Zimbabwe’s Transition in Comparative Context
The Konrad Adenauer Stiftung Foundation, in collaboration with the Mass Public Opinion Institute hosted a conference recently for politicians, civil society and scholars to share their perspectives on Zimbabwe’s Transition. Among the presenters was Cyprian Nyamwamu who shared some experiences of Kenya’s transition.
In concluding his presentation Mr. Nyamwamu made the following remarks:
Monitoring and enforcing accountability in government must be made a systematic process that is carried out by political non-state actors. In Kenya this has been largely successful except that the entrenched culture of impunity makes it to secure behaviour change and governance.
The state cannot be left to reform on its own. It is the role of forces outside and inside the state to escalate the demands for reforms. This requires a deliberate construction of democratic movement that galvanises the energies to force democratic negotiations about the future of our democracies be it in Kenya or in Zimbabwe. Innovative strategies for ensuring sustainable reforms can only be realised if reforms are held within a political and transitional justice framework where reforms are broad rather than confined to some formal changes that do not open up the state to concerted reforms.
In Zimbabwe like in Kenya, democratic reforms and political transition shall not be sustainable without a thorough transitional justice agenda where public and private citizens, officers and groups get to account for violations and injustices that may have been committed in the past. A new democratic state and cohesive nation cannot be expected in countries where victors’ justice is the order of the day and where impunity has taken root.
There is need for the Inclusive government of Zimbabwe to be sustained even with it inherent limitations until the national democratic project is delivered. V. It is our view that elections in Zimbabwe before 2013 shall not add value to the Zimbabwe democratic deficit. It is feared that elections before 2013 may precipitate a return to the multiple socio-economic, humanitarian and political crises that were witnessed in the aftermath of the 2008 elections.
It is hoped that the democratic forces in ZANU-PF, MDC, civil society, the private sector and other sectors of the political economy shall adopt an attitude of ‘no reforms no elections’. Reforms here must mean both reforms on paper and in the real world. Reforms cannot happen if the only logic of the political actors is power for the big boys. Those in power must be convinced including through positive sanctions to embrace and champion reforms for the sake of the people and the nation.
SADC must construct a better national democratic reform framework for Zimbabwe than the current one. In the 1989 Poland political Transition example, the President was offered assurances and immunities and Western European countries invested economic incentives into the reform pact that saw the end of the monolithic one-party state rule. This is important seeing as is the case that unlike Kenya, the international community seems ready to leave Zimbabwe to suffer on the ropes for longer. In the Kenyan case in the wake of the post election crisis, the international community made it clear that Kenya was too important to be left to Kenyans alone.