Zuma to wield bobbejaan
Sadc is now fed up with President Robert Mugabe and the regional leaders have reportedly decided to let the octogenarian go it alone should he decide to proceed with elections without a clear roadmap for free and fair elections.
Mediator to the Zimbabwean crisis, South African President Jacob Zuma, is widely expected to descend heavily on President Mugabe and wield the proverbial bobbejaan spanner (pipe wrench) when Sadc Heads of State meet in Johannesburg on June 11, diplomatic sources said.
“Word is that Sadc leaders have had enough of the Zimbabwe story which is taking up much of their time unnecessarily. President Mugabe remains intransigent and the result could be regional instability. The leaders are saying if President Mugabe wants to go ahead with elections this year without Sadc’s go-ahead, he can do so at his own peril,” a diplomat said.
Another diplomat said the price would be too costly for Zimbabwe and President Mugabe should he proceed with plans to hold elections without the regional bloc’s thumbs-up.
“Tension is high ahead of the June 11 meeting on Zimbabwe. Sadc has made its position clear and so has President Mugabe. But should President Mugabe shun advice, he will have himself to blame if the Sadc leaders decide to ditch him like we hear they are contemplating. The Zimbabwe crisis has gone on for too long yet it could have been resolved years ago if President Mugabe wanted,” the diplomat said.
But political analysts and observers say elections this year would plunge the country into a crisis because the process and the results will not be “legitimate”.
They said should Sadc let President Mugabe get his way, it would be a blow to the “struggle for democracy” in Zimbabwe.
“I think if Sadc throws in the towel and gives (President) Mugabe the green light to go ahead with elections, it will be a sad day for the struggle for democracy in Zimbabwe,” political analyst Charles Mangongera said. “A lot of Zimbabweans and others, who are concerned about the future of the country in the region and abroad, have been pinning their hopes on Sadc to be able to facilitate the creation of conditions that will allow Zimbabweans to freely express themselves.”
Others, however, had different views saying Zimbabwe had a right to organise its own elections without the green light from Sadc.
Chris Mutsvangwa, a Zanu PF sympathiser and former ambassador to China, said Zimbabwe’s polls were an internal affair which did not require Sadc’s approval.
“Zimbabwean elections are an internal Zimbabwean affair. The authority of Sadc comes from the voluntary surrender of certain specific aspects of sovereignty by member states,” Mutsvangwa said. “That is what the MDC formations do not know.” However, Mangongera hoped Sadc would not let up the pressure.
“My sense is that they will not drop the ball.
They will keep the pressure on (President) Mugabe to put in place conditions for free and fair elections,” Mangongera said.
“If they throw in the towel now, that is like throwing away all the efforts they have put into this. I know that within Sadc there is a conviction that the Zimbabwe crisis can only be resolved by a credible, free and fair election.
“They are also tired of it and they want a permanent solution.” Brian Ngwenya, another analyst, said countries such as South Africa, Zambia, Mozambique and Botswana were unlikely to allow President Mugabe to get his way.
“There have been lots of diplomatic movements between certain members of Sadc and Western diplomats which really will put a lot of pressure on these particular members of the bloc,” Ngwenya said.
“You have in mind countries like Zambia, Mozambique, South Africa and, to a lesser extent, Botswana who have forged stronger working relations with Western countries.”
He said in the event that President Mugabe chose the radical stance and went for elections, the implications would be dire for him and Zanu PF because they would face a serious crisis of legitimacy.
“What it means for them is that they would have regressed to 2008 when they were faced with serious isolation after the sham 2008 election,” Ngwenya said.
“Word is that Sadc leaders have had enough of the Zimbabwe story which is taking up much of their time unnecessarily. President Mugabe remains intransigent and the result could be regional instability. The leaders are saying if President Mugabe wants to go ahead with elections this year without Sadc’s go-ahead, he can do so at his own peril,” a diplomat said.
Another diplomat said the price would be too costly for Zimbabwe and President Mugabe should he proceed with plans to hold elections without the regional bloc’s thumbs-up.
“Tension is high ahead of the June 11 meeting on Zimbabwe. Sadc has made its position clear and so has President Mugabe. But should President Mugabe shun advice, he will have himself to blame if the Sadc leaders decide to ditch him like we hear they are contemplating. The Zimbabwe crisis has gone on for too long yet it could have been resolved years ago if President Mugabe wanted,” the diplomat said.
But political analysts and observers say elections this year would plunge the country into a crisis because the process and the results will not be “legitimate”.
They said should Sadc let President Mugabe get his way, it would be a blow to the “struggle for democracy” in Zimbabwe.
“I think if Sadc throws in the towel and gives (President) Mugabe the green light to go ahead with elections, it will be a sad day for the struggle for democracy in Zimbabwe,” political analyst Charles Mangongera said. “A lot of Zimbabweans and others, who are concerned about the future of the country in the region and abroad, have been pinning their hopes on Sadc to be able to facilitate the creation of conditions that will allow Zimbabweans to freely express themselves.”
Others, however, had different views saying Zimbabwe had a right to organise its own elections without the green light from Sadc.
Chris Mutsvangwa, a Zanu PF sympathiser and former ambassador to China, said Zimbabwe’s polls were an internal affair which did not require Sadc’s approval.
“Zimbabwean elections are an internal Zimbabwean affair. The authority of Sadc comes from the voluntary surrender of certain specific aspects of sovereignty by member states,” Mutsvangwa said. “That is what the MDC formations do not know.” However, Mangongera hoped Sadc would not let up the pressure.
“My sense is that they will not drop the ball.
They will keep the pressure on (President) Mugabe to put in place conditions for free and fair elections,” Mangongera said.
“If they throw in the towel now, that is like throwing away all the efforts they have put into this. I know that within Sadc there is a conviction that the Zimbabwe crisis can only be resolved by a credible, free and fair election.
“They are also tired of it and they want a permanent solution.” Brian Ngwenya, another analyst, said countries such as South Africa, Zambia, Mozambique and Botswana were unlikely to allow President Mugabe to get his way.
“There have been lots of diplomatic movements between certain members of Sadc and Western diplomats which really will put a lot of pressure on these particular members of the bloc,” Ngwenya said.
“You have in mind countries like Zambia, Mozambique, South Africa and, to a lesser extent, Botswana who have forged stronger working relations with Western countries.”
He said in the event that President Mugabe chose the radical stance and went for elections, the implications would be dire for him and Zanu PF because they would face a serious crisis of legitimacy.
“What it means for them is that they would have regressed to 2008 when they were faced with serious isolation after the sham 2008 election,” Ngwenya said.
