allAfrica.com: Zimbabwe: Sanctions Have Nothing to Do With People's Will (Page 1 of 1)

ONE of the most unfortunate aspects of the Zimbabwean situation is that the authorities have taken to believing their own virulent propaganda. The tragedy is that, on the basis of this self-delusion, they then embark on ruinous actions and policies under which the heaviest price is exacted from the ordinary man and woman.

One of the most deceitful pieces of propaganda pertains to the targeted sanctions imposed on top government officials and the ruling elite by the United States, Britain, the European Union and their allies. The biggest falsehood peddled by the establishment is that these measures, which impose travel and other restrictions on the targeted individuals, represent a total trade embargo such as the one imposed after the Ian Smith regime declared independence unilaterally in the 1960s. Zimbabwean officials resort to making this false claim in the hope that by citing sanctions, they can dupe the populace and the world at large into exonerating them for the economic collapse and anarchic conditions and other crises sparked by their mismanagement, greed, corruption and brutal governance.

It has come as no surprise therefore that the political party that has governed the country since independence in 1980, in its irrational refusal to accept the will of the people as expressed in the March 29 polls, is now bringing sanctions into the equation. The state press reported on Monday that in response to calls for international observers to be invited to observe the presidential run-off, the government is insisting that these will only be welcome if targeted sanctions are lifted.

Out-going Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Patrick Chinamasa who now heads a ZANU PF media sub-committee was quoted as saying:

"We will not allow them (Western countries) because they are 'players'. We will think favourably of them if they lift sanctions. Until they do that, there is no basis to have any relationship with them." Chinamasa also attacked Zambian president Levy Mwanawasa for failing to urge the United States and Britain to lift the targeted travel bans and other restrictions imposed on the ruling elite. Chinamasa claimed, incredibly, that the electoral playing field was heavily tilted against ZANU-PF because international media such as the BBC, Sky News, CNN and what he described as pirate radio stations, reported in favour of Morgan Tsvangirai's formation of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC-T).

Chinamasa's outbursts give a clear idea of how wide the chasm is between ZANU-PF's conception of elections and the understanding Zimbabweans and the rest of the world have of the same process. This is that what counts when an election is held is respect for the expressed will of the people, which, ZANU-PF has refused to do. Chinamasa has not bothered to tell the world how the BBC, Sky News, CNN and other international media organisations can be a factor in local elections in which only Zimbabweans vote. He has not explained whether these media organisations, which in any case have so far been banned from reporting from Zimbabwe under the draconian Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA), are registered to vote in any constituencies in Zimbabwe. If they are not, how can their activities have any impact when ballots cast by Zimbabweans are tallied?

It is telling that Chinamasa's tirade and fulminations against Western countries are in response to opposition calls for conducive conditions to ensure that Zimbabweans can vote in the presidential run-off in a free and safe environment. The opposition has called for the presence of international observers among other things to ensure that voters are protected against the brutal violence they are currently being subjected to as punishment for voting against ZANU-PF on March 29.

Chinamasa's harangue against imaginary enemies at the press conference at which he made the allegations referred to above confirms once more that the only thing that matters to ZANU-PF is winning at any and all costs. All they are concerned about is for life to continue to be effortlessly opulent for ZANU-PF bigwigs at the expense of the rest of the people, hence, according to Chinamasa, a loser on March 29, the safety and security of the Zimbabwean electorate must be bartered for the lifting of targeted sanctions. Western countries should agree to lift the targeted sanctions which have deprived the ruling elites of the freedom to undertake endless junkets to European capitals and hey presto, those countries are back in favour with Zimbabwean authorities! What lofty revolutionary principle is being applied here?

Chinamasa's whining about sanctions shows that the conditions ZANU-PF is setting for the involvement of international observers in the run-off are not underpinned by any considerations other than self-interests and self-preservation. The out-going ruling party is, in a sense, saying to the West, if you do not lift the targeted sanctions to make things nice and cozy for the politically powerful and well connected, we will not lift the jackboot under which innocent villagers are being brutally crushed for voting for candidates of their choice in March.

Chinamasa's angry outbursts are in a way an admission that his party is responsible for the retributive violence ravaging the countryside despite ill-founded attempts by him and the police to deny the brutal realities on the ground. Lately the police have resorted to refuting reports of opposition supporters being killed by claiming that the victims had died of AIDS or HIV-related illnesses and have quoted postmortem reports to buttress their claims. How very convenient. The only problem is that there is nothing to stop the country's notoriously trigger-happy law enforcement agents and ZANU PF militias on the rampage in the countryside from battering terminally ill people and then advertising the victims' postmortem reports to exonerate themselves. It is almost as though the death of a person from AIDS is something everyone should be thrilled about and so what's all the fuss about?

And when is violence not violence? One has to ask the question following a shameful attempt by officialdom to sweep a politically motivated atrocity in Masvingo under the carpet by claiming that the victim was not an MDC supporter but a ZANU-PF cadre killed by other members of the party following a misunderstanding. This is a self-indicting utterance that implies it is acceptable within ZANU-PF to resolve disputes by killing opponents. If ZANU-PF supporters can routinely resolve conflict this way, is it any wonder that retributive violence erupted nationwide after the party lost on March 29? This country needs a government that cultivates an ethos of respect for the sanctity of life not its expandability for selfish political ends.

Chinamasa can shout all he wants but the fact remains that the safety and security of voters must be guaranteed in the build-up to and aftermath of elections. The opposition is insisting on these safeguards for the benefit of the electorate. ZANU PF is resisting them for self-preservation and still points fingers of accusation at scapegoats for its rejection by voters. The bottom line, however, is that Chinamasa's insensitive fighting talk is the most eloquent argument for the opposition and civic organizations to leave no stone unturned in calling for the protection of voters from state violence.

web allafrica.com	Enter your search terms	Submit search form
OR subscribers use AllAfrica's premium search engine


Use our pull-down menus to find more stories

Today's Most Active Stories