UK — I am surprised by the professor’s utterances which seem to indicate that he is aware of some deal that is only short lived to the solutions of Zimbabwe.

 

First and foremost, why have a short-term solution to such a crisis that has proved 2008 to be annus horribilis for the Zimbabweans? What is the time scale to this short-term solution and what is the long-term plan? We are talking of our country and we can not be looking at quick fix solutions.

 

 

The professor’s article lacks in real substance, truth and reality and can only be described as a means to appease Zimbabweans who view his actions as highly betrayal, biased and sometimes personalised at the expense national interest. 

 

The professor talks of agreeing on borders of our country and a name for our country are these two classified at this moment as issues and are they in dispute?

 

You can only start talking about implementing an economic vision when the forces at play are in equilibrium. Zimbabwe is not lacking in the resources both human and physical to urgently turn around the economy, what we should be talking about is who will lead the process of getting the country back to being the bread basket of Africa once more.

 

Who is going to be the driver of this economic turnaround, surely not Robert Mugabe? Key activities will include addressing the humanitarian aspects of the crisis, and adopting mechanisms to salvage, recover and stabilize the economy.

 

Who is taking ownership of addressing and effecting measures that will see an end to the humanitarian crisis? Are they someone who is legitimate, someone who is capable and someone whose integrity is not questionable?

 

By carefully avoiding mentioning in his article what will become of Mugabe in this future Zimbabwe, Mutambara is conceding that Mugabe hasn’t erred and that he is still fit to remain part of the ruling machinery in our country. This is not acceptable.

 

Mugabe must take a break. If we all can’t acknowledge our mistakes, then we can never learn from them and we can never progress. Mugabe must realise his mistakes, acknowledge them and be ashamed of himself. An unbiased post-mortem of Mugabe’s errors should bring new solutions by those who will be in positions of leadership in the new Zimbabwe.

 

Zimbabweans will be masters of our own destiny and suggestions of re-colonisation by Mugabe and a few human rights abusers who fear persecution should not be tolerated by any sane Zimbabwean. As a result, Mugabe should stop using re-colonisation as a weapon to stay in power. We shouldn’t be letting Mugabe talking the talk without walking the walk.

 

Rather, the professor, instead of embracing Mugabe as partner in the government, he should be telling Mugabe and convincing him that enough damage has been done and what we now require is to move forward by injecting a new brand of ideas into the system and abolish the old wicked ways of governing and if need be, Mugabe can be pardoned for the trauma he has caused us as Zimbabweans so that we move forward and bury the past.

 

Since the professor seems to believe in Mugabe, he can take the initiative to acknowledge to him the good that he has done before he embarked on the tyranny and that should Zimbabweans at any time require his inputs in decision making, he can always be contacted.

 

What the professor should be stressing in thinking beyond the political settlement is the issue of corporate citizenship by any company, local or foreign that will operate in Zimbabwe.

 

The new government should make it known to companies that they are expected to show corporate social responsibility in the communities that they operate for the long-term benefit of the company, the government and for the good of the wider society.

 

It is a more holistic view of businesses and their activities that can effectively address the key sustainable development challenges that faces our collapsed economy.

 

In this global village, we can not be seen to bury our heads in the sand and pretend as though we do not know that our own country, just like any other country is subjected to political, economic, social, technological, legal and ecological (PESTLE) external forces and it is how our leaders approach and react to these forces that determines the success or failure of our own internal systems.

 

By stating that these talks will only bring a short-term solution, without going a mile further to explain what long-term strategy will be adopted, Mutambara seems to be suggesting that some form of agreement by a few people has already been reached which the majority of Zimbabweans is not aware of.

 

If this is the case, it clearly shows that the few have chosen to come up with a segmented hierarchical decision with only a few at the top making the decisions for the entire nation.

 

Professor Mutambara should be fully aware that segmented structures and decisions result in segmented attitudes by those at the bottom due to the restrictiveness of vertical and lateral communications.

 

The next few days will be fuzzy as to what outcome awaits the Zimbabweans from these talks. We can not start talking about tomorrow before defining the elements and boundaries of the current crisis. Mutambara’s article only serves to legitimise his unholy matrimony with the devil.

 

How will Zimbabweans collectively fashion a new beginning when at the onset of these negotiations, the Zimbabweans have been totally excluded? 

 

If this stop-gap as you say is neither a sustainable answer nor a long-term solution to our dire circumstance, then what purpose does it serve? What interest do Zimbabweans have for Zimbabwe and what power do Zimbabweans have to influence their interest? If they did have any power, then they would not have on two occasions been cheated of their votes. It is this power to influence our destiny that we urgently want to see restored immediately.

 

If all stakeholders had been mapped and classified according to their power and interest, legitimacy and urgency, and whether they are internal, national or international stakeholders then we would not have such utterances like those coming from Professor Madhuku and other civic communities.

 

The lack of an all inclusive agenda leads to the failure to realise before hand that some stakeholders possess inhibiting powers whilst others possess supporting power to enhance the success or failure of the negotiations.

 

 

Not including everyone is a failure by our leaders to “stay close to us.” It is time our leaders, old and new become less bureaucratic and embrace a paradigm shift of re-thinking politics that aligns with modern realities.

 

Finally, our economy and infrastructure has dismally collapsed and to restore this, we are now dealing with a complex situation. The complexity is further enhanced by the aspect of the traumatised human soft systems.

 

We can’t talk of the economy without talking of the people. Failure to handle the situation inclusively will lead to nothing but further chaos. Lets not at this tender stage of the negotiations fail to align actions and values to avoid a situation whereby Zimbabweans fail to get value for the country’s worth.

 

By Mbuya Rennie.

 

Got a story, opinion or want your letter published, please e-mail Editor at editor@zimdaily.com