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.