….but it is nice to see the UN Security Council agreeing something about Zimbabwe, even if it will make no difference to Mugabe and his political machine. Yesterdays Statement from the Security Council does say some interesting things about legitimacy and democracy, but nothing in the media tackles the interesting question of who in ZANU-PF will replace the aging Mugabe and what direction will they move in.
S/PRST/2008/23 (which still isn’t up on the UN website) does say that “The Council further considers that, to be legitimate, any government of Zimbabwe must take account of the interests of all its citizens.” which does open the an interesting link between democracy and legitimacy. It is not as strong as the views of Condelezzza Rice, who said that Mugabe’s government “cannot be considered legitimate in the absence of a runoff”. That looks like a fairly strong statement that legitimacy is linked to democratic elections, and quite a shift from the traditional realism in international relations that was willing to turn a blind eye to wholesale abuses of democracy. This new piety about democracy and legitimacy is nice for the future, but it won’t actually solve the problem now.
It is hard to see the UN actually leading a credible effort to solve the problem – since they can’t get enough troops for the peacekeeping missions in Sudan, they are hardly in a position to whip up 15,000 or troops for to stop a civil war in Zimbabwe. Requesting that the international election monitors (which is not a UN Mission) remain in the the country to observe developments might be toe in the door but those monitors are not now going to have much freedom to observe and report on this weeks electoral farce and, apart from moral support, the UN Security Council isn’t going to be able to give them much practical support.
However, the “election” will go ahead, and Mugabe will “win” and it is now clear that he will never voluntarily concede power to any opposition movement. The President after Mugabe will most likely be his successor as leader of ZANU-PF, and now that he is 84, and clearly politically unacceptable to the outside world as well as old, his followers must be starting to think about they are going to get out of the mess they are in – if, of course, they realise the extent of the mess. The sad reality is that Mugabe is only a symbol of the problem which now runs much deeper. All of his senior advisors and many senior military and political officals are guilty of crimes which would get them shot in many states. Farther down the line, hundreds of thousands of his followers now possess land, homes and even food which they stole, often violently, from people who were labelled “the oppostion” in order to justify the theft and murders. These people are all now in a position where a change of government will leave them open to criminal proceedings which will cost them a great deal. Quietly allowing the MDC to win a fair election isn’t really an option which appeals to them, and without some guarantee of a very broad amnesty for the majority of ZANU-PF members, they will never agree to any change of government. It is an appaling prospect, and what makes it worse is that some of the chief architects of the crimes will also have to be let off the hook in order to get them to lead their followers into some sort of national government.
Then again, anyone who hopes that a President who ruined his country’s economy and straved his people might shortly be thrown out of power would also do well to remember that the North Korean Government is still there, unchanged.
It does open two interesting questions which I must encourage next years crop of MA students to look at: When did the US State Dept start talking about democracy and legitimacy in the same breath as if it actually cared, and how useful have international election monitors been over the past 20 years.
Leave a Reply