Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

The hunt is On.
Sponsored by
Can you track down Scotland's wildest beastie?

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Scotland On Sunday site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Tsvangirai agrees deal to be PM with Mugabe clinging on as president



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 17 August 2008
ZIMBABWE'S opposition leader has announced he would accept the prime minister's post and concede the presidency – as well as command of the military – to Robert Mugabe to settle a political crisis in his country.
Morgan Tsvangirai outlined his proposal for resolving the contentious issue of who would lead any unity government in a speech to regional Cabinet ministers gathered for a Southern African Development Community summit.

Tsvangirai's proposal, which
he said his Movement for Democratic Change has presented in deadlocked negotiations with Mugabe's Zanu-PF party, would mean a major curbing of the powers Mugabe has wielded since the country gained independence in 1980.

But it also would leave Tsvangirai working closely with a leader he has reviled as a brutal dictator.

South African President Thabo Mbeki, who has been mediating Zimbabwe's power-sharing talks, spent much of the past week in Zimbabwe trying to push Mugabe and Tsvangirai to strike a deal. The question of Mugabe's role has been a major sticking point, with the longtime president reportedly refusing to yield any power and his administration publicly mocking Tsvangirai's claim to have the mandate to lead Zimbabwe.

In his speech to southern African leaders on Friday, the details of which were only revealed publicly last night, Tsvangirai said the two sides remained unable to agree on how powers would be divided between him and Mugabe. A South African Cabinet minister closely involved in the talks, Sydney Mufamadi, said yesterday that a deal was close but was unclear if a breakthrough would come during the summit.

Tsvangirai had walked out of talks in Harare on Tuesday, but his chief negotiator said yesterday that the negotiations were back on track. "We're talking here," Tendai Biti said after attending the opening session of the SADC summit.

On Friday, Tsvangirai said compromise was necessary because Zimbabweans would reject a deal "if any party is greedy. We have agreed that Mr Mugabe will be president whilst I become prime minister," he told the SADC ministers. "We envisage that the prime minister must chair the Cabinet and be responsible for the formulation, execution and administration of government business including appointing and dismissing his ministers. A prime minister cannot be given responsibility without authority and be expected to deliver."

Tsvangirai, whose party won the most seats in parliament in March elections, proposes that the president have no power to veto laws. The opposition also proposes that the president "shall be commander in chief of the defence forces of Zimbabwe," but exercise that power in consultation with the prime minister.

Tsvangirai came first in a field of four in the first round of presidential voting in March, but did not win by the margin necessary to avoid a run-off against second-place finisher Mugabe. Tsvangirai withdrew from the June 27 run-off because of attacks on his supporters blamed on Mugabe's party militants and security forces.

Mugabe held the run-off, and was declared the overwhelming winner, though the exercise was widely denounced.

Yesterday, Tsvangirai sat just behind Cabinet ministers from the region during the opening session of the summit, while Mugabe sat at the front table with other heads of state.

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said in a statement from London that the summit offers Africans an important opportunity to support the power-sharing negotiations, adding: "The outside world continues to watch developments in Zimbabwe closely and with concern, not least given the deteriorating humanitarian situation."

The South Africans, appointed mediators by SADC, helped guide Mugabe and Tsvangirai to sign a memorandum of understanding on July 21 establishing a framework for negotiations. Mbeki praised that agreement yesterday and said the SADC would continue working "to help put Zimbabwe on the right road to its recovery."

Mbeki has insisted on quiet diplomacy. Some have portrayed his refusal to publicly condemn Mugabe as appeasement. Botswana President Seretse Ian Khama refused to attend the summit to protest Mugabe's welcome as a head of state. President Levy Mwanawasa of Zambia also has been sharply critical of Mugabe.





The full article contains 681 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 16 August 2008 11:06 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
  • Related Topics: Zimbabwe
 
1

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 17/08/2008 04:35:51
A more appropriate place for Mugabe than in Presidential office is the prisoners dock in the Hague.

But it looks that some sort of compromise is a likely alternative to get him out of political power.

Tsvangarai must stick to his guns and refuse any deal that does not include a transfer of real power to Zimbabwe's legitimate elected representatives.
Anything else would be a betrayal of the Zimbabwe peoples suffering.
2

danielrober,

17/08/2008 10:18:55
A good day for democracy. Jusrr shows you that talking can produce results.
3

Media 1,

cape town 17/08/2008 10:58:55
Black Africa! A shocking reminder of just how far behind this continent and its people are.

They cant do it, they just cant do it. It is not in their make-up to advance in the modern world, it goes against the grain of what Africans are all about.
4

whomthegodswishtodestroytheyfirstmakemad,

Glasgow 17/08/2008 11:01:06
Mugabe is a lying evil snake of a man. I still fear the worst for Tsvangirai. His detention the other week was just a sign of things to come.
5

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 17/08/2008 11:28:24
Nothing good can come of this devil's brew of a "compromise" if evil incarnate Mugabe is involved.
6

,

17/08/2008 12:10:32
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
7

Chris,

Edinburgh 17/08/2008 13:18:45
#2, danielrober: Do you think Morgan Tsvangirai will last as long as Joshua Nkomo? Democracy, my foot. This is all about pressure being applied to the MDC by Mbeki who has consistently supported and protected Mugabe.
8

Neil,

Glasgow 17/08/2008 13:57:29
It seems like only a few weeks ago that all sorts of people were saying we should invade Zimbabwe to replace Mugabe.

Now all these same people believe, as a matter of principle, that one should never, even to prevent genocide, ever invade anywhere.

Isn't it amazing how many conservatives will stand up for their principles - & how fast these principles change.
9

Media 1,

cape town 17/08/2008 14:29:16
Shiltrum

You are of course unfamiliar with Africa, for no person who has ever lived in Africa would dispense the drivel you have just spluttered.

I am not quite sure what priviledged status you are speaking about. Anything I have ever achieved has been obtained through hard work and dedication, as is the case for the ancestors who came before me. I wish I had a privilidged status, that would be tremendous.

Africa is a cesspit of incompetence at every level of society. Almost nothing works and chaos prevails.

You dont see the masses starving to death and begging for food at the traffic lights. You dont hear the minister of health telling the sick to eat beetroot and garlic to avoid HIV. You dont see the Metro police failing to assist the community whilst forming alliances with the criminals. You dont see the road rage that has resulted from an incompetent police force.
All you see is the harsh television images of people dying due to the incompetence of those who lead them.

You mention Ulster, Georgia and Bosnia as if to suggest that these places of conflict are similar to Africa. But they are not. War is a human trait and it has existed for millenia in all cultures! But I know that I can visit Ulster or Bosnia and encounter a world that has structure and a sustainable economy. I also know I can get around because the public transport systems are managed properly and maintained.
I also know that YOU would sooner visit Bosnia than Rwanda or Ulster as opposed to Lagos.
Black Africa is a backward toil and sweat disaster and that is the bottom line..
Oh and the next time you are in Equatorial Guinea, Malawi, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Ghana, Tanzania, Gabon or Angola etc. Do yourself a favour and note the palaces the leaders live in whilst their people die around them.
Then visit Europe where there is wealth and an abundance of food and see where the leaders live.

You have no idea how this continent operates, but I can assure you that it looks
10

Media 1,

cape town 17/08/2008 14:34:01
because it operates the way it operates.
11

Stu_R_20,

Edinburgh 17/08/2008 15:26:31
I don't honestly believe that Mugabe is even allowed in this power sharing deal, what worries me more is the philosophical tone in which this, and many other, articles are written.
He shouldn't be in power, he has no right to even request a 'power sharing' agreement- whatever that means remains to be seen. This shows how utterly spineless countries like ourself and South Africa really are; Brown makes petty, half hearted gestures like boycotting meetings involving him, swift military action is what is required!!
Never belief the left wing lie about the so-called brutalities of colonial Africa, when you read books such as "Goodbye Rhodesia" and "The Bitter Harvest" it puts a bit more perspective on this current Zimbabwe predicament.
12

danbob,

17/08/2008 15:48:55
Tsvangirai is now happy at being prime minister. Now why would somebody be happy at being offered the booby prize when they felt they won the election. It's all about power. The reality is he will probably be no better than Mugabe. He now has his foot in the door to the riches of corruption so it,s all now OK.
13

Chris,

Edinburgh 17/08/2008 16:54:21
#12, danbob: He who controls the security forces and the military will rule Zim. If it is not the prime minister's brief then he is doomed to failure and will not last long. However, the longer the MDC hold out, the more likely it is that Mugabe will lose, together with his cronies in the police, military and security services. Both Mugabe and Mbeki know this and are trying to hurry things up; hopefully the MDC won't give in. I suspect that this is a flanking manoeuvre by the MDC and there is more to it than has been reported.
14

Gere,

Scotland 17/08/2008 16:57:17
Mugabe will not allow his Prime Minister any power!

In Africa, he who controls the military, controls the country!

Democracy is not an exportable comodity, it does not travel well to Africa, nor does it take root on that continent.

The slightest Africn breeze uproots it where it has taken a superficial, shallow hold!
15

Gulliver,

Harare 18/08/2008 10:35:40
People are making a lot of assumptions in these forums and I will endeavour to share that information which I think will enable people to make more informed analyses:

Myth # 1. ZANU PF is less popular than MDC.

If we are generally agreed that the March 29 elections were free and fair and that they reflect to a large extent the people's (ZIMBABWEANS) will then here's a few things you might want to think about.

Mugabe's ZANU PF BEAT MDC-T in the popular vote during the March 2008 Parliamentary elections- popular vote
MDC T = 1,041,176
ZANU PF= 1,110,649
Difference = +70k
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbabwean_parliamentary_election,_2008

POINT: Although ZANU PF did not win as many seats as MDC in the polls, they in fact were the popular party in terms of number of people supporting them.

This is important in addressing the next issue concerning Mugabe's popularity and ability to win the run-off without violence and other unfair practices...


16

Gulliver,

Harare 18/08/2008 11:17:20
Cont..

MTYH # 2- Tsvangirai would have definately beat Mugabe in a free and fair election.

This is one is a bit difficult to prove. However, the background we have on the popularity of political parties as I have just highlighted is vital in understanding how things went and how things could have gone on June 27.

Unfortunately, what happened happened and there is no real way we can prove that in a violent free scenario Mugabe would have won. However, there are reasonable grounds to suggest that Mugabe could in fact have won legitimately given that ZANU PF was a more galvanised party on June 27 compared to the internal fighting that preceded the March 29 polls.

POINT: There is a fair chance that even without the political violence etc. Mugabe could have still won the presidential election on June 27. There is a precedent of this in Liberia were the losing candidate of the 1st round in fact went on to win the run-off.
17

Gulliver,

Harare 18/08/2008 12:05:13
MYTH # 3. For Tsvangirai to accept a PM post whilst Mugabe is President would be unreasonable and show that Africans would just grab at anything to get into power.

Given the above analyses of the political situation that obtains on the ground I think it would only be logical for both Mugabe and Tsvangirai to work together with a reasonable sharing of executive power. Tsvangirai needs Mugabe for him to be accepted by the military and security forces as the leadership of these institutions have a strong allegiance based on the liberation war in which Tsvangirai confessed to have aborted. They (liberation heroes) consider Tsvangirai as a western puppet who has insufficient respect for the liberation war heroes (he even missed a golden opportunity to soften their stance by failing to attend this year's Heroes Day Commemorations that his other rival A. Mutambara of the MDC attended). To them it's not just an issue of Tsvangirai disrespecting the living heroes but it goes deeper to acknowledging the ideology of the heroes of the struggle for independence. These are high-power high-influence stakeholders.

POINT: An agreement between Mugabe and Tsvangirai should not be viewed as a failure of democracy or "African failure" as some have tried to make it sound, it is actually the logical way to go and most Zimbabweans would rather have this scenario than a situation where one has an outright say in what happens in Zimbabwe. These guys need each other and Zimbabweans need their unity more than ever to help take the country out of the problems born out of the combined effects of sanctions (Tsvangirai), economic mismanagement (Mugabe), and the drought (nature).
18

Gulliver,

Harare 18/08/2008 13:01:23
A few more interesting stats:

These are the presidential poll results (although contested) for 2002:
Mugabe 1,685,212
Tsvangirai 1,258,401

The total number of people who voted in the 2002 PRESIDENTIAL polls was approx 2,9m those in the 2008 March polls were approx 2.5m. The total number of registered voters did not change significantly suggesting that the decline presidential ballots were in fact Mugabe voters who either did not vote or voted for Makoni (223k votes approx).

According to these stats Mugabe's massive decline in support on March 29 (from 1,6m to 1,1m by approx 500k on March 29) did not necessarily translate into more popularity for Tsvangirai. In fact Tsvangirai's votes declined marginally from the 2002 position. Nevertheless, the total number of people voting in the presidential elections on March 29 declined How is this relevant? It suggests that Mugabe had more potential to increase his votes on June 27 than Morgan Tsvangirai by ensuring that those of his 2002 supporters who did not vote for him on March 29 actually came out to vote.

From a purely STATISTICAL point of view, it is therefore plausible that Mugabe did not STEAL the election contrary to some belief in certain quarters. He in fact could have substantial backing to his claims that he is the legitimate leader of Zimbabwe despite the violence and intimidation that marred the June 27 polls.
19

Gere,

Scotland 18/08/2008 17:23:42
Post #17,18 Gulliver,

Just wonder how many of those stats you mentioned have been falsified!
20

oder,

Scotland 18/08/2008 22:07:22
15 Gulliver,Harare

interesting analysis but you assume the election was fair! but was it? taking into account Mugabe`s actions prior to the election, banning international observers, intimidation in the countryside, harassment of the MDC at their political rallies is hardy considered "normal" political activity! in the democratic process and certainly not required if you have popular support, so while you might assume that he had a plausible chance his actions show he did not believe that to be the case!

you said

Myth # 1. ZANU PF is less popular than MDC.Mugabe's ZANU PF BEAT MDC-T in the popular vote during the March 2008 Parliamentary elections- popular vote
MDC T = 1,041,176
ZANU PF= 1,110,649
Difference = +70k

"POINT: Although ZANU PF did not win as many seats as MDC in the polls, they in fact were the popular party in terms of number of people supporting them."

is this justification for ignoring the democratic process?

point! in a truly democratic election the party with the largest number of seats forms the government!
Obviously Zanu-PF do not adhere to this principle of democracy again this questions how fair the election was!

you said

"This is important in addressing the next issue concerning Mugabe's popularity and ability to win the run-off without violence and other unfair practices..".

on this point we agree! however a some what different assessment of the situation!


"MTYH # 2- Tsvangirai would have definately beat Mugabe in a free and fair election."


MTYH # 2- Mugabe would have definitely beat Tsvangirai in a free and fair election.

you said

"POINT: There is a fair chance that even without the political violence etc. Mugabe could have still won the presidential election on June 27. There is a precedent of this in Liberia were the losing candidate of the 1st round in fact went on to win the run-off.

point" if he had a fair chance why would he need to use violence in the first place? venting his disp
21

oder,

Scotland 18/08/2008 22:15:14
continued

point" if he had a fair chance why would he need to use violence in the first place? venting his displeasure on people who disagree with him hardly is the sign of quality leader more like the child that throws a tantrum because he doesn`t get his own way! a clear sign he`s not suitable for the job!
there is no precedent to this situation in Liberia or anywhere else, it appears that no matter how many elections Mugabe is involved in his (Zanu -PF)tactic`s are highly questionable. The facts and figures you give could not be verified by international community most embassies in Zimbabwe have their own people observing whats going on none back anything that Mugabe says! he has no credibility left the only likely people to trust him are his supporters like Mbeki he too will have to work out the cost of continually proping up Mugabe.

22

Gulliver,

Harare 19/08/2008 09:04:30
Thank you for your observations and opinions.

"The facts and figures you give could not be verified by international community most embassies in Zimbabwe have their own people observing whats going on none back anything that Mugabe says!"

As far as I am aware both ZANU PF and MDC generally accepted the outcome of March 29 which had a larger community of observers. If we start by discrediting the March 29 polls then it means we are discrediting the very foundation on which the opposition claims it won the election on March 29.

My key aim was to bring to the fore issues that many people tend to ignore when it comes to discussing Zimbabwean politics. For example, there is so much dis-information and anti-Zim propaganda that many like you have very strong opinion that Mugabe and ZANU PF are quite the unpopular fellows in the country. This is why I had to refer to the MARCH 29 POLLS initially which people are generally agreed that they were held under free and fair conditions (although ZANU PF could claim that having people vote whilst the country was under the siege of sanctions and anti-government propaganda could not be considered free and fair) then people must accept as a fact that ZANU PF enjoyed more support than the MDC T. Although the MDC T candidate was more popular than his own party and vice versa for Mugabe in those March 29 polls there is evidence to suggest that in a run-off things could have gone either way.

As for why the violence occurred if Mugabe was confident of winning, I can't answer that as I am not Mugabe. However, I am aware that all the presidential campaign material carried the message that people should campaign and vote peacefully. One has a picture with Mugabe saying, "I thank you for voting and campaigning peacefully". The message at his rallies and those by the rest of the presidium was clearly that of a violent free campaign. Nevertheless, you will acknowledge that even when the leadership is against violence there will be
23

Gulliver,

Harare 19/08/2008 09:35:21
..Nevertheless, you will acknowledge that even when the leadership is against violence there will be incidents particularly when it's a hotly contested campaign. If football supporters perpertrate violence against each other because of rivalry over a soccer match surely you can imagine what can happen in a political campaign were the stakes are much higher because there is a clash of ideologies.

The thing is people have to realize that the March 29 polls were inconclusive according to the Zimbabwean constitution and there was need for a run-off. It's like in a football match and trying to end the game at half-time because your team is leading 3:2 on goals. The rules of the game say the game has to be played the whole 90 mins!

Mr. Tsvangirai in his wisdom had initially decided not to participate in the run-off thereby undermining the preparedness of his campaign machinery, when he eventually decided he would participate he spent over a month in SELF-IMPOSED EXILE whilst Mugabe was running himself to a standstill campaigning.

For the record I am one of those people who did not vote for either ZANU PF or Mugabe during the March 29 polls.
24

Gulliver,

Harare 19/08/2008 10:09:38
There are no better observers and people who endorse the outcome of elections. The best way for democracy is for non-Zimbabweans to leave it up to Zimbabweans as to how they deal with unfair practices. Outsiders cannot be allowed to have VETO power over what is accepted by Zimbabweans. Just like what we have seen happen in Pakistan so can it also happen in Zimbabwe.

In fact Zimbabweans have a legacy of liberating themselves from the brutal rule of oppressors with a recent history of undoing the undemocratic colonial regime. Leave it up to Zimbabweans, we will sort it out ourselves.
25

Gulliver,

Harare 19/08/2008 10:15:26
Retake of the first sentence # 24

There are no better observers and people who endorse the outcome of elections OTHER THAN ZIMBABWEANS.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.