Crisis in the DRC, a lesson for Zimbabwe

While Zimbabweans battle coming to terms with the seemingly false news yet true reality of the new Amendment bill, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has slid into a constitutional crisis. The crisis in the country located in central sub-Saharan Africa, started in December 2016 when President Joseph Kabila’s mandate officially and up to this day there are still no signs of an upcoming vote. The current regime led by Joseph Kabila have a sober understanding of the ground rules and is using the crisis to tighten its grip on power. December 19, 2016 should have been his last day in office as president in the country’s first democratic transition since independence in 1960.Kabila won the Presidency in 2001, secured a mandate in 2006 and then romped to victory in the 2011 elections that were described by many as fraudulent. This is partly because the elections failed to pass the democratic test as enunciated in the Congolese law and by various African Union (AU) instruments such as the Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance. The current crisis in the DRC is a legacy of elections of the 2011 elections that failed to pass the democratic test of free and fair elections. Such is the sad story in the DRC today.

When analyzing the crisis in the DRC, it’s important to also try to unpack the various interventions taken by regional organizations such as SADC and AU in the DRC. These two regional bodies have been credited in some quarters for fostering peace and brokering political agreements that have insulated the continent from the threats such as civil wars that hinder development. SADC key role in the restoration of peace in the DRC comes from decades of security engagements and regional diplomacy having intervened twice. The first was in 1998 after the DRC was invaded by Rwanda and Uganda.SADC swiftly responded by rallying member states such as Zimbabwe, Namibia and Angola to drive the invading forces away. In 2003 again, SADC yet again was key in the country’s security sector reform and was swift in deploying troops from South Africa, Malawi and Tanzania to contain the M23 rebels in eastern DRC.Fast forward this to present day SADC where the big brotherhood syndrome has crippled the effectiveness of SADC.Present day SADC has found itself in a difficult situation where it has to decide the fate of former SADC chairperson, Kabila.

Such a predicament has compromised its role and has left the country in a constitutional crisis that presents a ticking time bomb for thregional body that will likely divide it. In October 2016, the AU brokered a deal in the DRC that set a transitional government and clear timelines for elections in 2018 but left out partners from the main opposition coalition termed le Rassemblemet. The Catholic church that was instrumental and vocal against the undemocratic government of Kabila distanced itself from the SADC brokered arrangement protesting over the exclusion of the opposition and previous violent crackdown of protestors by government forces that left people dead. Many even outside the DRC criticized SADC for brokering such a flawed agreement that ignored a lot of key issues and seemed biased in favour of the government. This was against a background where SADC had enjoyed a good reputation across the African continent as an impartial institution and actor that had earned trust and respect when it intervened to bring peace and combat threat posed by terrorism DRC back in 1998 and 2003 respectively. It’s true that SADC’s role in the DRC has been key especially in past political crises but it has dismally failed to deal or intervene in the crisis that currently dog the DRC.

Its role in the region in mitigating regional conflagration is key given the number of crises that have spilled over borders. Back in Zimbabwe, many a time, people have criticized SADC as a regional grouping devoid of bringing lasting and durable solutions especially to long serving Presidents who have continued to enjoy over protection from SADC.Even today, when one goes through the Global Political Agreement (GPA), you wonder why a winning Presidential candidate got less from the agreement. In Zimbabwe for example, while many would to credit it for brokering the GPA that midwifed the inclusive government, the agreement was violated several times by ZANU PF. In search of lasting solutions, opposition parties that were in the inclusive government lobbied SADC and AU citing the violation of the agreement by ZANU PF. In a clear sign of weakness on the part of SADC, the lobbying produced nothing. It turned out that SADC wanted to remove Zimbabwe from its problems as they went on to even endorse and recognize ZANU PF leadership at various platforms besides the flagrant violation of the GPA.

So in a nutshell, it’s quite dangerous that main opposition parties in Zimbabwe do not realise that lobbying SADC yields no fruits. Closely linked to this is the fact that the DRC is set to hold its national elections in 2018, the same year with Zimbabwe. Both SADC and the AU are currently at sixes and sevens over how to resolve the crisis in the DRC.Adding Zimbabwe to the list of its problems especially given that the 2018 election results are likely to be disputed after opposition party, MDC-T declared that they will not accept the outcome of the 2018 elections.

What then must the opposition do?

While it’s always key to lobby these regional bodies, opposition parties must organize themselves right from their structures to ensure that once the voter registration commences, they register en masse. There isn’t much that can come from lobbying SADC particularly when it comes to long serving statesman who at one point have assumed the chairmanship of SADC.There isn’t much that the current chairperson from Botswana, Ian Khama can do. In the past he has taken a strong stance against Zimbabwe but failed to rally fellow African countries to be firm and tough on Zimbabwe. Even if he is to take a strong stance against the way the Zimbabwean elections will be run, fellow members in these regional groupings will neither support or endorse his stance.

The ill-advised talk of disbanding the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) by some “lawyers” is not even a feasible option given that elections are just a few months away. Even that legal initiative risks eclipse as it seems that political parties (including opposition parties) are already preparing for elections that will be run by ZEC.It seems the urge for office and sinecure has overtaken the need to reflect and strategize. Such calls for the disbandment of ZEC are reared in opposition politics of cold comfort that shy away in the face of daring facts. The important point to note is here is the inevitable, directional and messaging confusion created by such calls on opposition members. When talking to even an opposition member at the lowest structure, they can’t help it but in rehearsed precision, call for the disbandment of ZEC just a few months before the 2018 plebiscite. However, the political world is always a setting for unsympathetic watchers, for critics who watch empathy as a weakness.

Recently I attended a public meeting on the Biometric Voter Registration (BVR) where Dr Alex Magaisa spoke at length about a Logistics committee within ZEC that is responsible for running elections. Apparently, no one, even opposition parties know the members who constitute this committee. Opposition parties must also use the engagements with ZEC to probe further the kind of people employed in this key committee. Then there is talk of “defending the vote” whatever that means. But all this talk of “defending the vote” is another matter, another story for another day!

In the final analysis, the 2018 elections will be a make or break scenario. President Mugabe knows this and this explains the country wide Youth Interface meetings where his message is clear on the need for youths to register to vote and ensure that they vote for ZANU PF. I’m not sure if the opposition parties pushing for a coalition will have enough time to mobilize their members, share constituencies ahead of the 2018 elections. Only time will tell!

Rawlings Magede is a rural political enthusiast who writes in his personal capacity. He tweets @rawedges. Feedback on vamagede@gmail.com

2018 elections and the Youth Vote

I wish to add my thoughts to the ongoing debate on the intentions of President Mugabe youth interface meetings that are currently ongoing across the country. This is one of the most debated issues among political parties today with some opposition parties crying foul alleging that state resources are being used to campaign for ZANU PF ahead of the 2018 elections. In this conversation, I will not try to probe whether its noble for the President to do such a thing but rather on why youths are a key constituency as 2018 elections loom. The Youths interface meetings were also necessitated on the need to capture new voters who seem reluctant to participate in electoral processes. At these meetings his message has been one of rallying this important group to vote for ZANU PF resoundingly in the 2018 elections. What’s rather suspicious is why the interface meetings are specifically targeting youths and not women or men given that in past election campaigns, he has combined his rallies to address all age groups. A quick review of such a move will better help us to understand this sudden departure.

New Voters on the horizon

Previous voter registration campaigns by political parties and civic society, especially in 2013, failed to capture the youth vote. This is attributable to the fact that most youths who have found themselves in urban centres due to varying reasons, have distanced themselves from participating in electoral processes due to a number of reasons. The high levels of unemployment have created a youth who is mindful about bread and butter issues at the expense of other responsibilities such as participating in democratic processes such as voting. Because of the pinching economic environment aswell, youths have somehow shied away from processes such as voter registration exercises that seem to consume their time and energy. Previous voter registration such as that experienced in 2013 were tedious and discouraged the few youths who were willing to register to vote. What remains true is the fact that new voters have been born and they constitute a sizeable chunk of the new electorate. As 2018 elections approach, people born in the year 2000 will add to the number of people eligible to vote. This has created a tussle among political players for this new constituency of youths who if convinced to vote, can be a game changer come 2018 elections. Let me attempt to interrogate the reasons behind some of the reasons why the President is on a country-wide campaign to meet this new crop of voters.

It’s a numbers game!

President Mugabe has been credited by many for having a sound ideological grounding, that of nationalism coupled with cheap populist rhetoric. Over the years, he has used this to his advantage by utilising local and international platforms to churn out his agenda in a bid to convert and indoctrinate people. Of special mention is his anti-western stance which has become his mainstay every time he gets an opportunity. Over the years he has tried with limited success to sell this to the younger and unemployed constituency. Of course his message has failed to find meaning because it has failed to explain the current state of affairs that the youths are facing. President Mugabe knows and appreciates that for his rhetoric on recolonization and onslaught of western sanctions to find meaning, the younger generation needs an ideological orientation of some sort. His youth meetings are very predictable, and will likely involve narratives on the liberation war, what his government has done to safeguard sovereignty and lastly, what the youths should do to ensure that the gains and sacrifices made are not washed away. This will be done by voting resoundingly for ZANU PF in the 2018 elections. Lastly he is likely to make false promises such as creation of jobs and projects and stands for the youths. This is rehearsed because he knows that at the heart of every youth is the urge to make progress in life and be able to be self-sufficient. So it’s a matter of capturing this important constituency by whatever means.

Closely linked to this is the fact that over the years, youths especially from across the country have complained over the lack of direct access to the Presidium. This includes even youths drawn from ZANU PF structures. The intermediaries between them and the Presidium have been blamed for using youths to further their own parochial agendas while neglecting their concerns. What this has created is a sense of resentment for the Presidium on the basis that it does not engage this important constituent. The youth interface meetings will seek to demystify this perception among the youths and create a false picture of a President who is easily accessible to them.

Lastly and equally important is the fact that the current crop of youths have horrific stories to tell about the consequences of being actively involved in politics. The widely held view among the youths is that politics is a dangerous game. The vicissitudes of past electoral violence in 2002,2005 and 2008 have constantly reminded youths of the dangers and risks that exist within the political arena. Over the years, this new crop of voters who by the way are very active on social media have read and watched heinous videos of how ZANU PF crushed dissenting political voices and intolerance. This has then relegated them to spectators despite the fact that they make up the majority of the population. By creating the youth interface meetings, President Mugabe wants to dissolve some of these widely held perceptions.

Can opposition parties capture the youths vote?

I have been criticised so many times for opposing the need for a coalition in 2018.In my view, I think that the problem facing opposition politics is not necessarily that a single opposition party cannot beat ZANU PF in an election. No. If the MDC-T did it in 2008, it means it’s still possible today. There is no doubt that the majority of people desire change in Zimbabwe. The deepening economic crisis that we are currently experiencing have in some way acted as a catalyst for the ordinary citizens to desire to seek change via the ballot. So in my view, it’s not a question of having opposition parties coming together under an umbrella of a coalition. It’s a question of how opposition parties can be organised as we draw closer to 2018 elections. How can they capture new voters and convince the youths to register to vote? It’s a question of strategy used to lure them to vote. Politics in general is a discipline where blunders are costly and that has been the case with our opposition parties in Zimbabwe. The height of naivety by opposition parties was demonstrated when they chose against better advice to boycott all by elections citing issues of electoral reforms. What still confuses till today is their intentions to participate in the 2018 elections without even a single electoral reform implemented. With such discord at this eleventh hour, we can even begin to read and make predictions of what the 2018 elections will yield. So, I don’t believe in a coalition on that basis. I just believe that if “bigger” opposition parties can best organise themselves better they are able to get something out of the 2018 elections. I have deliberately avoided to delve deeper into the debate of what is a big opposition or what numbers do some opposition parties have. This is best left to the reader to stir such conversations, lest I be labelled.

Rawlings Magede is a rural political enthusiast,and writes here in his personal capacity.For feedback vamagede@gmail.com