7) The nature of MDC Demonstrations
There is an attempt by others at the Commission of Inquiry to try and attribute the demonstrations of the 1st of August to the MDC. For the avoidance of doubt, the MDC would like to make it clear that the Party did not organise any demonstrations for the 1st of August.
Equally so, it is undeniable that the young and urban people of this country see their future under an MDC government. Most importantly, it is common sentiment that Zanu-PF was working with ZEC to manipulate the election. Therefore the people who would demonstrate would invariably be those that are tired of poverty and oppression and therefore associating themselves with the MDC vote.
When the MDC organises demonstrations a certain process is followed –
– The organ that wants the party to demonstrate proposes the issue through the Secretary General’s office
– The Secretary General tables the matter before the standing committee
– In some cases the issue goes up to the NEC and the NC
– When a decision is taken by the Party it is referred to Party administrators to address the administrative issues which includes notifying the police
This is a rigorous internal process. No single individual gathers people for a demonstration in the MDC. That is why:
– Our demonstrations are always peaceful
– They are attended by hundreds of thousands yet not even one flowerbed is trampled on
– Party leadership always lead from the front
– No one is injured
– No property is destroyed
In this sense, it is mischievous and largely dishonest to ascribe the few hundred demonstrators of the 1st of August to the MDC. When the MDC demonstrates, it does so after following through a rigorous internal process. There is always public notification and meticulous organising.
In fact, the MDC through its Secretary-General, had warned of possible spontaneous reactions if ZEC would not urgently release results which were already in its possession. It is therefore clear that the main cause of the demonstrations was the anxiety that was created by ZEC’s failure to manage the electoral process to the satisfaction of the electorate.
Continued next page
(797 VIEWS)
