Zimbabwe: peaceful transition?

One more interesting session at the Achebe Colloquium today at Brown.  The original subtitle was “Prospects for a Stable Democracy or Dictatorship.”  Robert Rotberg proposed the refocus to peaceful transition, which seems to me right.  One way or another the Mugabe dictatorship is finished.

Alex Vines, Chatham House:  The economy is improved (inflation down), but the political situation is highly uncertain. The peace agreement of 2008 has run its course.  Any election by 2013 will be a tight contest. Mugabe, now 89, likely to stand again (!).  SADC (the Southern African Development Community) is underperforming economically, which is one reason South Africa is engaging on Zimbabwe.  SADC election observers are a good idea.

Blair Rutherford, Carleton University: Who opposes democratic state?  “Those with horns are hard to hide behind grass”:  security forces, diamond and land tycoons, dominant culture of national politics (“politics is war”).  These forces will continue to shape the results.

John Campbell, Council on Foreign Relations:  Elections in Zimbabwe will likely occur in the first half of 2012, followed by bloodletting.  What does the U.S. do to avoid this?  American leverage is weak, maybe nonexistent.  Zimbabwe is a marginal issue in Washington.  Zimbabwe does however impinge on South Africa, where demands for expropriation of white-owned land are growing.  Washington should be engaging with South Africa, SADC and China.  American NGOs and U.S. government should object to Mugabe’s exclusion of international election observers.  USG should commit to holding individuals perpetrating electoral violence accountable.  This would be a policy of skim milk:  words and symbols, no sticks and stones.

Robert Rotberg, Harvard:  The dictatorship will not continue in its current form.  We need a strengthened dialogue and accountability, as suggested by Campbell.  What is happening that suggests a peaceful transition is possible?  Eighty-ninety per cent of the country supports MDC (Movement for Democratic Change), which has serious talent able to run a democracy.  ZANU-PF (Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front, Mugabe’s political party) loses in anything like a fair election.   The country has diamonds and infrastructure, even if it has lost two-thirds of its GDP per capita.  Still it has the best-educated population in Africa.  SADC is more active, Mugabe is aging and ill, the International Criminal Court (ICC) is interested.  But Mugabe is still alive and killing his opposition,  corruption is rife, diamonds make it possible, the Chinese help ZANU-PF, media are government controlled, there is no constitution, ZANU-PF will is experienced and accomplished at rigging  elections (especially the count).  Net assessment:  at best mildly hopeful, until SADC takes a firmer stand.

Chitsaka Chipaziwa, Zimbabwe ambassador to the UN:  No-show.  No surprise.

Vivian Nkechinyere Enomoh, Nigerian Independent Electoral Commission:  Need truly independent electoral commission, fully funded by the international community.

Emeka Anyaoku, Former Secretary General The Commonwealth:  Speaking from the floor, he underlined the historical role of Mugabe, the centrality of the land issue and the resulting support for Mugabe both inside Zimbabwe and in the rest of Africa.  It is not clear that he will lose the election.  Chinua Achebe concurred in that view.

Bottom line:  Prospects for free and fair elections and peaceful transition are uncertain.  It is up to AU, SADC and the Chinese to counter ZANU-PF securicrats and ensure it happens.