| |
Back to Index
This article participates on the following special index pages:
Talks, dialogue, negotiations and GNU - Post June 2008 "elections" - Index of articles
Zim
needs all its skilled people
Heidi
Holland, Pretoria News (SA)
August 02, 2008
http://www.pretorianews.co.za/?fSectionId=&fArticleId=vn20080802090340166C630410
Now that a concerned
world has recovered from the euphoric though disconcerting sight
of Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe shaking hands with his challenger
Morgan Tsvangirai, albeit reluctantly - and seeing they have indeed
talked to each other - we are perhaps free to focus fresh optimism
on what the two might usefully talk about. Although Mugabe is unlikely
to be committed to real power sharing (as opposed to the view that
he has it all but wouldn't mind sharing a bit with his opposition)
a creative, even breathtaking, option is now open to Comrade Bob
- namely, a best-person interim government. Not only would it stun
the world and help to rescue Mugabe's lost legacy, but a government
of all the talents (as the concept was quaintly called in the 19th
century) is something Zimbabwe's president understands very well.
When he first swept to power in 1980 on a tsunami of adulation,
Mugabe's inaugural administration was a best-person government which
included British-born, talented farmer Denis Norman in the agriculture
portfolio and canny former Rhodesian finance minister David Smith,
a Scot, as head of the new treasury. Mugabe had absolutely all the
power in those days but he sincerely wanted the country to prosper
under his leadership.
So, recognising the need
to reassure former white Rhodesians - who possessed most of the
country's capital, intellectual and otherwise - and acknowledging
the painful fact that he had little relevant talent in his own ranks,
Zimbabwe's first black ruler put aside the undoubtedly pressing
loyalty issues inherent in liberation politics to act in the best
interests of all Zimbabweans. Could this intensely complicated man
make a similarly magnanimous decision so late in his much-vilified
premiership? It is an audacious idea, and an uncharacteristically
constructive one in the face of the sustained destruction Mugabe
has unleashed on Zimbabwe over the past decade. But it is within
his power to opt for the greater good rather than continued tyranny.
He did it once before when he was expected to wreak havoc, and to
great effect for his first five years in office. He knows as well
as anyone anywhere that a carefully chosen best-person interim government
could get Zimbabwe back on its feet faster than any known alternative.
Wartime Britain adopted a coalition cabinet of its most talented
individuals in order to manage the damage wrought by years of conflict
in the '40s. So did Norway. "We put the best people in an all-party
government during and after the war," says May-Elin Stener,
Minister Counsellor of the Norwegian Embassy in Pretoria. "That
was what we did when we had to rebuild our own countries."
In Zimbabwe's case, it
was in consultation with the British that newly elected Robert Mugabe
chose a similarly pragmatic solution to the country's woes following
the catastrophic 15-year-long bush war in 1980. Britain's last governor
in Rhodesia, Lord Soames, and Mugabe had struck up an unexpected
friendship when Zimbabwe's adored black prime minister told the
avuncular English aristocrat that there was nobody in his party
with the skills to run a government. It was a poignant moment, the
governor's widow Lady Soames recalled when I interviewed her in
London in 2006. "He was quite frank about having nobody trained
in anything except guerrilla warfare," she said. In those days,
Mugabe had the good judgment, moral courage and sense of duty to
put aside his political preferences in favour of Zimbabwe's best
interests. Why? Because Lord Soames respected the new premier and
he was therefore able to appeal to Mugabe's better instincts.
Could "Mad Bob"
defy the direst of predictions to act against the odds once more?
It is at least possible. It might appeal to him as a swan song to
what he sees as his life-long "sacrifice and suffering".
It is certainly worth a try, especially if it comes as a suggestion
from Britain, endorsed by rich western reconstruction packages.
A mediated deal on its own, by contrast, may not have the moral
credentials to attract the international funds earmarked for Zimbabwe
and critical for its economic recovery. Africa will doubtless have
resources to commit to the beleaguered country, but not on the same
scale. Back in 1980, Mugabe's aim in appointing a best-person government
despite the discord it caused in his own ranks was to retain white
skills in the interests of the country's economy. Today, its purpose
might be to attract back to Zimbabwe those many exiled citizens
who have gained invaluable experience of modern economic endeavour
elsewhere. It would be from among Zimbabwe's own people, albeit
many supporting the MDC and some entirely devoid of political ambition,
that Mugabe and Tsvangirai could select an interim government of
all the talents.
The boldest and most
statesman-like gesture imaginable in the circumstances, such a best-person
government would restore confidence to Zimbabweans at home and abroad
like no other move ever could. Not without precedent - even the
US has from time to time brought in experts to help the national
cause - a government of all the talents in Zimbabwe has the potential
to save the country in an inclusive and admirable way. The rationale
for such a solution is already apparent in the cautious optimism
with which the Mbeki-brokered talks have been greeted at home and
abroad. It is true nobody won the March election outright, say the
pundits of compromise, noting that the much-vaunted Kenyan solution
reflected a widespread desire for peace at any price once violence
had threatened to spiral out of control. As we watch the situation
unfold, violence in Zimbabwe's rural areas is continuing long after
the electoral process has ended - for reasons that are far from
clear. Is it now out of control due to the growing dominance of
war lords? Is Mugabe showing who is boss while power-sharing talks
are under way? Is he, perhaps, hell-bent on eliminating his opposition?
Or is Zanu PF creating the conditions for the concept of peace at
any price to gain momentum? Whatever the reason, the international
community dare not turn its back on rural Zimbabweans - who are
currently dying from hunger as well as torture - in anticipation
of a time when the suffering country may finally be deemed to require
peace at any price.
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
|