No to violence

EDITOR - In response to Godfrey Magwindi’s letter, 2-8 March 06, Yes, we absolutely need to find a peaceful solution to Zimbabwe’s troubles but for Godfrey to suggest that "Morgan does not advocate for violence” is just not true.

=EN-GB>Believe me, I have enormous respect for Morgan so what happened in 2005 was a great disappointment to me. The violence at Harvest House was investigated by the Party’s disciplinary committee and those responsible were dismissed from the party. Soon afterwards, Morgan himself insisted that the Sec Gen reinstate those very same youth as his personal bodyguards!

This was the beginning of Morgan’s disregard for his own party’s constitution and for his acceptance of violence within the party. Does Godfrey know of some of the tactics used by the youth against those perceived to be “anti Tsvangirai”? Pure Zanu (PF) stuff.

Using violence against one’s own colleagues is unacceptable and is the reason I, very sadly, felt that I could no longer support Tsvangirai. To this day, the man acknowledges what happened but shows no sign of dealing with it. I don’t think Morgan himself is the source of the violence but those close to him clearly are and by not dealing with it, he is condoning it. In the end, he is responsible.

As Arthur Mutambare said in his speech at the Bulawayo MDC Congress – the political culture of Zimbabwe has been defined by Zanu (PF) for 26 years and this includes the use of violence. Instead Mutambara urged us to develop a new culture to deal with our problems. After all it is Eddie Cross in Morgan’s camp who is saying “we will propose a combined front against the regime for the purpose of launching a struggle which will use all means to secure the unseating of this bunch of thugs. “ What does “all means” imply, one wonders?

SCOTT, Bulawayo

Post published in: Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *