Scepticism over power-sharing deal

By Vusumuzi Sifile

WHILE celebrating the announcement of an historic power-sharing deal by Zimbabwe’s political protagonists last Thursday, analysts and civil society leaders have warned that if there is no commitment from all the signatories, the deal could just remain "a useless piece of paper".

Although agreeing that the deal was the only way out of the current crisis in Zimbabwe, some analysts believe such "negotiated democracy" could disempower ordinary Zimbabweans, sandwiching them between "two strong political parties joined together by their mutual suspicion of each other".

But others believe the settlement, despite its "compromised nature, was the best way to go". At the same time, it is a "fragile agreement that needs to be handled with caution".

Kenya-based Zimbabwean human rights activist, Brian Kagoro said the deal — which he described as a "Kenya Tea export of negotiated democracy" — was a subversion of the people’s will by "strong-men who after losing elections resort to stone age politics that depends on who has the bigger stone to throw or the larger stick".

"It was one of those unique cases, where either side was doomed if they signed the deal and they were equally doomed if they didn’t," said Kagoro. "No negotiated settlement ever represents the best way to go.

"The fact that the same political prescription forced down Kenyans’ throats has been replicated in Zimbabwe paints a grim picture for forthcoming elections in several African countries. As a process, negotiated power-deals amongst elites entrench the politics of entitlement and patronage . . . The crude reality though is that people do not eat politics. They require food, shelter and other basic necessities that mere political squabbling cannot deliver."

Losing presidential candidate, Simba Makoni, who was among the first people to call for a government of national unity, on Friday refused to comment on the deal, saying he still wanted to see its contents.

But Last Moyo, a Zimbabwean political scientist, said the deal was "not necessarily the best in terms of the political process, but only in terms of giving some form of relief to the people who have suffered so much".

University of Zimbabwe political science lecturer, Professor Eldred Masunungure, said though the details of the deal were still hazy, the finding of common ground by the leaders was a milestone.

"Whatever is in the deal, the very act of them agreeing and finding common ground is the turning point for the nation," he said.

Another analyst, Professor John Makumbe, said given the current crisis, "anything on the table should be accepted and tried".

"It’s unfortunate the situation has become so bad in the country that a compromise is the only way forward. It is important that no one puts their foot wrong and breaks the agreement," Makumbe said.

"It’s a fragile agreement, it’s like you are holding eggs, where the stuff inside is rich and good, but the shell is very thin and very fragile. If you break it everything falls and goes to waste. Both Zanu PF and the MDC will have to put the country ahead of their partisan interests."

Makumbe said the issues of transitional justice could scuttle the implementation phase.

"The challenges are very severe. What, for example, do they do with people who slaughtered and tortured others only a few months ago? Are they going to send them to prison or sit in the same Cabinet with them? It’s going to be a tricky process to implement the whole agreement."

The analysts were unanimous that for the deal to work there was need for commitment among the parties and change of the constitution.

"An agreement to share power requires guarantors," Kagoro said, "and it is not clear who the guarantors will be in the Zimbabwean scenario if either one of the parties renege on any essential term of the agreement. The devil in this particular agreement will not be in the detail, but in the lack thereof!"

The current high levels of corruption among Zimbabwe’s elite could also scuttle the deal.

The deal, said Kagoro, had left many questions unanswered: "How, for example, will the ongoing looting of minerals and other natural resources be stopped in the immediate and near future? How will one incentivise people who for close to a decade have reaped billions of dollars trading on the informal economy to return to the formal economy?"

Moyo said the success of the deal "will depend largely on the commitment of all parties".

"There should be no reneging. The deal as a piece of paper is useless; it is the actions of the politicians that will give it substance," Moyo said. "The deal without the people will be a dismal failure."

National Constitutional Assembly (NCA) chairperson, Lovemore Madhuku, said: the "voice of ordinary people was not represented in the agreement".

"It is clear the agreement is not what the people want," Madhuku said. "The talks should have been part of an inclusive process. We are pressing ahead for a new, people driven constitution that will lead to fresh elections."

The Standard, 14 September 2008