VOL.15 NO.11 Nov 21, 2003

IBPP Research Associates: Zimbabwe The following article was posted in the November 16, 2003 issue of The Standard (Zimbabwe) at http://www.samara.co.zw/standard. (Unedited by IBPP) -----Regime change’ no, genuine transition yes In the light of recent developments including the emergence of a shadowy organisation calling itself the Zimbabwe Freedom Movement whose reported aim is to topple the government, and the flurry of diplomatic activity ahead of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Abuja, Nigeria, it is important to restate once again, the case for Zimbabwe. Yes, Zimbabwe is a country in distress. For the people of this country it is hell on earth. Things have really fallen part. It is not worth living any more. The dead are in fact better off than the living. More than 90% of Zimbabweans have been reduced to abject poverty literally scavenging to keep body and soul together. They are surviving by the grace of God. A once thriving economy is in terminal mode. President Mugabe and his ruling Zanu PF party are living in denial of the consequences of their greed, power, arrogance, political egotism and bravado. How a man who was once revered as a genuine revolutionary can run down his country like this is mind-boggling. And yet in the midst of all this, talk of ‘regime change’ is anathema and abhorrent to most Zimbabweans. Even in a situation in which the 2002 Presidential election was stolen in broad daylight. Why? Because the consequences of a ‘regime change’ are too horrendous and too ghastly to contemplate. The scope for potential disaster will be huge. The stakes will be too high, the political terrain too complex and the actors and interests far too many and interwoven for a simplistic notion like replacing one leader and one regime with another to work. It is, instead, to the idea of a negotiated transition and bargained outcome that we must look to in Zimbabwe. ‘Regime change’ and a negotiated political settlement might have the same result – the removal of a post-colonial despotic leader and kleptocrat — President Mugabe — but the two differ in many crucial respects. ‘Regime change’ is based on the false assumption that simply replacing one individual (President Robert Mugabe) with another (opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai) equates to democracy. Even if we accept that President Mugabe is seen as the personification of all that has gone wrong in this country, we are nevertheless not taken in by such an over-simplification of issues. History is replete with many examples where this is not the case. One only needs to look next door at the Zambian case to see the serious limitations of such an approach. Negotiated political transition, in turn, places a lot of emphasis on mutual Negotiated political transition, in turn, places a lot of emphasis on mutual outcomes and seeks to accommodate the positions of all sides. They stress win-win, not zero-sum outcome. Most Zimbabweans have a vested interest in the political stability of the country and that peace and stability can never be brought about by ‘regime change’. More importantly, a negotiated settlement seeks to spell out clear rules of the game by which the participants in the transition are expected to live. There are enough men and women of goodwill in the ruling party who are committed to dialogue and a negotiated outcome and who want to see that commitment followed by concrete action. It is in the context of re-building a Zimbabwe free from civil strife and instability that Presidents Mbeki and Obasanjo are striving for a negotiated transition in this country — although of course nothing tangible or concrete has been seen on the ground yet. What is needed in Zimbabwe is a kind of soft landing and not a hard and violent one. To most Zimbabweans, this is the only road of hope. They understand that a negotiated political settlement will ensure that the change when it arrives (and it is inevitable) will not arrive like a destructive storm but a pleasant gust of refreshing wind. Fortunes in the country can then be turned around in an atmosphere of peace and stability. And it is our plea and hope that those non-African external powers who are addressing and actively engaged in the issue of restoring democracy in Zimbabwe such as Britain , Australia, Canada, US and the EU are guided only be a desire to encourage a genuine transition rather than ‘regime change’. There is no doubt that there is an important role for external forces to encourage, persuade, apply pressure and even adopt some punitive measures, but the intention must remain that of helping trigger a well-planned restoration of democracy. Indeed, the need for a carefully crafted changeover to a new political and economic order that would be based on democratically decided rules which would be able to sustain democracy well into the future cannot be overemphasized. President Mugabe, for his part, must appreciate that human destiny is a choice and that his selfish, arrogant and greedy quest for status based on a permanent hold of power has had terrible consequences for Zimbabwe and its people, the Southern African region and the entire world. You might hate Morgan Tsvangirai with a passion, Mr President, but as Zimbabweans you need to work out the grammar of co-existence with him. In any event, Zimbabwe is much bigger than any individual including you Mr Mugabe. You do not normally negotiate with your friend, you negotiate with your ‘enemy’. It is just that simple! And please take advantage of people who are trying to assist and facilitate the process. Stop blaming outside forces. Nobody owes Zimbabweans a living. You now have a very narrow window of opportunity at least to begin to stem the tide. As you are now in the sunset of your life, please Mr President, negotiate your exit and give other people a chance to make mistakes as well — minus of course the Jonathan Moyos, the Mades, the Chinamasas and Chombos of this world.

Copyright © 2002, IBPP Online All Rights Reserved.
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University