Back to Index

Underlying causes of political unrest in Zimbabwe: A close analysis
Henri-Count Evans
August 05, 2010

The future of Zimbabwe-s all- inclusive government hangs in the balance. Tension between ZANU PF and the MDC is escalating due to mounting pressure regarding the implementation of the so-called Global Political Agreement.

That there are tensions within the all-inclusive government is beyond refute and that there are two governments masquerading as a unitary administration in the eyes of the public is crystal clear. The MDC formations are pulling the coach the other direction and at the same time ZANU PF is going its own direction.

The question that boggles people-s minds is "Who is right?" Giving a clear cut answer to this question is difficult and almost close to impossible. Because of this it seems more logical to look for the answer by way of a critical contextualisation of the problems affecting the government today and scrutinise their definite point of origination.

The so-called sticking points stalling the success of the inclusive government are just used as a "referral" but not the actual cause of the slow pace at which the government is currently moving. In a nutshell these sticking points are neither the cause nor the problems themselves. Therefore, this article seeks to articulate the origins of manifest problems in and within the all-inclusive government.

Calling the current Harare regime an all-inclusive government is in my view a misleading gesture. "All-inclusive of what and for who?" In more specific terms the regime which we have in Zimbabwe is a "pseudo-all-inclusive regime" which do not have the moral blessing from the Zimbabwean electorate but rather a regime which is hell bent on perpetuating the political interests of the parties in the government and not dedicated to delivering better living standards to Zimbabweans.

First and foremost, the people of Zimbabwe did not go to the polls to vote for an all-inclusive government but rather went to the polls with the desire of electing a substantive administration and not a transitional authority as we witness today. Taking it from the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission-s point of view, the first round of the election did not produce an outright winner for the post of the president there by making a re-run inevitable in which the MDC candidate Morgan Tsvangirai withdrew his candidature sighting excessive victimisation of his supporters by ZANU PF. However, the election continued and was a one men race, the first ever in the history of electoral democracy.

ZANU PF was confirmed the winners of the re-run and assumed the leadership of government but the question that quickly comes to mind is "If ZANU PF won why do we have an all-inclusive government instead of an all out ZANU PF administration?" From a point of reason what it means is that ZANU PF did not have the courage to go it alone and also do not believe in its policies and actions in terms of bringing forth national development. Hence the need to extend a hand to the "desperate" MDC formations.

However, the point still stands that people did not vote for an all-inclusive government. This essay argues that the all-inclusive government itself is grossly unconstitutional and its legality should be questioned . It is only constitutional from a political viewpoint due to the unwarranted amendments to the outdated and foreign constitution that leaves many gaps to allow political manipulation. In essence the leaders of the political parties were supposed to seek the backing of the people and under normal circumstances the Global Political Agreement was supposed to be subjected to a referendum for the people to practice their sovereign right of endorsing or rejecting it. However this did not happen rather the agreement between the MDC and ZANU PF was imposed on Zimbabweans thereby subduing their sacred right of electing leaders they want.

As a point of departure this paper asserts or regards the inclusive government as a political initiative serving the political interests of its architects and authors. The sovereignty of citizens as enshrined in the doctrine of separation of powers is just but a nullity in our own political encounter. Politicians gathered and came up with a political product, they named the Global Political Agreement. The document they produced and signed is neither global nor an agreement at all. Global in what sense? An "agreement" between the MDC and ZANU PF parties cannot be named global unless if the word is re-defined to match theirs.

It was not an agreement in the sense that there was no mutuality when the parties signed the so-called Global Political Agreement . This paper will argue in detail why it dismisses the idea of the Global Political Agreement as ludicrous nonsense and loud sounding nothing, taking from Castlereagh "a piece sublime myth ism and nonsense"

Zimbabweans do not proudly own the government, they are just unfortunate as they also controlled by an exotic outdated and imperial constitution. The Lancaster House constitution is a diktat and a piece of an unfinished business. To worsen the burden a de facto regime masquerading as a de jure administration.

The problems facing the inclusive government were always inevitable, joining two sides with virtually nothing in common except that all parties are power hungry and want to taste the piece of the cake and not devote themselves to serve the people of Zimbabwe. Today Zimbabweans are victims of an unfulfilled promise. The negotiators facilitating the signing of the all-inclusive document promised so much but to date these promises are hard to come by and extremely difficult to realise.

The negotiations themselves were marred by gross irregularities and chronic insincerity mostly from the ZANU PF side. To refer to the negotiation process as a " Political Dialogue" is logically wrong. To be most specific the process was monologic rather than dialogic where one party tried to assert its hegemony and the other one being there to rubberstamp the proposals from the other. It must be noted that dialogue is ethical.

At this stage it is crucial to have an insight of what the concept of dialogue entails. German theologian Buber says that dialogue involves an effort to recognise the other, to see him/her as an end and not as a means to an end . In dialogue individual political parties should view others not as objects- the"I-You",but as equals the "I-Thou". Again dialogue is based on mutuality, reciprocity, openness and involvement.

Having analysed and found out that the negotiations between ZANU PF and MDC were anti-dialogic it is even more vindicating to argue that the so-called Global Political Agreement was not an agreement at all with support from the several accusations and counter-accusations by the parties signatory to the arrangement. Having highlighted the causes of the problems affecting the all-inclusive government it is critical to note that resolving these problems demands a holistic approach and a call for a more inclusive platform for addressing Zimbabwe-s problems rather than leaving the job in the hands of vicious politicians.

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