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
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
Comments
Post a Comment