Chamisa in serious trouble As the dialogue makes headway

It was clear to all but Few and some on Zimbabwean left that any unlikely agreement with Chamisa would only lead to further the agenda of regime change. The unconstitutional removal of the constitutionally elected government is the push behind the call for a engaging the MDC A.  

Chamisa refused to attend talks with other political parties because he believes he is a cut from above. His reason exposed his ego and he wants the dialogue to fail in order to appear as if he is still relevant in the political field. 

With the dialogue so assiduously chaperoned by the state it has to be said that the dialogue is not a lesson to other political groups but a state initiative. ED has put his heart into this dialogue firmly believing that he was serving the best interests of 
Zimbabwe the Electorate and The nation at large. The interlocutors themselves,
the MDC Alliance and their Western bakers have not taken the negotiations as 
seriously as they are supposed to be. 

The declared aim of the negotiations, to bring an end to economical chaos and political abyss stood in stark contradiction to the fact that President  Emerson Mnangagwa  interlocutor, represented at best all Zimbabweans and that the Chamisa insisted that he 
did not represent the Zimbabweans at all and had no legitimate right to 
negotiate on their behalf. It was therefore clear to everyone that even if the 
improbable were to happen and an agreement were to be reached, it would 
only lead to further unreasonable demands by Chamisa and acts of terror in 
support of these demands, and not to the end of the conflict.
MDC knew only too well that it is in no position to commit to 
concessions or the end of the conflict, which explains Chamisa's reluctance to 
engage in serious negotiations. Finally, he demanded the resignation of ED  and and a formation of a Unity government. Chamisa demands the release of citizens who had been tried and sentenced for acts of violence, rape, destruction of property inciting acts of violence and treason In this he has not succeeded.

To the government, the endless and fruitless negotiations were 
a way to play along with Western's feverish quest to attempt to reach an 
agreement, which was patently impossible.  Chamisa is making people to assume that reaching an agreement between ZANU PF and the the opposition was in the economy's best interests, and that in consideration of the strong ties between Opposition and the West opposition 
should be seen as making a serious effort to oblige its Western allies by pushing for dialogue yet coming up with insane unreal and idiotic demands. 

it has become clear in 
that there is no basis to this hypothesis. On the contrary, a national economic forum presumably the necessary 
condition for an agreement with Opposition might very well lead an economical boom. 

For ZANU PF it was a serious business, but for Chamisa and his allies it not. The 
process became truly comical when Chamisa suddenly introduced the legitimacy issues as part of the give-and-take in the negotiations. This was despite the fact that ED was declared the winner by the highest court on the land. It is said that presidents had to respect the judgment 
handed down by the court. How does Chamisa get advice from the foreign powers against a learned judgement of the courts of Zimbabwe.  Now 
all of this was suddenly swept away in order to further the agenda of regime change. 


Our voting system worked well for decades, but now it is broken. There is a better way to give voice to the people not to renegotiate the vote with a losing partner who is powered by the powers that be.   

Chamisa is a turning point in the history of democracy. Never before has such a drastic decision been taken through so primitive a procedure where the losing candidate sabotages the economy and demand to be engaged.  Never before has the fate of a country – of an entire nation in fact – been changed by the single swing of such a blunt axe, wielded by disenchanted and foreign funded opposition. 

But this is just the latest in a series of worrying blows to the health of democracy. On the surface, everything still seems fine. there has been a considerable increase in calls for a strong leader "who does not have to bother with opposition and dialogue and that trust in them has reached a historical low. It would appear that people like the idea of democracy but loathe the reality. If you lose the elections just accept it and help the country to move on. The promises of pouring sand in the wheels of economy must be punished at law. 

Trust in the institutions of democracy is also visibly declining. 

Although a certain scepticism is an essential component of citizenship in a free society, we are justified in askinghow widespread this distrust might be and at what point healthy scepticism tips_ over into outright aversion.

There is something explosive about an era in which interest in politics grows while faith in politics declines. What does it mean for the stability of a country if more and more people warily keep track of the activities of an authority that they increasingly distrust? How much derision can a system endure, especially now that everyone can share their deeply felt opinions online?

Now there is both passion and distrust. These are turbulent times, as the events of the past weeks demonstrate all too clearly. And yet, for all this turbulence, there has been little reflection on the tools that our democracies use. It is still a heresy to ask whether elections, intheir current form, are a badly outmoded technology for converting the collective will of the people into governments and policies.

The people of Zimbabwe deceive themselves when they fancy that they are free and that the opposition will represent democracy they are so, in fact, only free during the election of members of parliament: after that the opposition is no longer powered by the people but by their handlers. While dialogue is arcane instrument of public deliberation. If we refuse to update our democratic technology, we may find the system is beyond repair; 2019 already risks becoming the worst year for democracy. 

In short the effort by ED to engage all stake holders in the governance and sustainability of our country is a way forward with no serious takers. 

ZANU PF is putting a good effort while MDC A is busy pouring sand in any effort to better the nation. 

The demands by Chamisa are childish a serious joke and a real travesty of democracy. 

Chamisa is definitely dishing his food in a soiled plate. Economy cannot be sorted by a government of national unity. The nation is united we need to work on our economy. 

The issue of legitimacy was sorted and resolved in the Constitutional court. Dialogue is not about legitimacy. It is about economy. We are already legitimate as a government. 

Its high time to see that Chamisa is not serious about dialogue so the country must stop swimming in expectations. We must not behave like mad man chasing nothing. We have a country to run. 
Vazet2000@yahoo.co.uk