INTERVIEW: In our quest to seek a comprehensive understanding of why the Zimbabwe dialogue remains deadlocked, Basildon Peta also interviewed Professor Welshman Ncube, the chief negotiator in the Arthur Mutambara faction of the MDC, who expressed contrary views to those held by Tsvangirai.
QUESTION: A deal to resolve the Zimbabwe crisis remains elusive despite President Thabo Mbeki and SADC’s spirited efforts. Why?
ANSWER: It is elusive because it has been impossible to get all the three parties at the negotiating table to agree on essentially what this deal is about. If you take into account the positions as they stand now, it boils down to one thing in our view; Do you have a power sharing deal or do you have a power transfer deal. In our view the deal which is on the table now, which the SADC leaders spent long hours discussing with us – is essentially a power sharing deal. Regrettably, some of the parties (the Tsvangirai formation) did not find that deal adequate because they desired a power transfer deal.
Q: The Tsvangirai formation argues that the deal on the table will leave Mugabe’s powers intact and relegate Tsvangirai to a ceremonial prime minister’s role. Many agree that it is simply unreasonable to expect Tsvangirai to play a junior role in a Mugabe government when he beat him in the March 29 elections.
A: The SADC communiqué says the deal on the table is what is an appropriate, fair and equitable power sharing deal. And this is what the SADC leaders were trying to persuade all of us to accept. Regrettably some of us (Tsvangirai formation) did not accept it. But in our view we can say that the SADC resolution is a fair reflection of the facts on the ground . . . The executive function is the function of running government, of appointing and supervising ministers, of determining the day to day operations of government, of defining policy. If you exclude the leader of one of the parties from that completely, you are rendering whomsoever you have excluded ceremonial. That is why SADC found that the demands which are on the table (from Tsvangirai) are for a power transfer. And they were unable to endorse those. Which is why they endorsed what is on the table which is power sharing. I cannot go beyond that and I cannot go on a finger pointing expedition. But I go by the resolution of SADC which is essentially that what we have is a power sharing deal. Anything else is a power transfer.
I can go further and say that if you go by the results of 29 March, no single party can argue for transfer of power to itself because no single party has the absolute majority to say we are entitled to have power transferred to us. Consider the figures, ZANU PF has 99, MDC-T 100 and we have 10. For anyone to say that power ought to be transferred to themselves alone, they ought to have 106 seats in the House of Assembly. No one has that. The fact that you might have the highest number, does not entitle you to a transfer. You still need one of the other parties to stand in your corner before you can command 106 seats. MDC-T does not have the absolute majority to claim transfer of power to itself without sharing it with one or other of the parties.
Q: But their argument is that they formed a coalition with you. And that your coalition commands a comfortable majority of 110 seats.
A: Nobody can negotiate for us. We negotiate for ourselves. We are an independent political party. In the elections we contested against ZANU PF, we contested against MDC-T. We got the seats we got and we own those seats, and our role is to ensure that we play a constructive role. Our role is to ensure that we speak for the people who voted for us against MDC-T and against ZANU PF. So we cannot and we will not annex our votes to anyone. So we cannot agree with positions, we don’t believe are right. We have not done that. We will not do that. What was done by the leadership of the MDC . . . was to back MDC-T in the run-off. But the run-off was terminated prematurely when ZANU PF unleashed violence on the people. As things stand now, each of the MDC parties are independent of each other. Anyone who wants to work with any other will have to approach the other and have a deal. As of now, there is no deal with anyone. The discussions which took place between the two elections were founded on the fact that Morgan had won the 29 March election and would win the 27 June elections. That did not happen and therefore what was agreed then does not constitute a coalition.
Q: Don’t you think that the MDC would have been much more effective if they were speaking with one voice in these negotiations? The view in the world is that MDC-Mutambara has thrown its lot with ZANU PF and is siding with Mugabe?
A: We have no desire to finger point. We have conducted the dialogue with absolute integrity . . . The position we have on the table now is the deal we negotiated in the pre-planning stages and agreed on it with MDC-T . . . When we strategised together and when we planned together at the commencement of these negotiations, we targeted this deal. And now we have got it. We have no desire to finger point.
Q: Is MDC–T therefore overplaying their hand?
A: Let them answer and determine that. Let me say that when we started this dialogue, we had three positions. The one we felt would favour the MDC most was the one that would make Mugabe a ceremonial president and effectively achieve a power transfer. But we considered the extent to which ZANU PF went by blood, by stealth to get the presidency the manner it did. It was unlikely to agree to a power transfer by rendering Mugabe a ceremonial president. We said that would be the best deal if we can achieve it. But it’s unlikely for obvious reasons. We then said the other extreme position would be for ZANU PF to say they have the presidency. They say we are inviting all of you to a government of national unity led by us (ZANU PF). Pretty much like the 1987 unity government whereby the ZANU PF government was the leading partner in any coalition arrangement. We rejected this collectively because it would not be power sharing. The Third model which was in between these two, we categorised it as the Kenyan model. Which is where an executive president has executive power and an executive prime minister has executive power and they have to share this power and they have to make decisions as between themselves. Some of them by consensus so that no one feels that they have been booted out of holding executive authority. We thus aimed for the Kenyan model and achieved that model. We even achieved more powers for the prime minister than what Raila Odinga has. Which is why SADC heads of state, 15 of them, have agreed with that and hence their strong opinion as reflected in the communiqué. We stand by that position. We have been vindicated by the SADC position. If you want transfer of power, it will not happen because you need a period of transition during which each party will feel they have a stake in what is going on.
Q: But there are not necessarily 15 heads of state because Botswana has disagreed with that position and its leader boycotted the summit.
A: I don’t want to disclose to you what was happening in the meetings we had but I can assure you that Botswana was represented in those meetings with the leaders. Botswana was there and was having positions that were consistent with the rest of SADC. That I can assure you.
Q: So you are basically happy with this deal which Tsvangirai has rejected?
A: It’s not a question of happiness. It’s a question of what is practicable and what is possible in the circumstances. In our view what is on the table now is what is practicable under the circumstances.
Q: Tsvangirai specifically wants to chair and run Cabinet but Mugabe doesn’t. Would you urge Tsvangirai to drop that position for the sake of progress?
A: Look at the documents which were initially agreed buy all the parties before others withdrew their agreement. In terms of those agreements, the president chairs Cabinet, the prime minister is the deputy chair. That was the compromise which was reached. All three parties were at one point in agreement with that position. SADC has endorsed that as a basis for moving forward.
Q: But Tsvangirai would never had an opportunity to chair Cabinet as Mugabe’s two deputies would have acted in the president’s seat whenever Mugabe is not available?
A: That’s a re-interpretation of issues. The agreement that is there says there is a chairman and a deputy chairman of cabinet. In the absence of the substantive chairman, the deputy acts. At the negotiating table the argument you now raise was never put up.
Q: But on March 29, 57 percent of Zimbabweans rejected Mugabe. Why should Tsvangirai therefore not claim executive power and the right to chair and run Cabinet?
A: You can’t remake the rules after the game. 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. That did not happen . . .
Q: Is Tsvangirai therefore being unreasonable ?
A: Again it’s not for me to decide whether anyone is being unreasonable or not. If you are a party to the negotiations you must be satisfied with what is on the table for you to sign up. I cannot question anyone’s right to decide not to sign. Any of the parties has an absolute right to say no.
Q: But the implication of what you are saying is that Tsvangirai is being unreasonable and ZANU PF and your side are the right guys?
A: No I have not said anything about ZANU PF in everything I have said to you so far. I have spoken about our position. I dare not speak for ZANU PF. I cannot speak for ZANU PF . . . All I am saying is that our view is consistent with the SADC resolution. It is our view that the deal on the table forms the basis of moving forward. But we recognise the right of any party to be unhappy and to seek more. The only question is whether those with the power to give more are willing to give more.
Q: What is the implication of reconvening Parliament as urged by SADC considering that the MOU had called for a delay until negotiations are completed?
A: The implication is that SADC is saying, despite the MOU stipulation that Parliament cannot be re-convened before this process has come to an end, as far as they (SADC) are concerned, everything has been done to build an agreement. A time has therefore come to say you cannot continue to say there is a vacuum in government. It is their view that the government of the day should proceed to convene Parliament. They have therefore effectively amended the MOU by saying that after all that has been done thus far, a vacuum in the Zimbabwe government cannot be left to continue. They (SADC) are therefore saying they cannot stop ZANU PF from convening Parliament if it’s inclined to do so.
Q: Where do we go from here?
A: Frankly I don’t know. It’s up to the facilitator and to SADC. They have not communicated to us as to what they intend to do in this respect. We will await their guidance.
Q: Why do you have to wait for them. As Zimbabweams why not initiate your contacts?
A:Of course that is possible if all the parties are willing. But if you want to talk under the facilitator, you have to wait to hear from him.
Q: What about the reported threat by your MPs to walk out if you remain aligned to Mugabe in these talks?
A: We have no positions that are aligned to Mugabe. We have our positions which are in line with what our national council has decided on the issues. I do not believe there is any of our MPs who hold the positions that are different from those of the national council If there is, I will be surprised.
Q: What about the facilitation process itself.
A: A facilitator is a facilitator. He can help the parties but he cannot decide for them.
Q: If deadlock remains, and if all fails what’s next?
A: If all fails then we are back to the to the trenches. – ZimOnline
ADVERTISEMENT
ARTICLE ATTACHMENTS
READER OPINIONS
Omuhle • n/a Subject: n/a Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:01:29 • All good points Khumalo. All very valid and history supports them but the major issue is does the end justify the means? I accept the west may have a hand in the MDC and we are still not sure as to the extent of their influence. What I do know however is that even if the west tell the MDC to reverse farm grabs it is not possible for 2 reasons. Firstly it would take a monumental effort, almost a violent effort along the lines of the 3rd chimurenga and the MDC don't have that military support from war vets and the army. Secondly, it is in the constitution now so reversing it is against the law and it needs a majority to overturn the law. This brings me to my main point which we should be debating here. Is our sovereignty vested in the laws and constitution of the land or in individuals who are open to corruption, fear, paranoia and so on? I have a great problem when I hear people who claim to be patriots say that Tsvangirayi will reverse the gains of independence and we should protect what we earned through the gun. Surely our laws are (or should be) above a single individual. We cannot hve a situation where a single person can ignore laws like what happened when Mugabe said he will not instruct the police to evict squatters at the beginning of the 3rd chimurenga. One thing we should accept is, if you support a point, no matter what the odds are against your point winning, you should support it within the remit of law and order. As I said, does the end justify the means? We all accept that Zimbabwe, as an agricultural based economy needed a land redistribution exercise but did it have to come at the expense of law and order and with the blood of innocent people like farm workers, farmer's families and so on? In a hundred years time we will leave our children with the legacy that they are in control of their country but their parents were killers to get it that way. Almost as bad as the Thomas Miekle empire built on stolen cattle from Lobegula. Who protects Zimbabwe from external influence? Is it Mugabe or Chiwenga or Gono or some other patriotic politician? We accept the protector should be an incorruptible, crime-free person who will put the country first. What if this individual has blood on their hands from Gukurahundi? Can we then accept that every decision they make under the guise of protecting us is really for our good or for their benefit. Surely for Mugabe to deny a succesion debate in his own party only to accept to share power with Tsvanngirayi raises questions. For Chiwenga and Chihuri to say they don't salute someone with lib war credentials means the whole point of elections is defeated. So my point is Chiwenga and Chihuri should be open to a Tsvangirayi presidency but make it clear they believe a president should accept the sovereignty of the country as enshrined in the constitution and not in the leadership of an individual who is corrupt or acting out of fear for his past crimes.
Like I said, I hear your points and I also don't trust the west but there is no western influence Tsvangirayi could come under, we will kick him out via the constitution. Can we say the same about Mugabe? Was he protecting our sovereignty in killing people in Mat'land? What about Murambatsvina? What about operation mavhotera papi? The list is endless but when the knight in shining armour becomes the oppressor perhaps he needs to be removed of his armour to see it is not shining anymore but is smudgy with guilt and misdeed. Perhaps Mugabe and ZANU PF should watch another party rule and how difficult it is in opposition to then go back to their roots. We can use counter argument and quote history which all supports the view the west is biased but at the end of the day nothing the west does will ever justify the barbaric behaviour of beating one's own people or ignoring rule of law. Let's fight within the bounds of humanity. We cannot have people been abducted and found with missing private parts and eyes gouged out then claim defense of our sovereignty. This is what makes it difficult to accept those fighting for our country are doing it for themselves and not us. Saving their own skins. So my question is does the end justify the means? Will the thousands killed or displaced in this election ever be washed away by the argument that we kept the whites at bay? Do not write them off as sacrifices. Those who died in the 2nd Chimurenga were volunteers who gave their lives for our independence. You cannot bracket defenceless villagers and children under the same banner. We are going about the defence of what is ours the wrong way.
KHUMALO • N/A Subject: N/A Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:10:26 • DOS SANTOS AND KABILA illegitimate leaders as you put it OMUHLE and you went on to say they rely on western money, which is true, but illegitimate or legitimate in whos eyes. The west can legitimise or illegitimise regimes around the world.
you remember savimbi dont you? a creation of the CIA., during that time to them dos santos was not a democratic leader, not so because he wasnt, but just because their interests in angola were under threat they encourage a milltary struggle through savimbi and failed. realising that they failed what did they do, they came back to the same person who they once touted as despotic, undemocratic communist who they wanted to overthrow now do you hear them talking about how illigetimate or undemocratic he is NO...as long as they have thier share in oil and diamonds fields.
that is exactly what is happening in zimbabwe wether you like it or not MDC is a front of the west to protect their interests.
DO YOU REALLY IN YOUR HEAD THINK THAT IF THEY WERE NO FARM INVASIONS AND A THREAT TO THEIR INTEREST IN MINERALS THEY WOULD BE DEMONISING MUGABE THE WAY THEY ARE DOING NOW?...THE ANSWER IS A RESOUNDING NO AND I WILL TELL WHY.
ask yourself why in the western world's eyes MUGABE became an undemocratic murderous, ruthless killer only from 1999 and beyond. what exactly happened from 1999 that made the west so anti mugabe???
now go back to the 80's...mid 80s. when there was ethnic cleansing GUKURAHUNDI. ..BETWEEN 20 000..TO 50 000 people were killed. to them it was business as usual yes indeed as i said..no travel sanctions to the shiris..mnagagwas..zvinavashes..mugabes..nkalas etc...they travelled were ever they wanted did business with them sold them more weapons to kill .ask yourself why?
indeed during that time thats when the relationship was being cemented with the blood of 20 000 or so ndebeles. At a time when we were telling the world what was going on. did you hear them mentioning it that time...did you hear them saying mugabe is murderer..was it news everyday on BBC..OR CNN..ask yourself why.
now suddenly after 1999 GUKURAHUNDI to them is more important than ever when they used us as pawns for their political interest..do you real think its the blood of our relatives they care about now..no its not they are just disguising using it as political weapon to advance their goals of regime change..ask yourself why?...why didnt they ask for regime change then were ndebeles were being butchered. when gukurahundi was happening
what exactly happened from year 2000 that made mugabe so bad than the killing of 50000 people between 1983 and 87..if they couldnt demonise him then why now?..is it that the blood of black minority ndebele people is not important to them than the farms,,,the raw materials....or is it that the 6 or so white farmers who were killed are more important..you may not like this but to them ,,,thats the plain truth..period.
REMEMBER WHAT KISSINGER SAID.....THEY DONT HAVE PERMANENT FRIENDS, BUT ONLY PERMANENT INERESTS....
thats why iam saying if we dont open dialogue we as africans , they will continue using us..using the divide and rule to further their interest.
although i will never ever ever in my life forget about gukurahundi i would rather have dialogue and negotiations with fellow zimbabweans than make the mistake of being used by the western world. that cycle will never end if we follow the path of tsvangirai and company...
WELSHMAN NCUBE and co yes they have a better vision, abetter home grown solution..not to have people who should come and tell us what to negotiate and what not to in the form of the british and americans...basical whats happening is MDC is negotiating on behalf of the british and americans
like what professor moyo said about khama....tsvangirai too has a monkey see monkey do attitude..
and to all those who dont like my writings just because am advocating for dialogue with the man who killed our own i say thank you and dont read it.
and yes iam ndebele in and out and totally proud of it, but above all am african and relate more to my african brothers and sisters.
and while GUKURAHUNDI will forever be encrypted in my mind so will be the desire to find out what happened, move on and build a better future for all zimbabweans.
that means dialogue with my fellow zimbabweans without out-side interference
WENA OMUHLE UTHE ANG'IPENDULANGA UMBUZO WAKO ...which one
Omuhle • n/a Subject: n/a Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:04:59 • No one said MDC is a tribal party, formed to further tribal ends. Infact, look at the composition of the MDC you will see it is multi-tribal. From Khupe to Tsvangirayi to Dzinotyiwei to Dulini-Ncube and so on. MDC is the one party formed from a multitude of sources. Remember Gwisai and his Socialist movement, remember Madhuku and his NCA, remember the ZCTU, the white farmers and....the list is endless. It was a coming together of forces in the country who realised a collective effort was required to sort out what was becoming a national project, the tendency of ZANU PF to overwrite national institutions with their party statutes. Have you ever wondered why it is the ZANU PF secretary for information is also some top brass in ministry of information, or why the administrations secretary is justice minister or the commisar is home affairs or somethng like that? They rule as if what the party decides at caucus level is also a national decision.
We need to wean them of this, separate the state from the party. As a party they will find it very hard to live without the funding they enjoy from govt and even harder to woo voters to their cause without the violence and state security machinery at their side. Why do you think these talks have failed? Do you honestly see ZANU PF sharing power with a view to free, democratic elections in a few years time? That is as good as shooting themselves in the head, because they would never survive in a democratic environment.
So in answer to your question, the fact that the quest for answers and justice for Gukurahundi is been brought to light through the MDC is because MDC is a coalition of forces in the country. From student bodies to labour movement to a downtrodden people and region to all others who have watched ZANU PF walk all over us and forget what the struggle was for. These same people have united for one cause, democracy. Not tribalism. Some of our causes are shared, some are not but we all have to speak out for Gukurahundi victims, even if we are not Ndebele.
Khumalo, awuphendulanga umbuzo wami.....
khumalo • n/a Subject: ndebele in and out Thu, 21 Aug 2008 12:54:27 • even if you say say iam ndebele that aint gona hurt me an aorta cause i for one knows my roots 100% ndebele and iam proud of it wether u like it or not and yes i also have relatives that were killed in silobela and as i said in my last comment i wont forget, but i should not loose sight, but move foward in more positive.
national healing yes, but how can you have national when leaders try to open dialogue and all what you say is betrayal.
nkomo was not swallowed he did a great deal for us otherwise that country and almost half of us would have perished with the support of british weapons and training too.
now we moving foward in moving foward we ought to seek the truth of what happened, but in seeking the truth it dosent mean that we should not talk to those who committed the crimes
what you tend to forget is the same white who are crying for help in the name of MDC are the same people who were arming those thugs to murder our relatives.
were was the zanu pf military weapons and jets coming from...UK
where were the top officials in the army recieving training that time sandhurst in berkshire UK
WERE there any travel sanctions...NO
were there any weapons or any kind of sanctions NO because in their eyes he was killing useless black people and that hurts to the bone.
and to add salt to the wound the man was even rewarded with a nighthood in 1991.
now if you can go and talk to the sponsors of those massacres and inturn say its betrayal talking to mugabe and having dialogue..... you only contradicting yourself.
i and one wants the truth about gukurahundi out, but you wont achieve that by shouting on online blogs and calling everyone a traitor.
N/A • N/A Subject: MDC Thu, 21 Aug 2008 12:11:04 • This is a question to OMUHLE and everyone who can help educate me. Is MDC about the Ndebeles revenging for the Gukurahundi tradegedies? I have always thought despite it having been created at the instgation of the WEST, its purpose was to usher in multiparty politics in Zimbabwe. Now what I hear from Omuhle is it is about tribal politics using Tsvangirai as the front. Ladies and Gentlemen, let not play the tribal card. Sizaluza for ever and ever amen.I mean as a nation.
N/A • N/A Subject: he is not Ndebele Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:13:14 • Khumalo, despite using that name, the name of the royal house of Mzilikazi, you are not Ndebele. You would never say those things if you were Ndebele. Don't tell us about reconciliation when we have a chain of grievances that stretch from Gukurahundi to the Matebeleland Zambezi Water Project, from the census deliberate miscalculations of the population of our region to the selective criteria for awarding students places at the UZ and NUST. We can go on forever but we will have our day, a day that is coming soon. Our parents' deaths will be exposed. How can you talk of reconciliation when Mugabe buried the report he commissioned into Gukurahundi? It should be revealed before we can start the healing process. So don't pretend to be one of us because the victims of this are not even near to reconciliation. Just because we've been quiet about it doesn't mean we are pacified.
Omuhle • n/a Subject: Response to Khumalo Thu, 21 Aug 2008 01:08:02 • You raise some very good issues but your examples are what will crush your points on this one.
How can you give examples of Rwanda where the Hutu and Tutsi forgave each other or even the jpas and the yanks. One thin you don't mention though is that before these people had forgiven each other there was a process of healing which is characterised by firstly admission of what one has done wrong, admitting people were killed and then explaining the madness behind it beofre finally you have a process of bringing those responsible to count and finally forgiving.
None of this happened in Zimbabwe and as a Ndebele you would appreciate that you cannot move forward before you reconcile the past. The mere fact that Nkomo entered into agreement with Mugabe was out of necessity because the killing would have continued, not that he forgave them for the wrongs. Besides can't you see the pattern here? Mugabe killed my relatives in the 80's, dissipated the entire people with fear and then extended the hand of peace to Nkomo, offered him a meaningless vice presidency and then even went further as to call it a unity accord yet this amalgamated party didn't even change it's name. Part of the unity pact was that amnesty would be given to those behind the killing.
Yet again you can see the pattern emerging in 2008. He realised a threat to his dynastic rule, realised the people were not behind him, unleashed violence and killing and then offered peace under the same terms that there should be an amnesty and the unity should hold for 5 years, giving him enough time to do away with MDC and impose someone else on us.
We have had enough. We realise these guys won't go without a fight but this time we are prepared for a fight.
The one factor that was stopping a repeat of the chimurenga war was that no bordering country was prepared to offer a staging post for fighters to liberate the country. But with the position Botswana has taken, how long will this last? Who in SADC will come to the aid of Mugabe when by their own admission he is an illegitimate leader? Perhaps the other illegitimate leaders like Kabila and dos Santos. But then again, they are now dependent on the west for alot of thier wealth, would they risk it all for an 84 year old who is clearly losing the plot?
Omugabe • Dziva@sanandresano.com Subject: Look Inward & Look East for Self-development, Zim Patriots! Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:53:20 • IT is obvious that those self-hating and self-destructive Africans of the MDC (Mentally Deluded by Colonialists) ARE NOT true leaders.
The MDC is a criminal organization, whose sole aim is to act on behalf of the racist and evil Europeans, for the purpose of African domination and African plunder.
The criminal and lost leaders of MDC should be EXILED or CONFINED! And the MDC should be OUTLAWED; because it is not acting in the best interest of Zimbabweans and Africans.
Tamari • shuvaimandi@yahoo.com Subject: Ncube Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:00:56 • The only question is whether those with the power to give more are willing to give more.
That says it all. These losers went into the dialogue expecting to be given something by Mugabe. In waht capacity do they think there are those who might be willing to give. Ncube does not say why having a prime minister elected by parliament and who a president would not dismiss is impractical. Why is having elections in two years impractical? Why is it impratical for a prime minister to chair cabinet?
These professors are being unreasonable.
makadusa • makadusa@aol.com Subject: Stop playing hardball MT Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:54:16 • Hugo...you don`t get it, not Welshman. People like you, vakaoma musoro zvenhando are causing all these problems. MDC-T, MDC and Zanu (PF) agreed on so many issues, and Morgan reneged at the last minute. He is holding everyone at ransom. Afterall, Welshman Ncube stresses a practical solution (that was initially agreed by everyone) rather than the ideal. Let`s do the practical now because Zanu (PF) will not transfer power...forget, unless you want to go back to the trenches. Morgan does not have the people at heart...he`s just so hungry for power, but 49% of the people did not empower him...the constitution is clear.
Tamari • shuvaimandi@yahoo.com Subject: Ncube Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:47:53 • The only question is whether those with the power to give more are willing to give more.
That says it all. These losers went into the dialogue expecting to be given something by Mugabe. In waht capacity do they think there are those who might be willing to give. Ncube does not say why having a prime minister elected by parliament and who a president would not dismiss is impractical. Why is having elections in two years impractical? Why is it impratical for a prime minister to chair cabinet?
These professors are being unreasonable.
khumalo • n/a Subject: childish Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:05:23 • OMUHLE your comment that for someone from matebeleland to side with mugabe is betrayal.
shows how childish,immature and hate driven you are. The fact that i come frm matabeleland doesent mean that automatically because of gukurahundi i have to side with whoever oppose mugabe.
yes we will never forget gukurahundi,as the japanese will never forget hiroshima, or near home the tutsis and hutus, look were they are now ,forgiving and dialogue shows really leadership qualities and maturity in moving foward.and the people from matebeleland have shown that, long back before the hutus and tutsis. you cant say everytime someone from matabeleland agrees with mugabe on certain issues its betrayal that is an insult to our intelligence the people of matebeleland.
we are capable of making decisions and wether those decisions are for mugabe or against.
WELSHMAN NCUBE is a man of principle and not power hungry like you said he is been offered a senatoral position and that if he had gone with tsvangirai he was gonna be the speaker of parliament and you said along with it its the third most powerful positon. which in your thinking its all written power and about power. you think he didnt know that,ofcourse he did, but because of his principles,the democratic principles and because he is not power hungry he refused to break those principles, and go with tsvangirai just for the sake of power, the speaker of parliament as you put it. AND one MORGAN TSVANGIRAI despite the democratic process that was going on in MDC concerning the SENATE elections he went on to show how undemocratic and autocratic he was, by overuling his own party democratic vote on that matter.
ncube and others stood their ground despite the political implications because he is not power hungry.
this is another piece of nonsense you have written keeping in mind the percentage argument that was here a few days ago.
ready for this one too..bring it on
Brian CHIKWATI • mchiutare@montanameats.co.zw Subject: The Tsvangirai important signature Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:50:01 • Lets not make a decision from the version of one side. Lets also hear it from Tsvangirai himself. No one ever trust Zanu now, and Tsvangirai has learnt a lot from his experience.
Omuhle • n/a Subject: n/a Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:30:44 • Ncube represents no one in these talks but himslef. He was rejected by the people in the votes for parliament. He will always propose a deal that leaves him with something to show for his 8 years in opposition, even if it means getting into bed with Mugabe. He has been offered a senatorial post. The silly man doesn't realise he could have been speaker of parliament if he had gone with Tsvangirayi. After the president and PM the speaker of parliament is the most influential role, even exclipsing the vice presidency. That should have been his goal from the time he knew Thoko Khupe had trounced him in Makokoba. But the man thinks all is lost and woul rather sleep with the devil, not realising the devil will take his soul while he sleeps.
Time will tell but for a man from Matebeleland to side with Mugabe is a betrayal of the 20 thousand dead people in mine shafts throughout Kezi, Esighodini, Tsholotsho and other parts of the provinces of Matebeleland.
Time will tell.....
Professors Professors? Professors Who? • n/a Subject: Talks Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:29:34 • I used to wholeheartyedly rspect Welshman Ncube when he was a young law lecturer and later professor in the law faculty at UZ. I was one of his students. I also respected him for being a founder member of the MDC where he rose to the position of Secretary General and worked with the late Learnmore Jongwe. As for Arthur Mutambara, I respected him for his scholarly attributes in the sciences and as a vocal student leader at our oldest university.
Zimbabweans, my heart bleeds and I can't help but succumb to utmost despondency as I read the comments attributed to these two gentlemen. For being handed a farm and tractors in the ZANU PF controlled mechanisation program, Ncube has decided to abandon his supporters and Morgan Tsvangirai, in favour of this filthy lucre from the dictator. For being invited to the ZANU PF heroes celebrations (for nobody outside ZANU PF has been interred at that shrine although there are many deserving Zimbabweans who weren't) and showered with praises by the dictator, Mutambara has decided to forget all the murders, intimidation, torture, hunger and other forms of violence that his newly discovered bedfellow has unleashed on the people of Zimbabwe who he purports to represent. Yes, these two elite gentlemen are only interested in their own welfare. Mutambara has been promised a deputy prime minister role whilst Ncube has probably been promised a senior cabinet post in a Mugabe led government. What a shame, they cannot wait to join the gravy train! I am appaled!
Why doesn't Mugabe, SADC or Thabo Mbeki clearly ITEMISE and GUARANTEE those roles assigned to the president(Mugabe) and to the prime minister (Tsvangirai)? Why does Mugabe want it to remain vague? I suspect Mugabe and Mutambara (with Ncube's active support) have a plan to hoodwink Tsvangirai into an agreement with the attendant benefits that flow from that scenario only to ditch him sooner rather than later. That is why Mugabe is insisting on a five year tenure, to give himself time to destroy Tsvangirai and try to win back the people's support. Ncube and Mutambara, you are selling out! One thing is certain, you join Mugabe we will regard you as murderers too. This will be your political grave..
samas • n/a Subject: n/a Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:04:11 • You have no constituency SaMutambara. Shandiswai ne ZPF
Mashudu • rashaid@webmail.co.za Subject: Ncube Wed, 20 Aug 2008 08:18:15 • I hear your point professor. Actually from this interview I have given you an ounce of respect. You talk better than your president Arthur Mutambara.
You see President Tswangirai and MDC-T are negotiating on behalf of the 49% who voted them on March 29.What we the 49% want is a power sharing deal of “transfer of power ” to the candidate with the most votes. Give him more say and power and the candidate with the least votes less say and power. To us the results of March 29 determines who are senior and junior parties during the negotiations and according to what is on the table it looks like ZANU-PF is playing the part of the senior party.
The second thing is that with the track record ZANU-PF you have to have clear and unambiguous checks and balances. What you agree today might be interpreted differently tomorrow. To me you sound too convinced that ZANU-PF will honor each and every word of the agreement as understood by MDC-M .So my advice to you is please think twice before you agree with Mugabe.
Thirdly SADC can not force the negotiating parties to a deal. Remember the Zim problem is slowly but surely dividing SADC , AU or even the UN. To them they want the problem to go away yesterday. After all Mugabe is an old friend and comrade and they can not stand the humiliation that he is going through. This deal has to be good for us Zimbabweans. Let it rather be good for us and bad for everyone else. Also don’t copy cat the Kenya deal because what’s good for Kenya might not necessarily be good for Zimbabwe. Lets go back to the trenches if we have to.” After all NO DEAL IS BETTER THAN A BAD DEAL “ President Tswangirayi.
Chief Negomo (aka Oliver Mtyambizi) • Chiefnegomo@yahoo.com Subject: ?? Wed, 20 Aug 2008 06:20:36 • The problem we are having in Zimbabwe today is the significant prevalence of people like Basildon Peta.People who cant see the reality on the ground.Lets not be simply ardent and fervent followers of an individual.Some quotas of society like Basildon do not realise that,even Mugabe on so many occassions he has offended the constitution of Zimbabwe and such is not acceptable.To bring someone in power on the sidelines of such actions is tantamount to despotism and autocratism to say the least.The Zimbabwe consitution is clear and dont forget that all the parties to this are very much aware of this.In as much as we want Mugabe off the equation,Constitutionaly Morgan lost the plot on behalf of many masses of zim.Lets forget about that now and focus on what is on the table.Not many times did i as an individual respected Biti,but events leading to where we are,Biti has shown his depth of understanding and political maturity.Biti as a lawyer is even far much better than Morgan in understanding the purpoted contract of convenience between MDC-T,MDC-M and ZANUPF.Morgan seems to be disrespecting his own lieutenants in pursuit of the likes of Mcgee's ideas.Fellow Zimbabweans to be American,British or Australian is not a passport to be classfied as intelligent.An transfer of power in zimbabwe consitution is by a democratic means,which is the right of zimbabweans.Forget about most of these unfounded arguments about the results of elections,the results of elections is what we have at hand that noone won absolute majority as required by the constitution.Many have made mistakes in assuming MDC won the Majority.Which MDC?Please in making such judgements cast your eyes wider and not forget the upper house of parliament.To move forward Zimbabwe political parties need to engage one onother and share the power leading to the fresh elections.Drop the Bassildon Peta ideologies and adopt the fair minded brains
hugo • hugok@gmail.com Subject: n/a Wed, 20 Aug 2008 05:48:28 • This Ncube guy doesnt get it. Does he? After 28 years of mismanagement, murder and corruption the people of Zimbabwe were unequivocal in their denial of Mugabe and yet this man says progress is having Mugabe stirring the ship.
If in your opinion Tsvangirayi is being unreasonable why dont you form a GNU with Mugabe and move on.
Its not just Tsvangirayi saying no to the statusquo, but 57% of Zimbabweans said enough is enough.
SUBMITYOUROPINION
Please make sure you fill in all sections for your post to be submitted. Use n/a if not submitting details. The submission code below is case-sensitive. Also make sure you get confirmation that your comment has been submitted.
