April this year marked emerged a much anticipated move to determine who will take a leadership of Zimbabwe since its liberation form the British colonialism 28 years ago. Ever since its liberation, much have been happening with regards to its political regime and wealth obtained from its raw materials, which was aimed at bettering the lives of millions of Zimbabweans. Around 2000 or so, there was a dispute over returning the land to its indigenous owners, which meant that, the land was to be disarmed from the farmers to its original owners. Accordingly, land is a trouble in Zimbabwe, not a democracy, or elections. It is common knowledge that Britain bought back on its Lancaster House Agreement documents, which its aim was to struck a deal between the two countries, one being the colonized Republic and the other being a colonizing Republic that, the land will be used for a certain period, at an exchange of economic gain form the other country. In detail, the intention of the Lancaster House Agreement which was signed between the two was that, British colonizers will obtain raw material from Zimbabwe, use their land in return for better Zimbabwean economy. Assumption which can be drawn from this being that, around 1980, 4000 whites owned about 12 million hectors of the land in that country, of which in other words, 70% of Zimbabwean land was owned by 1% of the colonial settlers. Given that, the move to return a land to its indigenous owners around 2000 may project that the Lancaster House Agreement was contravened given the fact that hence the disarmament of that land from the colonizers, the economy of Zimbabwe fell by more that 1000%, which marked that it was the worst falling economy world wide.
All in all, Zimbabwe is not a banana republic, therefore it has its own constitution, legislation and policies which have to be respected and be abiding to. Elections undertook place under a pretext that they were fair and free, son afterwards, as the whole world was keen to know who will be the next president of that republic, the released results were brought under a very serious scrutiny to such an extend that they have to be nullified given the fact that the opposition party was in dominance in the polls. In essence, according to the statements made by Mugabe himself as the current undisputed leader of Zimbabwean people, on an independence day, he made a serious statement in the media to say, Zimbabwe can not be led by a colonized administration. But in my own believe, given the fact that he disarmed the land from the Britain who were using the land purposefully to better the economy of that country, with a special reference to the level of food shortage in that country, as per his allegations, Mugabe is contradicting himself to say that he can not let the people of Zimbabwe to be led by a colonized administration. Because in essence, an agricultural sector is the heart core of every country, furthermore, if people of Zimbabwe were in good economic situation, why is the land in question not being used for the purposed disowned from the colonizers for?
If the honorable was purely objective in this regard, currently his country would be experiencing the kind of economic humiliation it is experiencing at the current moment. Of course Mugabe has fought very hard for the liberation of his country, which seen him spending over 13yrs imprisonment for political reason, but the question is, if he really wants to better the lives of his people, why does other countries like, Botswana, South Africa and other neighboring countries still experience huge amount of political asylum seekers for economic reasons from his country in particular? Beyond reasonable doubts, president Mugabe has done enough damage to his people, considering his age, period in which he spend being a leader in his country, and the particularly the economic situation in his country, because, politically, any country that have difficult economic situation, surely is going to have many asylum seekers in other countries, and a conclusion can be drawn that someone’s style of leadership is the same as the one of Pharaoh in the bible.
Beyond that, if he claimed that the election were free and fair, why would he come in later to request that the released results be nullified, because the principle of free and fair suggests that, who ever is canvassing for candidacy, he is in a good standing to accept whatever the outcome will it be, either in favour of him/her or the opponent. Just to rub the salt on the wound, the opposition leader, Morgan Tshvangarai was seriously assaulted previously by the forces of the very same president, which to me suggests that, freedom, participation and association in Zimbabwe is a vocal practice but not a practical issue. Because in every republic, it is commonly acknowledged that there will always be an official opposition over the ruling party, which is by law, have a freedom of speech, participation and other constitutional rights, so what is it with the Zimbabwean republic that obstructs the opposition from criticizing the political decision taken by the ruling? Maybe the fact that Mugabe has pending crimes against humanity truthful, if not so, why couldn’t he lead the Zimbabwean Electoral Commission to release all the electoral results, including the presidential polls results.
Maybe he is afraid that if results comes out otherwise, who ever is taking over as a president is going to prosecute him, or why would he declare a state of emergency against the opposition party, because in my believe, I don’t necessarily believe that the opposition is planning to overthrowing his leadership, so if that is the case, why would he suggest to declare a state of emergency. See, the suggested orders that the army must kill certain individuals within the opposition, flocking of asylum seekers to other countries, serious food shortage, disputing of polls results and suspension do certain leaders from the Southern African Development Community Summit, clearly suggest that there is a serious political crisis in that country.