As Zimbabwe slides into chaos, many are looking to regional powerhouse South Africa for guidance. But President Thabo Mbeki has remained stoically silent, prompting speculation over his motives. One factor, says a Gemini commentator, could be that it is not only Zimbabwe, but almost the entire Southern African region which suffers from a lack of democracy and rule of law.

HARARE (Gemini News) — Like his apartheid-era predecessor, President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa finds himself in the unenviable position of being the only one with the necessary muscle to break the political logjam in his northern neighbouring state.

Prime Minister John Vorster in the late seventies held the key to Ian Smith and Rhodesia’s fate — he chose to throw a lifeline to this illegal pariah state, providing fuel, food, military support and vital basics which in effect negated United Nations economic sanctions against Rhodesia.

Twenty-five years on, Mbeki holds the key to President Robert Mugabe and Zimbabwe’s fate. He, too, has chosen to throw a lifeline to this increasingly isolated regime and its aging band of liberation struggle-era politicians.

As the world piles pressure on the Zanu-PF government to ensure free and fair presidential elections on March 9 and 10, including smart sanctions in the wake of Zimbabwe’s refusal to accredit European Union election observers in February, Mbeki has remained muted in his criticism.

When Mugabe was attacking his own judiciary, ignoring Supreme and High Court orders and condoning political violence by his supporters against members of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), Mbeki stayed mum, while his obviously embarrassed officials were at pains to explain that he “preferred quiet diplomacy”.

His strongest announcement on the matter came in February when he said that South Africa would not recognise a government emerging from elections deemed by the international community to be not free and fair.

Political analysts and observers of the increasingly out-of-hand situation in Southern Africa have been mystified by Mbeki’s behaviour. Many theories have been advanced concerning the reasons for his position, his pronouncements and his forbearance towards Mugabe.

During Zimbabwe’s liberation struggle, Mugabe and Zanu openly embraced the Pan-Africanist Congress of South Africa, while the now-ruling African National Congress was closely aligned to the Zapu party of Joshua Nkomo, Mugabe’s chief political rival.

The theory most popularly propounded is that Mbeki wants to be a team player in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and is wary of making any unilateral pronouncements that may give cause for speculation that Southern Africans are in any way divided among themselves.

The problem with SADC is that some of its leaders were not popularly elected. These include Joseph Kabila of the Democratic Republic of Congo, who came to power in January 2001 following the assassination of his father. He continues to be propped up by Zimbabwean, Namibian and Angolan troops.

In September 1992, Angola’s leader, Eduardo dos Santos and his MPLA party won presidential and parliamentary elections certified by UN monitors as free and fair. But conflict-racked Angola hasn’t held elections since then.

Zambia’s 2001 presidential elections were held amid protests over alleged fraud and ballot rigging. A legal challenge by the opposition parties is currently before the High Court in that country.

On 31 January, Denmark halted development aid to Malawi citing corruption, a weak administration and political intolerance by the ruling United Democratic Front.

Swaziland’s King Mswati has torn up the constitution and reigns supreme as absolute monarch.

Namibia’s aging liberation war leader, Sam Nujoma, has been fighting to maintain his grip on power, only recently declaring he will not seek a fourth five-year term.

Generally speaking, democracy, transparency and respect for human rights are not high on the agenda of most SADC leaders. This has made it delicate, if not downright impossible, for Mbeki as a member of SADC to take a stand on Zimbabwe.

Two of the few strong democracies in the region — Botswana and Mozambique — however, have been vocal in condemning the demise of the rule of law in Zimbabwe, government-sponsored violence, the lack of transparency in the land redistribution exercise and the introduction of draconian legislation which shackles the opposition and gags the press.

Mbeki’s reluctance to rein in Mugabe is perceived by some analysts to have its moorings in anti-colonialism — an ace card brilliantly played for all it is worth by Mugabe. He has managed to persuade African leaders to close ranks in the face of what they see as interference by former colonial masters on a young African country which is trying to redress the wrongs of the past and assert its sovereignty.

Even Nigeria, which has been trying to play the role of an honest broker between Zimbabwe and Britain, agrees with Mugabe on this point.

What is perhaps more remarkable is that Mbeki has maintained his silence in the face of potentially serious consequences to his own country. South Africa could be faced with a huge socio-economic disruption as more than a million Zimbabweans have trekked across the Limpopo River over the past two years. The educated among them are taking thousands of white-collar jobs from their less-educated South African counterparts, while the criminal element has significantly exacerbated that nation’s already alarming crime rate.

Not only has Mbeki continued to give his tacit political support in the face of all this, he is actively propping up the Mugabe regime by providing electricity, fuel and staple food — maize — to a government in severe economic crisis.

The marked similarity between this situation and Vorster’s support for Smith in the 1970s is one of history’s great ironies.

All this makes Zimbabweans wonder what Mbeki will actually do if Mugabe wins and the elections are pronounced unfair by the international community. Mbeki’s February statement has given rise to two schools of thought.

One says he will withdraw recognition from Zimbabwe but, while sending a clear signal of political disapproval, would not want to change things substantively. It would be business as usual.

But others maintain South Africa may have to consider more extreme steps, such as cutting off trade, refusing to recognise Zimbabwean passports and even closing the border.

Which is it to be? The government and people of Zimbabwe are holding their breath.

About the Author: Elizabeth Shumba is the pseudonym for a veteran Zimbabwean journalist