One of the first principles of democracy in the USA, a preacher of democratic principles, is the assumption that everyone is equal so, provided, you can raise around US$200,000,000 (two hundred million dollars plus) to put towards your campaign, you may stand as a candidate. With that criteria less that one per cent of the USA are eligible to stand as an Independent candidate, even if you were to win their state lottery, you would still not have sufficient funding to launch a campaign.

We are told that this funding comes from donors that expect nothing in return, those multinationals, companies and individuals that we have to strike against to increase our salaries. Those very organisations that the candidate tells us he will tax to fund public services and amenities, enforce strict quality controls on goods they manufacture or provide, control their prices and inflation giving, we the people, the majority, a much better standard of living.

At their own expense, millions passionately take to the streets to vote, queuing for hours in the rain, the snow, in all weathers gripped with the fever of an election. Violence may occur, the news media is mesmerised, complaints are made about not being allowed to vote, being excluded from the voters role, that the vote count was wrong and much publicised court cases occur accompanied by public demonstration.

It is not hard to understand why actors of note make their home in the coveted White House of the USA.

In Britain, facing voter apathy, politicians seek legislation to make the vote compulsory.

The entire system of democracy in the First World is bereft of logic, reason and fairness to the very person it seeks to protect, the man in the street, the shareholder so to speak, in democracy.

At municipal or council level only ratepayers, being a party to the community revenue, get a vote, democracy in action.

In National elections we undemocratically allow everyone over the age of majority a vote whether a taxpayer or not. It is thus possible for those who put nothing into society to rule it, erroneously, in the name of democracy.

Simple logic illustrates that given the percentage unemployment, the way it is in the main located in specific constituencies and, given that voter apathy is more likely to occur within those busy constituents of wisdom. It were quite possible that the unemployed effectively voted the employed face the severe penalties, recently imposed by the British Parliament, for the late submission of tax returns. The motive, presumably, that their unemployment benefits may be threatened or reduced - all in the name of democracy.

It should be a stipulation, a restriction, that a voter should be in employment, should be a taxpayer or in the case of a pensioner, have paid his or her dues illustrated by their level of pension. Promise to increase unemployment benefit and you may well be elevated to Prime Minister of Britain.

Sadly, looking at the so-called advancements in democracy in the United Kingdom one sees instead advancement towards communism and a police state. Gradually, total control of the British citizen is taking place before our very eyes. In East Germany under communist rule one was fined for having a dirty vehicle, with increases in traffic legislation this is not far off the table. With the drinking laws, smoking laws, parenting laws, severe taxation laws, increased monitoring of the press and control over freedom of speech and expression whilst considering, the introduction of IDs and compulsory voting we have already crossed the bounds of becoming a police state without realising it. The removal of freedom of choice in the United Kingdom is all but complete.

Perhaps the most serious, is the effects on the young where discipline has been removed from schools and the parent where children no longer respect adults, and we have thus created a breed of youths displaying anti social behavior largely unknown in years gone by. We enforce school attendance by prosecuting "erring parents" whom we also prosecute in the event they discipline their children.

In Commerce, where the shareholder in a shareholders meeting elects a board, a prime consideration is management expertise and yet, in an election, like sheep to the slaughter, we vote for an individual to run one of the largest public companies in the country, our government, without due consideration for same. If asked to employ this person for the position of shop manager we would require a CV, illustrating experience and expertise and a reference illustrating honesty.

There is a serious need for potential politicians to be required to have a distinguished track record of senior management or business expertise prior to standing in any election in order that they may have the expertise to combat those captains of Commerce and Industry and improve our standard of living. Is it not the democratic right of the individual who has paid tax out of his personal toil to be given the choice of, to be able to demand, candidates with appropriate professional expertise.

There are some safeguards like the case of the German politician who resigned because he accepted party political donations from an arms dealer, a man who thus illustrated political ethics and honour to all.

But it seems there are different rules, in Britain political parties freely accept party donations from a British Multinational in the certain knowledge that it had a totally owned manufacturing subsidiary, producing automatic weapons for effective use against the United Kingdom and the Crown complete with, a retired foreign General as its Managing Director.

In the eyes of the Multinational, the European government is a dream come true, once armed with its own constitution ratified by all member states, it will become considerably less expensive to control than all the individual Member States. Again, standards need only be complied with in one Member State for sale throughout the EU and at least one Head of State until recently had the power of veto over regulations leading to EU Standards tests being circumvented.

It is thus that the writer became aware that this democracy as practised and applied has placed all EU citizens in the life threatening position that the prescription drugs they take, manufactured by the most prominent of manufacturers in the EU, in all probability, are untested. In the course of trading, the writer was offered the services of a Head of State of a prominent EU State by a CEO of a huge EU Multinational, the offer being placed eloquently in writing for that very purpose, prior, to the political parties successful election.

In the implementation of our democracy, we take the poorest countries in the world and expect, in the name of First World democracy, that its politicians operate from the campaign funding of the poverty stricken, of those, that we freely describe in the British Parliament, as starving and requiring food aid.

In apparent attempt to "kickstart" the system of democracy in former colonies British companies were given tax relief in the United Kingdom for the "bribery of foreign officials".

There is a need to take account of the fact that in Europe, country borders are based on lingual and cultural differences. In the process of colonisation little account was taken of this and it is thus that tribal and, more importantly language areas, stretch across the artificial borders thus erected.

Account needs to be taken of the difficulties involved in governing multi tribal, cultural and lingual nations that the former colonisers created, of the great need for minority protection laws before democracy may even be muted.

This is a nation yet to see Justice for all, Independence being simply the transition from a British colony to a World colony. The statements made in the Parliaments, Committees and Organisations of the First World clearly reflect that view. The day that a system of Higher Courts are established leading to the International Court, the day that a Third World country is free from financial intimidation to attend that court, will be the day Third World Nations become Independent.

My chronicle of the events since Independence differs substantially from that of Jack Straw in the House of Commons.

It is common cause that the current ruling political party was elected into Parliament at Independence in an election deemed free and fair by the International community.

I cannot state that it was democratic because Britain imposed the Lancaster House agreement on the new Government and Parliament prior to its very existence. In terms of this Agreement there would be a mandatory presence in Parliament of unelected white MPs. Whilst the writer fully understands that this came about over a Cease-fire Agreement nevertheless, it detracts from the principals of democracy whilst enforcing minority representation.

Whilst the new government of Robert Mugabe offered reconciliation, the previous illegal government of Ian Smith, still represented in Parliament, chose inflammatory rhetoric and international ridicule as its way forward. If Smith had placed Zimbabwe before himself he would have removed himself from Parliament to avoid confrontation in order that black and white could work in accord. He could have remained the party leader but stayed in the background, allowing Parliament to move forward. So bad was the rhetoric in Parliament that students of the University of Kenya converted parliamentary debate into a successful comedy. Perhaps in retrospect, an annual separate election, post main election, for those compulsory white members of parliament would have been appropriate which would have given the white population opportunity to select more appropriate representation.

This should have been the time that issues were resolved in the spirit of reconciliation, the Law Society members should have acted in terms of their mandate "to promote the law" by way of a class action, representing those former Land Owners, negotiating direct compensation or security of tenure to its eventual outcome. This negligence was extreme in that it was the very reason Independence was delayed for 15 years, it is not enough to say they were not approached, it affected every property owner in the country, themselves included.

From the outset the Zimbabwe Government policy of a "leaning to communism/ socialism" at Independence shocked and angered the British Government.

In fact, it was the act of a gentleman, Britain did nothing to assist their "liberation struggle" conversely Russia amongst other communist countries had assisted. It was the brave appreciation of a new President opening the doors of trade to those socialist allies in the full knowledge that it would not augur well with the West. Presumably unknown to the Mugabe Government, there is evidence that there were those in Russia that also, simultaneously, supported the Smith Government, which information the writer has become aware of, since Independence.

It is thus that the destabilising operations of the Department of Psychological Warfare in Pretoria were quietly overlooked by the then British Government placing due strain on the Zimbabwe Governments ability to govern. The professionalism of such arms of the British Government as MI 6 and others would render it beyond belief that the then British Government was not kept reliably informed. To say that South Africas Department of Psychological Warfare had no effect on the economy, internal democracy and political stability of Zimbabwe given the superior financial might and infrastructure of South Africa, would be ludicrous.

As is undoubtedly the case in other Third World countries, the small economic base in Zimbabwe is unable to financially sustain the political opposition parties that one experience in the First World however, there will always be the healthy opposition by Independents who require little finance. Perhaps one of the greatest achievements in peace by Joshua Nkomo and Robert Mugabe was to join hands merging into one party to avoid the tribalism experienced in other African countries and to promote peace.

Joshua Nkomo was probably the last great chief in Southern Africa that it was the writers privilege to meet, primarily a man of peace, a man who put Zimbabwe before himself. To state, as Jack Straw did in the house, that Joshua Nkomo was "subsumed" into Zanu PF is mischievous and to state that you didnt know the man. There is still in house democracy for the election of officers and it is thus that John Nkomo, an Ndebele, is the current party chairman.

The opposition party was born out of opportunism as a direct result of the above, there will always be that person who seizes on opportunity. The party leader was formally leader of the local Union and became internationally known when his supporters, in a planned demonstration in support of better pay and working conditions, rioted, causing mass destruction to property in Harare as televised on the BBC news. It is hard to believe that those supporters accidentally came upon gallon tins of petrol they used to burn business premises. In a display of unprecedented self-interest in a follow up televised interview discussing the riot, he unapologetically stated, that he didn’t see why he couldn’t be President in total departure from the issues of his union.

If it transpires that the opposition leaders were part of that conspiracy which incited so much violence and, it seems likely that that is the case, it will be interesting to see Jack Straws reaction.

Most of the Opposition MDC members today are breakaway ruling party ZANU supporters.

It is claimed that the recent election was unfair and yet Commonwealth Observers gave the election a clean bill of health. Within the Commonwealth body one would expect the British Government to set the democratic example.

In an unprecedented display of double standards the Blair Government announced it would exert "pressure" on Commonwealth members to vote that the vote was not 'free and fair' in Zimbabwe. Even the International news media referred to pressure being brought to bear on targeted Commonwealth Member States such as Nigeria and South Africa.

The issue in this case is surely not whether Zimbabwe elections were free and fair but, whether the Commonwealth should have been used as a vehicle when their observers had given the election a clean bill of health. I entertain grave doubts as to whether Blair and Britain should have been seen to exert pressure to obtain votes on an issue concerning democratic principals. I believe by so doing, Blair shamefully brought the British government into disrepute throughout the Third World.

The effects of that decision and subsequent loss of respect continue to be seen today when the Third World still gives Blair the thumbs down salute on Zimbabwe when normally, all would support Britain. Straw admits that the UN and others refuse to discuss his claims of Human Rights abuses by Zimbabwe but fails to address the reason why.

There are only two possible reasons, the member nations of the Commission on Human Rights do not respect Human Rights in which case Britain should not remain a member or, the members feel Britain played a part by its failure to compensate in which case Straw should take note, it being the democratic opinion of the majority. His failure to proceed in any direction, whilst personally predicting failure, would seem to indicate a passive acceptance of blame.

Again no matter how powerful the Nation, genuine respect is earned not demanded and Tony Blair has yet to understand this. You cannot renege on compensation (payment), reintroduce the cheque whilst simultaneously claiming the other party has infringed on Human Rights and expect to get away with it. Unless Britain addresses this problem, in the long term, it will lose credibility, friends and trading partners to its financial disadvantage.

In my area, truckloads of MDC supporters were sent to beat up the locals just prior to the elections - they said it was in retaliation for violence in town.

I knew the MDC candidate personally, he had previously been a member of the ruling party and property negotiator in Harare. In the course of conducting business with me he committed fraud, the personally signed absolute evidence of which I still have on file.

I thus felt it appropriate to warn voters locally and send a message to surrounding farmers that should this candidate be elected I would have no hesitation in making police complaint against him, making his term as MP the shortest in Zimbabwes history. Accordingly, his attempt at election was thwarted and he achieved the minimum of votes.

Indeed Jack Straw is now playing a major role in Zimbabwe politics reinforcing the Third World observation that Zimbabwe is still being treated as a Colony.

For example there are those that will vote for the opposition because of British government support for same and not because they are the best choice thus, totally nullifying the very meaning of democracy.

1. Straw has said that aid will resume and rebuilding of Zimbabwe will occur if and when the present government is replaced. i.e. If you want food and the standard of living to change vote MDC whilst, at the same time, prepared to shout foul if the ruling party attempt the same by controlling food supplies.
2. The veiled targeted economic sanctions will cease which the Blair Government freely admitted on implementation would have a knock on effect on the poor, a situation now denied by Straw.
3. He describes the opposition, erroneously in my view, as "those who seek a better future for all Zimbabweans" without any track record or reference.
4. Conversely he states "Robert Mugabe's regime has no regard for human rights, the rule of law, or the responsibility of government to provide competent economic management." whilst a parliamentary select committee and his government has already acknowledged the part played by ESAP and the World Bank in the economic decay.
5. He reportedly, in contravention of their Human Rights in terms of article 5 of the Lome Convention, advises the Commercial Farmers Union that he will attend to compensation once a new government is in power thus making the former farmers financial prisoners without due regard for their current predicament. (Presumably fearful that if compensated the farmers will leave thus frustrating efforts to remove Mugabe and impose an opposition government of his choice.)
6. Jack Straw states "we are offering political and practical support to civil rights workers, lawyers defending those persecuted by the state, human rights activists, trades unionists and others working for peaceful change".

If you have a Human Rights problem within a foreign country that involves your Nationals then you have your remedy. Use diplomatic channels and where they fail military force to obtain the release of same, economic sanctions where appropriate etc. or, make use of those bodies such as the UN that were set up to deal with such issues.

There is need to exercise caution, to make proper personal investigation, to take note of opposition and anti government membership or influence within local Human Rights groups and organisations, so as not to interpret opportunist crime and opposition propaganda as personal Human Rights infringements by a foreign President.

What you may not do, is to interfere with their internal politics to the extent of choosing a new government for its people, in the name of democracy.

Considering "a" to "f" above any election held in Zimbabwe would be devoid of democracy before it starts as, true democracy is reliant on the will of its people and not the will and financing of its foreign neighbours, no matter how well meaning they think they are.

Straw has condemned the very opposition party that he sought to support who may now no longer claim a democratic win in any constituency as a direct result of his interference. They will remain labelled British "stooges" or a puppet government, if successful, by all of Africa and the Third World, with good reason.

Given the economic state of the Third World with workers earnings often under the poverty datum line all Third World countries need a strong government, a strong leader, without which they open the door to military coup or terrorist, rebel activity. "A strong opposition" generally means civil war or rebel activity in Africa and, is far removed from Jack Straws "healthy situation".

The average eligible voter in Zimbabwe is either primarily interested in economic social justice issues as opposed to politics or opportunistic by nature, resultant of poverty.

The Opposition party, MDC, achieved most success and votes in the urban areas in the last Election originating from the unions, workers and commerce in general. The white population helped considerably with organisation and transportation of voters to the election booths. The white farmers, commerce and others put considerable funding into the election on a scale never seen in Zimbabwe before. The combination of same and the marketing, being the reason for the success.

It should be noted that in all areas there were many that didn’t vote at all and so in some cases it may have been down to which candidate transported the most voters.

Currently most voters are more concerned about the cost of living and the economy, attributing this to the political power struggle and, have lost interest in politics. It is extremely doubtful that there will be the same level of voter turn out at the forthcoming election. Again many voters fear, as the writer does, that the next election will lead to civil war. This would seem to indicate an almost insurmountable obstacle for the opposition, as they will be unable to guarantee peaceful change. Simply put, the only one seemingly pushing for civil war in Zimbabwe is Jack Straw and fortunately he is not an eligible voter or Zimbabwe citizen.

The Ruling party, ZANU PF, achieved most of its votes in the rural areas because, in spite of the opposition funding, the rural areas are more difficult to organise. Currently, they will also suffer from voter apathy. Normally the writer would predict a an outright win but the rumours of the Presidents retirement and the subsequent fragmenting of allegiances within the party by would be President elects, are a very critical and dangerous development that have spread to the rural areas.

Without a strong leader to hold them together there will be no winner in the forthcoming election, only civil war and losers. This is the general feeling of most in the rural areas and there is already faction fighting over land.

If ZANU PF produce a strong replacement leader, concentrates their efforts on the provision of a system of justice for all, that endorses accountability whilst creating positive publicity, there is no doubt that the ruling party will succeed.

Justice is a policy that eventually includes everything from cost of living to education, promote Justice and you represent everyone. All that is needed is to put in place a system that protects everyone, including the minorities and Justice will promote itself.

Additionally, there is a serious, an urgent need, to address the credibility problem caused by negligent government media promotion, replacing it with hard fact that everyone can understand and accept, of which, there is a veritable abundance in Government and the ruling parties favour. This would significantly increase voter confidence and international acceptance.

Those sceptics like Straw and some local white farmers should consider that there are not only War Veterans on the land but Senior Army officers as well and, the unlikelihood of same handing their newly allocated farms over to opposition members or white farmers without a serious fight. It is thus that success by MDC equals civil war and this is not simply supposition.

Straw and Blair need to act responsibly by refraining from inflammatory rhetoric, the incitement to violence whilst supporting Zimbabwes economy to a state conducive to a free and fair election. If they feel unable to adopt that approach, if they find it hard to believe that democracy goes hand in hand with peace and economic stability, then they should take the honourable way out by resigning in the name of the promotion of peace thereby, preventing the further loss of many innocent lives.

It is the writers belief that, given the colonial history, the very existence of such bodies as the Commonwealth, Britain has a duty, a moral obligation, to assist in the support and protection of all its former colonies sovereign Independence and security.

In the case of Zimbabwe there can be no doubt that they have been woefully lacking in honouring this commitment with disastrous consequences.

The writer has, in a minor way, personally taken opportunities as they presented themselves to preserve peace and democracy in the absence of action by Britain, a few of which are outlined below.

Unlike Peter Hain who, I am led to understand, left the African continent of his birth with his "tail between his legs". The webmaster joined the RAF with the personal character reference of the late President Banda drafted on Residential Palace notepaper. This came about resultant of the part he played, a matter of months after Independence, at age 17, in the capture and questioning of a dozen French speaking commandos, their officer and equipment at Malawi,s northern border post.

The incident was widely reported over the Christmas period on the BBC news, amongst others, it being rumoured, as it was, that a full-scale military invasion of Malawi, complete with tanks, was underway. To the webmasters knowledge the true facts were a matter of state security and never publicly reported in the press.

In order to confirm the truthfulness of sensitive statements on behalf of others and to satisfy the webmasters insatiable curiosity he visited South Africa in the mid-eighties visiting South African intelligence and psychological warfare on a fact finding mission. The writer was shocked with what he learned. Subsequently, South African intelligence commenced questioning any person that knew him including flying by helicopter to the Zimbabwe border to interrogate a friend suspecting, ridiculous as it may seem, that the webmaster was a member of the CIA.

Still today, the webmaster wonders why the CIA as opposed to British Intelligence?

Considering that it was unlikely that their intelligence would accept or want to admit that the webmaster was unconnected to intelligence in any way, having infiltrated same on a one off visit, the webmaster took full advantage. He visited the South African Embassy locally asking to see an intelligence or security officer and made the appropriate complaint.

The webmaster, from Independence, physically promoted meaningful development, receiving awards and medals presented by various Heads of State for best design or best product. He played his part in the promotion of exports and Zimbabwe in the International arena, his patents creating substantial publicity at International trade fairs from Baghdad in Iraq, the EU countries to East Germany as it was. The publicity was notable, to the extent of being on all television news channels in such countries as Spain, simultaneously.

It happened that the webmaster was elevated to the position of Ambassador in the field by Ministry of Commerce officials when invited to visit Kuwait as the personal guest of a man of significant means, the owner of multi nationals and such buildings and landmarks in Paris as the Lido and buildings housing the French Television network, whose accountant was also the accountant of the Kuwaiti Fund. It is because of these efforts over twenty years to promote Zimbabwe that the webmaster, understandably, takes exception to economic sabotage against Zimbabwe in any form.

Additionally, the webmaster held such positions as Chairman of the Intellectual Property Committee and was chosen to represent Commerce and Industry at EU promoted trade fairs for the ACP countries in Europe.

Copy and paste one of the following links into your email.