By Jonathan Chando – Lawyer, Political Analyst and Commentator on International Law and Politics.
London. United Kingdom. (News of the south ) – There is a raging debate on who in effect removed former President Robert Mugabe from power. The debate is on whether Mugabe was intimidated by the tens of thousands of citizens who came out and marched to his official residence in Chancellor Avenue, and on to his private mansion in the plushy suburb of Borrowdale, affectionately known as the “Blue Roof”, demanding that he resign, or he was coerced into resigning by threats from the military and the threat of impeachment proceedings by parliament.
Mao Tse Tung once stated that, “A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.” This is quite true to the letter as we shall observe in this article.
On Wednesday the 15th November 2017, Zimbabwe woke up to the sight of APCs(Armoured Personnel Carriers) of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces, out in the streets of Harare and other major cities. This had ensued from the precursory warning given by the Commander Defence Forces, General Costantino Guvheya Chiwenga, a few days earlier, to ZANU PF and government. He had warned that the military would intervene if they continued with the wayward behaviour in both party and government.
The national broadcaster had been overtaken by the military and the state President was under house arrest. The Zimbabwean citizenry had witnessed late the day before, the movement of these military armoured units from their usual containment at Inkomo Military Barracks, into the city and other selected security sensitive establishments.
The military had issued a statement, stating that they had taken control of state institutions, but that they had not overtaken the authority of the state President, who they said was “safe and in control”, while their attention had been drawn to arrest criminals around him who had taken charge of the control of the state. The military said their actions were aimed at “restoring legitimacy.”
The President was under house arrest in real terms, but the military insisted that he was in control. Maybe he was in control, but logic would point to a hostage president.
“This was not a coup”, the military had pronounced. But all evidence pointed to the contrary.
Section 212 of the Zimbabwe constitution , mandates the security forces to
“protect Zimbabwe, it’s people, it’s national security and interests, its territorial integrity, and to uphold its constitution.”
This is the section the military used as its authority when it siezed state institutions, and contained the state President at his home. In their statement, they cited a potential explosive socio-economic situation emanating from continued purging of party leaders with revolutionary background, which was causing a serious rift potentially resulting in civil strife in the country.
However Section 211 (3) of the same constitution stipulates that “The defence forces must respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of all persons and be non-partisan, national in character, patriotic, professional and subordinate to the civilian authority as established by the constitution. Section 213 (1) also states that only the President, as Commander in Chief of the Defence Forces, has power to (1) authorise the deployment of the Defence Forces and (2) to determine the operational use of the Defence Forces.
Whether the ZDF’s actions were in accordance with, or in violation of the constitution is subject to another analysis.
What transpired in the days following was shuttling and negotiations between the Generals and President Mugabe, aimed at making the President resign. SADC led by South African President Jacob Zuma, sent an envoy to Harare to get first hand information on what exactly was taking place, with a view to intervene, in case it was a coup. The SADC has resolutions that proclaim as illegitimate, any form of military takeover of a democratically elected government within its regional alliance. The African Union, also gave a statement that it was closely monitoring the unfolding events.
While the military was visible on the streets in cities and towns, Police were nowhere to be found, with men and women in military uniform manning roadblocks across the country. Citizens displayed a sense of joy and gratitude for the smooth way the army handled roadblocks. Unlike the police who had become notorious for extortionate harassment of motorists, the military allowed smooth and respectful passage of traffic.
The defence forces endeared themselves to the citizens and social media was awash with messages to SADC and the African Union, to stay out of Zimbabwean politics, saying that Zimbabweans were capable of resolving their issues at home. This was a snub of both the regional and the continental bodies by Zimbabweans.
While on Friday, 17th December 2017, President Mugabe attended the graduation ceremony for Zimbabwe Open University and capped students as Chancellor of Universities, while under military guard, it was a ruse to hoodwink the regional and international world into believing that the state President was still in control. Behind the scenes, however, there were intense negotiations back and forth, to force him to retire and make way for his former number two, Emmerson Mnangagwa, whom he had fired the previous week.
In the meantime, the War Veterans, led by their leader, Chris Mutsvangwa, rallied Zimbabweans of all walks of life to join the military and march in their thousands to State House on Sartuday, 18th November, to demand that President Mugabe step down as he had presided over the destruction of Zimbabwe and the suffering of citizens. This was received with euphoria and the opposition joined in, urging their supporters to heed the call. Activists went live on Facebook , WhatsApp and other social media platforms, urging people to attend.
Come Saturday, tens of thousands turned up in Harare, Bulawayo and other cities demanding the resignation of Mugabe. Many took selfies with the soldiers, whom everyone regarded as their heroes and liberators. Zimbabweans abroad converged in cities across the world in solidarity with those marching at home.
In Harare, some gathered at Zimbabwe grounds in Highfield, and marched to join others gathered in the city then proceeded to Mugabe’s official residence. ZANU PF, opposition and War veterans addressed the crowds, calling for Mugabe to resign.
Outstanding was the number of white Zimbabweans who came out in large numbers to March against Mugabe. White Zimbabweans have never been out on demonstrations whether for or against government, and this particular time they came out in numbers to call Mugabe to step down. One would think there was some catalytic element to this sudden turnout.
This march by Zimbabweans was viewed by many as the real cause for Mugabe to finally throw in the towel the following Tuesday. Many pundits in Zimbabwe and across the world echoed the march as the final nail on Robert Mugabe’s 37 year reign over Zimbabwe. International news channels commented on the ensuing events, confirming this assertion that the people of Zimbabwe had spoken against their autocratic ruler.
But was it the march by citizens that really pressured Mugabe to stand down. Did Mugabe realise that his subjects had given him the middle finger?
The answer to this is in the negative. Mugabe was not fazed by the march, as much as it was widely publicised and viewed by many as the real cause of his final departure. Even the march to his blue roof residence, two days later did little to intimidate the tough former guerrilla leader. What then brought Mugabe to his knees and forced him to succumb to the pressure to stand down?
Mugabe had stood his ground for a week, with negotiations for his resignation becoming protracted and uncertain to the extend that it was almost certain this was going to be a fully fledged coup. While the negotiations were going on, a separate assault on Mugabe was launched by ZANU PF to expel him from his post as First Secretary and President of ZANU PF and subsequently inform the Speaker of Parliament of the decision. Parliament then initiated impeachment proceedings against Mugabe.
After the march, Mugabe clearly showed his defiance when he addressed the nation and stated that he was going to preside over the ZANU PF extraordinary congress penned for December. The nation and the world at large had eagerly expected him to announce his resignation. This was a sign that he had not even considered the march as relevant. In his mind, he believed that the people who marched, were the usual opposition supporters who demographically reside in urban areas. He believed his supporters were perched in their homes in the rural hinterland, where his support base usually anchored. The emergence of whites in the demonstration even bolstered his belief that this was an orchestrated demonstration by those who have always wanted to scuttle his empowerment policies, fuelled by the opposition, and foreign agents.
Mugabe seemed not to have been fazed by the prospects of impeachment either, as he continued to defy odds until the last minute. While parliament was on the verge of impeaching him, he then unexpectedly tendered his resignation. This seems to point to the fact that pressure from the Generals, and the realisation that impeachment was becoming a reality, triggered him to succumb and tender his resignation.
Although we may not be privy to what actually transpired, and what actually brought him to the decision to resign, the likely causes appear to be what the Generals told him, be they threats or otherwise, and or the threat of impeachment , which would leave him without immunity for his family, although his own immunity was predetermined by the constitution.
The march by the citizens only worked to pacify and conceal the severity of the security situation and disguising it from not being viewed as a de facto coup. The people have actually been made to believe that their voice was what brought Mugabe’s resignation while a coup actually took place and with or without the march, Mugabe would have been deposed. The march by citizens, was, as Mao says, a refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous demonstration, which would not have deposed Mugabe. The march was only a veil to disguise the actual coup from being viewed as such by the international community.
What deposed Mugabe was a revolution, an insurrection, an act of violence (though it appeared peaceful), by which one faction in ZANU PF overthrew another, disguised by the military as a national cause by the people.
Comments
About Author
