THE planning for succession of the Chief Executive Officer or the President of a country has become a very important issue in the governance of many societies.
Ensuring that in the event of a problem with a sitting President, a country will continue to function efficiently and effectively creates tremendous value for citizens.
To the extent that succession is a widely debated issue in Africa, it is important that our conversations are enriched by a better understanding of the interplay between trust and succession and between succession and progress.
In the context of property, succession of property at law covers two distinct concepts of inheritance (a gift made by will or other testamentary document on death) and heirship, which applies to property passed to one or more dependants according to a formula set out in law, religion, custom or under the terms of a trust.
Succession may also apply to artificial persons usually through reorganisations or corporate mergers. With respect to family succession, it is the passing of one person’s assets and role in the family to an heir.
Succession is essentially the action of one party, person or product being replaced by another that has become obsolete, incapacitated, retired or deceased. Ideally, one would expect that a political leader who has finished his constitutional term, or whose policies are undermining the interests they purport to represent, or whose age is beyond the normal retirement age would step down voluntarily to allow a successor to bring new energy and leadership.
However, the experience of post-colonial Africa would suggest that the attitude to succession that citizens ordinarily hold to in respect of their personal affairs is not different from the attitude of the political leaders.
Even in the context of failing businesses, it is rare for a corporate leader in such circumstances to voluntarily relinquish power. The attitude is not only limited to the failing institutions but is equally applicable to successful institutions where corporate leaders are found wanting in the area of succession planning. Their hereditary successors are often ill-prepared or groomed to take over.
For the progress of any society, succession is important not only because each product or individual has its own life span and no one can defy the laws of nature. Ordinarily, new products should replace old and mature ones in order to ensure that there is no interruption of service. Succession, therefore, should provide a way in which things follow each other in space or time: consecution, order, procession, sequence, progression etc.
The lack of economic progress and dynamism in the political space of Africa can be attributed to the attitude that most of the continent’s leaders have on the question of power. In fact, the experience is that when a country elects even a well meaning leader as a President, the pattern is invariably the same i.e. they start as democratic and with increasing speed end up believing in their infallibility and indispensability. They start believing that no-one else can step into their shoes and more often than not, acquire the status of super citizens who know better than the citizens who create them. But the tragedy is that the attitude is not a preserve of politicians.
The silliness of this attitude is best exemplified by the manner in which Deputy Presidents in Africa are treated by their Presidents. While in the political parties where such leaders acquire their initial legitimacy they are both elected into office, when they form governments at the national level something fundamentally wrong takes place in the state houses of Africa. You find the ridiculous situations where the President begins to believe that the source of his power and legitimacy is actually above the people who elected him and invariably like a small God, he begins to lose confidence in the capacity of his deputy to step into his shoes.
The pre-independence attitude of colonial administrations was no different and in those cases, the political leadership had no problems assimilating cultured natives and allowing them to vote. What they had a problem with was universal suffrage where citizens, despite their standing in society, would be allowed to determine who should govern them. The problem that confronts Africa today even after the completion of the decolonisation process is that the raw materials of political power are the ordinary poor people whose interests are never at the centre of the political establishment that they infrequently have an opportunity through elections to create. Many governments pursue policies in the name of the majority but with little or detrimental impact on the target beneficiaries.
Many African leaders do not trust even the people they purport to represent. In many cases, succession is often discussed while openly disregarding the power structures that are clearly set out in the Constitutions of the political organisations that the leaders originate from. This makes the post of Deputy President the most dangerous position in Africa. If you have any inclination of ever becoming a President in Africa, the message is that you should never allow yourself to be elected a Deputy. Yes, we have a few exceptions in Africa but the pattern is well established to suggest that any rational person should be concerned if they are elected to the number two position.
Like their white predecessors, many African Presidents genuinely believe that the continent has no capacity to produce leaders like them. In fact, they are encouraged everyday to believe that they are the messiahs of the continent and any change will interrupt progress.
When it comes to trust, many Africans are found wanting. Trust indicates a depth and sense of assurance that is based in strong but not logically-conclusive evidence, or based on the character, ability, or truth that someone or something has shown over time and across situations. Trust, therefore, makes for a sense of being safe or of being free of fear, enough so that one’s focus can be on other matters because the subject matter is taken of already.
The leaders of Africa have failed to build trust among and between citizens. For us in Southern Africa, we easily trust institutions like Old Mutual instead of creating our own New Mutuals. When one considers Africa’s leading brands in business even after 50 years of Uhuru, one would arrive at the inescapable conclusion that Africans have more Eurocentric values and are more prone to trust foreign solutions than their own.
Some adopt the Look East policies while others adopt the Look West policies and never apply their minds to what the implications are when a President pins his own country’s development on wise men and women from the East and West. Ideally, any President who looks East or West for salvation should be given a red card by the citizens for openly displaying a lack of confidence in their ability to solve their problems. Perhaps one defining area in which the lack of trust is evident in Africa is in banking.
How many of us trust African banking institutions? Why is it that after 50 years of Uhuru, Africans have not been able to create their own pan-African banking institutions? Even in the case of mining, African governments would trust wise men and women from the East and West with their mineral rights than their own nationals. How many of our African governments would be courageous enough to sign joint venture agreements with African businessman without being accused of cronyism?
It is not unusual for some of us who have ventured into big business to be labelled cronies and agents of other people’s agendas in as much as anyone who tries to succeed a sitting President is easily labelled a puppet, surrogate or stooge of other people’s agenda. This kind of simplistic analysis is more prevalent among our intellectuals.
Many Presidents in Africa, therefore, take comfort from the messages that we generate daily about the motives and interests that inform their competitors to the extent that they end up believing that it is treasonous for anyone to dream of being their successor. For those who are forced to relinquish their offices by constitutional impediments, they then go out of their way to manipulate elections so that they end up reproducing themselves through their chosen successors.
To what extent are African leaders solely responsible for creating the succession confusion is an issue that needs debate. It may emerge from the debate that intellectuals and seemingly informed Africans and their partners in the West and East are culpable for creating the leadership mess in the continent by increasing expecting bad leaders to choose their successors. If a leader is bad, then surely why would any rational person expect him to choose a successor? Equally if a party is capable of producing a bad leader and sustaining him in power to the detriment of the majority, how can any rational person expect a progressive leader to emerge from the clutches of such a party?
When we encourage incumbent Presidents to believe that they are super citizens we should not cry foul if they go on to behave accordingly. We all may be guilty of telling the Presidents of what they want to hear. How many of us genuinely believe that Presidents have more wisdom than the ordinary African? How many of us have accepted that incumbents have a prerogative to inflict pain and suffering on citizens with impunity? How many of us would even in the face of tyranny choose to be indifferent and become silent while expecting more from neighbours than ourselves? How many of us would sacrifice a good meal to finance change in Africa? Do we really trust each other as Africans on issues of governance and economic power?
Monday, April 30, 2007
Monday, April 16, 2007
Just what is the meaning of independence?
AS ZIMBABWE turns 27 this week, I could not think of a better topic for a conversation than to unpack the meaning of independence and whether the country has lived up to the expectations of its citizens.
The term independence is often used in contrast to subjugation which refers to the subjection of a territory to the political and military control of an external government.
Independence, therefore, means the self government of a nation, country or state by its citizens. Independence Day marks the given date when a country achieved sovereignty.
In the case of Zimbabwe, the day is April 18 and like many countries that gained independence from former colonial powers, the day represented the beginning of a new nation born from the womb of oppression and race-based politics of exclusion.
Essentially independence is a negative definition i.e. the state of not being controlled by another power through dictatorship, colonialism, expansionism or imperialism.
Therefore, independence may be obtained through decolonisation or by separation or dismemberment. Even the Rhodesia Front was a front set up to emancipate Rhodesia from the dominating power of the British Empire and they did so by issuing a declaration of independence.
In human history, the earliest surviving example is Scotland’s Declaration of Independence of Arbroath and the most famous of which remains the U.S. Declaration of Independence issued in 1776. It is not surprising that the Rhodesia Front was led by a Zimbabwean of Scottish heritage, Ian Douglas Smith.
Causes for a country wishing to seek independence are many but in the case of Zimbabwe, I would like to think that the core objective was to create a new society founded on the Rule of Law and respect for human and property rights with universal access to the right to vote. The struggle for independence was, therefore, a struggle to remove the illegitimate government of the Rhodesia Front with a democratic government informed the wishes of the citizens in their totality rather than by a minority.
Twenty seven years later the question is whether the citizens of Zimbabwe have progressed on the independence value chain. Are they freer today than they were under the Rhodesia Front? What is the difference, if any, between the approach to governance of Zanu PF and the Rhodesia Front?
Zimbabwe finds itself on the radar screen of the world in 2007 in as much as it found itself on the same spotlight in 1979 at the Lancaster House Conference. In 1979, the quest was independence and yet in 2007, citizens are also asking for the same rights that the past 27 years should have conferred on them. Has anything changed in Zimbabwe over the last twenty years or like life which really a nuisance of time, the last twenty years of uhuru was a sleeping time?
Those who were leaders in 1979 are still leaders in 2007. They promised independence and yet are accused of condemning the country into an economic and political mess. In 2007, the intervention of a third party in Zimbabwe’s political discourse in now accepted as a sine qua non for the resolution of the crisis in as much as the intervention by Lord Carrington.
Today, Zimbabwe’s Lord Carrington has taken the form of President Mbeki. With this background, what can we say about the lessons of Zimbabwe’s independence? Can we say that Zimbabweans have matured to the level that they cannot resolve their own problems? President Mugabe in 1979 needed the intervention of Lord Carrington to talk to other Zimbabweans and in 2007 he still needs a third party to talk to his own subjects. As the father of the nation, what does this say about the President’s qualities as a leader?
It is common cause that Zanu PF has confirmed that President Mugabe will be the candidate for the party in next year’s election. In the 1980 elections, Zimbabweans did not even trust each other to have an internally supervised election. In as much all the parties trusted the British to supervise the 1980 elections notwithstanding the fact that the liberation struggle was essentially constructed on the basis that the real struggle was against the British Empire and not against the Rhodesia Front.
In 2007, Zimbabwe cannot look at the British to provide a credible umbrella for conducting next year’s elections. In 1979, President Mugabe welcomed Lord Soames to provide a transitional bridge to independence and in 2007, the opposition in Zimbabwe is asking for a new Lord Soames because they cannot trust their own government to conduct credible elections. Has anything, therefore, changed in Zimbabwe? What does this tell us about the maturity of Zimbabweans? If President Mugabe accepted the intervention of a third party in 1979 why would he object to the interventions of a transitional authority in 2008 if it is accepted that Zimbabwe is mired in the same crisis that it found itself in 1979?
One South African journalist called me last week seeking my assistance in crafting some questions that he wished to include in an interview with President Mugabe. He wanted to know what kind of questions he should ask and was quick to point out that President Mugabe was so eloquent and smart that he presented a challenge to any interviewer. Before I responded, I told him that I was the least qualified to ask questions rather it was important for him to try to establish from the people on the ground what they would like to hear from their leader. It is clear from the conversations that I have had with many Zimbabweans that they feel alienated from their government. They feel that the last 27 years has not brought the citizens closer to their government anymore than Ian Smith was closer to his subjects.
With respect to the questions to President Mugabe, I feel that it is only fair that Zimbabweans reflect this week on what kind of questions they should frame for their President. There appears to be a real disconnection between the governed and the governors to compel the President to listen now more than ever. If President Mugabe has accepted the intervention of a third party like President Mbeki, then it is a step forward in the quest to create a national consciousness that Zimbabwe is in a crisis. The issues to be resolved may be hazy not because the people charged with resolving the crisis are negligent but because citizens appear to be talking at each other rather than talking to each other.
In this conversation, even members of Zanu PF are entitled to ask why President Mugabe would want another term if it is the case that under his watch the promissory note given at independence has not been honoured by the bank because of insolvency. If the bank is insolvent, surely the question is whether control of an insolvent bank should remain with the directors appointed by the shareholders or it should be transferred to a judicial manager in line with universally accepted norms of managing bankrupt situation.
All the macro-economic variables show that Zimbabwe’s economy is in a terminal ward and has moved from intensive care where despite the condition a patient can still expect help from doctors. In the case of Zimbabwe in 2007, it is not even clear where the doctor is and the people charged with leading are now behaving like patients. President Mugabe has placed his faith in central bank governor Gideon Gono who by all accounts is behaving more like an opposition leader, albeit underpinned by state power, and every day he on the road blaming everybody for the government’s shortcomings. However, he has not dared direct his confused and confusing statements to his principal, the President. Rather, he conveniently targets Ministers appointed by the same President that appointed him.
If no-one is taking responsibility, then is there any cause to celebrate Zimbabwe’s birthday. Should citizens and well wishers say “Many Happy Returns” or should they craft another message. What would the appropriate message. Given the state of the economy, is it in the national interest for President Mugabe to offer his continued services to the nation? Is it the case that he is the only one who can deal with the colonial question? Is it not the time that Zimbabweans start a conversation with their own President about what, if any, interest would be served by him continuing to serve? What kind of communication would be appropriate to a person like President Mugabe to help him separate the interests of his party and national interest as well as his own personal interest and national interest?
It would be unreasonable to expect that Zanu PF members will be expected to have an honest conversation with President Mugabe. Equally, it is obvious that the opposition still needs to construct its case for change in a manner that even members of Zanu PF will appreciate that change is in their own self interest. It appears that the manner in which the change agenda is framed has not resonated with the interests of those who sustain the status quo. Under this construction, it is important that a reflection be made by all concerned role players on the Zimbabwean question about what kind of change Zimbabwe needs and deserves.
President Mugabe and his crew have already drawn the battle lines for 2008. The election will not be fought on his record but on the regime change agenda of the imperialists. Zimbabwe will be cast as country under siege and, therefore, unorthodox measures will be the order of the day even for the election. The inter play between race and sovereignty will be overplayed. According to President Mugabe, Zimbabwe is on the spotlight because he dared challenge the economic hegemony of the remnants of white settlers and not because of bad policies and governance.
Some will forget that it was President Mugabe’s government that implemented economic structural adjustment programs well before the formation of the MDC and yet today some would like to say that the economic problems of Zimbabwe were caused by the MDC and the sanctions imposed by imperialists. Even if Prime Minister Blair had agreed to fund the land reform program, it is correct to observe that Zimbabwe will not be in any better shape today than it is. On what role bad economic policies play in the overall scheme of things, there appears to be no appetite to engage in such conversations and yet Zimbabweans are serious about their heritage.
Anyone who is honest about Zimbabwe’s true story since independence will have to acknowledge the bankruptcy in the construction and execution of economic policies. The current fate of Zimbabwe was as predictable as the continued suffering of Zimbabweans is if President Mugabe is given another term. Just imaging what Zimbabwe will be like after the extended term of President Mugabe is sufficient to make many people sick. In the face of a Tsugabe (the cousin of Tsunami), Zimbabweans cannot remain indifferent when their future is continuing to be mortgaged to a future with hyperinflation, corruption, dysfunctional state, poverty and exclusion.
The term independence is often used in contrast to subjugation which refers to the subjection of a territory to the political and military control of an external government.
Independence, therefore, means the self government of a nation, country or state by its citizens. Independence Day marks the given date when a country achieved sovereignty.
In the case of Zimbabwe, the day is April 18 and like many countries that gained independence from former colonial powers, the day represented the beginning of a new nation born from the womb of oppression and race-based politics of exclusion.
Essentially independence is a negative definition i.e. the state of not being controlled by another power through dictatorship, colonialism, expansionism or imperialism.
Therefore, independence may be obtained through decolonisation or by separation or dismemberment. Even the Rhodesia Front was a front set up to emancipate Rhodesia from the dominating power of the British Empire and they did so by issuing a declaration of independence.
In human history, the earliest surviving example is Scotland’s Declaration of Independence of Arbroath and the most famous of which remains the U.S. Declaration of Independence issued in 1776. It is not surprising that the Rhodesia Front was led by a Zimbabwean of Scottish heritage, Ian Douglas Smith.
Causes for a country wishing to seek independence are many but in the case of Zimbabwe, I would like to think that the core objective was to create a new society founded on the Rule of Law and respect for human and property rights with universal access to the right to vote. The struggle for independence was, therefore, a struggle to remove the illegitimate government of the Rhodesia Front with a democratic government informed the wishes of the citizens in their totality rather than by a minority.
Twenty seven years later the question is whether the citizens of Zimbabwe have progressed on the independence value chain. Are they freer today than they were under the Rhodesia Front? What is the difference, if any, between the approach to governance of Zanu PF and the Rhodesia Front?
Zimbabwe finds itself on the radar screen of the world in 2007 in as much as it found itself on the same spotlight in 1979 at the Lancaster House Conference. In 1979, the quest was independence and yet in 2007, citizens are also asking for the same rights that the past 27 years should have conferred on them. Has anything changed in Zimbabwe over the last twenty years or like life which really a nuisance of time, the last twenty years of uhuru was a sleeping time?
Those who were leaders in 1979 are still leaders in 2007. They promised independence and yet are accused of condemning the country into an economic and political mess. In 2007, the intervention of a third party in Zimbabwe’s political discourse in now accepted as a sine qua non for the resolution of the crisis in as much as the intervention by Lord Carrington.
Today, Zimbabwe’s Lord Carrington has taken the form of President Mbeki. With this background, what can we say about the lessons of Zimbabwe’s independence? Can we say that Zimbabweans have matured to the level that they cannot resolve their own problems? President Mugabe in 1979 needed the intervention of Lord Carrington to talk to other Zimbabweans and in 2007 he still needs a third party to talk to his own subjects. As the father of the nation, what does this say about the President’s qualities as a leader?
It is common cause that Zanu PF has confirmed that President Mugabe will be the candidate for the party in next year’s election. In the 1980 elections, Zimbabweans did not even trust each other to have an internally supervised election. In as much all the parties trusted the British to supervise the 1980 elections notwithstanding the fact that the liberation struggle was essentially constructed on the basis that the real struggle was against the British Empire and not against the Rhodesia Front.
In 2007, Zimbabwe cannot look at the British to provide a credible umbrella for conducting next year’s elections. In 1979, President Mugabe welcomed Lord Soames to provide a transitional bridge to independence and in 2007, the opposition in Zimbabwe is asking for a new Lord Soames because they cannot trust their own government to conduct credible elections. Has anything, therefore, changed in Zimbabwe? What does this tell us about the maturity of Zimbabweans? If President Mugabe accepted the intervention of a third party in 1979 why would he object to the interventions of a transitional authority in 2008 if it is accepted that Zimbabwe is mired in the same crisis that it found itself in 1979?
One South African journalist called me last week seeking my assistance in crafting some questions that he wished to include in an interview with President Mugabe. He wanted to know what kind of questions he should ask and was quick to point out that President Mugabe was so eloquent and smart that he presented a challenge to any interviewer. Before I responded, I told him that I was the least qualified to ask questions rather it was important for him to try to establish from the people on the ground what they would like to hear from their leader. It is clear from the conversations that I have had with many Zimbabweans that they feel alienated from their government. They feel that the last 27 years has not brought the citizens closer to their government anymore than Ian Smith was closer to his subjects.
With respect to the questions to President Mugabe, I feel that it is only fair that Zimbabweans reflect this week on what kind of questions they should frame for their President. There appears to be a real disconnection between the governed and the governors to compel the President to listen now more than ever. If President Mugabe has accepted the intervention of a third party like President Mbeki, then it is a step forward in the quest to create a national consciousness that Zimbabwe is in a crisis. The issues to be resolved may be hazy not because the people charged with resolving the crisis are negligent but because citizens appear to be talking at each other rather than talking to each other.
In this conversation, even members of Zanu PF are entitled to ask why President Mugabe would want another term if it is the case that under his watch the promissory note given at independence has not been honoured by the bank because of insolvency. If the bank is insolvent, surely the question is whether control of an insolvent bank should remain with the directors appointed by the shareholders or it should be transferred to a judicial manager in line with universally accepted norms of managing bankrupt situation.
All the macro-economic variables show that Zimbabwe’s economy is in a terminal ward and has moved from intensive care where despite the condition a patient can still expect help from doctors. In the case of Zimbabwe in 2007, it is not even clear where the doctor is and the people charged with leading are now behaving like patients. President Mugabe has placed his faith in central bank governor Gideon Gono who by all accounts is behaving more like an opposition leader, albeit underpinned by state power, and every day he on the road blaming everybody for the government’s shortcomings. However, he has not dared direct his confused and confusing statements to his principal, the President. Rather, he conveniently targets Ministers appointed by the same President that appointed him.
If no-one is taking responsibility, then is there any cause to celebrate Zimbabwe’s birthday. Should citizens and well wishers say “Many Happy Returns” or should they craft another message. What would the appropriate message. Given the state of the economy, is it in the national interest for President Mugabe to offer his continued services to the nation? Is it the case that he is the only one who can deal with the colonial question? Is it not the time that Zimbabweans start a conversation with their own President about what, if any, interest would be served by him continuing to serve? What kind of communication would be appropriate to a person like President Mugabe to help him separate the interests of his party and national interest as well as his own personal interest and national interest?
It would be unreasonable to expect that Zanu PF members will be expected to have an honest conversation with President Mugabe. Equally, it is obvious that the opposition still needs to construct its case for change in a manner that even members of Zanu PF will appreciate that change is in their own self interest. It appears that the manner in which the change agenda is framed has not resonated with the interests of those who sustain the status quo. Under this construction, it is important that a reflection be made by all concerned role players on the Zimbabwean question about what kind of change Zimbabwe needs and deserves.
President Mugabe and his crew have already drawn the battle lines for 2008. The election will not be fought on his record but on the regime change agenda of the imperialists. Zimbabwe will be cast as country under siege and, therefore, unorthodox measures will be the order of the day even for the election. The inter play between race and sovereignty will be overplayed. According to President Mugabe, Zimbabwe is on the spotlight because he dared challenge the economic hegemony of the remnants of white settlers and not because of bad policies and governance.
Some will forget that it was President Mugabe’s government that implemented economic structural adjustment programs well before the formation of the MDC and yet today some would like to say that the economic problems of Zimbabwe were caused by the MDC and the sanctions imposed by imperialists. Even if Prime Minister Blair had agreed to fund the land reform program, it is correct to observe that Zimbabwe will not be in any better shape today than it is. On what role bad economic policies play in the overall scheme of things, there appears to be no appetite to engage in such conversations and yet Zimbabweans are serious about their heritage.
Anyone who is honest about Zimbabwe’s true story since independence will have to acknowledge the bankruptcy in the construction and execution of economic policies. The current fate of Zimbabwe was as predictable as the continued suffering of Zimbabweans is if President Mugabe is given another term. Just imaging what Zimbabwe will be like after the extended term of President Mugabe is sufficient to make many people sick. In the face of a Tsugabe (the cousin of Tsunami), Zimbabweans cannot remain indifferent when their future is continuing to be mortgaged to a future with hyperinflation, corruption, dysfunctional state, poverty and exclusion.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Beyond Tsvangirai and Mugabe
AS ZIMBABWE approaches its 27th birthday next week, debates about what is in store for the country continues with blurred clarity on the fate of two individuals whose personal circumstances fortunately or unfortunately have clouded the issues.
Zimbabwe finds itself in a confining or undesirable circumstance from which escape or relief is difficult if not impossible.
Before Zimbabwe was born and more particularly at Lancaster House, it was clear that if a post independence government was not led by ZANU, there was no end to the conflict and elections was merely a convenience to confirm the inevitable.
The fate of two men then dominated the politics of the day i.e. Robert Mugabe and Bishop Abel Muzorewa in as much as today the fate of Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai dominate the conversations about the future of Zimbabwe.
Muzorewa then was labelled as a “puppet” of the Rhodesian and imperialist forces. Accordingly, the choice at the first democratic election was clear: vote for Muzorewa and you get Smith with a black face and no change. The people of Zimbabwe did make their choice and the rest is history.
Over the last seven years, Zimbabwe has been trapped by a fierce fight over its future and who should define the Mugabe legacy and the protocol of the Second Republic. There is no doubt that Tsvangirai’s name is now synonymous with the struggle for change in Zimbabwe and by all counts the battle has now become personal between Mugabe and him. Like Muzorewa, Tsvangirai has been rightly or wrongly labelled as a “puppet” of the west and characterised as a man devoid of any national interest but advancing the interests of his political masters.
The construction is very clear: support Tsvangirai and you will get Blair/Bush in a black face at State House. Under this construction, a number of questions arise that need sober minds to address.
Does the continued dominance of Tsvangirai in the opposition present Mugabe with a convenient excuse to remain in power? Is it in the interests of Zimbabwe for the politics of the country to be dominated by the political careers of these two men? Is it conceivable that Mugabe will willingly pass on the baton to Tsvangirai? Are realities that inform Mugabe and Tsvangirai’s outlook for Zimbabwe mutually exclusive? If Mugabe was persuaded to resign today, would Zimbabwe be free from the trap? What excuse would Mugabe have of remaining in power if Tsvangirai decided in the interests of Zimbabwe to give way to another person to lead the opposition in the 2008 election?
The politics of Zimbabwe will remain the politics of individuals rather than an expression of the contestation of interests groups organised in a democratic dispensation. Today it is between Tsvangirai and Mugabe and tomorrow it will be between other strongmen and women. In as much as Zimbabwe may have its own interests, the interests of the leaders invariably inform the contestations for power. Some have gone on to say that the so-called Zimbabwe crisis is nothing but a struggle between Tsvangirai (accused by his adversaries of being a surrogate of the western imperialists) and Mugabe (describing himself as the only authentic custodian of the revolution).
While Zanu PF continues to be described as a party in turmoil, there is no doubt that in 2007 as it was the case in 1979, Mugabe remains the dominant force in the club. On the opposition side, it is difficult to say the same even after the events of the last four to five weeks that have confirmed a number of things in the architecture of power in the opposition ranks. Yes, the opposition is divided into two real factions but no one can doubt who has more popular and international support. If an ordinary person like me was pulped by the government of Zimbabwe, I do not think that SADC heads of state would have interrupted their busy schedules to meet in Tanzania.
The circumstances that led to President Kikwete visiting Zimbabwe and convening a SADC heads of state meeting irrespective of the outcome confirms that the fate of Tsvangirai does count in the scheme of things. What is also clear is that in as much as the opposition would like to remove Mugabe, they have still to put their house in order. If the opposition cannot even agree on who should succeed Mugabe, would it be reasonable for them to continue entrap Zimbabwe in a crisis? Surely some would argue that in as much as everyone would want a leader’s personal interests to be subservient to national interests, the opposition should grow up and approach the Zimbabwean crisis with clean hands and a focused mind.
If Tsvangirai was the Pope of Rome and his cardinals decided to revolt against him and choose their own Pope leading to a situation where the church has two Popes what would the faithful say about the church and the challenged Pope? Would it lead to business as usual? How would the believers respond? How should the challenged Pope respond? Should the church not take ownership of the problem before challenging Mugabe’s church that by all accounts has maintained one Pope?
Mugabe is a devout Catholic and it does not surprise anyone to find that he genuinely believes that the Pope should be in power for life. What is clear is that the legitimacy of the opposition is heavily compromised not by the influence of Western powers but by its inability to organise itself and create a competing reality to Zanu PF.
Is it fair and just that the Zimbabwean reality should be outsourced to Mugabe and Tsvangirai? Many observers and analysts have noted the unique problem that confronts Zimbabwe in 2007. The dominance of one Pope has unfortunately led to the drought of credible alternatives. The Zanufication of Zimbabwean politics has been adequately covered by other writers but what is obvious is that a universal problem exists in Zimbabwe on leadership and ideology. Many would agree that the problem with the opposition in Zimbabwe is not so much Mugabe but that his opponents behave exactly the same as him. After seven years of existence, can we safely conclude that MDC presents a departure from the Zanu PF way of handling power and disputes?
If after 27 years, Zimbabwe has failed to produce new leaders with a new reality than the one bequeathed by the liberation founding fathers, what then is the solution for the country’s problems? As President Mbeki has said, the elections are barely eleven months away and if it is true that Zimbabweans genuinely want a new dispensation, it is important that maturity takes precedence. It is also important that the reality of the situation in 2007 is not just the MDC and Zanu PF as confirmed by SADC but a reality for all Zimbabweans. What should make MDC and Zanu PF the only parties whose interests should inform the options for Zimbabwe?
I received an interesting mail from a concerned Zimbabwean who is living in the Diaspora who feels that he should put his name on the list of potential leaders of Zimbabwe. I responded to him saying that it is important that Zimbabwe will be enriched if he intervenes. I am sure that there are many others who have a lot to contribute but feel intimidate by the manner in which the politics of Zimbabwe is conducted. I am convinced that given Mugabe’s approach to politics it is important to find someone who participated in the liberation struggle and is currently not part of the governing structures of Zanu PF. It is common cause that Mugabe will not leave office if he believes that the Vatican will end up being controlled by a Rabbi for instance.
I do not see a reality where Mugabe would voluntarily give up power to anyone whom he believes was not part of the liberation struggle. In as much as Tsvangirai may enjoy popular support, the battle lines have already been drawn and if it is a contest between the two the outcome is already predetermined. If everyone including Tsvangirai knows the outcome of the 2008 election (by Zanu PF endorsing Mugabe as the candidate of the party the stakes have been escalated), what should be the response? Would a repeat of the experiences of the last three elections that Zimbabwe has had since the formation of the MDC be in the national interest? What interest would be served if the opposition does not learn from past experiences?
We know today as we will know tomorrow that Mugabe would not negotiate himself out of power and Zanu PF has already shown that it is spoiling for a fight. If this is the case as it is evident in the actions of Mugabe, it is important that what Prof Jonathan Moyo and Trevor Ncube have described as the “Third Way” be critically and expeditiously examined.
In exploring such a possibility, I have now been convinced that there is no way Mugabe would agree to a new constitution as demanded by the opposition. I also do not see him agreeing to a transitional government and also to the 2008 elections being supervised by his enemies. What is evident is that Zimbabwe is today vulnerable and people are helpless, looking for genuine salvation, and yet tragically there is no messiah.
I think that those people who have been calling for a Third Way have been doing so because they love Zimbabwe dearly to allow the stalemate to continue. The Zimbabwean trap is real and unless all the actors think outside the box, the consequences are too obvious and frightening.
If the MDC can restore its own internal credibility urgently then Zimbabweans will have no choice but to reward those who have dared to take the lead in challenging the status quo.
I have no doubt that this year’s day of independence should be used by all to, carefully, and critically evaluate what a 27 year old fellow, i.e. Zimbabwe, deserves and what citizens have to do to ensure that this overgrown baby does not remain trapped in the womb of the founding fathers. With a population of more than 13 million, I am confident that realistic options than those on the table exist for progress and prosperity. Now is the time to advance Zimbabwe’s cause rather than the personalities who may benefit from the trap.
Zimbabwe finds itself in a confining or undesirable circumstance from which escape or relief is difficult if not impossible.
Before Zimbabwe was born and more particularly at Lancaster House, it was clear that if a post independence government was not led by ZANU, there was no end to the conflict and elections was merely a convenience to confirm the inevitable.
The fate of two men then dominated the politics of the day i.e. Robert Mugabe and Bishop Abel Muzorewa in as much as today the fate of Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai dominate the conversations about the future of Zimbabwe.
Muzorewa then was labelled as a “puppet” of the Rhodesian and imperialist forces. Accordingly, the choice at the first democratic election was clear: vote for Muzorewa and you get Smith with a black face and no change. The people of Zimbabwe did make their choice and the rest is history.
Over the last seven years, Zimbabwe has been trapped by a fierce fight over its future and who should define the Mugabe legacy and the protocol of the Second Republic. There is no doubt that Tsvangirai’s name is now synonymous with the struggle for change in Zimbabwe and by all counts the battle has now become personal between Mugabe and him. Like Muzorewa, Tsvangirai has been rightly or wrongly labelled as a “puppet” of the west and characterised as a man devoid of any national interest but advancing the interests of his political masters.
The construction is very clear: support Tsvangirai and you will get Blair/Bush in a black face at State House. Under this construction, a number of questions arise that need sober minds to address.
Does the continued dominance of Tsvangirai in the opposition present Mugabe with a convenient excuse to remain in power? Is it in the interests of Zimbabwe for the politics of the country to be dominated by the political careers of these two men? Is it conceivable that Mugabe will willingly pass on the baton to Tsvangirai? Are realities that inform Mugabe and Tsvangirai’s outlook for Zimbabwe mutually exclusive? If Mugabe was persuaded to resign today, would Zimbabwe be free from the trap? What excuse would Mugabe have of remaining in power if Tsvangirai decided in the interests of Zimbabwe to give way to another person to lead the opposition in the 2008 election?
The politics of Zimbabwe will remain the politics of individuals rather than an expression of the contestation of interests groups organised in a democratic dispensation. Today it is between Tsvangirai and Mugabe and tomorrow it will be between other strongmen and women. In as much as Zimbabwe may have its own interests, the interests of the leaders invariably inform the contestations for power. Some have gone on to say that the so-called Zimbabwe crisis is nothing but a struggle between Tsvangirai (accused by his adversaries of being a surrogate of the western imperialists) and Mugabe (describing himself as the only authentic custodian of the revolution).
While Zanu PF continues to be described as a party in turmoil, there is no doubt that in 2007 as it was the case in 1979, Mugabe remains the dominant force in the club. On the opposition side, it is difficult to say the same even after the events of the last four to five weeks that have confirmed a number of things in the architecture of power in the opposition ranks. Yes, the opposition is divided into two real factions but no one can doubt who has more popular and international support. If an ordinary person like me was pulped by the government of Zimbabwe, I do not think that SADC heads of state would have interrupted their busy schedules to meet in Tanzania.
The circumstances that led to President Kikwete visiting Zimbabwe and convening a SADC heads of state meeting irrespective of the outcome confirms that the fate of Tsvangirai does count in the scheme of things. What is also clear is that in as much as the opposition would like to remove Mugabe, they have still to put their house in order. If the opposition cannot even agree on who should succeed Mugabe, would it be reasonable for them to continue entrap Zimbabwe in a crisis? Surely some would argue that in as much as everyone would want a leader’s personal interests to be subservient to national interests, the opposition should grow up and approach the Zimbabwean crisis with clean hands and a focused mind.
If Tsvangirai was the Pope of Rome and his cardinals decided to revolt against him and choose their own Pope leading to a situation where the church has two Popes what would the faithful say about the church and the challenged Pope? Would it lead to business as usual? How would the believers respond? How should the challenged Pope respond? Should the church not take ownership of the problem before challenging Mugabe’s church that by all accounts has maintained one Pope?
Mugabe is a devout Catholic and it does not surprise anyone to find that he genuinely believes that the Pope should be in power for life. What is clear is that the legitimacy of the opposition is heavily compromised not by the influence of Western powers but by its inability to organise itself and create a competing reality to Zanu PF.
Is it fair and just that the Zimbabwean reality should be outsourced to Mugabe and Tsvangirai? Many observers and analysts have noted the unique problem that confronts Zimbabwe in 2007. The dominance of one Pope has unfortunately led to the drought of credible alternatives. The Zanufication of Zimbabwean politics has been adequately covered by other writers but what is obvious is that a universal problem exists in Zimbabwe on leadership and ideology. Many would agree that the problem with the opposition in Zimbabwe is not so much Mugabe but that his opponents behave exactly the same as him. After seven years of existence, can we safely conclude that MDC presents a departure from the Zanu PF way of handling power and disputes?
If after 27 years, Zimbabwe has failed to produce new leaders with a new reality than the one bequeathed by the liberation founding fathers, what then is the solution for the country’s problems? As President Mbeki has said, the elections are barely eleven months away and if it is true that Zimbabweans genuinely want a new dispensation, it is important that maturity takes precedence. It is also important that the reality of the situation in 2007 is not just the MDC and Zanu PF as confirmed by SADC but a reality for all Zimbabweans. What should make MDC and Zanu PF the only parties whose interests should inform the options for Zimbabwe?
I received an interesting mail from a concerned Zimbabwean who is living in the Diaspora who feels that he should put his name on the list of potential leaders of Zimbabwe. I responded to him saying that it is important that Zimbabwe will be enriched if he intervenes. I am sure that there are many others who have a lot to contribute but feel intimidate by the manner in which the politics of Zimbabwe is conducted. I am convinced that given Mugabe’s approach to politics it is important to find someone who participated in the liberation struggle and is currently not part of the governing structures of Zanu PF. It is common cause that Mugabe will not leave office if he believes that the Vatican will end up being controlled by a Rabbi for instance.
I do not see a reality where Mugabe would voluntarily give up power to anyone whom he believes was not part of the liberation struggle. In as much as Tsvangirai may enjoy popular support, the battle lines have already been drawn and if it is a contest between the two the outcome is already predetermined. If everyone including Tsvangirai knows the outcome of the 2008 election (by Zanu PF endorsing Mugabe as the candidate of the party the stakes have been escalated), what should be the response? Would a repeat of the experiences of the last three elections that Zimbabwe has had since the formation of the MDC be in the national interest? What interest would be served if the opposition does not learn from past experiences?
We know today as we will know tomorrow that Mugabe would not negotiate himself out of power and Zanu PF has already shown that it is spoiling for a fight. If this is the case as it is evident in the actions of Mugabe, it is important that what Prof Jonathan Moyo and Trevor Ncube have described as the “Third Way” be critically and expeditiously examined.
In exploring such a possibility, I have now been convinced that there is no way Mugabe would agree to a new constitution as demanded by the opposition. I also do not see him agreeing to a transitional government and also to the 2008 elections being supervised by his enemies. What is evident is that Zimbabwe is today vulnerable and people are helpless, looking for genuine salvation, and yet tragically there is no messiah.
I think that those people who have been calling for a Third Way have been doing so because they love Zimbabwe dearly to allow the stalemate to continue. The Zimbabwean trap is real and unless all the actors think outside the box, the consequences are too obvious and frightening.
If the MDC can restore its own internal credibility urgently then Zimbabweans will have no choice but to reward those who have dared to take the lead in challenging the status quo.
I have no doubt that this year’s day of independence should be used by all to, carefully, and critically evaluate what a 27 year old fellow, i.e. Zimbabwe, deserves and what citizens have to do to ensure that this overgrown baby does not remain trapped in the womb of the founding fathers. With a population of more than 13 million, I am confident that realistic options than those on the table exist for progress and prosperity. Now is the time to advance Zimbabwe’s cause rather than the personalities who may benefit from the trap.
Monday, April 2, 2007
What next for Zimbabwe?
IN THE countdown to the 27th birthday of Zimbabwe, we have no choice but to continue to reflect on the meaning of independence and the destiny of Zimbabwe.
Ultimately life is a nuisance of time but in a nation’s life every minute counts because nations do not expire like natural persons. The history of any nation is informed by the actions of each generation. Like a relay, one generation expects to inherit a legacy from another generation.
With respect to Zimbabwe, the baton remains locked firmly in the hands of one generation or one man to the exclusion of other generations. The world can go hang so says Zimbabwe’s leadership while the country remains groping for solutions to an economic quagmire whose cause is a subject of dispute.
Last week was full of drama. For some the week started with great expectations that the SADC Summit was going to provide the answers they were yearning and working for. They waited in anticipation to President Mugabe’s dressing down by his colleagues in SADC. Some peddling the fragmentation of Zanu PF into two distinct factions allegedly united of late in a resolve to replace President Mugabe.
Even the opposition parties invested emotionally in the outcome of the Zanu PF Politburo and Central Committee meetings. In all, those opposed to President Mugabe were anxiously expecting the good news of the old man vanishing into the twilight and the red card being handed to him by both SADC and his own club.
On Friday, Mugabe was triumphant and yet no rational analysis is evident on why SADC would meet and arrive at the conclusion that the Zimbabwean crisis requires the western countries to back off by lifting sanctions and for Britain to honour its compensation obligations with respect to land reform made at Lancaster House. The media and the international community i.e. Britain, USA, Australia and some countries in the EU were expecting a different outcome that would locate Mugabe at the centre of Zimbabwe’s problems. In fact, the construction of the Zimbabwean problem is that Mugabe has to go for Zimbabwe to be accepted in the commonwealth of progressive nations.
Having written on the subject of the seemingly inability of Mugabe’s adversaries to read into the complex Zimbabwean condition, I have come to the inescapable conclusion that it is important that those who seek to unseat Mugabe must reflect deeply on their strategies and go back to the drawing board. Why is it that SADC and Zanu PF members do not seem to see what the opposition sees as critical to the resolution of the Zimbabwean crisis? Is the construction of the Zimbabwean problem in the minds of Mugabe’s adversaries irrelevant and uninformed? What sustains Mugabe? Why would allegations of factional fighting in Zanu PF take a life of their own and yet Mugabe emerged at the end of the week fully in charge with no alleged faction electing to leave the party? Is it true that Zanu PF is ridden with factional fighting whose leaders have no spine to stand their ground?
If Zimbabwe was a natural person, what would it say for itself? Would the country want five more years of Mugabe’s rule? What would the country say to Mugabe, Tsvangirai, Mutambara, Bush, Blair, and Mbeki? What would the country say to its citizens? Would the country agree with the MDC (both factions) that unless the country has a new constitution, a transitional authority to run the elections and a government of national unity, there will be no resolution to the crisis? What would the country say to Mugabe’s allegation that Zimbabwe is a victim of imperialist machinations designed to change the regime and put in place a puppet government, and the land question is at the core of Zimbabwe’s problems?
Ultimately life is a nuisance of time but in a nation’s life every minute counts because nations do not expire like natural persons. The history of any nation is informed by the actions of each generation. Like a relay, one generation expects to inherit a legacy from another generation.
With respect to Zimbabwe, the baton remains locked firmly in the hands of one generation or one man to the exclusion of other generations. The world can go hang so says Zimbabwe’s leadership while the country remains groping for solutions to an economic quagmire whose cause is a subject of dispute.
Last week was full of drama. For some the week started with great expectations that the SADC Summit was going to provide the answers they were yearning and working for. They waited in anticipation to President Mugabe’s dressing down by his colleagues in SADC. Some peddling the fragmentation of Zanu PF into two distinct factions allegedly united of late in a resolve to replace President Mugabe.
Even the opposition parties invested emotionally in the outcome of the Zanu PF Politburo and Central Committee meetings. In all, those opposed to President Mugabe were anxiously expecting the good news of the old man vanishing into the twilight and the red card being handed to him by both SADC and his own club.
On Friday, Mugabe was triumphant and yet no rational analysis is evident on why SADC would meet and arrive at the conclusion that the Zimbabwean crisis requires the western countries to back off by lifting sanctions and for Britain to honour its compensation obligations with respect to land reform made at Lancaster House. The media and the international community i.e. Britain, USA, Australia and some countries in the EU were expecting a different outcome that would locate Mugabe at the centre of Zimbabwe’s problems. In fact, the construction of the Zimbabwean problem is that Mugabe has to go for Zimbabwe to be accepted in the commonwealth of progressive nations.
Having written on the subject of the seemingly inability of Mugabe’s adversaries to read into the complex Zimbabwean condition, I have come to the inescapable conclusion that it is important that those who seek to unseat Mugabe must reflect deeply on their strategies and go back to the drawing board. Why is it that SADC and Zanu PF members do not seem to see what the opposition sees as critical to the resolution of the Zimbabwean crisis? Is the construction of the Zimbabwean problem in the minds of Mugabe’s adversaries irrelevant and uninformed? What sustains Mugabe? Why would allegations of factional fighting in Zanu PF take a life of their own and yet Mugabe emerged at the end of the week fully in charge with no alleged faction electing to leave the party? Is it true that Zanu PF is ridden with factional fighting whose leaders have no spine to stand their ground?
If Zimbabwe was a natural person, what would it say for itself? Would the country want five more years of Mugabe’s rule? What would the country say to Mugabe, Tsvangirai, Mutambara, Bush, Blair, and Mbeki? What would the country say to its citizens? Would the country agree with the MDC (both factions) that unless the country has a new constitution, a transitional authority to run the elections and a government of national unity, there will be no resolution to the crisis? What would the country say to Mugabe’s allegation that Zimbabwe is a victim of imperialist machinations designed to change the regime and put in place a puppet government, and the land question is at the core of Zimbabwe’s problems?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
