Zimbabwe: Power sharing deal in the balance
Political deadlock
At
the time of going to press, the political deadlock in Zimbabwe remains unbroken. The parliamentary seats are divided roughly equally between
ZANU-PF and the misleadingly-named Movement for Democratic Change (MDC-T, led
by Morgan Tsvangirai), with a few seats taken by the Mutambara faction of the
MDC (which has over the past few months shown itself to be much more willing
than the Tsvangirai faction to engage with the political process). Robert
Mugabe holds the presidency, which he won by a landslide margin when Tsvangirai
– realising that he was facing defeat – dropped out of the second round just a
few days before voting was due to take place. A recent power-sharing deal
between ZANU-PF, MDC-T and MDC, brokered by former South African President
Thabo Mbeki, gave Tsvangirai the post of Prime Minister.
The
power-sharing deal, signed several weeks ago, was supposed to pave the way for
the formation of a mutually-agreed government that could get on with the
crucial work of improving Zimbabwe’s economic situation; however, immediately
after signing the deal, Tsvangirai performed a not-uncharacteristic about-face,
refusing to engage in any meaningful way with the process to drive things
forward.
Everyone
was full of enthusiasm on 15 September, when the deal was finally signed after
three months of difficult negotiations. Marc Tran, writing in The Guardian,
was licking his lips at the thought of the possibility of western financial
institutions being approached for ‘assistance’ (i.e. loans on condition of
privatisation), writing:
“The Zimbabwean president, Robert
Mugabe, and the opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, today shook hands
perfunctorily after signing an agreement to share power that could be the
prelude to western financial help for the country’s wrecked economy.
“The two arch-rivals and the leader of
a breakaway opposition faction, Arthur Mutambara, signed documents at the main
Harare convention centre on an occasion marked by pomp and ceremony, although
Mugabe and Tsvangirai for the most part were unsmiling.
“In a sign of the changing times,
Tsvangirai – who will become prime minister under the deal – addressed the
dignitaries first after the signing rather than Mugabe. He appealed for unity
among Zimbabweans and for help from the international community to rebuild the
country.
“‘Let
us not be divided by the past but united in the hope for the future,’
Tsvangirai said in a speech frequently punctuated by cheers and applause. He
left until the end of his address to mention Mugabe, saying he was extending
the hand that had signed the power-sharing agreement to the president.” (‘Robert Mugabe and Morgan
Tsvangirai sign Zimbabwe power-sharing deal’, 15 September 2008)
However,
that optimism has since waned, with discussions aimed at dividing up government
posts so far not bearing fruit. Under the deal, ZANU was to take charge of 15
ministries, with MDC-T taking 13 and MDC-Mutambara taking three. ZANU have
proposed that their portfolio include defence, foreign affairs, justice,
finance and home affairs; they propose that MDC-T’s allocation include
constitutional and parliamentary affairs, economic planning and investment
promotion, labour, and science and technology development; and that MDC-Mutambara’s
allocation include education and industry and commerce. However, MDC-T are
refusing to accept the proposal, demanding that they be given control over
finance and home affairs (the latter includes control of the police). ZANU have
reputedly stated a willingness to negotiate on finance but not on home affairs.
Meanwhile, Tsvangirai has been refusing outright to attend talks in Swaziland,
alleging that he has not been issued with a passport (a charge that the
Registrar-General’s office dismissed) and pointedly ignoring offers from
Swaziland’s king (Mswati III) to transport him by plane directly to and from
the talks.
Now
Tsvangirai is threatening to pull out of the deal, and MDC-T officials are
starting to talk openly about calling for new elections.
Land reform irreversible
In
many ways, the agreement represents a massive compromise for ZANU, whose
ideology is fundamentally opposed to that of the liberalisation-friendly MDC.
The sharing of cabinet responsibilities would of course make it extremely difficult
for ZANU to introduce legislation that is consistent with its principles of
indigenisation, nationalisation and social welfare.
However,
the most important aspect of the deal is that it declares the land reform
process – under which much of the land formerly owned by white commercial
farmers has been transferred to the indigenous population – to be irreversible,
and states that the responsibility for compensating dispossessed white farmers
belongs with Britain. This runs counter to the very heart of the programme of
the MDC, whose backers include several former British cabinet members that lost
their Zimbabwean farms as a result of the land reform process (oh, what an
abhorrent process that would take land away from Tory absentee landlords and
put it in the hands of poor African peasants!).
One
can only surmise that Tsvangirai’s imperialist backers, faced with having to
admit the irreversibility of the land reform process, have instructed him to
renege on the deal.
How has ZANU arrived at a
situation where it has to share power with imperialist stooges?
The
reader might well ask: how could a situation possibly arise whereby ZANU-PF,
the organisation that forged and led one of the most heroic and bitter
anti-colonial struggles in history, was forced into accepting a power-sharing
deal with a bunch of spineless imperialist stooges, sustained by London and
Washington, putting forward a political and economic programme that exactly
reflects the neo-colonial desires of Britain and the US?
Good
question. The short answer is that: i) they are the victims of a sustained
campaign of economic sabotage; and ii) they respect their own constitution.
Zimbabwe’s economy has undoubtedly been going
through difficult times. After thriving throughout the 1980s (in the ten years
after independence), Zimbabwe’s economy took a turn for the worse in the early
1990s, following the fall of the USSR and Eastern European people’s
democracies, which left Zimbabwe (and many other left-leaning countries) with a
lack of trading partners. In 1991, Zimbabwe was convinced by the international
financial institutions to adopt a Structural Adjustment Programme. For the next
ten years, the government was forced to slash spending on education and health
and to completely liberalise the economy. Food prices rose massively, as did
unemployment; real wages plummeted along with social welfare; the bulk of the
economy was turned over to the production of cash crops. Gregory Elich, who
gives a comprehensive account of this process in his excellent book Strange
Liberators, writes: “Even these measures were not enough to satisfy
Western expectations, and in 1995 the IMF cut funding to the program because
Zimbabwe was not slashing its budget and dismissing government employees fast
enough. The IMF’s primary complaint was what it regarded as the slow pace of
privatisation.”
Zimbabwe finally dropped the Structural
Adjustment Programme in 2001, having learnt a valuable lesson at significant
cost to its economic wellbeing and prospects. However, what might have been the
start of an economic turnaround was thwarted by a series of terrible droughts
and a ruthless campaign of economic sabotage, both internal and external.
By
this time, the government had given its official approval to the farm
occupations led by the veterans of Zimbabwe’s war of independence, and had
formalised the land reform process in the Fast Track Land Resettlement
Programme. The response of Britain, the US and the EU to this bold attack on
their interests was a set of crippling economic sanctions. The sanctions were
described by their instigators as ‘smart’ and ‘targeted’, but this was simply a
lie. Indeed, a 2007 fact-finding team led by Southern African Development
Community (SADC) executive secretary Tomaz Salamao concluded that the sanctions
were ‘targeted’ at ordinary Zimbabweans and were the primary cause of Zimbabwe’s economic difficulties. Zimbabwe was not given access to funds from any of the
international lending institutions, and the IMF would not agree to deferred or
reduced payments (as it does with almost every country it lends to); US
companies were threatened with heavy fines if they did business with Zimbabwe.
The combination of some of the worst droughts in the country’s history and the
government’s almost complete lack of foreign currency made for very tough times
in Zimbabwe, and it is testament to the diligence, selflessness and creativity
of the ZANU-led government that people did not starve.
Within
Zimbabwe, many large white-run businesses were, and still are, trying to
sabotage the economy, with a view to making the government unpopular. The
government has for a few years now been engaged in a game of cat-and-mouse with
these businesses, who continually take advantage of a shortage of goods to
drastically raise prices. In order to keep goods affordable, the Bank of
Zimbabwe has simply printed more money, which in turn has led to further price
increases, leading to the extremely high levels of inflation that the country
is now tackling and which make the accumulation of foreign currency ever more
difficult.
Meanwhile,
governments and NGOs in the ‘international community’ (of imperialist
exploiters) have been pumping money into the MDC and helping it to develop a
political programme that looks like it will make everything better for
the Zimbabwean people, while actually representing nothing more than a return
to structural adjustment – ‘severe austerity’, privatisation, liberalisation.
The IMF has clearly stated that large loans and aid will be forthcoming if the
MDC forms a government.
Given
all this, is it surprising that a lot of Zimbabweans, desperate to improve
their situation, voted MDC?
ZANU must reassert its leadership
It
looks as if Tsvangirai will go back on the power-sharing deal that has been
agreed. If that happens, ZANU must recognise its mandate from the people of Zimbabwe and get on with forming a government and finding solutions to the formidable
problems that face the country. ZANU will in fact come out of the process
strengthened, as Tsvangirai will have exposed himself as the stooge that he is.
We
are confident that the Zimbabwean government, with the support of South Africa and other friendly countries such as China and Venezuela, can resolve the economic
problems and build a prosperous Zimbabwe. Indeed, the signs are that this
year’s harvest will be the best for many years. The government has already
distributed a million litres of diesel, 12,000 tonnes of fertiliser and 4,000
tonnes of maize seed throughout the country, and the South African government
has pledged 300 million rand towards the purchase of agricultural inputs for
this farming season.
We
bid Zimbabwe to continue along the path outlined by Comrade Mugabe in 2002:
“This
has become a vicious, all-out, assault on the poor and their instruments of
sustainable development. In Zimbabwe, we have, with a clear mind and vision,
resolved to bring to an end this neoliberal model.
“For
us in Zimbabwe, the agenda for sustainable development has to be reasserted,
with a vigorous, democratic and progressive interventionist state and public
sector capable of playing a full and responsible developmental role. We are
ready to defend the agenda of the poor and we are clear that we can only do
that if we do not pander to foreign interests or answer to false imperatives
that are not only clearly alien and inimical to the interests of the poor who
have given us the mandate to govern them but are also hostile to the agenda for
sustainable development. For these reasons, we join our brothers and sisters in
the third world in rejecting completely manipulative and intimidatory attempts
by some countries
and regional blocs that are bent on subordinating our sovereignty to their
hegemonic ambitions and imperial interests, falsely presented as matters of
rule of law, democracy and good governance. The real objective is interference
in our domestic affairs. The rule of law, democracy and governance are values
that we cherish because we fought for them against the very same people who
today seek to preach to us.” (The Herald, 4 September 2002, cited in
Gregory Elich, op cit).
Lift the sanctions now!
No to interference! No to liberalisation!
Zimbabwe will never be a colony again!