|
Back to Index
Public
meeting report on …of MDC-Zanu PF talks and the Senate
Crisis in Zimbabwe
Coalition
August 18, 2005
1.0 Introduction
As one of
its objectives, to create a platform for the public to analyse and input
into national policy formulation, Crisis Coalition organized a public
meeting to discuss the talks about talks and the issue of the senate.
This report narrates the presentations from the panelists, Honourable
Trudy Stevenson M.P for Harare North (MDC), Dr William Nhara (Zanu PF),
Dr Lovemore Madhuku (NCA) and Mr. Eldred Masunungure (U.Z academic). In
principle, there is consensus on the necessity of talks but there is disagreement
on the timing, agenda and environment of the talks. The perspectives on
the constitutional amendments are two. One that the senate issue is irrelevant
as the country needs a new constitution whilst the government position
is that it will not stop to govern because of constitutional reform demands.
Zanu PF further argues that the government will revisit the constitutional
issue when the people say so since they put people first. The conclusion
summarizes the prescribed way forward, especially from both Zanu PF and
the MDC.
2.0 Background
to the Meeting
Since 2002,
there have been intermittent and renewed moves to facilitate political
talks in Zimbabwe. The previous attempts by the Commonwealth, African
Union and the Zimbabwean Churches failed for several reasons. At present,
there are numerous stories and theories of talks about talks and diplomatic
mediation from Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo and former Mozambican
leader, Joachim Chissano.
The
State media captured the issue as if President Obasanjo, the African Union
Chairperson is pressing for dialogue as a means to resolve the internal
crisis in Zimbabwe. On the local scene, Zanu PF is reported as refusing
to formally talk to the MDC insisting that the two parties will interact
in parliament. On the other hand, the MDC is sticking to its position
that it is ready to formerly engage Zanu PF to discuss and implement fundamental
points to resolve the deepening crisis in Zimbabwe.
From
this background, Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition, informed by the Civil Society
Position on talks (The Yellow Paper)
organized the public meeting to achieve two goals. First was to get the
real positions from the political parties regarding talks and their positions
on the senate. The second goal was to highlight the civil society’s position
that binary talks between the two political parties (Zanu PF and MDC)
without other players (Broader Civil Society) could be necessary
but not sufficient to address the issues at stake.
3.0 Summary
of submissions:
3.1 MDC position,
by Hon, MP Trudy Stevenson
The MDC’s road map to the resolution of the Zimbabwean crisis is broad.
It includes elections, talks and civic education. Firstly, she noted that
the MDC would continue to participate in elections because the party does
not want to donate political space to the ruling Zanu PF party. This is
despite the fact that the election system is skewed in favour of Zanu
PF.
She
stated that the ball is in Zanu PF’s court as it is presiding over a failed
economy. She further noted the shocking level of misgovernance and anti-people
policies like "Operation Murambatsvina". It is therefore on the basic
love for the country that the MDC remains open to talks to Zanu PF, and
talking about the restoration of good governance and the institution of
a new constitution among other critical issues. The MDC is waiting for
Zanu PF, which "walked out" of talks in 2002 to come back to the negotiating
table.
On
the senate, the MDC believes that Zimbabwe needs a new constitution and
not another constitutional amendment to create space for t ZANU PF’s political
friends. The MDC believes in a new beginning and believes that Zanu PF
remains a factor that could assist make Zimbabwe great again.
3.2 ZANU PF
position, By Dr William Nhara, (Zanu PF Election Directorate Spokesperson)
He referred his submission on talks to the annals of history by noting
that Zanu PF has a history of dialogue and compromises since its formation.
The Lancaster House discussions and the 1987 Unity accord were referred
to. However, citing the 1987 Unity Accord, Dr Nhara said PF- ZAPU and
ZANU- PF had the same ideology and vision of Zimbabwe but just had different
tactics. This is not similar to the present state where the MDC has a
different ideology and from this perspective, it is difficult to talk
to the MDC.
He
then pointed out that because Zanu PF loves Zimbabwe, it agreed to talk
to the MDC in 2002 and set out a committee to draw up the agenda for talks.
However the talks failed because there was no good faith as the MDC wanted
to negotiate Zanu PF out of power. This was worsened by the MDC’s suggestion
that Mugabe was not the legitimate President and the useless, though constitutional,
court challenge against the 2002 presidential election.
Nhara
believes that Mugabe and Tsvangirai would talk if the people, their constituencies
call for talks. He says Zanu PF feels there is no need for talks since
the country has just come out of national elections, therefore let the
peoples choice rule.
It
is Zanu PF’s concern that the MDC having allegedly called for sanctions,
if genuine about talks, should call them off.
In
the meantime, Nhara argued that should there be talks between the MDC
and Zanu PF, the media must desist from talking of talks that they do
not know about. This means that Zanu PF is also ready for talks but the
conditions are not yet set.
On
the senate issue, Zanu PF’s position is clear. The senate was proposed
in the draft constitution of 2000 and what the party is just implementing
some necessary aspects of that draft that it deems necessary in today
governance and to successfully close the "3rd Chimurenga"
– the land reform exercise. He dismissed the MDC’s argument that the senate
issue is a mere waste of national resources.
Dr
Nhara, though acceding to the fact that the government has no money, says
the party is committed to democracy and thus intends s to hold senate
elections rather than forcing senators on the people. The fact behind
this is that "democracy is expensive anywhere in the world", so
the monetary aspect must not hinder democracy.
3.3 Mr.
Masunungure, an academic perspective
He observed
that, generally, the Zimbabwean political system is genetically authoritarian.
He cited the media as the main opinion maker in these talks about talks
or talks about not talking, and highlighted that it was futile to negotiate
in the media.
Masunungure observes
three stages in the process of dialogue. These are;
- Talks about not
talking
- Talks about talks,
and
- Talking
Thus
the MDC is now on stage 2 whilst Zanu PF is still at stage 1 but eventually
all will go to stage three. The issue therefore is not primarily about
talking but talking about what and to what end.
He
noted that the issue is complex and that suspicion is rampant. However,
Zanu PF’s heavy, voluminous and strenuous denial about talks with the
MDC could be an attempt to hide talks taking place somewhere.
The
current political setup in Zimbabwe displays two political worlds, illusion
and reality and that one of these worlds was dominated by either of the
political parties (Zanu PF and MDC)-without branding. He describes the
chief variable as the failure to recognise each other between Mugabe and
Tsvangirai. Mugabe does not recognise Tsvangirai as the legitimate leader
of the opposition but as an illegitimate son of Tony Blair. Blair has
since denied paternity to Tsvangirai, Masungure noted. On the Other hand,
Tsvangirai does not recognise Mugabe as the President of the country but
as an electoral thief, and to get these two to talks could be difficult
to imagine.
Masunungure
identified that distrust is the political pavement of Zimbabwean politics,
both within political parties and at inter-party level. This distrust
has been exported into Zimbabwe’s relations like, the Mbeki-Tsvangirai
relations and the Mugabe-Obasanjo-Chissano relations. (Nhara threatens
to move out of the meeting if Masunungure continues attacking Mugabe at
this stage)
In
conclusion, Masunungure believes that despite everything Mugabe, despite
being the or part of the problem, remains key to the solution. He notes
the thermotic aspects of Mugabe’s personality (egos) that which makes
Mugabe tick or untick, need to be recognised and dealt. He states that
ego increase with age and its natural but urgent short-term solutions
have to be developed to mitigate the people’s suffering.
3.4 Dr
L. Madhuku, NCA Chairperson
The issue of
the senate has to do with the constitution and it is the NCA’s position
that Zimbabwe needs a new people driven constitution and not more constitutional
amendments. He agreed with Nhara that Zanu PF has a history of engaging
in dialogue, referring to the 1999 Zanu PF-NCA talks on the constitution.
However, he noted the issue as not merely on talks since it is unnatural
not to want to talk. The issues are talking to who and talking what?
He
believes that the conditions for talks are not there given the skewed
balance of power between Zanu PF, the MDC and the civil society. Therefore,
he believes it is the MDC’s fallacy to ask for talks loudly whilst they
do not create the necessary conditions to bring Zanu PF to the table.
Madhuku
holds that Zanu PF is very arrogant and that if confronted by the masses,
it will talk. He urged people to mobilize and conditionalise Mugabe to
the table.
Madhuku
then gave a socio-economic analysis of Zimbabwe, noting the fall in the
standard of living through the percentage of people below the poverty
datum line. The economic fallout ought to have caused Zanu PF to panic
but alone, it is not sufficient to create the punch. Examples noted include
the unsustainable inflation rate, the forex crisis, housing crisis, and
the fuel shortages among other social sector problems.
In
conclusion, Madhuku said the civil society is not necessarily saying Mugabe
must go but that we need a new democratic dispensation. He noted that
civil society would be a factor in any talks on Zimbabwe. The Broad Alliance
is alive and has learnt from its past mistakes in its move to realise
a democratic Zimbabwe.
4.0 Conclusion:
It remains
the view of the Coalition that any talks in Zimbabwe must be tripartite
talks as the issues that make the agenda are beyond the binary interests
of two political parties. The Zimbabwean crisis is beyond politics, and
thus there is need for the dialogue to be a national process.
Visit
the Crisis in Zimbabwe fact sheet
1. The Yellow Paper.
Talks about talks, or a mere waste of time ?, Crisis Coalition, 2003
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
|
