Back to Index

Conditional loan is our best chance to influence Zimbabwe
Steven Friedman
August 03, 2005

http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/article.aspx?ID=BD4A76080

NOT for the first time, we may be about to miss an opportunity to contribute to Zimbabwe's democratic progress.

Our government's Zimbabwe policy is particularly difficult to read now. Comments by opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai and President Thabo Mbeki's support for a South African Council of Churches rescue plan suggest that strategy is moving away from appeasing the Mugabe government.

But, publicly, government is considering lending money to Zimbabwe's authorities and the president has continued to defend Robert Mugabe and his government.

Whether government is saying nice things in public about Zimbabwe's rulers while putting the squeeze on them in private, or because that is what our leaders still feel, is unclear.

What is clear is that the need to pressure Zimbabwe's government has never been greater. Not only has its campaign against the urban poor taken its abuse of human rights to a new level, but the need to repay the International Monetary Fund makes it more vulnerable than for some time.

This raises questions about our government's strategy - whichever interpretation is accurate. If it is continuing to cuddle up to Zimbabwe's regime, it ensures we are even more resented by millions of Zimbabweans than we already are. And if we are being nice in public while setting conditions in private, it is hard to see how this will move Zimbabwe forward.

Mugabe's record of honouring undertakings to concede democratic space is hardly sparkling. Why should he now honour a secret agreement attached to resources, which makes it easier for him to ignore pressure?

If our government is placing conditions on financial help, how will it ensure that these are met unless they are enshrined in a public agreement? And even then, relying on the good faith of a government which has shown none thus far would be a risk.

Financial help to Zimbabwe could, therefore, help only if hedged by conditions that its government publicly accepts; and if the custodians of the deal are not its government alone.

This suggests a way we might help Zimbabwe so that we ensure that money is more likely to get to those who need it and also open possibilities for a negotiated end to its stalemate. We could insist that we will help - but only if the money is given jointly to, and spent jointly by, Zimbabwe's government, parliamentary opposition and civil society organisations.

This would send a signal that we support Zimbabwe's economic revival - but that it is a task for all its major actors, not just its government. And that we want our help to address the cause of the problem - the fact that the future of Zimbabwe is being determined by Zanu (PF) alone rather than the entire society.

This may seem naïve. The Mugabe government is surely not going to agree to decide with its opposition and civil society organisations, which have campaigned against it. It would, surely, insist that it is a sovereign government which has no need to be told to treat its opponents as partners.

But it is not nearly as naïve as believing that a government which makes war on its most vulnerable citizens will use money we give it to fight poverty alone. Nor as naïve as believing that it will become democratic if we bale it out and have a quiet word with it on the need for change.

This Zimbabwean government is likely to honour the conditions of a loan only if it is held to them in public.
And the problems that beset Zimbabwe will not be resolved while we perpetuate the fiction that the ruling party alone can solve them. We have, therefore, only two options if we want to improve Zimbabwean lives. One is to refuse to advance any money. That would free of us of the burden of being seen to keep in power a government of dubious legitimacy, but it would not offer aid to Zimbabweans. The other is to help - but only if we work with all Zimbabwe's interests, not only the government.

Since this is the only way we can intervene while not choosing sides, and offer hope of a more lasting solution, the probability that it would not be accepted by Mugabe should not deter us. Even if Zanu (PF) balks now, the option of a relief package negotiated with, and administered by, all major forces in Zimbabwe would remain on the table, a firm offer of what we are willing to do to help our neighbour if its major forces are willing to co-operate to address its crisis.

When political conditions change to make a broad Zimbabwean response possible, the offer would be available as an incentive.

We can make a difference in Zimbabwe. But only if we signal that we know the difference between its government and its people.

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