|
First
published: 3rd Aug 2009 01:00 GMT |
By Chenjerai Chitsaru
THE reasons for the slow pace of a complete rapprochement between Zanu PF and the two MDC formations range from the bizarre to the sublime.
A weird one is this: President Robert Mugabe is gunning for a round figure – 30 years in power. We are speaking here of keeping him in the saddle until 2010. By that time, Morgan Tsvangirai will be 58. He is reckoned, even by the soothsayers in their dark, soot-infested huts in the remotest parts of the hinterland, to be the next president.
Mugabe will be all of 86 years old. Assuredly, he has not been visited by the mental and physical ravages that often inflict themselves on other such old people – politicians, journalists, sculptors, vendors, prostitutes or novelists and Popes.
But 86 is not 58 or even 66.
Another theory, peddled by people scarcely able to say anything decent or coherent about Mugabe as a politician goes like this: the old man wants to ensure that, by that time, he has so mesmerized Tsvangirai with his gift for the gab, that the former trade unionist will have become a virtual clone of the Grand Master.
He will therefore be able to use words such as “modalities” with eloquence and authority, like the consummate practitioner of Doublespeak that Mugabe has become.
We can safely dismiss as harebrained another theory that Amai Gracde Mugabe won’t leave State House until the new residents swear not to change the Persian rugs she installed in the master bedroom – a gift from the Iran government.
Apparently, any tampering with this perfect sample of what the original Persian artistry ought to look like might lead to a rupture in diplomatic relations.
Such are the strange tales of woe being told of the possible problem plaguing the chances of success for the talks. Some have, uncharitably, called it the “real canker”, but others prefer to restrict themselves to “problem"´which really amounts to the same thing, except that the former is spoken with rage, while the latter is…sober?
Theories abound on what has angered Zanu PF so far. They did expect Tsvangirai to score Zero on his mission to raise funds for the inclusive government among the Western countries that imposed sanctions on Mugabe and his coterie of helpmates.
But they did lift the sanctions and Tsvangirai did not return empty-handed: there were millions from the NGOs, obviously on the instructions of the governments.
None of that money will pass through Gideon Gono’s hands. Some of the Zanu PF leaders might view this as being of little consequence. But gestures such as this are replete with political symbolism.
But the apparatchiks in Zanu PF are no slouches when it comes to such subtle political games. They know this was a slap in the face. The party got little out of the trip, except for opprobrium.
Underlying the roots of a lack of settlement is something which neither side would want to discuss fully in public: Mugabe’s determination to carve a niche in African history. Will he be remembered by posterity as the man who allowed Zimbabwe to achieve its real pot6ential – by quitting the scene while there was an opportunity to let a fresh set of hands take the wheel? Or is he determined to hang on until, as some might say, there is no more rope left? In other words, will he keep at it until even his supporters begin to believe the ship is sinking – unless someone else takes the wheel?
By the time he leaves office, he may have blown his party’s chances of ever returning to power.
Many long-time observers of Zimbabwean politics believe Zanu PF should have worked out a retirement package for their leader shortly after the ink had dried on all signatures to he Global Political Agreement last September.
Mugabe had not exactly been impeached by a Parliament of his peers. But the decision of the electorate amounted to something equivalent to that. His defeat by Tsvangirai sent a powerful MESSAGE to his party, to himself and to the world that he had lost it – whatever talisman he had possessed to sustain his popularity among the people.
His exit then could have been decent, dignified and an example for future generations of leaders.
In a way, he showed the same defiance and lack of faith in Fate displayed by another president, Richard Nixon of the USA.
In a review of The Memoirs of Richard Nixon, published in The New Statesman in 1978, Clive James said:
“Nixon could never see his strength for what it was. He was forever augmenting it with unnecessary cunning. If he was less clever, he might have lasted longer. But he always felt that he needed an edge – he had to get the bulge on the other guy…”
Most of Mugabe’s supporters might argue thaw he is not just clever, but is intelligent, which others might find a little too swallow. If he had accepted the defeat with a modicum of grace, even his most implacable critics might have sheathed their claws and allowed him to ride off into the sunset with his dignity intact.
But he had to be clever, didn’t he? Now, with only a month before the first anniversary of the GPA, we are no nearer to a final agreement than we were a year ago.
To many people, Mugabe is the real problem hampering the way to a final solution to the problem. Unfortunately, he seems to have convinced his fellow African leaders that it would be an unforgivable political sin against Africa were he, ,with his record of fighting imperialism (and winning?) were to be reduced to slinking away from the scene in disgrace, vanquished by what some of them call “fellow travelers of imperialism”.
The tired, old theory that if he had his way, Mugabe would have accepted the 2008 presidential verdict and made away for Tsvangirai, is wearing a little thin. Mugabe is not like that, say his critics, even those in Zanu Pf.
Many Zimbabwans must have been rudely reminded of what some of them have called his “character flaw” by the recent death of Patrick Kombayi, something of a nemesis of Zanu PF since his challenge to the late Simon Muzenda in the 1990 parliamentary elections.
The attempted assassination of the former mayor of Gweru was one of the most naked demonstrations of Zanu PF’s embrace of violence as a stock-in-trade of politics. The two men arrested, charged and convicted of the crime were subsequently pardoned by Mugabe.
Kombayi, crippled for life, was not one to lie down and vegetate politically. He had backed Zanu PF to the hilt, particularly from Zambia, where he was a rather successful hotelier in the little town of Kafue, during the struggle.
Admittedly, his style was abrasive and, as the first black mayor of Gweru, there were those who thought he was quite difficult to get used to. But he was strong-willed, even in his impaired physical condition. He still challenged Zanu PF and won a seat in the Senate for the MDC-T in the 2008 elections.
If there was another Heroes Acre reserved for people who were indubitably opposed to Zanu PF’s policies – and were prepared to pay the ultimate price for their positions – then Kombayi would have been interred there.
The new doctrine of “forgive and forget”, symbolised most graphically in the process of national healing led by the leaders of the three parties calls the softening of hearts towards former foes. There has not been any mention of the cold-blooded murders of Tichaona Chiminya and Talant Mabika.
Perhaps this is as it should be. A Zimbabwe scarred by the memories of the blood of innocents has little chance of freeing itself from the dark, bloody past. It would aid matters considerably if leaders such as Mugabe were to indicate, in some graphic way, that they, personally, feel repentant, that they know now that they made grievous mistakes, even as revolutionary politicians, and feel, they ought to, seek their compatriots’ forgiveness.
That would aid in easing the pain of citizens whose relatives were victims of this thoroughly needless carnage. It could herald the solution to a problem that has plagued us since three parties formed an inclusive government which has, nonetheless, failed to include a widespread reconciliation among the people. |
print
article
ANALYSIS OF ‘PROBLEM’ BEHIND PROBLEM