31 replies to this topic

[musekiwa]

Grand Ayatollah Dismantler, on 24 September 2011 - 10:08 PM, said:

You see this is the problems of countries whose institutions are weak

The so called constitutional experts vana Welsh are just like ZANU-PF. Instead of concentrating on building strong institutions they are obsessed with individuals. Nations with strong institutions are less reliant on the individual ruling but rather  on a system which endures. Nations with strong institutions know that when anyone gets into power, there will be opportunities to remove him if he fails. Thats why people like vana Welsh try and smuggle in constitutional ammendments stopping non-graduates from becoming President. Because they focus on the individual not the system. And just like the Rhodesia Front, the fascist Rhodesia Front, they have disdain for the ordinary voter and his capacity to elect a leader

What do I mean by strong national institutions. I mean a system of government that is not dependent on one individual and where the fortunes of a nation are not subject to a leaders whims. Where a leaders weaknesses do not become a nations weaknesses and where his strengths complement the strengths of others. Where the character of the nation is not moulded only by the leaders personality but by the collective national character. When this happens the election or non election of one leader over the other becomes a matter of policy detail, not a do or die situation

"heh if he wins we will not salute him" - thats a sign of weak institutions
"heh, we must only have educated leaders (read graduates)" - a sign of focus on the wrong thing.

that's exactly why ppl should go to school and be proud of it...kana vakadzidza hautengesi heritage yako ba...

[giribheti]

musekiwa, on 25 September 2011 - 12:02 AM, said:

that's exactly why ppl should go to school and be proud of it...kana vakadzidza hautengesi heritage yako ba...

Most forumites are very educated....a lot are even more educated than your "learned" Welshman. You on the other hand must go to school asap because your writings show you are educationally challenged. If vanhu vakadzidza vasingatengesi heritage yavo how come Mugabe with his numerous degrees is busy selling our heritage to the Chinese?

[giribheti]

musekiwa, on 24 September 2011 - 09:25 PM, said:

uri raiti, saka after mazoVoter, murikutonga chii chaizvo chaizvo?

Why don't you ask Bob why he can't make all those decisions he used to make unilaterally? Ndizvo zvatiri kutonga izvozvo and that was jsut first round. We all know what's coming pasecond round so stop with the stupid questions.

[kwv.]

giribheti, on 24 September 2011 - 07:57 PM, said:

Yes, everyone to their own choices. That's democracy. As for me, I always want to vote whenever I can because if I abstain I don't influence the decision in any way thus making myself irrelevant in my own country's decision making process.

If you do not vote (abstain) then you CANNOT complain at all about the outcome. You really shouldn't even comment because by not voting you are saying "I have no opinion, I leave that to others"

[And then there was X...]

Grand Ayatollah Dismantler, on 24 September 2011 - 10:08 PM, said:

You see this is the problems of countries whose institutions are weak

The so called constitutional experts vana Welsh are just like ZANU-PF. Instead of concentrating on building strong institutions they are obsessed with individuals. Nations with strong institutions are less reliant on the individual ruling but rather  on a system which endures. Nations with strong institutions know that when anyone gets into power, there will be opportunities to remove him if he fails. Thats why people like vana Welsh try and smuggle in constitutional ammendments stopping non-graduates from becoming President. Because they focus on the individual not the system. And just like the Rhodesia Front, the fascist Rhodesia Front, they have disdain for the ordinary voter and his capacity to elect a leader

What do I mean by strong national institutions. I mean a system of government that is not dependent on one individual and where the fortunes of a nation are not subject to a leaders whims. Where a leaders weaknesses do not become a nations weaknesses and where his strengths complement the strengths of others. Where the character of the nation is not moulded only by the leaders personality but by the collective national character. When this happens the election or non election of one leader over the other becomes a matter of policy detail, not a do or die situation

"heh if he wins we will not salute him" - thats a sign of weak institutions
"heh, we must only have educated leaders (read graduates)" - a sign of focus on the wrong thing.

I would like to agree that wholesome, rombust and OPEN national institutions maketh a nation. Nothing can be clearer.
Where I'd like to beg to differ is the power (or lack of) you like giving Ncube when it suits your argument. In one instance he revels in irrelevance, but in the next he has the whole nation at his feet in influencing what goes into the constitution. It can only be one and not both. Again you assert that a nation's prosperity cannot be a function of it's leader's personality and yet here we are, doing just that; belabouring Ncube's personality. See? It works both ways. To say he has 'disdain for the ordinary people's capacity to elect a leader' is to lay it a bit thick. I think you havent met the man.
In today's challenges the words Rhodesia, Chimurenga etc have no part in righting the wrongs. They played their part back then but certain people then chose to introduce new problems into the fray. They are as petty as pseudo-leaders who declare political allegiance when they jobs forbid just that and say they will not salute a democratically elected leader when their job description/protocol demand just that. We need not waste our breaths on them as they are part of the problem.

[And then there was X...]

kwv., on 25 September 2011 - 09:53 AM, said:

If you do not vote (abstain) then you CANNOT complain at all about the outcome. You really shouldn't even comment because by not voting you are saying "I have no opinion, I leave that to others"

co-abso-freakin-lutely-signed

[Afritude.]

DIZIRI-PaCHINHOYI, on 24 September 2011 - 07:28 PM, said:

Its your democratic right to abstain, but if you are waiting for the upcometh of a perfect political party or political leader, I am certainly sure you will for ever abstain, because you will never get one that meets your criteria 100%, assuming that you are rational. My understanding of democracy is making a choice out of those that avail themselves for public office. All one has to do is to rank them according to some criteria and the one that scores the highest gets one's vote. In this unperfect world it is highly unlikely any one of the contestants will score 100%.

No, you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I did not say that I would seek out absolute perfection. What I would look for is an acceptable level of competence in whoever is put in front of me as a candidate. I would need to have a certain confidence in them as well. While I may be partial to a particular party does not necessarily mean that I will put an X  on their candidates names if I am not convinced that they are capable of at least getting SOME things done. If I am greivously unhappy with their candidacy, I simply wont vote.


Onto another issue that perhaps is worth talking about on this thread and is in fact inter-connected with the point I made above. I have pointed out once before that the main problem with our electoral process, brutal and messy as it often is,is this. Why do our politicians on all sides run on platforms that rarely address the bread and butter issues that the people actually care about?

Zanu ran on an anti-Blair tickets which is as crap a reason for anyone to vote for them than any political party worldwide has ever presented to its potential voters. Blair is English/Scottish, or British depending on the context and I am sure he was just as amused as most clear-minded people were, at the childish approach of Zanu's spin-doctors. They should have shot for sheer stupidity on that one.

Then we had the MDC who ran on a change platform with very vague (from their public presentation) pointers as what sort of change they would bring apart from their claims that they would restore democracy. That in itself is a good thing but the man in the street wants to know where jobs are coming from. He wants to feel assured that it is worth it to educate his child at an expensive school when his skills are more likely to benefit South Africa, the UK or the USA than his own homeland. This same man in the street wants to know how we are going improve the delivery of health services and whether they will be either free or affordable. The man on the street wants assurance than he will have a continual supply of electricity and water etc etc.

It is the abject failure by any of our parties to address these very REAL issues that convinces me that they are all a pack of useless politicians who drape themselves, rather unconvincingly, in pseudo patriotic garments

[kwv.]

You just have to select which one is most likely to bring about the society that YOU want.

If you think that what you want is also what the majority want and is not being addressed by anyone else, then start your own party, or parachute in - like Welshman. No doubt he thinks he's right. Problem is, hardly anyone else does  

[Afritude.]

kwv., on 25 September 2011 - 12:19 PM, said:

You just have to select which one is most likely to bring about the society that YOU want.

If you think that what you want is also what the majority want and is not being addressed by anyone else, then start your own party, or parachute in - like Welshman. No doubt he thinks he's right. Problem is, hardly anyone else does  

That is correct but I do not see the point in voting for someone whose ideas are lethargic and highly irrelevant. This is what I think is the problem with all mainstream political parties in Zimbabwe. True, people want change, but it is important that the change you vote for has some sort of substance to it.

Choosing not to vote is probably not the ideal way to go about it but genuine and proper politicians should be alarmed by voter apathy, or potential voter apathy and should do something about it.

Look, many people on here, not unreasonably, would like, not only a change in government, but a change in the fundamental ways in which we approach politics. The funny thing is how so few people demand this. MDC can only win power because people dislike Zanu immensely and NOT because they have offered anything of particular inspiration. I actually think that while they will improve certain things should they gain power, they (the leadership) will end up doing a Chiluba on the country

[John Kachere]

Yes the 2 big parties in Zim are good for nothing.

That's Y I still think MKD was the best option in 2008

[DIZIRI-PaCHINHOYI]

Afritude., on 25 September 2011 - 12:13 PM, said:

No, you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I did not say that I would seek out absolute perfection. What I would look for is an acceptable level of competence in whoever is put in front of me as a candidate. I would need to have a certain confidence in them as well. While I may be partial to a particular party does not necessarily mean that I will put an X  on their candidates names if I am not convinced that they are capable of at least getting SOME things done. If I am greivously unhappy with their candidacy, I simply wont vote.


Onto another issue that perhaps is worth talking about on this thread and is in fact inter-connected with the point I made above. I have pointed out once before that the main problem with our electoral process, brutal and messy as it often is,is this. Why do our politicians on all sides run on platforms that rarely address the bread and butter issues that the people actually care about?

Zanu ran on an anti-Blair tickets which is as crap a reason for anyone to vote for them than any political party worldwide has ever presented to its potential voters. Blair is English/Scottish, or British depending on the context and I am sure he was just as amused as most clear-minded people were, at the childish approach of Zanu's spin-doctors. They should have shot for sheer stupidity on that one.

Then we had the MDC who ran on a change platform with very vague (from their public presentation) pointers as what sort of change they would bring apart from their claims that they would restore democracy. That in itself is a good thing but the man in the street wants to know where jobs are coming from. He wants to feel assured that it is worth it to educate his child at an expensive school when his skills are more likely to benefit South Africa, the UK or the USA than his own homeland. This same man in the street wants to know how we are going improve the delivery of health services and whether they will be either free or affordable. The man on the street wants assurance than he will have a continual supply of electricity and water etc etc.

It is the abject failure by any of our parties to address these very REAL issues that convinces me that they are all a pack of useless politicians who drape themselves, rather unconvincingly, in pseudo patriotic garments

I agree with you to some extent on the political bankraptcy of political parties in Zim. But regarding MDC restoration of democracy platform, I am surprised that you do not see any linkage between democracy and economic development. Restoration of democracy and rule of law means restoration of confidence to the investor and thus more FDI into the country with an attendant creation of jobs for the populace. It also implies that our children we educate do not have to go to SA, uk, Australia, NZ. Need I say more. In my view, MDC's platform was infact very strong. The reason why the MDC message may have failed to get to the people was because the state media was instructed to report only the negative about MDC. And the only media that could propagate the message was strangled by zpf, the closure of the daily news for instance, leaving only the weeklies such as The Standard, Independent etc which was not very affordable. And to add to that, zpf militias banned such papers from rural areas. Anyone found reading such papers was harassed. In Rusape at one time, anyone found reading such papers was beaten up badly, "achidzidziswa gwara remusangano". And this happened right under the nose of the police who either turned a blind eye or were part of the zpf militia machinery. This was the rule of law the zanu style and you expect investment to flow in.

[mnyamana]

Grand Ayatollah Dismantler, on 24 September 2011 - 10:08 PM, said:

You see this is the problems of countries whose institutions are weak

The so called constitutional experts vana Welsh are just like ZANU-PF. Instead of concentrating on building strong institutions they are obsessed with individuals. Nations with strong institutions are less reliant on the individual ruling but rather  on a system which endures. Nations with strong institutions know that when anyone gets into power, there will be opportunities to remove him if he fails. Thats why people like vana Welsh try and smuggle in constitutional ammendments stopping non-graduates from becoming President. Because they focus on the individual not the system. And just like the Rhodesia Front, the fascist Rhodesia Front, they have disdain for the ordinary voter and his capacity to elect a leader

What do I mean by strong national institutions. I mean a system of government that is not dependent on one individual and where the fortunes of a nation are not subject to a leaders whims. Where a leaders weaknesses do not become a nations weaknesses and where his strengths complement the strengths of others. Where the character of the nation is not moulded only by the leaders personality but by the collective national character. When this happens the election or non election of one leader over the other becomes a matter of policy detail, not a do or die situation

"heh if he wins we will not salute him" - thats a sign of weak institutions
"heh, we must only have educated leaders (read graduates)" - a sign of focus on the wrong thing.

What do they say about pots and kettles?


If I were Welshman and would be observing a poor soul like yours burning in hatred like what you always present on these forums, I would be happy however Welshman is better than that. He probably feels pity for you.
He knows he has a zimbabwean given right to be a leader of his party, and stand opposite Tsvangirai, be a professor and above all remain happy.

It doesn't mean because Tsvangirai did n't do well in education Welshman has to be criticized for his educated leadership.
My opinion is Tsvangirai, at the moment or in the past has been a good opposition leader but someone I wouldn't like to be a country's president


You are right that about building institutions which are not dependable on one individual however you are doing just opposite what you are preaching.

Your definition of democracy beggars belief GAD.