Zanu PF must reform, for the sake of progress

IT IS fair to admit that there is a weighty temptation to join the heavy industry of criticism surrounding last week’s decision by the MDC to join the Inclusive Government.

For a start, the cynicism is not without good reason taking into account the history and character of Zanu PF as a cunning and abrasive political operator. It is difficult to fault the general trepidation, particularly in light of the state media’s poisonous rhetoric and the nauseating legal bungee-jumps that political detainees like Jestina Mukoko have had to endure in the courts.

One would have thought that a serious Zanu PF, being the partner that most wanted this deal, would do everything in its power to demonstrate sincerity and good faith by taking measures to address these issues that cause so much damage to the country’s image.

Senior members of the judiciary spoke recently of the need for politicians to sort out their political squabbles. Yet, the manner in which these political detainees are being shoved from pillar to post by the courts drains whatever confidence one might have invested in this arrangement. Frankly, the matter has become ridiculous and one would laugh if it did not command so much seriousness. It makes no sense at all.

So here you have a court finding that the detained person has not been formally placed on remand by the state; that the state has not properly read out the formal charges to the detained person – why then, you would have to ask, should this person be kept in detention for such a ridiculous length of time?

It gets bizarre when one considers the illegal manner of the initial arrest and the alleged ill-treatment of the detained persons which has been recorded in graphic detail. So here we have the liberty of the individual, a right that is supposedly guaranteed by the constitution, playing second-fiddle to legal technicalities the fault of which lies not with the detainee but with the captor. All this in a country that is trying to present a rehabilitated face to the world!?

The matter is absurd and counter-productive especially in light of efforts to create a unified and progressive administration. The offences that Mukoko and others are alleged to have committed inevitably implicate the MDC, which is supposed to be the new partner in government. How, therefore, can the Zanu PF administration work with the MDC, the same organisation that it accuses of trying to overthrow it by armed means?

If Zanu PF is serious about the new administration, it really needs to demonstrate its sincerity by realising these people who are unlawfully detained and have, by all accounts, been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment. Or, at the very least, give them fair treatment.

The judiciary has a role to play here – to check the abuse of power by the executive and at least show that citizens can still get protection of the law. If the judiciary went out of its way to urge politicians to resolve the political impasse, it must also, surely, play a complimentary role in reconstructing the shoddy image that the country has earned over the last decade.

As it is, the image of political detainees on a high-speed legal roller-coaster as they are moved from one court to the next, without respite, does very little for the judiciary’s image.   

It is unfortunate that the courts of law, the supposed bastions of freedom, have proved unwilling hosts to the accused persons who, according to the latest ruling, languish in jail only because the state has failed to process the formalities.

Is it the accused person’s fault that the state has failed to comply with the formal requirements? Does it, therefore, mean that these persons can languish in jail until such time that the state completes the formalities, which formalities, in any event, are the very subject of the challenge? The challenge here is the manner of arrest, the abductions and unlawful treatment of the detained persons. It’s absolutely ridiculous and if I sound annoyed, that’s because I am. And embarrassed, too!

In light of all this, one can surely understand why many citizens and the international community has welcomed the deal with what one can aptly describe as chameleonic caution. Many have sympathies for Tsvangirai and they have supported him during the struggle so it makes sense to try and help his team when they do get into government. But few will be rushing through the gates of Zimbabwe with bags of assistance.

The Americans have said they are waiting to see evidence of real power-sharing in the country before they can chip in with development assistance and ease the targeted sanctions. I have said before in this column that sanctions, whether they are called ‘smart’ or ‘dirty’, could strangle the new creature. But I perfectly understand why those behind them are cautious. What is the point of lifting them when there is absolutely no sign of rehabilitation?

Admittedly, the agreement is the first step in that route but it by no means the last. The new administration has to demonstrate that it is willing and committed to redress the reckless behaviour of the last decade and this case, unfortunately only serves to exacerbate the many concerns and fears that many people have about the prospects of the new administration.

The argument in some circles that Zimbabwe does not have to look for outside help is disingenuous. It runs counter to Zanu PF’s blame-game by which it accuses Western sanctions for causing economic decline and to the very public pleas for sanctions to be lifted. The fact is Zimbabwe needs help but it will not arrive under these shoddy circumstances.

To my mind, the case of the political detainees presents a perfect opportunity for the administration to demonstrate a change in approach. If the state is so sure that they have committed offences, why not follow the due process of law and do things properly? The MDC itself needs to insist on this issue because it provides ominous signs of what might happen to them when they join government. Perhaps the newly formed Joint Monitoring and Implementation Committee (JOMIC) should prioritise this issue and find an amicable end because it has been very damaging to the general cause of the agreement.

Admittedly, even though I have many doubts, I stand among those who understood why Tsvangirai took that momentous decision last week and I have been willing for things to work for the good of the country. I did so not because I thought the deal was great, but because, quite frankly, no other viable option had been placed on the table and not even the most ardent critics have given persuasive arguments of what else could have been done under the circumstances.

I also understood the context in which the decision was taken – that Tsvangirai had taken the battle for power to the international platform, via SADC, away from the domestic constituency whose only means of choice was the undemocratic election which had yielded little in the way of power.

Yet at SADC, Tsvangirai was parked in a cul-de-sac – it was either that or he was on his own. What he has done, however, by accepting SADC’s recommendation is to show his willingness to compromise and in so doing he has not ostracised himself from SADC which was getting increasingly irritated. This has now placed the ball firmly in Zanu PF’s court – it is up to them to play fair or to kick it into the long grass and so far, it seems to be doing a very good job of it.

There can be no doubt that Zanu PF has to change its ways or the new administration is surely on a very bumpy road to nowhere. On the other hand, whilst those in the opposition and civil society have to acknowledge that yes, we have a messy deal, I do not think standing aside and joining the industry of criticism of Tsvangirai, Mutambara and others is the right approach at this juncture.

This is not to say Tsvangirai and Mutambara must be immune from critical assessment. Rather it is that mere criticism without meaningful contribution to how else things can be done better becomes mere public posturing which helps no-one but massage egos and perhaps, win someone a few prizes for bravery and “human rights”.

True enough, it is going to be very difficult to achieve anything but it is certainly not impossible. The two MDCs have a parliamentary majority which the new administration cannot do without and can be employed strategically to achieve, at the very least, minimum conditions for a conducive political and economic environment.

Civil society partners that have worked with the MDC ought to utilise the opportunity to push for those legal, governance and structural changes that they have so far failed to get past a Zanu PF dominated parliament and cabinet. The way forward is to secure those changes that will free political space and alleviate the economic suffering; to participate fully in a constitution-making process; to utilise the window of opportunity as fully as possible.

Alex Magaisa is based at, Kent Law School, the University of Kent and can be contacted at wamagaisa@yahoo.co.uk