Back to Index

What exactly do we want?
Joram Nyathi, Zimbabwe Independent
August 10, 2007

http://allafrica.com/stories/200708100689.html

Blair is gone. It is said he did it for the good of England. He didn't do it to protect the image of the Labour Party or for fear of the Conservatives. After pushing Britain into a costly, unwinnable war in Iraq, Blair listened to the aggrieved national sentiment and quit as prime minister on June 27 before the end of his term. He had agreed to let Gordon Brown fill the post in a deal agreed even before his third election win.

At ministerial level here, the same should have happened to people like Joseph Made for failing to revive the agricultural sector over the past seven years. Looking at the parlous state of the economy and the political paralysis in the country, President Mugabe would have gone long ago. But this is Africa where men are still men. You don't quit.

There was excitement in Zimbabwe when the oracle of Washington, Christopher Dell, predicted before he left for Kabul in June that Mugabe would not last another six months. He said no government had survived five or six digit inflation, a league in which Zimbabwe enjoys unrivalled distinction.

Dell didn't say how Mugabe would go although the insinuation was that there would be a popular uprising. He would not resign because his policies had failed. Dell concluded that given what was happening post-March 11, government had itself become the most robust agent of regime change.

There is feverish expectation about the effects of the current price blitz and the resultant shortages of goods countrywide. Will there be a spontaneous uprising? What does that mean for the opposition? Where does it stand? And the ZCTU?

Brown took over from Blair without going to the polls although the Labour Party gave its approval in an internal poll. There were no protests from the Conservatives that the people had not been given the chance to choose who they wanted to rule them. Perhaps that is what their law says. I am sure the opposition in Zimbabwe would raise a stink if Mugabe quit today and Zanu PF decided that Vice-President Joice Mujuru should take over until next year.

Which brings me to the muddled debate about Amendment Number 18. There is a lot of confusion in Zimbabwe. All too often analysts tell us President Mugabe should resign for the good of the country. This is the view of the opposition MDC, too. Witness that unfortunate declaration that if Mugabe didn't go peacefully he would be forced to go.

I don't know how the MDC would benefit if for instance Mugabe threw in the towel today. The law says an election should be held within 90 days. In the interim one of the vice-presidents will act.

The most rational objection to Amendment 18 I have heard is that it is a continuation of the piecemeal processes Zanu PF has used to mangle the constitution since Independence. The opposition and civil society groups advocate an overhaul that will produce a "people-driven" constitution. Amendment 18 will also increase the number of parliamentary constituencies from 150 to 210 and Senate seats from 66 to 84.

Politically, it is argued, Zanu PF will gerrymander constituencies according to its perceived strength in rural and urban areas. I am sure if there is a "level playing field" by the time of elections there won't be rural or urban strongholds for either party.

The amendment also proposes the syncronisation of parliamentary and presidential elections. The reaction of the opposition and civic society has been muddled. I don't know whether saying something is a "Zanu PF project" is a rational objection because making laws is one of the key functions of any government. Whether Zanu PF is supposed to be so irrational as to make laws favourable to the opposition is beyond me.

The most vocal objection to Amendment 18 has been about parliament and the Senate constituting an electoral college to elect someone to complete the presidential term in the event that the incumbent resigns or for some reason is unable to execute his duties as head of state. Which is more or less what the British did when Tony Blair resigned, and Britain has enjoyed a smooth transition although Gordon Brown is yet to face voters on his own terms.

My question is: Why is such a transitional process diabolical in Zimbabwe? Would the opposition be ready to mount a significant challenge to Zanu PF by November as required by the constitution, if Mugabe resigned today? Because if they want to be consistent, they can't turn around and say Mugabe resigned before we had a new constitution, therefore we can't have presidential elections within three months as required by law, which they don't want amended.

It is more like focusing on the individual than on far-ranging institutional changes which the nation is craving for. Which is why as a nation we need a vision.

For a president elected by an electoral college might just provide the transitional widow which the opposition needs to wring out electoral law reforms and other institutional changes critical to the holding of free and fair elections in March. Yet so far it has been more vocal in opposing this route than in opposing a violent and chaotic uprising.

Why is a chaotic "regime change" through a "spontaneous uprising" seen as more auspicious for the opposition than a peaceful transition according to the law, no matter however flawed that law? My little experience is that nobody has ever correctly predicted the outcome of an uprising. It might be crushed, and make things worse; it might bring in military rule, which is worse; or by chance, it might install an opposition government, which is just a chance, like Dell's prediction. What exactly do we need as a nation?

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