Tsvangirai behaving like a prima donna once again

The presidential elections of 29 March 2008 in Zimbabwe did not produce an outright winner; and the electoral law required that a run-off election be held, which Tsvangirai decided to boycott. It requires no rocket scientist that given the election results of 29 March, Tsvangirai has no right to demand full executive powers as widely reported in the media. The negotiations to find a lasting solution for the people of Zimbabwe have deadlocked purely because of the selfishness of one man.

Professor Welshman Ncube of the Arthur Mutambara faction of the MDC said (Harare Tribute):

“The SADC communiqué says the deal on the table is an appropriate, fair and equitable power sharing deal. And this is what the SADC leaders were trying to persuade all of us to accept. Regrettably some of us (Tsvangirai formation) did not accept it. But in our view we can say that the SADC resolution is a fair reflection of the facts on the ground . . . The executive function is the function of running government, of appointing and supervising ministers, of determining the day to day operations of government, of defining policy. If you exclude the leader of one of the parties from that completely, you are rendering whomsoever you have excluded ceremonial. That is why SADC found that the demands which are on the table (from Tsvangirai) are for a power transfer. And they were unable to endorse those. Which is why they endorsed what is on the table which is power sharing. I cannot go beyond that and I cannot go on a finger pointing expedition. But I go by the resolution of SADC which is essentially that what we have is a power sharing deal. Anything else is a power transfer.

I can go further and say that if you go by the results of 29 March, no single party can argue for transfer of power to itself because no single party has the absolute majority to say we are entitled to have power transferred to us.”

According to Harare Tribune, the deal that Tsvangirai stubbornly refuses to sign stipulates that executive power will reside in the president, prime minister and cabinet. He responded to this by saying:

“There is no such thing as collective executive authority. Somebody is responsible. Why are they afraid of pinpointing that you (Mugabe) are responsible as head of state for these functions and you (Tsvangirai) are responsible for government with these functions? Why are they afraid to do that? That demarcation of responsibility is very important for accountability purposes, for authority purposes. You cannot expect the MDC to be tasked with turning around the mess in Zimbabwe without being given authority. Does that make sense?”

This is an indication that this man, who carries the hopes of millions of desperate Zimbabweans, appears to have no grasp of the urgency that the misery in which these Zimbabweans are subjected to demands. No one is disputing the importance of demarcation of accountability, but to argue about specific details of executive responsibilities is nonsensical and a waste of time. I am certain that Tsvangirai is very aware of the fact that whatever agreement to be signed by Zanu PF, MDC and MDC-T would require that an amendment to the constitution be passed by parliament in terms of Article 52, as the current constitution makes no provision for appointment of a Prime Minister, nor does it define his responsibilities.

Tsvangirai has expressed no concern for the parliament to reconvene, but the secretary general of the MDC Tendai Biti, who seems to suffer from chronic verbal diarrhoea, contradicted his leader and said:

“In the present case, the MDC has not consented to the convening of the parliament … any decision to convene parliament will be a clear repudiation of the MOU and an indication beyond reasonable doubt of ZANU PF’s unwillingness to continue to be part of the talks … in short convening parliament decapitates the dialogue.”

It is at this sitting of parliament when the debate about the specifics of the constitutional amendments should be taking place. The alternative solution would have been all the parties agreeing to a provision within the negotiated agreement regarding the drafting of an interim constitution as was the case in South Africa pre-1996.

The ANC in 1994, in spite of an overwhelming election victory of 66% and the National Party with a shameful 20%, agreed to the establishment of a government of national unity. The MDC has no outright majority and it can therefore not dictate the terms of the agreement to all parties. This deliberate delay in signing the agreement by Tsvangirai is a serious indictment on his part, as he continues to subject his people to remorseless tragedy.

It is time that Tsvangirai get it through his thick skull that this agreement is not about him and his MDC cronies, nor Britain nor the US, but about the plight of millions of Zimbabweans who are suffering. I am not sure what his SADC tour is intending to achieve, as all leaders present at the recent summit in Sandton concurred that a deal put forward was fair to all parties.

The Zimbabweans are desperate, traumatised and demand a government to deliver them from the gates of hell!