President Robert Mugabe’s taunting of Lindiwe Zulu should not be dismissed simply as hot air; it is part of a grand plan which will become very clear in the next few weeks. Report by Nevanji Madanhire
Zulu is the spokeswoman of the Southern African Development Community (Sadc)-appointed facilitation team headed by South African President Jacob Zuma. What she says obviously reflects the thinking not only of her boss Zuma, but also that of the regional body that appointed him mediator to the Zimbabwean crisis.
In dismissing Zulu as “some stupid, idiotic woman”, Mugabe has taken a stab at Zuma himself and the regional body also. It’s simple; if someone says of George Charamba, Mugabe’s spokesman, he is “some stupid, idiotic man” the jibe cannot just end at Charamba.
Addressing supporters who attended the launch of the Zanu PF manifesto at Zimbabwe Grounds on Friday, Mugabe cleverly juxtaposed his attack on Zulu (and, as corollary, Zuma) with praise for some members of Sadc whom he said were acquitting themselves well and therefore had “good sense”.
This divide-and-rule approach to Sadc is all very common. The regional body has not been known to think homogenously; Mugabe has friends and foes in it. It is in his favour that the in-coming chairperson of Sadc is none other than Malawian President Joyce Banda who confessed to having been charmed by the old man during her recent state visit. His foes would include Botswana President Ian Khama who is outspoken on the need for democracy in Zimbabwe. The rest fall in between and can be swayed one way or the other.
It would seem Zanu PF’s grand strategy is to prepare the nation for a pull-out from Sadc. This means Zanu PF wants to win the harmonised elections at any cost, pulling the country out of Sadc if the regional body protests.
Mugabe said, “Let it be known that we are in Sadc voluntarily. If Sadc decides to do stupid things, we can move out.”
Mugabe pulled Zimbabwe out of the Commonwealth in 2003 in similar circumstances.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
But what are the “stupid things” that Sadc could do?
Sadc might insist the election roadmap, as agreed to in the Global Political Agreement (GPA), be followed to the letter and spirit before the elections are held, failure of which it could refuse to accept the result, a precedent it set when it condemned the bloody June 2008 presidential election runoff.
At the summit in Maputo last month, Sadc reiterated the importance of the roadmap and had asked Mugabe to work towards an extension by two weeks of the period running up to the elections to facilitate the implementation of all reforms spelt out in the GPA.
Zanu PF has refused to implement the reforms and has insisted elections will be held on July 31 with the playing field as skewed as it is. What this means is that the elections are already contrary to the Sadc principles guiding free and fair elections. Some of the hurdles to a free and fair election are too glaring for Sadc to ignore. The voters’ roll is in a mess and hundreds of thousands of people have been disenfranchised by a frustrating voter registration process whose duration was truncated to serve a certain purpose. Media reforms have not been made, meaning only Zanu PF will have limitless access to public newspapers, radio and television while other political players are blocked. The use of abusive language and hate speech against political opponents will continue unabated in the public media.
Faced with such a lopsided playing field, competing political parties — especially the MDC-T — are sitting on the horns of dilemma: they either participate in the flawed poll or withdraw. Zanu PF seems to prefer, or even push for, the latter. The impunity with which they have treated Sadc intervention so far indicates they are prepared to go it alone, hence Friday’s threat of a pull-out.
If they choose to boycott the elections, competing parties — especially the MDC-T — would have played right into the hands of Zanu PF. If one of them — say MDC-T — pulls out, the elections could still have some legitimacy because other parties would have participated. Pulling out of the elections could only work if all parties competing against Zanu PF join the boycott; hence Zanu PF is so afraid of the mooted grand coalition.
On Friday Zanu PF was in panic mode when it erroneously thought the grand coalition had come to pass; state media went into overdrive denouncing the non-existent coalition.
But why is Zanu PF so afraid of the grand coalition?
As stated above, the grand coalition could pull out of the elections if the playing field remains uneven, thereby rendering the poll illegitimate in one go in the face of Sadc, the African Union and the world at large. This would be a huge blow to Zanu PF’s grand strategy of winning the elections at any cost.
Zanu PF will therefore encourage Professor Welshman Ncube’s MDC to keep out of the grand coalition. It seems to already have won Zanu Ndonga over to its side. It would also be happy to have former ally Dumiso Dabengwa run in the presidential poll just to give it a veneer legitimacy.
Another reason Zanu PF is afraid of the grand coalition is that it would surely deliver the whole Matabeleland vote to Morgan Tsvangirai. This, combined with what Tsvangirai would pick up in Masvingo and Manicaland, which he won in 2008, would make it very difficult for Mugabe to win the presidential election.
Recently held Zanu PF primary elections showed the grand old party is deeply divided. The idea of an opposing coalition might be too juicy to resist for some of its disgruntled members who would happily kick the ball into the forest (bhora musango) during the match. Bhora musango is what affected Mugabe’s chances in March 2008 and history could repeat itself this month.
Zanu PF is encouraged in its waywardness by events elsewhere on the continent. The weakness of the conflict resolution mechanism in Africa has seen countries as diverse as Madagascar and Central African Republic ruled by rogue regimes without any effective intervention. Only last week, all the African Union could do was to suspend Egypt in the face of an unconstitutional removal by the military from power of an elected government. In Zimbabwe too, the military element is very real and might carry the day if the electoral process collapses.
It is clear Mugabe and his party have something up their sleeve.
