The MDC is over. Ran three times. Their leader lost every time. They took power last time, became the ruling party, and managed to do nothing for democracy (plenty for themselves as individuals). They took the major cities every time – and again failed to make a serious democratic change every time.

And they deserved to lose. Not that the real loss is by as much as the reported margin. But they failed to campaign. Throughout their time as Ruling Party. Shocking loss of focus on the big picture. They deserved to lose.

They lost when they became a political party. Changed form being a ‘movement’ for democratic change, to the political party ‘Movement for Democratic Change’. A movement is a broad based, social, economic, cultural opinion. A voice, capable of saying all things, including all points of view, embracing all methods, being all things to all people. A Movement. A movement can be anti. E.g. the anti-apartheid movement. The anti-poaching movement. The anti gender violence movement. A political party is an organisation whose aim is to take and retain power. It does need discipline. And it needs an objective. What to do with the power it takes. The MDC had none of that. No discipline. No objective (and ‘anti’ is not an objective, it must be ‘for’). And it lost it’s broad base of support – although it did have massive support.

However, the struggle for democracy has thrown up many organisations. And they have all moved further along the road to democracy than the organisation that came before it. The Forum, and ZUM, both got further towards democracy (real democracy) than those previously. There is a wave effect. Started small, and each succeeding opposition movement goes further towards unseating the one party state than the one before it.

So maybe the next one…

Irrigation Performance  Study Consultant: GRM
Deadline: 19 September 2013

Location: Masvingo Province
Short-term assignment

Background
From October 2010, GRM has been implementing a multi country smallholder agricultural development project covering selected areas of Zimbabwe, Swaziland and Lesotho known as the Seed and Markets Project (SAMP). The overall goal of the project was to influence policies and strategies related to seed security through piloting innovative approaches. Emphasis of the project has been on strengthening local seed production and output markets in order to generate security of quality inputs as well as inject cash within the rural economy. The project is being funded by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) and is approaching the end of its first phase. A second phase is planned for 2013-16 which will build on the pilot lessons learned from phase 1.

Roles and responsibilities
Under direct supervision of the SAMP Team Leader and working closely with the National Project Coordinator based in the Masvingo Provincial Office, the main roles and responsibilities of the Irrigation Consultant will be the following;

Preliminary assessment
The potential to increase productivity of the schemes, market linkages, and the ability of communities to manage the scheme are the main priorities.

The Assessment includes
1. Preparation of work plan and appropriate research tools for the field work.
2. A schedule of Meetings/Interviews with stakeholders of the National, District and public sector and private companies.
3. Conducting the rapid assessment.
4. Preparation and presentation of report findings.

Detailed assessment
In order to establish the potential, the opportunities and the challenges, this study should conduct: A rapid field appraisal on the schemes to come up with a detailed assessment of:

1. Brief state of irrigation infrastructure, conveyance & infield, electricity and buildings for possible value addition.
2. Irrigation water availability, reliability, distribution efficiency and gender equity among irrigators.
3. Current cropping activities (cropping programs and rotations, cropping intensity, input use, yield levels)
4. Operational management and costs related to water, power and general scheme repairs and maintenance.
5. Assess the human capacity, and dynamics of communities in the irrigation schemes their historical social and economic background ( major stakeholders e.g. water, power and extension related institutions)
6. Farmer organization and management set-up ( irrigation management unit, scheme constitution and by-laws and adherence to these, their work plans and budgets)
7. Viability of the schemes (access to markets, accessibility of scheme, plot sizes and food security situation around the scheme etc.)
8. Opportunities of surrounding communities for out grower schemes which are not directly benefiting from the irrigation scheme
9. Determine the agricultural management capacities of the respective groups, potentials and shortfalls. Define input requirements for the recommended crops and cropping programmes
10. Appropriate high potential crops, cropping patterns and rotations for each scheme
11. Make recommendations on high potential, high value crops, cropping systems and programmes
12. Make recommendations for possible crop intensification, production increases, and post-harvest requirements.
13. Make recommendations on training needs (e.g. specific agronomy, marketing, business training etc) required during project implementation.

Qualifications and experience
1. At least BSc degree in Irrigation Engineering with extensive knowledge of agronomy of field/horticulture crops including  marketing experience.
2. At least ten years working experience in irrigation schemes and with communities in rural Zimbabwe.
3. Demonstrated knowledge and experience of social dynamics in communal areas of Zimbabwe.
4. Knowledge of the likely social constraints to successful operations of irrigation schemes, and the likely enabling social attributes leading to successful operations will be an added advantage.
5. Good writing and communication skills.

Duration of the assignment
Approximately 15 working days during the month of September/October 2013

To apply
To submit your application, please go to GRM international website http://www.grminternational.com or contact Vanessa.Garcia [at] grminternational [dot] com

Nationals are strongly encouraged to apply.

With Zimbabwe’s Movement for Democratic Change celebrating its 14th anniversary this weekend, we thought it was a good time to ask our SMS subscribers whether the MDC-T should stick with the T(svangirai), or whether, after 14 years with one president, it was time for opposition leadership renewal.

We heard back from hundreds of Zimbabweans across the country, and over two-thirds of respondents thought Morgan Tsvangirai should remain as the party’s leader. We share a sampling of responses below, or you can download the full list from this link.

• Tsvangirai must stay, kusvikira aita president. He has been through a lot.
• The MDC-T needs a new leader. MT must step down to pave way for new president.
• In my view Tsvangirai has not failed. In fact, look at how the peole hoped for him to win. The confidence they have on him and as it stands he is the only candidate in the country who can contest head to head with President Mugabe. We have been with him for long and have come to understand him better. We have been through hard times with him and better times as well, so let him stay put. Maybe we can talk of the grand coalition now. It is not all about changing leaders, but everything to do with advocating for a level political playing field. Yes, leaders can change, but as long as the country is still not level for all the players, you can change everyone and still the voice of the people will not prevail. What we need to focus our energy on is what we do to level the playing field, and not whether to remove someone.
• Morgan yes should pave way for new ideas coz that’s where dictatorship starts. He started by amending party constitution so what’s next is staying there forever.
• Tsvangirai must stay as MDC-T president as he is a pillar & balancing figure in the party & Zimbabwe at large. Since 2002, Tsvangirai has been a victim of massive election rigging by Mr Mugabe&Zanu PF. He has been making efforts to expose the comprehensive election rigging but to avail as Mr Mugabe controls all the pillars of government. Leadership renewal is not a noble idea at the moment as it will enthrill Zanu PF & is after MDC-T downfall & causing divisions & chaos within the party.
• There is need for leadership renewal to bring in new ideas and political  approach for the opposition
• Tsvangirai is the leader of MDC. Remove him when he has had the chance to lead Zimbabwefor two terms and not now. Let him lead until he rules. Those who want to lead the MDC should be ashamed of themselves.
• Tsvangirayi must leave the top post and any other within the party. He is free to remain an ordinary member or join another party of his choice.
• Tsvangirai is the only man who can stand against the ruling party he should stay.
• The resounding victory of zanu pf isn’t abt poor leadership in MDC bt monopoly over state resources so Tsvangirai must b given another chance
• He won in all the elections and am the same voter who vote for him. Its Zanu who wish him gone
• Tsvangirai has to stay till he remove zanu & rule for atleast one term
• Tsvangirai should stay as the leader of MDC-T and the other leadership should not change. MDC-T is Tsvangirai of which without him support will be lost.
• We want a replacement
• Not yet hey for the opposition to change leadership Tsvangirai must pull until the part reach the new beginning
• He is a complete failure, I don’t think he can renew.
• He should stay and finish his mission playin field z uneven n successor meets same fate
• I think he should stay until the next congress but he should stop acting like a Zanu-pf front

Download more opinions from this link

Have you ever wondered and come to a reasonable explanation as to why it is very easy for EU and America to engage Zimbabwe on economic talks like the ones that were held in London in March 2013 but very difficult to engage if it comes to good governance? As we speak the EU website actually confirms that they are in ongoing economic talks with Zimbabwe but there is only passive mention of good governance and respect of human dignity as pre-requisite.

Is this not a move to fatten the lion and starve the impala and call it preserving the ecosystem? If they acknowledge that the government in Zimbabwe is illegitimate and does not represent the will of the people then what does it mean if they keep pushing to engage an illegitimate regime? Are they fattening and empowering the oligarch in Zimbabwe to trample on the defenseless populace? I guess this is the complicated part of sovereignty but the complication as it stands is a deliberate attempt to prey on the ordinary citizens.

Elections in Zimbabwe came and left so many unanswered questions diffusing victory celebrations for those who won. Every political party engages in elections to win and sometimes the result is not always a favorable one especially when the playing field is biased. Whilst losers lick their wounds and go on soul-searching missions, victors embark on a difficult task of fulfilling election promises. The benefits of winning an election are you doing what you want in your own time even when it harms the nation.

International observers endorsed the recently held election and this has raised questions as to whether the Zimbabwe problem had become a burden for far too long for the regional bodies. At the same civil society in Zimbabwe failed to expose the irregularities in a compelling way to the international community. The blame cannot rest on the shoulders of the civics alone; key political players in the inclusive government had a critical role to play in ensuring, for example, a clean voters roll and the fulfillment of a variety of reforms before engaging in elections. The “participate and protest later” strategy adopted by opposition political parties saw ZANU-PF reigning supreme.

The outcome of the just ended election provides an opportunity to reflect on the role of civil society in Zimbabwe. As calls and accusations of election rigging quickly die a natural death, the new political dispensation offers a great opportunity for success to those who failed in the last election as compared to those won. Of late civil society organizations have been accused of being political appendages to certain political parties. Civil society in Zimbabwe is being criticized for failing to push for a peoples’ agenda. Principles and benchmarks were abandoned during the run up to the July 2013 Harmonized election as some members of civil society became aligned to certain political parties.

At a lively debate dubbed “July 31 Election Outcome: Challenges and prospects for democratization in Zimbabwe” hosted by the Zimbabwe Democracy Institute in Harare panelists from civil society reflected on the just ended election and strategies of moving on as a genuinely people driven movement. Instead of spending time antagonizing over the outcome of the elections civil society was urged to utilize the new space created to regroup, organize and engage the new government in order to reclaim its rightful place in the Zimbabwean political landscape.