HARARE - From the sentiments expressed by Jonathan Moyo who is obviously looking beyond the nuisance and inconveniences caused by the Nieebgate scandal, it is evident that he believes Zanu PF is the only party after 33 years in State power capable of carrying the hopes and aspirations of ordinary Zimbabweans.

In his vision it would appear there is clarity about the role of the State — the Executive, Legislature and the Judiciary in shaping and defining the character of Zimbabwe and the need for the State to continue to work under the stewardship of Zanu PF and its actors naturally oblivious of the experiences of the distant and recent past.

President Robert Mugabe and his supporters are confident that, indeed, Zanu PF is as fit as a fiddle to govern indefinitely.

However, 33 years after Zanu PF assumed the control and administration of the State, the question that rings loud in the minds and ears of millions of Zimbabweans is: Is Zanu PF still fit to govern?

There are many examples over the years that confirm the inability of the State under the stewardship of Mugabe to efficiently and effectively deliver the promise and steer the country towards a direction of prosperity, inclusivity, cohesion, justice and freedom.

Nothing has illustrated this incompetence at a defining hour prior to the forthcoming historic elections than the indigenisation scandal.

A lot can be said about what could have been done differently, however, it cannot be argued that it is just one of many manifestations of a collapsing governance system and the loss of control by Mugabe on the State and its organs.

Zanu PF has identified indigenisation as its key priority and so far it has failed to deliver the promise.

Taking a leaf from Edward Chindori-Chininga’s report to Parliament on SMM, it would appear the Executive branch of the State seems inactive or more appropriately tired and the legislature too timid to do the job expected of it in any functioning democracy.

Mugabe has said on many occasions that the inclusive government is not working in the interests of the people.

So when one poses the question of whether Zanu PF is still fit to govern, it ought to be generalised to include all the inclusive players.  

Is the inclusive government fit to deliver the promise?  This is the question that must be asked.

The marriage has lasted and produced a new draft constitution.  

If the marriage can produce a constitution surely it should have produced clarity on the key question of indigenisation.

We have a rough idea of where Zanu PF will take the country if the party wins the election but it is difficult to know where the two MDCs want to take the country because their focus has been on critiquing Zanu PF’s actions and choices without applying a lot of thought on what will bring food on the table.

However, the crisis of governance is generalised and huge and goes beyond indigenisation for the people of Zimbabwe to take the simplistic view that Savior Kasukuwere is the only culprit.
 
After all, he is a new kid on the block and the decay of the State has been in the making for a very long time.

Even people at the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe will agree that Kasukuwere is not an exception in terms of operating in a silo mentality to the detriment of the whole.

The Principals are conspicuous by their absence in not only the Nieebgate scandal but in many scandals that are known in the public domain.

We have heard murmurs from Mugabe about the “mistake” by Kasukuwere, the proposal by Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai for Parliament to probe the scandal, but what we have yet to see is the unity of purpose being demonstrated by the three as they did on the constitution in terms of what should happen.

Instead, we have seen government institutions like the anti-corruption agency and the police taking a different attitude to the scandal and more importantly, the attempt to politicise and personalise the scandal.

If the Principals, Presidium, Cabinet, and Council of ministers are themselves fraught with these contradictions and challenges, how will they behave differently if they are re-elected?

It is easy to blame Zanu PF for its representatives have monopolised the State for a very long time but in all the departments of State, governance has literally collapsed and each minister behaves as if the centre no longer holds.

On corruption, it cannot be said that the Zanu PF-led departments are the only ones corrupt.  

It remains a struggle to find a corruption-free leadership and governance that is beyond reproach. The government as a whole is fraught with seemingly intractable challenges of incapacity, non-compliance, corruption and poor leadership.

Although it may be politically expedient, easy and popular to demand that action must be taken on Kasukuwere, questions must be asked about the role of the Principals in the State as they ought to have known where the ship was heading before it left the dock.  

In the case of the Nieebgate scandal, you have a magistrate saying one thing and a High Court Judge saying another on the same facts and circumstances.

Surely, if there is nothing to hide, there is no reason why a State institution like Nieeb will not want to cooperate with the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission (“Zacc”).

One would expect that before the matter was taken out of the privatised corridors of State power, the Principals ought to have intervened to protect the integrity of the State.

Are the voters being taken for granted?  It is not surprising that many Zimbabweans have lost faith in the State and its organs and have, therefore, continued with their lives as if the State does not exist.

The government has failed to deliver on its mandate and this is a real indictment not just on Zanu PF actors but on all the State actors.

In a few weeks, the three parties in government will find themselves having to answer the question that Zanu PF ought to have answered in 1980: Are they fit to govern?

Only the voters can decide. In this election season it is easy and convenient to look at issues using political lenses but when one looks at the journey travelled, one is compelled to pause and reflect on the false starts and stops made.

The State controlled by revolutionaries and later on by change agents ought to have delivered on the mandate expected of it.

Indigenisation has been chosen by Zanu PF as the election theme hence the nightmares that Moyo is enduring in writing a manifesto that can navigate from the truth and blemish the past to an extent that the electorate would hold Zanu PF in high esteem.

There is no doubt the debate about indigenisation is masked in the general question that confronted the first post-independence administration of how to address the triple challenges of poverty, unemployment and inequality without weakening the inherited political economy.

As we look back, can we find traces of evidence that the post-colonial administration was interested in asserting the rights of the generality of Zimbabweans in the economic sphere?

The expectation that independence would bring more participation in politics by the majority has been betrayed.  Less and less people believe that the State means any good for their welfare.

If the country can trust Mugabe to be the head of State and other titles that come with it, why is it that in the economic sphere we have not seen a deliberate policy to nurture the creation of non-State actors who are independent economically but understand their obligations to society?

The MDC representatives in government are entitled to take the easy road of blaming Zanu PF for all the ills that have taken place in government before they joined the train that has given them the same arrogance displayed by representatives of Zanu PF that the one who is in government knows it all and has answers to the future.

Successful economies are not built by the actions and choices of State actors rather citizens in their generality and self-driven nature produce extraordinary outcomes.

It would not be surprising to hear even Tsvangirai claiming credit for the turnaround of the economy because he genuinely believes that through speeches and other actions Zimbabwe is better for them forgetting that it is the people who make things happen.

The belief that State actors have answers to all questions of nation-building inflates the egos of the players to an extent that they invariably begin to think that God had a plan for them to be leaders.

Good leaders are followers and any leader whose followers have lost the faith automatically loses the moral legitimacy to govern.

It cannot be said confidently that Mugabe is solely responsible for the economic condition and governance mess that Zimbabwe finds itself; but what can be said confidently is that the gullibility and silence of the majority has created the false impression even in Mugabe that he is indispensable. - Mutumwa Mawere