Maravi

SADC, Zimbabwe and the way forward

SADC, Zimbabwe and the way forward
By Fr Peter Henriot
Tuesday April 15, 2008 [04:00]

If the Zimbabwe situation is not a “crisis,” then maybe a bit of “humour” might be OK to begin my column with on this Tuesday morning. The story is going around that a few weeks ago, a group of high-ranking ZANU-PF officials were meeting with President Robert Mugabe and after some very heated discussion, one leaned over and whispered in his ear, “Bob, we feel that the time has really come for you to say ‘goodbye’ to the people of Zimbabwe.” The President looked puzzled, and then asked with great earnestness, “Why, where are the people going?”

Well, the people are still there (minus about three million who have already left), President Mugabe is still there (at least for the moment), and the consequence of the historic SADC Extra-ordinary Summit in Lusaka on Saturday is yet to be felt (if indeed there will be any consequence). And to be honest, the situation in reality is far from being humorous!

Is it a “crisis” and what real contribution did the SADC Summit make toward addressing the issues in our neighbour to the South? Preparing this column less than 12 hours after the Summit ended, I must be modest in my analysis. At the least, let me state a few facts and ask some pertinent questions.

“Crisis” or “normal”?
The thesaurus on my computer suggests these five words as synonyms for “crisis”: “disaster, catastrophe, emergency, calamity, predicament.” Take you pick and see what is appropriate to describe a rapidly collapsing economic situation, a highly confused political scene, a contentiously divided social context, and an increasingly unbearable humanitarian environment.

President Mwanawasa, in his speech opening the Summit, spoke of the delay in releasing electoral results as leading to tension, aggravated by the inability of the High Court of Justice to determine speedily the matter of returns.

“This leaves our Zimbabwean brothers and sisters, the SADC region and the international community in the dark.” To be honest, rays of light to brighten that darkness did not seem to come very strongly from President Mbeki’s statement that what Zimbabwe was experiencing with attempts at court action after two weeks of delay in announcing how citizens had voted was simply a “normal electoral process.”

According to the Communiqué released early Sunday morning after a marathon 12 hour session, both Ruling Party and Opposition candidates had confirmed that elections were held in a free, fair and peaceful environment. Is it not true, however, that media bias, military threats and disputed electoral rolls did cast a shadow over the process?
On the basis of results publicly tabulated at polling stations across the country, the MDC is claiming victory not only in the Senatorial, Parliamentary and Local Authority elections, but also in the Presidential election. And it is expressing an understandable fear that failure to announce official Presidential election results may be a sign of some “rigging.”

Surprisingly, ZANU-PF has countered by claiming that results in many districts were manipulated to favour MDC’s Morgan Tsvangirai. So they have called for a re-count of votes whose official first count has never yet been fully announced. If it is the case that MDC did rig the votes, this might be a rare moment in political history that an opposition party rigged elections!

Role of SADC
It is significant that SADC members did meet for this “Extra-ordinary” Summit, staying up all Saturday night into early Sunday morning to agree to a Communiqué. President Mwanawasa’s speech was clear and challenging, and rightly expressed disappointment that President Mugabe had declined to attend. Why Mugabe was unwilling to sit with his brother Presidents, who on previous occasions had supported him, is as of yet unclear.

Whether his refusal to come was “because of circumstances beyond his control,” as President Mwanawasa indicated, or because such a Summit was “unnecessary,” as Zimbabwe’s Foreign Affairs Secretary described it, or because of fear of being “reprimanded” by his peers, is a fact that may only be known through some future historian’s research. But for the moment, his personal non-cooperation does raise a serious question about the possibility of effective response to SADC’s set of rather mild recommendations.

According to the Communiqué, the Summit urged electoral authorities in Zimbabwe to assure that “verification and release of results are expeditiously done in accordance with the due process of law.” Due process would mean that verification and counting would be done in the presence of the candidates (or agents) to guarantee authenticity. But what impact this recommendation will have on the Zimbabwean Electoral Commission (ZEC) decision to this coming Saturday recount 23 districts that it feels are “disputed” is yet to be seen.

And the SADC leaders urged that if a run-off is necessary that the Zimbabwean government will ensure that such elections “are held in a secure environment.” How possible will this “secure environment” be when already reports are coming in of violent reprisals around the country? An appeal is made for ZEC “to ensure strict compliance with the rule of law and SADC Principles and Guidelines governing democratic elections.” Yet the government had chosen to violate these “Principles and Guidelines” during the 29 March elections by allowing armed police to enter polling stations to “assist” some voters.

Way forward
What happens in Zimbabwe in the next few weeks will certainly have consequences for Zambia and other neighbouring states. The Zambian Government’s posting of some military personnel to the southern border to deal with a possible influx of refugees illustrates the seriousness of the issue.

But some supporters of Mugabe here in Zambia, possible readers of this column, might ask why SADC even bothered to hold this “Extra-ordinary Summit” and why a non-Zimbabwean, indeed, non-Zambian, should be writing about all this. I suppose the easiest answer is that the conditions described by President Mwanawasa in his opening speech cry out for compassion and understanding, advocacy and action.

First, don’t allow a mis-reading of the recommendations, or a complete ignoring of them, to pass by without pressure on either (or both!) the Zimbabwean government and the opposition. To fail to follow up the Summit will put SADC in an even more doubtful position of legitimacy and effectiveness.

Second, listen carefully to the cry of the Zimbabwean civil society groups and churches, expressing the growing frustration with a Government that blames all the current problems on outsiders rather than facing up to its own mistakes, mismanagements and corruption. These civil society and church actors are Zimbabweans playing their own patriotic tune, not British or USA or any other evil actors aiming to undermine the socially-just land reform programme.

Third, learn why democratic structures and practices are so very important for any true and enduring development. A good constitution won’t solve all of a country’s problems. But few of the problems can be solved in a lasting fashion without a good constitution. We in Zambia need that new good constitution with a new Bill of Rights with Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR). When the NCC resumes sitting next week, may it be aware of that lesson! - phenriot@jesuits.org.zm


COMMENT -

It does not behoove a priest to help spread mistruths.

If he has evidence that 'three million who have already left' referring to the population of Zimbabwe, I will refer him to the this study from Witwatersrand University, reported on here in the Mail And Guardian (South Africa),

Media exaggerate Zim 'tsunami', says report
Giordano Stolley | Johannesburg, South Africa

It should also be clear that this lie is part of the whispering campaign orchestrated by the west, to instate neoliberal rule in Zimbabwe. Or as they call it, 'democracy'.

When mentioning economic misery in Zimbabwe, it does not do to also ignore the massive economic sanctions against Zimbabwe, which are the cause of hyperinflation in Zimbabwe, and which is the cause of economic misery in the country. These sanctions were instituted by the same war criminals who within years of ZDERA'S introduction, committed the war crime, a crime under international law, of invading Iraq, and all the horrors that followed that decision. The most easily accessible is the following act, which bans the government of Zimbabwe from borrowing from international financial institutions, leaving the country vulnerable because of it's needs to import oil, which is always paid for in US dollars. The Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001 (Senate bill 494 of the 107th US Senate):

S. 494 [107th]: Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001

The pretense that 'there are no sanctions against Zimbabwe' and that their 'hyperinflation is caused by land reform' are just the lies that are told, in an attempt to rewrite history.

If the MDC was really concerned about the plight of the people of Zimbabwe, and not merely a front for western interests, he would be calling to lift sanctions, not to increase them.

He is clearly attempting to achieve power on the back of the misery inflicted to the people of Zimbabwe, which does not bode well for democracy, or respect for the human rights of the people of Zimbabwe, let alone their democratic rights.

In fact, sanctions call into question the very legitimacy of any democratic outcome that favours the party that has been calling for sanctions. Were the people of Zimbabwe voting for the MDC because they think free market economics is the way to take their economy forward? Or did they vote to end sanctions?

Lastly, what has happened to all those who claimed that Zimbabwe's polls were rigged, months before the elections were held? I guess elections can't have been rigged if the MDC won. Which means that if they wanted to avoid being labeled living in 'a dictatorship', their only choice was to vote for the MDC. Again, this completely disrespects the right of the people of Zimbabwe to make their own choices, including in the voting booth.

To get down to it, the US administration could not care less about democracy anywhere in the world. They do not respect democracy in the Unites States of America itself, as the elections in Ohio and Florida attest to. They do not respect democracy among their allies, with is shown by the fact that their allies include military dictatorships (Pakistan), autocratic monarchies (Saudi Arabia and the Emirates), a country in a state of perpetual war with it's own population (Israel).

And yet, Zimbabwe and Robert Mugabe, together with the country of Birma, were singled out for special ire by president GW Bush in his speech. I wonder what these two countries have in common. Perhaps it is that they are tiny countries who can easily be bullied? Perhaps it is that they don't have nuclear weapons, unlike Pakistan, which seems to be able to make it's own deals with Osama bin Laden.

The only thing that is 'bad' about Zimbabwe, is that they said no to the IMF after the austerity measures it demanded became too much for the people of Zimbabwe, and that they continued land reform after the British unilaterally withdrew from the program, and that they can be got at.

So much for 'moral' indignation and reprimanding of Zimbabwe.

Labels: NEOCOLONIALISM, NEOLIBERALISM

posted by MrK @ 8:08 PM