Zimbabwe accord is a test for African solutions

Reporting from Johannesburg, South Africa — Is this what they meant
when they called it a power-sharing agreement? When Zimbabwe’s new
"unity" government is sworn in this month, it will have two police
ministers sitting in the same building with the same job and the same
powers.

Analysts warn that the deal, reached a tortuous 10 months after
opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai stunned President Robert Mugabe in
elections last year, is so riddled with those kinds of contradictions
and nebulous boundaries that it may prove unworkable.

But should it fail, the deal will not only drag Zimbabwe further down.
The accord, brokered by regional leaders in the Southern African
Development Community, has become a litmus test for "African solutions
for African problems," the idea that indigenous solutions work better
in Africa than those imposed by the West.

Critics argue that African-brokered power-sharing deals such as those
signed after Kenya’s violent 2007 elections and Zimbabwe’s disputed
vote last year have set a precedent that leaders in Africa can cling to
power when voted out, just by refusing to leave office.

They say bodies such as SADC and the African Union have done little to
protect democracy or stop violence and human rights abuses, tending to
side with incumbent leaders such as the long-ruling Mugabe, whose
regime has been accused of unleashing violence to stay in power and
denying food to opposition villagers.

Tony Reeler, analyst with the independent Research and Advocacy Unit in
the Zimbabwean capital, Harare, called last month’s agreement "another
SADC railroading job."

"With SADC, it’s unity at all costs," he said. "I think that what’s
tending to emerge is that African solutions tend to be partisan, one
way or another, and that’s what we’re seeing here.

"I think Zimbabwe is testing African solutions for African problems very harshly."

Mugabe’s government blames the West’s sanctions on regime officials for
the country’s problems and has accused the opposition of dragging its
feet.

"It has been a long, frustrating, erratic, bumpy and quarrelsome
journey characterized by animosities, disagreements, mutual dislikes,
name-calling, demonizations, vilification of each other’s policies and
leaderships," said Patrick Chinamasa, the minister for justice, legal
and parliamentary affairs, who was one of Mugabe’s representatives in
negotiations on the deal. Speaking in parliament, he continued, "But
notwithstanding these negatives, what is important and significant is
that we have managed to reach this far, and for that, we forever remain
eternally grateful to our people for their resilience, understanding
and support."

Botswana, a member of SADC, has been the most critical voice inside the
group. That nation’s foreign minister, Phandu Skelemani, said the group
had let Zimbabweans down.

"As we have said before, we at SADC have failed the people of
Zimbabwe," he said in an interview with Zimbabwean radio journalist
Violet Gonda before last month’s SADC meeting on Zimbabwe. "We have
simply failed to tell the leadership, the political leadership in
Zimbabwe, that what they are doing is wrong, it is undemocratic, and
that they ought to respect the people and do everything with the people
as the priority."

Skelemani said it was patently ridiculous to have two ministers in
charge of police — whose powers Mugabe has abused in the past.

"How can that function?" he said. "Even in theory, I think it’s silly."

Critics argue that most of the political leaders behind the "African
solutions for African problems" compromises have deeply flawed
democratic records.

Independent political analyst John Makumbe of the University of
Zimbabwe said too many leaders in the regional group felt obliged to
protect Mugabe because of his history as a liberation fighter.

"That’s the kind of problem we have in African countries: Liberation
movements in southern Africa are really allergic to handing over power
to civilians even after democratic elections. There’s not a liberation
movement in southern Africa which has actually handed over power to a
non-liberation party."

Richard Cornwell, security analyst with the Institute for Security
Studies in South Africa, said, "If liberation leaders are to start
questioning the legitimacy of a revolutionary liberation regime, then
they draw their own legitimacy into question."

He said that with Mugabe still clearly in charge, the deal would be doomed.

"SADC appears not to have taken into consideration who is going to get
Zimbabwe out of the mire. External funds are going to do that, and
there’s no way the international community will buy in with Mugabe at
the helm," he said.

In Africa, there’s a tacit expectation that although the solutions may
come from within, the financing comes from the international community.

South Africa and the African Union have called for an end to Western
sanctions targeting Mugabe and an elite group of cronies. Europe and
the United States say they will not support the deal financially
without evidence of substantial political and economic reform.

Underscoring the African sensitivity to the fact that Western purse
strings can make or break the deal, Arthur Mutambara, head of a small
Zimbabwean opposition splinter group that is party to the agreement,
said recently that the West should "shut up" and put up aid to rebuild
the country.

"It’s not for Britain or America to judge our agreement," he said at
the World Economic Forum that concluded last weekend in Davos,
Switzerland. "Your job as America or Britain is to support what we try
to do. All the skeptics must now shut up and support what Zimbabweans
want."