Back to Index

This article participates on the following special index pages:

SADC proves it clearly lacks leadership
Tendai Dumbutshena, The Zimbabwe Times
August 19, 2008

http://www.thezimbabwetimes.com/?p=2833

Bravo Botswana! The 13 leaders who gathered for the SADC summit in Johannesburg last weekend tried to put on a brave face but were visibly uneasy and embarrassed. The absence of Botswana's President Ian Khama exposed them for what they are - spineless and morally bankrupt nonentities. They could not argue against the reasons for Botswana's boycott. The government in Gaborone - ironically the headquarters of SADC- reminded the regional body of its protocols on good governance. There is one on the conduct of elections in the region which clearly spells out what is expected. Khama's boycott was a reminder to his counterparts that they did not take this protocol seriously. That it could be brutally violated with impunity.

Observers from all SADC countries were sent to monitor both the March 29 elections and June 27 presidential run-off in Zimbabwe. Their verdict was unanimous and unambiguous. All conditions for a free and fair election in the run-off were not met. Furthermore, the state was responsible for savage violence against the opposition to the point that Robert Mugabe's only opponent Morgan Tsvangirai had to withdraw from the race to save lives. Based on the reports of SADC observers and its own citizens the Botswana government concluded that the outcome of the run-off did not reflect the true will of the people of Zimbabwe. It could therefore not accept Mugabe as a legitimately elected president of Zimbabwe. Gaborone made it clear that its president would boycott the SADC summit if Mugabe were invited as head of state.

There was hope that others would follow Botswana's bold and principled position. Fat chance. Other leaders maintained an embarrassed silence in the hope that the problem would simply go away. Lacking moral courage and principles they hid behind the African Union's call for a government of national unity. The region's official mediator, South Africa's President Thabo Mbeki saw in the AU resolution an opportunity to legitimize and prolong Mugabe's rule. He frantically tried to bulldoze an agreement that would produce an essentially Zanu-PF government led by Mugabe with some MDC ministers. Mindful of the fact that it was impossible to confer legitimacy on Mugabe on the basis of the run-off he thought the best way was through a Mugabe led GNU endorsed by the MDC. He wanted the deal signed before the summit so that the awkward issue of Mugabe's legitimacy would fall away.

The SADC leaders should have convened an emergency summit soon after the run-off to tell Mugabe that they did not recognize its outcome. Mbeki would then have carried on with his mediation on a clear understanding that SADC did not recognize Mugabe as president of Zimbabwe. The Zimbabwean leader would have been more amenable to compromise had SADC taken such a principled stand. But knowing his peers well Mugabe realised that they would cave in. They did not have the backbone to insist on a strict adherence to their own protocols. It was easier to just let Mugabe take his seat at the high table.

At least this time they did not like imbeciles applaud when he walked into the summit room. To salve their consciences they tried to bully Tsvangirai into signing a document that would legitimize Mugabe's rule for five more years. One of the tactics used to pressure Tsvangirai was to accuse him of being controlled by Western powers. This is ironic coming from leaders whose countries and governments are sustained by Western donor money, as Mugabe himself pointed out no so long ago. To his credit Tsvangirai stood firm and refused to append his signature to a document crafted to serve Mugabe's interests.

Outside the summit hundreds of demonstrators made their voices heard on the dictatorships in Zimbabwe and Swaziland. A petition for the leaders handed to the SADC secretariat said in part that ordinary people were taking to the streets because of an absence of political leadership in the region. In other words people have lost faith in a regional leadership that places a premium on friendship and solidarity among ruling elites above their welfare.

It has repeatedly been argued in this column that there are too many dictators in Africa for the continent and its regional bodies to take principled positions on issues of human rights and good governance. In SADC a troika of nations is tasked with responsibility for political, defence and security matters. It currently comprises Tanzania, Angola, and Swaziland with the latter being chair. How can Angola and Swaziland pronounce on issues pertaining to human rights and democracy? How can they stand in judgement of Mugabe?

Since independence in 1975 Angola had only one election in 1976, and a dubious one at that. President Eduardo dos Santos would not recognize a ballot paper if it hit him in the face. The Swazi monarch, King Mswati III presides over a feudal regime that treats its citizens like serfs. How can they stand in judgement of Mugabe? At the moment both dos Santos and Mswati are custodians of the region's putative commitment to democracy. Until Africa takes issues of human rights and democracy seriously it will not be able to deal effectively with rogue regimes like Mugabe's.

The SADC summit declared the region a free trade zone. Normally this would have been a momentous occasion celebrated by all its peoples. Instead it was a damp squib. The inability of SADC to deal with Zimbabwe cast a shadow over all other issues. People in the region do not believe the free zone declaration will have any bearing on their lives. Spineless and unprincipled leadership breeds cynicism and pessimism. All they see are self-serving leaders obsessed with protecting one another like the endangered species that they are.

Mbeki is regarded as the architect of the New Economic Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) which recognizes a direct causal link between good governance and economic prosperity. African leaders undertook to promote good clean governance in exchange for economic partnership with developed nations. Principles have a habit of being put to the test. When confronted with the Zimbabwe crisis at the heart of which are issues of governance and human rights, SADC failed. Their commitment to these principles disintegrated. Old habits and instincts took over. Their comrade, Mugabe, had to be protected. In so doing they dimmed the hopes not only of Zimbabweans but all peoples in the region. Only Khama offered a ray of hope.

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