Back to Index

This article participates on the following special index pages:

The imperative of a democratic transition
Voice for Democracy
October 07, 2009

Download this document
- Word 97 version (36KB)
- Acrobat PDF version (66.2KB)
If you do not have the free Acrobat reader on your computer, download it from the Adobe website by clicking here.

A rebuttal to testimony given by Donald Steinberg, Deputy President, International Crisis Group, to the United States Subcommittee on Africa, on 30 September 2009 at a hearing:

"Exploring U.S. Policy Options toward Zimbabwe's Transition"

Many Zimbabweans, especially those who had been fighting for democracy and justice for nearly a decade, felt betrayed by the MDC forming an Inclusive Government with Robert Mugabe and his party. The MDC portrayed their capitulation to the forces of tyranny as the 'only option' to save ordinary Zimbabweans. Even when it was abundantly clear that they had entered a power-sharing agreement in which they had surrendered power, the MDC touted the illusion that the Inclusive Government was 'working', that Mugabe was part of the solution, and that the new government represented the views of Zimbabweans as a whole. In fact, none of this was true.

The ICG has argued that the United States' reluctance to engage more fully with the Zimbabwe Government is thwarting the very changes the international community is seeking because it will weaken the hand of the MDC and moderates in ZANU(PF), thereby undercutting support for the reform process. We respectfully disagree.

The hand of the MDC has not been weakened by the United States and the international community's lack of support, but by the MDC's own capitulation and appeasement. In its naive endeavour to make the Inclusive Government 'work' it has, for example, colluded in the injustices of the land reform programme, accepting that it is 'irreversible' and that Britain bears responsibility of compensation. When the MDC's powerlessness to stop the ongoing land invasions was rudely exposed, Mr. Tsvangirai claimed that these invasions were only 'isolated incidents' that had been 'blown out of all proportion'. In the same breath he lamely pleaded for help from the international community, saying, 'Don't make us pay for working with Mugabe.' The MDC has lost contact with its support base, not because it has been unable to deliver services to the people, but because it has ceased to be a symbol of justice, democratic change and resistance to dictatorship.

Even if there were no contradiction in terms when speaking of 'moderates in ZANU(PF)', these moderates defer completely to their source of power - Robert Mugabe. The MDC has peddled the illusion (bought by the ICG) that Mugabe is either 'backing' or beholden to a cabal of hardliners, such as the generals, who are bent on thwarting the new government. Yet it is precisely the opposite. The problem lies at the pinnacle of power within the new government - with Mugabe himself. It is the President who is dutifully referred to as the 'Commander of the Armed Forces and Head of the State and the Government', who presides over Cabinet and who is the real power behind the generals. It is the President who has abused his wide discretionary powers to make appointments in direct contradiction of the agreement between the political parties. It is the President who is at the centre of a massive patronage system that allows his supporters, from ministers and MPs to generals and judges, to act with impunity - especially with regard to land invasions - and in total disregard for the rule of law. It is this near absolute power that defines the Mugabe dictatorship. There may be moderates, but they have precious little power to sustain or indeed undercut any reform process.

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