I have said this before and I will say this again: this congress must come and go so that we can reel or bask on the outcome of the officers who will be elected because, as it stands, we can either reel and groan in agony or bask in the glory of our well-oiled party going forward. I have a few questions though: so many times we have said something like: We cannot do this because that would remove the separating line between us and Zanu Pf. Fair and fine. Zanu Pf has always said we cannot do this or that because we did not go to war and that they are the better and requisite people to do so because they went to war. But now we not are falling in the same Zanu Pf trap by declaring that one candidate is better than the other because the one was present when MdcT was formed and the other was not, just as an example? Does participation in the formation of anything give one the blind edge over the other? I am asking this from a logical point of view. Take ZanuPf for example, Nyati (if my knowledge of Zimbabwean history is still correct) who is said to have sold out and aided the bombing of Zimbabwean bases on foreign soil, had gone to war just like his comrades but he sold out and got them bombed. Are we not falling into that same trap? Are our reasons for wanting to ascend to the helm of government in a Zanu Pf environment not as noble as it is for any other MdcT person of good standing, regardless of where they were when the party was formed? Because if we start on this slide, Esau Milanzi will be said not to be acceptable and suitable to be cell chairperson should he choose to come and settle in Zimbabwe. And the reason given will be that Esau Milanzi must go back to his Zambia. Changing of goal posts: one moment we are one, the next moment hairs are being split.
Posted on: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 09:07:41 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015