Yesterday the Herald headline read ‘ZANU PF popularity surges: Poll’.

I was shocked to see how the Herald, which is a state controlled paper, was quick to praise this survey titled “Change and ‘New’ Politics in Zimbabwe” done by a US based NGO Freedom House. The survey like any survey poses challenges to its findings due to its delimitations and as noted in the report it mostly concentrated in the rural areas. Honestly in Zimbabwe where freedom of speech is non-existent who would answer saying that they support or belong to opposition parties? According to the survey 47% of the respondents refused to indicate who they would vote for. Of the 53% who declared their preference 31% chose ZANU PF and 20 the MDC. My point of fear of disclosure is brought to light as shown that many people feared disclosing their political affiliation.

It’s so easy to say I support ZANU PF because you know you are not stepping on anyone’s toes. But when one publicly says they are for the MDC you are mostly likely to irk a few people and place your life at great risk in your community especially in rural communities. I was enlightened in the other findings of the survey, which somehow newspapers reporting on this story ignored.
-85% are ‘sure’ or ‘very sure’ that they will be casting their ballots in the next elections
-47% of those who said they would vote in the next elections stated ‘this is the election that will make the difference’.
-A total of 35% respondents in this survey (compared with 16% in 2010) now believe that the next round of elections will be free and fair.

These are among other findings summarised on the Freedom House website.

The last time such a report was published saying MDC was the most popular ZANU PF quickly rubbished this report and Herald did not even report on it. And because this year’s report shows ZANU PF as the most popular party, the Herald took the story to their front page and the MDC was quick to rubbish this report. I believe the ballot in a free and fair election will show who the most popular party is. May the best party win in the next elections!

Amid reports that Zanu PF has sent amendments to the draft Zimbabwe Constitution to the principals, that the MDC has rejected them, and that Zanu PF will be debating this further this weekend, here is a very sensible suggestion from a subscriber about the way forward:

Can we please push for a balanced panel on national television whenever there are issues concerning a discussion of the draft constitution. So far we are tired of Mahoso and Chivaura’s consistently negative views on the draft constitution. Is this to mean that everything about that constitution draft is bad. Also my reading of the same did not show any providing guaranteeing sexual orientation rights and yet it is being used to stir away people from liking the draft. National television is one of the most effective tools reaching even the most remote areas. Should we sit back and let these guys feed lies to the people? Its high time the correct information be disseminated and people be given an opportunity to make their choice.  Lets push for a balanced panel that does not praise-worship and boot-lick Mugabe at the expense of national interest causes. -    JC

While you’re at it, read the draft Constitution for yourself and decide what you think.

Also read this comprehensive interview with Studio 7 and Alex Magaisa about the provisions in the draft Constitution.

How quickly the MDC responds in fury over a survey indicating that its lost support among citizens of Zimbabwe. How slowly, or read … not all, do they issue a statement condemning the harassment and assault of GALZ members.  And people compare Tsvangirai to Mandela? You’ve got to be kidding.

Read research from Freedom House on the popularity of the MDC / Zanu PF and the electoral environment in Zimbabwe:

Susan Booysen, author of the interim report Change and ‘New’ Politics in Zimbabwe for Freedom House, said she encountered complaints that the MDC had lost touch with grassroots constituencies, whereas Zanu-PF was still visible and fighting party political battles there.

“I’ve heard people saying MDC is just not doing work in the constituencies and is spending too much time in the palace,” Booysen added. “They’re taking for granted they’re the crown princes. They are not capturing the desire for change. And there is still a desire for change among people.”

The whole report is here

Source Abiye Teklemariam:

“This happened because of an unhealthy conflation of appropriate post-death etiquette for private persons and the etiquette governing deaths of public figures. THEY ARE NOT AND SHOULD NOT BE THE SAME. We are all taught that it is impolite to speak ill of the dead, particularly in the immediate aftermath of someone’s death. For a private person, in a private setting, that makes perfect sense. Most human beings are complex and shaped by conflicting drives, defined by both good and bad acts. That’s more or less what it means to be human. And — when it comes to private individuals — it’s entirely appropriate to emphasize the positives of someone’s life and avoid criticisms upon their death: it comforts their grieving loved ones and honors their memory. In that context, there’s just no reason, no benefit, to highlight their flaws.

But that is completely inapplicable to the death of a public person, especially one who is political. When someone dies who is a public figure by virtue of their political acts discussions of them upon death will be inherently politicized. How they are remembered is not strictly a matter of the sensitivities of their loved ones, but has substantial impact on the culture which discusses their lives. To allow significant political figures to be heralded with purely one-sided requiems — enforced by misguided (even if well-intentioned) notions of private etiquette that bar discussions of their bad acts — is not a matter of politeness; it’s deceitful and propagandistic. To exploit the sentiments of sympathy produced by death to enshrine a political figure as Great and Noble is to sanction, or at best minimize, their sins. Misapplying private death etiquette to public figures creates false history and glorifies the ignoble.”

- Glenn Greenwald

The Zimbabwe Election Support Network is holding a Public Meeting in Bulawayo.

Date: 22nd of August 2012 on the Draft Constitution
Topic: The structure of  government: “The balance of power between the executive and the Parliament”

Venue: Small City Hall
Time: 1630hrs-1900hrs

Speakers:  Hon. Reggie Moyo, Mr. Qhubani Moyo,  Mr Godfrey Malaba, Mr. Stephen Nkiwane
Moderator:  Mr. Percy Mcijo

All Welcome

The police have been notified of this meeting

For more information please contact us on the address below:

Office 8
Exchange Building
Leopold Takawira
Bulawayo
Tel 09-883772