Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the main opposition movement in Zimbabwe, says President Robert Mugabe should be offered an honourable way out. But how? Stubborn, oblivious of the damage he is inflicting on his country and the suffering of the individuals caught up in the dramas he has manufactured, Mugabe has paid attention so far neither to threats nor inducements. He is unfazed by international criticism, by the suspension of aid, or by talk of sanctions.
Mugabe could have softened his policies on his return from abroad this week, as some elements in his government seemed to want him to do, but he chose not to.
He has written the script for the next chapter of his political life, and it casts him as a patriotic leader resisting an internal plot led by whites and black traitors and backed by outside forces, notably Britain, determined to destroy Zimbabwe’s independence. Mugabe’s script is mendacious, in the sense that the coalition between white business-people, including farmers, and black opposition groups came into being only after his mismanagement of the country and the economy reached an intolerable point.
It is a reaction, not a plot. But he is right that it represents a threat to him. It may be that his script still includes a bargain with his opponents, or a compromise with international critics. But only on his terms. Mugabe still expects to win.
The main reason his “veterans” are on the farms is so that they can coerce the farm workers, a fifth of the voters, into casting their ballots for Zanu-PF in the elections that are supposed to be held sometime in the coming months.
One question is whether there are substantial elements in the ruling party who feel Mugabe is taking Zimbabwe in the wrong direction. After all, most of the opposition originally came from the Zanu- PF fold. It might be a long wait for such defections, however.
But there is one power that has the means and the prestige to change the situation decisively, which is why the news that President Thabo Mbeki is to make an official visit to Zimbabwe soon – and will be in Harare as soon as Friday – could be very important. As chair of the Commonwealth, he has a mandate to start a process of mediation.
South Africa has obvious moral leverage, and physical leverage, too, in that we supply most of Zimbabwe’s electricity and fuel. We have the means to close Zimbabwe down in a month.
With the co-operation of Mozambique and Botswana, with whom we are at one on most issues in the region, we can close Zimbabwe down even more quickly. Even Mugabe has some grasp of this.
Our government has chosen a two-pronged approach. Both are directed at Zanu-PF. Both rely on stealth and assume the existence within Zanu-PF of a rational, reformist wing with the will and wherewithal to move decisively to replace Mugabe at an opportune moment.
First, the African National Congress is appealing to what little comradeship it developed with Zanu-PF during the liberation struggle to try to achieve this end. Second, the government itself is talking to Mugabe and other senior Zanu-PF members and Zimbabwean notables with, it seems, the same goal in mind. At the same time, the government is making it clear to Mugabe that the current drift of events in that country is unacceptable.
There is much to be said in favour of this strategy. We are the party “engaging constructively” with Zimbabwe. And we have all the power necessary to make our constructive engagement work, if push comes to shove. Put another way, as the “good cop” against the “bad cop” represented by Peter Hain and the British government, we can withdraw our “protection” at any moment. And that is the source of our influence.
The primary consideration in deciding our policy on Zimbabwe must be this: how best can we achieve the desired outcome – ensuring rational government in Zimbabwe and democratic pluralism in practice.
And it is hard to fault Mbeki on how he has proceeded so far, even though the “softly softly” approach appears to have exercised no restraining power on Mugabe, and it is time for an unequivocal South African statement on the crisis.
For the moment, a quiet South African intervention is the one thing that might yet persuade Mugabe to accept a package including a withdrawal of all or most of the squatters; British readiness to reconsider the compensation question; a firm date for elections; Commonwealth help in preparing for fair elections, and Commonwealth monitoring of the vote itself. Given the right impetus by Mbeki, the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, which is due to meet in London at the beginning of next month, might be able to set this in motion.
Our one major reservation is that our government appears to be pursuing this strategy to the exclusion of the obvious alternative. That is recognising the potential of the Movement for Democratic Change to take power in the forthcoming elections, and then to command sufficient support within Zimbabwe’s security forces to dissuade pro-Mugabe elements from wrecking a peaceful handover. Contacts between our government and the movement appear to be extremely weak.
While Mbeki is wise to tread carefully, when he meets Mugabe on Friday, the Zimbabwean president must be left in absolutely no doubt that South Africa, the Southern African Development Community and the Commonwealth are committed to seeing the rule of law, good governance and political pluralism re- established in Zimbabwe.