|
Power-sharing deal: More power to despots
By Levi Obijiofor
Friday, 19 September 2008
The power-sharing agreement signed this week in Zimbabwe between Robert Mugabe’s ZANU-PF and Morgan Tsvangirai’s Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) has been described in superlative terms as a “landmark deal”. I prefer to call it a “deal” that endorses Mugabe’s despotic rule in Zimbabwe. The “deal” also exposed Tsvangirai’s perfidious political ambition and his betrayal of all those MDC supporters who lost their lives in the struggle to institutionalise genuine democracy in that country.
No sooner did Mugabe and Tsvangirai sign on the dotted lines than their supporters erupted in celebration. On paper, there is reason to celebrate. Zimbabweans, in particular supporters of the opposition MDC, have not known peace for a long time. The agreement paves the way for the return of peace in a country long wracked by state-sponsored violence. For many years, political thugs under the pseudonym of “war veterans” were used by the state to espouse Mugabe’s political ideology of totalitarianism.
Having tasted authoritarian power for long, Mugabe was determined to hang on to executive power at all costs. He would not allow a western political contraption known as democratic elections to be used to remove him from the presidential mansion to which he has become accustomed. As the saying goes, power intoxicates but absolute power intoxicates even more absolutely. For much of the past 28 years of his grip on power, Mugabe ruled with iron fist and has grown increasingly intolerant of criticisms of, and opposition to, his dictatorship.
The political agreement should also be noted because it promises to kick-start the Zimbabwean economy which had been in a state of coma for more than a decade. On these two counts – economic revival and the return of peace – reside good reasons for optimism about the likely outcomes of the agreement between Mugabe and Tsvangirai. It is in these contexts that one might acknowledge that the power-sharing arrangement that compelled the grand old fox of Zimbabwean politics to cede some power is worthy of celebration. Beyond those two points, there are other reasons to be wary of the Zimbabwean “deal”.
To be brutally frank, the so-called “deal” in Zimbabwe has succeeded in rewarding Mugabe for his anti-democratic credentials, for his tenacious grip on power, for his long-standing contempt for the democratic process and, above all, for trampling on the wishes of voters in Zimbabwe. It might sound like a “big deal” when people argue that the Zimbabwean arrangement should be commended because it has managed to get Mugabe to relinquish some of the roles (even if minor) he had appropriated for nearly 30 years. If this is what everyone now refers to as progress in Zimbabwe, I am not persuaded by that argument.
There is as yet another dangerous dimension to institutionalising power-sharing as a way to resolve political deadlock in Africa. Power-sharing may have the unintended consequence of encouraging sit-tight leaders in Africa to fortify their positions of not relinquishing power even when election results show they have lost. In full knowledge that power-sharing arrangement can be used to retain a modicum of their dignity and authority, African dictators can bargain their way into remaining in office even when voters have officially withdrawn their mandate. Olusegun Obasanjo must be cursing his luck that he was not given that kind of opportunity to negotiate a power-sharing deal in Nigeria that would have enabled him to extend his tenure beyond the constitutionally approved two terms.
Far from being celebrated as Africa’s unique solution to political disputes, the Zimbabwan power-sharing deal and a similar arrangement that ended the bloodbath in Kenya earlier this year, should be seen as unhelpful and short-term solution to long-term and deep-seated problems. What would it profit Africa to keep dictators in office in defiance of the will of voters?
If totalitarian leaders in Africa become all too aware that they can easily negotiate their way honourably through a power-sharing arrangement, they would continue to pay lip service to the democratic process of choosing political leaders. Is the untested Zimbabwean arrangement so foolproof that commentators are already recommending it as Africa’s unique way of resolving disputes? Quite frankly, if elections no longer serve as a valid way of selecting political leaders, there is no point in wasting human and financial resources to organise elections in Africa.
In a critical sense, nothing much has changed in Zimbabwe other than Mugabe relinquishing a few minor roles. Constitutionally, the key powers still reside with him. He remains the president and commander-in-chief of the army. Tsvangirai, on the other hand, has been appeased with the crumbs that fell from Mugabe’s table. He is prime minister and head of the police. But the loyalty of the police is yet to be tested. In a country in which the police have shown loyalty to Mugabe for the past 28 years, it is hard to see how the police hierarchy would shift their allegiance from Mugabe to Tsvangirai so soon.
The power-sharing “deal” which was crafted to end the violence, the bloodbath and the economic meltdown in Zimbabwe might appear to be a logical way to move the country forward but it negates completely the suffering, the torture, the intimidation, and the harassment to which the opposition MDC supporters were subjected for much of the period of the struggle for positive change.
Did thousands of the MDC supporters lose their lives or have their eyes plucked and their arms and legs chopped off by Mugabe’s terrorists so that Mugabe and Tsvangirai can share power? Is power-sharing between two former political enemies indicative of positive change in Zimbabwe? The “deal” in Zimbabwe might be justified under the cliché that “half a loaf is better than none” but there are instances in which a morsel of a loaf does not contribute to the resuscitation of a hungry person.
Tsvangirai appears particularly power-hungry. Perhaps in his judgment, any power would do. Here was a man who was bashed several times, brutalized and left for dead by Mugabe’s security agents signing an agreement to share power with Mugabe. Here was a man whose party -- the MDC -- won the March 2008 parliamentary elections but was manipulated dishonestly in the presidential election now excited about sharing power with Mugabe who refused to respect the wishes of a majority of the voters. How desperate can a politician be? Or could it be, as some people have tried to justify, that Tsvangirai entered into the political “deal” to help save his country’s economic demise by attracting western investors into Zimbabwe in order to resuscitate a comatose economy.
Anyhow you look at it, the power-sharing arrangement in Zimbabwe is a reward to Mugabe for all the years he abused his own people, for all the years he supervised the collapse of the economy, for the years he tortured journalists and banned free press in Zimbabwe, for all the years he abused the constitution, and for the years he terrorized the ethnic groups that were opposed to his regime.
The losers in the power-sharing deal in Zimbabwe are not Mugabe and Tsvangirai but the common people who risked their lives to vote in the parliamentary and deadlocked presidential elections in March 2008 (and in previous elections) in the expectation that their votes would lead to positive change in their country’s leadership.
African political leaders, including other world leaders who have hailed the Zimbabwean power-sharing deal have willingly or inadvertently endorsed the preservation of malevolent dictators in Africa and indeed the emergence of newbreed despots in the continent. There is something insidious and inconsistent about international politics. In some countries, the West would have rushed to declare Mugabe a war criminal for the torture and elimination of his political opponents, not to forget his record of gross human rights abuses. It is amazing that Mugabe still commands a lot of respect from a significant number of African leaders.
|
Authors 
Posted by Robot| 21.09.2008 17:52