Does Prof Moyo have a case to answer?

The Sharp Shooter Vukani Madoda
The greatest dilemma that the nation is facing falls squarely on drawing the line between the functions of Government and the role of the governing political party. This is the perplexing paradox with regards to the allegations of corruption and misappropriation of public funds that are being faced by the Minister of Higher and Tertiary Education, Professor Jonathan Moyo and his deputy Dr Godfrey Gandawa.

The other puzzle is that before we even go to court, we already have a serious full trial in the media.
Paper trails are flying all over the place, evidence is literally spewing in newspapers and social media such that if Prof Moyo is to have his day in court, we do not expect any new and incriminating data to be presented.

But first, we must understand what Prof Moyo’s defence is all about.
He claims to have channelled funds from Zimbabwe Manpower Development Fund (Zimdef) for the benefit of the ruling party. We need to understand how that was possible.

Government is the means for determining policies for the State and enforcing the same. Government is the main body or institution that runs the country.
On the other hand, the governing party, Zanu PF in this case, uses its theory of practice to run that Government. Because it is the ruling party, it has the latitude and constitutional freedom to employ a system of organised control over the Zimbabwean community.

Essentially, winning the 2013 elections gave the party a mandate to implement a system that enforces the distribution of power and allocation of resources at national level, based on party principle.

Government is established by the winning political party and all decisions are mostly made by the ruling party.
This is where Prof Moyo’s chief defence comes into play.

He was making a political decision based on the ruling party’s mandate when he allocated State resources to party functions and activities.
This can only be done if you are in the ruling party as well as in the Government. To see it as being corrupt may be to seek an unnecessary audit into the functions of Government or to actually question the very election of the ruling party in 2013.

The only way that the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission (Zacc) may come in to bust Prof Moyo is if he converted those funds for his personal use.
Zacc tells us Prof Moyo paid rent for nameless girlfriends and nameless private businesses. That is not good enough.

Zacc also tells us he bought bicycles and no political party benefited and yet it was all over the news when Prof Moyo handed over those bicycles to people in his constituency.

The commission can only proffer a case of political corruption if Prof Moyo used his powers as a Government official for illegitimate private gain. That not being the case, Zacc’s allegations may fall flat on its face.

We may need to understand that the activities that constitute corruption differ depending on the country or jurisdiction. For instance, some political funding practices that are legal in one place may be illegal in another. In some cases, Government officials have broad or ill-defined powers, which make it difficult to distinguish between legal and illegal actions.

In Zimbabwe, there is a thin line that demarcates the functions of the Government and the role of the ruling party. Unless and until there is a clause that bars a Cabinet minister from using the ministerial budget to fund ruling party activities, Prof Moyo will remain scot-free.

What Prof Moyo probably understands is that Zanu PF’s continued rule is subject to the continued support of the majority of voters who at any future free and fair election can reject or accept the vision put forward by that party and vote accordingly.

Why then would the majority voters elect into power a party that would not have allocated any resources to them when they were in Government?
If the ruling party is voted out of office, the State will continue functioning; national identity cards and passports will continue to be issued, social grants will continue to be paid, judges will continue to interpret and enforce the law and the constitution.

So while the ruling party is in power, it must ensure it delivers on its promise to the people who voted it into power, and that is what Prof Moyo did.
This is why it is necessary to campaign well, win the hearts and minds of the voters and be elected into power to employ polices that will benefit the majority who would have voted you into power.

Those that cry foul or munch on sour grapes about an unfair electoral advantage and impossible free and fair elections do so because they would not have invested fully in winning the election, all to no avail.

Where the ruling party allocates resources to advance its own political party interests, it is therefore reaping from its perpetual investment which led them to win the previous election.

As long as these resources are allocated to the majority of the voters, then the fringe benefit of the incumbent governing party is possibly winning the next election.

Since Zanu PF continues to dominate the political landscape, the distinction between the ruling party, the Government and the State tends to grow very thin and bleary because the party is the embodiment of the aspirations of the people.

If the people aspire for a Million Man March or 21st February Movement, the Government will provide that. That is how simplistic it is.
Surely, it can be assumed that such a governing party’s vision of the public good is the legitimate vision of the majority of the voters and it is therefore morally valid.

After all, the majority party has won successive elections with large majorities of the popular vote since 1980.
Members of such a majority party are allowed to believe that the interests of the party, the interests of the State and the interests of the citizens of the country are all one and the same thing.
So does Prof Moyo have a case to answer? — Dubulaizitha!