Mutumwa Mawere

Notwithstanding the fact that the sovereignty of Zimbabwe is constitutionally in the hands of citizens, the post election negotiations facilitated by President Mbeki exposes the fragility of the democratic order and confirms the view widely held during the colonial era that there was a need to prepare natives education and gradual acquisition of property rights before allowing them to be full participants in the democratic order. 

While it may be absurd for a country to go through an electoral process and then proceed with negotiations that on the face of it go a long way towards undermining the sovereignty of citizens, the stakes are so high in Zimbabwe that the interests of citizens have been reduced to a subsidiary status to the interests of the two contesting individuals i.e. President Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai.

When Zimbabwe attained independence in 1980, no one had an idea that 28 years later an absurd occurrence would unfold where the sovereignty of the people of Zimbabwe would once again be privatised and subordinated to the whims of an incumbent and his circle of friends.

It is expected that a memorandum of understanding (MOU) will be signed on Monday, 21 July 2008 by the three negotiating parties i.e. the two MDC formations led by Tsvangirai and Mutambara, respectively, and President Mugabe, after the incorporation of representatives of the UN, AU and SADC as the reference group by President Mbeki. The Zimbabwe's power-sharing talks will now be back on track after the signing of the MOU outlining the framework for talks about talks. The appointment of the reference group was in response to the preconditions for talks set by the MDC.  

The regionalisation and internationalisation of the contestation for political power in Zimbabwe highlights the complexity of the nation building project and the unexpected turn of events that have combined to render the post colonial promise of democracy meaningless and redundant. While it is generally agreed that Zimbabwe needs to turn a new leaf, it is evident that President Mugabe has already drawn a line on the sand about what is negotiable and what is not.

Whereas the West has discounted any possibility of embracing an outcome that will leave Mugabe at the helm, it does appear as if such an outcome is the most likely possibility. It is significant that the MOU sets out the conditions for talks about talks, including the procedures, agenda and a time frame in which talks are to be completed but ignores the serious ideological questions that need to be resolved if the country's prospects for progress is to be realised.

At the core of the crisis must be located the poisonous economic views still held by President Mugabe.  While the negotiations are underway, President Mugabe has still not accepted that he bears any responsibility for causing the economic and political crisis. He continues to hold the view that governance, macro-economic management, corruption, respect for the rule of law and property rights issues are irrelevant to the resolution of the Zimbabwean crisis.  If anything, he still maintains that these issues are an invention of external forces that are determined to access the rich mineral and other resources.

He believes that sanctions were imposed at the behest of the MDC and the starting point to any negotiations ought to be an acceptance by all the parties that sanctions must be lifted.

The framing of the issues that are to be negotiated appear to favour President Mugabe. The tone and language of President Mugabe has not changed to suggest that he is prepared to change the manner in which he has presided over the economy.   In as much as sentiments of economic nationalism may compel any rational mind to support the land reform program, it must be accepted that the manner in which it has been implemented has worsened the economic crisis. 

President Mugabe continues to make the case that there will be no change of economic direction on the land issue but he fails to demonstrate how the country can go forward in the face of what is clearly a man-made disaster.

The editorial in the Herald (Harare) entitled "Deal firmly with economic saboteurs" published last week on 18 July highlights the kind of thinking that informs the economic policies of President Mugabe's administration. 

It is alleged in the editorial that the government of Zimbabwe (GOZ) provided fertiliser companies with US$10 million to import raw materials for the manufacture of 25,000 tonnes of fertilizer.  However, after 90 days since the advance of funds, no fertilizer was made available because the companies need more working capital. 

President Mugabe has already warned the companies to supply the fertilizer as promised or risk losing their business and freedom.  The editor was urging the government to take punitive action against the so-called economic saboteurs.  Governor Gono added his voice to the call to hold the alleged beneficiaries of the Basic Commodities Supply Side Intervention Facility (Bacossi) accountable through extrajudicial measures. The RBZ announced that it was going to engage local producers including small businesses to undertake toll manufacturing of basic commodities. 

We now learn that the RBZ/GOZ has established warehouses specifically designated for the program as part of an import substitution program.  It was reported that imports of essential commodities were being facilitated and financed by Russian/Ukrainian investors and a Namibia-based company owned by Dr. Raymond Chamba. 

It is significant and instructive that Gono had this to say on the initiative:

"We want to engage companies to produce for the State and become viable in the process. We will provide them with raw materials and they will then produce goods, which will be sent to warehouses countrywide for distribution.

This (the basic goods distribution programme) is an opportunity for these companies and even for small businesses which we can also engage under the toll manufacturing arrangement.  The idea is to see an increase in the local production of these goods which will then go to the people at affordable prices. If they do not want to produce, we will still import. It has been proved already that the goods can be imported and sold at affordable prices even after taking the worst case scenario on inflation and exchange rate projections.  This is a pilot programme which we will perfect as we go along."

Would anyone ever have thought that independence promise would lead to a new construction in which the state could substitute citizens as customers of goods and services?  We have no choice but to interrogate the economic framework under which companies are now converted to agents of the state. When the state becomes a residual guarantor of market efficiency then one must know that the wheels are off. 

The continued politicization of the RBZ and state institutions signals that the thinking of President Mugabe has not changed and the message from the voters has not been taken to heed.  The RBZ has effectively been reduced to a super state with absolutely no accountability.

The behaviour of Gono exposes a fundamental fault in the constitutional order that now permits the RBZ to assume investigative and prosecutorial powers to deal selectively with political enemies or to protect political allies as the exigency dictates. The role of the RBZ in attacking the criminal justice system and its opportunistic use in undermining the rule of law ought to have been issues for discussion in the SADC-led negotiations. 

The Zimbabwean political history since 1980 has blurred the distinctions between government, executive and the ruling party. There is a tendency to regard the RBZ and the government as one.  It is disturbing that no one in government has tried to set the record straight about the functioning of the RBZ.  It is also disturbing that the two MDC formations have not taken a firm position on this issue.

The core values that are necessary for a democratic society to exist and prosper are being eroded daily by the actions of the very state that should be focused on upholding such values.  It is, therefore, of little use for citizens to insist on accountability by the government as a cardinal principle of a democratic order if the RBZ is the principal driver of undermining the institutional order that has served Zimbabwe well in terms of production.

There continues to be a reluctance of those in power or who can effect change to recognise that ideologies that disregards the human spirit and initiative will not assist the country to map a viable future. It would have been helpful if at this eleventh hour there was recognition of the failings of the state in efficient resource allocation.  President Mugabe cannot point to any success story involving state institutions as drivers of economic and social change. It is clear that the path that the RBZ continues to ride on will not address the economic challenges that confront the country. 

The question for all of is this: What future is there for Zimbabwe's non-racial constitutional democracy if consensus has not been created about fundamental issues of right and wrong, if the debates about the conduct of the government are still racially contextualised each time nation building issues are raised. 

The RBZ cannot get away from right and wrong.  It should operate amidst values - values that guide the construction and viability of the state as an institution funded by citizens from income generated from their own enterprises and initiatives.  No state founded on the principles that now inform the conduct of the RBZ has ever succeeded and, indeed, the level inflation in Zimbabwe is a reliable barometer of a nation going in the wrong direction. Without values and principles the RBZ cannot exist and the custodians of such a value system ought to be the political actors on the stage. 

If there is no agreement on right and wrong among the economic actors, if there is no consensus on when it is legitimate for the RBZ to be called to account for undermining the rule of law and constitutional order, if the racial fractions of the past continue to disable criticism and debate, then the new Zimbabwe that everyone is expecting from the negotiations may just well be a mirage.

There is no choice but to look to the negotiating partners for guidance, for principled leadership, and for moral clarity and economic stature.  Is this realistic? It is a challenge that may prove pivotal in determining whether the current engagement among the political actors will succeed in moving the country in the right direction. Judging from what is on the table, it is safe to fasten one's seat belt because the future is clearly uncertain.