Freeman Chari
10 November 2009
opinion
WHEN Morgan Tsvangirai was sworn in as the Prime Minister of a loose coalition with Robert Mugabe, there was hope that his presence could influence reform in the country. This government is only a few months old but it has become clearer that Zanu PF is not willing to give up its hold on power. There is substantial evidence that MDC-T holds minimal power in the current set-up. Examples that quickly crop up are the continual invasion of farms at the instigation of Zanu PF leadership despite calls by the Prime Minister for them to stop. MDC-T members continue to be persecuted and harassed by Zanu PF supporters with no action from the police.
The Reserve Bank continues to engage in quasi-fiscal projects despite Finance Minister Biti's order. Reserve Bank Governor Gideon Gono and Attorney General Johannes Tomana are still occupying their positions despite MDC-T's protestations. So, it could be argued that Zanu PF is still the core of the government with MDC-T coming in as an auxiliary.
It is also evident that little reform to the political and economic systems of the country has occurred since the Unity Government was formed. The constitution-making process has stalled amidst claims that Zanu PF is sabotaging the process. Draconian laws like AIPPA and POSA are still being used to maintain the state's grip on civil liberties.
Given the little influence that MDC-T seems to be holding in the GNU, it is also evident that its presence in this government is unlikely to bring much positive reform to the country. Changes in Zanu PF on the other hand seem more likely to bring considerable reform in the political and economic terrain of the country. Let us explore such changes, their likelihood and their likely impact on the country:
There has been discussion on the need to revamp and restructure Zanu PF particularly the succession debate. A wholesome change of leaders in Zanu PF might result in the party being led by reform-minded young people who appreciate the need for contemporary reforms and modernisation of the political and economic systems of the country.
Are there people like that in Zanu PF? This question is hard to answer when looking at the current crop of the party's leadership even from its youth ranks. There are a number of people who were nurtured by Zanu PF who eventually decided to leave it because of its unwillingness to embrace change. This can point to the presence of people within its system who may not be averse to reformist ideas.
How likely is this change? Succession in Zanu PF is not an idea that can be thrown around without scars and scalps. Currently, there is commotion over the successor to the late Vice-President Joseph Msika with the old guard again throwing spanners in the works to ensure that another geriatric takes over.
There is no indication that the executive of Zanu PF is willing to retire and leave power to younger and competent people.
Is domestic pressure feasible in Zimbabwe? In 1989, Arthur Mutambara and Munyaradzi Gwisai led University of Zimbabwe students in protests against Zanu PF's intention to impose a one-party state in the country. They were arrested and brutalised. So was Tsvangirai when he wrote in support of the two.
When food prices rose by about 40% in 1998, people decided to take to the streets in protest. There were reports of a massive crackdown is high-density suburbs of Chitungwiza, Budiriro and Glen View by the army and police to quash any dissent.
From 2000 to 2003 ZCTU and MDC-T led a number of successful boycotts to force the government to reform. Successful in terms of popular response but rather ineffective in forcing the government to change. It appears as though, these earlier demonstrations and boycotts served to sensitize the regime towards the use of brutal force as a means of containing dissent.
Despite the culture of resistance that Zimbabweans had developed in the first five years of this decade, Zanu PF managed to beat them into submission.
Instead of forcing the regime to bow out, sanctions actually gave them an excuse to act irresponsibly and ruthlessly.
The government seemed to respond to sanctions by sanctioning its own people too.
What could have contributed to the ineffectiveness of sanctions in forcing reform was the inability by Zimbabwe's neighbours and other African states to augment western efforts. Only Botswana, Kenya and Tanzania seemed willing to apply pressure on Mugabe.
So, can international pressure force change in future? Sanctions can hopefully bring change in Zimbabwe if they are a concerted global initiative which every country is obliged to observe. The ideological differences amongst members of the UN Security Council remain an impediment. The unwillingness of Zimbabwe's neighbours to support sanctions is based mostly on reluctance to commit resources to sustain the burden of refugees who would be anticipated to cross into those countries.
It has become clearer that reform in Zimbabwe is dependent more on events within Zanu PF than other things.
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2009 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.
