Bishop Dinis Sengulane, a Mozambican cleric commenting on his country’s peace process once said; “Politics is too serious to be left for politicians alone.” He was part of a mediation team during the Mozambican crisis that included Prof. Lourenço do Rosário, (Vice-Chancellor), Father Filipe Couto (Roman Catholic Church), Sheik Saide Abibo (Muslim Community) and Rev. Anastácio Chembeze (United Methodist Church). Their mediation scope was broad-based and factored in pertinent issues like electoral law, military, depoliticization of the public service and economic issues.
The mediation process had numerous challenges but the mediators focused more on the opportunities that the conflict posed to the Mozambican people.
“The Role of SADC in Managing political crisis and conflict; The Cases of Madagascar and Zimbabwe” (2010) study carried out by FES Mozambique defined Zimbabwean crisis as essentially a political contestation between political parties. The country was born out of concerted efforts of nationalist liberation movements, where it was the norm to designate other particular groups as outsiders and needed to be excluded from the enjoyment of newly gained political rights. On the other hand, vibrant opposition politics was birthed by a social movement anchored on labour, students, women, people with disabilities, academics and CSOs.
Since independence, the country has had political contestations disrupting socio-economic and political development. This was due to the country being heavily impacted by political theory and practices that divide our communities into “US” and “THEM” and have supporters act accordingly. Thus, Zimbabwe’s political environment gets its guidance from these negative perceptions.
Zimbabwe is seen as a nation with a poor tolerance for political diversity and deep history of bitter political conflict which has often resulted in death, arson and rape. Such political conflict has often extended to affect and arrest both social and economic development, and the overall human development of citizens in their communities. While the genesis and intensity of major conflicts in post-colonial Zimbabwe have differed at each different epoch, their resolution has been through an elite dialogue process with a political arrangement.
The 1979 Lancaster House Conference was largely attended by political actors within the liberation movement bracket and the minority white delegation. The resultant product of the conference was a compromised politically inclined Lancaster House Constitution. Again, the 1987 Unity Accord was a political treaty between PF Zapu and Zanu PF with a glaring lack of broader citizens’ perspective on the process after having endured the gruelling Gukurahundi. Lastly, the 2009 Global Political Agreement was dominated by Zanu PF and the two MDC formations, resulting in a political arrangement for governing the country. The broader citizens were not part and parcel of the negotiation process.
A progressive political theory and practice is to define the fundamental character of the country’s social, economic, political and cultural narrative discourse. Therefore, an inclusive dialogue process will be a platform that will adequately speak the language that evokes the common bond of a diverse society.
1n 2020 the Alliance of Community Based Organisations (ACBOs) commissioned research aptly entitled “Citizens’ Perspective on Dialogue in Zimbabwe.” Citizens in the 29 districts of the 8 rural provinces in Zimbabwe view dialogue as the only viable avenue to ending the long-drawn crisis; they view political parties as to the “main actors” in such dialogue, but strongly believe that any dialogue should not be exclusively between the political players but should incorporate other key societal actors.
Thus, the framework of any dialogue in Zimbabwe as informed by lessons from the past dialogue is inclusivity with key stakeholders being the people of Zimbabwe in their diversified values and beliefs. Any framework for dialogue to achieve sustainable transformation of people’s lives must have space for citizens as defined through key institutions including political parties, business/the private sector, traditional leaders, the church, academia and civil society in its numerous organic representations.
Participation is an essential element of citizenship in a democratic society and the government must be able to foster this active citizenship.
Zimbabwean dialogue must address the deep polarization of communities. The intense political contestation between political parties and their entrenched positions has filtered down into the communities making it difficult to push a non-partisan and inclusive development agenda. Gender equity in various spheres of society must be on the discussion table to enable women to have access to land and related opportunities, especially in rural communities. Most importantly, the depoliticization of the traditional leadership institution must be a priority. Most rural communities have witnessed traditional leaders being used as a coercive force for political expediency by the ruling party.
Any dialogue process should encompass significant outcomes as opposed to Cabinet post sharing. Unity and consensus, Stabilization of the economy, Political tolerance and respect and Community healing are valuable dialogue outcomes that will transform local communities for sustainable development.
The sad political reality unfolding in Zimbabwe is configured around a lack of comprehension by politicians of the nature and form of crisis the country is facing. Opposition political parties are failing to articulate the kind of politics that must undergird any serious societal transformation. There is a glaring lack of a coherent link between policy pronouncements and societal change. On the other hand, the ruling Zanu PF is in perpetual denial of the structural injustices and social oppression being experienced in various communities which then allow them to ignore the pernicious poverty and polarization.
The political ideologies of both opposition parties and the ruling party are continually failing to deal with the enormity and complexity of the socio-economic and political crisis the country is facing. The country needs to bring tolerance and peace to its political settings through a broad-based dialogue process.
