What The Zimbabwe Deal Can Achieve.

The agreement between Robert Mugabe (ZANU-PF), Morgan Tsvangirai (MDC-T) and Arthur Mutambara (MDC-M) on resolving the challenges facing Zimbabwe was finally signed on Monday 15 September 2008 in Harare with all the pomp and ceremony a battered and traumatized country could muster. It was a result of a long process of negotiations facilitated by Thabo Mbeki (President of South Africa). A few hours after the signing ceremony, the actual document was then released to the public and is now there for all to see.
Since a lot of what is in the document had been "leaked" over the last few days, there were no major surprises in the actual document.
Opinions are very divided on this deal and a number of concerns have been raised by many analysts and sceptics.
Some people accept it as the best thing that could have happened to Zimbabwe at this moment, while others reject it completely as a project which will not work and will fail very early in its lifetime.
But the majority of people find themselves in between. There is a wait and see attitude because in as much as there are many excellent things in the agreement, there are also many areas of concern.

As Arthur Mutambara said in his remarks after the signing, this is a compromise document, flaws, warts and all. But it is the best that could be achieved in the current situation in Zimbabwe. It's a first step to the ultimate goal of a democratic and prosperous nation.

Some of the concerns are:

1. How can the parties that have had such strong resentment towards each other work together?

2. Has ZANU-PF/Robert Mugabe changed, from being obsessed with and abusing power to a party and person who can accommodate other opinions?

3. How is the complex government with a cabinet, council of ministers, JOMIC (Joint Monitoring and Implementation Committee) going to work?

4. How will paralysis be avoided i.e. check-mating one another between MDC and ZANU-PF?

5. How does one achieve a change of mindset in ZANU-PF for them to accept that they no longer absolute power?

6. Will the western donor countries (EU, USA, Japan etc) accept this new government, trust that Mugabe is not up to his old tricks and provide the required funding?


These and many other questions, real areas of concern and genuine questions which throw a cloud over the deal. But it is my opinion that there is more good than bad in this deal and I indicated that in my article:

http://alvin-mas.blogspot.com/2008/09/zimbabwe-dealis-glass-half-empty-or.html


This deal must be seen for what it really is, namely a framework for the transition from the Mugabe era to a more democratic dispensation for Zimbabwe. Nothing more and nothing less.
It's a step-wise removal of Mugabe from power, to a new generation of leaders and hopefully a move from ZANU-PF (with all it entails) to another ruling party.
Seen in this context, one would notice that this deal is a very positive achievement.

A study of the agreement document reveals what it will achieve if implemented. Given the dire condition in which the country finds itself, Robert Mugabe has very little choice (if any) than to go along with the deal.


1. The Deal Will Remove State Institutions, Events, Days from the Grip of ZANU-PF
Over the years ZANU-PF has run Zimbabwe as its own private property. Whatever is legitimately owned by Zimbabweans became ZANU-PF's private property and they could do whatever they wanted with it. Here are some examples.


Heroes Acre (a place where national heroes are buried) became a ZANU-PF cemetery. Only ZANU-PF people were buried there at the State's expense.


Independence Day (April 18) celebrations became a ZANU-PF celebrations.


The Traditional Chiefs and Kraal Heads because leaders of ZANU-PF in their areas. And unless these leaders were loyal to ZANU-PF and ensured the people in their areas voted and supported ZANU-PF, there would not receive benefits from the government. These leaders even threatened their people with eviction if it turned out they were opposition supporters.


The Police became a ZANU-PF force. ZANU-PF thugs literally got away with murder, but opposition members were swiftly arrested for some trivial crimes.


The Army was more loyal to ZANU-PF than to the people. Army leaders publicly declared that they would not salute or respect anybody who did not "fight" the liberation struggle.


Youth Training Programmes became training programmes for ZANU-PF militias.

State resources (e.g. army trucks, helicopters, buildings, telephones etc.) were used for ZANU-PF purposes, although the taxpayers came from all political parties. In the 1980s ZANU-PF declared that "ZANU-PF and the government are one", implying there is no separation between party and state.


The deal signed on September 15, clearly spells out that state institutions, events and resources can not be used for party political goals. This means that ZANU-PF can no longer plunder state coffers in order to keep it going. It now has to fund-raise and campaign for support and funding like everybody else. This is a major development because ZANU-PF over the years has had its hand in the till and used the resources to bribe, to brutalise and terrorise opponents.


2. The Deal Will Free the Airwaves and Reform ZBC, The Herald etc.
An effective tool in oppressing people is to control information. That way one can determine what people should hear and read. One can then brainwash people with propaganda, lies and misinformation.
The ZANU-PF led government used this tool effectively and efficiently . Independent media houses were very few and restricted, the major daily news papers, TV and Radio were effectively run by the party.
That way Zimbabwe Television became ZANU-PF Television (both ZTV). It has been a huge challenge for opposition parties to campaign on the airwaves, since independent media was virtually non existent in the country. All TV and Radio stations were state run (sorry, ZANU-PF run!)
The government controlled media was biased and misinformed people, demonised anything and anybody critical of the government.
Therefore the government was never criticized and scrutinised and this led to arrogance, mismanagement and complacency.
This deal stipulates that independent media houses must be given operating licences and there must be a vibrant culture of independent reporting.
This would lead to the government taking the voters more seriously and respecting diverse opinions.


3. The Deal will Bring an Inclusive Government which Limits Mugabe
One can not over emphasize the fact that in both the cabinet and parliament, ZANU-PF will be in the minority. A lot has been said about the fact that Robert Mugabe will be head of state and government, chair cabinet and have some executive powers.
But one should read the document more carefully and see that his powers have been greatly curtailed. He can no longer simply run by decree, veto major decisions or use his powers to threaten, brutalize and hence force his way. He can only function in consultation with the Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai.
One of the reasons why some people are worried about paralysis in this government is exactly the fact that Mugabe can not function as President without Tsvangirai supporting him and vice-versa.

One of the things that makes constitutional democracies function well are "checks-and-balances" which hinder the abuse of power. This has been lacking in Zimbabwe since the 1980 independence.
The agreement will usher in a government which can not abuse power. ZANU-PF and Robert Mugabe can not abuse power.
This is exactly one of the main reasons why Morgan Tsvangirai rejected the previous deal (in August 2008), because it kept Mugabe's powers unchecked. After Thabo Mbeki revised the deal and ensured that this is taken care of, the MDC finally agreed to the deal. Even if it was not first price (total transfer of power) it achieved the next best thing (ensure ZANU-PF's wings are clipped).
The MDC formations can therefore achieve a lot in this inclusive government than what many sceptics are willing to concede.
The question of whether this "marriage" will work is still a valid one, but Robert Mugabe knows that he can not solve the Zimbabwe crisis without the MDC and therefore he will go along and avoid sabotaging it.

Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai and all the progressive forces in this government, civil society and the nation at large (including the Zimbabweans in the diaspora) should therefore take advantage of the huge opportunities given to them by this deal, to lead the nation out of the crisis.
The international community and donors must provide the necessary funding and investment to make this work. They can not afford to allow it to fail and let down the people of Zimbabwe and all the progressive forces that risked their lives to "topple" the Mugabe regime.


If one looks at it, one would see that it is actually a blessing in disguise that the MDC did not get "total power" because now they are under pressure to work hard and deliver the goods to the people. If they do that, they will then "earn" the respect and trust and confidence of the people such that at the next election (between 2010 and 2013), they can bury ZANU-PF and put the Mugabe ghost to rest.

The Zimbabwe Deal..Is the Glass Half Empty or Half Full?

As the details of the deal that was agreed upon between MDC-T, MDC-M and ZANU-PF on 11 September 2008 slowly trickle into the limelight, it is important to understand the implications of such a deal. During the press conference (around 21H30, Harare time) on September 11 2008, South African President Thabo Mbeki announced that there has been unanimous agreement from the three parties, and the principals had signed the documents, but a formal signing ceremony and presentation of the new governement will take place on Monday 15 September at 10H00. Only then will the details of the deal be released.

At about 21Hoo (on Sept 11), Morgan Tsvangirai had come out of the meeting venue and simply said, "We have a deal. President Mbeki will release a statement." From his demeanor, Morgan appeared pleased that he had achieved most of his objectives. Realising that negotiations are always a "give and take", he knew that it was not the ideal (i.e. total power) but it was a deal, he could live with and which the MDC and its supporters and Zimbabweans would accept. But like the EU spokesperson said, we will have to wait to see the details on monday to see what the MDC finally accepted as fair and equitable.

Highlights of Deal

The following has been gleaned so far from sources concerning the main aspects of the deal:

1.Robert Mugabe (ZANU-PF) becomes State President with two deputies from Zanu PF;
2. Morgan Tsvangirai (MDC-T) becomes Prime Minister with two deputies, one from MDC-M and one from MDC-T;
3. Mugabe, as head of state and government, to chair cabinet of 31 ministers;
4. Tsvangirai to preside over a council of ministers, supervises ministers, formulates and implements policies, sits in National Security Council (JOC) and heads government business in parliament;
5. Zanu PF to have 15 ministers and eight deputy ministers, Tsvangirai’s MDC faction 13 ministers and six deputy ministers and the Arthur Mutambara faction three ministers and 1 deputy minister;
6. Provincial governors to be shared among the three parties;
7. If an elected representative (MPs and Senators) dies or is recalled by their party 12 months from the day of signing, none of the other parties to the deal will contest the by-election;
8. The "inclusive government" will remain in power for a maximum five years. A review of the power-sharing deal will take place in 18 months, and every year thereafter;
9. New constitution after 18 months.
10. Constitutional Amendment to be done immediately to facilitate implementation of the agreement.

Why Such A Deal Might Be The Only Feasible Way Forward?
Many Zimbabweans were hoping for a complete power transfer from Mugabe to Tsvangirai. Who would blame them, given the over 11 million % inflation, over 90% unemployment, broken down economy, political violence and deaths of thousands at the hands of Mugabe etc.
But a look at the situation reveals that, desireable by many as this might be, it is not the reality on the ground. ZANU-PF has 99 MPs, MDC-T has 100 MPs (difference of 1 MP) and MDC-M has 10MPs. Mugabe got 43% and Tsvangirai 47% in the presidential elections on March 29, 2008. We could argue that the playing field was not even and if it had been even, Tsvangirai would have won by more than 50%. However this would be difficult to prove because it would depend on projections and speculations. The facilitator would also have had a difficult time "selling" this to ZANU-PF.

The voting patterns therefore show that both ZANU-PF and MDC-T have almost equal support in Zimbabwe. I deal with the question of "Why 43% of Zimbabweans still voted for Mugabe" in my article
http://alvin-mas.blogspot.com/2008/07/why-43-still-voted-for-robert-mugabe-on.html

Therefore it is the way Zimbabweans voted on March 29, which put the MDC in a difficult position during negotiations. If the vote for the MDC had been overwhelming, Mugabe would have had no choice but to give up all the power.

Therefore the facilitator President Mbeki (whether we agree with his approach or not) had a hard time "forcing" Mugabe to give up ALL the power and therefore the MDC had to accept the following:

1. Delicate Balance: The agreement had to be a delicate balancing act that takes into account the balance of power as expressed by the March 29 election results.

2. SADC/AU/Mbeki's Reluctance to Push Mugabe: The African leaders were not keen to push Mugabe to go. This reluctance is largely due to the fact that most of them are not democrats and as Mugabe rightly said "I want to see the finger that points at me and see if it is clean or dirty." This is an institutional weakness of both SADC and AU. Zimbabwe needs to be part of SADC and AU and the MDC knew that the chances of getting a deal would be through these African organisations. The way world politics works is such that even if the USA and UK and the EU want to force change in Zimbabwe, their options are very limited. Even the UN Security Council could be limited in its activities by a simple veto from Russia and China (which too are not really democratic and take sides with many undemocratic leaders of Africa) . The MDc therefore had to go into the talks knowing that there are things they could not change in the SADC/AU approach, namely the reluctance to push Mugabe too far. The goal therefore would have been to make the best out of it.

3. Re-running the Presidential Election Not Feasible At This Moment: Given that the March 29 election did not produce an outright winner (according th ZEC results) and June 27 elections were a sham, one would have said, let's have another re-run soon and let the people decide. But the terror unleashed by ZANU-PF on the people between May and June this year left the nation traumatized and really not keen to have another election so soon. The only way to persuade the electorate to go to vote would have been through a UN monitored and run election. However the logistics of such an exercise would have required more time to put in place i.e. a the UN would need a vote to do that and hope there is no veto in the Security Council, prepare the ground for an election, put systems in place, fund it etc. This would have taken about 12 to 18 months to put in place (assuming that everything goes well and there are no objections). Zimbabwe would have had no legitimate government for another 18 months or so. Given the hemorrhaging of the economy and the utter devastation currently existing, one would wonder if the nation would have "survived" that long. A greater influx of refugees into the neighbouring nations would have occured.

Given the above and many other issues, the best way out of the situation was to "deal with the devil" (as the MDC would see it). There had to be a way of having to live with the fact that Mugabe had been a factor in Zimbabwe politics for a long time and he wasn't going to disappear overnight.

The strategy would then have to shift from taking over all power in one stroke to systematically chipping away Mugabe/ZANU-PF's power and work one's way to the levers of power. This would then be a phased "take over" which could last anything from 2 to 4 or 5 years. And this is exactly what this deal is all about and why the MDC accepted it as the second best way of removing the Mugabe regime from power. This deal, inspite of its weaknesses, has some very positive aspects to it.

The Positive Aspects of Deal

1. Changing the Zimbabwe Constitution

The current Zimbabwe constitution gives the President so much power such that he can run the country with no parliament. Mugabe has used his powers to basically run Zimbabwe like his private property. He can hire and fire anybody, he can go to war (e.g. DRC in the 1990s) without parliament approval, he can manipulate the justice system, electoral system and government without being accountable to anybody. That is one reason, he didn't want to give up the executive presidency. He knew what another executive president vested with the powers he currently have could do. This deal allows for the constitution to be changed/overhauled in the next 18 months. This has always been one of the major goals of the opposition movements over the last 20 years. This deal finally makes that a reality.

There are many repressive laws in the country and these need to be removed e.g. lack of press freedom, no right of assembly or hold a rally without police permission, partisan police and army leadership etc.

2. The Demilitarisation of State Institutions

The amount of power given to the MDC in the new government allows them to push for the demilitarisation of state institutions. Robert Mugabe has over the years been using the military and the army to run state institutions. The ZEC chairman during the 2008 elections (George Chiweshe) is an ex-army general, for example. These military people are fiercely loyal to Mugabe and have closed off any room for political activity to the oppositon. Morgan Tsvangirai as Prime Minister will be a powerful member of the National Security Council and can work to send the army back to the barracks and let civilians run the country. That would take away a lot of what Muagbe has used over the years to stay in power.

3. MDC Controls Parliament/Has Majority in Cabinet

The MDC-T managed to win the powerful Speaker position and they have authority over parliament. If MDC-M and some moderate ZANU-PF members are pulled in, MDC-T as the largest party in parliament can exert lots of influence on the direction of the country, irrespective of who chairs cabinet. Both MDC factions have more ministers in cabinet than ZANU-PF. If it came down to a vote in cabinet, Mugabe can not have his way. Even if there is some tension between MDC-T and MDC-M, they are in principle united in wanting to see Mugabe leave the scene and eliminate ZANU-PF's stranglehold on the country.

4. MDC-T Controls Majority of Local Governments

The MDC-T won the majority of local government elections on March 29. They won ALL major urban municipal elections. This puts them in a powerful position to influence the state at a local and grassroot level.

5. Create Space for Oppositon

The deal creates space for multi-party democracy in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe has always been effectively a one-party state since 1980. There was never an opposition party to challenge ZANU-PF and this led to the Mugabe regime becoming arrogant and believing that they own Zimbabwe. That is why, even after losing the March 29 election, they still behave like they have power. This deal will clean up the system and grant the nation many civil liberties

6. Healing of the Nation

The hatred that exists in some places between ZANU-PF and MDC supporters can not be ignored. For the country to move forward a process of healing is necessary and this healing would have been more difficult if the deal had resulted in an "winner take all" situation. It is important that no party comes out feeling that they have lost everything. This would simply have perpetuated the animosity.

7. The Imminent Departure of Mugabe

Robert Mugabe and his personality has been a major contributing factor to the "disaster" in Zimbabwe. Even within his own party, he has failed to lead, prepare for a successor and open up the democratic space in the party. At 84 years old and with his party divided (there are major rifts within ZANU-PF) it won't be long before he is either removed by his own people or before he quits. The divisions within ZANU-PF have been "hidden" behind a "united front against the MDC" and with a coalition government, the MDC can no longer be viewed as an "enemy" and the divisions within ZANU-PF will become even more evident. This deal will facilitate Mugabe's departure from the ZANU-PF leadership and given the divisions in the party, the party might fragament into two or more camps, and thus weakening it severely. There are people who argue, that without Mugabe, ZANU-PF will not survive, just like UNIP in Zambia "died" after Kenneth Kaunda left office.

7. Getting the Economy Going

Maybe the most important task of the new government would be to get the economy going. The MDC had rejected the previous deal because it gave responsibilities to the Prime Minister, but very little authority, if at all. This deal gives some clout to the Prime Minister to lead and influence and conduct governement business. This would enable the MDC led government to get the economy back on track. This of course requires massive financial injection into the economy and since the West has indicated that they will not deal with Mugabe, Morgan Tsvangirai, can raise his profile by leading the reconstruction of the nation. Given the goodwill of the western donors towards an MDC led governement, this deal would help in the process.

Conclusion

This agreement is not the 100% ideal which the MDC initially demanded, but given the complexity of the situation, it might just be the best that is available.This agreement also keeps the MDC true to itself and to keep the promise it made to the Zimbabweans that "the MDC will not let the people down or sell-out to Mugabe or buckle to the tricks and pressures from ZANU-PF or Thabo Mbeki or SADC."

We all hope that this deal marks an important step in the process of recovery and healing for Zimbabwe. It is now up to the leaders to step up to the challenge and lead the nation.

And my opinion is that the glass is indeed 80% full and we can live with that!

The Zapiro Cartoon and The ANC Hypocricy

The ruling party of South Africa, the ANC (African National Congress), is up in arms with Zapiro (www.zapiro.com) and The Sunday Times over the cartoon printed in 7 September 2008 edition of the Sunday Times. The carton depicts the ANC president (Jacob Zuma) unzipping his pants, while the ANC Youth League president Julius Malema, the Secretary Generals of the ANC, SACP and COSATU Gwede Mantashe, Blade Nzimande and Zwelinzima Vavi respectively, pinning down "Lady Justice". And Gwede Mantashe urges (in the cartoon) Jacob Zuma to "Go for it, Boss." The cartoon implies that Malema, Mantashe, Nzimande and Vavi are holding the "Lady" so that Jacob Zuma can rape her.

In order to understand the significance of this cartoon and the "war" that has broken out between the ANC together with its alliance partners (SACP, COSATU) and Zapiro/Sunday Times, one must remember the trial of Jacob Zuma for allegations of rape in 2006. He was accused of raping an HIV-positive woman, who is the daughter of a fellow liberation struggle comrade. Zuma was found not guilty, but in the trial Jacob Zuma told the court that he took a shower soon after having consensual sex with the woman in order to reduce the likelihood of getting infected with the HI-virus (hence the depiction of him with a shower-head above him).

One must also take into account the fact that Jacob Zuma is being accused by the National Prosecuting Authority for corruption and might go to trial on these charges soon. However the ANC and the alliance partners are against the charges and suggest that the trial is a political trial and a set up by the state to hinder Zuma from becoming the next State President (if the ANC win the 2009 elections). In the process of vigorously fighting against the charges, the ANC leaders have constantly attacked the judiciary as being on a war-path with Zuma. Judges have been accused for being biased and the judiciary system discredited. The ANC leadership is demanding that the charges be dropped, otherwise they will mobilise the people and make the country ungovernable. In other words, they are blackmailing the state. It is with this in mind, that Zapiro must have decided to depict the "rape of the justice system" by the ANC and its partners. Whether the cartoonist crossed the line or not is as a matter of fact of secondary importance. There are some fundamental and more important issues that Zapiro is raising and which have become evident from the response of the ANC to the cartoon.

1. There is a huge threat being posed by the ANC and its partners on the state institutions that are the basis of a functional democratic system. When the leaders of the ruling party give the impression that the judiciary system in the country can not be trusted and relied upon, the message sent to the criminals out there is that, they can disobey the judiciary system.

2. The judiciary system can not mobilise masses to toy-toy and demonstrate on their behalf like the ANC/COSATU/SACP can and it is therefore unfair for the political parties to "fight using unfair methods."

3. The ANC and its alliance partners it being highly hypocritical by complaining that Zapiro and the Sunday Times are "punching below the belt" with this cartoon, while they (ANC et al) are constantly "punching below the belt" in their so-called "revolution and struggle." They have accused the judges of being "counter-revolutionary", and publicly screamed that "they would kill for Zuma" i.e. inciting violence. They have accused Judges of deciding cases in a shebeen (pub) etc. Whoever dares criticise the methods used by the ANC (in their defence of Zuma) gets attacked. Professor Barney Pityana (Vice Chancellor of UNISA) and a world-renowned scholar and academic was humiliated and castigated for questioning the integrity of some of the ANC leaders and their fitness for state office.

4. The ANC and its alliance partners doesn't seem to understand that there is a difference between fighting against the apartheid system and "fighting" in a democratic state. For a party which commands over 2/3 majority in parliament, they seem to have a huge inferiority complex.
Their fight for Zuma is in essence a fight against themselves, because the ANC is the governing party and the state institutions they are fighting against (Judiciary, Scorpions etc) are run by them. That sounds like Schizophrenia and split personality disorder.

Zapiro is indeed spot on with his cartoon in the Sunday Times (7 September 2008). He is simply holding a mirror to the ANC leadership for them to see how shameful they look. To declare war against Zapiro and his cartoon without dealing with the underlying message of the cartoon is merely dealing with the symptoms. Indeed the ANC and its alliance partners are "raping" the judiciary.