Zimbabwe Information Center in North America
A project of the North American Coalition for a Free Zimbabwe (NACFREEZ)
MDC
By Stanford G. Mukasa
Letter from America
September 24 , 2007
Thozane Kuphe's speech was brilliant, but MDC made a strategic error on the constitutional amendment agreement
The news last week that the Movement for Democratic Change had reached an agreement with ZANUPF on the so called Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 18) Bill sent shockwaves to many people –some of whom lost no time attacking the MDC leadership.
A major criticism of the MDC was that the party appeared to be accepting breadcrumbs of concessions from Mugabe, leading to the fear that MDC might be swallowed by ZANUPF the way PFZAPU met its fate in 1987.
Many people expressed disappointment that the MDC had agreed to The Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 18) Bill which practically gave Mugabe the right to appoint his own successor.
Some critics pointed out to the fact that Parliament appears to have become the legitimating and implementing institution for any agreement reached between MDC and ZANUPF.
For example, giving Parliament the task of electing a successor to Robert Mugabe, is tantamount to accepting Mugabe’s game plan which might include a demand for a hefty retirement package as well as immunity from prosecution for his crimes against Zimbabweans. If Mugabe were granted what he wants as conditions for his retirement, he will get an added bonus of electing his own successor who, to all intents and purposes, will simply perpetuate Mugabe’s doctrine and agenda.
Another example is the electoral commission. While the agreement stipulates that it will be independent, its membership will presumably be drawn from, or ratified by, Parliament where ZANUPF has an absolute majority.
Based on the above observations and criticism it would appear that, in the eyes of many people MDC has turned its back on the suffering masses of Zimbabwe.
However a closer analysis of MDC vice president Thokozani Khupe’s speech in Parliament indicates that the initial agreement on the amendment to the constitution is, as she put it, a confidence-building measure. Khupe stressed that negotiations have on their agenda a wide range of issues that have yet to be negotiated. And she made it clear in her speech that MDC’s support was conditional on agreement being reached on a broader and wider range of unresolved issues.
She specifically said her party’s support was “subject to the inclusion of agreed positions” on “a comprehensive Bill of rights; inclusive citizenship, limits to presidential terms of office, an independent electoral commission reporting to Parliament, and above all an irrevocable commitment to the overhaul of security, media, and electoral laws.”
Khupe emphasized that the MDC’s position in support of the 18th constitutional amendment must be seen in the context of ongoing negotiations for a more comprehensive agreement.A key dilemma for the MDC was whether to accept concessions in a piecemeal fashion from Mugabe and ZANUPF, or to suspend any decision until a major breakthrough on broader issues had been made.
In this case all the piecemeal deals were in the constitutional amendment which, on itself gave Mugabe a major boost in terms of whatever agenda or game plan he has for his succession or the future of ZANUPF.
An important observation here is that ZANUPF, with its absolute majority in Parliament , accepted amendments to the constitutional amendment as a result of negotiations with the MDC.
ZANUPF could have gone ahead and voted the original amendment to the constitution into law. Why did they not do so? The answer is simply that ZANUPF realized that its majority in Parliament is meaningless if it cannot get public and international legitimacy for whatever laws or amendments it passes.
The past few weeks or months have seen an unstable ZANUPF make laws and decrees – only to reverse them in a hasty retreat in face of a severe backlash from the economy or public opinion.
Mugabe’s ZANUPF has become a trial –and- error regime. Each step in the forward direction is hastily followed by a step in the backward direction, leading to the stagnation of the regime. These are the visible symptoms of a decrepit and bankrupt regime.
The big question for MDC should now be : How will its agreement with ZANUPF on the amendment to the constitution push the momentum towards a more comprehensive agreement? What happens to this agreement if talks break down on major issues? Will the MDC yield more confidence -building measures ?
Yes. It is agreed and understood that in any negotiations there is always a give and take. However, there are some issues which are too fundamental to be subjected to horse trading.
In her speech to Parliament Khupe did not, in her characteristic dynamism, mince her words when she made it clear that the MDC had not lost sight of its key demands, and would hold ZANUPF feet to the fire on all outstanding issues.
The biggest criticism was focused on accusations that MDC seemed to have opted for piecemeal amendments rather than demanding a new constitution.
The National Constitutional Assembly has been very vocal on the demand for a new constitution as a prelude to any progress towards a democratized post-Mugabe Zimbabwe.However the NCA and MDC have historically had ideological differences on the issue of a constitution. MDC is much more amenable to transitional arrangements leading to free and fair elections. But NCA insists on a new constitution before and above everything else. In the past months the MDC seemed to have come round to accepting the NCA position for a new constitution.
However, there is a compelling argument that if some transitional measures can be put in place that will ensure an irrevocable and irreversible progress towards free and fair elections they should be tried. Transitional measures must, of course, include, among other issues, some amendments to the present constitution and to some laws to make sure the playing field is level.
A strategic question at this point is : Which is more important, a new constitution or a process towards free and fair elections? Should a new constitution come before free and fair elections, or vice versa? Could the post -Mugabe regime that will emerge after free and fair elections have been held start a national consultation towards a new constitution, now that people will be free to express themselves without fear of retaliation as is the case now?
The problem with the MDC is it failed to develop a strategy for selling to the people its support for the constitutional amendment.
Negotiations with Mugabe’s cronies had taken place under a veil of secrecy in South Africa. MDC delegates’ characteristic response on how things were going was they could not reveal the substance of the talks because they were under a gag order from South African President Thabo Mbeki. The MDC should have realized that Mbeki is considered an arch enemy of the people of Zimbabwe. Having secret talks under the auspices of Mbeki generated suspicion among many Zimbabweans very early in the talks.
Granted that in any negotiation some level of secrecy must be maintained the MDC should at least have given an indication to the supporters about the direction of the talks.
They could, for example, have told supporters that the talks were ongoing, and any piecemeal agreements were valid only as long as they led to an agreement on a comprehensive settlement.
This would have created a framework for public understanding and sympathy on the constitutional amendment No. 18.
The public are very much aware that it was through similar secret negotiations that led what some people called the greatest betrayal when PFZAPU was swallowed by ZANUPF in 1987. To add to people’s suspicions Joshua Nkomo, a revered leader of the anti -Mugabe forces, was handsomely rewarded with a position in government. From his new position Vice President Nkomo conveniently forgot about the Gukurahundi atrocities which he had earlier so vociferously campaigned against.
Another strategic error by the MDC was that the party leadership made the first formal announcement of its support for the constitutional amendment in Parliament. Just like Mbeki, the Zimbabwe Parliament has no relevance in the people’s lives because it is controlled by ZANUPF. MDC should have submitted its position paper in support of the constitutional amendment to an extraordinary meeting of the MDC National Executive committee, just like ZANUPF delegates submitted their position to the ZANUPF politburo.
Yet another strategic error was MDC MPs voted in favor of the amendment. They should have opted to abstain rather than vote for the amendment. Abstaining would have sent a clear message to Mugabe that the MDC support for the amendment was contingent on a comprehensive agreement – and since no such agreement was in sight MDC was, as Khupe had aptly put it, not going to stand in the way.
By voting in favor of the amendment, which practically gives Mugabe the power to elect his own successor the unintended message that went out to the masses was MDC was voting for Mugabe! And this is exactly what triggered widespread hostilities against the MDC! Mugabe is the unindicted criminal behind the sordid mess and gross human rights violations that Zimbabweans are experiencing .
MDC should have been very sensitive to the fact that any vote, direct or indirect, that consolidated or gave legitimacy to Mugabe to appoint his successor would not go down very well with the masses.
One issue that is troubling Zimbabweans would appear to be: What substantial concessions did Mugabe give: CNN put that question to Mugabe’s so-called ambassador to the United States, Machivenyika Mapuranga. It turned to be a disaster with Mapuranga struggling to identify any major concessions from Mugabe.
MDC vice president Khupe gave a very compelling speech in Parliament. Had MDC adopted a strategy for selling to the people its support for the constitutional amendment it would have allayed any fears or suspicions that MDC leadership was on the verge of betraying Zimbabweans.
In her well crafted speech Khupe emphasized that MDC remained committed to the principle of a new people-driven constitution.
Criticism of the MDC’s agreement, while welcome, should have been constructive in order to maintain the unity of the opposition forces.Lambasting the MDC leadership as having betrayed the people and cutting off any contacts merely serves Mugabe and ZANUPF’s agenda. A divided and squabbling opposition is exactly want Mugabe wants in order to justify his continued rule.