Unpacking the Cabinet talks stalemate

Unpacking the Cabinet talks stalemate

• Chanakira: the unlikely foot soldier for expropriation schemes

• A conversation on nation, nation state and nationalism

• Mbeki is victim of a culture he helped create

• Towards a new Africanm identity

• Where is Zimbabwe's Obama?

• Power sharing versus power transfer

• Business has role as change agent in Africa

• Interrogating Ownership in Africa

• Actors might change, but Zimbabwe plot stays same

• The world according to Mandela and Mugabe

• Mugabe needs incentives to reform, not sanctions

• The agenda for change post-Sharm El-Sheikh

• What is the meaning of independence?

• Has Mugabe's war bluster won it?

• Imperialism no threat to organised people

• Mugabe using language of xenophobes

• SA's BEE project intersects with xenophobia

• A Rainbow Nation without black

• A post-election conversation with Mugabe

• Doubts aside, Tsvangirai now best bet for a New Zimbabwe

• African mines remain theatres for foreign operators

• Mugabe's self-help constitutional order

• The New Zimbabwe is almost upon us

• Zimbabweans have spoken, and the message is in the detail

• Mugabe's re-election would be disaster for private enterprise

• Zimbabweans at the polls: the great debates

• Change cannot wait for Madhuku's post-election ambitions

• Voting for change in Zimbabwe

• Can an independent win in Zimbabwe? Yes he can!

• Makoni: puppet, Zanu PF agent or national hero?

• Who is behind Makoni? Please count me in!

• Obama v Billary Clinton: lessons for Africa

• If Zuma is corrupt, who isn't?

• Charamba gives civil service a very bad name

• Be the change that you want to see

• The paradox of African liberation and change

• Zimbabwe and the Jacob Zuma factor

• The EU-Africa relationship post-colonialism

• Beyond Lisbon: setting the African agenda

• Implications of Zuma winning ANC presidency

• Africa's enduring economic apartheid

• Does indigenisation threaten law of succession?

• Defining the role of the State in post-colonial Africa

• Mushore's ordeal and the Zimbabwe we want

• Does rule of law pose a threat to Africa?

• Capitalism may challenge the poor, but it gives them hope

By Mutumwa D. Mawere
(www.mmawere.com)
Posted to the web: 19/10/2008 18:18:26
ON SEPTEMBER 15, 2008, after protracted and painful negotiations, complications in the implementation of a power sharing agreement has exposed its construction and framing obstacles that should have been evident even from the body language and tone of the principals at the signing ceremony.

With the assistance of former South African President Thabo Mbeki, the SADC appointed facilitator, President Mugabe and Zanu PF have turned out to the major beneficiaries of the talks.

The ground lost by Zanu PF on March 29 has been recovered through the negotiations whose participants and agenda were carefully chosen and framed to systematically ensure that the change agenda could be politically manipulated in closed doors with the inevitable result that Zimbabweans will have to endure five more years of divisive politics.

On paper, the participants to the inter-party negotiations are two representatives from each of the parties that contested and successfully won parliamentary and senatorial seats during the 29 March elections.

However, the ZAPU element has been added to the talks in so far as Zanu PF has sought to argue that it is entitled to certain cabinet posts based on its unity agreement with ZAPU of 1987.

Zanu PF has a lot to thank President Mbeki for. He has managed to legitimise the June 27 Presidential run-off that has been widely condemned as a sham. The September 15 agreement effectively entrenched President Mugabe as the head of state and government as well as fortifying Zanu PF’s position as the centre of power in so far as the Presidium is concerned.

President Mugabe and his deputies in Zanu PF were automatically confirmed as cabinet members and in so doing making Tsvangirai as Prime Minister subordinate not only to President Mugabe but also to his party deputies notwithstanding their questionable legitimacy.

What was striking in the September 15 agreement was that the implementation aspects were not dealt with and the facilitator was missing in action. Whether former President Mbeki deliberately left the scene fully knowing of the outcome remains unclear, but what is instructive is that the agreement effectively put President Mugabe as a custodian of the implementation programme having been legitimised as the head of state and government.

With Tsvangirai having been negotiated out of the centre of gravity of the executive branch of government, the door was now open for Zanu PF to assert its acquired rights to construct an administration with powers heavily skewed in its favour.

Prior to the signing of the September 15 agreement, SADC heads of state had resolved that whomever controlled parliament i.e. in terms of electing the Speaker would control the government.

Mugabe was confident that Zanu PF with the support of MDC-M would be able to demonstrate that MDC-T did not have the requisite parliamentary majority.

However, MDC-T passed the test and this proved decisive in encouraging Zanu PF to sign the agreement creating the post of Prime Minister with some executive powers in so far as chairing the Council of Ministers.

After the humiliating March 29 election results, Zanu PF again lost the Speaker’s election but managed to control the Senate through political manipulation.

From the onset, the talks were framed as an inter-party dialogue and using the classic divide and rule tactics, it was predictable that Zanu PF would be the winner. Although Professor Mutambara, the leader of MDC-M formation, was not a presidential contender, he has been allowed to participate in the talks regarding the distribution of cabinet posts.

The inclusion of MDC-M in the talks was necessary to demonstrate that Tsvangirai’s argument that he enjoyed the majority support did not hold water. Judging by the nature of the current stalemate and how the negotiations have been conducted so far, it is evident that this objective has been achieved.

Tsvangirai has made a legitimate case that without trust the likelihood of the agreement achieving the intended results is questionable. No government of national unity can be constructed without a common purpose, trust, integrity, honesty and resolve.

Having made significant concessions on the Presidential question, one would have expected that Zanu PF would be more flexible on the distribution of cabinet posts not only because the Zimbabwean public voted for change but the challenges of the country can better be addressed with fresh ideas.

Zanu PF has not changed its approach to governance and power to give anyone confidence that the people of Zimbabwe will finally get the government they voted for. One would have expected that MDC-M would locate its future in the change agenda and in so doing refuse to be used as a pawn in reversing the gains registered in March.

The cabinet list gazetted by President Mugabe exposes the thinking of Zanu PF on democracy, inclusivity, and power even in after suffering an acknowledged electoral defeat.

The talks were supposed to address the power configuration given that President Mugabe had lost the first round of the election but it is now evident that Zanu PF as a party wants to transform itself into a ruling party outside the context of elections.

The objectivity of former President Mbeki on the Zimbabwean question will continue to be a subject of debate but what is important is that through his facilitation Zanu PF and President Mugabe have emerged as the true winners.

Once again the talks have been referred to the SADC Troika that is scheduled to meet in Swaziland on Monday. However, even former President Mbeki should have known that a government that is denying Tsvangirai a new passport couldn’t be trusted to hold all the security ministries.

If a Prime Minister-designate can be denied a passport after the conclusion of the September 15 agreement, then how can one expect a new beginning? As I write, it is not even clear if Tsvangirai will be able to travel to Swaziland for the important talks.

Speaking to journalists after hours of negotiations, President Mugabe said: "The talks went well (but) in the wrong direction.” For him, the talks could only have gone in the right direction if Tsvangirai had given in to political blackmail.

In an interview afterwards, Justice Minister Patrick Chinamasa, said: "At the conclusion of four days of very intense dialogue the parties reconfirmed the allocation of ministries as per the Government Gazette of last week Friday except for the ministries of Finance and Home Affairs. Zanu PF agreed to allocate the Ministry of Finance to MDC-T.

“One can say that the discussions, however, largely centered on the issue of Home Affairs. Zanu PF was arguing that it should get the ministry while MDC-T was also arguing that they should get the ministry. On Tuesday, Arthur Mutambara proposed that the ministry be rotated between Zanu PF and MDC-T on a six-month basis with Zanu PF getting it first."

It is instructive that Chinamasa, who lost the parliamentary elections and whose status as Minister following the opening of parliament is debatable, holds the view that Zanu PF is the allocator of cabinet posts.

Although the cause of the stalemate has not been unpacked in its proper content and context, it is evident that the factual position as presented by Zanu PF is not different from that of MDC-M.

Professor Mutambara’s version is that his proposal for the ministry to be rotated although initially unacceptable to President Mugabe was acceptable to Tsvangirai. He maintains that his proposal should have formed the basis of a deal ignoring the fact that Zanu PF also had problems with implementing such a proposal.

Even after arrogating all the important posts to it, Zanu PF still appears unwilling to allow MDC-T to control the Ministry of Home Affairs. In the knowledge of the significant concessions made so far by MDC-T, it is difficult to understand why MDC-M would even suggest a rotation scheme of such an important ministry that has hitherto been used to reduce freedom and threaten the rule of law.

According to Chinamasa, Zanu PF after careful consideration,
decided that Professor Mutambara’s proposal would be difficult to implement as it would impact negatively on policy formulation and implementation and there would thus be no consistency in the ministry.

What is interesting is that the facilitator could not even have the leverage to prevail on Zanu PF to be reasonable and instead observed after the adjournment of the talks that: "The negotiations are continuing. I wouldn't say there is a deadlock. I know for a fact that the (Sadc) Troika is very, very keen that this matter is resolved as a matter of urgency."

As the parties plan to meet again in Swaziland, it is instructive that there appears to be no consensus on the precise nature of the stalemate. Both Zanu PF and MDC-M hold the view that the only issue revolves around the ministry of Home Affairs and not only the whole deal while MDC-T holds the view that the whole power configuration betrays the spirit of moving forward and restoring the country to its former glory.

Surely, it should be obvious to all that any outcome that leaves the status quo ante intact will not bring Zimbabwe any closer to a solution of its problems. Equally, it would be naïve to expect that the attitude displayed by Zanu PF does not augur well for the future.

The role of MDC-M in driving the change agenda has to be critically examined. The need for the agents of change to close ranks at this defining moment cannot be overstated.

Furthermore, if the SADC-Troika endorses the Zanu PF position that MDC-T should be denied one of the security ministries, then surely the only alternative would be to go back to the voters to decide who should govern.

It would be wrong to rob MDC-T of its mandate that was given in a democratic process only to be hijacked through negotiations.

Mutumwa Mawere's weekly column is published on New Zimbabwe.com every Monday. You can contact him at: mmawere@global.co.za
JOIN THE DEBATE ON THIS ARTICLE ON THE NEWZIMBABWE.COM FORUMS
newsdesk@newzimbabwe.com