Dear Editor,
In his interview on BBC Radio 4 on June 22, Zimbabwean Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai made several erroneous statements. Firstly, he rejected Sekai Holland’s claim that violence still exists in Zimbabwe and referred to it as “paranoia fear.” The possibility of violence returning is high, since the people responsible for the torture, abductions and killings are still at large. His casual response giving a perception of Zimbabwe as different from “those other troubled nations of Africa” is a slap in the face of many who have suffered losses of dear ones. He seems to have a short memory.
He has been a recipient of this violence, when the police clubbed him. He might want ‘unity’ but to utterly deny the reality of violence is to bury one’s head in the sand. Why has he suddenly become Mugabe’s Defender-in-Chief?
Secondly, he was on a ‘begging-bowl’ trip when he invited the Zimbabwean diaspora to “come home, we need you, things have improved.” They jeered at him, and they were right to do so. What improvement would the people find in present-day Zimbabwe? Public servants are surviving on a ridiculous allowance, and the members of the diaspora live with the trauma of personal sad stories because of the disintegration of families. Many of them left the country unceremoniously and are now doing all sorts of awkward jobs to fend for families back home. Many of them are discriminated against, and it is terrible arrogance to issue such an invitation without first acknowledging the immense suffering these people have undergone emotionally and physically.
A plea to the host nations to regularize the Zimbabweans who have been working in these countries for the past five or so years would have been a welcome gesture. He could too have courteously acknowledged the host countries which have provided shelter, employment, security, peace, health, education and so forth, to them and their families. This is hospitality they could not enjoy at home.
The diaspora has supported families through remittances and kept the country afloat with foreign currency, which is traded illegally. The economy survived partly because of ‘Roadport’ in Harare and ‘World Bank’ in Bulawayo and other places. It would have been better to encourage these men and women to stay put until they felt it was safe, both politically and economically, to return home They have supported families and friends, so it would have been intelligent of the Prime Minister to encourage them to continue doing so. Low or no import duty could have been offered as incentives for varying investment portfolios. Investment leads to employment creation and production would increase. That is what is needed, rather than merely ‘coming home.’
Thirdly, Mr Tsvangirai refuted the “allegations” about the seven missing MDC activists (abductees) and equated them to the thousands who “ran away” (from whom?) to Botswana and South Africa. He showed no remorse, and did not even make an attempt to assure people that an investigation into these seven disappearances and many other such cases would be set in motion.
I still wonder how he could afford to trivialize the case of these activists whose fate only Mugabe and his thugs know. Has power driven him to stoop so low?
The last and most scandalous thing was his reference to “people want[ing] the overthrow of Mugabe.” He said: “…if they wanted that then they should have embarked on a revolution” Mr Tsvangirai sounds as if he has alienated himself from the people. He speaks of them and us, thereby making the people ‘other.’ Is this an evolution of Mugabe’s policies – the same policies in a different package?
I am troubled by the sudden change in the Prime Minister’s tone. The inclusive government is and was a compromise, but if it alienates him from his constituency, then he needs to call a halt and consult. A simple reflection on a question like, ‘Whose interests does this temporary government serve primarily?’ would help formulate his conscience. He is the people’s representative and is required to speak their language.
People accepted the ‘inclusive’ government with an expectation of equality and some leverage, but that seems not to be the case, and the Prime Minister appears to be singing Mugabe’s tune.
Nonetheless, I congratulate Mr Tsvangirai on the results of the recent tour of Europe and America; the bowl, although not full, was not empty when he landed in Harare. Despite these considerations, I deeply believe the ‘inclusive’ government is a short-term project meant to sanitize Zimbabwe. However, I believe in optimism; Zimbabwe can be revived, so the audacity of hope shines on.
Yours faithfully,
Clyde B Chakupeta
