Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai insists Zimbabwe should have a referendum on the new constitution before fresh elections.
Mugabe has disrupted the constitution drafting process by silencing the ordinary Zimbabweans and making sure only those supporting his views are heard. So the new constitution is certainly NOT going to be the democratic constitution the nation had hope. So what is the point of continuing with this constitution making process?
What Tsvangirai should have done is take the necessary steps to ensure Mugabe can not use violence or anything else to disrupt the constitution making process. He did not; it was full steam ahead headed by his egotistic and headstrong MP Douglas Monzora.
For Tsvangirai to now insist that the process must continue and conclude with the referendum is typical of this flawed and indecisive the MDC leader. To what end and purpose; one wonders? Tsvangirai, by right, should be herding goats in the rural areas; the nation is now paying a heavy price for thrusting him into a leadership position way above his mental ability!
3 comments:
What have Tsvangirai and Mutambara done in the last two years in the GNU to restore the rule of law, end Mugabe's excesses and abuse of power? Nothing! Absolutely nothing! It is rich for that they should be asking for the elections to be delayed. Zimbabwean elections next year or 2012 are set to be a repeat of the 2008; we all fear that. Still the fact remains that the GNU is a waste of time and can not be allowed to drag on. We have to think of more imaginative ways of stopping Mugabe terrorising the electorate but post poning the election is not offering anything other than burying one's head in the sand. We have a big problem; let us face it and not hid!
@Snowflake 1.51 am
What you have said the Labour government of 1997 sticking to and honoring its manifesto makes sense. By the same logic the present coalition can therefore afford to be as radical as they wish because both Cameron and Cregg can honestly say because they did not electoral mandate to force through anything in their manifesto; they had the right to write a new manifesto – or as seems to be the case now, write one as the go!
A weak opposition has always helped radical leaders to do as they please. Andrew is doing a better job of flagging what this government is doing wrong than all the Labour shadow ministers put together.
Extract from Observer 19 December by Andrew Rawsley
Speaking to his party conference in 2005, Mr Blair said: "Every time I've ever introduced a reform, I wish, in retrospect, I had gone further."
Tony Blair could and should have acted more radically in his first term – before he became fatally diverted into the war in Iraq and unpopularity began to drain away his political capital. But the risk run by the coalition is that it learns this lesson too well and lurches to the opposite extreme. Where Mr Blair was too timid, they are too zealous. Where he crept cautiously on domestic reform, they leap recklessly into the unknown. Where he was nervous of making any enemies during his first term, they attempt to fight on too many fronts at once.
·
Snowflake
It's all to do with mandate. Yes, there was a large majority, but the mandate from the public was "stick to the pledge card, be nicer than the Tories, don't rock the boat".
And that's exactly what Labour delivered. A lot was achieved in that first term: the minimum wage, devolution to London, Scotland and Wales, the beginnings of devolution to N Ireland, ASBOs (v popular in the Labour heartlands which like govt to be tough on criminals), BoE becoming independent, inflation being brought down, unemployment brought down (people forget that unemployment when Labour came to power in 1997 was higher than when Labour left power in 2010).
It was a big package - but it was not "radical" in the sense that it did not come as a surprise to anyone - BECAUSE IT WAS ALL IN THE MANIFESTO
@Snowflake 1.51 am
What you have said the Labour government of 1997 sticking to and honoring its manifesto makes sense. By the same logic the present coalition can therefore afford to be as radical as they wish because both Cameron and Cregg can honestly say because they did not electoral mandate to force through anything in their manifesto; they had the right to write a new manifesto – or as seems to be the case now, write one as the go!
A weak opposition has always helped radical leaders to do as they please. Andrew is doing a better job of flagging what this government is doing wrong than all the Labour shadow ministers put together.
Post a Comment