A FEW days ago, I read an alarming statement in a local newspaper which reported that addressing a rally recently, President Emmerson Mnangagwa ordered the police to hunt down suspected Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC) activists allegedly behind an arson in the Hanke area of Shurugwi, where 10 houses were burnt down.
Mnangagwa said this despite the fact that the police had initially said the incident was not politically motivated.
Memories are still fresh in many of how the President used to boast that Zanu PF controls everything, including the army and the police.
It is very clear, therefore, that police are told by Zanu PF who to arrest on trumped-up charges and who not to arrest when they have committed a crime.
Just a few weeks ago, a deputy minister had a showdown with a police officer after she instructed the police officer to drop charges against a Zanu PF activist who had committed a criminal offence.
Mnangagwa must have instructed the police to prefer criminal charges against supporters of a rival political party and fabricate the story that the incident was politically motivated when the police knew it wasn’t.
When he preaches against violence at rallies, he always directs his warnings to the opposition, yet Zanu PF is the main culprit when it comes to political violence.
His supporters invade venues that would have been booked by other political parties just to disturb their rivals’ activities without being arrested by the police.
- Chamisa party defiant after ban
- Village Rhapsody: How Zimbabwe can improve governance
- News in depth: Partisan police force persecutes opposition, shields Zanu PF rogue elements
- Chamisa chilling death threat bishop defiant
Keep Reading
A case in point is the one where CCC activist Tinashe Chitsunge was murdered in cold blood in broad daylight by Zanu PF thugs who invaded the venue of a CCC campaign rally that had been cleared by the police in Glen View 7 last week.
It is important to note that the police did not arrest these hooligans when they invaded the venue, but simply dispersed them.
The police did not keep watch as expected, knowing fully well that Zanu PF hooligans have a record of invading venues and disrupting opposition political parties’ rallies and attacking people.
In some cases, lives have been lost as happened in Kwekwe last year when Mbonani Ncube was speared to death at a CCC rally.
When incidents like the Glen View 7 murder of Chitsunge happen towards a national election like this, the nation expects the President to speak out against the perpetrators and call for an immediate stop to violence.
However, he remains mum and also makes statements at rallies directed at people who are usually the victims of the brutal and barbaric attacks by supporters of his party.
Mr President, you are an international disgrace.
Your behaviour and actions make many people suspect that you are the one who instigates political violence, especially as many cases have been recorded even on video with your supporters saying they received instructions from the top party leadership to kill opposition supporters.
If the assumption that you instigate violence is wrong, then you are just not capable of stopping your supporters’ violent behaviour.
God is watching.-Kennedy Kaitano
Elections: Our children deserve better
TWO weeks before what is to all intents and purposes Zimbabwe’s most important election since the first all-race poll 43 years ago, the country is once again on edge.
After weeks of relative stability and commendable peace, at least at the political level, the drums of war are once again at our doorstep.
We could actually lose it in the end. We need to build from the hope that was built after November 18, 2017 and the outpouring of emotions by a collective citizenry weary of political conflict.
The challenge is that dark forces are once again stalking our national soul.
The opposition is demanding transparency and accountability, but the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (Zec), a Chapter 12 institution that must act as referee at this critical juncture in the life of our nation, seems deliberately “deaf and blind” to the dictates not only of moral suasion, but also our national governance Charter.
Section 62 of the Constitution indicates: “Every Zimbabwean citizen or permanent resident, including juristic persons and the Zimbabwean media, has the right of access to any information held by the State or any institution or agency of government at every level, in so far as the information is required in the interest of public accountability.”
And to cement this even further, in Chapter 1 section 3(2)(g) under the founding values of our Constitution, as part of the principles of good governance binding the State and all its institutions, there must be transparency, justice, accountability and responsiveness by all governmental agencies.
Therefore, the demand for a clean voters roll is not outlandish. Zec must simply comply.
There are reports of hundreds of people living at one address, which complaint was raised again in the 2018 elections.
The demand by the opposition and other stakeholders, in particular candidates across the board, for access to the printing of ballots while not provided for in our laws, is covered by section 62 and 3 as indicated above.
Given the fact that Zanu PF is a participant in this election and President Emmerson Mnangagwa as well as some of his Cabinet ministers are candidates in one or another part of the election, is it not unfair that they have undue advantage because they have unfettered access to information relating to the election.
Zec reports to the Justice ministry and the minister in this case, Ziyambi Ziyambi, will know how many ballots have been printed, by who, where and in what quality.
Surely, Mnangagwa will also have an idea of the answers to these simple questions. Is it too much then for opposition parties to ask for some form of access to such vital information?
No doubt the credibility of our electoral process hangs in the balance. Mnangagwa has promised a free, fair and credible election. He did the same in 2018, but failed to live up to the promise.
General principles of accountability, fairness and transparency dictate that Zec needs to open up a little more. What is it that they have to hide?
If none, they should, for God’s sake, allow opposition parties access to such information and let’s get this election done.
Our country deserves better and Mnangagwa needs to do something now if we are to avoid another slide into that black hole we were sucked into not many years ago. Our children deserve better.-Gwizhikiti
Social spending at the core of human security
SOCIAL spending is at the core of human security in emerging economies as citizens cannot do much without government subsidies. Social spending enables the government to timely intervene and address issues affecting the citizen.
Poor social spending undermines the well-being and welfare of citizens which consequentially weakens national human security.
Zimbabwe’s effort in establishing social protection systems and setting aside resources for the same should be acknowledged.
Nevertheless, the effectiveness of these social protection systems in enhancing national human security by reducing citizen vulnerability, destitution and exclusion from government projects should be examined.
Utilising all dimensions of human security such as personal, health, economic, food, community, environmental and political, there is need to evaluate the performance of social protection systems with the intention of providing policy alternatives that can be adopted in strengthening national human security. Social spending or social expenditure encompasses tax breaks with social purposes, direct in-kind provision of goods and services and cash benefits.
The benefits may be aimed at the elderly, unemployed, sick, young persons, low-income households and the disabled. The theory of social spending seeks to bridge the gap between the elite and the poor/vulnerable (redistribution of wealth) with the intention of empowering marginalised and vulnerable communities.
Social spending comprises pension, education and health spending, social benefits to households, public spending on labour markets, public unemployment spending, and public spending on incapacity and family benefits.
Prudent fiscal policies that foster transparency and accountability increase the efficiency of social spending and concurrently improve social and economic injustices. According to D’Souza (2019) there are three main models which define social policy. The three models are summarised below:
Residual Welfare Model: Under this model, the focus is on cushioning the public from shocks brought about by market or family changes. These changes cause a surge in demand for social services thus the government and other financing partners must adjust accordingly. Policymakers who follow this model focus on bringing aid to the underprivileged families and/or to intervene on the market system to assist those in low-income brackets. The model is discriminatory as it channels benefits to the poor only.
Industrial Achievement Model: The model is derived from economic theories that link incentives, efforts and rewards by social welfare institutions. It reinforces the notion that social desires must be fulfilled based on merit, work performance and productivity.
Institutional Redistributive Model: The institutional redistributive model differs from the other two models in that it embeds social provision in the system. Its aim is to foster equality through redistribution of resources over time. This model emphasises equalisation of opportunities and promotion of social justice.-Zimbabwe Coalition on Debt and Development
