ED’s 5-year tenure divides public opinion
THE history of Zimbabwe is etched on the fateful events of November 14 and 21, 2017 an eventful week that saw soldiers roll their tanks onto the streets of Harare, culminating in the forced resignation of Robert Gabriel Mugabe as the country’s President. The fateful evening of November 14 when convoys of army vehicles rumbled through Harare, leading to the takeover of the national broadcaster and the peaceful demonstration by millions of Zimbabweans against Mugabe is well documented.
Tuesday, November 21 heralded a new era for the southern African nation when Mugabe grudgingly resigned, paving way for Emmerson Mnangagwa to return to Zimbabwe from exile the following day to be welcome by thousands of praise-singing Zanu PF supporters at the party headquarters in Harare.
Mnangagwa immediately declared that he would be a ‘listening President’ who would unshackle the people of Zimbabwe from the yoke of poverty.
When Mnangagwa was sworn in as President, he was received by all and sundry — even the leading opposition MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai graced the occasion that was attended by leaders from the whole Southern African Development Community region.
Mnangagwa was seen as the saviour of the Zimbabwean people when he assumed power.
His catch phrase back then was: “Voice of the people is the voice of God” and later joined by the declaration that “Zimbabwe is open for business”.
However, five years after Mnangagwa grabbed power in a military-backed takeover, Zimbabweans have become so divided on how he has performed after the events of November 2017.
Even up to this very day, Zimbabweans are still divided on whether Mnangagwa came to power through a “coup” or a “transition”.
However, many are arguing bitterly over his five-year leadership amid misgivings and general disdain from the majority impoverished citizens.
But like any other community, there are staunch Zanu PF functionaries who believe Mnangagwa has done exceptionally well considering the doldrums that Zimbabwe was in.
Political analysts have also painted a picture of a divided nation, reflecting how polarised Zimbabwe has grown to be since Mnangagwa assumed power.
In an interview with NewsDay, political analyst Effie Ncube described the five years Mnangagwa has been in power as a “complete political and economic disaster”.
“For example, during his tenure, the triple evils of poverty, hunger and unemployment have risen exponentially driving more and more people into misery,” he charges.
“Human rights violations and the erosion of democratic principles and the rule of law have worsened. Willingness to hold free and fair elections has completely crumbled. Corruption remains rampant and Zimbabwe ranks very low in critical global indices such as the rule of law, transparency, and ease of doing business. Crucial democratic reforms have been ignored.”
Ncube said Zimbabwe was more divided than it was five years ago.
“Instead of reaching out to political opponents, the President has demonstrated serious paranoia, something that has hamstrung his ability to bring the country together. Put simply, the President has failed on the economic and political reform agenda he set himself when he came to power,” he argued.
University of London professor of politics Stephen Chan said Mnangagwa’s tenure in office had been very unsuccessful.
“The economy is still unstable, and the outside world is still not convinced that a fair playing field is assured for the next elections and for democratic expression before then,” he said.
Chan also further argued that Mnangagwa's foreign policy has been very lacklustre.
“He has, in fact, not really reached out to anyone apart from China. It cannot be said that Zimbabwe has gained any new friends during the President’s time in office,” he said.
Chan said although Mugabe could be very authoritarian, he had greater pragmatism.
“When he (Mugabe) realised he had no choice, but to deal in government with Tsvangirai, he did so, sometimes even with a note of grace and certainly with good manners at least in public. Mnangagwa has not shown such pragmatism and grace towards (CCC leader Nelson) Chamisa,” he said.
He said Mnangagwa had failed to deliver on his promises, adding that Zimbabwe would continue to wallow in the doldrums of poverty without the necessary infrastructure to drive investment and development.
“The hollowest mantra has been ‘open for business’. If he had surrounded himself with business advisers, Mnangagwa would have known that no one comes to invest based on a sound bite.
“The infrastructure for serious investment is not there. Even the Chinese privately complain about having to provide the entire infrastructure themselves. And blaming sanctions increasingly sounds like a worn out gramophone record,” he said.
Political and social commentator Alexander Rusero, however, noted that five years is relatively a small period in politics.
“It would be very impractical to draw a comparative balance sheet of the Mugabe-led government of 37 years and the EDled government of five years,” he opined. “Thus a considerable judgment would require more time. When you assume power in the manner Mnangagwa did, the first immediate project would be the consolidation of power at all costs.
“Mnangagwa’s power base, emerging from the shadows of being militarily catapulted to power, has strengthened and emerged stronger. He is surely currently in charge.”
He, however, argued that the change of guard from Mugabe to Mnangagwa has largely been characterised by continuities more than discontinuities.
“There some takeaways, however, notably issues to do with the road rehabilitation programme and some infrastructure development, you can't take that away from him. However the ugly guerrilla tactics of Zanu still remain — abductions, narrowing of democratic space as well as binary characterisation of citizens as enemies or friends,” Rusero further argued, noting that there would be a period when Mnangagwa would reach out to members of the vanquished G40 cabal.