Will the people topple Mugabe?
TO VISIT ZIMBABWE now is to have an
overwhelming sense of fin de règne. President Robert Mugabe, now more
than 20 years in power, is embattled on every front. Both the political
and the economic situation are such as to make it hard to believe that
his regime can survive much longer. Two key events occurred on October
25. First, David Coltart, shadow justice minister for the Movement for
Democratic Change (MDC), presented the speaker of Parliament with
documents calling for the impeachment of Mugabe. While few imagine that
the impeachment process - which would require a two-thirds majority to
succeed - will of its own bring down Mugabe there is no doubt that the
process will do him great damage.
It is the first time in any African country that such a process of
presidential impeachment has been launched and the Zimbabwean
Constitution gives little hint as to how the process should be
conducted. Coltart envisages the setting up of a committee that will
hold public hearings on the various charges. These will centre on the
president's responsibility for the pre-election violence this year in
which more than 30 people were killed; many thousands were beaten,
tortured and raped. Political intimidation of every kind appeared to
proceed from direct presidential instruction and exhortations, often
made quite publicly at party rallies. During this period Mugabe uttered
threats such as that "death will befall" Morgan Tsvangirai, the MDC
leader; that his opponents would be met with "fire" and he even boasted
that he "had a degree in violence". Over and over again he insisted
that the MDC would not be allowed to take power, apparently quite
irrespective of the election result.
The grounds of impeachment entered by Coltart do not allude to the
gukurahundi, the massacres in Matabeleland that killed at least 5,000
people in the 1980s. This is so for several reasons. First it is not
entirely clear that the present Zimbabwean Parliament has jurisdiction
over crimes committed more than a decade ago when Mugabe was prime
minister, working under a different Constitution. More important,
however, is the fact that a number of leading figures in the army and
secret police, the Central Intelligence Organisation, have great reason
to fear an exhumation of those atrocities since their own role in them
would be bound to be viewed in an extremely unfavourable light.
Not the least remarkable aspect of the present situation is that it
was on the advice of anti-Mugabe elements within Zanu-PF that the MDC
omitted reference to the gukurahundi for fear of driving powerful
military figures into the same corner as the president. These same
people would not feel so alarmed if this year's pre-election violence
was the sole focus of inquiry. The fact that the MDC is carefully
taking into account the disposition of the senior military is in itself
an indication of how delicate the situation has become. Were the
impeachment process merely a case of party political propaganda then
there would have been nothing to stop the MDC from launching an all out
attack across the board.
There was surprise in some circles that the speaker of Parliament,
Emmerson Mnangagwa accepted the motion for impeachment - though there
is plenty of scope for parliamentary delaying tactics over the
procedural basis of the inquiry. Mnangagwa said that he would study the
motion but quite clearly the composition of the impeachment committee,
its rules, schedule of meetings, its power to subpoena witnesses and so
forth are all potential elements for long dispute. The MDC will press
for equal representation on the committee though Mnangagwa has it in
his power to pack the committee with non-elected members. However, it
is difficult to see how he can refrain from appointing the chairman of
parliament's legal committee, Eddison Zvobgo, to the committee - an
awkward situation for Zanu-PF given that Zvobgo has become one of
Mugabe's strongest critics and is almost publicly sympathetic to
impeachment. Once considered a possible presidential hopeful himself,
Zvobgo is now an ill man and has little to lose.
Perhaps more significant was the immediate ruling that the impeachment
motion was now the private property of the speaker and that it could
not be printed in the press; any editor who published it would face
jail, the government insisted. This ruling, which has no constitutional
basis, is merely a sign of the increasing government sensitivity to the
powerful voice of the independent press. The Daily News is now
out-selling the government-owned Herald by more than two to one on the
streets of Harare and is a constant irritant. Senior Zanu-PF figures
are talking about bringing in a new law to restrain the press, but it
is difficult to see that this could be other than a further public
relations disaster for government. The MDC would be bound to oppose
such a law tooth and nail in Parliament and the international publicity
that would accompany such a move would be disastrous. In the event both
the Daily News and the Financial Gazette immediately printed the terms
of the impeachment motion and although the government threatened action
against them, none has been taken to date. Jonathan Moyo, the minister
of information, who has rapidly become the second most prominent member
of the regime after the president himself, announced a press conference
at which, he said, he would unveil new regulations to control the media
but then cancelled it without further explanation.
October 25 also saw the release of the latest Helen Suzman Foundation
opinion survey of Zimbabwe, the third that the foundation has carried
out there this year. Almost without exception the news for the
government was bad. The key finding of the foundation's June 24-25
election exit poll survey was confirmed, thus making it clear that
those elections had been "stolen". In that June survey 31 per cent of
respondents told us that many people in their constituency had not
voted for "the party they really liked" but had instead voted "to stop
further violence and trouble" and 12 per cent admitted that this had
been true of their own behaviour. In our larger national survey carried
out between September 21 and October 7 these figures are almost exactly
confirmed: 32 per cent saying that many people in their constituency
did not vote for the party they really liked and 13 per cent admitting
that that was true of themselves. More than 95 per cent of these voters
were MDC supporters who had faced unbearable pressure and intimidation.
It is clear that if they had exercised their choice in favour of the
party they preferred Zanu-PF would have lost the election
heavily.
What the latest survey makes clear is that not only have these
intimidated voters of June returned to their old MDC loyalties but that
great swathes of previous Zanu-PF supporters have deserted their party.
Some of the latter have crossed to the MDC, while others have retreated
into the "don't know", "won't say" and "won't vote" columns. The result
is that in the new survey the MDC stands at 47 per cent while Zanu-PF
has plummeted to only 13 per cent. The MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai now
leads Robert Mugabe in the presidential stakes by a margin of 41 per
cent to 15 per cent. Even on the most favourable assumptions for
Zanu-PF, Tsvangirai would win a presidential election by 62 per cent to
38 per cent. President Mugabe's support has collapsed particularly
sharply in Harare; only 7 per cent of voters in the capital want to see
him as president.
Voters are also bitterly regretting the results of the June elections.
Forty-nine per cent agree that those elections were not free and fair
due to violence and intimidation compared to 43 per cent who disagreed
and 45 per cent also say that the elections were not fair due to vote
rigging compared to 37 who disagreed. The current parliament is
severely lacking in popular legitimacy.
The survey also reveals that Mugabe has been wholly unsuccesful in his
attempts to galvanise support through the land invasions and his
tirades against Zimbabwe's few remaining whites. Only 6 per cent now
say that land is the most important issue - down from 9 per cent in the
foundation's January/February survey. Land has thus slipped from being
the equal fourth most important issue to sixth place. Even among the
remaining hard core Zanu-PF voters it is the most important issue for
only 14 per cent, compared to 36 per cent who nominate rising prices as
the top issue. Eighty-one per cent of respondents, including 61 per
cent of Zanu-PF voters, say that it is not sensible to blame the whites
for the country's problems. Only 16 per cent say they have confidence
that the government is telling the truth. The overwhelming majority
simply do not believe what the government says - making political
recovery a near-impossible project for the region.
The survey also makes it clear that the regime is paying a heavy price
for having persistently disregarded the rule of law. The police and
army have done the government's bidding and looked the other way as the
farm invasions took place, refusing to intervene even when farmers were
beaten or murdered. Whereas in January 61 per cent of respondents said
that the police behaved well, very well or all right, now only 37 per
cent do - while those saying that the police behaved badly or very
badly has increased from 40 per cent to 57 per cent. Only 28 per cent
think the police are politically impartial and 65 per cent said they
are not. Twenty-six per cent thought the army was politically impartial
but 58 per cent said it was not. Moreover, opinion has consolidated
further against Mugabe's military intervention in the Congo.
But people are scared: those believing that you "have to be careful
about criticising the government because harm might come to you as a
result" have increased from 68 per cent in January to 74 per cent now.
There is, however, one highly significant exception: in Harare fewer
are now scared of speaking out and rather more are confident that they
have free speech. This somewhat more assertive mood in the capital is
clearly a warning signal to the regime.
The data also makes clear that the populist rhetoric which accompanied
the farm invasion has failed entirely. Those who think that all farms
should be taken away from the whites have fallen from 30 per cent in
January/February to 20 per cent now. Sixty-nine per cent think that
white farmers should be left on the land or that white farmers who have
left Zimbabwe should be invited back. Sixty-four per cent say the land
invasions "have nothing to do with genuine land reform". Only 21 per
cent think that farm invasions are justified and understandable, while
70 per cent think that the war vets "are just criminals who should be
charged with their crimes". Eighty-three per cent regret the fact that
whites are leaving Zimbabwe and of these 46 per cent say it is
"terrible" that they are leaving since they have contributed a lot and
"belong in Zimbabwe". Seventy-eight per cent of respondents oppose
Mugabe's plans to take over white farms, mines and factories and only
14 per cent support those plans; indeed, 59 per cent say that they
amount to "economic suicide".
The survey suggests that not only has Zanu-PF support crumbled
completely since June but that recovery may be difficult or even
impossible. Only 20 per cent of respondents say that Zanu-PF can
recover its old strength and over two-thirds expect it to continue to
decline and to lose power soon. Only 8 per cent believe that it can
recover under its present leadership.
Throughout the survey it is clear that hostile opinion has converged
more and more on the figure of Mugabe himself. It is now clear what a
high price the president has paid for his decision earlier in the year
to place himself at the centre of the political process as opinion
turned against him and his party. It would, after all, have been
possible for him to adopt the same attitude as a French or American
president confronted by a swing in opinion that leaves his party in a
minority in the legislature. The presidents of both these countries
have to be willing to work with parliamentary majorities drawn from
their political opponents. Mugabe could have taken the attitude that
Zanu-PF must fend for itself and that he would happily work with
whatever majority the June parliamentary elections produced. This would
have seen him retreat to his role as head of state and founder of the
nation and might have preserved a good deal of his standing. Instead he
chose to put himself on the line to maintain the hegemony of Zanu-PF.
Given the nature of the liberation culture of which he and the party
are part this was always his most likely course of action - but the
price has been high. Sixty-four per cent of voters now say that Mugabe
is the major obstacle to change and improvement with only 26 per cent
disagreeing, while 74 per cent want him to step down compared to only
19 per cent who don't. Moreover, 56 per cent say they would like to see
him impeached for his failure to uphold the Constitution and the rule
of law against only 27 per cent who would not. Finally, 51 per cent say
that even if he resigns he should be put on trial for the crimes
alleged against him, while a further 24 per cent say he should be
offered immunity for prosecution in return for his resignation.
The Mugabe government greeted the survey with considerable hostility.
The presidential press secretary, George Charamba, issued a statement
in which he said that the foundation merely added "figures to the
manifesto of the MDC. They seek to vindicate the whites as owners of
land, king-makers and political players and take the MDC to be a
political hero." The findings were biased, he said. "Why is there a
co-incidence to the use of language used by the MDC - that land is not
the most important thing? They just turned rhetoric into a survey."
Land reform in Zimbabwe had shaken the whites of southern Africa and
'pseudo-surveys' such as this were aimed at "destroying the agenda of
land." The state-owned Herald featured some parts of the survey. In its
editorial, under the headline "Helen Suzman Foundation report is just a
load of pseudo scientific junk", the Herald said "It is a pity that the
foundation has been so amateurish in its research." Oddly, however, the
Herald believed that the most of the results of the survey were "not
unexpected" but seemed concerned that they might influence the business
community.
Charamba also insinuated that the timing of the survey's release had
been co-ordinated to coincide with the MDC's impeachment motion. Given
the coincidence of the survey and the impeachment motion both being
made public on the same day one can see how such a suspicion could
arise - but in fact a survey of this kind has a months-long timetable
all of its own, with the release date set long before the political
context is known. Charamba made no reference to the fact that the
foundation has offered Zanu-PF its own private briefing on both its
national surveys. In the case of the January/February survey Zanu-PF
accepted this invitation but then failed to show up at the scheduled
presentation without offering any explanation or apology. In the case
of the invitation to a private briefing on the September/October survey
- sent to Jonathan Moyo - no reply was received at all. However, Moyo
later issued a statement, reported on Zimbabwe Television on November
3, attacking the foundation's survey. "It is scandalous for a white man
from South Africa to make it his business to come and tell Zimbabweans
what to think about themselves," he said. "The government would not
tolerate a white South African, linked to Tony Leon of the Democratic
Party, coming into the country to initiate the people who in future
would not be welcomed and would be declared persona non grata." This
was understood to be a reference to the author of this article.
The independent press treated the survey quite differently. Under the
front-page headline "74 per cent want Mugabe to quit", the Daily News
gave extensive coverage to the survey and complimented the Foundation
on its work. A similar attitude was taken by the Financial Gazette and
the Standard. The survey results were also extensively carried by the
Independent, which commented on the survey in an editorial entitled
"Mugabe: listen, the bell tolls for thee". The newspaper felt that the
foundation had "clearly revealed the extent of popular disaffection
with a regime that has not only lost its way but can offer nothing more
than arrogant defiance of the popular will. In a week that saw another
African dictator on the run [in the Ivory Coast] this is a bell tolling
for Mugabe and his party. If he can't hear it, at least everyone else
can."
On the evening of October 25, apparently reacting both to the
impeachment motion and the survey, Mugabe appeared on television in
angry mood. He announced that the government was considering the
revocation of the policy of reconciliation for those involved in war
crimes during Zimbabwe's war of liberation. Despite the fact that the
amnesty for both sides of the struggle had been part of the Lancaster
House agreement in 1980 and a key underpinning of the independence
settlement, the president insisted that the behaviour of the whites "is
taking us back to the pre-independence era." The president argued that
"Ian Smith and his fellow whites" must "stand trial for their crimes,"
adding "they (the whites) must take note that the Coltarts, Aurets and
the rest of them will not be free from arrest."
This reference to Michael Auret, the Catholic activist who renounced
his commission in the Rhodesian army rather than serve under the Smith
regime and who was forced to flee the country, as well as the mention
of David Coltart, who was too young to participate in the liberation
war, betoken a significant broadening of the president's attack from
Smith-era whites who resisted African nationalism to whites in general.
Whites, the president insisted, were "trying to recolonise Zimbabwe by
sponsoring unprincipled and unprogressive black puppets such as the
MDC. White imperialists want to perpetuate their domination over our
land and economy and leave us with nothing in terms of resources other
than our vote." The president insisted that blacks were being made to
fight among themselves while the whites who sponsored the fighting
stood in the background and laughed. He reserved particular anger for
the MDC, which, he said, was a party sponsored by whites. "We shall not
allow it as a party of the people of Zimbabwe. What kind of party says
the commercial farms belong to whites? Whose interests does it
represent? MDC shall not rule this country. Never, never, never,
never," insisted the president. There seemed to be a clear indication
here that the president was considering the possible declaration of a
state of emergency under which he would be able to ban political
parties, censor or close down newspapers, arrest opponents without
trial and rule by decree.
However, Mugabe faces a battle on yet another front - in New York,
where a $400 million civil suit has been filed against him by Evelyn
Masaiti, an MDC member of parliament, and three relatives of other
victims of the pre-election violence. The victims are charging Mugabe
with gross violations of human rights under an American law that has
already been applied against several third world dictators with large
financial awards made against them. The effect of such suits is not
merely to make it impossible for those found guilty to set foot in the
United States again but that their property anywhere in the world may
be attached by the court. The writ for this case was served against
Mugabe during his recent visit to the United Nations but the president
decided not to defend the suit. This led the judge, Victor Marrero, to
pass a default judgment against him.
This news was immediately reported by the Daily News but hotly
disputed by Moyo, who described the lawsuit as "a figment of some
people's imagination". He added, "There is no legal basis for something
like that to happen." Moyo also denied that any writ had been served on
the president in New York, although the court record shows that this
was effected. The Herald reported that the attempt to sue the president
and two other cabinet ministers in the United States had failed because
the American authorities had agreed that all three of them enjoyed
diplomatic immunity and that it was therefore inappropriate for them to
have to face charges. Greatly angered by the reporting of the case in
the independent press, Moyo insisted that he would take action against
the newspapers concerned to prevent such "irresponsibility" in the
future. Insisting - against the clear facts - that their reports about
the New York case were untrue, Moyo claimed that "This is a very
serious issue. In the first place it is false, in the second place it
is malicious and in the third place it is defamatory and criminally
so." He also said that the "must Go" ads placed in a number of
Zimbabwean newspapers were inciteful, unprofessional and unethical and
that the laws governing such advertisement would be reviewed. However,
lawyers present at the court issued a statement noting that in fact the
president was not able to claim immunity for any reason under American
legislation, that the judge has issued a default judgement and had
referred the case to a magistrate for the assessment of damages.
According to their account the question is now simply how much the
judge should rule as the appropriate amount in damages. The offending
ads in the independent press also continue.
The big question is how long Mugabe will last. It would seem, despite
the president's clear determination to stay on, that he cannot do so
for much longer. Apart from the pressures alluded to above, the fast
track resettlement plan, which seeks to put 150,000 peasant families
onto white farms, has never come close to reality in practice and as
the rains have now begun it seems certain that this objective will not
be achieved. All that can be achieved is the ongoing disruption of
commercial agriculture. Violence and chaos are now an everyday
occurrence across the country as farmers attempt to plant crops on land
which the occupying war vets claim as theirs - but which they have no
means of cultivating themselves. The result of such alarming scenes is
a panicky atmosphere and an economic meltdown with the flight of skills
and capital apace. In Matabeleland, for example, the chamber of
commerce has warned that as much as one half of all the heavy industry
in the area will close at Christmas and not re-open thereafter.
Forecasts in Harare are equally dire. The country is racked by a
continuous fuel crisis despite the fact that there is some inflow of
foreign exchange from the tobacco auctions. Once that inflow of foreign
exchange comes to an end, a worsening fuel and food crisis can be
expected - probably by January.
In addition, the escalation in the price of bread, apart from causing
bread riots, means that many Africans are now moving back into complete
dependence on the older staple of maize. While there was a good maize
crop this year it may not be enough for several reasons. First, the
collapse of the bread market means that demand for maize has increased.
Secondly, many Africans in urban employment, finding that transport
costs have risen to a point where they cannot usefully continue to
work, are now trekking back into the rural areas in search of maize.
Thirdly, the uprooting of large numbers of peasant farmers in order to
push them onto white farms has disrupted life in many maize-producing
rural areas.
Most important of all, communal farmers have to sell the maize they
have produced to the Grain Marketing Board; the money they receive from
this is the most important cash payment they receive in any given year.
This year, however, the communal farmers have frequently not been paid
for the maize they produced. As a result the board is thought to be
short of many hundreds of thousands of tonnes of maize, which will
produce grave food shortages not far down the line. The situation is
causing great anger in the rural areas and communal farmers will be
slower to grow maize for sale than before. Without the single large
cash payment on which they depend they will also lack the resources
necessary to buy seeds and tools - quite apart from the more immediate
holes in their own budgets and the knock-on effects of reduced spending
power in rural areas. One estimate is that as much as Z$5 billion has
been lost to the rural areas in this way. In many cases, of course,
communal farmers still have surplus maize in the villages - but storage
facilities are inadequate so it is likely to rot or be consumed by
rats, mice or insects.
All of this points to the likelihood of large-scale hunger in the
first half of next year: estimates vary from March to May as the time
when this may be expected. But such are the scenes of violence on the
farms, the calamitous state of business confidence and the advancing
signs of economic collapse on other fronts that the prospect of huge
civil unrest looms long before that. It is, moreover, difficult to
imagine international agencies stepping in with emergency food relief
if there is still a government in place that seems to be actively
abetting the country's economic self-destruction. Already the fears
induced by such a prospect are creating a large emigration of both
blacks and whites. The position is at its most dramatic in
Matabeleland: the foundation's latest survey found that only 36 per
cent of Bulawayo residents definitely plan to stay in Bulawayo, that 14
per cent are either thinking about leaving or have a definite plan to
leave; and that a further 49 per cent say they would leave if they had
the means to do so.
Inevitably, this situation has led to growing domestic and
international pressure for Mugabe to step down before more economic
damage is done to the country and before civil unrest boils over
uncontrollably. Nobody is quite sure what role the army and police will
play faced with large-scale public demonstrations and the possibility
remains of serious bloodshed before change can be effected. The
minister of defence, Moven Mahachi, has reacted to MDC talk of mass
action against the regime with the ominous declaration that Zanu-PF
came to power by force and was willing to use force to stay there.
Coming from the minister who publicly justified the torture of
journalists last year, such a statement cannot be taken lightly.
Nonetheless it seems certain that the opposition will resort to mass
action to force Mugabe out if international pressure cannot do the
job.
The key player is inevitably South Africa and here the tragically
mistaken policy of President Thabo Mbeki towards Zimbabwe has a capital
significance. While the MDC's leader Morgan Tsvangirai has attempted to
persuade former President Mandela to intervene on his behalf, Mbeki has
not only refused to see Tsvangirai but has continued to accept Mugabe's
interpretation of events in as much as he continues to regard the
problem of land reform as critical to the whole situation - something
with which only 6 per cent of Zimbabweans agree. Thus Mbeki wishes to
bring Britain into the negotiations and to get the British to put
forward a serious financial commitment to assisting land reform in
Zimbabwe as part of a package deal which would leave Zanu-PF in power,
though perhaps minus Mugabe. Britain for its part has no intention of
providing such aid, which would be seen by British public opinion as
accepting the violent and illegal tactics that Mugabe has used
throughout this year over the land issue.
Moreover, Britain points out that it stopped providing financial
assistance for land reform in Zimbabwe because the government was
clearly not serious about it, either leaving expropriated land vacant
or distributing it to the government's rich and powerful friends. That
is, future British aid for land reform will only materialise if linked
to a coherent and properly organised land reform programme. Mugabe's
fast-track resettlement programme emphatically does not qualify as such
a policy and, indeed, it is difficult to believe that any policy
emanating from Mugabe will now attract British support. British public
opinion has been thoroughly aroused by what it sees as Mugabe's
untrustworthy and murderous behaviour and no British government is
likely to give its blessing to the Mbeki strategy.
Behind Mbeki's linking of the land issue to any prospect of defusing
the Zimbabwean situation lies his conviction that Zanu-PF must remain
in power, albeit under a new and reformed leadership. That is to say,
the ANC cannot accept that one of the governing liberation movements of
southern Africa should be ejected from power. Recurrent statements from
ANC spokesmen make it clear that they view the MDC as a reactionary
force, analogous to the Inkatha Freedom Party in South Africa, and that
they still subscribe to the view that the liberation movements - the
ANC, Swapo, Zanu-PF, Frelimo and the MPLA - are the rightful rulers of
their countries more or less in perpetuity.
Mugabe continues to show what can only be termed a bold lack of
realism about the situation. On a state visit to Nigeria in early
November he claimed that his land reform programme had the support not
only of Africa but of the whole of the third world. Contrary to all the
facts on the ground he insisted that the land acquisition programme was
"progressing well" and added, "the international condemnation is that
of imperialist powers. It is not a condemnation of Africa - our African
brothers and in fact the third world as a whole supported us. All we
are doing is making Africa more African and taking land from those who
colonised us and wanted to continue owning the land by using all kinds
of legal technicalities." What the president means by "legal
technicalities" is clearly nothing less than title deeds, the rule of
law and the due process of the courts. It is precisely his disregard
for all these things that has endangered the investment climate of
Africa as a whole.
If Mugabe continues to cling to power and Mbeki continues to take the
line he has, then it seems likely that Mugabe will be swept from power
by a popular uprising. While it would be foolish to put an exact date
to such an event it is difficult to see how Mugabe can possibly last if
the economic predictions made for the next four months are anything
like accurate. To date the Zimbabwean security forces have proved
extremely adroit at preventing large crowds from the high-density
suburbs marching into Harare. But it seems inevitable that this will
occur and ultimately in such numbers that only a bloodbath will prevent
the population from over-throwing the regime by the same means recently
seen in both Yugoslavia and the Ivory Coast.
If this does indeed occur it will provide an immense shock to the
political system of the whole southern African region. The overthrow of
the Portuguese empire in Mozambique and Angola in 1974 had an
electrifying effect on most black South Africans because it showed that
white minority rule was vulnerable and could be overthrown. It was no
accident that the Soweto rising occurred shortly thereafter. In the
same way, the sight of a liberation movement being ejected from power
by a popular uprising and replaced by a moderate black government that
shows a complete disdain for the language, style and rhetoric of the
liberation era will undoubtedly have an equally strong effect on
Mozambique, Angola, Namibia and South Africa. For all these countries
are ruled by liberation movements that have begun to lose ground with
their electorates for precisely the same failures that have ultimately
undone Mugabe. They share a set of ideological convictions allied to an
incorrigible self-righteousness that together mean that no amount of
regime corruption, failure to deliver on promises or any of the normal
deficiencies of government are seen as sufficient reasons for it to
allow a democratic alternation in power. Unfortunately for this
liberationist view of life the Freedom Charter was quite right -
ultimately the people will govern.