READING through the first part of the United Nations report on Operation Murambatsvina I find that while many readers have only captured the fact that the report is hard-hitting on the government, there are other players who have cases to
answer identified in the report.
Unfortunately, most of the comments made appear to be interested in finding facts that pin down President Robert Mugabe and his government and conveniently disregard the case of these other “culprits”.
If we are saying the findings of the UN are correct, then can those who drafted the Lancaster House Constitution be courageous enough to stand up and admit that they meant to perpetuate the interests of the colonialists in Zimbabwe by embedding “historical inequity in the constitutional settlement (the ‘Lancaster House Constitution’) that preserved the colonial settler pattern of white ownership of most of the fertile land and through embedding historical inequity in the constitutional settlement”.
If the land question was the most profound, as the liberation war was fought over land and the promise to return it to the indigenous African population, can those who held the land admit that they took advantage of the Lancaster House Constitution that favoured them to deny the majority of the people access to land because of “the ineffectiveness of the willing-seller willing-buyer policy stipulated in the ‘Lancaster House Constitution’, as well as non-availability of funding from the donor countries”.
If donors pledged to fund the land redistribution in Zimbabwe, but did not do so, can the donors stand up and admit that it’s correct that “with respect to the funding issue, some in the Zimbabwe political elite and intelligentsia, as well as others of similar persuasion around the continent, believe that the international community is concerned more with ‘regime change’ and that there is no real and genuine concern for the welfare of ordinary people” of Zimbabwe.
So the interest is to perpetuate the interests of the colonialists, not the ordinary Zimbabwean.
If the Economic Structural Adjustment Programme (Esap) was supported by the World bank and the International Monetary Fund, can these institutions stand up and admit that “the austerity measures imposed by the Esap led to, inter alia, the massive retrenchment of skilled and unskilled labour and of the civil service; the closure of many manufacturing industries; general price increases; and the deterioration of social services. These factors, combined with the liberalisation of the economy, led to the gradual but systematic decline of the formal economy.”
Editor, I believe the UN report should be looked at in the whole context of the Zimbabwean political and socio-economic crisis, and not in isolation.