Zuma, ‘no-show’ theatre

The momentum we saw on the onset of his assumption of the role seems to be vanishing much to the detriment of the situation in the country.
The fact that the conflict escalation in the country was only arrested at the intervention of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) is testimony of the weaknesses of internal mechanisms to resolve it.
I have heard many suggest that the Zimbabwe crisis can only be resolved by Zimbabweans themselves. I believe that is an outright fallacy.
What capacity is there for such a politically unbalanced society to resolve its own conflicts? How do you resolve a conflict where the conflict players have unchecked powers and free-fall totalitarianism? How can we expect internal resolve when the conflict drivers play both judge and jury?
If Zimbabweans could resolve their own conflict, then we would not have needed SADC in the first place. We need to realise that the moment we allowed SADC to intervene was the moment we lost our legitimacy for resolving this conflict on our own.
Zuma needs to conclude the chapter he opened; and speedily he must.
We must remember that since 2010; Zimbabwe has been given about two ultimatums by SADC to implement the terms of the Global Political Agreement (GPA) and that has not materialised.
Zuma must realise that ZANU-PF is no ordinary push-over party. It’s a party that is accustomed to maximising on any gaps of laxity left open by SADC processes.
He must also realise that the MDC-T is a party that is wilting and being driven to the dangerous levels of retaliatory action.
Zuma must further realise that the Welshman Ncube-led MDC has also found comfort in the logjam as it only serves to postpone its expiry in government.
Since December last year; there has been speculation over Presi-dent Zuma’s visit to Zimbabwe to meet the feuding political players — who seem to be now sliding back into the 2008 predisposition.
Last week his international relations advisor, Lindiwe Zulu, is quoted as having said, “President Zuma will come to Zimbabwe only when he finds time in his diary to do so.”
I was left dumbfounded by this indication because it seems Zuma’s diary may not open up soon enough. Is the Zimbabwe political crisis going to be sensitive to Zuma’s diary openings?
The broader issue is however, the mechanisms of SADC’s mediation mechanism. SADC lacks consistence and best-practice compliance.
In Madagascar, though not yet fully resolved, SADC engaged Joachim Chis-sano, who is a retired politician.
Besides having time (for the mediation process) at his disposal, as a retired politician he was also removed from the sensitivities and political rivalries that come with it.
In 2007; former president Masire (of Botswana) was dispatched to Lesotho as mediator. SADC has had a vague mixture of active and retired politicians as mediators — yet it has become clear that sitting politicians are more absorbed by their domestic obligations.
Mediation is a sensitive process and at times it requires the permanent presence of the mediator in order to build sustainable momentum towards resolution.
The permanency of the mediator also works to suppress any truancy by conflicting parties in the mediation process.
SADC has proposed the setting up of a Mediation Unit, which has not taken off the ground as yet.
The proposal is built around a three tier structure including; the Panel of Elders; the Mediation Reference group; and the Mediation Support Unit.
The Panel of Elders will be made up of retired politicians and statesmen while the Reference group will be made up of mediation technical experts to support the Elders.
The Support Unit will be an administrative arm to ensure the operationalisation of the entire unit.
This proposal seems to confirm the ineffectiveness of appointing sitting politicians as mediators — they are either too busy or too enmeshed in the politics of SADC member states to be impartial mediators.
They are also less prone to the domestic politics of their nations which may compromise the mediation process in one way or the other.
The proposal for the Reference group is in acknowledgment of the expertise and skills required in mediation.
Historically there has been an assumption that any politician is a good mediator — yet specialised skills are required for such tasks.
The Panel of Elders will also ensure that mediators are appointed on the basis of their individual stature and credibility. However, the current set up in Zimbabwe is confusing.
The mediation has rather been allotted to South Afri-ca — as a country. Initially former president Thabo Mbeki was appointed mediator in 2007.
When he was ceremonially “re-called” from the presidency, the baton passed on to Kgalema Motlanthe who then left it for Zuma.
The lineage is not traced to individual expertise but on the assignment given to the country. Is mediation in Zimbabwe based on a bilateral configuration or should it be through the multilateralism of SADC’s structures? 
The unfortunate thing is Zimbabwe’s mediation proce-ss is now being subjected to the diary of the South African government.
This then cedes the process to the functionality or non-functionality of an individual state – South Africa. Is that fair? Can a SADC process be devolved from the institution of the regional bloc to being determined by the routines of an individual member state?
Zuma’s absence — though justified by domestic pressures is, however, triggering the decadence of his credibility as mediator.
It is further proving the fragility of SADC mediation and its reliance on the individuality of member states rather than the collective impetus of the region’s vast expertise and capacity.
Is Zuma able to redeem the lost time? Is he able to capture the fast-deteriorating political situation in Zimbabwe? Is he ever going to come anyway?
For all those who believe that Zimbabweans can resolve their own crisis — then at least we need Zuma and SADC to disarm those conflict players who yield all the power and yet are part of the mêlée.
Only when they are disarmed, can Zimbabweans resolve their own problems. But for now . . . President Zuma, the “no-show” theatre must conclude.