Back to Index

This article participates on the following special index pages:

Zanu PF, MDC talks must aim for common good
Webster Zambara, The Standard (Zimbabwe)
July 01, 2007

http://allafrica.com/stories/200707021106.html

The mediation process between the main political parties Zanu PF and MDC that is being brokered by President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa has torched debate not only among ordinary men and women but at very important global forums as well. It is a process whose outcome will claim a place in global geo-politics, with special reference to Africa as a continent and the SADC region in particular.

This article will contribute to the body of knowledge around a mediation process, the challenges that our process faces as well as input to the role that civil society can play as the process unfolds. The civil society input is motivated by the loud calls from various civil society organisations who feel left out of the on-going process.

Mediation is not new to us as an African people especially in this part of the continent. It has had a place in our culture. Our aunts and uncles have played mediatory roles since time immemorial. However, it has gained enormous credence in dealing with conflicts, and has undergone substantial developments to the level where it has become a professional discipline with its own body of theory, comparative research, case-studies and tested techniques.

Laurie Nathan (1999) defines mediation as a process of dialogue and negotiation in which a third party helps disputants, with their consent, to manage or resolve their conflict. It is therefore best thought as a mode of negotiation in which a third party helps the parties find a solution which they cannot find by themselves.

In the disciplines of peace studies and international affairs, our on-going process falls under Track I diplomacy because it involves the official participation and interaction of state and/or official actors in the formal governmental power structure. This is so because both MDC and Zanu PF are represented in both houses of our parliament.

Track II diplomacy is more subtle and personal, involving actors representing non-governmental organisations engaged in activity at the grass roots level. The division of the actors into two is only one method of distinguishing the different participants in conflict management. While it is generally recognized that both actors fill useful functions, boundary issues and other role-related issues continue to create tensions between the two tracks. However, they are two mutually reinforcing processes in conflict management -- two overlapping circles sharing common characteristics and responsibilities within a conflict. Each track possesses its own effectiveness and despite similar methods used by both tracks, the role of Track I and Track II cannot be filled by the other.

As our process unfolds, it is important to note that a mediation process is based on six main strategic principles: mediators should not be partisan; the parties must consent to mediation and the choice of the mediator; conflict cannot be resolved quickly and easily; the parties must own the settlement; mediators should not apply punitive measures; and mediation is a specialised activity. While all these are very important, with more others that can be added to the list, l am motivated to contextualise only two of them here, the third and fourth, and may dilate upon the rest when another opportunity avails.

Our political and economic situation deteriorated so fast that many cannot even believe it is Zimbabweans in this situation. This time last year I wrote in this good paper that everything that can go wrong has gone wrong (by then). We are in a worse off situation since.

We are now in such a desperate situation that we would wish a solution to the conundrums pertaining in our country should come in less than a blink of an eye. We cannot endure these levels of poverty any longer. We have lost everything -- our esteem, our love, our humanity, ourselves! But hold on -- conflict cannot be resolved easily and quickly. It is important that our main political adversaries have agreed to talk, but more important is that real work for a sustainable peace is just about to begin.

This compounds with the principle that as Zimbabweans we must own the settlement. There has been a lot of excitement around the on-going mediation process, but, unfortunately, many people naively put President Mbeki on at Calvary for our own problems.

It is true that the value of the talks rests on South Africa, a strong and forceful state that has faith that the two parties can reach an agreement and find common ground. But going to the basics of a mediation process, President Mbeki's presence only helps diffuse tensions and creates common language through which the parties can negotiate and settle differences. It is not what Mbeki will do for Zimbabweans, but what we do for ourselves. We are not far from knowing and shaming who our real traitor is through our main political parties' willingness or lack of, to open the doors of the Zimbabwe we want.

I find two main threats to this very important process. The first is from the rhetoric. A mediation process will remain capricious if these political adversaries want to send each other to "Never-land"-- never to be associated with the politics of Zimbabwe again.

It is common for political parties to hold entrenched positions and view the conflict in zero-sum terms. From their perspective, mediation entails talking to "the enemy" and the prospect of compromising core values in order to reach a settlement. They may fear losing face in the eyes of their supporters, being outmanoeuvred by their opponent's negotiating tactics, and being pressurised by the mediator to dilute their goals. Be that as it may, the truth remains that in a mediated conflict there is no possibility of outright victory. While the concerns of both Zanu PF and MDC are products of conflict, they should not be obstacles to its resolution. It is illusionary to think that any settlement can fully satisfy the requirement of either side.

The second threat is that we have elections next year. Politicians follow the same dictum: "Seek ye first political power, and the rest shall be added." There is therefore a myriad of possibilities that can be brought about by this Track I process. For some civic society organisations to want a chair in the talks I have my reservations. It is fallacious to believe a truce between Zanu PF and MDC guarantees democracy. It is not wrong for our vibrant civil society to lobby and advocate on issues that influence the outcome of the talks, just like we do to our parliament where we do not sit. Going to the basics of a mediation process, reasonable and altruistic interaction with foreign countries cannot be an alternative to traditional Track I diplomacy.

No single actor or activity can create sustainable peace and security. Co-operation among official and unofficial actors can enhance the potential for achieving shared and complimentary goals to peace and security.

As of now, let the process progress, hopefully for the good of our country.

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