By Rawlings Magede
Modern
day SADC continues to face unpredictable threats owing to the ever-changing
landscape within Africa’s fragile democracy. When the Southern African Development Coordination
Conference (SADCC as it was called
then), was created in 1980 in Lusaka, it
had one clear objective; to support the anti-apartheid struggle and the
liberation of countries such as South Africa, Zimbabwe and Namibia .Once this
objective was achieved, first with the Lancaster House Agreements, which
brought about the end of Southern Rhodesia and the birth of a new Zimbabwe, led
by Robert Mugabe, and then with the end of apartheid (1994) in South Africa,
the organisation began a difficult journey of redefining its identity and
programme which even today does not seem to have been achieved.
At
the time its transformed from SADCC to SADC (Southern African Development
Community) in 1992, the new organisation faced a myriad of security challenges
among member states. One real test was in the Democratic Republic of Congo
(DRC) in 1998 when Laurent Kabila defeated Mobutu Seseseko in 1997.Following
this victory, Kabila’s relations with neighbouring countries such as Rwanda and
Uganda deteriorated. In July 1998, Kabila ordered all officials and troops from
Rwanda and Uganda to leave the country. Instead on August 2, 1998, those
troops began supporting rebels who were intent on overthrowing Kabila. At the
time, SADC had launched the SADC
Organ of Politics, Defence and Security on 28 June 1996. Zimbabwean President
Robert Mugabe had been elected the Chairman of the Organ. The organ wasted no
time in restoring peace again in DRC during the 1998 civil war by deploying
troops and also helped in returning democracy and rule of law in Mauritius
after there was a coup in the country. These two examples stand out as key
instances where SADC flexed muscle and restored peace during armed conflicts.
Since then, SADC strategy has been that of quiet diplomacy that proffers
piecemeal and unsustainable solutions as has been the case in several SADC
countries including Zimbabwe and Mozambique.
The
problem with SADC
One challenge facing SADC relates to what many
scholars have termed the “Brotherhood syndrome” where liberation movements such
as the
ANC in South Africa, ZANU PF in Zimbabwe, Frelimo in Mozambique, SWAPO in
Namibia and the MPLA in Angola tend to shield one another from interference or criticism.
This approach has reversed previous gains made by SADC in the past such as
strengthening rule of law and democracy. For example, after the conclusion of the
harmonised 2023 elections in Zimbabwe, following release of an Electoral
Observer Mission report by SADC, the regional body was exposed for its lack of
decisiveness and double standards. The report among other issues noted that the
electoral body, the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) failed to provide a
voters’ role for inspection ahead of the election, no consultations were done
to make the process of procurement and designing of ballot papers more
transparent to instil public confidence, failure to implement requisite legal
reforms and laws regulating postal voting to introduce means of monitoring and
observation of the process to guarantee the secrecy of the ballot. The report
concluded by noting that nomination fees were prohibitive. The report divided opinion
within SADC as more leaders avoided debates around the elections in Zimbabwe. The
Head of the SADC Observation Mission, Nevers Mumba received back clash by
trolls and some senior Zanu pf leaders after the first preliminary report was
released.
Although SADC released a statement condemning
the attack on Mumba, the message had already been delivered and helped
strengthen more the debate that SADC when confronted with real threats falters.
The question that continues to linger and divide opinion with SADC countries
relates to the capacity of SADC to improve electoral democracy among its
members. The regional organisation has in the past observed elections that have
produced disputed outcomes such as those in DRC, Zimbabwe, Malawi among other
countries. SADC Observer Missions have made recommendations in all these
countries but to date, very little has been done by member states to improve
electoral democracy. Key Provisions on SADC Principles and Guidelines Governing
Democratic Elections have been violated by member states and no penalties or
sanctions have been effected.
In
the absence of punitive measures against member states violating SADC
conventions and statues, key questions have emerged. Why are member states
reluctant to act upon recommendations from SADC? Is it because member states do
not take the regional body serious? Another challenge relates to the structure
of election observation missions, which are often made up of government
officials with little civil society participation. This alone continues to
undermine the credibility of these missions. This is often the only time citizens
actually see SADC at work in their own countries – when vehicles with the SADC
logo and officials with flap jackets do the rounds at election time. Incidents
such as those in the previous Malawi elections and the many controversial
statements by SADC on elections in Zimbabwe have not ingratiated SADC with the
people of those countries, or the opposition. Finally, the fact
that many resolutions that are adopted are not implemented also undermines
people’s faith in SADC.
SADC and the lack of citizen
representation
The
continent is going through a wave of military coups that have become generally
accepted by citizens across the continent. West Africa particularly Mali,
Burkina Faso, Niger, Chad and Guinea have all experienced incessant military
coups in recent years. The regional body, Economic Community of West African
States (ECOWAS) has been found wanting as it failed to restore democratic
transitions in these countries. More recently, Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso
announced that they had quit ECOWAS and justified their decision by
highlighting that it was their “sovereign decision” to do so. This has left the
regional body weaker given that citizens in these countries have embraced
military coups as a panacea to dictatorship.
Regional
bodies such as SADC and ECOWAS often struggle with the issues to do with
sovereignity and non-interference. The fear of losing sovereignty stems from
the political weakness of states and from the lack of common values, mutual
trust and a shared vision. In the case of a country voluntarily, withdrawing
membership, these bodies do not have mechanisms to deal with such eventualities.
The absence of common values creates divisions among member states who
subscribe either to democratic or authoritarian orientations. Absence of common
values has prevented these organisations from addressing violence and
insecurity generated by authoritarianism and repression in some member countries.
More
importantly, SADC does not have proper institutions that properly represent citizens.
Platforms such as the SADC Non-State Actors (NSA) have been criticized for
being too elite and excluding critical voices especially from civil society.
For example, citizens in SADC cannot turn to a tribunal when they feel violated
by their own governments. The SADC tribunal was dissolved in 2012 following
pressure from former Zimbabwean President, Robert Mugabe. In other jurisdictions
such as West Africa, citizens can turn to the ECOWAS court of Justice. Having
such a mechanism offers a chance to build citizen trust in institutions and
help keep excesses of governments in check.
In
the final analysis, it is important to underscore the need for a reflection on
the effectiveness of SADC in the face of violent conflict. The conflict in
Mozambique (Cabo Delgado) exposed a gap within the regional organisation. It should
be recalled that shortly before the arrival of the Southern African Development
Community Mission in Mozambique (SAMIM),the active regional peace keeping
mission in Cabo Delgado Province, the Rwandan army arrived in earlier which
caused another diplomatic incident between Mozambique and SADC.In their
defence, the Mozambican authorities reiterated that it was its right to choose
its partners freely, and again it helped expose a clear lack of a common spirit
on “Sadcness”.Going forwad,it will be key to reflect on the preparedness of
SADC in the event that the wave of coups
that has hit West Africa spreads to Southern Africa. Does SADC have the
necessary mechanism to respond? Does SADC still have the will power to respond
swiftly to civil wars as was the case in the DRC during the late 1990s? All
these questions highlight the need for serious reform and restructuring of
SADC.There is need to reform the SADC Organ on Politics, Defence and Security
to match possible eventualities.
Rawlings Magede is an International
Development expert with over 10 years’ experience.
No comments:
Post a Comment