An SW Radio Africa headline caught my eye the other day: MDC say they will not be held ‘prisoner’ in unity deal.

The Tsvangirai MDC has moved to reassure sceptical supporters that it will not be held ‘prisoner’ in a government of national unity with ZANU PF. Speaking to Newsreel on Monday, party spokesman Nelson Chamisa said if for any reason the deal failed to work they would have no hesitation in walking out.

Well. The MDC may not be held prisoner. But Zimbabwe Peace Project Director Jestina Mukoko certainly is. She was abducted over two months ago, on 3 December 2008. She was missing for three weeks, with the police claiming not to know where she was. She was found 23 December – in police custody! Since then, she has been accused of “banditry,” and has had a series of court appearances, none of which seem to be getting her any closer to freedom.

Today, High Court Justice Alphas Chitakunye rejected her latest application for bail, saying that he couldn’t grant bail because Jestina “had yet to be advised by a court on her charges.”

So this woman, who was arrested after the Global Political Agreement was signed now won’t be released, after the inclusive government has been finalised? You’ve had this woman, and her six co-accused, for two months and you haven’t even charged them yet?

Surely the issue of these detainees is a litmus test for this new government. Write to MDC-M and MDC-T and remind them that whilst pro-democracy activists remain detained and disappeared, none of us are free, and that the spirit of the inclusive government is flawed. And if you hear back from them, let us know what they say!

In an effort heed the advice of many of the people who have commented on my MDC sell outs blog, I’ve been reading up about what others have to say about MDC-T’s decision to join this new “inclusive government.” At the suggestion of my colleague, I thought I could make a little table – one column with commentators in favour of this move, the other column citing those more sceptical about it.

Unfortunately, my table as it stands is weighted heavily with the sceptics. And currently all the commentators I’ve seen referenced are men. I haven’t included any leaders of the parties that signed onto the deal, my theory being that of course they’d argue in favour of it; they signed it.

Anyone want to point me in the direction of a few more optimists?

Optimists

Tawanda Mukakiwa, a vendor – “This is a real attempt to address the crises in the country and in that respect the move deserves credit.”

Alex Magaisa – “The only hope is that should it join, the MDC will try to be to any opponents what Zanu PF was never able to manage when the MDC was in opposition. If that is possible, then at least the new arrangement would have achieved one important thing: to free space for political activity and therefore create a culture in which democracy can potentially thrive.”

——

Sceptics

John Makumbe – “The desperate people of Zimbabwe deserve better than a political fix that will keep Robert Mugabe in power.”

Wellington Chibhebhe – “A casual glance at the power-sharing pact only gave the MDC ‘administrative work’.”

Dale Dore – “No to the power-sharing deal! No to collusion with the Mugabe dictatorship!”

Brian Kagoro – “Firstly, there’s nothing national about it, secondly there’s absolutely no unity in it. So as an exercise in futility it’s a waste of precious time.”

Tendai Dumbutshena – “After the June 27 putsch by Robert Mugabe signs were always there that the MDC were headed for surrender. It officially happened on January 30, 2009 when the party hoisted a white flag on top of its Harvest House headquarters. What followed was a pathetic attempt by MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai to portray this decision to join the unity government without any of their conditions
being met as some sort of victory.”

Lovemore Madhuku – “It’s catastrophic. In so doing, Tsvangirai undermined the intention of the MDC to have a complete change.”

——

Reserving Judgement

Takavafira Zhou – “It brings hope on the surface that there may be better things to come and at the same time we remain sceptical.”

Daniel Molokele – “The big question that remains to be answered is whether or not the decision by the MDC to join up with Zanu-PF was a strategically wise one or not. Well as they say, the jury is still out on this one. Only time will tell!”

Well now.

It’s taken almost a year for us to get a result from the 2008 March election. Hmmm. Then Tsvangirai said he’d halt any negotiations regarding a Government of National Unity until all abducted and detained activists were returned or released. That didn’t last for long, he was soon back at the round table and the mini bar. And now that he has agreed to jump into bed with that old guy, he’s said that previous demands like the allocation of ministries will be sorted out over the next 6 months, or so. Sounds wonderful doesn’t it?

John Makumbe writing for openDemocracy has this to say:

The bottom line is that Robert Mugabe and Zanu-PF have no intention of handing over power to the MDC, except under severe political pressure from both within and outside Zimbabwe. The activists gathering at the African Union summit in Addis Ababa on 26 January-3 February 2009 to highlight the “passive genocide” in their country are right; those who are prepared to consent to a political fix that will entrench its architects in power are wrong. Read more

To temper my scepticism over this inclusive government, I’ve been reading what some of our subscribers have to say about it via SMS. I may not agree with all of them, but they are certainly hopeful. Here are some of the text messages we’ve received about Friday’s deal.

I think its a good move we a going to dismantle ZANU from inside. SADC PF has lost credibility both localy regionaly & internationaly.

–

Is that a gud idea?

–

Thank god for the agreement

–

Thank u very much. Tambai tsoro with honesty to the people…The suffering

–

What about the people abducted and jailed

I’ve been thinking about this “inclusive government,” and about the notion that that MDC had no choice – that it couldn’t risk “defying SADC,” that it had to agree to the terms of the 27 January SADC Communiqué.

One problem with that whole theory is that it gives to SADC an authority that I don’t think it deserves. Granted, some heads of certain SADC countries respect the rule of law, treat their citizens fairly and promote justice at home. But since when has SADC been an honest, reliable broker when it comes to Zimbabwe? It’s always had a bias – as evidenced by the very fact that the Zimbabwe crisis has stretched out as long as it has. And it feels like Mugabe has a case of selective sovereignty. Mr You keep your Britain and I’ll keep my Zimbabwe suddenly cares what other countries think about what he does at home? Yeah, right.

It also comes back to this question of desperation. The MDC say they’re weren’t desperate to be in government, but their actions tell a different story.

Along these lines, Dale Doré sent in these comments recently which resonated with me:

In September 2008 the MDC was pressured by Mbeki into a deeply flawed agreement. For all Mugabe’s loathing and contempt for the MDC and its leaders, there are those in the opposition who still believe that a deal with Mugabe is their only option. Instead of believing in themselves, they believe in Mugabe’s omnipotence. Instead of sticking to their democratic principles as the route to legitimate political power, they believe that power can be shared with Mugabe. Instead of believing themselves to be the true heirs of democratically-won political power, they fear that Mugabe will form a government without them. Until and unless the MDC believe in themselves and move boldly to capture the high moral and political ground – nothing will change.

Even after Mugabe illegitimately grabbed the lion’s share of power, SADC has still put their trust in him to negotiate in good faith when implementing the power-sharing agreement. Instead of fair and unbiased arbitration, Mbeki and the SADC leaders have now placed the MDC in a lose-lose situation. If the MDC pulls out of the agreement, they will look like the spoilers. If they enter the agreement, they will be completely dominated by the very forces they oppose and make them complicit in Mugabe’s dictatorship. However, our first responsibility is not to Thabo Mbeki or leaders of other countries.

We must not sign any agreement to appease Mugabe, Mbeki or SADC. Our responsibility is first and foremost to the people of Zimbabwe. Having tried our utmost, but having failed to reach agreement, we must now put aside any kind of power-sharing deal, including that which SADC has put on the table. A bold, new approach is needed.

Read more here

In a statement issued following a meeting of the National Executive of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) today, Morgan Tsvangirai announced that his party has agreed to form an inclusive government with Zanu PF and the other MDC, led by Arthur Mutambara.

This agreement has felt increasingly inevitable since the SADC summit communiqué earlier this week. If things go according to the SADC timetable, Parliament will debate Constitutional Amendment 19 this coming week, and Tsvangirai will be sworn in as Prime Minister 11 February.

The sky tonight is, fittingly, dark and stormy. As the finalisation of this deal has crept inexorably closer this week, my emotions have also been dark and depressed. It’s hard to articulate how utterly disheartening this agreement is. Reflecting tonight, I thought that my heart has just taken the last break it can take.

This deal is entirely detestable. In its statement today the MDC said this didn’t mean it was giving up the struggle, just taking it to a different arena. But it’s hard to imagine that the party will have much success fighting for true democracy inside a flawed government, when it has come to such little effect outside it. A friend of mine yesterday said he’d heard this deal likened to putting on a dirty shirt. I said it’s more like putting on a dirty condom – smelly, sticky, damp, diseased and distasteful.

Admittedly, I don’t know what other the option the MDC had. A different party – one which was more Movement than Party might well have had different cards to play. But the MDC lacks the capacity to lead any sort of civil disobedience or “make the country ungovernable” movement, which might have resulted in a different outcome. Instead, the MDC has tended towards negotiations and legal challenges and contesting undemocratic elections. This strategy has left it high and dry at this most recent negotiating table.

Yesterday, Acting Minister of Finance Patrick Chinamasa, himself a snake of a man, announced the 2009 Budget Proposal – which sees the Zimbabwe economy increasingly dollarised. City councils, taxation, plus local goods are to be sold in forex, not in Zimbabwe dollars. How are Zimbabweans meant to survive the latest economic and political onslaught? The future is looking bleak.