Zimpapers Logo

of Parliament on the grounds that it was flawed, Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai came up with a statement that should have shamed all those who thought, hoped or said that the MDC-T leader was democratic.
For others, there was nothing new, having known the premier to say such things. Remember this is the man who once called for the violent overthrow of a constitutionally-elected Government.
He also showed his own revulsion of democratic processes in the chain of events leading to his party’s split in 2005.
In part, the MDC-T leader said of the ruling: “The decision is a clear reflection of the state of affairs at the bench, the Judiciary which in the post-Dumbutshena and post-Gubbay era largely discredited itself by becoming a willing appendage of Zanu-PF.
“Dubious and pro-Executive decisions have been made in this era.
“We will not accept the decision of some Zanu-PF politicians masquerading as judges. Zanu-PF is trying to use the courts to subvert what it lost in an election.”
Moyo, for his part, weighed in condemning the same court, saying: “We are aware that the majority of our people, learned men and women on the bench, owe it to the (President Robert) Mugabe regime, and obviously it is a given that when it comes to a call when they have to make decisions, crucial decisions for that matter, they have to pay back the master. In this case, do things in favour of Zanu-PF.
“So I was not shocked because I knew that 99 percent they would certainly favour their master.”
The two men now face contempt of court charges for denigrating the highest court in the land.
In fact, as reported in the weekly Sunday Mail, it is the latter that faces imminent arrest after Tsvangirai lately appeared to apologise for the possible offense.
For the record, Tsvangirai last week was quoted as saying: “My recent comments on the Judiciary were clearly an immediate reaction against a judgment that affected the morale of my party.
“Those comments should not be taken out of context. They are not in any way a departure from my strong belief in judicial independence nor were they meant to undermine anyone.
“We have never sought to undermine anyone in the Judiciary and we will continue to place our matters before the courts.”
He added that his party continued to seek recourse in the courts. MDC-T, he claimed, believed in constitutionalism and the rule of law.
“At the core of the rule of law is the belief that disputes must be settled after due process and that there can be no resort to self-redress and self-execution,” he said, adding that “for many years, the MDC has persistently and consistently sought redress in the courts of Zimbabwe”.
He said his party had “filed endless applications with different results with the various courts in Zimbabwe”.
“The reason why we did this was our strong belief in the Judiciary and we still believe that disputes can be resolved in the courts of this country,” he said.
Taken as a whole, it is clear that Tsvangirai and Moyo and the MDC-T party were conscious of their denigration of the Supreme Court following a decision that did not go their way, or affected the morale of the party, as Tsvangirai put it.
This reflects badly on the self-proclaimed “party of excellence”.
The most aggrieved party, Moyo, did not care to swallow his words but, to his credit, Tsvangirai did.
However, this apparent climb-down by the premier demonstrates a number of things, which basically underline the one fact that Tsvangirai is not made of stuff that makes national leaders.
First of all it shows the world the flip-flop idiosyncrasy in the MDC-T leader that has over the years led him to giving contrasting signals on matters of national importance such as elections where he has made countless boycotts and threats of boycotts.
The boycotts and threats thereof subsist to this day.
But here is not to say that there was ever any dignity in the first statement, which in fact – it must be owned – he does himself a lot of good in trying to correct.
The first statement, apart from denigrating the persons and institution of the Supreme Court, had a number of negative vibes.
It ignored the numerical dynamic of the judgment, with three judges having found no favour with Moyo, while the other two were for him.
This made quite a balanced act, which should never have been rashly dismissed by Tsvangirai in the manner he did.
Secondly, Tsvangirai had for a moment forgotten – as he and his party usually do when things do not go their way – that he was part of the Executive which, as he said was being favoured by the judgments.
This reminds one of the time Tsvangirai offered himself as surety for Roy Bennett during the latter’s terrorism trial, which surprised many people who thought and expected that as part of the State PM Tsvangirai should not have done so, regardless of the importance of Bennett as a party functionary.
Suffice to say, Tsvangirai and his party have not outgrown opposition politics, even in the era of the inclusive Government, which might as well have reached its twilight zone.
Connected to this, Tsvangirai forgot that it was the same Judiciary that acquitted him of treason charges; and Bennett of terrorism, among other decisions that went the MDC-T way.
Thus, Tsvangirai belatedly and perhaps begrudgingly admits to the functionality of Zimbabwe’s Judiciary where his party has oftentimes won recourse.
In all this Tsvangirai paints a picture of a danger unto himself and the country.
Personally, he has demonstrated for the umpteenth time his deficiency as a sound, judicious and bankable leader. Who would seriously need a vacillating person at the helm of Zimbabwe?
This is one person whose mouth opens before engaging the brains.
There was nothing unclear about his statements on the Judiciary: he was upset that the superior court had nullified the election of his henchman, Moyo.
The one context within which this could be read, as it largely was, is the desperation of the MDC-T to be in power which often leads it to anomic actions and statements.
Read with this, MDC-T is not democratic, at least in the pure sense of the word, and Tsvangirai is testimony enough of this fact.
Still on the personal level, Tsvangirai’s lack of preponderance only endangers his own political career, reiterating the need that he needs “massive handholding” if he is lucky to survive the mission of delivering Zimbabwe to the West.
His continued and continuing follies make a strong case for his replacement with better minds, at least in the sense of serving the Western masters without the embarrassments such as the ones that he so often brews.
Tsvangirai is a danger to the country in that apart from his contempt of its institutions, he is generally a willing appendage of the West.
His rancour with the Moyo judgment stemmed from the perceived weakening of his Western-sponsored party.
And in his view, his party should be a formidable force to challenge and defeat not only the national institutions such as the courts, but also ideals and achievements such as Independence, land reform and indigenisation and economic empowerment.
He knows that his is a difficult mission.
In desperation he has developed a Manichean worldview: that if he does not win an election it is not free and fair; that if a member of his party is prosecuted he is being persecuted; that if he and his Western-funded backers do not have their way, it’s the highway; that the only democracy that can exist in Zimbabwe is one which he can dispense.
This makes him blind to the fact that there is much democracy in Zimbabwe as would never been bequeathed by the British or Americans were it not for the liberation struggle.
In a word Tsvangirai does little to dispel the notion that he is but a Western puppet masquerading as a national politician.
[email protected]