If the rumours swirling round the press are anything to be believed, Morgan Tsvangirai, Arthur Mutambara and Robert Mugabe are on the verge of signing a power sharing agreement between Zanu PF and the two formations of the MDC.

If these rumours are true, I’m impressed by both the speed with which the negotiations have proceeded, and the fact that the talks stalled as infrequently as they reportedly did.

I haven’t seen the reported 50-page draft of the agreement. And perhaps the whole story is yet another fabrication for the press. But if the contents of what is signed resembles what The Star’s Fiona Forde is reporting, I have some deep misgivings.

Some key points of the proposed agreement include:

• Morgan Tsvangirai to be appointed as a Senator and then to take up the role of Executive Prime Minister
• Robert Mugabe to be President – with a position-for-life of Founding President, (if and) when he retires
• Blanket amnesty for all Zimbabweans “who in the course of upholding or opposing the aims and policies of the Government of Zimbabwe, Zanu-PF or either formation of the MDC, may have committed crimes within Zimbabwe.”

Apparently the time frame is still at issue – the MDC envisages a 24-30 month time frame – which may make this arrangement feel like a long transition, but importantly, it’s a transition nonetheless. Zanu PF, on the other hand, is reportedly arguing for a 5 year time frame – this doesn’t make it a transitional arrangement, it makes it the duly constituted government until the next scheduled elections in 2013.

I’m a bit more at ease if, indeed, this is a temporary measure, with the promise of a transitional Constitution, but I still believe that the political parties are negotiating away certain fundamental issues, without opening up the debate to public discussion and input.

One of my colleagues in civil society recently wrote in an email discussion forum:

If the Zimbabwean citizenry vote in a government and a political party, and most of those in civics voted in that party, and then the outgoing party refuses to leave, why do the civics do anything but support the party that they voted in?

But to me that question is missing the point. These negotiations aren’t moving towards simply installing the party which most Zimbabweans voted for in the March Harmonised Election into power. They’re moving towards some form of negotiated settlement – about which there has been no election. Zimbabweans haven’t voted for who they’d want in a “coalition government” or whether they’d prefer a Government of National Unity as opposed to a Transitional Authority, or how they’d want such an arrangement to be structured.

And Zimbabweans certainly haven’t voted for a blanket amnesty for all political crimes – from Gukurahundi onwards. To paraphrase Spinoza, “peace is not the absence of war, it’s the presence of justice.” Zimbabwean analyst Knox Chitiyo may be willing to make the long-term sacrifice of justice for the short-term promise of peace, but is the rest of the country?

According to Forde, MDC and Zanu PF to divide key ministries – reportedly Zanu PF to take Defence, and the MDC to take Home Affairs. This, she speculates, would make campaigning in the next election more even: with control of Home Affairs, the MDC would have control of the police force, which would enable them to guarantee greater civic freedoms to demonstrate and assemble. But what about the role which the army has played in clamping down on public protest and gatherings? Not to mention groupings like the so-called war veterans and youth militia. And what about other basic rights like press and broadcast freedom?

Where is the referendum on these issues – and the independent body to oversee such a referendum to ensure that it was not subject to the same electoral machinery that Zimbabwe’s recent elections have suffered from? Where is the process for developing a new Constitution for Zimbabwe – not just the 19th Amendment, which would be required to, for example, (re)create the position of Prime Minister and define the roles of the Executive President?

As Mukoma Wa Ngugi wrote recently:

A power-sharing agreement that brings about a “Government of National Unity,” or a transitional authority, will in fact be undermining the most basic and important principle of democracy: the vote.

It’s been a long time since Zimbabwe had anything resembling a legitimate government. In January, Parliament held its last session before the March 29 Harmonised Election. That election came, and went, and we waited, and eventually the results were announced. Then we waiting a while longer, and 9 weeks over deadline, the presidential run-off one-man election was held. For once, things picked up the pace – the results of that one-person election were announced, and Mugabe’s coronation – oops, I mean inauguration – was held within 48 hours.

But now the President’s been sworn in, and at some point all of those basics like the swearing in of MPs and Senators, the election of the Speaker of the House and President of the Senate, and the opening of Parliament are meant to happen. But there’s no sign yet of any of those events on the horizon.

According to Zimbabwe’s Constitution, Parliament is meant to meet at least once every 180 days. Today marks the 180th day since Parliament last met. Over the past years, Zimbabwe’s government has mastered the art of stretching the Constitution to suit it, but this is taking things to a whole new level. But as Zimbabwe’s legislation trackers Veritas pointed out, “the consequences of non-compliance with the deadline are not spelled out in the Constitution.”

Of course they’re not. In most democratic countries the Constitution is the “supreme law of the land.” Non-compliance with the Constitution is anathema. You don’t need to spell out its consequences; it’s simply unheard of.

But, of course, Zimbabwe’s not a democracy any more. And why would any autocrat worry about a petty detail like a Constitutional deadline to reconvene Parliament when he’d already taken power by a quiet coup?