Alex Magaisa
18 November 2008
column
THE reaction of most Zimbabweans in the aftermath of the Sadc Summit held in Sandton, South Africa last Sunday, is that of great disappointment.
The reaction carries an apoplectic tone, targeted at the Sadc Heads of State, whom they consider to have, once again, handled their old comrade, President Robert Mugabe with velvet gloves while giving Morgan Tsvangirai the sledgehammer treatment.
The quandary of Zimbabweans can be summed up in one question "What's to be done?" It carries an uncanny echo to a question in similar terms made famous by Russian revolutionary leader Vladimir Lenin. A paper he wrote in the first couple of years of the last century carried the title, "What is to be done?"
Faced with the challenges of the time, Lenin advocated the creation of a revolutionary vanguard party for the purpose of directing the activities and efforts of the working class, whom he regarded as the key to change. But he was not satisfied that the working class could do more to secure the revolutionary change that was needed without some direction.
Thus he wanted a revolutionary party to direct what he called a "scientific" socialist revolution. That was how Lenin saw things at the time and in 1917, during the famous October Revolution, the party he led, the Bolsheviks, seized power, and with that, Russian society and much of the world around it would be transformed for generations.
Zimbabwe stands at the precipice. No-one can predict what the future holds after the recent failure of the Sadc Summit. It is not surprising that Zimbabweans are asking a similar question: What's to be done?
But Zimbabwe does not seem to have a Lenin to give strategic direction in response. Not that it needs a "socialist revolution" -- only that it yearns for some strategic direction on escaping the harsh circumstances engulfing it.
Instead the routine is familiar. Moan and complain about Sadc's apparent impotence. Plead for the African Union to intervene, even when they know in the deepest parts of their hearts that nothing will be yielded from that ostentatious body.
When that fails, plead to the United Nations for intervention. And what if that fails too? Ordinary people do not have answers; their leaders do not seem to have answers too. There appears to be a deficit in strategic planning.
But the easiest thing is for Zimbabweans to vent our collective fury at Sadc. But that's because we made the initial error of believing that Sadc could actually walk on water, this, notwithstanding the litany of failures on Zimbabwe.
Consider this: If after a contentious election, in the midst of obscene acts of violence, during a suspiciously extended period of announcing election results, when its own code on conducting elections was subjected to wilful violation, Sadc failed to act, what surely is to be expected from this body?
We have characterised before in these pages, the behaviour of Sadc leaders as being akin to the Mafia. Mugabe, the Godfather, simply went to his colleagues and told them that he has a stone in his shoe.
His brothers have told him that they cannot remove the stone but they will try their best to place it in a position where it does not hurt him most. Morgan Tsvangirai is that stone.
So last Sunday, they came up with a recommendation which would have ensured that the stone would be accommodated in Mugabe's shoe, without hurting him most.
A few countries, such as Botswana, have made commendable noises of disapproval. But even here, the tendency is often to exaggerate the effect of the words emanating from Gaborone, whilst overlooking its deeds which differ little from its Sadc counterparts.
It is one thing to make noises in the media but quite a different matter to speak and act decisively in the available forum such as the Sadc platform. President Ian Khama, Zanu PF's most vocal critic in the region, chose to stay away from Sandton. Surely, Tsvangirai must wonder, where are friends when you need them most?
President Khama probably had good reason for not attending. But, surely, in that case, why even bother to send a representative and not only that, but a representative does not even register dissent and appends his name to the Communiqué?
The trouble is no matter how loud they are, and regardless of the popular reception they get, such noises will in time become little more than posturing. We have seen it all before and it has done nothing to help the cause of change in Zimbabwe.
It seems logical, having exhausted the Sadc route, to go to the AU. But there is little hope there, too. It is unlikely they will take a position that contradicts Sadc's stance. The continent is awash with conflicts in places like Somalia, Sudan, the DRC and our good AU has little to show for its efforts. It will be yet more trips, yet more disputes over passports, more per diems for travelling parties and lots more communiqués but nothing of real substance.
Admittedly, I have advocated in these pages for the MDC to learn the language of African politics. It was more in hope than expectation that there would be some sane heads out there that could share positive words and cajole their old comrade into accepting change. But if there is any lesson that has been learned from this experience, it is that the language is one of oppression and manipulation. It is a language that requires major changes of its own and the MDC ought to be part of that change.
But I cannot see the AU convening a Summit to decide the allocation of cabinet portfolios, let alone effectively resolve Zimbabwe's problems. Perhaps in asking for mediation on the allocation of cabinet portfolios, our politicians are showing a level of immaturity unbefitting persons who should be entrusted with power? Perhaps they are asking too much?
The one disconcerting thing about the whole scenario is that politicians on all sides have conspired to keep ordinary people in the dark. For my part, I suspect very strongly that there is more to the dispute than we are being told by our politicians. The Home Affairs ministry and, indeed, the whole cabinet portfolio issue is a front for a much bigger dispute.
It does seem to me that, to apply an old proverb, MDC yakayeuka bako yaniwa -- that is, they discovered, in the aftermath of signing the Global Political Agreement that they should not have agreed in the first place. But it was late in the day. If this is the case, the MDC must say so and let the public know why they cannot enter the GNU on the basis of this agreement.
But in trying to answer the question of "what's to be done?" in the circumstances, it probably makes sense to have a sense of realism. No one seriously doubts that Tsvangirai and the MDC got the public vote of confidence ahead of Mugabe and Zanu PF in the March elections.
Likewise, no-one seriously contests the view that the election did not deliver change and that the MDC failed to take over the reins of power. In the circumstances, the MDC had at least two viable options: either to lead a popular revolt in order to assert their position and prevent Zanu PF from holding on to power or to negotiate with Zanu PF in order to share power.
Of these two, only one -- the popular revolt was likely to deliver total change if it was successful. The other, and let it be very clear -- negotiation -- was never going to deliver total change. It was always going to be a compromise. It was never going to produce a revolutionary outcome.
The point, therefore, is the need for a sober assessment of what is a realistic outcome as opposed to the ideal one because the latter was never and will never be achieved through negotiation.
The important thing is to keep the eye on the ball, that is, the people that politicians purport to serve. Perhaps they ought to ask the question: If the deal were presented to the public, together with alternatives, if any are available, what would they say?
For my part, there is no escaping the question, because this is the conundrum uppermost in ordinary people's minds.
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2008 Zimbabwe Standard. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
