ZIFA Gone to the dogs? Nope, Dogs are barking from 53 Livingstone Avenues Premises

I do not want to feel vindicated. But I said it here and here that the problems with our soccer may not need a run off the mill type of analysis which unfortunately then, as now, dominated the public space. The newly appointed Minister of Sport, Honourable Makhosini Hlongwane, was enthusiastic about bringing sanity, and we mentioned it then that his hands were tied. Now that he has been harangued into a self reflective silence, after the failed bid to have Zim reconsidered to participate in World Cup in 2018 (and for other reasons which may not be in the public forum), the minister has become a passenger. He may strike through the responsible bodies but like they say, politics is ubiquitous, his next move especially aimed at rationalising the running for the ZIFA presidency, noble as it is, will be viewed as an attempt to stop a member of the other faction from contesting. Thus Chiyangwa's papers are going to be accepted because of the politics of the day. He has already started behaving like a kid enjoying a rare moment of glory. Telling the spell bound media that he will even go for FIFA posts. Well he thinks he has bagged this one but like the Chinhoyi seat in July 2013 he may still be shocked. Orara akapfeka shangu zvaakaita paye. Let us look at Chiyangwa's relationship with the councilors, with Jere and with the media and see what we can get. Why is it that councilors seem warm to Chiyangwa? Is it he is so charming or has a vision for our sport that strikes a cord with the councilors? Are we not seeing a reincarnation of Dube? And Mr Jere sir. What is the strategy? Post campaign, would you use Chiyangwa for the development of sport? and then the media. Is this the best we can do? Interesting that Chiyangwa is a firm favourite to land the post and I bet my dollar, his first 100 years in office will remind us of Dube. I will be surprised to see anything good, there are times when money does not do the work. A time when we use sense not cents to get it done.

Why the Minister of Sport is powerless when dealing with ZIFA

Makhosini Hlongwane, excited that he has moved from a mere MP to a Minister Without Portfolio (Gurukota risina zvarakamirira) to a full Minister of Sport, could have thought the richest pickings for success are at ZIFA. Cde Kanengoni, when she was still a Deputy Minister, tried to score by firing at ZIFA and we all know that it all came to naught. What makes Makhosini think that he will succeed where those before him has failed? The answer to this question can be addressed from a number of angles including the protection that Football Associations are guaranteed by FIFA. This partly explains Dube's continued survival at least maybe until 3 October. The other reason may be that the other Board members have not seen the light in the way that The Herald has seen the light and think that our fooballing problems are from Dube et al notwithstanding that some of the senior reporters from the same publication were implicated in the Asiagate scandal. (One has to read how they have tried hard to rubbish the Asiagate scandal). Personally, I think some of the problems in soccer can be apportioned to the guys at Herald House as well as other media houses in the country. As such, Dube has ended up getting some sympathisers. Some people arent seeing much problems as the media is portraying thus the full house at the last national team match, despite an evident conspiracy not to mobilise supporters to attend.
Given these dynamics, we have a new Minister who thinks he can clear this potential minefield. He has to know that the Sports and Recreation Commission, which falls under his ministry, is the major block to his clearing endeavour. His ministry, like the Commission is also part of the problem. Why? ZIFA has become a rentier organisation. One that relies on its own resources for survival. In political science there are rentier states like the oil countries, which do not rely on taxes for day to day running. This means that the citizens may not be able to demand their rights as they have nothing they offer the state. Government has rendered all efforts to reign in ZIFA unsuccessful because they have not been able to financially support ZIFA. The soccer fans, who pay to watch matches, may have a better say but they are also rendered useless. As it is, Cde Makhosini will definitely not be able to make a difference. We will wait and see! Charira

Who are the greatest enemies of our soccer

1)      The economy!

Well it would be a miracle to see us doing well in terms of soccer at a time when the economy is not doing well. It is thus ordinary to fail to send a team to fulfil a fixture. We should always acknowledge that on the hierarchy of want, soccer is very much up there and individuals, sponsors and even governments only pay to watch, sponsor, support when other needs/ wants have been fulfilled. What is happening is not extra-ordinary, painful as it may be and those wishing anything better should walk around the cities, especially industrial areas, and see what obtains and expect miracles.

2)      Administration

We have heard of Dube. But let us go beyond him and see what else is happening. How is soccer run in the PSL? How does it promote our soccer? I am of the opinion that what is prevailing at all levels shows how rotten the sport has become. Take the issue of referees. They are not ashamed to give dubious decisions in favour of given teams and the cosmetical suspensions remain that and have no effect. Take what happened to Buffaloes when they said Sakubva wasn’t up to the standard. ZPC Kariba faced the same. Is that how the sport is administered. What standards are we talking of here?

3)      Media

We long for an objective media. We may long for longer. Problem is that the very people who were fingered in Asiagate, another administrative boob, still think they have to call the shots. The tragedy is that there are people who think they are the Zimbabwean soccer and even if they were unbecoming in their dealing with ZIFA during Asiagate, they feel it is water under the bridge and can start abusing their offices and cause confusion. They benefitted from the confusion that enabled Asiagate, they still want to benefit. If you say, and we agree, that Dube should resign then why not resign themselves? The courts said they were not found guilty, not that they were innocent and if they are professionals, they should as well have resigned, just like they want Dube to resign.

4)      Talent

Do we have the talent that makes us take ourselves as a footballing nation? How many stars have we produced since independence? What is wrong. Is it that football talent is geographically determined? Why would West Africa do better where we are stuttering? How many stars are produced from within the southern African region? Why is it that our sport is always family based. Is it not a sign we do not have systems to produce good sportsperson

5)      Conclusion

It is clear without clearing the economy, we may continue on a freefall. However, this could also be an opportune time to address some of the issue that affect the sport but need not wait until the economy improves. 

PS - Politics?

There was a nag, that I include politics. But politics is ubiquitous and touches on almost all four diseases affecting our soccer.

More on ZIFA

Party splits: A recurring theme in Zim politics February 18, 2011

ZIMBABWEAN political parties –– whatever their history –– are synonymous with factionalism as their leaders are continually fighting for control at the expense of purported party objectives.

What is happening in the smaller MDC faction formerly led by Arthur Mutambara is nothing new as the country’s political history clearly shows that internal power struggles and wrangles have often led to splits going as far back as the 1960s.

For the older generation which saw the formation, splits, re-unions and more splits of liberation movements, the recent acrimonious spat between Mutambara and Welshman Ncube over control of the party has all the ingredients of déjà vu. They have seen leaders fighting for control of political parties starting with the split of the then Zimbabwe African People’s Union (Zapu) in 1963.

The Ncube/Mutambara row falls within the realm of the country’s culture of political parties in both pre and post independent Zimbabwe where fault lines develop along personalities, ideologies, ethnicity and geographic areas of origin –– usually leading to splits.

Examples include the Zapu split of 1963, the formation of the Front for Liberation of Zimbabwe and the October 2005 MDC break up.

There have been other lesser splits and fractures, but their effect on national politics is negligible.

The 1963 Zapu split was over “ideology” and the best way forward in the struggle to attain Independence.  The two dominant personalities then were party president Joshua Nkomo and Ndabaningi Sithole who led the splinter group.

Sithole faced a rebellion while in prison and was deposed from Zanu in 1974, but he held on to the party name until his death in 2000.

The name of the party was the only thing he was left with as President Robert Mugabe took control of the structures, including the military wing which was instrumental in executing the liberation war.

Even after the rebellion in prison, Sithole continued to claim leadership of Zanu and announcing in the press that he had expelled the troublemakers from the party.

More than three decades later and with a new generation of politicians which includes Mutambara –– born in 1966 –– and Ncube (50) history is repeating itself yet again.

Last week, in a move that bordered on the comical, Mutambara sensing his imminent expulsion from the party announced that Ncube, who had taken over the party presidency a month earlier, was fired.

A day later, the MDC announced the firing of Mutambara who had refused to resign as Deputy Prime Minister despite moves to reassign him to a ministerial post.

Ncube himself is no stranger to splits as he led a rebellion, just over five years ago, and moved away from the Morgan Tsvangirai-led MDC which analysts agreed sapped the party of its energy.

While the Mutambara/Ncube row remains entrapped in the legality or illegality of the congress which ousted the former, the usual accusations of personality clashes and regionalism have emerged.

A South African based analyst Sabelo Gatsheni-Ndlovu said splits that rocked political parties since 1963 cannot be explained in terms of one factor or singular political theory.

“Splits are products of build-up and coalescence of various factors ranging from ethnic, constitutional, ideological, tribal, personality clashes and external infiltration,” said Gatsheni-Ndlovu. “What has not been said about the split of 1963 is that it was partly to do with which ethnic group between Ndebele-oriented and Shona-oriented ones considered itself the authentic subjects of the nation with primal rights to rule over Zimbabwe at the end of colonial rule.”

He said Sithole miscalculated by leading the split because he did not belong to those who were claiming primal ethnic rights to inherit Zimbabwe from white colonisers and it was inevitable that he would be deposed.

While another political analyst, Grasian Mkodzongi said that there was nothing unusual about political parties splitting.

“Like any other social groupings, political parties are prone to splits as a result of leadership and succession issues,” said Mkodzongi, who is reading for a doctorate with the University of Edinburgh.

He said there were parties such as the African National Congress of South Africa which were better than others in dealing with leadership issues.

“In other contexts the absence of a clear policy on succession can cause friction in the party, this is the case for many Zimbabwean political parties (the Mutambara MDC, MDC-T and Zanu PF) all do not have clear policies on succession or their leaders have tried to manipulate party constitutions to remain in charge and this has caused major problems for the parties,” added Mkodzongi.

Apart from the elites fighting for the control of the party, Gatsheni–Ndlovu said part of the problem leading to splits and factionalism was embedded in society.

“A tribally, ethnically and regionally bifurcated society will inevitably produce tribal, ethnic and regional leader claiming national mantle,” said Gatsheni–Ndlovu who is also a lecturer at the University of South Africa. “The sickness is deep-rooted in our society itself and political gladiators simply manipulate it.”

He said the Ncube/Mutambara row was framed, claimed and re-packaged ethnically, tribally and regionally.

“It is a pity that even those at the top of the state and government structures are not free from ethnicity, tribalism and regionalism,” said Gatsheni-Ndlovu.

Another analyst Francisca Manyere who is based in New Zealand said fractures in political parties were a reflection of the political culture of the country, especially emphasis on male dominance.

“Why is it that it is always male politicians who head factions and lead breakaways?” she asked. “What is happening in the smaller faction of the MDC is only a microcosm of Zimbabwean politics and we are stuck with it until we redefine our political culture and it may take another generation.”

The mortal combat between Ncube and Mutambara could end with the political life of either of the two protagonists but like with the split of 1963, if no lessons are drawn, Zimbabwe would be held hostage to the undercurrents which have swept political parties into factions.

I wrote this almost 7 years ago. Just to reflect

July 25, 2008

Politics involves a lot of risk and uncertainty.

There are times when politicians take issues for granted only to be rudely awakened by a shocking reality that they were very wrong in their assumptions.

There are a number of variables at play in politics and as a field of study it has been very fluid moving from one point to the other especially when it came to a scientific study of 'the struggle for power'.

One analyst once commented that political science is the most undisciplined discipline.

A scientific analysis of politics has shown that this simplistic assertion holds water and I totally agree with it but I always add that it may not be the scientific study of the discipline which is undisciplined but the objects, human beings, which constantly change so much so that you have to be a sociologist, historian, psychologist, biologist, economist and any other specialised field of study all in one to effectively study politics.

The constant change in the behavior of the objects under study, that is politicians and the people they seek to control/rule/lead, has made the study of politics exciting and at the same time an academic minefield. It is an exciting field to the extent that some people who never attended even a single lecture on political science may claim to be political scientists or analysts, something that is unheard of in other fields such as economics and law.

Change is part of politics and what may hold true today may tomorrow be utterly wrong as the principal players in the unfolding drama of politics always try to maximize power or access to it.

As such it is always prudent to ask some questions, especially at this historical moment in Zimbabwe when talks have just started, as to what the country's political configuration currently is and what it will be in two weeks, two months and two years.

One political reality that came as a result of the March election is the loss of the parliamentary majority by Zanu PF.

The causes of the loss by reasons from within Zanu PF itself, the organising capacity of the MDC and those who supported it, the economy and other factors have to a certain extent been explored and analysed somewhere else.

The response to this, in the form of a violent campaign for the runoff has also been explored and there are many stories and angles to this.

However, our attempt is to look at what is happening now as an undercurrent to the talks.

While there may be negotiations as to who will wield more power, there is a very crucial set of 11 seats which appear to be up for grabs and it is our sincere submission that these are as important as the other seats a political part may have won.

Immediately after the March elections, almost all analysts were of the opinion that Zanu PF was now in opposition since it had lost its majority in the lower house of assembly, and this was the first time something like this had happened since 1980.

This still holds true as Zanu PF still has 99 seats to MDC-T's 100 seats.

However, events since the runoff/one off, have once again shown that there are no certainties in politics.

How is this so?

One point to be remembered is that despite a formal agreement on joining forces in parliament, the MD factions still operate as different entities as witnessed by the fielding of candidates in the three parliamentary seats contested together with the runoff and also the fact that there are times when for example Mutambara's formation may go it alone as in meeting Mbeki at the beginning of July.

As such there is no certainty as to the fate of the 10 seats that the Mutambara factions holds. This will be explained shortly.

Then there is the other seat held by Professor Jonathan Moyo. The professor has shown his political acumen and the Machiavellian scheming by managing to make sure that the MDC-T does not field a candidate in Tsholotsho, he then turned, with or without justification, and started blaming the MDC-T for craft illiteracy when it comes to political strategies. The merits and demerits of this is not the intention of this input though. What is clear now is that this seat is now floating and it is doing so only in the Zanu PF direction, be it because of issues of 'nationalism and patriotism'.

(It needs no political, not rocket, scientist to realise that logically this seat would have been more comfortable in unoion with the MDC-T one as an extension of the agreement not to compete in March and also as those united against Zanu (PF). It may be argued though that the seat initially belonged to the professor but the trend is usually that you win this election as an independent and lose it next election. It may not have been the case though depending on hard the professor was working in his constituency. Also this election was held only three years after the previous election thus may not follow a trend that was set with a five year range elections.)

It can now be drawn from above that potentially Zanu PF has an equal number of seats with MDC-T taht is if what professor Moyo has been showing and saying is anything to go by.

Then the dog fight starts on who will get the backing of the MDC, that is the 10 seats.

When speaking in terms of the union of democratic alliances, then the seats will back MDC-T but like we mentioned above, politics is very unpredictable thus it is not with any finality. If anything, the seats are more up for grabs than in anyone's certain hands.

One has to read the friction that caused a heat in the run up to the runoff when it was alleged that MDC-T had tried to lure the winning MPs without first going through proper party channels. From that incident it has not been certain whether the commitment to support MDC-T still held and it appears to most of us that the Mutambara faction has realized that it is the lever that will tilt the decision in the lower house in any direction. Talk of the power of a small number over a large number.

There may be some promises being made and the party that is likely to be making more promises is Zanu PF (dangling the carrots) mainly because technically, it is the ruling party and depending on the outcome of the talks it is most likely that they are wielding a certain leverage they may use to mop up the floating seats one of which now appears to be certain.

One also has to look at the eagerness with which Mutambara and company were eager to enter the talks against the background of the reluctance by Tsvangirai. I am not being in support or opposition to the reluctance, as it is up to MDC-T to see what is good for them. I am only mentioning it as an important factor that supports the argument that the other faction may be playing its cards in a way that they seek to maximize their chances of acquiring or accessing power.

After all maybe their decision to support MDC-T in the runoff was based on the possibility of acquiring power just as when they chose to support Dr Simba Makoni in the first place.

What we are likely to see are talks behind talks or they may already have been concluded with the MDC and Professor Moyo now knowing what is in store for them.

This is one exciting thing about politics, the element of uncertainty in the ordinary man as well as those who think may be wielding power which they may want to use to acquire more power. However, the pitfalls come with the danger such manipulations may bring to the populace.

In the meantime we can just watch as the drama unfolds and it is only after the curtain falls, maybe with the announcement of the new cabinet, that we will be able to see what has been taking place behind closed doors. We may heave a sigh of relief and say it was a masterpiece or never want to hear of the drama again as we may be frustrated by the tragedy.

They say politicians, because they cannot admire the beauty of politics, make it a dirty game but it remains a with winners and losers, some win fairly others by any means necessary.

When a nation runs out of ideas

Zanu PF is the ruling party. The ideas of the ruling elite shape what we commoners do. Leftist scholars have written on this, showing how a revolution should aim at dismantling the ideas or the machinery of making and transmitting the ideas of oppression.

The struggle for ideas became part of the struggle for liberation. From the working class elites who wanted to get voting rights as well as enjoy the privileges of the white (wo)man to the rural poor who had been dispossessed of their land. It was a struggle between the new religion versus the traditional religion. The traditional religion, on seeing that it was losing members to Christianity, fought back accusing the new religion of causing the various mishaps, including diseases and pestilences that affected Zimbabwe (the Southern Rhodesia) in the 1890s. The struggle for ideas was  escalated into open conflict, though it pitted the defenders of traditional religion versus the military that had come in to defend the new political dimension. Triumph, using the Maxim gun, was like saying the gun leads the brain. It was the technology that won. As such, the idea was not defeated, thus when African nationalism resurfaced in the 1940s it was clothed in certain ideas. The workers in the 1940s, premised their struggle around oppression. It seemed the working class ideology would take over. However, with time, the ideas expanded and questioned the why there was oppression in the first place and it was blamed on imperialism. This saw the coming in of anti-imperialist ideas. These ideas continue to date.

There were variations of these ideas in the 70s when Zimbabwe waged a liberation war struggle.

An attempt was made to have a school of ideology, where ideas would be processed or the students taught to formulate ideas.

The Herbert Chitepo School of Ideology never took off, but the question is, was it not necessary?

The struggle between the two factions in Zanu PF calls for an analysis of what the ideas shape the struggle. Have we heard any ideas spelt out. Is it wrong to say the fight is over who should be at the feeding trough?

10 Simple Questions to Complex Political Actions

I am a survivor of the bullets. I doubt if I will survive the current stream of bullets aimed at my being. I have been seeking answers to a lot of things that affect us in the village. I tried my MP, he explained all in factionalism. One of our sons who is at the university, stammered before he said something like "it can all be explained in dialectics." and he never said what this meant. We no longer trust the local traditional leaders, as they clearly showed, during the drought, that they think of themselves first. The only choice I have is to try and put my thoughts on paper.

 Reading through the media, one would think we are a nation at war. Its not the obsession with the language of war, we witnessed since 2000. Then it was aimed at a target. Zanu PF trained its guns on MDC, the newly formed part also did the same. The hangover of an unexpected landslide in 2013, has opened new forms of opposition to Zanu PF. This new opposition is not from the MDC. It has no capacity to oppose. In fact, MDC specialised in opposing until a time it opposed itself. Thus its loss, which if you ask me is of its own making. One needs no Nikuv, to defeat a party that was at war with itself. Zanu PF learnt the hard lesson in 2008, and vowed to bury the hatchet as they went to the 2013 elections, or so we thought.

Now with the MDC on a rapid decline, new opposition has appeared in Zanu PF. It is new, not because its new, but new actors have come in, new thrust and new pretenses.
New in that the 1st Lady, who until now appeared a simple housewife has entered the fast turning Zim politics arena and when we expected Oppah to take her through her first steps, we were surprised to see she hit the arena running.

She was called a verbal suicide bomber, rightly so. Her speeches, a rich data set for a student of rhetoric or discourse analysis, show a certain trend. Whether deliberate or as an afterthought, it is clear the pattern was evident: move from the obscure to the definite. At first we heard her say some people, we were made to make our own conclusion. But we saw the things change as she became clear on whom she targeted, it became apparent that the some people were Teurai Ropa.

This now makes one ask questions:
1) Did she mean to attack Mai Mujuru from the onset, or she realised it made more punch when she was midway through the meet the people tour?
2) Her elevation to the Women's League, calculated to frustrate those angling to topple Oppah, seem to have been just that at first but it seems it was hijacked as it was used to pre-empty a "coup". Did she take the offer to serve the women or her family or her interests or its an interplay of all?
3) Did she gain support from what she did? Would this be the best way to enter into politics? Was there no other way?
4) The open attack of not only Mai Mujuru but Kaukonde as well seem a grand plan, did it help the cause? How would one interpret the Mash East Vote of Confidence. Is it vote of confidence or its open defiance against the 1st Family?
5) The open, clumsy and illogical purging of those thought to be supporting Mai Mujuru (Jabu, attempt at Kaukonde, Gwanetsa) is open warfare. Did it help heal factions or it widened the rift?
6) When she came, she claimed to be healing factions, would we say she has?
7) Mujuru's silence and the feeble attempt at silencing Herald can be seen as a weak and simple response to a complex situation. Is this the best they can do? Or they are up to something BIG? Or what we saw in Mash East is just a tip especially when married to what happened in Masvingo and Mash West where those who had voted against Themba decided to withdraw though it was too late?
8) In the final analysis, when one looks at what has happened in the past two months, would we say Zanu PF has done much to fight factionalism or it has increased it?
9) The factional leaders keep claiming loyalty to the President. Is this the truth or they have seen it as the best approach but plan something grandeur behind doors?
10) Where do the think tanks (Ibbo et al) securocrats (army, policy, intelligence) stand on this?
As we get answers, we may get more question and during times like these, it is better to ask than to wait for answers to questions forgotten long ago.
Gandanga