Is SADC Growing Impatient with Zimbabwe?

Cheryl Hendricks, Senior Research Fellow, Security Sector Reform, ISS Pretoria Office

Over the past decade Zimbabwe has been a constant feature on the SADC Organ on Politics, Defence and Security Co-operation’s agenda. In September 2008, SADC was finally able to mediate a Global Political Agreement (GPA) that sought to chart a way forward for peaceful reconciliation in this country. More than two years later, Zimbabwe still preoccupies the Organ’s peace and security agenda as the main protagonists in Zimbabwe’s political saga continue to battle it out. The SADC Organ’s growing impatience with the lack of implementation of the GPA and their concern about renewed violence, was evident at a recent Summit of the Troika, held in Livingstone, Zambia on the 3rd of April 2011. But President Mugabe remains defiant. Does SADC have the necessary willingness, resources and mechanisms to enforce its decisions?

The Summit was attended by Presidents Rupiah Bwenzani Banda of Zambia, current chairperson of the Organ, Hifikepunye Pohamba of Namibia, chairperson of SADC, Jacob Zuma of South Africa, incoming chair of the Organ and SADC mediator for Zimbabwe and Armando Emillio Guebuza of Mozambique, outgoing chair. Also in attendance were Zimbabwean President. Robert Mugabe, Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, Arthur Mutambara and Welshman Ncube – representatives of the main political parties in Zimbabwe.

In what can be considered as its strongest reprimand to Zimbabwe to date, Summit ‘noted with grave concern the polarization of the political environment…resurgence of violence, arrests and intimidation’ and resolved that: there must be an end to the violence and harassment; stakeholders should implement the provisions of the GPA and complete the necessary steps for holding and election including the finalisation of the constitutional amendment and the referendum; develop a roadmap for elections and last but not least, the appointment of a three-member panel to join the facilitation team and work with the Joint Monitoring and Implementation Committee to ensure the implementation of the GPA.

President Mugabe, as cited in The Zimbabwean, retorted with his usual vitriolic response, ‘Any organization, body or group of persons that is established by the Troika or SADC should not prescribe to us what to do’…’ we are a sovereign State and as a sovereign State we don’t accept any interference and even our neighbours should not tell us what to do.’

Zanu-PF, concerned about the continued deterioration of the economy and an ailing leader, would prefer elections to be held in 2011 under the current constitution. The MDC and other opposition groups do not believe the environment is conducive to free and fair elections and would want the provisions of the GPA to be implemented before elections. Essentially Zimbabwe’s electoral environment appears to be in pretty much the same position that it was in 2008. The Crisis Coalition of Zimbabwe, in an advert in the Mail and Guardian newspaper, has urged SADC to push for a new constitution in Zimbabwe, ensure the independence of Zimbabwe’s Electoral Commission, that SADC certify that Zimbabwe is ready for elections, and that SADC, the AU and the UN, deploy peace-keeping monitors

The SADC Organ’s increasingly assertive behaviour in relation to resolving Zimbabwe’s political crisis is commendable. President Zuma appears to be more determined to ensure a resolve of the current impasse. But, what will SADC do if ZANU-PF continues with stalling the necessary steps to ensure the implementation of the GPA and the creation of a more peaceful, free and fair electoral environment? They have shown their intransigence in the past with little consequence from SADC.

SADC has very few enforcement mechanisms, and even fewer it is willing to use. The suspension of a country, as was the case with Madagascar, is one such mechanism, but it yielded little result and it is unlikely that SADC will use this against one of its founding members. SADC is not in favour of sanctions against Zimbabwe and has been lobbying for the international community to lift theirs. Instead, SADC utilizes the power of persuasion – one with very little effect on this political party.

But, the space for Zanu-PF’s maneuvering seems to be closing. This political party relied on its liberation credentials to sway opinion in a SADC Organ that seemed split between the new and the old guard. If one looks carefully at the attendance of the Organ’s Summit then President Mugabe’s former allies are in short supply and those present are beginning to say enough is enough. With President Mugabe increasingly isolated, some movement towards a new dispensation that can finally catapult Zimbabwe to its former political and economic status within the region may be possible.

The Organ needs to ensure that all its members are in agreement on a way forward for Zimbabwe and that they do not renege mid-stream on the implementation thereof. If there is no adequate compliance by Zimbabwe’s parties, any elections held must not be condoned by SADC’s presence as observers and must be considered invalid. The circularity has to come to and end for the sake of Zimbabwe’s citizens who deserve so much more. SADC, as regional organization tasked with creating a more secure and enabling environment for the people of this region, has to now be firm and lead the way.