Services Act was passed to replace both the unconstitutional Broadcasting Act and the Presidential Regulations.

The new Act does not pass constitutional or democratic muster for the following reasons:

  1. Section 4(2) of the Act establishes a Broadcasting Authority Board to govern the authority consisting of “members appointed by the Minister (of Information) after consultation with the President and in accordance with any directions that the President may give him”. In other words the Minister and the President have absolute discretion as to who will sit on the Board. Internationally, such Boards are selected by a Parliamentary body after a thorough and transparent process (advertisements, public hearings etc). In some countries civil society groups themselves are involved in the process. The MDC believes that Parliament should have a say in scrutinising and authorising members nominated by the Executive, which must in turn take into account the use of civil society.
  2. Section 4(3) of the Act pays lip service to the concept of representativity. It states that the Minister “shall endeavour to secure that members are represented of groups or sectors of the community”. However by not defining these groups or sectors it remains up to the discretion of the Minister to decide which groups or sectors he will include. In international legislation, such Boards have to be representative – viewed collectively – of the entire population. The MDC believes that the Act should read “that the members are representative of ALL GROUPS OR SECTORS OF THE COMMUNITY”. One of the most draconian aspects of the Act is contained in Section 6. It states that the Minister shall be the Licensing Authority. This clause makes the purpose crystal clear: the Minister and no one else is in charge. Only the Minister has the ultimate authority to license broadcasters. The MDC believes that a publicly and transparently appointed Broadcasting Authority, representative of all Zimbabweans should be the Licensing Authority.
  3. Section 8(1) and (2) states that licenses shall be issued “only to individuals who are citizens of Zimbabwe resident in Zimbabwe … or to a body corporate in which controlling interests is held by citizens of Zimbabwe resident in Zimbabwe.” “Controlling interests” is defined as “all” or “one hundred per centum” of securities or shares. The MDC believes that it is acceptable that broadcasting in a country should be controlled by nationals of that country. This clause, however, aims to disqualify any foreign co-ownership in broadcasting and thus makes foreign investments in this industry impossible. The prohibition of the ownership of shares by Zimbabwean non-residents is unconstitutional as it violates their rights to property and expression. Whilst in other countries there are limitations on foreign ownership, “controlling interests” is understood to mean what it says: the majority of shares, not all shares. In the Zimbabwean context foreign investment is indispensable especially to establish capital intense and highly technical private television stations and digital services.
  4. Section 9(1) restricts national broadcasting. It states that only one other license, other than that provided to the State controlled Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation, shall be issued to provide national free-to-air radio broadcasting services and television broadcasting services. This clause is a direct violation of the Constitution and is designed to keep any competition to the ZBC as limited as possible. The limitation is unwarranted. There are many frequencies and the MDC believes that the number of frequencies made available for licensing must be the maximum possible.
  5. One of the more bizarre provisions of the Act is contained in Section 9(2) and (3) which restricts signal carriers. It says that “only one signal carrier license shall be issued to a person other than a public broadcaster” and “with the exception of a public broadcaster, a broadcasting license and a carrier license shall not be issued to the same applicant.” Once again this is designed to centralise transmitting signal which undoubtedly is intended to be used as a means of control. It is also a totally impractical provision for local commercial community radio stations which have their own small transmitters. In terms of this the holder of the broadcasting license will always be dependent on the holder of the carrier license to ensure the free flow of information. The provision is unconstitutional as it infringes on people’s rights to freely express themselves through broadcasting without hindrance. The MDC believes that the provisions should be deleted as all broadcasters should be allowed to transmit their own broadcast freely.
  6. Section 10(6), (8) and (10) provides for the holding of a commission of enquiry for the purposes of determining applications for licenses. In terms of this provision the authority “may recommend that the Minister issue or refuse” a license; on receiving the “recommendation” the “Minister may issue or refuse” a license. The commission of enquiry process is not sufficiently representative, public and transparent and will accordingly materially infringe rights to freedom of expression. In addition since the authority’s recommendations do not need to be followed by the Minister it does not matter how good that process is. Ultimately the Minister has absolute say in determining who should have a license. The MDC believes that a public and transparently representative Broadcasting Authority alone should have the right to issue or refuse licences. In addition the MDC believes that all applicants should have the right, enshrined in the Act, to have the High Court review any decision made by the Authority.
  7. Section 11 and the Fifth Schedule of the Act set out terms and conditions of a license. It states that a license shall be issued subject to, among others, “such terms and conditions as the Minister may reasonably determine after consultation” with the Broadcasting Authority. License holders also are obliged to “broadcast, without charge, such items of national interest as a specified by the Minster” and allow “persons authorised by the Minister” to have “access to and control over the licensees broadcasting facilities” in times that the Minister regards as an emergency. This clause gives the Minister unacceptably wide powers to impose unspecified conditions even beyond those stipulated in the regulations. It also forces license holders to broadcast material they may not wish to, at no charge, and allows the Minister to take over the property of private businesses as and when he feels there is an emergency requiring this. It is the MDC’s view that this clause should be deleted in its entirety as it is unconstitutional and an unnecessary infringement in the freedom of speech of license holders. It gives far too much power to a Minister who is not accountable to a public, transparent and representative body.
  8. Section 11(5) has a particularly insidious provision compelling license holders to make available to Government one hour of its services per week “for the purpose of enabling the Government of the day, at its request, to explain its policies to the nation”. Once again this clause infringes on editorial independence of commercial or community broadcasting and is unconstitutional.
  9. Section 11(8) prohibits the employment by a licensee of a foreigner or non-resident Zimbabwean without authorisation “by the Minister”. Zimbabwe has never had independent broadcasting and accordingly has very few broadcasters and technicians with suitable skills to establish new radio and television stations. Once again it gives the Minister unacceptably wide powers to determine who will work for broadcasting companies. It also infringes on the right to freedom of movement of non-resident Zimbabweans. By making it difficult for broadcasters to find technicians it infringes on broadcasters’ rights to freedom of expression.
  10. Section 11(1)(b) states that a community radio or television station “shall not broadcast any political matter” which is defined in the Fifth Schedule as “any political matter, including the policy launch of a political party”. This clause aims at restricting community radios (which are not so easy to monitor) to non-political programming only. The definition is also extremely loose and arbitrary. Community matters by their very nature, are often “political” matter. Once again the provision is unconstitutional as it infringes on the rights to freedom of expression of communities that have radio stations.
  11. Section 12(2) and (3) limits the period of validity of a commercial license to two (2) years and that of a community license to one (1) year. There is no doubt that this is designed as a further method of control. The clause is prohibitive. No business will invest millions of dollars in equipment and training for such a short period, especially when the further licensing is subject to such rigid control by one person. This provision is clearly designed to inhibit broadcasters. The MDC believes that a commercial license should be issued for at least five (5) years, subject to compliance with reasonable license conditions. Likewise a community license should be issued for at least three (3) to four (4) years.

From the above it can be seen that the Broadcasting Services Act is draconian, unconstitutional and clearly designed to perpetuate ZANU(PF)’s control over the broadcasting of information in Zimbabwe. Indeed the Act is so riddled with so many patently undemocratic measures it will have to be repealed in its entirety and replaced by a new Act which accords with international standards. The MDC believes that there should be an independent regulatory authority which is responsible for allocating frequencies and ensuring that broadcasters comply with the laws of the country and do not, for example, allow hate speech and material detrimental to the interests of children to be disseminated. The present Act merely seeks to perpetuate the interests of a totalitarian regime.

Political Parties Finance Act

The MDC is in full agreement with the Political Parties (Finance) Act save for Section 6 of the Act which prohibits foreign funding. To that extent the remainder of the Act is irrelevant for the purposes of this. Section 6 of the Act states that no political party shall accept any foreign donation whether directly from a donor or indirectly through a third person. A foreign donation includes a donation made by a Zimbabwe citizen who however is non-resident. Non-citizens who are resident in Zimbabwe are entitled to make donations to a political party. The MDC has two (2) principal objections to this provision.

  1. Zimbabwe is a fledgling democracy and has an extremely weak economy. As a result it is extremely difficult for political parties to secure sufficient funding within Zimbabwe to purchase the necessary equipment and to develop rational policies. Indeed it is ironic that ZANU(PF) has sought to prohibit foreign funding for it is a party that has enjoyed substantial foreign funding ever since it was established as a political party in the early 1960’s. Indeed over the years ZANU(PF) has benefited from funding from people and organisations as diverse as Tiny Rowland and the Chinese communist party. The MDC accepts that there needs to be some control on foreign funding lest a political party is bribed into adopting a foreign agenda which is not in the interests of the Zimbabwean people. However the MDC believes that it is hypocritical of ZANU(PF) to ban foreign funding at this juncture, a move which is clearly designed to hamper the growth of a young political party such as the MDC. The MDC believes that political parties should be required to present to Parliament annual accounts audited by an international firm of Chartered Accountants which should indicate the precise amount of foreign and local donations and to what purposes such donations have been applied. Furthermore the MDC would have no objection to a reasonable limit being placed on the amount of money that could be received from any single donor. These proposals were put before Parliament but were rejected by ZANU(PF). As things stand the Political Parties (Finance) Act make no provision for the disclosure of audited accounts to Parliament. Furthermore given ZANU(PF)’s selective application of the law it seems extremely likely that ZANU(PF) will continue to receive foreign funding knowing that there is no prospect of the ZANU(PF) appointed Attorney General ever prosecuting ZANU(PF) for such breaches of the Act. Indeed within the last few weeks a report has appeared in the press in Zimbabwe, which has not been denied by ZANU(PF), indicating that Mr Gaddafi, the president of Libya has donated some nine hundred thousand United States dollars (US$900 000.00) to ZANU(PF). If this is the case the prohibition of foreign funding is a method clearly designed to frustrate the development of the Movement for Democratic Change and other opposition parties.
  2. In any event the provision prohibiting Zimbabwean citizens who are non-resident from donating to a political party of their choice is unconstitutional. Section 21 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe states that no citizen shall be hindered in his freedom of assembly and association including his right to form or belong to a political party of his or her choice. Inherent in the right to form a political party must be the right to fund a political party. When ZANU(PF) rushed the Political Parties (Finance) Act through Parliament it argued that there was similar legislation in America and other democratic countries. Whilst it is correct that America prohibits foreign funding its legislation does not prohibit American citizens who are resident abroad from funding political parties. Indeed I do not know of a single democratic country that prohibits its citizens from funding a political party of its choice. One of the ironies of this legislation is that dictators such as Mengistu, who are resident in Zimbabwe as guests of President Mugabe and ZANU(PF), are entitled to fund a political party whereas Zimbabwean citizens who are outside the country, many of whom are economic refugees, are denied the same right. Once again the MDC believes that this is a cynical measure introduced by ZANU(PF) which knows that most Zimbabwean citizens who have been forced to seek work outside the country are unlikely to support ZANU(PF) and as a result the measure is designed once again to inhibit the development of opposition political parties.

Zimbabwe is now lumbered with these two pieces of legislation. Legal proceedings have been instituted to challenge both the Broadcasting Authority Act and Section 6 of the Political Parties (Finance) Act and it is hoped that within the course of the next few months the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe will maintain its fine reputation for independence and strike down both Acts as being ultra vires the Constitution of Zimbabwe.

The Honourable David Coltart MP
Shadow Minister of Justice
MOVEMENT FOR DEMOCRATIC CHANGE ZIMBABWE

Posted in Articles, Parliamentary | Leave a comment

Power, not land, lies at the heart of Zimbabwe’s crisis

The Daily Telegraph
10th September 2001
By Graham Boynton

ROBERT MUGABE will not hand over power in Zimbabwe. Whatever promises have been made following the Abuja accord, whatever undertakings have been made about a return to the rule of law and the withdrawal of squatters and self-styled war veterans from farms “illegally occupied”, the retention of political power remains the bottom line.

It has always been thus. This wave of lawlessness and farm invasions commenced within days of President Robert Mugabe being voted down by his own people – for the first time – in a constitutional referendum last year. For the previous 18 years of his rule he had been noticeably indifferent to the needs of his landless peasants and the only acquisition of formerly white-owned farms was undertaken for the benefit of a handful of Mr Mugabe’s political allies.

The referendum undermined Mr Mugabe’s illusions of political invulnerability. I remember watching him deliver his concession speech on national television, his acquiescence to the will of the people delivered with polite formality but with barely concealed menace. One knew that the minute he had finished admitting defeat, the work would start on ensuring it would never happen again.

If a free and fair election were held tomorrow, I have no doubt that Mr Mugabe would be swept from power. So, too, if it were held on any other day between now and April, as required by the Zimbabwe constitution, so widespread is the revulsion at the greed, corruption and violence his government has inflicted on the country.

But there’s the fatal flaw of the Abuja accord. By stating “land is the core of Zimbabwe’s crisis” it plays directly into the hands of Mr Mugabe’s propagandists. The core of the crisis is clearly misgovernment and the accord, by focusing on the land issue, shows no express commitment to a fair electoral process. In fact, by declaring “the international community will respond to any request by the Zimbabwe government regarding the electoral process”, the accord rather misses the point. Surely it is the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), which has had at least 80 of its supporters and candidates murdered over the past two years, who should be making requests for protection and transparency.

This scepticism is informed by a 10-day trip I have just made in Zimbabwe, travelling as a tourist because foreign journalists are turned away at the border. I still cannot quite digest the harsh reality of this beautiful, once self-sufficient country in which I was raised disintegrating so visibly and so catastrophically, week by week. The nation is on the brink of famine.

Clearly, the intention behind the Nigerian accord, the planned fact-finding mission to Zimbabwe next week by the five southern African presidents, and the October Commonwealth Conference in Brisbane is to talk Mr Mugabe and his followers down from their vindictive campaign against the small community of whites and the enormous community of black opponents. In the calm surroundings of Europe’s drawing rooms, these may seem rather reasonable requirements. However, on the frontline in Zimbabwe they appear as little more than wishful thinking. Mr Mugabe’s own people say so in public. On the day I arrived in the country, the Zanu-PF MP and war veteran, Nobby Zinzi, told parliament that anyone who thought the ruling party would hand over power was kidding himself. A few days earlier another Mugabe stalwart, Didymus Mutasa, had said in court, under oath, that if circumstances required there would be a coup in Zimbabwe.

This is not the ranting of party extremists, but an expression of Zanu-PF’s official position, and supports the view of political opponents that even if the MDC’s Morgan Tsvangirai did win a presidential election, he would not necessarily take office. As one senior opposition politician told me: “There is nothing Mugabe will not do to retain power. He is prepared to take out Morgan Tsvangirai if he feels it necessary.”

This win-at-all-costs approach explains the escalation of violence and intimidation that has spread throughout the country over the past two weeks. On a farm that provides five per cent of the country’s maize, “war veterans” looted an entire warehouse of fertiliser and grain and smashed the three combine harvesters, each worth 300 million Zimbabwe dollars, that would have harvested what is left of this year’s crop.

On the same day, more war veterans, all of whom are paid wages out of the national treasury, attacked Matabeleland farmers, occupied gold mines in the region and set fire to huge swathes of the countryside, so destroying the grasslands at a critical time of the year. Now the cattle that provide the country with one of its last trickles of foreign currency will starve and the beef industry will collapse. This is not a spontaneous popular uprising by landless peasants, but a campaign orchestrated from the very top of government to terrify the people into submission.

For all these outrages, the most sinister development is Mr Mugabe’s increasing attachment to his most vocal political ally. As his southern African neighbours have over the past weeks been distancing themselves from him, so he has turned to Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi for support.

Col Gaddafi recently swept into the country in a motorcade that had travelled from Lusaka, on the way stopping at the besieged farming community of Chinhoyi and telling the whites they should leave the country.

The Libyans have just concluded a $300 million oil deal and the Zimbabwe government has all but admitted that part-ownership of some of the state’s oil company NOCZIM is part of the deal. They have also bought at least 10 luxury properties in the capital of Harare, and have expressed interest in agriculture and tourism businesses.

It is the Libyans that Mr Mugabe’s political opponents fear most. David Coltart, the shadow Minister of Justice, told me he had received reports that the Libyans were now assisting with Mr Mugabe’s security and there was talk of assassination squads moving into Harare. He said that the previous week Patrick Chinamaso, the minister of justice, had approached him during a parliamentary recess and warned him, in front of witnesses, that “if you think you have been under pressure from us, you haven’t seen anything yet”.

When he opened Zanu-PF’s special conference last December Mr Mugabe blamed the whites for the country’s economic ills. “Our party must continue to strike fear into the heart of the white man,” he thundered. “They must tremble.” In this, they have succeeded and over the past six months the confidence of the small but economically influential white community has evaporated. For the first time they have stopped talking about “making a plan” or “lying low” until this particular storm blows over. Now they are queuing up at five in the morning outside the British High Commission, scrambling to get their British passports in order.

In the past weeks Mr Mugabe has set a course down which his country is plummeting irreversibly, and whatever happens at the forthcoming international gatherings, nothing will deter him and his henchmen from clinging on. He will retain power at any cost.

Posted in Blog, Press reports | Leave a comment

A Good Man in Africa: Vanguard of A New Zimbabwe

Robin Neilson

Day One of the mayoral election in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe’s second largest city. David Coltart, Shadow Justice Minister and Member of Parliament for Bulawayo South, didn’t expect any particular trouble, but he rose early nonetheless, planning to vote before touring various polling locations in the area.

By 7:00 a.m., the day promised to be blisteringly hot. Around Bulawayo’s City Hall, crafts people had begun spreading out the brightly patterned clothes on which they would display rows of hippos carved from smooth stone and circles of beaded bracelets. Vendors stacked piles of newspapers on the street corners, headlines heralding the election.

The city needed little reminder. Bulawayo sits in the heart of Matabeleland, Zimbabwe’s western province and stronghold for the country’s opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). Only two years old, the MDC is presenting the first serious challenge to President Robert Mugabe and the Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front, or ZANU-PF, which have governed Zimbabwe since Independence in 1980.

In the fight for the position of Bulawayo’s mayor, the MDC candidate, Japhet Ndabeni-Ncube, faced ZANU-PF’s George Mlilo. Despite millions of Zimbabwe dollars poured into the campaign by ZANU-PF and an unusual visit to the area by Jonathan Moyo, the government’s Information Minister, the MDC predicted victory.

By 8:00 a.m. that morning, David Coltart was in Sisters Restaurant in downtown Bulawayo. He had already visited two polling locations; his name had not been listed at his assigned station, but he discovered it on the rolls at another station and voted there. Now Coltart and a group of MDC party members were having breakfast before continuing to tour the area and survey how the voting was progressing.

Sisters Restaurant faces Eighth Avenue. The restaurant’s large picture windows offer views of the City Hall buildings opposite and the broad street lined with jacaranda trees, just exploding into their lavender blooms. People moved slowly down the sidewalk past the restaurant and cars sputtered past.

Craig Edy, a Bulawayo resident who volunteered his time to help with Coltart’s personal security, sat in the rear of the restaurant with Coltart. In between forkfuls of food, the pair were discussing the election. But as they spoke, Craig Edy had become increasingly distracted. Appearing from somewhere beyond his vision, a line of black men in their late teens to early twenties, heads shaved and neatly dressed, were walking purposefully up Eighth Avenue.

“Now what’d you suppose those eggs are up to?” Edy asked, frowning.

Coltart studied the scene passing by the window, his blue eyes flashing with outrage and disbelief.

Coltart is a tall, self-possessed man with a long stride and an angular, intelligent face. His clothes hang on his lean frame, and he carries himself with composed concentration; bent over a book or stack of documents, he might be taken for a professor or a cleric – a man of thoughts, not action. But no one could make the mistake for long.

As Coltart watched the line of young men walking past the restaurant swell in volume that morning, he was anything but calm. Coltart didn’t need to discover that the men were exiting a large green-striped bus parked in the City Hall parking lot or that more buses were on their way into Bulawayo to know what their purpose was. He already knew.

“I’d received reports from rural by-elections held over the last several months in other parts of the country about bus loads of young men arriving from outside the areas and voting,” Coltart says from behind a large, well-used desk in his law office two weeks later. “The results supported my suspicion of fraud: the overall number of voters increased for the by-elections, and the numbers went to the ZANU-PF candidates. But we still had no firm proof.”

Coltart stops to counsel a client about the denial of a visa before continuing.

“I’d seen for myself the supplementary voter rolls at the polling stations that same morning. The supplementary rolls should include only the names of those residents who registered to vote since the last elections,” he explains. But at both stations I visited, the supplementary roll was as thick as the original. A lengthy list of names had been added at the last minute. And now the bus load of young men arriving …”

Coltart shakes his head, incredulous. “We were witnessing a blatant effort to rig the mayoral election.”

From the restaurant, Coltart mobilized the MDC group for action. Coltart’s tactics are those of a lawyer, splendidly employed with persistence and tenacity. Assisting him would be three Bulawayo residents who had volunteered their time to help with Coltart’s security after his election to Parliament. The group’s weapons were a video camera, cell phones, and a couple of trucks. Their mission: to document election fraud.

* * *

Spending a Saturday morning chasing down perpetrators of election fraud is an unlikely activity for members of parliament in most countries. But David Coltart is not a typical MP and these are extraordinary days in Zimbabwe.

Once the success story of southern Africa, Zimbabwe now teeters on the edge of political and economic collapse. Many blame the country’s disintegration on the governance of President Mugabe and ZANU-PF, citing the administration’s fiscal mismanagement, support of the military operation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, persistent corruption, and escalating disregard for the rule of law.

The government attributes the chaos to the country’s history of colonial rule, the unequal distribution of prime farmland, and continued oppression of black Zimbabweans by white interests.

While the causes of the crisis may be debated, what cannot be disputed is the tragic state of the country and the angry frustration of its citizens. Despite a wealth of natural resources, Zimbabwe is in the third year of recession, battling a hard currency shortage and an annual inflation rate that passed 76% in September 2001 and is still climbing. Unemployment is over 60% and international aid groups warn of significant food shortages by the end of the year.

In the last 19 months, self-proclaimed veterans of Zimbabwe’s war for independence in the 1970’s and their auxiliary bands of thugs have invaded hundreds of the country’s commercial farms. The government-supported marauders have threatened and intimidated owners and farm workers, destroyed property, killed livestock and wildlife, shut down farm operations, and compromised the agriculturally-based economy. At least eighty Zimbabweans have been murdered, many more tortured and chased from their jobs and homes.

Earlier this year, the war vets turned their attention to the cities and towns, invading businesses and factories. The offices of one of the country’s only independent newspapers were bombed. Foreign journalists have been denied visas. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and three other justices resigned, citing intimidation by ZANU-PF after the Court entered a series of rulings unfavorable to the government.

Police response to complaints of injury and property destruction by the war vets and ZANU-PF operatives has been slow to nonexistent. Mugabe pardoned numerous individuals responsible for violence, arguing that they were engaged in a political uprising and should not be subject to the judicial system. The newly-appointed Supreme Court has begun overturning its prior rulings.

As Zimbabwe careens toward the presidential elections scheduled for early next year, the mood throughout the country is tense, and the weary population is braced for more trouble.

But against this dismal landscape, a group of Zimbabweans is surprisingly optimistic about the country’s future. David Coltart is one of them.

Coltart is the first to acknowledge that he is not alone in his vision of a democratically-run, economically-stable Zimbabwe, or in his belief that the change is imminent. He points to a host of other civic leaders and intellectuals who share his optimism for Zimbabwe and have been working tirelessly to make the vision a reality, including MDC officers Morgan Tsvangirai, Gibson Sibanda, and Paul Nyathi, and John Makumbe and Reginald Machabe-Hove of the University of Zimbabwe.

But while Coltart’s hope for Zimbabwe is shared by many and the groundwork for the country’s future is being laid with the sweat and sacrifice of thousands of people, Coltart is unique.

David Coltart is a white African whose life tracks his country’s transition from a repressive colonial regime to the threshold of a vibrant, multi-racial, democratic society. In the face of repeated threats, he has actively and vocally opposed the efforts of the ruling party and its security forces to restrict political choice in Zimbabwe. For almost twenty years, Coltart has stubbornly – and some say foolishly – called out the government for its human rights violations and abuse of power.

And he can no longer be easily dismissed. Last year, a predominantly working class constituency, over 95% of which is composed of black men and women, elected Coltart to Parliament by an 84% majority.

Coltart is, in short, a sign of tremendous hope for Zimbabwe’s future. And very bad news for anyone caught in the past.

Race matters in Zimbabwe. The country is only 21 years post-Independence, and while Zimbabwe escaped some of the extremes of colonialism experienced in other counties, unmistakable vestiges of the 80-year period of governance by a white minority remain.

As Albert Gumbo, former MDC District Chair, notes, “At some level, there remains an automatic distrust of whites among the black population. That distrust may always be there in some form,” Gumbo recognizes.

“David’s election to Parliament last year says a lot about the type of man he is,” Gumbo says. He pauses, then adds almost defiantly, “He’s a good man.”

Victor Nakah, the black President of the Theological College of Zimbabwe and a pastor at the Bulawayo Presbyterian Church, which Coltart attends, attributes Coltart’s success first and foremost to the hand of God.

“As a white man in this country, David was born into privilege,” Reverend Nakah says from his college office. ”

Traveling from that background to a point where he has genuine sympathy for people whose lives are so different from his and a black woman in a township believes that he understands her needs, well now…” Reverend Nakah leans back in his chair and says with satisfaction, “God helped David with that journey.”

As a child, Coltart understandably gave little thought to Reverend Nakah’s hand of God. Born in Gweru in 1957 and raised in Bulawayo, Coltart’s life was typical of many white children raised in Zimbabwe (then Rhodesia) in the 1960’s. He grew up in a comfortable house surrounded by well-tended gardens. He played sports at school, rode his bike through the quiet neighborhoods, and from the safety of his living room, listened to the political discussions that accompanied his father’s weekly bridge games.

It was a childhood without fear, surrounded by people who loved, nurtured, and challenged him. But he had almost no awareness of Rhodesia’s black population.

“I hardly had any dealings with black people,” Coltart now says. “It seems so impossible these days, but back then the only black people I knew were the domestic workers employed by my family. ‘Servants,’ they were called,” Coltart says, grimacing slightly. “Then one or two boys at school. I was living in a country where the overwhelming majority of the population was black, yet our societies were almost entirely separate. We knew nothing of each other.”

Coltart nonetheless considers himself luckier than many children growing up in that insular environment.

“My parents were outspoken critics of Ian Smith and his government. My father was a man of the highest integrity who taught respect for all people, and I was fortunate to grow up in a house filled with debate and discussion. It is true, however,” Coltart continues, “that while my parents considered themselves liberal, they did not believe the black people were in a position to rule the country at that point. As a child, I never questioned their view.”

Ironically, it was the war for Independence that changed Coltart’s mind.

When Coltart left school in 1975, the guerrilla war raging in Rhodesia was reaching its height and Coltart faced mandatory service in Rhodesia’s army. His parents were deeply opposed to the war and pleaded with their only child to leave the country to escape service.

Instead, Coltart signed up to serve his military time in the police.

“At the time,” he says, “I believed all the propaganda generated by Ian Smith ‘s government, and didn’t see any racial component to the war. I thought we were battling communism and the powers of evil. I saw my uncle’s tobacco farm under siege from guerrillas, his family and property threatened. I believed we were fighting for nothing less than the survival of civilization and Christianity.”

Over the course of the next two years, his assumptions were severely tested.

At 18 years old, a combination of race and natural ability put Coltart in command of a unit, and he found himself in the position of directing black men who were many years his senior, some with more than a decade of law enforcement and military experience. Only months after his posting, Coltart’s unit was dispatched to patrol and secure the western border between Rhodesia and Botswana. It was desolate and dangerous terrain, and Coltart and his men spent weeks alone in the bush, tracking guerrilla movements, collecting information, assuring the safety of local people, trying to stay alive.

“It was during those days,” Coltart explains, “that my love for this country and the people really developed. I’d had a wonderful childhood, of course,” he quickly says, “but it was living and working with the black people, watching different tribes work together and with me — often the only white person in the entire area. We were forced to rely on each other and trust each other,” Coltart says.

“I witnessed first-hand the skill and dedication of the men who protected me. I visited villages of people who always offered us food and were so generous when they had so little.” He leans forward in his chair, his usually moderate voice filled with emotion. “That was when my understanding of this place and the people really began.”

But the horrors of the war were equally affecting, feeding Coltart’s nightmares for years afterward.

At 19 years old, he had transferred to a plain-clothed division and was placed in charge of an entire base, responsible for collecting intelligence along the Mozambique border. The level of violence on both sides of the war had escalated, and as Coltart interviewed captured guerrillas and striped and identified the bodies of the dead, he was haunted by the horrors of war.

As the months passed, Coltart’s disillusionment with the war grew. He was sickened by the brutality and questioned the war’s purpose. He tried to focus on constructive projects, making overtures to local people and developing mutually-beneficial relationships with the villages in the area. When another officer ordered the destruction of the villages and burnt the kraals to the ground, Coltart knew he could no longer be an effective leader.

In 1978, with an early discharge in hand, Coltart headed for the University of Cape Town.

The days at Cape Town initially provided Coltart a much needed relief from the intensity of the war.

“I loved that period of my life,” Coltart says, his large smile momentarily transforming his face. “I played sports again, spent time with friends. UCT was a center for liberal thinkers, so I had the chance to hear some great talks and take classes that began to give my thoughts some shape and foundation. It was a time of incredible release.”

But the sense of exhilaration didn’t last. As Zimbabwe celebrated the end of the war and Robert Mugabe took over leadership of the country, Coltart was in turmoil. He was furious with Britain for abandoning the country, believed Ian Smith’s government had missed opportunities for necessary legislative and societal change, and worried about Zimbabwe’s future under a Marxist regime.

“I was distrustful of Robert Mugabe and the new government,” Coltart says. “I’d heard Mugabe’s speeches on the radio during the war, preaching brutality and inciting violence, had read the literature of the movement, and had seen a number of other countries destroyed by communism.”

Thousands of white Rhodesians, including Coltart’s parents, felt similarly and left Zimbabwe.

“I was devastated when my parents left,” Coltart says. “Even with all my concerns about the country, I always knew I was going back. Zimbabwe was my home.” He shakes his head. “But a lot of people had no hope for it.”

But as the months passed and the country settled into its new government, Coltart began his graduate studies in law and found reasons for optimism about his country’s future.

Coltart had been an active member of the Rhodesian Student Society from his first year at UCT. Even before Independence, he and the then-Chair, Andrew Ladley, had been instrumental in changing its name to the Zimbabwean Student Society and focusing the membership on issues like constitutional reform and support for the nation in transition. When Coltart was elected Chair, he began communicating with Zimbabwean government officials on behalf of the students at UCT and found his overtures welcomed.

Coltart organized a program to bring the officials to UCT to discuss opportunities in Zimbabwe following graduation. His first attempt was cancelled when the South African apartheid government denied the Zimbabwe officials travel visas. Showing an already well-ingrained stubbornness, Coltart immediately rescheduled the program, only to be threatened with deportation by South Africa.

But the effort that incurred the wrath of the South African government caught the attention of Zimbabwe’s then-Prime Minister, Robert Mugabe. In a personal telegram dated August 19, 1981, Mugabe wrote to Coltart:

… I am happy and encouraged to hear that Zimbabwe students at Cape Town University are ready and willing to return home upon completion of their studies to serve their country.

As you are no doubt aware we in government intend to establish a non-racial society based on equality and promotion of well-being of all our people in accordance with our socialist principles. It is in this connection that we have adopted the policy of reconciliation whereby our people must put aside the hatreds and animosities of the past and approach the future in a positive and constructive frame of mind and with commitment and dedication to the all-round development of the new Zimbabwe.

As we struggle to re-build our country out of the destruction of war we look to young people like your-selves to assist us achieve our objective of establishing a prosperous harmonious and humane society in this country. I call on all of you who have completed your studies to return and join us in the urgent tasks before us. I hardly need remind you that this is as much your home as it is ours. As has so often been said, in identifying with and returning to the new Zimbabwe, you have nothing to fear but fear itself.

Coltart made portions of the telegram into a poster, encouraging others at the university to return with him to Zimbabwe following graduation.

“I liked Mugabe’s pragmatism and his desire for reconciliation seemed genuine,’ Coltart says. “I had no further reservations about going home.”

Coltart had another reason for optimism about the future. When he returned to Zimbabwe with his law degree in 1983, his future wife, Jennifer, had already returned and was waiting for him.

It had not been an easy courtship. Jenny, who had recently graduated from UCT as a physiotherapist, had a strong faith, an iron will, and “a very clear idea of the type of man she could be serious about,” she says now, smiling. She is a pretty, energetic woman who talks easily about her life and shows few signs of having given birth to their fourth child weeks earlier.

“I know I’m sitting here now, the wife of an MP,” Jenny says from the living room of their house, “but back then, politics and groups weren’t my thing at all. I was quite private and shy and not at all interested in that kind of life.”

The difference in their interests had kept the couple from meeting until her last year at UCT.

“But the first time David and I were in a room together, I noticed him immediately,” Jenny admits. “We were attending the same meeting and when I walked in, he was standing across the room talking to some people. He had this lovely lean look, a fantastic smile, and he wore those casual shabby trousers that I loved …” After a moment she adds wryly, “Little did I know he would end up spending most of his time in a suit.”

During the months that followed, Jenny repeatedly tested the strength of Coltart’s religious commitment, but even after she had been convinced of his faith, she remained openly skeptical of a man so enthusiastic about politics.

“David loved getting people together, talking about policies and societal reform. He wanted people to see Zimbabwe’s potential and to go back with him, make it happen,” Jenny continues. “I was attracted to David’s commitment and admired his dedication, but we never had time alone. I was working by then and he had classes, his groups, and also was Director of a legal aid clinic at a squatter camp. ‘I can’t see you this weekend,’ Dave would say; ‘I’m counseling poor people.'”

Jenny shakes her head slightly. “And, well, I knew it was wonderful what he did, but I wanted to ask, what about the beach? What about the movies? When are we supposed to relax, to have fun?”

If anything, the couple had even less opportunity for fun when Coltart returned to Zimbabwe.

When Coltart had left the country in 1978, Zimbabwe had been consumed by the liberation struggle that led to Independence. Now, five years later, the country was again engaged in a brutal conflict, but this one was being fought in secret, and the majority of its estimated 20,000 casualties would be civilians.

Following Independence, the country continued to be plagued with pockets of violence. Bands of armed dissidents roamed the country, eluding the military and police and destroying property and intimidating the rural populations — particularly in Matabeleland. There were reports of torture and murder.

In addition to the security problems posed by the dissidents, President Mugabe and the ZANU-PF government were threatened by the power held by the opposition party, the Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU), whose base of support was in Matabeleland. Mugabe increased the military and police presence in Matabeleland, renewed the State of Emergency that had been in place pre-Independence, and reinstated legislation that granted the government freedom from prosecution.

Then, in January 1983, the same month that Coltart began his law career at the Bulawayo firm of Webb Low & Barry, Mugabe deployed the Fifth Brigade into Matabeleland.

The Fifth Brigade was specially trained by North Korean instructors and, according to the government, sent to Matabeleland to combat violence perpetrated by dissidents. But within a matter of months after the deployment, people began to appear in Coltart’s law firm with stories of violence by government troops against unarmed civilians who supported ZAPU.

As a junior lawyer, the firm assigned Coltart handle the complaints.

“At first,” Coltart says, “there were just a trickle of people and their allegations that soldiers were engaged in violence against civilians were puzzling. Then, within a matter of weeks, the reports of disappearances, torture, and mass murder became a flood. And the survivors were identifying the soldiers as the Fifth Brigade.”

Coltart never planned to be a human rights lawyer. Indeed, to the extent that he had hoped to play a role in politics upon returning to Zimbabwe, Coltart could do little that would be more damaging to his career than to investigate the allegations of governmental abuse occurring in Matabeleland in the 1980’s.

But Coltart showed no hesitation. In response to the reports of unjustified violence by government forces, Coltart developed the skills and techniques that would become his best weapons against injustice. He drove out to meet people, talked to them personally, gained their trust, took statements and obtained affidavits. He followed up on people who had been arrested, arriving at prisons and detention facilities, confronting the police and demanding to see his clients. He defended those accused of helping the dissidents and brought claims on behalf of those who had been injured.

In 1985, when he had been practicing law less than two years (although he had already been made a partner in his law firm), Coltart took his advocacy skills into the heart of the battle between the government and ZAPU. The government, which through its military and security forces had escalated its campaign against ZANU supporters, had detained a number of ZAPU MPs, including ZAPU’s chief whip, Sydney Malunga. Malunga was accused of aiding a pair of dissidents three years earlier; he faced life imprisonment for allegedly giving the dissidents money to purchase shoes. Coltart was asked to represent him.

Coltart defended Sydney Malunga against the Government’s case in three different cities over a period of more than six months. Often the only white face in the courtroom, Coltart unraveled the government’s evidence, exposed government’s witnesses as liars, destroyed the case against Malunga, and secured an acquittal.

Coltart went on to represent several of Malunga’s colleagues and other ZAPU officials, including ZAPU’s leader, Joshua Nkoma and his brother, Stephen Nkomo, against claims by ZANU-PF government.

As Coltart’s skills and reputation grew, so did the government’s attention and fury. The government that had encouraged Coltart to return to Zimbabwe only four years earlier, now branded him an enemy of the state. The government attempted to deny him a passport, and police arrived at his house to arrest him for obstruction of justice. When he visited one of the CIO’s detention facilities looking for a missing client and refused to leave until the man was produced, he was threatened with arrest.

Undeterred, in the years that followed, Coltart took on over a hundred cases stemming from the government-sponsored violence in Matabeleland. He authored a report of the human rights abuses, which was submitted to government authorities, and contributed heavily to the report prepared by the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace and the Legal Resources Foundation of Zimbabwe entitled Breaking the Silence, which exposed the extent of Mugabe’s responsibility for the conflict.

At the same time that he was helping to bring the massacre occurring in Matabeleland to light, Coltart was conceiving of and building the institutions essential to Zimbabwe’s future. He established the first legal aid clinic in Bulawayo, securing donated office space and recruiting local lawyers to volunteer their time. He went on to found the Bulawayo Legal Projects Centre, an arm of the Legal Resources Foundation of Zimbabwe for which he was a Trustee, and serve as the Centre’s Director. He served on a number of political campaigns, started a Christian school in Bulawayo, and became an active member of international human rights organizations.

“From the very beginning,” Jenny says, “David was always involved with people and organizations. He loved putting people together, always with a goal of achieving a positive purpose, bettering society.”

Reverend Nakah says, “David has a holistic approach. He sees something that needs doing, like encouraging young black professionals to stay in the country or an area for reform. He contacts people who might helpful, forms a group, and offers his assistance.”

“David never said no to anyone,” Jenny says, sighing, and Reverend Nakah concedes, “He can spread himself too thin sometimes.”

But no one doubts Coltart’s motives.

“There’s a lot of guilt being white in this country,” Jenny says. “We grew up with privileges the black people did not have. All of us suffer from the guilt and handle it different ways. A lot of people simply left the country, or they stayed but denied the problem. But David was never paralyzed by the past. From the time I met him he had a vision for a democratic Zimbabwe, and believed white Africans could play a role in achieving that.”
But as the years passed, Coltart’s political ambitions for himself diminished.

“I think David convinced himself that because of this country’s history, a white African would not be able to have a visible role in Zimbabwean politics, at least not at this time,” Jenny Coltart says. “He saw himself making a contribution in other ways, supporting the leaders, being involved in constitutional reform, helping to draft speeches and papers, continuing with the human rights work.” Jenny looks up and laughs. “I was quite comfortable with that less visible role, of course.”

Then, in September 1999, a group of black Zimbabweans with their roots in the labor movement formed the MDC, a new political party committed to peaceful, non-violent democratic change. The party approached Coltart to join them, appointed him Chairperson of the Legal Committee, and asked him to stand for a seat in Parliament.

Honored to be asked to join the party, Coltart registered to run in his home constituency, Bulawayo South. At the time, the constituency included mostly low-density suburbs outside Bulawayo and a mixed population of black and white residents, the majority of whom were middle-class.

In response to Coltart’s registration, government election officials immediately questioned his eligibility, alleging that as someone entitled to British citizenship, he could not run for office. Coltart was only allowed to stand when he proved that he had renounced his right to British citizenship years before. Election officials also re-drew the boundaries of the constituency.

When they were done, the Bulawayo South constituency looked markedly different. The new constituency’s boundaries no longer included several low density suburbs (including the area where Coltart lived) with significant numbers of white Africans and was redrawn to include a substantial portion of a high density black suburb.

Despite the re-designation of the constituency, Coltart won his parliamentary seat, beating the ZANU-PF candidate, a long standing Nationalist and former Cabinet Minister by 20,781 votes to 3,193.

“You know,” Jenny says, “when Dave won that election … when all those people said they trusted him to speak for them, or at least were willing to give him a chance, that was the first time in my life I finally stopped feeling guilty about being a white person in this country.”

Reverend Nakah sees the election result a sign of the maturity of Zimbabwe’s voters.

“The fact that David can win a parliamentary seat in this country demonstrates that people have gotten beyond simply voting based on race,” Reverend Nakah says. “They are voting for leadership.”

On the morning of September 8, that leadership meant David Coltart was doing everything he could to assure that his constituency and the rest of Bulawayo’s population was free to choose its own mayor without illegal interference.
The MDC group left the restaurant and headed up Eighth Avenue, searching for the men who had exited the bus. But it was too late; the men had dispersed and were impossible to follow.

The group surveyed the scene in the City Hall parking lot. The now-empty bus had left but more buses arrived, all with the distinctive marking that identified them as operated by the Kukura-Kurerwa bus company, which was owned by a known ZANU-PF supporter. As another group of young men disembarked, an organizer handed them papers.

Coltart wanted to determine where the buses had originated and whether additional buses were on their way into town. The more evidence he could collect of the effort to fix the election, the better.

A limited number of roads lead into Bulawayo. The group split up, and Coltart jumped into Craig Edy’s Land Rover. With Edy driving and Craig Biddlecomb operating the video camera, they sped out the road to Harare, Zimbabwe’s capitol.

They hadn’t far to drive. On the road from Bulawayo to Harare, about six kilometers from town, two more buses appeared, both filled with young men. Edy made a quick U-turn and followed the buses toward Bulawayo. Craig Biddlecomb began filming.

Within minutes, a Land Rover Defender with several men inside appeared on the road. Coltart was unsurprised, recognizing it as the type of vehicle used by the Central Intelligence Organization (CIO), Zimbabwe’s security police. The vehicle flashed its lights, and the plain-clothed officers shouted at Coltart’s vehicle to pull over.

The group was unwilling to sacrifice their evidence-gathering. Edy drove on, keeping pace with the buses heading into town. The CIO vehicle maneuvered its way between Coltart’s vehicle and the bus, inhibiting the filming and shouting at their vehicle to stop.

As the CIO vehicle pulled close, Coltart rolled down his window and stuck his head out.

“I believe you are officers ,” Coltart shouted over the noise of the road. “We wish to report that these buses are involved in election fraud.”

Seeing the video camera, one of the officers raised a newspaper to cover his face.

The trucks sped along, side by side. “We are witnessing what we believe to be an illegal effort to rig the Bulawayo election,” Coltart shouted. “I am requesting you accompany us into town, assist us in collecting evidence and affect arrests.”

The MDC group was unsurprised when the officers made no response.

Coltart’s truck swung into the City Hall parking lot behind one of the buses and began filming the men exiting the bus. The CIO vehicle entered the lot behind them, and Coltart knew they had limited time.

Approaching from the opposite direction, the CIO truck stopped between Coltart’s vehicle and the bus, blocking the filming. Edy drove around the bus and repositioned the truck for filming, focusing on the organizers of the men. Some men exiting the bus ran away when they saw the camera, others simply ducked. The tempers of the police and organizers were nearing a boiling point, wanting to avoid any violence, Coltart and his group exited the lot. The men quickly copied the video and arranged for its transfer to safe locations and copies to the media.

Later that day, the police raided the MDC offices in Bulawayo, seized the video camera, and arrested three of the men who assisted Coltart’s effort to gather evidence. The police made no arrests based on Coltart’s report of election fraud.

Despite evidence that more than a dozen busloads of people from outside the area entered Bulawayo over the weekend, apparently in a effort to vote, the MDC’s candidate, Japhet Ndabeni-Ncube, won the Bulawayo mayoral election with an 82% majority.

Coltart did not stop long to celebrate the MDC’s victory.

“I can’t seem to relax anymore,” he admits. “Even when I am not working, there is just so much to do if we are to succeed, I can’t seem to relax.”

The stress is hardly surprising; his pace is furious. In addition to serving as Shadow Justice Minister, Coltart chairs the Parliamentary Select Committee for Justice and is a member of the Legal Committee of the National Constitutional Assembly. When parliament is in session, he is in Harare several days a week, with the days in between spent in committees, meeting with constituents and clients of his law practice, and keeping contact with a broad range of people throughout the country and the international community. He travels outside Zimbabwe frequently, meeting with governmental officials and human rights organizations throughout the world.

Beginning in August, at the request of Morgan Tsvangirai, Coltart also began traveling around Zimbabwe to talk to members of the embattled commercial farming community.

On a hot afternoon in late September, Coltart stood in a small, airless room outside Harare addressing a lunch meeting dozen commercial farmers from the Hwedza district. There was little talk among the men and they ate plates of beef and rice rapidly and without pleasure. Of the 45 farms in the district, 24 were not operating because of interference by war veterans.

Coltart addressed the men without preamble. His first comment, however, was directed for the benefit of a group not at the table that afternoon.

“I know this has been a devastating eighteen months and many of you are exhausted,” Coltart said. But you must remember that as isolated as you have felt these months, the workers employed by you are even more isolated. They cannot get to town; they do not receive the news. You must talk to them, explain why there is reason for hope, and help them survive also.”

The group of men sat motionless, heavy in their seats, the effects of the two-year struggle to farm in the face of threats and violence like a physical weight on them.

Coltart pressed on, his comments ranging from analysis of the failure of a recent Commonwealth-brokered agreement on land reform, the results of the by-elections, the efforts that will be made to assure the presidential election is free and fair, the interest of the international community, and practical advice.

“You must try to get a crop in the ground. You must plant despite the threats. The country must keep going. The strong must help the weak,” Coltart concludes. “For the community to survive, you must help each other.”

Coltart’s message to the Hwedza farmers would not surprise Agnus Madenyika, the Shona woman who has worked for the Coltarts since they began their family.

“I am different here, working for this family,” Madenyika says, sitting at the kitchen table on a sunny morning. “In this house the family is with me. They see the economy is strong against me and understand the problems for me. They talk to me here. They raise my money. They let my family stay here when they have nowhere to go. They understand who I am here.”

John Tlou, a middle-aged Sotho man who works as a gardener for the Coltarts, agrees. “We are people together here,” he says as he points out a favorite section of the garden and gives a tour of his neatly-organized quarters. “The family and I discuss what is done here. We work as a team,” he says.

Tlou has been involved in politics since he was a young man and is currently an MDC Branch Chairman. He is passionate about the need for political change.

“This government now tries to tell the people that this is a fight of blacks against the whites. The government is wrong, and I know this myself, seeing what I have seen and working in this place.”

Agnus Madenyika nods contentedly. Sitting in the kitchen sipping tea, she gives no hint that she is the same woman who a year before stood up to a dozen police and refused to allow them to search the house when the Coltarts were gone. She simply smiles and says, “My heart is settled here.”

Many of Coltart’s constituents are far less settled these days. They worry about the government’s new statements that they must renounce any other citizenship – and, indeed, entitlement to claim any other citizenship – in order to remain a Zimbabwe citizen. They worry about being forced to block their own escape routes.

The constituents have filled the empty benches at Ascot Race Course just outside Bulawayo’s city center to hear one of Coltart’s scheduled reports back. It is the end of a workday, but the sun is still high and even in the open stands the motionless air is hot and close. Most people arrived in pairs, husbands and wives with matching expressions of concern.

Coltart speaks without notes, ranging through current events in the country, analysis of changes in the economy, pragmatic advice, and inspiration. He moves from discussion of Bulawayo’s mayoral election straight to the results of the rural by-elections, which have been won by ZANU-PF candidates, and explains why those results are not predictive of the presidential election. He reports with satisfaction that the international community no longer believes the government’s claim that the problems facing Zimbabwe are limited to the land issue and a working out of a colonial past.

Then he turns to the issue of citizenship and cautions the group about the government’s effort to unsettle them psychologically with a broad interpretation of the Citizenship Act.

“People look to him,” Albert Gumbo says. “When something happens that they do not understand, David will put it in context, discuss what is happening, what the developments mean, and give people a plan.”

Coltart does that now, walking the assembled group through the language of the law and explaining why he believes the government is overstepping its authority.

But once that is done, then he is direct and unequivocal: “One vote can win the presidential election,” Coltart reminds them. “Each person must do everything possible to protect his or her right to vote.” He outlines why those who hold dual citizenships should make a choice now, so they can assure they can vote. Then he references his own reasons for renunciation.

“Far too many people have their feet in two camps,” he says. “In 1991 I renounced my British citizenship. I wanted people to know where I stand in relation to this country. I have no worries about where I am going to be next year. I will be here.”

The audience is silent. A few heads nod.

“David could go anywhere,” Albert Gumbo says. “To the United States, to Europe. He could get a job so easily, but people trust him and that he will be here,” Albert Gumbo says.

“It’s especially difficult for David because of his race,” Reverend Nakah says. “David’s strength comes from his connection to this country and the people, but it also is his greatest vulnerability – because he stayed when he could leave. So many white people have left Zimbabwe in the last eighteen months that those who remain are a target. David is a target.”

Coltart has been accused of controlling the MDC because he is one of the few white officers. In international settings, he has been assumed to represent only Zimbabwe’s “white interests.” And his life has been threatened repeatedly.
The danger never paralyzes Coltart. He never opts to avoid a battle or flies under the radar: when he sees injustice, he calls people by name, chastising them for their abuses of power.

At Ascot, he warns the police and CIO officers who have selectively enforced the law.

“This is a changed world,” Coltart cautions. “Ultimately justice will prevail in Zimbabwe and the rule of law will be restored. And when that happens, we will bring those people who ignored the murder of Martin Olds to justice – and those who failed to investigate the abduction of my polling agent Patrick Namanyama. They do not have much time left. We will not forget their actions against innocent citizens of this country.”

The audience explodes into applause.

But Coltart’s actions come at a cost. “My biggest concern is personal security,” Coltart says from his study a week later. The house is littered with sports equipment and resonates with the lively noises of children. Someone bangs on the piano, a cricket game is on television, and everyone absentmindedly steps over a motley assortment of dogs lounging in doorways.

Coltart’s home seems far away from the danger that surrounds him, but is filled with constant reminders of how much they all have to lose.

The family is affectionate: Coltart’s sons pull him into a rugby scrum on the kitchen floor; his older daughter wraps her arms around her mother. An uncle arrives, then grandparents. The baby is passed from one set of eager arms to another.

“I have always been a person who pretty much gets on with most people, but I am actually hated by some people,” Coltart continues, his voice revealing his amazement. “My profile is my best protection: they know if they have a go at me, because of my outspokenness, everyone will know who it is.” He pauses, then says carefully. “The danger is, of course, that they will reach a point where it simply doesn’t matter.”

The noises of his family filter up into the room.

“But against that I have a very basic but deep faith,” Coltart continues after a moment. “I do believe, perhaps naively, that nothing happens outside the will of God. That doesn’t mean I’m stupid; I take precautions. But I do have faith.”

Downstairs, Jenny sits in the living room with the baby stretched out on her knees.

“I think about the danger,” she says, nodding. “I do. If we lose Dave …”

She tries to make the statement matter of factly, but her voice catches and tears fill her eyes. The pain of possible loss is so close to the surface, so sharp and immediate as to be almost unbearable to watch.
Jenny presses her fingers to her eyes and straightens her back against the chair. She takes a deep breath and continues. “I told myself last year that I needed to go back to work, get my skills back … because, you know …,” she says haltingly, “I might have to be the breadwinner for the family.”

She looks up. Her eyes have filled again. “Then I got pregnant.”

She runs a hand over her baby’s head and shakes her own head slightly in frustration as the tears spill. After several moments of silence, her voice softer, she says, “I can only think God must have had a different plan.”

* * *

Back at Ascot, the sun has set and the stands are dark. Coltart is illuminated by a spotlight.

His talk has taken in all his favorite themes: commitment to the country, optimism about the future, restoration of the rule of law. He has suggested that people who have concerns about the interpretation of the Citizenship Act form a group and bring a claim. He has previewed the next months for the group and told them what to expect, warning them against misreading the results of the by-elections, cautioning them that the new Supreme Court can be expected to rule in favor of the government, and telling them the economy will worsen. And he has urged them to remain steadfast and resolute.

Now he speaks of a source of his own strength.

“I look around here,” Coltart says, raising a hand to the night sky behind him, “and I remind myself that nothing exists outside of God’s design. The creator of the stars and the moon is the creator of these days also. And He is a God of justice.”

Coltart pauses. His audience is so quiet the microphone picks up the whine of crickets and the sputtering of a distant sprinkler.

“Isaiah 40 instructs that no sooner do the rulers of the world become entrenched, no sooner do they take root, than He will blow on them and reduce them to chaff.”

Several heads rise and look about, as if expecting a wind. In the hot night air, a young woman nonetheless shivers and hugs her arms around herself.

“And that is what I believe we are living through now,” Coltart says, his voice confident and calming. “God is blowing through this nation. And it is not comfortable in the hurricane, but if we all do our part, the process is inevitable. Entrenched rulers shall be swept away.”

Too young for the term statesman to apply, Coltart nonetheless already has the raw ingredients.

“He will continue to mature,” Reverend Nakah says. “I’ve watched him try many things, some of which don’t work, but he learns and continues forward. I’ve seen him face situations he did not understand, like apathy among the black population and barriers to integration. He took steps to try to understand. And with God’s help, he has.”

Reverend Nakah continues. “David must continue to be accepting. The MDC is not the Church, I tell him, and it should not be. David struggles to promote Christian values to people who do not necessarily have the same beliefs. He must be patient and tolerant, and this will be a challenge for him,” Reverend Nakah says, smiling with genuine affection.

“There are times when I think David is naïve about people,” Albert Gumbo says. “He often only sees the good side of someone, and some people are not as he believes. But then I see David has a broader vision. He knows he is dealing with human beings and his vision carries him .. because believing in people is the only way to move forward.” Gumbo smiles ironically. “Then I realize he is not naïve at all.”

At Ascot, Coltart has finished speaking and the crowd files out of the stands and into the night. The meeting has relieved some of the tension in the group. People who arrived silently and with averted eyes now chatter and wave at neighbors as they make their way to their cars.

Coltart talks to the last of the people who gather around him, asking for his advice and help. He shows neither impatience or fatigue, just attention, sympathy and steady resolve.

When he has answered the last of the questions, Coltart reviews the schedule for the weeks ahead with the MDC organizers. He shakes hands with his bodyguards and heads for the exit.

It’s the end of a long day, but Coltart still moves quickly and purposefully, taking the stairs three at a time. As he leaves the stands, the lights switch off and Coltart disappears into the darkness of the parking lot, surrounded by a final circle of people, all talking about the future — men and women, black and white.

Posted in Biographical | 2 Comments

The whites are not the main target of the thugs

The Sunday Telegraph (UK)

David Coltart, a Zimbabwe opposition leader, reveals Mugabe’s plan

Zimbabwe is dangerous for everyone, but particularly for anyone who dares to criticise Robert Mugabe’s reign of terror. Like thousands of Zimbabweans, I know from personal experience what those dangers are. Just before the election here in June last year, I published an article which pointed out some of the horrific abuses of power committed by Mugabe’s government. Within two weeks of the article being published, my polling agent Patrick Nabanyama was abducted. He has never been seen again. The men responsible are employed by Mr Mugabe’s Zanu PF. Fourteen months later, they walk freely on the streets of Bulawayo. They continue to assist Mr Mugabe in his campaign of brutal violence and intimidation.

How is Mr Mugabe able to get away with it? His government survives not just because it flouts the rule of law and uses violence to intimidate or remove opposition, but also because it manages to maintain a facade of legitimacy. That facade appears to be enough to ensure that neither other African states nor the countries of the Western world are prepared to take the steps required to end Mr Mugabe’s violent dictatorship. The necessary action is of course not criticism for human rights violations from the American government or European Union governments. Mr Mugabe not only cares nothing for such criticism: he actually believes it helps him. He is after the support of black Africans, not Western whites. The more he can portray his regime as the “victims” of white racism and colonialism, the more likely he believes he is to get that support.

That is why he was perfectly happy for coverage of Zimbabwe in Western newspapers to centre last week on the patently unjust detention of some 20 white farmers and the random beatings of white women in Chinhoyi. Those shocking events were deliberately designed by Mr Mugabe to capture headlines in the way that they have. It suits him to have the violence his thugs continuously commit against thousands of black Zimbabweans pass unnoticed. If all the world sees is his attacks on whites, that makes him look like a “liberator”, the leader in a struggle against colonialism.

Presidential elections have to be held in just over six months and the Constitution does not permit any extension. Mr Mugabe knows that despite Zanu PF’s by-election “victory” two weeks ago, he does not have sufficient support to win the Presidential election. He also knows he does not have the ability to manipulate the electoral process throughout the country in the way he can in by-elections. What Mr Mugabe needs is a pretext to impose a State of Emergency, which would enable him to crush the democratic opposition. That is why Gloria Olds, a grandmother, was gratuitously murdered earlier this year, and why her body had an entire AK47 magazine of bullets pumped into it as she lay dead. It is also why farmers have been under siege for days, have had their homes ransacked and the law applied selectively against them. That is why white women were assaulted last week. All those acts have been coldly and cynically calculated to provoke a violent white reaction.

Mr Mugabe desperately needs a few white farmers to lose their tempers and gun down several “war veterans”. Miraculously, not a single “war veteran” has been intentionally killed by a white since those actions began 17 months ago. So Mr Mugabe has stepped up his campaign to provoke them. All his attempts to silence the opposition this year have failed – if anything the opposition is gathering momentum. Mr Mugabe and his cronies now recognise that without the imposition of a State of Emergency, they will not be able to stem this momentum. If whites can be provoked into fighting back and shedding blood in the process then Mr Mugabe believes he will have what he needs: the pretext to crush, not the whites, but the Movement for Democratic Change and its leader, Morgan Tsvangirai.

What can outside politicians do to stop Mr Mugabe destroying his own country? Whilst the West has cut off aid to Zimbabwe, that has not hurt the super rich Zanu PF hierarchy. Mr Mugabe is quite prepared to sacrifice the Zimbabwean economy to stay in power. He takes great trouble, however, to ensure that his ruling clique does not suffer. His political allies earn rich dividends from the extortionately high-priced fuel and their access to foreign exchange. They have their hands on the Treasury, so a large portion of taxes end up in their private bank accounts. More than that, they have all been bribed with proceeds from the war in the Congo.

Without the support of the majority of his cabinet Mr Mugabe will not survive. What will make these people move against him? Not the imposition of blanket sanctions, and not the cancellation of cricket tours or sports links. The only thing which will hurt is sanctions targeted at the people who order its violence. The dictatorship will persist only so long as relative moderates – men such as Finance Minister Simba Makoni and Health Minister Timothy Stamps – believe that they can remain in a cabinet responsible for atrocities without risking any of the privileges Mr Mugabe hands them. If travel bans were imposed by Western countries on these ministers, and their children, many of whom study and work in Europe and America, then they would consider whether it is worth their while to buttress Mr Mugabe. If the foreign assets of the entire ruling corrupt elite were identified and threatened with seizure, then that would also give them some pause for thought. Finally, if Europe started investigations in terms of the International Convention against Torture against those responsible for torture, as defined in the Convention, those planning more of it might reconsider.

Politicians in the powerful countries of the world – George W Bush, Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schroder, etc – do not face being beaten up or killed if they take the only action against Mr Mugabe that has a chance of dislodging him. They risk nothing by imposing sanctions specifically targeted against the cronies who are profiting from Mr Mugabe’s rape of Zimbabwe. They might, however, save the country and the great mass of its people from utter destruction. I hope they can muster sufficient bravery to take the necessary steps – and before it is too late.

David Coltart is the Movement for Democratic Change’s Shadow Minister of Justice.

Posted in Articles | Leave a comment

A democratically elected dictator

By Artur K. Vogel

July 2001

Zimbabwe could be a rich country. Out of sheer greed President Mugabe is heading straight for disaster.

“I am going to cut your balls off and I’ll chew them with pleasure, I like it when balls pop between my teeth” shouts the leader of a gang of about 40 attacking the farmhouse of Peter and Nan Goosen. The two of them press against their office door with all their strength, trying to keep the intruders out. “Kill, kill, kill!” shouts the crowd. Their ringleader threatens: “We are going to rape your wife in front of your eyes.”

Peter and Nan Goosen were under siege on their farm outside Bulawayo, in the South of Zimbabwe, on Tuesday and Wednesday last week by a horde of so-called war veterans. Officially, they are regarded as former fighters of the struggle for independence against the white minority government of Ian Smith in the Seventies. But most of them are between 18 and 25 years old; only their leaders could theoretically have taken part in the war. The opposition press in the capital city Harare exposed quite a few of the veterans-leaders as criminals and imposters. In reality, say politicians of the opposition party MDC (Movement of Democratic Change), the “veterans” are actually an assault troupe of President Mugabe’s to drive the farmers off their land. This is supposed to raise his popularity with the rural people for the upcoming presidential elections that have to take place in 2002.

Robert Gabriel Mugabe, 77 years old, clings to power. He is challenged by the popular MDC boss Morgan Tsvangirai, a former union leader. In February 2000 Mugabe lost the referendum for a new constitution and in June 2000 he only narrowly won the parliamentary elections. His ZANU PF got 62 out of the 120 possible seats, and the MDC 58. (Another 10 seats are reserved for tribal leaders, eight for provincial governors named by the President and 12 more for MPs elected by the President.) Mugabe’s election success, although moderate, can be traced back in part to an intimidation campaign involving terror assaults and murders carried out against MDC officials and followers. The Zimbabwean Human Rights Forum lists in its report, published last month, hundreds of names of activists of the ruling party who committed crimes before the elections. Hardly any of the murderers, torturers and rapists were prosecuted.

So the “veterans” had come to “confiscate” the Goosens’ farm. A totally illegal act; Peter Goosen had been served in August 2000 with at “provisional notification to acquire”, and announcement that his property would be confiscated without compensation, but he had filed an appeal with the administrative tribunal. When the High Court of Zimbabwe later called all the confiscation proceedings illegal, the farmer was of the opinion that he could now carry on breeding his ostriches and exporting their meat.

Countless farmers have had similar experiences. The worst goes back more than a year: On 18th April 2000 dozens of “warvets” were involved in a gun battle against farmer Martin Olds outside Bulawayo, in the course of which Olds killed 13 aggressors and wounded dozens of them before he was killed himself. Since then the incidents haven’t ended. In Chinhoy, 120 km North-West of Harare, 21 farmers were arrested at the beginning of August for “inciting unrest”. Their crime: they came to the aid of a colleague under attack.

What Mugabe is aiming at with his policy of “scorched earth” is not quite clear. Officially they want the land back, stolen by the white colonialists from the Africans. Bit this is only a pretext. An organised land reform process would have been possible a long time ago. The EU, Britain and others were willing to finance it. But the first 780 requisitioned enterprises for the most part went not to landless smallholding farmers but to Ministers, high ranking Military people, government officials and professors. At the end of 1998 a land reform contract was signed organising the handover of hundreds of farms. But it never came to pass.

No one questions the necessity of land reform. Peter Goosen, spurred on by his religious beliefs, says he has been preaching this for years. It is also undisputed that all is not well with the farmhands. “It’s quite right when they call us slaves with pocket money” says foreman V at a large scale enterprise North of Bulawayo. He earns Z$12000 each month (SFr 400 at the official rate and SFr 100 at the black market rate); and ordinary workers earn a meagre Z$2300 per month. “But we would be worse off if we did not have our jobs. After all we live for free on the farm, we get two meals a day and so do our families. The children go to school free of charge and our health care is also free.”

When “veterans” invade, “the farm workers and their families are being chased away, already there are the first camps for refugees”, says L, a social worker from Mutare in the East of Zimbabwe who looks after the children of the farm workers. And David Coltart, Member of Parliament for the MDC and their shadow Minister of Justice warns not to name the farmers as the only victims of Mugabe’s despotism.

Does the President prove chaos in order to call for a state of emergency? He would be experienced in that: Until 1990 Zimbabwe was governed under emergency laws which he inherited from his hated predecessor, Ian Smith. Under a state of emergency rule Mugabe could break up and prolong the presidential elections. It is also possible that Mugabe and his comrades plan a coup d’état at the presidential office as shown by Alberto Fujimori in Peru.

What Mugabe has achieved so far is a catastrophic economy. Financial advisor and newspaper commentator Erich Bloch summarises soberly: Nearly 80% of the population live below the poverty line. The foreign trade deficit amounts to 140 million US$ or 235 million SFr per month. The gross domestic product will go down by 8 to 12% this year. Agricultural production, which accounts for about 20% of the whole economy and provides nearly 1 in 5 Zimbabweans with a direct or indirect income, will shrink by half this year, and “because of the collapse of law and order investments fail to come”. Yet Zimbabwe could be a rich country; abundant mineral resources are available, there are wide, fertile agricultural areas and there is still undeveloped potential for tourism. With her strategic position between South Africa, Botswana, Mozambique, Zambia and Namibia, Zimbabwe would be predestined as “service centre” for the region.

“Zimbabwe is not a democracy but a dictatorship, whereby the dictator has been elected by the people” means Bloch. This is no contradiction; after all, Hitler too came to power legally in 1933. Bloch knows what he is talking about; his parents escaped Nazi Germany in the thirties. Mugabe actually is one huge misunderstanding since he first became Prime Minister in 1980 and later President. In 1979 colonial Rhodesia, ruled by a white minority government, became democratic Zimbabwe. Governments, Human Rights Activists, Third World groups and at the frontline us journalists, welcomed Mugabe full of enthusiasm. This man, stamped by both Catholic morals and Maoistic austerity, seemed predestined for the role for the “new” African leader. Not a rapacious potentate by a modern democrat, bound to the public weal. Enthusiasm makes blind. Mugabe has long since become an ordinary African kleptocrat. He moved millions abroad, his wife Grace is involved in fraud scandals, his nephew gets the most lucrative government orders. Already by the beginning of the eighties, the applauders should have looked just a little bit closer to discover Mugabe’s dark sides. Hardly in power he designed the murderous plan against the minority time of the Ndebele in the South and against his rival, the Ndebele leader Joshua Nkomo. “What Mugabe did in Matabeleland and in the Midlands province can be called genocide,” says David Coltart in his austere lawyers’ office in Bulawayo; “Genocide, not in the dictionary sense but in the sense of the Convention of Genocide, which the UN General Assembly published in 1948.” There it includes, “deeds done with the intent to wholly or partially destroy national, ethnic, racial or religious groups”

In January 1983 Mugabe sent the so-called Fifth Brigade to Matabeleland, a North Korean trained unit, directly responsible to him. “Almost immediately there were first reports of atrocities” states a report by the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace entitled Breaking the Silence. The report makes horrible reading: hundreds of murders, kidnappings, rapes, tortures, mutilations and arson are recorded meticulously. It was Mugabe’s aim to force Nkomo to relent and break the opposition of the Ndebele by murdering all men between fifteen and forty, and systematically raping women and girls. In Breaking the Silence, 3000 murders are recorded. The authors assume there must have been at least double or even triple as many. Mugabe was successful; at the end of 1987 Nkomo signed a “contract of national unity”. Mugabe is a clever politician of insatiable power-hunger. “If necessary he will let the whole land tumble down a ravine, provided he can stay in power,” assumes B, Psychology Lecturer at Harare’s University. “But all his actions backfired on him,” registers David Coltart; twice, in June 2000 and February 2001, the printing press of the Daily News (the only opposition newspaper) got bombed, but it continues to publish. Mugabe threw out foreign journalists with the result that there are now more here than ever, disguised as tourists. And finally, he appointed Jonathan Moyo, who’s making a laughingstock of the government.” Moyo, Professor of Sociology at the University of Harare and a former critic of Mugabe, is the new Minister for Information and Public Relations. He invents the most astonishing stories, causing the public to immediately dub him the “Propaganda Minister”.  According to last week’s edition of the government paper The Herald, Moyo says that it’s a proved fact that farmers in Chinhoy paid their staff to ransack their farmhouses. “You can’t get much madder than this” is the opinion of farmer David Joubert in Turk Mine, North of Bulawayo. Joubert has gained first-hand experience with the self-styled justice of the “war veterans”. They not only burned down one of his luxurious hunting lodges in his private conservancy but also attacked him physically about two months ago.

But so far Joubert has successfully defended his vast estate (300 square kilometres), unlike Peter and Nan Goosen. Having defended themselves successfully on Tuesday last week, they were attacked again on Wednesday afternoon by a truckload full of drunks. Luckily the Goosens were saved from the mob by a member for the ZANU central committee and three Land Rovers full of policemen. But, “we were ordered to leave the farm and this time we did not resist”.

Nan and Peter Goosen are still optimistic and David Coltart also thinks everything will come right. “We have no weapons, but we get out strength from our bond, from the knowledge to be morally right and form our belief in God’s justice”. However, not even the MP wants to exclude the possibility of a catastrophe totally; “should Mugabe win next year, he will destroy the country totally”.

Posted in Blog | Leave a comment

A Message of Hope for Zimbabwe – One Year on

Almost a year ago, just after the first horrendous politically motivated murders of MDC activists and farmers had occurred, I sent out a “Message of Hope”. In it I posed the question whether there was any hope for Zimbabwe or whether it was simply destined to an inevitable slide into anarchy. One year on Zimbabweans are still faced with the same question. Last year I answered the question by giving six reasons why there was still hope. One year on it is necessary to revisit those reasons and to give further reasons why there is still hope for Zimbabwe.

1. The violence is a consequence of ZANU(PF)’s fear of losing the election

Last year I warned of a long, hard and rocky road we had to travel in our journey to achieve democracy. Very few Zimbabweans appreciated just how hard that road would be, especially those Zimbabweans living in the north and east of the country who had never experienced the true nature of ZANU(PF) as those from Matabeleland had in the 1980s. We all now know the real ZANU(PF) – it is a party that uses the facade of democracy when it feels secure but which will increasingly resort to violence when it feels threatened.

Last year I said that the increased ferocity of the violence was in itself a sign of hope because, ironically, that in itself was the surest sign of what ZANU(PF) itself thought of its chances of winning, or, more accurately, of losing. Nothing has changed and the increased violence we have witnessed throughout the country in the last few months is the best possible indicator of ZANU(PF)’s sense of alarm. Indeed I have been amazed to see how widespread the violence has been: even in areas like Muzarabani, where I thought the MDC was relatively weak, we have seen violence which indicates that even there ZANU(PF) feels under threat.

But there are several aspects regarding violence that one could not say confidently this time last year. The first is that violence did not work last year as ZANU(PF) hoped it would. Despite the violence the MDC won 57 seats countrywide. Whilst ZANU(PF) can employ violence successfully in by elections it cannot deliver it “effectively” enough countrywide to win. Secondly ZANU(PF) has not been able to deliver on its threats to deliver further violence if people did not vote for them. For example Gukurahundi 2 was threatened against the people of Matabeleland if they did not vote for ZANU(PF). It did not happen and indeed cannot happen again, and that fact has been noted, not just by the people of Matabeland, but also by the entire nation. Thirdly, the violence has backfired and created enormous problems for ZANU(PF) which in itself has created an entirely new reason for hope (see below!)

ZANU(PF) is panicking and that is why we are experiencing increased violence countrywide. Bizarre as it is, in the use of violence there is hope.

2. The MDC horse has already bolted

Last year I wrote about the fact that had violence commenced earlier than it did the MDC may never have got off the ground, but that fortunately the MDC horse had already bolted. One year on that holds even truer. Despite the violence, the beatings of MDC MPs and supporters, the arrest of MDC leaders, the grenade attack on the MDC offices, the withholding of finances, the Political Parties Finance Act, the searches at MDC offices and at the homes of MDC leaders, the lack of coverage on radio and TV, the propaganda war waged against the MDC, the loss of Bikita West and Marondera West, the inability of MDC MPs to block oppressive legislation in Parliament and despite all the various efforts of ZANU(PF) to crush the MDC, the fact remains that the MDC is far stronger now than it was a year ago.

Not only has the horse bolted but it has now strengthened and bred! A few weeks ago I was privileged to go to an MDC policy planning retreat in the Matopos. I came away feeling absolutely exhilarated because of the sense of unity under Morgan Tsvangirai and Gibson Sibanda’s leadership, the sense of unity of purpose from the entire leadership and the sense that the MDC had really come of age and was now ready to govern – none of which could be said last year. In stark contrast in the ZANU(PF) camp all we see is increased division in their ranks, purges, shattered promises (the so called technocrats including Makoni et al have not delivered and have in fact compounded the problems Zimbabwe is facing) and only two things to offer Zimbabwe: violence and economic collapse.

But there is a further important fact to consider. Last year the MDC was campaigning from ground zero. It had no seats, no infrastructure, no credibility as a viable party either locally or internationally. From ground zero it won 57 seats. A year on it has 56 seats, an infrastructure countrywide and is recognised locally and internationally (the ANC is now talking to us). In other words in the run up to the Presidential election we start from an entirely different level – we now have a powerful springboard to mount an even more effective Presidential election campaign than we did in the Parliamentary election.

3. The penny has finally dropped in the international community’s mind

Last year I wrote that after many years in the “political wilderness”, after many years of our warnings about the true nature of the Mugabe regime falling on deaf ears, there was for the first time “massive antipathy towards Mugabe”. One year on how much more so is the case. Indeed at Christmas I wrote about this and even since then it is astonishing how international opinion against the Mugabe regime has hardened dramatically.

Ironically most of the hardening of opinion has not been the work of the MDC but of Mugabe, Jonathan Moyo and the rest of those within ZANU(PF) who are committed to holding on to power using any means. Had ZANU(PF) left the MDC alone, not bombed the Daily News, not threatened the Judiciary, not expelled foreign journalists, not sought to undermine the CFU, not passed the Broadcast Act I doubt very much whether the Commonwealth, EU and others would have paid much attention to Zimbabwe. The fact remains that one year on most of those who were ambivalent, or neutral, or disinterested, last year are now acutely aware of the problems and determined, more than ever before, to do something. Last year ZANU(PF) could take comfort in the fact that the Commonwealth, the ANC and others were prepared to turn a blind eye to rampant human rights abuses perpetrated by ZANU(PF). That is no longer the case.

If any proof is needed of this change one need look no further than the recently passed Political Parties Finance Act which seeks to ban foreign funding of political parties. That Act is an admission by ZANU(PF) that the MDC is now recognised and supported by the international community and, almost just as importantly, that it is now viewed as a pariah party that has no prospect of attracting international support as it has done up until now. Indeed the Political Parties Finance Act contains a very important message to those in Zimbabwe who are still ZANU(PF) apologists, or who believe that a ZANU(PF) victory is inevitable (and therefore should not be opposed) : the Act is an admission that a ZANU(PF) government no longer has the ability to attract international support, not just for its own funding but also for the country at large. This is a theme I shall come back to at the end.

4. ZANU(PF) is increasingly divided

Last year I spoke of the dangerous tactic employed by Mugabe in using the likes of Hitler Hunzvi to campaign and of the fact that that was likely to divide ZANU(PF). I said that thinking people within ZANU(PF) knew that Mugabe’s strategy would devastate the economy and I asked the question as to how long “sane people” would stay on board the ZANU(PF) ship. It has been astonishing to observe how Mugabe has divided and whittled down the support base of ZANU(PF) in just one year.

First we saw the eradication most of ZANU(PF)’s moderates in its primary elections, something which has caused those former ZANU(PF) MPs to form their own new political grouping. Then we saw immediately after the election the alienation of much of the old guard in the appointment of Mugabe’s new cabinet. In the past few months we have seen the purging of more moderate leaders at Provincial level and their replacement by war veterans. In essence what has happened is that the party’s support base has been whittled down to its core, namely the war veterans, and even then not all of them, only the radical element. Mugabe has surrounded himself with a few hard-line war veterans and ambitious politicians who are beholden to him and who do not have the ability to win any constituency in their own right. But in the process Mugabe has seriously alienated whole swathes of ZANU(PF) supporters.

These divisions are increasingly obvious to us in Parliament. Recently we were subjected the spectacle of the present Minister of Justice, Chinamasa (one of those appointed MPs) heckling a former Minister of Justice (and ZANU(PF)’s brightest brain in Parliament by a long shot), Zvobgo when the latter criticised the Broadcasting regulations as being unconstitutional. And in many of the Parliamentary select Committees we see growing evidence of ZANU(PF) MPs (elected ones that is) who are increasingly disillusioned with the course being taken by their leadership. I chair the Parliamentary Justice Committee (which has a majority of ZANU(PF) members) and I have been intrigued to note the unanimity of thought on most issues. My MDC colleagues who sit on other committees report similar developments in their committees.

These divisions will have catastrophic consequences for whoever is the ZANU(PF) candidate in the Presidential election. Parliamentary (single constituency) elections are often won because of the enthusiasm or personal popularity of the individual candidate. Because an individual’s own political career is at stake a person competing for a Parliamentary seat will work hard to ensure that he wins. Likewise voters will often vote for an individual even if they don’t particularly like the party he or she represents. And there is the rub for ZANU(PF): for in alienating the old guard, in disenchanting newly elected ZANU(PF) MPs, by relying on war veterans to do their violent campaigning many who worked for and voted for a ZANU(PF) victory in the Parliamentary elections will not do so in the Presidential elections.

But there is one further, and major division, within ZANU(PF) which was not a factor in the Parliamentary elections and that is over their choice of their Presidential candidate/ticket. In fact it is a no win situation for ZANU(PF) because unlike the overwhelming consensus within the MDC regarding the Tsvangirai/Sibanda ticket, it does not matter who is chosen to represent ZANU(PF) – every choice will not be supported by some significant segment of the party. Mugabe or Mnangagwa will not get support in Matabeleland, Zvobgo areas and Manicaland. Makoni will not get support from Mnangagwa and from areas outside Manicaland and so on. And the divisions within ZANU(PF) can only grow; this is not a party which has a reputation for arriving at a consensus through rational debate, it has always had a leadership which has bludgeoned its way ahead.

5. We are in the majority

Last year I said that “despite all the violence and intimidation the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of Zimbabweans want change”. One year on nothing has altered. Indeed if anything poor people and rural people want change even more now. 52% of voters in June voted for change despite the violence, intimidation and rigging. Since then the economy has spiralled down further and ZANU(PF) has not delivered on a whole range of issues.

Countrywide we are seeing ever greater numbers of people attending MDC meetings. Recently Morgan Tsvangirai has addressed huge meetings, attended by tens of thousands of people (not Jonathan Moyo figures but those assessed by the media!) at venues as far flung as Buhera, Maphisa, Tsholotsho, St Marys and Bulawayo. On a more modest level my last constituency report back meeting in Bulawayo was packed to overflowing, in fact I had the largest attendance ever at that particular venue, even bigger than any meeting held in the run up to the election last year. My Parliamentary colleagues report similar support throughout the country.

I am also struck by the intensity of working class people when they approach me in the street or speak to me at check-out counters at the supermarkets. They are clearly more determined than ever to effect change. In fact I have frequently observed at recent meetings that the crisis of confidence problem in Zimbabwe is very much a white and middle class phenomenon, for there appears to be no such crisis amongst poor black people who know what has to be done and who are quietly preparing for the time to go and vote.

Last year I observed that “if the majority of Zimbabweans agreed with the violence and Mugabe’s tactics we would be in trouble” and that there was only “a tiny, rabid and, increasingly deranged, minority” directing the mayhem”. That has been borne out by the facts: recently I asked the CFU to tell me how many people they estimated were in occupation of commercial farms, the reply was approximately 25000 people, nowhere near the ZANU(PF) propaganda that 50000 families were in occupation. 25000 people is half of one Parliamentary constituency to put the number in perspective. And many of those have been threatened or lured with false promises to occupy. In other words of the over 7 million people who live in the rural areas only some 25000 have benefited from what is the pivot of the ZANU(PF) election campaign. The rest have seen bus fares soar in price, along with the increase in the price of all basic necessities and the crumbling of state services all around them. That is why MDC rallies in the rural areas are attracting more people than ever before.

Finally, and as I alluded to earlier, rural people have noted that ZANU(PF) has been unable to “deliver on its promise” to retaliate against entire constituencies who voted against it. Gukurahundi 2 has not happened against the people of Matabeleland or Manicaland or urban dwellers. Yes there has been violence directed against some of these constituencies but the vast majority of those who voted MDC have not been affected by it. And as I have said before the drift of political thought in Zimbabwe has always been urban to rural not vice versa. The rural populations who voted for ZANU(PF) last year have much more food for thought come the Presidential elections. The process of change is unstoppable even in the face of massive violence. The majority I spoke about a year ago has grown.

6. There is ancient wisdom which provides hope

Last year I wrote about the inevitable consequences for rulers who violate God’s fundamental principles of governance. I quoted Isaiah 1:31 which speaks of how mighty men become tinder and their own works become the spark of their own destruction.

In the past few months at many meetings and in Parliament I have quoted Psalm 7: 14-16 and those words bare repeating today :

“He who is pregnant with evil and conceives trouble gives birth to disillusionment.
He who digs a hole and scoops it out falls into the pit he has made.
The trouble he causes recoils on himself; his violence comes down on his own head.”

That is just what has happened in the past year. Mugabe and his henchmen have sown the seeds of their own destruction. As I pointed out above in seeking to destroy the opposition in all its many forms by bombing the Daily News, attacking the Judiciary and so on ZANU(PF) have incurred the wrath of the international community, have strengthened the resolve of those in opposition and have irredeemably weakened their own position.

Last year I spoke of the historical precedents which make these words, written thousands of years ago, a reality. One year on I am more convicted than ever of the stunning truth of this ancient wisdom. The evidence is before our very eyes.

But there is yet more ancient wisdom which is particularly pertinent at this stage of our Nation’s history:

“Be still before the Lord and wait patiently for him;
do not fret when men succeed in their ways, when they carry out their wicked schemes.
Refrain from anger and turn from wrath; do not fret – it only leads to evil.
For evil men will be cut off, but those who hope in the Lord will inherit the land.
A little while, and the wicked will be no more;
though you look for them they will not be found.
The wicked plot against the righteous and gnash their teeth at them;
but the Lord laughs at the wicked,
for he knows their day is coming.” Psalm 37: 7-13

There are many in our midst who are tired after over a year of violence and “wicked schemes”. There are many who feel they cannot wait until the end of March next year (when the Presidential election must held by). There are many who believe that the best solution is to take the law into their own hands. There are many who believe that only a call to arms will work in dislodging this murderous regime from power. These words speak very powerfully to all those who fit into any of the abovementioned categories.

The encouragement is that just as the consequences of evil rule is inevitable so too is the promise that if we patiently commit ourselves to grinding out this hardship peacefully through the ballot before we know it this entire wicked bunch will be swept away. Their day is indeed coming.

Which leads me to the seventh reason for hope, not mentioned last year.

7. ZANU(PF) has created the ultimate catch 22 for itself.

In sowing what it thought would be the seeds of destruction of the opposition and in blending the land issue with violence, ZANU(PF) has done severe damage to the economy and has incurred the wrath of the international community. As a result ZANU(PF) now cannot deliver on the land issue without forfeiting its violence strategy because the international community will not fund this illegality. And yet ZANU(PF) cannot afford to suspend its violence partly because it is irreversible (dead people cannot be brought back to life and the legal consequences for the murderers will not go away) and partly because it knows that without the use of violence the Presidential election will be lost overwhelmingly.

They are left with three options:
1. To continue with their present policies unabated but that will mean they have even less capacity to deliver on the land issue and will incur the wrath of increasing sectors of the international community;
2. To suspend the violence and to proceed with the land programme within the confines of the law, with the consequences mentioned above;
3. To continue the oppression but get key sectors of Zimbabwean society, such as the Judiciary and the CFU to negotiate and to turn a blind eye to systematic violence perpetrated against other sectors of society, thus securing the international assistance they require to deliver on the pillar of their election campaign, namely land – in other words to have their cake and eat it.

The only way out of the catch 22 created by the first two options is by means of the third option. The undermining of the Judiciary and its ongoing subversion linked with the Swanepoel/Bredenkamp “initiative” is undoubtedly ZANU(PF)’s desired way of wriggling out of its predicament. For if it can get the Judiciary to look the other way in the face of breaches of both the Land Acquisition Act and the criminal law and get the CFU to give ZANU(PF) a “clean bill of health”, ZANU(PF) believes it can get the international community on board, fund the land programme, get some semblance of order back to the productive sector and yet continue to oppress the MDC and its supporters.

Fortunately ZANU(PF) has misjudged the naivety of the international community and the resilience of many sectors of Zimbabwean society including the Judiciary and the farming community. And in that lies hope because ZANU(PF) now have to face the catch 22 square on and there is no way out for them: they will have to confine themselves to the first two options and both are extremely perilous courses of action for them.

The way ahead

Last year I ended by stressing that whilst striking an optimistic note it was important to remember that violence and human rights abuses would continue and indeed escalate as ZANU(PF) became more desperate. Nothing has changed and I am under no illusions whatsoever that Mugabe and henchmen will use whatever means they deem necessary to cling to power. This is, after all, an end game for them: they have everything to lose. They know that if they lose not only will their corrupt activities be exposed but they will also have to face the legal consequences of their violent 21 year tenure of power.

In these circumstances what can we do? I am aware of the one school of thought promoted by the Bredenkamps of this world and also by some in the business sector: that is that a ZANU(PF) victory in the Presidential election will be the best way out so that the violence can stop and life can get back to normal. In fact it has been reported back to me that some in this camp are even predicting and promoting a ZANU(PF) victory. It is a seductive line of thinking but is fatally flawed in the following respects.

1. It ignores the overwhelming desire of the vast majority of poor black Zimbabweans for fundamental change and, perhaps more importantly, the now deeply rooted anger against ZANU(PF) and its hierarchy. It assumes that the vast majority will just accept a flawed electoral process and the prospect of a further 21 years of violent, corrupt and despotic rule. This thinking betrays how out of touch the Bredenkamps of Zimbabwe and other whites are with the deeply held feelings of poor black Zimbabweans. It is the same thinking that led Rhodesians to believe in 1980, ironically, that ZANU(PF) could never win an overall majority then. I personally cannot claim to be an expert in the feelings of poor black Zimbabweans; I can only comment with authority on what I see and hear in the high density suburbs in my constituency and what I hear from my MDC colleagues. But I believe that I am much better in touch with the reality of what is going on on the ground than people who are almost completely untouched by the devastating consequences of Zimbabwe’s economic meltdown.

2. It ignores the new reality in world politics. The world will simply not look the other way this time. The thinking is that once the Presidential elections are over and ZANU(PF) has won, sane policies will be implemented by the new ZANU(PF) President and the world will simply forgive and forget. There is no longer any cold war and there is no motivation to turn a blind eye to massive human rights violations. The nations which truly count in the world, the nations which have the power to open the IMF and World Bank taps, will simply not cooperate until there is a full restoration of the rule of law, and that means not just a peaceful and lawful land reform programme but also the bringing to book of all those responsible for murder. Those who believe that if the land issue is resolved in isolation, funds will flow to Zimbabwe are woefully mistaken.

3. It ignores the depressing reality of middle class thinking in Zimbabwe. In the last few years Zimbabwe has experienced an unprecedented brain drain. It is a serious mistake to think that this is confined to the white community. The cream of our black professionals have left the country. The reality is that what is a brain drain trickle now, will become a flood in the event of a ZANU(PF) victory. Furthermore if ZANU(PF) wins the Presidential election very few of our professionals, who have left, will see any hope for the future and they will not return as we desperately need them to. The point is that those who advocate the expedient route of a ZANU(PF) victory ignore the reality that if that happens, Zimbabwe as we know it today, even in its depressed and chaotic state, will be utterly destroyed and the rich who are promoting this thinking will be left as tiny islands in a sea of desolation. This is not a threat: it is simply a predictable consequence.

The way ahead then is not to entertain naive thoughts about a “middle road” or a “reformed ZANU(PF)”. There is no middle road and no prospect of a reformed ZANU(PF) – it is violent and corrupt to the core. Likewise any thoughts that the rich may have that they can ride the storm and ignore the reality of what is going on around them.

The only way ahead is to commit ourselves to getting through this final tough lap on the road to democracy without compromising our principles. We can be very proud of those Zimbabweans who have stood up to evil in the past year. Looking back we can see that MDC members, leaders and Parliamentarians, the Trade Unions, the Judiciary, farmers and poor rural and high density dwellers have stood firm. Now is the time for everyone to stand up for what is right. No one promises that it will be easy but if we love this country and want a future in it for ourselves, our children and our grand children, we have no choice. However together, in all the wonderful meaning of that word, rich and poor, black and white, Shona and Ndebele, urban and rural, we will complete the change to a better life for all. The power to do so is truly in our hands.

David Coltart MP
Bulawayo South
Movement for Democratic Change

Posted in Articles | Leave a comment

Mugabe poll rival is charged with inciting violence

The Daily Telegraph
17th February 2001
By David Blair in Harare

ZIMBABWE’S opposition leader faced the prospect of abandoning his challenge to President Robert Mugabe and spending up to 14 years in jail after he was charged with incitement to violence yesterday.

A ferocious crackdown has been launched against all opponents of Mr Mugabe, real or imagined, and the appearance of Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of the Movement for Democratic Change, in a Harare magistrate’s court marked the most serious escalation of this campaign. In a five minute hearing, Mr Tsvangirai was charged under the notorious Law and Order (Maintenance) Act, which was passed by the British colonial government to jail black nationalists, including Mr Mugabe, and gives the authorities sweeping powers to act against any dissidents.

The action arose from a speech by Mr Tsvangirai at an MDC rally last September. Before an audience of 25,000 in Harare, he said: “We say to Robert Mugabe, if you don’t want to go peacefully, we will remove you violently. This country cannot afford Mugabe for one day longer.” These remarks dismayed many of Mr Tsvangirai’s closest supporters and increased concerns about his erratic judgment. They handed the government an excuse to arrest him at any time.

If convicted, Mr Tsvangirai could face a five year ban on holding public office. This would prevent him from running against Mr Mugabe in the presidential election due early next year. Mr Tsvangirai was granted bail and his High Court trial was set for April 30. Gibson Sibanda, deputy leader of the MDC, was charged with the same offence last week after he allegedly urged a crowd of supporters to attack members of the ruling Zanu-PF party. Both of the MDC’s leading figures could soon be banned from holding office, a move that would call into question the very future of the party.

But Mr Tsvangirai’s supporters argue that he has no case to answer. David Coltart, justice spokesman for the MDC, said: “In the context of his wider speech, he has a very sound defence in law. This was not a threat of violence but a warning from history that governments who hold power through violence and illegal means are often overthrown violently in the end. Those who live by the sword, die by the sword.”

Mr Coltart said that Zanu-PF supporters, including Mr Mugabe himself, have made a stream of inflammatory statements and no action has been taken against them. At an official function last March, the President said: “Those who cause disunity among our people must watch out because death will befall them.”

The opposition says that the charges against Mr Tsvangirai do not arise from any real concerns over his behaviour, but are part of Mr Mugabe’s ruthless effort to stamp out his opponents and hold power at whatever cost.

Posted in Press reports | Leave a comment

Mugabe rival faces charge after rally

The Daily Telegraph
8th February 2001
By David Blair in Harare

THE deputy leader of Zimbabwe’s opposition Movement for Democratic Change has been charged with “incitement to violence” in an escalation of President Mugabe’s action against his opponents.

Gibson Sibanda appeared in a magistrate’s court in Bulawayo on Tuesday and was charged under the notorious Law and Order (Maintenance) Act. Originally passed by the British colonial government to jail black nationalists, including Mr Mugabe, the legislation gives the authorities sweeping powers to act against dissidents.

Mr Sibanda allegedly urged MDC supporters to attack members of the ruling Zanu-PF party during a rally on Sunday. He was granted bail until March 4. David Coltart, justice spokesman for the MDC, dismissed the charges as “ridiculous”.

The move came as squatters made another violent attempt to force a white farmer to flee his land. Armed with spears and axes, a mob of 50 surrounded Chris Thorne’s homestead on Irenedale farm, near Glendale, 30 miles from Harare, which is listed for takeover by the government.

Mr Thorne’s mother, Baye, 87, was bundled out of her cottage nearby and forced to take refuge in the farmhouse, where a tense stand-off ensued. By last night, the arrival of police and neighbouring farmers had calmed the situation.

Posted in Press reports | Leave a comment

New Year Message 2001

Dear Friends,

As I celebrated the commencement of another new year last night with my family I spent some time reflecting over the events of the past year and in particular I thought of the wonderful start to last year I had waking up early in the Matopos (we saw in 2000 camping with friends in the bush) on a gloriously fresh New Year’s day. I was aware of the major battles that faced Zimbabwe on that day but had little inkling of the dramatic events that would unfold in the course of the year. It is useful to look back on the 1st January 2000; for in doing so we are all reminded of just what has been achieved this past year despite the chaotic and grave situation facing Zimbabwe today and, more importantly, we are given hope for this coming year. I have always said that Zimbabwe will only prosper and reach her true potential when democracy is established and entrenched; the achievement of democracy is not an event but a painful and laborious process. As we look back on last year we can see that some major steps in that process were taken and the process will continue this year because the process is inevitable and unstoppable.

Ponder the following facts:

  1. On the 1st January 2000 (yesterday) we were in the midst of fighting against the foisting on Zimbabwe of a new undemocratic Constitution which would have entrenched Mugabe’s power even further. We were up against a $50 million propaganda campaign conducted by some cunning academics who gave the exercise the pretence of objectivity. On the 1st January 2001 (today) that draft Constitution has been consigned to the dustbin of history.
  2. Yesterday ZANU(PF) had 117 elected members of Parliament and the opposition only 3. Today ZANU(PF) has 62 (40 of which are shortly to be challenged in Court) and the opposition have 57 (a further seat is up for grabs soon).
  3. Yesterday Parliament was a rubber stamp for the Politburo, an institution designed to present a facade of democracy. Today Parliament is a vibrant institution, a place the dinosaurs in the Politburo hate to visit.
  4. Yesterday Mugabe and his henchmen had the odd skirmish with the Judiciary but were able to maintain the belief held internationally that the courts were respected and the rule of law upheld. Today that facade has been blown away and Mugabe et al have declared open war on the Judiciary. An indelible stain on ZANU(PF)’s reputation has so been created.
  5. Yesterday big business, and many in the farming community, entertained the naive belief that ultimately they could do business with ZANU(PF) and that democracy was not the sine qua non of development and long term stability. Today these sectors are finally listening to those who have preached democracy so long and are asking what they can do to help.
  6. Yesterday the international community did not understand the depth of depravity of Mugabe and his henchmen and accordingly did not appreciate that for so long as they remained in power there could never be long term stability and good development prospects for Zimbabwe and Southern Africa. Today they understand full well and now too are doing what they can to help.
  7. Yesterday leaders in the region believed that Mugabe could be persuaded to do the right thing in the best interests of Zimbabwe and the region. Today they understand that he is only interested in one thing: his own political survival and doesn’t care a damn for Zimbabwe, its people or its neighbours. In the past year we have seen Mugabe publicly criticised by African icons: Archbishop Desmond Tutu described him as a caricature of all that was bad in African politics and Nelson Mandela called on Mugabe to step down from office.
  8. Yesterday our businesses were surviving, but struggling and on a slow but sure slide down into oblivion so long as ZANU(PF)’s policies continued unchecked. Today many businesses are barely alive but at least now there is help awaiting in the form of an alternative government with the right policies and an international community which is anxious to assist when the time is right.
  9. Yesterday ZANU(PF) was confident that it could rely on the army to sustain its grip on power and the opposition had no assurance that a democratic transition would be honoured by the military. Today morale in the army is at its lowest ebb (with troops not being fully paid in the Congo and some of our troops having had the humiliation of retreat into Zambia) and ZANU(PF) has to rely on a rag tag force of semi geriatric war veterans to stay in power.
  10. Yesterday Mugabe was confident that he would be able to withdraw our troops from Congo quickly and with honour. Today the peace accord is in disarray and the UN is adamant that it will not deploy a peace force unless all foreign armies are removed first, which is the ultimate Catch 22 for Mugabe.
  11. Yesterday there was no alternative government and most were resigned to making do with what they had, ZANU(PF). Today there is a very viable alternative government waiting in the wings and eager to put things right quickly.
  12. Yesterday Mugabe had reasonably high approval ratings and Morgan Tsvangirai was relatively unknown in the rural areas. Today Mugabe enjoys 4% support in Harare, 13% countrywide, whereas Morgan Tsvangirai is now a household name countrywide, including the rural areas and enjoys massive support.
  13. Yesterday the Presidential election seemed light years away. Today it is just round the corner.
  14. Yesterday ZANU(PF) was relatively united and the likes of Eddison Zvobgo, Cyril Ndebele and Michael Mataure gave the party wisdom and respectability. Today ZANU(PF) is more divided than ever and has to rely on Chenjerai Hitler Hunzvi, Border Gezi and Professor Jonathan Moyo for wisdom and respectability as it plans to fight the Presidential election.
  15. Yesterday many Zimbabweans did not even know of the MDC let alone whether it was united behind its multi ethnic and multi racial leadership. Today the world knows that men and women, Ndebele and Shona, black and white are united behind the leadership of Morgan Tsvangirai and Gibson Sibanda and the MDC is not only a force to be reckoned with but is more united than ever.
  16. Yesterday brutes like Obert Mpofu and Emmerson Mnangagwa were MPs and many wondered whether Zimbabweans would be brave enough to vote out men of their ilk. Today the lions of Bubi-Umguza and Kwe Kwe, Jacob Thabane and Blessings Chebundo respectively, take Mpofu and Mnangagwa’s seats in Parliament and embody the bravery of the vast majority of Zimbabweans who have shown that they will vote for democracy in the face of massive intimidation.
  17. Yesterday the 70% of Zimbabweans who live in the rural areas were largely unaware of the alternative provided by the MDC and the thinking of the majority of townsfolk because of ZANU(PF)’s tight control of broadcasting. Today those same rural folk are aware and are demonstrating their support for this alternative by attending rural rallies and meetings at venues as far flung as Brunapeg and Buhera in their thousands.
  18. Yesterday we enjoyed the warmth and fellowship of many dear friends, loved ones and colleagues such as Patrick Nabanyama and David Stevens. Today, in remembering that they are no longer with us and the cruel way they were taken from us, we are all the more determined to strive this year to ensure that their deaths in the fight for democracy will not be in vain.

Friends, I could go on. The point is that although this year has been traumatic massive strides have been made towards our goal of making Zimbabwe a more humane and democratic society. All the events described above have happened in just one year. Despite all the wicked actions perpetrated by evil men, despite all the vast resources used by those evil men against those struggling for freedom, despite all the propaganda, despite all the destruction wrought against innocent people, the fact remains that those evil men are weaker, greatly weaker, than they were a year ago. Those same evil men will continue to plot but rest assured they also will continue to weaken. In fact in this past year Mugabe’s back and ZANU(PF)’s back have been broken. They are still politically alive and lashing out but they will never be the same force again. All we have to do is to remain resolute and to take heed of these wonderful words of Lord Alfred Tennyson:

” Tho’ much is taken, much abides, and tho’
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven: that which we are, we are:
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.”

Yours sincerely,
David Coltart

Posted in Letters | Leave a comment