VIOLET: Let me start with Priscilla. SADC announced this week that a break through had been reached and that a Government of National Unity would be formed by mid-February and today the MDC announced that its National Council has endorsed this decision. First of all, can you give us your reaction to this?

PRISCILLA: Well of course, for some of us it is good news. We have been working on this thing for close to three years, just trying to make sure that we have a process in which you have a breathing space for the people of Zimbabwe , a forum in which you can have some kind of discussion around trying to get this country back to where it’s supposed to be. So yah, we receive it with a sense of hope and anticipation.

VIOLET: And what is your reading of the SADC communiqué, vis-à-vis the MDC demands? The MDC-Tsvangirai demands?

PRISCILLA: Well I think what happened at the summit, was basically a way of trying to come up with a compromise position. Clearly it fell short of some of the things that MDC Tsvangirai would have wanted resolved, but I think in the wisdom of SADC at that particular point in time and in trying to make sure that at least you give a chance to trying to sort out the problems that are in Zimbabwe - they then in the communiqué tried to deal with some of the issues that MDC, led by President Tsvangirai had raised, in particular one of the issues that both of us had agreed to and said we could not continue to go into government unless it would have been dealt with, is the whole issue of governors.

Clearly you could not get a government in which one part of that administration to all intent and purposes was controlled by one political party and I think what SADC did was to take a position on that particular issue. You also know that Zanu-PF had completely refused to have a conversation and discussion over that matter.

The second one was the issue, the first actually, the need to deal with the formation of the Security Council and that the Bill that had been drafted by MDC Tsvangirai needed to be looked at as a matter of urgency.

And then lastly it was the issue of looking at the violence and the abductions, the alleged human rights violations that were taking place and any other issues that had been raised in terms of violation of both the MOU and Global Political Agreement and what they then did was to say that the committee that was set up today (Friday) which was a JOMIC committee, should be set up immediately to look at both issues. Failing which, SADC would therefore then look at and deal with those particular issues.

So to some extent one would say yes, their issues were taken on board but clearly not all of them which is I think in the nature of negotiations, you don’t usually get everything that you wanted at the first time. But I thought it was a way of strategically delivering some of the issues. And lastly, I’d forgotten the point around the equity issue. You remember there was issue around the equity in the terms of the allocations of the ministries. SADC has said they will review that allocation within six months. You remember that initially the resolution of 9 th November had said they would only review on the issue of the co-sharing of Home Affairs - but this particular resolution says within six months. And I think it gives an opportunity to all those that are participating in this inclusive government to have an opportunity to use that as an evaluating process within six months, to say what went wrong, what didn’t go right, what are the issues that we need to do differently. So yah, I think their issues were taken on board, but like I’m saying, not all of them and not in the manner that they would have wanted.

VIOLET: And this JOMIC, the implementation committee that was set up today, I understand that you are also on this committee. Can you please give us the names of the commissioners?

PRISCILLA: Well from MDC led by President Tsvangirai, there is Elton Mangoma, there is Innocent Chagonda, there is Tabitha Khumalo, and there is Elias Mudzuri. From our party there is myself, there is Professor Welshman Ncube, there’s Frank Chamunorwa there’s the Honourable Edward Nkosi. From Zanu-PF there is Nicholas Goche, there is Patrick Chinamasa, there is Emmerson Mnangagwa and there is Oppah Muchinguri. So those are the members of JOMIC.

VIOLET: So what powers will it actually have because as you’ve said some of those sticking points of that deal will be dealt with after the government has been implemented and we know that Mugabe has refused in the past to give the MDC equal share of the ministries that were in dispute? So what powers has JOMIC really got?

PRISCILLA: Well I think all we did was to create a forum in which one, you do have a committee that is responsible for ensuring that there is compliance. At least that committee would be, if it is able to do it in non-partisan manner, to be able to look at whether the Global Political Agreement is being implemented in the manner that it was supposed to be implemented. It is also supposed to receive the complaints that will be coming from the parties that are party to the agreement. It becomes a forum in which you can have discussions, you can discuss, it is an amicable forum in which some of these things could be dealt with because what we realised as negotiators in the past two years, two to three years, is that sometimes things look too bad because you are not necessarily communicating and sometimes all that you just need to do is to sit down and communicate and to see if whether you can’t resolve some of these issues. But like I said, if that committee is unable to do it, SADC and AU is always a guarantor to the agreement so you can then escalate it to SADC and the AU.

So it is a forum in which some of these things are brought in and like I’m saying, we, some of us have experienced it, in terms of the entire process of negotiations, the reason why we have to come up with some agreement. You remember that when we started talking, it looked like it was impossible to have people that had such adversarial positions to be sitting around the table together, but we did spend three years having discussions and yes we may have come up with a document that not everybody is happy about but it is a document that reflects that it is possible for people to have conversations and to have a dialogue and to agree at the most minimum with some of the things which we did agree.

VIOLET: What about the co-sharing of the Home Affairs ministry, we understand that Frank Chikane from the South African President’s office said that the issue will actually be decided by tossing a coin as to which party will have the first term. Is this true?

PRISCILLA : No it can’t be true, I’m not sure whether that you are referring to Home Affairs…

VIOLET: Yes, the Home Affairs ministry

PRISCILLA: If you are referring to today’s press conference, I think it was said more in jest because JOMIC is also going to be co-chaired, we’ll have three chairs, each from one political party and basically in deciding who was going to start we joked around tossing a coin to see who would chair the first meeting, but we ended up agreeing the first person to chair this JOMIC is Welshman Ncube, followed by Elton Mangoma from the MDC Tsvangirai and then lastly, Zanu-PF.

But if you are talking about Home Affairs, I think there is always this misunderstanding around how this process of co-sharing is going to be. Basically you are going to have two ministers, who will have equal authority and power, they may decide if they choose to - among themselves - to allocate certain responsibilities to each other in terms of; one deals with a particular area of Home Affairs and the other one deals with another. But that will be dependent on whether they want to have that type of discussion facilitated by the Prime Minister who is going to supervise all the Ministers.

But generally, the two of them will sit in Cabinet, they will report to Cabinet, and I think the idea, at the time that it was suggested was to make sure that since there is so much mistrust between the two political parties, you are creating a situation in which you are almost having one creating an oversight over the other, so to say, and if you do have a disagreement, then the disagreement should be brought to Cabinet. And as you may have seen, some of the changes that have been… (inaudible)…

VIOLET: I’m sorry, we lost you there, can you repeat what you said about some of the changes.

PRISCILLA: I said that some of the changes that are in Amendment 19 are basically to ensure that you now have Executive Power that also resides in Cabinet and therefore Cabinet will have authority to make decisions if for example there is a disagreement between the two Ministers that will be in Home Affairs. But I think basically, what people were thinking about when they suggested the co-sharing was to say that given the fact that Zanu is insisting that if Tsvangirai wants Home Affairs because they are training people, they want to take over using other methods. The MDC Tsvangirai were basically saying we are having a lot of people that are being abducted and these people are going to be using this instrument as cohesive power. In the meantime, let’s try and see whether the two of them will not work within the same Ministry. But I also think that - having sat in some of the summits at an informal level - I think that basically what the Heads of State were also trying to do was to say we may be able to come back after six months and say this position is totally ridiculous, it’s not necessary, we demanded it because there was so much mistrust but at this time it is possible to only have one person as the Minister of Home Affairs.

VIOLET: Let me move to Brian. Brian, first, your reaction to these latest developments.

BRIAN: Well I guess that these are just people playing lotto with our lives, this is a non-event. It missed me, until you phoned me, I’m in Zimbabwe , in Harare , and I took no notice of it.

VIOLET: Why is that so?

BRIAN: Well you know, there is a lot being said about we’ve done this for the best interests of Zimbabweans and I have repeatedly said this there must be a formula of ascertaining the best interests of Zimbabweans that takes cognisance of the historical facts, contemporary facts, both political, social and economic. So far examples are we ascertaining what will be in the best interests of Zimbabweans by reference to the present humanitarian crisis? Are we doing so by reference to the economic meltdown? Are we doing by reference to the social disintegration or the political impasse or are we doing it around the question of national consent and consensus?

Then you must say well OK, what has caused the humanitarian crisis, why are we in this mess, the economic meltdown, the social disintegration and the political cannibalism and why is there no national consent and consensus?

When you look at what was called the Change Agenda to which many of us dedicated most of our youth, the pursuit of equality, of justice, of peace and of democratic and accountable governance - and you ask yourself, is this a route for gaining these things, is this a route for losing these things? What has been negotiated away, what has been negotiated in, based on these premises?

I guess I come to the sad conclusion and I’m not talking against negotiations, but I think that they must be on fundamentals. While the present set-up is a co-habitation of ‘totally uneasy souls’ who do not like each other at all, who in fact resent each other. The suggestion when two betrothed lovers abuse each other thoroughly that somehow if you force them into a marriage the abuse will end by virtue of a contract of marriage seems to me as misplaced as the notion that people who call each other stooges, sell-outs, idiots almost naturally, will manufacture national consent and consensus simply because SADC has acted like God and directed that there must be by decree a Government of National Unity.

Firstly, there’s nothing national about it, secondly there’s absolutely no unity in it. So as an exercise in futility it’s a waste of precious time. It will be sad - I’m hoping that I’m wrong that in three years time we will see more progress than the childish bickering that we have witnessed over the last couple of years. That unlike Kenya , there will actually be mutual respect in the functions and operations of this government. That all animosities will melt away. But history does not give me that comfort and I’m not naturally a sceptic, I’m a perennial optimist but not about this co-habitation as I’ve said of uneasy souls. I think they are playing lotto with our lives; they are playing lotto with the destiny of our country.

VIOLET: But Brian what about on the issue of the MDC Tsvangirai itself, now that it has actually agreed to join, with so far no evidence from the SADC communiqué that their needs, the main demands, like for example the equitable distribution of ministries have actually been addressed. What does this imply though in terms of the MDC’s shift from their earlier position?

BRIAN: I have previously said that I do not like to base arguments on whether something will work or not, on the idiosyncrasies of an individual or even a club of individuals, be it a political party or religion. Let’s base it on some fundamental principles. I’ve also previously said that whilst I recognise the importance of the Ministry of Home Affairs, that my own analysis that there were more fundamental things at stake. For example, if you take the economic turnaround, the Ministries that will drive any economic turnaround in this country, would be around Agriculture because that is what will allow us to produce for ourselves; Mining and Industry; Mining in particular because in the present global economic meltdown the commodities sector seems to earn just a little bit more than all the other sectors. Right?

And I’ve also suggested that if you take Agriculture, you take Mining this will form the backbone of our industrial turnaround or our attempt to re-industrialise - both in the agro-sector, in the rural sector and in the urban sector. And I suggested that the service sector which is Tourism, which was badly damaged by bad politics, would be also the engine of turnaround. At the present moment those ministries are controlled by one of the three Clubs in this marriage of convenience.

And then you look at what the contest is over. The contest is over this Ministry of Home Affairs, and important as I’ve previously acknowledged it was, it seems to me that the concern doesn’t fundamentally deal with the question of how do you get the country back on its path to self-sustainability, self-sustenance and development. So that’s one issue.

The second issue is the machinery of justice. For those of us in civil society who have decried the abuse of arms of State, the fact that if you express opinions that are different as I am presently doing, you’ll be vilified, you’ll be hunted down, you’ll be victimised and the Ministries responsible for the coercive arms that were responsible for this, and the Ministries responsible for granting and guaranteeing no other citizen justice are in the control of the same individuals and peoples that were responsible for all my grievances over the last two decades that I’ve been an activist. So for me I have absolutely no reason to celebrate, because if you take me as a human rights activist, if you take me as one who has been campaigning for justice and truth, if you take me as an economic creature trying to regenerate myself, trying to improve and self actualising - I am not seeing the change or at least the pretence to change. I’m not persuaded.

VIOLET: But Brian, what logic though do you think the MDC used to finally agree?

BRIAN: I cannot get into their heads and into their hearts. I’m quite sure, as I have said many times, the business of political parties is to conquer and retain political power. Their first instinct is to do that which lends them political power or at least what they perceive as political mileage. I have asked the fundamental question and it’s been asked elsewhere where these marriages of convenience have been foisted on people - you will now have these three Clubs in government, so in Parliament you will have the side of government and then the side of others, but there is no more opposition (chuckles). So in this sense the government can’t be opposition at the same time.

We are still not clear about the duration of this marriage of convenience. Is it till death do us part, is it for two years, is it for five years? Okay? And if it is for five years, what are the exit strategies should this thing breakdown? These things are not spelt out in this SADC lottery game.

The assumption is that this will work.

We saw the problems with ZAPU and others in 1981, 82. We are seeing now the resurgence of what we thought was a finally sealed Unity deal, we saw the resurgence of another entity calling itself ZAPU in Matabeleland which is an unravelling of things that people had told us they’d long dealt with. And even parroted and preached to us that they had.

So in my view there are no clear dispute resolution mechanisms and I mean I have great respect for Priscilla and all the other people she mentioned, but the reason why the country is in the mess it is in is because we have been hostage to strong personalities and our country has not had adequate dispute resolution mechanisms that are enforceable. And JOMIC seems to be a nice palatable club but it has no enforcement power. The enforcement will still be referred back to the hawkish elements that we’re talking about.

VIOLET: Let me actually go back to Priscilla and ask her to comment about this, and you mentioned that it’s now about three Clubs in government. A lot of people are now saying this is a tragedy for Africa that the guy who loses always wins in the end, and we saw this in Kenya and now we are seeing this in Zimbabwe and Priscilla mentioned earlier on that someone like Emmerson Mnangagwa is in this JOMIC. A lot of people say that Mnangagwa is spectacularly evil. So Priscilla brutality actually works? This basically is what it means because Mugabe has won. Do you agree with this?

PRISCILLA:

VIOLET: Hello Priscilla. Oh I’m afraid I think we have lost Priscilla. The line was bad and we had been having problems trying to get her in the first place and we hope to bring her back on the programme. So Brian, let me go back to this issue, did Morgan Tsvangirai have any choice because this is a u-turn on his part? What can you say about this?

BRIAN: We must ask the question was Zimbabwe dysfunctional because of anything Morgan Tsvangirai had done or not done. If your response is that Zimbabwe was dysfunctional because Morgan Tsvangirai had done something wrong then one clearly understands why his capitulation is his righting some wrong that he had done. If the country is in the mess that it is in on account of no wrong doing on his part, his choice would have been simple. He could have become an ordinary citizen, leading a political party in the opposition, campaigning for democracy and true genuine change in Zimbabwe .

VIOLET: But this is what he has been doing for a long time though and it hadn’t worked.

BRIAN: What do you mean it hadn’t worked? If you say it hadn’t worked, it hadn’t worked in giving them political power, it hadn’t worked in bringing about change in Zimbabwe ? If it hadn’t worked in bringing about change in Zimbabwe , why? Was it because he was doing something wrong in asking for a democratic constitution, asking for human rights, asking for sound and accountable economic governance? If these things were wrong then it is him that must apologise to us. If these things were right and they were being ignored what guarantee is there that this co-habitation will result in these things being honoured, these things being respected?

There is some serious fault in the logic that suggests that we will fight from within. What are we fighting from within? If the fight is against Robert Mugabe, well you know, that fight is a fight many of us were not necessarily part of. If the fight is for fundamental change, a change in principles, a change in political culture, that fight is a fight I believe every Zimbabwean has been engaged in. And that fight says, whether it be Tendai Biti, Morgan Tsvangirai, Priscilla, Welshman Ncube or Robert Mugabe, as long as they violate these agreed principles that constitute national consensus and consent then they fall foul and must be opposed. And irrespective of who they are, as long as they observe these particular principles, the sanctity of human life, the human dignity and right of all, that social, economic, cultural, environmental as well as the civil and political rights of people then they must be supported. This is what this fight has been about.

VIOLET: Now what’s happening it appears that there is a clear divide between African leaders and Western leaders, in your view, can the West be persuaded to fund this government of national unity because you have people like Jendayi Fraser last month actually saying that America would not fund a government that has Robert Mugabe still in power, so do you see western governments actually supporting this?

BRIAN: You know what; Zimbabwe ’s turnaround at the moment really shouldn’t refer to western governments. They’ve been as much as the problem as some of our African brothers and our own local leaders have been. Whilst aid will do a lot to deal with the humanitarian crisis that has been created by mis-governance, while some aid would do a lot to deal with the economic turnaround and promoting increased investment that’s diverse, I have repeatedly said on this show, I am opposed to western meddling in politics. I appreciate solidarity and support but I am opposed to dictations and dictates or diktat from the West regarding how we should order our affairs.

So I am not keen to anchor the success or failure based on western inclinations be it Jendayi Fraser, Obama or anyone else. Their solidarity whether with the democratic struggles or the attempt for economic turnaround would be appreciated. The West is almost bankrupt as we speak. America is in recession, Europe is in recession, the question of whether or not they are going to use their tax payers hard earned dollars to finance a bellicose and highly likely to be dysfunctional large administration will be seen.

VIOLET: I was actually going to ask you Brian, the amount of money needed in Zimbabwe right now is vast and the country is not earning enough to sustain the people living there and of course, as you said, there’s this whole global economic crisis, but what about Tsvangirai himself, what happens if he is not going to be able to persuade donors to come in and help Zimbabwe because Zimbabwe does need foreign investments?

BRIAN : My fear and I hope it’s not a harsh judgement, I have seen in Kenya , the attempt by the Kibaki government to use Raila Odinga as their public relations manager to spruce up their international image. My fear is that Tsvangirai will join Mbeki as Zanu-PF’s new public relations manager, international public relations manager. He will go, hand in bowl or you know bowl in hand, begging for money to turn around the education sector, the health sector and whatever else.

And this is likely to attract all sorts of issues and conditionalities on our country, and he invested a lot of his life within the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions opposing policy conditionalities. And given the abysmal decline of our economy and our governance, the West is quite likely to impose all sorts of irrational policy conditionalities on Zimbabwe . And it would be tragic to have someone who has been fighting for liberty, for liberation, human rights and freedoms to actually be the conduit through which this country takes back on that aid that is tied to policy conditionalities. He will become the new face of betrayal if he doesn’t carefully handle this particular issue.

VIOLET: Do you think even though he didn’t create the problems that are in Zimbabwe right now when it comes to, for example civil servants strikes, do you think that Tsvangirai could become the target of discontent over a problem he didn’t create?

BRIAN: Yes of course. He is now joined with Mugabe, there will no longer be reference to Zanu and MDC, there will just be reference to the new face-lifted Zanu or the expanded Zanu-PF government. We refer to a government by the ruling party, so you know, it is a Zanu-PF led government, that’s what it will be and he’ll be part of that government and its failures and he will be part of those failures.

There’s no point to continue trying to be leader of the opposition whilst you are in government. Once you are in government you are in government, there’s corporate responsibility of government, of cabinet. A corporate responsibility for successes and I certainly hope there will be many successes. Corporate responsibility for failures. One cannot to continue to extricate oneself and say, no I am not responsible. So it is a courageous position he has taken but huge consequences he must gladly live with.

VIOLET: Finally Brian, clearly this is a development that is going to be divisive because there are some who are for this and others who are not, and as we heard from Priscilla, it provides that hope to some extent that things will change in the country. At the end of the day, it is a done deal so how do we make sense of this and move on?

BRIAN: You know what Violet, all those of us who are sceptical maybe wrong, all those who are optimistic may be wrong. As Bob Marley once said, ‘only time will tell’. The triumphalism of the moment will dissipate; the reality of the situation will bite. Children have to go back to school, teachers have to go back and teach, health workers, our hospitals have to get medicine. Professionals who have fled to South Africa and elsewhere have to be brought back. People who have been victims of human rights violations have to be compensated. Those who have been responsible for torture, for murder, for abductions have to be brought to justice. Those who have been responsible for kleptomania, for plunder of natural and national resources have to pay back.

The task of this expanded regime would be to deliver these things. If this expanded regime does not deliver this then it has an epitaph already written on its grave – here lies a marriage that was doomed from the beginning. Let’s hope that we are all wrong. Let’s hope for the sake of Zimbabwe that there is a commitment in Zanu-PF and in the two MDC clubs for a real transformative agenda. That there is a commitment to turn this country, not just to an economically sound footing but also to a sustainably democratic and accountable culture of governance - where noone is above the law, where looters are brought to book. Let us hope for the sake of our beautiful country that this marriage of convenience, this polygamous marriage of convenience, unequal yoking of enemies will prove to be a workable solution.

VIOLET: Well I’m afraid we have to end here Brian. Thank you very much, and we were also sorry to lose Priscilla during this debate due to network problems we lost connection and we will probably try to get her again for next time, but thank you Brian, and hope to speak again soon.

BRIAN: You’re welcome.

Comments and feedback can be emailed to violet@swradioafrica.com