Zimbabwe...no end to the power struggle!
- Thread starter dancing-loon
- Start date
Georgi Dimitroff came to my mind, who should get beheaded for the Reichstagsbrand in 1933, but turned with his experience from oppression systems in Europe the propaganda trial against chief prosecutor Hermann Göring and so the big idol Adolf Hitler. In a rush the court decided to behead van der Lubbe as tiny, but still communist scapegoat (commie).
The Congress Of South African Trade Unions is the most awake trade union of the world. Umkhonto we Sizwe fighters are in their leadership, who don't want the country to get subjugated again, as ANC tends to do like others before.
They sent the electoral weapons for the ZANU army from the Chinese ship away from SADC harbors (by partner trade unions) until an UK based air fright service took the delivery from Pointe-Noire direct to Harare air port (that about EU sanctions). Mbeki has denied, that he ordered himself to refuel the Chinese freighter off shore in a secret army mission, that it could make his way avoiding SADC territories. COSATU is prepared and able to overtake government tasks, in case government fails. They also announced to take Mugabe in citizen arrest, should he come to South Africa, since police does not function there. I call that upright walk. :smile:
In Germany the law restricts trade unions to salary fights. Political engagement is questionable and political mass strike is illegal, would call police and state security. But there comes a political party, what wants to lift this restriction via parliament...
GNU = Government of National Unity, the formula compromise from last AU summit in Egypt to get the Zimbabwe issue from its table.
Half of Africa understands that as transitional government (TG), what has to prepare free and fair elections without violence. Nobody recognises the re-run from June and AU constitution demands new elections within 6 month and international (African) monitoring.
The other half of Africa would prefer a power share, what replaces the failed elections Kenia style. After clashes between ruling tribes and bullied tribes (2000 dead) AU froze the conflict by a GNU settlement. Government posts got just doubled. Slum TV says, invisible tensions develop now under cover. Life is worse than before. They hope for God and for him only. They expect nothing from EU or UN money, since that never reaches the povo, but feeds the big wigs only, who care only about them self. Opposition leader Odinga gets systematically dismantled by that kind of GNU. ZANU would like that to be done with MDC-T and Tswangirai. Mugabe is a role model for all PanAfrican dictators.
The Mutambara breake away and money faction is called MDC-M. They pretend to be clever and to save interests of the minority tribes (Ndebele, whites). More here: http://www.thezimbabwetimes.com/?p=3021
Your assumption about Mugabe is very correct. He is prepared to give Tswangirai the post of a Prime Minister and if he insists on executive powers, he can get that over all brooms in the country and fix the economy for ZANU. Should he succeed, there would be again something to loot. But more probably he will run dead and get blamed for the economy. Task solved and emergency law can get introduced, as it was up to the Unity Accord of 1987. "MT, beware to get nkomoed" is the call within MDC-T.
Once you (get a chance to) understand - "Reality provides more excitement than any whodunnit" (Karl Marx, most famous German refugee)
My Georgia statement is here: http://newzim.proboards86.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=152045&page=2
Afghanistan I have abandoned for a while, since I have no direct access on their TV with my temporary dish installation at the moment. But even more important is, that my main target for that theme, the Left party in Germany, closed their last forum for the public in April. So it's difficult to exchange opinions and knowledge with them. All others are nailed on the transatlantic friendship. That brings no news.
Mostly it starts with "Taliban threw Russians out...", despite Russians left Afghanistan in 1987, 4 years before these Organisation for muslim brainwash was founded by or with help of ISI in 1991 and got military training in Pakistan (all Pashtu territories, better Koran school, than no school). I got tired by repeated starting from scratch, because threads and forums get deleted or otherwise sabotaged.
Last edited:
Back to Zimbabwe:
ZANU shows no bit of good will. MT must call the SADC court with urgency, best before parliament gets convened by a wrong person and use legal facts. If anyone in the world sticks to the rule of law principle,
Morgan Tswangirai is already legal president of Zimbabwe (with all state powers, what Mugabe had before).
All that, ZEC delays and theatre, we see and saw around the March elections, serve the ZANU to unconstitutional hide and distract from that fact. Sheila Jarvis is right. She may represent him on that international court, since the national courts do not function in such matters. I just asked The Elders http://theelders.org/elders/ for urgent assistance to MDC(T) in this matter.
http://www.zimonline.co.za/Article.aspx?ArticleId=3582
Rules gave Tsvangirai presidency, Mugabe run-off
by Sheila Jarvis Monday 25 August 2008
OPINION: In an interview you published on August 20, a former Member of Parliament and now lead negotiator for the Arthur Mutambara faction of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), Professor Welshman Ncube correctly said, “You can’t remake the rules after the game”.
He added: “The game was that you had more than two players. One of the players had to get 50 + 1 percent for power to move to him.”
If intended as a statement of law, this is directly contradicted by the Electoral Act, Ch 2:13, subparagraph 3(1) of the Second Schedule, which states as follows: Determination, declaration and notification of result of Presidential poll 3.(1) . . . after the number of votes received by each candidate as shown in each constituency return has been added together in terms of subparagraph (3) of paragraph 2, the Chief Elections Officer shall forthwith declare the candidate who has received — (a) where there are two candidates, the greater number of votes; (b) where there are more than two candidates, the greatest number of votes; to be duly elected as President of the Republic of Zimbabwe with effect from the day of such declaration.
Paragraph (b) is explicit. It deals precisely with the situation Ncube talks of, and it details what had to happen in the election of March 29 with its four candidates.
The run-off requirement is a separate rule in the Electoral Law – unchanged from before our first election of a President in 1990.
The Second Schedule is a newer rule, added by ZANU PF unilaterally, signed into law by President Robert Mugabe in 2005.
While others may disregard this rule from ignorance or interest, Ncube is surely aware of it, not just as a Professor of Law, but also as one of negotiators who reviewed our electoral laws last year for this year’s elections.
Paragraph 3(1) was endorsed then by all the negotiators, and by all the parties in Parliament, (the same parties engaged in the current talks), as they added another rule: “election period” or “period of an election” means — (a) in the case of a Presidential election, the period between the calling of the election and the declaration of the result of the poll in terms of paragraph 3(1) of the Second Schedule’.
The Electoral Law obliges a player to get over 50 percent in the first election only to avoid a run-off. To take over power, she or he just needs to come first. The law is clearly sensible.
Zimbabwe’s President has nearly unchecked powers. The introduction of Paragraph 3(1) ensured a trailing candidate could never hold those powers while contesting a run-off.
Events since March 29 have confirmed the dangers in that, and the wisdom in the law that should have prevented those.
Perhaps our legislators never planned to be so wise, but their words actually are, and cannot be disregarded now just because they are inconvenient to some.
March 29’s official results put Tsvangirai well ahead, and Mugabe second. All executive power rests still here with the President, at Mugabe and his backers’ insistence.
Tsvangirai became entitled to have all that power transferred to him. Mugabe became entitled to a run-off.
Voters too had a right to rely on the rules the parties had agreed and published. Under those, they spoke clearly enough to “move the power”, although without the cohesion needed to spare themselves a run-off.
They were entitled to have the leading candidate, not the chasing one, in charge of the nation, responsible for protecting their rights, while the second election was held.
Many agonies would have been spared, public threats made meaningless.
The agreed definition of the period of an election also leaves the March election unfinished, incomplete, as the prescribed declaration has not yet been made. Once that is made, the run-off rule will require a second election within 21 days.
A second election is separate, to be held in the prescribed time after the first. The countdown for it cannot start before the first election is duly completed.
The will of the people as expressed in free and fair elections is accepted in local and international law as the only legitimate basis for government.
The Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the international community agreed the June 27 ‘election’ was neither free nor fair. Thus it can give no legitimacy for Mugabe to govern in future under international or local rules. June 27 is a legal and diplomatic nothingness in any case.
This does not mean there is a vacuum: there’s a new President-elect until a run-off.
What Tsvangirai lacks is not a rule that would let him take power based on the March results. What he lacks is some authority willing to tell Mugabe that, having agreed to Paragraph 3(1) in 2005 and confirmed it in 2007, he must abide by it in full, and give way to the leading runner from March 29 pending the run-off.
In eight years of trying, MDC has not found such relief through local courts while Mugabe, his appointees and supporters have repeatedly broken all the rules.
SADC, AU, UN should be that necessary authority. They should be willing to tell Mugabe and his government to abide by the rules they enacted, as each of them and each member state have promised to uphold the rule of law.
Mugabe, reluctant to step down for years, notoriously said this year, "Only God can remove me", then threatened war if voters tried to do so again.
While the AU rejects impunity and political assassination, Mugabe it seems has come to depend upon them. Until his powers are checked, problems will continue.
There is nothing offensive in the laws I have outlined, no reason for these bodies not to insist that our de facto government fully comply with its own rules, and no reason to fail to recognise that Tsvangirai became a President-elect under those.
SADC, AU, UN etc can surely also ensure that a run-off election held while that candidate holds Zimbabwe’s reins of power is free and fair for both contestants. The will of the people will then have decided the interim and final President. The principles of democracy and the rule of law will have been saved.
If the run-off is combined with a referendum on an transitional constitution finally providing Zimbabweans with a full bill of rights, progress can be made while their will is respected on that issue too.
Although Tsvangirai was entitled to a transfer of power (based on his own votes, not his number of MPs), effort is being made to reach a settlement instead.
There are pragmatic reasons to try to avoid another election: Zimbabweans have endured eight national polls in the last eight years. The human, social and financial costs have been high. Few really want another winner-take-all contest now.
Thus talks – to seek another way forward, still based on the people’s free will are needed. Failing such a settlement, insisting on abiding by our law will be the only way to avoid a vacuum that must otherwise exist. Without a new agreement, requiring parties to abide by the rules they agreed on earlier will be SADC’s only option.
From reports and communiques it seems SADC does not yet plan to insist on this, maybe from ignorance of our rules, maybe for other undisclosed reasons. It does not matter what its reasons are. Having already recognised that June 27 did not represent the people’s free will, SADC cannot recognise any President or government founded upon that vote.
Ncube, and the mediator – President Thabo Mbeki – must know that Mugabe can get any future legitimacy only from the people, via a free and fair run-off election duly held now in accordance our laws, or else indirectly under the 18th Amendment, should he be elected by MPs seen as legitimately elected.
Thus the relentless pressure now on Tsvangirai to give legitimacy to Mugabe – despite Mugabe’s public rejection of democracy and breaches of prior agreements is not neccssary.
If the (secret) deal on the table is the limit of ‘what is practicable’ for Tsvangirai but is unacceptable, it does not cure SADC’s problem – how can SADC or AU recognise Mugabe, without him having a legitimate basis now to rule?
He remains a residual President only while talks are held; and risks an AU admission whose Lome Declaration against Unconstitutional Changes of Government he is violating.
As a lawyer and accredited observer, I have felt obliged to draw attention to the rules that Ncube and his political party, and Mugabe and his political party, endorsed before the games.
To accuse Tsvangirai of wanting to change these rules after the game is unjust. It is Mugabe and company who did so, after they agreed to Paragraph 3(1), etc.
I don’t know if Ncube’s motive for ignoring these rules is his reported intense dislike of Tsvangirai; or a hope of sharing now in the absolute power that Mugabe failed to transfer under Paragraph 3(1) after the people’s votes in March were counted and recounted; or some other motive.
Whatever the reasons, I advise caution. There is little reason to agree on anything new when previous agreements brokered by SADC have been broken with impunity; little point in relying now on a SADC-AU promise to underwrite and guarantee a “Global Political Agreement” if their Treaty promises to uphold the rule of law, democracy and human rights are being broken.
Why keep making agreements if these can be dishonoured? Think of a single key Memorandum of Understanding promise: humanitarian and welfare organisations would be able to give all assistance required in the interim. Has it been kept?
Or, in a repeat of Gukurahundi, are Mugabe and company still trying to starve the people into submission instead, while SADC remains silent?
At least with broken Treaty promises there is a chance that the SADC Tribunal, our new “house of justice” for the region set up to enforce the SADC Treaty, might be willing and able to help ensure these are fully carried out. Any political deal not firmly based on the Treaty promises offers no such hope.
Finally, anyone tempted to sign an agreement with Mugabe must bear in mind his prior (and very public) warning: how can a ballpoint pen fight a gun?
Why sign anything, if he will still control all the guns?
ZANU shows no bit of good will. MT must call the SADC court with urgency, best before parliament gets convened by a wrong person and use legal facts. If anyone in the world sticks to the rule of law principle,
Morgan Tswangirai is already legal president of Zimbabwe (with all state powers, what Mugabe had before).
All that, ZEC delays and theatre, we see and saw around the March elections, serve the ZANU to unconstitutional hide and distract from that fact. Sheila Jarvis is right. She may represent him on that international court, since the national courts do not function in such matters. I just asked The Elders http://theelders.org/elders/ for urgent assistance to MDC(T) in this matter.
http://www.zimonline.co.za/Article.aspx?ArticleId=3582
Rules gave Tsvangirai presidency, Mugabe run-off
by Sheila Jarvis Monday 25 August 2008
OPINION: In an interview you published on August 20, a former Member of Parliament and now lead negotiator for the Arthur Mutambara faction of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), Professor Welshman Ncube correctly said, “You can’t remake the rules after the game”.
He added: “The game was that you had more than two players. One of the players had to get 50 + 1 percent for power to move to him.”
If intended as a statement of law, this is directly contradicted by the Electoral Act, Ch 2:13, subparagraph 3(1) of the Second Schedule, which states as follows: Determination, declaration and notification of result of Presidential poll 3.(1) . . . after the number of votes received by each candidate as shown in each constituency return has been added together in terms of subparagraph (3) of paragraph 2, the Chief Elections Officer shall forthwith declare the candidate who has received — (a) where there are two candidates, the greater number of votes; (b) where there are more than two candidates, the greatest number of votes; to be duly elected as President of the Republic of Zimbabwe with effect from the day of such declaration.
Paragraph (b) is explicit. It deals precisely with the situation Ncube talks of, and it details what had to happen in the election of March 29 with its four candidates.
The run-off requirement is a separate rule in the Electoral Law – unchanged from before our first election of a President in 1990.
The Second Schedule is a newer rule, added by ZANU PF unilaterally, signed into law by President Robert Mugabe in 2005.
While others may disregard this rule from ignorance or interest, Ncube is surely aware of it, not just as a Professor of Law, but also as one of negotiators who reviewed our electoral laws last year for this year’s elections.
Paragraph 3(1) was endorsed then by all the negotiators, and by all the parties in Parliament, (the same parties engaged in the current talks), as they added another rule: “election period” or “period of an election” means — (a) in the case of a Presidential election, the period between the calling of the election and the declaration of the result of the poll in terms of paragraph 3(1) of the Second Schedule’.
The Electoral Law obliges a player to get over 50 percent in the first election only to avoid a run-off. To take over power, she or he just needs to come first. The law is clearly sensible.
Zimbabwe’s President has nearly unchecked powers. The introduction of Paragraph 3(1) ensured a trailing candidate could never hold those powers while contesting a run-off.
Events since March 29 have confirmed the dangers in that, and the wisdom in the law that should have prevented those.
Perhaps our legislators never planned to be so wise, but their words actually are, and cannot be disregarded now just because they are inconvenient to some.
March 29’s official results put Tsvangirai well ahead, and Mugabe second. All executive power rests still here with the President, at Mugabe and his backers’ insistence.
Tsvangirai became entitled to have all that power transferred to him. Mugabe became entitled to a run-off.
Voters too had a right to rely on the rules the parties had agreed and published. Under those, they spoke clearly enough to “move the power”, although without the cohesion needed to spare themselves a run-off.
They were entitled to have the leading candidate, not the chasing one, in charge of the nation, responsible for protecting their rights, while the second election was held.
Many agonies would have been spared, public threats made meaningless.
The agreed definition of the period of an election also leaves the March election unfinished, incomplete, as the prescribed declaration has not yet been made. Once that is made, the run-off rule will require a second election within 21 days.
A second election is separate, to be held in the prescribed time after the first. The countdown for it cannot start before the first election is duly completed.
The will of the people as expressed in free and fair elections is accepted in local and international law as the only legitimate basis for government.
The Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the international community agreed the June 27 ‘election’ was neither free nor fair. Thus it can give no legitimacy for Mugabe to govern in future under international or local rules. June 27 is a legal and diplomatic nothingness in any case.
This does not mean there is a vacuum: there’s a new President-elect until a run-off.
What Tsvangirai lacks is not a rule that would let him take power based on the March results. What he lacks is some authority willing to tell Mugabe that, having agreed to Paragraph 3(1) in 2005 and confirmed it in 2007, he must abide by it in full, and give way to the leading runner from March 29 pending the run-off.
In eight years of trying, MDC has not found such relief through local courts while Mugabe, his appointees and supporters have repeatedly broken all the rules.
SADC, AU, UN should be that necessary authority. They should be willing to tell Mugabe and his government to abide by the rules they enacted, as each of them and each member state have promised to uphold the rule of law.
Mugabe, reluctant to step down for years, notoriously said this year, "Only God can remove me", then threatened war if voters tried to do so again.
While the AU rejects impunity and political assassination, Mugabe it seems has come to depend upon them. Until his powers are checked, problems will continue.
There is nothing offensive in the laws I have outlined, no reason for these bodies not to insist that our de facto government fully comply with its own rules, and no reason to fail to recognise that Tsvangirai became a President-elect under those.
SADC, AU, UN etc can surely also ensure that a run-off election held while that candidate holds Zimbabwe’s reins of power is free and fair for both contestants. The will of the people will then have decided the interim and final President. The principles of democracy and the rule of law will have been saved.
If the run-off is combined with a referendum on an transitional constitution finally providing Zimbabweans with a full bill of rights, progress can be made while their will is respected on that issue too.
Although Tsvangirai was entitled to a transfer of power (based on his own votes, not his number of MPs), effort is being made to reach a settlement instead.
There are pragmatic reasons to try to avoid another election: Zimbabweans have endured eight national polls in the last eight years. The human, social and financial costs have been high. Few really want another winner-take-all contest now.
Thus talks – to seek another way forward, still based on the people’s free will are needed. Failing such a settlement, insisting on abiding by our law will be the only way to avoid a vacuum that must otherwise exist. Without a new agreement, requiring parties to abide by the rules they agreed on earlier will be SADC’s only option.
From reports and communiques it seems SADC does not yet plan to insist on this, maybe from ignorance of our rules, maybe for other undisclosed reasons. It does not matter what its reasons are. Having already recognised that June 27 did not represent the people’s free will, SADC cannot recognise any President or government founded upon that vote.
Ncube, and the mediator – President Thabo Mbeki – must know that Mugabe can get any future legitimacy only from the people, via a free and fair run-off election duly held now in accordance our laws, or else indirectly under the 18th Amendment, should he be elected by MPs seen as legitimately elected.
Thus the relentless pressure now on Tsvangirai to give legitimacy to Mugabe – despite Mugabe’s public rejection of democracy and breaches of prior agreements is not neccssary.
If the (secret) deal on the table is the limit of ‘what is practicable’ for Tsvangirai but is unacceptable, it does not cure SADC’s problem – how can SADC or AU recognise Mugabe, without him having a legitimate basis now to rule?
He remains a residual President only while talks are held; and risks an AU admission whose Lome Declaration against Unconstitutional Changes of Government he is violating.
As a lawyer and accredited observer, I have felt obliged to draw attention to the rules that Ncube and his political party, and Mugabe and his political party, endorsed before the games.
To accuse Tsvangirai of wanting to change these rules after the game is unjust. It is Mugabe and company who did so, after they agreed to Paragraph 3(1), etc.
I don’t know if Ncube’s motive for ignoring these rules is his reported intense dislike of Tsvangirai; or a hope of sharing now in the absolute power that Mugabe failed to transfer under Paragraph 3(1) after the people’s votes in March were counted and recounted; or some other motive.
Whatever the reasons, I advise caution. There is little reason to agree on anything new when previous agreements brokered by SADC have been broken with impunity; little point in relying now on a SADC-AU promise to underwrite and guarantee a “Global Political Agreement” if their Treaty promises to uphold the rule of law, democracy and human rights are being broken.
Why keep making agreements if these can be dishonoured? Think of a single key Memorandum of Understanding promise: humanitarian and welfare organisations would be able to give all assistance required in the interim. Has it been kept?
Or, in a repeat of Gukurahundi, are Mugabe and company still trying to starve the people into submission instead, while SADC remains silent?
At least with broken Treaty promises there is a chance that the SADC Tribunal, our new “house of justice” for the region set up to enforce the SADC Treaty, might be willing and able to help ensure these are fully carried out. Any political deal not firmly based on the Treaty promises offers no such hope.
Finally, anyone tempted to sign an agreement with Mugabe must bear in mind his prior (and very public) warning: how can a ballpoint pen fight a gun?
Why sign anything, if he will still control all the guns?
- The author is a senior legal practitioner in practice in Harare, and board member of Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights, with extensive experience in Zimbabwe’s election laws. – ZimOnline
Last edited:
Hi, data, I barely get around into the Zim corner!! But just now looking over the latest news headlines I spotted this:
MDC heckle Mugabe in parliament
MPs from Zimbabwe's main opposition party heckled and jeered President Robert Mugabe, as he opened parliament five months after disputed polls.
"You killed people, we won't forget that," they shouted, while Mr Mugabe listed government achievements.
Oh, oh.... I fear they'll be paying dearly for that!!
Correspondents say such scenes are unprecedented in Zimbabwe, which Mr Mugabe has governed since 1980.
I would say so, too. What has emboldened them to speak so freely?
At the start of his speech, Mr Mugabe said there was "every expectation" that a power-sharing deal would be agreed.
Yeah, yeah... wer's glaibt wird selig!:lol:
The opposition says parliament should not have been opened until the deadlocked talks were concluded.
I couldn't agree more! It's making a mockery out of those negotiation talks... as if they were of no consequences.
The Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) earlier said it would boycott Mr Mugabe's speech, saying it does not recognize his legitimacy.
They really should have! No guts? No backbone? Otherwise advised?
Mugabe is accused of using the security forces to stay in power
Look at that stone face!
Here you find the rest of the article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7581439.stm
MDC heckle Mugabe in parliament
MPs from Zimbabwe's main opposition party heckled and jeered President Robert Mugabe, as he opened parliament five months after disputed polls.
"You killed people, we won't forget that," they shouted, while Mr Mugabe listed government achievements.
Oh, oh.... I fear they'll be paying dearly for that!!
Correspondents say such scenes are unprecedented in Zimbabwe, which Mr Mugabe has governed since 1980.
I would say so, too. What has emboldened them to speak so freely?
At the start of his speech, Mr Mugabe said there was "every expectation" that a power-sharing deal would be agreed.
Yeah, yeah... wer's glaibt wird selig!:lol:
The opposition says parliament should not have been opened until the deadlocked talks were concluded.
I couldn't agree more! It's making a mockery out of those negotiation talks... as if they were of no consequences.
The Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) earlier said it would boycott Mr Mugabe's speech, saying it does not recognize his legitimacy.
They really should have! No guts? No backbone? Otherwise advised?
Look at that stone face!
Here you find the rest of the article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7581439.stm
http://newzim.proboards86.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=155217
Zimbabwe TV: http://edition.cnn.com/video/?JSONLINK=/....booed.mxf.zbctv
August 27, 2008, 19:15MDC spokesperson Nelson Chamisa
John Nyashanu, Harare
The opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) has handed a petition to President Robert Mugabe, barring him from coming to parliament until on-going talks are concluded.
This comes as the veteran leader announced yesterday that he shall soon name a cabinet that excludes opposition members. Now the MDC is questioning the legality of the presidency.
“There is no need for Mr Mugabe to come to parliament masquerading as president when in fact he is not. Negotiations have to be concluded first…” says MDC spokesperson Nelson Chamisa.
Despite its bravado, senior MPs are being targeted by Zimbabwe's feared security apparatus. Five members have been detained in the last two days and it's uncertain if and when they will appear in court.
Assistant Commissioner Wayne Bvudzijena says there is a 48-hour limit, but extenuating circumstances can warrant further detention. The MDC has labelled it political harassment
Zanu-PF is studying the MDC's petition to bar Mugabe from parliament. State media reports that Mugabe is forming a new government, but both MDC factions have scorned the move.
Mugabe says MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai is being misled by his Western allies. The country has got to move on. However, on the other hand, some say should an exclusively Zanu-PF government be formed, that's the death of the SADC initiated talks.
http://www.sabcnews.com/africa/southern_africa/0,2172,175894,00.html
Zimbabwe TV: http://edition.cnn.com/video/?JSONLINK=/....booed.mxf.zbctv
Last edited:
http://newzim.proboards86.com/index....&thread=155217Quote: August 27, 2008, 19:15
MDC spokesperson Nelson Chamisa
John Nyashanu, Harare
The opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) has handed a petition to President Robert Mugabe, barring him from coming to parliament until on-going talks are concluded.
This comes as the veteran leader announced yesterday that he shall soon name a cabinet that excludes opposition members. Now the MDC is questioning the legality of the presidency.
“There is no need for Mr Mugabe to come to parliament masquerading as president when in fact he is not. Negotiations have to be concluded first…” says MDC spokesperson Nelson Chamisa.
Despite its bravado, senior MPs are being targeted by Zimbabwe's feared security apparatus. Five members have been detained in the last two days and it's uncertain if and when they will appear in court.
Assistant Commissioner Wayne Bvudzijena says there is a 48-hour limit, but extenuating circumstances can warrant further detention. The MDC has labelled it political harassment
Zanu-PF is studying the MDC's petition to bar Mugabe from parliament. State media reports that Mugabe is forming a new government, but both MDC factions have scorned the move.
Mugabe says MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai is being misled by his Western allies. The country has got to move on. However, on the other hand, some say should an exclusively Zanu-PF government be formed, that's the death of the SADC initiated talks.
http://newzim.proboards86.com/index....&thread=155217
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Hi, data.
that sounds like a cat and mouse game!!:lol: As long as Mugabe has the power and the police he will exercise his will. No ifs and buts about it. Unless he croaks, there is little anyone can do to throw him out.
As you wrote, he is again incarcerating opposition people, and nobody can do a thing about it.
John Nyashanu, Harare
The opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) has handed a petition to President Robert Mugabe, barring him from coming to parliament until on-going talks are concluded.
This comes as the veteran leader announced yesterday that he shall soon name a cabinet that excludes opposition members. Now the MDC is questioning the legality of the presidency.
“There is no need for Mr Mugabe to come to parliament masquerading as president when in fact he is not. Negotiations have to be concluded first…” says MDC spokesperson Nelson Chamisa.
Despite its bravado, senior MPs are being targeted by Zimbabwe's feared security apparatus. Five members have been detained in the last two days and it's uncertain if and when they will appear in court.
Assistant Commissioner Wayne Bvudzijena says there is a 48-hour limit, but extenuating circumstances can warrant further detention. The MDC has labelled it political harassment
Zanu-PF is studying the MDC's petition to bar Mugabe from parliament. State media reports that Mugabe is forming a new government, but both MDC factions have scorned the move.
Mugabe says MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai is being misled by his Western allies. The country has got to move on. However, on the other hand, some say should an exclusively Zanu-PF government be formed, that's the death of the SADC initiated talks.
http://newzim.proboards86.com/index....&thread=155217
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Hi, data.
that sounds like a cat and mouse game!!:lol: As long as Mugabe has the power and the police he will exercise his will. No ifs and buts about it. Unless he croaks, there is little anyone can do to throw him out.
As you wrote, he is again incarcerating opposition people, and nobody can do a thing about it.
August 31st, 2008
Zimbabwe talks 'end without deal'
Zimbabwe's main opposition party has said two days of power-sharing talks with the ruling Zanu-PF have ended without agreement.
Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) spokesman Nelson Chamisa told the BBC the balance of power was in dispute.
He said President Robert Mugabe wanted MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai to become a titular prime minister without real authority, which was "unacceptable".
Mr Mugabe last week threatened to form a new government without the MDC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7590593.stm
---------------------------------------------------------
:lol: Like little boys! Each wants to be the leader!
I don't think this "power-sharing-idea" will work. There is only one way, and that is Mugabe's way! The opposition can take it or leave it.
Zimbabwe talks 'end without deal'
Zimbabwe's main opposition party has said two days of power-sharing talks with the ruling Zanu-PF have ended without agreement.
Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) spokesman Nelson Chamisa told the BBC the balance of power was in dispute.
He said President Robert Mugabe wanted MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai to become a titular prime minister without real authority, which was "unacceptable".
Mr Mugabe last week threatened to form a new government without the MDC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7590593.stm
---------------------------------------------------------
:lol: Like little boys! Each wants to be the leader!
I don't think this "power-sharing-idea" will work. There is only one way, and that is Mugabe's way! The opposition can take it or leave it.
That's what Mugabe says and you join him in that recommended fatalistic position.
But have you checked that interview from June? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7480974.stm
Mugabe, JOC and ZANU have all weapons. They are used to replace rule of law by enforcing facts. Why do they still talk and did not already go on with forming the new government as announced? What's different this time?
I don't know what is different.... different from what or when? This colourful pie doesn't really mean anything, does it? Mugabe is a dictator and he controls the police and military forces. He will order his men to do whatever he wishes... even kill Tswangirai.That's what Mugabe says and you join him in that recommended fatalistic position.
But have you checked that interview from June? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7480974.stm
Mugabe, JOC and ZANU have all weapons. They are used to replace rule of law by enforcing facts. Why do they still talk and did not already go on with forming the new government as announced? What's different this time?
Tswangirai doesn't want force and bloodshed, as he tells this BBC interviewer. He thinks by having Mugabe listen to what the other African leaders say, could have an effect. But he also says this conflict has been going on for the past 10 years. It could easily go on another ten years, if everybody just dances around Mugabe to avoid bloodshed. Isn't Mugabe already shedding enough blood without provocation?
Data, I don't know that country and the people, I don't know any black people at all!!
If Mugabe is in a position, and has that kind of corrupt mind, one can not talk about a functioning democracy.
Aha, the guy is scared his sins will catch up with him!! Scared of being shipped to The Hague.
As you can see, this dictator has been at it for over 20 years!!! Does Tswangirai really think Mugabe can be softened? Perhaps he should consider hiring the CIA or Mossad boys and free the people of Zimbabwe from this monster ruler.
The right one is the renewed senate, only to extend number of posts, secured in favour of Mugabe, who determines all grey parts too.
But the parliament is not (yet) in his favour.
http://newzim.proboards86.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=156190
The first time the official proclaimed result says, opposition MDC won and even Tswangirai won first presidential elections, what should be sufficient to make him full powered president until a free and fair re-run perhaps decides finally other way. Tswangirai agreed in a rerun, despite MDC and NGO addition of outside of polling stations published results gave him an outright win of 53% without any need of re-run. The outside published single results were a tiny progress of two years negotiations about election conditions according to SADC and AU rules.
As East German I know, a way without violent bloodshed is possible (candle light demonstrations 1989). Morgan Tswangirai, coming from trade unions (mining), is looking for peaceful solutions like once Joshua Nkomo, who also grew from trade unions (railway). Look where are the roots of other players! You do not need to know Africa or even an African. That rules are everywhere the same, even in Canada or Germany. People who stand up for their rights and avoid doing so destructive violence, must find principal and organized support in the world community instead of the usual hypocrisy of selfish interests. Each tendency setting counts (to come to an "world internal policy" between states and confederations). The UN should provide the public market place and set modernized rules for.
Last edited:
Ahh, I see... candlelight demos might help. Sorry, I'm a bit sarcastic today.
So, what are you saying with the two examples of the one coming from a railroad and the other from a mining union? Where did Mugabe come from? Is he an academic?
Non-violent protests are certainly worth the try in most democracies, but Zimbabwe? I don't know, data.
You mention living in the DDR, once a communist/socialist state. That rule lasted from 1945 to 1989... over 40 years! I guess with patience anything can be changed.
Mahatma Ghandi is a great example. So is Cindy Sheehan in the US. Unfortunately, she does not have enough support from fellow citizens to make Bush listen and stop the Iraq war.
As you are showing, Mugabe's ZANU has started up again harassing the people, MDC supporters especially. He uses the fear tactic and wins!
How about Tswangirai mobilizing all his supporters and storm the Palace, the Parliament, the Police Stations with anything they have, even lighted candles? It would for once show Mugabe they are no longer afraid of him, and that is important. The way he treats and mocks the opposition shows only too well that he knows they are afraid of him and his stick-wielding underlings.
It all depends what country one lives in to try peaceful demos.
Example China... demonstrations are dangerous!
Canada -- Natives have peacefully demonstrated and gotten killed or been forcefully removed, or they get temporarily pacified. For example, I heard from my daughter that there are hundreds of land-claims lying for decades in the courts' bureaucratic drawers.
So, what are you saying with the two examples of the one coming from a railroad and the other from a mining union? Where did Mugabe come from? Is he an academic?
Non-violent protests are certainly worth the try in most democracies, but Zimbabwe? I don't know, data.
You mention living in the DDR, once a communist/socialist state. That rule lasted from 1945 to 1989... over 40 years! I guess with patience anything can be changed.
Mahatma Ghandi is a great example. So is Cindy Sheehan in the US. Unfortunately, she does not have enough support from fellow citizens to make Bush listen and stop the Iraq war.
As you are showing, Mugabe's ZANU has started up again harassing the people, MDC supporters especially. He uses the fear tactic and wins!
How about Tswangirai mobilizing all his supporters and storm the Palace, the Parliament, the Police Stations with anything they have, even lighted candles? It would for once show Mugabe they are no longer afraid of him, and that is important. The way he treats and mocks the opposition shows only too well that he knows they are afraid of him and his stick-wielding underlings.
It all depends what country one lives in to try peaceful demos.
Example China... demonstrations are dangerous!
Canada -- Natives have peacefully demonstrated and gotten killed or been forcefully removed, or they get temporarily pacified. For example, I heard from my daughter that there are hundreds of land-claims lying for decades in the courts' bureaucratic drawers.
Mugabe was a school teacher and decisive black nationalist. His revoked degrees he got for being head of state. It remains his degree in violence, what he and his ZANU is very proud of.
About politicians with trade union roots: they have a good chance to understand ordinary people and respect them. They were regularly trusted and elected from them for representation and leadership in labour matters (no outsiders).
The JOC is only waiting for that to unleash on Opposits (before 1987 "dissidents"). An emergency state would give the president full dictatorship power without scheduled next elections.
You may imagine East Germans hiding behind curtains, but watching small protests and Monday demonstrations around churches, what gave some protection by independent publicness. Soviet tanks did not come. More and more took part - no spirit, drugs or other potentials of violence and all after daily job. No economical pressure, just peaceful expression of political opinion, how socialism should be and what is not acceptable. More and more left their private curtains and took part (up to 7% of population in the final stage). The GDR sat on medium range nuclear missiles, what Zimbabweans do not have to make them important, but the country is also armed up to the teeth conventional.
Awareness about democracy and peace grew meanwhile. I hope the people of Zimbabwe can reckon with it and will not be left alone any longer.
http://newzim.proboards86.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=156202
Don't tell Mugabe! He comes on the idea, he just wants to exercise Canadian democracy. Such is ZANU usual argumentation...
Accordingly the Mugabe rantings at the EU-Africa summit in Lisbon, where chancellor Dr. Merkel did just hide the failure to understand in the answer: "Such is not worth commenting." 8O
http://www.swradioafrica.com/news080908/canada080908.htm
Mbeki brought a new draft contract to Harare with an alleged 50/50 power share, as MDC demanded. But ZANU dislikes that. I's a longer and complete new document, what negotiator sides must first study. But it's considered possible to get a deal tomorrow.
http://newzim.proboards86.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=157568
Canada is turning the screw tighter!!! Way to go! I hope it will help.
I should check, if the deal got signed.
YES, it did!!!
http://allafrica.com/stories/200809111140.html
Zimbabwe: Political Leaders Agree on Power-Sharing Deal
But what is this at the end of the article?
What do you know about this, data?
I should check, if the deal got signed.
YES, it did!!!
http://allafrica.com/stories/200809111140.html
Zimbabwe: Political Leaders Agree on Power-Sharing Deal
But what is this at the end of the article?
He must have changed his mind then during the day?
What do you know about this, data?
Not more, than BBC, Al Jazeera and AFP reported (my sight of SANI and e-tv is still blocked :-(), but I comment here to the expectations of Zimbabweans:
http://newzim.proboards86.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=157979
On Monday shall get solved the main remaining question, who of the two players shall get the "Richtlinienkompetenz" (guide line competency). More crucial is to get a limited time frame for that transitional government.
Mugabe wants the full legislature term of 5 years and keep his kings right constitution pointing back to Unity Accord - the subjugation of Dr. Nkomo (Father Zimbabwe) from December 1987.
MDC wants new general elections and before that a referendum about a new democratic constitution. People have died for to organise grass root discussions about from NCA since many years. http://www.ncazimbabwe.org/
People on streets do not care about the top post distribution. They urge for economical recovery. But that will not come, before the GNU called TG (transitional government of national unity) has successful organised free and fair general elections under a new constitution. It seems clear, that Mugabe will get his presidency, the army (ZDF) and Tsvangirai the police (internal affairs) + finance for his "command of the brooms" in the State House.
Last edited:
At least things have finally started to move. But people (your link) are asking how will these two groups operate under power sharing? That's what I wonder, too. They are arch-enemies! All that hostility and resentment hasn't evaporated over night, I'm sure. As you say, the people on the street don't care who gets which post; for them improvement of normal living conditions are important..
If Mugabe still wants to reign for another five years, because he is entitled through that Unity Accord, then we might as well sit back and twiddle our thumbs!!
This article is only 4 hours old:
Consultation, Horse-Trading:lol: In Zimbabwe Ahead Of Power-Sharing Deal Closing
Political party leaders in Zimbabwe were deep in consultations and haggling over cabinet posts Saturday in preparation for Monday's signing of a power-sharing deal reached late Thursday by the former ruling ZANU-PF party and the Movement for Democratic Change.
Full article here: http://voanews.com/english/Africa/Zimbabwe/2008-09-13-voa16.cfm
-----------------------------------------------------------
How this power sharing will work in practice remains to be seen. I wish I could be more positive, but considering all the violence that came from the ZANU Regime these last 6 months, one barely dares to even hope for a real breakthrough in this deadlock.
Dunga: I HAVE A FEELING TSVANGIRAI WILL BE ASSASINATED http://newzim.proboards86.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=158539
CIO shall get disintegrated, but is still there. Some hard-liners could do anything to save their asses. Provoking a state of emergency could work.
Before 9/11 CIA was in a similar situation. Bush wanted to resolve them and reconstruct the organisation from the scratch.
So take the way of South Africa or of GDR.