An African country is being destroyed right before our own very eyes and we seem to be totally incapable of doing anything about it. So much misery, so much suffering and it is sooo unnecessary.
The talks have collapsed. I could crow about this, saying “I told you so.”
But that would be hollow or meaningless when there is massive suffering in Zimbabwe. Two questions about the talks:
What are these talks about? Land redistribution? Colonial injustices and legacies? It is about POWER. Now we know who are the real zombies who kept insisting on land redistribution, Western colonialism and imperialism. They have all been fooled because these factors are NOT on the negotiating table.
The talks are about POWER-SHARING, damn it.
Didn’t we hear that two new MEDIATORS – one from the AU and the other from the U.N. – have been added? How come we have not heard from them and only from Thabo Mbeki? Snookered again, huh?
Albert Einstein once defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. These talks have been going for at least eight bloody years and they are still talking. Look, human patience is not inexhaustible. But leave Mugabe alone; he is not the problem. We know what he wants. It is we in the opposition, and those who want change in Zimbabwe who are the problem. It is painful to criticize the opposition because it might sound like rubbing salt into their wounds. But we must be honest with ourselves and be willing to face the painful fact that we made some tactical blunders. We must accept this reality and readjust our strategies accordingly.
BLUNDER No. 1: Divided Opposition Front
How in hell do we present a DIVIDED opposition front to Mugabe? How, how, how? We were outfoxed when Mugabe rolled out and shepherded Arthur Mutambara to the negotiating table. What motivates Arthur more: His own personal lust for power or the welfare of the Zimbabwean PEOPLE? And if Mugabe has brought in Arthur, why didn’t we call his bluff by insisting on bringing in Simba Makoni, church leaders and civil society group leaders because that’s where Morgan’s real power lies?
Maybe, each of the three parties – Arthur, Mugabe and Morgan – are so obsessed with POWER and distribution of cabinet positions that they don’t care one hoot about the massive suffering of the Zimbabwean PEOPLE. If so, let them talk, talk, talk and talk about who gets what cabinet post and some “Charles Taylor” or “Laurent Kabila” will emerge from the bush to knock some sense into their heads.
BLUNDER No.2: Government of National Unity (GNU) is FLAWED
Sometimes, Zimbabwe’s opposition leaders behave as if the country was the only one colonized by Britain. As such, they adamantly refuse to pay much attention to the experiences of other African countries and are bent on “re-inventing” the wheel.
Regarding power-sharing talks in a government of national unity (GNU), this has never worked in post colonial Africa. It never worked in Angola, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Sierra Leone, or Sudan. Even in South Africa, it lasted for only one year, when the de Klerk National Party pulled out of the ANC in 1996. In Kenya, the GNU is in intensive care unit. The reason why GNU has such a dismal record is simple: Jostling arises over the distribution of cabinet positions. Nobody is satisfied with what they get and the wrangling continues. Everybody wants the ministry of defense and finance portfolios.
To satisfy everyone, more cabinet positions are created, which inevitably leads to the swelling of the bureaucracy. Kenya now has 92 cabinet and deputy ministers! Imagine.
So why should the MDC go along with GNU? Even if a GNU can be crafted, no incumbent will cede more power to the opposition leader and take a junior position. It has never happened in post colonial African history. So should the MDC even go for this?
BLUNDER No.3: Not knowing the enemy
The first rule in warfare is to Know the Enemy. You must know the strengths and weaknesses of your enemy. You do not, I repeat, you do not fight an enemy of the turf on which he is strongest. For example, the military has an awesome superiority in weapons but they are numerically inferior, constituting less than 0.1 percent of the population in any African country.
So you don’t fight a military regime in the urban areas where they are concentrated. You s-t-r-e-t-c-h them geographically. Get it?
In a boxing match, you study your opponent’s strength and weakness. He has a devastating right hook but is vulnerable to a sharp upper cut. A sensible strategy is not to develop a right hook too. Rather, you shore up your defenses against right hooks and develop a potent upper cut. Too often in Africa, the opposition does not develop an “upper cut” and then, when clobbered with a “right hook,” cry “Foul!.”
Let me ask you this: What are the weaknesses of the Mugabe regime?
Scratching your head? So tell me this, how do you defeat an enemy when you do not know his weaknesses and are fighting him on the turf on which he is strongest? That is exactly what the MDC has been doing.
It is Mugabe who is calling all the shots. He decides when to resume and end the talks. He decides when to re-open Parliament and the MDC goes by his playbook and falls in line. This is absurd.
BLUNDER No. 4: Ineffectual opposition tactics
Of course, we all want peaceful, non-violent resolution to the crisis in Zimbabwe. Engaging the Mugabe regime in dialogue is the preferred option.
But should that fail, we must have Plan B, C, or D. It seems the opposition has no such alternative plans.
To be sure, street protests – as in the Philippines, Nepal or Thailand are out of the question. But are street protests the only internal options?
There are other non-violent options. Shut down the civil service. Shut down the internal transportation system. Shut down the universities. Civil servants strike, doctors strike, lecturers strike, students strike, newspapers strike, farmers strike, etc. etc.
The MDC has not considered these intern alternatives because it is wedded to an externalist strategy. Besides, it seems to be suspicious of CIVIL SOCIETY groups or other stakeholders, believing that it alone can deliver change.
Of course, we all know that the MDC faces formidable odds, not to mention the vicious attacks, beatings, imprisonment, and torture MDC officials have endured. At least, four attempts have been made on Morgan’s life. We all remember his swollen face and lacerations after he was severely beaten up in 2006. All that is etched in our collective memory.
Nonetheless, we have to be honest with ourselves. This crisis erupted in 2000 and since then, the PEOPLE have patiently waited for change or an improvement in their living conditions. But nothing has been achieved by the opposition. And patience is not inexhaustible. If the MDC can’t deliver, the people will start looking elsewhere.
The MDC needs to do some serious “soul-searching” – a self-critical analysis. Its tactics aren’t working. A clear distinction needs to be made between an objective and the tactics or means of achieving that objective.
Criticizing a tactic as ineffectual does not mean one is opposed to the objective.
The current MDC tactic is flawed. It seems to rest solely on seeking recognition of Morgan’s March 29 electoral victory from African leaders, SADC, regional leaders and the broader international community, as well as support from the same to pressure the Mugabe regime to cede power to the MDC-T. There are so many problems with this strategy:
It is externally-oriented. Quite apart from the diplomatic hoops such a strategy must jump through – for example, the risk of being seen as interfering in the internal affairs of a sovereign country – rare has been the case where external factors instigated political change in a post colonial African country. Beginning in the early 1990s, ALL political changes in Africa occurred from within. Even though the West eventually imposed sanctions against apartheid South Africa, change in that country came from within when the Convention for a Democratic South Africa (CODESA) was convened.
The logistics of securing international sanctions, condemnations and embargoes are daunting. How long do you think it would take the United Nations to impose sanctions against the Mugabe regime, assuming no country would veto that resolution? How long do you think it would take, say the U.S.or Britain, to send a “Kissinger” to talk Mugabe out of power? Since Zimbabwe is land-locked, the most effective sanctions would be AFRICAN.
Neighboring counties can seal their borders, cut communication and power lines. But how long do you think it would take the neighboring countries to do this? 10, 20 years? No, till hell freezes over.
SADC, AU, and African leaders are totally hopeless and useless when it comes to effecting political change in another African country. Do I even have to say this? If you know this already, then what is the point of going to these bodies and leaders for help in effecting change in Zimbabwe?
Even then, international sanctions don’t move dictators. They never toppled Saddam Hussein, Kim Il Sung of North Korea, Castro of Cuba, Abacha of Nigeria, Ghaddafi of Libya, among others.
Rarer still is foreign intervention. The only occasion the United Nations intervenes is when an African country has totally collapsed: Somalia (1992), Liberia, Sierra Leone, Congo DR. Three cases of African intervention may be
noted: Libya into Chad (1976), Tanzania into Uganda to topple Idi Amin
(1978) and Ethiopian into Somalia (2006). Zimbabwe hasn’t totally collapsed, nor is any neighboring willing to invade.
For the MDC to stick bull-headedly to externally-driven forces for change in Zimbabwe is insane. Morgan keeps hopping around from one African capital to the next, achieving NOTHING, except tepid assurances of support and sympathy.
Time is not on the side of the MDC. People are rapidly losing faith in its ability to deliver change. And if people lose faith in the MDC, they will start “looking elsewhere” – even at rebel leaders.
(George Ayittey is a prominent Ghanaian economist, author and president of the Free Africa Foundation in Washington DC).