Zimbabwe: Few signs of settlement
Published: 01 December, 2008
Zimbabwe’s continuing political power struggle has once again reached an impasse. Despite a humanitarian crisis and ongoing negotiations, there are few signs of a permanent settlement.
More than nine months after the presidential elections of 29 March 2008, the struggle for political power in Zimbabwe continues between Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front and Morgan Tsvangirai’s Movement for Democratic Change.
Following a run-off on 27 June, a power sharing agreement between the two parties was finally signed on 15 September, mediated by former South African president Thabo Mbeki, at the behest of the Southern African Development Community. Hopes for a permanent solution were soon dashed as disagreements over certain important political posts produced renewed deadlock. Repeated negotiations, including a SADC extraordinary summit on 9 November, have failed to move the process forward.
Reports of a deteriorating humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe, described by former US president Jimmy Carter as “worse than anything we had ever imagined,” have since lent renewed urgency to the need to finally resolve the issue. Former United Nations secretary general Kofi Annan, who along with Mr Carter is a member of a group of international mediators known as the’ Elders’ – has publicly criticised the organisation’s dealings with Zimbabwe, saying: “I think it’s obvious that SADC could have and, perhaps, should have done more,” he said.
Shared struggle
George Katito, a researcher at the South African Institute for International Affairs argues that regional political dynamics partly explain the reluctance of SADC to adopt a firmer stance towards Zimbabwe. He points to a shared history of political struggle between many of the ruling parties within SADC and, crucially, South Africa’s African National Congress. “In the past, what we have seen is not necessarily an affinity between the two countries, but between Zanu-PF and the wing of the ANC that Thabo Mbeki is more closely aligned to.”
Mbeki’s resignation as president, says Mr Katito, raises questions about SADC’s future role. Mbeki will continue to be an important figure, he argues, albeit largely a symbolic one. “Thabo Mbeki is one of the very few and rare African leaders that Robert Mugabe seems to have an affinity for, and is willing to sit down at the same table and negotiate with.” The absence of an actual political office diminishes the amount of leverage Mbeki can exercise on the situation, despite still being intimately involved in the negotiating process, suggests Mr Katitio.
He observes that Kgalema Motlanthe, Thabo Mbeki’s successor, has been slightly more vocal in his criticism of Mugabe, but without showing any substantive change. The upcoming presidential elections in South Africa could see the issue of Zimbabwe slip further down SADC’s list of priorities. “Certainly within the first part of next year, South Africa might become more internally focused. The key political players are running on platforms that speak about focusing on domestic needs, such as unemployment, and this could even extend beyond the election.” Jacob Zuma, the President of the ANC, has in the past been very outspoken in his criticism of Robert Mugabe, but Mr Katito suggests that his position may soften if, as is widely expected, he wins this year’s presidential elections.
He also remains sceptical of SADC’s ability to take decisive action in the current situation. “On one level, you have different generations of political leadership within SADC with different historical and political ties to Zimbabwe. Also, given that other SADC countries have their own, immense domestic challenges to manage; few would actually have the capacity to be an influence on Zimbabwe.”
Pan-African solution
Jennifer Cooke, Africa programme director at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, argues that more African leaders should be involved in the process. “I think the African Union could step in to form a new coalition. There are fairly powerful and outspoken African leaders willing to denounce Mugabe, Such as Raila Odinga in Kenya.”
Ultimately, says Ms Cooke, a resolution to the problem will have to come from a change within the two conflicting sides – Zanu-PF and MDC. “The MDC at this point is showing signs of division. It is weakened and does not have a lot of leverage in the situation,” she observes, arguing that internal division within Zanu-PF could feasibly bring about a resolution. There have been repeated reports of splits in the party, leading to speculation that Mugabe’s hold on power may be loosened from within.
As recently as 14 November 2008, it was reported that several high profile former leaders of the Zimbabwe African People’s union, which merged with Zanu-PF in 1987, have left Mugabe’s party. SAIIA’s Mr Katito argues that while such reports may have credence, they underestimate the party’s ability to display unity and discipline, which he says, is what ultimately counts.
Professor Stephen Chan, dean of the faculty of law and social sciences at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London emphasises the significance of divisions within the MDC. “They are largely between Tsvangirai’s closest supporters and people who are very much influenced by Tendai Biti, who has hitherto been a staunch ally of Tsvangirai.” Mr Chan claims that this split has effectively stopped Zanu-PF and the MDC from reaching an agreement. “The Tsvangirai faction would wish to accept the compromised position that was being offered, while Biti is holding out against any form of settlement.”
