It seems treasonous to suggest that what happened in Tunisia can happen in Zimbabwe. But the reality is that it can.
Interestingly, the authorities in Egypt made similar assertions around the impossibility of a Tunisia happening in Egypt when it was suggested that events in their smaller neighbour could spur revolt in their own country. There is a temptation for the Harare regime to take comfort from thinking that events in North Africa only have a contagion effect based on physical proximity. Hence the events in Yemen and Jordan, where the dictators there are scurrying to implement reforms now – before their situations escalate.
However, the truth is that in this globalised world people in Zimbabwe can talk to those in China as if they were two meters away. So such comfort is false. Egypts GDP growth rates of 5%-7% over the last couple of years, an unemployment rate of 25% and Mubaraks manufactured 88% vote of confidence in the previous elections, pale in comparison when Zimbabwes statistics are placed on the table.
The regime in Harare is no longer in a position where they can offer the kind of concessions that Mubarak tried to offer. Zimbabwe already has an inclusive government – so a multi-party cabinet cannot be offered as a concession.
The President already has two Deputies, so cannot offer to appoint a third Vice President as giving something. The head of states son is too young to ascend the throne, so his not running in the next election cannot be offered as a concession.
Most importantly, Zimbabwe already has a programme for reforms. They are called the Global Political Agreement (GPA), which the regime has had two years to implement – so a program of reform cannot be offered as a concession.
The biggest lesson for the political leadership in Zimbabwe from what has been happening in the North though, is that they need to make hay while the sun shines. They should pull up their socks and implement an orderly transition, which is responsive and replete with reforms that are democratic.
It is a sorry sight to see a veteran leader who would have, no doubt, somewhere in the past done some good for his people, give the kind of speeches that Ben Ali had to in Tunisia, and which Mubarak tried to resist giving in Egypt. There are opportunities to salvage pride and organize the much vaunted elegant and dignified exists that our leaders seem to need and their colleagues advocate when it is too late.
The GPA offers this opportunity, and instead of having to resort to the constitution when they are on the brink of collapse, now is the opportunity to govern constitutionally, and to facilitate a well meaning constitution that is democratic and people centered which can be part of their lasting legacies.
The events in North Africa and some parts of the Arab world are a manifestation of what happens when people are betrayed by political processes and systems, and can no longer rely on their political leaders to look out for their interests. Repression and limitation of democratic options can cull the people in the short term. But in the long term, it only strengthens their resolve; limit their options and breeds strength in radicalism.
31 years in power is a long time. It was long in Indonesia and it was too long in Egypt. The consequences for Suharto and Mubarak are now the subject of history and studies in democratization and revolution. An Egypt is possible in Zimbabwe, not because of what anyone might say or do to incite people, but simply because circumstances that people are constantly subjected to, point to this possibility.
The burning of newspapers, victimization of perceived opponents, crack downs on civil society leaders and their operating space, poor working conditions and wages, repressive laws and partisan institutions are all part of these circumstances. The only way to limit the possibilities is not for the regime to dig in, but to begin to pull us out of this hole.
Post published in: Opinions