Zimbabwe's president is using talks with Morgan
Tsvangirai to buy time while
he prepares for war
Richard
Dowden
The Guardian,
Saturday July 26 2008
It is clear what Robert
Mugabe wants to see from the talks with the Movement
for Democratic Change
(MDC) that began in South Africa on Thursday. On
December 27 1987 he sat
down with Joshua Nkomo, the leader of the Zimbabwe
African People's Union
(Zapu) and signed a unity accord. It followed seven
years of sustained
violence against Nkomo's party in which some 18,000
people died. The
creation of a government of national unity made Nkomo
vice-president. Three
Zapu leaders were given cabinet posts. They might as
well have been hamsters
in a cage on Mugabe's desk.
This is what Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of
the MDC, must remember as he
sits down at the talks. Like Nkomo, his party
has been battered, with many
of his MPs dead, in hiding or facing charges,
and more than 1,500 officials
in prison. The mediator, Thabo Mbeki, and
other African presidents would be
happy with a deal similar to the 1987
accord. But will the MDC be able to
arm-wrestle a deal that leads to Mugabe
stepping down or to free and fair
elections - or even a joint
Mugabe/Tsvangirai control of the state and its
security apparatus? The
question, as Humpty Dumpty said, is: who is to be
master?
Much is
being made of the Kenyan model forged earlier this year when the
country
exploded after a stolen election. Raila Odinga, who most neutral
observers
considered to have won, accepted the post of prime minister under
Mwai
Kibaki's presidency. But Kenya is different. The security apparatus
remained
largely unengaged, if not neutral, in Kenya's violent January.
Kibaki is no
Mugabe, and Kenya's politicians are more cynical. In return for
a slice of
the power pie, they traded in their loyalty to principles and
voters.
In Zimbabwe everyone in the power structure has been
appointed by Mugabe,
all are loyal members of Zanu-PF. Several of the
military and security
bosses have pledged their refusal to allow Tsvangirai
to come to power.
Their "right to rule" comes not solely from their
"conquest" of the country
by war against white rule, it is also because many
Zimbabweans voted for
them. In the March parliamentary elections, Zanu-PF
gained more votes than
Tsvangirai's MDC. Even discounting rigging and
bullying, the unpalatable
fact is that there is still popular support for
Mugabe and those around him.
Is it conceivable that some time in the near
future - two weeks to complete
the talks is an unlikely deadline - prime
minister Tsvangirai will say to
Emerson Mnangagwa, the man who organised the
reign of terror since the March
election, that it is time to retire? Could
he tell General Philip Sibanda
that he is no longer head of the army?
Miracles of reconciliation, peace and
power-sharing have happened before in
Africa but this is not credible.
Mugabe and his cronies have allowed the
country to be destroyed in order to
hold on to power. Talks, for Mugabe, are
not about reaching a compromise,
they are a time-wasting ploy while he
prepares for more war, or a tool for
retaining - even extending -
power.
What strengths does Tsvangirai have? The support of millions of
Zimbabweans
and a stubbornness that the flaky Nkomo lacked. Support from
western
countries is a double-edged sword. They provide financial, technical
and
diplomatic support but they also give Mugabe a cause - anti-imperialism
- to
unite his allies. And their power is waning. The Chinese and Russian
veto of
the American UN security council resolution calling for sanctions
against
Mugabe last week marked the full stop at the end of the west's
exclusive
post cold war domination of Africa. They cannot rescue
Zimbabwe.
Much weight was put on the rest of Africa in sorting out
Zimbabwe but the
African Union ducked its responsibilities at its summit in
Egypt last month
and passed the buck back to Mbeki. His power as president
of South Africa is
ebbing daily. The African National Congress, now
dominated by allies of
Jacob Zuma, is removing Mbeki's allies from positions
of power and is
setting up a parallel ANC negotiation. In the next few
months we may see
South Africa begin to take the Zimbabwe crisis
seriously.
But can Zimbabwe's economy wait? It is sliding quickly into
subsistence and
starvation with guns and mobiles. There are no buffers, just
endless
decline. Tsvangirai knows that confidence and financial support will
not
return without his say-so. But the ruling elite are not troubled. Some
make
good money out of Zimbabwe's ruin. They are shifting their money
overseas;
sending the Zimbabwe dollar on down. They can always bring a
little foreign
exchange back and buy a few trillion dollars to pay servants
and purchase
food and black-market fuel. The only question is how long the
government can
produce money to pay its troops, police and thugs?
For
different reasons, both sides may play for time. At present whatever
moral
and political strength Tsvangirai has, Mugabe is in power. Unless
something
inside Zanu-PF happens to unseat him, the battle for democratic
change in
Zimbabwe is far from over.
· Richard Dowden is director of the Royal
African Society. His book: Africa
Altered States, Ordinary Miracles is
published in September
richarddowden@soas.ac.uk
VOA
By Jonga Kandemiiri
Washington
25 July
2008
Violence against Zimbabwean opposition members continued
this week even as
power-sharing talks got under way this week between the
ruling ZANU-PF party
of President Robert Mugabe and the opposition Movement
for Democratic
Change, MDC sources said Friday.
Opposition sources
said soldiers and suspected ZANU-PF militia abducted two
MDC drivers in the
Buhera South constituency of eastern Manicaland province
this week who had
gone there to transport victims of earlier political
violence to hospitals
for medical care.
Provincial MDC spokesman Pishai Muchauraya told
reporter Jonga Kandemiiri of
VOA's Studio 7 for Zimbabwe that local
activists sought assistance from the
Zimbabwe Republic Police, but police
officers told them that their hands
were tied in the
matter.
Meanwhile, Officials of the same MDC formation headed by Morgan
Tsvangirai
said they were trying to establish the identities of 60
individuals whose
bodies remained unclaimed at Harare Hospital and who are
believed to be
opposition members slain in post-election
violence.
Zimbabwe was swept by a wave of allegedly state-sponsored
political violence
following the March 31 general and presidential elections
which yielded an
opposition majority in the lower house of parliament and in
which Tsvangirai
outpolled Mugabe. Tsvangirai dropped out of a June 27
run-off election
against Mr. Mugabe over the escalating
violence.
Though Harare Hospital in normal times occasionally
receives unidentified
bodies, MDC officials said they fear some of the
bodies now in the mortuary
could be those of activists who went missing in
the approach to and the
aftermath of the June 27 run-off
election.
MDC Home Affairs Secretary Sam Sipepa Nkomo told reporter Chris
Gande that
it has not been easy to make identifications as some bodies have
been
mutilated or badly burned.
VOA
By Blessing Zulu
Washington
25 July
2008
Power-sharing talks between Zimbabwe's ruling party and
opposition continued
for a second day Friday at an undisclosed location in
Pretoria amid mixed
signals and reports as to just how difficult the task
facing negotiators for
the two sides is likely to be.
The South
African daily newspaper Business Day said a deal could be reached
"soon,"
citing unnamed sources on both sides said to be familiar with the
talks.
"The deal is basically done, but what remains are a few issues
of detail,
implementation and logistics," the newspaper quoted one unnamed
source as
saying.
However, an article in the state-controlled Herald
newspaper reporting on
day one of the talks seemed to suggest ZANU-PF is
taking a tough stance and
drawing lines in the sand.
The article said
the outcome of the June 27 run-off ballot - the widely
condemned re-election
of President Robert Mugabe in a single-candidate
race - was
"non-negotiable."
According to the Herald, the ruling party politburo
said Mr. Mugabe would
have to be the one who appointed a new
government.
The Herald said ZANU-PF politburo "noted that there has to be
a figure who
appoints the all-inclusive government envisaged in the
memorandum of
understanding" signed by ZANU-PF and the two opposition
formations on
Monday, paving the way for the talks.
"And that figure
is President Mugabe, who won the run-off," the Herald
stated.
It
quoted a ruling party source as saying that, "There has to be a figure
who
creates the all-inclusive government. All that program has to be given
to
someone."
Political analyst Chris Maroleng told reporter Zulu that
the power-sharing
talks could succeed or fail based on the question of who
will lead the
government of national unity or transitional government that
is the most
weighty agenda item on the table, and that ZANU-PF's insistence
on this
point looks like a bid to reclaim legitimacy for Mr.
Mugabe.
Other political analysts agree there is a lot on the table in
Pretoria as
negotiators for the two sides square off, and that despite
expressions of
good will early this week when party leaders signed a
threshold document,
all sides may be expected to bargain hard.
So
notwithstanding reports that a deal is close to being concluded, they say
there are plenty of potential pitfalls for the discussions which are only
just beginning.
Observers also warn that there are forces which are
not at the table that
must be reckoned with - for instance Zimbabwe's Joint
Operations Command
unifying the security forces, which some say has become
the real power in
the land as government structures collapse.
Some
say the JOC orchestrated the violence that ravaged the country in
recent
months.
For a closer look at the stakes in the talks, the hidden hazards
and the
likely result, Blessing Zulu turned to political analyst and
University of
Zimbabwe Professor John Makumbe and Group Projects Editor Iden
Wetherell of
the Zimbabwe Independent newspaper.
Wetherell and
Makumbe argue that for talks to succeed, political violence
must stop, and
that the ruling party politiburo must not set terms for the
discussions in
Pretoria.
Zim Online
by
Leonard Makombe Saturday 26 July 2008
OPINION: Politics
involves a lot of risk and uncertainty. There are times
when politicians
take issues for granted, only to be rudely awakened by a
shocking reality
proving their assumptions wrong.
There are a number of variables at play
in politics and as a field of study
it is very fluid, especially when it
comes to a scientific study of "the
struggle for power".
One analyst
once commented that political science is the most undisciplined
discipline.
A scientific analysis of politics has shown that this
simplistic assertion
does hold water.
I can only add that it may not
be the scientific study of the discipline
which is undisciplined but the
objects - human beings - that constantly
change so much so that you have to
be a sociologist, historian,
psychologist, biologist, economist and any
other specialised field of study,
all in one, to effectively study
politics.
The constant change in the behaviour of the objects under
study, that is
politicians and the people they seek to control/rule/lead,
has made the
study of politics exciting and at the same time an academic
minefield.
It is an exciting field to the extent that some people who
never attended
even a single political science lecture may claim to be
political scientists
or analysts, something unheard of in other fields such
as economics and law.
Change is part of politics and what may hold true
today may tomorrow be
utterly wrong as the principal players in the drama of
politics always try
to maximise power.
It is therefore prudent to
probe, especially at this historical moment in
Zimbabwe when the main
political players have just embarked on power-sharing
talks, the country's
current political configuration and what it will be in
the next two weeks,
two months or two years.
One political reality that came as a result of
the March 29 election is ZANU
PF's loss of parliamentary
majority.
The causes of the loss - faults within the ruling ZANU PF
itself, the
organising capacity of the opposition Movement for Democratic
Change (MDC)
party, the economy and other factors - have to a certain extent
been
explored and analysed elsewhere.
The response to this, in the
form of a violent campaign for the presidential
run-off election has also
been explored and there are many stories and
angles to this.
However,
my focus is on what is happening now as an undercurrent to the
talks.
While there may be negotiations as to who will wield more
power, there is a
very crucial set of 11 seats that appears to be up for
grabs and it is my
sincere submission that these are as important as the
other seats a
political party may have won.
Immediately after the
March elections, almost all analysts were of the
opinion that ZANU PF had
become the opposition since it had lost its
majority in the lower house of
assembly for the first time since
independence from Britain in
1980.
This still holds true as ZANU PF still has 99 seats to MDC-T's 100
seats.
However, events since the run-off have once again shown that there
are no
certainties in politics. How is this so?
One point to be
remembered is that despite a formal agreement on joining
forces in
parliament, the MDC factions still operate as different entities
as
witnessed by the fielding of candidates in the three parliamentary seats
contested on June 27 and also the fact that there are times when, for
example, Arthur Mutambara's faction may go it alone as it did when meeting
South African President Thabo Mbeki early this month.
As such there
is no certainty as to the fate of the 10 seats that the
Mutambara factions
holds. This will be explained shortly.
Then there is the other seat held
by Professor Jonathan Moyo. The professor
has shown his political acumen and
Machiavellian scheming by managing to
make sure that the MDC-T does not
field a candidate in Tsholotsho before he
then turned, with or without
justification, and started blaming the MDC-T
for tactical bankruptcy in
political strategies.
The merits and demerits of this is not the
intention of this debate although
it is now clear that this seat is floating
in the direction of ZANU PF, be
it because of issues of "nationalism or
patriotism".
It needs no political or rocket scientist to realise that
logically this
seat should be in the orbit of the MDC-T as a logical
consequence of the
pre-March 29 agreement that sought unity against ZANU
PF.
It can be argued from the above that ZANU PF now has an equal number
of
seats with MDC-T, that is, if Moyo's recent public utterances are
anything
to go by.
Then the dog-fight starts on who will get the
backing of Mutambara's MDC
with its 10 seats.
In terms of the
alliance of democratic forces, the seats were supposed to go
to MDC-T but as
mentioned before, politics is very unpredictable. If
anything, the seats are
up for anyone's taking.
We cannot take for granted the friction that
arose in the run up to the
run-off election when it was alleged that MDC-T
had tried to lure winning
candidates from the Mutambara faction without
going through the proper party
channels.
From that incident it has
not been certain whether the commitment to support
MDC-T still stands and it
appears that the Mutambara faction has realised
that it is the lever that
will tilt the decision in the lower house in any
direction.
Talk of
the power of a small number over a large number.
There may be some
promises being made (dangling the carrots) and the party
that is likely to
be making most of these is ZANU PF mainly because it is
the ruling party and
depending on the outcome of the talks it is most likely
that it wields a
certain leverage that it may use to mop up the floating
seats, one of which
now appears to be certainly won over.
One also has to look at the
enthusiasm with which Mutambara and company were
eager to enter the talks
against the background of the reluctance by
Tsvangirai.
I am not
supporting or opposing the reluctance, as it is up to MDC-T to see
what is
good for them.
I am only mentioning it as an important factor that
supports the argument
that the other faction may be playing its cards in a
way that seeks to
maximise its chances of acquiring or accessing
power.
After all maybe their decision to support MDC-T in the run-off was
based on
the possibility of acquiring power just as when they chose to
support Simba
Makoni in the March 29 presidential race.
What we are
likely to see are talks behind talks, or they may already have
been
concluded with Mutambara and Moyo now aware of what is in store for
them.
This is one exciting thing about politics, the element of
uncertainty in the
ordinary man as well as those who think may be wielding
power which they may
want to use to acquire more power.
However, the
pitfalls lie in the danger such manipulations may bring to the
populace.
In the meantime we can just watch as the drama unfolds and
it is only after
the curtain comes down, maybe with the announcement of a
new cabinet, that
we will be able to see what has been taking place behind
closed doors.
We may heave a sigh of relief and say it was a masterpiece
or never want to
hear of the drama again as we may be frustrated by the
tragedy.
They say politicians, because they cannot admire the beauty of
politics,
make it a dirty game but it remains a game of winners and losers
where some
win fairly and others by any means necessary. - ZimOnline
Financial Times
By Tony Barber
in Bordeaux
Published: July 26 2008 03:00 | Last updated: July 26 2008
03:00
Thabo Mbeki, president of South Africa, has defended his cautious
approach
to the Zimbabwe crisis in talks with European Union leaders
determined to
weaken Robert Mugabe, the country's hardline president, with
targeted
sanctions.
"We recognise the fact that the global community
is very interested in the
issue of Zimbabwe," Mr Mbeki said after talks with
Nicolas Sarkozy, France's
president, and José Manuel Barroso, the European
Commission president. "We
didn't ask the EU to do anything about sanctions
in any direction."
The EU broadened its sanctions on Tuesday by adding 37
individuals and four
companies to a list of more than 130 of Mr Mugabe's
relatives and officials
already blacklisted by the 27-nation
bloc.
The EU wants to see a transitional government in Harare that would
include
Morgan Tsvangirai, the opposition leader. It hopes this would
significantly
reduce Mr Mugabe's power, even if he continued to hold the
symbolic reins of
office.
But after yesterday's first EU-South Africa
summit, in the French city of
Bordeaux, a joint communiqué made clear the
two sides had failed to bridge
basic differences over how to solve southern
Africa's most serious political
and economic crisis.
"South Africa
underlined that all parties needed to respect the right of the
people of
Zimbabwe to determine their future without external interference,
and that
the most urgent task from now on consisted in helping the
Zimbabwean
leaders, beyond political divisions, to negotiate an accord that
would let
Zimbabwe meet the challenges facing it," the statement said.
The EU,
which is South Africa's largest trade partner, reaffirmed its
position that
it was ready to take unspecified "new measures" against Mr
Mugabe and his
supporters "in the absence of positive changes in the weeks
to
come".
Mr Mbeki brokered a deal on Monday under which Mr Mugabe and Mr
Tsvangirai
would hold two weeks of negotiations on a power-sharing
arrangement. But the
talks appeared under strain yesterday. The Herald, a
state-owned Zimbabwean
newspaper, reported that Mr Mugabe's ruling party had
decided to turn down
any power-sharing deal that failed to recognise his
re-election last month.
Zanu-PF also ruled out any deal that would
attempt to reverse Mr Mugabe's
land reform programme, which the EU contends
is partly responsible for
Zimbabwe's economic disarray.
The EU
dismissed Mr Mugabe's reconfirmation in office as a sham after Mr
Tsvangirai
withdrew from the second-round election because of
governmentinspired
violence against supporters of his Movement for
Democratic Change.
Comment from The Mail & Guardian (SA), 24 Jull
Elizabeth Sidiropoulos
The signing
of the memorandum of understanding between Zanu PF and the two
MDC
formations must be welcomed after the protracted period of violence and
political stalemate. But is it the right medicine and what does it say about
the two protagonists? Zimbabwe's economic and political crisis is a
deep-rooted one, the antidote to which requires more than agreeing to who
will hold the reins of power or how the spoils of defeat will be parcelled
out. The malaise has surfaced over more than a decade where land reform was
only one of a number of structural challenges the state faced. Thus the
fundamental problem that this negotiating process, starting today, ought to
address is the restructuring and transformation of the state and society
after years of brutalisation, exclusion and erosion of the constitutional
order.
A culture of violence, subversion of the rule of law and
scant attempt to
deal with the country's history during and after
independence need to be
addressed if this round is to yield anything more
substantial than previous
rounds. However, the agreement has a number of
weaknesses. It required some
compromise on both sides in terms of what it
contained and how it was
phrased, but has this weakened the substance of the
agreement or reflected
the balance of forces between the negotiating
partners? While President
Mbeki was still trying to get the parties to the
negotiating table, Morgan
Tsvangirai set out five preconditions for signing
any draft agreement: the
appointment of an AU envoy to join the SADC
mediating team; the release of
all political prisoners; the cessation of
violence and the disbandment of
all militias; the reinstatement of access by
humanitarian organisation to
provide food, medical and other related
services to Zimbabwe's population;
and that parliament and the senate should
be sworn in and begin their work
programme.
Two preconditions are
not addressed in the MoU: the release of political
prisoners, and the
swearing in of parliament. President Mbeki's creation of
a reference group
which included AU and UN envoys may be said to partially
address MDC
concerns with the impartiality of the South African mediator.
Under "interim
measures" the MoU sets out that each party will issue a
statement to condemn
the promotion and use of violence, ensure the law is
applied fairly to all
irrespective of political affiliation, and take all
steps necessary to
"eliminate all forms of political violence, including by
non-state actors".
It makes provision for the return of any displaced person
and the resumption
of the work of humanitarian organisations. While these
articles address the
very heart of the challenges of negotiations, there is
no provision in the
agreement for effective, independent monitoring of their
implementation.
This is a fundamental shortcoming.
This is particularly problematic
in the light of the manner in which Zanu PF
has conducted itself both before
and after the presidential run-off,
bringing to bear the might of the state
apparatus. In addition, members of
the opposition are still in jail or have
treason charges pending. While a
level political playing field is
unattainable for the MDC in the short
space, given what has preceded it, the
absence of a monitoring mechanism
assumes the good will of all parties,
something experience has shown is not
the case, especially with power at
stake. The MoU is very ambitious in the
agenda it sets itself, which ranges
from economic to political, security and
communication matters, framework
for a new government, implementation
mechanisms and a "global political
agreement". There is a great deal on the
table in the overarching political
and economic framework. At a clinical
level, it is not impossible to cover
the ground in two weeks. Yet this
downplays the significance of the
intangible elements of a successful
negotiation: a degree of trust and
confidence-building between parties.
Notwithstanding these flaws in
the agreement, the process can render some
positive outcomes. The role of
the mediator, the reference group and the
region are key in this. First,
they need to appreciate the omissions and
weaknesses that I have mentioned
and mitigate their possible negative impact
on the outcome. This relates
particularly to the balance of power between
the MDC and Zanu PF. The MDC
holds the moral high ground. The party's trump
card was its reticence to
participate in an MoU or an ensuing agreement,
because the region recognises
that the current situation in Zimbabwe is no
longer tenable. But the MDC has
demonstrated weak mobilising capacity,
especially in the face of
overwhelming state security machinery.
Zanu PF is not entering into
these negotiations to lose its "gains" of June
27. They recognise that they
have to make certain token compromises - just
enough to ease the entry of
foreign currency for the beleaguered economy,
but not enough to weaken their
control over the levers of power. This is why
the way in which President
Mbeki and the reference group play their cards is
crucial at this juncture
for any agreement. And while not even FW de Klerk
began negotiations
believing he was negotiating himself out of power, the
duration of those
negotiations allowed the reality of this eventuality to
dawn on him and his
supporters, including the military. This agreement lacks
that "luxury". Thus
this round of negotiations should aim to set in place an
interim
arrangement, upon which a more comprehensive constitutional
framework that
includes not only the political elites but a cross-section of
society, can
be negotiated.
Such an interim arrangement will have to put policies
in place to stabilise
the economy, end political violence, and restore the
rule of law and freedom
of association, movement and of the media. This will
require the swearing in
of MPs in terms of the March 29 results (no mention
of which is made in the
MoU) to repeal the Access to Information and
Protection of Privacy Act, the
Public Order and Security Act, the
Broadcasting Services Act and the
Interception of Communications Act. The
interim arrangement should make
provision for effective monitoring measures,
including the deployment of
SADC peace monitors to ensure adherence and
implementation, especially by
the security establishment. To achieve such an
outcome will require
consummate skill and the judicious application of
pressure by external
actors (not only the mediating team).
This
is a tall order indeed. The reference group constituted by President
Mbeki
was not mentioned in the MoU. Yet the reference group allows for a
more
robust facilitation. Thus President Mbeki should not permit its
dilution,
especially as it legitimises the mediation more in the eyes of the
MDC.
Furthermore, the terms of reference of the Reference Group should be
made
public in the interests of a more transparent process. Any
comprehensive
settlement will need to be crafted by Zimbabweans themselves.
South Africa,
however, carries a huge responsibility in this two-week
period, to ensure
that the "hard" power of Zanu PF does not trump, yet
again, the moral high
ground of the MDC. The events after the March
elections show that elections
alone or a government of national unity will
not address the country's
problems, nor can the country and the opposition
do it alone. What must be
avoided in the talks that begin today is the
Zanufication of the MDC. If
that were to happen, the process is likely to
produce another damp
squib.
Elizabeth Sidiropoulos is the national director of the South
African
Institute of International Affairs
http://www.dw-world.de
26.07.2008
The European Union
will continue to support the mediation effort of South
African President
Thabo Mbeki in the Zimbabwe crisis, the EU's acting head,
French President
Nicolas Sarkozy, said on Friday in Bordeaux.
"I personally would not
speak with (Zimbabwean President) Robert Mugabe
because I judge very harshly
what he has done," Sarkozy said after the
first-ever EU-South Africa summit.
"But one cannot criticize Mbeki because
he wants to mediate and therefore is
talking with all sides."
At the summit, Mbeki held talks with Sarkozy,
European Commission President
Jose Manuel Barroso and the EU's foreign
affairs chief, Javier Solana.
Sarkozy assured Mbeki of the Union's
continued support in his efforts to
resolve the crisis in
Zimbabwe.
More time needed
There is consensus within the EU that
Mbeki should be granted more time to
deal with the issue, particularly as it
appears to be bearing fruit. But
Sarkozy said the negotiations should not be
drawn out for too long.
"Europe does not want to interfere, but at the
same time Europe cannot
accept certain images and acts," the French
president said, referring to the
violence perpetrated by Mugabe supporters
during the protracted election
campaign in Zimbabwe.
According to
Mbeki, talks in Bordeaux did not include the issue of further
sanctions
against the Mugabe regime.
Other issues discussed during the summit
included immigration, trade and
climate change.
South Africa is the
only African state to date to have signed a Strategic
Partnership Agreement
with the EU. Friday's summit was the first since the
establishment of the
Partnership, in May 2007.
DPA news agency
Mail and Guardian
PETINA GAPPA:
COMMENT - Jul 28 2008 06:00
Robert Gabriel Mugabe and Morgan
Richard Tsvangirai held hands. Mugabe tried
to lift Tsvangirai's hand above
the shoulder, to join it in his in a
triumphant double fist, a gesture
reminiscent of the moment he held up
Joshua Nkomo's hand and with that
gesture killed opposition politics in
Zimbabwe for a long 12
years.
Tsvangirai may also have had Joshua Nkomo in mind, at that moment,
because
he seemed to resist this, his hand remained just below shoulder
level, and
Mugabe had to be content with a sideways shake and a toothy grin.
Mugabe
grinned. Tsvangirai grinned. Arthur Guseni Oliver Mutambara grinned.
Thabo
Mvuyelwa Mbeki grinned. They all grinned and were happy
together.
It is surreal, this orgy of grinning, this sudden, blinding
flashing of
teeth: barely a month ago the pictures of torture camps filled
television
and computer screens, photographs of burnt bodies illustrated the
stories of
horror from Zimbabwe. Seared on the minds of millions were the
story of the
death of Abigail Chiroto, killed in an arson attack, and the
haunting image
of Joshua Bakacheza, diminished and fragile in his death,
just two of the
victims that made the front-page news of just about any
newspaper that gave
prominence to Zimbabwe. Tsvangirai was warning the world
about genocide in
Zimbabwe. Barely a month later he is sitting down to talk
with the
genocidaire-in-chief.
Such is the fluid world of high
politics.
Like Kenya before it, Zimbabwe is to be another example of a
new model of
African elections. Losing an election, it seems, does not
actually mean you
have to give up the seat of office. The example of
Zimbabwe should be
particularly encouraging to Eduardo Dos Santos in Angola
and Paul Biya in
Cameroon, two incumbent leaders whose countries are next on
the elections
radar.
This is the lesson of Zimbabwe: if you are the
incumbent and it looks like
you are on your way out, for God's sake do not
panic, just hang in there;
beat the living daylights out of some of your
people, just because you can,
and the poorer they are the better; imprison
those who would dare to oppose
you, torture them, and if they are women,
throw in a little spot of rape;
kill them in horrible ways and burn their
bodies and dump them in shallow
graves, or no graves, as you please; in a
word, intimidate your way back to
power and, bingo, the African Union will
very nicely ask you to accommodate
your opponents in a government of
national unity.
"The people of Zimbabwe have suffered long enough," is
the mantra that is
being used to push forward these talks. And indeed, the
suffering is beyond
levels that anyone with compassion can accept. Everyone
knows the figures;
the hyperinflation, the unemployment rate and now, yet
again, the spectre of
creeping starvation -- the United Nations reports that
up to five million
people face starvation. But how far should this mantra be
carried?Have the
people suffered so much that non-bread and butter issues to
do with the
dismantling of oppressive institutions, accountability, justice
and
reparations must be sacrificed on the altar of political
expediency?
There is no doubt that, even if the MDC pushed for these
issues to be at the
forefront of the negotiations, Zanu-PF would not welcome
any demands for
justice, for truth and reconciliation, even at the very
basic level of a
public airing of the atrocities. An insistence on this
point may well mean
the end of any talks, any negotiation, any
accommodation. And is it to be
expected that Zanu-PF will approve the
demilitarisation of state
institutions and thus dismantle the very system
that has ensured its
survival?
The result of this negotiation, when
it comes, may well be a political
compromise of the kind that Zimbabwe saw
in the 1980s when Joshua Nkomo's
Zapu merged with Mugabe's Zanu-PF after a
violent campaign of intimidation.
That process of negotiation left
unaddressed the violent suppression of
Nkomo's supporters. The politicians
got their Mercs and perks. And to this
day the people of Matebeleland have
reason to remain bitter that nothing was
ever done to address their
pain.
It is in this regard that the most disturbing element of these
talks is
that, as with the Zanu-Zapu talks, and the Lancaster House talks
before
them, they are yet again the exclusive preserve of politicians. If
there is
something Zimbabweans should have learned by now, it is that the
fate of the
country should not be entrusted to politicians. This is a
political crisis,
the thinking goes, and a crisis for politicians to
address. When the MDC
wanted the mediation expanded, it talked only of
adding another mediator to
watch over Mbeki, who has given the world reason
to believe that he is
Mugabe's most able and hard-working ambassador. The
real expansion in the
mediation should have been the inclusion of civil
society, because the
people who truly need watching over are not the
mediators but the
politicians.
The exclusion of civil society means
that matters of justice, however
broadly defined, may never be addressed.
Nor will the many economic crimes
of this brutish regime. And there is
another dimension: not only redressing
the evils of the past, but also
laying a foundation for the future: one of
the items on the agenda of the
talks is a new Constitution. Certainly, this
mediation presents an
opportunity to jettison the Lancaster House agreement
that was progressively
amended to concentrate power in the hands of the
executive, thus giving
Zimbabwe the horrors of 28 years of Mugabe. The
negotiators should agree to
a new Constitution but not, as they have
attempted to do in the past, come
up with a draft themselves. To leave the
process of Constitution-making to
two political parties would be quite
wrong.
The absence of civil
society from the talks inevitably means that
Zimbabweans, like Kenyans, will
be held hostage to a political compromise.
And because the people have
suffered enough, they will have no choice but to
accept what the politicians
decide and try to rebuild their lives anew on a
foundation of compromise and
cheated dreams. If the MDC sings the praises of
this new deal in dulcet
enough tones and Zanu-PF accompanies with soothing
sounds about healings and
new visions and unity of purpose, the money for a
rescue package will start
to flow. Inflation will go down.
The politicians will serve their terms
and campaign for new terms. They will
make grand speeches at the opening of
Parliament and schools. They will pose
for photographs with visiting
dignitaries. Zimbabweans will joke and laugh
about the time inflation was 2
000 000% and they paid their bills in
billions and trillions and the budget
was set in quadrillions.
Joshua Bakacheza and Abigail Chiroto will fade
out of memory; they will
certainly not appear in any history books --
neither they nor the many
victims whose beaten buttocks and burnt bodies
served to stoke the flames
and keep the story of Zimbabwe in the limelight.
Having served their
purpose, they will leave the limelight, appearing only
in the memories of
the people who loved them and in the occasional search on
the internet,
where nothing is deleted. And Zimbabwe will go on to a future
rooted in
grief and pain, where the accumulated resentments of the past will
be daily
reminders of the dangers of political compromise.
Petina
Gappah is a Zimbabwean writer and lawyer who lives in Geneva. She
recently
won the Mukuru Nyaya prize for comic writing
Saturday Nation, Kenya
Story by GITAU GIKONYO
Publication Date: 7/26/2008 There is a
saying among my kinsmen to the effect
that "what it sires is what it
breastfeeds". The reference in this case is
to animals and they seem to have
no choice. Thus should a cow give birth to
a hen, then it will breast feed
it. But we humans have a choice and if, for
instance, a woman heavy with
child, knew that she would give birth to
Lucifer himself, she can terminate
the pregnancy.
December 27, 2008, was the due date for our country and
our
experiences thereafter are the ensuing results of what we gave birth to.
We
had a choice and we opted for a coalition government.
Zimbabweans have followed suit after Robert Mugabe ran an election
against
himself and won. Opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai has embraced
Mugabe
and termed his agreement to begin peace talks with Mugabe as
"historic".
What a misuse of a good word. He sees it as a great opportunity
for peace
and possible continuance of governance in Zimbabwe.
Grace
continent
Unfortunately democracy or the delusion that passed for
it in Africa
has finally been mutilated, and may never again be allowed to
grace this
continent. It has inhaled its last breath of life through the
suffocation of
the people's will by the powerful clench of electoral fraud
witnessed in
Kenya and Zimbabwe.
Kenya had offered to help
Zimbabwe in settling the impasse by
prescribing solutions or suggestions. It
seems like the Zimbabweans took the
offer and most likely Tsvangirai will be
bequeathed premiership and half of
the cabinet like his friend Raila Odinga.
Ask Tsvangirai why he is
negotiating and he will tell you that he does not
want to see more blood
being spilt. But is there an
alternative?
Just powers
I submit that there is, but
the alternative never seems to work in
Africa. Even though the flame inside
us has died and has been replaced by a
dark bottomless void, a small ember
must remain, refuse to die and grow.
According to the American Declaration
of Independence a government derives
its just powers from the governed in
guaranteeing their liberty and the
pursuit of happiness.
Where
it fails, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish
it, and
institute a new one that guarantees safety and happiness. Thus on
February
26, 1986, for instance, Corazon Aquino became the President of
Philippines.
An almost bloodless revolution known as 'Peoples Power' had
brought Aquino
into office.
When one looks at the crisis in Zimbabwe and recently
in Kenya, there
are almost similar events that had built up to that day 22
years ago.
However, while the Philippines crisis resulted into a revolution
by the
people, the same did not happen in Kenya and with Tsvangirai having
thrown
in the towel, it won't happen in Zimbabwe. Why? Because revolutions
are
waged by people seeking to regain their identity from repressive regimes
or
foreign domination.
Philippines was under President
Ferdinand Marcos, one of the world's
most powerful dictators. First elected
President in 1965, he became a master
of manipulating public opinion,
stealing elections and bribery.
In November 1985, Marcos in an
American talkshow, This Week with David
Brinkley, announced his decision to
hold a snap presidential election to
appease the Americans and legitimise
his control over the country, a
monumental blunder. The elections were held
on February 7, 1986, and were
marred by violence and alleged electoral fraud
from both sides of the
political divide.
According to official
election canvasser, the Commission on Elections,
Marcos won with 10,807,197
votes against Aquino's 9,291,761. National
Movement for Free Elections had
Aquino winning with 7,835,070 votes against
Marcos' 7,053,068. Marcos was
proclaimed the winner but the Filipinos
rejected the results asserting that
Aquino was the real victor.
Both "winners" held separate
inaugurations with Marcos' attended by
family members and a few paid
guests.
Why haven't we seen such a scenario in Africa? It's because
most
African countries lack a middle class and a cultural-spiritual
battlefront
necessary for a people's revolution.
Instead, in
the case of Kenya, the ethno-history is rooted in
suspicion and animosity
inculcated into the minds of Kenyans by politicians.
The end result is deep
and hidden ethno-hatred that transcends all classes
concealed by the usual
smile and handshake.
It is no wonder, therefore, that hoodlums and
bands of criminals were
able to style themselves as the emancipators of
Kenyans by destroying
property and killing people. A people's revolution
must evoke national
appeal and is in most cases bloodless.
The
middle class in Philippines was deeply affected especially those
excluded
from regime-nurtured monopolies and became a centre of vocal
resistance to
the Marcos' regime.
In Zimbabwe, the middle class is not visible
anywhere. In Kenya,
middle class retreated to their homes with their wives
and children and
watched the unfolding events on their plasma
TVs.
The police in Kenya and Zimbabwe ran wild shooting
demonstrators but
the situation in Philippines was different. Soldiers were
met by people who
sat in front of them, praying the Rosary.
Priests, nuns, ordinary citizens, and children linked arms with rebels
and
faced down, without violence, the tanks and machineguns of government
troops. Many of the government troops defected and announced their support
for People's Power.
Eventually the US government sent its
marines to rescue Marcos but not
before behind the scenes face-saving
manoeuvres by Marcos begging to be
allowed to stay on as an "Honorary
President," or at least to remain in the
Philippines as a private
citizen.
Short of a people's revolution, which incumbent African
president will
hence accept genuine defeat at the ballot if he can coalesce
winners and
losers into a grand coalition? The incumbent, as Mugabe has
aptly put it,
must always remain President, most probably "Honorary
President."
Isn't it a win-win situation since we all vote and we
all win?
Even if you get five per cent votes you can still be a
vice-president
and get the much coveted outriders. If you are the actual
winner you become
the prime minister and get to do everything, but nothing
in particular.
The writer is an advocate of the High Court of
Kenya.
http://www.thezimbabwetimes.com/?p=1447
July 26, 2008
By
Sibangani Sibanda
NOW that all the "excitement" of the presidential
run-off has subsided, and
the oh-so-fleeting glimpse of change in Zimbabwe
has flashed past, things
have returned to normal and we are back to the
grind of trying to put food
on table and send children to school so that
they have a chance to look for
employment in other shores.
But
"normal" in Zimbabwe is like no other normal. On the economic front, we
have
a situation where on March 29, 2008, one American dollar would buy you
about
three billion Zimbabwe dollars. On June 27, the same American dollar
would
have bought you twenty billion Zimbabwe dollars and today, it will buy
you
ninety billion Zimbabwe dollars! Yet, when we watch international news
channels, we are told that the American dollar is weakening!
At the
same time, we have a central bank governor, who tries to control the
country's money supply by limiting the amounts that individuals and
companies can withdraw from their bank accounts each day. Never mind that he
is, on the other hand, seriously increasing money supply by simply printing
notes! The withdrawal limit today is one hundred billion dollars - which
translates to one American dollar and eleven cents. This limit applies to
both individuals and companies, so on a daily basis, a company has just over
one American dollar to run its operations! That is too mind-boggling for my
simple mind, so I will concentrate on individuals.
A mini bus ride to
the bank will cost me fifty billion dollars, which I have
to borrow, then
when I get to the bank, I get my 100 billion, use fifty
billion to ride back
home and repay my debt - which means that tomorrow, I
have to borrow another
fifty billion to go back to the bank. Of course I
also need bread for the
family, which costs one hundred billion on the
street (and it is only
available on the street) so, I have to borrow for
that too, but as everyone
is in the same predicament, there are fewer and
fewer friends to borrow
from. In fact, there are fewer and fewer friends,
period!
What I do
about buying my other basics like mealie meal (250 billion for ten
kilograms
which, admittedly will last a few days), vegetables for relish (30
billion
per bunch that will feed a small family for one meal) is anybody's
guess.
"Luxuries" like onion and tomato do not even come into the picture!
Bath and
laundry soap, toilet rolls, sugar, salt, candles and many other
such items
that are optional extras have to wait for the time when Reserve
Bank
governor Gideon Gono decides to raise our withdrawal limit - by which
time
inflation will have made sure that the new limit is as meaningless as
the
old one.
But if you think my problems are bad, think about the really
poor who do not
even have the one hundred billion to withdraw every
day!
The effects of this withdrawals policy can be quite comical in the
wider
economy. Supermarkets and other retail outlets for instance are not
receiving as much cash as normal because their customers do not have the
cash. Point of Sale systems have become the thing. However, it means that
however many trillions of dollars in sales they make every day, they can
only withdraw one hundred billion! But they need cash to assist their staff
with transport fares and to pay their suppliers, many of whom insist on cash
because of the problems associated with having money in the bank!
But
because there is no cash around, businesses are having to accept cheque
payments, transfers and other forms of payment that put their money into the
dreaded banks. But they are being careful. With inflation estimates being
anything from three million to nine million percent (my mathematician friend
tells me that there can be no such figures. At which point I tell him that
when you are dealing with matters of defending "National Sovereignty",
anything is possible), they are having to "hedge". In simple language, they
charge three or four times the price that they would charge for cash, just
so that the value of their sale stays the same.
Enter the National
Incomes and Prices (something) Commission (NIPCC) crying
foul over
profiteering and other dirty words associated with capitalists and
imperialists. All manner of goods disappear from the shelves, reappearing
shortly afterwards on the black market. Prices sore to new unprecedented
levels, "stakeholders" hold meetings and new prices are agreed at slightly
lower unprecedented levels. Everybody goes home happy. Except the one
hundred billion dollars buys even less!
Governor Gono, always ready
with a new and innovative solution will raise
the withdrawal limit to, say,
one trillion dollars. Bread will probably be
costing that much,
then.
Imagine what that will do to us. Already, one of the highlights of
my day is
going into the bank and watching people filling in their
withdrawal slips or
cheques. Everybody looks like they are talking to
themselves as they mouth
silently, one, two, three four, five....., just to
make sure they have got
the correct number of zeroes! Well, there is not
much other humour around!
There is hope, though. The politicians have
just have settled around the
conference table at some secret location
outside Pretoria.
Unfortunately their meeting is out of bounds for the
press but they must
come up with something in less than two weeks
now.
I cannot wait!
See below for reply:
Joining a government of national unity could
be fatal for the MDC
From Peter
Dee
1.The MDC cannot join a
government of 'national unity' if it includes
Robert Mugabe or any of his
lieutenants without itself committing political
suicide.
2.
Rotten policies need changing, rotten people must be replaced. With
Mugabe
part of the pack it is hard to see how any of those tough decisions
can be
implemented.
3.. MDC's support base is built entirely upon
dissatisfaction with the
state of Zimbabwe and the concomitant expectation
that only it can return
the country to prosperity.
4.. To even begin
the economic repair process the any new government will
have to attract
huge western support programmes and, more importantly from a
long-term
perspective, overturn much that Mugabe has done to destroy the
economy. It
is unlikely that significant aid would be forthcoming if Mugabe
or ZANU (PF)
remain in any position in the government, and none of the
surgical steps
necessary would be possible.
5.. Land reform has been deliberately turned
into a sacred cow by Mugabe
in an attempt to put a cloak of respectability
on the removal of white
farmers. Even the MDC is afraid to talk openly about
reversing what has been
done, preferring to leave the impression that what
went wrong was not so
much the principle of giving white farms to blacks,
but the chaotic and
corrupt manner in which it was done. Yet getting some
white farmers back
onto the land would be one of the fastest routes to
reconstruction - not
because they are white, but because they already have
the know-how and the
years and years of experience. It may be that the MDC's
reluctance here is
more about not giving Mugabe another stick to beat it
with than a true
reflection of what the party would do in power. In a minor
role of course it
could do nothing.
6.. Much the same is true of mining
and industry, which are also currently
living under the threat of
appropriation.
7.. The most complicated surgery needed for Zimbabwe's
rehabilitation
involves sacking army and police generals, probably hundreds
of military,
police and air force officers, judges, magistrates and civil
servants at all
levels.Over the past ten years these people have been so
corrupted and
subverted that it is unthinkable that they can remain at their
posts in a
new Zimbabwe. They have shown no commitment to the people, to the
constitution, or to the law of the land. Even low-ranking policemen on the
beat, so to speak (although in Zimbabwe the police don't do beats) have
refused assistance to victims of mayhem and violence on the grounds that
their cases were 'political'.
8.. So what is going on? What is behind
the current 'negotiations'? Why is
Mugabe pushing it, and why is the MDC
engaging?
9.. Many observers believe another huge deception is on the go.
Mugabe
knows he is
in a hole and that he cannot halt the economic
melt-down. He also knows that
he needs one friend - South Africa. If he does
not pay at least lip service
to Mbeki's counsel there is always the
possibility that South Africa could
shut him down. So he is going through
the motions, much as he did in the
first round elections in March. (There is
no doubt the event was
unexpectedly peaceful if not exactly
fair.)
10. In agreeing now to talks it is again a case of 'heads I win,
tails you
lose'. If the MDC comes aboard with him and somehow manages to
turn things
around, the victory is his and he can break the arrangement any
time he
wants to so long as he has his army and police. If the MDC declines
to join
him in a government of national unity, any further deterioration of
the
economy can be laid at the party's door.
11. For Morgan
Tsvangirai the dilemma is classic. He has been waiting a
long time, and as
long as Thabo Mbeki rules in South Africa, there is no one
to help him move
into Government House. The Mugabe regime could go on for
years. Perhaps
Morgan has had a whiff of power now and it may be that he
will take any
small share rather than none. But if he does sign on, it is an
odds-on bet
that his party will be finished with the people.
Reach Peter Dee on smokefree@breede.co.za
(end)
Reply :
8.. So what is going on? What is
behind the current 'negotiations'? Why is
Mugabe pushing it, and why is the
MDC engaging?
Wrong! The MDC is pushing it and Mugabe is being dragged
into it. Remember
what Tsvangirai and Biti did soon after the first round
when it was becoming
clear that ZEC, in response to ZANU(PF), was fudging
the numbers to create
the need for a run-off? They went off on a diplomatic
mission around the
region. One result of that is that several African
countries have not
recognized Mugabe as President. Another is the calls from
all around the
region for "talks". The only way a peaceful, democratic party
that has won
the elections can get rid of a violent dictatorship that
refuses to go is
this way. Why should Mugabe want "negotiations"? He would
rather carry on as
he has done for the past few months and pretend that
there weren't any
elections, keeping his (defeated) ministers in an
(unconstitutional) cabinet
and rule without Parliament. He can only
negotiate the terms of ZANU(PF)'s
exit.
9.. Many observers
believe another huge deception is on the go.
Wrong! Mugabe is not
controlling this process. The MDC is calling the shots.
Thabo Mbeki has lost
his credibility, knows it, and is being pushed from all
sides (except
ZANU(PF)'s) to act objectively. ZANU(PF) has no capacity to
"deceive" in
this process as it is, as you say, in a hole.
10. In agreeing
now to talks it is again a case of 'heads I win, tails you
lose'. If the MDC
comes aboard with him and somehow manages to turn things
around, the victory
is his and he can break the arrangement any time he
wants to so long as he
has his army and police. If the MDC declines to join
him in a government of
national unity, any further deterioration of the
economy can be laid at the
party's door.
Wrong! First, I know we've been saying this for a long
time, but there's not
much more deterioration to go. Today, even the black
market currency dealers
don't have Zim dollars. Next week there will
effectively be no cash. Maybe
Gono will pull a new currency on Chinese paper
out the hat. Otherwise, we
will grind to a halt. ZANU(PF) has no bargaining
power in regard to the
economy.
Second, there is no way that the MDC
will agree to any sort of a deal in
which ZANU(PF) retain control of the
army and police. How can the MDC
"demand" the cessation of violence yet not
have control at least over the
the "regular" forces?
11. if
[Tsvangirai] does sign on, it is an odds-on bet that his party will
be
finished with the people.
And you think he doesn't know that?! But it
will be Mugabe that's signing
up, not Tsvangirai! The only alternative is
for ZANU(PF) to pull out and
formally stage a coup.
R