Building True, Durable and Sustainable Peace in Zimbabwe.

The challenge confronting Zimbabwe today since the signing of the Global Political Agreement that gave birth to the inclusive government and the political transitional discourse obtaining in the country today is how to extricate the nation from a past that continues to weigh down and haunt the entire population. Many organisations and individuals in this country have made a call that to leave the past alone is the best possible panacea and the only way to avoid a delicate process of transition or to avoid a reversion to the horrendous past that was characterised by extensive repression and gross violations of human rights and humanitarian law.

As the political transition is unfolding in the country after a decade period of violence, our society is now confronted with a moribund legacy of abuse, which requires concerted efforts of all the stakeholders to map the best way to democratise the country and build sustainable peace. Questions are being raised with regards how best our nation can be healed. It is our view that society has to come together and deliberate on these issues. In order to promote justice, peace and reconciliation, government officials and non-governmental advocates alike should consider both judicial and non-judicial responses to violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that occurred during the preceding years. Such responses, inter alia, include prosecuting individual perpetrators, offering reparations to victims of state sponsored violence, establishing truth seeking initiatives about past abuses, reforming institutions like the police and the courts and also lustration, that is, removing perpetrators from positions of power.

It cannot be assailed that transitional justice is an essential ingredient for any society emerging from an abusive and repressive past tainted with a horrific and brutal human rights record to a democratic country imbued with principles that guarantee human rights respect. Surely victims and survivors need to know the truth as a means of bringing closure to their suffering.

The Oxford-based historian, Timothy Garton Ash, once reminded us that while victims are cursed by a good memory, perpetrators are blessed by an ability to forget. Thus the failure by the government to acknowledge the horrendous human rights violations it visited upon the Ndebele ethnic group in the early 1980s has to date increased the tensions and rift in our society. To date, many people in Matebeleland and Midlands provinces still lament that the then ZANU PF government has never done justice to them. Justice demands that perpetrators be brought to account for their heinous misdeeds in order to bring a measure of closure on the past and to be a kind deterrent that is needed to avoid the repeat of such sad chapters in the history of our country. Prosecution of those who violate people’s rights with impunity is a minimum ingredient for the rule of law and an essential requirement for the protection of human rights.

It is important that our country has, at this juncture, been given the opportunity to lay a firm and durable foundation for building sustainable peace and a culture of human rights respect. The transitional period has paved the way for the Constitution-making process- the much-venerated issue anticipated by the wide section of the society since independence from the colonial yoke. It must be underlined that the Constitution to be born out of this process must provide a historic bridge between the past of a deeply divided society, characterised by strife, conflict, untold suffering and injustice and a future founded on the recognition of human rights, democracy and peaceful co-existence and development opportunities for all Zimbabweans regardless of political affiliation. South Africa is a classic example of a country that used a similar golden opportunity to instigate a smooth transition from the apartheid regime to a constitutional democracy that is obtaining today in that country. As a logical corollary, the lessons learnt from South Africa must also guide and inform us in our Constitution-making process but also taking into account our own national values and ethos.

The pursuit of national unity, the well being of all Zimbabweans and durable peace requires reconciliation amongst the people and reconstruction of society, which hitherto, has been damaged by the repressive and oppressive environment in the preceding years. Bust such reconciliation can only be attained, not by sweeping the past atrocious history under the carpet as mere aberration but by pursuing various profound processes of transitional justice mechanisms.

Undeniably, the adoption of a people driven constitution (the content of which must be agreed upon by all citizens) lays the secure foundation for all the people of Zimbabwe to transcend the divisions and strife of the past, which generated gross violations of human rights, the transgression of humanitarian principles and a legacy of hatred, fear, guilt and revenge. These challenges should now be addressed on the basis that there is need for understanding but not for vengeance, a need for reparation and not for retaliation, a need for ubuntu and not for tyrannical victimisation.

This invariably is a delicate process which essentially means that the Constitution as a supreme national document founded on the will and aspirations of Zimbabweans seeking to close a sad chapter and opening a new chapter in the history of our nation, must be imbued with the values, principles and aspirations that identify with Zimbabweans in accordance with international human rights norms. It is against this background then that Zimbabweans can enjoy durable peace established by the rule of law and supported by strong accountability systems.

Each and every one of us, individually and institutionally, has a responsibility therefore to establish processes for consensus building of our nation and to facilitate transitional justice and reconciliation in our nation that has been (and still is) extremely polarised and antagonised on political and ethnic lines to the detriment of international human rights norms and standards. In these we firmly believe that a prosperous and democratic Zimbabwe, where all people across the political divide and from different ethnic backgrounds can live peacefully and in harmony with each other, can be realised if the current transitional process is handled competently.

Innocent Mawire is the founding Director for the Peace and Justice Support Forum (Zimbabwe)

Zimbabwe: Engaging the Inclusive Government

This is the title of the report from the International Crisis Group detailing the positive signs emerging in the socio-economic and political set up in Zimbabwe since the signing of the Global Political Agreement. It is really encouraging to note that the international organisation has a positive attitude and hope for the new administration. The detailed report can be read here. Indeed what is now needed is for the international community to rally behind Zimbabwe and support it in all possible ways.

Sudanese President’s Indictment: Justice or Neo-Colonialism?

On the 4th of March 2009, after seven months of deliberation, the International Criminal Court charged President Omar Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan with war crimes and crimes against humanity in the violence that has engulfed the Darfur region in recent years. But he escaped the charge on genocide at least for now, as the ICC has made it clear that the charges could also be amended to include genocide if relevant evidence subsequently comes to light. This is remarkable because it is the fisrt time the court has sought the arrest of a sitting head of state since it opened in 2002. Reactions have been characterized by outrage, apprehension, and celebration. To his immediate supporters, this reeks of neocolonialism in which the insufferably haughty and hypocritical Western powers target Africa and seek to humiliate its leaders. Thousands of furious demonstrators took to the streets of Khartoum and attacked the ICC, Western countries, the UN, and chanted their support and love for their beleaguered president. Larger demonstrations are expected in the days to come.

Some concede that President al-Bashir may be culpable, but worry that this will destabilize the country and make the situation in Darfur worse. It might even re-stoke the older north-south conflict whose settlement under the the Comprehensive Peace Agreement adopted on December 31, 2004 is quite fragile. They prefer peace to justice. This purported trade off is the basis of some of the opposition to the court's action in the African Union and the Arab League. In the words of the Chairperson of the AU Executive Council in his address to the Council on January 29, 2009: "The greatest challenge facing the peace process in Darfur is the request made by the Chief Prosecutor of the ICC on the 14th June 2008, for the indictment of the President of the Republic of the Sudan, General Omar al Bashir. While in principle the African Union has no objection to bringing, perpetrators of human rights violations to justice, the reality remains that President al-Bashir remains a critical stakeholder in the search for peace in Darfur. Accepting the request for the issuance of a warrant to arrest [him] at this time will most likely derail the peace process in the Sudan." At the end of its recent summit held in Addis Ababa at the beginning of last month, the Assembly of the AU endorsed the call made months earlier by the AU's Peace and Security Council for the UN Security Council to "defer the process initiated by the ICC."

The need to defer justice in pursuit of peace also informs opinions and concerns among some relief agencies. In the words of Franklin Graham, president and chief executive of Samaritan's Purse and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, writing in The New York Times: "I want to see justice served, but my desire for peace in Sudan is stronger. Mr. Bashir, accused of genocide and crimes against humanity, is hardly an ideal peacemaker. But given all the warring factions in Sudan, there is no guarantee that his replacement would be better....Now, his arrest could threaten the south's elections and referendum, and hurl the country back into civil war. His removal could also spur retaliation by Bashir loyalists and other forces against civilians, United Nations peacekeepers or international aid workers."

Such vacillations cut no ice with human rights activists who welcomed the indictment of President al-Bashir last June and the issue of the arrest warrant on 4 March 2009. There have been television and newspaper pictures of demonstrators celebrating outside Sudanese embassies in various countries. For them peace and justice are inseparable, the perpetrators of impunity should not be absolved of their crimes by fears of more impunity from them. This merely serves to perpetuate the cycle of impunity by allowing the architects of war crimes and crimes against humanity to go scot-free. These sentiments are expressed with characteristic moral clarity by emeritus Archbishop Desmond Tutu, in an impassioned an op-ed essay entitled "Will Africa Let Sudan Off the Hook?", in which he argued that the issuance of the arrest warrant "presents a stark choice for African leaders - are they on the side of justice or on the side of injustice? Are they on the side of the victim or the oppressor? The choice is clear but the answer so far from many African leaders has been shameful. Because the victims in Sudan are African, African leaders should be the staunchest supporters of efforts to see perpetrators brought to account. Yet rather than stand by those who have suffered in Darfur, African leaders have so far rallied behind the man responsible for turning that corner of Africa into a graveyard."

He eloquently dismissed charges that the ICC and the indictment of President Bashir merely is nothing but legal cover for western imperialist machinations. "I regret that the charges against President al-Bashir are being used to stir up the sentiment that the justice system - and in particular, the international court - is biased against Africa. Justice is in the interest of victims, and the victims of these crimes are African. To imply that the prosecution is a plot by the West is demeaning to Africans and understates the commitment to justice we have seen across the continent. It's worth remembering that more than 20 African countries were among the founders of the International Criminal Court, and of the 108 nations that joined the court, 30 are in Africa." I wholeheartedly endorse the views of the venerable archbishop.

For human rights advocates and campaigners who have spent the last few years calling for the indictment of al-Bashir and his accomplices at the highest level of the Sudanese political establishment, the warnings about the possibility of a collapse of the peace process and a reversion to conflict in the south of the country are nothing but a red herring. These warnings are reminders of the old arguments that have been bandied about when nations have had to make choices between holding perpetrators of gross violations of human rights accountable and pursuing peace and national reconciliation at all costs. Such calls have been part of the debates about how to rebuild societies in post-conflict situations, from post-apartheid South Africa and East Timor to Liberia and Sierra Leone. Aspects of these arguments have been echoed in more recent times in both Kenya and Zimbabwe in the wake of the post-election violence in both countries and the soul-searching that has gone on about the underlying issue of decades-old violations of human rights, especially in the latter: should the imperative of securing peace and national reconciliation trump the need to punish impunity and bring justice to victims of egregious human rights violations? For many human rights campaigners, this is a false choice. Both can be achieved, if the right conditions and mechanisms are agreed and put in place. Peace without accountability for impunity would be a false and fragile peace.

Moreover, for supporters of the emerging international criminal justice system and human rights advocates alike, allowing al-Bashir to escape the ICC's indictment on the grounds of political expediency would set a bad precedent that his supporters in the AU and the Arab League may celebrate but the wider world may come to regret. Such a development would compromise the authority of the new international tribunal, weaken attempts at strengthening human rights protection around the globe, derogate from the global effort to punish impunity while giving succor and hope to downtrodden and vulnerable populations in places like Darfur and beyond. It would also give legitimacy to the false claim that the ICC is part of a Western-led neo-colonialist plot aimed at targeting and harassing African political leaders and their countries while leaving other alleged perpetrators of violations of human rights, genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity untouched. Proponents of that claim conveniently fail to point out that three of the four cases currently pending before the court (Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda) were initiated at the request of the African governments themselves, and that the indictment of Bashir is not the outcome of a mindless personal campaign by the ICC prosecutor, as it is sometimes presented in the al-Bashir-friendly media, but a result of a request for investigation into the alleged violations in the Darfur region by the United Nation's Security Council.

The indictment of President Omar al-Bashir and the issuance of a warrant of arrest by the ICC marks an important milestone in the quest for justice for the people of Sudan as a whole, and not only the immediate victims of the violations in Darfur. To characterize this as evidence of neo-colonialism is to invoke a dubious, albeit popular, canard. Africa which has suffered more than most from human rights violations at the hands of outsiders and its own vicious leaders should be at the forefront of establishing a global culture that promotes and protects human rights, peace, and security. Playing such a role enables Africa to criticize others with integrity. I am sure many Africans would have wished an ICC existed in the days of slavery and colonialism to bring the perpetrators of those crimes to justice. I also think many look forward to bringing other contemporary perpetartors of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide ensconced in some of the world's most powerful countries to justice by the ICC. They include the engineers of the devastating war in Iraq, provoked and waged under utterly false pretences, as well as those who orchestrate the recurrent vicious wars and humanitarian disasters in Palestine. We will be in a stronger position in the struggle to create a more humane world if we do not exonerate our own political criminals and serial human rights abusers. The causes for peace, security, and justice are indeed interrelated, indivisible, interdependent, and universal.

Waiting for the Mugabe-Tsvangirai Dividend: The future of Government of National Unity in Zimbabwe.

Zimbabwe has been delirious with excitement and great expectations following the recent formation of a government of national unity between the major political parties-ZANU PF and the two MDC formations- after almost a decade of sharp antagonism. But the celebrations are now giving way to the hard realities of political normalcy. Many observers from within and without Zimbabwe wonder what the unity government will bring to Zimbabweans beyond the hope and pride, whether there will be any positive significant changes in the socio-economic and political conditions in the country.

For many Zimbabweans, the unity government is a milestone because it has forced Zimbabweans to graduate from mere political jargon, wounded pride, emotional shock and trauma into rationally confronting the details of the problems that were (and still are) bedeviling the country for the past decade and also what they actually did to each other in the aftermath of the 29 March 2008 harmonised elections running past the second elections of 27 June 2008.

While it is laudable that these conflicting political parties have finally agreed to form a unity government, the devil is in the details, in the implementation. The rhetoric is compromised by the weight of history and the inherent problems of the security sector, the persistent incongruence of MDC and ZANU PF interests. The Mugabe-Tsvangirai administration would go a long way in transforming the socio-economic and political environment in Zimbabwe if the following is agenda is adopted:

First the newly formed government needs to set up a Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) to look into and investigate the various gross human rights violations, torture, rape and the murders that occurred during the past three decades and which intensified in the last ten years. The recent wave of violent conflicts that occurred in some parts of the country, in Bindura and Mutoko districts, notwithstanding the calls for forgiveness by the new unity government indicates that there are inherent and deep rooted problems that require the need to set up TRC to look into the issues and bring to book all the perpetrators of these crimes and where possible prosecutions to be initiated. These conflicts clearly indicate that if this transition process is not handled properly, the country can easily degenerate into conflict due to the lingering problems carried on into the new government and unresolved and these may set new sources for future conflicts.

Secondly, the overhaul of all government structures and systems has to be implemented as a priority. It cannot be assailed that ZANU PF has permeated all segments of government institutions to the extent that it is now difficult to draw a demarcation between government and ZANU PF. Consequently it becomes difficult for the newly formed government to work properly, effectively and efficiently outside party politics.

Thirdly, there is need to look into security sector reform of all public institutions. The Mugabe administration was, during the last decade, preoccupied with militarisation of government institutions. Recall that at one time the Attorney General’s Office was hit with a mass exodus of personnel after it emerged that the Mugabe government was filling all high offices with retired personnel much to the chagrin of many civilian officers. This is the position that is still obtaining in many government departments. This also has a negative impact on the functioning of the new unity government hence the need to revamp these institutions so that they become public service oriented. It must be noted that militarisation has been the bane of African politics in general and Zimbabwe in particular and development and policies predicated on more militarisation, whatever justification, are counterproductive.

Fourthly, the government must embark on educational programmes to educate security sectors, i.e., the police, army and intelligence personnel of their proper roles and functions in democratic regimes and especially on issues relating to human rights respect. This follows as a logical corollary from the banal and trite fact that a litany of the human rights atrocities in Zimbabwe especially in the last decade were instigated at the hands of the security forces.

Fifthly, the constitution making process ought to be put into motion as a matter of urgency. The debate on this subject has been on the wall for quite some time now and it is the aspiration of many Zimbabweans that for Zimbabwe to graduate into a full democracy, there is need for a constitution that guarantees the civil liberties and human rights of all Zimbabweans-some form of document that identifies with their aspirations and not the archaic, anachronistic, obsolete and transitional Lancaster House Transitional document. A home-grown Constitution is therefore a priority.

These are some of the issues that the new government should take cognisant of if it were to make a positive impact on the political landscape in Zimbabwe. However, this list is by no means exhaustive as there are so many important other areas that need to be addressed.

Call for the African union Intervention in Zimbabwe

While addressing an international press conference in Nairobi over the weekend, Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga called on the African Union (AU) to oust Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe and end the oppression the Zimbabwean people are being subjected to. Odinga specifically called on the current AU chair Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete to take the lead in formulating an urgent solution to save Zimbabwe that is faced by a the triple crises of humanitarian catastrophes due to food shortages and an outbreak of cholera; a political stalemate due to the failure to implement a deal reached in September; and an economic meltdown with a record inflation rate.

Zimbabwe is going through what is termed as a “complex emergency.” According to the United Nations agency OCHA, a complex emergency is “a humanitarian crisis in a country, region or society where there is total or considerable breakdown of authority resulting from internal or external conflict and which requires an international response.”

What we are witnessing in Zimbabwe can in fact be described as a “complex political emergency”. The humanitarian and economic crises in Zimbabwe are linked to the disastrous politics and erratic governance of its leader. Mugabe’s politics have led to extensive violence and loss of life, massive displacements of people, widespread damages to social and economic systems, acute food shortages, and overall calamitous threats to the livelihoods of the Zimbabwean people. Since Zimbabwe is not an isolated island, the consequences of Mugabe’s reign of error and terror are reverberating in the Southern Africa region and the African continent.

When the AU was launched in 2002 to replace the ineffectual Organization of African Unity (OAU), it was wildly acclaimed for adopting a radical “principle of non-indifference,” as opposed to the “principle of non-interference” that had characterised its predecessor. The OAU had been generally despised for turning a blind eye to egregious human rights violation by despicable dictators such as Uganda’s Idi Amin, Zaire’s Mobutu Sese Seko, Central Africa Republic’s Jean-Bedel Bokassa, and Equatorial Guinea’s Marcias Nguema on pretext that it was barred by the “principle of non-interference” in the internal affairs of member states. Mordantly, it condemned President Julius Nyerere when he stood up against Amin’s aggressive and brutal regime.

The AU was the only organization, until September 2005, with the mandate to intervene in member-states where “grave circumstances” are taking place. The AU Constitutive Act defines “grave circumstances” as “war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.” The AU can intervene on two grounds: when a state has collapsed and its citizens’ livelihoods are gravely threatened or when invited by a state that is too weak to protect the livelihoods of its people.

There are grey areas in invoking this audacious “principle of non-indifference.” Although one of the motivations that influenced the AU founding fathers was what happened in Rwanda in 1994 and never to let it happen again, the nascent organization seems to have been caught off guard when the crisis in Darfur happened. Its reaction could provide us with pointers to how it will handle Zimbabwe.

When the AU was called upon to invoke Article 4(h) in September 2004 to stem genocide in Darfur, it hesitated to act on the grounds that it had yet to carry out research to determine that genocide was taking, or had taken, place. This was a clever way avoiding taking action as the AU lacked the capability and capacity to undertake such a highly technical process. If the AU had undertaken research and concluded that indeed there were “grave circumstances” in Darfur, the matter would have been brought before its supreme decision-making body, the Assembly of the Heads of State and Government, to invoke Article 4(h) of the Constitutive Act. Likewise, it could have invoked Article 4(j) had Sudan invited it to intervene. This would have been awkward, as the AU would have actually gone to Darfur to boost the capacity of the Sudanese government to undermine the livelihoods of its civilians!

Furthermore, the AU would also have faced a tough time to intervene in one of the powerful member states that adamantly insisted that as far it was concerned it was capable of protecting its own citizens and the AU could only come in to support it and on its terms. This is the argument that Khartoum has consistently and persistently used for the past 6 years since the Darfur atrocities came to the attention of the international community.

To complicate matters, the AU not only lacked the political will to make far-reaching decisions that would protect the civilian population in Darfur but also lacked the resources, both human and financial, to implement its feeble decisions. In view of the stark realities facing the AU—particularly its convoluted decision-making process, lack of resources, and lack of political will—it is not likely that it will intervene to protect the livelihoods of Zimbabweans. To further compound the problem of lack of resources, the capacity of the AU is currently exhausted due to its involvements in Darfur and Somalia. It will be unrealistic to expect it to add on its plate another complex political emergency.

What are the other options for external intervention? An intervention could come from the SADC region, similar to the 1998 intervene in Lesotho. However, going by that experience, countries of the region would not be keen, particularly if the Zimbabwean armed forces stand up to external aggression and fight back to defend their privileges. Another intervention could be made under the UN mandate by invoking Chapter VII and the principle of responsibility to protect. All the criteria for such an intervention exists vis-à-vis Zimbabwe—it has lost its sovereignty by failing to protect its civilians from loss of lives and livelihoods; the calamity is rising; and all peaceful efforts to end the suffering of the Zimbabwean people seem to have been exhausted. Force will have to be used as a last resort, as long as it is proportional, and would lead to a restoration of human security in the country. Nevertheless, SADC and the AU must legitimize such an intervention. However, both these organizations would be reluctant to set such a precedent and could insist on applying the cliché of “African solutions to African problems.” This would unnecessarily postpone the suffering of Zimbabwean people and would by default prolong Mugabe’s misrule.

Alternatively, either intervention could be pre-empted by Zimbabwean security forces that could take matters in their own hands and end a disastrous situation. But there is a complication in this solution—the AU ban on coups d’état on the continent. At the moment the AU is in a standoff with the Mauritanian military that in August took over from a democratically elected government. The question to ask is: if the AU allows a military take-over in Zimbabwe, would that set a precedent and contradict its policy against such means of changing governments?

All things considered, and as the international community fudges and gets mired in indecision paralysis, it is upon the people of Zimbabwe to take to the streets, and to use other means, to end the nightmare they are experiencing. It is only the Zimbabwean people who can liberate themselves from their “liberator.” The best that the international community can do is to support and supplement their noble “second liberation struggle.” Let us hope that when the AU Heads of State and Government meet in late January 2009, they will take a decision to support such efforts and lead the international community in providing the Zimbabwean people with all the support that they need to free themselves.

Kenyan Commission Recommends an International Crimes Tribunal

The Commission of Inquiry into Post-Election Violence (CIPEV) established to investigate the violence witnessed after the 27 December 2007 elections in Kenya officially presented its much-anticipated report to President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga on 15 October 2008. The CIPEV, or Waki Commission, was vested with a mandate to ‘investigate the facts and circumstances surrounding the violence, the conduct of state security agencies in their handling of it, and to make recommendations concerning these and other matters. Read more at www.internationallawobserver.eu.

The MDC-ZANU PF Deal:Herald of a Bright Future?

Thank you guys for the comments you are sending me, unfortunately I am not able to reply to you all by way of e-mails. First of all let me point out that I am not a political scientist nor am I an academic as many of you presumed. I am just an ordinary person who is pretty much interested in the events that take place in my beloved little country which hitherto has been held hostage by a bankrupt political class and has never known even a spectre of the democratic notions of government dating to the precolonial era. However I must hasten to say that I am aspiring to be an academic so that one day I will find myself contributing in no small measure to the entrenchment of democratic values in my society. So much for that, that is not my intention today to preach to you my aspirations in the future to come under the new political dispensation beginning Monday the 15th of September 2008

Thursday the 11th of September 2008 is a historic day in the political history of Zimbabwe in the past dacade. The day saw the signing of a pact to form a government of National Unity between the two major political players in the country, Zanu PF (the ruling party) and the opposition MDC. However the contents of the pact are not yet in the public domain as the official signing will take place on Monday the 15th of September 2008, presumably in the prsence of other African leaders. Whether the government to be formed is the answer to a litany of the woes that hound Zimbabwe today remains a key question. The power-sharing deal faces a tough credibility test to determine whether it is enough to kick start the country's emergence from catastrophic economic collapse.

There is a labyrinth of key questions that have to be examined with regards the deal. It is an open secret that the military junta is not happy with the whole arrangement especially when one goes down the memory lane to the history just before the first round of the harmonised elections. The chefs in the security forces publicly professed that they will not just allow Tsvangirai to take the thrones at the State house. Could they have changed their minds over this aspect, no one knows what they are really up to. If they still maintain such a hard line of thinking it will be a mammoth task to the government to be formed

The more contentious issue is the sustenance of the Cabinet to be formed. From the concessions that culminated in the signing of the agreement it was pointed out that the new Cabinet will comprise of 31 ministers: 15 from Zanu Pf, 13 from MDC Tsvangirai and the other 3 from MDC Mutambara faction. It is ironic that Tsvangirai who, for the past years was against Mugabe over this big Cabinet would find himself as a party to that same Cabinet which in addition would include four Deputy Vice Presidents! This is an unfortunate aberration representing his surrender or mollification in the face of Zanu PF's unpreparedness to relinguish power to the opposition. This has been viewed by political analysts as an indication of Tsvangirai's cunning for power. One will wonder how such a huge Cabinet will be financed especially in view of the fact that there are more pressing needs that have to be addressed as a matter of urgency: the food crisis being the major issue requiring urgent intervetion.

Political analysits have exprssed dismay in the whole process that led to the signing of the agreement. The non-inclusive character of the negotiation process has been hightlighted as a serious departure from the tenets of democratic governance. Various political actors and the citizenry as a whole were excluded from the whole process and in the final analysis they are not in a position to ascribe legitimacy to the whole process. It is now trite and banal that the success and legitimacy of any governmental process is a product of a participatory approach by a cross section of the society.

More important is the issue of bringing back the economy to a recovery path. The problems that are bedevilling Zimbabwe are of an economic character and therefore require an economic solution. It will be a Herculian task for the new goverment to be to convince and instill investor confidence that Zimbabwe will be palatable for business operations taking into account the fact that Zanu PF elements will still be part of the new government.

Corruption which is now endemic in the country will be another aspect that will have to be confronted by the new government. It is generally accepted the world over that the stemming out of corruption in a country is the fulcrum of any successful economy. The Zimbabwean populace is now generally corrupt, both in public and private sectors and including the generality of the population. It will be a daunting task for the new government to come up with successful initiatives that will invariably reduce the incidence of corruption.

So in a nutshell it is too premature I presume for Zimbabweans to celebrate the signing of the pact as this will not in any way turn around the economy in in moment. There is a lot of vapour that has to cleared so as to chat a clear and defined way otherwise we might find ourselves in a more precarious position than before after the realisation that this may be only the transfer of political power without concomitent developments beneficial to the ordinary persons in the street.