The meaning of the new political dispensation in Zimbabwe

Professor Jonathan Moyo bottom left; Tendai Biti Zimbabwe Finance Minister centre and David Coltart Education Minister

By Professor Jonathan Moyo

NewZimbabwe.com

Wednesday, February 18:

WHAT is the meaning of the new political dispensation in Zimbabwe made possible by the formation of the inclusive government?

Just in case my conclusion gets lost in my argument, let me point out now that there are seven considerations that define the meaning of the new political dispensation which are, therefore, the conclusion of my presentation.
In the first place, the new political dispensation means that President Robert Mugabe has rather shrewdly managed to win back political legitimacy which he lost on March 29, 2008, and failed to get in the controversial presidential runoff election on June 27, 2008.

Prior to this, President Mugabe only had legal legitimacy which was in danger of being overpowered by his political illegitimacy which arose from the fact that he came second to Morgan Tsvangirai on March 29, 2008, and that the results of the June 27, 2008, presidential runoff election were widely condemned as politically illegitimate whatever its legal merits.

Now, thanks to the new political dispensation, Mugabe is sitting pretty as both head of State and head of government.

Second, the new political dispensation means that the “sellout” or “puppet” stigma attached to Morgan Tsvangirai and his MDC since 1999 will now fall away. Already, some elements of the public media who used to routinely label Tsvangirai a British puppet and a sell-out are now calling him “Comrade Tsvangirai”. Times have indeed changed.

This serves to remind all of us of the anthropological truth that it is unwise to judge the promise of a child by the prejudice or stupidity of its parents. As such, while British and American parenting of the MDC cannot be objectively denied, the new political dispensation gives the MDC a golden opportunity to outgrow that awful parentage by becoming truly nationalist.

Third, the new political dispensation means that Zimbabwe now has three ruling parties, although one of the three — MDC M — is not really a party in the traditional or strict sense.

This development has the potential to enhance multiparty politics and mutual tolerance in the country as there is no chance in heaven of having the three parties in government merging to become one party. The fact that the three ruling parties in the inclusive government have no chance of merging means that the political landscape in the country is likely to see major political realignments including the emergence of a credible alternative political movement which will embrace progressive elements from across the political divide.

Fourth, the new political dispensation means that the polarisation that has characterised our country’s national politics in recent years will significantly subside with the real possibility of disappearing altogether. The polarisation had contributed to the underdevelopment of public discourse and the impoverishment of public policies. Now there is new space for real discussion and real debate of real issues at local, provincial and national levels.

Fifth, the new political dispensation means that the Anglo-American led international consensus that had solidly developed against Zimbabwe will most likely collapse. In any event, there will now be significant divisions in the international community over Zimbabwe and those divisions are going to benefit the inclusive government.

SADC, and in particular South Africa, will emerge as the leading international voice on Zimbabwe with Britain and America taking backseats from which they would still be able to make mischief but not in the megaphone manner of the past.

Sixth, the new political dispensation means that while the historic 2000 land reform process is now firmly irreversible, as affirmed by the September 15, 2008, Interparty Agreement that led to the formation of the inclusive government, there is now a real danger that the new black political and economic elite, the majority of whom are in the MDC, will use the excuse of underutilised land on the back of the ongoing economic liberalisation to dispossess peasants and the urban poor who are now on the land but who are struggling to fully or even partially utilise it due to economic factors beyond their control.

In other words, the new political dispensation means that we should brace ourselves up for new land invasions initially against the remaining white farmers, as is already happening, and later against the newly resettled farmers who will be opportunistically accused of not utilising the land allocated to them during the height of the Third Chimurenga.

Seventh, the new political dispensation means that either Zanu PF — which still holds the levers of power — has outfoxed the MDC which is now in Zanu PF’s mouth ready to go down its stomach, or that the MDC-T is now poised to destroy Zanu PF from within the government given that the strength of Zanu PF over the last decade or so has moved away from its long dead party structures to government departments and ministries. The fact that government ministries and departments are now shared by Zanu PF and the two MDC factions spells looming doom for Zanu PF which was already suffering from growing civil service defiance.

Given the above conclusion of my presentation, let me now proffer the argument. In order to appreciate the full meaning of the new political dispensation, we must distinguish between the September 15, 2008, “Global” Interparty Agreement and the inclusive government formed on the fateful day of Friday, February 13, 2009.

The Interparty Agreement was without doubt a good thing for Zimbabwe as there was really no better alternative. As such, the Interparty Agreement was, as it still is, inherently good.

However, the same cannot be said about the inclusive government without qualification. We have to judge the inclusive government on two accounts: First as to whether the Cabinet choices made by the three “principal leaders” were sound to the point of inspiring confidence and second, in terms of how the new Cabinet will work or perform.

In all fairness we can begin to make lasting conclusions about the work or performance of the new Cabinet only after 100 days even though we know it does not have that much time. The country is in dire straits and the public expects well thought-out and decisive action as a matter of urgency.

This means that the only judgement we can confidently pass now is about the soundness of the choices made in the selection of the Cabinet members for the inclusive government.

In this regard, it is important to note that the implementation of the September 15, 2008, Interparty Agreement has thus far been a contest for positions in government. Initially, before the signing of the September 15 deal, the battle was over which party would get which ministries. After the deal, the battle shifted to a contest over which individual would get which ministry. Throughout this whole process, there has been no contest of ideas, no contest of ideology and no contest over policy.
In a word, the whole affair has thus far been about jobs for the boys or girls.

Indeed, it is striking to observe that all of the negotiators in the Interparty Dialogue basically negotiated and assured high ranking positions for themselves and even when some of them are clearly not suitable or qualified for the positions they grabbed. This does not inspire national confidence, rather, it breeds cynicism against the inclusive government.

The highlight of this contest has been the Cabinet choices. Although there are some notable exceptions, the vast majority of the choices by the leaders of the three ruling parties are poor and misplaced not least because they have been driven by considerations of patronage and cheap politics than anything else important or relevant.

Let us briefly consider each of the three cases beginning with the Cabinet choices made by MDC-M.

If we were to judge MDC M by its cabinet choices, and if we were to do so without any prejudice, then we would have to conclude that this is a pretentious party that has never existed in point of fact on the ground. It’s a stillborn party run by upstarts who are either ignorant of or confused by politics.

This party has no chance of ever coming into political life not least because its leaders used or even abused the Interparty negotiations to secure themselves high ranking positions in government via the backdoor as they have no electoral mandate of their own. Politics is never about oneself. It is always about the people.

As such, and given the fragile sensitivities of the leaders of the MDC-M, the little said about their hopeless cabinet deployments the better, save to marvel at the fact that David Coltart, who is otherwise a good man, was allocated a portfolio that is way above his technical and cultural competence, let alone his relevant experience.

How about Zanu PF? When the former sole ruling party is judged by its latest cabinet deployments, and the rather comical manner in which those deployments were made, then it is hard to avoid the conclusion that this is now a dead party just waiting to be buried. I believe that burial will be at the next polls whenever they are held. In the meantime, Zanu PF will remain dead in our midst.

Zanu PF’s cabinet choices leave it with a problem of relevance: with no new blood injected into the inclusive govt, where will the renewal of the party come from given that the little that remained of the party’s influence was government based which government is now inclusive of the two MDC factions?

President Mugabe’s Cabinet choices disappointed many in and outside Zanu PF who expected a better panel. On August 26, 2008, at a luncheon given by the Ministry of Local Government following the opening of the first session of the seventh Parliament, President Mugabe described his last Cabinet as “the worst in history”.

If the leader of a ruling party says, “My Cabinet is the worst in history”, then you judge his next Cabinet choices rationally you would expect that leader to get rid of that worst cabinet without even thinking twice about it. But not if that leader is Mugabe. He seems to have a fixation with mediocrity which he never hesitates to reward at every opportunity.

President Mugabe’s Cabinet choices in the inclusive government are drawn from the same deadwood which made up his last cabinet which he said was the worst in history. At least seven of his 15 Cabinet ministers have been returned to their previous portfolios. While President Mugabe has the right to make his choices, the one fact that cries out loud is that his choices are very disappointing and they never ever seem to serve any useful part or national purpose beside the President’s self-preservation.

Zimbabwe is in desperate need for institutional renewal. But, alas, President Mugabe does not seem to have understood after all his years in office that one effective way of renewing national institutions is by giving them new and energetic leadership. At every point in national affairs, the old must be mixed with the young or the new.

If there is anyone in Zanu PF who believes that Mugabe’s Cabinet choices in the inclusive government have a capacity to swallow the MDC-T, then they are joking because deadwood cannot swallow anything. Why put deadwood at the deep end of things at this critical time in the life of our nation?

I have a serious problem with President Mugabe’s Cabinet deployments because I thought its interest is renewal and Mugabe had an opportunity to signal not only to Zanu PF rank and file but also to the nation that it has a future and not to continue presenting its tired and now irrelevant past.

Then we have the MDC-T’s Cabinet choices. If we judge Tsvangirai’s Cabinet selection, how his choices were made, then the inevitable conclusion is that Tsvangirai’s MDC is now a terminally wounded party waiting to die and its death might very well be pronounced at the next poll, but I am unable to say at the moment when its burial might occur.

MDC-T’s cabinet choices have left it with a number of very serious problems. The choices have clearly been driven by considerations of patronage just like is done in Zanu PF and this has blunted the MDC-T’s criticism of Zanu PF patronage. People expected change from Tsvangirai but his Cabinet choices sent a very clear message that he is cut from the same cloth with Mugabe.

There has been a rather unnecessary dimension of the MDC T’s cabinet deployments that smacks of provocation by bringing back Rhodesians or people with Rhodesian connections into the government.

In a situation such as we have in Zimbabwe today, leaders have to make hard choices taking into account the country’s sensitivities. Indeed, in politics you don’t just do things to spite people especially when you are dealing with volatile interests of a historical nature. You use the opportunity to calm nerves and not to stir up trouble.

If you look at what is happening to Roy Bennett, starting with his appointment as deputy minister of agriculture and going into his subsequent arrest, it invites a lot of questions as to why. Is this a legal issue? Or is it a political matter? If it is political, what could be provoking it?

On my part, I would not have expected any political leader 29 years after our independence to provoke a situation by appointing someone who served in the Rhodesian army or British South Africa Police to the Cabinet. That is rather bizarre. Yes, you can appoint a white person but not one who was in the Rhodesian army or police. That’s bad politics and it does not indicate the emergence of a new Zimbabwe but takes us right into the dark past and brings back horrible memories.

Then there is Tsvangirai’s deployment of Tendai Biti to the Ministry of Finance which is very cynical and even dangerous. While we should give Biti the benefit of the doubt, he certainly is the wrong person for the job. Biti belongs to a trio of financial ministers who should not have been -- and these include Enos Nkala and Samuel Mumbengegwi with Biti at the bottom of that terrible trio. Each time we have had these kinds of misplaced and inappropriate deployments of ministers of finance, the results have been utterly disastrous.

For example, Biti’s decree last week, made at a press conference, directing commercial banks to convert savings accounts into forex accounts was very shocking and it signalled the kind of unacceptable finance minister he will be. Banks are not managed by the Minister of Finance but there is no reason to expect Biti to know that, just as there is no reason to expect him to know that he does not manage public servants and yet he saw no problem announcing procedures of how civil servants were to be paid in the absence of the public service commission or the minister responsible for the public service.

The video of Biti’s first press conference as minister of finance needs to be studied and used by future ministers of finance as an example of what not to do. After announcing that they had the money to pay civil servants 100 US dollars monthly allowances in cash, Biti was asked by the media where the forex was coming from given that the government is technically bankrupt.

His answer was shocking and unbefitting of a serious minister of finance. He said “Takiya-kiya (we have played around)”. Honestly, how opaque can one get? The new minister of finance should not be surprised if henceforth he finds himself called Tendai “Takiyakiya” Biti. In the meantime, the finance minister needs to know that the nation still wants to know where the money came from and how it being accounted for.

For the avoidance of doubt, the issue is not about Biti personally. It is about whether he is qualified to be Minister of Finance. Do people know and appreciate that he is a senior member of the MDC-T leadership? Yes. Does he deserve a senior position in the inclusive government? Yes. Is that position the Ministry of Finance? No. It’s a loud No, No! No yesterday, no today and no tomorrow.

Putting the Biti issue aside, the MDC-T’s cabinet deployment left it with a very serious “Zezuru” problem as it does not have ministers representing any constituency in Mashonaland West, Mashonaland Central and Mashonaland East. This is a whole region with a huge concentration of national voters. How does Tsvangirai expect to rule Zimbabwe without it?

Then, as if this is not enough, there is the Matabeleland question. The MDC T has only two cabinet ministers (if you discount Gorden Moyo who is a minister of state in the Prime Minister’s office with no budget of his own) from there and yet that is the region that was supposed to give the MDC-T a “South-South” foundation.

Zanu PF used to do far better than this even when it did not enjoy support in Matabeleland. The manner in which Tsvangirai made the Matabeleland appointments, such as first appointing and then dropping Eddie Cross and Abednico Bhebhe, made a bad situation worse. It showed that Tsvangirai does not have the necessary political spine to stand by his decisions. He is given to collapsing under pressure.

Attempts to justify MDC T’s Matabeleland deployments on grounds that Speaker Lovermore Moyo and Deputy Prime Minister Thokozani Khupe come from the region have not held much water because, unlike Cabinet ministers who have national budgets and work across the country, the two occupy roles that are largely ceremonial and do not have much of anything to do with the allocation and distribution of resources.

The widespread feeling in Matabeleland is that the region is tired of ceremonial politicians who have nothing to do with how the limited Zimbabwean national cake is divided.

If the truth can be told about the MDC-T cabinet deployments without fear or favour, it is that they are disproportionately dominated by one ethnic group in a manner that is detrimental to national cohesion and balance.

Now, given the foregoing, will a government with these origins succeed? I think that is indeed possible, although its success will depend on whether the Government will be able to inspire national and international confidence. The ability of the government to inspire that confidence will depend on how it will handle six toxic issues:

¶ Transforming Cabinet into an interparty caucus whose decisions will be binding on the respective party causes in Parliament in a manner that would strengthen and ensure collective responsibility.

¶ The need to move away from making populist directives to making and implementing considered policies. There is an urgent need for Cabinet to become a policy making institution as opposed to a directives issuing body. Statements like “Cabinet has directed this or that” need to be a thing of the past and yet this will not be easy to achieve let alone do as the three parties and their ministers try to outdo each in a hopeless competition for public attention.

¶ Turning around the Zimbabwean economy without burdening the cost of that recovery on peasants and the urban poor who have been battered beyond coping with the economic meltdown.

Judging by the provisions of the recent budget and the reforms arising from the latest monetary policy statement, there is a real and present danger that the new government might purse the now roundly discredited IMF and World Bank policies in the hope of being seen as “reasonable” by some international and even local interests still stuck in the costly past.

¶ The removal of illegal economic sanctions within 100 days of the life of the inclusive government. So far, the Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, and the Minister of Finance Tendai Biti, have refrained from calling for the removal of these devastating sanctions which have been falsely presented as targeted at some individuals when they are actually against Zimbabwe itself.

The fact that the British government just announced an 18 month programme to get its remaining senior citizens to leave Zimbabwe raises very serious doubts about whether the illegal sanctions will be removed. If the sanctions are not lifted, it is hard to see how the inclusive government will survive.

¶ Bringing political finality to Zimbabwe’s now irreversible land tenure system: This issue will not be resolved unless and until former white farmers now off the land are fairly and adequately compensated for their losses.

¶ The question whether the new constitution that should be enacted as part of the September 15 Interparty Agreement will be a participatory and people-driven process or whether it will be driven by the three parties in the inclusive government.

Unless the Interparty Agreement collapses prematurely well ahead of the life of the seventh Parliament, the next national election will be a referendum on the new constitution. The three parties will either take one unified position in support of the draft new constitution (the so called Kariba draft) or they will take different positions on the draft and campaign against each other in the referendum as happened between Mwai Kibaki and Raila Odinga in Kenya.

Whatever the case, the next real opposition in Zimbabwe is likely to emerge from the process of the making of the new constitution and will mature from the referendum to the general election.

Otherwise the real question is whether the inclusive government will survive or succeed and for how long. Now that they are in, it will be difficult if not impossible for any of the three ruling parties to pullout of the inclusive government without suffering fatal consequences. They’ve all taken the poison and they are damned if they are in and damned if they are out.

What emerged from all this is that the MDC-M dreams that the inclusive government will give it an opportunity for a rebirth as a way out of its stillborn status while Zanu PF hopes that the inclusive government will enable it to do a Lazarus and rise from the dead in the next election to rule Zimbabwe again and alone. On its part the MDC-T imagines that the inclusive government will heal its otherwise terminal wound and empower it to “dribble” Zanu PF out of power.

As such, the three ruling parties do not see failure of the inclusive government as an option. Yet success will be very difficult to achieve because of the six toxic issues outlined above which will be tricky to manage.