For decades Zanu PF and Robert Mugabe have committed heinous crimes against Zimbabweans in the name of sovereignty and have so far managed to escape any serious recrimination for that.
The bag of political debauchery that Mugabe carries for and behalf of Zanu PF appears to have ruptured and threatens to leave the party of geriatrics with egg all over.
The party that has transformed from a Colonial Liberation movement to a Pan Africanist Conservatives and Military Junta appears to have made the ultimate political mistake.
For the first time it has regionalised the political dispute it created over three decades in power by making unsubstantiated claims about Botswana’s involvement in training MDC activists to wage a military uprising against the Zanu PF Junta.
Zanu PF has a well documented history of labelling its internal political opponents enemies of the State.
In its political realm Zanu PF strongly believes it is the equivalent of the State of Zimbabwe.
Anyone who thus differs with its social, economic and political ideology is thus a dissident deserving of military suppression to conform or to be extinguished.
From Reverend Nbabaningi Sithole, Herbert Chitepo, Ian Douglas Smith, Bishop Abel Muzorewa, Justice Enoch Dumbutshena, Dr. Joshua Nkomo, Edgar Tekere, to Morgan Tsvangirai the script has been the same.
They have all been subjected to Military violence for daring to oppose Mugabe and Zanu PF politically.
There are yet many other perceived or real opponents of Mugabe and Zanu PF who have been tormented for daring to openly voice misgivings about Zanu PF and Mugabe’s political hegemony.
But in the past Zanu PF and Mugabe have been selective of their targets and largely concentrated their brinkmanship on perceived local opponents.
On the rare but significant occasions the brinkmanship was regionalised- invasion of Mozambique and the DRC – Mugabe made sure he was reacting to a recognised regional insurrection and camouflaged his intervention as a regional SADC initiative allowing him to escape scrutiny.
But all that has changed with the latest accusations he has levelled against Botswana.
There is no evidence on the ground that there is a military insurrection in Zimbabwe led by organised bandits.
Yet Mugabe has formerly complained to SADC and fingered another SADC State – Botswana – in hosting and training MDC activists preparing to launch an invasion of Zimbabwe.
The Botswana government and the MDC have both categorically dismissed the accusations and the later has turned the tables against Zanu PF by alleging that Mugabe and Zanu PF are at it again because they are insincere about forming a SADC mediated inclusive government following the failed March 29 2008 electoral process.
Sadc have promptly constituted an investigation into the allegations levelled by Zanu PF against Botswana confirming that Zanu PF is the defacto State of Zimbabwe as it claims.
SADC Chairman and interim South Africa President Kgalema Motlanthe appears to have inherited a Zimbabwe crisis far too complicated for his understanding.
His initial response was to order a Sadc investigation into a complaint by the Zimbabwe government against the Botswana government.
Nothing sinister here if both countries had legitimate governments recognised by Sadc, which is not the case.
Is former South Africa president Thabo Mbeki leading mediation of a nonexistent crisis in Zimbabwe –failed electoral process leading to government illegitimacy- or not?
If indeed he is, as is internationally accepted, which legitimate State of Zimbabwe complaint has the SADC chair accepted and promptly accepted and ordered to be investigated by SADC when his predecessor is at the helm of another SADC initiative to thrash out a legitimate State leadership in Zimbabwe?
Be that as it may, and assuming the South Africa President and SADC chair felt it was complimentary to the Zimbabwe mediation process to ensure the process was not sidetracked by frivolous and vexatious complaints from the Zanu PF junta, why has he not assumed the same attitude over equally frivolous and vexatious complaints about Zanu PF banditry against opponents of the junta by the MDC?
The answer is that South Africa and the SADC countries at large recognises the Mugabe fronted junta in Zimbabwe as the legitimate State apparatus and they are hell bent on securing international legitimacy for Mugabe after he was disgraced by Morgan Tsvangirai on 29 March 2008 but used military influence to retain political powers in the country.
That is the sad reality of the immorality behind SADC and its chair’s relentless pressure on Mugabe to form an inclusive government forthwith to regain his lost credibility as Zimbabwe’s undisputed Head of State.
But Mugabe is too old and senile to see this. After the electoral defeat he suffered in March, he does not trust that SADC initiatives can guarantee his stay in power.
Precisely because it was because he went along with a SADC guideline on elections to conduct ballot counting at local polling stations and announce outcomes there and then before they were tempered with by the aggregation process at the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) national level that he for the first time in his life realised the extent of his party’s unpopularity nationwide.
As if that was not frightening enough Mugabe realised that he was trailing far behind Tsvangirai’s popularity among the electorate and that could not have developed on the eve of the 2008 elections but has been the reality since 2000 when the MDC first contested elections.
The reason why it was not clear to him before why his political opponents were crying foul after each election he and his party were declared winners was because he was only being presented with aggregated outcomes after his loyal supporters in ZEC had diluted the real outcomes with cooked figures.
Now if Mugabe is not a legitimate head of State and his complaints against Botswana are beyond reasonable realm of intelligent and informed belief, why waste time and money the impoverished region can ill afford setting up investigation structures to examine insurrection allegations against a pseudo government?
Would it not be prudent to tell the complainant that he cannot be toppled unless he is a legitimate President and that way add weight to the push for the whingeing Mugabe to move with speed to form the state apparatus that will earn him lost recognition and justify regional and international cooperation with him when threatened with unconstitutional means of gaining power from anyone?
But instead of pushing this logical effective and cheaper line to a solution, SADC would rather pursue the complicated and so far unsubstantiated Botswana/MDC banditry training and sponsorship allegations which is likely to prove nothing.
And worse how can a self respecting regional institution like SADC be pushed to investigate allegations based on confessions of alleged captives of a regime who are being held incommunicado and hope to escape criticism of partiality?
SADC’s narrow view as exposed by its chair is that the solution lies in Mugabe forming an inclusive government with political nemesis Morgan Tsvangirai.
The reasoning seems to be that if MDC is part of the government any possible insurrection will not arise from that party against a government it is responsible for.
That rationality on the part of SADC is not ill advised at all. However they are missing the key components to achieving that ideal. They want to compel the inclusive government formation at the expense of all else and that is hardening the attitude of the very party that can be easily lured into the inclusive government trap.
The MDC has already conceded defeat to the Presidency and headship of the State leaving that to Mugabe’s uncontested ownership.
The MDC has also surrendered legitimate claims for it to lead the inclusive government formation initiative but retained a vexing grip on how whoever wants to lead the initiative must proceed.
The demand is simply power to govern the country must be shared equitably between the MDC and Zanu PF for the process to move forward.
That process must obviously start with Mugabe and Tsvangirai agreeing that they have both failed, for whatever reasons, to logically conclude the legislated process of determining who must form a government.
As a consequence they have sought friendly support to constitute a government and must be legitimised through that process.
That means neither of them have the power nor the exclusive capacity to determine the composition of the inclusive government despite them jointly holding the influence to that eventuality.
Mugabe seems to have adopted a one-appointment-at-a-time approach to the formation of the inclusive government rekindling Dzingai Mutumbuka’s one-fool-at-a-time jibe at parliamentary inquests into the Willogate scandal.
On the other hand Tsvangirai appears to have settled for a holistic approach where all attendant power issues are bargained for and agreed upon before the nominations to government positions are entertained.
SADC seem to prefer the piecemeal approach model adopted by Mugabe.
They have condoned piecemeal appointments of Vice Presidents, Provincial Governors, Legislative Chamber Speakers, Reserve Bank Governor, Attorney General and now want the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Ministers appointed at the next instant.
To do this they have exerted pressure on Mugabe who has emerged the unelected mover of the inclusive government formation initiative to gazette the Constitutional amendment No 19 (CA No 19) that will legitimise the positions.
That has now been done and the SADC leaders have reportedly forced Mugabe to officially confer the Premiership on Tsvangirai before the legislation has been passed by Parliament.
The intention is clearly to lure Tsvangirai into government under terms that he is not yet satisfied give him and his party equitable leverage to that held by Zanu PF in the government on the hanging threat of withdrawal of regional support for him and his party if he refuses to tow the line.
The SADC is obviously oblivious of what constitutes Tsvangirai’s power base in Zimbabwe. They believe it is them and their countries first thereafter Africa and finally and least of all Zimbabweans that support his party.
Tsvangirai believes to the contrary that his support is first and foremost from Zimbabweans, thereafter the United Nations (UN), the Africa Union (AU) and SAD in that order.
He respects SADC but is not afraid to be at variance with them if they start making decisions against the Zimbabwe electorate.
That is why he will theoretically acknowledge the Premiership offer but stress that he will effectively take up the offer when power equity concerns between his party and Zanu PF have been holistically ironed out to his party and personal satisfaction.
SADC will be back at square one on the matters in Zimbabwe thereafter.
The Global Political Agreement (GPA) they tenaciously cobbled between Zanu PF and MDC does not empower Mugabe to appoint Tsvangirai as Prime Minister by invitation or otherwise after gazetting CA No 19.
Rather the agreement appointed Tsvangirai Prime Minister designate on the date it was signed namely 15 September 2008 and Mugabe was compelled to publicly endorse that there and then but chose to procrastinate behind the unavailability of the Constitutional framework to bind him.
Now that he has been compelled to do so on the flimsy and false interpretation of the GPA by SADC he will have to justify to the Nation why he took 3 months to endorse the GPA in so far as Premiership and Deputy Premiership positions in the inclusive government are concerned.
SADC and obviously the Zanu PF line Mugabe will regurgitate that he could not endorse unconstitutional positions will not wash as the positions remain unconstitutional until the date they will be passed and signed into law by a legitimised and sworn in President emerging from the GPA.
That unfortunately is the correct interpretation of Article 20(1) (3) (j) and (k) as read with Article 25 of the GPA which reads;
“20.1.3 The President
j) shall, pursuant to this Agreement, appoint the Prime Minister pending the enactment of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment no.19 as agreed by the Parties;
(k) formally appoints Deputy Prime Ministers, Ministers and Deputy Ministers in accordance with this agreement;
25. Commencement
This Agreement shall enter into force upon its signature by the Parties.”
It does not say the appointments will be made by any other President after the gazetting of the CA No 19 nor that the specific President can appoint Tsvangirai as Prime Minister of the inclusive agreement other than in terms of what was agreed in the GPA.
Zimbabweans will not be fooled by the SADC chair’s implied assertions that the PM’s appointment was impossible of formalisation before the gazetting of CA No 19 nor will they buy into the false implications that Mugabe has powers to invite Tsvangirai into an inclusive Government in Zimbabwe.
What SADC ought to do is to pressure Mugabe to allow it as the underwriter of the GPA to arrange for the coronation of Mugabe, Tsvangirai, Mutambara and Khupe as President, Prime Minister, and Deputy Prime Ministers of the Republic of Zimbabwe on a specific date in proceedings presided over by the Speaker of Parliament.
Thereafter they should request the inaugurated leadership to announce their agreed Cabinet and in one day the inclusive government will be in place.
The reason why Mugabe is finding the time to raise frivolous and vexatious claims against neighbours is because of the inaction of SADC to implement the agreement it underwrote on 15 September 2008.
Sadc is paralysed by the fear of Mugabe and Zanu PF that sends it scuttling for evidence to justify a serious allegation against a member state and misinterpret a straightforward agreement.
Tsvangirai will pour cold water on any rush decisions by SADC that neglect to address the underlying fundamental of equitable power sharing in Zimbabwe’s envisaged inclusive government.
He will not be bullied into a flawed inclusive government and may even walk out of the agreement and leave SADC and Mugabe to fight Zimbabweans and the international community over Mugabe’s legitimacy.
It does not help the resolution of the Zimbabwe crisis when the cart is put before the horse and piecemeal interventions are implemented to build up to an illegitimate government for the country.
Meanwhile Botswana has a strong case to seek SADC censure of Mugabe and his ZANU PF junta once investigations return a blank on allegations of it harbouring and training MDC insurgents.
We are convinced the SADC will treat such a complaint with equal haste to how it has treated the unsubstantiated Zanu PF junta complaints.
And now that SADC has video evidence of the whereabouts of allegedly abducted MDC activists we expect it to compel the Zimbabwe junta to bring the accused insurgents to court so that they can get a fair trial for their crimes.
No comments:
Post a Comment