The Zanu PF party never ceases to bemuse. This political organisation, often marred by senility and corruption, recently splashed out thousands of pounds to British students. The cost? The donning of shirts endorsing Scarfmore’s 2030 candidacy, a move showcasing the party’s calculated attempts at garnering international support.

But their scheme doesn’t stop there. Zanu PF affiliated bishops, bursting at the seams from their ill-gotten gains, approached English counterparts, petitioning them to mediate the removal of targeted sanctions against Scarfmore and others implicated in human rights violations. What’s more, Scarfmore purported to have engaged with Boris Johnson, Britain’s Prime Minister, an assertion not grounded in truth.

Fictitious flattery from Boris about Scarfmore’s scarf sent the latter into fits of glee. In an elaborate event, unemployed youths were transported from across the nation to hear tales of Scarfmore’s fabricated meetings with leaders of the free world. However, this article focuses on the misguided euphoria surrounding Scarfmore’s belief that attending global forums, without solid bilateral agreements, equals diplomatic reengagement.

Scarfmore, along with the rebranded Auxillia Mnangagwa Television and other state-controlled media outlets, serenaded the populace with tales of a triumphant journey to Scotland, signalling successful reengagement efforts by the oppressive regime. However, the moment the UK’s constitutionally upheld parliament questioned Zanu PF’s commitment to Zimbabwe’s supreme law, particularly regarding electoral reforms and human rights abuses, the mood shifted. Suddenly, the British were the enemy.

Merely questioning Zanu PF incited a defensive stance. Should the British parliament have been a Zimbabwean citizen, charges of treason and undermining presidential authority might have materialised. The British evidently ruffled Zanu PF’s feathers when they cited cases like that of Makomborero Haruzivishe, imprisoned under dubious charges, and controversial legislation like the so-called Patriot Bill.

What further seems to have irked Zanu PF is the reengagement predicated on the restoration of the rule of law and protection of freedom of speech and political rights. This represents a point of conflict for Zanu PF as such freedoms threaten their survival. Consider the rule of law; its implications for Zanu PF are profound. It ensures transparency and accountability, discourages partisan policing and judiciary, and deters Zanu PF’s potential for graft and looting.

These political rights, outlined in the declaration of rights in Zimbabwe’s supreme law, if revived, would undermine Zanu PF’s dream of a single-party state that supersedes the constitution, shuns accountability, and cloaks itself in opacity. Therefore, Zanu PF has strategically discarded these reforms and reengagement efforts. Now, Zanu PF wallows in prejudice, throwing racist remarks at the British who previously admired its scarf.

The tale of Zanu PF’s pursuit of global recognition is a complex web of misinformation, strategic maneuvering, and a blatant disregard for the rule of law. As the party continues to dance with the ‘Pink Pigs’, it is clear that the rhythm and steps of this diplomatic tango are far from harmonious.