Maravi

Mediation efforts in Zimbabwe

Mediation efforts in Zimbabwe
By Editor
Monday July 21, 2008 [04:00]

WE welcome the decision to bring in a group of eminent Southern African Development Community, African Union and United Nations negotiators to backup South African President Thabo Mbeki’s mediation efforts in Zimbabwe. This is something opposition MDC has been demanding. We hope this will pave way for them to join the negotiations and help end the political crisis that has rocked their country.

It is good that Zanu-PF has given in to this demand by MDC. This is how things should be because concessions are inherent in any serious negotiations. And when one negotiates, one must be prepared to compromise, to give and take.

If one is not prepared to compromise, to give concessions, to adopt the spirit of give and take, then they shouldn’t enter into, or think about, the process of negotiations at all. Those who just want to take, and are not at all willing to give, should not enter the process of negotiations at all.
It is important that this process is led by people acceptable to both sides. But at the end of the day, it is neither President Mbeki nor others working with him that will bring peace to Zimbabwe. The solution for this lies in the political leaders of Zimbabwe. If they want this negotiated process to succeed it will succeed. If they don’t want it to succeed and are just in it because it is being demanded by the international community, it will not succeed, and they will soon find their way out of it at the slightest excuse.

It is important for the political leaders of Zimbabwe to be clear about why they are entering a negotiated process. We have stated this before and we will state it again and again. The starting point for developing a framework within which to approach some large questions in the negotiating process is to answer the question: why should we negotiate or why are we negotiating?

There should be a negotiated settlement in Zimbabwe because as a result of the deepening political and economic crisis in that country, Zanu-PF – the political party in control of government – is no longer able to govern the country in the way it used to and should now be genuinely seeking for new ways, for a break with the past. At the same time, MDC – the leading opposition political party – although it did very well in the last elections, it did not completely rout Zanu-PF and as such, they are not dealing with a totally defeated political opponent, and the question of them being sweep-stake winners cannot be realistically posed. Given the current political tension, it is impossible for either Zanu-PF or MDC to govern the country at the exclusion of the other.

Cooperation is needed between them whether as loyal opposition or as partners in a government of national unity of one form or another.
We believe it will be too costly for both Zanu-PF and MDC to continue fighting until the other is totally defeated because such a situation won’t come easy and without a gigantic cost in terms of human beings and materially. Now the question is: will it be necessary for Zimbabweans to pay such a high cost for the hegemony of either Zanu-PF or MDC? The answer is a categorical No! Hence the need for a negotiated settlement.

There are many ideas being bandied around of how this negotiated settlement should look like. There are those who want a government of national unity where power is shared between Zanu-PF and MDC under the leadership of Robert Mugabe; there are others who want such a government but under the leadership of Morgan Tsvangirai. There are also others who want a transition or an interim government that excludes both Mugabe and Tsvangirai and whose main function should be to prepare for fresh elections.

There is nothing wrong with people coming to the negotiating table with wide and diverse ideas. It is this diversity of opinions, ideas and expectations that make a negotiated process necessary in the circumstances. If also the situation is the same way and had the same one solution in mind, a negotiated process would be irrelevant because consensus would have been automatic.

And given the differences and diverse positions they hold, the most important thing now for the politicians of Zimbabwe is to reach out and find common ground rather focus so much on issues that divide them. A negotiated political settlement is still very possible in Zimbabwe and there is actually no sensible alternative to it.

The fact that they see things differently and hold different strong positions, should not scare them away from the negotiating table. Negotiated solutions can be found, and have been found, even in conflicts that have come to seem intractable and such solutions emerge when those who have been divided, those who have been fighting each other, killing one another, reach out to find common ground.

No one can deny that there are many difficult questions concerning a negotiated settlement in Zimbabwe. But it is for this same reason that negotiations should take place because negotiations are about big, fundamental and complicated issues. Negotiations compel those involved to compromise on fundamental issues. This is so because insignificant things, peripheral issues don’t need any negotiations.
There is no sensible alternative to a negotiated settlement in Zimbabwe. And all Zimbabwean politicians should take these negotiations very seriously.

And we believe that President Mbeki has so far played a very positive role in our regional and continental efforts to help the Zimbabweans get out of their political crisis. There is no doubt President Mbeki wants an end to this crisis which has been harming Zimbabwe and the southern African region. What remains now is for the Zimbabwean politicians to play their role and demonstrate their ability to negotiate and reach a satisfactory agreement. And what is needed are agreements to which all the political parties are very committed and won’t be able to weasel out of what they have pledged.

Labels: AU, ELECTIONS, MoU, THABO MBEKI, UN, ZIMBABWE

posted by MrK @ 7:12 PM