South African President Pressures Former Zimbabwean Opposition to Compromise on Power-Sharing

Having distinguished himself from his predecessor by overtly criticising Zimbabwean President , South African President Jacob Zuma is now calling on Zimbabwean Prime Minister to “park” some of the most problematic power-sharing issues.

IHS Global Insight Perspective

Significance The topic in question is President Robert Mugabe's refusal to discuss his reappointment last year of Gideon Gono as central bank governor and Johannes Tomana as attorney-general.

Implications The appointments were made in early 2009 without consulting Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai and his Movement for Democratic Change (MDC-T). Moreover, in MDC-T's eyes, Gono and Tomana are fatally compromised by corruption, mismanagement and human/civil rights abuses in the previous African National Union- Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) administration.

Outlook Zuma likely calculates that Mugabe cannot remove Gono and Tomana without risking the rupture of his party and emboldening a faction of hardliners fearful and violently disposed toward political reform.

Chronic Gridlock

In October 2009, the MDC-T was provoked by the arrest of its treasurer, Minister of Agriculture-designate , to suspend all contact with its ZANU-PF power-sharing partners. Although Bennett was soon released on bail, the damage was done. The MDC-T referred the power-sharing agreement to its regional guarantors in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) citing a litany of blockages. Although ZANU-PF attempted to present the event as an MDC-T temper tantrum, the stand-off represented the most serious challenge to power sharing and therefore Zimbabwe’s nascent political stability and economic rehabilitation since February 2009. The MDC-T was only persuaded to end its boycott on a test basis to allow time for dialogue after a 5 November 2009 meeting of the SADC.

The outstanding issues cited by the MDC-T include:

• the unilateral appointment of Johannes Tomana as attorney-general and Gideon Gono as Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RNZ) governor. • Mugabe’s failure to appoint MDC-T members as provincial governors as agreed. • Mugabe’s refusal to appoint Roy Bennett as deputy minister of agriculture. • unilateral changes made to agreed ministerial portfolios. • partisan appointments to media regulatory bodies without consultation. • the ongoing prosecution of former opposition and government critics through the security services and selective application of the law.

The relationship between the three power-sharing partners is still not an easy one—and will never be as their interests are diametrically opposed. The MDC-T is pushing for a levelling of the playing field that will allow it to take power at the ballot in 2011 without fear of violent reprisals and that, should it win power, it will have control of state institutions that have been run for the past 30 years as an extension of ZANU-PF party machinery. The ZANU-PF is a reluctant party to political reform; broadly speaking, its aim is to allow the minimum necessary for the rehabilitation of the economy and its international reputation. The relevance of Deputy Prime Minister offshoot Movement for Democratic Change (MDC-M) is greatly amplified by this power-sharing agreement and the finely balanced parliament.

Nevertheless, before the December 2009 holiday period, dialogue produced some early successes.

• The power-sharing principals—Mugabe, Tsvangirai and Mutambara— agreed on the composition of media, human rights and electoral reform commissions. • The constitutional reform process appears to be making headway. • Roy Bennett's trial on treason charges has begun. Assuming that Bennett is acquitted as Home Affairs Minister , Bennett’s co-accused, was in 2006, Mugabe will be “free” to swear him in while saving face. • Minister for the Office of the Prime Minister Gordon Moyo has said that the unity government will actively campaign for the removal of targeted European Union sanctions against 40 companies; ZANU-PF demands that the MDC-T deliver here.

Negotiators have not managed to meet this month as expected, purportedly due to conflicting schedules.

A New Day for Diplomacy

As has been the case since 2002, regional powerhouse South Africa has taken the lead in mediation. President Jacob Zuma took leadership of South Africa’s ruling African National Congress (ANC) in December 2007 and from the outset there have been high expectations that he would break with the “quiet diplomacy” of his predecessor, Thabo Mbeki. Although he was able to lay the foundations of power sharing in Zimbabwe, Mbeki was criticised for adopting Mugabe’s anti-imperialist characterisation of events in Zimbabwe, refusing to openly criticise abuses by ZANU-PF even during the worst violence, ignoring the valid concerns of the MDC-T and for failing to use South Africa’s considerable leverage to force changes in policy. Mbeki’s critics included powerful members of the ANC coalition responsible for Zuma’s rise to power, such as the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU). There are indeed clear differences between Zuma and Mbeki in their approach toward Zimbabwe. Mbeki’s hostility toward Tsvangirai is no longer a factor. The MDC-T has spoken of it pleasure at the level engagement from South Africa. For example, Zuma appointed a three- member “facilitation team” in November 2009 to move the Zimbabwe process forward. Its members—Charles Nqakula, Mac Maharaj and Lindiwe Zulu— are close associates of the president and influential within the ANC. In addition to acting with more urgency, in its mediation South Africa is no longer placing Zimbabwe in the context of an anti-colonial struggle or putting emphasis on failed structural adjustments of the early 1990s. While remaining with intra-African international relations norms, such as solidarity, emphasis on national sovereignty and reluctance to employ economic or military sanctions, Zuma has raised the volume on South African diplomacy in Zimbabwe.

Flexibility

Even so, in an interview on South African radio, Zuma has called on Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai to show flexibility on the intractable issues of Gono and Tomana. Zuma is quoted by SAFM as asking if the issue is “so fundamental that we cannot move without” settling it, adding, "Can we park them and proceed?" It is notable that Zuma does not apply the same request to the other outstanding issues. The statement likely comes in recognition of the successes that have already been seen, the importance of provincial governorships to the balance of power and the complexity of ZANU-PF internal politics. The party is split by division. One important faction to whom Gono and Tomana are linked are the hardliners—those actors within the security services and paramilitary fearful of prosecution for previous abuses and a loss of privilege, who have the power to destabilise Zimbabwe. Although Mugabe has sat at the helm of his party for three decades, he has not ruled in isolation; the hardliners have been an increasingly important pillar over the past decade in particular.

Outlook and Implications

Zuma’s statement shows exasperation perhaps, but should not be viewed as withdrawing support from the MDC-T at this stage; it is more illustrative of pragmatism. Zuma may calculate that firing Tomana and Gono could provoke a power struggle within ZANU-PF, the outcome of which would be uncertain. The MDC-T has not yet responded to Zuma’s plea, but Tsvangirai is faced with his own internal problems at this point. Trade unions dissatisfied with public-sector pay settlements are threatening industrial action, his foot- soldiers are complaining of harrassment by the security services and land seizures are ongoing. Such a headlining compromise will be a difficult sell to the base at this moment. The outcome of the Bennett trial or movement on the provincial governorships could change this dynamic, but first the negotiators will have to meet again.

Written by: IHS Global Insight Africa political analyst Nana Adu Ampofo.