When Zimbabwe’s political temperature rises, women and children are the most vulnerable, writes Grace Kwinjeh.

While exploring Rwanda’s alternative experience of women’s emancipation, Grace Kwinjeh outlines the potential conflict between nationalism and social liberation within many post-colonial African nations. Though post-colonial nationalisms have often amounted to the reinforcing of patriarchal systems of governance and the subordination of women, in Rwanda, the author argues, women’s experience of political representation in a post-genocide society has been more complicated, an experience essentially revealing the role of political systems in determining the levels of freedom and democracy that countries’ citizens enjoy.

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/382/48924zimviolence.jpgRather than deflect and defeat the likelihood of political violence, the construct of a Government of National Unity would formally integrate it into the lifeblood of the Zimbabwean democratic dispensation. For South Africans, this situation recalls the kind of power sharing arrangements that former South African President F W De Klerk had in mind at the start of the 1990s negotiation process, where the share of actual voter support would not determine power arrangements. This proposal was not acceptable in the new South Africa then, and it is not acceptable in the new Zimbabwe now, writes Grace Kwinjeh examining the upcoming Zimbabwe presidential elections rerun.
===

In March 2008 Zimbabweans voted in the most peaceful election since independence, resulting in an unambiguous victory for the opposition Movement for Democratic Change led by Morgan Tsvangirai. Three months later, the country is hemorrhaging from a massive and rising tide of political violence not seen since the state sponsored terror of the early 1980s. The ruling party and its supporters are responsible for the vast majority of the current attacks [1]. As if to underscore his party’s public embrace of violence, President Mugabe now openly threatens to “wage war” beyond the June 27 Presidential run-off election, if his candidacy should be rejected by the people for a second time. Meanwhile the MDC government-elect, MDC party structures and much of the party’s leadership have been forced into hiding as they seek to convince voters of their right to select – and see installed in place – a president of their choice.

For SADC, the Zimbabwe conflagration has become the most comprehensive diplomatic failure in the region since the resumption of the Angolan war in the 1990s. But unlike Angola, the Zimbabwe crisis is one for which SADC, President Mbeki and the international community bear a central contributing responsibility. By pushing for secretly brokered power-sharing arrangements leading to a “government of national unity” (GNU), the international intervention in Zimbabwe has relegated hopes for a new democratic dispensation built on the foundations of the expressed popular will of Zimbabweans. By refusing to actively acknowledge the MDC’s electoral victory and insist on its recognition and acceptance by ZANU PF, regional leaders and the international community effectively ignored and silenced the democratic voice of the people. As a consequence, the MDC’s hard-won legitimate authority has been erased, and the way has been opened for ZANU PF to recover by the bullet the authority it had lost at the ballot box.

This violent outcome of a proposed GNU strategy should not have been unexpected. ZANU PF’s violent riposte is reminiscent of the period immediately prior to Independence around the Lancaster House Conference, and even more so of the party’s violent campaign before the 1987 “Unity Accord” with the ZAPU opposition: indeed, it is a tried and tested tactic of ZANU PF to threaten and deploy intense violence as a strategic bargaining tool. Since independence the party has singularly distinguished itself among Zimbabwean political parties by demonstrating a capacity for – and indeed claiming the right to wage – mass violence in defense of its “national” interests. No longer heading the majority party, Robert Mugabe now cynically portrays violence as a means for defending the people from their mistaken choice.

This deeply cynical pathology is echoed more subtly in the GNU concept. Despite a clear rejection of ZANU PF under electoral conditions heavily tilted in that party’s favour, unity talks have been promoted as a means of bringing the former ruling party back into the centre of decision-making. Even though neither voters nor the MDC demanded this arrangement in March, the new government in waiting has come under enormous pressure to fall in line accordingly. Its leaders have repeatedly said that such an arrangement would deny the popular voice and reward anti-democratic, flagrantly illegal and often murderous behaviour – while only deferring, and certainly not solving, the problem of organising the transition to a new political order. It is indeed difficult to understand why those who previously promoted engagement with ZANU PF as a means of strengthening a deeply flawed electoral process, should now effectively reject that improved process and insist on power sharing terms with the author of electoral fraud and intimidation.

In contrast, it is clear that the promotion of a GNU is integral to the facilitation of an elite transfer of power which would vitiate the popular will of the electorate. This is why the idea of a GNU has been explicitly rejected by the leading membership-based civil society organisations in Zimbabwe, from the trade unions to human rights networks. These groups challenge the credibility and viability of a compromise that according to its proponents, would bring about some sort of “normalisation” of the political space without addressing the growing democratic deficit in Zimbabwe. For the Zimbabwean democratic movement, political normalisation requires before all else, recognition and acceptance of the expressed will of dominant social interests – not its circumvention through brokered elite ‘pacting’ carried out under the threat of violence.

In Zimbabwe, there is abiding consternation over why ZANU PF and its militia were given the opportunity by SADC and the international community to ignore the electoral results in the first place. What would have happened if the election results – deemed legitimate by observers – had been recognised and enforced? And what would happen if a similarly free and fair process were enforced in the current second round, by insisting on the disarming of ZANU PF and its militia, and the confinement of the security forces to base? Have those mediating and promoting mediation raised these issues – the clearest and most profound obstacles to democratic practice in Zimbabwe in the current moment?

It is widely acknowledged that demilitarisation is a central precondition needed to advance a democratic outcome and ensure its consolidation in the medium term. Yet, the perpetration of violence has been treated as a negotiable right – not as an act which invalidates claims to the process of a democratic transition. Remarkably, it took 10 weeks of deteriorating conditions for SADC’s official mediator Thabo Mbeki to publicly raise his concerns about the spiralling violence. But even then he avoided commentary on responsibility, despite ample documented evidence heavily implicating ZANU PF and state security forces in commanding the terror. His spokesperson claims he is precluded from doing so by virtue of his position as mediator. However this is a hollow rationale in the face of open and mounting ZANU PF belligerence.

For ZANU PF, with few political repercussions arising from the deployment of its violent supporters, there seems little incentive for abandoning this approach– and perhaps much to be gained from pursuing it. Robert Mugabe’s public declaration earlier this week that his party would go to war in the event of his defeat in the second round of voting was met with paralysing silence by Thabo Mbeki. The deployment of weapons and violence may be logistically difficult to confront: the deployment of words and threats is not.

THE ELECTION FIX: BACK TO THE FUTURE

By focusing on the GNU, rather than the actual election results, the SADC mediation has effectively allowed ZANU PF to return to the brokerage scenario it had anticipated in the post election period. This scenario, broadly shared by ZANU PF reformers, SA, some EU governments and others before the election, was premised on the belief that the MDC-Tsvangirai party’s support would be diminished by support for MDC-Mutambara and for Simba Makoni, the former Finance Minister and ZANU PF reformer who was a candidate for President. A split opposition vote would enable victory in the Presidential election and at least a plurality in Parliament. Moreover, the dispersion of opposition representation across three groupings would present options for developing a ‘Kenyan-style’ negotiation that could lead to a ZANU PF dominated GNU. Makoni – the “modernising” reform face of ZANU PF - could be parachuted in under Mugabe, to soon replace him as the consensus politician. And ZANU PF could argue that, if this kind of arrangement was acceptable for Kenya, why not in Zimbabwe? There was a lot of this kind of talk amongst MDC-M and Makoni supporters in advance of the election.

For ZANU PF this scenario both enabled the departure of Mugabe, a political liability whose presence would continue to block the party’s return to legitimacy and the resumption of desperately needed, stabilizing financial assistance for the world’s fastest-collapsing economy; and the retention and renewed consolidation of power by the ruling party. Confident of a mediated victory and needing a “legitimate” result to back its claims to rehabilitation, ZANU PF significantly loosened control over the electoral process in the first round of voting in March.

As it turned out, the party’s electoral assumptions were wildly naïve. At the election support for the MDC-M collapsed – and notably for its leadership, which was roundly defeated. Makoni was overwhelmingly rejected by voters, gaining perhaps just 10 percent of the vote. At the same time, ZANU PF’s traditional voters deserted the party by voting for the opposition or by boycotting the poll, as they had done in the benchmark defeat of the party in the 2000 Constitutional Referendum. In contrast, the MDC Tsvangirai party surged across the country, including in former rural strongholds of ZANU PF that for the first time ever had been rendered easily accessible to opposition campaigners – and to opposition polling agents and officials. This combination of factors meant there were too few votes to rig with, and that the conditions allowing the playing off of opposition forces within a prospective GNU did not materialize [2].

The shock of the election result and the resulting conundrum for the ruling party were quite literally written on its face. The headline of The Sunday Mail, the most slavishly loyal of the state-controlled newspapers, screamed the day after the election, “Anxiety Grips Zim.” Many other state media, including the country’s only radio and television broadcaster, ZBC, effectively fell silent, bewildered. No party leader of note addressed the nation for several days.

It was apparent that ZANU PF was reassessing its game plan. Over the next month it developed and then rolled this plan out, as SADC first patiently accommodated repeated inexplicable delays in the processing and announcement of results by ZEC, and then sat motionless as ZESN, the key civic election monitoring network, and MDC itself were raided by state officials in search of independently collected polling data that could be used to disprove manipulated official figures. Even after the long delay, only limited details of the presidential poll were eventually released [3].

Meanwhile, reports surfaced of remobilised war veterans and youth militias, and of the first violent penetrations by state security forces of “turncoat” former ruling party strongholds. ZANU PF aimed to create conditions that would make the run-off so difficult and dreaded that prospects of averting violence through some form of GNU and power sharing arrangement would be welcomed: a replay of the ZANU-ZAPU Unity Pact of 1987. ZANU PF’s transparently obvious “spin” on the violence –which has often been taken up by SADC leaders, and swallowed whole by much of the regional media as well – has been doubly damaging for Zimbabwean democrats. One the one hand, substantial evidence that the violence is disproportionately organised against the MDC has drawn muted criticism from SA, SADC and the GNU advocates like Makoni; on the other, the small amount of retaliatory violence attributed to the MDC is deemed to suggest a “crisis” and raise possibilities of “civil war” – reinforcing the need to avoid a run-off and the urgency for a negotiated solution [4].

African leaders have thus far studiously avoided apportioning responsibility for violence, in most instances couching reactions in terms of cautioning both sides and invoking dialogue. Widespread violations of SADC’s election ‘norms and standards’ have failed to elicit coherent responses from them. Neither has SADC cautioned or castigated the ZANU PF government for failing to ensure its constitutional responsibility for safety and security, despite overwhelming empirical evidence that the primary perpetrator is ZANU PF and its proxies.

Rather than address the issue of destabilizing violence and impose political censure for its deployment in this period of uncertainty, the SA government, SADC, some EU diplomats and the Makoni grouping actively talked up the need for a GNU – ostensibly as way to avert the threat of violence coming from ZANU PF. Indeed, independent and MDC reports demonstrated that increasing numbers from the MDC’s ranks were being beaten, tortured, abducted and murdered, the rationale for a GNU – and a political counter-attack to the wave of violence – was publicly reinforced by SA and SADC.

While mediation does not preclude processes of accountability, this approach appears to have been absent from the Mbeki initiative. As a result the SADC intervention has directly facilitated ZANU PF’s unfolding strategy for manipulating the conditions and issues that would have to be negotiated. SADC’s tentative response to the March vote allowed space and time for ZANU PF to regroup and ramp up the violence and threats of more of the same – both fuelling a defensive “demand for GNU”, and reasserting ZANU PF’s leading place in the setting of terms for any negotiations. The latter now focus on ending violence and averting civil war, rather than implementing the results of the peaceful election or ensuring that the next round of elections are conducted in a free and fair atmosphere – something that it appears can no longer be ensured.

THE GNU PROBLEM

If the GNU is primarily being proposed as a means to avoid a violent tragedy, rather than as a basis for a establishing a new inclusive democratic politics, skeptics are right to question the idea’s aims, objectives and predictable outcomes. Just as importantly, we need to pose a question for those advocating a non-democratic negotiated resolution to Zimbabwe’s election crisis: by what principle can the rights of the popular democratic will as expressed by voters be equated with, or rendered secondary to, the rights of discredited elites and perpetrators of violence? For this is precisely what the idea of a GNU proposes, in the name of an elusive, highly unstable and temporary peace.

Even if the MDC were able to extract considerable concessions from ZANU PF, it is highly unlikely that Robert Mugabe’s party would cede its effective control over its levers in the bureaucracy and particularly, in the security forces. Why would it: these are the instruments of war and obstruction that have enabled ZANU PF to climb out of the hole of electoral defeat on more than one occasion, to protect its networks of power. To suggest that these determinants of power would be given up willingly is to accept the notion that ZANU PF would be willing to abdicate. The last two months have exposed this view as profoundly delusional. Those who have put stock in the GNU have failed to assess their model of peace-making in light of ZANU PF’s strategic understanding that violence is a political asset and an effective substitute for popular legitimacy, which will not be negotiated away.

Rather than deflect and defeat the likelihood of political violence, the construct of a GNU would formally integrate it into the lifeblood of the Zimbabwean democratic dispensation. This is a remarkable solution to put before a political party that has just won an election based on its abiding commitment to non-violent democratic participation – and to the voting majority who supported it. For South Africans, this situation recalls the kind of power sharing arrangements that former South African President F W De Klerk had in mind at the start of the 1990s negotiation process, where the share of actual voter support would not determine power arrangements [5]. This proposal was not acceptable in the new South Africa then, and it is not acceptable in the new Zimbabwe now.
to the March election has facilitated a strong and violent response by ZANU PF.

For the time being, it seems increasingly likely that the GNU route will be not followed. This is not due to any lack of effort by the likes of Mbeki and many in SADC, or the distasteful posturing of the rejected Makoni, who cites rising violence as the need for inclusive negotiations without naming and condemning those – his erstwhile colleagues – who have created the unstable terrain on which he hopes to re-launch his ambitions. Rather, both the MDC and its supporters are wary of legitimizing the political role of those holding the gun to their heads and the torch to their homes. War is not something to be prevented: it is here already. And the only non-violent way to confront and defeat it is the ballot box, even if that option too is flawed.

If the current pressures for a GNU do indeed fail, all is not lost for ZANU PF: Makoni or another ZANU PF senior reformer could return to the forefront if Mugabe were to win the run-off, further destabilize the MDC and civil society, and then retire on his own terms – handing over power to a reformer to negotiate a new GNU from a position of regained legitimacy and strength. But this first requires another successfully manipulated election result, and a frontal assault on MDC and civil society resistance. The arrest on treason charges this past week of MDC Secretary General Tendai Biti does not bode well; neither does the relative weakness of the SADC response to this latest development. And is there any reason to think that additional ZANU PF manipulations during and after the second round of voting will not take place, given the success of such interventions in the first?

ACCEPTING RESPONSIBILITY, ACTING RESPONSIBLY

The options chosen by SADC and the international community for dealing with the March 2008 election have directly contributed to the options chosen by ZANU PF. It was a choice not to recognise the MDC victory and to allow the illegal charade over the recount to occur [6]. It is enough here to point out that the MDC won the Parliamentary elections, that Morgan Tsvangirai won the Presidential election, that nearly 3 million Zimbabweans did not vote, and consequently it is very clear that Robert Mugabe and ZANU PF do not enjoy the support of the vast majority of the population.

This set of circumstances allowed for an alternative political response; a recognition of and call for an MDC government to be accepted by ZANU PF. However, the failure to support this option has contributed directly to the current confusion between promoting conditions for a free and fair re-run and negotiations for a GNU. Despite a widespread acceptance that conditions cannot be free and fair for the June 27 poll, and calls for a GNU, the MDC is sticking to the electoral path and holding out prospects for an inclusive government of national healing in which it would play a lead role after the elections. This position, openly supported by SADC, will promote an elitist management of transitional arrangements under the auspices of a power sharing arrangement that will effectively insulate and protect those responsible for perpetrating violence and gross human rights abuses –as happened with previous election amnesties for party violence, and most seriously with the Unity Accord in 1987.

As regards the re-run, although it is no longer possible to create the conditions for a free and fair poll, with less than 10 days before the poll, there could and should be certain steps taken to remedy the most egregious violations and potential for destabilisation. This should include: deploying adequate numbers of election monitors, especially in areas where violence and intimidation has been reported, and playing a more active role in monitoring the activities and decision-making processes of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission; promoting an agenda of disarming ZANU PF and its militia/war veteran proxies hands; censuring the role of the security forces, censuring hate speech and talk of war by any political parties; commenting on access of candidates to state media; question and establishing a strategy with rewards and penalties for compliance/non-compliance with SADC election guidelines.

Thabo Mbeki did state ahead of the 2005 elections that there would be consequences if the SADC Principles and Guidelines were seriously violated, but this was said against the background of woefully inadequate provisions for monitoring on the ground [7]. Meanwhile, in June 2008, the corpses of MDC officials and suspected opposition supporters are accumulating, thousands have been displaced by the political violence, likely thousands more beaten and brutalised, hate speech fills the airwaves, and a discredited President threatens the majority with war – and still, there is no sign of serious electoral censure in the air.

It is time for fresh thinking and fresh action. In advance of the second round of presidential voting, problems need to be anticipated and prevented before they arise. Several critical questions emerge:

What would have happened if SA, SADC and the international community rejected the delays by ZEC and ZANU PF, demanded the transparent compilation and immediate release of results - and ensured that all parties abided by them?

What would have happened if all civil society organisations and democratic parties and politicians had stood firmly behind the MDC government-elect, rather than soliciting for all-inclusive extra-electoral GNU? If more support for the winning party MDC had been expressed, what options then would have remained for elite transitions?

Who, then, really enabled ZANU PF’s violent election strategy sending the defeated party, its leaders and violent supporters inside and outside the state all of the wrong signals in the immediate post-election period?

And consequently, whose responsibility is it now to end the violence by terminating discussions about an all-inclusive GNU, and insisting on a government of transition and renewal headed unambiguously by the party elected by the people: the MDC Tsvangirai.

* Grace Kwinjeh is an NEC member of the MDC and the Chairperson of the Global Zimbabwe Forum.

* Please send comments to or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org/

* For further notes, see below

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/372/48212zimbabwe-police.jpgAr… that Mugabe has been "talking left" while "walking right" Grace Kwinjeh analyses Zimbabwe through regional, African and global capitalism.

The post election crisis in Zimbabwe and the SADC region is a manifestation of much deeper, complex issues to do with global capitalism and its vampire-like tendencies.

At the root of the problems is the failure of our nationalist governments to deal with these dimensions of the global crisis: food shortages and price hikes; oil speculation; financial meltdowns and higher interest rates. These manifest themselves as rising inequality and unemployment and competition between very poor people in places like Alexandra, Tembisa, Diepkloof and the Johannesburg inner city for scarce resources.

It is only by addressing these issues that we can meet the aspirations of the masses for freedom and decent lives.

Forces both local and global may seem to be worlds apart in the definition and context of the Zimbabwean struggle but we African citizens are all in an awkward position.

GLOBAL CAPITALISM

While we are fighting the Robert Mugabe dictatorship, we Zimbabweans have not been spared from the negative impact of global capitalism on our livelihoods especially in poor communities - as we are currently witnessing, in the current xenophobic attacks against us in South Africa.

The xenophobia exposes not only working-class people's fears of lower wages, higher crime and new cultural influences, as is the explanation at first blush. In addition, we can see in the attacks on non-nationals the duplicitous role our national elites play in pushing us further to the mercy of capitalist forces while they label us in the opposition – puppets of the West.

The attacks are being condemned by progressive forces in SA, including COSATU Secretary General, Zwelinzima Vavi, who said: "I want to send out this message: It is not the Zimbabweans (exiles) that cause the problems (of the poor)".

He cited the capitalist system as the problem and argued that South Africa should focus on building an economic system that could: "seriously eradicate poverty".

The same position reiterated by the Anti-Privatisation Forum:"Let us not forget that it is South African corporate capital – through the framework of NEPAD – that has, over the last decade, moved into other African countries, most often causing many local, smaller businesses to close down and thus contributing to a situation in which many poor people have lost their jobs."

THREE MILLION EXILES

There are over three million of us eking out a living outside Zimbabwe's borders, a result of the failure of our national leaders to deliver both politically and economically for us at home. The situation gets more ridiculous when looked at within the context of the aspirations spelt out in the reformed African Union, in the New Partnership for Africa's Development, and its dream of an African Renaissance.

These programmes are again full of empty rhetoric framed, more to attract international donor funds and less to deliver dignity to African citizens, negating our 'ubuntuness', which espouses values to do with compassion, value for human life, respect for each other and harmonious existence.

Even as Frantz Fanon prophesied back then on the dilemma of African Unity in post–colonial Africa: "Now the nationalist bourgeois, who in region after region hasten to make their own fortunes and to set up a national system of exploitation, do their utmost to put obstacles in the path of this 'Utopia'. The national bourgeoisies, who are quite clear as to what their objectives are, have decided to bar the way to that unity, to that coordinated effort on the part of two hundred and fifty million men to triumph over stupidity, hunger and inhumanity at one and the same time."

Fanon’s insight helps us understand the failures of Mugabe and his allies beyond their “leftist” rhetoric. They are forever trapped in the awkward “talk left – walk right” jive as they remain arguably the best custodians of capitalist/imperialist forces, in our countries.

Mugabe flirted with the US military for many years, and until 1998 was considered amongst the highest-performing of World Bank and International Monetary Fund puppets, earning a "highly satisfactory" rating from the Bretton Woods Institutions in 1995. Did he not use $205 million in hard currency in 2006 to repay the IMF for failed loans?

In Zimbabwe today those suffering under the yoke of Mugabe's oppression are us black citizens. We are the homeless, the jobless, the battered and the bruised.

MAJORITY NOT RESPECTED

We are in the majority of those whose vote is not respected, in a negation of that very national liberation struggle aspirations of 'one man one vote.'

At the moment, Zimbabweans are just as good as people who did not go out to vote. We remain at the mercy of the dictatorship, as Mugabe is determined at each turn to reverse our hard-earned victories.

The elections did not deliver change. Instead, the moment of triumph against Mugabe and his cohort soon turned into a nightmare. The opposition won against one of the most entrenched liberation movements on the African continent. We romped to victory with a narrow parliamentary majority, equal seats as Zanu PF in the Senate and a majority votes in the Presidential election count. It was a great achievement given the odds placed against any possible opposition electoral victory.

DEVASTATING RETRIBUTION

“One group grabbed a 79-year-old widow, yanked up her skirt, then lashed her bare buttocks with barbed-wire whips as two dozen terrified relatives looked on. The woman, Martha Mucheto, said she cried in pain and shame. ‘If none of you confesses, we will hit this granny until she's dead,’ Mucheto, a great-grandmother and former nurse's aide, recalled hearing. She spoke from a hospital bed in Harare.”

The story of Mugabe's retribution against innocent civilians gets more devastating each day – from abductions, torture to cold blooded gruesome murders.

Old grannies such as gogo Mucheto are not spared in this brutality. Young men are killed in cold blood. The latest case is of Better Chokururama who was shot once and stabbed four times around the chest area by Mugabe's thugs. Chokururama was buried on 17 May 2008, one of at least two dozen MDC members killed for their beliefs in recent weeks, and one of several hundred since 2000.

Most affected are the already-struggling and impoverished rural folks. Scores are being displaced our national leaders to deliver both politically and economically for us at home. The situation gets more ridiculous when looked at within the context of the aspirations spelt out in the reformed African Union, in the New Partnership for Africa's Development, and its dream of an African Renaissance.

MAJORITY NOT RESPECTED

We are in the majority of those whose vote is not respected, in a negation of that very national liberation struggle aspirations of 'one man one vote.'

At the moment, Zimbabweans are just as good as people who did not go out to vote. We remain at the mercy of the dictatorship, as Mugabe is determined at each turn to reverse our hard-earned victories.

The elections did not deliver change. Instead, the moment of triumph against Mugabe and his cohort soon turned into a nightmare. The opposition won in their own areas while others find their way to towns, many being victims of torture.

Zanu PF, the liberation movement that defeated the colonialists in a protracted struggle, somehow concluded that they should hold state power in perpetuity. The era of democratization has not yet arrived. The elites in Zimbabwe, like their despotic friends elsewhere in the world, disdain the notion that elections are the process through which people elect leaders of their choice.

Elections remain a privilege that is denied to the masses. As Zimbabwe prepares for a run-off on the 27th of June, we expect once again to be fed nauseating fascist propaganda on good citizenry and patriotism. Mugabe has declared war against the people of the world.

We have an obligation to organize ourselves and fight back. As Fanon advised: "…we must understand that African Unity can only be achieved through the upward thrust of the people, and under the leadership of the people, and that is to say, in defiance of the interests of the bourgeoisie."

The marches on 17 May 2008, led by COSATU, helped to strengthen people-to-people solidarity. The way our SATAWU comrades exposed and fought against the 'ship of shame' and stopped it from offloading its cargo of arms in Durban, is a show of solidarity that the people of Zimbabwe will forever remember.

Zimbabwe does not need arms. We are not at war. We want decent jobs, homes, schools and food.

*Grace Kwinjeh is an NEC member of the MDC and the Chairperson of the Global Zimbabwe Forum.

**Please send comments to or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org/

I was just sent a copy of this statement by the Feminist Political Education Project [http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/comment/47404] and must admit to being more than a little bewildered and shocked by what is suggested in light of recent events in Zimbabwe, by sisters whom I know very well – who are part of the Feminist Political Education Project.

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/363/47439women.jpgSisters dare I say, I have worked with you over the years – some of you have mentored me to be the woman I am. I hope that in the interest of fostering a robust debate amongst ourselves as sisters, feminists, comrades in the struggle you will read and understand my response to the positions you have put forward, with a view to promoting holistic transformative politics in our country, not a duplication or reconstruction of the status quo under a different order, in which as women especially are forever held at ransom by elitist, patriarchal notions of what constitutes our liberation.

I hold no brief for Morgan Tsvangirai, neither can I even be classified as some-one who belongs to his 'inner' circle. I respond to fellow sisters on matters of principle as a comrade with a track record and history in the struggle for Zimbabwe's liberation, firstly and as a Feminist who has stood up against male 'bigotry', within the MDC and the broader democratic movement.

Based on these 'credentials' I have no fears or guilt in taking on fellow sisters on -especially when they advance or propagate reactionary views as a way to resolving a crisis that has left us not only scarred but deeply traumatised. What they suggest is a preservation of the status quo! Particularly if those views are then misconstrued as representing the broader Feminist movement in Zimbabwe – I beg to differ.

I will not at this stage go into an intellectual or theoretical discussion on Feminism and its various components and articulations, especially in our Zimbabwean case – that is a subject those of us who claim to be Feminists have to debate at some stage. Of concern for me at the moment is the 'Position Paper.' And wonder whose 'Position', we are debating here while asserting that this 'Position' has nothing to do with us women.

Indeed, it appears from the views put forward to be an implicit acceptance that the democratic will of the people is not paramount, and infers that a group of men (as this is who makes up the political 'leadership') are going to sit around a table and work together in a Transitional Authority for the common good of all Zimbabweans - and this promoted by a group of self-proclaimed feminists, nogal!

How many of our female comrades in the labour, student, constitutional movements or even the church were consulted before such a paper was presented to the world? Do the opinions of these women matter? Or by virtue of belonging to the lower classes in our society they remain excluded and marginalised even in discourse by senior Feminists who purport to be pushing their cause? Not taking into account the fact that the bulk of these women are at the front-line of our struggle as they take Mugabe on daily- they pay with their lives, their homes and their loved ones. The continued refusal by my sisters to acknowledge the existence of these women as leaders in their own right is a cause for concern.

I have argued elsewhere in the MDC Teresa Makone debacle that as women we are not a homogenous group – but there are certain sisters who know better than to be agents of replicating the same patriarchal notions in terms of our participation in the resolution of the Zimbabwean crisis in a way that normalises our second class citizen status. We refuse to be under-dogs in perpetuity!

Can we therefore locate the 'Position –Paper' by fellow Feminists within the context of them using Feminism to fight certain male agenda's? That has nothing to do with us as female comrades, including our sisters, mothers and grand-mothers who continue to suffer under the yoke of Mugabe's dictatorship.

What is suggested also presupposes that Zanu-PF has the capacity to act honestly as a coalition partner - something of which there is absolutely no evidence. This is almost similar to Trevor Ncube's commentary through Ferial Hafferjee's editorial 10 days ago in the Mail & Guardian that suggested a coalition must include 'moderate' Zanu-PF people such as Mnangagwa, Gono and Murerwa! And that there must be a blanket indemnity for Mugabe and his security chiefs – whilst some sort of amnesty may well be negotiated, South Africa's experience as elsewhere shows that immunities from prosecution can, and I would argue must be bolstered by some form of accountability (especially if a line is to be drawn in the sand to avert a repeat performance at a later stage). This need not always mean prosecution, but this potential stick must always be present!

The equating of Tsvangirai with Mugabe in the FePEP statement is, to put it mildly, obscene. Certainly, there is much to be concerned about in terms of internal issues within the MDC, although one could hardly argue that they have operated in normal circumstances. The conflation of concerns and grievances has clouded many people's vision. Certainly, Tsvangirai should look for coalition partners and should draw on expertise within fellow opposition ranks and maybe even ZANU-PF, but it must be on collective acceptable terms - NOT as part of a negotiated settlement, or in this case something that is suggested for imposition as in this statement! The assumption that he will not adopt a constructive conciliatory route unless this is imposed on him is arrogant, patronising and fundamentally undemocratic.

It should also be noted that Tsvangirai is not the MDC and that the MDC is a political movement with structures from ward to national level, to whom Tsvangirai, Khupe and the rest of the top leadership have to account. We have fought and resisted 'Mugabeism', in the MDC – some battles we have lost others we have won. It is the principles around the formation of the party, collective leadership, accountability, transparency and its ultimate goal for total liberation – political and economic justice that puts us in the awkward position always of resisting attempts at subverting the will of the people through the back door.

That will which expressed itself so strongly on March 29 – a will for change some will selectively ignore in pursuit of unpopular agenda's that appease certain elites within ZANU-PF and the ANC Mbeki camp.

It seems to me that those who have promoted a 'third way' to date have fundamentally misread the situation as it stands at the moment in Zimbabwe. I see that some are now promoting the argument that the failure of the ZANU_PF rank and file to come out in their large numbers is largely due to Makoni. I'm struggling to find any empirical basis for this assertion. Are the FePEP promoters suggesting Makoni must be the national leader?

My reading of the arguments put forward by comrades on the ground and Zimbabweans in general in not supporting the Makoni project are as follows – he is the only leader with an apparent national profile who does not have a registered political party; a man with less than 8% of the vote? People did not vote for Makoni because they did not trust him, because he comes from Zanu-PF, because his track record in government is nothing to shout home about, and because of his enduring silence regarding human rights violations that have characterised Zanu-PF rule. Those marketing Makoni should have addressed the above concerns as a matter of strategy to appeal to the electorate other than seem to be imposing him through the back-door.

Are these the credentials of a man 'fit to govern'? He may have jumped ship – although he still claims loyalty to the party, but that the current leadership has lost its way. The reality is that Zanu-PF is a ruling party that is dying – at least as a ruling party formation (as UNIP did in Zambia, the MCP in Malawi and KANU in Kenya) - it can limp along for the foreseeable future with an ever decreasing capacity to service its extensive and mutating patronage networks, but it has fundamentally lost its ability to control the support of the people - even though they tried hard to manipulate and buy it in this last election.

What was different this time was the acutely lower levels of violence and intimidation (although it was certainly present) and the small spaces that were opened up for the limited campaigning season. Mbeki has been praised for helping provide the space – but he has disingenuously argued that the only differences outstanding in terms of the mediation process between the MDC and Zanu were procedural. The differences were much more fundamental than that, but once again it was the MDC who was coerced to compromise into participating in elections where conditions were improved, but certainly not free and fair.

Leaving aside the evidently flawed electoral process, the fundamental problem in Zimbabwe remains the concentration of executive powers, which have rendered parliament largely impotent. It was this dilution of power that the MDC sought during the mediation in terms of constitutional changes, but which Zanu-PF failed to follow through on, despite the agreement of its negotiation team!

In this context of trickery and treachery, should we support positions such as the FePEP statement that essentially promote and reward such bad behaviour? There is no 'magical' solution to the situation in Zimbabwe in terms of making everyone happy. Elections mean there are winners and losers. Certainly, particular circumstances may necessitate negotiated outcomes, but negotiating the suggested governance situation (i.e. a TA with equitable representation) in these circumstances sets an awful precedent for the region - one which, in the future, we may see elements of other faltering and failing ruling parties adopting as some kind of survival strategy. If Zimbabwe can do this they may ask, why not us?

Let's not even get into the sycophantic support for SADC's 'mediation' initiative and the assumption that Mbeki has done a good job. Many people strongly believe that he has a great deal of responsibility for the mess the country is now in. The extent to which this is really the case is no longer relevant. He has consistently reinforced a perception that he is biased in favour of Zanu-PF, as have the ANC who continue to refer to Zanu-PF as their 'comrades' in a quirky turn of revisionist liberation history. Mbeki, alas, is simply no longer trusted to be an honest broker by most Zimbabweans and this perception alone disqualifies him from continuing to play this role.

It appears that the FePEP statement is little more than a reflection of desperation and the thinking of an elitist group of women purporting to speak on behalf of a 'majority' that I doubt they have any meaningful contact with. Certainly none can claim electoral legitimacy / representation (at least any more) in terms of popular support. Several work for corporate NGOs and large donor agencies – essentially insulated from the hard realities of life in Zimbabwe or exile. What is suggested is done so from the armchairs of comfortable hotels and NGO boardrooms. It is also very distressing that those who promote such positions appear to also have a certain amount of influence over where donor funds get located and utilised. Many NGOs and individuals have been beneficiaries of the Zimbabwean crisis. Theirs is a 9 to 5 struggle.

There is a very real danger that a 'managed transition' (as suggested) with the window dressing of transitional justice will be little more than an exercise in 'elite pacting', designed to ensure the old wine is decantered in new bottles. I'm afraid the FePEP 'position paper' simply feeds such agendas and does not further a transformative course of action that is so desperately needed.

*Grace Kwinjeh is a Zimbabwean Feminist.

**Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

“Freedom, my friends, does not come from the clouds, like a meteor; it does not bloom in one night; it does not come without great efforts and great sacrifices; all who love liberty, have to labour for it.” Feminist Ernestine Rose, 1860.

Former Rhodesian Prime Minister, Ian Smith has just died, but his patriarchal legacy, of dictatorship, violence and sexist oppression lives on.

The use of violence in contemporary Zimbabwean politics, is part of the machismo political culture inherited from settler colonialists, which successive political systems are failing to dismantle.

I therefore, wish here to link, gender based violence within the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), to the question of political power and women’s emancipation, based on our experience as a women’s political leadership. My position being that patriarchy as a system of oppression is not going to willingly dismantle itself, it has to be fought.

Historically, Zimbabwe’s violence politics, has been grounded in the quest for political power and positioning, with women often being at the receiving end of it. Thus today, MDC women are still subjected to all forms, of violence, by both the party and the State, as both systems grapple for political power.

Just as during the liberation struggle when women combatants, were told national liberation first, their emancipation later, today, women who have gone into front-line politics are being sold this ‘two stage’ approach model. This approach implies that the struggle is gender neutral, and that we suffer the impact of State repression the same way, and that when freedom is attained we(men and women) will have the same political will, to reverse gender disparities or to dismantle patriarchy.

Events on the ground in the MDC, however, speak differently.

Days before the annual, International 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence Campaign celebrations, MDC women, were once again subjected to another public humiliating bout of violence, this time, by their male counterparts.

Women protestors, against the unfair sacking and treatment of the Women’s Assembly chair-person, Lucia Matibenga, were beaten up in front of the party’s head-quarters Harvest House, on Sunday the 18th of November. The known assailants used fists, kicked, threw stones, to subdue and stop the female demonstrators, from proceeding with the protest in which they were demanding audience with their MDC leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, over the unresolved women’s chair matter.

Strangely, though it seems that it was beyond Tsvangira’s political comprehension that the women were practising their democratic right to demonstrate and seek audience with him, as their leader, instead he shunned them. The message they got was violence. This is not accidental, but a political message.

The irony that played itself out in this scene, is that the MDC male leadership is forcing a new chair-person for women on the women, as part of their “empowerment” or “building efficiency” within the Women’s Assembly, yet the beneficiaries of this male largess are denied the right to freely express themselves, as part and parcel of that political commitment to their liberation cause.

Apart from the violence and total exclusion, we have witnessed in this matter, the men will also not allow a democratic mechanism by which a proper process is carried out, of finding out who the most popular women’s leader is, and conferring the women’s chair on that person. Again, not accidental, thus the basis of my thesis, on political and gender relations within the MDC being rooted in patriarchal tendencies and practices.

The violence both physical and psychological meted out, against Matibenga herself and her supporters, is characteristic of the misogynistic nature of Zimbabwean society, inherited from Smith, which Mugabe has used against opponents real or false, replicated by men in the opposition. Sexist oppression has thus been validated as normal political practice in opposition politics.

And so it seems, each time male power in the MDC seems to be under threat, violence erupts in all its forms - physical and psychological, we have seen this in the party, prior to the October 12 split, when senior female leaders were targets of this violence.

The assault on MDC MP Priscilla Misihairabwi-Mushonga, twice at party events, in one attack she was with feminist Janah Ncube. The psychological or emotional abuse, of Sekai Holland when the men, callously removed her as secretary for International Affairs. Like Matibenga she was told, it was because she had been “inefficient” as secretary. I will not try to delve into an analysis of efficiency and male leadership, otherwise Zimbabwe would have been a better society.

Or the emotional trauma and stress I suffered when without warning funding was cut to me as MDC Representative to Europe. In fact I was slowly marginalised and excluded from all party activities, until I made my own way home. I was an emotional wreck, as I failed to survive, to date this gross treatment has never been explained to me, by either of the male leadership in the two MDC factions.

Last year, MDC MP Trudy Stevenson, suffered, severe physical attacks in an MDC constituency, which left her bruised with a broken arm and deeply traumatised. These are examples of women who have come out, I respect those who remain silent, there are more cases, of physical and emotional abuse. Including instances of sexual harassment of female staff members that have been suppressed.

All the abuse we have suffered has been condemned internationally, as being retrogressive to the women’s emancipation agenda.

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, (CEDAW) or the International Women’s Bill of Rights, defines discrimination as "...any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field."

Matibenga’s abuse has also led me to revisit the notion of sacrifice within the framework of gender power relations, in the party where others are “sacrificers” or “sacrificed” and others hold positions of power and privilege that insulate them from those “sacrifices.” It is an open secret that in her tenure of office Matibenga never had a vehicle allocated to her, in spite of all the dangers she was exposed to, such her brutal torture in September, 2006.

For a long time we have suffered silent persecution, like the horror stories of the rape of female comrades during the liberation struggle, by their fellow male comrades, that have never been really openly talked about or the perpetrators brought to book. The negative reaction to the screening of the “controversial” movie Flame, which sought to highlight these crimes against women during the liberation struggle was met with such a strong backlash by those in the Zanu PF leadership.

We seem to be ingrained with this, culture of silence around the forms of violence or abuse, we suffer as women in politics. We have been socialised into a political culture of only talking about State sponsored violence.

Matibenga’s battle helps us to further interrogate and demystify these primitive notions, of our silent persecution vis-à-vis our role and placing as women in politics and the respect we deserve from our male comrades.

Two weeks ago, Matibenga was locked out of Harvest House by rowdy youths and told to go away and form her own party. She was seeking an audience with the party leadership which was about to hold a National Executive meeting. There was no condemnation of this treatment of the widow Matibenga, in fact in typical Zanu PF fashion, all rights are suspended when one is seen to be at variance with the powers that be. Yet another example of the terrible abuse, she is enduring.

A social liberation party that articulates so well, violence against itself in the quest for political power, but fails to understand the same kind of violence against its own leaders and members, presents us with bigger questions about the Zimbabwe we are fighting for, as women.

This is because, the women’s emancipation project has been subordinated to the political whims of those in power, who are not willing to let go of patriarchal privilege, thus the different political systems in Zimbabwe have failed in the endeavour of women’s liberation.. Each historical juncture, has seen women lose earlier gains, as they are forced to renegotiate with patriarchy for their survival, be it in the home or in politics. Male bigotry, in both the ruling party and the opposition, has resulted in the further narrowing down of spaces women had carved out for themselves as a movement.

When I first wrote on Matibenga’s unjust sacking I was attacked by men in both the ruling party and the opposition, and so my thesis is based on my personal experience and of other women in politics, and the backlash we suffer when we raise our heads. Most women in politics, are subjects of political violence, both emotional and physical, but are socialised not to talk about it. The way violence in the domestic sphere has been treated as a “private affair” and men getting away with increased cases of femicide, rape and other forms of violence.

Looked at within a historical context, what women at the front-line of Zimbabwe’s struggle for social liberation and democracy are going through is no different to what their sisters in Zimbabwe’s liberation struggle were up and against. It is always a double struggle internal and external.

Writes feminist Patricia Chogugudza on women liberation fighters, “Zimbabwean women, like their counterparts in Mozambique, Angola, and Guinea-Bissau, joined the armed struggle. Their hope was that with the revolution, gender equality would be certain. Women who could not conform to tradition saw the revolution as an opportunity to escape difficult situations. Yet feminist critics argue that at the end of the struggle, women’s status actually fell as nationalist leaders and nationalist-oriented societies, in the quest of preserving tradition, expected women to be guardians of culture and respectability, or mistresses of the emerging ruling elites, or wives and mothers, recruiters for political parties, and labourers for the new market economy, while men were engaged in competition for political power in the state and the accumulation of wealth.”

Thus today women who have delved out of the socially constructed roles of wife, mother or mistress into the public arena of politics have had to deal with much back-lash.

Feminist critique has shown us that power and democracy are historically exclusionary notions, as they remain class based and androcentric. The MDC example is important in this analysis, as the dust settles on the utopian vision and idealism many of us viewed the party with, as a fulfiller, of liberation goals, and ultimately our emancipation, that the nationalists failed to deliver on. It is in this context that I will further locate the analysis on the cycle of violence in Zimbabwean politics, from the State, to the opposition, and how it impacts on women’s participation, in politics.

In this vein it is also important to take the analysis further to the rise and consolidation of power by Tsvangirai’s “kitchen-cabinet”, and the brutal expression of sexist oppression, that has accompanied it.

The rise of this elite core group of male and female financiers is important to the feminist discourse within the MDC because our political engagement has changed totally, from the values upon which the party was founded to a new finance driven, elitist political culture, that lacks popular support and legitimacy.

It is now power politics, in total and not a pro poor, people centred social liberation struggle, that is just, recognises history and honours sacrifice including women’s role in that struggle. Thus the suspension of these values, explains the crude injustice against us as we are further marginalised and excluded from political processes. Violence in the party becomes self perpetuating as this group seeks legitimacy, outside the organisations formal or official structures and boundaries.

Feminist Patricia Macfadden, writes “And even when such systems aspired to be inclusive and socially expansive, they remained essentially exclusionary and patronizing of those who had been constructed as Other in relation to power as the most critical resource in that society. Across our world we struggled for what appeared to be collective visions of freedom and justice, and while it is critical to acknowledge the opportunities that nationalist liberation struggles and anti-colonial resistance provided to those groups in our societies which had been up till then excluded from the public, for example women, we must also critically evaluate the implications of nationalism as an ideology which is fundamentally sexist and exclusionary of women, particularly during the neo-colonial period.”

To further my thesis on how power relations between Zimbabwean women and men have not evolved with time, from nationalist notions and understanding of our roles in society with the use of violence being a common denominator between the systems, I will now look at Zanu PF’s system of violence.

Mugabe responded to the formation of the MDC and the threat to his continued hold on power through violence. On the character of the post-colonial state and the way it has responded to demands for reform, by the broader pro-democracy movement, in Zimbabwe academic Brian Raftopoulos, writes, “Confronted with a strong former liberation movement, led by a leader with enormous prestige on the continent, civic and opposition forces have had to face the combined obstacles of an authoritarian nationalist state constructed through the legitimacy of the liberation struggle, in a rapidly shrinking economy that has comprehensively undermined the structural basis for the reproduction of broad social forces in the country. Moreover, in the short term, this scenario has not engendered a spirit of reform in the ruling party. Instead observers have witnessed the intensification of repressive rule and the continued marginalisation of opposition forces, with the military taking on an increasingly prominent role in all spheres of the state.”

I celebrate sheroes of the struggle, like young Talent Mabika who lost her life to the regime, others have been raped, tortured, arrested and have suffered different forms of victimisation in the hands of the ruling Zanu PF party.

The Women of Zimbabwe Arise, (WOZA), has just released a report on the violence suffered by its members, in the hands of state agents, reads part of the report, “WOZA has conducted over 100 protests on various issues of civil rights and social justice in its five-year existence and up to 3,000 women have spent time in police custody. Many have been detained more than once, most for 48 hours or more and 112 members once spent five days in police cells. These women, front-line human rights defenders, are willing to suffer beatings and unbearable conditions in custody to exercise their constitutional rights and fundamental freedoms. They continue to suffer torture and other forms of cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment.”

Given the above analysis and the way it now mirrors the unhealthy situation pertaining in the opposition, of increased authoritarianism, lack of accountability and violence, I will further link this situation to yet another process and the danger it poses for Zimbabwe’s future political dispensation, in relation to popular participation, democracy and our emancipation as women.

As part of the deal under South-Africa’s President Thabo Mbeki, SADC sponsored mediation, the two MDC formations agreed to endorse Constitutional Amendment number 18, against public opinion on the political recklessness of such a move. I will not go into the details of the amendment and how in many respects it contradicts the very struggle the pro-democracy movement has been waging, over the past years, and how the manner in which it was adopted short changes our quest for participatory democracy.

However, it is important to use this example to further illustrate, and magnify my point on the connection between ‘elite-deal’ making and politics of exclusion to increased violence and marginalisation of women, in the MDC. Civil society organisations, and the women’s movement got a rude awakening last September, at the voting for CA 18, when the Secretary General of the Arthur Mutambara led faction, Professor Welshman Ncube, literary told them that, their work was to lobby and advocate, they must leave power to politicians.

Defending their voting for CA 18, in Parliament Ncube said,“At that time I was the spokesperson of the NCA and President Tsvangirai was the chairperson. The NCA agreed that we needed a new constitution for Zimbabwe which would be crafted or written in an open, transparent and participatory manner. In that regard, we as members of the NCA were there to oppose two things. One: the piecemeal amendments to the Constitution of Zimbabwe, Two: the unilateral manner of setting such piecemeal amendments. Mr. Speaker, it is important to understand those two principles. Let me say that these two principles were conceptualised, conceived and adopted, not to be verses in a bible. They were strategic and tactical principles which were intended to forge the making of a people-driven constitution. I despair today when I read and hear the attempt to transform these principles into some fundamentalist decrees which, we are told, are to be regarded as completely sacrosanct. As far as we understood them, they were supposed to be means to an end.” And the end political.

Consequently, again by going this route the MDC has agreed to play junior partner to Zanu PF and so now they are on a reactive rather than proactive agenda, on many electoral issues, such as constituency boundaries, access to media, political violence and so on.

Zanu PF however feels re-legitimated as it sees a mirror image of itself in an MDC, that does not respect women, public opinion and is violent.

The men will broker a power sharing deal that will not transform our society, by reconstructing the gender, class and power relations, as they exist, today, but rather endorses the status quo.

And so the notion of liberation through this avenue, has to be viewed within a perspective, of it really being a reconfiguration and consolidation of patriarchy, in our politics, just as we witnessed at the Lancaster House Conference, without any popular participation or support.

Meaning that our experience as women, in politics should really be an eye opener to the struggle ahead beyond Zanu PF’s demise. This abandoning of values we have believed to be sacrosanct, by the men, should be an eye opener to the longevity of our struggle for emancipation.

Activist and journalist Charlene Smith writes, “Governments are by their nature hypocrites. The structure of modern political systems encourages this. Globally politicians are more concerned about getting the right sound-byte on television than in going into communities to hear what people have to say. Politics and perhaps even the way you and I live our lives, have become divorced from values. Values drive societies, they are the essence that sustains humanity. Without them societies decay.”

Given this sad scenario, as a political activist who has put in her all in the fight for a just and democratic society, I can only urge other sisters in the struggle to find new spaces, to continue with our struggle for emancipation, and for those who remain in the patriarchal systems, I can only give them my support.

In conclusion I say Smiths ghost will haunt Zimbabwean politics for some time to come.

*Grace Kwinjeh is a visiting scholar with the Centre for Civil Society and writes in her personal capacity

* Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

Grace Kwinjeh argues that unless the MDC is prepared to “dismantle the exhausted patriarchal model of liberation” the new Zimbabwe will simply be a continuation of the old albeit with different faces.

"I appeal to my fellow war veterans not to let your suffering be used by selfish and greedy politicians who caused your suffering. This will not benefit you at the end of the day. Comrades, you should stand up and be a watchdog of the government. If you do not, you will have fought for nothing," freedom fighter and former independent MP Margaret Dongo. But after first being elected in 1990, Dongo almost didn't make it back into office. She lost in the 1995 elections as an independent candidate after rampant voter fraud in her district had been engineered to ensure her defeat. When she set a nationwide precedent by taking the government to court, many called Dongo "mentally unbalanced" and said she was simply carrying a grudge against President Robert Mugabe.

The Republic of Dongo: Parliamentarian Margaret Dongo, By Joyce Jenje-Makwenda, Zimbabwe History has a way of repeating itself in mysterious ways. The Secretary General of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), Tendai Biti recently signed a letter dissolving the Women's Assembly of the party. The same heroic Biti 12 years ago, joined other activists in fighting Zanu PF's intransigence, when the party fired vocal politician Margaret Dongo - from its ranks. With the support of pro- democracy activists Dongo challenged Zanu PF in the Harare South constituency and the courts and won.

Activists united in Harare South to campaign for Dongo, for many reasons with the main one being she had been a voice of reason within the Zanu PF structure saying things (her crude description of Mugabe loyalists) " Mugabe's wives" could not say.

"I'm saying this because I was in that parliament. I endured a lot of hardship under a one-party monopoly. You stand up and try to reason with him, and one tells you, "You are a bitch, go and cook in your house." Or tells you to sit down, that you are a minority..." said Dongo in an interview with Frontline World.

Thus she became a symbol of defiance against a system many feared and at the time thought was invincible, as has been the case with most post-colonial African States. She lit a candle of hope that the one party system could be challenged and dismantled, bringing the possibility of new political organisations with a different value system to that of Zanu PF.
I want to posit here that the Harare South battle should therefore be viewed in the context that it was an extension, of the whole process that led to the formation of the National Constitutional Assembly (NCA) in 1998 and subsequently the MDC in 1999.

It is however important to rewind this particular tape a little bit to understand the dynamics that played themselves out at the time within Zanu PF and their relevance to the political discourse today, within the MDC. I will use various theoretical positions and traditions to explain Dongo's battle in view of what Lucia Matibenga is up and against in the MDC vis-à-vis the question of intra-party democracy and women's empowerment as a pre- requisite of good governance.

Writing in the Financial Gazette of 11 October, Clemence Manyukwe gave an account of some of the victims of Zanu PF's internal dictatorship among them are Dzikamai Mavhaire and his famous "The President must go" speech, Frederick Shava, and Edgar Tekere. While all these have since been neutralised or silenced none made a mark in our collective conscience the way Dongo did.

The battle in Harare South was important and still has a relevance to us today especially for those whose political activism was then propelled by Dongo's victory. What was the principle behind the overwhelming support for Dongo's battle against the Zanu PF'chefs'? It was a brutal and lonely fight for Dongo. Zanu PF put all its resources in campaigning for Vivian Mwashita who had been Dongo's best friend. They had the control of the media, government resources, top politicians went into Harare South to de-campaign Dongo. Senior Zanu PF female politicians for their own political survival took sides with the men.

It is against this background that Matibenga's battle in the MDC, is important for us activists who were inspired and greatly influenced by Dongo in our political activism. The above scenario is repeating itself in a rather bitter manner. Reading Biti's statement after the High Court ruling on Matibenga's challenge of her committees dissolution, in which he claimed 'victory' and 'vindication', my heart sank. The statement represented several tragedies and dangers for those of who have been engaged in the protracted struggle for democracy.

While our interpretation of the judgement passed by the High Court is that only the Women's Congress can dissolve its leadership, the MDC leadership seems to have their own.

The first concern is to do with moral leadership, what lessons can the MDC learn from the 'struggles within the struggle' during the war of liberation as documented by the late Masipula Sithole? Sithole does not rule out the possibility of conflict in political organisations, however what matters is how the leadership responds and handles the conflict. The 70's 'struggle within the struggle' claimed lives, one of them of highly esteemed politician Hebert Chitepo. How were these developments a precursor of the kind of party Zanu PF is to today? Dictatorship? Violence?

"The Zimbabwe liberation movement has been torn apart by tribalism and regionalism, but rarely will this be admitted in public by the leadership and organisations in question, preferring distant Marxist ideological explanations. Those who may be tempted to think ideology is the answer to tribalism and regionalism will do well to remember that in both 'bourgeois' and 'proletariat' societies, national cohesiveness and consciousness are achieved through power sharing and management of representative institutional structures," wrote Sithole.

In a prophetic letter after the assassination of Chitepo his brother Ndabaningi said, "I cannot be indifferent to the death of a man such as Chitepo for political expediency. It is immoral and wrong. I am in this struggle because of moral quality otherwise I would have nothing to do with it."

Is there a moral value in Matibenga's struggle within the MDC? The late Sithole answers this by saying "In the long run, morally right actions will triumph over politically expedient actions. Just watch and see." Indeed we have not only watched but many of us are victims of that Zanu PF system of dictatorship and tyranny which birthed itself during our liberation struggle.

Still on the leadership question writing after being sacked as South Africa's deputy minister of Health, Nozizwe Madlala – Routledge said in an article entitled " Seeking servants of the people", 'When we choose leaders, we need not give up our own power by putting them on pedestals that distance them from those that they lead. We need not accord them hero worship or fear them so much that we cannot tell them what we think or feel, that we can only tell them what they want to hear. We need not allow them to think they have the last word and that they may not be challenged. True leadership is about giving people the feeling that they can be heard, regardless of who they are and how junior they may be."

The uneasy feeling one gets in supporting Matibenga's cause is of being at war with the leadership with the consequence of serious political backlash.

I want to argue further that the MDC is faced with these problems because of the failure to dismantle the exhausted patriarchal model of liberation as espoused by Horace Campbell and others . A model whose main characteristics are sexism, dictatorship and cronyism, the way the nationalists integrated themselves into the colonial systems, the MDC and other social liberation movements such as the Movement for Multi-party Democracy in Zambia have become hybrids of these models.

Of this system Campbell says, "instead of liberation becoming the foundation of a new social order, the militarist and masculinist leadership turned the victory of the people into a never ending nightmare of direct and structural violence."

The failure to break from colonial and nationalist politics can be described as another instance of what Frantz Fanon called 'false decolonization' or 'political decadence'. "In its beginnings, the national bourgeoisie of the colonial country identifies itself with the decadence of the West. We need not think that it is jumping ahead; it is in fact beginning at the end."

Fanon goes further to say and this explains the prevailing status of the MDC, "It is already senile before it has come to know the petulance, the fearlessness, or the will to succeed of youth."

And so Biti goes further to state in his statement, "Contrary to the opinions of others, the decision was not based on patriarchy, chauvinism or contempt of the feminist movement." What Biti seems not to understand is that the authority he has to actually write this statement derives itself from patriarchal privilege, one that he and his cohort do not have the ideological sophistication to articulate in order to dismantle it. That is the tragedy. Thus the commission investigating the conduct of the women's assembly for instance is made up of three men in a party that is blessed with so many well meaning and capable women. Biti sees nothing wrong with this. Not to mention again that the National Executive and National Council of the party were never informed of this decision.

In fact like Dongo and Mwashita in Zanu PF then, MDC women are placed in the ridiculous situation of acting like wives in a polygamous union. Those in such unions will tell you that when you ' talk too much', you are denied conjugal rights and other benefits until you behave. And so measures are put in place in the MDC system to regulate the behaviour of leaders especially how women respond to patriarchy and chauvinism. Even more telling is the fact that their opinions are regarded as those of 'others' they are not part and parcel of the party's common vision and understanding, of what constitutes intra-party democracy on the one hand the emancipation of women on the other.

The fact that the 'feminist movement' is just another and not part and parcel of the revolution as advanced by great revolutionaries like, Oliver Tambo or Thomas Sankara who said, "May my eyes never see and my feet never take me to a society where half of the people are held in silence.' Or Samora Machel who said, "The idea that we can wait until later to emancipate women is wrong, because it means leaving reactionary ideas to grow so that they are harder to fight later."

The great pan - Africans proposed a liberation model that sought to restore black woman of her dignity so viciously stripped of her by the settler colonialists. Their concept of revolution was not just political for instance placing certain men in power it was also social, meaning a total break-down of all institutions of power and oppression.

Just to advance my thesis further on the relationship between intra-party democracy, women's emancipation and good governance, I will use the example of Mozambique's FRELIMO which has produced not just some of the greatest women in Africa, lets take Graca Machel, but one of the best governments too. Fresh from winning the inaugural 5-million-dollar Mo Ibrahim Award for African Leadership, former President Joaquim Chissano, denounced autocratic rule saying it has no room on the African continent anymore.

For the MDC women I will leave them with the advise of late the nationalist Oliver Tambo to ANC women in 1981, "Women in the ANC should stop behaving like there was no place for them above the level of certain categories of involvement. They have a duty to liberate us men from antique concepts and attitudes about the place and role of women in society and the development and direction of our revolutionary struggle."

And so I will conclude by saying the fact that today when we speak out we are 'othered' called 'whores' and have to defend what we stand for gives us an insight into the 'New Zimbabwe' we are fighting for.

* Grace Kwinjeh is a visiting scholar with the Centre for Civil Society and writes in her personal capacity.

* Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org
_______________________________________________

Grace Kwinjeh has begun a weekly set of summaries of powerful progressive politics for the Center for Civil Society based in Durban. Below are the links to this week's articles.

Health and Human Rights Abuses in Zimbabwe:

Defending women
http://www.swradioafrica.com/Documents/violence-againstWOZAwomen121007.pdf

Stand-off between MDC and NCA healthy for democracy
http://www.thezimbabwetimes.com/opinion.htm

Inflation solution lies in politics

Migrant workers worldwide sent home more than US$300 billion in 2006:
http://www.swradioafrica.com/pages/migrantworkers181007.html

Timeline: Zimbabwe's economic decline
http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/inflation168.17051.html

New prices still too little
http://www.thezimbabwetimes.com/page116.htm

Is ZSE bull run losing its steam
http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/markets15.17059.html

MDC’s Mbeki talks shocker

Why were we colonized? And were we ever really decolonized? These are the central questions that should be at the core of liberation discourse in Zimbabwe and Africa at large, in order to start dealing with neo-colonial ‘ghosts’. These ghosts are real enough when they take the form of dictatorships, exploitative neo-liberal capitalism and repression of our growing resistance to these.

Grace Kwinje’s personal experiences under the blows and batons of Robert Mugabe’s men.

'I will go before the King, even though it is against the law. And if I perish, I perish.'

Esther 4:16 HARARE - 'What sort of woman are you Grace Kwinjeh?' 'Who do you think you are?' 'What are you trying to prove?' Questions asked by more than five baton stick wielding riot police officers as they beat me up on that fateful day at Machipisa Police Station in Harare on 11 March.

This was round one out of many.

Yet it was about the woman in me. It was about me as a woman and what I stand for or represent.

Each blow epitomised what they feared and hated in my defiance against them. This translated into the most brutal assault or dare I say attempted murder on me, on my person, my being; that woman in me.

I did not respond I stood still and took each blow as it came. I did not cry. I did not beg for mercy. None of the comrades present on that day cried or begged for mercy, none denounced the party or tried to negotiate themselves out of this horror of horrors that will never be erased from our memories.

Neither will the physical or emotional scars ever heal. No amount of therapy can heal what we went through on that day.

Sekai Holland a 64 year old grandmother was called a 'whore', 'Blair's whore' to be precise. 'No I cannot be Blair's whore he is my son' she said. How dare she respond thus?

Associate herself with the defiled Tony Blair? And so Sekai was danced on, interestingly by another woman. 'Iri hure raBlair rinoda varungu,' translates to 'this Blair whore loves white men'.

Sekai married for 40 years to an Australian was severely assaulted several times. She broke a leg an arm and three ribs. Why because as a journalist she made the double 'choices' of marrying a white man and belonging to the opposition; for that she had to suffer.

She had to be punished for going against the 'norm', the 'expected' by ZANU PF.

That woman in her was under attack verbally and physically. Her age? Not an issue.

The two young women we were with were not spared. The young 'whores' according to the officers had to be taught a lesson.

Together with Sekai and myself we were beaten on the buttocks. 'Rovai mazigaro' 'beat up the big bums' they shouted.

My black beret fell off and I got a beating for my blond hair. 'Hure rekuHoliday Inn rovai.' 'A Holiday Inn prostitute beat her up.' 'Look at the color of her hair.' The 'sins' were many. I colored my hair blond in protest after Registrar General Tobaiwa Mudede denied me a travel document on the basis that it was a 'state security document' and not a 'right.' I was slowly being rendered stateless in my own country.

And so as is the case too in opposition politics the attack on us women was more on our sexuality, we were assaulted, humiliated, demeaned in whatever way they could think of.

Comically again, amongst us victims were some of the worst male philanderers, but the issue with them remained political, exposing the misogynistic character of our society.

We were treated this way because we are women and nothing else.

As I reflect on, I do not regret the woman I am and the hard choices I have to make.

It is for these that in my life I have often been persecuted, socially, sexually or mentally and this time I have paid an insufferably heavy price that has left deep scars on my body and soul.

I challenge oppressive systems in all their forms not just to do away with Robert Mugabe's injustice, but also primitive actions by those in our midst that still place us women in the odd position, of being underdogs even in the struggle for a democratic and just society.

It is a double battle for both our political freedom and emancipation, none of which can be achieved without the other, otherwise it's a half-baked revolution, similar to the one we got at independence.

Zimbabwean women in politics have stories to tell. Opposition politics?
More stories.

Over the past months I have seen myself in and out of jail on various dubious charges mostly to do with organising and leading illegal demonstrations.

Once I was placed in solitary confinement at Rhodesville Police station for 48 hours. The aim here I suppose was just to traumatise me. As I sat there in that cell on my own I was afraid.

Afraid of many things to do with being tortured, raped or even being killed. By the grace of God I came out not touched.

A female freedom fighter can be killed at any time. In the wee hours of 12 March the military police came for me at Braeside Police Station, where I had been dumped half dead already, the night before.

A search for me by family and friends was in full scale at this time.

I was in a cell with two other women. One of them was actually nursing and praying for me as I was in great pain and bleeding. We heard the sound of cars outside. Foot steps then the jail door opened.

The officer in charge, Makore pointed at me and said 'uyu Kwinjeh' to four military intelligence officials. I held on to the two women I knew I was in danger.

Once again in the fence of Braeside police station, I was tortured by the officers. They said they had been given orders to kill and not negotiate with civilians. This was not a joke because by this time comrade Gift Tandare's body lay cold somewhere.

May his soul rest in peace. I did not know this. The rest I leave to God and his mercy for me on that night.

They asked me all sorts of questions as they beat me with short 30 centimetre really painful baton sticks. I fainted several times but each time they got me up and tortured me.

Until in the end I could not stand that is when they asked me to remain seated and stretch out my legs and they beat the soles of my feet. How I got back in the cell I do not know. All I know is my life was spared.

They stayed on vigil outside the fence waiting for further 'instructions'. Thank God some officials from the Lawyers for Human Rights found me before the 'instructions' came the next day.

And then it was drama after drama. Released to hospital under riot police guard; then no charges; re arrested while trying to leave the country then back to hospital under riot police guard.

Eventually with Sekai Holland we made it for medical treatment here in South Africa.

I thank the sisters and brothers for the solidarity that came in the form of prayers, demonstrations, night dresses, cake, books, fruit and water.

Above all for taking the risk of being associated with this kind of woman, by visiting us at the Avenues Clinic in full view of the police and CIO operatives.

I will end with a quote from Paolo Coelho's The Zahir, 'I don't regret the painful times; I bear my scars as if they were medals. I know that freedom has a high price, as high as that of slavery; the difference is that you pay with pleasure and a smile, even when that smile is dimmed by tears.' And so the woman in me will fight on. Aluta Continua!

* Grace Kwinje is the deputy secretary for international relations in the Morgan Tsvangirai-led Movement for Democratic Change.

* Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org