This principle I believe allows the development of democratic institutions in that it facilitates the process of change and growth at the same time it removes the tendency of the population to believe in the idea of a “great leader”. The end result is the political growth and maturity of the general population.
May be let us now point out some aspects of the developmental process that the three countries of Southern Africa could be said to have gone through.

For sometime to come most people will hold the view that Botswana and South Africa are model state democracies for Africa. Remeber some held the same belief about Zimbabwe. While I have reservations of such a view, I would accept that there is something to admire and use as comparison both as a way of learning how political parties development and how past political cultures can influence the general development of a country.

My hope is that Zimbabwe will pick up again as it is a historical fact that all nations have had catastrophic political events in their histories.

I will start at looking at national political stability as a position or situation where there is a controlled and moderate conflict of political ideas. Politicians in such states recognize and accept to differ and that political parties argue and debate on social and economic issues without reverting to violence and the physical attack of opponents.
Botswana has had political stability based on the fact that the ruling party has a massive following compared to the opposition and as such there has not yet developed a potential alternative government in waiting. This may develop as time goes on. In South Africa after 1994, the same phenomenon seems to have occurred in that the ANC held an extensive majority and it may also be sometime before there is a balance of political power.
When we look at Zimbabwe up to 1999, Zanu had the same massive membership support. It would appear that when the first post-colonial party governments took over, they had political monopoly. Could it be the reason why sometime ago, liberation parties of Southern Africa took the view that there was need to hold a conference to discuss and consolidate their grip on state governments. It is almost a given truth, so the leaders seem to believe, that these parties must retain the control of government for a very very long time.

This is what I mean by political under-development.

While some may hold the view that Zimbabwe was second to South Africa in terms of education, I would say that South Africa had raw “bantu education” and Rhodesia then had a higher breed of “bantu education. The effects of their respective education systems is evidenced by the diferrence in the work ethics of their respective populations. It would appear to me that book education was not enough when it came to the culture of running the modern state, for it lacked the input of the culture of participatory democracy. No matter the level of education, if one is not cultured into a given social system, they are likely to fail where they are to operate such a new system. Its really a systemic failure.

Are we in Zimbabwe developing the relevant culture that bonds well with the education so as to operate the modern state.

The termination or removal of Mugabe’s rule is not the end of the Zimbabwe problem though it will create political space to allow the development of political stability through a balance of power. I would like to see MDC rule for a term or two, fail at the polls and Zanu or another party come in. again fail at the polls and alternate four or five times with no violence when there is change of government.

The politician will know that he or she can be removed from power for not performing and the population will know that they can remove a politician by means of the vote whenever they fail to deliver. That to me is part of political maturity and participatory democracy.

What Munya and others are calling for is a discussion and debate on the Zimbabwean Issue. Unfortunately we all tend to have angry responses likely our political party leaders.

I still say angry or not, lets develop the culture of debate for it is an essential part of democracy and its institutions.

Ah, but how do you do that, when reporters are banned, and even NGO’s are walking a fine line under Mugabe’s supervision?

My friends in Zimbabwe are afraid to write, knowing that their mail and emails are monitored by the government.

My friend, a teacher, had to hide her brother years ago from the government because he was a democracy advocate. He is now safe in South Africa. Another friend, a nun, had her HIV clinic destroyed in “operation take out the trash”. A third friend, also a nun, had her convent also destroyed by that act of destruction.

As for Mupuri, he forgot that Zimbabwe was only second to South Africa in a well educated population, good natural resources, and a decent infrastructure that allowed them to use these resources to get jobs…even now, China and South Africa are cooperating, hoping to pick up the pieces when Mugabe leaves.

Mugabe is a thug. Remove him, and Zimbabwe will be another South Africa or Kenya or Botswana.

At this stage of Zimbabwe’s political develoment, it seems to me very important that we all apply our minds to the issues at hand, namely collapse of civil society as a direct result of poor and lack of political management systems, the high level of political deprivation, the desire to make up for lost opportunities to accummilate, greed and lack of respect for other human beings. In short the effects of the psychology of deprivation.

The major problem of Zimbabwe and most countries on the African continent together with those categorized as the “developing democracies” is political under-development which started during the colonial period. The majority of the respective local populations were excluded from participating in national, regional and local politics as it shaped the “modern society” in the 18th to the 20th centuries. After political de-colonization process, liberation parties seem to have continued to underdevelop the population in the political context too in that participatory democracy was not fully understood and applied. The view was that liberation leaders have a monopoly on political knowledge and wisdom. They cannot be wrong. But the fact is, by monopolising power and refusing political diversity, they under-developed the political psyche of their nationals. Mass or Povo mentalities were promoted through through the new idea that governments provide everything for free. They placed upon themselves the very burden that the colonialist seems to have taken pride in sholdering, i.e. to be the civilizer of the nationals by treating all like children and inmature masses.

Hence the poor level of understanding of the dynamics of civil society and government as predicated and shaped by the European model through the colonial offices.

Now a chance to expand the population’s political senses is again retarded by self centered political mentalities. Opposition is an enemy not a checks- and- balance set-up.

Lets look at ourselves critically and accept where we are wrong and it will be the correction of our errors.

Nancy is partly stating the output of these deprivations if I understood her article 50%.