Is This the End for Mugabe?

Many times the demise of Robert Mugabe and his government has been prophesied over the last 10 years, but each time these prophesies have not come true. Many analysts have in the past predicted that the Mugabe government will collapse in 3 or 6 or 9 or 12 months (mainly due to the economy that is imploding) but it appears like they got it wrong each time. However two things happened this week (on 25 and 26 August 2008) which, in my opinion, signal the end of the Mugabe regime as we know it.
These things are namely, the election of Lovemore Moyo (National Chairman of MDC - T) as Speaker of Parliament in Zimbabwe. This is the first time since the 1980 independence that a non-ZANU speaker has been elected.
The second event was the jeering and booing of Robert Mugabe during his speech to open parliament on Tuesday, 26 August. Many people, including myself, have been scratching their heads to remember if Mugabe has ever been booed publicly (and on live Zimbabwe Television) since he became (then) Prime Minister of Zimbabwe in 1980. Besides the odd screaming from a demonstrator or journalist on his trips overseas (especially after the violent land invasions in the early 2000s), Mugabe has been shielded by a strong security apparatus from any public humiliation. In Zimbabwe it is a crime just to make derogatory remarks about Mugabe (even if he is not present to hear it). Some people have even been arrested for making insulting comments about him in a pub or on the bus. The only thing Mugabe has had in abundance are standing ovations and loud cheers and praises in many places in Africa (especially) where many have seen him as a hero. Therefore the jeers and booing in parliament this week must have been a nightmare and a scary dream for Mugabe.But before these two events took place this week, it is important to look at their build up.

The MOU signed on 21 July by the leaders of the three parties (ZANU-PF, MDC-T and MDC-M) was meant to lead to an inclusive government. The negotiations however hit a barrier, which all of us knew they were soon going to hit. The question of who has the real powers in this new government was always going to be a difficult issue. Mugabe would not give up power and Morgan Tsvangirai would claim that, he as the winner of the only credible election in 2008 (March 29), should have executive powers.That issue could not be resolved, even though Thabo Mbeki (South African president) spent 3 days and nights in Harare, talking to the three leaders. It was then hoped that the 17-19 August SADC Summit in Sandton (Johannesburg, South Africa) would resolve the issue. However this summit proved beyond doubt the incompetency of SADC, even to abide by its own guidelines. Rather than insisting that whatever power sharing deal is signed, it must be based on the March 29 elections (giving Tsvangirai more executive powers than Mugabe), SADC tried to appease Mugabe by allowing him to effectively remain executive President, who could hire and fire the Prime Minister (a post they wanted Tsvangirai to take), chair and manage cabinet/government affairs. One wonders what Tsvangirai's Prime Minister's job would then be. Tsvangirai rejected the deal, in spite of SADC's pressure and an attempt to paint him as the spoiler of a solution to the Zimbabwe's problems.

But Thabo Mbeki (in his mediation) had noticed that the leaders of the smaller MDC faction were inclined to go into an alliance with Mugabe and he saw a loophole he could exploit to pressure Tsvangirai to give in and accept the deal. It must be noted that the entire top 5 leaders of the MDC-Mutambara lost in the March 29 parliamentary election. None of them were elected into parliament. However 10 of their candidates got elected into parliament. Prof. Mutambara himself did not contest the presidential election, but rather endorsed Dr. Simba Makoni (an ex ZANU-PF member who left the party a few weeks before the elections). And since the MDC-M leaders had no posts in national politics, it is likely that they saw a deal with Mugabe as a way of securing positions in government. Morgan Tsvangirai still resisted the deal even though he suspected that the Mugabe-Mutambara deal could be used to sideline him. It is almost certain that Thabo Mbeki made this clear to Tsvangirai i.e. sign or you will be isolated. Fortunately for Tsvangirai, the economic solution for Zimbabwe would require massive injection of funds from the West and recognition of the new government. The EU and the USA had made it clear that any government not led by Tsvangirai or in which he doesn't play a significant role, will not be recognized and therefore not funded by them. That was still Tsvangirai's greatest bargaining chip.In spite of this, SADC still decided to go ahead with the so-called Plan B (i.e. a Mugabe-Mutambara deal) and they gave Mugabe the green light to convene parliament while the talks still continued.

MDC-T was against the convening of parliament, but decided to go along with it for fear of losing the ground they already won as the biggest party in parliament. The plan was very clear in that ZANU-PFs 99 seats, plus MDC-M 10 seats and maybe Jonathan Moyo (an independent MP who used to be Mugabe's Information Minister) would be a 110 majority compared to Tsvangirai's 100 MDC-T seats. Based on this calculation, they could elect a Speaker of Parliament and have a majority to justify forming a government. That way, they could "ignore" the March 29 presidential election results and the violence which led to Tsvangirai pulling out of the June 27 run-off, as well as the reports from the SADC, AU and PAP Election Observer Missions, which all unanimously declared that the June 27 election was not free and fair and should have no relevance.In order to sweeten the deal for Mutambara, ZANU-PF did not field a candidate for the speaker's post, but rather instructed its members to vote for Paul Themba Nyathi, the MDC-M candidate. MDC-T fielded Lovemore Moyo as candidate. And then came the high drama.

In order to ensure that nothing goes wrong the police were waiting at parliament to arrest some MPs from MDC-T on some trumped up charges and thus hinder them from voting. But fortunately the police only managed to arrest 2 MPs (others managed to avoid arrest by using the back door of parliament). Which means that there were now only 98 MPs from Tsvangirai's party in parliament on Monday 25 August, against the rest of the 110 MPs.After the swearing in of the MPs, they now had to elect a Speaker of Parliament and there was shock all around as Lovemore Moyo of the MDC-T won the election by 110 to 98 votes. The shock was due to the fact that the "numbers did not add up" and the Plan B had backfired on all the "partners in crime" i.e. Mugabe-Mutambara-Mbeki-SADC etc.Assuming that all 98 MPs from Tsvangirai's party voted to Moyo, where did the other 12 votes come from?The vote was by secret ballot and unless the "culprits" confess, we will never know.The other issues is, even if one assumes that all 10 MPs from the Mutambara party voted AGAINST their own candidate (although it is difficult to imagine that not a single one voted for their own candidate Nyathi), there must be at least 2 MPs from ZANU-PF who voted for the MDC-T candidate. The more likely scenario is that about 6 MPs from MDC-M and another 6 from ZANU-PF voted for Lovemore Moyo.This vote has huge significance in Zimbabwean politics and sent shockwaves all around.

1. The MDC-Mutambara leadership is not being supported by all its MPs on the issue of a deal with Mugabe. Most of the MPs are from Matebeleland and know the massacres Mugabe perpetrated in Matebelelend in the 1980s. They also know how Mugabe used violence to destroy and then swallow ZAPU (led by Joshua Nkomo). They never forgave Mugabe and will never trust him. Even if they disagree with Tsvangirai, given a choice, they would chose him rather than Mugabe.

2. Mutambara can not "deliver" the 10 votes of his MPs to the Mugabe government and there is no guarantee that a deal signed between him and Mugabe would result in a majority in parliament.

3. Some MPs from ZANU-PF defied the party order to vote for Nyathi. This is unprecedented in Zimbabwean politics. During the last 28years ZANU-PF has managed to whip its MPs into line, especially on such important issues. This vote means that there are ZANU-PF members prepared to break ranks with Mugabe and therefore, even Mugabe himself doesn't seem to have all his MPs under control. This is however not surprising because there is a significant section ZANU-PF members who are against Mugabe continuing as party leader and were against him declaring himself party presidential candidate.

And now embodied by their major win of the Speaker's position the day before, the MDC-T decided indeed to attend the opening of parliament by a "President" Mugabe, they considered illegitimate. Rather that protest through non-attendance, they decided to attend and protest loudly and visibly. Protocol and parliamentary procedures require that all the MPs and Senators rise to their feet as the President enters parliament. But as Mugabe entered parliament on August 26, the opposition MPs remained seated in a sign of defiance and protest.And all throughout his 30 minute address, Mugabe was booed and jeered by the MDC MPs. Of course if they had done so at a function outside parliament, the state security agents would have intervened, arrested or beaten them up. But they knew that there is parliamentary privilege which "allows" for free expression inside parliament, they took full advantage of it.

Mugabe was visibly shaken, and his situation was made even worse by the fact that he was seating all alone on a seat higher than the rest and was looking down into a hostile group of MPs.It is still mysterious that the Zimbabwe Television which was broadcasting the event live, continued beaming such an image to the nation. ZTV is under the strict control of ZANU-PF and one would have expected them to stop the transmission in order to spare Mugabe the embarrassment.

What does this all mean? Mugabe is definitely weakened by the events of this week. He has no control of parliament and his plan to go into a deal with Mutambara doesn't seem to work. Soon after the loss of their candidate for speaker, MDC-M issued a statement that they will not go into a deal with Mugabe. They have realised what everybody had known for a long time i.e. the majority of Zimbabweans do not want a deal that will keep Mugabe in power. Whoever does such a deal, will lose the people's support. Thabo Mbeki and SADC are quickly running out of options to secure their preferred option of a solution to the Zimbabwean crisis i.e. one which will leave Mugabe still in charge.

It is now clear that Mbeki prefers to keep Mugabe in charge (even after Mugabe lost the election) than have an MDC led government. Why Mbeki has such a weird position is still a mystery. Now that Mugabe's ZANU-PF is a minority party and the MDC-M party can't deliver the other MPs, the options for SADC have dwindled to one. The only option left (besides giving up and simply walking away, leaving Zimbabwe to collapse) is to do what the Zimbabweans said on March 29 i.e. MDC-T is the favoured party and Tsvangirai the favoured leader.Whether Mbeki and SADC and Mugabe are happy about it or not, is irrelevant. The people spoke and their voice must be respected.Is this the end for Mugabe? I believe it is....because like Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party said in 1991/92 as they campaigned against a highly popular President George Bush Snr..."it is the economy, stupid!"

Mugabe's government is bankrupt, the economy has basically collapsed with all the implications for the region (e.g. refugees and illegal immigrants in South Africa, Botswana etc.), the only solution will be based on Western funds ploughed into Zimbabwe. But these funds are linked to the March 29 results and without Morgan Tsvangirai signing on any deal for power sharing, those funds won't be forthcoming. Thabo Mbeki knows it and everybody knows that.Thabo Mbeki is slowly (very slowly) realising that he might leave the South African Presidency with a tattered image and his loss of credibility on Zimbabwe might mean that he will not be a respected statesman after he leaves office. It is a fact that Mbeki will still want to be active in world affairs after 2009 (when he leaves office). If his highly criticised mediation in Zimbabwe lead to nothing, he will be blamed for it and considered a failure in dealing with the problem.

At some point soon, Mbeki will have to sacrifice Mugabe to rescue his image and legacy. Mugabe is so weak now and has very few friends left and an increasing number of African leaders are now publicly criticising him, one would think that it would be relatively easy for Thabo Mbeki to finally tell him that his time is up and he must go and make way for a new crop of leaders.How the Zimbabwe crisis will someday be resolved is still a matter of speculation, but the images beamed by ZTV on Tuesday afternoon, were that of a Robert Mugabe who looked tired and was quickly losing grip of the reigns of power. What is now important is to manage his departure.

Issues of Gender and Sexual Orientation Split Christian Churches

One of the issues that threatens to split a number of the Christian churches today, it is the question of whether females can be ordained to function as priests or bishops or pastors or church elders. There are differences in the administrative or leadership structures of the different christian churches and comparisons can be difficult to draw, but a fundamental principle any local christian congregation (church) of any denomination has is local leaders whose function is to teach, lead and guide the congregation based on the policies, principles and beliefs agreed upon by the national or regional or even world-wide church structures. One of the paramount objectives of each christian church is to maintain doctrinal unity, without which the church would disintegrate into splinter groups that might in the end have very little in common.

Another issue that is causing huge strains and stresses on a number of christian churches is the question of homosexuality and whether it is compatible with Biblical teachings. Can sincere Christians live in homosexual (or lesbian) relationships and still be accepted as members of the communion? Even difficult a challenge is the question of gay and lesbian clergy (priests, pastors, bishops) as evidenced by the challenge faced in the Anglican Communion (in the USA, Episcopal Church) through the ordination of Gene Robinson, an openly gay man, as bishop of New Hampshire (USA) in 2003.

The challenges to church orthodoxy is also experienced in the Roman Catholic Church, in spite of the RCC having quite a rigid leadership style (with the Pope as the universal leader considered infallible) as well as definitive doctrine to aid decisive solutions. Indicative of the conflict of views within the Catholic Church itself is the case of Eugene Drewerman, a nationally known Catholic priest and stem critic of some of the Catholic Church's fundamental policies. Many Roman Catholics considered him to be a heretic, but others considered him to be a highly respected theologian who simply wishes to reform the Catholic Church. During 1992, the archbishop of the area, a churchman by the name of Degenhart, decided to take drastic action against Drewerman, forbidding him to teach, preach, or to exercise his duties as a priest. In this situation, Eugene Drewerman became an opponent not only of Archbishop Degenhart and most of the German bishops, but also of the Pope himself. In any case, the archbishop and other bishops erred if they believed that they could end the theological conflict administratively by means of authoritarian threats and prohibitions which were designed to silence Drewerman.
Besides Drewermann, the Catholic Church has also had theological confrontations with and Hans Kung, Brazilian theologian Leonardo Boff, and several prominent American Catholic thinkers.

But the most recent tensions have been evident in the Anglican Communion (called Church of England in the UK or the Episcopal Church in the USA). The Times Magazine correctly expressed the general sentiment in its edition of June 07, 2007, by entitling an article "Anglicanism in Crisis."

1. The Geene Robinson Saga

A schock-wave went around not only to the 80 million or so Anglicans (or Episcopalians) in the world, but throughout the Christian community, when the Episcopal Church (the Anglican body in the USA) made Geene Robinson, a gay man, bishop of New Hampshire. The time after that has been characterised by a series of angry meetings, threats to break away, demands and deadlines from Anglicans worldwide. The man supposed to have been "crisis managing" this whole saga is the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams. He is the professional leader of the Church of England and titular head of its global offshoot, the Anglican Communion. The debate about homosexuality seem to have been silenced in the Anglican Communion at the 1998 Lambeth Conference (a conference held once every 10 years) where the conclusion reached was that "homosexual practice is incompatible with Scripture." Anglicanism, like many organisations is global and unites varied ethinicities, economic levels and social attitudes in an overarching understanding of faith. But unlike the Roman Catholic church, doctrinal unity is achieved through continual conversation based on mutual respect rather than through authoritarianism. The sharp debate on homosexuality threatens the unity of the faith and is a challenge to a world still characterised by a North - rich with an ethos of individual rights and the poorer South. And as Williams said "the Communion feels very vulnerable, very vulnerable and very fragile." This debate has got people like Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola "infuriated". Akinola has said "God regards homosexuality as the equivalent of humans having sex with various animals." He has also commented that "we don't have to go through Cantebury to get to Jesus." These are signs of a willingness to breakaway from the Communion in order to preserve the purity of the gospel. Akinola even set up his own Anglican body in the USA - the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA) flouting rules about "stealing other bishops' sheep." With the Lambeth Conference set for July 2008, there was bound to be a "show-down" and the unity of the Communion was under threat. Akinola had threatened to pull his country's 90+ bishops out of Lambeth , and therefore Williams disinvited Geene Robinson and Martyn Minns (a bishop of Akinola's US Church) from the Lambeth 2008. He was trying to avoid the Conference degenerating into a "Geene Robinson issue."

2. GAFCON - Global Anglican Future Conference

But before Lambeth 2008, a Conference (GAFCON) was held in Jerusalem from 22 to 29 June 2008. GAFCON (http://www.gafcon.org/) was organised by Anglican/Episcopal bishops and leaders who were very worried about the Communion moving away from the bible truth in order to accomodate world pressures on homosexuality for example. The GAFCON organisers see themselves as the last bastion of the truth in the Anglican Communion and if it meant breaking away from the main church, they are willing to risk that.

The conference took place on June 22-29, 2008, in Jerusalem and attended by 1148 lay and clergy delegates, including 291 Anglican Bishops; but the identities of those attending have not been published and may have included bishops and clergy not recognised by the Anglican Communion. The leading participants of GAFCON included Archbishops Peter Akinola of Nigeria , Benjamin Nzimbi of Kenya, Donald Mtetemela of Tanzania, Peter Jensen of Sydney, Australia and Presiding Bishop Greg Venables of the Southern Cone, Bishops Don Harvey of Canada, Bob Duncan of USA and Martyn Minns of USA, Canon Vinay Samuel of India and Canon Chris Sugden of England. These leaders claim to represent 30 million of the 55 million "active" Anglicans in the worldwide communion. However, this figure assumes the support of all Anglicans in the provinces from which the individual participants have come (although in the Province of Kenya, for example, there has been outspoken criticism of the Church leadership ) and adopts a low estimate of the numbers of Anglicans in the rest of the world. The official figure for Anglicans worldwide is 80 million.
Sessions were held on the topics of secularism, the Anglican Communion, HIV/AIDS and poverty. Delegates also visited sacred sites in and around Jerusalem. At the beginning of the conference a booklet was released by Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria entitled The Way, the Truth and the Life: Theological Resources for a Pilgrimage to a Global Anglican Future.

The Jerusalem Declaration of GAFCON made it clear that they oppose any attempt to digress from biblical truth (as they see it) as expressed in the slow but sure tendency to accept homosexuality within the Anglican Communion e.g. the ordination of Robinson and the conducting of gay marriages within the Anglican Church. GAFCON is on collision course with the rest of the Anglican/Episcopal Church and it will be seen if the Anglican Communion will survive the collision.

3. Anglicans in Britain vote to allow female Bishops

On July 7, 2008, the Anglican Church in Britain voted to approve the appointment of female bishops. This step appeared to risk a schism in the church that is already severely strained over the issue of gay bishops. The debate went late into the night in York, but in the end the general synod of the Church of England - an assembly that holds authority on matters of church doctrine in Britain voted by a clear majority within each of the synod's three houses - bishops, clergy and laity - to approve the consecration of female bishops in the face of bitter opposition from traditionalists.

The vote comes 16 years after the synod voted (also in a fractious debate) to approve the ordination of women as ministers within the British church.

The move to approve female bishops in Britain follows that taken by Anglicans in the USA, Australia and Canada where women bishops have been appointed for some years.

Opponents of the female bishops argue that Jesus, in choosing only 12 male disciples, intended that men alone should have the responsibility of ministering to his followers.

Before the synod in York, traditionalists had claimed to have the backing of over 1 300 clergy in Britain who were prepared to leave the church rather than accept female bishops.

Church officials have however said, the first female bishops would not be appointed before 2014 because the church needs to draw up a "code of practice" to govern the change.

4. Lambeth Conference 2008

From 16 July to 3 August 2008, the once-a-decade Lambeth Conference took place amid expectations that it would be characterised by fireworks, controversy, dissent and even a split of the Anglican Communion, due to the issues of gay clergy and female bishops.

But the 670 bishops of the Anglican Communion had a 19 day conference characterised by prayer and theological debate, but very little acrimony or schisms.

The church survived the Conference without any harm and the Archbishop of Cantebury Rowan Williams must have had a great sigh of relief.

5. Seventh Day Adventists and Female Pastors/Elders

The Seventh-day Adventist church (http://www.adventist.org/) is not as large as the Anglican Church. It has an official worldwide membership of less than 15 million, but it is challenged by the same issues that face the rest of Christianity. These issues include the question of ordaining females as Pastors or Elders into ministry as well as how to deal with homosexual behaviour in society and even within the church.

But unlike the Anglican Communion, where the different regions of the world church are to a degree autonomous to make decisions (e.g. the Episcopal Church ordained a gay bishop while the Anglican Communion in Nigeria might not allow it) the SDA church considers itself one body and a decision taken are binding for the entire world wide church. This has protected the church from factionalism on these issues, but it has also generated tensions within the body in areas where there is disagreements have arisen between Adventists in different regions of the world differ in their understanding of Scripture.

The Adventist Church is much more conservative compared to many Christian churches and its official position on homosexuality is that, this is an abomination and a sin and goes contrary to Scripture. There is no big debate within the Church (unlike in the Anglican Church) on this matter since there is general consensus.

However the issue of ordaining women as pastors has been a controversial issue within the church for decades now. It was in the 1970s when the Church voted to allow female elders and deacons to be ordained. Elders and deacons are appointed only to serve a specific local church and they are usually lay members. They are only church officers at their specific local church and can not function as elders or deacons at another local Adventist Church unless they are requested to.

In some parts of the world, there are still local churches who don't accept that females can be ordained or serve as elders and in order to resolve this, the local church simply doesn't appoint or vote females into the office of elder.

However the issue of ordaining females as pastors has generated much more controversy over the years and has still not been resolved for the world wide church. It came to a head at the 1995 General Conference Session in Utrecht (Netherlands). This is a once-every-5 years meeting of delegates from all over the world to discuss the business of the world church. At the 1995 Session the North American Adventist church made a proposal that would allow the various regions of the church (13 world divisions) to make independent decisions on ordaining female pastors. These ordained pastors would however only serve in the region they are ordained. This proposal needed to be accepted by the world delegates before it could be implemented. The world delegates however rejected the proposal, arguing that since there is no unity within the church on this issue, allowing each division to "go alone" on this issue would lead to schisms within the church.