Back to Index

This article participates on the following special index pages:

Transcript of 'Hot Seat' interview with Ozias Tungwarara on talks, constitution and elections
Violet Gonda, SW Radio Africa
July 24, 2007

http://www.swradioafrica.com/pages/hotseat240707.htm

Violet Gonda: Ozias Tungwarara is the Director of the Africa Governance Monitoring and Advocacy Project - an Open Society Institute project - and he is the guest on Tuesday's Hot Seat programme. The human rights lawyer gives us his analysis on regional attitudes to the crisis in Zimbabwe and the status of the talks on Zimbabwe. Mr. Tungwarara has worked on human rights and democracy issues at national, regional and international levels. He was the Executive Director for the Zimbabwe Human Rights Association or ZimRights, the advisor to a SADC regional democracy program and a senior program officer with the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. He recently wrote a commentary entitled: 'SADC and the AU Decide to Side with Mugabe', where he said President Thabo Mbeki and other African leaders have conveniently allowed themselves to be confused by justifications that amount to no more than political scapegoats.

Violet: Welcome on the programme Mr Tungwarara.

Ozias Tungwarara: Thank you.

Violet: Can you first of all give us your analysis of the progress of the SADC talks?

Ozias Tungwarara: Violet, it's difficult at this stage to make useful commentary because, as I think you are aware, the talks have really been under the wraps and the parties that have been involved, namely the two factions of the MDC and ZANU PF have made little public comment. I think there are positive sides to that level of secrecy surrounding a sensitive process such as the talks that are being mediated by President Mbeki. But, there's also the downside that we don't exactly know what we will end up with. Whether it will be a compromise of a compromise or it will be a genuine robust solution to the challenges that Zimbabwe currently faces. But, having said that, I think from the outside the major concerns that have been rehearsed over and over again is that there seems to be a very narrow agenda that is being pursued. A narrow agenda that has been focusing on the two main political protagonists; MDC and ZANU PF, and this has a tendency to then exclude the larger part of the Zimbabwean community which I think, legitimately, needs to have a say in what solution is going to end up being the solution that is being agreed on.

Because if we are proceeding from the premise that the mediation, the talks and the solution to the Zimbabwe crisis should install or instill a system of democratic system of governance, then definitely, the principles of popular participation and political equality of all citizens needs to be respected, but at this stage, it's difficult to conclude that those principles have been taken on board in terms of the processes so far.

In terms of progress, there was a lot of talk that President Mbeki was going to give a report back at the end of June on the sidelines of the AU Summit in Accra. I don't know whether that happened or whether he still thinks it's un-strategic to go public at this stage. There's a lot of anticipation that some progress report is going to be given during the Lusaka SADC Summit, but again, nothing authoritative from the office of the mediator or the South African Presidency that has come through to say this indeed is going to happen. But I think, from the perspective of civil society, from Zimbabwean citizens and all those concerned, the major, major issue is that we are fast running out of time if the elections that have been scheduled for March 2008 are going to take place. I think there is need for a clear road map where people can intervene, where people can contribute, and, I think that would be the way to go to make the mediation effective.

Violet: And you know, as you said, earlier on, the talks are shrouded in secrecy and because of this it has become very difficult to actually get information on the progress. Now, it was reported last week that the talks are actually hanging in the balance over the issue of the constitution, which, as you know, is a key issue on the MDC's agenda. Now, it's reported that Mugabe is refusing to negotiate a new constitution and is only prepared to amend the current constitution and that the consensus within the ruling party is that the issue of the constitution should evolve from the parliament and not as part of a SADC initiative. But my question then is if a new constitution is a key issue on the MDC agenda and Mugabe goes through with Amendment Number 18, would that be game over for the opposition?

Ozias Tungwarara: No, I'm not sure that it would be game over or it would be the death knell to the process of dialogue because a process of dialogue entails give and take. Again, like I said earlier on, it's difficult to comment on the level of give and take that is happening because, for one, the agendas are part of the secret process that is going on. So, what we know about the positions that have been put forward is either leaked through the press or what people are speculating may be the key issues. But, back on the question of the constitution. I think the constitution is a central part of the problem of governance in Zimbabwe today. And, I think it would be an obvious thing for the MDC to insist on in terms of the initial issues that for one, brought the MDC into existence; the issue that the MDC has fashioned its democracy struggle around. That is that - we need to mitigate the concentration of power in one institution: the Presidency, which is the case in Zimbabwe. One would assume that that's an issue that one would want to see mediated around but again, it's obvious that ZANU PF, in its attempt to retain state power at all cost, will see that as a dramatic erosion of its power base. I mean, an amendment of the constitution in the manner that the pro-democracy forces have been demanding, is essentially to say 'let's spread around the centers of power which would leave ZANU PF and ZANU PF government very vulnerable in the context of political contestation. So, yes, I think that's an issue that is going to dominate the discussion spectrum, and, again, this is all that we can speculate, that it will depend on what give and takes are going to be negotiated. And, I don't think, if ZANU PF for instance, refuse to budge on that issue that will be the end of the talks. Because, I think that other arrangements could be made. For instance, where people go into elections under a transitory or a transitional arrangement and then a constitution is developed after; that's another option. So, at this stage, I don't think we should close options basically on the single issue of the constitution.

Violet: But, the MDC had said in the past, that it will only contest or participate in the election if there is a new constitution that will pave the way for free and fair elections. Now, SADC cannot insist on a new constitution and Mugabe has made it clear; in the last few weeks he told supporters that the constitution that Zimbabwe has already is perfectly OK and it serves Zimbabwe well. Now, do you think the opposition should participate in the elections next year even without a new constitution?

Ozias Tungwarara: I think the issue you raise Violet, needs to be looked at in the context of what has happened in Zimbabwe in the past, regarding political contestation and particularly, electoral contests. And, this is that the process has been badly managed in terms of starting right from delimitation, going on to voter registration, going on to issues like the campaigns which have been fraught with violence. My personal view is that what we are seeing on the ground now; in terms of the behavior and attitude of the ZANU PF government; nothing has changed. And, my position would be that it would be futile to go into an election for the sake of wanting to retain whatever small political space there is, because, the same result that we saw in 2000, in 2002 and in 2005, is the same result if the current conditions are maintained. And, there's nothing to indicate; unless something dramatic happens probably out of the economic meltdown that we are seeing; that the ZANU PF government runs out of resources for political patronage and completely fails to maintain the level of violence that it has maintained in the past. For me, nothing is going to change come March 2008 unless there are specific commitments that are made either in the context of the mediation or by ZANU PF itself coming to its senses that the people of Zimbabwe have suffered enough.

Violet: And, you know, going back to the issue of the mediation, clearly, everyone can see that things are not well in South Africa. You know, we've heard reports of ZANU PF not turning up to meetings and Mugabe making his stance very clear, showing that he is not interested in the constitution. And, even this issue of the secrecy behind the talks, others say that Thabo Mbeki put these conditions most likely on the prompting of Robert Mugabe, which clearly shows that Mugabe is in control. Now, do you think Mbeki's strategy has changed and is it Robert Mugabe who is letting him down this time?

Ozias Tungwarara: Ya, again I think you need to look at the track record of the actors involved in all this. Particularly, those of President Thabo Mbeki and President Mugabe. President Mugabe has gone back on his word on a number of occasions. We remember the agreement that had been cobbled together in Abuja in order to resolve the land issue that leaders like Mbeki and Obasanjo had managed to push through to reach a settlement in resolving the crisis when it was actually beginning to unfold. And, President Mugabe and his government reneged on that agreement. There are other commitments that have been made in the past where they have again gone back. And, when you look at President Thabo Mbeki's track record in handling the Zimbabwean issue, I think the centerpiece of his approach has been quiet diplomacy which refrains from making public criticism of the excesses that the ZANU PF government is engaging in. There are merits and de-merits to that sort of approach. But I think, largely, to a Zimbabwean citizen, to a lot of people in the region, the quiet diplomacy approach has not produced tangible results in terms of transforming the Zimbabwean crisis, or resolving the Zimbabwean crisis.

And, on several occasions again, President Thabo Mbeki has made some comments, remarks, reactions that actually defy a lot of logic. For instance, he recognized I think the 2000, 2002, 2005 elections in Zimbabwe as legitimate whereas there was tangible evidence that had been brought to his attention that things were irregular, they had not been conducted in any way that gave people the vote or the opportunity to choose, and yet he decided to take the route that they had been legitimate. So, that casts a bit of a cloud over his ability and commitment to actually resolve the Zimbabwean crisis in an objective manner. I think, on several occasions as well, he has indicated to world leaders; at one time it was to President Bush when he visited South Africa, the other time it was to the former German Chancellor, where he said he had the resolution of the Zimbabwean crisis almost in hand and then it turned out that nothing of that sort was happening. So, a lot of outsiders, people who are not privy to the process, are looking at the mediation process with a lot of skepticism because of what has happened in the past which has not built any confidence. Similar confidence and energy and urgency that was evident in the DRC mediation process, for instance, the Burundi process and other processes that Mbeki has been involved in. In Zimbabwe, people tend to think that Mbeki is definitely taking sides with President Mugabe. So, it's difficult to have a high level of confidence that the mediation will actually result in a tangible resolution of the crisis.

Violet: Is that what you meant when you said, in your article, that African leaders including President Thabo Mbeki had conveniently allowed themselves to be confused by justifications that amount to no more than political scapegoats?

Ozias Tungwarara: Yes definitely, I think the writing is on the wall for all to see, that you don't need to murder your country men, you don't need to torture your countrymen, your sons and daughters, in order to distribute land. And yet, when the issue of Zimbabwe appears on the agenda of SADC and the AU, there is a convenient blinding to the very graphic information and reports that have been tabulated and made available to the leadership about the horrific suffering that Zimbabwean citizens have had to go through; people having electrodes attached to their private parts; people being tortured to death; people being petrol bombed. All that is there for everyone to see. And yet, conveniently, when the discussion comes up, people say that it's a dispute between Britain and Zimbabwe. We say; 'please people give us a break.' If they were sincere in terms of siding with the Zimbabwean people, they would not allow what is happening in Zimbabwe at the level of human torture to take place.

Violet: But what can the regional leaders do?

Ozias Tungwarara: I think the regional leaders need to break the notion of pious solidarity which is based on an out-dated notion of national sovereignty and realize that there is no way that, single-handedly, a land-locked developing country can actually fight the war against global apartheid. I think they need to realize this and realize that what Zimbabwe is doing is actually undermining their collective effort to address the issue of the marginalization of Africa. And the sort of behavior that Zimbabwe and Zimbabwean leaders have embarked upon is counter-productive to the notion of Pan Africanism. So, what they need to do is to be bold enough to sacrifice some of the convenient comforts that they enjoy by not publicly criticizing Zimbabwe's conduct, and coming out and breaking ranks and saying that 'this is where the bus stops, this is where the buck stops, this is the conduct that within the SADC instruments, the AU instruments around democracy and governance, these are the standards that we have set and we need now to seriously comply by these standards, otherwise all that we are doing around regional collaboration, around continental collaboration, is only but rhetoric. So the thing is, they need to take the bold step to say clearly that Zimbabwe has breached standards of human rights, to say that this is unacceptable to the regional and continental collective and that unless Zimbabwe takes steps that they outline to address those shortcomings then Zimbabwe should be ostracized from the region and continental community.

Violet: But, what would it take, I'm sorry to go back to the same issue, but, what would it take for the African leaders to take that bold step? Because, if you look at the economic crisis right now, it's widely believed that government policies are killing the economy and government is taking businesses that are protected by bilateral protection of property agreements and that the region has done nothing about this and yet the region will be affected by these bad policies. So why is it they can't even take bold steps on this particular issue?

Ozias Tungwarara: I think the problem, Violet, that we largely face when we look at the regional and continental political architecture is that most of the nation states have been captured by the political elite which is not accountable to anyone back home. So, if these leaders when they go out and hold the summits that they do, if they were to come back and actually be accountable to their parliament in terms of what policies they should adopt regarding Zimbabwe, and listen to those advices from say legislature, civil society, opposition political parties players and other players at the national level, I'm sure that they would come to their senses and realize that the track that they have embarked on - of largely siding and silently applauding Mugabe and his actions, are not in line with what the majority of people at the national level actually believe in. And so, what I am saying is that we find that the dominant executive that comprises the regional and continental forum, is largely not listening to the common sense and reasoning that is coming from the majority of their people.

And, I think we probably need to build that pressure to a level where it is impossible for President Mbeki to come and continue with his policies without the South African parliament actually coming up and raising its voice that South Africa needs to take certain visible and tangible action. And, the same could be done in Namibia, the same could be done in Botswana, Zambia and so on. A few of the leaders have tried to come up but probably they are not strategic powerhouses when it comes to regional and continental politics. So, I think, as civil society, we may want to devote our energies to create that popular constituency at the national level that will bring these leaders to really begin to break ranks and to realize what is happening in Zimbabwe should not be allowed
to happen.

Violet: And of course there are others who say there is too much talk about the crisis and not enough action. And, it's said that external pressure is no substitute for the efforts of Zimbabweans. What can Zimbabweans do for themselves?

Ozias Tungwarara: Yes, you are right, the solution about the crisis of governance that we face in Zimbabwe today will ultimately have to be determined by Zimbabweans themselves. But, let's be realistic, this crisis has gone on for now close to seven years and a lot of Zimbabweans have left the country. A lot of Zimbabweans who remain in the country are solely concerned about issues of survival. The capacity of the opposition political parties that remain in the country, the pro-democracy forces that remain in the country, has been depleted seriously through the high levels of repression that you and I know are pertaining in Zimbabwe. So, we need not simply focus on the solution coming from the inside. I think we need to be realistic, even during the struggle for independence, what forced the issues was the pressure that came from the outside in terms of the combatants who fought the wars of Chimurenga because they had then created space in the friendly neighboring countries that supported our cause. So, I think at this stage, what is important, is to take those strategic choices and decisions that actually maximize the strength of pro-democracy forces in Zimbabwe and not necessarily limit it to the very restrained, constrained environment that Zimbabwe represents today.

Violet: And you know, on the issue of the opposition itself, do you think there needs to be some kind of truth speaking in terms of the MDC because some say it has invested its soul, you know, it's spirit and work in the talks and seems to have no other political answers. Is the opposition backed into a corner here?

Ozias Tungwarara: I wouldn't necessarily say they are backed into a corner. I would say they are operating in an extremely difficult environment and I think I would start off by giving credit to colleagues who have been in that struggle for as long as it has taken to be where they are and have stayed the course. And, again, when you look at issues around political formation, around political engagement, I think it's a terrain that is fluid and shifts. Whereas most of us, at least looking from the outside, would be keen to see a united force moving forward that maximizes on the energies and strengths of those who are fighting for the restoration of democracy in Zimbabwe, I think we need to deal with reality that the differences have to be worked on. I don't think it should be something that is superficially fostered on people who may not find the need to unite, even if the logic is staring us in the face that at this point in time we need to close ranks and unite. But, I think that it's a process, it's a thing that those involved, those who want to assist should work on. And, I think that we should not come up with instant-coffee solutions because it's those guys that have been in that struggle who know where they have come from and what are the differences that are currently militating against them coming together in a untied force; a logical thing that all of us see. And, like I said, I think that they are operating in very suspicious, very constrained, very dangerous environments where, I think, levels of trust and confidence need to be delicately worked at. Whatever comes up as a unifying factor needs to be solidly grounded so that people don't again fragment at a crucial stage of the democratic struggle.

Violet Gonda: I have to end here but thank you very much, Mr Ozias Tungwarara.

Ozias Tungwarara: Thank you Violet.

Audio interview can be heard on SW Radio Africa 's Hot Seat programme (24 July 07). Comments and feedback can be emailed to violet@swradioafrica.com

NB: SW Radio Africa is back on MULTIPLE frequencies. Broadcasts are between 7:00 and 9:00 pm Zimbabwe time on shortwave; in the 25m band 11775kHz, 11810kHz, 12035kHz and in the 60m band 4880kHz. Also via the internet at www.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