Zimbabwe’s opposition might have agreed to an accommodation with Zanu-PF after the ruling party told South African President Thabo Mbeki’s mediators the next phase of the talks would involve discussions of broader political reforms, opposition sources say.
Recently both sides have been keen to play down visions of Mbeki steering the talks.
Labour Minister Nicholas Goche who, with Justice Minister Patrick Chinamasa, negotiated on behalf of Zanu-PF, said this week that 90% of the 20 meetings held since the negotiation process began in May had been ”attended by Zimbabweans alone”. He said ”the South Africans were not there” and that Zimbabweans alone owned the result of the talks.
Mbeki’s influence over the direction of the talks, Goche suggested, was not as significant as was widely believed. ”He [Mbeki] has been nudging us, not forcing us, but nudging us to come together to discuss all the problems we are facing in this country.”
Meanwhile, as Morgan Tsvangirai’s faction of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) held marathon meetings throughout this week, there have been increasing suggestions that the MDC’s decision not to oppose Amendment 18 came on the back of pledges of further discussion on wider reforms.
Amendment 18, which was passed by Parliament last week, essentially reduces Mugabe’s power to appoint legislators, but also allows him to determine his successor should he step down before the end of his mandate.
Tsvangirai’s faction is seen as more radical in its approach to Zanu-PF than the rival MDC faction led by Arthur Mutambara. Last week’s deal has left it facing new divisions over strategy.
Tsvangirai acknowledged the danger of accepting Zanu-PF’s pledge for wider talks, but said this had been ”a necessary political risk”, taken with a view to avoid upsetting the region.
”I fully understand Zanu-PF’s history of duplicity. But this is not just an Mbeki initiative, but a Southern African Development Community initiative. Both the MDC and Zanu-PF recognise that,” said Tsvangirai.
The MDC has struggled to gain the sympathy of regional leaders, many of whom distrust its links to Western countries. Observers said that if the opposition had rejected an agreement it would have faced further regional ostracism.
Tsvangirai said this week that the opposition’s representatives at the negotiations had agreed not to block the amendment after the South African mediation team assured leaders of both MDC factions just days ahead of last Tuesday’s vote that the next stage of the process would address what one MDC official described this week as ”the issues at the core of the crisis”.
According to a confidential document on its strategy for a planned new phase of the talks, which the Mail & Guardian obtained from the MDC this week, the opposition will demand extensive reforms to electoral laws, including allowing ZimbabÂÂweans outside the country to vote.
The document said the MDC wants the discussion to focus on matters that directly challenge the cornerstones of the Zimbabwean government’s policies, such as the role of the military and the distribution of food aid.
”The role of security forces and the military in politics [will be discussed]. Our negotiators shall examine the work of security forces, the secret service, Zanu-PF militia and other agencies with regard to electoral processes,” the MDC paper said.
The MDC also will table ”the use of food as a political weapon” and ”the role of traditional leaders in an election process and the use of violence as an instrument of coercion, particularly in rural areas”.
Analysts doubt the MDC can wring more significant concessions from Mugabe in a fresh round of talks. But Information Minister Sikhanyiso Ndlovu also said this week that last week’s agreement was only a basis for further negotiation.
”The agreement was actually only reached quickly because we have elections coming. We had to agree quickly on that. There are other negotiations, on a broader range of aspects, still to come.”
Reactions to the adoption of Amendment 18
Paul Themba Nyathi, director of elections in the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) faction led by Arthur Mutambara, dismissed the suggestion that the MDC had sold out last week by supporting Amendment 18.
Nyathi said the provision that Parliament elect a president in the event of the incumbent resigning or being incapacitated was not unique to Zimbabwe and many other countries routinely did the same.
While admitting that people have a right to be suspicious of the latest move, Nyathi called for caution and said President Robert Mugabe could not afford to fool the MDC because he was dealing with the Southern African Development Community and the African Union too, both of which want to see a peaceful resolution of the Zimbabwe crisis.
He said the MDC was right to assent to the amendment because Zanu-PF could have used its two-thirds majority in Parliament to elect a successor to Mugabe anyway.
Nyathi said the MDC had to do this in the hope of a process that delivers the constitution before next year’s polls. ”Political parties should take political decisions while civic society exercises its oversight role,” he said, referring to the outcry from civil society, which criticised the MDC deal.
Jacob Mafume, a coordinator of Crisis Coalition Zimbabwe, said the civil society movement’s anger arises from the fact that the process was not inclusive. ”It has to be approved by the people. We can’t just Google a constitution,” Mafume said.
He described the process as fraught with dangers. He compared the situation with that of the 1987 Unity Accord, which swallowed Zapu — the main opposition party led by the late Joshua Nkomo. ”We don’t want another unity agreement,” he said. ”We can’t possibly believe the many problems in Zimbabwe can be solved by Zanu-PF and the MDC agreeing on anything.”
Gwinyayi Dzinesa, a lecturer in international relations at Wits University, said the amendment might be proof that ”Thabo Mbeki and the SADC are making a breakthrough”. He argued that the amendment ”addresses the shortfalls in the democratic institutions and the powers of the president. What remains to be seen is how the process will accommodate civil society at the local level to ensure legitimacy and also normalise Zimbabwe’s diplomatic relations with the international community”. — Mail & Guardian reporter