Interpretation of the SADC communiqué on Zimbabwe

The SADC summit to discuss the political impasse in Zimbabwe held in Sandton, South Africa has come and gone. The three political parties in the Global Political Agreement Zimbabwe went to the SADC summit with different demands and expectations. The Tsvangirai MDC-T political party with the backing of a host of NGO sponsored civil society organisations that included the Crisis Coalition descended on SADC to demand, firstly, the endorsement of the SADC Organ Troika resolution held in Livingstone, Zambia in March 2011. Secondly, they were demanding that the full SADC summit of heads of states and governments to include in its deliberations the issue of security sector reforms and thirdly a definitive timeline for elections in Zimbabwe beyond 2011.
On the issue of the security sector reform, we all know what happened to that. Besides it being not an issue not covered in the GPA agreement, it seemed overtly ambitious for the Tsvangirai outfit to think for a minute that the SADC summit would entertain such preposterous demands. The issue of the security sector is a national security matter way beyond the mandate of SADC. The matter is so sensitive that it raises sovereignty issues.
On the first issue, it is not a secret that the resolution of the SADC Organ Troika of March 2011 in Livingstone was based on the inaccuracies of a report presented to it by the Morgan Tsvangirai MDC-T, which among other things misled the organ to believe that Zimbabwe was under some kind of military rule and that the Zimbabwe government was no longer in charge. This of course resulted in a flawed communiqué from the Organ Troika in Livingstone, Zambia in March.
ZANU PF also had its own set of demands. Notably, the party pointed out to the SADC leaders the ambit of the Global Political Agreement mandate when it came to issues that include the demands for security sector reforms. This was never part of the Global Political Agreement. Secondly, ZANU PF was seeking guidance from SADC with regard to the issue of elections. This requirement for guidance was premised on the basis that the Global Political Agreement that was originally agreed to last for twenty four months had since expired and hence according to the agreement, elections were now overdue.


And thirdly and most importantly, the Livingstone troika summit resolution had deliberately written out the issue of the removal of sanctions on Zimbabwe. It was this resolution that did not mention the sanctions issues as an outstanding issue to be fulfilled by the MDC-T outfit that they clamoured for its adoption and endorsement.
It is in this context and background that the three principals of the Global Political Agreement went to the SADC in Sandton, South Africa. In the latest SADC summit Communiqué, dated the 12th of June 2011, the issue of the SADC Troika communiqué, how it was received by the full SADC summit of heads of state and governments has received multiple interpretations. In particular item 22 in the resolution has been subject to misinterpretation:
22. Summit noted the decisions of the Organ Troika Summit held in Livingstone, Zambia in March 2011.
In some form of desperation, there are those from the Morgan Tsvangirai camp who got so frustrated by the failure of the full SADC summit of heads of States and governments to endorse the Livingstone summit resolutions that they have now resorted to redefining words, resolutions to suit their own ends.
Listening to an online pirate radio station some , ‘political analysts’ being interviewed were at pains trying to equate or run parallels between the word ‘noted’ with ‘endorsed’. Any Zimbabwe Junior certificate student will easily tell you the difference between the words, noted and endorsed. A standard dictionary will tell you that when something is said to have been noted it merely means something that is ‘worthy of notice, something worthy of ‘attention ‘nothing substantive.
When you endorse something it means you ‘support’ that thing. An endorsement is an act of approval. It is a qualifying comment. It is often when something is endorsed a signature is required. Now, for someone to say with no equivocation that the SADC summit endorsed the Livingstone summit resolution by using the word ‘noted’ is not only foolish but thoroughly irresponsible. The bottom line is that the SADC summit heads of state and governments saw through the shenanigans of the Tsvangirai outfit at Livingstone. In particular President Jacob Zuma saw through the games played by the MDC-T outfit. The fact that he requested to meet President Robert Mugabe a day before the SADC summit is instructive.
Another issue that seems to have either escaped or has been ignored by the pirate radio stations is the issue of the sanctions. This had been written out of the Livingstone troika resolution of March 2011. The SADC summit of the head of states and government resolution of Sandton, South Africa brought it back in under points 29-31.
29. Summit recalled its decision taken during the Extraordinary Summit in Windhoek, Namibia in August 2010, mandating the Chairperson of SADC, the Chairperson of the Organ, SADC Facilitator for the Zimbabwe Political Dialogue assisted by the Secretariat to undertake the mission to the United Kingdom, United States of America and the European Union.
30. Summit received a Report on the mission and noted its recommendations.
31. Summit committed to continue dialogue with the western powers on the removal of sanctions against Zimbabwe.
This alone is a major victory for the ZANU PF party in that the MDC-T party has been asked working together with SADC to make sure that they fulfill their part under the GPA agreement. Most importantly to make sure that they engage with their western sponsors to have the sanctions lifted if Zimbabwe is to have free and fair elections. If the sanctions are lifted, the issue of the timeline for elections will no longer be of any significance.
So, however you look or read the June 12, SADC summit resolution, the MDC-T party remains the beast of burden. The burden they have is to make sure the sanctions go before the next election, failure which they would have failed or neglected to discharge their responsibility towards the Global Political Agreement.

Violence and the case for Legitimate elections in Zimbabwe

Social networks have become the new platform for Zimbabweans domiciled in various countries around the world to pool their thoughts, opinions and arguments together as the quest for a new Zimbabwe narrative slowly begins to take shape. Zimbabwe is a country which many consider to be between a rock and a hard place. Some of us see different, depending on which side of the political divide one is compelled to argue from. Zimbabweans hold different views as to the source of our problems and the route we need to follow in order to solve our problems and hopefully agree on new Zimbabwe narrative or dream as it were. Of the many subjects that are debated on the social networks, the most controversial is the one of elections under the Global Political Agreement (GPA) and the much talked about demand for security sector reforms by the MDC-T party led by Morgan Tsvangirayi.

The issue of elections in Zimbabwe takes centre stage because they will ultimately determine which political party forms the next government in Zimbabwe and why. The ZANU PF party led by President Robert Mugabe wants the elections to be held this year, 2011, hence the demand for the need to speedily conclude the issue of the Constitutional referendum.

On the other hand the Morgan Tsvangirayi MDC-T wants the elections held either next year, 2012 or beyond. Amongst their numerous demands is the call for a free and free poll. Their demand for a free and fair poll is premised on the argument that the ZANU PF party led by President Robert Mugabe uses violence and coercion in order to determine the outcome of elections. And it is their contention that the 2008 elections were worn by Morgan Tsvangirayi and because of the violence the election results failed to translate into political power in order for him to form a government.

The key issue that we need to interrogate fairly is the issue of violence, its source and its implications on a fair and credible poll. It is the issue of violence with regard to our elections to be held either this year, next year or when ever that we need to address for us to fully appreciate the legitimacy and the full import of a real and credible election. My argument in this regard will be premised on the fact that the biggest form of violence ever perpetrated on a people was when with the stroke of a pen the United States of America enacted ZIDERA in 2001 followed closely by its allies in Europe. Lest we forget these economic sanctions became a reality when the MDC-T political party went on a world wide campaign to have Zimbabwe sanctioned.

The impacts of the economic sanctions were and still are the biggest form of violence to have ever hit Zimbabweans. The impact of this violence played itself out during the cholera epidemic, the death of thousands due to HIV complications when the Zimbabwe government failed to provide the necessary imported medication to its citizens. The violence played itself out when inflation reached unprecedented levels. This saw many Zimbabweans loosing their life savings as the value was eaten way by inflation. Whilst not condoning the political violence that happened in the 2008 elections caused by both political parties, it is my humble submission that the economic, political and psychological violence cause by the MDC-T instigate western sanctions on Zimbabweans over the last ten years makes the 2008 election violence seem like child’s play. In other words, comparatively the violence caused by the sanctions have left Zimbabweans more battered compared to the once off clashes that happened at election time.

The fundamental question that we need to ask ourselves now is, how can we justify a credible, free and fair election in Zimbabwe whilst the sanctions are in place? For Zimbabwe to have a real and credible election we need to address the issue of the political, economic and social violence that have been perpetrated on the people of Zimbabwe by the economic sanctions of the west.



The Morgan led MDC-T has been calling for the reform of the army, intelligence, the Police and the prison services as a fundamental requirement for Zimbabwe to hold a free and credible poll. Their argument is that the security apparatus is partisan and hence they will make power transfer impossible in the event that Morgan Tsvangirayi wins the polls. My take on this matter is different. What would make the transfer of power to Morgan Tsvangirayi and his MDC-T party impossible in the event of an MDC –T electoral victory is the fact that any election held in Zimbabwe with the sanctions still in place, its outcome will not represent the true aspirations of the Zimbabwean people, sanction free aspirations. It is my belief that the impacts of the economic sanctions by western powers at the behest of the MDC-T outfit are the biggest form of violence on Zimbabweans from external forces.


The lifting of the economic sanctions on Zimbabwe is the barest minimum requirement if we are to ever have a free and credible poll. All this pussy footing about security sector reform and the drafting of a new constitution will not lead us to the Promised Land. The violent assault on Zimbabweans through economic sanctions continues to play itself out in institutions like the Kimberley Processes. Whilst the chair, Congo in this rotation has authorized Zimbabwe to sell its diamonds internationally, the same countries that have sanctioned Zimbabwe continue to make sure by whatever cruel means necessary that Zimbabweans should not climb out of the sanctions hole that they have dug up for them. So how is Zimbabwe supposed to have free and credible elections with this economic assault taking place?


It is a truism that the economic sanctions on Zimbabwe were put in place primarily to weaken the ZANU PF led Zimbabwe government and instigate the citizens of Zimbabwe to turn against its elected leadership. The general idea was to have Morgan and his MDC-T party takeover the reins of power as soon as the people of Zimbabwe, impacted by economic sanctions overthrew the Robert Mugabe administration.

The 2008 election were held in this deeply polarized environment, were sanctions having wreaked havoc on the lives of ordinary Zimbabweans proceeded to stamp their effect on the electoral outcome. Most Zimbabweans voted on empty stomachs. Donor funds fed citizens at MDC-T political rallies compelling many Zimbabweans to trade their vote for food. To this day Zimbabweans are so polarized and continue to be and hence finding a common Zimbabwe narrative will be next to impossible in a country were the sanctions are the determinative factor in everyday life.

Everyday shortages of basic services like water and electricity continue to hound Zimbabweans as the government of national unity that includes the Morgan Tsvangirayi MDC-T fails to call of the hounds of sanctions they invited onto the country. It is this environment that we are being compelled to go for elections, a sanctioned environment. It is perfectly obvious that this environment has been created to bring about only one outcome only. That outcome of an MDC-T electoral victory.

It is the understanding of this sanctioned environment and its attendant effect on the election outcome by our war veterans, army commanders and captains that has compelled them to openly declare that they will not respect an election outcome won by Morgan Tsvangirayi. How can they? It would be morally indefensible for the Zimbabwean security forces to allow the transfer of power to a Morgan Tsvangirayi administration if he should ever win an election with sanctions in place. They have a moral duty to defend the aspirations of the Zimbabwean people’s right to self determination. And those aspirations must be sanction free aspirations to hold free and fair elections without any form of external or internal influence.

.