Of flawed analysis and a 'tipping point' that never was

Of flawed analysis and a 'tipping point' that never was

RECENT OPINION ARTICLES

• Zimbabwe: the possibilities

• Quo vadis Zimbabwe?

• Subjecting our leaders to crucible of public scrutiny

• Mbeki's deceptive foreign policy

• Zimbabwe is about white supremacy

• Western sanctions source of Mugabe's demise

• Mugabe's enforcers building own case

• If bishops were guilty of aligning with Mugabe, ICG goes to the other extreme

• Full text of Tsvangirai's address to foreign correspondents

• Crisis Group report pursuing neo-liberal agenda

• Zimbabwe opposition running out of options

By Kuthula Matshazi

SINCE the Zanu PF conference in December last year when delegates did not adopt any resolutions, there has been extensive opinions expressed about 2007 being a watershed year where we would see major ransformations in the ruling party.

The main claims were that some members of Zanu PF who wanted to assume leadership of the party - which would qualify them to stand as the party’s presidential candidate - were definitely going to block President Robert Mugabe from seeking a further mandate to lead the party with the ultimate aim of ousting him as party leader.

These analysts also told us that the factions, one led by Vice President Joyce Mujuru and the other by Minister of Rural Housing Emmerson Mnangagwa, were going to block the suggestion to have the presidential and parliamentary elections harmonised in 2010 if it meant President Mugabe continuing for the ensuing two years.

These scenarios have however, been rendered irrelevant since Zanu PF has decided to harmonise the elections next year.

Anything is possible in politics, but the palace coup is yet to pass although signs indicate that, as usual, all these scenarios given were wrong. On the contrary, President Mugabe has been confirmed to lead Zanu PF in the harmonised elections that would be held next year. It had always been clear for any pragmatic observer to realise that the scenarios imagined were not possible.

There could have been some grumbling within the ruling party but was it sufficient to cause a palace coup? Our analysts had rightly predicted the presence of factions and the possible damage they would inflict on the party heading towards the elections. If those divisions had not been prudently managed, they were going to tear Zanu PF apart and play into the hands of a fractured and weak opposition.

The problem that clouded the observations of our analysts was their deep hatred of Zanu PF and President Mugabe in particular. This position made them reach conclusions that did not tally with their evidence they built up to justify their position. Was Zanu PF going to allow itself to fracture like the MDC and as a result jeopardize its re-election chances? Unlike MDC, Zanu PF has so far managed its divisions well. Zanu PF factions always close ranks when they realise that an issue threatens party stability.

Our analysts failed to see that or they considered the view, but thought it would not fit into their desired scenario where President Mugabe is supposed to be ousted. Alternatively, our analysts knew that their conclusions were just
imaginary scenarios, but were bent on promoting internal revolt. Only amateurish and reckless politicians could do that.

MDC had also been waiting at the margins to capitalise on the ouster of President Mugabe. The party knew that the palace coup was going to result in a divided and weakened Zanu PF. It had even upped its gamble of causing further disharmony in the Zanu PF government by engaging in mass action.

Unfortunately for MDC, first, the envisaged palace coup did not happen and secondly, its mass action programme, as usual, did not succeed. To make matters worse, the Southern African Development Community leaders, ironically through MDC pressure, have by accident thwarted whatever plans of removing President Mugabe since they recognised him as a legitimately elected leader.

By placing the Zimbabwe situation before SADC, the MDC has locked the situation within the confines of the regional body. Its actions are now restricted, to a great extent, to moving forward the negotiations within the SADC framework. South African President Thabo Mbeki this week expressed that he is working to secure a mutual understanding among all stakeholders in time for the 2008 elections when the harmonised elections take place.

The MDC got what it strongly advocated for: the intervention of SADC. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, the MDC would be hard pressed not to initiate, while negotiations are ongoing, any political campaign that contradicts the SADC spirit of engagement. The MDC can only engage in such campaigns in disregard of SADC. But that would be suicidal, as it would alienate itself from the only people – the SADC leaders -- who are capable of helping its political project.

This means, therefore that MDC has locked itself in a position where its choices of action are limited considering that they had intended to capitalise on the situation in the country and within Zanu PF to make huge concessions that would even include weakening President Mugabe’s government.

With the SADC initiative operational, the MDC cannot afford to do any of that. It is now forced to negotiate with President Mugabe and Zanu PF – even if its Western backers abhor such a move. Also, MDC will have to face President Mugabe in an election next year since Zanu PF has chosen him to be their presidential candidate.

Therefore, unless something really dramatic happens, there is nothing that is likely to happen to President Mugabe this year contrary to dramatic analyses that we were subjected to towards the end of last year and early this year.

Inadvertently, by calling for regional intervention, Tsvangirai has led himself to the same road that we could have taken seven years ago of engaging Zanu PF. Then, he had flatly refused to get into negotiations with Zanu PF, but now seven years later, he is doing exactly that. That surely, says much about Tsvangirai’s sense of judgment.

If he had foresight, he would not have gone to the West for mediation but the Africans. He also could not have called for economic sanctions that have plunged Zimbabweans into the worst economic crisis. He was counseled on all these matters, but he decided against considering this progressive route. Now out of ideas and at the dead end, he is negotiating with Zanu PF and specifically with President Mugabe. Could we then say he is selling out MDC or, as he likes to say, “the people’s struggle”?

Granted, MDC might correctly argue that the fact that it has engaged with SADC is a demonstration of its commitment to a negotiated settlement. However, how would MDC defend its previous stance of turning away from the African leaders and Zanu PF in the past seven years and instead courting Western leaders?

Kuthula Matshazi is a Zimbabwean journalist and blogger writing from Canada. Visit his blog: http://kuthula.blogspot.com

JOIN THE DEBATE ON THIS ARTICLE ON THE NEWZIMBABWE.COM FORUMS
debate@newzimbabwe.com