"Tsvangirai leads protest march on Zim Parliament" today, Friday Sept 1.
http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__africa/&articleid=282934

come to uzumbamarambapfungwe and assess whether zimbabweans in the rural areas, especially in mashonaland are literate, they voted with thier feet for mugabe but they don't know who is the president of zimbabwe!. Besides what does being literate mean when some of us can not comprehend what macro economics mean and the role of government in the economy. lets agree that semi-literacy is militating against democratic change.

if ever there will be enough rains during one of these seasons and we have enough seeds and fertiliser, no one will convince them against mugabe, especilly come 2008

i am writting from harare zimbabwe

Dear Dingaka,
I read your reply with great interest and agree with many of your points. I look forward to giving a proper reply shortly. Right now, I wanted to thank you and Southern Man and our other posters for some insightful, careful analysis. More pressingly, I would like to you email me at postglobal[at]washingtonpost.com.
We are organizing an online debate between leading Zimbabweans in government, opposition, NGOs and the Diaspora and I would love to have you involved in the process of getting this together. Thank you.
Amar

I sincerely hope there are more Southern Man out there! People prepared to discuss Zimbabwe with depth and maturity!
God knows that country does not deserve the simple-minded jingoistic talking points we often hear, especially from mostly ill-informed western pundits.

There is no question that the element of fear Southern Man alludes to is real. However, my argument still remains that most Zimbabweans are critically aware that their votes are secret and cannot be traced (with a literacy rate of 92%, one cannot expect any less). They might not publicly say how they feel or who they support, but they have told us, thru the ballot what their political preferences are.

They voted down Mugabe's refendum in 2000 by a wide margin of 56% to 44%. They swept Mugabe's party out of major cities 100% in all the elections since 2000. They have voted against Mugabe in all RURAL provinces, even as he still carried most of them. Its important to mention that between 20% and 30% of rural people in Mugabe freindly areas STILL vote against him!
This, to me, shows that I can trust the election results as a very close indicator of the general populace's political inclination. I am aware several allegations of vote rigging have been leveled, but there don't seem to be any solid proof supporting these.

I strongly believe that over 90% of Zimbabweans are ready for change. They are tired of the corruption amoung Mugabe's elites. They are tired of failed service delivery. They do not want to leave in a society where they fear their government, instead of respect it.

But it seems a leadership or political organization to take them away from this funk is not yet on the horizon. There does not seem to be anyone out there worthy of Zimbabweans risking their lives on the streets. History tells us fear of police and military never holds back people that feel a revolution is necessary. We have seen revolts in much tighter police states like Romania, Yugoslavia, etc.
If Zimbabweans truly felt they needed to challenge the government on the street, they would do it, inspite of the tight security.
The truth appears to be, a threshold has not been reached and an alternative leadership is perceived not to exist.

The greatest asset Mugabe seems to possess is not his political deftness, its the low rent standard of his opponents, the so-called future kings, that keeps him on as a viable alternative.

Again, Southern Man correctly identifies the political players as largely inspired by power for its sake and the benefits that come with the self-enrichment it intails.

Democracy is still a word that is uttered to garner more funding from western governments and NGOs, but not yet a philosophy many politicians, BOTH pro- and against Mugabe, believe in!
We have recently witnessed the same crude resort to violence commonly associated with Mugabe's government, become a mainstay of the western backed opposition.

I share Dingaka's disappointment at the number of responses on this is very important and complex issue which has ramifications for the whole region which Zimbabwe in integrated with, particularly South Africa and Botswana. I also share his observation of the levels of paranoia, party, racial and tribal acrimony rather than fact driven argument on the forums that carry what debates there are on the subject.

Unfortunately I also share in his assertion that Morgan Tsvangirai being filmed accepting donations to the MDC from white farmers prior to the 2000 elections was a fatal blow to his gaining wider support in rural Zimbabwe and in the wider Afrika.

His also correctly asserts that people in Zimbabwe and much of the "developing world" do not trust the West's capacity for action, unless there is something they want in return.

Usually under these circumstances the West is not too fussy about the real nature of those they have to deal with as long as they do get what they want and can put an acceptable public face on the regime they are in bed with.

Pakistan, Equatorial Guinea and Saudi Arabia are good current examples. Iraq, Lebanon, East Timor and Afghanistan are standing testament to the dangers of getting a simplistic "hands on" solution to a complex issue from the West and the UN.

I differ from him in his interpretation of the fear factor that prevails within Zimbabwe. I do not post under my own name; very few do for various reasons. One of these is because there have been numerous cases of retribution resulting from articles and posts in local and international press or comments made to a nice person with a clipboard carrying out a survey. Not to say that this is the only way of attracting a little attention from the vastly increased security apparatus.

Most are mild taking the form of threats by phone or from a stranger wearing the obligatory dark glasses who accosts you in a public place. The next level is being picked up on a Friday on some charge, held for a very unpleasant and degrading weekend and then turned loose having paid an admission of guilt fine or having the charges dropped. A longer stay can be arranged by the prosecution obtaining remand in custody from a compliant magistrate and then the police fail to present charges to the court asking for a further remand etc.

The various changes to legislation in Zimbabwe since 2000 leaves left state agents with a confusing array of potential charges to level. If the target has friends and occasionally gets together with them for a meal or a drink then Unlawful Assembly is a good standby as you only need assemble three or more people to satisfy the numbers requirement.

In Zimbabwe there is a saying "if there are three, one is an informer".

If your target cannot raise a quorum and gets a bit in his cups with his last remaining buddy and starts sounding off about politics he can often be provoked into providing a few words to support a charge of bringing the name of the President into disrepute.

That is of course if the retribution is coming from state actors who are working within the flexible confines of the law. If it comes from party activists then abduction, beatings and torture are the more common means of notifying displeasure. The blurring of the line between the police and party militia in recent years means that reporting an assault commonly results in the arrest of the complainant.

This reflects the general blurring of the lines between the ZANU PF party and the state and its statutory bodies and institutions. Twenty-six uninterrupted years of power in the hands of one small clique and those affiliated to them has led to a complete erosion of the separation of powers.

Facts are hard to come by in Zimbabwe. There is no agreement on many key facts. How many people were killed in Matabeleland and Manica provinces in the 1980s? Why is it that dependents of those who were killed still cannot obtain the death certificates required to access their estates? How many people have been displaced from the commercial farms and the cities and where are they? Why is there only one doctor servicing an enormous area of South Western Zimbabwe? How many people are there in the Diaspora?

Who have been the beneficiaries of the land reform? How much has been delivered, or remains to be, to the GMB from the 2005/2006 bumper crops? How can I decide how much seed to buy when I don't know what the controlled price for maize from the GMB will be next year and they have still not paid for maize I have delivered this year? Will there be fertilizer this year and what will it cost?

This is important data required for short and long term planning.

Less strategic facts pertinent to daily life are hard to get as well. In which police station is my client being held and what are they charged with? How will I get to work or visit my family now I can't afford the bus? How much will bread be next month? Will my family be able to afford my school fees?

One of the areas most difficult to obtain facts about is the electoral register. This is administered by a commission appointed by the President. The contents of which are known only to them and the basis of ZANU PF's continued hold on power.

Any argument based on poll numbers in recent elections is without any basis until the register is reformed and administered by a third party, but these are academic now. Elections are not going to be the primary determinant of who takes power next in Zimbabwe.

The ICG call for a united common front for country wide peaceful mass action as an alternative to a violent resolution of the political impasse seems to be the only road left open to those with a democratic final outcome in mind. As to whether it will happen is very uncertain.

Organizing in the cities in Zimbabwe is very difficult these days and in the rural areas almost impossible given the prevalence of militia and the subordination of the Chiefs to the party.

I agree with Tafadswa when he says that mass action will only occur when there is a common agenda and that of those from the city generally have very different grassroots issues from those in the country. The sad fact is that those in the country areas, unless the area they live in is near a town or has patronage from a significant political figure, have very little stake in the modern state of Zimbabwe.

Clean water, electricity, clinics, schools, radio, television, newspapers, surfaced roads have not ever got to many of them even in the great donor funded drives of the 1980s and early 1990s.

The rural areas have relied upon patronage since the seizure of lands following the first and second Chimurenga wars. The Land Apportionment Act restricted legal ownership to most commercial farming land and of that suitable for residential development almost exclusively to people of the "white" racial classification.

The colonial patronage has been replaced by that of ZANU PF as they have replaced the "whites" as the beneficiaries of the Land Apportionment Act. Monitoring and basic control of the population is done by chiefs subordinated by state salary and preferential access to scarce privileges, goods and amenities, as it was under the colonial regime.

The chief has in his power the right to determine who may live and access land in his domain, he largely determines who gets on the NGO feeding lists and work for food programs. In the recently acquired commercial farming areas ZANU PF reigns even more directly through party structures based in the small towns that service commercial agriculture and the mines.

Highly politicized Police, Youth Militia and war veterans are the, often competing, feet on ground. The army is also present in many areas under the guise of agricultural reform and food security measures. These groups act in concert and independently to main tight control of access to and movement about the rural areas.

In the main the towns and cities have central Government nominated committees running them in place of the elected MDC town councils which have been dismissed. Municipal police have been totally politicized in the recent sweeping out of the trash from urban precincts. Where have those people gone?

There is an almost total absence of news or information about local affairs, out side of party messages, let alone news of the wider world, all daily news papers are either owned or controlled by the state as is all radio and TV. Outside radio broadcasts are jammed. This is immaterial to many rural dwellers that have neither radio reception nor newspaper outlets. There are few avenues for common issues to be discussed freely by the people of Zimbabwe and contact with state enforcement officials unavoidable.

All access to and between urban areas and the country side, be it resumed commercial farming areas or traditionally administered tribal areas, is regulated through constant roadblocks manned by an assortment of state agents searching for a wide variety of things; principally maize, fuel foreign bank notes and most recently any currency a all. Receipts for items seized are rare. Bribes are often successfully resorted to delivering the law into the hands of the black market and the well-heeled.

The modern state of Zimbabwe is now one which can only be fully appreciated by those holding a senior party position or a foreign bank account.

It is too soon to tell but I believe that a common cause may well be developing. The traumatic 21 day currency changeover is now complete. The lines at the bank are back to normal and the "spend it while it is still worth something" retail boom is over.

The economic fundamentals that give rise to inflation and it associated speculative have not been addressed. Nor have the arbitrage opportunities provided to the ZANU PF patronage network by government policy on exchange rates, fuel and staple food pricing.

The impact of this mass confiscation of cash from the poorest members to the society cannot yet have percolated through to the remote areas of the country. Most of the "big" losers in terms of direct impact on their future probably don't even know it yet.

The realization that all has changed will come when they cannot get on the bus they have walked for two days to meet, when they are laughed at by the worldly wise conductor when they produce their carefully hoarded bundle of worthless notes.

It has already come for the poorest in the cities, they now are not being given change or forced to spend on unneeded items because sufficient change is not available in the new currency.

The net effect of this exercise has been to deprive the poor of their savings either by force at the roadblocks or by neglect in the un-banked rural hinterland or by the cruel lack of change for those whose entire savings are represented by one or two of the new high denomination bank notes.

Gideon Gono has realized this and granted extensions for rural dwellers to change their old currency. How many ZANU PF affiliates will be going through this back door to offload some more of their hoarded currency?

He has also given recognition to the fact those in the rural areas were totally disadvantaged in his changeover plan in that they could not bank their money and announced a rural bank program.

The man in charge of regulating all banking activity in the sovereign state of Zimbabwe was quoted as expressing shock at discovering how few banks there were in rural areas. I would have thought that, if not before, this fact should have become apparent to him during the planning stage not after the implementation is complete! This shocking abrogation of responsibility is typical of those in positions of power in Zimbabwe.

This seizure of currency cut across all the divides and may yet prove to be the spark that lights the kindling that leads to the fire of mass action. Unfortunately I agree with Shonga that if mass action does occur it will be met brutally and that rioting and looting will come with them, ZANU PF militia will make certain of both.

What I am less certain of is what will come after with or without mass action. God will eventually take Robert Mugabe to his reward so there will be a change of ruler. I am afraid I do not see a real appetite for democracy in Zimbabwe amongst those lining up for the job.

I see an appetite for power and access to the benefits associated with it. Political incumbency seems to be the only sure route to wealth in the developing world. Democracy is seen as way of tapping into Western government and NGO funding. Mining, gas and oil houses, associated with the West or the East, have no democratic sensitivities and in the current resource boom are being seen as a more reliable source of funding.

Only the Zimbabwe elite and the security services maintaining it in power need fuel, electricity, medical care and the other niceties associated with the colonial era. This does not require the same level of funding as trying to create a democratic society based on equal access to education, health care, jobs and opportunity.

Mineral royalties should suffice to supply the cash needs of the elite. The NGO's and the UN can feed the surplus population and treat their illnesses as well or as badly as they care to as long they do not interfere in politics. This system seems to be working well in Angola and I fear it will become the model for whole of SADC.

Is removing farmers from land, because they are white, racism or justice? Or both?

The land was 'redistributed' mostly to ZANU-PF (of the Shona tribe) people, so there was no justice, certainly not for whites or Ndebele. Racism and cronyism are the reasons behind the eviction of the white farmers. With them, expertise and trade contacts left, black farm workers were fired, food production plummeted and the economy contracted.

Fed up with all those new homeless, unemployed starving people camping around his capital, Mugabe then proceeded to bulldoze their shanty towns.

Justice would be to drag Mugabe kicking and screaming off to court to face charges. South Africa, land of racial justice, should pressure Zimbabe to reform instead of continuing the current spineless policy.

One more point, Bakshir.

You said "As you said, colonialism ended 26 years ago and sanctions on Zimbabwe's political leadership are in fact remarkably lenient."

I agree with you that the sanctions against Mugabe and the ZanuPF leadership by western countries are quite lenient. However, those sanctions are the least of Zimbabwe's worries.

In 2001, President George Bush signed into law The Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act (ZDERA). This Act, among other things, prevents the US board members at the IMF and World Bank to vote for any financing, loan restructuring or support to Zimbabwe.
The Act also prevents American corporations from doing business with Zimbabwean companies that might have links with the government of Zimbabwe as well as targeted politicians.
When one understands that the biggest corporations in Zimbabwe such as the railways, the Power generation, the urban transportation, are all owned by the government as parastals, one begins to understand the impact these sactions have on the economy of the country as a whole.

The fact that the US and the UK have very influential votes in the boards of the international financial institutions, implies that most of Zimbabwe's economy is effectively shut off from any western financial backing.

If these are not painful sanctions against the country, beyond just the Mugabe politicians, then its difficult to know how else these could be described?

Another very telling request in ZDERA is that these penalties can only be removed when the Zimbabwe government respects "the rule of law and property rights". Most Zimbabweans understand this phrase as a euphamism to mean that the property rights of the white farmers should be reinstated before any relaxation of the sanctions.
In simple language, it means ZDERA is calling for the land reform to be reversed, black farmers to be kicked off their new plots and white farmers to be allowed back! Needless to say, this does not sit well with many black Zimbabweans, including those that support the opposition!

And because people in Zimbabwe have the same access to the details of ZDERA as the rest of the world, its very easy for Mugabe to download the text and convince his supporters that the country is in trouble because the West is applying such sanctions.

Such issues as raised above are usually never part of the discussion on the story of Zimbabwe. Which, I think is why people (mostly westerners) continue to get suprised that Mugabe remains very strong in power, inspite of the free fall of the Zimbabwean economy!

white people only care about the land reforms. Has nothing to do with Mugabe or Zimbabweans. Its just so obvious.

I was hoping to see much more contributions to this topic that the 4 responses above. I guess Zimbabwe in not as hot a topic as it used to be a few years ago?

Its very important the readers pay attention to what Fearless (Harare) had to say. His response is typical on most forums that discuss Zimbabwe.

Anyone that says anything that does not seem to support the opposition's point of view is quickly labelled "paid henchman of Mugabe or CIO". This is not just a weakness exhibited by opposition supporters, Mugabe's supporters are equally belligerent, labelling most opposition members whiteman's lackeys, sellouts and idiots.

With their conversations largely filled with this kind of talk, Zimbabweans hardly have time to discuss the important issues that would help the country out of its funk!

Its also important to note that Fearless accused me of using "sophisticated government propaganda technics" for my arguments, but he avoids to tell the Washington Post readers that all the information I gave is PUBLIC information, available to anyone in the world who cares to check from such organizations as UN, UNESCO, IMF, even opposition supporting media sites!

Its sad, but true, FACTS are very rarely used to argue the case for or against Mugabe anymore!
One hardly finds people prepared to analyze that country without resorting to weak-minded emotionalisms.

Amar Bakshi

I think you greatly misunderstood my post. It would be absurd for me to imply that the peasants in Zimbabwe focus more on neo-imperialism while ignoring their own hunger!

What I said was, they AGREE with Mugabe that the economic misery in the country has been caused by western punishment for land reform. They also view the current opposition as a Trojan Horse for the same western forces. This is why they continue to vote for Mugabe and against the opposition, at least the over 50% part of the voters.

Now, you and me might argue about the merits of this accusation against the West, but the people on the ground, the ones with the VOTE are already convinced and need no further arguments on the matter, if their vote or private polling is anything to go by!

You raised doubts about the validity of the Afrobarometer survey. Maybe your argument is legitimate. However Afrobarometer was not the only organization to come up with similar results. A western-backed University of Zimbabwe survey accurately predicted the parliamentary voting partterns in the 2004 elections. The anti-Mugabe, SA based Helen Suzman Foundation had another report that showed results not dissimilar to Afrobarometer too.

You quoted that Afrobarometer said Mugabe's support rose from 20% to 46% between 1999 and 2004. That same report also indicated the opposition leader's support fell from the 30s% to under 18% during the same period. These were said to be the "core" supporters.
The report added that OVER 60% of Zimbabweans thought Mugabe was doing a good job!
The fact that it was not just the 46% who had said supported Mugabe that agreed he was doing a good job, shows me that the aspect of fear and government propaganda is exaggerated. Because, in a fearful environment, one would expect uniform numbers of support and agreement, confirming that people are just saying what they think will not get them in trouble.

Another issue that debunks the fear theory is the voting patterns in the country.

There are two major tribes in the country, Shonas at over 80%, Ndebeles at 14% and other minority groups such as Malawian/Mozambican immigrants, whites, Asians, and people of mixed-race (who in Zimbabwe, do not like to be called Black).
The Ndebeles were victims of an understated civil war that resulted in many civilian deaths. Numbers about how many people perished have been thrown around, ranging from 2 000 to 20 000.(I won't get involved with the numbers game as thats besides my main point). If fear had been a factor in Zimbabwe, this would have been the group that votes for Mugabe the most, given its the one that has experienced his hard power the most. Furthermore, because of the arid nature of the region where the Ndebeles live, this is also the group most dependent on on food aid should the country experience bad weather or any kind of shortfall.

Records which the WFP confirms show that over 50% of food aid distributed by Mugabe's government usually goes to this region that has barely 14% of the population, thus making the region very vulnerable to vote buying with food.
Instead, voting patterns whow us that Mugabe consistently scores less than 20% of votes in these regions.

And the Ndebele regions are by no means the only ones that openly resist supporting Mugabe's government. Rural Manicaland, a Shona terriroty, has been shown to reject Mugabe with numbers exceeding 40%.
If we are willing to accept that peasants in Matebeleland and Manicaland freely choose to vote against Mugabe, inspite of the alleged "fear and propaganda", then we must also accept that the other regions of the country are not as susceptible to FEAR and PROPAGANDA as Moore alleges in his refutation of the Afrobarometer survey.

The bottomline for my argument remains that; much as Zimbabweans are suffering, they do not see the current opposition as a worthy alternative to Mugabe's party. They seem to me to have been irreparably tarnished by the whiteman's puppet image they had declared was no longer an issue in Zimbabwe 20 years after independence. In 2000,over 80% of their volunteer task force at Harare HQ were whites from the farms and South Africa. They even brought in South African reporter and rape activist, Ms Charlene Smith who became the MDC spokeperson during the 2000 elections!

To most people that support Mugabe, that image of white control, and white money Tsvangirai was shown on public television heartly accepting at farm campaigns, confirmed that the opposition did not represent their interests.
That image has stuck and remains the biggest stumbling block to the opposition.

In my opinion, the only chance for loss in support for Mugabe's party is should a person untainted by western support emerges to challenege Mugabe from within.

That person can raise the same issues that the opposition raises now, but will actually have credibility and be believed to be saying this for the sake of the country, not just to please foreign capitals who constantly make the opposition's work harder by openingly supporting them!

The West has to realize that, in certain parts of the world, especially those that remember the side the Western governments took clandestinely supporting apartheid and colonialism, their support is not viewed as a positive endorsement to be embraced, but a kiss of death to be avoided like a plague!!

Thank you Dingaka, Tafadzwa and Shonga for your articulate, persuasive comments.

Briefly Dingaka, I wanted to highlight for readers the source you site in your post regarding rural Zimbabwe's support for Mugabe: Michael Bratton's 2004 Afrobarometer survey

(www.afrobarometer.org/papers/AfropaperNo42.pdf).

Michael Braton's survey of one thousand Zimbabwean citizens in 2004 showed that while the economy crumbled, Mugabe's approval rating rose from 20% in 1999 to 46% in 2004. Braton argues that state media and the drumming of nationalist fervor was largely responsible for this upward trend. Of course, targeted land redistribution also likely accounts for this increase. David Moore critiqued the survey. What he wrote is compelling and worth a look. It was recently published in the Journal of African Studies. Moore argues that fear, not persuasion, was what Braton measured, and details myriad methodological missteps. Unfortunately, Moore's piece, which can be found here

(http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/(yxarjl55gbwhrkyqnxamokyb)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,5,8;journal,3,15;linkingpublicationresults,1:104611,1)

requires you buy it from Taylor Francis databases.

While it is true that Mugabe increased education and health services in the 1980s and has attempted to redistribute land in 2000, your argument that the threat of the West is foremost on rural Zimbabweans' minds seems slightly overstated. As you said, colonialism ended 26 years ago and sanctions on Zimbabwe's political leadership are in fact remarkably lenient. While white ownership of land might have been a serious problem in Zimbabwe which land reform, with great flaws, attempted to rectify, the idea that neo-imperialism now is a serious concern for people searching for something to eat and somewhere to work is not entirely convincing.

Dingaka, Dako Rako,
We know that these public fora are regularly used by regime supporters, such as the Central Intelligence Organisation (CIO) and that people like yourselves are paid to monitor and supply "counter-intelligence" through the resources supplied to you by the "President's" Office. This is clear to all those who (albeit, carefully, for security reasons) participate in these - the only open fora we have - discussions and know the real situation here in Zimbabwe.

To all distinguished Washington Post Readers: please do not be distracted by these regime apologists. Many are likely to be sponsored by state-controlled organs and use discussions such as these to further the propaganda of a very sophisticated intelligence organisation, organised to spread disinformation.

To tafadzwa, I share your views, my friend. But protest is not an end unto itself. It is just the beginning. We have to embrace our brothers and sisters of all ethnicities; Shona, Ndeble, Tonga and others and bring about the end of this tyranny for all - in the name of humanity if nothing else. Our country has so much more to offer humanity. Let's finish with Him and show the world what we have to offer it.

Fearless (Harare).
PS Not paid for by any side.

Mass action will not work.It will be crushed.Why? Mass action in Africa is always violent and there will be looting. worse it leads to war. It happenned in 1998.So the govement will crush it. As one writer put it Mugabe has his own supporters."Mass action is not the perogative of one side we will also bring out our own supporters " Mugabe said during MDC Final Push.

Zimbabwean are well experinced of all this so thy can not be pushed into something they know will lead into something worse than they are in already.

Lastly the Western Media + NGOs + Govements because of their misunderstanding of the complex that Zimbabwe situation have tended to exagerate and lie about the Zimbabwe crisis to a point where they have become a major driver of the crisis.

For example the United States alway issues travel warnings for its citizens not to travel to Zimbabwe.Yet no tourist has ever been harmed since the so called crisis started. Secondly any violence (which acording to my opinion is sporadic and not widespread in the general populace) tends to occur during election times only)This means Zimbababwe tourism shrinks further compounding the crisis. The truth about Zimbabwe is yet to be told

As much as i agree with most that there are many problems in ZImbabwe, I feel we often tend to forget who is being affected, and by what problems. Until recently-last month-i was a strong supporter of mass uprisings, protests and violent opposition, but a few things have changed. I had a discussion with some of my friends who are from matebeleland, and their issues are different from mine, whereas I want democracy, freedom of speech, I feel other Zimbabweans-who are not Shona mostly-have the same problems and more. The distribution of aid, education, and other services is biased, with the areas around the capital receiving most of it. I also feel when I talk about black and white, to my Ndebele friend, the conversation is not black or white, but Shona, Ndebele, white, black. As someone from the majority ethnic group, I tend to not see where other groups are coming from, because I'm lucky enough to have a president who can speak the same language as I do, most parliamentarians speak Shona,and of course are from the regions that speak Shona. Until Shona and Ndebele people come together and admit that the other group has been privileged for the past 26 years, we are unlikely to see Zimbabwe's problems from the same point of view.

The issue of economic problems leading to mass action, is something I feel is not going to help. Whereas things like gas and electricity, are my main concerns, my grandmother who has never had a significant need for both will not help me with organizing a protest about those things. There are too many different issues that are affecting Zimbabwe, and as Zimbabweans we attribute them to different parties, therefore we do not have a common enemy. The government splashes resources on its army, and central intelligence, and how do I make that part of my community understand that I want this government to reform?. How do I bring them to the streets if their issues have nothing to do with the regime.

I believe mass action and demostrations can work and have worked elsewhere. Here is why I feel it won't work in present Zimbabwe:
1)as zimbabweans, our problems are too diverse, for us to agree that mass action will work
2)TV and radio are government controlled, and to get the msg about a protest, will need more than newspapers, and of course ZBC will not show any announcements.
3)Zimbabweans haven't run out of copying mechanisms, and I feel until that happens, not everyone will participate in street protests.
4)There are too many ZANU-PF employed people, and a country wide protest is sure to be infilrated. I think its our best bet for now.
5) From an outsider's perspective,Zimbabwean problems are a result of bad governance, but the word on the street is different
6) How can you ask people to take to the streets when they can not identify with you on several issues?

I think mass action will only work when ZImbabweans have a common agenda, something lacking right now!!

Its no wonder the people in the West continue being suprised by Mugabe's strength! They keep ascribing misguided notions of what the average Zimbabwean wants!

For all his failure on the economic front, Mugabe is viewed by the majority of Zimbabweans as the man who finally delivered on a long cherished promise, returning land to the people! For this act alone, regardless of the economic misery that followed it, over 50% of the nation are still solidly behind Mugabe.

The fact that organizations such as ICG openly call for ways to distabilize Mugabe's government only serves to confirm to his supporters that the economic mess they are experiencing is not his fault, but a product of foreign interference.

The same Washington Post editorials read in America are easily accessible in Zimbabwe, Mugabe does not have to expend any effort in trying to convince his supporters his government in under seige from mostly western white countries.

The race of Mugabe's major detractors is very important for a country like Zimbabwe that only 26 years ago was waging a vicious liberation war aginst white domination and apartheid. To most Zimbabweans who remember life under white rule, the whiteman will always be a bogeyman, never to be trusted and any black seen to be gaining his favor to be treated suspiciously, if not treasonously!

According to a few polls done by western-backed organizations such as Afrobarometer, Mugabe's support has been confirmed to be well over 50% in the country. It logically follows from these numbers that Mugabe does not need to rig elections to remain in power.

Now, if Mugabe has over 50% support, do groups like the ICG have any credibility when they say they would like to see democracy in Zimbabwe, yet at the same time they are encouraging the removal of a political organization whom democracy would bestow power to? Doesn't this further support Mugabe's argument that the West are not interested in Zimbabwean democracy, but in installing a puppet government that will reverse the centerpiece of Mugabe's final act, land reform that compromises white farmer interests?

Shonga above suggests that the reason why Mugabe remains in power is because the majority of the country is rural and illiterate. He/she is right about the rural part (though actual percentages are 70% rural not the 80% he says). However, he/she is very wrong about the illiteracy! Zimbabwe has the highest literacy not just in Africa, but in most of the developing world. The UN reports that at 92% literacy today, that number is only a few points behind the US! The only other African state to have anywhere close to Zimbabwe's literacy rates is South Africa at 82%.

Thus, its false to asset that the people that support Mugabe are doing so out of ignorance. Maybe, inspite of what many of us think, those people might not be happy with where their economy is going, but are very sure that they are better of with Mugabe than the severely dubiuos opposition that seeks to replace him!

The biggest mistake we usually make is project our hatred, values and heroes on people we hardly take time to understand! There appears to be this very false notion that because most western opinion is decidely against Mugabe, Zimbabweans share that hatred too.
I am of the opinion that the West has failed to understand the basic aspirations of the ordinary Zimbabweans, assigning to them a heirarchy that priorities "democracy" ahead of land ownership and self-empowerment! This is why Mugabe always seems to be one step ahead of any attempts at his removal, he understand his people's aspirations better that those that seek to remove and replace him.

History has shown that non-violent protest can and does work; from Gandhi's successful campaign against British rule to today's more recent "people power" revolutions in e.g. Serbia and Ukraine.

The only thing that ordinary Zimbabweans have to lose from peaceful revolution is their FEAR. And that, in turn, makes the ZANU PF thugocracy very, very afraid. They are, and they should be.

Thank you Shonga for your comment. Do you believe that illiteracy in rural areas is translating into broader passivity and a tacit support for ZANU-PF? Figures always show a significantly higher level of support for ZANU-PF in the Shona rural areas, though it seems that despite this support, ZANU-PF needed to resort to rigging elections in its previous contests. Also, who do you think ought to take responsibility for this education? Though ZANU-PF invested heavily in the 1980s in Zimbabwean education and improved literacy dramatically, do you think the current government has the means or the will to do anything similar today or must NGOs struggle in harsh circumstances to fill in the void?

Out of curiousity, where are you writing in from?

1)street protests have never and will never work, in fact if there is anything that the zim govnment can do better then it is squashing any protests against it.
2) there is no credible opposition party in the first place, come 2008 there will be no alternative for zimbabwean voters and if they decide to vote then it will be for zanu pf.
3)zanu pf has ruined the economy so that they will 'resuscitate' it by 2008 for campaign purpose.
4) what is needed is education of zimbabweans on a wholesale scale about economic woes and their causes through the independent media both electronic and print
because one of our problems here is rampant illiteracy especially the rural folk who make up 80% of the population.