By: Peter Qeko Jere
The Zimbabwe 2008 General Elections which included the Presidential runoff has raised two key issues in African politics today. These include the meaning of the people, legitimate and illegitimate government. The first round of voting produced two main contenders to the Presidency because none of them won the outright majority to form government. This means that Tsvangirai and Mugabe were to face each other in the runoff. However soon or later Morgan Tsvangirai pulled his MDC out the contest which gave room for the incumbent to go unopposed. Thus during the presidential runoff, Robert Mugabe won the elections and was sworn in for another term of office. This has left the MDC with no option but to begin to swallow their ego because it was suicidal for Tsvangirai to pull out at the eleventh hour. However even before voting, many western nations condemned the whole process and called it a sham or a scandal. The United Nations also condemned the elections just as the US and the EU. After Mugabe won the runoff, the condemnation went even louder mainly from the US, Britain and the EU who said that they will only recognize government formed by Mr. Tsvangirai and not Mr. Mugabe. To them they still do not believe that things have gone this far.
Here in Africa, our AU heads of states meeting in Cairo didn’t come up with a strong word of condemnation but asked the Zimbabwean politicians to put their house in order amicably. In Sadc, countries like Botswana with its new President, Khama have come out very strongly saying that Mugabe should be stopped from attending Heads of States meetings. The other strong word has come from Raila Odinga in Kenya who possibly sympathizes with Tsvangirai and he is vocal and anti Mugabe. Thabo Mbeki who has been greatly condemned by many with his quiet diplomacy has not been strong on the issue. Many expected Mbeki to strongly condemn Mugabe and they are angry that he has not done that.
In Zimbabwe itself, Mr. Tsvangirai himself calls the whole Mugabe inauguration as a sham and something which is against the will of the people.
Having said this, we want to discuss “who are the true people” in politics because like the Zimbabwe scenario, the Americans, Britain and the EU have argued that the results of the runoff did not reflect the will of the people. In this case who are the people? Who determines and qualifies who to be included in the people? Like the Zimbabwe situation, how do we define the will of the people? Is the will of the people in the opposition or the ruling party? In case where the opposition withdraws, do the the ruling party stops being part of the people? Or are we saying that the will of the people is determined and defined by the participation of the opposition in politics? Then what do you call those who support the ruling party? Are they not part of the people categorically?
Also the results have been categorically called a sham. Now why are the results a sham in the first place? Is it because MDC pulled out? Suppose they didn’t pull out what were they going to be called? Does the description of the results depend on the opposition’s participation for them not to be a sham? What quantitative indicators do you use to determine that the results are a sham or not? At the same time, what could they have been called if it was Zanu PF withdrawing? Would they have called this a sham or what could it have been and not MDC? And who determine that this result is a sham? What qualification should someone have to be able to make this determination? Finally these results are called a sham according to whose standards?
The US, EU and Britain are at pain and have called the Zimbabwe government an illegitimate one meaning that its an illegal administration. Now let’s look at this: if this is an illegitimate government, then who qualifies a government to be legitimate? What criteria and indicators do you use to qualify a government to be legitimate? Who has this power to make a country legitimate? In this case, does a country stop being legitimate because US, EU and Britain says so? What qualifies EU, USA and Britain to declare nations illegitimate or legitimate? Then how do you define the word legitimate or illegitimate in such situation?
A critical analysis of the situation on the ground had enable us to come up with what we feel is the proper definition and understanding of who the people are and also when does government become legitimate or not legitimate.
To begin with, we respect the position taken by western nations and African nations that have strongly condemned the Zimbabwe electoral results. We don’t have a problem with that because we realize people have freedoms and rights these days to express themselves on issues so are nations and their leaders. They can choose to remain silent or speak out depending on the political beliefs of their leaders. However we want to share something on the questions raised about how do we define the will of the people? As from western leaders’ comments on the issue, it is clear that the will of the people rests in the opposition hence even though Mugabe has been inaugurated for another term of office, they say they will only work with government that Mr. Tsvangirai will form. Now the question is when will this be and how will this be since a sitting president has been inaugurated already for another term of office? In this regard we feel the western nations approach to the issue of the will of the people is misleading because this can not only rest in the opposition. Like Zimbabwe, many African countries have the ruling party and those in opposition and it’s a terrible mistake to equate the people with only the opposition leaving out the other sector of society from the ruling party. So its scholarly wrong to limit the definition of the will of he people to the voice of the opposition. The question could be if the will of the people is limited and only rests in the opposition then what do you call the voice that comes from the ruling party? Now do those from the ruling party stop being people when the opposition withdraws from the contest such that their voice cannot be considered as the will of the people? We feel that this understanding propagated by western politicians is wrong because there is more to the will of the people than limiting it to the voice of the opposition only. Also that its wrong to say that they will of the people is in the opposition because there is enough evidence to show that in African politics today, many opposition parties have no ideology but that they only exist to oppose everything that comes from the ruling party even if government has such programs that are geared to benefits their own people in the constituencies.
As regard the element of calling the results a sham, this raises so many questions mainly when you have a very objective view to it. It is because this voice has by and large being influenced by external forces. The USA, EU and Britain has called the results a sham followed by all the nations that get economic support from them. At the same time, majority of the nations that belonged to the opposing side during the cold war, seem not to be so much interested in what the US, EU and Britain are advocating. In essence, the calling of these results a sham brings us back to the cold war and has divided African countries. So if we may ask, whose standards determine that the results are a sham or not? Should it the USA, EU or Britain? Are we saying that all African countries don’t have standards of their own? Should we as African people wait until the EU, US and Britain make a determination for the results to be fair? Is this in other way not a different version of colonialism that Western countries should have a say in the administration of internal issues affecting African countries? We strongly feel that though the Zimbabwe issue has gone overboard, it should still be left in the hands of Zimbabweans to sit down and solve it. This is because there is more to the Zimbabwe issue that western politician who many of them are too young to understand the histories of African countries. In fact majority of the western political leaders didn’t study African political history and they have no idea whatsoever to clearly understand the dynamics and ideals of African politics today. You can not understand and know the complex of African politics unless you know the histories of African colonialism and the liberation process. So the definition of whether the results in Zimbabwe are a sham or not has to a larger extent depends on what the Zimbabwean themselves say about it based on social, political and economic history of their country. It has to be the people of Zimbabwe because Zimbabwe belongs to the African Zimbabwean and not to the US, EU and Britain. What we mean is that this piece of land called Zimbabwe belongs to both the MDC and Zanu PF and they are the key players who have to come up with a final say as to what they think is good for their country and for their destiny.
Now on the question of illegitimate or legitimate government there are many questions again that need clarification. The US, EU, Britain and their economic partners, have by and large called the Zimbabwe government illegitimate one. In other ways they do not recognize it and they have nothing to do with it. So the question is what qualifies the USA, EU, Britain and their economic partners to categorically call a country illegitimate? Whose standards do they use to determine that the government is illegitimate or not? The irony is that the media says that the US will put sanction on all countries that are in close ties with Zimbabwe as a way of pushing them to pressure Robert Mugabe. Now is this morally good? Since when has it become a sin or criminal for nations to be in good terms? Should the US determine and pin point which country we as African should befriend? Should our friendship in Africa be controlled in Washington? We think things have gone overboard and there is too much sign of immaturity here because African sovereign states should be left alone to decide which nation to befriend based on what they feel is good for them as African people. Therefore the USA, EU and Britain should know that this is the 21st Centuary where African countries know what I good for them as African people. They should know that they do not have any constitutional right to declare that a particular country in Africa is illegitimate or legitimate unless they are part of the voting process. Those who take part in the voting process are the ones who declare that a system or country is illegitimate or not. That the legitimate of any country is in the power of the vote. That small vote we cast during the election has the power to declare a country legitimate or not. So spectators or observer’s job is to monitor and they cant go beyond that.
The Zimbabwe 2008 General Elections which included the Presidential runoff has raised two key issues in African politics today. These include the meaning of the people, legitimate and illegitimate government. The first round of voting produced two main contenders to the Presidency because none of them won the outright majority to form government. This means that Tsvangirai and Mugabe were to face each other in the runoff. However soon or later Morgan Tsvangirai pulled his MDC out the contest which gave room for the incumbent to go unopposed. Thus during the presidential runoff, Robert Mugabe won the elections and was sworn in for another term of office. This has left the MDC with no option but to begin to swallow their ego because it was suicidal for Tsvangirai to pull out at the eleventh hour. However even before voting, many western nations condemned the whole process and called it a sham or a scandal. The United Nations also condemned the elections just as the US and the EU. After Mugabe won the runoff, the condemnation went even louder mainly from the US, Britain and the EU who said that they will only recognize government formed by Mr. Tsvangirai and not Mr. Mugabe. To them they still do not believe that things have gone this far.
Here in Africa, our AU heads of states meeting in Cairo didn’t come up with a strong word of condemnation but asked the Zimbabwean politicians to put their house in order amicably. In Sadc, countries like Botswana with its new President, Khama have come out very strongly saying that Mugabe should be stopped from attending Heads of States meetings. The other strong word has come from Raila Odinga in Kenya who possibly sympathizes with Tsvangirai and he is vocal and anti Mugabe. Thabo Mbeki who has been greatly condemned by many with his quiet diplomacy has not been strong on the issue. Many expected Mbeki to strongly condemn Mugabe and they are angry that he has not done that.
In Zimbabwe itself, Mr. Tsvangirai himself calls the whole Mugabe inauguration as a sham and something which is against the will of the people.
Having said this, we want to discuss “who are the true people” in politics because like the Zimbabwe scenario, the Americans, Britain and the EU have argued that the results of the runoff did not reflect the will of the people. In this case who are the people? Who determines and qualifies who to be included in the people? Like the Zimbabwe situation, how do we define the will of the people? Is the will of the people in the opposition or the ruling party? In case where the opposition withdraws, do the the ruling party stops being part of the people? Or are we saying that the will of the people is determined and defined by the participation of the opposition in politics? Then what do you call those who support the ruling party? Are they not part of the people categorically?
Also the results have been categorically called a sham. Now why are the results a sham in the first place? Is it because MDC pulled out? Suppose they didn’t pull out what were they going to be called? Does the description of the results depend on the opposition’s participation for them not to be a sham? What quantitative indicators do you use to determine that the results are a sham or not? At the same time, what could they have been called if it was Zanu PF withdrawing? Would they have called this a sham or what could it have been and not MDC? And who determine that this result is a sham? What qualification should someone have to be able to make this determination? Finally these results are called a sham according to whose standards?
The US, EU and Britain are at pain and have called the Zimbabwe government an illegitimate one meaning that its an illegal administration. Now let’s look at this: if this is an illegitimate government, then who qualifies a government to be legitimate? What criteria and indicators do you use to qualify a government to be legitimate? Who has this power to make a country legitimate? In this case, does a country stop being legitimate because US, EU and Britain says so? What qualifies EU, USA and Britain to declare nations illegitimate or legitimate? Then how do you define the word legitimate or illegitimate in such situation?
A critical analysis of the situation on the ground had enable us to come up with what we feel is the proper definition and understanding of who the people are and also when does government become legitimate or not legitimate.
To begin with, we respect the position taken by western nations and African nations that have strongly condemned the Zimbabwe electoral results. We don’t have a problem with that because we realize people have freedoms and rights these days to express themselves on issues so are nations and their leaders. They can choose to remain silent or speak out depending on the political beliefs of their leaders. However we want to share something on the questions raised about how do we define the will of the people? As from western leaders’ comments on the issue, it is clear that the will of the people rests in the opposition hence even though Mugabe has been inaugurated for another term of office, they say they will only work with government that Mr. Tsvangirai will form. Now the question is when will this be and how will this be since a sitting president has been inaugurated already for another term of office? In this regard we feel the western nations approach to the issue of the will of the people is misleading because this can not only rest in the opposition. Like Zimbabwe, many African countries have the ruling party and those in opposition and it’s a terrible mistake to equate the people with only the opposition leaving out the other sector of society from the ruling party. So its scholarly wrong to limit the definition of the will of he people to the voice of the opposition. The question could be if the will of the people is limited and only rests in the opposition then what do you call the voice that comes from the ruling party? Now do those from the ruling party stop being people when the opposition withdraws from the contest such that their voice cannot be considered as the will of the people? We feel that this understanding propagated by western politicians is wrong because there is more to the will of the people than limiting it to the voice of the opposition only. Also that its wrong to say that they will of the people is in the opposition because there is enough evidence to show that in African politics today, many opposition parties have no ideology but that they only exist to oppose everything that comes from the ruling party even if government has such programs that are geared to benefits their own people in the constituencies.
As regard the element of calling the results a sham, this raises so many questions mainly when you have a very objective view to it. It is because this voice has by and large being influenced by external forces. The USA, EU and Britain has called the results a sham followed by all the nations that get economic support from them. At the same time, majority of the nations that belonged to the opposing side during the cold war, seem not to be so much interested in what the US, EU and Britain are advocating. In essence, the calling of these results a sham brings us back to the cold war and has divided African countries. So if we may ask, whose standards determine that the results are a sham or not? Should it the USA, EU or Britain? Are we saying that all African countries don’t have standards of their own? Should we as African people wait until the EU, US and Britain make a determination for the results to be fair? Is this in other way not a different version of colonialism that Western countries should have a say in the administration of internal issues affecting African countries? We strongly feel that though the Zimbabwe issue has gone overboard, it should still be left in the hands of Zimbabweans to sit down and solve it. This is because there is more to the Zimbabwe issue that western politician who many of them are too young to understand the histories of African countries. In fact majority of the western political leaders didn’t study African political history and they have no idea whatsoever to clearly understand the dynamics and ideals of African politics today. You can not understand and know the complex of African politics unless you know the histories of African colonialism and the liberation process. So the definition of whether the results in Zimbabwe are a sham or not has to a larger extent depends on what the Zimbabwean themselves say about it based on social, political and economic history of their country. It has to be the people of Zimbabwe because Zimbabwe belongs to the African Zimbabwean and not to the US, EU and Britain. What we mean is that this piece of land called Zimbabwe belongs to both the MDC and Zanu PF and they are the key players who have to come up with a final say as to what they think is good for their country and for their destiny.
Now on the question of illegitimate or legitimate government there are many questions again that need clarification. The US, EU, Britain and their economic partners, have by and large called the Zimbabwe government illegitimate one. In other ways they do not recognize it and they have nothing to do with it. So the question is what qualifies the USA, EU, Britain and their economic partners to categorically call a country illegitimate? Whose standards do they use to determine that the government is illegitimate or not? The irony is that the media says that the US will put sanction on all countries that are in close ties with Zimbabwe as a way of pushing them to pressure Robert Mugabe. Now is this morally good? Since when has it become a sin or criminal for nations to be in good terms? Should the US determine and pin point which country we as African should befriend? Should our friendship in Africa be controlled in Washington? We think things have gone overboard and there is too much sign of immaturity here because African sovereign states should be left alone to decide which nation to befriend based on what they feel is good for them as African people. Therefore the USA, EU and Britain should know that this is the 21st Centuary where African countries know what I good for them as African people. They should know that they do not have any constitutional right to declare that a particular country in Africa is illegitimate or legitimate unless they are part of the voting process. Those who take part in the voting process are the ones who declare that a system or country is illegitimate or not. That the legitimate of any country is in the power of the vote. That small vote we cast during the election has the power to declare a country legitimate or not. So spectators or observer’s job is to monitor and they cant go beyond that.
No comments:
Post a Comment