Date: 02/12/2003
Source: South African Institute of International Affairs
Title: Leon: Roadmap to Democracy in Zimbabwe
SPEECH BY TONY LEON MP LEADER OF THE DEMOCRATIC ALLIANCE SOUTH AFRICAN INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS JOHANNESBURG
Road Map to Democracy in Zimbabwe
Introduction
In 1991, a prominent African leader stood up against injustice in a neighbouring land. "The cry for freedom as well as the cry for justice stops at no border," he declared.(1)
That leader was Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe. He was speaking in Harare, opening the Commonwealth Heads Of Government Meeting that would decide to begin lifting the people-to-people sanctions that had been imposed against South Africa. "As you stand on Zimbabwean soil," President Mugabe said, "only a stone's throw away from South Africa, the world expects us to spare no effort in helping to achieve an outcome there which will bring comfort to the oppressed people of South Africa".
It is now well past time that South Africa returned the favour. Quiet diplomacy is dead. It breathed its last in the waning days of November, when Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo announced that he would not, after all, be allowing Zimbabwe to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Abuja, which begins later this week. It is a decision that stands in stark contrast to South Africa's initial position, which is that President Mugabe should have been allowed to attend the meeting even though his government had been suspended from participation in such gatherings.
Presidential spokesperson Bheki Khumalo protested: "We are going to engage with President Obasanjo as the host of the summit so that an invitation will be extended to President Mugabe" (2)
Thankfully, President Obasanjo stood his ground. Those who support President Mbeki's approach to Zimbabwe often complain about the amount of attention devoted to Zimbabwe. They say that it is only because whites are being victimised that the world has taken such an interest. For some critics, perhaps that is the case. But not for most.
The critical issue here is that one of Africa's brightest hopes has been turned into one of Africa's most dismal failures. In an era in which our continent is meant to be embarking on an African Renaissance, when it has committed to the high principles of the New Partnership for Africa's Development, Zimbabwe is both an obstacle and an embarrassment.
Consider this statement by President Mugabe on the night of his victory in Zimbabwe's first democratic elections: "We will ensure there is a place for everyone in this country. We want to ensure a sense of security for both the winners and the losers. I urge you, whether you are black or white, to join me in a new pledge to forget our grim past, forgive others and forget, join hands in a new amity and together, as Zimbabweans, trample upon racism". (3)
Two decades later, President Mugabe turned his back on these ideals, and instead chose the path of racism and hatred. His betrayal tears at the conscience of every true African patriot, every person who hopes that today's commitments to freedom, unity and prosperity will be honoured tomorrow as well. In any event, the decision by Nigeria to bar President Mugabe from attending the Commonwealth Heads Of Government Meeting is a major milestone. For the first time in the post-apartheid era, an African head of state will be refused entry to an international diplomatic meeting to be held on African soil.
It now seems that there are deep cracks forming in the consensus among African states that has supported President Mugabe thus far. From here onwards, the momentum may continue to build in the direction of greater pressure on the Zimbabwean government.
President Mugabe has responded by threatening to take the "Verwoerd option" - withdrawing from the Commonwealth to avoid further sanctions, just as South Africa did during the apartheid era. If he follows through with his threat, he will only take his country in the direction of greater sanctions, and expose himself to increasing pressure from African states.
Even South Africa may eventually have to turn away. It has been clear for a long time indeed that quiet diplomacy could not possibly succeed. The reason is simply this: that quiet diplomacy is not a strategy. It has no clear goals. Still less does it have any firm principles. Quiet diplomacy is just a diplomatic tool, useful in some situations but not in others. It is a means, not an end. That is why it had to fail.
The failure of quiet diplomacy
Quiet diplomacy failed three times, to be exact. The first was at the government-to-government level, when President Thabo Mbeki tried to use quiet diplomacy to change Zimbabwean policies on land reform. That is, at least, what he claimed to be doing. But instead of stopping the disastrous land reform process, they gave it their blessing. Instead of halting the violations of human rights and the abuses of power, quiet diplomacy gave these a rubber stamp of approval.
The second time that quiet diplomacy failed was in the attempt by President Mbeki to encourage talks between the Zanu-PF government and the Movement for Democratic Change. For six months, we have been assured that these talks have been going on. In late May, for example, President Mbeki wrote in the Guardian that "as neighbours, we will encourage ZANU-PF and the MDC to sit down together to agree on a common response to the challenges their country faces".(4) On 8 July, speaking alongside President George W. Bush of the United States, President Mbeki declared: "We have urged the government and the opposition to get together. They are indeed discussing all issues. That process is going on". (5).
This was immediately and vigorously denied by Morgan Tsvangirai of the Movement for Democratic Change. Whatever talks may be ongoing, they have produced no results. They have not led to any formal negotiations or progress of any sort.
Finally, the third time that quiet diplomacy failed was through the variety of diplomatic back-channels that were used. The church leadership in particular tried to effect some kind of change. It failed, despite the best intentions of the religious leaders involved. Archbishop of Cape Town Njongonkulu Ndungane tried valiantly but ran into diplomatic obstacles, both at home and abroad.
It was never quite clear to anyone precisely what quiet diplomacy was meant to accomplish. Was it supposed to bring about a fresh round of elections - free and fair this time? Was is meant to bring about a transfer of power within a "reformed" Zanu-PF, with strongman Emmerson Mnangagwa at the helm? Was it meant to bring about some kind of government of national unity? South Africa‚s treatment of the Zimbabwean opposition has been shameful.
President Mbeki's public embraces of President Mugabe and his Zanu-PF cronies contrast sharply with his studied avoidance of Morgan Tsvangirai.
The ANC‚s unswerving loyalty to its fellow liberation government has undermined any claim it might have wished to make as to the even-handedness of its approach. This, of course, reflects the ANC's attitude towards political opposition more generally.
It could not bear to nominate a respected member of the official opposition to be part of South Africa's delegation to the Pan African Parliament. Colin Eglin MP of the Democratic Alliance found himself replaced by Boy Geldenhuys of the New National Party. Such is the disdain of the ANC for real opposition that it would rather have our country represented by a former deputy minister in the apartheid government than by a lifelong friend of democracy in Africa.
We know that the only constant in life is change. But that might seem a rather optimistic attitude in light of the last three years of steady decline in Zimbabwe. The only changes there have been for the worse.
Time and time again, there have been hopeful reports in the South African media suggesting that change is imminent. In April 2000, the Financial Mail reported that President Mbeki had "taken a tough line with Mugabe in their behind the scenes talks". On 15 June 2001, the Cape Argus announced that South Africa was adopting a harsher stance towards the Zimbabwean government. On 2 August 2002, the Star reported that Mbeki had called for a tougher approach to Zimbabwe. And again in 2003, there were reports in March that President Mbeki had urged President Mugabe to end the process of land reforms.
Meanwhile, the Zimbabwean government announced yesterday that it was amending the country's land reform laws to make seizing farms even easier, waiving the requirement that a notice of acquisition be served personally to the owner of the land.
Each and every time these hopeful stories have appeared, their expectations have been crushed.
The same is true of President Mbeki's assurances of progress. Each and every time he has made them, they have proved to be worthless.
Last year, President Mbeki told the ANC's 51st National Conference: "We are ready to engage both our ally and fellow liberation movement, ZANU-PF, and all others concerned, to help resolve the various issues in a constructive manner". (6)
During his State of the Nation address in Parliament this past February, he pledged: "We will also continue to work with the people of Zimbabwe as they seek solutions to the problems afflicting their country. We hope that sooner rather than later these solutions will be found through dialogue among the leaders of this neighboring country". At the World Economic Forum in Durban in June, President Mbeki predicted that a solution to the crisis in Zimbabwe would be found within a year.(7). In July, he reportedly promised US President George W. Bush that President Mugabe would step down by December.(8).
All of these pledges have come to naught. Just yesterday, Zanu-PF ruled out any discussion of a successor to President Robert Mugabe at the upcoming party conference.
So much for President Mbeki's promises of a change in leadership. The truth, of course, is that the ANC is not really interested in reform in Zimbabwe, or in democracy, or in human rights. It is primarily interested in stability.
As Samantha Power observed in the Atlantic Monthly: "President Mbeki and other African heads of state are torn. On the one hand, they know that an African renaissance can't come about while Mugabe and people like him continue to wield power. On the other, they are power-hungry themselves, and they are terrified that their own liberation-era organisations will be left behind in such renaissance. So they close ranks on racial and anti-imperial grounds". (9).
The latest issue of Sephadi, the ANC‚s parliamentary newsletter, declares: "Zimbabwe is a sovereign country and not the tenth province of South Africa. The government's responsibility is never to interfere in the domestic affairs of other countries. People of our country know what is the fundamental question in Zimbabwe". (10)
Notwithstanding these pledges of neutrality, the government has failed to deny reports in a Nigerian daily newspaper last month that it offered to campaign for whichever Zanu-PF candidate President Mugabe nominated as his successor. Where the South African government could easily have intervened, it has refrained from doing so. It has failed, for example, to stand up for the rights and interests of South African farmers and business owners in Zimbabwe.
The ANC also has a great deal of sympathy for President Mugabe's land reform programme. It remains willfully blind to the fact that land reform was never the issue in Zimbabwe. It was political power, pure and simple.
Only once President Mugabe lost his constitutional referendum did he embark on his campaign of land evictions. The results have been disastrous, as we all know.
In 1997, Zimbabwe had the fastest-growing economy in Africa. Now it has the fastest-shrinking economy in the world. Inflation has risen to 526 percent and is still climbing. Agricultural production has collapsed. Maize yields are down 67 percent; tobacco production is down 75 percent; and wheat production is down a staggering 90 percent.(11). Life expectancy has collapsed to a mere 35 years.(12). The Commercial Farmers' Union reports that only 600 of its members are able to continue farming as they had three years ago, compared to 4500 before the land reform programme began.(13). Human rights violations have continued without pause. There were at least 58 political killings last year, along with torture and other forms of abuse.(14). Last month, over 100 trade union leaders and civic activists were arrested during peaceful demonstrations.(15). The independent media have been quashed and the government has used its control over food aid to harm its political opponents.
But despite all of the destruction and despair, one thing remains true: one day Zimbabwe will be liberated. Of that, there can be no doubt. The only question is when, and how.
Five possible futures
There are five approaches on the table, some of which are more realistic than others.
The South African approach.
South Africa‚s transition to democracy was achieved through broad, multi-party negotiations that were open to all groups that had renounced violence.
We sometimes like to think this model is exportable to other parts of the world. However, it presumes a basic willingness among the parties to deal with each other.
President Mugabe still seems determined to crush the opposition if he can. His recent threat to withdraw from the Commonwealth also suggests a profound hostility towards change.
For the past six months, President Mbeki has claimed that progress was being made in informal negotiations between the Zanu-PF government and the opposition Movement for Democratic Change. But there is no real evidence of that progress.
In the absence of serious political pressure from other African states, especially South Africa, it is difficult to see President Mugabe settling down to serious deliberations about the political future of his country.
The Georgian approach.
Last month in the former Soviet republic of Georgia, demonstrations led by opposition parties were successful in encouraging President Eduard Shevardnadze to resign. The transfer of power was bloodless, a "velvet revolution".
That would be a happy scenario for Zimbabwe. But it is an unlikely one, given the fact that the military and the police are so loyal to the ruling party. President Mugabe also commands the loyalty of paramilitaries such as the infamous war veterans and the Green Bombers.
The Indonesian approach.
Behind the carefully-guarded fa
Source: South African Institute of International Affairs
Title: Leon: Roadmap to Democracy in Zimbabwe
SPEECH BY TONY LEON MP LEADER OF THE DEMOCRATIC ALLIANCE SOUTH AFRICAN INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS JOHANNESBURG
Road Map to Democracy in Zimbabwe
Introduction
In 1991, a prominent African leader stood up against injustice in a neighbouring land. "The cry for freedom as well as the cry for justice stops at no border," he declared.(1)
That leader was Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe. He was speaking in Harare, opening the Commonwealth Heads Of Government Meeting that would decide to begin lifting the people-to-people sanctions that had been imposed against South Africa. "As you stand on Zimbabwean soil," President Mugabe said, "only a stone's throw away from South Africa, the world expects us to spare no effort in helping to achieve an outcome there which will bring comfort to the oppressed people of South Africa".
It is now well past time that South Africa returned the favour. Quiet diplomacy is dead. It breathed its last in the waning days of November, when Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo announced that he would not, after all, be allowing Zimbabwe to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Abuja, which begins later this week. It is a decision that stands in stark contrast to South Africa's initial position, which is that President Mugabe should have been allowed to attend the meeting even though his government had been suspended from participation in such gatherings.
Presidential spokesperson Bheki Khumalo protested: "We are going to engage with President Obasanjo as the host of the summit so that an invitation will be extended to President Mugabe" (2)
Thankfully, President Obasanjo stood his ground. Those who support President Mbeki's approach to Zimbabwe often complain about the amount of attention devoted to Zimbabwe. They say that it is only because whites are being victimised that the world has taken such an interest. For some critics, perhaps that is the case. But not for most.
The critical issue here is that one of Africa's brightest hopes has been turned into one of Africa's most dismal failures. In an era in which our continent is meant to be embarking on an African Renaissance, when it has committed to the high principles of the New Partnership for Africa's Development, Zimbabwe is both an obstacle and an embarrassment.
Consider this statement by President Mugabe on the night of his victory in Zimbabwe's first democratic elections: "We will ensure there is a place for everyone in this country. We want to ensure a sense of security for both the winners and the losers. I urge you, whether you are black or white, to join me in a new pledge to forget our grim past, forgive others and forget, join hands in a new amity and together, as Zimbabweans, trample upon racism". (3)
Two decades later, President Mugabe turned his back on these ideals, and instead chose the path of racism and hatred. His betrayal tears at the conscience of every true African patriot, every person who hopes that today's commitments to freedom, unity and prosperity will be honoured tomorrow as well. In any event, the decision by Nigeria to bar President Mugabe from attending the Commonwealth Heads Of Government Meeting is a major milestone. For the first time in the post-apartheid era, an African head of state will be refused entry to an international diplomatic meeting to be held on African soil.
It now seems that there are deep cracks forming in the consensus among African states that has supported President Mugabe thus far. From here onwards, the momentum may continue to build in the direction of greater pressure on the Zimbabwean government.
President Mugabe has responded by threatening to take the "Verwoerd option" - withdrawing from the Commonwealth to avoid further sanctions, just as South Africa did during the apartheid era. If he follows through with his threat, he will only take his country in the direction of greater sanctions, and expose himself to increasing pressure from African states.
Even South Africa may eventually have to turn away. It has been clear for a long time indeed that quiet diplomacy could not possibly succeed. The reason is simply this: that quiet diplomacy is not a strategy. It has no clear goals. Still less does it have any firm principles. Quiet diplomacy is just a diplomatic tool, useful in some situations but not in others. It is a means, not an end. That is why it had to fail.
The failure of quiet diplomacy
Quiet diplomacy failed three times, to be exact. The first was at the government-to-government level, when President Thabo Mbeki tried to use quiet diplomacy to change Zimbabwean policies on land reform. That is, at least, what he claimed to be doing. But instead of stopping the disastrous land reform process, they gave it their blessing. Instead of halting the violations of human rights and the abuses of power, quiet diplomacy gave these a rubber stamp of approval.
The second time that quiet diplomacy failed was in the attempt by President Mbeki to encourage talks between the Zanu-PF government and the Movement for Democratic Change. For six months, we have been assured that these talks have been going on. In late May, for example, President Mbeki wrote in the Guardian that "as neighbours, we will encourage ZANU-PF and the MDC to sit down together to agree on a common response to the challenges their country faces".(4) On 8 July, speaking alongside President George W. Bush of the United States, President Mbeki declared: "We have urged the government and the opposition to get together. They are indeed discussing all issues. That process is going on". (5).
This was immediately and vigorously denied by Morgan Tsvangirai of the Movement for Democratic Change. Whatever talks may be ongoing, they have produced no results. They have not led to any formal negotiations or progress of any sort.
Finally, the third time that quiet diplomacy failed was through the variety of diplomatic back-channels that were used. The church leadership in particular tried to effect some kind of change. It failed, despite the best intentions of the religious leaders involved. Archbishop of Cape Town Njongonkulu Ndungane tried valiantly but ran into diplomatic obstacles, both at home and abroad.
It was never quite clear to anyone precisely what quiet diplomacy was meant to accomplish. Was it supposed to bring about a fresh round of elections - free and fair this time? Was is meant to bring about a transfer of power within a "reformed" Zanu-PF, with strongman Emmerson Mnangagwa at the helm? Was it meant to bring about some kind of government of national unity? South Africa‚s treatment of the Zimbabwean opposition has been shameful.
President Mbeki's public embraces of President Mugabe and his Zanu-PF cronies contrast sharply with his studied avoidance of Morgan Tsvangirai.
The ANC‚s unswerving loyalty to its fellow liberation government has undermined any claim it might have wished to make as to the even-handedness of its approach. This, of course, reflects the ANC's attitude towards political opposition more generally.
It could not bear to nominate a respected member of the official opposition to be part of South Africa's delegation to the Pan African Parliament. Colin Eglin MP of the Democratic Alliance found himself replaced by Boy Geldenhuys of the New National Party. Such is the disdain of the ANC for real opposition that it would rather have our country represented by a former deputy minister in the apartheid government than by a lifelong friend of democracy in Africa.
We know that the only constant in life is change. But that might seem a rather optimistic attitude in light of the last three years of steady decline in Zimbabwe. The only changes there have been for the worse.
Time and time again, there have been hopeful reports in the South African media suggesting that change is imminent. In April 2000, the Financial Mail reported that President Mbeki had "taken a tough line with Mugabe in their behind the scenes talks". On 15 June 2001, the Cape Argus announced that South Africa was adopting a harsher stance towards the Zimbabwean government. On 2 August 2002, the Star reported that Mbeki had called for a tougher approach to Zimbabwe. And again in 2003, there were reports in March that President Mbeki had urged President Mugabe to end the process of land reforms.
Meanwhile, the Zimbabwean government announced yesterday that it was amending the country's land reform laws to make seizing farms even easier, waiving the requirement that a notice of acquisition be served personally to the owner of the land.
Each and every time these hopeful stories have appeared, their expectations have been crushed.
The same is true of President Mbeki's assurances of progress. Each and every time he has made them, they have proved to be worthless.
Last year, President Mbeki told the ANC's 51st National Conference: "We are ready to engage both our ally and fellow liberation movement, ZANU-PF, and all others concerned, to help resolve the various issues in a constructive manner". (6)
During his State of the Nation address in Parliament this past February, he pledged: "We will also continue to work with the people of Zimbabwe as they seek solutions to the problems afflicting their country. We hope that sooner rather than later these solutions will be found through dialogue among the leaders of this neighboring country". At the World Economic Forum in Durban in June, President Mbeki predicted that a solution to the crisis in Zimbabwe would be found within a year.(7). In July, he reportedly promised US President George W. Bush that President Mugabe would step down by December.(8).
All of these pledges have come to naught. Just yesterday, Zanu-PF ruled out any discussion of a successor to President Robert Mugabe at the upcoming party conference.
So much for President Mbeki's promises of a change in leadership. The truth, of course, is that the ANC is not really interested in reform in Zimbabwe, or in democracy, or in human rights. It is primarily interested in stability.
As Samantha Power observed in the Atlantic Monthly: "President Mbeki and other African heads of state are torn. On the one hand, they know that an African renaissance can't come about while Mugabe and people like him continue to wield power. On the other, they are power-hungry themselves, and they are terrified that their own liberation-era organisations will be left behind in such renaissance. So they close ranks on racial and anti-imperial grounds". (9).
The latest issue of Sephadi, the ANC‚s parliamentary newsletter, declares: "Zimbabwe is a sovereign country and not the tenth province of South Africa. The government's responsibility is never to interfere in the domestic affairs of other countries. People of our country know what is the fundamental question in Zimbabwe". (10)
Notwithstanding these pledges of neutrality, the government has failed to deny reports in a Nigerian daily newspaper last month that it offered to campaign for whichever Zanu-PF candidate President Mugabe nominated as his successor. Where the South African government could easily have intervened, it has refrained from doing so. It has failed, for example, to stand up for the rights and interests of South African farmers and business owners in Zimbabwe.
The ANC also has a great deal of sympathy for President Mugabe's land reform programme. It remains willfully blind to the fact that land reform was never the issue in Zimbabwe. It was political power, pure and simple.
Only once President Mugabe lost his constitutional referendum did he embark on his campaign of land evictions. The results have been disastrous, as we all know.
In 1997, Zimbabwe had the fastest-growing economy in Africa. Now it has the fastest-shrinking economy in the world. Inflation has risen to 526 percent and is still climbing. Agricultural production has collapsed. Maize yields are down 67 percent; tobacco production is down 75 percent; and wheat production is down a staggering 90 percent.(11). Life expectancy has collapsed to a mere 35 years.(12). The Commercial Farmers' Union reports that only 600 of its members are able to continue farming as they had three years ago, compared to 4500 before the land reform programme began.(13). Human rights violations have continued without pause. There were at least 58 political killings last year, along with torture and other forms of abuse.(14). Last month, over 100 trade union leaders and civic activists were arrested during peaceful demonstrations.(15). The independent media have been quashed and the government has used its control over food aid to harm its political opponents.
But despite all of the destruction and despair, one thing remains true: one day Zimbabwe will be liberated. Of that, there can be no doubt. The only question is when, and how.
Five possible futures
There are five approaches on the table, some of which are more realistic than others.
The South African approach.
South Africa‚s transition to democracy was achieved through broad, multi-party negotiations that were open to all groups that had renounced violence.
We sometimes like to think this model is exportable to other parts of the world. However, it presumes a basic willingness among the parties to deal with each other.
President Mugabe still seems determined to crush the opposition if he can. His recent threat to withdraw from the Commonwealth also suggests a profound hostility towards change.
For the past six months, President Mbeki has claimed that progress was being made in informal negotiations between the Zanu-PF government and the opposition Movement for Democratic Change. But there is no real evidence of that progress.
In the absence of serious political pressure from other African states, especially South Africa, it is difficult to see President Mugabe settling down to serious deliberations about the political future of his country.
The Georgian approach.
Last month in the former Soviet republic of Georgia, demonstrations led by opposition parties were successful in encouraging President Eduard Shevardnadze to resign. The transfer of power was bloodless, a "velvet revolution".
That would be a happy scenario for Zimbabwe. But it is an unlikely one, given the fact that the military and the police are so loyal to the ruling party. President Mugabe also commands the loyalty of paramilitaries such as the infamous war veterans and the Green Bombers.
The Indonesian approach.
Behind the carefully-guarded fa
Advertisement
EMAIL THIS ARTICLE SAVE THIS ARTICLE FEEDBACK
To subscribe email subscriptions@creamermedia.co.za or click here
To advertise email advertising@creamermedia.co.za or click here
