That means they expected our next election to be held under the new constitution, one that states clearly that members of the security forces may not do anything to promote or hinder the aims of any political party. That is in line with the GPA, which spoke of preparing the ground for free and fair elections, by freeing the media and the airwaves, security sector reform and a number of other measures we are waiting to see implemented.
So there you have two strong arguments for SADC leaders to insist that police and military leaders who declare they can only support one party must be sacked. They cannot be allowed to continue behaving as a Zanu (PF) militia. We cannot hold free and fair elections if they remain in place. The GPA that the politicians signed and the voters say they must go.
If that means that SADC has become another “foreign influence for regime change” maybe the SADC leaders have seen they can no longer do any kind of business with a government that behaves as Zanu (PF) has done, especially in the past 13 years.
In case they haven’t noticed, Zimbabwe is not an island. Even if it was, in the modern world, we would depend on having good relationships with our neighbours.
If the military want to “go it alone” with the help of their Chinese handlers, they will be the ones who are making Zimbabwe a colony again. That will still be true if, as we hear, some Zanu leaders are currying favour with the old imperialists who want to get their hands on a share of our blood diamonds.
Colony of China, of Britain or of the Antwerp or Surat diamond merchants – what’s the difference?
That may be why “regime change” is what most of our voters want and have voted for since 2000.
Some legal expert in the ruining party may claim that the voters actually voted for a text that included provision for the new constitution to come into effect after the next elections. That means they voted for the panel-beaten Lancaster ceasefire agreement.
Ask them whether that is what they meant. I am not sure this did get into the text before the vote, but, even if it did, this confusion must surely invalidate the result of the referendum.
The text we were asked to vote on was not the one that emerged from COPAC’s admittedly flawed process of consulting us. It had been panel-beaten several times by ZANU (PF) and the securocrats after the consultations. Not only were we not given time to read and analyse the text we were to vote on; there were different versions floating around to make the confusion worse. That is why I didn’t vote in the referendum; I couldn’t figure out what we were asked to vote for or against. There were many of us who felt like this; is anybody ready to start counting us? The result of such a count could make the results of Joyce Letitia Kazembe’s cookery look rather sick.
The lawyers must be rubbing their hands and sharpening their pens in eager anticipation of long litigation and fat fees for them in arguing over what the text we were asked to vote on said. It is time that we cut out all that nonsense and recognise, with the majority of our people, the SADC leaders and, belatedly, the MDC that there are principles of justice and these are more important than the maze of excuses any law student, especially one who spent ten years studying in jail, could churn out in his sleep.
The law is not a god. If it doesn’t serve justice it is a mockery.
Post published in: Opinions & Analysis