Back to Index

This article participates on the following special index pages:

Transcript of 'Hot Seat' with Dumisani Muleya & Basildon Peta on the Zim talks
Violet Gonda, SW Radio Africa
August 08, 2008

http://www.swradioafrica.com/pages/hotseat110808.htm

Violet Gonda: My guests on the programme Hot seat are two journalists who have been covering the Zimbabwe crisis talks extensively. Dumisani Muleya is a correspondent for the Business Day in South Africa and is also the news editor for the Zimbabwe Independent newspaper and Basildon Peta is the Africa correspondent for the UK Independent newspaper group. He is based in Johannesburg . Welcome on the programme..

Muleya & Peta: Thank you.

Gonda: Let me start with Dumisani. You covered a story saying negotiators have gone back to Zimbabwe with a draft deal. What do you know? Can you give us the latest?

Dumisani Muleya: Yes, basically our information is that the negotiators have concluded the latest round of talks in Pretoria and some of them started flying back to Harare in preparation for a weekend round of events including some talks between President Robert Mugabe and Mr Morgan Tsvangirai on Sunday - the two main principals. They will be looking at the draft agreement that emerged out of Pretoria and they will be trying to find a breakthrough on key issues that at the moment we can say stand unresolved because they need to be dealt with by the party political leaders.

Gonda: And what are those key issues?

Muleya: One of them is the issue of the roles, powers and functions of Mugabe and Tsvangirai in this new government. That's the first item and the second is the transitional mechanisms - how do you implement the draft agreement if the principals approve it. The other issues are issues around the Speakership. All parties at the negotiating table have during the course of the week been engaged in intense discussions about who gets the Speakership. As you know, none of the three political parties have a majority in parliament. They are delicately balanced in parliament and so we have a hung parliament. None of the parties can be able on its own to determine who the Speaker is. It is so delicately balanced to the extent that even the smallest party determines who can be the Speaker and therefore it has also been demanding that, "you two big parties if you can't agree on who becomes the Speaker then give us the Speaker as a compromise."

Then the last thing is the issue of the Governors. The parties have been debating on whether to share the Governors five each. In this case each means five for ZANU PF and five for the MDC . There has not been any agreement around that - as the information we have shows. And at one time in the middle of negotiations ZANU PF suggested that, "if we can't agree let's just scrap the post of Governors and increase the number of appointed Senators in order to accommodate people who would need to be accommodated from ZANU PF and the MDC ."

Gonda: And Basildon what have you been hearing there is South Africa . We also understand that Thabo Mbeki is making plans to go to Zimbabwe on Sunday, what are you hearing?

Basildon Peta: Well before I outline what I am hearing allow me to take this opportunity to condemn the entire process in which these talks have been conducted, the entire arrangement rather. I am extremely disappointed that it has been difficult to get information about what is happening in these talks when it is our future at stake. It is the future of our country at stake. I cannot understand and I cannot comprehend why the MDC agreed to this secretive surreptitious arrangement in which the future of our country is discussed in a secluded place, where nobody has access. You may recall that during the CODESA talks which brought this transition in South Africa - the CODESA talks were being televised live on television. People had access to air their views and to input into the talks. I covered the Sun City talks that were mediated by Mbeki as well - that brought the transition to the DRC and I can tell you it wasn't as difficult. We could meet and interview the parties as they came out of the talks and they were telling us what the sticking points were, what the problems were. But here we have this arrangement which has sort of kept us in the dark. I just don't think it is fair.

Anyway to answer your question, we hear that President Mbeki is going to Zimbabwe at the weekend to try and mediate the last round of talks between the principals - that is Mugabe, Mutambara and Morgan Tsvangirai. He was scheduled to have been in Zimbabwe on Thursday - at least that's what many reports here were saying but that didn't happen. I think he is going on Sunday. I think Dumi has covered very well the sticking points, the outstanding issues to be resolved. That's my understanding as well. I also understand, I am authoritatively informed that the reports that were saying "Mugabe will now be completely ceremonial" are totally wrong. If there is going to be a deal, the deal will be modelled alongside the principles of the French model of governance, in which you have an executive President and an executive Prime Minister, sharing executive powers. I am told that Mugabe - there is no way that he is going to accept being relegated to a ceremonial drama queen. That is my understanding.

Gonda: If I can go back to your earlier comments about the effects of the media blackout. You know many people agree with you that there should never have been a situation where information is hidden from the people. And in some cases the media has been deliberately fed lies by the political parties. Dumisani what are your thoughts on that?

Muleya: Well I entirely agree with Peta on that one. That whereas we should also accept that the negotiations could not be conducted in the full glare of the media considering the sensitivities of the issues - in particular issues of the role and the function of Mugabe in the new government. There should have been a balance here. The negotiators and the mediators should have said to themselves that, "whereas we want to keep these negotiations as closely guarded as possible in order to safeguard the process from external interference which may be unwarranted," they should have at the same time considered that - since they are discussing the future of a whole lot of people, at least 12 million - they should have had a process in which they would also release information as they proceeded. Information that would not endanger the talks and information that the media would need in order to inform the public about this process. There should have been a degree of transparency in order to make sure that this process does not degenerate into some kind of a shadowy, murky deal cutting affair between the political parties.

As we stand here we are relying on information that is just trickling out of the talks. We do not know for sure that at the end of the day, that factually and indeed in terms of the truth that this is exactly what is going on. We may be having information that is closer to the truth but it may not necessarily be the truth. So what this does is that it leaves room for politicians to cut deals which may not be in the public interest at all, which may end up becoming elite power sharing pacts that only accommodate the interests of political elites. There should have been transparency in this.

There was a problem - if I may give a background about this - when the political parties were talking last year we had a couple of run-ins with some of the negotiators who were very angered by the systematic release of information by their colleagues to the media. To the point that at my publication we even received calls by some of the negotiators to say, "tomorrow we know you are publishing the agenda of the talks, don't publish this. If you do this you are going to endanger the talks." They approached publishers to try and lobby for that, but we rejected that and argued that, "no we need to release that information so that the people know what you are talking about because otherwise the public interest is endangered by this secrecy."

So this is the kind of situation that is undesirable to the public interest and indeed it cannot be defended that the talks should be totally shrouded in secrecy.

Peta: And just to add to that if you don't mind Violet.

Gonda: No go ahead.

Peta: You know the way this entire process has bee structured is such that even ordinary Zimbabweans like me who may want to input the talks with some very specific matters of interest that are interests to my profession the media, which you know has been emasculated by the Mugabe regime, the way these talks are structured is such that we are totally kept away! Totally, totally kept away. You know there are sectoral interests in Zimbabwe who might want to input these talks - take for instance the civic society, the business sector who are the people who are critical to any reconstruction of the economy, assuming a deal is done. They might want to input the talks but they are totally, totally kept away. You don't even know who you can call to say, "guys when you discuss this issue on the agenda, for instance when you discuss violence or when you discuss the media, we think this is the framework. We want to contribute A,B,C." But there is no room. We as Zimbabweans we are totally shut out from this entire process. It's like we don't exist.

We have a few men and one woman I am told, maybe nicely dressed and sitting somewhere in a secluded corner of the world of Cape Town -they were meeting in Cape Town - discussing our future and they shield themselves away from us. This is a joke to be honest with you. Unless these people produce a transitional arrangement - a transitional arrangement in which they organise their governmental structure and then start an entire process like we saw during the ill-fated Constitutional Commission exercise where people were widely consulted. We had an open system where the Constitutional Commissioners - I was one of them then before I quit over some internal differences with those people - we went out and consulted the people and they told us what they wanted. The NCA which opposed the entire process or which ran a parallel process of constitution making where involved in a wide consultation process. People were meeting under trees and under different conditions to discuss and to input to this process. Unless we are going to an arrangement whereby as soon as they have shared power they kick start a process of serious consultations with the Zimbabwean people so that at least we have an input in whatever is finally agreed during this transition then this entire process is going to be a joke. I cannot imagine how then it cannot be labelled an elitist pact, something the MDC has been at pains to explain that they won't agree to. I cannot see how we Zimbabwean then cannot perceive this entire process as an elitist pact of some sort. I am hoping and praying that whatever they agree will just be a mere transitional arrangement not substantive issues that the people of Zimbabwe have been kept away from inputting.

Gonda: You know because of this environment which is now full of speculation and rumour where we hear on one hand that Mugabe was being offered a ceremonial position as President while Morgan Tsvangirai was being offered a role as executive Prime Minister. Now I understand it is not true as you said earlier that this is fiction. We had also heard that they were offering a 'blanket amnesty' on all Zimbabweans who had participated in human rights abuses or political violence. What do you think Zimbabweans would do if this arrangement is not acceptable to them?

Peta: I think it's very simple. If the agreement is not acceptable to the people then it's an illegitimate document and the Zimbabwean crisis will continue. Any agreement that is reached by these leaders without the input and participation of the people is not binding on the people and so it is not going to be worth the paper that it is written on. You know you mentioned a very important issue - for instance this issue of amnesty. I don't think this is an issue that Tendai Biti, Welshman Ncube, Priscilla Misihairabwi Mushonga and Elton Mangoma can decide for us. You know four people can just say, "ok, we will offer Mugabe a blanket amnesty." Mugabe is a rogue dictator. His collection of monsters in ZANU PF at one stage or another have to pay for their sins, for the crimes they have committed against the people of Zimbabwe. And it's a matter that if ever there is going to be amnesty, and the extent of that amnesty has to be thoroughly, thoroughly inputted by the people. We have lots and lots of victims who have suffered. Each and every one of us has a relative who has been a victim of these monsters and for there to be just a blanket amnesty is an issue that will be problematic and many people will not accept.

I don't know what obviously people will do if they disown the document, what course of action they will then have to resort to. I cannot answer and I cannot say that specifically but what is clear is that whatever would have to be agreed and implemented by these people without the people's input, without widespread consultation is illegitimate. Unless, unless of course Tsvangirai sticks to his word and whatever is agreed at these particular talks is just a transitional mechanism for a year or two, to allow this consultative process among the people to get underway so that whatever is the final arrangement is owned by the people of Zimbabwe.

Gonda: Dumisani can you first of all tell us what is your understanding of this issue of 'blanket amnesty' because it was reported by the Star newspaper saying the draft settlement had a clause talking about a 'blanket amnesty' on all Zimbabweans?

Muleya: Yes, probably before I answer your question directly I have some point to make. I have seen the report in different publications that originated from South Africa about Mugabe going to be a ceremonial President and Tsvangirai being an executive Prime Minister. Peta has already addressed that but I just wanted to make a point that my understanding of that is; that is not a draft agreement at all. That was a proposal by the MDC led by Tsvangirai.

Peta: Ya.

Muleya: You would recall that in this situation the parties were making their own proposals to the talks, saying that ideally this is what we would want to get out of the talks. So each party started from its position in so far as it is interested in protecting its interests. So you cannot imagine an agreement out of a negotiated settlement in which power which is now concentrated in the hands of Mugabe is all transferred into the hands of Tsvangirai by way of that arrangement which results in Mugabe being a ceremonial President and Tsvangirai being an executive Prime Minister. That would be tantamount to just taking all Mugabe's powers depositing them into Tsvangirai's hands and then Mugabe having already lost control of parliament. This means that this agreement will all be about totally sweeping ZANU PF out of power. It will be about ZANU PF totally negotiating themselves out of power and honestly that does not make any sense.

Peta: Sorry Dumi I just wanted to back you on that one too and say there has been a gross misunderstanding of this document. You are right in saying it was a position paper of one of the parties to the negotiations.

Muleya: Yes one of the negotiating parties.

Peta: And obviously there was a misconstruction when it was regarded as a draft agreement of what has been discussed. It is important to clarify that.

Gonda: But how do you know it was a proposal from the Tsvangirai MDC because would the Tsvangirai MDC actually propose a 'blanket amnesty?' Does that make any sense?

Muleya: Let me start by saying I have seen that document by the way but unfortunately from the people that we were getting the information from I could not report it by way of saying this is a proposal by one of the parties because my understanding from the source at that time was that, "no this will appear like some of the negotiating parties are giving away documents that are supposed to be private and confidential." But it deals more with the issue of Mugabe's amnesty rather than too much of blanket amnesty. That if Mugabe was to accept being ceremonial President in exchange for amnesty that would be a deal. And it also said that down the line that if it got to a point where he needs amnesty for his people in order to get a deal then that would be done. Then the MDC seems to have taken a position that they may want to give this blanket amnesty in order to negotiate Mugabe out of power. Whether that is a good deal or not definitely that is up to Zimbabweans to comment. Already we heard Basildon Peta saying it is not a good thing at all. I am sure many more Zimbabweans have other views probably different views on it.

But I think we are very clear on one thing that it does not make sense to say political parties are involved in power sharing talks in which you end up with one of the negotiating parties with all the powers. So where is the power sharing in that kind of arrangement?

On the issue of amnesty the political parties - according to a briefing that I had - last week had a problem with one of the issues that they were discussing in particular regarding the issue of violence. They confronted that issue and they were divided on it - ZANU PF on one side the MDC on the other. The MDC were arguing that people who were affected by political violence before the March 29 th election and after going right until June 27 th, the run off - those people need to be compensated and those who perpetrated the crimes need to be arraigned or brought to book. I am sure you then saw the statement afterwards. Let me tell you what the statement says. The statement in its import says, "all the negotiating parties accepts responsibility for the violence," which was a compromise and then they called for the arraignment of the perpetrators of that violence and then further down the line also called for the compensation of the victims of that violence. That is a compromised position because last week they were too far apart on that issue. But then moving forward around that the question then becomes; How then do you define the perpetrators and where do you draw the line? Do you go back to January, do you start in February, do you start in March? Where do you start and where do you end? And how do you identify the perpetrators, how do you find the victims and where do you get money for compensation? Those were the sort of questions they were battling with.

And it does seem like they really answered them because the statement then clearly said whoever the perpetrators are they must be arraigned. Whoever the victims are they must be compensated and then they said NGOs must then be able to assist where they can. Can you see that looks like just an open deal around that issue and which doesn't really have any specifics?

Gonda: And it also appears as if the MDC is also admitting to participating in the violence, doesn't it?

Muleya: Yes! Obviously if you read that statement carefully they are admitting collective responsibility for violence, the beatings and the killings that went on during the elections. This means that ZANU PF rejected suggestions by the MDC that it was the perpetrator. Of course many Zimbabweans believe ZANU PF was but I think the MDC were put in a situation in which they ended up compromising to the point of admitting that they were participants in violence they were perpetrators and indeed that they inflicted violence on some of the Zimbabweans. I think this was really a weak position by the MDC because in the end that means that ZANU PF has managed to wriggle out on the issue of violence and the killings that went on during the elections. So that is a problem as far as I am concerned because the MDC - I think for the sake of progress -are now saying, "let's even accept crimes that we did not commit if this will guarantee us a deal," which is a problem.

Gonda: Basildon how do you view this - we also received that statement Dumisani. When you read it out I remembered it but we didn't receive it from the Tsvangirai MDC and when we tried to call all the Tsvangirai MDC officials that we tried to get a comment from denied seeing that statement or any knowledge. We have been having those problems where it appears the MDC officials are no longer free to actually discuss or comment about such issues. Are you also finding that problem there Basildon ?

Peta: Yes, yes Violet and I must say it is really tragic. I raised it with Welshman Ncube and with Tendai Biti. Remember when they were involved in the initial round of talks after the SADC summit, which I covered in Dar-er-Salaam in March last year - the summit that kick started the entire process of Mbeki's mediation? This thing happened again when the MDC and ZANU PF were locked in those negotiations and the MDC re-fenced themselves. You see as our fellow comrades in this struggle we expect to at least have more access to the MDC than say to ZANU PF. You know if personally I had my way and if it were not for a fact that in journalism you have to balance things I actually would not want to talk to any monster from ZANU PF but anyway that is besides the point.

Anyway since that process began in March up until the end of the year the talks collapsed. As you know the entire talks that were meant to create the conditions for a free and fair election and we now had this trading of accusations between the MDC and Mbeki with Mbeki saying, "the talks didn't fail" and the MDC saying "the talks failed." Then Welshman Ncube and Tendai Biti came to Johannesburg - they called a joint press conference in which they outlined why these talks had failed. And I said to them at that particular point, "you know you gentlemen, when you were talking to these people and we were trying to reach you to get an insight into what you were discussing you were totally inaccessible. You re-fenced yourselves, you kept yourselves away from us and now that the talks have collapsed you are now running calling press conferences. You are after the media. You suddenly have recognised the importance of the media because you want us to communicate your side of the story and why the talks have failed. Why didn't you keep us involved throughout the process?" And we had that exchange at that press conference and many of my media colleagues backed me.

I thought the MDC had learnt a lesson unfortunately they haven't. Now we are involved in this process and we understand that progress has been made but as Dumi rightly pointed out there are still these sticking issues of how to share power between Mugabe and it can also turn out that the entire talks collapse and at that stage the MDC would now start coming after the media, running and calling press conferences wanting to explain why things have failed. But many people would have been put off by the entire process and the international media will not bother to report on whatever they will be saying. And this will work out to be at the disadvantage of the MDC and the democratic forces in Zimbabwe .

Yes you are right we are having difficulties, severe difficulties in accessing information and as I say and I repeat it, it's tragic to me. It's very, very tragic because as the future of the country is at stake and the future of 12 million people, as Dumisani Muleya has said, is at stake, we saw agenda items that were agreed. There are many people who have a thing or two to say. You know the Media Alliance for Zimbabwe for instance issued a statement which concerns the media and what they would want to see as the media's role is important in any transitional arrangement that will be put in place, but they had difficulties. One of the officials had to look for me to say, "look can you publish this story in the South African media since these talks are happening in South Africa in the hope that maybe one of the negotiators will read and know that these are our concerns as the media and then raise these issues in the talks." Surely is that the way we should operate as Zimbabweans? I tend to disagree.

Even if their views are not taken on board but you know that feeling that at least I have said something that concerns me and it has been listened to or rejected that is what democracy is all about. There ought to have been some kind of accommodation of the various voices, the various sectorial interests we have in Zimbabwe which hasn't been done. And as you rightly said the MDC - the very people fighting and leading our struggle for democracy - have been totally, totally been inaccessible.

So at the end of the day I repeat what I said that one hopes this is just a temporary transitional pact that they will agree upon which will last for a year and not more than two years and during that period we as Zimbabweans get an opportunity to vigorously debate the future of our country, what we want for our country and all the things that we think matter to our country.

Gonda: And let me end by asking Dumisani, you gave us a run down of what could be in the draft settlement, how do we know you haven't been fed a rumour to keep Zimbabweans going or from one particular group in the talks so that people are not outraged?

Muleya: When we write stories we don't just speak to one person or one of the negotiating parties. We try as much as possible to speak to all of them and fortunately usually off the record we have access to ZANU PF and the two MDC factions. So we compare notes, we take notes from ZANU PF, we take notes from MDC led by Tsvangirai and we take notes from the MDC led by Mutambara and then try to look at the commonalities in terms of the facts to say this seems to be what is coming out from all the parties. And this is what has happened here that after all the gruelling negotiations we seem to be having a common position which says that basically in the key positions we will have Mugabe still remaining as President and then Morgan Tsvangirai coming in there as Prime Minister with some executive powers. That seems to be the arrangement that we are likely to see at the end of the day if the talks succeed.

And maybe I just need to point out one thing before we go - that if you want to understand how ZANU PF negotiates and I have said this to some MDC people when we were exchanging notes on the issues that part of the problem is that when they are negotiating they do not care to find out what ZANU PF is doing or saying within its structures which affects the talks. I will give you a very good example: last year when they were negotiating in particular on the draft constitution; they negotiated and agreed on that constitution but ZANU PF misled them by making them believe that the constitution will be implemented before the elections and the elections will be conducted under a new constitutional order. However we knew very well because we had the minutes of the ZANU PF Politburo of September 5 last year and in those minutes - which we reported continuously hoping that the MDC would pick a thing or two out of that - ZANU PF had decided that they would not accept a new constitution before the elections and we kept on drumming that issue hoping that these guys will begin to understand that ZANU PF usually puts out two faces in the negotiations. There is the real face which comes out in the Politburo and the other one which comes out at the negotiating table.

The same thing is happening now, in the Politburo on July 23 ZANU PF decided that the issue of Mugabe's executive President position is not negotiable. They decided that whatever happens in the talks they would defend that position and that position has to prevail by all means necessary. This is what the MDC is missing here that ZANU PF when it comes to that issue they are not going to move an inch on that, they will negotiate and agree on all these other things and at the end of the day they will say, "here we are Mugabe will remain executive President all other things can follow after that."

Peta: Which is why Dumi I think for the MDC , it would have been in their interest to insist on some kind of transparent negotiations process so that at least people can see this monstrous party called ZANU PF for what it is. One does understand that - as you rightly said earlier on - not every detail can be negotiated in public but there ought to have been some level of transparency because that issue is going to remain a major issue. I don't see those power hungry people just relinquishing power like that and saying, "okay fair enough" as some media have been reporting and "Tsvangirai you are now executive Prime Minister, Mugabe you will stay at State House hosting parties and doing all the ceremonial stuff." It's problematic and until it is done and there is an agreement there in black and white, I have some serious doubts about the smoothness of this entire process and it would have been more in the interests of MDC because of the very things you mentioned to at least ensure that there would be some involvement by the people of Zimbabwe, that there was some transparency or regular feedback to the people so that at least we know.

And I think it is tragic that for the second time the MDC agreed to be involved in a surreptitious, very secretive process that people don't know about because at the end of the day ZANU PF is a dishonest party, a party of dishonest individuals and it operates in a very funny manner and those issues that will inform ZANU PF's position I think in my view will create problems. And as you said these are positions that have been taken already and positions which ZANU PF will likely stick to. Anyway we will see what happens.

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

Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.

TOP