Mutumwa Mawere

On 15 October 2009, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC-T) announced that it had severed ties with ZANU-PF within the government, which it accused of acting in bad faith and in contravention of the Global Political Agreement (GPA).

On the same day, Messrs Chanakira and Moxon issued a joint-statement advising shareholders that agreement had been reached to resolve the outstanding issues related to the demerger of Kingdom Meikles Africa (KML).

Like KML, the government of national unity (GNU) was a product of negotiations that were facilitated by SADC to put Zimbabwe first and subordinate whatever partisan interests might have informed the actions and decisions of the two principal parties.

In the case of KML, two principal parties led by Chanakira and Moxon came to an agreement that it was in the interests of both organizations they represented to form one politically, racially, and commercially integrated organization.

Mr. Chanakira became the first black CEO of the combined group and it was indeed a cause for celebration as this transaction represented a market-based seamless integration of "old" and "new" money and more importantly between "black" and "white" capital.

It did not take long for boardroom squabbles to erupt between Chanakira and Moxon over corporate governance, values, beliefs and principles and significantly on what kind of organization they wanted to see.

As a result, accusations and counter-accusations spilled into the public domain. Commercial transactions done in the name of KML were challenged amid allegations of externalization, which then led to the specification of Moxon in January well as his family, and subsequently companies deemed to be associated with him.

In the face of a relationship problem characterized by lack of trust and respect, the only avenue open was divorce. The agreement signed on Thursday last week marks the end of a journey that started with a lot of promise but ended in acrimony.

What is significant is that an agreement to part ways was reached and now the job to recreate the pre-merger architecture begins.

On the political front, the GNU is the government of the day. It is not a partnership in so far as the actors are expected to relate to the state.

Under a unitary government, the head of the state is in that position as an agent of the universe of Zimbabweans organized in form of a nation state and once he takes an oath of office he did so as a covenant to serve the state and not his political constituency.

Equally, the Prime Minister ought to be the head of the Council of Ministers and his role should be defined.
The Constitution of Zimbabwe has no provision for a "two in one government" and the same was true for KML.
What is evident is that the relationship between the two principals i.e. President Mugabe and his Prime Minister is not a healthy one.

What is the practical effect of the decision by MDC-T to suspend its engagements with ZANU-PF in government? To the extent that all the state actors are required to take an oath to serve the Republic, it is not clear how political party affiliation becomes relevant in the matters of state. For example, Zimbabwe has one Minister of Finance and he is in that position as a custodian of public resources and not partisan resources.

What seems evident is that there are deep-seated challenges that confront the GNU as the ones that confronted KML. Clearly there are ideological issues that are bound to present intractable challenges to any marriage of the nature of the GNU and KML beyond the interests and personal preferences of the principal actors.

President Mugabe believes he is in charge and equally Chanakira believed that he was in charge of KML. ZANU-PF believes in the justice of its cause and it is resolute that the land question is closed.

The fact that the treatment of Roy Bennett by the GNU has been offensive to the spirit of the GNU exposes the fact that President Mugabe is not prepared to appoint him in his government as a Deputy Minister of a ministry that he believes to be a sensitive and strategic one.

Although the constitution confers on all citizens the same inalienable rights, ZANU-PF holds the view that the past has a memory and, therefore, the only way the country can move forward sustainably is to use the state to redress the historically generated economic distortions and this may invariably infringe on the rights of people like Bennett but there is simply no alternative as the current condition was a product of history and deliberate actions of human beings.

To this end, Bennett is just a pawn in a bigger fight about what kind of Zimbabwe the actors want to see. Feelings against racial superiority, neo-colonialism and imperialism are just too strong to ignore.

On the KML, the real fight may ultimately have had little to do with the principal actors but the conflict between deeply held values, beliefs and principles that continue to divide people than unite them.

To what extent can "old" and "new" money co-exist or even thrive under a common control is a question that the KML saga has provided an eloquent answer.

After the unbundling of KML, control still resides where it was in the pre-merger era suggesting that the framers of the merger were alive to the risk of blindly assimilating themselves to a new and untested structure.

The GNU is an untested entity and, therefore, it is hardly surprising that after eight months of pregnancy there is talk of suspending the pregnancy. How can pregnancy be suspended? What is clear is that ZANU-PF and MDC-T sought to retain the residual right to revert to the pre-GNU era and their collective commitment to the state may have been compromised from the outset.

ZANU-PF remains intact and equally MDC-T remains intact. When problems surfaced between Moxon and Chanakira surfaced, the black directors took a position to align themselves on racial grounds.

The black directors took the same view to suspend dealing with Moxon but remained on the board of KML. This is no different to the decision made by MDC to fight the battle inside the melting pot.

Will the GNU end with an agreement between Mugabe and Tsvangirai to divorce amicably? If so, who will be in control of the state? The GNU was a necessary instrument to deal with legitimacy issues created by the voters during the 2008 general elections.

All the friends of Zimbabwe including SADC have accepted that an outcome that will see any of the two bulldogs exclusively controlling the state would not be legitimate. Both Mugabe and Tsvangirai are acutely conscious of the consequences of the GNU breaking down.
The only viable solution would be to go back to the shareholders who must decide on how they want to be governed.

The GNU like KML cannot be expected to advance the interests of all the stakeholders and, therefore, shareholders must decide as they did in June to approve the demerger of KML. What Moxon and Chanakira were then forced to do was to give life to a decision of shareholders at a general meeting. They had no choice but to put whatever egos they had aside.

It is obvious that the GNU can never deliver its mandate given the values, beliefs and principles that inform the actions of the principal actors.

ZANU-PF holds the view that there is nothing inconsistent with the principle of the rule of law and the manner in which not only Makamba/Kuruneri/Muponda/Tsvangirai/Biti/Mutambara and others were treated during the pre-GNU period but also Moxon/Mukoko/Bennett and others after the formation of the inclusive government.

A strong view continues to be held notwithstanding the existence of the GNU that it is up to the accused to prove their innocence in a court of law.

In the case of Bennett, a view is held that he must be reminded that he is a second-class citizen.

The underpinning view is that anyone perceived to be an inheritor of advantages conferred by an unjust colonial system must not and never be seen to be enthusiastic about issues like the rule of law, property rights and justice in post-colonial Zimbabwe.

This dispute is an emotional one but what is now required is for people to reflect on what Zimbabwe would say if it had the voice to speak.

Would it be satisfied with the call for lifting of sanctions when the state can and is used as an instrument to intimidate and harass citizens?

If Zimbabwe needs foreign investment from the West, then can a rational argument be made that white people are not welcome to identify with the Zimbabwean cause?

If the rule of law is restored, is it only white people who stand to benefit?

Moxon remains specified, as are his companies.
To remove specification will require not just the efforts of Chanakira but our collective voice to register our concern that a society in which the state interferes with commercial disputes invoking legislation that would not pass the constitutional muster is fundamentally wrong.

The Zimbabwe Stock Exchange (ZSE) and the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) have to play their part lest the integrity of Zimbabwe's capital markets is irretrievably undermined.

After the KML saga, who would want to have directors and shareholders who are politically connected and powerful to rent the state? The state must focus on doing what all governments should be good at.

The decision to suspend dealing with ZANU-PF may be flawed in its construction and motivation but what is instructive is that no amount of propaganda can mask the fact that no progress will be forthcoming from a marriage of convenience where the willpower to change is missing in action.

It is never too late to bite the bullet and accept the inevitable in the interests of Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe needs stability and certainty.

MDC-T and ZANU-PF can learn from the KML saga that ultimately hard choices have to be made.