MDC National Council must seriously examine coalition marriage

Our national fate cannot be restricted to the whims of these three coalition government principals

The MDC National Council meeting in Masvingo tomorrow has a monumental task at its hands to deal decisively with mounting issues afflicting the coalition government it is party to with Zanu PF.

The government constituted on 13 February 2009 has been cruising on a bumpy road for 3 months and its tyres are wearing out fast and most bolts need tightening and the engine could do with fresh lubrication and clearance of clogged filters as well as a general service and clean up.

It was always evident the coalition had set out on a risky and dangerous mission and needed the strongest men and women to navigate through the uncharted territory it was to travel.

Barely had he put his pen back in the pocket than the Zanu PF signatory of the 15 September 2008 Global Political Agreement (GPA) upon which the coalition govern is premised than he disclosed misgivings about the “many issues in the document that both he and the MDC-T leader were at variance with.”

The signing ceremony nearly failed to take off as the MDC-T was unhappy that the power sharing formula had not been agreed upon and this would cause serious implementation headaches for the antagonistic Zimbabwe political formations without the mediation team safety net.

It is that crucial omission in the GPA that has compelled the MDC national Council to convene in Masvingo to chart the way forward regarding its continued association with coalesce partners in the tripartite alliance currently governing the country.

After 8 months of voluntary but closely monitored negations since the signing ceremony of which 3 months have been relatively independent of SADC moderation as they were taking place within the context of the coalition government framework, the power sharing debate rages on and there is little evidence of progress if any has been achieved towards resolution of the sticky issues.

The sticky points in implementing the GPA still remain as they were prior to 15 September 2008;
• Agreement on the allotment of Provincial Governors to coalesce parties;
• Agreement on the acceptable incumbent for the position of Reserve Bank governor;
• Agreement on the acceptable incumbent of the position of Attorney General;
• Agreement on incumbents for positions of Permanent Secretaries of government Ministries;
• Agreement on incumbents for positions of Zimbabwe’s 38 Ambassadors in foreign missions; and
• Agreement on incumbents of positions of Heads of National Commissions and parastatals;

The incumbents in the six categories above are critical drivers of government policy formulation and implementation that were envisaged in the GPA would require consensus of the coalition principals before they could become substantive to ensure smooth operation of the government.

Despite signing the agreement binding him to consult with coalition principals of the other 2 parties’ principals before appointing substantive incumbents of the positions in the 6 categories Zanu PF president Robert Mugabe reneged on the agreement as soon as his contentious claim to the country’s presidency was regularised by the same agreement.

He appointed 10 Provincial Governors from within his Zanu PF party ranks, extended controversial Dr Gideon Gono’s tenure of office by a further 5 years in October 2008, promoted self confessed Zanu PF member Johannes Tomana to Attorney General and announced retention and appointment of 34 Permanent Secretaries from recommendations made by institutions other than those prescribed for him to consult by the GPA.

The impending MDC National Council must determine what course of action to take on these matters.

Their work is cut out in that they either condone the unilateral appointments by President Mugabe, and move on with the process of governing with the support of a hostile secretariat or they reject the appointments, and refer the matter to the GPA guarantors for arbitration.

The matters can no longer be referred to SADC mediation as there is a written agreement on how they will be tackled mediated by the same institution.

Reference of the matter to SADC will be for a declaration as to whether or not the unilateral appointments are in compliance with the GPA articles as prior agreed.

At this juncture it is crucial for MDC-T to ensure that the decision they take will not render their effectiveness in the coalition impotent.

If they condone the appointments they must also be prepared to accept the backlash of the policy implementation decisions of these key personnel and so far it is clear they will not be favourable for the party’s future political fortunes.

Should they decide to condemn the appointments and escalate the dispute to SADC arbitration they must be prepared for the worst given the SADC reputation of siding with Mugabe and Zanu PF in the past and the demoralising effect that will have on its loyal supporters.

There MDC-T National Council meeting will also be hard pressed to deal with other issues that have emerged and or have varied the scope of the agreement that justifies the party’s involvement with the coalition government.

The coalition government’s continued existence is being severely tested by;
 The relentless persecution of the party’s activists on trivial and vexatious allegations;
 The refusal by the President to swear in Roy Bennett as Deputy minister of Agriculture;
 The sporadic outbursts of violence and commercial farm invasions;
 The disputed Constitution making process;
 The unilateral reconfiguration of the ICT ministry by President Mugabe;
 The failure by the coalition government to secure international reconstruction aid and support;
 The series of insubordinate conduct towards the premier by Military commanders;
 The acceptance embarrassing acceptance of RBZ vehicle donations by its MP’s;
 The possible ramifications of raucous developments in MDC-M to the coalition;
 The plight of the ordinary citizenry following fiscal migration to multi currency usage;
 The National Security council progress report and
 The achievements and failures of the coalition government.

If lasting resolution of the thorny issues is to be achieved there is need for the MDC-T National Council to put aside emotional stress from experiences with the coalition and focus on how to achieve the objectives that drove the party into the coalition.

The MDC grassroots are numerically superior to the Zanu PF and MDC-M supporters yet when it comes to defending beliefs and values they come a cropper to Zanu PF.

With this in mind it is important to decide on a course of action that will not require supporters to go toe to toe on issues in dispute as the MDC supporters will be found wanting.

The best route appears to be for Council to resolve to suspend any further negotiations between the principals of the coalition government and immediate reference of disputed issues at the same time principals must announce those issues they have managed to resolve over the 3 months they have engaged each other to strategise total and compliant implementation of the GPA.

In as much as ultimatums are not helpful unless they can be backed by adequate enforcement measures, decrees on whether or not the coalition will prevail are best left to parties rather than restricted to party principals.

Much as most Zimbabweans wish the coalition well and success it is not a wish they are prepared to back with life and limp if need be.

There are alternatives to achieve the desired outcomes from the coalition government and there is no reason why the country must be held at ransom by a leader whose only claim to legitimacy is an agreement he does not abide by.