Politics of deceit and chauvinism

In all aspects of life, nothing is so irritating as to confront an ignorant man or woman who conveys propaganda with dogmatic arrogance. In Zimbabwe, we have two terrible twins who we must continue to expose for what they are, so that our people can understand the depth and crudity of lies that these sycophants parade as the truth.

Fellow Zimbabweans let me introduce Jonathan Moyo and Psychology Maziwisa who are legends when it comes to the politics of deceit and chauvinism. Here we have two former critics of Mugabe, who, by absence of moral values and greedy, later became the tyrant’s chiefs of chicanery.   

Compatriots, the purpose of this article is to delve into the minds of these two petty political thieves by re-visiting what they said about Mugabe and Zanu PF before the Obedient Son dangled a few carats of diamonds from Marange in front of them. This article will also revisit what Psychology Maziwisa said about Jonathan Moyo.

I am not just hanging them out to dry, but I am confronting two snots who defend a despot by spreading offensive and insulting falsehoods, which in turn, have propped up the tyrant and aided the continued subjugation of our people. Now the question is whether they believe in the lies that they tell or they are blinded by greed and cannot see through the deviousness of Mugabe.

But how can someone just abandon their conscience only to go against everything that they believe in.  Here is what I am talking about:

In his article – Why Mugabe Should Go Now – Jonathan said,

“But the most compelling reasons for Mugabe to resign now have to do with his own fallen standing in and outside the country. The prevalence of unkind jokes about him on text messages and the Internet say it all. Mugabe now lacks the vision, stature and energy to effectively run the country, let alone his party. He is without compassion, maybe because he is now too old, too tired and not in the best of health”

In his open letter to his discredited nonagenarian boss, Psychology Maziwisa concurring with Moyo wrote;

“It is not helpful, Mr President, at the age 86 to seek, by one means or another, to retain the presidency of a country you have already badly run for thirty years and left in a ruinous state. It is not helpful either to proudly declare that if ZANU PF calls on me to stand for another term I shall gladly do so”.

In the same article - Why Mugabe Should Go Now – Jonathan wrote;

“This explains why government has now resorted to ruling through "GBO"
(Government By Operations) led by jittery security arms, implemented an undeclared state of emergency and roped in the Reserve Bank to pursue an unprecedented law and order approach to monetary policy in order to criminalise Zimbabweans, whether as individuals, families or businesses, to make them insecure and vulnerable to inhuman and barbaric attacks in the name of restoring order reminiscent of the Gukurahundi days”.

Similarly, Psychology almost addressed the same issue in his open letter to the despot when he charged that;

“Thirty years on, however, Zimbabwe is stuck with the same head of state and government, and commander-in-chief of the defence forces. If you must know, Mr President, this tragic state of affairs has not come about of our own volition. The right to vote for a government of our choice has effectively been negated through ZANU PF’s manipulation of the political environment by means of sustained violence, intimidation, abduction and unlawful killings contrary, Mr President, to your fine words of April 17, 1980”.

In another article by Jonathan Moyo – Mugabe’s endorsement irresponsible – he lambasted that;

“Because Zanu PF’s irresponsibility has caused it to fail to protect the national interest and because Mugabe is apparently determined to thrive under that failure in pursuit of his personal ambition to be president for life, it is now up to Zimbabweans across the political divide to rise to the challenge by finding a united front to stop Mugabe and his cronies from turning their self-indulgence into a national catastrophe”.

However, in support of Moyo, Psychology Maziwisa pointed out that, in his article – Does MDC have the audacity to ward off terror?

“The simple reality is that Mugabe is not interested in any process whose outcome might result in Morgan Tsvangirai succeeding him as President. He will, therefore, stop at nothing in his quest to stay in power.  He believes not in the democratic process but in tyranny as the tried and tested and, therefore, the only means to attaining and staying in power. He does not believe in free and fair elections let alone their results”. 

In his article, - Zimbabwe Doomed As Long As Mugabe Stays On - Jonathan Moyo bemoaned that;

“Mugabe's determination to remain in office until death do him part is apparently driven by a fatal combination of old age, his unquenchable thirst for power, his having a young wife with young children and his getting sycophantic advice from unscrupulous politicians, incompetent bureaucrats and delinquent propagandists all influenced by insecure and increasingly nervous securocrats who are better informed about political developments on the ground and who can see that Mugabe's empire is crumbling”

In a rather similar language Psychology Maziwisa wrote in his article -Does MDC have the audacity to ward off terror?-, that;

“Our country has been brutalised at the expense of satisfying Mugabe and a handful of evil, self-interested, murderous, parasitic and dictatorial sycophants who have neither the desire nor the conscience to reflect on the extent of their unbelievable destructiveness” 

Compatriots reading what these two buffoons had to say in their writings, I keep on asking myself; so what has changed about Mugabe that these goons saw it fit to bury their hatchets? Is what they are telling people now about Mugabe and Zanu PF a true reflection of their voice within? Interestingly Psychology once gave us an insight into the mind of a petty political thief by exploring Jonathan Moyo’s psycophancy behaviour, which he, Pyschology has unfortunately become. Compatriots, I am going to reproduce Psychology Maziwisa’s article entitled “Moyo’s sickening psycophancy”.

Moyo's sickening sycophancy

Psychology Maziwisa

June 04, 2010

If there is one individual in Zimbabwean politics who will say anything and everything at the click of a finger simply in order to win his master's accolades, it is, unsurprisingly, that charlatan Jonathan Moyo.

Apparently the duty Moyo owes to his dictatorial master is one that he is prepared to fulfil even if it only serves to cheapen himself in the eyes of the people of Zimbabwe.

Surely, our hearts have to go out to the unfortunate and poor people of Tsholotsho who must certainly by now hate themselves for having elected such a weak sycophant as their parliamentary representative.

Throughout his career Moyo has developed and embraced such a sickening propensity to abruptly switch from an entirely sensible point of view to one that is totally outrageous.

He has only to be convinced that it is politically expedient. Everything else can be flagrantly ignored. There is not a single person familiar with Zimbabwean politics who would honestly profess ignorance of the fact that each time Moyo has fallen out of Mugabe's favour he has criticised him.

Indeed, they would equally confirm that whenever the opportunity to put a smile on the old man-s face has presented itself, Moyo has profusely sung the dictator-s praises.

In his piece, The cancer of politics of personalities, published in The Herald on 27 May 2010, Moyo, in typically desperate fashion, took pains to pay homage to the controversial and controversially appointed Judge President George Chiweshe - apparently in an attempt to appeal to the latter's ear ahead of his day in court for allegedly defaming Roy Bennett.

The truth of the matter is that Moyo has every reason to be terrified because, if brought before an impartial Judge, the case against him is a compelling one. No doubt he takes consolation from ZANU PF's intrinsic conviction that anything that is associated with Mugabe is beyond the reach of the law.

However, what really prompted this writer to comment on a piece otherwise deserving of no comment at all was Moyo's ridiculous and patently untrue description of Mugabe as 'an iconic African leader with a towering global stature'. Such toadyism is simply sickening.

If that is what it means to be a politician then, rather than becoming one, I would much rather stick to being a commentator committed to 'keeping the bastards honest'!

A few examples will serve to illustrate Moyo's alarming inconsistency.

Just before the 2008 harmonised elections Moyo went on about how 'Mugabe should go now' because it was in his own best interest and in the national interest as well.

He argued that Mugabe's standing had plummeted both 'in and outside the country' and that his continued presence in office had become 'such an excessive burden to the welfare of the state and such a fatal danger to the public interest of Zimbabweans'.

Moyo correctly further argued that Mugabe lacked 'the vision, stature and energy to effectively run the country, let alone his party'.

Of Operation Murambatsvina he wrote that that evil exercise attested to the fact that Mugabe is 'without compassion'.

One wonders what really has changed between then and now for Moyo to now consider it a 'privilege' for anyone to serve in a Mugabe-led government.

In his recent unsuccessful attempt to sell Mugabe's presidency as one that promotes and protects the rule of law, Moyo unashamedly referred to Tsvangirai-s justified calls for an end to Bennett-s continued persecution as 'the most blatant and most outrageous attack on the rule of law since 1980'.

If Moyo wants clear examples of what really amounts to grave attacks on the rule of law he needs only to look at his master's monstrous political record.

It was Moyo-s master and not Tsvangirai who arbitrarily detained, cruelly assaulted and devilishly tortured thousands of innocent Zimbabweans in Matabeleland during the years 1985 and 1986.

It was his master and not Tsvangirai who, in a 1982 speech to Parliament, said of Gukurahundi: 'An eye for an eye and an ear for an ear may not be adequate in our circumstances. We might very well demand two ears for one ear and two eyes for one eye'.

Indeed it was the dictator and not Tsvangirai who, in perhaps the clearest expression of his contempt for the rule of law, said: 'The government cannot allow the technicalities of the law to fetter its hands. We shall, therefore, proceed as government in a manner we feel as fitting; and some of the measures we shall take are measures which will be extra-legal.'

More recently, several Zimbabweans have either been prosecuted or threatened with prosecution for 'insulting the person of the President' simply for exercising what is recognised elsewhere as their inalienable right to free speech.

Rule of law in its purest form envisages that no one is above the law and everyone is subject to it. It is Mugabe and his cronies who have set themselves above the law.

Accordingly, no one can take seriously anything that charlatan Moyo ever says without causing their beloved ones a great deal of anxiety about the soundness of their mind.

Mugabe has not only wrought great evil on the people of Zimbabwe but his evil has infected those around him as is evidenced when we see the keenness with which Moyo licks his master's boots.

For these followers of the Goebel school of propaganda and falsehood, it is perfectly safe to lie and distort. But the danger comes when the liar begins to believe in and live by his own lies as Mugabe's men are now doing.