The shame of Sharm El Sheikh

One thing you can say about the African Union (AU) and the eminent men and one woman who lead it is that they never disappoint or surprise. Faced with an abundance of evidence that one of their own was acting in blatant and total violation of the charter and principles of the their union, that there was a huge humanitarian crisis will all the hallmarks of genocide unfolding in that member country, that the electoral observers they had mandated to be their witnesses in a just concluded plebiscite had unanimously declared the process as having been neither free nor fair nor reflecting the will of the people, that citizens of the member country were being brutalised, raped murdered in a state sponsored orgy of violence – against all this evidence and much more, they were unable to issue a statement of condemnation and only glibly endorsed a farcical statement supporting the establishment of a government of national unity (GNU).

To call this a spineless and meaningless declaration is to seriously understate the fact. But if due credit can be given; there were dissenting voices against the normal acquiescence that has become the standard bearing of African politics of solidarity. Countries such as Botswana, Nigeria, Liberia and Kenya spoke strongly against the injustices being perpetrated against fellow Africa citizens by a rogue and illegal regime in Zimbabwe. However in the end their voices were drowned out by the silence of the overwhelming majority in that august gathering. The statement that was eventually issued represented a significant compromise and face-saving measure to what has surely become a deeply divisive and emotional issue. I am tempted to condemn and dismiss the AU statement offhand as another example of the failure of African diplomacy. But I have to admit that there are many positives that can be derived from this shameful episode.

The first is that this is the very first time that Zimbabwe has been formally put on the agenda of the AU and elicited an open and spirited discussion amongst the heads of state. Whichever way one looks at it, this is a very significant breakthrough. For the first time ever, Mugabe was able to sit and hear his colleagues criticise him and question his legitimacy. The fact that there was no consensus and that there were divisions is immaterial. The important thing is that the African leaders responded to Mugabe’s dare issued before the meeting that he would like to examine any finger pointed at him to see whether it is clean. A significant number of fingers were pointed at him and many of the fingers were clean – maybe not squeaky clean, but clean all the same. He must have been highly embarrassed to find himself in that invidious position.

The second positive is that the African leadership for the very first time ever condemned the violence that is taking place in Zimbabwe and asked that this be stopped. Even a club dominated by despots and political dinosaurs could not entirely ignore human rights violations being perpetrated by one of their own – the death, destruction, torture, rape and displacement of innocent and unprotected citizens. Some of them may have committed worse atrocities in their own countries but, with few notable exceptions – Sudan being a case in point - never in the glare of the international publicity and universal condemnation. What Mugabe had done was to demonstrate that he did not give a hoot about international public opinion and the ticking-off he got in return was just recompense.

The third positive outcome is that the AU did not give recognition to Mugabe. They may not have branded him as illegitimate and, even more importantly, they may not have endorsed Morgan Tsvangirai who convincingly won the first round of elections on 29 March but by withholding formal recognition of Mugabe’s regime the AU has effectively denied him the legitimacy that he was craving. The AU has previously endorsed fraudulent and irregular election results in Zimbabwe but this time they did not do so and this is very commendable. Mugabe clearly has his back firmly in the corner and the way out for him is increasingly looking tenuous.

His only salvation appears to rest in the government of national unity which is being pushed by the AU on the instigation of President Mbeki. I have my doubts that this GNU will work because, in much the same way as at the time of the run-off elections, the conditions on the ground are not conducive to a successful endeavour. In my view, the concept of GNU is antithesis to democracy and will reflect an unacceptable compromise in Zimbabwe’s circumstances. Democracy is about being governed by elected (or chosen) representatives not by rejected ones or by a mix of the elected and the rejected. When the GNU was proposed for Kenya, I thought it was a bad precedent and stated as much in my blog of sometime back in March.

The issue in Zimbabwe today, as it was in Kenya earlier in the year, is one of unwillingness by the incumbent to accept electoral defeat and concede power to the party or parties which the electorate have freely chosen. It is obvious to anyone with any bit of common sense that Mugabe lost the March election by the requisite margin to avoid a run-off – why else would it have taken more than a month to announce the results, except if it was to massage the numbers to produce the preferred outcome? And all this was done right under the nose of and with the probable collusion of President Mbeki and his SADC crowd. I feel that this whole talk about giving Mugabe a dignified exit is quite misguided and beside the point.

In Kenya Raila Odinga ended up being appointed Prime Minister, a position which he never contested for! And the expectation is now that Morgan Tsvangirai will accept a similar deal in Zimbabwe while Mugabe hangs on to the presidency – albeit a watered down version of the real thing. What a travesty! What impudence! This is the sort of wanton disregard of the people’s wishes which has driven Africa down a land-mined cul-de-sac over the past decades. The real strength of democracy lies in the notion that if you fail to rule properly, you get kicked out and someone else is chosen. The fear of being striped of power is what makes governments work very hard to meet the needs and expectations of their people. Once you remove this threat, democracy loses its meaning.

Admittedly, I may be too idealistic. The world out there is certainly more complex than my simple rationality may suggest. And, yes, the situation in Zimbabwe is now so desperate that any solution will be welcome – even one as faulty and fractured as the GNU. In the circumstances, the honourable gentlemen and lady who deliberated on the solution to Zimbabwe’s problem in Sharm El Sheikh last weekend may not have done a very bad job after all. Only time will tell.