Mugabe takes leave; he deserves arrest

Like me many of you must have been delighted to learn that Grace Mugabe has taken the family off to Malaysia for a month’s hard earned rest. After all the “first lady” must be exhausted from having had to spend the entire year in her mansion listening to stories about her countrymen and women dying of malnutrition and disease. Could anyone seriously begrudge her using the country’s treasury/family bank account for a bit of rest and recuperation? Of course not!

On a sad note, however, Bob — despite putting in enormous time and effort in his attempt to win the African Newsmakers Genocidal Dictator of the Century Award — is feeling somewhat insecure and has decided to take his month’s rest back home in Zimbabwe.

We wish him well … away from the rest of humanity.

Of course the media are now focusing on Mugabe’s confirmation that he will be forming a government by the end of February with or without the agreement of Morgan Tsvangirai’s MDC-T. Tsvangirai, who has been in Botswana for an extended period, remains adamant that unless he is given a fair distribution of the cabinet posts, activists are released and Zanu-PF refrains from persecuting MDC members, he will not participate in the government of national unity. Moreover, he has even threatened to pull out of the deal reached in September 2008 altogether.

Analysts are suggesting that Mugabe’s sacking of nine ministers and three deputy ministers together with his meeting with Professor Arthur Mutambara, without Tsvangirai, is a clear indication that Mugabe has resolved to move ahead with or without the MDC-T. If this were true then Mugabe would not be taking this month off and staying at home but rather finalising his cabinet before flying off with Grace.

The fact is that Mugabe knows that, should he proceed to form a government in terms of Zimbabwean law as things stand now, he is inviting paralysis of his illegitimate regime before it even begins. The MDC parliamentary majority could play havoc with his day to day running of the government, which is why fears have arisen that he is angling towards a state of emergency whereby he can rule without parliament. Enter stage left the ridiculous allegations against Jestina Mukoko and other activists as the basis therefore.

It would be a Mugabe government that would enjoy very little international recognition and almost no support of substance. Accordingly, the meltdown of 2008 that has seen inflation now being calculated in the trillions, the lowest life expectancy in the world and 5.5-million people standing on the brink of starvation, might well within a few short months be referred to as “the good old days”.

What is vital to Zimbabwe’s future right now, despite the “thesis” written by Professor Arthur Mutambara of the splinter MDC-M, is that the international community not only accepts, but is willing to underwrite the recovery of Zimbabwe. Mutambara’s article does however raise a number of interesting points and I recommend it to readers.

I would differ from him in a number of areas :

Firstly, if the central issue in dealing with Zimbabwe is pragmatism, then it is best that we accept the fact that it is the approach of the international community and NOT the SADC and AU, which is vital to the recovery of Zimbabwe. At best the region and the continent can provide short-term band aids, which assist the few, not the masses. Indeed, if as Mutambara says China and Russia are financing the regime (not the country), how much more important does EU and US backing become in finding a permanent solution?

Without material financial support how does he propose to find real solutions to the problems being experienced by the overwhelming majority of Zimbabweans? Hence styling Tsvangirai as a puppet for seeking assistance from inter alia western countries is not only unhelpful, it retards progress. It also begs the question of what Mutambara’s priority is – getting into power or finding a solution for the country?

Secondly, the desire to avoid outside interference and implement African solutions is arrogant and unhelpful. The biggest problem we as Africans face, as in Guinea, is that each time we have a transfer of power it is accompanied by conflict and uncertainty; Ghana being the exception, Guinea — most times — the rule. The SADC itself is a cesspit of old boys who believe that, having “liberated” a country from colonialism, they are entitled to misrule until eternity, Zimbabwe being the worst current offender. It is this mentality that sees Mugabe walking into the AU and telling other members that, while his conduct may be shocking, theirs is worse. I’m sure that is a source of great comfort to the long-suffering Zimbabweans.

Africans must start looking towards retaining the positive things that make us African and enhance our sense of uniqueness while getting rid of the things that keep retarding the growth of this, our beloved continent? Why isn’t a solution to the problems in Zimbabwe, even if it comprises assistance from outside our continent, an African solution? What would you call all the support being poured in through aid agencies?

Thirdly, despite the options given by Mutambara, I would humbly submit that there is an easier way to get rid of Mugabe: South Africa takes a stand against him and blocks strategic assistance from finding its way there.

Notwithstanding, Mutambara’s point on Mugabe representing a substantial group of Zimbabweans does have merit. In my earlier articles I submitted that power sharing was an acceptable solution because it gave Zanu-PF the opportunity to abandon its militancy and reinvent itself prior to the next election. In effect, realising two powerful parties in Zimbabwe, which would enhance their democracy.

Unfortunately Mugabe’s desire to rather use the deal to hijack power once again has seen the USA and others now refusing to back the deal after initially agreeing to wait and see whether his intentions were genuine. Accordingly, instead of lambasting Tsvangirai for his intransigence in failing to accept Mugabe’s latest outrage, Mutambara should be asking Bob why, after the USA and EU agreed to support the deal, he had decided to carry on playing games which have resulted in their no longer being prepared to support the deal so long as he is still there?

Without material financial support, what is the basis for Mutambara’s haste in bringing about the next disastrous Mugabe government? Is a few months of power worth being in bed with a genocidal regime?

Instead of trying to keep it in Africa Mutambara should be asking the international community where the non-negotiable line on material assistance is drawn in the sand. If pragmatism is indeed the key, then all three parties best find out what the people who can provide the financial bailout are prepared to accept and use that as their starting point.

If, by some miracle, they are still prepared to accept Senor Satan being on board, then that option is open for consideration. If not, then any power sharing deal, which includes Mrs Beelzebub’s little boy Bob, is in fact an acceptance by the parties that the real government of Zimbabwe is going to be the aid agencies who will be supporting Zimbabweans until further notice.

In terms of a real solution for Zimbabweans, not the elite clique, that is the real question.