Everyone
agrees that the gripping political drama that we have called the Inclusive
Government is in its final scene. True to drama, this final scene is not short
of final intrigues, last throws of the dice, and captivating pieces of
political theater, as well as bruising final fights by the main protagonists.
At the
end of it all - someone will walk away into the sun with the girl or wearing
the white hat of triumph, peace and justice as the thriller ends with the
coming of ‘harmonized’ elections.
The
penultimate episode of this action packed drama has been the SADC Extraordinary
summit in Maputo, whose outputs have been over intellectualized, over analyzed
and spun in different directions.
By
far the section of the outputs that has been focused on has been the elements
that have an import on the dates of elections. Did SADC okay the July 31 Poll
plan or not? Did they veto the Zimbabwean President’s decision around the poll
or did they say that the courts would have the final say?
While
the above has indeed been the major focus, just like in any good piece of
theater, I believe that this is not where the focus should be and that this
focus is sponsored to specifically plant confusion.
A
diversion, that is easy to mistake for the crux of the matter, when it
isn’t. Without wasting too much time, I
think this is a subject that is easy to dispense with.
Firstly,
if SADC had okayed the July 31 Poll plan, there wouldn’t be any need for the uncertainty
that is now there around whether this will really be the poll date or not.
It
may well remain because it serves the political interests of those with the
most fingers gripping the state, but it simply wasn’t okayed. In other words,
SADC didn’t agree with it and urged a rethink, without the qualifications that
we have seen being sponsored by political spin-doctors.
In
their words on the matter SADC simply said in point 8.5 of their communiqué:
" Summit acknowledged the ruling of the Constitutional Court on
election date, and agreed on the need for the government of Zimbabwe to engage
the constitutional court to seek more time beyond July 31 2013 deadline for
holding of harmonized elections."
On
the above, SADC deserves to be given credit for the clarity of their position
and simplicity of their language. Surely it does not need a scientist of any
kind, let alone a political one to untangle what the above means.
Yet,
they have tried - whole professors, doctors and political scientists - have
tried to give new meaning to the word “acknowledged”, and suggest that because
of the acknowledgement it means acceptance and denotes that there is nothing
being overturned.
This
is okay, and words do indeed have power. But if what these “scientists” suggest
was the case, nothing would have stopped SADC from using the word “accept”
rather than acknowledge.
To
acknowledge is ‘to simply accept the existence of something’ – it doesn’t
denote acceptance of the facts or otherwise, of that thing, but recognizes that
it is there.
One
can acknowledge receipt of another’s letter without agreeing with the contents.
It is that simple. To show that the
intention was clearly not to accept it, in the same sentence they then “agreed”
on the need for the government to go and seek an extension on the deadline set
by this acknowledged ruling.
But
like I said, this focus and confusion on the above is sponsored and aimed at
making people miss the bigger, albeit more salient elements of the SADC Summit
outcomes.
The
basic fact of the matter is that there was a clever piece of political
engineering, which was staged by the President of Zimbabwe through his ‘hand’
the Minister of justice Honorable Patrick Chinamasa.
The
play of proclaiming election dates 2 days before the SADC Summit was meant to
pull the rug from under the feet of SADC on the Zimbabwean election matter.
It
was an action taken on the back of the Constitutional Court decision, meant to
present SADC with a fait accompli, and force them to go along with what was on
the table. By presenting the election date issue as a Court decision SADC was
blindsided and whether one agreed with it or not, the President had done
something.
At
worst they hoped that the Summit would grudgingly accept these moves and let the matter slide saying ‘what is done is
done, let us look to the future’.
SADC
refused to be backed into this corner, and rightly so, because in terms of real
politics the next Zimbabwean election is a joint venture between Zimbabwean
Political Society and the Regional body, which guaranteed the agreement that
the Political parties are using to govern the country right now.
To
that end, given the multi-stakeholder nature of the next election – the unilateral
actions taken by President Mugabe were unaccepted and based on the collective
conversation of the above stated stakeholders in the process, he was ‘told’
politely to go back and reverse his unilateral action.
It
is true that the arena for the above-mentioned redress seems to be the courts,
and they indeed will have a huge say in the matter. But if their word on the
subject was final because they have already spoken - there would be no need for
the Summit to “agree on the need for the Government of Zimbabwe to engage the
constitutional court to seek more time…” So in real terms, the court has some
say, but that say (while it may prevail in the interim) is by no means final.
To
buttress this point, is the situation in Madagascar right now, another country
whose Politics is under the curatorship of SADC.
If
one looks at the Communiqué from Maputo, there are telling resolutions on
Madagascar, which show that SADC is withholding its legitimacy and recognition
of the electoral process that may take place in Madagascar is contradictoryto
what the regional body had recommended or suggested.
At
the center of it is the candidacy in elections of people who were at the center
of the political challenges in Madagascar. Of importance to note in that matter,
which presents interesting parallels with Zimbabwe, is that the people involved
went to court in Madagascar and the courts there cleared their candidatures.
Basically,
in one fell swoop, SADC invalidated the unilateral actions by President Mugabe,
based on the nature of the governing arrangements that they guarantee and also
the patently illegal and unconstitutional matter in which this was done.
 |
| No big brother, just brothers, one looking out for what is best for the whole family |
So
it’s not just about what SADC said, as some kind of “big brother”, but it is
also about the illegal and unconstitutional nature of the actions based on
Zimbabwean law.
In
the same swift manner, SADC has sent out very loud warnings by way of precedence
(Madagascar) and action taken on Zimbabwe in Maputo that they will not brook
illegitimate processes that are not credible, peaceful or free and fair. They
urged the Government to address this situation, in their words in point 8.6 of
the communiqué; the parties in the GPA were to:
Undertake immediate measures to create a conducive environment
for the holding of peaceful, credible, free and fair elections.
It
is clear from the above that SADC is unconvinced that Zimbabwe as of now is
ready for a ‘peaceful, credible, free and fair poll’. This is not just a SADC
sentiment; it is a Zimbabwean one, shared by the bulk of Zimbabweans. It needs
to be addressed. It is probably this point that those who are sponsoring a
focus on timing want everyone to desist from engaging with.
A
point has been made in numerous debates, that SADC has no writ on the
constitution of Zimbabwe and that their decisions are not binding, and that
they “urged”.
The
above is entirely true but that is what regional bodies do. They do not
necessarily dictate, they persuade, they urge, they encourage, within the
spirit of territorial integrity and respect for sovereignty. But it is only a
fool that ignores these encouragements and does not think that SADC can be
‘very’ persuasive in its recommendations.
The
political costs of ignoring these recommendations by our peers in the region,
when we clearly don’t have consensus ourselves as a people in sovereign
Zimbabwe are just too high.
A country
exists because of recognition by its neighbors. Governments govern on the
strength of the mandates they are given by their citizens but also on the strength
of the legitimacy that derives from recognition by their peers.
A
government needs both, and it is almost certain that if the Government of
Zimbabwe doesn’t heed the advice or encouragements of SADC, there is unlikely
to be an election that will be reflective of a proper mandate by the people of
Zimbabwe.
This
is because it is a fact that has been placed on record; that the major
Political Parties other than ZANU PF (and it is rumored that even this house is
divided on the matter) do not agree with the path that ZANU PF wants to cut
towards the election. In this matter, they appear to have SADC’s backing and
sympathetic ear – therefore the ingredients necessary for an acceptable mandate
and election are missing.
The
SADC communiqué on the outputs of the Maputo Summit does not really render
itself to the kind of confusion that is now being sponsored.
Its
resolution point number 8.4 even exemplifies the kind of issues that needed to
be addressed ahead of elections. It lists them in a non-exhaustive manner as:
o
Media reform
o
Upholding the rule of law,
o
The role of the Joint Monitoring and
Implementation Committee, JOMIC
o
Election date, Validity of electoral regulations
and
o
Deployment of SADC observers.
The
above list has led to the raising of questions around the practicality of what
has been largely peddled as a two-week extension. All I can say is that from
the primary documents, the 14-day limit is non-existent. The understanding I
have is that this was suggested, but was later put aside and/or qualified as
being a minimum period.
The
point is made that the life of Parliament ends by the 29th of June
2013, and this may not allow for all the issues to be dealt with. This point is
fair, but a cursory glance at the listed items, will inform any eye looking at
it with objectivity, that not all these issues need legislative action and
sanction.
Those
that do like, the issue of media reform and other elements that ensure a free
and fair poll, need to be dealt with by the 28th of June 2013. It
can be done.
The
other elements do not need legislative sanction. The Government of Zimbabwe
should simply not shut the door of JOMIC to people seconded from SADC.
The
government of Zimbabwe must uphold the rule of law and not subject the people
to rule by law. The election date needs to be discussed and agreed to by the
requisite actors ‘the President in Consultation with the Prime Minister’, or
because of our peculiar circumstances the Principals. All these things have got
nothing to do with the panic being induced by the expiration of the life of
parliament through the effluxion of time.
As
stated above, rather than point 8.5 of election timing, the real important
point is 8.6 on taking immediate measures to create an environment conducive to
peaceful, credible, free and fair elections.
Doing
the above does not require legislative action. It requires;
1. The
security sector to behave in a professional and non-partisan manner, and it is
true that our new constitution prescribes this, and proscribes partisan and
unprofessional conduct.
2. Fair
and equal coverage of competing political and citizens’ voices in the media to
allow for free formation of voter preferences.
3. The
conduct of an open, transparent and well publicized voter registration
exercise, devoid of technical and political bottlenecks
4. The
stopping of the criminalization of Civil Society organizations going about
their normal work on elections, and that ZEC allows soonest, NGO’s to carry out
voter education and share information on elections without fear of arrest.
5. The
free and peaceful conduct of electoral activities by all political parties and
other stakeholders,
6. The
early deployment of a SADC electoral observation mission.
7. Allowing
local and international observers to observe the election without let or
hindrance.
More
than time, all that is needed in order to attain the above is political will,
and a true commitment to the national interest ahead of parochial partisan
interests.
The
above are integral, because when it comes down to it, only a Feya Feya (free
and fair) election is the great Zimbabwean hope for a prosperous and stable
future.
