THE recent harmonized elections in Zimbabwe have left our society more divided than ever and relationships threatened as many advance into their comfort zones in the hope of finding meaning during the period of madness. Others have traded their commonsense for the desire to belong to what appears to be the most promising group.
This has also been reflected at the international level where those who want change in our country have been seen expending resources and time into an organisation they think will deliver that change.
Simply calling an organisation the Movement for Democratic Change is no guarantee that it will bring that change.
This is the naivety that has driven much of western thinking over the years and coupled with sanctions they have seen it fit to kill many people with hunger and disease in order to make one political party capitulate; and it hasn’t capitulated.
One can sense the sense of desperation and exasperation on the part of the west for Mugabe to be toppled.
Yet a simple analysis of the Zimbabwean situation will prove that Mugabe will not go through western manipulation of the process in Zimbabwe, or through a media engineered process. He is a product of a system of abuse and is smart to the workings of that system.
He has outwitted these countries many a time and all their conferences, their money and endless media propaganda has not altered things an inch.
Hiring PR companies and sprucing up the image of the MDC will only help in the west, but will not alter things on the ground in favour of the MDC. In a sense it makes the chances of a peaceful solution very remote.
The British have to realize that their solution thus far have failed; and have failed the people of Zimbabwe. It is time to think of other ways to engage with the Zimbabwean government. Arrogance certainly has not helped; and will not help. Many more Zimbabweans will be pushed below the poverty line and at some stage they will have to deal with a more challenging crisis―a humanitarian crisis. They have to start engaging constructively.
Negotiations in Northern Ireland did not stop because of the killings. American and British leaders fly to the Middle East everyday to mediate the Arab-Israeli conflict; yet that conflict threatens world peace more than does Zimbabwe.
Who is worse someone with a 'softly softly' approach, than one who refuses to negotiate at all?
What is it about Zimbabwe they hate so much as to think negotiation is not an option?
Simba Mapuranga―Opinion
Chicago, IL (USA)
