The Standard
Opinion by David Coltart
28 July 2008
WHILST the MOU will undoubtedly be a positive step forward towards a negotiated settlement in Zimbabwe, many pitfalls still lie ahead and we will need Mandela-like wisdom to negotiate them.
A few weeks ago in London Nelson Mandela commented on the Zimbabwean crisis using four words which are profoundly significant as we move towards a negotiated settlement. He said that the Zimbabwean crisis was, and I quote, a “tragic failure of leadership”. At that time many took his comments as an attack on Robert Mugabe alone. However I do not believe that his comments were directed solely at Robert Mugabe. I believe that he was referring to a collective failure of leadership in Zimbabwe not just this year but over a protracted period.
It is just over 50 years since Garfield Todd’s tenure as Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia ended on the 17th of February 1958. In his farewell statement Todd said “we must make it possible for every individual to lead the good life, to win a place in the sun. We are in danger of becoming a race of fear ridden neurotics — we who live in the finest country on earth”. Those wise words have been disregarded by a succession of political leaders in Zimbabwe for the last 50 years. Zimbabwe has been blighted during the last 50 years by political leaders of all races and of all ideologies who have been guilty of the following errors of judgment:
Since the early 1960s Zimbabwean political parties have generally been led by men who believe that physical force is more important than moral force. The 1961 Constitution would have led to a gradual and orderly transition from white minority rule to majority rule but it was derailed by both black and white politicians who did not believe in compromise and who preferred to place their faith in the use of force and violence either to retain power or to acquire it.
The politics of the 1960s and 1970s were marked by a shocking lack of commitment by most political leaders to seek non-violent means of resolving the then political crisis. Since 1980 we have been led by a regime that has a deep-rooted belief in and commitment to the use of violence to achieve political objectives. Tragically as so often happens under tyrannical regimes, those who oppose tyranny sometimes get poisoned by tyranny and themselves replicate or mirror the methods used by the very tyrannical regimes they oppose. Zimbabwe has been no exception and I have no doubt that the struggle for freedom has been compromised periodically when we in the opposition have lapsed into the thinking that our problems may be resolved through the use of physical force and violence.
I was horrified to read recently statements made by a few senior opposition leaders which betray this thinking. One threatened a “shooting war” and went on to say that the MDC should not be blamed “when we start.” Another wrote that an option was to “pick up arms of war” and drive Mugabe out. Whilst I fully understand the deep sense of frustration which leads to statements like this being made, these utterances are irresponsible. War, or the threat of war, should never be part of our lexicon, especially during any negotiation process. That is the language we expect to hear from Mugabe — it should never come from a democrat at this juncture of our history.
All democratic political leaders must consider the legacy of the last 50 years of violence in Zimbabwe. We need to all understand that it is this continual reversion to violence which has brought our great nation to the sorry state is in today. Unless all political leaders unequivocally revoke the use or threat of violence there will never be a meaningful negotiated settlement in Zimbabwe.
And it is simply no excuse for opposition leaders to threaten the use of violence or war in response to the shocking brutality exercised by this regime against the Zimbabwean people. All those threats will do is perpetuate the horrifying cycle of violence this country has experienced in the last 50 years. In short war or the threat of war is simply not an option. If the talks, which are about to commence, are to succeed that threat should never be used by anyone, certainly not by the democrats.
Accordingly if we are to negotiate a settlement there must be a profound commitment to refrain from the violence of the fist, tongue and heart by the opposition, irrespective of what Zanu PF leaders have done or are planning to do. We must recognise that we occupy the high ground morally as we enter this process and we must not lose that position by making foolhardy threats at this critical juncture.
2. They are concentrated on either the retention or acquisition of power rather than the national interest I question what has happened to all our patriots? It seems to me that our nation has been blighted by a succession of leaders who are more concerned with their personal interests or the narrow interests of their own political parties and supporters then they are in the great nation state of Zimbabwe. This should be a great nation; it is richly endowed with bright articulate hard-working people; with rich natural resources; with the best climate in the world; it is a country of stunning natural beauty. As Garfield Todd said over 50 years ago it is indeed the finest country on earth. How can it then be that the finest country on earth is the location of one of the world’s worst nightmares? I believe that is primarily because our political leadership has for decades put selfish personal interests ahead of the national interest.
One of the reasons the Lancaster house talks did not provide a long-term resolution to Zimbabwe’s problems is because white rights were put before the entrenchment of universally recognised human rights. Instead of ensuring that the new Zimbabwean Constitution deeply rooted democratic principles there was a concentration on protecting white interests. In contrast both FW De Klerk and Roelff Meyer in the South African negotiations recognised that it was more important to entrench democracy for all than it was to seek to protect white privilege.
Likewise the reason the December 22, 1987 Unity Accord has come unstuck is because it accommodated the interests of the political leadership of Zanu PF and PF Zapu rather than the general interests of the Zimbabwean people. One of the reasons there is such antipathy in Zimbabwe today regarding a government of national unity is because of the 1987 Unity Accord. The Unity Accord is viewed by most people, certainly in Matabeleland, as a settlement which benefited a few leaders and did not entrench democracy and so lay the foundation for meaningful economic development which would benefit all Zimbabweans.
Sadly that attitude continues to this day and applies to both Zanu PF and the MDC. I fear that the current negotiations may focus on who gets what instead of what structural reforms are needed to put Zimbabwe back on the road to recovery. If the negotiations focus on how much power is either retained by Zanu PF or acquired by the MDC rather than the policy reforms needed then any settlement that arises from the negotiations will not be wholeheartedly embraced by the Zimbabwean people.
To this extent who leads the country and who is in any Cabinet is irrelevant. Let me be quite clear what I mean. Obviously the democratic will of the people of Zimbabwe as reflected in the 29 March 2008 elections must be respected. However the problems Zimbabwe face are so severe and intractable that we cannot allow petty bickering about who gets what to derail the negotiations. All national leaders must recommit themselves to the national interest and be prepared to subordinate their personal goals and ambitions to what is in the best interests of Zimbabwe. This means that in the interests of compromise there may have to be some power-sharing mechanism during a transitional period.
In this regard let me briefly respond to the statement issued by the civil society organisations on 17 July 2007 in which they call upon a transitional government to have “leadership by a neutral body” and a transitional government “headed by an individual who is not a member of Zanu PF or MDC”. Once again whilst I appreciate the sentiment which lies behind the statement one cannot just disregard the wishes of the Zimbabwean people as expressed on 29 March. Our society remains deeply polarised and we cannot ignore the fact that leaders on both sides of the political divide enjoy the passionate support of their respective supporters. They have been given a mandate by their supporters and that mandate must be respected in the negotiation process. However it is because of that deep polarisation that I believe we will have to consider some interim power sharing mechanism. And it goes without saying that power-sharing involves compromise on both sides.
But the tragic consequences are not solely confined to economic collapse. Almost of greater concern to me is the collapse of the moral fabric of our society. We need to consider the effect of 50 years of violence on our national character. In this regard and I am not only speaking about the victims of violence but also about the perpetrators. In the last few weeks I have seen horrifying injuries inflicted on Zimbabweans by young men. Doctors say that some of these injuries are so severe that they would never occur, for example, in a traffic accident. Bones had been broken repeatedly by young men acting on the instructions of their political leaders. I have no doubt that they will be haunted by what they have done in the years that lie ahead. Scientific studies show that those who inflict violence on political opponents often go on to inflict violence on those they love including spouses and children. It is also a fact that we now have a deeply ingrained culture of violence. If negotiations are to succeed then not only must this violence stop immediately but other measures must be taken to ensure that violence does not derail either the talks or the transition.
In these circumstances the demand by the MDC that all violence should stop, that political detainees should be released and that is NGOs be allowed to distribute food are reasonable. However I would qualify these demands by recognising that even if Zanu PF gives undertakings it will be difficult to verify the compliance of those undertakings in the short term and to change the mind set of a generation of youth militia overnight. I believe that SADC has a key role to play in this regard. I think the state should immediately deploy civilian monitors to report back to the facilitators regarding whether militia camps have been removed, whether NGOs are able to function and other legitimate issues of concern have been addressed. I think that if such a commitment is given by SADC then negotiations should commence without further ado. But we must recognise that unless there are neutral SADC monitors deployed in the country eruptions of violence are more likely to occur and these may have the effect of disrupting the talks.
It follows as well that a crucial aspect of the talks must be how to tackle the culture of violence so that it does not derail any transitional period agreed to in the talks. Suffice it to say that we must not underestimate how serious this problem is and our need for an ongoing presence of SADC monitors even during the transitional period.
For the reasons I have outlined above a government of national unity will be viewed with extreme scepticism by most Zimbabweans. The fear of Zimbabweans is that the government of national unity will draw in unscrupulous political leaders who then become part of a corrupt system. The fear is that those leaders are then compromised and that they will fail to deal with the fundamental problems facing Zimbabwe.
It is for this reason that a transitional authority should be agreed to and I would like to discuss a few aspects of this authority. Before I do so let me respond to those who may say that there is no difference between a GNU and a Transitional Authority. Some argue that this is just about semantics. I disagree – the difference is all about emphasis. A GNU focuses on “unity”; substance is secondary and the notion of a transition to something different is completely subordinate to unity. A Transitional Authority focuses on “transition”. There can, and must of course, be unity in transition but the emphasis is on a transition to something new, not just a changing of the guard at the top.
My own belief is that any transitional authority emerging from the talks should generally respect the will of the people as expressed on 29 March 2008. As stated above because our nation is so deeply polarised there will have to be a power-sharing arrangement during the transition including all the political parties given a mandate by the electorate in March. However during the transition civil society will have to play a major role in certain aspects of the transitional authority’s mandate, especially regarding the process which should culminate in a new democratic constitution.
Any transitional authority agreed to should have a finite mandate. It must be made clear that the authority will not have a mandate to govern indefinitely. In addition the duration of the authority should be as short as possible; and it should be understood that it is to govern in the short term – I would hope for no longer than 18 months to two years.
It seems to me that there are four critical areas that need to be addressed by a transitional authority.
The transitional authority should be mandated to stabilise the economy, to seek balance of payments support, to tackle inflation by engaging institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF. It will need to draw on technical expertise from qualified Zimbabweans and others who can introduce the necessary economic policies to stop Zimbabwe’s economic freefall.
Zimbabwe is arguably suffering the world’s greatest humanitarian crisis at present. The country faces a severe food shortage; our hospitals are devoid of qualified personnel and medication. An absolute priority of the transitional authority should be to engage the international community to ensure the importation of the necessary food and drugs and introduction of policies which will attract qualified personnel to return to Zimbabwe to address the food and health crisis.
At the root of the political, economic and humanitarian crises is our deeply flawed Constitution. The transitional authority should immediately engage all Zimbabwean political parties, civic organisations that trade union movements, churches and other interested organisations to recommence the constitutional debate and to agree on an all-inclusive process which will culminate in a new constitution.
Once the economy has been stabilised, the humanitarian crisis addressed and a new constitution enacted the transitional authority should hand over to a genuinely, and objectively verifiable, Independent Electoral Commission which will then conduct and genuinely free and fair elections supervised by SADC and the AU.
Zimbabwe has reached a political stalemate. There is no way out for Zanu PF. Its nemesis is now the economy. It has no solution to hyperinflation. It knows that in the coming weeks and months it will not even be able to feed key elements of its support base. To that extent it has no choice but to negotiate. Likewise the combined MDC in respecting its moral and practical commitment to a non-violent solution to the Zimbabwean crisis must recognise that it to too has no choice but to negotiate, no matter how unpalatable that may be in certain respects.
Despite our fears and reservations we must see this as a unique opportunity to negotiate a peaceful settlement for our nation. Our country is in great peril today. We can either allow it to continue down its present slide to destruction and oblivion or we can all work together to seize this opportunity to lay the foundations for a great nation. I reiterate again the words of Garfield Todd made over 50 years ago – this is indeed the finest country on earth. It is missing one key ingredient at present – democracy. When that ingredient is rooted I have no doubt that the Zimbabwe will yet become the jewel of Africa.
*David Coltart is Senator-elect for Khumalo Constituency. This is an abridged version of a Speech given to Bulawayo Agenda meeting on Friday July 18, 2008.