Back to Index

This article participates on the following special index pages:

Zuma is right on Zimbabwe
Masotsha Neshiri-Mutambara
June 25, 2008

The current turmoil in Zimbabwe is characterized by a minority but arrogant political establishment whose main objective is the retention of power by any means necessary. By this, Zanu PF and Robert Mugabe in particular have invited the ire of the world, including ordinary Zimbabweans. In the midst of the global information exchanges on Zimbabwe's future, three scenarios seem to constantly appear as the way forward. This article seeks to discuss these emerging way forwards and contribute to the body of knowledge available to actors central to the settling of this melting country.

The positions that have emerged since the announcement by the party with a parliamentary majority, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) of its withdrawal from the presidential election run off of June 27 are three. The three global positions include, a) a unilateralist new Zanu PF government constructed around Mugabe's default victory, b) negotiations for a Government of National Unity (GNU), and c) calls for the formation of a transitional authority leading to new elections.

News emanating from Zimbabwean government and the Zanu PF party reveals a constant rhetoric that the election is going ahead. Going ahead amid the violence that has seen up to 80 people killed in horrendous fashion. The killing methods include cutting tongues, plucking eyes, removing male genitals. Torture, rape and humiliation accounts for the majority of ways used to cripple and psychologically disposes thousands of poor, defenseless and innocent people most of whom are women and children.

This going ahead of the election is meant to produce a fake result where the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission, itself a hostage of Zanu PF, would announce Mugabe having received 70% of the vote. The vote, in its deformed manner, is meant to create a veneer of legitimacy for Mugabe. It is meant to create a leverage for the shameful lie that Mugabe lost to Tsvangirai in March 2008, not because he is unpopular, but because Zanu PF people did not vote.

The most likely outcome of this move, given the intensity and sharpness of the Zanu PF hatred (not difference) for the MDC, and Mugabe's reported refusal to discuss with Morgan Tsvangirai is a unilateral Zanu PF government. Economists have hinted that such a move will be a disaster as the economic freefall will continue unabated.

The next two options are outcomes of political dialogue, a GNU and a transitional government.

President Thabo Mbeki is reported to have sold the idea of a GNU to the two political protagonists in Zimbabwe, the MDC and Zanu PF. This option entails that the dialogue leads to a shared government where the MDC and Zanu PF share power. The sharp contestation on this option is a myriad of legal and political postulations arguing whether it is Mugabe or Tsvangirai who should lead this government.

Some scholars and human rights actors posit that a GNU does not effectively work in ensuring the sovereignty of the citizenry as it focuses on a high level sharing of power. Brian Kagoro, a senior Zimbabwean human rights activist notes that, a GNU leads to the inclusion of the few political elite whilst the vanquished masses continue to suffer.

For Zimbabwe, the general population has bitter memories of the GNU of 1987, when Zanu PF and the then opposition, Zimbabwe African Peoples Union- Patriotic Front (PF-Zapu) entered into a GNU. The vanquished party, Zapu PF was swallowed by Zanu PF without addressing the critical aspects of the crisis. Mugabe remained in power, the victims of Gukurahundi were not compensated and the South-Western part of Zimbabwe remained relatively under-developed. This factor remains up to now, and that may be the reason why Mugabe has constantly lost any election in this region.

That fear directly means that Zanu PF can or will give (sweet) power to the MDC leadership and simultaneously eliminate the hard-cores leaving the majority of people cowed into a one-party-state by default. Theoretically, this is what a GNU may entail in Zimbabwe, though the chances of this becoming a reality are next to zero.

Interestingly, Zanu PF does not want a GNU. Even though one may argue that it actually benefits from such an outcome as it surely knows that its support graph shows a falling trend. George Charamba, Robert Mugabe's spokesperson a.k.a Nathaniel Manheru, writing in the state-owned Saturday Herald of June 21, noted thus, "Senselessness from friends. What is damaging is their attempts at forcing GNU as a political formulae in our present circumstances, forcing it by building false arguments against the run-off election. One easy way has been to suggest for various reasons — real or imagined — that Zimbabwe is not ready for the run-off."

Charamba reveals two things. a) That Mugabe/Zanu PF's friends in the African Union are calling for a GNU, and that, b) Zanu PF does not want that. In the same piece, Charamba further accuses the "friends", presumably Africa for -failing to correctly read the March 29 result. However, his naïve and self-pleasing statement was blind to the fact that Africa has embassies; that SADC and the Pan-African Parliament had deployed observers; and that in this information age, it takes a flash to sent information of the horrendous subjugation of human rights that Mugabe and his coterie were and continue to lead in rural areas.

A sub-form of this GNU, as championed by Dr Simba Makoni, a candidate in the March 29 election is termed a Government of National Healing (GNH). This assumes major tenets of a GNU, but emphasizes- forgiving all perpetrators of violence and do what he calls- a new start. This shall also be assessed in the later part of this paper.

The third avenue to extricate Zimbabwe from this political-cliff is a transitional authority. In the specie of world and regional leaders that have spoken on Zimbabwe, Jacob Zuma, the African National Congress (ANC) President has prescribed this. Addressing a press conference in Johannesburg on Tuesday, June 24 2008, the African National Congress (ANC) President contributed to the debate by stating that, "You now need a political arrangement there, and then further down the line an election", and that , " . . . We cannot agree with Zanu-PF. We cannot agree with them on values. . . . we fought for the right of people to vote, we fought for democracy."

In other words, beyond prescribing a resolution mechanism, Zuma differs with Mugabe on the sacrosanctity of the people's vote, which Mugabe says "can never challenge the bullet".

The Transitional Authority (T.A) entails a shared government that functions with a specific set of achievables with monitoring and or help from some international or regional body. For Zimbabwe, this may mean getting both Mugabe and Tsvangirai into that government and task them to facilitate the making of a new democratic constitution, reform the media and return state institutions like the judiciary, state security and the media, among others to their professional focuses. This may take place for a limited time frame and with super-vision from the SADC or some other set team.

Proponents of the T.A argue that it does create an avenue for justice to both victims and perpetrators of the oppressive regime. Legal minds support this view as it avoids a creation of a dangerous precedence in Africa, where any leader whose power is threatened resort to a violent crashing of the people after which mediators will reward him at dialogue and pardon all the violations of human rights.

Practically, the transitional option would mean that all or most of all the forces used by Zanu PF to torture people would face justice, whilst the existing regional development/protective force would help protect and rehabilitate the victims.

Perhaps to help us make the choice of which way to go, a brief discussion of the aspirations of the people of Zimbabwe is important.

A random pedestal interview with any Zimbabwean would highlight the need for food, jobs, electricity, freedom represented by supporting a political party of your choice and general happiness (peace of mind). This thinking comes from the background of present day Zimbabwe whose people live in fear. The late Zimbabwean Vice President aptly captured this fear in 1985, when he said Zimbabweans live in fear of their own government. That remains prophetic.

In that case, given that the true will of the people was expressed on the 29th of March 2008, where Zanu PF emerged as the minority party, the region must consider a mechanism that both respects the people's will as well as establishing a strong culture of people-power in both Zimbabwe and the African continent.

Of the three options above, the Zanu PF unilateralist or one-party-state agenda must be fought and resisted as it represents a coup on the people's will. That establishment, as the world has already described it, will be illegitimate and thus must not find life in the family of nations. Zanu PF may consider this, but they will only postpone the inevitable.

This leaves us with two alternatives, a Government of National Unity, and a Transitional Authority. In the analysis above, we are strongly persuaded to accept the Transitional Authority mechanism for several reasons, the major of which is that it is the only option that retains power in the hands of ordinary citizens.

A GNU, including its modified form called the Government of National Healing has a danger of perpetuating the vampire state where the new political leadership in the MDC joins the quasi-fiscal rat-race of the Zimbabwean Reserve Bank that buys political support by dishing out tractors, farms and other assets in exchange for compliance with silence to evil. In this case, Zimbabwe's socio-economic and political issues would remain.

Both the MDC and Zanu PF or their compound would be the new disaster until people organize again to extinguish this new vampire.

The best way forward for Zimbabwe and her people, one that adequately answers the immediate socio-economic and political issues is a guided Transitional Authority where the civic society including women, youths, the church, business, the disabled and other stakeholders participate. ANC president Jacob Zuma is right on this position.

The key characters and expectations of that T.A would include, but not limited to;

1. An end to political violence and intimidation, failure of which a United Nations civil protection force must be deployed
2. Immediate opening up of political space including access to the media
3. The development of a people driven constitution that entrenches democratic, just and accountable government, as a prerequisite to new elections
4. The establishment of an electoral and legal framework that is in keeping with the SADC guidelines governing democratic elections
5. Ensure immediate access to food and medication of the people in need

In conclusion, we affirm that the solution to the current Zimbabwean stalemate needs a long lasting solution that must bear in mind the deepening and unnecessary suffering of the people of that country. The discussion of a transitional authority must be the top priority, and given that it gives power to the people, the millions of Zimbabweans in the country and in the Diaspora will undoubtedly take the initiative to reconstruct that once robust and beautiful country. It is not in doubt that a better and prosperous Zimbabwe is possible. It all starts with us.

*Author is a Zimbabwean socio-economic analyst based in Pretoria, South Africa

amasotsha@gmail.com

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