Letters: The difference between Mugabe and Mnangagwa

Based on pure analysis it can be argued that the difference between the late and former president of Zimbabwe Robert Mugabe and the incumbent and successor Emmerson Mnangagwa can be cited in the fact that the former ruled as an emperor while the latter rules not as a dictator per se but as an absolute ruler, for better or worse.

Put differently, Mugabe believed in delegative leadership while Mnangagwa will have none of that.

Mugabe’s leadership was centrifugal while his successor‘s is centripetal.

Under a normal political environment the former is preferable to the latter.

Mugabe, although he made fluent public utterances, was laid back and sluggish and relied on report backs from his ministers.

His intelligence unit was deficiently poor and conversely we could with justification advance the theory that he was not sufficiently au fait with intelligence in respect of political office, especially for one at the summit of national leadership.

Untimely this style of leadership resulted in Mugabe’s ouster from office.

It’s a piece of genius for a man who for decades had been tossed and shuttled to and forth traversing the whole gamut of ministerial appointments, as a speaker of parly and ultimately as VP, only to be ejected ignomiously from office.

Keep Reading

• Editorial Comment: Govt should divest from agriculture
• Zim economic situation hinders women’s political participation
• Zim economic situation hinders women’s political participation
• Zim economic situation hinders women’s political participation

Oh his part Mnangagwa may not be a dictator and yet his grip on power “leaves no-one behind”.

Dictatorship is pretty much a euphemism for absolute rulership; if Mnangagwa is not the latter then he is both.

I see no other euphemism, frankly.

His ubiquity, call it everywhereness, confounds his rivals in the game of politics including both friend and foe.

Economists quitely rightly accuse him of printing the Zimdollar to fund rural infrastructural development, the rural areas being his voter catchment constituencies.

The villagers won’t be swayed otherwise what with superfluous handouts which include hard US dollars.

Zanu PF functionaries publicly brag that “iZanu PF iyadlisa, mina sengayakhi isitolo sami ekhaya, sesimi sibili”, indeed they are “harvesting” money!

Not so long ago a good many of them presented a scraggly physique and yet now they are pushing distensible bellies.

I am writing what I hear and see on the ground.

Mnangagwa has carved divisions between the people of Zimbabwe along tribal, regional and party lines, a challenge if not a problem come 2028.

Zimbabweans are now monsters against one another.

Meanwhile Triple-C as the main opposition is bedeviled with infighting arising from the selection of candidates especially in councils.

There is a lot of hanky panky in the selection of candidates with each component wanting to submit its own candidate to be nominated.

The reported delay to submit nomination papers by 15 intending candidates of coalition is case in point.

Triple-C’s so-called people’s primaries was the causal factor of the chaos. In a coalition-up there is no way that intending candidates can come solely from the supporters.

The process was a complete farce from the start.

The reposing of the onerous responsibility was a graphic show of inexperience and immaturity by the coalition leadership.

This was gross blind and unpardonable faith by the coalition leadership.

Chamisa’s other two coalition partners are dormant, to put it mildly and pretty much in the woodwork.

Chamisa himself inspite of his long political career is only a baby in the game by comparison.

There is no coalescence in the  alliance, none at all. If there was, the leaders would be seen by the public repadalling a tricycle together in tanden.

Conversely, they leave everything to Nelson Chamisa.

Mnangagwa has been on the campaign trail for one month now drawing thousands to the rallies while Chamisa is in South Africa and in remote towns “introducing” candidates.

What a farcical show!

 I could go an ad infinitum but for the sake of space in the column. It is germane, therefore, for me to qualify my contribution by quoting a judgment made by a renowned judge.

 “The path of criticism is a public way: the wrong headed are permitted to err therein”.

As a point or points of reference, the Rainbow coalition in Kenya , the Late Fredrick Chiluba’s Movement for Multiparty Democracy in Zambia, without of course excluding Zambia’s Hokainde Hichilema’s party in  the equation, which galvanized the youths and who in turn gave the party more than 1 000 000  votes  at the polls .

 Tendai Biti and Welshman Ncube are just too mute and absent from the arena, dare I say.

The two are a liability both to the coalition and the electorate.

Theirs is a betrayal to the opposition as a grouping.

My keen observation is that whereas in sub-Saharan Africa some leaders are dictators through and through they however differ on how they get into power and how they aggrandize and protect that power especially at election times.

That is when their true colours manifest themselves. Almost invariably they use the judiciary , the military, the police and even the correctional services institutions and parastatals where they exist while the ruling party wreaks havoc among communities and society at large with unmitigated impunity. Some even succeed in enlisting the partisanship and connivance, covert and / or overt, of the so-called independent electoral commission to rig the elections in their favour.

In Zimbabwe the judiciary is an utter disgrace; something is terribly and loudly wrong with it. As for ZEC, there is a saying I am wont quote: it is at one’s own peril to appoint a poacher as a game keeper!

As for Mnangagwa, he would normally have been expected to be contented with Zanu PF’s land slide victory in the 2018 harmonized elections when he was only nine months in power.

The fact that he is said to have lost to Nelson Chamisa is now water under the bridge. The institutions mentioned above are paid pipers who cannot sing the tune let alone author the lyrics.

The repression of the opposition and the frequent banning of rallies is explained and justified  by Zamu PF through my son Tafadzwa Mugwandi and ZRP senior Assistant Commissioner Paul Nyathi, in their now banal choreographed comments, as because the opposition is not following the law…” one wonders what’s intricate and peculiar about this law that it cannot be understood by the opposition whose ranks are literally bursting at the seams with legal brains of all sorts.

These statements are characteristic of people who wield and enjoy absolute power, which power they exercise extravagantly and with gay abandon.

 During the Rhodesian Front government rural people were herded into “keeps” but they ate and got full.

 Nowadays you have to belong to Zanu  PF in order to eat, and to get seed maize and other agricultural inputs. - Martin Stobart

Constitutional law is glorified politics! In the field of constitutional law, there is no escaping politics, no matter how much we try to hide behind semantics. Not even a Dworkinian judge, with utmost intelligence and skill in legal interpretation and legal hermeneutics, knows precisely how to navigate this terrain with utmost impartiality.

The task before the judges, when Kasukuwere returns to court on the 8th of August 2023 is no different.

Judging politics requires the art of separating the law from politics, making pronouncements on law, and deferring politics to political arms. But is this always attainable? Sometimes the law and the politics are so intertwined that separation will result in unintended consequences.

On August 8 the Constitutional Court will hear a constitutional application by independent presidential aspirant, exiled former Zanu PF lawmaker Saviour Kasukuwere, in which Kasukuwere invokes his constitutionally guaranteed legal right of access to courts and seeks direct access to be heard in the constitutional court per section 85(1) of the constitution on a matter pertaining to the decisions in the High Court and subsequently the supreme court.

What makes the decisions of the High Court and the Supreme Court of appeal impeachable is the fact that no written or oral reasons were made available.

This is a travesty of justice. Right to receive reasons for judgment is intrinsically linked to administrative justice.

Every individual is entitled to reasons in every decision that affects him or her.

Reasons are also necessary to enable one to make an informed choice of whether or not to appeal.

Both the SCA and High Court surely had other ideas.

Be that as it may, on Tuesday, the Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe will be navigating a treacherous political terrain.

The original contention in Kasukuwere’s matter has been that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear matters concerning the Nomination Court.

Interestingly, the Supreme Court rejected this argument in the Kasukuwere appeal, but the same Supreme Court ruled in the Citizens Coalition for Change Bulawayo 12’s matter that the High Court had erred.

It ruled that the CCC12 application had merit and one of the contentions of the CCC 12 was that the HC had no jurisdiction to hear that matter.

Kasukuwere avers that the decision of the supreme court must be set aside.

He argues that the decision of the SCA severely impacts on his fundamental right of equal protection of the law and the constitutionally guaranteed right to participate in an election.

Essentially, the question he seeks to have determined is whether he was properly disqualified within the confines of the constitution.

Now, while the above, seemingly, are clear legal questions, the Constitutional Court will be fully aware of its political ramifications.

Zanu  PF does not want Kasukuwere on the ballot. That is politics.

The High Court and the SCA may have truly violated his right to participate in politics. That is the law.  How the judges will navigate this, is everyone’s guess.

The bench must therefore rise above these challenges and render a ruling that champions the interests of democracy, upholds the rule of law, and guarantees every citizen's right to participate in shaping the future of their nation.

The court's decision on August 8, 2023 will not only shape Kasukuwere’s fate, but also hold profound implications for the broader democratic fabric of Zimbabwe.

 Let us hope that the judges' wisdom, impartiality, and commitment to democratic values will prevail, bringing forth a brighter and more just future for the nation. -*Dr Simbarashe Tembo is a Zimbabwean constitutional lawyer based at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban South Africa

The Election Resource Centre has learnt with concern of the serious political violence committed in Glen View/Glen Norah areas on  August 3 2023 which resulted in the death of Citizen Coalition for Change supporter Tinashe Chitsunge.

 The right to life is sacrosanct and nobody has the right to take it away.

Freedom of association and assembly are fundamental rights for anyone in Zimbabwe.

The right to own private property is guaranteed in the constitution and acts of arson as reported in Shurugwi must be condemned.

With eighteen (18) days to the polls, as the Election Resource Centre, we urge a prompt and thorough investigation by the Zimbabwe Republic Police, Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission and the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission, that will bring to justice the perpetrators of these acts of violence.

Additionally, apart from speeches for peaceful elections, we urge all political leaders to act firmly in preventing, disciplining their members and eliminating political violence and intimidation as these acts undermine the integrity of the election.

 The ERC calls for immediate cessation to the increasing levels of election-related violence, inciting and hate speech ahead of the August  23, 2023 harmonised elections. - ERC

Related Topics