South Africa

My initial response to this article asserting that Simba Makoni has quite a challenge ahead of him was to wonder what sort of moron might argue anything to the contrary. Fortunately, though, the reporter goes deeper than the “no tea party” argument:

Makoni’s real challenge is to show he has the clout to attract enough grassroots support to fend off an already dirty campaign against his candidacy, and to prove he can forge the difficult alliances with senior Zanu-PF officials and elements from the opposition that he needs to weaken Mugabe.

There are two factors involved, of course: One is whether or not Makoni can drum up the necessary support. I believe that he can. Between dissident Zanu-PF members and the existing opposition groups, most notably the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), makoni should be able to draw a great deal of potential voters. This all assumes that someone in the MDC, such as Morgan Tsvangirai, does not choose to run as well, which will split the vote. (It would also tell us anything we need to know about any MDC member who pursued the presidency during this period of cautious optimism for Makoni.)

The second factor is probably more important: Even assuming Makoni poses a serious challenge to Mugabe, will he really be allowed to run a campaign without the threat of violence, without facing trumped-up charges, and without general interference from Mugabe and his henchmen? Furthermore, even if Makoni is able to pursue the presidency, will his supporters be allowed to vote, will those votes count, and will all votes be tabulated fairly? The odds, I fear, are not good on this front.

It almost certainly comes as a shock to absolutely no one that Robert Mugabe has acted in bad faith and announced unilaterally (even as he has been in the midst of negotiations with the factions of the Movement for Democratic Change) that elections will be held on March 2. Now the MDC is scrambling to figure out what to do. Their options are circumscribed: The opposition can choose to boycott the elections, guaranteeing another Mugabe victory, which the wily tyrant will depict as a mandate, or to participate in elections that are pretty certain to be a sham, in which Mugabe secures victory, thus claiming a mandate. This frustrating hobson’s choice encapsulates the frustration of politics in Robert Mugabe’s brutocracy.

Stephanie Hanson, news editor for the Council on Foreign Relations, recently interviewed Morgan Tsvangirai, the MDC’s most visible leader. Tsvangirai gives thoughtful answers to questions on a host of issues, though at time the hopelessness of the opposition’s plight seems almost tangible in his words. He expressed his wish for the world’s response to the situation in Zimbabwe:  “The elections that are forthcoming in Zimbabwe must be raised to the same level like Darfur. There must be an international outcry.” But what has the west’s supposed outcry (which frankly seems rather muted and is by any measure ineffectual) accomplished in Darfur? About as much as it has in Zimbabwe.

Tyrants only know one language, and that is the universal lingua franca of power. Power does not have to mean force, though force is never far from power. Until Mugabe is forced to change, to relent, or to cede control, he will do none of those things. The same can be said for Omar al-Bashir and the thugs he empowers in Darfur. Hand wringing is not enough. It never is.

Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of the main opposition party to Robert Mugabe’s ZANU-PF, has broken his rceent silence to explain why the increasingly splintered Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) acquiesced to the recent Constitutional changes that Thabo Mbeki helped broker. Speaking in Masvingo at the party’s eighth anniversary celebrations, Tsangirai argued that “The objective of talking to Zanu PF is to create a free and fair election environment in this country.” I still wonder if the MDC compromises qualify as pragmatism, optimism, or desperation and suspect that there is a convergence of the three elements involved. 

Philip Gourevitch has a fine piece in the latest New Yorker about the plight of Zimbabwe. There is not a lot that will be new to readers of this blog, but it provides a nice summary of Mugabe’s treachery and South Africa’s laissez faire response.

Thabo Mbeki is worried that eleven months is not enough time to provide a climate for Zimbabwe to hold free and fair elections. SADC appointed Mbeki to serve as mediator between Robert Mugabe’s ruling ZANU-PF, which put the old tyrant up as the party’s candidate to serve another term in office, and the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) and other opposition organizations.

I have no doubt that Mbeki will serve in this capacity conscientiously and possibly even well. But the entire conceit is flawed from the outset. By asking Mbeki to mediate SADC has, unintentionally or not, given Mugabe moral equivalence with the opposition and has given Mugabe its imprimatur. Furthermore, without the capacity to force Mugabe’s hand, it is rather unclear how observers can ensure elections that are either free or fair.

The 2008 elections may not necessarily be characterized by ruthlessness or violence, though almost assuredly there will be some of both in the run-up to the polls. But Mugabe has created a climate where most of the corruption and fear is already instilled in the population. It is difficult to envision a scenario in which the opposition or outside observers will be able to level a playing field already titlted against fairness. This is one of the many reasons why the equanimity of “mediation” is flawed from the outset. Mugabe has already cooked the books, as it were. An even-handed approach thus favors the home team, and there is no greater political home-field advantage than that Mugabe’s ZANU-PF has rigged for itself. 

If Mbeki wants cover to promote change in Zimbabwe, the United States appears set to provide it: The US has made it clear that it is behind the Zimbabwean opposition even though thus far Washington has been unwilling to use the term “regime change.” SADC and Mbeki face the perfect storm for forcing the hand of Mugabe. Mbeki continues to pursue the cautious route, to defer to an old ally against white supremacy and colonialism long after that alliance has been shorn of either relevance or utility.

First off, I want to apologize if any of you feel as if I have allowed the crisis in Zimbabwe to hijack the South Africa blog. But all along I have cinceived of this as a blog about Southern Africa, with South Africa at the center. Right now the events in Zimbabwe are arguably the most salient on the continent outside of Sudan, and as long as that is the case, I’ll feel a sense of responsibility to cover that crisis wherever it leads.<p>

In potentially explosive move the 14-nation Southern African Development Community (SADC) on Monday called for “an extraordinary summit” in Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania. Southern African leaders have scrambled to change schedules to consider Zimbabwe’s crisis.  SADC intends to deal with the crisis that Robert Mugabe has wrought in his reeling homeland. There is talk from former information minister under Mugabe and now opposition leader Jonathan Moyo that Mugabe is facing his last days. Moyo has talked about possible coups and how Mugabe’s back is against the wall.

It is certain that the region’s leaders intend to send a clear message to Mugabe who will have his chance to respond but who must feel as if the vice is squeezing. Knowing this, before he took off for Tanzania Mugabe today had Morgan Tsvangirai, the Zimbabwe opposition leader who was brutally beaten by Mugabe’s police last week, arrested with a number of other opposition members.

As Moyo points out, it is unlikely that this summit will end with any sort of ultimatum or even harsh words of condemnation. That tends not to be how SADC works even when expressing displeasure with one of their own. But the message will be clear. Mugabe will have to clean up the mess he has made or he will become an official regional pariah and he will no longer be able to expect even begrudging support from the region. They will encourage him to retire. Perhaps they will find a way to allow him to do so without losing face. recently there were indications that Namibian President Hifikepunye Pohamba might be willing to provide Mugabe with a cushy exile.  Such a solution might not represent the ideal outcome for those who might want to see true justice done, but now is not the time to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

One of the major reasons why this blog, putatively devoted to South Africa, has so emphasized Zimbabwe thus far is that beyond the obvious significance of Zim right now, the country also represents South Africa’s biggest foreign policy challenge. It is too facile to assert that South Africa is doing nothing as so many obeservers have in recent years. But it is also true that Thabo Mbeki’s quiet diplomacy has been both too quiet and too diplomatic.

One wonders if the news  out of Zimbabwe in recent days will push Mbeki into a more aggressive stand. Mugabe’s most vocal opponent, Morgan Tsvangirai, who leads one of two factions of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) was arrested along with other individuals after a rally this past weekend. It appears clear that Tsvangirai has been tortured or at least brutally beaten, and although a court order has been issued demanding that Tsvangirai and the others be given urgent medical treatment and access to lawyers, so far Mugabe’s police have defied the court.  (For more coverage see here — be sure to check out the links at the end of the article as well.)

Mbeki’s lack of obvious action with regard to events across the Limpopo is in its way understandable and yet ultimately feckless. It is understandable because Mugabe still stands as something of a liberation hero in the region and he provided tremendous aid to the South African struggle against apartheid in the 1980s. But at a certain point loyalty can be misplaced. Mbeki’s fecklessness in avoiding confrontation with the ANC’s old ally has the appearance of wilfull blindness in which Mbeki overlooks the very sorts of atrocities against Africans that the anti-colonial struggles fought so hard to overcome.

If for no reason other than self interest one would think that Mbeki would take a harder line against Mugabe. Presumably South Africa will want to be able to have some role in helping to rebuild a New Zimbabwe when it finally emerges. But by coddling, or at least appearing not to want to challenge Mugabe publicly, South Africa is abdicating its role, its opportunity, as a regional power. It is also sacrificing its credibility among masses of Zimbabweans.

“Silent diplomacy” has failed, however sensible and even noble the discrete approach must have seemed to those in the position to shape its contours. It is time for the ANC, with Thabo Mbeki in the lead, to say “no more” and to show that it means business in doing so. South Africa is the most powerful nation in the region. Given the fact that the EU and UN have condemned the latest behavior of Mugabe’s henchmen and that the rest of the world largely seems to be following suit, Mbeki has both the means and the opportunity to act and in so doing to prove South Africa’s status across the continent. The only question that remains, then, is whether he has the will to do so.