The Financial Gazette

Open Forum
with
Trevor Maisiri

GIVEN the evident trail of SADC’s historical failures or lack of action in the various political disputes in Southern Africa, it came as no surprise that there was no substantial resolution to the Zimbabwean crisis at the recent meeting in Windhoek, Namibia.

The SADC meeting was expected to deal with the obstinate coalition government and possibly provide some hope to the stagnant situation. It is widely reported that ZANU-PF would have palpably desired to see the Zimbabwean situation off the summit agenda. However, the Zimbabwe crisis found its way on to the agenda and, once again, SADC procedurally dislodged it in the typical manner that has now become characteristic of its behaviour, conduct and discharge.
It is, however, important to reflect on the current standing of SADC and its historical shaping in considering what took shape at the Windhoek meeting. One of the most pivotal contemplations is the level of credibility of SADC in previous and current political contentions in the region.
We remember that in 1998, SADC failed to intently come up with a concurred position and form of action in the Democratic Republic of Congo crisis. This led to the multiplicity of intervention preferences by the members resulting in split actions. SADC took one of its major political knocks then as there was a clear show of political power resting more in individual member proclivity than in its organisational proclaim. The DRC is still a political challenge in pursuit of SADC ideals in the region and beyond.
The Madagascar political situation continues without full resolve to date in the watchful eye of SADC, whose lack of capacity in entangling complex political logjams has now been exposed. Lesotho has remained a fragile state politically and SADC has again failed to institute sustainable measures to move this country into a full democracy.
The pretense of electoral democracy was recently exhibited in the comical elections in Angola in 2008 and Namibia in 2009. Both countries practice what has now become termed as “restricted” democracy. Again SADC has had the audacity to watch and embrace such mechanistic deceptions.
One of the greatest weaknesses of SADC is its mis-aligned orientation on democracy. The Treaty of Windhoek of 1992, which is the mainstay of SADC’s basic guidelines, highlights “respect for equality, solidarity, democracy, equity and peaceful settlement of disputes” as some of its founding principles.
However, SADC has failed to encapsulate democracy from being a paper-stated principle into a living value of the regional body. There are no mechanisms in SADC to ensure the formalisation of democracy from being just a rhetoric value into a guarded and life-blood stream of what it lives to promote, enhance and sustain.
Evidently, the SADC countries can be split into three main blocs: Those that are purely democratic or intend to, those that are authoritarian and intend to stay that way and those that are naïve; South Africa and Botswana would arguably qualify to be in the category of democratic states or at least those aspiring to be; Malawi, Mozambique and Namibia would seem to be in the naïve category given that their notion of democracy presents so many restrictions and diversions yet without outright authoritarianism. Swaziland, Lesotho, Angola would be some of the countries that would very much fit into the authoritarian melody.
Given such splits and dissipated efforts towards democracy, SADC itself has not been able to infuse democracy as a common value. This has therefore made SADC indifferent towards regional political situations that demand the building of democratic architecture.
Member states have been reluctant to delve into issues that would strengthen the institutional mechanism of SADC. This is mainly because in order to strengthen such regional bodies, member states must shed off some part of their sovereignty in allowing themselves to be submissive to the body’s enforcement. SADC has therefore been perennially caught out in issues that have limited its powers outside of “internal” issues of member states.
Some member states have either distorted or completely razed down democracy in the name of “internal” sovereignty while obligating SADC to be confined to peripheral issues that have had no impact on their democratisation.
Member states have also espoused some posture of unity which has either defined their non-interference in member states’ own irresponsible actions or has deliberately supported such. This has irrevocably led to the political amputation of SADC as an effective conflict broker, governance principles enforcer or as a body of reputable influence upon its members and the outside world.
In short, SADC has become perennially diluted in its mandate and has thus remained a vestigial body that only allows member states to delude the world of the existence of powerful
 institutions. It has become a club for the exposition of arrogant signs of deceptive self-determination yet fails to serve its own citizens, who otherwise prefer the delivery of democracy, good governance, political freedoms and improved socio-economic indices.
As the world is calling for the reformation of the United Nations, we must also not forget that bodies like SADC need that too. They must be capacitated to build common values for members which are founded on democracy and good governance. They must be inflated with the muscle to implement actions and transparently hold member states to account. They must have the mechanisms and institutional latitude to capacity-build member states towards aspired fundamentals that will reform their political landscape in order to influence social and economic development. They must build an Afro-centric infrastructure that will give us the pivot of development while priding ourselves in home grown solutions for good governance and dictatorship elimination.  
However, Zimbabweans must now be wary of the procedural slither of issues by SADC, especially where democracy is under threat. There is no courage, mandate or intention by the current infrastructure of SADC to decisively deal with the Zimbabwe situation or any others of a similar nature.
There will always be missed opportunities by SADC to promote the ideals of the 1992 Treaty of the Windhoek Declaration. SADC needs reformation if it is to decisively mould itself on an affinity for democratic architecture.
 - Trevor Maisiri is the executive director and co-founder of the African Reform Institute (ARI), a political “think-tank” based in Harare.

Comments (2)

Show/Hide comments

Show/Hide comment form

Name

Comment

smaller | bigger

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment