Back to Index

The 'Real Deal' or another walk down the garden path?
Research & Advocacy Unit, Idasa
November 05, 2008

View article on the Idasa website

Download this document
- Rich Text version (20.6KB)
- Acrobat PDF version (116KB)
If you do not have the free Acrobat reader on your computer, download it from the Adobe website by clicking here.

It seems in Zimbabwe that the more things change the more they stay the same, and we are all wondering who is leading who down the garden path. Herald reporter, Caesar Zvayi claims it is the MDC, playing the hare to ZANU PF's baboon by trying to re-interpret the Agreement, whilst the MDC claims that ZANU PF is negotiating in bad faith, and what could be a greater demonstration of bad faith than doctoring the Agreement?

Despite all the warming exhortations of SADC, it does not appear that the political crisis has moved beyond the startling election results of March 2008, except perhaps that we have an "agreement". However, even this agreement now seems to have intractable problems, and the latest statement from the MDC indicates that there is still much more to discuss than merely the issue of who controls the Ministry of Home Affairs. It seems increasingly evident that this Agreement will fail, and it seems important to try to see what might then be the way forward.

It also appears that many parties and persons have not read the Agreement very carefully, especially in regards as to how the Agreement will interface with all the existing Zimbabwean legislation. There have recently been two detailed opinions on the Agreement and its implications, each starting from different assumptions. This is not the place to recapitulate these arguments, for is sufficient to point out that both outline many problems that can (or will) emerge as a consequence of this deal: whilst power-sharing is the aim, it is apparent from both analyses that the Agreement, when implemented in Zimbabwean law, will leave ZANU PF in much the same position as it was prior to the March election.

The difference in the two analyses is that one assumes that the "good will" that is supposed to permeate the Agreement and its implementation - and which drips its way through the Preamble - will be sufficient to overcome most of the difficulties inherent in the Agreement. The assumption is fair and it is clearly on the basis of assumed "good will" that the MDC remain in the ongoing dialogue, and it is continually to the good will that all the interested external parties, and especially SADC, keep referring. The second analysis proceeds from an entirely different assumption; that ZANU PF has no intention of sharing power, and hence, with the complete absence of "good will", the Agreement will not lead to any change, except the most trivial. It is worth repeating, however, that, despite the very different assumptions, both analyses agree on the significant problems that will emerge once actual government begins.

As indicated above, it is not the intention here to provide a detailed comparison of the two analyses, but it worth going to the crux of the problem, the powers of the President under the Agreement. Both analyses are in agreement that the powers of the presidency remain considerable, whilst the powers of the prime minister - which is yet to be specified in Zimbabwean law - are ambiguous and probably subject in virtually all cases to the powers of the presidency. This seems remarkable in the light of the recent elections; the MDC quite clearly emerged as the front runner in the March elections, whilst the result of the June Presidential election was repudiated by all except ZANU PF. And yet the Agreement, will try to place the MDC in the position of the junior party in the putative government. Thus, it is scarcely surprising that there are difficulties in finalising this deal.

Download full document

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