Back to Index

Mugabe/Tsvangirai v Mbeki/Zuma
Mutumwa Mawere, Harare Tribune
September 22, 2008

View article on the Harare Tribune website

With the world mired in a complex financial crisis and world markets in a free fall, Zimbabwe in a never ending political power drama, the African National Congress' (ANC) National Executive Committee (NEC) resolved on Saturday to ask President Mbeki, the SADC appointed mediator to the Zimbabwean political crisis, to step down as the country's head of state and government.

The Zimbabwean situation has its own dynamics and characters but to the extent that the post colonial experience in Africa seems to follow a predictable and consistent path, it is important to pause and think seriously about the inherently flawed political and economic foundational principles of many post colonial states and what, if any, is required to move the agenda for change and progress forward in the continent.

Notwithstanding the universally acknowledged governance challenges and crisis facing Zimbabwe, President Mbeki who has positioned himself as the champion of democracy, revolutionary political morality, due process, and economic progress, has presided over negotiations that have produced a somewhat ambiguous and confusing agreement in which President Mugabe and ZANU-PF find themselves after a humiliating electoral defeat as the head of government and state and ruling party, respectively, with no visible economic rescue plan.

President Mugabe stands accused of using state power to entrench not only himself but also his party in control of the country while the economy has been in a free fall and more fundamentally a broken political system with no respect for property and human rights and where the rule of law has been displaced by rule of one strong man.

President Mugabe's approach to governance has been compared to President Mbeki who has been a central and key architect of the post apartheid administration and it has been observed that both individuals share a common work ethic and worldview. They both hold the view that they know better how their countries should be governed and who should govern them.

President Mugabe has never hidden his contempt for Tsvangirai even after publicly acknowledging that his party had been humiliated at the last election. He simply has not accepted Tsvangirai's credentials as meeting what he personally has defined as the minimum required to take the position of head of state and government.

Last week began with the signing of the historic power sharing agreement and it was evident from President Mugabe's speech that he is not prepared to hand the baton to Tsvangirai. This position was reinforced later during the week when he addressed the party's central committee and at the end of the week it became obvious that the construction of the power sharing deal was not only faulty but to ZANU-PF and President Mugabe it represented nothing more than a power accommodation gimmick to placate the office bearers of the opposition by giving them positions in the state.

On patriotism, sovereignty, economic empowerment, revolutionary morality, values and principles, it appears that Presidents Mbeki and Mugabe have the same outlook. In asking his deputy to resign in 2005, President Mbeki used the argument that the conviction of Zuma's financial advisor, Mr. Shabil Shaik, on corruption charges left him no choice but to take action.

However, the construction of the case against Zuma against the contestations for power in the ANC had a political tone primarily given that the allegations had nothing to do with the adjudication of the controversial defense contracts but rather with the alleged attempt by a French company that won one of the contracts to use Zuma to stop the parliamentary investigations.

President Mbeki as has been the case with his colleagues in cabinet has repeatedly made the point that allegations of corruption in the adjudication of the defense contracts was baseless and uninformed and yet made no attempt to clarify the precise nature of Zuma's alleged misconduct. If President Mbeki had any choice, it has always been evident that Zuma's name would never feature and yet the members of the ANC felt otherwise.

Equally, in the Zimbabwean case, President Mugabe has no respect for Tsvangirai as a leader let alone the members of the opposition and yet the majority of the people of Zimbabwe feel more secure with Tsvangirai at the helm than Mugabe. What does this tell us about African politics? An argument was made during the colonial era that giving blacks the right to vote would not necessarily improve their lot but what was required was a responsible government composed of individuals who shared a common value system.

Clearly Mugabe and Tsvangirai do not share a common value system. Although on paper, Mugabe subscribes to a socialist philosophy, his administration's policies and programs have hurt the working people more than the few rich people in the country. He has consistently refused to take any responsibility for the economic quagmire but it must be obvious to all that any change without accountability amounts to no change.

Equally, the preamble of the power sharing deal exposes the agreement's shortcomings, in that, by acknowledging that the land issue is not reversible it may be difficult to establish a correct moral compass for defining what is the minimum acceptable standards of conduct by state actors. Impunity can easily create its own life and momentum. The fate of Mbeki demonstrates what kind of outcome can come when a leader loses touch with his constituency and the importance of the governed taking action to protect their own future.

In the case of South Africa, the fight to remove Mbeki using Zuma's case has been motivated more by a belief that the policies of Mbeki have been anti-working class and poor. Although Mbeki and his supporters will continue to argue that the transfer of power will not be in the national interest and represents the unintended consequences of unguided democracy, on reflection he may come to the conclusion that stubbornness has its own consequences.

Mugabe must be happy at the unfolding events of last week. With Mbeki down and the Zimbabwean transition in limbo, he remains standing after the storm dictating the agenda for change. Now the stalemate is on who is in what position in a government that Charamba has already described as a ZANU-PF administration with opposition personalities as spectators. Instead of real change, it appears that the outcome of weeks of negotiations may not be change that is believable.

The change in South Africa is real and President Mbeki came to a realization it was Zuma time and more importantly that the party's future was more important than the personal interests of the parties concerned. Rightly or wrongly, the majority of the membership of the party came to the conclusion that the state was being used to settle personal scores. The propensity to use the state machinery for personal benefit is not restricted to South Africa but one must accept that the ANC has led the way by unseating a head of state using party structures and rules in a manner that will have ramifications for other African countries including Zimbabwe.

Equally, the manner in which President Mbeki has responded is instructive not only because when the writing was on the wall he was quick to know what time it was. What would have to happen in Zimbabwe for President Mugabe to know it is time for real and fundamental change? It took the concerted action of the ANC from 2005 to last week to voice their concern about the danger of centralization of power and the propensity to use such power for evil.

If President Mbeki is a champion of good political moral values then why has he been silent on the obvious abuses of power? On Zuma, President Mbeki would like the world to know that he is a victim of political thuggerism for trying to protect the republic from corrupt leaders but surprisingly in constructing the power sharing deal not much thought and consistency seems to have been important in dealing with Mugabe's abuse of the state including victimizing the opposition.

South Africa's economy is in a stronger position but real danger exists that populism can have its own life and ultimately the country's future may easily be sacrificed by ideological confusion and manipulation. Regrettably, after 14 years in power 9 of which were as President, Mbeki must accept responsibility for helping create a party that lacks the values that he preaches. The behavior of the MDC supporters and legislators is now being raised as a stumbling block to nation building without critically examining who has been in charge of the country for the past 28 years and under whose watch political morality has deteriorated to a level where the centre can no longer hold.

Both Mbeki and Mugabe were privileged to define the content and character of post-colonial politics but both failed to show by example to the extent that credibility has been squandered. They both continue to advance arguments of ideological purity ignoring the challenges that confront their countries and respective political parties.

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