A majority, indeed a large majority, did vote for a change of government in 2008 and in some earlier elections. That is one meaning of regime change’.
Most voters voted for a party that proclaimed in its manifesto and on its posters that it offered a different way of governing. That is another meaning of regime change’. Those who voted the other way are not happy with the present arrangements either. They only differ on how they should be changed.
Let’s look first at the majority of our voters who want regime change’ in both of those meanings: who governs and how they govern. They have some ideas on the way of governing they want. Why should they not get it?
It’s not good enough to say that some foreign governments want regime change’. They don’t have votes here, so their wishes should not influence us either way. That is a particularly bad excuse because those governments don’t exactly agree with our voters.
Both want the first kind of regime change. Neither of them simply dislike Robert Mugabe, but they wanted an end to his government. That may be as far as they agree.
When we look at the second, more meaningful, kind of regime change, they will probably disagree about what kind of government they. The MDC promised to “chinja maitiro”; many voters want to see changes that won’t please powerful people in Britain or America any more than the Mugabe regime did.
Then there are those who voted against the slogan “regime change”. Some of them want change in the first sense: back to 1999 or 1989.
Even more of them, probably all, are not happy with the way things are running now.
They want some changes in how government runs; some may want to go back, some forward and some people on any side don’t know which way is back or forward now. Anyway, a large number of people want different kinds of “regime change” in the second sense.
This all adds up to saying almost everybody wants “regime change”, but what change?
Most voters seemed to support the GPA. This was meant to give us an “inclusive government” in which they would have a voice without excluding the others.
Over the years some people tried to make changes within Zanu (PF). Lazarus Nzarayabani, Byron Hove, Margaret Dongo and Sidney Malunga failed, so the voters finally agreed another party should get a chance. Now that party is included in government.
Unfortunately, some people refused to share anything. Now we have reached another deadlock. One party has broken nearly every clause of the GPA. We can’t go forward like that. We can’t go back to the old ways, how ever much some may want to.
If we, the people, agree to give those who have been resisting change another chance to work within the GPA, they should take that chance. If they don’t, we’ll have to find a way ahead without them.
Post published in: Opinions