Sceptics have tended to answer any discussion about South African policy on the Zimbabwean crisis with the riposte: “What policy?” They appear to have been right. Eighteen months on, there is little evidence the government has set clear goals to avert a catastrophe. And there is even less to suggest our government has decided on the means that will deliver its objectives, let alone set about developing those instruments. The latest absurdity was the two-day meeting in Harare this week of ministers from the Southern African Development Community. Having been led to believe that our own president, Thabo Mbeki, was now determined to get tough with Robert Mugabe’s regime and that this week’s meeting would evince this new tone the SADC ministers, our own representative included, could scarcely have been more obliging. Most of the blame for this must rest with Mbeki. He has determined that he should run our relations with Zimbabwe. He entrusts the odd encounter to his close friend, the peripatetic Minister of Foreign Affairs Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma when she can be tracked down in Asia, or North America, or South America, or Australasia, or wherever. But he and she seem agreed that the department of foreign affairs should be excluded from the issue. As president, Mbeki is entitled to behave thus. It is his prerogative. But we are as entitled to examine the product of this behaviour and to say as we do now that South Africa’s approach on the most important foreign policy issue in our region is an inchoate mess. Likewise, we are entitled to say that our approach would benefit greatly from formative input from the experts in the Department of Foreign Affairs, the universities and institutes. Similarly, Mbeki’s decision to send his close friend the Labour Minister, the intellectually blunt Membathisi Mdladlana, to represent South Africa at this week’s Harare meeting was both inappropriate and foolish. We now know that Zimbabwe’s presidential elections are likely in March next year. This gives us a time line. It is short. But it is long enough to demand of Mugabe iron-clad guarantees that he will hold free and fair elections; all parties will be free to organise, campaign and canvass; foreign observers will be allowed in the country for the three months leading up to the poll; his government will act against any individual or organisation fomenting violence; and that he, his party, government and security forces will abide by the outcome of any election declared free and fair by the SADC and the Commonwealth. The time line is also long enough to decide the consequences for Mugabe if he fails. These could include expulsion from the Commonwealth and other forms of political isolation. Further down the line, there would have to be a willingness to intervene directly. We must fill the policy vacuum on Zimbabwe as a matter of urgency. … and justice for all The Constitution gives everyone the right to equal protection and benefit under the law. This remains, however, little more than lofty aspiration if indigence denies access to justice. Though the Legal Aid Board has improved the means by which the poor obtain legal representation, it cannot meet this need alone. There are still millions of people in this country unable to afford or gain access to legal services. This makes the call by Lawyers for Human Rights (LHR) for legal practitioners to undertake more pro bono work a worthwhile one. As LHR has noted, there is an unfortunate tendency to hold the government solely responsible for providing legal services to the poor or, for that matter, to correct South Africa’s deep-seated inequities. Individuals particularly professionals can play a significant role in transforming society. It is premature to dictate that lawyers be legally obliged to do a certain amount of pro bono publico work. But we believe it is a moral obligation that they should accept and that their professional associations should explore fully, with the government and those lawyers working among the poor, how to do so. Doctors do community service, while no such obligation exists for lawyers who rate among South Africa’s highest earners. In the closing years of the apartheid era, many more lawyers than now offered free legal representation. But the struggles against poverty and inequality are no less pressing than the struggle against racism. Lawyers have a clearer role to play than most professions in helping people overcome their disadvantage or marginalisation. Doing so would not only be a contribution towards the public good; it might also go a long way towards breaking down Joe Public’s fear of the law as an inaccessible Sanhedrin of white, black-gowned men. In the New Year lawyers renowned for their commitment to human rights, legal associations, legal clinics, associations of law students, university law departments, the Department of Justice and others need to get together to decide how best to improve access to the legal system. We propose the gathering concentrate not on lofty talk but on practical measures. We would suggest imaginitive incentives for lawyers doing pro bono work, such as tax breaks.
If the law cannot be made to help the poor and weak, why have it at all?