The current standoff in establishing a new Zimbabwe Government illustrates some fundamental problems with Africa politics. Despite weeks of negotiations and agreement on most of the points presented to form a government of national unity Morgan Tsvangirai of the MDC-T party refuses to append his signature. No agreement can proceed without this. His point is that he feels he deserves the full package of executive powers as if he had genuinely won the election and, absent this, he refuses to be a prime minister or to allow his colleagues to take on the running of ten ministries.

Now, to be technically correct, Morgan Tsvangirai did not win the election. In the first ballot he got more votes than Mugabe and the ZANU-PF but not the majority (50%) which would give have given him victory. In the runoff, which he coyly supported, avoided and then supported again he did not get the majority of votes. In terms of the constitution he did not win the Presidency. Therefore it is a little difficult to understand why he insists he should have full executive power when an elected President has already taken the oath of office.

His party has a majority in the Assembly and his party member has been elected Speaker of the House. There were thirteen points agreed between the parties to the creation of a Unity Government and Tsvangirai initialled all thirteen points. However, having agreed everything he then decided not to sign. On the advice of his overseas advisors, he cited the violence in the period before the runoff election as the determining factor in the election and now suggests that he really would have won without the violence so he was deprived of his full electoral victory. Therefore, the other parties should adjust their reality to reflect that he should have won and should have full executive power.

This delay has caused the schedule of appointing ministers to the new Cabinet to get the country running again. Mugabe has informed Tsvangirai that if he refuses to agree to form a unity government on the lines of the thirteen points he has already agreed and initialled, Mugabe will appoint the Ministers himself without regard for the MDC-T on the grounds that one cannot leave a country without a Cabinet for any extended period. The MDC-T is now complaining that the appointing of new Ministers without reference to the MDC-T would be a violation of the agreement that they didn’t sign.

This delay in agreeing a Government of National Unity is an act of rankest folly which reflects the political immaturity of the MDC and Tsvangirai in particular. Any sensible politician would know that if he played his cards right Tsvangirai’s thirteen points would mean that he had already won. The West had made it clear that the desperately needed foreign investment, aid and monetary support would not be given to Mugabe but to the Prime Minister for him to use. This capability means that Tsvangirai actually controls the very heart of the economic reconstruction of the country. He would become the de facto, if not the de jure, leader of the country. The West could stop its aid and assistance at any time if Tsvangirai said he was not getting his policies through. He would be, in fact, in charge. Tsvangirai demands that the full package of power be dumped in his lap, prettily wrapped, and complete. Nothing in politics works that way. To make the system function takes hard work, planning and dedication. A political arrangement is a ‘living document’. It changes form as it deals with the myriad of small challenges. Tsvangirai does not see this.

Raila Odinga in Kenya took weeks to be persuaded that Kibaki would not voluntarily give up the Presidency in a neat package to Odinga. The bloodshed, displacement of the populations, the rancour, deaths and bitterness of that struggle has tainted Kenya forever. At last Odinga adjusted to the realities and is now gaining power every day through using his position in the co-operative arrangement. It took a lot of suffering to bring this about.

Tsvangirai appears indifferent to the suffering of the Zimbabwean people as he dithers and postures. The longer he delays the harder it is for the Zimbabwean people to readjust their lives with the certainty of awaited assistance. The other members of the MDC who were elected to the Assembly are also eager to start work. Despite their childish bantering of Mugabe at the commencement of the Assembly and the Senate they are ready to begin to work. Tsvangirai is convinced by his overseas advisors that Mugabe and ZANU-PF can’t last long so that if he waits he will inherit it all. This is a very callous attitude towards those he purports to serve and a monumental optimism that Mugabe will not be able to survive in the face of adversity. Experience shows that he can.

This is not only a problem for Zimbabwe and Kenya. It is a problem endemic to Africa. The fundamental problem is that there is no ‘loyal opposition’. There is no government in waiting with shadow ministers and an agreed policy capable of moving into government if elections allow. Africa is run by ‘big men’, sometimes from the military and sometimes from an elite supported by the military. There are more single-party states than democracies. This is a disaster for the African people because changing governments most frequently changes the elites with small concern for the citizens in general. Appointments to Cabinet offices are made by the Big Men based on loyalty, obligations and fear. These politicians are not responsible to their base; they are responsible to the Big Man or big men on top. Kleptocracy is the rule s there are no effective institutions to restrain them.

One major factor of this phenomenon is that in Africa as a whole most paid employment is government employment. Only recently are there private firms which been set up (usually with a large foreign ownership). This has meant that unions are dependent on government budgets for their wages and working conditions; agencies and ministries are in competition for finite resources; and corruption thrives as everyone has his hand out towards the central ruling elite. This is the tragedy of Africa. Government is vertical and there is no room for horizontal representation.

Despite the single-party system in Nigeria (albeit with some rival parties) and a history of Big Men and military rule, there is a change taking place which is very positive. There are many new private companies starting up and expanding. Nigerian banking structures are spreading across Africa and the world. The oil industry has large sections which are private, indigenous companies. The insurance sector and, to a smaller degree, the transport sector are becoming the preserve of private companies. This has meant that the companies earn their own money. They raise capital. They are beginning to set the rules for hiring and remunerating staff. Soon the unions like NUPENG and PENGASSAN will be able to negotiate their wages and working conditions with private employers and not be subject to the arbitrary rules of the Ministry of Labour. Grievances can be handled within the firm. This will have a dramatic effect on Nigerian politics as well. The private sector will not have to be an appendage to the party in power and derive its legitimacy from ties to the Big Men. They can and will become international companies with real interests and demands for a coherent economic plan and structure. This is an exciting time for Nigeria and largely unremarked by the citizenry who continue to struggle with poor housing, foul water, no electricity and deprivation.

One of the things a thriving private sector will demand is real infrastructural changes. They will require good roads, full-scale electric power, modern communications, functioning hospitals, etc. In return they will be required to pay taxes. When this happens there will be an expansion of political parties and the possibility of a ‘loyal opposition’ with real aims and policies.

Unfortunately in many other African states the tragedy of politics will likely continue and political immaturity and self-indulgence continue to deprive the poor people of what they need. If nothing else, Zimbabwe is a classic case.

Robot  # 1 | 21.09.2008 17:52

The fundamental problem with African politics is that there is no ‘loyal opposition’. There is no government in waiting with shadow ministers and an agreed policy capable of moving in...Read the full article.