Talk:Movement for Democratic Change – Tsvangirai/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Mainstream Faction of the MDC

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following 10 links from both the Zimbabwe government,and independent media palpably say that the MDC main wing is led by founding president Morgan Tsvangirai,a fact new edits want to shield.This whats on the ground and we must be factual. Should I say more,just do the research.

The MDC split last year into two factions. To claim that Tsvangirai leads the 'main' wing is probably fine, but to pretend there is no other is bogus. I am with Perspicacite's edits. Wizzy…☎ 10:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream Faction of the MDC

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

So let that be put.And the details surrounding the split are dubious,their neutrality is disputable. Africa Festival

The neutrality of what is disputable? Perspicacite 00:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

There was material that was not sourced,anyway,I guess the article is better now,As long as we stick to facts,and whats on the ground and fully sourcemangqina-Mazondo 01:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC).

Notable party members

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Why are the founder members not listed (or available anywhere on the net as far as I can see. Is it secret? A list might dispell rumours that 2/3rd were white.--86.134.34.37 (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

What is the rationale for referring to one faction as "mainstream" and the other as "pro-senate"? Logically, if the "pro-senate" designation is used then the "mainstream" is better described as "anti-senate"? It currently gives the impression of expressing a preference.Babakathy 16:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I have renamed them by their respective leaders. I don't think one deserves to be called mainstream - they are all just bickering. Wizzy…☎ 16:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Its not preference,thats how the media treats them ,and thats how it is on the ground,One faction is bigger than the other in all aspects.Remember we have to reference all our edits,and above already we have settled that The faction led by the founder president is the mainstream.mangqina-Mazondo 02:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Wizzy here. Perspicacite 04:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

References and original research

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've added the {{refimprove}} template, as there are large chunks of text in desperate need of references. This led to me adding {{Original research}} as well, due to the unhappy presence of phrases like 'it is relatively difficult to judge' and 'it is widely believed'.

As this is a political party, we've got to be especially thorough about bias.

Thank you all very much for your hard work on the article. --Drum guy (talk) 01:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Official website

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I have removed a link to the official website, as it is listed as a possible attack site by Google Safe Browsing.

Please establish definite consensus here first before adding it back.

Many thanks, Drum guy (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: This affects not only http://www.mdc.co.zw but also http://www.mdczw.com. Although mdczimbabwe.org/ is not directly affected, all of its pages (that it links to) are on mdc.co.zw and so I'm not sure whether linking to it is really a good idea. Drum guy (talk) 01:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Candadian infobox

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I don't think a Canadian infobox ({{Infobox_Canada_Political_Party}}) is appropriate. I suggest reverting it to {{Template:Infobox Political party}} and am happy to do so if consensus emerges. --Drum guy (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

We need to create a Zimbabwean infobox before you remove that one!Africa Festival (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I guess it's fine to wait. I was just really worrying whether "Active Federal Party" applies - is the "federal" part correct/appropriate? Thanks a lot, Drum guy (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

yes federal party works for the time being mangqina-Mazondo (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

But Zimbabwe does not have a federal system. Elections are only contested at national (parliamentary) and local (council) level. National party would be correct. Babakathy (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

opposition no longer split in to two factions

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

It's obviously very early days but i've modified the first sentence in the article.

Zimbabwe's rival opposition factions say they have reunited, declaring they have a majority in parliament. The announcement was jointly made by Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) leader Morgan Tsvangirai and Arthur Mutambara, whose faction split in 2005.[1] Timeshift (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure about this? I have seen the source, but it looks pretty old, and now they are seperate parties again because in the negotiations Mutambara takes a seperate place and represents a different MDC faction according to various sources.--HandGrenadePins (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct: The source in question is referring to the two factions agreeing to cooperate, but they are legally and organisationally two seperate parties. Babakathy (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

MDC Split

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

New material on the split must be discussed before edits.Newly registered members are vandalizing this entry.

why arent the following facts inlcuded in the page on reason for mDC split?

'The party split of 2005 was blamed on acts of violence perpetrated by MDC-T. David Coltart decided to join the Mutambara faction of the MDC citing ‘deep concerns’ about violence in the MDC-T faction. “I was so concerned about our failure to get to the bottom of the violence that I prepared a statement that was tabled at the next meeting of the National Executive held on the 15th July,” said Coltart in 2006. MDC-T thugs were also blamed for an attack on Trudy Stevenson, then an MDC-M legislator. She was attacked with a machete and hospitalized with four other MDC-M members in 2005. According to Paul Themba Nyathi, of the MDC-Mutambara, the “thuggish behaviour” of Tsvangirai's supporters has largely escaped the attention of observers and the press “because the big prize is still to rid the country of Mugabe.” “Tsvangirai's followers seem to be saying to themselves that they can win elections by beating people and by using the crudest methods of intimidation,” said Mr Nyathi. The latest statement by Kumalo will come as a blow to the agreement to work together signed by the two factions of the MDC on Monday 28 April. In March this year Sikhala (MDC-M) and Kumalo (MDC-T) and other MDC members were detained after clashes which left five people injured. http://www.talkzimbabwe.com/news/117/ARTICLE/2271/2008-05-01.html

Brian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.202.43.53 (talk) 23:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Chronology of this does not make sense as violence as the reason for the split: MDC-T members attacking MDC-M members must (by use of those terms) post-date the split. Coltart stated his reason for joining MDC-M (which had to exist then for him to join it) not the reason for MDC-M forming in the first place. The reason stated in the article (current version) is correct. Babakathy (talk) 13:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Split the article

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I suggest splitting the material on MDC-M out into a new article as the MDC-T and MDC-M are to seperate entities, legally (as legal persons), politically (as registered political parties) and organisationally (operating their own structures). The current article should cover the pre-split era, document the split and then cover MDC-T only. This is not a POV suggestion, but reflects the legal situation, who controls the party assets etc. Babakathy (talk) 13:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is a need to clean up this article, and split it into the two political parties. At the moment, one would think they were the same party. We will need a new template for the Mutambara faction. To make things more complicated, I believe the Mutambara faction is often simply known as "MDC" whereas the Tsvangirai faction is known as "MDC-Tsvangirai" or "MDC-T". I would probably suggest moving this article to Movement for Democratic Change (Pre-split Era) or something easier on the tongue. We would then have this name for the Mutambara article, and Movement for Democratic Change - Tsvangirai for the main faction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HandGrenadePins (talk • contribs) 10:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Support I would suggest Movement for Democratic Change (Pre-2004), which is a format used elsewhere, Movement for Democratic Change-Tsvangirai and [[Movement for Democratic Change. It is odd that the un-hyphenated title would be applied to the smaller party, but that reflects the legal reality. Babakathy (talk) 10:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I have done an article [[Movement for Democratic Change (Pre-2004). At the moment it contains mostly information about tension within the party and about the split. It is also mostly dependent on a single source, but it's a start! This article has a lot of original research which is not obvious, but it would be good to get some of this information, which ISN'T original, into Movement for Democratic Change - Tsvangirai. The rest of the information on this article should be replaced by an in depth study of the Mutambara faction of MDC.--HandGrenadePins (talk) 08:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No Splitting the article

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Ok,lets not mess around this article by spliting it,there is only one MDC legally according to parliament and according to the Registrar general's office,The MDC led by Tsvangirai continues to use the original party properties for instance the Harvest House headquarters and original offices in all provinces.The MDC-T'name change' was only for the elections and non of the parties have yet approached the court to say fight for the entitlement of the MDC name and logo.So any attempt to split the article is motivated by ulterior motives.

So splitting the article has no legal basis as far as am concerned.

Africa Festival (talk)mangqina-Mazondo (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Motivated by ulterior motives? Firstly, the Mutambara faction uses a different logo and calls itself the Movement for Democratic Change. Secondly, although the Tsvangirai faction may call itself MDC, it is registered as MDC-T on the election basis, and there are two seperate parties here. You said that there is "only one MDC". That is simply not true. They are two seperate entities, and always have been since the split. Mutambara may have backed Makoni in the presidential race but even BBC admits that they are two seperate parties, IN PARLIAMENT. If people are going to be this angry about the name thing (which you shouldn't be because Mutambara has the MDC name), then maybe we should refer to Mutambara as Movement for Democratic Change - Mutambara, but there is still a need to split this article. Not only is a lot of this article unsourced, but it was written on the basis that Mutambara and Tsvangirai were getting back together. THEY ARE NOT![2]. We can maybe use the CIO section in the Movement for Democratic Change (pre-2004) article but to say that there is no need for a split is silly. They are two seperate parties, whether you like it or not. Please do some research.--HandGrenadePins (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

They operate entirely seperately, and are considered legally, commercially etc to be two separate parties. Hence in parliament, even the new parliament, they are considered as separate entities. [3] It is certainly a priority to split this article. Perhaps the only thing in question is the name of the party. I respect that some people call the party different things, and that maybe therefore we need to call the Mutambara faction Movement for Democratic Change - Mutambara, but both call themselves MDC. [4]However, here I have a pretty good source (I think you would agree!) saying that the name is MDC-T, whilst Mutambara is simply MDC[5]--HandGrenadePins (talk) 10:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Only one editor opposed to split, as far as I can see, so we should go ahead and do it, using the names as reflected in the current Parliament and negotiations, then we should have:

Movement for Democratic Change – Tsvangirai, with a redirect from MDC-T
Movement for Democratic Change – Mutambara, with a redirect from MDC-M
Movement for Democratic Change (pre-2004)

To avoid arguing over which formation (note this is the currently used word, not faction) gets to "keep" this article, I suggest renaming Movement for Democratic Change to Movement for Democratic Change (pre-2004) and re-incorporating material from that page. Babakathy (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Membership in the Socialist International and Liberal International

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The MDC is not named on either organization's lists as a member, so..... Are they really?

Check out www.socialistinternational.org and www.liberalinternational.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.32.173 (talk) 01:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is the list of African members for the socialist international http://www.socialistinternational.org/maps/english/africa.htm and members of the Liberal International http://www.liberal-international.org/editorialSingleIndex.asp?ia_id=509 The Movement for Democratic Change is not mentioned in either. (Canadianpunk77 21:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC))

The MDC is now listed as a full member on full list of members of the Socialist International, although not (yet) on the page for African parties. The MDC became full members at the SI convention in Athens last week. --84.202.1.130 (talk) 10:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

http://socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticlePageID=931

MDC is now listed as a full member of Socialist International here. I thought with the departure of the SI Zimbabwe leader, Munyaradzi Gwisai, from the MDC, that was MDC's way of partying with its SI links. When Tsvangirai was leader of the labour movement, the ZCTU, he was of a socialist inclination and so were all the intellectuals in MDC. Funding from other forces may have changed their complection vis-a-vis ideology. Is MDC now returning to its socialist roots? This may really piss off a lot of anti-socialist individuals and capitalist organisations that support the MDC in the fight against ZANU-PF, which claims to be socialist and no longer enjoy capitalist support! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.125.37.103 (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

POLICIES??

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

There is NO mention of ANY policies of MDC here. if I knew nothing I'd assume they had none. VERY unencyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.170.242 (talk) 08:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a mention of Liberalism on the page. Have the MDC described themselves as liberal ? 198.54.202.242 20:10, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, but there are liberals inside the party as are social democrats. So the liberal party template is in. If there would be a social democracy template it could be in too. --Gangulf 05:38, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The article states that MDC favours "... a land-redistribution policy based upon the rule of law and a willing buyer/willing seller basis ...". Probably just a matter of history now, but can anyone confirm that willing buyer/willing seller was ever the official basis of MDC's land reform policy?. Bob BScar23625 09:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The MDC does not have a well thought-out policy nor ideology ... it is a mass movement with contradictory INTERESTS, policies and ideologies ... this is the reason why it is really tough to get to know what they really stand for ... the fact is that ZANU-PF policies are great on paper to the extent that MDC would agree with them ... problem with ZANU-PF is that its like a moron with extremely brilliant policies on paper ... e..g. Land Invasion are not ZANU-PF official policy nor is violence nor is one-man dictatorship ... careful and sober study would reveal poor MDC policies as compared to "official" ZANU-PF policies. This is understandable given the constant harrassment of MDC. For instance, willing-seller willing-buyer policy for the Land Question proved ineffective under the rule of law in ZImbabwe, Namibia and South Africa ... its extremely slow due to lack of willingness ... one can't create or manufacture willingness as fast as the urgency of the matter under the rule of law ... how will MDC's WS-WB policy be different? ALso such a policy is not CHANGE nor innovation since Lancaster gave us the same policy in 1979. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.125.37.103 (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

~~MDC is backed by th white farmers...do you think they are interested in returning land to blcak farmers? ALSO MDC has apolicy of privatisation...which is why the West is backing them.~~

~~Greg Elich in Zimbabwe Under Siege tells us:~~

'The establishment of a new opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), in September 1999, found instant support from Western leaders. Significant funding from Western sources enabled the party to rapidly grow to the point where it won 57 out of 120 seats in the June 24-25 2000 parliamentary election, less than one year after its creation. Ostensibly based in the labor movement, the program of MDC reads like a call for a return to ESAP. A policy paper issued by the party spelled out its plans for privatization. Upon taking power, the party plans to appoint a "fund manager to dispose of government-owned shares in publicly quoted companies." The boards of all public enterprises would be "reconstituted," and the new boards would be "required to privatize their enterprises within specified timetables...with an overall target of privatizing all designated parastatals [public companies] within two years." The interests of Western capital would not be ignored. "In areas where a high level of technical skill is required, foreign strategic investors will be encouraged to bid for a majority stake in the enterprises being privatized." A primary principle of the program would be that "all sales of major state assets will be conducted through open, international [that is, Western], competitive bidding." In order to counter opposition from workers made redundant, the National Privatization and Procurement Agency would be instructed to "carry out public awareness campaigns regarding the privatization program in order to generate public awareness and support for the exercise." Implementation of its program, the MDC feels, will mean "that foreign direct investment will take place on a substantial scale." (10) As a further incentive for Western investors, the MDC plans to review income and corporate tax levels "for regional competitiveness." (11)

The MDC appointed an official of the Confederation of Zimbabwe Industries, Eddie Cross, as its Secretary of Economic Affairs. In a speech delivered shortly after his appointment, Cross articulated the MDC economic plan. "First of all, we believe in the free market. We do not support price control. We do not support government interfering in the way people manage their lives. We are in favor of reduced levels of taxation. We are going to fast track privatization. All fifty government parastatals will be privatized within a two-year frame, but we are going far beyond that. We are going to privatize many of the functions of government. We are going to privatize the Central Statistics Office. We are going to privatize virtually the entire school delivery system. And you know, we have looked at the numbers and we think we can get government employment down from about 300,000 at the present time to about 75,000 in five years." (12)

~~http://www.swans.com/library/art8/elich004.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.202.43.53 (talk) 00:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)~~

Nice POV. Shame it's not really relevant in any way. Also a shame you're not really quite understanding what "privatization" actually means.--HandGrenadePins (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Also not about policies. These can be found on the MDC websites. Babakathy (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Financial backing

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

MDC is financed directly by the USA government or with the covert funds of CIA? The party's name is so CIA-like! How cynical!201.51.50.6 (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Alert

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey some asshole wiped out the original page and put some crap on it. I put back the original information and I am going to try to fix it some more. I have little experience but I am going to do the best I can. 01:44, 13 February 2009 Nemo1986 (talk)

Good job. Babakathy (talk) 09:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Move

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I have done this for all the reasons cited above: they operate legally, politically and in every other way as two seperate parties. There is no justification for keeping only one page. Babakathy (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

All I have done so far is redistribute the extsing text between the three articles Movement for Democratic Change – Tsvangirai, Movement for Democratic Change – Mutambara and Movement for Democratic Change (pre-2005) and some minor copyediting. A lot of work is still needed to improve the articles. Babakathy (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)