Democracy Sequencing Debate on Zimbabwe

Resequencing democracy promotion in Zimbabwe: Is it time for a new approach to move Zimbabwe forward through a citizens-driven national dialoguei? Current opportunities for dialogue Historically, numerous crossroads have confronted Zimbabwe’s atio al traje tory and it appears to be confronted by yet another. However, in spite of the current key economic, political and social challenges facing the country, there are also clear opportunities for meaningful national dialogue on these key issues. A national dialogue will enable Zimbabwe to move forward and meaningfully engage the international community on the basis of a broad consensus. The opportunities for dialogue which represent low hanging fruits, though open to debate, include but are not limited to the current negotiations with the International Financial Institutions, Preside t Muga e’s ele atio to SADC chairperson, the Europea U io ’s o e to normalise relations a d i il so iety’s urre t to e ased o the eed for i i e gage e t on social and economic rights. Further, the crises in both political parties and the current inertia in the larger democracy promotion movement has led policy analysts to recommend that the agenda for change should instead focus on institutional and political culture reform rather than a change of government through elections (electoral democracy). There is an overriding sentiment that electoral democracy would only be meaningful to Zimbabweans if accompanied by good governance and delivery of public goods and services. The weaknesses in the main political parties, which have played out in the public sphere, are ha gi g people’s per eptio of politics, in particular, the role of political change in securing societal prosperity. The voice of those calling for change is currently at its weakest and limited to an elitist level. The political movement based on advancing the interests of average Zimbabweans at the beginning of the two thousands has been severely weakened and disconnected from the needs of average Zimbabweans. While the above developments present some challenges to electoral democracy, they also represent an opportunity for Zimbabweans to break away from very divisive and bi-polar politics and lead them to search for common ground. This is a necessary step towards nation building. The last de ade’s approa h has ee faulty i the se se that it sought to a hie e political agreement at the expense of national consensus. The country possesses tremendous untapped human capital based on its domestic and diaspora population. However, in order to ensure that the country realizes its full potential, there are a few key social and economic reforms that the country could adopt at a national level. In this document, we propose the need for the country to initiate either a national inclusive dialogue or the holding of public consultations around the identification, sequencing and tackling of the key issues facing the Zimbabwean people today. Conceptual Framework for a national dialogue There are diametrically opposed ie s o ho the ou try’s pro le s developed and on the specific measures needed in order to address them. This document is not concerned with

1

analyzing these opposing views, which are often divided along political lines; instead it seeks to respond to the status quo and proposes viable solutions within the current political framework. Firstly, addressing the issue of prioritization is an essential pre-requisite for any successful development trajectory. Historical examples of this include South Korea, which became an OECD country in just 30 years. This proposal considers the democracy sequencing issues by outlining some of the dominant varying schools of thought. One macro-level debate centers on economic policies and models of development, pitting shock therapy, neoliberalism, and the Washington Consensus against gradualism, the developmental state, the Beijing consensus, or more accurately, the East Asian Model (EAM). Another emphasizes the need in failed or postconflict states to prioritize peacekeeping and security relative to the promulgation of new laws and institution building. There are those that highlight the need to sequence reforms in a way that balances judicial independence with judicial accountability. There is also the debate over whether to emphasize aggregate development or promote rights-based sustainable development- the Danish approach. In proposing to solve the key issues within the ou try’s current framework, this paper proposes a two-fold approach that unequivocally upholds the principles of democracy and that equally supports the approach of first promoting economic development and institutional building as a pre-requisite for the full realization of both political and civil rights. The paper acknowledges the different schools of thought on the sequentialism debate, for example, scholars who argue that economic development, or lack thereof, is not the number one factor in the decline of democracy. This school of thought cites the example of Kenya, in which there was a push back in democracy advancement under the government of Mwai Kibaki inspite of economic development. This paper proposes that beyond elections, democracy must be measured on the quality of the depth of government policies; for example, it asserts that if a government cannot provide a safe and equal economic and political playing field then any work in promoting economic development will be useless. In the case of Zimbabwe, although analysts have not explicitly used the term democracy resequencing, the baseline of the available literature and views reflects an overriding consensus pointing toward that view. These include Kibble & Chitiyo (2014), Raftopolous (2014), the European Union (2014) and Nango (2014). Further substantiation comes from another school of thought that holds the view that government turnover does not guarantee democratic change in Zimbabwe. Rather than asking who is in power, international analysts might want to put a stronger focus on how to actually improve Zimbabwe's political culture, economic and political institutions. Resear h e ide e de o strates that it is a ou try’s a -made political and economic institutions that underlie economic success (or the lack of it). The weakening of institutions, mainly those relating to a formal economy and rule of law, has resulted in a country where the well-connected prosper, while the hard working families that i ested i their hildre ’s future ha e falle o hard ti es. This issue is affe ti g Zimbabweans across the political divide, since elitism is also pervasive among pro-democracy forces. Although those in government should be held to high standards, there is ample

2

evidence of ineptitude and corruption that some within the pro-democracy movement can no longer claim a moral high ground and therefore need to disembark from the moral high horse. The approach of the past decade has demonstrated the pitfalls of industrialization of civil society and over reliance on financial incentives for aiding democracy. This has created a chasm between those who are paid to work on human rights and those who do so because of their belief in a better and prosperous Zimbabwe. The impetus for democracy promotion should come from within, ideally from the grassroots and should mainly be driven by a voluntary workforce. Coupled with the above, there is an increasingly compelling third reason in support of the need for re-prioritization, which rests with the fundamental question of basic survival, namely; democracy cannot be built on broken souls and on the shoulders of hungry villagers. Albeit in a different context, RAU (2013) expands the definition of human security to include provision of economic and social services. This approa h, rather tha ei g a affro t to Zi a ea s’ aspiration for a democratic dispensation, should be seen as a realistic approach that is responsive to the current realpolitik and the barriers that stand in the path of change. A break from 15 years of deep polarization is needed in Zimbabwe, as this would ensure that the country achieves economic stabilization, rebuilds its middle class base, and reduces the gap between the poorest in society and the new elite who have benefitted from the time of economic upheavals. Under these circumstances, a democratic transition is likely to benefit a few individuals and families who are well-connected if that transition is not accompanied by deep-seated reforms, which include the need for people to account for their wealth. Such reforms are likely to be resisted by those who benefitted from an unfair system, both within the government and in the pro-democracy forces. The breathing space will also allow the replenishing of social capital, necessary for building sustainable democracies. Social capital has depleted due to a number of reasons, including the current polarized views, which are inimical to cohesive communities and collective action. Social capital has also depleted due to the fact that the democratisation agenda is being pushed from the elitist level without much resonance with the grassroots. A decisive end to polarization is needed as a matter of priority if Zimbabwe is to avert a deep anthropological damage to society which might take years to reverse. Evidence of intergenerational anthropological damage can be seen in countries such as Cuba that underwent long periods of isolation and crisis. A paradigm shift towards legacy planning is needed for Zimbabwe to secure long-term stability and prosperity for all. There is need to think about how Zimbabwe should look 50 years from now and then work backwards towards that vision. Furthermore, in the short run, the liberation war generation stands as a barrier to any possible democratic and constitutional change due to their monopoly of historical narratives and exclusive claim on laying the foundations of the modern Zimbabwean state. Under these circumstances, and in the absence of an external shocker, change will be gradual and therefore the focus should be on training the future generation of democratic leaders on a non-partisan 3

basis, including those who have been exposed to other comparative cultures in the diaspora. While the generation of leaders that founded the MDC should be acknowledged for having laid the vision for a democratic Zimbabwe, it appears their mandate has run its full course. The hope for a new Zimbabwe now lies with younger generations that have not been caught up in the hard ball, divisive and corrupt politics that has characterized Zimbabwe since 1965. Why a national dialogue? A dialogue is a critical step in searching for a common ground in countries that have undergone monumental changes or protracted periods of crisis. A few countries that we can draw lessons from include Senegal, Morocco and Tunisia. Moreover, fostering dialogue with other countries enables an exchange of lessons learnt, particularly in relation to hat has a d has ’t orked based on country specific historical development trajectories from across the Africa region. Practical Framework In the case of Zimbabwe, the constitution-making process which led to a new constitution resulted in a significant step toward the setting up of a framework that would engender national dialogue. However the work remains incomplete therefore as it stands currently, and the country cannot be considered to be exercising a fully functioning national dialogue. The proposal for a national dialogue can be supported by the new constitution, but more importantly, it can represent a constitutional renewal whereby it would address a number of key issues on a much more granular and specific level. While it is acknowledged that there have been several attempts to hold dialogue on a number of key issues, such attempts failed for a number of reasons such as timing of such discussions, lack of buy in, polarization and elitedriven processes. The evolution of dialogue is multi-dimensional. A dialogue may have different origins; it may be set up for various reasons and can take different forms. In the case of Nigeria, for example, dialogue has been used to improve communication between the security sector and civilians. However, it has certain core ingredients: for example, the specific way in which it fosters the selection process of its agenda and stakeholders breaking away from the traditional practice of choosing elites and instead ensuring the inclusion of citizens. Setting an agenda can be a very challenging process since different constituencies might have different agendas. For instance, some might want to focus on justice and in the process, this may alienate those in power. The government might not want certain issues to crop up or resurface; therefore, the agenda must be set up in a way that does not alienate them. However, caution should also be exercised to ensure that government does not exclusively control the process. Rules of procedure This relates to the structure by which issues will be debated and decisions taken. In the case of Yemen, though not an ideal example, there were nine thematic committees, for example, the 4

economic committee. Recommendations from each committee were subsequently harmonized. Some of the decisions were made up front while others went through the voting system Envisioning an implementation plan It is imperative to have an implementation plan prior to setting up a dialogue. This is especially the case if the government is involved, as this would ensure that the recommendations are implemented by, for example, parliament and government ministries, rather than generating a document that potentially would end up not being translated into policy. Public participation opportunities A national dialogue may not involve every citizen but should mobilise the entire nation through opportunities to feed into/participate in the national dialogue in other ways, as seen in other countries such as Senegal. There were elected public outreach committees that identified main problems and solutions. This ensured that the final document was representative of diverse views of the population including women and gave it legitimacy rather than mere reliance on the old elitist voices. The result was that when Senegal produced a Charter for Democratic Governance, this inclusive process reflected significant participation at the grassroots level with wider representation of people behind it. They owned the document since they were a part of the process, i.e. they financed the process. In the case of Yemen, the dialogue was designed to feed into the constitution making process. In short, in order to bring about an effective national dialogue, the conveners need to re-think their objectives from design to implementation. This should include a re-structuring of the most pressing concerns, a re-designing of their participant selection process, their choice of agenda and how they use this in order to suit and feed into the set objectives. Issues: If stakeholders were to agree that there is need for a new approach on Zimbabwe based on the above assumptions, what are some of the key issues that could fall for discussion? This paper does not propose to pre-empt the issues but will propose the following areas and set of questions as a good starting point. 1. Citizenship and nation-building      

Who is Zimbabwean or who qualifies to be Zimbabwean? What ruptures have we gone through as a nation and how has this contributed to our diversity? Where the Zimbabweans and what are are they doing? Do we have common values despite our diversity? What brings us together as a nation? What really matters to an average Zimbabwean?

5

    

What are our rights and responsibilities? What institutions do we cherish? What is our common ground and how can we search for it? What is our common heritage, purpose, potential, identify and common destiny? What can we learn from our past struggles to be a better people?

2. Relationship between citizens and government      

What values do we want to see in those who lead us? What are our expectations of government? What can us as citizens give in return? What priorities should government be focusing on? How should government engage citizens? What opportunities and platforms do citizens have to hold their government to account?

3. Inclusive society and economic growth         

How do we define prosperity and human security? What are the elements of prosperity? What model or models are we following to achieve prosperity and human security? Do we have consistent rules and policies? Do we have a clear investment climate in which to operate? Are our policies clear and predictable enough to build confidence and create the foundation essential for economic growth and social development? Where have we been unclear or where have we needlessly shifted policies? How has such shifting and lack of clarity brought uncertainty about rule of law, property rights, investment regulations, and dispute resolution systems? What policies do we need to adopt and implement in order to secure progress and serve e eryo e’s interests?

4. Foreign policy and diplomacy    



Who are our friends? What is our foreign policy to them? What can we learn from our friends? As a country, how can we repair broken diplomatic relations? What experiences can we draw both from our friends and others on the relationships between societies which protect fundamental rights such as free speech, the right to equal treatment under the law, and the right to maintain property, on the one hand, and prosperity on the other hand? What are the opportunities for full international re-engagement?

6

i

Authors

Arthur Gwagwa: Advocate (Attorney), Zimbabwe; Solicitor, England & Wales; Reagan-Fascell Democracy Fellow, Washington DC. Doug Coltart: Legal Practitioner (Attorney) Zimbabwe, Co-Author of U dersta di g Zi a e’s Fu da e tal Socio-Economic and Cultural Human Rights, currently based at the International Republic Institute, Washington, DC Judit Getu MSc Development Studies (School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London

7