Entries by Jeanne Elone

Last month’s announcement that Zimbabwe’s Prime Minister, Morgan Tsvangirai, was suspending his cooperation with Robert Mugabe’s Zanu-PF party threatened the country’s fragile unity government. International observers chastised the Prime Minister’s actions as risky and shortsighted given the huge struggle to achieve the tenuous coalition government in 2009. Tsvangirai assured domestic constituents and the international community that his party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), was not withdrawing from the unity government but rather protesting the trial of a key MDC figure, Roy Bennett, Tsvangirai’s designate for Deputy Minister of Agriculture, who had been detained for weeks on arms trafficking charges linked to a plot to violently overthrow the Zanu-PF regime. Since Tsvangirai’s October 16 announcement, Mr. Bennett has been released from custody and MDC Ministers have resumed attending cabinet meetings with their Zanu-PF colleagues.

Yet, Tsvangirai’s bold gesture reveals the complexity of the current balancing act in Zimbabwe. Many of us would like to see Robert Mugabe tried in The Hague and made to pay dearly for the brutality and impunity of his regime. However, this may not be the most efficient way to address the persistent crisis in Zimbabwe. This message of compromise and reconciliation was most eloquently articulated by MDC Minister Ms. Sekai Holland during an informal meeting with Africa-focused advocacy groups this week in Washington, D.C. One of Zimbabwe’s greatest human rights leaders and a long time supporter of the MDC, Ms. Holland currently heads the Ministry for National Healing, Reconciliation & Integration. This may seem a strange title for a government ministry because few of its qualifiers seem to correspond to attainable goals, particularly given the political climate in Zimbabwe. Yet if there is anyone who could take on this enormous task it is Ms. Holland, who prior to the Unity Government held the position of Secretary for Policy, Research, and Ideology, and was responsible for drafting many of the foundational party documents which continue to inform MDC policy.

During her talk, Ms. Holland spoke at length about the need to “dismantle the instruments of violence” and strengthen peace mechanisms in order to prevent the recurrence of the violent episodes that have characterized Zimbabwe’s political scene for the past half-century. In this regard Ms. Holland called on stakeholders in the Zimbabwe peace process to look beyond the normative concerns of honesty and fairness and consider the urgent need to expedite the recovery and reconstruction process so that Zimbabweans can recover their dignity and put their lives back together. Although these comments may seem callous given the extent of criminality and deprivation meted out on the Zimbabwean people over the past 50 years, Ms. Holland is well placed to speak on behalf of the 1 million plus torture survivors in her country.

In March 2007 Ms. Holland made international headlines when she was brutality attacked and detained by the Zimbabwean police. At the age of 64, she was beaten and tortured by Zanu-PF loyalists and imprisoned along with other MDC supporters for several days in Zimbabwe before she was able to leave for South Africa and seek medical treatment. Despite her horrendous experience, she remains active in the MDC. Questioned about the weaknesses of the Global Political Agreement between the MDC and the Zanu-PF, Ms. Holland recognized that the document was lacking, but praised its existence as a foundation from which to pursue further negotiations. Many of the Africa focused advocacy groups and in attendance questioned Ms. Holland about the quality of the agreement, which includes several presidential prerogatives that are contrary to the power-sharing nature of the coalition government. In response, Ms. Holland noted that the GPA document was drafted in haste and with limited consultation with relevant stakeholders, including women, judicial representatives, security sector professionals and youth organizations. These shortcomings raised doubts about the integrity of the document when it was presented to MDC leadership. According to Ms. Holland, Tsvangirai rallied support for the document by likening Zimbabwe to the child in the biblical story of King Solomon. Just as a child should not be split in two to satisfy two different women claiming to be its mother, Zimbabwe need not suffer disunity for the sake of one party claiming full power or monopoly on the truth. In the Old Testament story, when King Solomon suggests splitting the child, the real mother protests, revealing that she loves the child best because she is the most concerned with its wellbeing rather than her personal satisfaction of being recognized as its mother. In the same way, the MDC leadership was won over by the greater goal of reuniting Zimbabwe and forging ahead with negotiations rather than submitting Zimbabweans to additional weeks and perhaps months of hostilities.

Since the signing of the Global Political Agreement in early 2009, livelihoods have improved for many Zimbabweans, organized violence and torture has subsided, and the country’s exponential inflation has slowed enough for ordinary Zimbabweans to begin putting their lives back together. Thus, when MDC spokespeople toured the countryside in early October to debate the costs and benefits of continuing to work with an uncooperative and ‘dishonest’ Zanu-PF, the resounding answer was yes. Ordinary Zimbabweans who paid the most dearly in the violent period surrounding the 2008 election, as well as the episodic violence that has plagued Zimbabwean politics since the 1980’s, were not eager to destabilize the fragile peace accomplished through the Government of National Unity. Accordingly, MDC leaders will continue to work with the Zanu-PF in preparations for run-off elections scheduled for 2010.

Although there is still a long road ahead for Zimbabwe, Ms. Holland’s remarks helped put the current situation into perspective, providing context for Tsvangirai’s gesture and reaffirming Zimbabweans commitment to making the coalition government work.

Good governance continues to be a challenge in the majority of countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. Although procedural democracy has been established in several countries, rule of law and political rights are lacking. Explanations for this situation are varied. Some theorists posit that Africa’s governance challenges are driven by exogenous factors including colonial misrule, ethnic diversity, persistent poverty, and economic and political policies imposed by international donors or aid agencies. Alternate views point the finger at African nations’ inability to accomplish successful democratic transitions, the inherent weakness of Africa's political elite, and the intrinsically fragile nature of political institutions on the continent. At the crux of both of these explanations is the role of leadership.

We currently have two powerful examples of African leadership. On the one hand, Barack Obama's election as the first African-American President of the United States has become a beacon for African youth across the globe that had never before imagined the possibility of the son of an African immigrant rising to such heights of power and respect. On the other, we have Colonel Muammar Gadaffi's appointment as the Chairman of the African Union, and his ambitious agenda to re-cast the African Union as the United States of Africa with a single currency, passport, and army. Both leaders are visionaries in their own right. Against all odds, President Obama won the respect and confidence of working class Americans, promising to prioritize their concerns and work along side them to revitalize the United States' failing economy, create jobs, and put an end to the vagaries of Wall Street that are in large part responsible for the worst of the current global economic crisis. President Obama's inaugural speech was richly textured with historical references to America's founding fathers, particularly Abraham Lincoln, whose bible was used during the oath swearing ceremony. Both President Barack Obamas's personal background and path to the white house cast him as the rightful successor to the United States' legacy of achievement, integrity, and prosperity. Similarly, Gadaffi's grand design for a United States of Africa is reminiscent of the Pan-African movement's great theorists such as, Kwame Nkrumah and Julius Nyerere, who envisioned an autonomous and independent Africa, capable of holding its own with the other world regional blocks.

Of course, President Obama has a proven track-record for working on behalf of America's households and demonstrates the integrity and achievement that the United States is founded on. His first week in office further testifies to his credentials, as he takes resolute actions to redress the errors committed under the Bush regime and to regain the confidence of the United States' allies so that they can work in concert to combat the global recession. Colonel Gadaffi's resume on the other hand is littered with criminality, repression, and collusion with some of the continent's worst human rights offenders, most notably, Liberia's Charles Taylor. Of late, Gadaffi has also been criticized for the derisory treatment of Sub-Saharan migrants residing in Libya. Yet, there are also arenas in which the Colonel has surpassed his more genteel African statesmen, in particular, Gadaffi has become a champion of women's rights, and Libyan women enjoy more freedoms than many of their counterparts in North Africa. Nonetheless, politics is not a game for the fainthearted, and among Africa's current leadership, Gadaffi's commitment to African integration stands out against a sea of egocentric leaders with their own nation's agenda, or worse, personal agenda, taking precedence over the need to raise the continent out of its current quagmire.



Continue reading "African Leadership Revisited"