Why Zimbabwe Needs a Transitional Government
blurb:isstoday:020708zim
02 July 2008: Why Zimbabwe Needs a Transitional Government
Robert Mugabe was sworn in as president of Zimbabwe for a 6th term on the 29th of June 2008. His re-election on 27 June was widely condemned as neither free nor fair and thus unable to provide the political solution to the crisis that has characterized the country for the past eight years. Overshadowing this election, for the past week, has been the call for a transitional government as the “way forward.” This is a marked shift from the previous call for a government of national unity (or government of national healing) that dominated discussions on the “way forward” since the harmonized elections in March 2008.
Now that the idea of a government of national unity (GNU) seems to have taken a backseat, it is incumbent to explain what a transitional government is, how it differs from a government of national unity, why it is more appropriate at this stage and what form it should take?
A transitional government is a caretaker government. It is put in place in the absence of a legitimate governing authority. It is made up of appointed officials/ politicians/ groups that serve for a limited time period with a limited mandate that seeks to assist the country in creating an enabling environment for a proper government to be put in place, i.e. to transit from a state of conflict to a democratically elected government.
Transitional governments/ authorities come in different forms and have been used in a number of legitimate and illegitimate instances and for various purposes and periods.
For example, we had:
- United Nations (UN) transitional authorities in East Timor (UNTAET), Cambodia (UNTAC) the United Nations Transitional Authority in Eastern Slovenia, Baraja and Western Sirmin, etc;
- We have seen transitional governments put in place in Iraq and Afghanistan;
- In 1985 South Africa became the transitional governing authority of South West Africa;
- Africa has had transitional governments in Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Liberia, Somalia, Sudan (and now Darfur), etc;
- Many military leaders have claimed that they were forming a transitional government for various purposes until ‘democracy was restored’.
Zimbabwe itself is no stranger to transitional arrangements. The Lancaster House Agreement placed the British Governor as the caretaker until elections were held.
Transitional governments, reached through a negotiated settlement, are usually tasked to draft a widely acceptable constitution and to create the environment and instruments for a free and fair election that will determine representation in a future government. This new government may or may not be a government of national unity, in other words a power sharing formula can be built into the allocation of seats. A GNU is a form of elite pacting or confidence building measure usually undertaken when political parties believe that some form of compromise is needed to bridge deep-seated divides in the country that could cause instability if one party, even if it wins overwhelmingly, decides to assume complete political control. Zimbabwe again serves as an example, placating white people with 20 parliamentary seats. South Africa between 1994 and 1996 also had a government of national unity.
The main differences therefore appear to be:
- Appointment versus election
- Mandate - to create a new constitution and a equitable space for elections versus governing jointly under an accepted constitution
- Time frames – short versus indefinite
In addition, transitional authorities can bring in outside assistance to help restore law and order/peace and to oversee/monitor an election.
In Zimbabwe the constitution is contested, there appears to be little consensus on the norms, values, priorities and practices that should guide the country. There are high levels of abuse of state power, widespread violence and the economy is in tatters. We primarily have two polarized parties each asserting their legitimate right to rule without the prospect of settling the dispute amicably through elections in the near future. The prospects of unity, given these conditions, are highly unlikely and a cobbled together GNU will be unstable.
Zimbabweans therefore need to restart a dialogue/negotiations (or national conference) to determine the make-up and mandate of a transitional authority. It would be more appropriate for this government to be composed of Zimbabweans, rather than the UN, the African Union (AU) or a particular country assuming control for a limited period. This transitional government should be composed of more than just representatives of the MDC and Zanu-PF. In the case of the DRC, the 1 + 4 formula was used in which the major rebel groups and civil society were represented. In Somalia (not that it has had much success) a 4.5 formula was used in which the 4 major clans received 61 parliamentary seats each while the remaining groups were given 31 seats. The point is that it needs to be inclusive, both to defuse tension that can lead to stalemate positions between the two major competing parties and because it draws on a wider pool of human resources to fashion out a new political dispensation.
In this scenario, Mugabe can remain as the president but the necessary checks and balances must be put in place so that there is no usurping of power by any of the parties. This government should then be mandated for a period of one year to draft a new constitution and to provide an environment for free and fair elections (which includes ending the violence, restoring respect for human rights, free campaigning, a conducive environment for civil society to function, and creating a new electoral commission).
To reach agreement on this transitional authority, acceptable mediators need to be brought into the process. South Africa is the appointed SADC mediator. It has received a lot of criticism on its engagement. To defuse accusations of biasness the number of mediators can be expanded, bringing in representatives of SADC (and SA can remain as their mediator for it has an in-depth knowledge of this conflict being the mediator since 2001), the AU and the UN.
The transitional government (no matter what the make-up thereof, as long as it has come about through acceptable arrangements to the people of Zimbabwe) must be assisted by the international community and the AU who, in addition to providing financial and humanitarian assistance, should also provide for the placement of civilian peacekeepers (not necessarily police) and special envoys to monitor the successful functioning of the transitional authority. There is sufficient capacity in Zimbabwe to get their country back on a road to prosperity and this should be utilized to its full potential.
For this process to move forward, a level of maturity (lacking till hitherto) on the part of all concerned, the contending parties in Zimbabwe and the international community, is needed. The transitional government is not about scoring political points or a contestation for power, but a mechanism to facilitate the ushering in of a legitimate government. The MDC and Zanu-PF will have to wait to test their level of support, and thus power, until a new round of elections are held. By then, they may just be willing to share power in a government of national unity.
Dr Cheryl Hendricks, Senior Research Fellow, Security Sector Governance Programme, ISS Tshwane (Pretoria)
