The reasons why I cannot join the Tsvangirai faction

By David Coltart | Published May 26, 2006

It is 7 months since the divisive meeting of the MDC National Executive was held on the 12th October 2005. I have refrained from making public statements since then but am now of the view that the public have a right to know my perspective.

I have always believed that the two factions of the MDC, which emerged after the 12th October 2005 meeting, would never be as strong independent of each other as they were as one united party. Accordingly despite my deep concerns about certain issues, I felt it was necessary to try to reconcile the two factions and, failing that, to broker an amicable divorce between them. Moments after Morgan Tsvangirai walked out of the National Executive meeting on the 12th October I proposed that the remaining members of the Management Committee meet with him urgently to convey our continued support for him as MDC leader and our desire to accommodate his concerns.

During October, November and December I met with and wrote to MDC National Executive members in both factions urging them to refrain from making the vitriolic statements that so badly exacerbated the tensions between the two camps. For example, on the 12th November I met with Morgan Tsvangirai in Bulawayo and urged him to reign in those in his camp making divisive and inflammatory statements. On the 19th November I met with Gibson Sibanda, Gift Chimanikire and Job Sikhala. I urged Gibson Sibanda, likewise, to reign in those in his camp and I challenged Gift Chimanikire and Job Sikhala regarding some of the statements made by them. I repeatedly wrote and spoke to Eddie Cross during October, November and December about some of his newsletters which in my opinion exacerbated tensions between the two factions.

Believing that the unresolved intra party violence was one of the main stumbling blocks to reconciliation I put forward proposals to both Morgan Tsvangirai and Gibson Sibanda in November and December as to how that issue could be dealt with. When it became apparent to me in January, for reasons I will elaborate on below, that those proposals would not be accepted I accepted that reconciliation was unlikely. I however made a few further attempts to reconcile. I met with Morgan Tsvangirai and a few leaders of his faction in Bulawayo on the 27th January and urged those leaders, who were responsible for making divisive statements, to stop. I met with other leaders in both factions in January and early February but by mid February it was clear that both factions were determined to go ahead with their respective Congresses and that the holding of separate Congresses would end any hope of reconciliation.

Accordingly on the 20th February I wrote identical letters to both Morgan Tsvangirai and Gibson Sibanda advising them that I would attend neither of the Congresses and would not seek office in either faction. I offered to assist, with others, to mediate a settlement between the two factions. In doing so I did not offer to arbitrate (in other words I did not suggest that I be given any power to decide finally on the various contentious issues). I set out what I believed to be the contentious issues, including the question of the name, the assets of the party and the position of MPs. I did not suggest how I thought those issues should be resolved. In other words I did not say which faction I thought, for example, should be allowed to use the name. All I set out was a suggested process in terms of which these issues could be resolved. I stressed that irrespective of whatever support either faction thought it enjoyed these issues could only be resolved through either mediation or litigation. I pointed out that litigation would not be in either faction’s best interests as that route would effectively give Zanu PF the power to determine the length of the process and the final outcome.

I concluded by recognising that both leaders would have to await their respective Congresses and the election of respective National Executives before responding to my offer. I also said that once the mediation process was over I would then have to decide on my own political future. Both letters were hand delivered. On the 29th March I received a letter from the Mutambara faction accepting my offer to mediate. Having not heard from the Tsvangirai faction I spoke and wrote to several National Executive members of the Tsvangirai faction to ask them whether the issue had been discussed. Eventually on the 2nd May I received a letter from Tendai Biti, in his capacity as Secretary General of the Tsvangirai faction, rejecting my offer to mediate.

I can but speculate why my offer was rejected. One of the reasons given by Tendai Biti was that I was not neutral, something that I readily concede and indeed made mention of in my original letters to Tsvangirai and Sibanda. I pointed out that no-one is genuinely neutral, and I am no different, but some have to at least try to mediate if litigation is to be avoided. Other National Executive members of the Tsvangirai faction I have spoken to state that they found themselves in a catch 22 situation: if they agreed to mediate that would undermine their claim that there is in fact no division and therefore no need for an amicable divorce (with the corollary that the Mutambara faction is not a faction at all but just a small renegade break away group); and yet if they turned me down on those grounds it would appear petty in the minds of MDC supporters who are generally distressed by the divisions and who would like the dispute to be resolved amicably.

Be that as it may the fact is that my own efforts to mediate have clearly failed and I must now move on. I have indicated recently that I have one of four options: to join the Tsvangirai faction, join the Mutambara faction, be an independent or resign and go back to civil society. Becoming an independent is well nigh impossible constitutionally and not attractive personally. Most people I have consulted with so far want me to remain in politics and I believe that I have an obligation to the people who elected me. That leaves me with a choice between the two factions, neither of which is palatable because of my fundamental belief that the split has gravely weakened the opposition in its battle to bring freedom and democracy to Zimbabwe.

The reasons for the split in the MDC are numerous and complex. It has become a deeply emotive issue and many are so entrenched in their positions that they have stopped listening. Accordingly it will serve no purpose to enumerate or analyse all the reasons for the split. I will simply deal with what is for me personally the key issue, namely our commitment to non violence in waging this battle against tyranny. I reiterate that there are many other important issues involved but our approach to this particular issue is pivotal to me.
I have had the misfortune of experiencing two civil wars in Zimbabwe. As a teenager I saw the horrors of war first hand during the liberation struggle. As a young lawyer I had to represent many victims of the Gukurahundi and my wife, a physiotherapist, had to treat many of the injured. Those experiences made me vow that I would do all in my power to prevent further conflict in Zimbabwe. Those experiences taught me to be very sceptical of elderly politicians who are very happy to sacrifice the lives of gullible and impressionable youths to achieve their own political ends.

Zimbabwe is afflicted with a disease akin to alcoholism, namely endemic violence. For well over 150 years leaders of this beautiful country, bounded by the Zambezi and Limpopo, have used violence to achieve their political objectives. Violence was used by Lobengula to suppress the Shona. Violence was used to colonise and the threat of violence was used to maintain white minority rule. Violence was used to overthrow the white minority. And since independence violence has been used to crush legitimate political opposition. The use of violence has been compounded by another phenomenon – namely a culture of impunity. Those responsible for use of violence have never been brought to book. Not only is there a long history of violence being used successfully to achieve political objectives but also those who have committed horrendous crimes have prospered through their actions. As a result the use of violence is now deeply imbedded in our national psyche. Political violence is accepted as the norm.

Political violence is not the norm in democratic societies. It may be the norm in tyrannical states; it may have been used in the formative stages of democracies. But it is now anathema in democracies. There is also no doubt that the use of violence inhibits economic development and creates a whole barrage of social problems including domestic violence. The sustained and long term use of violence in Zimbabwe lies at the very core of many of the problems our nation faces today. We are indeed afflicted by a very serious disease and need help.

What then attracted me most to the MDC was its commitment to breaking this cycle of violence by using non violent means to achieve its political objectives. I was also impressed by its commitment to end impunity in Zimbabwe. Whilst there has always been a vigorous debate within the MDC about whether tyranny could be ended solely through the use of non violent methods, there was always a broad consensus that this was the only course open to us if we were to act in the long term national interest. It goes without saying that there was a similar consensus regarding the intra party operations of the MDC. For me this was clear cut battle between the MDC, committed to non violence, and Zanu PF, a party that boasted of having “degrees in violence”.

Accordingly the attempt by some MDC youths to murder MDC Director for Security, Peter Guhu, on the 28th September 2004 in Harvest House was deeply shocking, because it breached a fundamental tenet of what we stood for. Even worse were the subsequent revelations made at the enquiry into the Guhu incident that senior ranking MDC officials and employees were either involved or sympathetic to the youths. No action was taken against any of those responsible for this violence and in that inaction we saw for the first time a culture of impunity developing within the MDC itself, which in some respects was the worst thing of all. Young men often have a predisposition towards violence; that happens the world over and Zimbabwe is no different. What controls that predisposition is the manner in which it is handled by leaders. If it is not dealt with a culture of impunity develops and violence perpetuates itself.

That is precisely what happened. Those responsible for the September 2004 violence were not immediately disciplined and it came as no surprise when the same youths were used to seriously assault MDC staff members in mid May 2005. A further enquiry was held and its report was presented to the National Council meeting held on the 25th June 2005. It was resolved that one member of staff found responsible for directing the youths be expelled. The youths themselves had already been expelled in late May by the Management Committee and the expulsion of the youths was confirmed. That was undoubtedly progress but regrettably it was clear from the evidence that other senior members of the MDC and staff members were also involved or sympathetic towards the youths. Before a full debate about their fate could be held the meeting was ended much to the dissatisfaction of many, including myself.

I was so concerned about our failure to get to the bottom of the violence that I prepared a statement that was tabled at the next meeting of the National Executive held on the 15th July. Parts of it bear repeating:

“The MDC’s commitment to nonviolence, demonstrated so powerfully in the last six years, has earned us deep respect both within Zimbabwe and internationally. It has ensured that we command the moral high ground. It has also been our most powerful weapon against ZANU PF as we have been determined not to fight them on ground they are familiar with.

The attempted murder of the Director for Security last year and the assaults on loyal members of staff in May constitute the most serious assault on the credibility of the MDC since it was established in September 1999. These actions have already seriously undermined the credibility of the MDC.

I believe that our commitment to nonviolence is so fundamental that extraordinary measures need to be taken in dealing with this scourge. If we do not send out a clear and unequivocal message to Zimbabweans in general and in particular to our own members and staff that violence will not be tolerated then we will simply reduce the standing of the MDC to that of our opposition ZANU PF.”

I reiterated my belief that the investigation had been incomplete and that further investigations and disciplinary action was needed. Regrettably none of my recommendations were adopted.

The party accordingly lurched forward towards the Senate issue with these very serious issues remaining unresolved and whilst, as I have stated above there are many different reasons for why the MDC split on the 12th October, few seem to appreciate the profound influence these issues had on the decision taken that day. The situation was compounded by the fact that in the National Executive meeting held on the 12th October it emerged that some of the same people suspected of being behind the September 2004 and May 2005 violence (but not disciplined) were also organising teams to intimidate Provincial committees to vote against participation in the senate. For example Manicaland, a Province inclined against participation, came with a delegation instructed to vote for participation in direct reaction to the intimidatory tactics employed. Delegates from other Provinces made similar complaints in the meeting. Indeed several National Executive members who were personally against participation voted for participation in protest against these intimidatory tactics. To that extent the vote to participate in the senatorial elections had very little to do with the elections per se and more to do with the philosophy of the MDC.

It was with this in mind that I suggested to Morgan Tsvangirai when I met him on the 12th November that an independent commission of enquiry into violence be established. I suggested that Harare lawyer Innocent Chagonda and retied judge Washington Sansole be appointed to investigate and report on all the allegations of intra party violence, including allegations made by those in the so called anti senate camp against those in the pro senate camp. Tsvangirai promised to consider the suggestion.

It was particularly poignant that on the very evening after I discussed this issue with Morgan Tsvangirai a supporter of the Tsvangirai faction Bekithemba Nyathi was seriously injured by youths from the so called pro senate faction. This incident made it all the more imperative that the issue be firmly addressed and that violence be completely rooted out.

I pursued the suggestion over the next few weeks and discussed it with Gibson Sibanda as well. On the 8th December I received a call from Innocent Chagonda advising that he was phoning on behalf of Morgan Tsvangirai to advise that he (that is Chagonda) felt he could not be on the commission but that Tsvangirai wanted me to chair it. I replied in writing the same day and suggested the following terms be applied:

  1. The commission shall investigate the circumstances, causes and participants of all intra-party violence afflicting the MDC throughout the country with effect from 1st October 2004 (I was under the impression then that Peter Guhu had been assaulted in October 2004) up until 31st December 2005;
  2. The commission shall have the right to subpoena any witnesses and all members of the party shall co-operate with the commission, and if they do not co-operate that action in itself will result in disciplinary action against the person concerned (we cannot have the situation that prevailed last year when a key witness refused to appear – obviously every person has the right to refuse in terms of Zimbabwe’s laws but if they do so then they render themselves liable to party discipline);
  3. The commission shall report on its findings to the National Council and shall make recommendations to the National Council;
  4. The National Council shall make the findings public within one week of the production of the report, failing which the commission shall have the right to make the same public;
  5. In cases where the report finds that a member has been involved in violent acts directly or indirectly, or has been responsible for organising the same, the National Council shall immediately refer the case to the Disciplinary Committee and request the Chairperson of the DC to suspend the member in terms of Section 9.1 of the Disciplinary Code of Conduct pending the appearance of the member before the DC;
  6. The commission shall be comprised of (at your suggestion) myself as chair and (at my suggestion) Washington Sansole and Beatrice Mtetwa and if needs be decisions regarding findings of fact and recommendations shall be by majority vote;
  7. The commission shall endeavour to complete its work before the party’s congress and any person found, prima facie, to be involved in violence shall be barred from contesting for office at the congress.

I the same letter I advised that I had discussed the matter with Gibson Sibanda who had agreed to the suggestion in principle. I pointed out that the suggestion would only work if both factions supported the initiative and said that I hoped it could get under way early in the New Year. Having not heard back from Innocent Chagonda I wrote to him again on the 8th January 2006 asking to hear from him urgently. A few days later I was phoned by a senior National Executive member in the Tsvangirai faction to say that my proposal was a “dead letter”. It was explained to me that Morgan Tsvangirai was no longer interested in pursuing the suggestion. I subsequently had a private meeting with Tsvangirai on the 27th January and it was clear in that meeting that he was not interested in pursuing the proposal any further. It was also then clear to me that reconciliation was impossible and from that moment on I changed tack and promoted the concept of an amicable divorce between the two factions.

The two factions’ Congresses have now come and gone. I have of course hoped that irrespective of my efforts the violence issue would be addressed by both factions. I had hoped that the mediation process itself would yield an agreement that would prevent inter factional violence. Accordingly I have taken the rejection of the effort to mediate by the Tsvangirai faction as an indication that there is still no desire to tackle this disease.

In addition I have become increasingly dismayed by the following:

  1. The senior member of staff dismissed by the National Council in its June 2005 meeting has been re-employed by the Tsvangirai faction.
  2. The youths responsible for the violence in Harvest House in September 2004 and May 2005 expelled from the party by the Management Committee (and endorsed by the National Council) have been re-employed by the Tsvangirai faction.
  3. At least one of these youths was involved in the unlawful hi-jacking of a vehicle in the lawful possession of the Mutambara faction in March. It appears as if no internal disciplinary action has been taken against that youth.
  4. The senior members of the National Executive and MPs implicated in the Harvest House violence were all elected to the National Executive and some are on the new Management Committee of the Tsvangirai faction.
  5. Senior members of staff implicated in the Harvest House violence have retained their positions.
  6. Tsvangirai faction Chairman of Harare Province Morgan Femai was quoted in the press as having told a rally in Mufakoze on the 2nd April 2006 that “before we remove Zanu PF we will stamp them (the Mutambara faction) out.” No statement rebutting this policy has been issued by the leadership of the Tsvangirai faction.
  7. The Tsvangirai faction’s winning candidate in Budiriro is one of the very people suspended by the MDC National Council in June last year for 2 years on the accusation of being involved in the Harvest House violence.
  8. The Budiriro by election has been marked by violence and illegal activity including the tearing down of the Mutambara faction candidate’s posters.

In the last few weeks leaders within the Tsvangirai faction, including Morgan Tsvangirai himself, have spoken about their commitment to non violence. That is obviously a step in the right direction but mere statements do not impress me. Even Zanu PF leaders have spoken about their belief in non violence recently. In this regard the pledge that Martin Luther King drafted in 1963 is relevant. All those involved in non violent civil disobedience activities in Alabama were required to “refrain from the violence of the fist, tongue and heart”. It is the last injunction that is all important; for it is easy for leaders themselves not to be involved in violent activities and to convey the pretence of a commitment to non violence in their speeches. Zimbabwe’s history is littered with examples of leaders who have preached non violence whilst at the same time have organised violent actions behind closed doors. This gets to the very nub of my concerns – for it appears to me that the Tsvangirai faction has shown no inclination whatsoever to deal with this cancer. Indeed if anything it would appear that the only concern of leadership of that faction is not to be openly associated with violence. All the evidence, as set out above, points to an inclination merely to pay lip service to the principle of non violence, and to ensure that all those responsible for violent acts in the past are free to use similar tactics in future.

In contrast it seems to me that the Mutambara faction is prepared to root out the problem. It is willing to set up an independent enquiry to investigate and address all incidents of intra party violence and was prepared to engage in mediation. It has not sought to protect the youths responsible for the assault on Bekithemba Nyathi, all of whom are now facing criminal charges. From the evidence before me it seems that the Mutambara faction has not pursued a violent or unlawful course since its Congress. In stating this I am not suggesting that the Mutambara faction is made up of saints; there is no such thing in politics. But it does appear to me that it is at least prepared to confront the problem.

Some may consider my concern about violence as trivial. Some have argued that because we are confronting an evil regime fire must be used against fire. Others have argued that non violent techniques were appropriate when Gandhi tackled British colonialists in India and when Martin Luther King challenged racism in the USA, but that these techniques are wholly inappropriate in confronting a violent Zanu PF regime. I have been criticised for being naïve or out of touch with reality. In any event, say others, the most important task is to remove the regime and the issue of violence can be addressed once the main task has been completed. The same people argue that one should therefore back the faction that has the most support irrespective of the techniques they use. In essence their argument is that the end justifies the means.

I beg to differ for a number of reasons.

Firstly, I think the failure to deal with violence within our own ranks now is of paramount importance for the future of Zimbabwe. If we perpetuate violence and impunity ourselves how will we ever address this problem nationally? And if it is not addressed nationally then are we not then going to ensure that this cycle of violence and impunity is perpetuated. Edmund Burke once wrote:

“The use of force alone is but temporary. It may subdue for a moment: but it does not remove the necessity of subduing again; and a nation is not governed which is to be perpetually conquered.”

If we are going to change Zimbabwe into a modern, successful, democratic state we simply have to break this cycle of violence now. We will find that if we do not stamp out violence in our ranks now it will come back to haunt us. If we do not prevent leaders with violent inclinations from gaining high office within the opposition they will naturally assume influential positions in government and once they have done so they will then have access to all the levers of national governmental power – a far more frightening prospect. Given their natures, which are there for all to see, there is no doubt that they will continue to use the violent methods they employed in opposition, in government. Ironically that is precisely the Zimbabwean experience of the last 26 years but we do not appear to have learnt a thing.

Secondly, we must realise that we are a nation in denial regarding the extent of this problem. We are a bit like an alcoholic. We do not recognise this default mode of resorting to violence as a disease. We have become so accustomed to violence being used as an acceptable political weapon that we have lost sight of the fact that the democratic world has moved on and that such methods are anathema elsewhere. We do not recognise that we have adopted the very same methods as the regime we oppose. By a silent and insidious process of osmosis we have absorbed this disease and tragically we do not understand the extent of the problem. We are so consumed by the Zimbabwean catastrophe that we do not understand why we need to take bold and decisive measures to heal this affliction in own ranks. I have no doubt that our failure to nip this problem in the bud is the single biggest cause of the MDC split. If we do not deal with it now then our political woes will continue.

Thirdly, non violent methods are the most effective in tackling this regime. It is wrong to think that non violence and civil disobedience/mass action are incompatible or that anyone who believes in non violence opposes mass action. On the contrary peaceful mass action is the very thing that the Zanu PF regime fears the most. But you cannot expect leaders with a predilection for violence to organise peaceful mass action successfully. If youths are undisciplined and given free reign in dealing with internal party issues then it is inevitable that they will use similar methods in confronting the regime. However if leaders have instilled discipline in their subordinates they can have confidence that any demonstrations they lead will not degenerate into violence. I suspect that one of the reasons Morgan Tsvangirai, and other MDC leaders from both factions for that matter, have not lead protest marches yet is because they may have little confidence in the discipline of their followers. The problem now is that these methods may have become deeply ingrained and in the 100 or so days left in this short winter of discontent it will be difficult to change those ways.

Fourthly, the method most feared by the regime is non violence for the simple reason that they have no answer to it. The regime’s claim to have “degrees in violence” is no idle boast. This is the very territory they are most comfortable in. Their gratuitous acts of violence in the last 6 years have not just been designed to intimidate; they have also been designed to provoke the opposition into a physical fight. The regime desperately needs a pretext to use all the power at its disposal. In addition the regime desperately needs a scapegoat or a diversion because it has no answer to the economic problems it has created for itself. It simply does not wash with the public for these woes to be blamed on sanctions or drought. But if the nation were to descend into a bloodbath it will have a wonderful diversion – which it will if mass action is not carefully organised by people who have a deep rooted commitment to, and understanding of, non violent techniques.

Leadership is ultimately about taking responsibility for the welfare of others. Good leaders have a responsibility to ensure that the people who repose faith in them are not unnecessarily endangered. If a political leader is privy to information that can harm his or her followers (which information those followers do not have) then that leader has a responsibility to warn those followers of the potential danger. Leaders must not simply listen to what people at grassroots are thinking and follow what they want to do willy- nilly. Whilst leaders must obviously respect the goodwill and wishes of their supporters, if they know that the beliefs of their supporters are based on falsehoods, misconceptions or propaganda, leaders have an obligation to warn people. Leaders cannot just act like lemmings and hurtle over the cliff with their supporters simply because the majority of people are doing that. If leaders know that an organisation their supporters have placed so much faith in has serious flaws then they have a duty to warn people of those flaws. If leaders do not then they fail the very people whose welfare they are responsible for.

It is in this context that I have decided that I would do a disservice to the people who have elected me and put so much faith in me if I were to join a faction of the MDC which I fear does not appreciate the gravity of the problem caused by its failure to root out violence. I am not swayed by mere numbers; if I were I would have joined Zanu PF a long time ago. I am not swayed by the undeniable fact that the Mutambara faction of the MDC has a mountain to climb if it is ever to rule Zimbabwe. What I am swayed by is the responsibility I have to the people who long for a new beginning and an end to the long and desolate nightmare of fascist rule. Until leaders take a principled stand to break the cycle of violence and impunity in Zimbabwe no meaningful and long term solutions will be found to the crisis Zimbabwe finds itself in today.

David Coltart
Bulawayo
26th May 2006

This articles expands on the article published today in the Zimbabwean Independent and titled ‘MDC must deal with violence in its own ranks‘. The shorter version of this text – the one published in the Independent – was emailed out today to all my subscribers. If you would like to receive mailings from me, then please click here to automatically add your name to my mailing list.

The reasons why I cannot join the Tsvangirai faction of the MDC – 26 May 2006

Posted in Articles, Downloadable documents, Press reports | 25 Comments

MDC must deal with violence in its own ranks

By David Coltart | Published May 26, 2006

Zimbabwe Independent
David Coltart

ZIMBABWE has been afflicted with the terrible disease of endemic violence for over 150 years. Violence was used by Lobengula to suppress the Shona. It was used to colonise and after that to maintain minority rule, to overthrow white supremacy and, after Independence in 1980, to crush any possibility of legitimate political opposition.

The consequences of violence have been compounded by the flourishing culture of impunity. Those who commit horrendous crimes are not brought to book but prosper through their actions. It is now deeply embedded in our national psyche that political violence is acceptable and thus a norm. This inhibits economic development and creates terrible social problems.

What attracted me to the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) from the beginning was its commitment to break this vicious cycle of violence and impunity by strictly adhering to non-violent means in pursuit of its political objectives. This was in sharp and welcome contrast to the governing Zanu PF’s promotion and glorification of violence, impunity and lawlessness.

So the attempt by some MDC youths to murder our director for security, Peter Guhu, in September 2004 at the Harvest House headquarters was deeply shocking. Even worse were subsequent revelations that senior MDC officials were either involved or sympathetic to the youths.

Any predisposition to violence can be controlled only by the manner in which it is handled by leaders. If not decisively dealt with, a culture of impunity develops and violence perpetuates itself even within bodies such as the MDC.

This is precisely what happened. Those responsible for violence were not disciplined and the same youths were used to seriously assault MDC staff members in May 2005. While these youths were expelled and one senior staff member dismissed in June 2005, the architects of the violence were not disciplined.

At the next meeting of the national executive on July 15 2005 I tabled a statement emphasising that this violence constituted “the most serious assault on the credibility of the MDC since it was established in September 1999.

“Our commitment to non-violence is so fundamental that extraordinary measures need to be taken in dealing with this scourge. If we do not send out a clear and unequivocal message to Zimbabweans in general and in particular to our own members and staff that violence will not be tolerated then we will simply reduce the standing of the MDC to that of . . . Zanu PF.”

But the party lurched forward to what became known as the senate issue with these serious issues unresolved. It soon emerged that some complicit in violence were organising teams to intimidate provincial committees to vote against participation in the senate.

So, for example, Manicaland, a province inclined against participation, instructed its delegation to vote for participation in a direct reaction against intimidation. Eventually the vote to participate or not in the senatorial election had little to do with the elections as such, and more to do with the philosophy of the MDC.

I then suggested to Morgan Tsvangirai and other MDC leaders that an independent commission of inquiry into all allegations of intra-party violence be established and I was eventually informed that Tsvangirai wanted me to chair such a commission.

It was particularly poignant that on the very evening after I discussed the issue with Tsvangirai a supporter of his faction, Bekithemba Nyathi, was seriously injured by youths from the so-called pro-senate faction.

This again demonstrated how imperative was action and on December 8 2005 I compiled and presented terms of reference of such a commission in which I recommended that “in cases where (it is found) that a member has been involved in violent acts directly or indirectly . . . the national council shall immediately refer the case to the disciplinary committee (DC) and request the chairperson of the DC to suspend the member . . .

“The commission shall endeavour to complete its work before the party’s congress and any person found . . . to be involved in violence shall be barred from contesting for office at the congress.”

My proposals became a dead letter. In a meeting last January Tsvangirai made it clear that he was not interested in pursuing the proposal. The reconciliation I had worked for between the two factions became impossible. The subsequent “amicable divorce” alternative which I thereafter pursued also now seems impossible.

The two factions’ congresses have now come and gone with neither congress addressing the issue of violence. Furthermore, the youths and a senior staff member responsible for violence at Harvest House have been re-employed by the Tsvangirai faction; senior members of the national executive and MPs implicated in the Harvest House violence have all been elected to the national executive and some are on the new management committee of the Tsvangirai faction.

Senior members of staff implicated in the Harvest House violence have retained their positions and there has been no rebuttal of the statement by the Tsvangirai faction chairman of Harare province Morgan Femai that “before we remove Zanu PF we will stamp them (the Mutambara faction) out”. Indeed, the Tsvangirai faction’s winning candidate in the Budiriro by-election is one of the very people accused of involvement in the Harvest House violence who was suspended for two years by the MDC at its June 25 2005 national council meeting.

Some may consider my concern about violence as trivial. I beg to differ. If Zimbabwe is ever to become a modern, successful, democratic state, violence must be punished. If we do not ourselves prevent those with violent inclinations from gaining high office within the opposition they may naturally one day assume influential positions in government where they will have terrifying access to the levers of national power.

We have become so accustomed to violence being used as a political weapon that we have lost sight of the fact that the democratic world has moved on, eschewing such methods. We do not recognise that we are now adopting the very same instruments as does the anti-democratic regime we oppose.

Non-violent methods are the most effective in tackling this regime. Non-violence and civil disobedience are not incompatible and disciples of non-violence are not consequently opposed to mass action.

On the contrary, peaceful mass action is the very reality that the Zanu PF regime most fears. However, leaders with a predilection for violence are ipso facto unable to organise peaceful mass action successfully.

Only if leaders have instilled discipline in their subordinates can they be confident that demonstrations they lead will not degenerate into mayhem. I suspect that one of the reasons leaders have not yet led protest marches onto the urban streets is because they have knowledge of, and therefore little confidence in, the discipline and dedication of their followers.

Leadership is ultimately about taking responsibility for the welfare of others. Good leaders are obliged to ensure that people who repose faith in them are not unnecessarily endangered.

While leaders obviously must respect the thinking and desires of their constituents, when it is known that any beliefs are based on falsehoods, misconceptions and propaganda, leaders have a responsibility to sound the alarm. They cannot just act like lemmings and hurtle with their followers over the cliffs simply because an apparent majority of others are doing so.

If leaders learn that an organisation their supporters have placed faith in has serious flaws they must expose this and they must also act to correct those flaws. It is within this context that I know I would do a disservice to people who had faith in, and therefore elected, me as their representative to parliament were I to be part of an organisation that has not acted to root out violence within its own ranks.

* David Coltart was MDC legal secretary and is MP for Bulawayo South.

Posted in Articles, Press reports | 1 Comment

Zim ratifies SADC protocol on fugitives

By David Coltart | Published May 5, 2006

The Herald
By Tandayi Motsi

Fugitives from justice will soon have no hiding place as steps are being taken to harmonise legal systems in the Southern African Development Community (SADC), in addition to strengthening domestic regulatory and supervisory systems for the monitoring and detection of organised crime in United Nations member-states

To this end, last Wednesday, the House of Assembly ratified two protocols that deal with crime in the region and abroad. The first was the SADC Protocol on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters that provides wide measures for legal co-operation between member-states in criminal matters. The second was the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime that promotes effective co-operation among member-states in combating and preventing cross-border organised crime. The UN convention provides for the extradition of suspects wanted in connection with organised crime, including corruption. Legislators from both sides of the House consented to the protocols. Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Cde Patrick Chinamasa told the House that the SADC protocol would clear some of the legal hurdles that were faced when suspects wanted in connection with corruption fled to neighbouring countries. The minister said the document was central to efforts to harmonise legal systems in the region. He said any disputes between member-states in relation to mutual legal assistance would be referred to the tribunal for arbitration. Contributing to the debate, Mr David Coltart (MDC, Bulawayo South) said the opposition welcomed the SADC protocol. “Our law enforcement agencies have had problems in combating crime that goes beyond our borders. This is good and a welcome addition to our statutes,” said Mr Coltart. The SADC protocol provides for co-operation in investigations, prosecutions or proceedings relating to offences involving transnational organised crime and corruption. Assistance shall be provided without regard to whether the conduct under investigation or prosecution in the requesting state constitutes an offence under the laws of the requested state. The protocol will go a long way in enabling Zimbabwean police to facilitate prosecution of suspects wanted in connection with corruption who have taken refuge in some SADC countries, particularly South Africa.

Posted in Parliamentary, Press reports | Leave a comment

Amicable Divorce

By David Coltart | Published May 2, 2006

Letter from Tendai Biti (Secretary General, MDC) to David Coltart

Dear David

I refer to your letter dated 17th February 2006 addressed to President Morgan Tsvangirai in his personal and individual capacity, which letter as I have pointed out to you, I have not read or been privy too.

I am aware however from newspaper reports and articles that you are allegedly “attempting to broker a divorce” between and in the MDC.

In my view even assuming that there was wisdom, need and justification for such an effort, a point that I express no opinion on, I doubt that given the publicity thus far, there is any value or potential in the newspaper attempt referred above. In my experience genuine and bona fide dialogue will never take place in the public domain.

Furthermore in my experience any mediator must surely be impartial, independent and distant from a dispute. By any measure you are not distant or neutral, unless of course you are no longer a member of the MDC.

I trust that this puts paid to this issue.

Yours faithfully

Tendai Biti
MDC Secretary General

Reply from David Coltart to Tendai Biti (Secretary General, MDC)

Dear Tendai,

Thank you for your letter dated the 2nd May 2006.

I am not going to respond to the points you have made because even though I take issue with them, no purpose will be served in me doing so. Suffice it to say that my letter was written to Morgan Tsvangirai on the 20th February 2006, not the 17th February, in his official capacity as President of the MDC. In the circumstances it was not written to him in his personal capacity.

It is a great shame that you have not managed even to read the 5 page letter before responding to it. Had you read it you would have seen that I specifically asked that the letter be tabled before your National Executive which apparently did not happen. Had you read the letter you would have seen that the issues raised in your letter to me today were anticipated by me and addressed.

As this letter has been written in your capacity as Secretary General I take it that it represents the official view and policy.

Finally I note that the Tsvangirai faction of the MDC does not want to avail itself of my offer to assist in a mediation process.

Best wishes,

David Coltart MP
MDC
Bulawayo South

Posted in Letters | Leave a comment

HOT SEAT: Part 2 – INTERVIEW WITH DAVID COLTART

By David Coltart | Published May 2, 2006

In a letter to the two factions, Coltart noted that some of the leaders are skeptical about his intentions and his ability to play a mediation role. So in this final segment, I first asked him about his personal views and where he stands.

COLTART: I think it’s inevitable, let me say this, I have been viewed with suspicion by both sides and that is an inevitable consequence of adopting the position that I have. I do have personal views which I am not going to reveal on this programme because it’s not the right time to reveal those views.

I recognise that time is running out and I will have to make a decision fairly shortly because it does appear as if my attempts to broker peace, to broker an amicable divorce, are not going to be achieved. But having said that, let me say that I believe both sides are to blame for this division. I am not going to apportion blame, or rank blame this evening but I think that ultimately it was a collective failure of leadership, it was a collective failure (and) both sides are to blame.
All of us are not immune from blame. I think it is a collective responsibility. I am responsible for this, and everyone should recognise that there are no saints in politics, there are no saints on either side. It has been a failure of both sides of the MDC, it’s been a failure of people in the media, it’s been a failure of people in civil society and human rights movement who have taken such absolutist views and positions, and in so doing, they have ensured that this dispute will become permanent, that this divorce will become permanent.

I come back to the theme of intolerance. I have been appalled by the intolerance shown on both sides. I believe that had we had seen more responsibility, more restraint shown by leaders on both sides early on, way back in October and November, this still could have been resolved and both sides could have been reconciled.

But at the end of the day I recognise that this attempt to reconcile will probably fail, and when that happens, I am going to be forced to make a decision. I am going to be forced to one or other camp, but let me say this, ultimately my decision is going to be based on what for me is the core issue, and that is our commitment to non-violence.

Let me stress this Violet, that there are many different tiers, many different reasons why this dispute has taken place. The personal issue for me is the issue of our commitment to non-violence and ultimately my decision will be based on which group, which faction has demonstrated a greater commitment to respecting the principle of non-violence.

VIOLET: But do you not think right now is the time you should make your position clear or known for the sake of progress as you say time is running out, and maybe if these issues were thrown out into the public domain people will be able to make the right decisions. Do you not think that you have been sitting on the fence for too long?

COLTART: Well I think, first of all let me say that I disagree with that phrase ‘sitting on the fence’. Sitting on the fence implies that a person is waiting to see which way the wind is blowing and then the person just goes with the direction in which the wind is blowing hardest. I don’t believe I have been doing that. I believe that in the position I have put myself in, I have if anything, developed suspicion from both sides. I didn’t attend either congress, I could have, I am sure gone to one of the congresses and tried to get a much higher and lofty position than I am sure I may be offered now by either faction.

So I dispute this notion of sitting on the fence. I think I have been more in the political wilderness on my own trying to broker peace, but having said that, I agree with you that I think that the time is rapidly coming that I do have to make a decision. I think I have given this a full go, I think that I have tried for six months now, I hate to admit but I think I have failed and now I will have to make a decision and in fact I already have started a process of consultation. As I see it, I have four possible options.

The first is to join the Tsvangirai faction. The second is to join the Mutambara faction. The third is to try to become an independent and the fourth is to resign from politics completely and go back to my roots which is of course the civic society and the human rights movement.

And I have started speaking to people I trust and respect right across the board to gauge their opinion. The majority opinion seems to be at present that I should not leave politics. In the course of the next few days and weeks I will get greater clarity on what decision I have to make.

VIOLET: What’s your gut feeling though?

COLTART: (Laughs) Well I know that you are keen on the scoop Violet and unfortunately I can’t give you that tonight. But of the four options, civil society doesn’t appear to be an option because virtually everyone has said that I should remain in politics, that I have an obligation to people who elected me. Some people lost their lives to get the likes of me elected and it would be irresponsible for me to abandon my constituency.

I think constitutionally, that is, in terms of the Zimbabwe constitution, it would be difficult to become an independent. So I am probably down to two choices, will I join the Tsvangirai faction or the Mutambara faction? That’s the decision I have to make and I am sure I will make in the not too distant future.

VIOLET: And you said earlier on in the discussion that the issue of violence is what’s going to determine your decision isn’t? Now in your letter to the two groups, you said that you notice that there is an even more disturbing trend and that is that of violence. Who is primarily responsible for that and who do you blame for frustrating your efforts to try and reconcile?

COLTART: Let me say this, that there has been violence perpetrated by both sides in the last six months. I was absolutely appalled by the assault on Bekithemba Nyathi on the eve of Morgan Tsvangirai’s star rally in the run-up to the senatorial elections. I have known Bekithemba Nyathi for a long time, he works in a law firm close to my law firm and that young man lost his eye as a result of that assault which was perpetrated against him by hooligans in what is now termed the Mutambara faction even though Arthur Mutambara of course didn’t have a role at that time.
But equally, the other faction, the Tsvangirai faction, has been recently responsible for equally disturbing assaults in the form of hijackings and verbal assaults in the form of Morgan Femai the Harare chairman saying that their goal was to, and I quote, ‘stamp out the Mutambara faction before they move on to tackle Zanu PF’. Now that’s unacceptable in my view. I am not on this programme going to say who I believe is responsible for most violence, I will do that in a very considered way. I will write about it because I think people need to understand my thought process, and it’s impossible on a radio interview like this to go through the full history and to explain who I believe to be most responsible for violence. Let me say that as I make decisions, I will be seeking assurances from people on both sides regarding their commitment to non-violence. Let me say that I am not talking about mere lip service, if you look at that letter that I wrote regarding the Alabama human rights movement and the pledge drafted by Martin Luther King, at one stage he says that people are to refrain from the violence of the fist, tongue and heart.

And the point I am making in that letter is that it is very easy for leaders to refrain from the violence of the fist and the tongue. The question I put to leaders is whether they are prepared to refrain from the violence of the heart. And by heart I mean the issue of leaders who are prepared, behind closed doors, to encourage young people to go out and perpetrate acts of violence so long they, that is, the political leaders, are not in any way associated with that.

Let me bring in my own history. As everyone knows, I fought for (Ian) Smith. As an 18-year-old, I was conscripted to go and fight for Ian Smith as a gullible, impressionable 18-year-old. I was subjected to peer pressure, and let me say against the wishes of my parents who were liberals who did not want me to go and fight for the white minority regime, I went and fought and I could have lost my life. I thank God that I didn’t lose my life but I saw and I learnt a lesson then that all the politicians are very often willing to sacrifice young, gullible, impressionable men and women in the pursuit of their own political goal.

I am very disdainful, I’m very skeptical of political leaders who are prepared to act behind closed doors in Zimbabwe today. And so I am not impressed simply by mere statements by political leaders at rallies that they condemn violence, that they are committed to non-violence.
What I want to see is a political leader who behind closed doors is prepared to deal with violence, prepared to tell his or her followers that they will not tolerate violence in any form. I seek those types of assurances from leaders in both factions, and it is that issue that will ultimately determine which faction I go to.

VIOLET: Now, just to end, do you still believe that the MDC is a viable party and can they lead mass action?

COLTART: I suppose it depends what you mean by the MDC. As I said right at the outset in October and what I have consistently said since then, I don’t believe that these two entities, these two factions, will ever be as strong independent of each other as they were as one united political party. There is no doubt in my mind that this division has greatly weakened opposition politics Zimbabwe.

And whilst it is encouraging to see how many people have turned out for the Tsvangirai faction’s rallies, that is not a new phenomenon in Zimbabwe. And Morgan Tsvangirai has always managed to attract people but the sad reality is that despite all the rhetoric and the propaganda, he is still not attracting the same number of people that the united party used to attract. That is an indisputable fact and because of that, and this is the sobering reality of our situation, (sic) let’s assume that the Tsvangirai faction continues to grow from strength to strength I still believe it will not be as strong as it was when it had the likes of Priscilla Misihairabwi Mushonga, Welshman Ncube, Gibson Sibanda and all the other patriots who were not with that group. And likewise, the Mutambara faction is greatly weakened without the talents of Morgan Tsvangirai and Tendai Biti.
Everyone needs to understand that and those who have adopted such biased, intolerant positions should recognise that we all need to work together even as two separate political factions or entities or political parties, we need to work together because we are not going to bring democracy to Zimbabwe until we start respecting each other and working together albeit as two separate organisations.

VIOLET: We have to end here, thank you very much Mr Coltart.

COLTART: Thank you very much Violet.

Posted in Blog | 1 Comment

HOT SEAT: Part I – Coltart says: Mutambara faction is still viable

By David Coltart | Published April 25, 2006

With Violet Gonda SW Radio Africa

VIOLET: Welcome to you Mr Coltart.

COLTART: Good evening Violet, it’s nice to be with you.

VIOLET: Thank you. Now let’s start with your efforts to try and broker peace between the two factions of the MDC, where are you with this?

COLTART: Since the split started on the 12th of October I have tried to refrain from making public statements regarding either faction and I have been speaking to leaders from either side.
In October and November I had one-on-one meetings with Morgan Tsvangirai, Gibson Sibanda, Gift Chimanikire, people like Job Sikhala and many others in an effort to try and lower the amount of rhetoric. As you recall in October and November there were a lot of very harsh statements made by people on both sides against the other and I was at that stage trying to encourage them to tone down the rhetoric so that we didn’t antagonise things any more.
I had a couple of key meetings with Tsvangirai in particular regarding what I believed to be the central issue mainly violence, and I put forward a variety of proposals to him in the course of November, December and January. But by the end of January it became very apparent to me that the chances of reconciliation were minimal and I realised that as both factions moved towards their respective congresses in late February and early March their positions were becoming rigid and that the chances of reconciliation were almost non-existent and so at the end of February, on the 20th of February, I wrote a long letter to Morgan Tsvangirai in his capacity as President of the MDC, that is the former united MDC, and a virtually identical letter to Gibson Sibanda in his capacity as vice president of the former united MDC.

That letter, contrary to what the Herald put out, did not actually put forward suggestions as to how these disputes should be resolved, all I did was in that letter was set out what I believed the issues in contention were and the process that in my view should be used to resolve those issues. Both letters were hand delivered to Morgan Tsvangirai and Gibson Sibanda on the 22nd of February and the letter concluded by saying that I was just human, I have obviously have my personal views about the reasons for this very sad dispute and that I wouldn’t be human if I didn’t have views but I was at least trying to act as mediator. And I stress that I wanted to act as mediator not as arbitrator, let me explain the difference for you and our listeners this evening.

VIOLET: Mmm.

COLTART: An arbitrator is someone who is given the power to decide on a dispute. He listens to both sides in a dispute and then he makes a ruling. I never desired that role for myself. I wanted to play the role of mediator, to try and get both sides to recognise the issues that were in dispute and to try and mediate an agreement so that both sides could continue to function independent of each other but in a way that would complement each other, in a way that would ensure that the struggle which we are all keen to engage in, mainly the struggle to bring democracy in Zimbabwe was not tampered with or hindered in any way.
And I also in the same letter said that I didn’t think that I was the only person who should be involved in this process. I’m not, I hope, that arrogant and I don’t have a monopoly of wisdom but I was offering myself as an individual and I suggested that other people like Beatrice Mtetwa, Washington Sansole could be drawn in as neutral people to try and resolve what is a very bitter dispute. The congresses came and went with the two national executives elected and in late March — I can’t recall the exact date — the Mutambara faction did reply saying that they had considered my letter and suggestions and were happy to have me play that role and were looking forward to hearing from me further. I had not heard from the Tsvangirai faction at all.

When parliament resumed at the end of March I spoke to a variety of colleagues in the Tsvangirai faction including Nelson Chamisa, Thoko Khupe and a few others and said that I had not received a reply and asked for a reply. Nelson Chamisa in a comment contained in the (Zimbabwe) Independent said that there was no need for an amicable divorce because there hadn’t been any split, that the MDC was united and that just a few people had broken away and I pressed a variety of people to state whether that the official policy. I then got a response from William Bango, Mr Tsvangirai’s spokesman, saying that this was still being discussed and that I should wait.

VIOLET: Now Mr Coltart do you not think that with the large turnout for the Tsvangirai rallies and the recent defections that the Tsvangirai camp has grown in confidence and they may feel that they don’t need to negotiate at this stage.

COLTART: Well I think that may influence their position on this but I think if that is their feeling it is unfortunate for a variety of reasons. Firstly one cannot dispute the fact that, irrespective of what has happened in the last six months, some highly significant leaders in the MDC have split away. You can’t ignore that Welshman Ncube was the secretary general of the MDC, Paul Themba Nyathi was the spokesman; people like Priscilla Misihairabwi Mushonga were very effective MPs and it’s wishful thinking just to think that those people are irrelevant. It is also wishful thinking in my view to think that this matter can be resolved in any other way other than through one of two means — either mediation or the courts.

Even if the Mutambara faction contained completely irrelevant people who played no role in the MDC, they still have the right to take these issues to court and if these issues go to court then I have no doubt that we are going to hand to Zanu PF the right to do two things:

Firstly to determine how long this dispute will go on for, and secondly, ultimately it will hand Zanu PF the right to determine which faction they want to deal with and which faction should get the assets. The courts in Zimbabwe have been subverted and I don’t believe that it is in anybody’s interests for this dispute to be resolved by the courts. And regarding the numbers, the respective numbers, they are indisputable. It is very clear that the Tsvangirai faction is attracting a great number more people than the Mutambara faction. But that doesn’t help them in court and so I tried to convey this to them that it is in their interests to try to resolve this matter amicably because there are in fact some pretty formidable brains on the other side, that’s not to say the Tsvangirai side doesn’t have formidable brains on its side as well, but the fact is that it is not in the interests of either faction, it’s not in the interests of the public for this unseemly dispute to be perpetuated through the courts because that is the only avenue left now if these mediation efforts are spurned.

VIOLET: But then there are others who say that, and you have also agreed that the Tsvangirai camp seems to be having more supporters, grassroots supporters, and you know observers have said the Mutambara faction is literally falling apart. Now first of all do you agree with this and do you think that since the other party seems to be shrinking, does it deserve the assets?

COLTART: I think there is no doubt that any rational, objective observer who goes to the rallies of the two factions has to agree that the Tsvangirai faction had a lot more people at their congress, something like five times the number of people who attended the Mutambara faction congress and likewise at public rallies they are attracting more people. But that is not the end of the matter. Let me say this that politics is all about marketing, it’s a bit like selling Coke. The Tsvangirai faction has the advantage at this stage that the name MDC is very closely linked to Morgan Tsvangirai and it has been deliberately marketed in that way in the last six years. It had to be the case in the 2002 Presidential elections, it was vitally important that this party be marketed very closely to the person of Morgan Tsvangirai. In the short term, it is inevitable that wherever Morgan Tsvangirai is, people will naturally link his presence with the name MDC and because of the marketing of six years and because this brand has been developed over six years it is inevitable that irrespective of the policies, irrespective of the people around Morgan Tsvangirai that the vast majority of people are going to follow that brand.
And so the Mutambara faction has a huge mountain to climb because it is going to find it very difficult to associate itself with that brand, because it doesn’t have a key element of that brand, namely the name and the person of Morgan Tsvangirai.
But that doesn’t mean the end of this game for the Mutambara faction. The Mutambara faction has assets on its part, some of the real talent in the former MDC, and there is no doubting that it has some formidable people, some people who in the past have established very close ties with their respective constituencies and that can’t be discounted.

VIOLET: So do you believe that they should demand a lion’s share of the party assets?

COLTART: No. I am not saying that at all as my letter sets out very clearly, I did not say who should get the lion’s share of anything. I have never said that and I won’t not say that now, all I am saying is that if people are democrats they will respect the right of other people to exist and these people, like Welshman Ncube and many other supporters, have enjoyed the support of several thousand people at rallies they’ve held, that simply can’t be discounted. I don’t think we can simply say that because one faction had 3 or 4 000 people at a public meeting, the other faction only had 2 000 and therefore that faction which had 2 000 should go away with nothing at all.

It’s a bit like using the example of a divorce; you have a husband and a wife who have been married for six years or 10 years. I as a divorce lawyer often get wives or husbands who come in to say the other side has committed adultery and therefore they should get nothing at all.
That’s not how the world works, even where one party is to blame, people who have contributed to a struggle over a long period of time, contributed to a marriage, are entitled to come away with something. These folk in the Mutambara faction simply cannot be wished away, they are there, they have contributed to the struggle.

Some of them have suffered greatly. For example some of the have been abducted – someone like Abednigo Bhebhe, MP for Nkayi, has been abducted twice, he has been severely tortured. Do we say that someone like that should just be written off? Absolutely not, and the same applies to people in the Tsvangirai faction and that’s why I believe so strongly that there needs to be mediation. No-one is suggesting that anyone should have the lion’s share; all that’s being suggested is that we need to sit down as sane, rational sober adults and avoid the unseemly sight of these former comrades battling it out in court. And let me tell you, no-one is going to win in court in the minds of the people, the people are not interested in these battles, the people want both factions to concentrate on the real enemy, namely this regime which has been responsible for the destruction of the Zimbabwean economy, the destruction of human rights and dignity of the people.

VIOLET: Speaking about the people, you have been studying the two factions, now if we were to ask about your views about the Mutambara faction how long do you think it will take this group to find the necessary support and has Zimbabwe got that kind of time to wait?

COLTART: Well I don’t think Zimbabwe has got the amount of time needed to establish a new party, certainly given the collapse of the economy. But let me say this, that the Mutambara faction believes in certain principles, that they have more of a long term view of the struggle. And let me say this, that I think that everyone, every patriotic Zimbabwean in his or her right mind hopes that this timetable that Morgan Tsvangirai has set out will be achieved. He has spoken about a winter of discontent, that by the end of this winter the Mugabe regime would have been forced to come to the negotiation table. I think if you ask anyone in the Mutambara faction they would say they hope that is achieved; any patriotic Zimbabwean should hope that.
But on the other side, they would say this is not the first time that such an ambitious goal has been set. The tragedy of Zimbabwe is that statements have been made in the past – that Mugabe will be gone by Christmas and other statements like that, and it hasn’t happened. And I think that there are some in the Mutambara faction, if I understand them correctly, who say ‘we are committed to non-violence, we are committed to democracy, to respect for the rule of law and we recognise that we may have to be the opposition’. It may not just be opposition to the Mugabe regime, but they may end up being in opposition to the Tsvangirai faction of the MDC if it comes to power. But they nevertheless have the right to hold that view. One of the things that has deeply concerned me in this dispute is the extreme intolerance shown by many Zimbabweans about the right of the Mutambara faction to believe in what they believe. They have that right and all democratic people should respect that right.

Posted in Press reports | 1 Comment

Zimbabwe Independent – Muckraker

By David Coltart | Published April 21, 2006

Keywords:

Zimbabwe Independent
Muckraker

Finally, we were rather amused by a story in the Sunday Mail’s business section. It proclaimed that Zimbabwe was back in ARSO and had even attended an ARSO meeting in Cairo last month. The meeting was hosted by Egyptian ARSOs.

In case you are wondering, ARSO stands for the African Organisation for Standardisation, according to the Sunday Mail. The acronym would more likely suggest the African Regional Standards Organisation. Whatever the case, it is rather unfortunate that this august body did not contemplate the consequences when it devised its appellation.

Meanwhile, David Coltart may have been alarmed on Tuesday to hear ZTV referring to “Cde Coltart Chimurenga”. !!!!

Posted in Press reports | Leave a comment

Probe team vindicates MDC claim

By David Coltart | Published April 21, 2006

The Independent

THE MDC team that inspected the disputed 2002 presidential poll has produced a report alleging that at least 490 000 fraudulent votes were stuffed into ballot boxes to give President Robert Mugabe his fifth term in office.

In an interview on Tuesday, the party’s former secretary for legal affairs, David Coltart, said: “After analysing 12 constituencies we arrived at the conclusion that 490 000 votes were fraudulently added. We submitted our report to (Morgan) Tsvangirai.”

Coltart, who lost an executive post in the opposition party after refusing to attend either faction’s congress, referred further questions to Innocent Gonese, the anti-senate’s faction secretary for legal affairs, saying he was no longer handling the matter.

On Wednesday Gonese said he could not comment as he wanted to be briefed first by the lawyers who are involved in the matter. He could also not say when the inspection would re-start following adjournment of the process indefinitely last November.

In the vote that was characterised by intimidation and violence against the opposition, Mugabe won by almost 400 000 votes after polling 1 685 212 votes against Tsvangirai’s 1 258 401 votes.

Tsvangirai described the outcome as a “daylight robbery” while Justice minister Patrick Chinamasa labelled it a well-deserved “run away victory” for Mugabe.

The inspection of the election materials started last year after Registrar-General Tobaiwa Mudede surrendered them at a time a contempt of court charge was hanging over him for defying several court orders to do so.
The first order had been issued in September 2002.

* Meanwhile, Gweru Rural parliamentary losing candidate Renson Gasela has complained that Justice Mafios Cheda’s delay in releasing a written judgement on his election petition has affected the hearing of his appeal in the Supreme Court.

Justice Cheda dismissed Gasela’s petition seeking to nullify the result of the election in October last year but is yet to produce a written judgement.

Correspondence by Gasela’s lawyers, Coghlan & Welsh, to the former MP says “it would appear that until the 24th March 2006 Justice Cheda was still sitting on the judgement and the court record. This explains why the record was never transcribed.”

The judgement in the case was handed down on October 15 last year and in terms of the Electoral Act an appeal must be determined within six months from the day of lodging.

“When we tried to uplift the judgement we were told that it was still being typed,” another letter dated March 17 to Cheda’s clerk said. “The writer had to request to be allowed to peruse the handwritten judgement in order to file an appeal.”

The letter says the appeal was subsequently filed in the Supreme Court and served on the Electoral Court on November 1, 2005 with a special request that the appeal record be transcribed urgently given that there are time limits within which the Supreme Court must dispose of a matter.

“We have made several efforts through the registrar’s office to uplift the judgement without success,” the letter says. – Staff Writers.

Posted in Parliamentary, Press reports | Leave a comment

Zimbabwe: Coltart Gives Tsvangirai Ultimatum

By David Coltart | Published April 14, 2006

Zimbabwe Independent
– Clemence Manyukwe

MDC MP David Coltart, who is trying to play arbiter in the party’s feud, has given anti-senate president Morgan Tsvangirai a deadline to respond to his proposals to negotiate the party’s formal split. The rival faction led by Arthur Mutambara has given the nod to Coltart to work out a deal.

In letters written on February 20 to Tsvangirai and pro-senate vice-president Gibson Sibanda, Coltart proposed a five-point plan for possible negotiations for reunification or an amicable divorce of the feuding parties.

In his latest letter dated April 8 addressed to Tsvangirai, the former MDC secretary for legal affairs who has tried to remain neutral, said if Tsvangirai fails to respond in the next few days, he would assume that the faction does not want to take up his offer.
“I believe that every day this dispute is allowed to fester the chances of reaching an amicable settlement are lessened. In the circumstances I would be grateful to hear from you within the next few days. If I have not heard from you by then I shall assume that you do not want to take up my offer,” said Coltart.

He added that Mutambara’s faction had responded positively on March 28 to his proposals.

“It is now over six weeks since I wrote to you. I believe that the current dispute needs to be urgently resolved so that both entities can get on with the job of confronting the serious problems facing Zimbabwe,” he said.

He said he had noted the press statement by the Tsvangirai faction spokesman Nelson Chamisa, published in the Zimbabwe Independent on March 24, dismissing the offer.
“However, on the 3rd April Eddie Cross forwarded me a note sent to him by William Bango which states that “the matter is still under consideration” and that “I was advised to wait”, said Coltart.

In his statement Chamisa said: “We are aware of Coltart’s plans but we do not know what he is talking about when he talks of reconciliation and amicable divorce of the two parties. The MDC is united. We only have party officials who left to form another party and we will not discuss that.”

In an interview yesterday, Tsvangirai’s spokesperson Bango said the opposition leader was not aware of Coltart’s letter. He referred all questions regarding the talks to the faction’s spokesperson Chamisa arguing that the issue was not personal but party business.

However, Coltart who last week said chances of reunification were now minimal, yesterday said the letter had been handed to Tsvangirai on Sunday.

Posted in Press reports | Leave a comment

A plea for non violent action

By David Coltart | Published April 12, 2006

This letter was sent today to senior leaders of both factions of the MDC:

Dear Friends,

As you know I have been trying to broker peace between the two factions of the MDC since the 12th October 2005. I know that some of you are skeptical about this and about my ability to play this role but nevertheless I am convinced in my mind at least that this is the right thing to do.

I have been deeply concerned about the vitriolic statements made by both sides and by individuals on both sides since the 12th October as I believe they have greatly lessened any chance of reconciliation being achieved. However in recent weeks I have discerned an even more disturbing trend and that is that violence has been increasingly threatened and used. A vehicle has been hijacked by youths and at least one rally threats have been made to crush members of an opposing faction. This is of course just a continuation of the violence we have seen perpetrated by both sides against each other in the last 18 months.

I do not propose at this juncture to delve into who is responsible for that violence. Nor will I try to assess which side is most culpable at this stage. What is needed now is a deep rooted commitment from both sides to refrain from violence, not just in word but more importantly in action. Anyone can simply condemn violence – Robert Mugabe and Zanu PF do that all the time at the very time they are plotting evil. Violent tendencies can only be quashed if leaders demonstrate that they are not prepared to tolerate violence in any form or fashion.

Furthermore it is clear that one or other, or both, of the two factions in the coming months will engage in mass action against the regime. I am concerned that if violence is tolerated or condoned in intra party disputes that the same policy may be applied in opposing the regime.

In this regard I draw your attention to the “Pledge to non violence” drafted by Martin Luther King for the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights which I have both attached and set out in full below.

I think the following points about it should be noted:

1. Our aim in both the settlement of intra party disputes and in our struggle against the regime should be to achieve “justice and reconciliation – not victory”. The organisation we represent is after all the Movement for Democratic Change not the Movement for Change. In other words mere victory over the other faction or Zanu PF should never be our goal – our goal should be to bring about a new order of peace, justice and reconciliation, not the continuation of the hatred, pain, intolerance and overwhelming power we have experienced under Zanu PF.

2. We need to “walk and talk in the manner of love”. We cannot just talk about non violence; our entire demeanour must reflect our commitment to non violence. This applies particularly when confronting the regime. If we begin marches with prayer and ensure that no weapons of any sort are used then the regime will find it hard to crush protests because its objective will be so obviously noble. But our walk begins with how we treat our own brothers and sisters in the struggle. How can we possibly convince the regime that we have noble objectives if in the settlement of our internal disputes we are so quick to resort to violence or to turn a blind eye to violence?

3. We need to blanket our entire actions in “prayer”. It is more difficult to engage in violence if one takes the time to pray before undertaking any activity. But this needs to be genuine, heartfelt prayer not prayer by rote. And when we pray we should not be asking God just to end tyranny but to examine our own hearts and motives. We need to ask God to give us restraint in our words and actions. And if we are confronted by law enforcement agencies then our first reaction should be to get down on our knees and pray, not to fight. The regime will have no answer to such action and also I have no doubt that God’s mighty power will be unleashed in such situations.

4. We need to “sacrifice personal wishes in order that all men shall be free”. One of the things that has distressed me the most in the split is the realisation that many in both sides are not interested in reconciliation because that is the very thing that will obstruct their path to higher office. There is no doubt that there are people on both sides who have now attained high office in one or other faction; office they would never have dreamt of had the MDC remained united. They fully understand that if the party were to unify they would lose those lofty positions. We have not seen sufficient people on both sides who have been prepared to sacrifice their personal goals for the greater good. But the same applies to our attitude in confronting the regime. I have heard at least one member of the MDC National Executive complain in the last year about not being prepared to wait any longer to become a Minister. Our goal should not be the attainment of high office in Government – our goal must be to liberate Zimbabweans whether that results in us becoming Ministers or not.

5. If our struggle is indeed a noble one, if we are to maintain the moral high ground, then we must observe “the ordinary rules of courtesy” with both “friend and foe”. How can it be that we have allowed ourselves to be so uncouth towards colleagues, comrades and friends who have been to hell and back together with us in the last 6 years? What has caused us to stoop so low to sling all manner of unsubstantiated barbs against each other in the last 6 months? Why is it that we have not afforded each other the courtesy of testing “facts” before publishing untrue and wildly defamatory statements about former colleagues? Why have we resorted to making such vile and vitriolic statements about former colleagues in public? I have been utterly appalled by the use of words like ‘sell outs’, ‘dissidents’, ‘rebels’, ‘dictators’ to describe colleagues who only yesterday were in the trenches with us. But this principle applies equally as we tackle the regime and law enforcement agencies. Indeed what has greatly diminished the moral authority of our struggle against the regime has been our distinct lack of courtesy shown to each other. It is now perfectly reasonable for the regime to argue that they are up against uncouth people who do not care for truth or the observation of ordinary rules of courtesy.

6. Our commitment to non violence should be all embracing; we need to “refrain from the violence of fist, tongue or heart”. In other words we need to watch our physical actions, what we say and importantly what motivates us. One can pay lip service to non violence and even refrain ourselves from the violence of the fist, whilst at the same time entertaining deep rooted malice which eventually spills out. It is no good putting on a façade of commitment to non violence whilst at the same time encouraging others, especially young people, behind closed doors to engage in violence. Recently I have been given the excuse that violent acts and statements committed by young men and low ranking officials were not done in the presence of leaders. That is simply not good enough. In my experience young people rarely engage in acts of violence unless they are encouraged to do so by leaders behind closed doors. The history of Zimbabwe is littered with examples of young men and women being sacrificed to achieve the personal political goals of their elders. We must break this cycle both in the settlement of our intra party disputes and in tackling the regime. The cycle can only be broken if leaders consistently demonstrate in their words and actions their deep rooted commitment to using non violence. Unless those who have engaged in violence are disciplined and expelled from the party young people will inevitably be left with the impression that leaders simply do not want to be associated with violence but actually support the use of violence.

7. There is a need for discipline – all must “follow the directions of the movement”. Even if leaders are committed to non violent methods being used, undisciplined and over exuberant people can get carried away in attempting to achieve what is otherwise a noble goal. I have been alarmed by the cavalier attitude displayed by some in dealing with both the intra party dispute and the national crisis. Some seem to be prepared to throw caution to the wind and not to care how their strategies and tactics may unfold. Zimbabwe is a tinderbox as a result of the great pressures that all people are under. Leaders have a responsibility to consider carefully what they say and do and also leaders need to ensure that their followers are highly disciplined. If this approach is not adopted there is a great danger that a wildfire will be ignited that will be difficult to extinguish and indiscriminate in its destruction.

I recognise that some of you may be deeply skeptical about what I have written. Some of you may just think that these are irrelevant musings of a naïve Christian who does not understand the nature of this regime and what is needed to remove it. I hold to these views not just because I think they are morally correct but because I also believe that these principles provide the best and most effective means of bringing democratic change to our beloved nation. I think if we engage in intra party violence we will simply perpetuate the struggle for freedom and never deal with the root causes of our nation’s distress. I believe that if we try to tackle the Zanu PF regime using the methods they are most experienced in and familiar with, we will lose that battle. When Mugabe speaks of having “degrees in violence”, that is no idle boast. I think the one thing they are longing for is the excuse to crush a violent uprising. I think the one thing they have no answer to is a genuinely peaceful, non violent movement that does not care about power but is more concerned with rooting justice and reconciliation in Zimbabwe.

Let me conclude by saying that whether you commit yourself to these principles or not I am determined to do everything in my power to continue persuading anyone who will listen that this is the right way. I can do no better than to quote Martin Luther King again in this regard.

“I’ve decided that I’m going to do battle for my philosophy. You ought to believe something in life, believe that thing so fervently that you will stand up with it till the end of your days. I can’t make myself believe that God wants me to hate. I’m tired of violence. And I’m not going to let my oppressor dictate to me what method I must use. We have a power, power that can’t be found in Molotov cocktails, but we do have a power. Power that cannot be found in bullets and guns, but we have a power. It is a power as old as the insights of Jesus of Nazareth and as modern as the techniques of Mahatma Gandhi.”

It would be wonderful if all democratic leaders in Zimbabwe would make a similar pledge themselves to the one drafted by Martin Luther King 43 years ago.

With regards,
David Coltart
Bulawayo 12 April 2006

I HEREBY PLEDGE MYSELF – MY PERSON AND BODY – TO THE NONVIOLENT MOVEMENT. THEREFORE I WILL KEEP THE FOLLOWING TEN COMMANDMENTS:*

1. MEDIATE daily on the teachings and life of Jesus.
2. REMEMBER always that the nonviolent movement in Birmingham seeks justice and reconciliation – not victory.
3. WALK and TALK in the manner of love, for God is love.
4. PRAY daily to be used by God in order that all men might be free.
5. SACRIFICE personal wishes in order that all men might be free.
6. OBSERVE with both friend and foe the ordinary rules of courtesy.
7. SEEK to perform regular service for others and for the world.
8. REFRAIN from the violence of fist, tongue, or heart.
9. STRIVE to be in good spiritual and bodily health.
10. FOLLOW the directions of the movement and of the captain on a demonstration.

I sign this pledge, having seriously considered what I do and with the determination and will to preserve.

Name ____________________________________________

Address ___________________________________________

Phone ____________________________________________

Nearest Relative ____________________________________

Address ___________________________________________

Besides demonstrations, I could also help the movement by: (Circle the proper items)

Run errands, Drive my car, Fix food for volunteers, Clerical work, Make phone calls, Answer phones, Mimeograph, Type, Print signs, Distribute leaflets.

ALABAMA CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
BIRMINGHAM Affiliate of S.C.L.C.
505½ North 17th Street
F. L. Shuttleworth, President

* Pledge signed by volunteers for sit-in demonstrations to protest segregated eating facilitates in Birmingham, Alabama, in 1963.

Drafted by Martin Luther King, Jr.

Pledge to non violent action Martin Luther King (1963)

Posted in Downloadable documents, Letters | 2 Comments