The weekend’s media carried several articles regarding Afrobarometer’s most recent survey titled     Zimbabwe, the evolving public mood. Interestingly the survey reports that 70% out of a sample of 1192 persons responded yes to a question that asked: “Do you think that Zimbabwe should hold elections next year, that is, in 2011?”  The report also notes that relatively few people favoured deferring elections to a later date.

Of this the writer of the report theorizes: That seven in ten would-be voters are anxious to freely elect leaders of their choice, even in an atmosphere where security forces and party militias are again on the move, is testament to the impressive depth of Zimbabweans’ commitment to political rights.

That’s a nice thing to think about Zimbabweans, but I don’t believe it. The same survey reports an increase in reluctance to divulge political party preference and an increase in reported support for ZANU PF. Consider our last election, in which gangs of young men went about rural Zimbabwe beating and raping innocent men and women who were only rumored to support MDC. I don’t think these people are brave, or selfless, or committed to democracy. I think they’re scared.

ZANU PF may not be all-powerful in the low-density suburbs, or even in the rest of the city, but in rural Zimbabwe, it’s Orwellian. It’s difficult to be completely honest with an unknown person whose word cannot be verified. Anyone who has ever conducted a survey will tell you that people will tell you what they think you want to hear. And with a ruling party that bears an uncanny resemblance to Nineteen Eighty Four’s Big Brother its very difficult to shake the feeling that they’re watching you. The ‘thought-crime’ of harboring ideas in your mind such as democracy, the right to vote and secret ballots do not go unpunished.

In his article The Age of Polipreneurship, published by Pambazuka, Dr. D McKinley defines and describes Polipreneurship:

At its most basic level, polipreneurship can be defined as ‘politics as business’. Polipreneurship is not simply about making money from and through politics. It is more about the way in which politics is seen approached and more importantly practiced.

It would be easy enough for ours or any other populace to just point fingers at certain politicians, parties, the ruling party itself and/or government and argue that is simply a matter of having different ones in power (at whatever level) in order for our politics to ‘return to the source’. [But] when we take a critical look at contemporary polipreneurship, we cannot just focus on the politicians, political parties and private business sectors, we also have to look at ourselves.

…We cannot divorce ourselves from the intensifying tide of corruption, the cesspool of nepotism, the inbuilt disdain for organisational transparency, the conscious refusal to embrace personal responsibility, the general demise of human empathy, the constant evading of popular accountability and the never ending litany of false promises, lies and subterfuge. They are all representative of what we as a society, and thus our business and politics have become. And let us not fool ourselves, this is the norm, not the exception.

In our polipreneurship age, the mandarins of capitalist politics and capitalist business have perfected the art of creating a sustained symbiosis between the private and public ‘interest’. They have been able to achieve this because most of those who organisationally and institutionally represent the ‘public interest’ at various levels of governance as well as ever-increasing numbers of ordinary people have personally imbibed and institutionally integrated the ‘traditions, cultures and values’ of their business counterparts. In the process the measurement of what is ‘good for society’ has become almost completely delinked from the historic and popular struggle for a universally conceived but mainly nationally practices, collective human solidarity and benefit.

The challenge is as difficult as it is profound. If we can’t change our politics then we can’t change our societies.

How constitutional is MDC-Ts National Council’s decision to remove clause 6.1.3 from the MDCs Constitution which states that the president shall serve for a maximum of two five year terms, in order to keep Mr. Tsvangirai in his position as President?

In a series of articles published in Newsday, the Standard and the Independent, Nelson Chamisa, MDCT Spokesperson boldly proclaims “We are the apostles of constitutionalism and disciples and doyens of democracy”.

Any proclamation spoken by politicians should be treated with suspicion, particularly if it is salted with religious reference. Mr. Chamisa goes on to ignorantly defend the National Council’s decision by saying that the two terms only counted when the MDC President also became President of the country.

The MDC Constitution, available for download from their website, states in article 3 titled Aims Values And Objects:

The MDC shall be a Social Democratic Party whose core values shall be solidarity, justice, equality, liberty, freedom, transparency, humble and obedient leadership and accountability. And it goes on further to say:
(b) An open democracy, in which national government is accountable to the people through the devolution of power and decision-making to the provinces and local institutions and structures.

The same document also states that amendments to the MDC constitution are to be carried out by a two-thirds majority of the Congress, not the National Council. I’m no legal expert but the actions of the National Council don’t seem very constitutional to me.

By what standard are we to measure Mr. Tsvangirai and MDC-T itself if even they cannot uphold their own party’s constitution? How are we to believe that they won’t at the first opportunity amend a national constitution to hold onto power?

Of course the major argument proffered will be (in former US Ambassador Christopher Dells words) that Mr. Tsvangirai is the only player on the scene right now with real star quality and the ability to rally the masses. But this does not exempt him from being accountable to the people he wishes to represent. If he is to remain president and the MDC constitution is to be amended then let him state his case at the congress in front of the people, not in front of a hand picked group of cronies and yes men who’s interest lie in maintaining the little power they’ve managed to wrangle from ZANU PF.

Elections are coming and Zimbabwe is watching. Nothing Mr. Mugabe does or says surprises anyone, but Mr. Tsvangirai is quickly becoming the devil no one knows about.

Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights launched a report today titled Zimbabwe: Geared up for another election. The report is a follow up to another ZHLR report titled Will there be free and fair elections?

ZLHR’s objective in conducting the study that culminated in this report was to assess the 2008 election and the possibility of future elections in Zimbabwe. The report uses the SADC Principles and guidelines to Democratic elections as a yardstick to measure the level of compliance of Zimbabwe’s electoral framework and its adherence to norms and standards, which the SADC community has recognised as minimum requirements to ensure democratic elections.

In the report, ZLHR notes that the Lancaster House Constitution, amended 18 times before the 2008 elections, does not protect fundamental rights and freedoms; nor does it establish independent institutions that are accountable, transparent and independent.

At the signing of the Global Political Agreement and the formation of the Inclusive government the generality of Zimbabweans were hopeful that this was the beginning of a journey towards a democratic dispensation. Crucial to the creation of that democracy was a new constitution. However, the report noted that people were unable to participate freely in the constitution-making process because of the continued existence of repressive legislation. Private media was suffocated and the public media was under the control of retrogressive forces. Selective application of the law targeting human rights defenders, and perceived and real supporters of the MDC is still rampant, and institutions of justice delivery remained unreformed. Two years after elections and the singing of the GPA, cases of political violence continue to be documented, and the polarisation of society that marred the 2008 Election has not been addressed.

In his presentation at the launch, ZLHR member, Alec Muchadehama reflected on the 2008 elections. He noted that the 2008 elections had been characterised by extreme violence; electoral fraud and malpractice; the denial of freedoms of expression and assembly; bribery and corruption; and murder. He also chronicled the trials he endured as a lawyer defending human rights, including the illegal opening of ballot boxes, gerrymandering and the restriction of public access to the voters roll by ZANU PF. Mr. Muchadehama noted that Zimbabwe, during that election was a “classical example of how not to [conduct elections]“.

In her editorial for the first edition of BUWA, editor Alice Kanengoni describes a typical domestic scene: women in the kitchen preparing a meal, men in front of the television or at a table playing games. I was reminded of the funerals; weddings etc that I’ve attended where the men are either around the fire or in the house waiting for a meal, drinks, and the women are doing the work. Women themselves view their rightful places in society as being by the fire or the stove, cooking and serving.

As an adult woman, I wonder at my mother’s strength and energy in my childhood; she worked full time, just like my father did, her job was just as demanding as my fathers, and yet at the end of her work day she came home to cook, clean and help with homework. My father came home to his favourite chair, television, snacks dinner and a drink.

I remember whenever I was untidy or refused to cook, or did some other unwomanly thing she would start her reprimand with “musikana akanaka ano…” (a good girl does..). When I asked her why I had to be a good girl she would reply that it’s part of our traditions, how would I be married if I couldn’t keep house? My mother is a highly educated woman, smarter than anyone I know, and a strong willed, independent thinker.  But for her, who she is at work, and who she is at home are two different and very separate people.

In her article for BUWA, titled Contemporary African Feminism, Professor Patricia McFadden writes:

In very general terms, feminism as a radical thinking/ conceptual tradition has deliberately ruptured the boundaries of conventional, often reactionary knowledge production everywhere it has been practised, and has challenged conventional as an ideological practice, by arguing for a politics of transformation and of daily life.

She goes on to say:

Feminism is the rejection of and struggle against Patriarchy (as a system and set of structures and ideologies that privilege men and allot them various forms of power in all societies) and is also the celebration of freedom for women everywhere. As Stevi Jackson and Jackie Jones (1998) put it: ” Feminist theory seeks to analyse the conditions which shape women’s lives and to explore cultural understandings of what it means to be a woman.”

For many women in Africa, feminism is something that we practise outside our homes and our families. Our cultural understanding of womanhood is sometimes in direct conflict what we say in meetings about gender equity and social justice for women. Patriarchy is something we fight at work or in the streets.  At home not only do women accept it, they also seek to perpetuate it but granting privilege to their sons and insisting that their daughters become domesticated in the traditions of their mothers, grand mothers and great grand mothers. I think many African women, like my mother and even myself have struggled, or are struggling with the notions of being an African woman, a feminist and an African Feminist. We struggle to translate an academic concept into reality in our own lives, and often end up living two lives in compromise.

During the weekend my single girlfriends and I were discussing the perils of dating in Zimbabwe. One girlfriend said that married men propositioned her regularly at work. Others had regular girlfriends on the side. We were shocked. What happened to love and the sanctity of marriage?

Of course some men will argue that this is Africa and monogamy is a European construct, that our culture permits polygamy, that women out number men, and their millions of years old biological imperative, that should have become extinct with the Neanderthals, to populate the earth is difficult to ignore. The religious might even quote God’s “Go forth and multiply”, and who can argue with God?

Surfing the Internet a few days ago I came across a dating forum on classifieds.co.zw. Among the men and women, whose pain and loneliness was palpable in the text of their personal ads, were a few married but available men:

Married but willing to explore: am married but would want to spice my life a bit with someone similar probably share experiences and passion but just a discreet relationship no strings attached (nsa)

Lets have fun NSA period! :… I am a funny dude who loves older open minded NSA ladies, who are funny to hang out and go out with …. email or call me on weekends only

With arrogance and assumed impunity both of these have posted their names, phone numbers and even pictures. They are well educated. One even works in development, where one would assume he should be more enlightened than the average man.

Love is hard, sex is easy. But at a time when HIV/AIDS exists because no one thinks it can happen to them isn’t a no strings attached non-relationship risking too much? It’s not just men who should be held responsible its women too. It is impossible to cheat without a willing partner. The men, who propositioned my friend, knew she knew they were married. I’m sure it wasn’t the first time they had thought to have a little fun with the pretty young thing in the office, and by extension experience has taught them that it doesn’t matter, pretty young things don’t care whether they are married or not.