Back to Index

Is a coalition govt. the answer?
The Herald (Zimbabwe)
April 11, 2008

http://allafrica.com/stories/200804100139.html

Even without the results of the presidential poll, and most independent observers believe a run-off will be required there, it is obvious from the parliamentary elections that the result is close and that whoever wins the presidency is going to have a hard job getting a budget through Parliament, let alone effect legislative change.

Even more worryingly, Zimbabwean voters are largely split geographically. The cities and towns voted overwhelmingly for the MDC-Tsvangirai, but the bulk of the rural heartland voted equally overwhelmingly for Zanu-PF, with the MDC-T only winning big in north and south rural Manicaland. Only in Masvingo Province were votes scattered.

Matabeleland presents a potential danger in ethnic voting. The MDC, largely the creation of middle-of-the-road liberal democrats, came in a respectable third, but far behind the two main parties, in the eastern two-thirds of the country. To a degree, this is the fate of many parties expressing middle-class individual liberalism. They rarely achieve power, largely because major parties on the right and left tend to take over their better ideas.

But the MDC was also clearly seen as attractive to many Ndebele-speaking voters, who are now largely cut off from the two big parties. Two other small ethnic groups tended to go with one of the bigger parties, Tonga speakers with the MDC-T and Venda speakers with Zanu-PF.

Even the two major parties tend to be built of conflicting coalitions. The MDC-T appears to combine organized labor, traditionally a leftish constituency, with a lot of centre-right idealists wanting a hard currency, economic growth at all costs, and less Government controls.

Zanu-PF is more solid, at least at the voter level. Its main block of support comes from the vast numbers of smaller farmers wanting continued accelerated rural development, with all the tax implications needed to finance that, and consolidation of rural reform. Resettlement areas produced especially large Zanu-PF majorities. But the party's leadership is more diverse, and it does have the support of significant blocks of new businessmen and intense nationalists.

Neither main party has completed its transition, Zanu-PF from a liberation movement to a radical center-left party and the MDC-T from an opposition coalition built on a protest vote to either a labor party or a centre-right party.

The hung Parliament, especially the crucial House of Assembly, along with the geographical split in voting, the ethnic protest and the need for some major reforms in Zimbabwe's economy and political landscape, has given rise to suggestions of what tends to be called a Government of National Unity, or in other parts of the world a grand coalition.

But how could that Government be formed? And how can power be "shared".

Here we could return to the ideas developed in the 1999 constitutional discussions and start splitting executive power.

There has been immense debate on concentrating power in the presidency.

Switching to a ceremonial presidency does not address the issue either. All executive power simply devolves to the Prime Minister or Chancellor or whatever other name is given to the person who heads the Cabinet.

The French had this problem in the late 1950s, when General Charles de Gaulle was recalled to save France for the second time in a generation. When they were building the Fifth Republic they knew De Gaulle would take the top job. They did not want all power in the hands of a president or Prime Minister who was also "De Gaulle". So they split power and have managed rather well since, even when the president and Prime Minister have come from different parties.

Experience in much of the rest of Europe shows that a ceremonial presidency tends to be a fancy retirement scheme for a senior politician, who is then largely ignored by his all-powerful Prime Minister. Even where there are old traditional monarchies, the king or queen is little more than a person who signs papers handed over by the Prime Minister.

But the newer democracies show an alternative path. The president is the guardian of the freedoms of the people, and the guardian of the revolution that ended fascism (in say Portugal) or Soviet-style communism (as in much of Eastern Europe). Many countries, in fact, deliberately elected quite different people to the presidency and, through their parliamentary vote, to the premiership. Most wanted a bunch of technocrats to sort out their economy and to run the government, but also wanted someone who would come down hard when the poor and formerly oppressed were kept poor and oppressed.

Some say a presidency with some real power, especially a veto power, coupled with a prime minister running a government of technocrats drawn from all parties might be the best way for the time being of resolving Zimbabwe's economic and political problems.

Such a grand coalition would not, and could not, last forever. Its main job would be to get the economy growing again and draft a constitution for the new generation. We need to remember that well over half the population of Zimbabwe were not born when independence came, and that the "born-frees" will soon dominate the electoral register.

For them, despite what they hear in school, life is quite different. And us old-timers should be glad that this is so. They want a "normal" country, with the chance of making a decent life for themselves and their children. Most would probably welcome the sort of political battles that revolve around different emphases on roughly agreed policies.

So a grand coalition would be the last hurrah of those who came to adulthood before independence, another chance to continue distilling the lessons of the armed struggle, the liberation of the country, and what we have done since then, our successes as well as our failures.

This will require compromise by all parties. But no party has an overwhelming mandate to do anything very exciting. Together they represent every significant block who wants something fixed, and wants their problem put on the list of things to be fixed.

In 1979, at Lancaster House, everyone made some concessions. In the early 1980s Zimbabwe had a largely coalition government and a cabinet of all talents. The same spirit of compromise and the same humility is needed now.

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