We got this report yesterday from a subscriber in Harare. If you have witnessed similar harassment, or know others who have, please email info [at] kubatana [dot] net.

This afternoon at about 2.30pm I saw vendors scattering in all directions dropping their vegetables and running for their lives.  The scene was just off 7th Avenue in Harare next to Greenwood Park.  All but one vendor got away.  I pulled up next to the plain clothes men who called themselves “policemen” and asked them what they thought they were doing handcuffing this obviously terrified young man still holding a packet of carrots. He knows his fate. He will be taken to the Police station where they will beat the hell out of him.

We have 90% unemployment and now the police (?) militia (?) are hell bent on depriving people from earning an honest living.

The “police” told me it had nothing to do with me and that “according to the Kariba Draft constitution no one is allowed to sell anything without a licence”.  They were rude, arrogant and threatening and typical of what we in Zimbabwe have now come to expect from the so called “law makers”.

I mean, hello.  It’s okay for state agents and the so called law enforcers to overtly steal the country’s diamond wealth, loot the reserve bank, steal farms and farm equipment, but it’s illegal to attempt to make an honest living vending vegetables.  We are right back into the 2005 Operation Murambastvina.  Note the timing.

This is the beginning of what Zanu PF will no doubt dub “Operation Accept the Kariba Draft” – and it will be done in the only way that Zanu PF know how, through violence, torture and abuse.

Perhaps we need to counteract it with VOZU – Vendors of Zimbabwe Unite!  Stand up for your rights, this is your last chance!

An IRIN headline caught my eye this morning: Militaries unite to fight HIV.

The article discusses the launch of the Regional HIV Network of Military Forces in West and Central Africa, a network for military forces to combat HIV within their ranks, and in their surrounding communities. As the article points out, with the exception of Ethiopia, “A number of studies on HIV prevalence rates among sub-Saharan Africa’s armed forces have shown higher rates than in civilian populations.”

And yet, most African militaries have been reluctant to develop programmes that effectively address this challenge. A few excellent reports, notably Alex de Waal’s Fucking Soldiers and Martin Rupiya’s study for the Institute for Security Studies – The enemy within: Southern African militaries’ quarter-Century battle with HIV and AIDS, look at some of the reasons behind this resistance.

As in other sectors of society, some of the reasons why HIV/AIDS is not adequately tackled within the armed forces include ignorance, fear, stigmatisation and stereotyping. For example, in Ghana, “new recruits who test positive are not admitted into the armed forces. A similar ban in South Africa was overturned by the courts in 2008.”

At one presentation at the launch of the regional HIV network, a doctor with Ghana’s armed forces said that soldiers are provided with condoms in the military barracks there.  In response, echoing a classic argument against distributing condoms in schools,  Senegal’s Minister of Armed Forces, Becaye Diop, asked: “But by giving them condoms, are you not encouraging promiscuity?”

The First All-Stakeholders’ Conference for Zimbabwe’s new Constitution is set to begin later this week. Zanu PF has been asking that the conference be delayed, but the Parliamentary Select Committee insists it will go on as planned.

A lot of the debate about the new Constitution has revolved around the controversial Kariba Draft, and the question of how participatory the Constitution-making process will be. The National Constitutional Assembly has withdrawn from the process, insisting that the creation of a new Constitution needs to be people-driven, not Parliament-driven. They have also prepared a document highlighting the shortcomings of the Kariba Draft Constitution.

Less publicised has been the efforts of Zimbabwe’s marginalised communities to make sure their concerns are addressed and their human rights guaranteed in the country’s new Constitution. For example, a document by the Gays and Lesbians of Zimbabwe (GALZ) outlines the reasons why sexual orientation should be included among the freedoms guaranteed in Zimbabwe’s new Constitution.

This document does not only argue for greater Constitutional protection for the rights of gays and lesbians. It also makes important points about a democracy’s need to protect the inalienable and inherent rights of all minorities, including the right to privacy and equality.

Fundamental human rights, existing by virtue of the holder’s very humanity, cannot be bought or negotiated, and cannot be reduced to a mere privilege dependant on State beneficence. As they derive from attributes of the human personality they exist perpetually and universally for all people and for all nations regardless of historical, cultural, ideological, economic or other differences.

I believe the more inclusive, participatory, and people-driven Zimbabwe’s Constitution-making process is, the stronger the document which comes out of it will be. This means not only including representation of a range of minorities at the All-Stakeholders’ Conference, but also protecting their rights in the document which is developed – regardless of the majority opinion about the “worth” of a community or the “morality” of their behaviour.

I’ve just finished reading Chenjerai Hove’s opinion piece in this week’s Mail & Guardian: A Zimbabwean arrogantocracy.

Hove describes the Global Political Agreement between Zanu PF and the two MDC formations as an experiment with three scientists, one of whom “is discovered to have poured sand and dust into the test tubes.” He then proceeds to starkly outline the variety of ways in which Zanu PF cannot be judged to have entered this power sharing agreement in good faith, and why it should not be trusted. He cites the financial and power interests of Mugabe’s inner circle, and explains why they would never willingly hand over real control of the country to the MDC.

The allocation of ministries tells it all: Soft and troublesome ministries to the MDC and powerful ones to Mugabe’s team. As an election strategy, Mugabe made the MDC run ministries in which it is likely to antagonise its support base: labour unions, women’s groups, human rights activists and lawyers, medical unions, students and teachers.

And indeed, the allocation of ministries does sum things up very clearly. It is a manifestation of the MDC’s challenge of “responsibility without authority,” and already one can see the cracks showing: Teachers threatening to strike for higher wages, the MDC scrambling to find more money to pay them better, tensions between civil society and government over the Constitutional reform process,  MDC MPs who continue to face harassment, arrest and trial over spurious allegations, increasing frustration from high density residents who are still without power and water in their homes and suburbs.

And yet, for all the flaws he outlines, Hove seems to think the current deal is the country’s best hope. He concludes:

One hundred days in the office of solitude, not years, and the jittery Zimbabweans hope the experiment will not fail and lead to the catastrophic break-up of the state.

One of our SMS subscribers recently sent us a message that puts things much more plainly. “GNU is not working for real. MDC must pull out.”

According to the latest HRW report, the Government of Zimbabwe “could generate significant amounts of revenue from the diamonds, perhaps as much as US$200 million per month, if Marange and other mining centres were managed in a transparent and accountable manner.”

The Zimbabwean economy is in desperate shape, the government is bankrupt, and MDC leaders including Morgan Tsvangirai and Tendai Biti have been fund raising in Africa, Europe and the US to try and get some cash to pay civil servants, meet the country’s monthly running costs, and rebuild the nation’s economy.

But why do our politicians have their begging bowls out, when we have national resources like Marange at our disposal? US President Barack Obama recently pledged US $73 million to Zimbabwe. If we were properly managing our diamond resources, we could earn that much in under 11 days. TheWorld Bank has pledged US $22 million – less than four days of potential diamond revenue.

According to the government’s Short Term Economic Recovery Programme, and the 2009 Revised Budget,  Zimbabwe needs at least US $1bn per year just to keep things going – that’s US $83.3 million per month. If the HRW estimate is right, getting some diamond revenue into the national purse would meet these expenses – and give Zimbabwe room to grow, save, invest and develop – not just stagger along hand-to-mouth.

Sure, Zimbabwe needs a lot of money to get back on its feet – Tsvangirai estimates US $8.5 billion. But shouldn’t our first step be to get our own house in order?

I’ve just received SW Radio Africa’s latest text message with news headlines and updates:

Bob off to Libya, changes cabinet meet to Mon to stop MT chairing. MDC boycott. MDC Marange MP jailed before giving massacre details to conflict diamond group.

As usual, there’s a lot more than 160 characters worth of information packed into this SMS. But my overriding question from it is why does the MDC stay in this “power sharing” arrangement in which they are so clearly not just a junior partner, but a powerless pawn?