Supporters of both MDC formations countrywide are up in arms with their parties.
They are hurt and angry extremely and understandably so because the burning human rights issues they thought were on the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission table prominently the Gukurahundi massacres of between 1982-1987 and the brutal violence and killings accompanying the 2008 presidential election runoff are, after all, a closed chapter, as Zanu PF has been saying all along.
What heightened their anger and pain was that all along they were in the dark, with their parties apparently playing to the gallery at rallies, allowing them to vent their feelings about Gukurahundi and other human rights violations without telling them that the issue had been taken off the table and nothing substantive would be done.
The truth of the matter was revealed by Justice minister Patrick Chinamasa (Zanu PF) in the House of Assembly this week. He categorically told MPs from both MDC formations that human rights violations and atrocities committed before February 13, 2009, would not be investigated by the Human Rights Commission, the cut-off date being the inauguration of the inclusive government, as agreed by negotiators from the three parties. After Chinamasas explanation, the MPs did not make further objections to the passage of the clause. I wasnt in the august House on that particular day, but this is a situation where you can hear a pin drop.
That said, I believe Zanu PF was negotiating from a position of strength as the party still held and still holds the levers of State power and Sadc was not assertive enough in support of the vastly changed political landscape. Indeed, the MDCs ought to make the admission that they went into these talks from a weakened position as Sadc, specifically through Thabo Mbekis uneven mediation, allowed the biggest losers, Zanu PF, to have the biggest say. In the case of negotiating skills, there wasnt much to choose between the six of them Chinamasa, Nicholas Goche (Zanu PF), Tendai Biti, Elton Mangoma (MDC-T), Welshman Ncube and Priscilla Misihairabwi-Mushonga (MDC) as a mixture of sharp brains and seasoned politicians not necessarily equally so.
So, what could have led to this compromise amounting to capitulation?
The fact that the negotiations were prolonged gave rise to the inclination to compromise. Endless talks can wear people down. Growing familiarity can also bring people closer resulting in them beginning to see the same point of view. Close physical proximity engenders emotional attachment, people begin to see their political adversaries positively to the point of defending them and abandoning their professed stance. Without sounding far-fetched, this is a manifestation of whats called in psychology the Stockholm syndrome or traumatic bonding as observed after hostages in a bank robbery in the Swedish capital, Stockholm, in 1973 began expressing empathy and positive feelings towards their captors, even to the extent of defending them. So, basically the Stockholm syndrome describes strong emotional ties that develop between two persons where one person intermittently harasses, beats, threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other. Any similarities with Zanu PFs treatment of the MDCs over the years? The Stockholm syndrome also affected the Zanu PF negotiators to some extent, but their party kept them on a leash to ensure they did not concede too much to the MDCs. Chinamasa himself was pressured to renege on agreed positions several times. Zanu PF constitution-making body Copac co-chairperson Munyaradzi Paul Mangwana has also been attacked from within the party and forced to distance himself from compromises reached with his counterparts Douglas Mwonzora (MDC-T) and Edward Mkhosi (MDC). In that way, Zanu PF kept tabs on its negotiators as regards the Human Rights Commission.
So, Zanu PF doesnt owe any explanation to party activists implicated in human rights violations, absolutely none, as they got what they wanted: immunity. To them, it was a crushing victory.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
As for the MDCs, there is much explanation to do. The MDCs have been vociferous about the Gukurahundi massacres and Murambatsvina displacements while all along knowing but not announcing to their membership the agreed position among the three parties regarding the issues, attacking Zanu PF for correctly stating that these were a closed chapter among the parties. That is the effect of the February, 13, 2009 cut-off date. People feel betrayed because they have all along been made to raise what now amount to non-issues as such, bitter and painful as they are. So, its not surprising that MDC-T deputy spokesperson Thabitha Khumalo had absolutely nothing to say when contacted for comment about the cut-off date. As for MDC spokesperson Nhlanhla Dube blaming this on the partys minority status in Parliament, it doesnt wash because the deal was struck at the level of negotiators and the three parties Zanu PF, MDC-T and MDC were equally represented by two negotiators each with none considered lesser as parliamentary representation was not a factor. What really and ultimately mattered was their negotiating skills and whether the MDCs were negotiating from a position of strength or not. And all the six negotiators from the three parties must have appended their signatures to this agreement for it to have force and effect. None of them can wriggle out of this.
You win some, you lose some in the world of realpolitik, but the negotiators of the MDCs have been less than candid to their parties and followers. I say so because it had to take Zanu PFs Chinamasa to lay out in the House of Assembly the clear, indisputable position regarding the cut-off date for investigation by the Human Rights Commission. Even the MPs seemed caught by surprise as Chinamasa said whats done is done; there was no need to expend energy over a fait accompli.
This is a serious indictment of the MDCs. So far, there has been a deafening silence from the MDC negotiators.
The longer they keep silent, the less believable they will be. What else have we not been told? This is called lying by omission. [email protected]
