How the stroke suffered by Zambia’s president Levy Mwanawasa highlights Africa’s perennial problem, the mediocrity of its politicians.
In the hours before the African Union summit, on June 29th in Sharm El Sheikh, Levy Mwanawasa, the serving president of Zambia was rushed to hospital following a stroke. He was later moved to a hospital in Paris to be observed by doctors there, following emergency surgery in Egypt. In recent months Mr. Mwanawasa has become one of Zimbabwe’s sharpest but regrettably few African critics. As chair of the regional development community SADC, he was in a unique position to bring considerable weight to the table in pushing for a democratic resolution to a crisis that many regional leaders seemed to have ignored. This is why his incapacitation all the more damaging to the few such as Jacob Zuma, F.W. de Klerk, Raila Odinga and Mompati Merafhe, who wish to displace Robert Mugabe and relieve the long suffering Zimbabwe. The individual circumstances of these regional statesmen mean that they cannot effect the change that Mr. Mwanawasa has the power to do.
Jacob Zuma is the leader of the ruling ANC party in South Africa. He recently won the leadership contest against sitting president Thabo Mbeki and will contest the presidency for the ANC in the next election. However, in his current position Mr. Zuma has been frustrated in his calls for more urgent and tangible action over Zimbabwe by the foot-dragging of Mr. Mbeki. President Mbeki, who was given a mandate by SADC to mediate between President Mugabe’s Zanu-PF and the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), has obstinately denied the failure of his ‘quiet diplomacy’, which in recent months has comprised a friendly and pandering attitude to Mr. Mugabe and has caused the MDC to “lose faith” in Mr. Mbeki’s impartiality and request a full time mediator. Mr. Mbeki, demonstrating his marginal attitude towards Zimbabwe claimed in march that there was “no crisis” in Zimbabwe. This dichotomy of attitudes between Mr. Mbeki and Mr. Zuma has presented the latter with a problem. Although Jacob Zuma is leader of the ANC, he is not leader of his country and consequently does not have the international influence of Mr. Mbeki. Mr. Mbeki is also freed from the ‘onus’ of having to answer to the electorate, being both constitutionally barred from a third term as president and beaten to the position of ANC leader by Mr. Zuma last year. Therefore he has seen fit to follow his own path, ignoring the opinion of the ANC and Mr. Zuma. Because of this situation Mr. Zuma is unable to pressure Mr. Mugabe and his statements on the Zimbabwean crisis such as “riding roughshod over democracy”, whilst prescient and welcomed by the international community are largely empty in Robert Mugabe’s eyes due to the support of President Mbeki.
F.W. de Klerk, a former president of South Africa has suffered from a similar problem. Despite being a respected elder statesman at home and abroad for helping to end apartheid South Africa and in his involvement with politics in later years, he, at present, has no political office and is largely in retirement from public life. In an interview recently with the BBC Mr. de Klerk called for “change” both on South Africa’s policy towards Mr. Mugabe and “change from within Zanu-PF itself”. He suggested the most likely course to resolution would involve the “moderates” from the ruling party dislodging the old guard. He was also critical, yet cautiously so, of Thabo Mbeki’s “quiet diplomacy”. He felt that this had proved of no avail and tougher action was needed, although what this constituted remained unspecified. Ironically it appears that Mr. de Klerk believes that the time for negotiation has passed. Regardless of this, Mr. de Klerk’s lack of public office seriously debilitates his influence on events in Zimbabwe.
Mr. Merafhe, Vice-President of Botswana has taken a particularly strong line against Zimbabwe, calling for Zimbabwe’s exclusion from both the AU and SADC. This again bucks the trend of silence from African leaders on the transgressions of their peers. It also reflects the position of Botswana’s government, which has publically criticised Mr. Mugabe’s election as of “doubtful” legitimacy. At the AU meeting in Sharm El Sheikh, Mr. Merafhe was perhaps the most strident and comprehensive critic of Mr. Mugabe’s return to power. However, the muted statement emerging from the meeting suggests that this was not enough to influence Mr. Mugabe’s stance. It is clear that Mr. Merafhe was representing a minority in that meeting.
One who would have supported him and Botswana’s position is Mr. Odinga, Prime Minister of Kenya. Raila Odinga wants Zimbabwe to be suspended from the AU, a powerful message to send to Mr. Mugabe. This would be harmful simply due to its difference from the conventional reticence of African leaders from involving themselves in each others’ affairs. However, President Kibaki of Kenya had in January won an election by false means. Tactics such as vote rigging, ballot stuffing and widespread mob violence, traits of the Mugabe regime, were used in Kenya to secure a victory for Mr. Kibaki. The President of Kenya therefore would be loath to support any movement to dislodge a fellow false President. This has resulted in mixed messages emerging from Kenya, diluting the influence Mr. Odinga might have of effecting the Zimbabwe situation and in building an African consensus against Mr. Mugabe.
It is clear that for those who had the opportunity to denounce Mr. Mugabe at the AU meeting in Egypt and try to reach a democratic resolution, they were too few and far between; Mr. Merafhe’s main obstacle. Some, such as Mr Odinga, lacked the necessary weight and authority, due to Kenya’s divided position. Had Mr. Mwanawasa been there, the story may have been different. Being the head of state for his country, not only could he determine its policy towards Zimbabwe as he had done, but he also would have had the authority conferred upon the highest statesmen. His contribution to the arguments of Mr. Merafhe and Mr. Odinga could have made a difference to the outcome of the toothless public statement produced by the AU, which called for Mr. Mbeki to continue his efforts.
The real outcome reflects the deficit of principles in Africa’s politicians. That of 53 states, the statesmen of only a handful stood up to Mr. Mugabe. Furthermore, the absence of one made the difference between genuine diplomatic pressure and regional laissez-faire. Africa’s leaders truly are a gaggle of despots and dictators, with only a brave few attempting to atone for the continent’s surplus of sin.
InternationalReview 