Inside the Zimbabwean political amphitheatre are scenes of the tired, the old and the uninspiring. These are scenes not too gladly and willingly watched but forcefully shown to the audience. It sounds really absurd, but in reality no one is spared from the ever-disappointing drama coming out of Zimbabwe.
Like many, I have watched with great caution the drama surrounding the swearing in of the Prime Minister, his deputies and ministers in Zimbabwe. I say with caution because I am one of those people who believe that this unity government is built on sand. As you might expect, the structure will soon collapse. It is a matter of time—that is, if my analysis is spot-on. I know this is not palatable to many, but historical and recent developments justify my pessimism. I would rather tread with cautious pessimism than wild optimism. These are my reasons:
First and foremost, the Government of National Unity (GNU) was driven by the desire of both parties (MDC and ZANU PF) to share power equally — after, of course, each failed to secure all the power individually. Given room to assume all the power, each of these parties would have sidelined the other, as we see unfolding now. More critical for these parties was who gets what position in government? Who gets to run what department? Who has the power to appoint whom and how? In other words, the main driver for the GNU was who gets the biggest share of the national resources, and not what would hold the nation together.
Giving equal or even disproportionate power to different political actors is not the solution to Zimbabwe’s crisis. Rather, what this might create is a perpetual conflict between the two "bulls", so to speak. If we used the metaphor of animals to illustrate this scenario, we would notice that the current experiment could be characterized by perennial stand-off between ZANU-PF and the MDC-T. If two bulls are put in one kraal, expect no peace in that kraal for both bulls or the other cows. The older bull will always want to flex its muscles and apply its authority on the young and new one. To do so, it has no choice but to use violence. But of course the young and new bull won’t take kindly to this. It will resist any moves to be sidelined. At the back of its mind, the young bull is convinced that the old has no real stamina and that this is the moment for a new leader in the kraal. So we end up with these endless fights in the kraal causing sleepless nights for the other cows as well.
Does this not resonate? Roy Bennet was arrested some minutes before ministers were sworn in. Is this not the case of the old bull flexing its muscles? The new bull is definitely going to fight back; how is still the question. But this is a serious test for the new bull. If it fails this test, it might as well accept that the old bull is still the most powerful in the kraal and just eat the grass like other cows. There will be many of these unnecessary tussles.
Second, the GNU has just recycled the old, especially from ZANU-PF, back into ministerial positions. Thus nothing has changed; it is the old and tired back in the driving seat. Is there any hope for safe landing? Your answer is spot-on. The MDC-T list is even more interesting. It is a mixture of friends and the absurd. There are capable appointments, I must say, but in the main the MDC also fell into the same error of rewarding loyalty. This is as sad as it is disheartening.
I have followed some heated arguments on Facebook concerning regional representation. That is a topic for another article. Those from Matabeleland seem concerned that they are not represented proportionally in the new appointments. And the white community feels persecuted. These are real issues that the country should discuss—whether now or later is another question. The point, though, is that we seem to have stagnated. Frankly, the current set-up is not inspiring. Will there ever be time when government and other appointments are made based on merit and not on some spurious relations or loyalty?
When all this is happening, of course, there is total disregard for what holds the nation together. The politicians, including the architects of the GNU, did not ask: what is the national question for Zimbabweans? What are Zimbabweans’ common values and principles? In other words, should the GNU not be built on a common value system rather than on power sharing? The very notion of sharing power implies severe or even bloody competition. Who would want to lose out? No one, of course. And yet if the process were reversed and we started with the values and societal glues, I bet we would not have as many bloody scuffles as we currently have. Indeed, the central uniting feature would not be what goes where and who gets what but what defines Zimbabweans in substantive ways. A GNU built on the national question and value system would be solid—simply because it would be built on the foundation of societal values and glued together by what unites the society rather than what separates it. What we have currently is a union forced together by what separates the society rather than its glue. Can we expect the impossible to happen?
We need to confront this monstrous and erroneous formula. I have heard all kinds of arguments regarding unity governments; I have yet to be convinced that they work. My view is that Zimbabwe is a special case and that there
