Back to Index

This article participates on the following special index pages:

Zimbabwe needs a political settlement
Mpho Ncube, Pambazuka News
July 09, 2008

http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/comment/49323

ZANU-PF machinations
It is common knowledge that the Movement of Democratic Change (MDC) party won the parliamentary and presidential elections earlier this year. Based on its performance, it would therefore be fair to say that the MDC would probably have also won last week-s presidential run-off had it not pulled out at the last moment. Yet, despite these facts, Zanu-PF still remains in power today. Robert Mugabe has once again outmaneuvered his opponents in Zimbabwe and abroad.

No surprises there then, given that the government had set in motion a chain of events that were designed to pre-determine the outcome of the elections in its favour. Indeed, the MDC cited the systematic harassment, torture and murder of its supporters and leadership as the main reason for its withdrawal from the election.

Given this state of affairs and as the Pan-African parliament observer mission reported, the elections could not have been conducted in a free and fair environment. African leaders meeting in Egypt last week called for a government of national unity to be established in Zimbabwe, thereby conferring semi-legitimacy to Mugabe much to the dismay of the MDC and others who were hoping for outright condemnation and ostracisation.

However, the MDC was right to contest the elections in March even though it was faced with insurmountable odds. By participating in a contest they knew would be pre-determined and still registering more votes than the government, the party won a moral victory in the eyes of many Zimbabweans. That moral victory would have been enough to carry the MDC through last week-s presidential run-off election, which was also preceded by the same unfavorable conditions of the March election.

The people of Zimbabwe were denied their fundamental right to choose a leader of their own liking on June 27. This fact alone renders those elections null and void. That the results of both the March 29 elections and the recent one-candidate presidential run-off were allowed to stand is yet another reason, after the Gukurahundi massacres in Matabeleland in the 1980s, that we should not recognize the legitimacy of the Zanu PF government. It goes without saying that to want to hold Zanu PF to account for its actions is to invite accusations from its propagandists of being "an agent of the colonialists."

MDC in disarray
Three months since the disputed March elections, the MDC seems to be in disarray. It doesn't appear as if the party has really mastered the art of opposition politics. It has not been able to translate its moral victories since 2000 into power. This, however, is hardly a surprise because having been founded on an anti-ZANU PF populist wave, the MDC will always be re-active rather than pro-active to the political situation in Zimbabwe. It appears to be looking to the masses for signals to act while becoming very good at telling us what we already know - that Zanu PF is now very unpopular and must be replaced.

As things stand, talk of Zanu PF demise is misplaced. The military junta or the Joint Operational Command (JOC) now running Zimbabwe will have been emboldened by the fissures and lack of a united position at the African Union and SADC. It is in this post-election period of disillusionment that all the major players in the Zimbabwe body politic need quiet reflection. I would like to think that the MDC is currently undergoing this process, otherwise how does one explain the series of strategic blunders by its leadership? I would like to see its leaders emerge from this ever-deepening crisis with more courage than they have shown so far.

There is undeniable thirst for a viable alternative to the present ZANU PF government, which once again, is holding the country hostage. Since independence in 1980, Zanu PF has been in open confrontation with the citizens of Zimbabwe - first it was the Ndebele and today it is everybody. For all its intellectual clout, ZANU PF cannot see, or if it does, refuses to accept that reforms both within its ranks and the country at large, are long overdue. Instead, it is gripped by paranoia, blaming everyone and everything but itself.

Zimbabwe is now a country in a state of siege equal to that of the 1980's. When the Fifth Brigade massacred thousands of civilians in Matabeleland and the Midlands, international opinion was focused on apartheid South Africa. Similarly today, world focus has shifted to the "war against terrorism" thereby relegating Zimbabwe to the sidelines. Robert Mugabe used apartheid South Africa as cover for his genocide in Matabeleland. Today he is hiding behind the international campaign against Al Qaeda to rape, maim and murder opponents of his government. He should not be allowed to get away with it again.

The ZANU PF government sees land re-distribution as the final act in its black empowerment programme. Judging by its preceding Affirmative Action Campaign, which started off as a well-intentioned plan to promote black economic empowerment but ended up as a vehicle for self-enrichment, it is no wonder that the so-called "Hondo yeminda" (war for land) has suffered a similar fate. Senior government, police and army officials have unashamedly helped themselves to the best farmland, evicting ordinary people already settled on these properties. While there is an undeniable need for land re-distribution in Zimbabwe, the politicisation of the process by Zanu PF has condemned millions of citizens to unemployment, starvation and death. The country has been set back a century. So, given this background and the fact that ZANU PF and MDC are now pitted against each other in a low-intensity civil war, what should be the way forward for Zimbabwe?

The way forward
The first thing to say is that the two main parties in Zimbabwe have to accept that a political settlement is now pre-requisite to any lasting solution and must therefore renew their efforts to talk to each other.

Second, both parties and the MDC in particular, must understand that the negotiation/talks process will be long and hard given their contrasting philosophies. ZANU PF is a party heavily steeped in liberation war politics and therefore reliant on violence, secrecy and war as policy instruments while the MDC is the exact opposite with its emphasis on diplomacy and openness.

Finally, Zanu PF must accept that the MDC is now an indelible part of the Zimbabwean political landscape while the MDC, on its part, will have to understand that no political settlement with ZANU PF will preclude violence. To therefore insist on the total cessation of hostilities, as a precondition for talks is not only unrealistic but also perpetuates the suffering of Zimbabweans because ZANU PF will always use violence as a policy or negotiating tool. It used violence prior and during negotiations with PF-ZAPU in the 1980s and so will have reckoned that the same strategy will work with the MDC this time around.

MDC leaders would therefore be wise to study settlements in South Africa, Northern Ireland or even Zimbabwe itself (Lancaster House Agreement and "Unity Talks/Accord"). In fairness to the MDC, the party has largely refrained from retaliation, instead insisting on democratic re-course to argue its case. This has undoubtedly won it many sympathizers at home and abroad, but how long will they continue to look the other way? We will have to wait and see. There needs to be a conducive platform to work from. The present confrontational and destructive situation does not provide conditions that will make it easy for Zimbabwe to get back on track.

A political settlement between the two main parties must be the starting point. Such a settlement is required to end the current state of siege and allow for the creation of a platform from which to institute a reform programme best suited to Zimbabwe. Solutions to the current crisis lie inside Zimbabwe itself, if only the politicians could cast aside personal ambition and seize the moment for the greater good of the country.

The shape and form of any political settlement is what the MDC and ZANU PF are most likely to be discussing behind the scenes at the moment. The sticking points are likely to be the way ZANU PF will want to cast itself as the senior party and therefore insist on setting the agenda for the negotiations. Indeed, the way ZANU PF is so enthusiastic about the proposed government of national unity (GNU) shows that the party has calculated that it would still emerge better-off were a GNU actually implemented. Remember, ZANU PF is well practised in this type of stand-off, it has the benefit of experience when it was engaged in a similar situation with Joshua Nkomo-s PF ZAPU party in the 1980s. Even though the political settlement which culminated in the signing of the Unity Accord in 1987 is largely considered as a hostile takeover of PF ZAPU, it will very likely be ZANU PF-s template for its negotiations with the MDC. ZANU PF negotiators will be on the lookout for potential "banana skins" in any settlement, which is why they are wary or suspicious of the MDC-s much preferred option of a gradualist, transitional government that emphasizes the temporariness of Mugabe-s government. Of chief concern to ZANU PF will be the provisions for immunity from prosecution for crimes against humanity.

Even though a GNU does not mean that ZANU PF will hand over total power to the MDC, Mugabe and his henchmen/women will still want to cover all possible scenarios and buttress themselves against future prosecution. And herein lies the problems for the MDC, who will be under severe pressure, perhaps more than ZANU PF, to be pragmatic and give Mugabe the immunity he will demand in return for peace.

Will the MDC be bold enough in its demands or will it capitulate? That remains to be seen. And what about ordinary MDC supporters who have borne the brunt of ZANU PF brutality in the last 10 or so years? Will they be happy to let their leaders grant Mugabe and his henchmen/women immunity or as some people see it, impunity?

What about the thousands of Gukurahundi victims in Matabeleland, most of whom have voted for the MDC since its inception in 1999 - will they feel that their pain and sorrow counts for nothing when they have been crying out for justice all these years? The MDC has to conduct a fine balancing act to accommodate the sometimes-conflicting wishes and expectations of its various membership. In order to do so successfully, it will have to consult widely and deeply within its membership because failure to do so will leave it open to yet more division.

*Mpho Ncube is the Director of Communications for the Mthwakazi Action Group on Genocide in Matebeleland & Midlands (MAGGEMM).

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