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?