Mature political debate needed

OPINIONS expressed on this site show a broader sense of mature debate in that you don't see name calling as on some online publications I shall not name. The only thinking consistent with pro—MDC contributors elsewhere that I find to be guided by the same principles is that should anyone highlight MDC’s weaknesses he is lumped with a Zanu PF sympathizer label.

I believe the MDC was formed to promote change which should essentially mean openness and the right to express oneself freely.

Is it not tantamount to recreating the intolerance that the MDC professes to be fighting against if the party’s supporters do not want to hear constructive criticism?

As much as people might not realize it, the parliamentary results gave a good balance to pure democratic debate in that no party can impose itself and pass legislation without consultation. Remember the days MDC walked out of parliament, but Zanu PF would have the required quorum to pass legislation anyway?

I am of the opinion that every elected MP has to work hard to represent his/her people, otherwise he is a goner when people vote next time. In this regard, I believe we will all mature politically  and ensure our voices are heard despite our differences by discussing what we think and make sure all the politicians pay attention. It will help us move on from arguing without facts that substantiate our thinking.

I would like to clarify my last point by pointing at how MDC claims poll fraud at every election without showing us, the voters, any proof which in a way has pushed them into a corner at the moment because Zanu PF has adopted the same approach in disputing some results, hence mud being thrown back and forth.

This is like some Mexican stand off till the next election and notice that the real loser here is us, the electorate. Both party leadership are hardly affected by the effects of sanctions, hence some can call for their tightening because they, like their adversaries, can get medication and food supplies easily from South Africa, Botswana, Zambia and wherever they have allies.

I, for one, need to be convinced that who gets my vote will best serve my interests.

I call on the rest of the contributors to count the cost of sanctions and what they are doing to the country. If the West believes China has wronged Tibet by annexing their territory, surely people ought to realize Zimbabwe is the African Tibet at the hands of the west who want to hold on to colonial land claims and should give equal sympathies to us as they do with Tibet.

Demonizing our legitimate concerns shows that we may have moved from the effective occupation period, but when it comes to the crunch, the West believes we do not know what's good for ourselves; hence you have them pushing South Africa at the Security Council to be their voice.

I remember a U.S. presenter quoting Nelson Mandela for having praised Fidel Castro and then calling on Mandela to distance or renounce the statements, to which Mandela replied that the presenter’s enemies do not become Mandela’s enemies simply because he (Mandela) is friendly with the presenter.

Has anyone also noticed that a statesman of Mandela’s stature has not had much to say on Zimbabwe? We should realize that the issue is more complicated than the western media rhetoric of ‘Mugabe out and Zimbabwe is saved’.

The issues that brought about the Chimurenga 2 are still largely not addressed and the crisis did not start in 2000 as is largely reported in some media outlets. Work was in progress  pre-1997 as a letter from Claire Short renouncing the U.K.’s Lancaster House commitments would attest to. Unfortunately, I do not have a copy of the letter to prove my case, but if anyone is interested in finding out if the letter does exist, a check of the old stories in the New African magazine between 2006 and 2007 would confirm this.


Munhumutapa

munhu.mutapa@yahoo.com


Editor’s addition:
Click here to see a copy of Claire Short's letter in an opinion piece by Peter Chimutsa