27 Aug 2007: ISS Today: SADC on Zimbabwe

27 August 2007: SADC on Zimbabwe

 

SADC held its 27th Heads of State and Government Summit in Lusaka, Zambia, on the 16th and 17th of August. The theme of the Summit was Infrastructure and Development. However, important issues discussed at the Summit, such as the formation of a Free Trade Area by 2008, the Facilitation of Movement of Persons, the tabling of a Draft Protocol on Gender and Development and the launch of the Standby Force were dwarfed by the media focus on Zimbabwe.

 

The world eagerly waited to see what SADC would propose as a way forward to resolve the political and economic crisis. Two reports on Zimbabwe were presented at the Summit, one on the mediation process that President Mbeki has been facilitating and the other on the economic situation, both delivered by the new SADC Executive Secretary, Tomaz Salomao.  These reports were delivered behind closed doors, with those privy to it remaining tight-lipped. The SADC communiqué released at the end of the Summit merely noted their commitment to the consolidation of democracy in the region and urged support for an economic recovery plan for Zimbabwe.

 

President Robert Mugabe, as widely reported, had received an enthusiastic round of applause when he entered the Summit. There are a broad range of representatives who attend SADC Summits. Alongside the Heads of State are officials from regional government departments, invited diplomats and guests, and members of the SADC secretariat. It is safe to assume that it was primarily African government representatives who extended the applause. All Heads of State in the region, irrespective of political differences, are, as a matter of protocol, welcomed at SADC. President Mugabe is the Head of State of Zimbabwe and hence he could expect a dignified entrance. However, the applause went beyond courtesy to an apparent show of support.

 

Questions and speculation immediately flooded media reports. What did the applause signal? Why would they continue to show support for the beleaguered President? What can we expect from SADC?

 

President Mugabe has been a central figure in the formation of the regional economic community and his government has supported many of the former liberation movements that are now in power. He has also been fairly successful with his campaign to paint opposition to his rule as the result of an imperialist agenda, and his own position therefore being part of an ongoing liberation struggle. In addition, his land redistribution exercise, though now seen to be misguided, had tacit agreement in a region where land deprivation remains a cause for redress. SADC has thus always been divided on how to interpret the crisis in Zimbabwe and therefore on the type of intervention necessary. It is only in the last few years, since the effects of Zimbabwe’s economic meltdown have begun to be felt throughout the region, that there has been a convergence of view in SADC that Zimbabwe can no longer be ignored.

 

Quiet diplomacy - behind the scenes cajoling - and mediation efforts have been the mainstay of SADC’s response. Given divisions within SADC and the fact that a military response is not a viable option, there is little outside these diplomatic and mediation efforts that SADC can do. SADC has always operated on the basis of privileging seniority, solidarity, secrecy, and sovereignty. Its show of solidarity for President Mugabe at the recent Summit is therefore not surprising. But this public display of support should not be interpreted as SADC, en bloc, unquestioningly supporting the Mugabe regime. It should rather be seen as an implicit decision that this is not the forum where he, or any other leader, should be publicly humiliated. To have done so may have appeased his detractors but would have done very little to move the negotiation process forward – a wounded lion would be all the more obstinate and vicious. The reality is that Mugabe is the one that needs convincing that it is time to move on for the greater good of the society, and embarrassing him at the SADC Summit would not have contributed to that goal.

 

The crux of the problem in Zimbabwe, and one that SADC has to navigate, is that at this point the opposition is too fragmented and weak to mount an effective political victory over ZANU-PF. A reformed ZANU-PF has been touted as a possible solution, but this party, too, is fractured. President Mugabe is known for his political astuteness and has fostered the divisions in the party so that he remains as the only candidate who appears able to assist ZANU-PF in winning the next round of elections in 2008. He is also pushing for the 2010 parliamentary elections to be brought forward to 2008, knowing that the MDC will not get their act together in time. Since he would want to prove that he is, and has been, the legitimately elected ruler, he will not easily step aside before those elections. He would also fear stepping down if the threat of being brought before the International Criminal Court looms large.

 

SADC leaders have to deal with someone whom they have long respected and who is far more senior and seasoned than many of them. They also have to negotiate a solution that will not make them susceptible to accusations that they have sided with the West in fostering regime change. Thus the mediation efforts can only emphasize that there must be another round of elections and attempt to negotiate conditions under which these can be conducted in an environment free of fear, intimidation and violence, and in accordance with the SADC Guidelines for Free and Fair Elections. Constitutional and electoral reforms are necessary, media freedom and freedom of assembly must be upheld, and SADC observer teams need to be present at least six months before the elections. All this is necessary to ensure that these elections have the legitimacy necessary to enable the new or re-elected government to begin to rebuild the political system and the country as a whole. SADC also needs to be thinking through a viable exit option for President Mugabe if there is to be any headway in attempts to get him to step down.

 

More importantly, it will be up to the Zimbabweans themselves to come out in full force to bring the change they desire through the ballot box. SADC can outline a framework in which change can take place, but Zimbabweans are the only people who can bring about the change they require.

 

Thus, SADC will not chastise President Mugabe at its Summits. They will continue with their quiet diplomacy and mediation efforts. This is realism and fits the modus operandi of the organization.

 

Dr Cheryl Hendricks, Head: Regional Projects, ISS Tshwane (Pretoria)