If you're having trouble viewing this email, you may see it online.The Adverts the Mugabe regime did not want the people of Zimbabwe to see.
Since the regime has denied the MDC access to state media, please send the adverts to as many people as you can, the people of Zimbabwe would greatly appreciate.
Please click here to view a windows media file of the advert.
A new Zimbabwe is near, the dictator is finished: Lets finish it!
Movement for Democratic Change Head Office
Harvest House 4 Nelson Mandela Avenue Harare, Zimbabwe.


Please click on picture to get to letter!


Who do you believe wanted to assassinate the Tsvangirais?
Robert Mugabe and ZANU-PF! Other forces..... you can give comment! No-one.... just pure accident!   




Custom Search

@>>>>>PLEASE NOTE!!<<<<<@




The Role Of The Diaspora In Zimbabwe’s Development Strategy

Globalisation, a debatable reality viewed by some critics with contempt, as a sinister intention to create a global ruling class governed by first world nations, and imposed upon us as a version of imperialism in postcolonial Africa.
Swimming against this tide cannot constitute a proper development agenda for Africa, but harnessing the opportunities that come with globalizations remains a viable option, and globalization like the rise of the knowledgeable worker, has in it a future shock to those nations that remain unprepared for it.
As for the strenuous journey of Africa to development, it is inescapable to blame developed nations for the brain drain, while the motherland is engulfed in a scourge of poverty. We should ask ourselves what strategies should we implement to be able to harvest from globalization, in the face of brain drain?
Globalisation comes with it the free flow of factors of production, among them the contentious issue of brain drain (Skilled labour emigration), which has been negatively interpreted by most postcolonial economic planners.
The African Union has defined the African Diaspora as "consisting of people of African origin living outside the continent, irrespective of their citizenship and nationality and who are willing to contribute to the development of the continent and the building of the African Union".
Its constitutive act declares that it shall "invite and encourage the full participation of the African Diaspora as an important part of our Continent, in the building of the African Union".
In much of postcolonial Africa brain drain has been negatively viewed as the sinister poaching of scarce skills by developed nations, a euphemism for the "accumulation strategies of international capital" of developed nations, the North of America, Australia and Western Europe.
Concern is that the sending countries will lose out in form of scarce skills (Doctors, Teachers, Engineers and other highly educated professionals), lose of taxpayer's money invested in educating and mentoring the emigrating professionals. In Zimbabwe the movement of people (Zimbabwean Diaspora) fleeing the economic and political disaster has from the state point of view been projected as a security threat.
Hence the reluctance by government to allow them to participate in the March 2008 general election. The state has proved beyond reasonable doubt that it views suspiciously, the Diaspora as source of political competition and to some extent economic competition.
Viewing our economy as a victim of the West has inspired policing in Postcolonial Zimbabwe, therefore all policies must be meant to counter foreign threats including the threats from Zimbabweans abroad, seen as working against the ruling party.
What has been ignored is that the Diaspora is a critical element of the development programme of any successful nation; history is littered with examples of nations that harvested from integrating Diasporas in economic planning and programmes; Mexico, China, Korea, Taiwan, India and the USA are few outstanding examples.
We have been our own enemies in failing to locate this historical reality as part of the broader set of solutions to our economic crisis; instead the government has sought to project patriotism as starving and enduring the economic and political collapse.
The deportations of sons and daughter of the ruling elite and cronies from Australia should help to instill the real sense among my countryman who have been swayed by this propaganda that learning and working abroad is sinister and being non-patriotic. At least the Australians action vindicates this pretence by government.
Orozco (2003) articulates, the Diasporas as beneficial to the receiving country through a mnemonic, the 5 T's, implying the beneficial effects in Transport, tourism, trade, Telecommunications and Transmission of remittances. Johnson and Sedaca (2004) also put an in-depth that Diasporas take part in knowledge transfer, investment instruments and business investments.
Transport is boosted, in particular the air, road and rail transport as Zimbabweans domiciled in foreign nations travel to and from Zimbabwe, mostly the majority of them visit during public holidays. The visits also accompany with it tourism, as the returnees will have come home for holidaymaking and visiting relatives.
Zimbabweans in foreign lands also act as ambassadors of the Zimbabwean brand, dependable of whether their conduct can amount to supporting or demeaning the brand. Therefore the Diaspora can be interpreted as political and socio-economic ambassadors.
When they part with their relatives, emigrants want to maintain their social and business ties, so the telecommunications industry gets a boom in telephone calls and Internet revenue from the charges.
Trade is boosted through a network of ties which are developed for example the Indians in the USA act as middlemen's in outsourcing IT requirements for their countrymen, this helps to instill confidents in transactions, thus enhancing trade.
The transmission of remittances is also another obvious oversold benefit of foreign flow of revenue for consumption and investments purposes.
Zimbabwe cannot avoid missing the opportunities of harnessing the Diaspora component in economic recovery, if it is to meet its development agenda.
A post crisis era should encourage the returnees to return back to their motherland and invest in their country through various initiatives among them; creating high interest foreign currency bonds specifically for the Diaspora, and tax exemptions for those bringing industrial equipment and machinery (this paid dividends in China and Pakistan).
Encouraging entrepreneurship should be a priority because the Diasporas have the advantage of huge savings as compared to locals and their competitive edge is a specialized skill and exposure to advanced technologies. The post crisis government should encourage the formation of hometown associations e.g. Harare-SA association as vehicles for investments and networking.
Above all we should secure an economy which values private property rights (land ownership titles should become a market commodity) through a court protection underpinned by an independent judiciary, the Diasporas must be presented as compatriots, and a free contestation of opinions must prevail as a market of ideas.
The state has no strategic capacity to remain with management functions of the economy; it should dispose public entities targeting the Diaspora, and remain with a few strategic public utilities such as ZINWA and National Railways, which should instead be commercialized.
The state should retain a regulatory, coordinating and accountable role in the management process of the economy; by setting the rules of the game and ensuring that there are respected by all. Trampling on private property rights and other economic subjects should become a treasonable offence.
This will allow Zimbabwe to speak the same language in the international business circles while ushering in a middle class composed of entrepreneurs, which are a more stable element and ardent supporter of the development of the country.
The lessons of the harsh legacy that Zimbabwe has received should collectively unite us on a vision for the love our motherland, through the theme "no more abuse of us beyond March 2008".


Johnson, Brett and Santiago Sedaca (2004). "Diasporas, Émigrés and Development: Economic Linkages and Programmatic Responses," Study conducted under the Trade Enhancement Service Sector (TESS) Project under Contract for the U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, D.C.: Carana Corporation, January 2004.
Orozco, Manuel (2003). "The Impact of Migration in the Caribbean and Central American Region," Focal Policy Paper FPP-03-03, Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Foundation for the Americas.
Hillary Kundishora is a Scholar of Strategic management. He can be contacted on and

Support the World Aids Awareness campaign this month with Yahoo! for Good

Contradictions Between Postcolonial Coercive Redistributive Mechanisms And Global Competition

Colonial injustice and economic subjugation of the majority, and indigenous inhabitants of African states was fought on the premise of the recreation, rediscovery and restoration of a humanistic, fair and just society (egalitarian). A Postcolonial Zimbabwe was collectively envisioned as a society whose values for equity and equality would collectively be embraced, as a rallying point.
Thus a lot of people were swimming with the tide, aboard the freedom train on the pretext that the postcolonial state will be as much socio-economic and politically inclusive as possible, in fact it was like water and oil with the then prevailing apartheid state, which was a racial predication of extending privileges to the white minority at the expense of the indigenous black people.
The freedom train was more attractive because of the much held collective aspiration that independence will bring with it economic and material rights. The much-ignored view was that the rich would not necessarily surrender all their wealth to the poor in the name of equity and equality. Yet the Paradox was that the independence implied an end to injustice and the enhancement of competition in all spheres of life without bias to race.
The question of this collective material egalitarianism gave birth to socialism, human rights, land rights, anarchism, and the Afrocentric economic rights movement which was predicated on the popular perspective that there is a need to set up a coercive mechanism, to coerce the rich towards a spirit of equity and equality.
Hence the legislation of the coercive redistributive mechanisms with the face of the land and indeginisation laws in Postcolonial Zimbabwe, all directly aimed against beneficiaries of the precolonial establishment and their interests.
 And naturally Zimbabwe's Postcolonial history has shown that in particular those people who were granted coercive redistributive powers would often abuse them, thus directly engaging in conflict to the principle of equity and equality that is ironically being presumed to be the broad church. Inequalities in use of political power for selfish ends have become the new conflict born out of the need and/or attempt to address to inequity and inequality in Postcolonial Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe's case of redistributive coercive mechanisms is a paradox; those purporting to be extremely for material equity and equality are also massively and extremely against political equity and equality. Whilst ignoring that political fairness is Indispensable of material fairness.
What remains after the land reform is a question of whether it is a black or indigenous person who is incapable of farming or successfully running an enterprise wants it has been seized to him or reallocated to him?
Despite the noble and popular coercive redistributive mechanisms, there is a contestation of what really needs to be reallocated or seized from the rich or beneficiaries of the precolonial systems, in order to settle the question of economic rights.
Zimbabwe provides a testimony that a business or a farm is not necessarily successfully because it has been reallocated in its physical or monetary state to the indigenous beneficiary. The inherited farms, some which had state of art equipment and machinery, have been converted into massive idle lands, with the equipment and machinery suffering depreciation, corrosions and obsoleteness.
The question that still remains is that, why the limited success of all the coercive mechanism in Postcolonial states of Africa? South Africans are already in contentious debate on the usefulness and the relevance to speedy resolution of the question of material rights using the mechanisms, of willing buyer and willing seller, which are less coercive.
Debate is also raging in Africa, particularly in SADC about the question of indeginisation and empowerment with many global high-ranking figures publicly accepting that President Mugabe despite ruining the economy of a promising African state, he remains arguable a hero to some distant observers, mostly those not domiciled in Zimbabweans, who have not experienced the real consequences of this lawlessness.
The heroism of President Mugabe is on the challenge he has given on imperial establishment, in particular on the land question; some radical citizens of Africa view his version of indeginisation and empowerment as courageous and relevant to the restoration of these rights, in fact President Mugabe's admirers believe land is a non-negotiable birth right.
There is contestation of the land issue on the economic value it can add and/or has added to the beneficiaries given the current results in a Zimbabwe marred by economic decadence, even excluding the third factor, the battered economy, which negates agricultural production, some critics of the programme feel the farmers could still have done better.
The contradiction that global competition pose to the coercive redistributive mechanisms (e.g. land reform and indeginisation), and its understanding of competition as a driver of economic growth and ultimately equity and equality, continue to put us as nation against the tide.
The global competition perspective is centered on the contestable pretext that with more competition (free market), more jobs will accrue for the poor and more revenue will be raised and possibly rechanneled for the upliftment of the economically disadvantaged, a euphemism for a multiplier effect, and the world will become a better place for all.
This economic philosophy is in direct confrontation to the egalitarian doctrine (fairness), which was used to collectively mobilize the oppressed masses against the white minority establishment. The question, which needs to be further addressed, is how can we then reallocate the other remaining critical success elements in order to complete the said revolution, given that it has been proved beyond doubt that there are other outstanding crucial components for a successful empowerment and indeginisation?
How can we empower the poor to rediscover themselves, as capable people who can be able to withstand global competition? Since it is now a proven reality that the poverty (inequality and inequity) cannot be eliminated exclusive of the global community, and with disproval and contempt for private property rights in the name of empowerment and indeginisation, in fact Zimbabwe has proved that it lacks the strategic capacity to operate without the world.
How can we attract foreign and domestic investments to utilize our trainable and knowledgeable citizens, let alone business ventures when we are in direct confrontation with property rights, and global competition?
Zimbabwe remains isolated from the world of domestic and foreign investments because of the existence of coercive redistibutive mechanisms aimed at seizing, and reallocating all material wealth from the owners of the wealth to the purported indigenous people, and cronies.
Can Zimbabwe afford to go it alone against global competition or is Zimbabwe mistaken on the real drivers of equity and equality?
After chatting with a long time friend on what needs to be done to get Zimbabwe back on track we finally agreed that Zimbabwe requires a political therapy centered on a new political dispensation, headed by a legitimate and legal leader who is capable of articulating the collective vision of people so as to restore national faith and future either wise even domestic reinvestment or economic rediscovery of the indigenous people is also not possible without security and/or whilst people and their investments are under threat from some coercive redistributive mechanisms.
I aver that the insecurity to investments best explains even the reluctance to engage in any meaningful investments whilst opting for speculation,n a tendency rife mostly rife among the new farmers, to the extent that this vicious cycle reinforces itself. The Post crisis era must be defined collectively on a shared vision and destiny on fairness, which resounds in the minds and heart of a united people.
We should be awakened to the fact that, it is impossible to change our collective and shared destiny, if we fail to secure a competitive economy, which is robust and resilient. Enhancing competition should become a priority in order to rediscover us on the international space.
The vision for competitiveness should be anchored, on attaining as much possible, a reduced number of coercive redistibutive mechanisms, as much as it is permissible. People should not fear competition, because it is the vision that inspired China, Malaysia and other developed nations.
To increase productivity and reduce the decimating inflation, we need to open our economy to foreign investors, domestic investments and including the externalized Zimbabwean brains (Diaspora), so that they bring with them technology and knowledge.
A recovery of the economy is pinned on the successful acceptance of Zimbabwe into the international space based on the respect to property rights, investor rights, and the competitive edge remains the quality trainable and educated workforce.
Hillary Kundishora is a Scholar of Strategic management. He can be contacted on

Yahoo! Answers - Get better answers from someone who knows. Try it now.


By Rev Mufaro Stig Hove




In all my previous writings I have concentrated on the problems afflicting the nation of Zimbabwe. That is as it should be since that sad part of the world continues to sink deeper and deeper into a serious, bottomless abyss and all pens should face in that direction.

This time, however, I would like to question the world's very interpretation and implementation of the concept of Democracy. Then I will end up at Zimbabwe and South Africa asking ZANU-PF and the ANC in South Africa certain pertinent questions!

Since I was young, I've always been told that Democracy was a Government "of the people, by the people and for the people."
This sounded fair and logical.

Before the concept of Democracy, there were various forms of Government where kings and their knights and soldiers ruled the peasants and the ordinary person had no say in the running of the affairs affecting him/her.

This was not right because the common man paid taxes and worked hard to sustain the State but could not contribute in determining the direction of Government. All modern Democracies were once Monarchies of one sort or another and detail is not necessary in this particular submission.


The word "demos" means "people." So Democracy is a Government where the people are supposed to fully participate and benefit.

When the colonisers partitioned Africa for themselves, they governed Africa from their European capitals and to them the Africans knew nothing about the complexities of modern society and hence were supposed to be satisfied with being ruled by their white masters.

Disgruntlement did arise and "winds of change" blew across Africa as the indigenous black man shouted for "one man, one vote." Ian Smith's Rhodesia had a qualified franchise where black people with certain qualifications were allowed to vote. The assumption was that a certain level of Education (eg GCE "O" Level) helped a person to appreciate the complexities of running a Modern State and therefore could make informed decisions.

The same qualified franchise had people who owned properties of a certain value incorporated into the Voters' Roll. The thinking was that these people had a stake in the Economy of the country and could be trusted to make responsible judgements and decisions.

I'm not evaluating the pros and cons.

I'm only relating things as they were in Smith's Rhodesia.

So the ZANLA and ZIPRA fighters in Zimbabwe (just like the MK fighters in South Africa) then fought for "one man, one vote."

In 1980, Zimbabweans voted in that simple "one man, one vote" Election and it is generally believed that Robert Mugabe and his ZANU-PF won the majority of the vote (getting 57 seats out of 80 reserved for blacks, Dr Joshua Nkomo getting 20 and Bishop Muzorewa getting the remaining 3.) The 20 seats reserved for whites all went to Ian Smith's Rhodesia Front.

This was not a true reflection of the situation because the whites benefited from the Lancaster House Agreement which took them as a single block and give them 20% of the Parliamentary seats. This benefit was to fall away after 10 years ie in 1990.

Prime Minister Robert Mugabe included members of Dr Nkomo's ZAPU and Ian Smith's Rhodesia Front into his Cabinet. Ministers eg of Agriculture, Health and Finance were from the former RF (Mr Dennis Norman, Dr Timothy Stamps etc.)

From ZAPU we had Dr Joshua Nkomo as Minister of Home Affairs and others like Cde Josiah Chinamano, Cde Joseph Msika etc heading various other Ministries.

The point I'm driving to is: That Government of "National Unity" was very much inclusive and was a great step forward to move away from the ugly scenes of the war. There was great potential to build on that foundation for a future Zimbabwe.

How ZAPU members were expelled from that Government of National Unity and the subsequent terrible Matabeleland and Midlands Massacres is not the subject of this particular submission. Details of that can be got at and other articles whose links can be found at .

(An important source document is the letter written by Dr Joshua Nkomo to the Prime Minister Robert Mugabe in 1983. This 117-point letter was written from Britain since Dr Nkomo had to flee for his life during those tumultuous times from 1982 to 1987. The link to that letter can also be got at .)

The South African experience also has negotiations that led to Democracy and to the first Democratic Elections in 1994. So "one man, one vote" was implemented in SA in 1994 and has been with us ever since.

But let me go back to the question: WHAT IS DEMOCRACY?

The simplest definition of Democracy is a Government "of the people, by the people and for the people." My question, therefore is: If Party X gets 65% of the votes and has 65% of the Members in National Parliament, does that mean Party X should have a 100% per cent right in the running of the affairs of State?

If Party X runs the country with a 100% per cent right, then it means for the duration of that scenario, 35% of the Electorate do not enjoy Democracy. You may say the 35% have MPs in the National Parliament but in reality what is prevailing at that particular time is not a Government "of the people" unless if you say that only the "majority" are the people as defined by the expression.

This looks unnecessary but it affects how those very "majority" run the country. The attitude of "we/they" makes it impossible for the other "smaller parties" to make positive contributions while "not in Government." That "we/they" posture is not only bad for the running of the country but it is also unnecessary and can be avoided.

They will "oppose", yes; but their productive energies will be "reserved" for the time when they will also be in Government and more often than not that time never comes. Some like the late Rev Jonas Savimbi, will then go into the bush and will cause many to die and may themselves even perish in that same bush.


I would like to allege that there is nowhere under the sun where Democracy is practised.

The definition is: "A GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE AND FOR PEOPLE." The State has three main arms ie the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. In the case of the USA, if the Democrats get 51% of the votes in their Presidential Elections then their candidate becomes the Executive President. Who then appoints the equivalent of their Cabinet ie the Secretaries of State, of Defence, etc? Will members of the other Parties get Executive positions?

If 49% of the people are being governed by the other 51% that's not Democracy!

The 49% are in the definition of "people" and must be a part of "Government." The fact that they are part of the Legislature is not enough. They can still be continually outvoted for as long as the 51% want to ignore their particular concerns.


What you have there is a form of "majority rule" but not real Democracy.

In South Africa, Mr Nelson Mandela tried to be as inclusive as possible with Mr De Klerk as one of his two Deputy Presidents. Mr Mangosuthu Buthelezi (leader of the Inkatha Freedom Party) was his Minister of Home Affairs. What was wrong with that?
Why view it as "magnanimity"? It was more than magnanimity! That is how it should always be everywhere in the world.

Leaders of sizable followings should all form the "Government of the people, by the people and for the people." Do the minorities cease to be "people" until they also get into "power"??? Am I seriously wrong? Do I need help and guidance?

In the original African setting, there were no Political Parties. But there was more of Participatory Democracy which is absent in the so-called "modern Democracies." It was not a perfect system of Government but it was more "democratic." All views could be brought through the "sub-chiefs" and ultimately the direction of Government was more inclusive of divergent views.

Today, in South Africa, we have a so-called Alliance of the ANC, the workers' organisation COSATU and the Communist Party.

Is COSATU a Political Party? Can it stand on its own and field candidates for the Presidential and Parliamentary Elections? So why is it included in the formation of Government as an Alliance Partner? The truth is that the ANC is afraid of its "constituency" and hence feels safer having them defined as some partner.

The same with Communist Party. Are they big enough to field their own Candidates? The ANC want to have them "under their armpits" so they can follow their debates and effectively "neutralize" them. The ANC, AZAPO and the Communist Party were allies in fighting Apartheid but each one had their own different visions of a liberated, democratic South Africa.

Its well and fine to call themselves Alliance Partners now but besides the ANC, do the other "partners" really have a say in the running of State affairs?

As an example, COSATU and the Communist Party are not happy with the way the ANC is handling the Zimbabwean Crisis. To what extent is their input considered since they are recognised as partners in Government? Is the partnership genuine or is it a convenient way of pacifying the views of the other Formations?

Besides the so-called Alliance Partners, South Africa has other major Political Parties such as the Democratic Alliance. To what extent are the views of the DA considered when running the affairs of the State in South Africa?

How does the ANC and its Alliance Partners hope to "transform" the economy of South Africa if such major Political Parties as the DA are only considered as some "nuisance" which will never rule South Africa. The ANC say they will rule South Africa "until Jesus comes back"? So if there is no inclusion in Government, the Alliance will have to go the direction of Zimbabwe. There is no alternative.

The poor and the unemployed will seek and get arms and wage an unofficial war against the State by blowing up ATMs, doing "cash heists" etc because there is no hope of an Economic Transformation within the set up of State structures.

Enter characters like Jacob Zuma!

He may not change the situation much but the hope is that he has the feel of the common person and will relate to their aspirations, problems etc. President Thabo Mbeki, by his very nature, is too academic and tends to associate with the advantaged and the wealthy.

Lets wait and see where SA goes in the next few years.

The Zimbabwean story is, however, more complicated.

ZANU-PF moved away from their Marxist-Leninist ideology but that they did without announcement and "fun-fare." They never announced that their noble Leadership Code was now absolute! They started acquiring wealth, farms and mines for themselves and were trying to compete with the very "capitalists" that they had abhorred in the first place.

Worse still, they used the very resources they were receiving from Britain to buy farms for themselves and their families and forgot the "masses" that they had claimed to liberate.

The very War Veterans of the 70s war had to threaten to climb the walls of "State House" to get some assistance while a secret fund was operating where the Senior "Chefs" eg Mai Teurai Ropa Mujuru, Oppah Muchinguri, etc were claiming 95% disabilities and getting millions of dollars. (At that time the Zim dollar was equal in value to the South African rand.)

ZANU-PF then got the shock of their lives when the Workers' Movement under Gibson Sibanda, Morgan Tsvangirai and others developed into a formidable force to reckon with. The story of events from 1999 to the present can be got from numerous other submissions.

The most concise one is the one entitled "The Story of the MDC: 1999 to 2006) and the link thereof can be found at .

What was completely unfortunate was ZANU-PF's failure to respect and do dialogue with this Movement which had attracted millions across the economic, social, racial and political divide. Although the MDC was ideologically unclear, it became and continues to be a head-ache in Zimbabwean Political Affairs.

When the MDC Leader, Mr Morgan Tsvangirai, said in 1999: "What we want to tell Mugabe today; go peacefully, or we will remove you violently" the farm invasions had not started. So he was not referring to the farm invasions. So what was he referring to? How could he refer to things that had not yet been even planned?

The tragedy of the Zimbabwean story is the failure (mostly deliberate) to access each aspect very thoroughly. There are too many half-truths and outright lies.

I have referred to the Zimbabwean tragedy mainly because ZANU-PF should have managed the coming of the MDC in a different manner. If ZANU-PF believed in Democracy sincerely, they should have privately engaged this new "kid on the block." Unfortunately ZANU-PF thought they would treat the MDC exactly as they treated Margaret Dongo's ZUD, Edgar Tekers's ZUM, Dr Joshua Nkomo's PF-ZAPU etc etc.

Now the problem is completely out of control!

Zimbabwean Professors across the globe write and shout that Mugabe and ZANU-PF must go! Some actively call for uprisings against that Regime!

So all these millions who shout against Mugabe: are they all "sell-outs"? Interestingly the Communist Party of South Africa once visited Harare and asked ZANU-PF why their "revolution" was not accepted by strategic sectors of the Zimbabwean society. (Please visit and see on the December 2007 archives the article in question.)

What many intellectuals in the world fail to see is the very composition of the MDC. The MDC is made up of various disgruntled forces. I have tried to highlight the complexity of the Zimbabwean Crisis in a submission entitled "Why the SADC/Mbeki initiative cannot and will not solve Zimbabwe's problems." (The link thereof can be got as one scrolls down Alernatively you can "google search" that very header and you will see that it was captured by main sites throughout the world.

What I'm trying to say is that Robert Mugabe and ZANU-PF "blew it" completely. The issue is no longer about the 4500 white farmers who were beaten up, murdered and evicted from the land they had developed over many years.

The issue was no longer about Zimbabwe's sovereignty which we all know came in 1980.

The issue was no longer about Britain and the USA which allegedly had not completed paying for the acquiring of more land for re-settlement. (They did well to renege, if they did renege: for who was benefiting anyway from the land that had been acquired in the first 20 years?)

The issue was no longer about sanctions (real or imagined) which the so-called "West" allegedly visited upon the "revolutionary Mugabe and ZANU-PF."

The issues are now bigger!

All who suffered in this way or that way under way under Mugabe and ZANU-PF are shouting "Mugabe must go!"

Josiah Tongogara's relatives and those (like us) who held him in high esteem are shouting, "Mugabe must go!"

The relatives of the young, pretty Ms Rashiwe Guzha (who disappeared at the President's very office and whose body has not been located up to now) are shouting, "Mugabe must go!"

All those who suffered and lost loved ones during that dark era of "Gukurahundi" in the Midlands and Matebeleland are shouting, "Mugabe must go!"

All those whose humble dwellings were destroyed during the ZANU-PF madness of "Murambatsvina" are shouting, "Mugabe must go!"
The list is endless!

A few faint voices like that of the Australian-based Reason Wafawarova are singing Robert Mugabe's praises.

The battle lines are clearly drawn!

ZANU-PF is afraid of the Diaspora Vote because that vote will sweep them away just like their infamous "Gukurahundi" and "Murambatsvina" Operations. So ZANU-PF wants the Foreign Currency earned by the Diasporians but does not respect their legitimate right to vote just because the Diasporians (besides Reason Wafawarova and Kuthula Matshazi) are mainly MDC.

So there is no hope for ZANU-PF! If they "win" the 2008 Elections with their various tricks: intimidation, violence and rigging; a more radical method will be used to remove them.

The nearest to my mind are either:

1. An invasion by some sympathetic force or set of forces.

2. A properly executed uprising (the Final Push.)

3. Or properly trained guerrilla fighters drawn from the millions who are suffering various tribulations in the Diaspora.
The blasting of a few bridges beginning with the very ones across the Limpopo will work wonders in the ending of this stupid man-made crisis in Zimbabwe


They thought Democracy was "of ZANU-PF, by ZANU-PF and for ZANU-PF."

Here is a reminder to Mugabe (originally known as Matibili) and ZANU-PF; DEMOCRACY IS "OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE AND FOR THE PEOPLE!"

The people include those members of other Political Parties, as well!

I hope the ANC in South Africa are taking notes for their own experience!

Respectfully submitted,

Rev Mufaro Stig Hove.


Dr Gono, Yet Again Prescribes The Wrong Medicine

Dr Gono never ceases to amaze me, after crowding out news on the print and electronic media on an imminent solution to the cash crisis he has finally revealed what is in his ambit, nothing except the usual rhetoric that does not offer any help and hope to the Zimbabweans who have experienced economic malaise. He has in fact reserved the waste as a Christmas present for the suffering masses of Zimbabwe.

What has particularly made me to pen this article, as follow up to the other one at, is the fact that there is a sinister propaganda connection between economic strategy and planning in Postcolonial Zimbabwe.

Dr Gono's cash shortage busting is one typical, and the unveiling of this irrelevant and unsustainable strategy was accompanied with the usual rhetoric, that the economy is under siege from cash barons, who are hoarding cash.

While it is not debatable that barons and cronies are partly responsible for the cash crisis, the logic of the blame shifting hear was to shift ownership responsibility of the rapidly declining economy to barons and cronies thus diverting national discourse from real issues of economic mismanagement which must be interrogated.

The same policy attempts I raise in my article, I mentioned that Dr Gono and company are attempting to criminalize rationality, thus swimming against the tide. Dr Gono's futile attempt to account for the cash shortages by blaming cronies and barons is not only devoid of holistic economics knowledge but a whole heartered attempt to present the real underpinnings that construct ZANU PF's economic strategy and planning.

As I alluded to, in my last article that the neo-populist strategy is meant to bridge the widening gap between the poor and the party, by projecting the masses as victims of the scheming of the rich or private capital. The opposition and other interest groups in Zimbabwe have also kept quite about this falsely projected opinion, thus playing well to the hands of ZANU PF propaganda.

What must be interrogated is, why is it that the barons and cronies are hoarding the purported huge sums of cash?

The answer lies in that rational, sane and law abiding citizens of this mismanaged economy, whom we are told are economic criminals are engaging in financial exclusion, by carrying out all their transactions excluding the financial sector (e.g. Banks).

This practice of rationality is a result of a consistent policy disaster by ZANU PF economic planners and strategist, after leading mass looting of businesses during the "operation lower prices/Operation dzikisai mutengo", businesses are now left under stocked or not stocked at all, causing rational citizens to turn to imports in an effort to avoid starvation.

The logic of ZANU PF carrying out the operation was to pre-empt public anger and pending mass unrest, which could possibly have been accompanied by looting, by itself instigating the looting. Thus ZANU PF had turned into its own opposition.

This strategy has however backfired; combined with the already in existence, low industrial capacity utilization. To make almost all transactions fall outside the formal market.

Then according to Dr Gono's thinking people must then go and deposit any excess cash in the banks yet the banks are charging punitive bank charges, very low interest rates and restrictive, low withdrawal limits.

The rational attempts by law-abiding citizens to then make a living through purchasing from the so-called black market notwithstanding the aggressive attempts by ZANU PF to destroy all civilization. Are now called concerted efforts to sabotage the economy.

It is upon this fact that I submit that DR Gono's false economic prescriptions, are devoid of logic, and are doomed to fail, because all facts point to the fact that by around February next year we will be in the same crisis.

Dr Gono's crowding out of legislated players and wrongly interpreting the law, as allowing him to extend his tentacles in all spheres of Zimbabwean life, some kind of unelected demi-god. Is with a lot of inflationary disaster than the logic he claims to be championing.

The irrelevant solution to the cash crisis will chew up a lot of public revenue, which was supposed to be used for the meaningful payment of drugs of the sick and develop the nation among other national priorities.

A lot of monies have been spent on purchasing vehicles and on high administrative costs of instituting and implementing the irrelevant solutions to the economic crisis in the name of the economic turnaround slogan.

Dr Gono is also the major cash baron, who through the unelected and powerful RBZ is purchasing foreign currency on the black market to fund government programmes. Dr Gono should first explain his source of foreign currency as a public gesture of accountability to the Zimbabwean public before pushing for his false war against rationality.

Dr Gono's attempt to criminalize rationality is a threat to civic liberties including the source of the false rationale of trampling property rights in the name of economic turnaround and protection of the poor. How can a crime be so ubiquitous, who will effect the laws when all the people, are breaking the law.

Dr Gono is one person who is now a liability to the nation by falsely pretending to be aware of the right medicine to the economic ills whilst administering the wrong dose, which is more of being an arsonist than a fire fighter.

Dr Gono should cease crowding out and polluting the intellectual discourse with irrelevant bus stop arguments. Zimbabwe needs to implement the right policies, than to pursue speculators, barons and cronies. How can Kleptocrats pursue themselves?

Hillary Kundishora is a Scholar of Strategic management. He can be contacted on

Sent from
Yahoo! - a smarter inbox.