SECURITY REFORMS FIRST, THANK YOU!!!
Defence minister
Emmerson Mnangagwa and his State Security counterpart Sydney Sekeramayi have
lately been particularly vocal in this regard, as has been the state media
churning out reportage packaged to discredit the reform calls as a
foreign-sponsored agenda. These demands for professionalism in the security
sector were this week presented in the state media as a grand plot by the MDC-T
to fire military commanders and outsource the country’s security to the West
should the party win elections. In his latest pronouncements Sekeramayi claimed
Zimbabwe’s security was under threat from the West relentlessly pursuing an
“illegal regime change” agenda, in the hope of installing a puppet government.
This shrill sentiment has become Zanu PF’s refrain as high-stakes elections
beckon. The reason for the campaign which dovetails with Zanu PF’s mounting
resistance to agreed-to reforms is easy to pin down. The defense forces have
been Zanu PF’s pillar of strength and electoral trump card since Independence.
In fact President
Robert Mugabe is indebted to the security sector’s rescue mission through a
bloody campaign in the June 2008 presidential poll run-off which ensured his
continued reign after an initial historic defeat by Prime Minister Morgan
Tsvangirai (MDC-T). Zanu PF even claims the realignment of the security sector
is not part of the Global Political agreement which sired the unity government.
Contrary to this dissembling line, the GPA in Article XIII is clear that “state
organs and institutions do not belong to any political party and should be
impartial in the discharge of their duties”. It further states in article XIII
(b) and (c) “. . . all state organs and institutions (should) strictly observe
the principles of the rule of law and remain non-partisan and impartial. Laws
and regulations governing state organs and institutions are strictly adhered to
and those violating them be penalized without fear or favour…” It is thus
evident that by making public statements backing Zanu PF and campaigning for
it, commanders are in breach of the laws of the land and should be “penalized
without fear or favour”.
The defiance to
security sector realignment is clearly intended to radicalize politics and
possibly unleash another bout of electoral violence, a staple for Zimbabwean
polls. This resistance is epitomized by the failure, attributable to Zanu PF,
of the National Security Council, a GPA creature, to meet and fulfill its
obligation of reviewing policies on security, defense, law and order and
recommending or directing appropriate action. The council should, among others,
comprise the president as chairperson, vice-presidents, prime minister and his
deputies and ministers responsible for finance, defense forces and the police
force. A frustrated Tsvangirai has accused the service chiefs of masterminding
a “silent coup”, claiming he doubted Mugabe was still in charge of the country,
but this is rather simplistic as the two clearly enjoy a symbiotic
relationship. The last thing Zimbabwe needs is another stolen election, but
such a spectre remains alive if the security sector is not reined in and told
to desist from playing a commissariat role for Zanu PF, thus poisoning the
electoral environment before and after elections.
Senior army
commanders, the likes of Major-Generals Douglas Nyikayaramba, Martin Chedondo
and Trust Mugoba, have thrust the military into the spotlight by insisting as
“patriots” they are prepared to fight to defend Mugabe and Zanu PF to safeguard
the gains of Independence. What they will not concede is the motive is much
more mundane: they fear losing their assets and privileges if Mugabe is
defeated as Zimbabwean military chiefs are among the richest in the region,
living lavish lifestyles under a patronage system while the majority wallows in
abject poverty.
Comments