Zimbabwe "Mutiny" - The Plan Continues Apace

That Mugabe's "mutiny" ruse is perfectly conceived is evidenced by the fact that so many people refuse to give him credit for being so diabolically clever. And those who are dismissing it will, I assure you, have egg on their faces before long. With apologies to Regional Diasporan, I must once again point out our near 100% accuracy with the analysis we have been putting up on this blog over the last few weeks. But let us not dwell on that.

The dictatorship now tells us that 16 soldiers have been arrested for the "mutiny". They are behind bars while the dictatorship carries out "investigations". Putting aside questions of what investigations are needed to identify mutineers whose faces are on the front pages of newspapers from here to Kingdom Come, let us dig deeper and ask what exactly these predetermined "investigations" are supposed to achieve. (By the way, if it is all as straightforward as the gullible would have us believe, then it should be straightforward all the way through: soldiers failed to access their money, turned on the regime, decided against it after five days or so and went back to barracks to face certain death by firing squad. What is there to "investigate". Everyone seems t o know this straightforward story, so why not the regime?)

Here's why: We are not going to see any trials or executions in this case because the purpose of the ruse has not been achieved yet. Mugabe desperately wants the legitimacy that a GNU will confer on him. He wants to force Tsvangirai to join him in government. To do this, the strategy has two possible directions, none of which can be activated until it is clear which direction Tsvangirai is going to take.

First of all, the plan was (or still is) that if Tsvangirai decides against taking part in government, then Mugabe will link the mutiny to the so-called militias the MDC is said to be training in Botswana. These soldiers will be said to have been the vanguard of the invasion by Tsvangirai's supposed militia. Some people seem not to understand this, which is why I said it is difficult for a layman to understand. Evidence of the so-called militias has already been presented to the SADC heads of state and they have not disputed it. (They also have not accepted it, which is why this "mutiny" ruse is necessary to convince them - Now do you get it? If not, you are beyond help!)

Doing this will, in Mugabe's mind, convince SADC that his negotiating partner has been the one negotiating in bad faith, while plotting an armed insurgency. Mugabe then gets their blessing to deal with the security threat. The only way for him to do this would be for him to declare a state of emergency to allow him to clean up the mess. Why? Because there is no legitimate government in the country at the moment that would be able to deal with security threat. The Emergency measures will allow for that government to be put in place. Parliament, cabinet and all the other inconveniences of democracy will then be awfully circumvented. (Don't worry, you are not the only one getting a headche from trying to figure this out, but you will when it finally happens, but it will be too late then.)

Mugabe, by the way, also confirmed another analysis I made here a few days ago saying that he has no intention of calling elections before his five year term is finished. Most people missed this in Mugabe's statement, made on Thursday to his Politburo.He threatened an election in two years time "IF (the GNU) does not work out."
Every news organisation in the world has reported this as Mugabe "threatening an election in two years time if the MDC REFUSES to join his government, which is clearly not what he said. Go back and look at that quote again. It says, "If it does not WORK OUT...." That is to say if the arrangement proves unworkable after it has been implemented.

Anyway, we digress, let us get back to the "mutiny" because meantime, Mugabe has no intention of just sitting idly by while Tsvangirai tells him not to form a government without him, yet refuses to help form that same government until he gets exactly what he wants. The dictator has to have a contingency plan, which is the plan some people are dismissing because they think he is not clever enough to come up with it.

So let us catch up with the soldiers who are in "custody" awaiting the completion of "investigations."
I bet my bottom dollar that these investigations will not be completed until we know what is happening to the agreement. There is an Amendment No 19 to be implemented. If the MDC play ball and vote for it in parliament (see my post of November 16, The MDC Plan, for analysis around this particular conundrum), then I can assure you that this "mutiny" case will fizzle out, just like all other previous "MDC terrorists arrested" newsflashes have fizzed out. The Amendment would have been passed, Morgan would be PM and we would have to examine other strategies Mugabe will come up with to get rid of them in government after they have served their purpose of saving him from his June "election" headache.

If, on the other hand, Morgan stymies the Amendment and the deal collapses, Mugabe will have to proceed with his plan to retain power and be able to rule without an MDC parliament, a parliamet that would surely make ruling impossible if the majority party are not in cabinet.

This is when you will see progress on the "investigations" front. Very quickly, the soldiers will be trotted out to confess their complicity with MDC militias in the mutiny. The army and the police will be praised for having saved the day. Mugabe's "government" will then announce that the militias are already in the country preparing to cause havoc and, in order to forestall that, emergency rule has to be imposed. Some naive ones amongst us ask still why SADC would accept a government without MDC in it. I have just provided the answer. Mugabe will "prove" that the MDC has now decided to take the armed struggle route and already SADC are of the view that Tsvangirai is being unreasonable in refusing to accept a power-sharing arrangement they themselves think is reasonable. It would not require a leap at all for them to say, "Aha! This is why the man was being unreasonable. He had another plan for taking power-force of arms." And blessing will be given to Mugabe to go ahead and restore "order", as well as "stabilise" the country. There you have your SADC-sanctioned state of emergency and the reasons why SADC would sanction it.

With that, Mugabe hopes to finish off the MDC (should they refuse to join him in government). Whether he holds new elections in two years, five years or six months will be a moot point: the MDC will then not be allowed to take part, because they would be labelled a terrorist organisation, bearing arms against the state. And the African continent would accept the position that if the MDC wants to take part in elections, it would have to "lay down arms and be prepared to use the ballot box", which as we all know is a futile route because the poll will be rigged again and Mugabe's party, with or without him, will be returned to power. This is the true Operation Ngatipedzenazvo that the MDC leadeship spoke about in the Executive Resolution that contains the infamous Resolution Number 3. It has nothing to do with assasinations as they think.

So, mark my words: the investigation into the "mutiny" will not be completed before we know what happens with Amendment No 19. They will not be completed until we know whether Tsvangirai has accepted to go into government or not.

Mark these words because we will be talking about this before long.

If you still do not understand, I will be happy to engage in exchanges with you here in the comments section. Punch holes into this Mugabe strategy as I have explained it to you today if you can.

I dare you


  1. What would be the purpose of the Sate of Emergency? So that Mugabe can rule by decree? He has already been doing that for the last 5 years. It is a mistake to say that Zimbabwe does not have a functioning Government, ZANU-PF ministers are still in the positions they held prior to March.

    What does Mugabe crave? Legitimacy? How will a SoE help with that? Power? he has that. Money? Well at the moment there is enough cash rolling in to keep him and the beneficiaries of his patronage very comfortable indeed. Every hear of Ravenscourt? This is the only company allowed to import oil into Zim without going through Noczim and it belongs to ZANU-PF heavies.

    Every time the aid agencies bring in aid the money must go through RBZ. The Global fund got 7.3 million US skimmed off the top. No, Mugabe and his mates are doing okay for cash right now.

    I have a friend who has a cousin in the President's office. This cousin has been allocated a farm. Is this farm productive? No; but he gets allocated diesel, seed and fertilizer every month which he then sells on the black. So the ZANU-PF guys are still doing very nicely, thank you.

    Maybe Mugabe wants Grace to be able to shop at Harrods again? Would a SoE achieve that?

    Perhaps Mugabe wants to restore Zimbabwe to it's former glory (har-har)? How is the SoE going to do that? How will it happen without the help of Tvangirai?

    So how will a SoE help Mugabe?

    You could argue that the worse things are for Zimbabwe, the better things are for ZANU-PF. So if Mugabe declared a SoE, more people would join the diaspora, more aid money would go into the RBZ and the ZANU-PF guys would obviously benefit.

  2. @Dave,
    I am surprised at you my friend. I was sure you would be the one first for whom the penny dropped. Anyway, here goes:
    THe problem is that you are looking this thing as an enemy of Mugabe, one who, like all of us, has given up on Mugabe. If Mugabe was as shameless as we all say he is, why is he negotiating? Why has parliament been suspended, because it has, it is not sitting now.
    Why did Mugabe agree to the talks?
    Why is Mugabe not appointing a cabinet (he has said that his ministers are "Caretaker Ministers", but you can't have caretakers for five years.
    The essence of your questions is how the SoE would help Mugabe. To answer that you would have to look carefully at the fact that strategy is premised on SADC accepting that the SoE was inevitable. And they would have to accept the the MDC is part of the reason why the SoE is needed. Once that happens, Mugabe gets breathing room. REMEMBER Dave, Mugabe is talking now to MT because the AU and SADC said he should. In fact the AU said he should and amndated SADC to see tothat.
    If he dropped all pretence and discarded going through the motions of democracy (parliament, budget, Parl. Committes), you can rest assured his fellow Africans will refuse to give him that legitimacy. If he just woke up today and said "that's it, I am appointing a cabinet, running this country and waiting for the MDC to make up its mind", that gvt would not be recognised.
    Why did SA hold back the farming aid? What reason did they give (we will release it when a UNITY GVT is in place). So what happens if it is "ptroved that a part to this unity gvt has now taken up arms amd is invading Zimbabwe from a neighboring country?) Why would SADC still force RG to form a government with a "terrorist group"? They would not.
    It is not just any legitimacy that Mugabe requires, it is legitimacy that Africa givews him and whatever government he forms. That is why he is talking to the MDC today. If it was the EU that had called for a GNU, he would not have given them the time of day. But it is Africa, which, at Forum after forum, he says recognises him and Europe does not because they are racists and so on.
    If the Africans are also to not give him legitimacy, then that is the end of him. Which is why it os vital for the Zim democracy project that Africa gets tough with Mugabe. They have taken the first step. SA and the ANC already say that the GNU will be the only legitimate gvt in Zim. They have said Mugabe's swearing in in after the "run-off" is invalid and he would have to be sworn in again when Morgan is sworn in as PM. So, Mugabe's legitimacy depends on the Africa and it is in doubt right now.
    The SoE will allow Bob to ask the Africans to bless whatever gvt he forms without an MDC that would have gone rogue and resorts to insurgency. He cares not what Europe or the USA will say. As long as the AU and SADC say Good on you Bob, go ahead without those insufferable chaps at that MDC, then he feels he has the legitimacy that matters?
    Clear, Dave?

  3. Yes, Den I think what you are saying makes sense indeed. I see you dared me as you started your analysis - no qualms. When I post my comments, and if you look at them contextually, I will not be saying what you are saying is not true or is not important, but simply to smoothen certain parts that, as a consistent reader of the blog, I will be feeling are a bit rough.
    To recap, my comments have been:
    a) Firstly, I was not in agreement with your explanation that people have no appetite for politics and hence Mavambo cannot be transformed into a party now. You gave your explanation, but I did not respond because I thought you did not get my point.
    b) I said your language was sometimes coarse and, as your blog is the face of Mavambo, the language was not consistent with that of Dr Makoni which lay people like myself were exposed to since February, and have waited patiently since then to see the project get to a higher ground.
    c) I have also said that as the party is warming up for eventual launch, we have not been seriously engaging each other on issues relevant to the party ethos, it's vision and strategy of dealing with problems facing the country. You said strategy cannot be discussed on the internet and I accepted, but I still think that there are ways in which we can discuss certain pertinent issues. Check one of my comments where I was expressing my happiness to see Dr Makoni's thought for a new Zimbabwe.
    b) I then engaged you on your conduct of sometimes swearing on your predictions. I said that when things do not turn out the way you predict them we tend to give clumsy U-turns - a very bad social habit. I was just saying it will be good - and this is subjective reasoning - if Mavambo steered clear of such a culture. You gave your excellent explanation that you do so because you will be certain and are privy to some information that your readers are not privileged to access: I accept!

    In short, iron sharpens iron. And if you observe my comments closely, I am more concerned about Mavambo, the culture, image and identity that it assumes as a result of your posts. Once more, to me you are the face of Mavambo, the project I am so far proud to be identified with and have not been ashamed to say that to my friends out here. Yes, the blog bears a personal name but the election website (which I hope will transform into a party website soon) is currently dormant .I hope you now understand the framework of my comments.

    Otherwise sisonke/tiritose!

    Regional Diasporan

  4. @Anonymous,
    Thanks RD. I have taken it all in good humour! And thanks for keeping he faith. I do think you are one of the more constructive readers we have here, RD and I hope we continue talking issues.
    The "with apologies" to you in this post should tell you how much I personally value your input. You will see that I had heeded your advice, but on this one occasion, I had to break that word because of the quite unexplained doubts people have that Mugabe will, whether we believe it or not, declare that SoE. When that happens, as with most humans, I ask, will pride allow the doubters to say they were wrong, all will they by their refusal to admit that they were wrong, allow Mugabe to carry the day with the SoE. And whither Zim then?
    Thanks for the interaction, it is what this site is ALL about.

  5. Den, I hear you, but I just don't think that the SoE would make much difference, even in the eyes of SADC.

    Forming a government unilaterally would be likely to have the same effect within SADC, with or without as S of Em.

    It still wouldn't give Mugabe legitimacy.

    I think Mugabe is negotiating with Tsvangirai because he feels that, if Tsvangirai were to join him in a GNU, then the US and Britain would drop their sanctions and come running with donor funds.

    Well, guess what, Bob? it ain't gonna happen. And it'll be a helluva lot less likely to happen if Mugabe declares an S of Em.

  6. Dave, you make the mistake of thinking rationally while also trying to walk in Mugabe's shoes. The two do not go tegether.
    Mugabe long wrote off Europe and America when it comes to sanctions, which is why he is now busy telling everyone in Zim to "Look East".
    What you are not taking into consideration as well is SADC's own issues with Tsvangirai. It is not just Mbeki. Otherwise the result of that summit that asked him to share Home Affairs with Mugabe would have been different.
    The initiative lies with Mugabe. If he does pull this off, SADC will be glad to be shot of Morgan. And they will have some sort of peg on which to hang that. They may wel snigger behind Mugabe's back as he saunters into the Sandton Convetion Centre for SADC summmits, but the fact will remain that he will be there, as president of Zimbabwe and that is all that matters to him.
    As Heidi Holland very perceptively observed when she last met him, this man does not give a hoot whether Zimbabwe becomes anothe Somalia or not. What he wants is for Britain to say, "sorry old chap, we were wrong, this whole thing is not about democracy, but the land that you took." Without that, Mugabe is prepared to rule over a pile of ashes.
    Still, I do not think that we have long wait before we see the truth of what I am saying. Already, it was being hinted at by Mugabe's spokesman (see my post for Sunday).
    Right now, trying to put Mugabe in a corner would be like threatening a suicide bomber with death. It makes no difference to him. He has nothing to lose now and will try anything

  7. Den, yes I understand that.

    I know that Mugabe believes that Britain wants to recolonise Zimbabwe, whereas the truth is that Britain does not give two hoots about Zimbabwe (except that they must accept Zimbabwean refugees).

    Britain is not going to give troops to Botswana to overthrow Mugabe. Everybody knows that the ZDF is the strongest standing army in the region, why would Britain risk it?

    But there is another issue here. Previously the rumour was that one of the reasons that Mugabe sought the MOU and the GNU was to give immunity from prosecution for the killings and torture that took place during the June runoffs.

    The agreements stated that the MDC was also complicit in those crimes and that a line should be drawn in a Similar way to the Truth & Reconciliation Commission.

    If Mugabe now declares a S of Em. then obviously that agreement no longer holds water and there can be prosecutions against those responsible.

    Clearly, however, the JOC no longer see a need to worry about this, but I would argue that that is exactly what should be exercising their brains right now.

  8. 5 months on, and you got it straight. I really wonder why we let serious things like these get swept under the carpet so cheaply.Keep reporting my brother!


Post a Comment

Comments from Anonymous Users will NOT be published

Popular posts from this blog

Who Killed Elliot Manyika?


Makoni Confidant Dies