Just how do political parties co-manage a government ministry?

WHITHER BOTSWANA?
DAN MOABI | Friday November 14, 2008 00:00

Hence the decision of the leaders of the Southern African Development Community at their recent special summit that the said ministry should be 'co-managed' by ZANU-PF and the MDC. Mugabe regards this as a huge concession by ZANU-PF to the MDC.

While this might have made sense had ZANU-PF won the recent parliamentary and presidential elections in Zimbabwe and invited the MDC to join it in a power-sharing government, it makes no sense under the present circumstances. Earlier this year, Tsvangirai told the world that immediately following the March elections; Mugabe's party sent a delegation to meet with the MDC.

According to Tsvangirai, the ZANU-PF delegation conceded that the MDC had won both the parliamentary and the presidential elections.

WWIts purpose in meeting with the MDC was, therefore, to request the latter party to invite ZANU-PF to join it in a power-sharing government in the interests of the Zimbabwe nation.

The MDC told its ZANU-PF counterparts that as this had always been the intention of the MDC, the party would be happy to comply.

Unfortunately, the ZANU-PF proposal was not implemented because hardliners within the party chose to scupper the proposed deal and, instead, doctor the presidential election ballots and reduce the margin of Tsvangirai's win to a level where a run-off election would become necessary.

This was why the ballot boxes from the presidential election disappeared for weeks, only to re-surface with the narrow-margin win for Tsvangirai that led to the spurious run-off presidential election held in June.

Former president Thabo Mbeki has faced much criticism during his role as mediator in SADC's effort to find an acceptable solution to the Zimbabwe crisis. In my view, his total silence and seeming acquiescence during the questionable disappearance of the presidential ballot boxes in June marked one of his major failures.

As a mediator, he obviously needed to be careful about everything he openly said about the negotiations.

But where any of the parties did anything that clearly violated the principles or spirit of the negotiations (as was clearly the case with the organised violence and intimidation against the opposition, and the gross mishandling of the presidential ballot boxes in June by the Mugabe government), Mbeki should have spoken out and strongly condemned such violations.

Given the background outlined above, ZANU-PF has no right to impose any of the terms and conditions of the old ZANU-ZAPU agreement on the MDC and require it to play second fiddle in the proposed power-sharing arrangement.

The MDC and Tsvangirai were the winners in both the March and the June elections, and ZANU-PF and Mugabe the losers. That the MDC agreed to Mugabe's staying on as president of Zimbabwe was, therefore, a huge concession to ZANU-PF and should not now be interpreted as according the party the status of a senior partner in the proposed power-sharing government.

Therefore, Tsvangirai was right to reject SADC's timid acceptance of Mugabe's view that the MDC and ZANU-PF should 'co-manage' the ministry of home affairs. Just how do any political parties 'co-manage' a government ministry, let alone parties as different as the MDC and ZANU-PF in terms of their commitment to democratic processes?

Fortunately for the MDC, the SADC states can't rescue Zimbabwe from its economic meltdown.

SADC played the principal role in building Mugabe into the disastrous leader that he is today.

Thus SADC, which was envisaged by its founding fathers as a promoter and defender of democracy not only in this sub-region but also beyond, is largely responsible for promoting and defending Mugabe's brutal dictatorship in Zimbabwe.

Its nefarious tactics have rightly been condemned throughout the democratic world. It's therefore unlikely that any of the countries expected to help re-build Zimbabwe will be fooled by SADC's pathetic attempt to undermine the MDC further in favour of ZANU-PF.

Thus, Mugabe could go ahead and unilaterally establish a government of his liking, but Zimbabwe's economic meltdown will continue until genuine democracy is restored.

For its part, the MDC party should intensify its international campaign for support against SADC and its favourite dictator. Although the party correctly wants to make the African Union (AU) its next port of call, it's doubtful that it will get much comfort from there.

AU leaders are more likely to go along with their SADC brothers than not.

This is the real meaning of 'African brotherhood and solidarity' - brotherhood and solidarity in defence of the selfish interests of leaders rather than those of the down-trodden. Regarding SADC, sadly the enviable credibility that it once enjoyed is no more.

The organisation is now such a laughing-stock that we might as well write it off altogether.