Harare — Heads of State and Government from the Southern African Development Community (SADC) will, for the umpteenth time, converge in the Namibian capital, Windhoek, on Sunday for the regional grouping's 31st summit whose agenda will include the nagging Zimbabwe question.

Bringing finality to the Zimbabwe crisis in which the regional bloc and the African Union are the guarantors of the Global Political Agreement (GPA) that was meant to bring peace and prosperity to the country's long-suffering citizens following a decade of intense rivalry between ZANU-PF and the larger formation of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC-T) has eluded SADC for many years, raising doubts about its effectiveness.

The GPA - signed by President Robert Mugabe, Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai and Deputy Prime Minister Arthur Mutambara in September 2008 paving the way to the formation of a rickety government of national unity (GNU) in February last year - remains in the intensive care due to sharp political differences between ZANU-PF and the two MDC formations over the slow pace of political reform and how executive power should be shared between them.

It has not been rosy and cosy for the power-sharing administration as it is presently stalled by several contentious issues which SADC-appointed mediator, Jacob Zuma, the South African President, has failed to crack since he took over from Thabo Mbeki as head of Africa's largest economy.

These contentious talking points, otherwise referred to as outstanding issues, include the lifting of targeted sanctions imposed on the ageing Zimbabwean leader and his close associates by the United States and the European Union (EU), the appointment of provincial governors and other senior government officials and the general sharing of executive authority between President Mugabe and Prime Minister Tsvangirai.

The three political parties have agreed to disagree on these issues and the only reason why the GNU is still holding, albeit by the thread, is simply that the MDC-T still has got faith in SADC's ability to break the impasse. It is also for this reason that Zimbabweans forlornly expect SADC leaders to at least proffer solutions to end the crisis once and for all when they meet on Sunday in order to get Zimbabwe working again.

Several trips to Harare in recent weeks by Zuma's mediation team have drawn blanks. While there has been progress on electoral reforms expected to be used in any future elections including the appointment of commissioners for the Zimbabwe Media Commission, the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission and a new-look Zimbabwe Electoral Commission, these pare into insignificance when compared with the issues separating the protagonists in the GNU.

While a lot is expected from the SADC leaders during the summit in terms of tackling the Zimbabwe crisis as well as other pressing problems in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and in Madagascar, we do not see any merit at all in these expectations. In our considered view, the SADC summit is likely to be more of the same.

Nothing tangible on Zimbabwe is likely to be achieved by the regional grouping as it has failed to solve the crisis nearly two years after it prescribed the sharing of power by the formerly sworn political enemies.

Debate on Zimbabwe is likely to take a familiar trend where SADC leaders will receive Zuma's report on his mediation efforts, which will largely outline the positives than the negatives. The report will obviously argue that the GPA is being implemented albeit at a snail's pace and seems to be working.

The report is also likely to be silent on the issue of fresh polls ostensibly because the constitutional reform process that is the sine qua non for the holding of elections is still underway.

There is a general consensus that fresh elections held under SADC guidelines on democratic elections are the panacea to the Zimbabwean crisis that has seen an estimated four million Zimbabweans seeking political and economic asylum in neighbouring countries as well as in Europe and the US. But the chaos surrounding the constitution-making process, including reported political intimidation and violence, has resulted in the disruption of the outreach consultative exercise, putting the whole exercise in jeopardy.

In a statement released ahead of the SADC summit, the Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition, appealed to the regional leaders to come up with a concrete plan to end what it described as State-sponsored violence in Zimbabwe ahead of the expected elections thought to be held next year, adding that the Windhoek summit should see to it that all the outstanding issues were dealt with.

But Zimbabweans should not expect anything spectacularly different from this SADC summit. Instead, they should expect that SADC will again resort to its mantra of Zimbabweans being the masters of their own destiny who should therefore solve their own problems.

SADC has no common value system of democracy because of splits among regional leaders and basic lineage of dispensations. Member states are therefore more comfortable to discuss any other issues that have nothing to do with democracy especially those in the authoritarian and restricted democracy category.

The leaders of SADC have therefore come up with very insincere resolutions not to empower the political grouping to reign in on member states that evade or raze down democracy. For example, SADC has remained without a mechanism through which the regional body is given muscle to implement or enforce or even discuss any resolutions that have anything to do with democracy or reigning in on a defiant member. This has worked well for the authoritarian and restricted democracy states of SADC.

In fact, SADC leaders have developed a posture of unity that allows member countries to rake down democracy and destroy their own development and democracy infrastructure while categorising that as internal issues, which the body is given no mandate to involve itself in.

Examples of SADC failing to reign in on its members are in abundance as in the past it has refused or hesitated to come down hard on offending members or states. During the DRC crisis of 1998, the regional grouping failed to come up with a single resolution, leading to a multiplicity or incoherent responses from member countries.

SADC has also failed to establish a full democracy in Lesotho and has been failing to decisively deal with the Madagascar political crisis. The regional grouping is also tainted for having presided over two sham elections in Angola in 2008 and Namibia last year because the electoral and operating environments were not conducive for opposition political parties.

We, therefore, remain sceptical of SADC's capacity and preparedness to handle the Zimbabwe situation decisively and fairly because of its history and incapacitation for institutional implementation of its own principles and guidelines including the provisions of the Treaty of Windhoek of 1992, which outline, democracy, respect for equality, solidarity, equality and peaceful settlement of disputes as foundational.

Sweeping reforms in SADC's operations, institutional framework, mandate and latitude are needed before the grouping could handle complex political situations as that of Zimbabwe. Only then can the regional grouping regain some semblance of respect regionally and internationally.