Back to Index

This article participates on the following special index pages:

SADC and GNU analysis with Ozias Tungwarara
Violet Gonda, SW Radio Africa
September 11, 2009

http://www.swradioafrica.com/pages/hotseat150909.htm

Violet Gonda: My guest on the Hot Seat programme is Ozias Tungwarara the Director of the Africa Governance Monitoring and Advocacy Project and a senior analyst for the Open Society Institute in SA and is here to give us his analysis on the just ended SADC Heads of State summit in Kinshasa and the progress of the coalition government in Zimbabwe. Now Mr Tungwarara let me start with your assessment of the outcome of the SADC summit in relation to Zimbabwe.

Ozias Tungwarara: Thank you Violet, and I can thank you for having me on your programme. In short, the SADC summit was disappointing but predictable.

Disappointing in that it didn't advance a lot of the issues that I think are at the heart of the expected transition in Zimbabwe.

Predictable in that SADC's track record has never been different when you look at where it has acted or where it has failed to act. And so one would want to put right at the forefront and on the table the issues around making sure that the government of national unity and the transitional period are made effective processes in terms of ensuring a democratic transition for Zimbabwe.

We saw from the summit that the key pronouncements that were made were around lifting of sanctions and an acknowledgement to the fact that the implementation of the transitional arrangements and agreements were on track without evidence being advanced or any indication of benchmarks against which such an assessment and conclusion could be reached. So the mood you get especially from Zimbabweans right across the range from ordinary citizens to political elite is one of uncertainty in terms of knowing where we are going towards and whether these arrangements are actually leading up to any transformation or any change in terms of Zimbabwe's political fortunes.

Violet Gonda: SADC is widely seen as backing the Zanu-PF position, now I spoke with the MDC spokesperson, Nelson Chamisa and he said there's still an inconclusive structure of government but there is this reluctance by SADC to approach things head on. He went on to say there's an ostrich mentality of burying the head in the sand and that decisions and choices being made by SADC only look at one side. Do you agree with this assessment and also what role do you think SADC should be playing?

Ozias Tungwarara: I think it would be extremely unfortunate if Zimbabweans were to place a lot of expectations in terms of what SADC can do to resolve the Zimbabwean crisis. This I make in the context of the track history of SADC. SADC has only been galvanised into action where Zimbabweans themselves have taken it upon themselves to actually express their discontentment and their disdain in terms of how they are governed. So if you look a little bit back, SADC has been reluctant, because SADC essentially is a construction of executive arms of government and the way it has behaved is to take sides with their executive colleagues and it's only when Zimbabwe failed to form a government, post the 2008 elections both parliamentary and presidential, that SADC was moved to recommend mediation. Previously when SADC was seized of the matter when opposition members were battered, beaten and tortured it was only then that SADC began to make some movement towards acknowledging that there was a crisis in Zimbabwe.

So the bottom line really is that to place a lot of expectation in the fact that SADC on its own, or left to its own processes and procedures will genuinely and effectively address the Zimbabwean crisis I think is a misplaced expectation. It's only when Zimbabweans, either through civic action as was the case when opposition and civic movement people were beaten up or when Zanu-PF was rejected at the polls that SADC has come to realise that there is a crisis here, they need to intervene. So it comes back to actually Zimbabwean citizens taking up the issues and taking on head on those issues that really affect their governance and begin to deal with them. SADC, the African Union, the international community, the UN, the EU and all the other multi-lateral organisations can only come in as complementary to what Zimbabweans are actually demanding. So I think going into Kinshasa there were a lot of misplaced expectations that SADC had the will, the wherewithal and the commitment to actually assist Zimbabwean citizens resolve their problems.

Violet Gonda: There are others who say it appears, or it seems the MDC have run out of options and that's why they keep running to SADC for help. Do you agree with this?

Ozias Tungwarara: Not entirely. I think there are a lot of issues that are at play in this instance so you find that the MDC's coming into existence was essentially to access and contest for state power. This is an issue that they have been blocked from left, right and centre in terms of a Zanu-PF strategy that essentially is structured and architectured around retaining control of state power, that allows political patronage, that allows continued looting of state resources, that allows continued retention of the security apparatus of the state. So whereas the MDC has been moving along on a trajectory of a change in the political agenda, a change that emphasises accountability to the majority of the citizens, especially if you look at the context where the MDC has arisen out of a labour movement and a workers' movement which basically says we insist on the majority of the people being able to influence the political decision making. One could say the compromises that were made in the context of the government of national unity did erode some of the principles and normative frameworks upon which MDC was formed.

But then in politics, we need to acknowledge that it's a game of compromises, you need to assess the situation, you need to be strategic, you need to be tactful and I think where we are it's a very difficult situation for the MDC because the premise on which they entered into this compromise was one of executive power sharing and what we have seen in the recent past is indications that Zanu-PF, or key figures in Zanu-PF, are not interested at all in a power sharing arrangement and that the evidence that is coming through very clearly is that this is a buying time tactic that Zanu-PF has adopted. Zanu-PF has not shifted from its original conviction that whatever political dynamics are happening in Zimbabwe, they are influenced by an imperialist regime change agenda.

And so you find two diametrically opposed parties that have gone into a marriage of convenience but are sleeping in different bedrooms and therefore there won't be any consummation of the government of national unity that would be productive - there won't be any reproduction in this case. So this is what we are faced with in terms of the practical realities, historical context of where we are coming from that really erodes and minimises the potential for success for the government of national unity.

And when you look at the Herald, it has really continued on a vendetta to demonise, vilify and make foolish of any attempts at social reconciliation and these are things that could have been rectified with a sense of urgency but would have gone a long way to actually build a lot of political and social capital which in this instance, would have allayed some of the concerns and worries of those people who would want to be friends of Zimbabwe to actually come in and say we are able to assist because we are seeing genuine reconstruction, genuine reengagement and a shift from the intolerant, partisan parochial nationalism that has characterised how Zimbabweans are governed for more than a decade.

Violet Gonda: And you say this is a delaying tactic by Zanu-PF, to achieve what?

Ozias Tungwarara: I think the honest issue we are faced with here and the reality is that it would be foolhardy to think that people who have exercised state authority, and primarily here we have known no other agencies or actors who have exercised state authority other than Zanu-PF, is the fact that they would want to retain state power at all cost. So you realise from statements that were recently being made for instance by the Zanu-PF administrator or secretary for administration, Didymus Mutasa that the power sharing agreement was never about power sharing - that goes really to the core of what this was all about. Because if SADC realised that there was a crisis in Zimbabwe and the crisis was around transfer of political power as a result of a botched election and that's the premise on which the former president Thabo Mbeki was appointed to mediate between the different and opposing actors in Zimbabwe, then several months down the line a senior member in one of the principal parties, Zanu-PF, comes up and says this was not about power sharing it really explains that there is a sub-strategy that is underlying all this issue.

And in short I think for Zanu-PF the strategy is really to buy time in face of a situation where the nation was collapsing, were rapidly descending into a failed state and Zanu-PF realised they didn't have the means to address the critical issues that were impacting on the population and therefore the compromise for them was to allow longevity in terms of retaining access to state resources. It's evidenced as well in the continued looting of state assets, in the continued chaotic invasion under the mantra of the so-called land redistribution which has been demonstrated as catastrophic, reckless and a failure and the failure to prosecute people who are responsible for perpetrating heinous crimes of violence. The reason why these people have not been prosecuted or brought to justice is because it was sanctioned from the highest level. So all these issues about national healing, about reconstructing the economy, about restoration of the rule of law will come to nought because the underlying strategy is not one to move the country forward but one to maintain personal interests, hegemony of Zanu-PF and to continue looting the state as had happened in the last decade or so.

Violet Gonda: And what about the MDC itself, do you think it has been weakened by the refusal of Zanu-PF to implement the power sharing deal fully?

Ozias Tungwarara: Probably not weakened because I think that the MDC as a political formation does have its own rationale and mandate which was not essentially premised on a compromise or a government of national unity but I think it does create a lot of vulnerabilities in terms of the MDC as a political formation because there are issues of principle here that are being trampled and you have a situation where the compromise was supposed to be for a short limited period in which mechanisms, processes and institutions that would have facilitated a transition to a democratic governing system where there was popular influence on decision making and political equality, but what we're seeing now is a process where the transition is being made permanent.

You find a situation where MDC parliamentarians, at least if you look at the media reports, they are pushing for the sort of entrapments that Zanu-PF functionaries have been entitled to. You get fights over vehicles, you get fights over assumption of prestigious or lucrative positions and I think that the MDC would be better advised to concentrate on reengagement with the citizens at a very broad level and be extremely accountable in terms of whatever next step they take to their original constituencies. Because the perception one gets, and in politics perceptions easily becomes realities, is that all those who are in the government of national unity are fighting for eating positions, they are fighting for 4x4 vehicles, they are fighting for their comfortable lifestyle and I think there is something to be said about foregoing some of the trapments of a luxurious political lifestyle, to actually begin to reconnect or go back to reconnecting with the people and say here's the reality we are facing, we need to move forward as a nation but as MDC we are committed to the cause of the people. But that is not evident now because they are all lumped into this unity government within which collective responsibility is difficult to practise because these are parties coming from different ideological and principle and value backgrounds and so it has to come to a point where the MDC has to make the hard choices around what is the image they want to portray in terms of representing the people who have put faith in their abilities to take them through a democratic transition.

Violet Gonda: Lately all we are hearing, especially from the Zanu-PF camp is the issue of 'sanctions' - the removal of 'sanctions' and as you mentioned earlier on in the programme, that's all we heard from SADC. What are your thoughts on this, are there merits for their removal?

Ozias Tungwarara: Definitely there are. I think it's one of the range of threats that threaten Zimbabwe's economic, social and political survival, it's failure to deliver on the economic front and needless to say, that economic restrictions, economic sanctions are having an impact on Zimbabwe trying to attract foreign investment. But I think the problem is around the fact that SADC now comes up with a position where it seems like Zanu-PF and the previous regime do not bear any responsibility for attracting the current economic restrictions that we face and yet the reality of the matter is that the sanctions - and these are very calibrated, they're at different levels, you get the personal sanctions targeted at Zanu-PF officials, people who are presiding over a oppressive process, you get sanctions that are emanating from US government policy in terms of the Zimbabwe Economic and Democracy Recovery Act, you get EU imposed sanctions which were attracted for a variety of reasons and a lot of these - in fact the bulk of the blame actually is on the Zanu-PF government that in the light and glare of the international community, it went ahead to abuse very visibly, its citizens rights and a lot of other peoples rights.

And so until and when Zanu-PF begin to realise that it shoulders the blame for attracting sanctions on Zimbabwe it should not begin to push the blame on to the MDC to say you were calling for sanctions because at no point did the MDC call for sanctions on Zimbabwe. It was the very act of the Zimbabwean government, prompted by a misguided policy of splendid isolation where at some point the President himself was saying to hell with the west, we have a look east policy, and these are our friends. What has changed now that begins to urge the Zimbabwean government to say sanctions should be lifted? So until and when responsibility is taken on the part of Zanu-PF, I mean there are simple things where you begin to open up the media, you begin to make your judiciary non-partisan that in and of itself will simply indicate that these are serious people who are intended on reforming and that this notion of continued hammering on regime change conspiracy theory will not save the country.

And I think this is where a pragmatic, practical realisation of what the responsibilities on the part of Zanu-PF are, need to strike home and I think SADC needs to take that on board and not simply hammer on lift sanctions but also acknowledge that Zanu-PF, President Mugabe and his coterie of advisors have a serious responsibility to reverse all the policies, the reckless and irresponsible policies that they have presided over, to create good will and good faith that they are serious about addressing the mistakes that they have made in the past. It's only that I think that the whole international community, the development partners who are willing to assist Zimbabwe will begin to see genuine signs of reformation and people begin to come in and reengage.

Violet Gonda: I actually spoke to Gorden Moyo, the Minister of State in the Prime Minister's office last week and he says there are no sanctions, or there are no economic sanctions on Zimbabwe and that Zimbabwe is still trading with some of these countries like the US and the countries in Europe, so are you saying there are sanctions on Zimbabwe?

Ozias Tungwarara: I would say there are sanctions because if a powerful economic actor like the US has restrictions, whether they are at a personal level or whether it is through the influence that it has in the multi-lateral financing institutions like the IMF and the World Bank, there is a radiating effect in terms of investor confidence, so you find a situation where if a whole coterie of Zanu-PF functionaries are targeted in terms of their repressive behaviour and conduct, I as an investor would think twice before I go in there because I'm going to say if an economic giant such as the US find it too risky to deal with these guys then I'm going to obviously have a very measured interaction.

So there is a radiating effect to that extent but you are right and I think that Gorden Moyo is right that in the strict terms of direct economic sanctions that actually say no trade between the EU, between EU nations and Zimbabwe, that may not be the case but still, you want to access as much capital as you can and private sector which is a big driver of foreign direct investment takes its cue from actually the key political players. So IMF if it is saying because of restrictions by the US government we cannot advance the financial package to Zimbabwe, it does have an effect and indeed there is that effect. So my position would be that yes the economic restrictions are having an adverse effect in terms of how people perceive Zimbabwe and once you are perceived as a failing nation it takes a while to rebuild that credibility and it needs the big players to begin coming in and restoring that confidence so probably the effect of the sanctions may not be direct but they are radiating and quite impactive.

Violet Gonda: Now views are divided on what the international community should do about this issue as some feel that removing the restrictions would be rewarding the ruling elite for not having done anything to change. In your view, what approach do you think the countries that have imposed these restrictions should take?

Ozias Tungwarara: My honest view would be that there is need now for a level of risk taking because as has been said, particularly if you look at the 1992 successful campaign of a former US President Bill Clinton that 'It's the economy, stupid'. The basis on which the unity government is going to fail is that it will not meet people's expectations. We are already seeing that in terms of failure to pay adequate and justifiable salaries for civil servants, teachers, nurses, doctors and so I think it requires some sort of innovation, some sort of risk taking but accompanied by measures that will ensure that as soon as there are indications that inflowing resources are being used for further repression the situation is corrected.

So here we are talking of a situation where when the government of national unity came into being, they estimated that they needed eight billion to just normalise things and there was a lot of expectation, there was the acknowledgement for instance that the Zimbabwean currency was non-existent, it was simply providing more misery than relief to the ordinary citizens and then therefore they moved to accept multiple currencies, the rand, the dollar and so on. But we are getting to a situation where we are plateauing, we are getting to a situation where very soon where the government will not be able to meet the heightened expectations and when that happens the people are going to be disillusioned.

So I think the international community does have a responsibility despite the concerns and genuine fears that resources may actually be diverted towards sustaining a repressive mechanism, to have a robust approach where resources are channelled to assist the vital sectors and make sure that there is a system of benchmarking where actually those resources are then applied to the relevant and requisite areas of concern. And unless there is that maintenance of a balance I'm afraid that continued reluctance and resistance by development partners to increase significantly resource inflows will grossly undermine the government of national unity which incidentally, development partners have expressed confidence in, they are saying this is the only way that Zimbabwe can transition and I think that it behooves them to take that level of risk taking and engage even in an unsatisfactory environment.

Violet Gonda: What about that other issue, about rewarding Zanu-PF's bad behaviour because those who support the stance taken by the west say Zanu-PF deliberately refuses to meet the minimum conditions set by those countries, for instance on the issue of restoring the rule of law, Zanu-PF still refuses to budge and critics ask what guarantees are there that Zanu-PF will behave this time?

Ozias Tungwarara: I'm not advocating for a blanket removal of the restrictions and the economic constraints that have been imposed because those were imposed for very specific, particular and very clear reasons especially in terms of the way the Zanu-PF government was behaving by way of not respecting what are accepted standards in terms of dealing with your political opponents. But what I am saying is that there is need again for further compromises. You can go in with a structured engagement that ensures that the moment that there are signals of continued or escalated repression, then you have a fall back plan which can help you bring the culprits to book. But at the moment what we have seen is that whereas the development partners are generally acknowledging that the government of national unity or the Global Political Agreement does present an opportunity for transformation there is much more hesitancy in terms of a level of risk taking that allows you to engage even at a limited and calibrated level with the different actors. Because the reality of the matter really Violet is that Zanu-PF is not going to go away any time soon, they are going to continue to be a player on the political front and I think it needs some robust and much more flexible approach to engage the different actors in a constructed way but a constructed way that is in the context of a normative framework that gives respect to the fundamental rights for which pro-democracy forces in Zimbabwe have been fighting for.

But I'm afraid to say that the reaction of the predominantly development partners up to this stage has been one of extreme caution and in some instance clear resistance to exploring viable ways of engaging the different partners and making sure that the thing that they support, the Global Political Agreement does actually work in the end. As I said earlier, it's a lot of risk taking, it's a lot of thinking out of the box but I think much more needs to be done in terms of that re-engagement.

Violet Gonda: OK, I'm afraid we have to end here. Thank you very much Ozias Tungwarara for speaking to us on the programme Hot Seat.

Ozias Tungwarara: OK, thank you Violet.

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