MDC prevarications must stop
To prevaricate is “to avoid giving a direct and honest answer or opinion,or a clear and truthful account of a situation, especially by quibbling or being deliberately ambiguous or misleading”.
For readers of my contributions, that I am sympathetic to the cause of the MDC is well known. That sympathy is of course born out of the realization that the MDC’s ambitions represent most closely those of the general, simple povo of Zimbabwe.
For that simple position, that the people of Zimbabwe must get their voices heard, the MDC have become agents of emancipation of the povo from their erstwhile liberators. For that reason, the MDC occupies moral high ground in Zimbabwe politics. And Morgan Tsvangirai and his gallant comrades are the embodiment of that hope the MDC is identified with.
I state the above clearly to put the following criticism into context, and this has been prompted particularly by Hon. Biti’s letter to not-so-honourable Thabo Mbeki of the 19th November and the reply by the latter of the 22nd November, both of which are now in the public domain.
My own worry is that the MDC must not overtrade the currency of moral high ground; and consequently, the support and sympathy of the majority of Zimbabweans and those who care for the sorry state that is Zimbabwe presently.
Let me first say the ten-page letter by the former president of South Africa gives one the impression of a letter written late at night over a whisky bottle. It is a letter of two parts, the first part which warrants some consideration of the issues raised, and the second part where you feel the effects of booze were winning over the writer. The pipe smoke was obviously not helping either, ‘clouding his view’, literally. All reports I have read to date focus on the last two pages where the former president
literally goes into a mud-sling onslaught of our Prime Minister designate.
I will only say in the absence of facts where he could point out that after we had agreed point X, Tsvangirai changed after the recommendation of Mr. Brown or Mr. Bush who had said thus and thus. Mr. Mbeki is therefore merely speculating in his insinuations and reveals his leanings on these issues; which are obviously identified clearly with one side to the negotiation.
But then, other issues come to the fore if you assume that since this was diplomatic, personal correspondence, there would be no reason for Mbeki to tell outright fibs and fabrication of facts. Indeed the complains so far have not been that Mbeki told untruths in the letter, but that he insulted
Mr. Tsvangirai and the MDC by insinuating that they have an unhealthy leanings to the countries in Western Europe and North America.
The first issue that Mbeki articulates clearly throughout the letter is insinuations of divisions and intra-party wrangling. It becomes clear from reading the letter that there are two sources of decision making, which are not in tandem.
There are for example suggestions of a decision agreeing to a meeting for a review of Constitutional Amendment No. 19 (CA#19) for the 19-20th November by all parties, only to be cancelled because Hon. Biti could not attend. The MDC-T, because it was the party in breach to this agreement,
then suggested a meeting on the 25th November when ostensibly Biti would be available.
The next thing, Biti is writing the Facilitator to say the position of the MDC-T is that because the SADC decision regarding the way forward on the Zimbabwe Dialogue was “a nullity not yet rescinded”, there would be nosense in meeting as this would only legitimize what the party had categorically disagreed with.
Whereas disagreement with the SADC ruling seems unanimous within the MDC-T, there seems to be no agreed strategy of reacting to it, indeed there seems to be no considered way forward. The simple fact of whether to pursue CA#19 separately as part of the overall strategy of the talks agenda was obviously not agreed upon within the Party prior to the diplomatic faux pas of the past week.
The people of Zimbabwe and all their friends deserve better leadership from the MDC-T, I suspect important meetings at National Council level to timely discuss these developments so that a collective position is taken after arguing out different approaches are being neglected.
The second issue that comes out clearly is that the MDC negotiators and Mr. Tsvangirai have not held a consistent line in their demands. When some of those demands have been met, Mr. Tsvangirai and company renege on the same suddenly realizing they could have bargained for more. On page 4,
Mbeki writes “You will remember your own insistence that in the context of the agreement that there should be two Ministers of Home Affairs, these should serve in rotation, with the MDC(T) appointee taking the first slot.”
He continues to say, “You affirmed that if this were to be agreed, it would mark the conclusion of the negotiations about the distribution of the Ministerial portfolios, and therefore enable the establishment of the Zimbabwe Inclusive Government, with your endorsement and support”.
Although Zanu PF and now Mbeki are convinced from examples such as the above that the MDC are taking instructions from other sources such as USA and Britain, I am kinder and suggest that it’s more a sign of internal divisions on strategy and inconclusive decisions on positions to take in the negotiations. I dare not imagine that there is bitter in-fighting among the senior leadership of the party as I have heard some detractors suggest.
My point is not whether MDC-T should accept co-sharing of the Home Affairs portfolio. What I find as a serious allegation, un-challenged at the time of writing, from the Facilitation is that this suggestion originated from MDC-T, who when it was finally agreed to by Zanu PF, the Facilitator and
then SADC, they later come to the masses and whip up our emotions into a frenzy about the intransigency of Zanu PF and Mbeki. With the benefit of hindsight, Mbeki’s decision that these talks be kept secret was not so great after all, as parties to the talks can change their positions as a
chameleon changes his skin without reprisals from the public gallery.
What is clear is that the MDC-T feel, and maybe rightly so, that they have technically under-negotiated their position. I have always wondered how these negotiations are conducted, but I would suspect when they get to higher levels where they involve heads of state, they become very
technical. If you have followed court procedures you may appreciate my thinking. The prosecution must outline its case in full. The defense, when it is their turn, must do likewise, clearly addressing and rebutting any material aspects of the charges against the defendant. From there, witnesses are cross-examined on each side. The magistrate, jury or judge must then decide on the ‘merits’ of the case as presented.
The defendant cannot raise his hand on a latter date and say, “Excuse me Your Honor, but I have just remembered that on the day in question, I also had a drink with my friend, who can testify to my innocence.” The moral of my story is, the MDC presented a bad case for arbitration: for example
surrendering the other security ministries too early without being guaranteed they would get Home Affairs because of that surrender. That was a bad piece of negotiating, and in all honesty it cannot be put squarely on Mbeki, vile as he may be, or on SADC for that matter. They were merely arbitrating on sticking points as presented.
Mbeki therefore argues successfully in his letter that in the circumstances, he has been ‘transparent’ as a facilitator. It is the circumstances themselves that are flawed, and whereas MDC-T is of the
opinion that Mbeki should have pushed Zanu PF into some positions, my own understanding of the art of negotiating is that the MDC compromised too early and consequently presented an outlook of weakness, exploited by Zanu PF, the Facilitation and SADC.
How then does the situation resolve and can the MDC technically gain the upper ground in the negotiations that rightly belongs to them? Fortuitously, the drunken diatribe (there is no other way to understand the outburst) by the Facilitator in the second part of the letter may have provided the way out. Now the MDC can conclusively prove the bias of the Facilitation as he sang loudly from his mentor’s hymn book, barely avoiding using the word ‘puppet’ of Western Europe and North America. Now the MDC can justifiably demand the replacement of the Facilitation from SADC and stand their ground on that.
But having said that, in perhaps his last contribution to the talks, the Facilitator raised numerous issues that must call the MDC to account to the masses trusting it to decide and deliver only in their best interests, without regard to personal feuds and jockeying for positions and power within the party. He makes interesting observations that the formations of the MDC must stop considering themselves as the opposition but rather part of the ruling coalition, chillingly reminding them that once consummated, the success or failure of the Zimbabwe Inclusive Government would equally
be on their shoulders as it would be upon Zanu PF’s.
Posted by Patrick Huni
on November 29, 2008. Filed under Analysis,Opinion.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Socialize
