The negotiations between Zimbabwe’s major political parties are said to be progressing well. In fact, reports from various media say they have reached an agreement on a draft deal which they are now taking back to their principals. The details of this draft have been subject to vociferous speculation amongst individuals, civic society and the political parties themselves. Otherwise it’s a wait and see game, and no one no knows when, what and who will take what. However, there has been great debate in other fora and the media, about civil society’s demand for inclusion in the ongoing talks. Are they entitled a seat? Should they be included? Who is civic society? Do they have a mandate? What would be their added value to these negotiations?
Civic society leaders have dismissed the talks in SA as leading to an elite pact, a power sharing deal which negates the real issues that need urgent attention. In a statement, civic society had called for a transitional authority led by an independent figure. This didn’t go well with their partners in the opposition who felt they had been given a mandate by the people to govern and they deserved that role, even in a transitional authority. When the negotiations finally kicked off, and they included the only three parties given the mandate by the people to represent them in parliament, civic society cried foul and demanded inclusion in the talks.
Zimbabwe has one of the biggest ranges of civic society organizations, ranging from workers, students, youths, women, governance pressure groups, professionals (lawyers, doctors, and intellectuals), humanitarian, and churches. Whilst I have grouped these groups into sectors, there are a multiple organizations in these sectors with others being more prominent and mass based than others. However, who would have represented the civil society in the talks? Let’s assume that’s a group of individuals would have been picked from these organizations, they might have numbered up to 10 at least. Fare enough, isn’t this another elite group of individuals? Isn’t doing this an elite way of aggregating the interests of the different groups they represent?
A friend of mine proposed in one of the fora we interact that we should follow the “national conference” style that took place in Benin. Or inclusion as the CODESSA was involved in SA. However, I believe that given the desperateness the Zimbabwe situation is, there is need for these talks between Zimbabwe’s major political parties so as to freshen up the air before such national re-engagement, national conferences can be engaged in. In any case, they are mandated by the people to do so…. The civic society, as suggested by others, should do a comprehensive paper and have it considered at the talks if they so wish. In any case one might think that they have already made their position clear when they said they did not want a transitional authority led by either Tsvangirai or Mugabe.
Generally, civic society has a traditional role as a watchdog, this role they have played well up until now. They should continue monitoring the talks, demand that their constituencies be informed of the progress, monitor the outcome and decide whether it’s in the best interests of the people they represent, as none of them represent the whole spectrum of the Zimbabwean society, this is done by MDC and ZANU PF and Independent/s. If a deal is reached, civic society has an important role to play; probably more important than they hoped to play at the talks…they should facilitate transition. Act as information source of the developments to their respective constituencies and monitor progress in important areas such as peace, economy, rehabilitation and re-engagement.
Whilst we have one of the most vibrant civil societies in our region it has suffered a lot of suppression, oppression, violence and intimidation that it also needs rejuvenation, rehabilitation and realignment in terms of their goals, interests and capacities. Those interested in taking the political route should do so.
