Euan Udzero

𝗭𝗔𝗡𝗨 𝗣𝗙 𝗗𝗜𝗗 𝗪𝗔𝗡𝗧 𝗔𝗡 𝗘𝗫𝗘𝗖𝗨𝗧𝗜𝗩𝗘 𝗣𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗡𝗧 𝗜𝗡 𝟭𝟵𝟳𝟵, 𝗧𝗢 𝗨𝗡𝗜𝗧𝗘 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡. Contrary to the false claims being made by Patrick Chinamasa, Jonathan Moyo and others in ZANU PF that the party never wanted the direct election of the President before independence, an article written by RW Apple Jr., titled “Rhodesians Split On British Proposal Threatens Peace Parley In London,” published in the New York Times on 15 September, shows otherwise. According to it, the Patriotic Front, which consisted of ZANU and ZAPU, presented its own constitutional proposal at Lancaster House, clearly stating that it wanted an executive President. According to Edison Zvobgo, a member of the Patriotic Front negotiating team, their proposed constitution wanted an executive President who would be head of the armed forces, with powers to take property from white settlers and dismiss colonial-era civil servants in order to replace them with workers aligned to the party’s ideology. The only reason Zimbabwe could not implement these measures—common to many liberated nations—was because it was forced to accept the Lancaster House Constitution, which required Zimbabwe to use the parliamentary process to select the head of state as Rhodesia and to retain white civil servants which resulted in our government currently owing over $1 billion in pension obligations to former white Rhodesians who are living in the UK. ZANU and ZAPU later amended the Lancaster House Constitution in 1987 to end Gukurahundi, fulfilling their objective of establishing a system that directly elects an executive President who could unify the nation beyond tribal divisions, as envisioned in 1979. According to the Hansard of 3 November 1987, Edison Zvobgo, then Minister of Justice, outlined five reasons why ZANU PF preferred an executive President: 1. It reflected an African system, distinct from the British and American models. 2. It ensured political stability and effective national leadership. 3. It avoided structural conflict. 4. It removed titular division. 5. It reduced democratic distance between the executive and the people. He argued that indirect election fostered sectorial, regional, and tribal interests, which had contributed to conflicts such as the liberation war and Gukurahundi. According to him, an executive President would be elected by the whole nation and remain accountable to all citizens, not just a specific clan or tribe. In a statement made on 30 November 1987, the then Minister of State Security and the current President of Zimbabwe, Emmerson Mnangagwa, said:
“The [1987] bill is clearly testament to the party’s irrevocable belief in the people’s will, expressing the democratic aspiration of Zimbabweans—their right to choose and elect a President through the popular vote.” So, if Edison Zvobgo and the current President are anything to go by, ZANU PF adopted the direct election of the President in 1987 and we have had it for 39 years precisely because it reflects the aspirations of the Zimbabwean people—to choose their leader through popular vote, in line with an African system that would move away from colonial practices and unite the nation beyond tribal and sectional lines. Now, if this was the reasoning behind abandoning the Lancaster House system of indirect presidential election, it must follow that CAB3 seeks to achieve the opposite—by reintroducing a Western colonial-style system that removes direct accountability to the people and risks shifting power toward narrower regional or tribal interests. So why are we making the change to a system we rejected in 1987?

Iranian Aerospace Forces unveil PINK Shahed 'kamikaze' drones for Girls’ Day 'In memory of the MARTYRED daughters of MINAB — HAPPY GIRLS' DAY!'

🇺🇸🇮🇷 "It is regime change, no matter what you want to call it, which is not something I said I was going to do, but I've done it" — Trump on Iran "We have 47 years where these bloodthirsty people have been killing a lot of our soldiers. They've killed 42.000 people over the last two months"

𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗗𝗢 𝗣𝗔𝗥𝗟𝗜𝗔𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗔𝗥𝗜𝗔𝗡𝗦 𝗛𝗔𝗩𝗘 𝗧𝗢 𝗗𝗢 𝗜𝗡 𝗥𝗘𝗧𝗨𝗥𝗡 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗠𝗢𝗡𝗘𝗬 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗩𝗜𝗦𝗜𝗧𝗦 𝗙𝗥𝗢𝗠 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗣𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗡𝗧’𝗦 𝗔𝗦𝗦𝗢𝗖𝗜𝗔𝗧𝗘𝗦? In the past two weeks, our Members of Parliament who are deliberating over the public submissions on the constitutional amendment bill 3 (CAB3) have met with the President’s advisor, Paul Tungwarara, and now it is alleged that Wiknell Chivayo, another associate of the President, has pledged to give them a gift of $3.6 million. Is this not a conflict of interest or, in the worst case, lubrication (a bribe) that opens up MPs’ deliberations on CAB3 to manipulation? Our Parliament is meant to be a law-making body that also serves as a self-regulating oversight body of the separate arms of state: the Presidency, judiciary, and Parliament itself, through the differing political parties and ideologies in the legislature. Now, if parliamentarians are going to be serenaded and given undue monies by associates of the President and people who do business with the state, at a time they are meant to be deliberating on amendments to the Constitution that give the President a term extension and make them [parliament] responsible for selecting the President, what are the chances that they are going to make impartial decisions on this amendment? Part of why many people are not comfortable with the CAB3 amendment is that it gives these same Parliamentarians the responsibility of selecting the President, and there is a fear that such a system allows them to be bribed and bought by wealthy people to elect them as President. Now, while parliamentarians are still in the process of deliberating over this contentious amendment of the Constitution, we are already seeing them being given financial inducements by associates of the President and people who do business with the state. How does this build confidence in the Bill or parliament? What is the reason for MPs being given these monies by private businesspeople, and in line with the principle of quid pro quo (something for something) what do they have to do in return for these unearned gifts? What happens when the same parliamentarians are offered more money by someone else to make a different decision?

R20 million 🇿🇦 R350 Million 🇿🇼