SADC should now call on the uniformed men to hep

IN two African countries recently, the soldiers have flexed their muscles in a manner suggesting, for Africa , at least, the barrel of the gun still wields more clout than the gift for the gab, or all the diplomatic razzmatazz you can think of. In Guinea , independent from the French in 1960, there was bloodshed on a huge scale before the soldiers took over control of the country. The details are probably important but unless you are doing an in-depth analysis of why African soldiers are so trigger-happy, let’s not bother ourselves with that. Then in Madagascar , another former French colony granted independence around the same time, a young civilian took over the troubled country with the aid of the army. Marc Ravalomanana was replaced as president by the youthful Andry Rajoelina. The African Union, as usual, was high on rhetoric but rather slow on action. Fortunately for the new leaders, most of the citizens had little they could recall which the former leader had done to improve their lives. In fact, the general accusation was that he had presided over a sharp rise in poverty among the people – while he himself ran businesses there, there and everywhere. All this must be bewildering to Zimbabweans who, while they may have not great things to say about the men and women in uniform, cannot pin down why their role in the running of the country is so patently unhelpful. For instance, take the events after the death of the Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai’s wife, Susan, in a road accident in which her husband was also injured. According to reports, not one of the chiefs of the uniformed forces attended the burial. Some said it was not necessarily a required protocol for them to be present; others thought, as a mark of decency and respect to the prime minister, they ought to have made an appearance Unuttered by both sides was the suspicion that the men didn’t particularly like to be too closely associated with Tsvangirai, politically. After all, for them, he represents what they must believe is the unacceptable face of The Zimbabwe They Don’t Want. For them, being mostly heroes of the liberation struggle, the only acceptable face is that of Robert Mugabe, their commander-in-chief then and now. There could therefore the merit in the theory that the snail’s pace movement of the talks to implement the September GNU accords can be justifiably ascribed to these key armed men’s reluctance to concede any more leverage to Tsvangirai. If the Sadc leaders are serious about moving the process of change speedily and materially, then they must consider the co-option of their heads of the unformed forces to palaver with the Zimbabwean counterparts. Of course, there will be protests about this being an infringement of the country/s much-vaunted sovereignty, but since Mugabe agreed to have Tsvangirai as his prime minister – admittedly, after much wailing and gnashing of teeth - that argument must be a little feeble and pointless now. What may bamboozle negotiators is precisely what the uniformed men would call their quid pro quo. In return for allowing the talks to run their full course – to have Tsvangirai and his Cabinet in effective control of the government and not to be hamstrung by constant sniping from the army, the air force and police and prison services -= what would they demand? These are men of action, some of it quite unpredictable. At one time or another, they have declared publicly that they would not salute a leader with no liberation war credentials – to wit, Tsvangirai. But even they must now acknowledge that the veteran unionist has the solid backing of the people of Zimbabwe - perhaps much more than Mugabe has. Surely, to continue to deny him the sacred duty to lead the people would be a scandalous case of treason. There can be no going back to the days before the GNU. It seems that Mugabe himself and his lieutenants have been at great pains recently to emphasise that the new arrangement is not permanent, that there will be elections in two years’ time, where he old tried and tested formula of “the winners takes it all” will apply. If Zanu PF is counting on its usual “Mafia” tactics to deal with MDC election machinery newly-oiled by victories in the 2008 elections, they could still be in for a huge surprise. To most cynics, Zanu PF has won rigged elections since 1980. Having clearly lost the 2008 presidential election in March, the party rigged the June event and, quite shamelessly, claimed Mugabe had won it hands down. For many Zimbabweans, this was the lowest point of Mugabe’s political career, worse even than his party’s defeat in the constitutional referendum which he seemed to graciously accept – and proceeded to upend through the violence he allowed to be unleashed by the war veterans, led by the late Chenjerai Hunzvi. If you think seriously of the number of people killed during this madness, you begin to truly wonder if Mugabe and Zanu PF are aware of the number of needless deaths their stubbornness entailed. He initially spoke of the massacre during Gukurahundi as “part pf the struggle”, until the facts persuaded him to alter his stance: it was a moment of madness, he admitted, at last. But there are innocent Zimbabweans who, to this day, can’t understand why so many of their relatives were killed, after others had already been killed during the war of liberation. Certainly, if anybody in Zanu PF, including the men in charge of the uniformed forces, believe that having signed a protocol to implement a unified government structure, Zanu PF should still campaign to win on the basis which it has employed throughout the years – killing and more killing – they must be stark raving bonkers. So far, the Sadc leaders, from being initially tentative and weak in tackling Mugabe and Zanu PF, have acted with courage. The meeting scheduled for Monday, intended to hammer out a programme of economic aid to the beleaguered country, should be used to remind Zanu PF that they cannot bank on their old tamba wakachera strategy to hoodwink their assumed partners. There is absolutely no doubt that Zanu PF will hope to be back on the top of the heap, after all is said and done. But so far, neither Tsvangirai nor Mutambara have shirked their responsibility of representing the advocates of change who won in 2008. While the watchword for all leaders, including the men in uniform, must be “no more killings”, it should never be forgotten that only people with fire in their bellies will last the long haul. In any struggle against Zanu PF, all must be prepared for the unexpected, especially from men in uniform who believe that any change at all must be on their own peculiar, unprincipled terms.-By Chenjerai Chitsaru