The Star

July 27 2015

By Peta Thornycroft

To many Zimbabweans, the answer to that question doesn’t really matter. They’re not looking for democracy, but economic relief, writes Peta Thornycroft.

Johannesburg – There are so many mysteries about Emmerson Mnangagwa. And much curiosity about him as he is the front runner to succeed Robert Mugabe – even though, of course, to survive the rocky road to the top job he must continue to deny he has any presidential ambition.

He must be part of the chorus which says that Mugabe, 91, will live forever, and that Zimbabwe’s “revolution” continues until final victory.

But the conversation that concentrates many minds in Zimbabwe more then Zanu- PF rituals is: Will Mnangagwa be better or worse than the “old man”?

Mugabe’s 35 years in power have transformed a relatively prosperous country into one that cannot borrow its way out of foreign debt or recapitalise infrastructure destroyed by neglect and policies which mean it doesn’t even have its own currency any more.

“I don’t care which party is in control. Which leader is driving. We don’t care any more about voting. The new person must come into office soon and fix the economy,” said a successful 42-year-old vegetable seedling trader who runs a slick operation outside a busy supermarket in Harare’s northern suburbs.

“I have never seen Mnangagwa, so I don’t know him: “What do you know of him? Is he okay?”

Mnangagwa remains elusive. Zimbabwe is not a country where ordinary people will express political opinions freely.

Researchers are not even sure of his age. He said in an interview in the government-controlled Harare weekly, The Sunday Mail, earlier this year that he is 71, soon to be 72. The voters roll says he is 72 and will be 73 mid-September; Wikipedia says he is 69.

His age has some relevance.

In the early part of the civil war to end minority white rule, Mnangagwa was found guilty of murder and blowing up a train and was rescued from the death sentence in 1965, because the judge believed he was a minor, when the age of majority was 21.

But he was, almost certainly, at least a year older than that.

Mnangagwa is not much remembered in the very few books Zimbabweans have written about the struggle and the war to end white rule.

We know that he did his O and A levels during nearly seven years in prison and then studied law in Zambia and completed articles in Lusaka for a revered Zimbabwe lawyer, Enoch Dumbutshena, who went on to become chief justice.

Mnangagwa was popular with some in the white intelligence community who remained in Zimbabwe at independence when he was first appointed security minister.

He went out of his way to find the policemen who tracked him down and nabbed him. He became friends with some of them and trusted them. Unusually, records of his arrest and trial are missing from the national archive.

Mnangagwa became Mugabe’s special assistant in Mozambique and, as an adult, has had no life outside Zanu-PF.

He was a natural successor to Mugabe for years. He ran the party’s now-failed business empire. So he was appalled and angry when junior party colleague Joice Mujuru was choreographed into one of the two vice-presidency positions in 2004, mainly because she was a woman.

So last year, ahead of the party congress, she was booted out, thanks to Mugabe’s wife Grace who went around the country holding rallies and told whoever would listen that Mujuru was planning a coup d’état.

It’s hard to find anyone who believes that. But it was useful to Mnangagwa and those who wanted to shaft her.

We know he helped change the Zanu-PF constitution to allow Mugabe to appoint him as vice-president last December, rather than stand for elections for the post.

We know little about his private life although we do know his second wife, Auxilia, was recently elected an MP, and that his first wife died some years ago. And we think he might have six adult children.

We know most Zimbabweans, even in his home area, did not know him well, or perhaps didn’t like him, as he was twice defeated in elections by opposition candidates in 2000 and 2005.

We know he was key to whatever it was that he and other Zanu-PF seniors and military leaders “earned” in the Democratic Republic of Congo after the late Laurent Kabila called for assistance from Mugabe’s well-trained army in 1998.

There are reports published around the world that say that he and others made a fortune out of DRC diamonds and money laundering at that time.

But we do know via public record that Mnangagwa played a key role in the DRC after the war and ensured that at least two prominent white Zimbabwean entrepreneurs briefly became rich cobalt and copper miners.

Businessmen operating in Katanga at that time have told several researchers and journalists that they saw regular payments were made from Zimbabweans operating there to a couple of top DRC leaders and senior Zanu-PF personalities during this period. Mnangagwa’s name circulates in these conversations.

If he made money then, and subsequently via his gold mining operations in Zimbabwe, he doesn’t show off his wealth.

He often drives himself around without security officials. He bought a farm after independence and took another from a white farmer post 2000 in central Zimbabwe. He owns a modest house in a not-so- fashionable Harare suburb.

“Pragmatist? Yes. He will be pragmatic,” said Eldred Masunungure, a senior political scientist from the University of Zimbabwe.

“We understand he is astute in his own business empire, and he would want his family business to expand. He would be more pragmatic then ideological.

“He does not have a flashy lifestyle. He is part of a close-knit political group averse to publicity who lead quiet lives so most people really do not know him.

“But the younger generation will find it difficult to be hopeful about him because the Zimbabwe they have known has always been in crisis. That is all they know.

“So the prevailing mood is of despair. It is palpable, one can almost touch it.”

Masunungure said Mnangagwa had “a difficult record and he needs to improve on that, so I imagine his advisers are working on his reputation”.

Masunungure reflects what many intellectuals will say about Mnangagwa – that he was a key player in the massacre of thousands of opposition supporters in the south and western parts of Zimbabwe post independence, and that he was the architect of violence against the Movement for Democratic Change since it emerged 15 years ago and very nearly defeated Zanu- PF in elections.

“We just hope the old man goes as soon as possible, because we are in such a very deep hole,” said a chartered accountant in Harare who asked not to be named.

Previous education minister and long-time human rights lawyer, David Coltart, who represented many victims of Zanu-PF violence in the 1980s, said this week: “The worst excesses of Zanu-PF have always happened when Mnangagwa has enjoyed Mugabe’s ear.”

He points to a speech Mnangagwa made in 1983 when he was security minister and which was reported in a government newspaper in second city Bulawayo during the heat of those massacres in the Matabeleland province:

“Blessed are they who will follow the path of the government laws for their days on Earth shall be increased. But woe unto those who will choose the path of collaboration with dissidents for we will certainly shorten their stay on Earth.”

But the chartered accountant and a mining executive say: “Yes, we know that. It was terrible. So we don’t expect democracy from Mnangagwa, but he will fix the economy, and that is all that counts these days. Democracy etcetera will come later.”

Mnangagwa did not respond to many calls made to his office via phone and e-mail seeking comment from him.

News24

Correspondent

21 July 2015

Harare – Zimbabwe’s vice president Emmerson Mnangagwa, on a visit to Belarus, has described the European country as “developed, orderly and clean” and its people as “loving”, the state broadcaster said on Monday.

Critics have called landlocked Belarus “Europe’s last dictatorship” on account of the authoritarian rule of long-time president, Alexander Lukashenko.

Mnangagwa, who is accompanied by Zimbabwe’s central bank governor John Mangudya and other officials, is in Minsk to drum up financial support for President Robert Mugabe’s cash-strapped government.

According to a report on the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC) website, Mnangagwa and Belarusian premier, Andrei Kobyakov earlier on Monday signed a Memorandum of Agreement worth $ 150m. The deal is said to cover support for road and dam construction, as well as mining and agriculture.

True story

The ZBC quoted Kobyakov as saying his country was “excited to have found a reliable trade partner”.

Like Mugabe, Lukashenko and his close allies are subject to targeted sanctions by the US and the EU for alleged rights abuses.

“Vice president Mnangagwa said despite sanctions and the western media being awash with bad stories and perception about Belarus, Zimbabwe will be a good ambassador of the country and will tell the true story,” the ZBC said.

The upbeat reports of Mnangagwa’s trip to Belarus in Zimbabwean state media have, however, been greeted with scepticism by some locals.

Oppostion Movement for Democratic Change politician David Coltart described the trip as “another mirage”.

“What meaningful investment can we expect from a tin pot republic,” Coltart said in a tweet on Monday.

New Zimbabwe.com

20th July 2015

JONATHAN Moyo bristled with anger on Twitter Monday after former education minister and opposition politician David Coltart suggested that, by not resigning from Zanu PF in protest during Gukurahundi, he was complicit in the atrocities.

“You’re a plain Rhodie idiot,” charged Moyo in response.

Told by a follower that ‘idiot’ was too strong a word “especially from people calling themselves educated”, Moyo was unwavering.

He continued: “I repeat, you’re a plain Rhodie idiot. How dare you say I’m responsible for Gukurahundi you bloody Selous Scout?!”

Moyo states in his CV that his father was one of the victims when President Robert Mugabe, as prime minister in the 1980s, ordered a vicious army unit especially trained for the purpose by North Korea into the Matebeleland and Midlands regions supposedly to hunt down dissidents.

Rights groups say 20,000 civilians, mostly Ndebeles, were killed in the campaign which forced Joshua Nkomo to flee to London through Botswana saying Mugabe had dispatched soldiers to assassinate him, adding they had also killed his chauffeur and ransacked his home.

Mugabe – through the 35 years he has ruled the country – has refused to apologise for the mass killings, or even address the concerns of still-bitter survivors let alone bring to justice those responsible who include some of his top aides.

Current vice president Emmerson Mnangagwa was in charge of state security at the time while air force boss Perrence Shiri headed the notorious Fifth Brigade which Nkomo described as a political army.

A Mnangagwa ally recently told NewZimbabwe.com that they suspected Gukurahundi was at the heart of Moyo’s fallout with the vice president and apparent determination to ensure he does not take over from Mugabe.

“There is clearly a fall-out. We are not sure why, perhaps Moyo is reviving his anger at Mnangagwa over the death of his father,” said the Zanu PF official.

When Mnangagwa torched a storm in 2011 by declaring that Gukurahundi was a “closed chapter”, Moyo was one of the senior politicians who criticised the remarks, describing them as “irresponsible and unacceptable”.
He then challenged Zanu PF to “publicly engage the issue in an open, honest and non-defensive way, which has characterised our attitude thus far”.

Again, when current co-vice president Phekezela Mphoko astonished many by claiming that Gukurahundi was a Western conspiracy adding Mugabe was not responsible for the killings, Moyo accused the VP of revisionism and questioned the “intended meaning and purpose” of Mphoko’s remarks.

What remains lingering about the atrocities, Moyo added, are not the “Gukurahundi causes but the Gukurahundi consequences”.

Meanwhile, explaining his row with Moyo, Coltart said on Facebook: “I have had an interesting twitter exchange with Jonathan Moyo this morning.

“It started when someone asked whether we agreed on anything. I responded by saying that we agreed on a lot prior to him “joining Zanu PF in 1999”.

“Moyo responded by agreeing with another 3rd party tweet that he in fact joined Zanu PF in 1976 when he was its representative in California.

“I responded saying – ‘fair enough’ and then questioned whether if that was so, whether he shared responsibility for Gukurahundi and suggested that he perhaps ‘re-joined Zanu PF in 1999’.

“Moyo went ballistic, angered by what he felt was my suggestion that he was complicit in Gukurahundi.

“I pointed out that I had not made that allegation but that if he was a loyal, card carrying member of Zanu PF during that time, and did not resign or speak out, then he would be complicit. It does raise the issue of our silence in the face of evil.”

Moyo however, said “If the vile logic of (Coltart) is right, then whites like him who served BSAP are racists who are responsible for all Rhodie atrocities!”

He continued: “(The) logical conclusion of (Coltart’s) idiocy on this matter is that Joshua Nkomo endorsed Gukurahundi by signing Unity Accord with Zanu PF!

“According to (Coltart’s logic) Morgan Tsvangirai must be responsible for Gukurahundi because he was a Zanu PF member during the dark period!”

Moyo accused Coltart of “seeking to gain from the Gukurahundi tragedy at the expense of victims still with open wounds!”

He added: “Only a Rhodie idiot would say it’s not vitriolic to say I’m responsible for Gukurahundi because I was Zanu PF!”

Byo24News

By Thobekile Zhou

20 July 2015

Higher Education minister Jonathan Moyo has again been caught up in a social media war with lawyer David Coltart on his Zanu PF membership decades ago and Gukurahundi.

Moyo, known for his sharp tongue described Coltrart as a ‘Rhodie idiot’ and ‘bloody BSAP Selous Scout!’

Moyo recently justified the use of the hate language saying if provoked, he would retaliate.

The Tsholotsho North MP said if a person used vile language on him, he would obviously return fire with fire.

Wrote Moyo this Monday morning “No it’s not. How dare @DavidColtart says I am responsible for Gukurahundi because I was then a member of Zanu PF

“So to Rhodie idiots everyone who was a member of Zanu PF during that dark period is responsible for Gukurahundi.

“I repeat you’re a plain Rhodie idiot. How dare you say I’m responsible for Gukurahundi you bloody BSAP Selous Scout”.

Coltart has asked when did Moyo re-join Zanu PF.

“Anyone who was a member of ZANU PF then, knew about its Gukurahundi policy, and did not resign or speak out became complicit.”

“You obviously didn’t see the question mark and the suggestion that perhaps you “rejoined in ’99”

“You were either a member, at the relevant time, of the party responsible for Gukurahundi, or you were not. The choice is yours.”

The Daily Telegraph

By Peta Thornycroft

19 July 2015

Ian Ferguson, who owns the last private game ranch in Zimbabwe, faces a new battle to keep his property.

There is a slither of land near Zimbabwe’s southern border that is classified as semi-desert, too arid to support either humans or livestock.

But it teems with eland, leopard, wildebeest, giraffe and other animals of the African bush. Found 20 miles north of the town of Beit Bridge, Denlynian is the last privately-owned game farm in Zimbabwe.
Ian Ferguson, 79, bought this desolate patch of land 30 years ago and transformed it into a wildlife conservancy. His property is now besieged by 50 invaders from President Robert Mugabe’s Zanu-PF party.
Last week, the regime took the unusual step of giving six other white farmers official permission to stay on their land. But the intruders on Denlynian seem determined to drive Mr Ferguson away.

They have ignored a High Court ruling which ordered them to leave Mr Ferguson’s land and take their cattle with them. The police have declined to enforce the court’s decision – and Mr Ferguson has run out of money to pay solicitors, pump water or repair the fences broken by the squatters’ cattle.

“Cattle and wildlife do not do well together,” he said. “Disease between some wildlife and cattle is part of it, but there is also the problem with grazing. It is so dry that the annual grass is scarce, even though we had late rains and have more than usual this year. I need that grass for the wildlife – but it is being eaten by their cattle.”

Many of the invaders do not live on Mr Ferguson’s land. They turn up at weekends to cut down trees for firewood. Far from being the landless masses of Mr Mugabe’s rhetoric, one of the occupiers is an official from the local magistrate’s court.

Mr Ferguson’s dogged struggle to hold onto his land began more than 10 years ago. The first invaders turned up, forcing the farmer to go to court to seek their removal. He mounted about a dozen cases – and won every time.

Then there was a lull in hostilities, but two years ago a particularly aggressive group moved onto the farm at night, killed some wildlife and assaulted foreign tourists. The court again ruled that Mr Ferguson must be allowed to stay and the police warned the invaders they would be arrested if they went near the farm again.

But more invaders arrived earlier this year – and the police steadfastly refused to act. “We don’t get any tourists nowadays as many feel it is not safe here. So there has been no income for a long time,” said Mr Ferguson. “Now this year we have new invaders with their cattle and the police will not evict them.”

The property is kept viable by the income that Mr Ferguson receives from an irrigated citrus farm nearby. Determined to drive him away, his tormentors are now trying to deprive him of this lifeline.
Last week, his lawyer received papers from a new group of invaders – who are mostly junior civil servants – claiming to have been awarded the citrus farm by the regime.

“I don’t yet know if the letters are legal or not, but I was shocked,” said Mr Ferguson. The farm has 25,000 citrus trees beside the Umzingwane River.
Whether any more oranges will be harvested is uncertain. “We don’t know what we can do now as we are in a muddle,” said Mr Ferguson.

Today, the elderly farmer is the sole target of the invaders in the area. Most of the other white landowners in this corner of Zimbabwe have long since fled their homes. But a few wealthy white neighbours have been allowed to continue working without persecution.

“Ian Ferguson has always confronted the government: he won’t stay quiet,” said another farmer from the same province. “He takes them to court. That may be moral – but in Zimbabwe it is stupid.”

David Coltart, a prominent lawyer and former education minister, said that Mr Ferguson was being singled out in retaliation for a “principled battle”.

Mr Coltart added: “He always stuck to non-violence, always used the courts, and he has always been polite in the face of outrageous abuse. Now they are destroying pristine riverine woodland which only has value to tourists and hunters.”

ESPN Cricinfo

18 July 2015

ZIMBABWE offspinner Prosper Utseya has, in a letter to Zimbabwe Cricket, claimed that he is a victim of racism and has levelled a string of allegations against Alistair Campbell, managing director of ZC. In a letter to Wilson Manase, ZC chairman, Utseya claims Campbell:

Has a “personal agenda” against him which influenced his non-selection [in the playing XI] at the recent World Cup.
Appointed white coaches and administrators during his 2010-2012 stint as chairman of the cricket committee in order to take control of cricket.
Had a conflict of interest in setting up Dominus Sport, the company that ran ZC’s marketing affairs during his time as cricket committee chairman, and his actions had an impact on ZC’s funds.
Utseya confirmed to ESPNcricinfo that he had written the letter after the World Cup and prior to Zimbabwe’s tour of Pakistan, but could not comment further at this stage. Campbell said he was unable to comment as the matter was pending either legal or internal disciplinary action.

With Utseya openly basing some of these claims in the letter on “rumour”, he would appear to be open to legal action, though the matter may ultimately be dealt with internally at ZC. It is understood that ZC is currently investigating the letter.

“Racism and Victimisation”

The letter copies all ZC board members and bears the headline “Racism and Victimisation”, and begins: “Through you Mr. Chairman I wish to share my frustrations as I believe I am a victim of racism and have come to a point where I feel I have been quiet for too long whilst a lot has been happening.”

After more than 10,000 words, Utseya finally closes his case with a plea for the board to consider his concerns.

Utseya, who was in Zimbabwe’s World Cup squad but did not get a game, claims he considered leaving the World Cup prematurely out of frustration, and cites Campbell’s pre-tournament comments as a back story to support his contention that ZC’s managing director conspired against his potential selection.

Last year, the ICC banned Utseya from bowling offspin, and in a guest column for the governing body in the lead-up to the World Cup, Campbell wrote: “I’m still a bit baffled by how Prosper Utseya will get on without being allowed to bowl his off-spinner, but no doubt he’ll find a way.

“He’ll certainly be the only bowler in the tournament without a ‘stock’ ball. He has been bowling medium-pacers and off-cutters recently so perhaps that is the way he will go.”

Utseya was banned from bowling after testing in September 2014. In December, his offbreak was found to be illegal but his other deliveries were deemed legal, and so he was cleared to bowl again so long as he did not utilise his stock ball.

His new method was field-tested for the first time on a trip to Uganda in December 2014 and he then captained Zimbabwe A against Canada at home in January.

In four games he took five wickets at an average of 17.80, bowling his full 10 overs in every match, never conceding more than 24 runs, and also contributed useful runs down the order.

In his letter, Utseya uses this as evidence that he deserved to be picked at the World Cup, but does not elaborate on how Campbell was able to influence selection at the tournament.

Administrative allegations

To support his racial allegations, Utseya goes on to list cases where Campbell appointed white people for coaching and administration posts, during his stint as chairman of the cricket committee and chairman of selectors, including coaching roles to Heath Streak and Grant Flower.

Utseya claims the decision to make Mangongo assistant coach was merely “a cover up to have a black man”. The employment of foreign white coaches at franchise level – Jason Gillespie, Allan Donald and Andrew Hall all coached Zimbabwean franchises during this period – is also cited as a ploy to “make sure that it is dominated by whites and thereby taking control of cricket”.

Utseya also alleges that the appointment of Elton Chigumbura as Zimbabwe captain after he stepped down in 2010 was a short-term set up for Campbell to achieve a long-term goal.

“When I was removed from the captaincy with no genuine reason, Elton Chigumbura was then appointed,” Utseya writes.

“Their aim was simply to put a white captain in B Taylor simply because they believe a white coach cannot work with a black captain and the change from Utseya to B Taylor would not look good politically hence the Elton route. Elton was not given a chance to prove himself and was quickly dropped from the captaincy.”

Chigumbura captained Zimbabwe in 20 ODIs between May 2010 and the end of the 2011 World Cup, but the extra responsibility affected his form.

After the 2011 World Cup, Chigumbura said that he planned to resign and focus on his own game, but later retracted that statement. In June 2011, ZC’s then managing director Ozias Bvute announced that Taylor would take over the captaincy.

Later in the letter, Utseya claims that Campbell has suggested he become a coach, is not giving him a chance to remodel his action and is trying to prevent him from gaining a national contract.

“Bearing in mind I still have an opportunity at 30 years old to work on my off spin. If I can reinvent in 2 months and make it Man of the Series in my comeback series with my new bowling action I reckon within 4 months I will be brilliant and what more in a year’s time I will be an artist at work. ICC can take away my offspin but they cannot take away my brains and experience which must count for something.”

Utseya goes on to suggest that given Zimbabwe’s “unique” racial situation, the position of managing director should be split – and offers to fill the second post.

“It is my humble wish that if Alistair Campbell can suggest that at 30 years old I can be involved in Franchise coaching and if the ZC Board also agrees with him in that I am not adding value as a player with my new bowling action, I would like to go 2 steps further than his suggestion and put my hand up for consideration for the proposed split post as I have the credentials.”

Race and cricket in Zimbabwe

This is not the first instance of allegations of racism surfacing in the Zimbabwe cricket set-up.

Cricket remained a predominantly white sport in Zimbabwe for two decades after majority rule in 1980, although after Henry Olonga became the country’s first black cricketer in 1995, other black players started to filter through.

For a time, it seemed that transformation of the game might happen organically, but the troubled wider political and social context caught up with cricket.
In March 2001, ZCU announced the formation of an Integration Task Force focused on the “rapid evolution” of the game, and the eradication of racial discrimination in cricket.

Players had to fill out a racism survey and, in the eyes of the predominantly white players, the integration targets set out by the Task Force amounted to an unofficial quota system.

This was one of the factors that led to the player rebellion in April 2004, followed by the exit of 15 white players from the national squad.

In September that year, the ICC held a hearing into allegations of racism began in Harare. The hearing ended amid allegations that ZCU was trying to create a hostile environment and intimidate witnesses and in October, then ICC president Ehsan Mani said he was satisfied with the findings of the report which found no evidence of racism in Zimbabwe cricket.

In January 2013 issues of race came to the fore again when the Sports and Recreation Commission, headed by the then Minister of Education, Sport, Arts and Culture David Coltart, issued a directive that any person tasked with convening the selection of a national side should have played international sport themselves.

The directive was portrayed as being racially motivated by Givemore Makoni, the convenor of selectors and the man most directly affected by it.

Stephen Mangongo’s tenure as national coach was marked by general player ambivalence towards his coaching style, rather than any particular racial tension, but when Mangongo lost his position after Zimbabwe’s whitewashing by Bangladesh last December, he reportedly said: “I am inclined to comment that I don’t think that Zimbabwe cricket was ready for an indigenous black person.

“It’s about acceptance, it’s about being ready for that and the alarmists already rang a lot of bells because a black guy had taken the head coach’s mantle.”

This was despite the fact that the people responsible for the termination of his position were also black, and is indicative, in a general sense, of the way in which matters of race and racism are drawn into areas of disagreement in Zimbabwean cricket.

Newsweek

By Graham Boynton

July 13 2015

ON a Friday afternoon in the leafy northern suburbs of Harare, white, sun-baked former farmers gather at the Tin Cup restaurant for a lunch of barbecued ribs and cold Castle lagers, and to talk about the good old days. The owner, Leith Bray, was run off his Tengwe farm in 2002 by a baying mob intent on killing him, but he now laughs that off as part of life’s rich tapestry.

Half a mile away, past the desperate, ragged street-corner vendors selling everything from mobile phone airtime to rhinos made from beer cans, a younger crowd is dining on fusion cuisine in four acres of lush landscaped gardens. It’s called Amanzi Restaurant, and it’s owned by Andrew and Julia Mama, a gregarious Nigerian-British couple who fled sectarian violence in Nigeria to settle in what they regard as a relatively peaceful African country. Amanzi draws diplomats, nongovernmental organization employees, aid workers and visiting European doctors, all of whom give the Zimbabwean capital a veneer of prosperity and normality.

But Zimbabwe is anything but prosperous and normal. The country’s economy is a disaster after three decades of dictatorial rule by President Robert Mugabe, a former independence leader who has long been a pariah in the West, and his Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front (Zanu PF) party. Zimbabwe faces a devastating famine this year, with a shortfall of more than a million metric tons of maize.

These days, the 91-year-old Mugabe’s role as president of the African Union has him spending most of his time jetting from one AU constituency to another. Meanwhile, at home, for the first time in 35 years of totalitarian rule, Mugabe’s political party is starting to tear itself apart, purging former stalwarts and breaking into warring factions as leadership contenders position themselves for the moment the Old Man dies.

I have just spent a month traveling around Zimbabwe, and in the wilderness areas, the rural communities and the major cities, the phrase that prefaces almost every conversation is “When the Old Man goes…”

Mugabe critics end up dead

Uncertainty about the future alarms David Coltart, a former cabinet minister in the now defunct Government of National Unity.

He says that since the country’s independence from white minority rule in 1980, “we have never had a situation where you’ve got weapons under the control of so many different entities—ZANU is fragmented, the army is fragmented, the Central Intelligence Organisation is fragmented, the police are fragmented—and there is a leadership vacuum. As a country, as a people, we are at our lowest ebb.”

Major contenders to take power after Mugabe include 60-year-old Joice Mujuru, a former vice president and widow of the assassinated General Solomon Mujuru, and 69-year-old Emmerson Mnangagwa, the current vice president and a living embodiment of Zanu PF’s Stalinist old guard.

Mujuru was expelled from the party at its National Congress last year, accused of planning a coup. She retreated to the farm bequeathed to her by her husband, and from there she is apparently planning the first post-Mugabe government. Eddie Cross, a member of the Movement for Democratic Change party, says she is in great danger.

Mujuru knows that critics of the Mugabe government have ended up dead in suspicious circumstances. Most recently, in late March, the journalist and human rights activist Itai Dzamara was bundled into an unmarked car and has not been seen since. It is assumed that he is dead.

After making a statement on corruption associated with the Marange alluvial diamond fields, Edward Chindori-Chininga, a former Zanu PF chairman of the mines committee, was killed in a car crash on a distant country road.

The official version is that it was a road accident, but opposition politicians insist he was shot in the head while he was driving. Chindori-Chininga was buried within 24 hours of his death, and there was no autopsy.

Cross remembers congratulating Chindori-Chininga on a brave parliamentary speech. “He said, ‘They’re going to come after me.’ Ten days later, he was dead.”

The overwhelming majority of Zimbabweans Newsweek spoke to want a new president, and a new government, as soon as possible. They dread the idea of another rigged election in 2018 that, given past form, could give Mugabe yet another presidential term at the age of 94.

One name kept coming up: Simba Makoni. In 2008, he ran against Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai in the presidential election and came in a distant third.

I meet Makoni at his Galleria KwaMurongo, an arts centre and restaurant in Harare. He has supported Tsvangirai in the past and recognizes the need to form what he calls a “grand coalition” to oust Mugabe and his party.

Liberation promise betrayed

Makoni was educated at Leeds University during the 1970s Rhodesian War and returned to Zimbabwe to take his place in the ZANU-PF political machine in the early days of independence. Then, he says, Mugabe and a small circle of insiders began to betray the ethical base of the liberation struggle.

“Today, the rulers are so far away from the visions, ideals, principles, ambitions of the liberation movement I was proud to be part of,” he says with a bleak smile.

Makoni left Zanu PF in 2008, “and the day I announced I was leaving, somebody in the party promised me I would be buried within a week.” Seven years later, he is still around, a man several foreign diplomats described to me as “the most ethical politician in the country.”

Today, the voice in Mugabe’s ear, according to Makoni and others, is that of his wife, Grace. Her rise to political prominence over the past 12 months has been spectacular, even by Zimbabwe’s warped standards of dynastic entitlement.

Grace was a typist in the president’s office when she and Mugabe began an affair, apparently sanctioned by his dying first wife, Sally. Now approaching 50, she has been transformed from first lady and mother of Mugabe’s two children to leader of Zanu PF’s Women’s League, which secures her a place in the ruling party’s politburo.

Makoni is sure the end of the Mugabe era is very close, and “when he goes the door will open for us to rebuild and restore a modicum of esteem and decency and respect for ourselves.”

However, he does fear a desperate attempt by the Mugabe dynasty to hang on to power.

“Grace wants to be there,” he says. “It’s unbelievable, but it’s true. She wants to be president. That’s how irrational we have become.”

This article was originally published by Newsweek magazine.

The Standard

By Phyllis Mbanje

5 July 2015

Is the Presidential Scholarship still relevant?

That is the million dollar question as the Zimbabwe government fails to pay fees at South African universities on time, resulting in some beneficiaries turning into destitutes.

The scheme, whose patron is President Robert Mugabe, has had its fair share of public disdain as government has not been able to justify the millions of dollars being poured into the programme annually.

Critics have questioned the rationale behind spending millions of dollars on students who have gone to various universities in South Africa under the scheme, at the expense of heavily under-funded local colleges and universities.

A student studying at any South African university pays a minimum of R30 000, (close to US$4 000) a year without accommodation. At most Zimbabwe universities, students pay less than $1 000 for two semesters, which is less than a third of what is required across the border.

The scholarship programme was introduced by Mugabe in 1995 primarily to assist talented children from underprivileged families acquire university education.

Initially all the students were sent to the University of Fort Hare in South Africa, where Mugabe himself studied for a BA degree. Now students can go to 15 other receiving universities in South Africa, among them Johannesburg, Monash, Cape Town, Venda and Rhodes Universities.

But the scheme has come under heavy criticism from mostly MDC-T legislators who argue that it benefits students from rich families and those related to Zanu PF bigwigs.

“The Presidential scholarship scheme has always been controversial because it is so opaque. There needs to be a more transparent process in which scholarships are given purely on the grounds of academic talent and poverty,” said former education minister David Coltart.

Last year in March enrolment was temporarily halted after funds dried up as the government owed South African universities over US$1 million in tuition fees.

The director of the fund, Christopher Mushowe said the government had no funds and had decided not to enroll anymore students. However, a few months down the line it was announced that the enrolment would take place.

Recently another advert was flighted calling for applications for the 2016 academic year.

“The Presidential Scholarship targets able but disadvantaged students mainly from the rural schools, intent on pursuing undergraduate studies at universities in South Africa,” reads the advert.

Courses on offer included engineering, health sciences, agriculture and humanities.

“This is madness. It does not make sense that it is called the presidential scholarship and yet the state is paying for it using public funds,” said former finance minister Tendai Biti.
During his tenure as the finance minister, Biti was blamed by Mushowe for the demise of the fund.

In 2010 Mushowe told journalists that Biti allocated US$3 million for students at 15 universities and that was not enough.

“We carried over the balance to 2011 but again we got US$2 million and it got worse in 2012 when he gave us a paltry US$1 million,” he said.

The former Finance minister refused to fund the $54 million-per-year scheme in 2013, arguing that it was Mugabe’s responsibility as the patron of the fund to mobilise resources to bankroll the scholarship programme.

Biti has consistently defended his actions saying the scheme was erroneously drawing from the fiscus when it was a private foundation.

“It is known traditionally that retired or serving statesmen create foundations to deal with some philanthropic cause, but they do not abuse public funds,” Biti said.

Adamant and bent on proving that the President cannot be patron to an unsuccessful project, officials at the helm of the scheme and bootlickers have frothed at the mouth defending its existence.

This is despite reports that some students under the programme were at one point starving while some did not have accommodation.
Last year Mushowe had to travel to South Africa to negotiate with students’ landlords and sign commitment documents so that their accommodation would be guaranteed.

The presidential scholarship programme was founded in 1995 to give academically gifted students from poor families a chance to study at South African universities. It drew students from each of the country’s 10 provinces and initially only 15 students were approved but now the enrolment has grown significantly.

“This was supposed to be for a few select beneficiaries but now it is a mass project; surely it defies logic when back home universities are in a shameful condition,” said Biti.

Most universities are a sorry sight and students are struggling to attend lectures in the absence of grants which were withdrawn years ago.

“That money should be used as grants which are critically needed to ease the burden of local students,” said the spokesperson of the Zimbabwe National Students Union (Zinasu), Avoid Masiraha.

Coltart said ideally, a neutral body of educationalists that are empowered to grant bursaries to the best candidates who meet the minimum requirements should be tasked to oversee the fund.

“The fund is obviously poorly administered and is used for political advantage rather than for the benefit of students,” said the former education minister.

“This fund is irrelevant when we have students right here who cannot pay for their education locally,” said Masiraha.

Zimeye

By Professor Welshman Ncube

3 July 2015

In the early 1980s, I was a young man in my twenties listening and reading with keen interest as nationalist politicians promised us unlimited access to free education, health and such other things. The newly ‘crowned’ ZANU Prime Minister, Robert Mugabe, dazzled bemused Zimbabweans with Marxist-Maoist rhetoric as government plunged itself into an orgy of unprecedented public expenditure. Schools, ‘vocational training centres’, clinics and hospitals mushroomed everywhere pushing adult literacy rates high and child mortality rates low. I was impressed. But looking back at the scenario today, as a mature politician concerned for the welfare of citizens, I realise that the euphoria of independence concealed one vital statistic from us: the cost of these supposedly free services.

I have always argued with the intellectual ideologues in my party that it does not matter what political persuasion one is, one must always be sensitive to the plight of the poor and disadvantaged in order to leave an indelible mark in one’s political history. Any sensible Zimbabwean leader – I included – must be alert to the millions of citizens out there who cannot afford basic education, health and food. My question today, which I will attempt to deal with empirical evidence is this: should we respond to the plight of the disadvantaged by a simplistic ‘free everything’ policy?

Our national constitution advances an agenda of equality and justice. The only challenge we have to grapple with is that of interpretation. To put it in context: the argument between residents associations and councils over pre-paid water meters is that of right of access versus sustainability. Let me desist from legal debate – the basis of my premise being whether ‘right to’ means ‘at whatever cost to the provider’. For those like me, who travel and investigate political systems, you know that social democracy as practiced in Nordic countries allows private enterprise to generate enough taxable resources that add value to national endowment. These are the resources tapped to provide subsidised – not necessarily free – quality education, health and other infrastructure. In some countries, education is totally free from cradle to grave. Yet in those countries taxes are prohibitively high, while citizens literally work twenty-four-seven!

Zimbabweans are some of the most highly taxed people in the world, yet revenue ‘disappears’ into pay packets of civil servants and wanton political abuse by the ruling party. There is just not enough left to push the social service agenda. The Mugabe government has toyed around with the ‘free-now-not-so-free-now’ idea, with disastrous consequences. When it suits them, as Secretary for Primary and Secondary Education Constance Chigwamba once did, they ‘freeze’ school fees for political expediency. University students routinely riot over tuition fees as ‘government students’ at Fort Hare in South Africa starve. This is my point: if the economy is not generating money, no amount of populist rhetoric will deliver free ‘anything’.

Former Malawi President Bakili Muluzi’s free education policy ballooned primary school enrollment by almost two million, but because of poor infrastructure, citizens did not enjoy the benefits of this ‘freedom’. Free education without schools, books and well looked after teachers is simple politicking. Both PTUZ and ZIMTA will attest to that thousands of teachers fleeing Zimbabwe because the Mugabe government fails dismally to reconcile political rhetoric with governance reality. My colleague and former education minister David Coltart was the closest Zimbabweans ever came to sanity in our education system. As long as ZANU PF economic policies are repulsive to investors, our universities will never attract sufficient private grants for research and industry-tailored skills training. Someone has to pay the ‘cost’ of freedom.

The Public Library of Sciences published an article edited by Zulfiqar Bhutta, examining the impact of free primary health delivery in Ghana. For obvious reasons, there was a ‘stampede effect’ where poor people who previously could not afford, inundated health facilities. He observed it was only a national health insurance scheme that could assist institutions to improve infrastructure to cope with increased pre and post natal care. However, the author still argued that there was ‘generally a “scarcity of good quality evidence” on the effect of such policies in low- and middle-income countries’. Nonetheless, ‘accelerated reduction in inequality is evident and is primarily a result of the larger immediate increases in coverage observed in poorer women compared with richer women.’ What shocked me most was the conclusion that ‘(S)tudies on benefit incidence by the World Bank have shown that the richest often benefit more than others when care is available free of charge because they are more able to express their demand and to influence healthcare professionals.’

Sophie Witter of the Institute of Applied Health Sciences in Scotland did a similar study on ‘Aama’ (mother) by Nepal’s Maoist-led government, nonetheless mostly funded by UK’s DFID. Inevitably, there was ‘an increase in institutional deliveries in the public sector and in other facilities included in the policy since the introduction of Aama’. Not to mention an increase in workload and demand for better staff incentives. The researcher concludes positively that ‘Aama policy appears to be operating with reasonable effectiveness, as seen from the facility perspective.’

I touched on the ongoing pre-paid water meter debacle – constitutionality and feasibility of ‘free water’. No doubt, many studies have been carried out on water delivery, including such by Peter Brabeck-Lemathe (‘Water is a human right but not a free good’), Fredrik Segerfeldt (‘Water for Sale’) and the Academic Foundation’s ‘Keeping the Water Flowing’ (Barun Mitra, Kendra Okonski and Mohit Satyanand). Brabeneck-Lemathe argues that use of water to fill up swimming pools, watering flower/vegetable gardens and washing cars should come with a commercial cost. The provision of ‘safe, clean, accessible and affordable drinking water and sanitation for all’ is as much a human right as it is a legitimate UN demand. He adds that “(W)ater as a free good leads directly to what is known as the ‘tragedy of the commons’.” Brabeneck-Lemathe prefers subsidies to outright ‘water freedom’, because, as in India, people end up paying more to vendors because of a dysfunctional municipal system.

Mitra, Okonski and Satyanand argue that ‘cheap’ water results in less investment in infrastructure. Eventually councils fail to deliver water, forcing ratepayers to buy from private suppliers who are not necessarily expensive if permitted to compete in a ‘free water market’. South Koreans wasted water because it was almost free, thus, the authors argue that a more sustainable Increasing Block Tariff system is better in the long run for ratepayers. They site an example of Ecuador where heavy water subsidies resulted in a near fifty percent collapse in infrastructure, since it was impossible to recover the cost of water delivery.

During the height of ZANU PF’s land ‘reform’, it was common practice for President Mugabe to trigger ‘free input euphoria’ at rallies. The then Reserve Bank Governor, Gideon Gono, succumbed with massive expenditure in free fertilizers, fuel and implements that eventually plunged Zimbabwe into the food insecurity cabbage it is now. By 2014, deputy minister, Agriculture, Mechanisation and Irrigation responsible for cropping, Davis Marapira had seen the light: “The days of farmers getting free inputs are over. We have resolved as government that starting from this season, 2014 to 2015 farmers will no longer be getting free inputs for agriculture…” His party colleague, Paddy Zhanda was blunter, reminding cattle owners “Your cow is worth more than $400 and a bag of fertiliser costs around $10, so if you sell that cow, you get 40 bags of fertiliser. Stop getting used to waiting for free inputs.” Hooray to the new light in ZANU PF that it may have been free yesterday, but in the end, someone will pay for it!

– See more at: http://www.zimeye.com/it-maybe-free-but-someone-pays-for-it/#sthash.PhJtjkHv.dpuf