Ibbo Mandaza - Zimbabwean Academic HARDtalk

A navy spokesman says sounds picked

up by two search vessels earlier

did not come from the submarine.

They had been detected on the route

it would have taken.

You are up-to-date. There is more to

come on BBC News. You are watching

BBC News. Now it is time for

HARDtalk.

Welcome to HARDtalk. I am Stephen

Sackur. After 37 years in power, it

is perhaps not surprising that

Robert Mugabe cannot accept

Zimbabwe's new reality. But no

amount of playing for time will save

his presidency now. The Robert

Mugabe era is over. The question is

what comes next. Will it be a

continuation of the oppressive rule

of ZANU PF? Or will the politics of

the country open up in new and

unpredictable ways? My guest is Ibbo

Mandaza, a former government

official turned academic analyst.

Will Zimbabwe's current drama and

well? -- end well? Ibbo Mandaza,

welcome to HARDtalk.

Thank you.

I

just refer to this compelling drama

playing out in Harare. You have

obviously just come from Harare in

the last few hours to talk to me.

Can there are only be one ending,

that Robert Mugabe will be gone

within days?

I don't know about

days, but certainly it is the end

for him. Except now we have a

serious stand-off between him and

his party.

Is it a serious

stand-off?

I think it is. It is a

constitutional crisis. It appears to

me that Robert Mugabe seems to have

the upper hand on the once

additional and legal side. It is

quite obvious he has some of the

best legal minds around him.

Clearly, his speech last night had

very cogent arguments, not to

mention the fact that from the

outset, the military insisted that

it was not a coup, although it is a

coup in my view. They also insists

he is the head of state and the

commander-in-chief.

Yes. It is very

hard to figure out precisely the

relationship between the senior

military command and Robert Mugabe.

There they all were in that bizarre

shot of the military chief sitting

next to Robert Lagarde they as he

may be address to the nation.

Sceptics think that perhaps this is

all being orchestrated and that army

command is quite happy for Robert

Mugabe to go through the impeachment

process, because it legitimises the

removal, it puts a veil of

constitutionality of the whole

thing. Do you think that is true?

I

think so. But also, it appears to me

events leading to the coup were

sparked by fear by the generals that

they would be charged with treason.

And so it appears to me the first

act was to pre-empt the heads of

state doing what he intended to do.

It appears to me they did not have a

clear plan as to the outcome of the

intervention. They thought it would

be a few days and Robert Mugabe

would resign. He surprised them

clearly. They don't no what to do

now.

Let's talk about the potential

for destabilisation, for undress,

for violence. -- unrest. Some people

are saying this is a fragile moment

for Zimbabwe. It is hard to see

where the violence would come from,

because the only person it seems you

with really determined to defend

Robert Mugabe's rights and interests

is Robert Mugabe himself. He does

not seem to have any street presence

supporting his claim to stay in the

job.

There are various constraining

factors for the military, but you

are right there is a danger we could

have rogue elements within the

military, within the whole veteran

association, who would want to push,

as appears to be the case, Robert

Mugabe to resign, and if need be,

even attack is person, break into

his "Blue Roof" so called, it could

escalate.

Let me talk about what

Chris is saying, the Head of the

Veterans' Association. This is a few

hours ago. We will organise a

sitting and we will not leave Harare

until Robert Mugabe is gone. Would

you worry if there is a sit-in

around the so-called Blue Roof, his

residence?

As far as the events on

Saturday, the army did not allow the

crowd near the area, let alone the

Blue Roof. It is clear the military

are in charge of the whole process

so far, including the rally itself,

including directing and organising

it. The military will want to play

it constitutionally, legally, safe,

as far as possible, except if the

stand-off is extended, as is

appearing to be the case, then they

may resort to other means. They want

him to resign and he is refusing.

You have more experience inside the

government as one of the top civil

servant for you went into academia

and political commentary. I just

wonder, when we are talking about

the Constitution and the impeachment

process, just how important and how

durable and resilient is the

Zimbabwean constitution, because the

issue is that he has ridden

roughshod over it for many years. Is

a part of the political process to

stick to the Constitution?

Yes,

except where it is done so

expediently and conveniently. In

general, there is a very high

disdainful constitutionalism, even

in the party itself. You can see it

is very messy and tidy a process.

Right now, the committee met

yesterday and voted to get Robert

Mugabe and everyone else out. And

his speech last night wanted to

render that all illegal, saying he

is ill in power. -- still. You have

a situation where the interpretation

of the Constitution is left to

expedient subscription thereof.

I

ask you at the beginning of there

was any doubt about the outcome and

I was thinking about Robert Mugabe's

removal and you indicated it could

take longer than you think. But

Robert Mugabe is ultimately going to

have to go. Is there any doubt in

your mind that the successor will be

the vice president briefly deposed

but now back, Emmerson? Is that

going to be the outcome he will

succeed?

If the coup succeeds, yes,

he will be in. If the coup and says

they intend it to end with Robert

Mugabe leaving, it will have been

successful. If, as appears to be

happening, there is a resort to

constitutional arguments and, more

importantly, the intervention of

South Africans, it appears that they

may find a solution, such as the

Governor of national unity, our

group the Platform for Consensus

have been saying since last year

when we saw this happening, a

national transitional authority, a

non-partisan authority of

Zimbabweans who would take charge of

the state for two years during which

time they would be political reform.

But of course, that is a hard sell

from the very beginning because you

have contending factors, both within

ZANU PF itself in the larger polity.

Your message is that Emmerson taking

over would be bad for Zimbabwe?

Yes.

That one faction in a factional

fight would be seen to be taking

over will be seen as a coup. As far

as I am concerned, the solution is

to transcend the ZANU PF faction, to

find someone within ZANU PF itself

who was above the factions, and it

is difficult to find such a person,

or a neutral factor altogether,

leading a transitional authority and

transitional government.

But Ibbo

Mandaza, are you not part of the

issue? You were once a loyalist of

the Maduru faction. You have had a

stake in this yourself. That is why

he dislikes you, he sees you as

someone who has always favoured his

opponent.

Well, I had a family

relationship with the Madurus, both

in the late husband and herself.

And, yes, I felt as a Zimbabwean

citizen that we were shortchanged in

2014 when these purges began. She

was elected in 2004. She was a vice

president in every sense of the

word. And in 2014, the vice

president and others were rejected.

But my point is not so much about

Joyce and what happened to her, we

interviewed her on this programme

and frankly she does not amount to

much support these days. It is your

message about factionalism. It is

interesting to see how anybody in

Zimbabwe today could have any hope

that factionalism won't continue. It

will be a dominant force. Emmerson

and the head of the military are

clearly people who want to keep our

closely in the hands of those, you

know, one could perhaps say old

cronies of Robert Mugabe are going

all the way back in ZANU PF. It is

hard to see how that will not

happen.

Is you're looking for a

solution mediate that difference,

that is where some of us come in as

citizens. -- if. In retrospect, in

hindsight, it is clear, as you are

correct, in your characterisation,

that the military has always been

central right from the ceasefire in

1980 with Maduru and on and on. It

is true the military has been

central. Some of us as analysts have

been confused and lost the plot

thinking he took control of the

military. Clearly he did not. This

is becoming self-evident.

Let me

quote you. It is interesting what

you are saying. The top branch of

the military have been extremely

influential. Let's not forget that

Emmerson going way back was Minister

of State security and ran the

intelligence operations as part of

his ministerial duties. He

campaigned. He has a long record.

And this is what one Western

diplomat said, if he takes over,

this is far from being a brave new

dawn for Zimbabwe it. He is cut from

the same cloth as Mugabe. Would you

agree with that?

Clearly, yes. His

base at the moment is the military.

He is the most powerful person at

the moment. And really, it appears

to be that the military wanted a

civilian face. And he has been

chosen. It is difficult to make a

distinction between the Mugabe

regime and the era he had and

Emmerson and the military. They are

one and the same. This is a

factional fight within ZANU PF

itself. Which party is completed

with the state, really.

Going back

to instability, I want to quote to

you one other person who has been

out on the streets, Linda, she is an

activist, founder of the Zimbabwean

Women In Politics, she said she has

waited all her life for Mugabe to

stand down, but now she is worried

about what happens next. The

military is stepping in to resolve

the factional fight and it has

nothing to do with reforming the

country. You seem to be echoing that

very bleak sentiment.

S

with those sentiments. I agree

entirely. But we have to be

realistic, we have to be political

and take into account the reality

and see how we can work out of it to

a more positive scenario.

To be

specific, what are you going to do?

Well, it is not me. What I will do,

it is a question of, asked trying to

-- asked trying to leverage on the

process, on the intervention, and

the need to mediate...

You keep

talking about SADAC, we know the

South African government has taken a

mild position, asking everybody to

please focus on following the

Zimbabwean con situation. I can

quote you the president of Zambia,

Edgar Lungu, who has actually said

that in his view, the military

takeover reflects intervention and

meddling by western countries. He

says Westerners are trying to

spearhead regime change, not just in

Zimbabwe, but in Zambia, South

Africa and Malawi as well, and we

won't let it happen. So I'm not sure

that African neighbours are of a

mind to push the reform agenda. It

doesn't sound as though they are.

Some of them sound like they are

quite tempted to defend Mugabe.

Precisely. I think basically, a

successful cooing Zimbabwe would

send the wrong message across the

region. -- coup in. The differences

between the regimes in the region

are those of degree, rather than

kind. You are talking about SADC,

SADC is normally lame but I think

SADC has never been faced except for

Lzutu with a similar situation to

this. It will be interesting to see

what SADC does tomorrow. I agree

this will be based on self-interest

in parts of SADC and the South

African state, rather than any

concentration such as that which

Linda was referring to. What about

the international community more

widely? I am intrigued by the notion

which I have read in some quarters

which says that actually, the key

player in this is not any western

country, the United States anybody

else. It is China. There is talk of

a key meeting involving Mr Mnangagwa

and Mr Chiwenga, the head of the

military, actually in Beijing. And

that the Chinese signed off on the

move against Mugabe because China of

course has vast economic interest in

Zimbabwe. Is China a big player, do

you think?

Yes, but I also know

China as one who tries not to

interfere in internal politics,

except in its own neighbourhood. So

I think that is mere speculation.

There is no evidence to that effect.

Nor is there evidence that western

countries have been directly

involved. There has always been

speculation, of course, unconfirmed,

that Emmerson Mnangagwa and in this

case, this military coup, would have

the support of the British or the

dish intelligence services. Again,

that is speculation. So what's next,

in your view? I imagine when we stop

talking you will be going very soon

back home to Harare, and you are

somebody who constantly speaks out

for fundamental transformation in

Zimbabwe, getting away from what you

call the factionalism, opening up of

six, bringing in a new generation,

making the country more genuinely

free and democratic. -- opening up

politics. How on earth, given the

nature of our conversation, do you

believe you can play a role in that

happening?

Well, I am grateful that

you give us the opportunity of this

important interview with a very

influential programme like

HARDtalk...

Well, that is very

flattering, but nonetheless, it is

just words. Long after you leave the

studio you have to go home and

figure out how to change the

situation on the ground.

Yes, I

cannot do it alone. We're working

many other people. I made reference

to the PCC, the Platform for

Concerned Citizens. We have

submitted a public document to be

SADC Secretariat and to be Troika.

We did that through the South

African government this afternoon.

So there are many efforts at home.

There is representation by the

churches. There is a prominent

clergyman who has been involved in

the negotiations between Mugabe's

residence and the military had

offers. So there is a lot of stuff

happening on the ground but we're

hoping that the SADC intervention,

but also the international

community, I know that the western

met yesterday to discuss the

Zimbabwe situation, and I also know

that they are recommending a

government of national humidity. --

western ambassadors met yesterday.

Which involves everybody, the other

political parties as well. I think

they were all shocked yesterday with

the statements which suggested that

this was an internal issue of

ZANU-PF. I think the solution is to

have them transcend the ZANU-PF

factionalism and have a national

dialogue and national process which

includes everybody, at least as a

transitional authority, towards

elections one or two years hence.

That is interesting. Yet a signal

failure of you to mention Mr Changi

Wright and the Movement for

Democratic Change, what has long

been the leading opposition party,

suggests to me that you do not

really feel they could be serious

agents of change. -- Mr Tsvangirai.

Maybe I am misleading you. Do you

think Mr Tsvangirai has an important

role to play?

On the contrary, I

think all parties must be involved,

including Morgan Tsvangirai. You

cannot ignore Morgan Tsvangirai in

any process in Zimbabwe, not least

because he was shortchanged in 2008.

It is common knowledge now that

Morgan Tsvangirai won the election

in 2008. And it was this time Mr

Mnangagwa and General Chiwenga who

took over, and one would say it was

a coup actually, in 2008, in the

form of the manipulation of the

results, the subsequent run-off, and

how Mr Mugabe stayed in power. So

Morgan Tsvangirai can not be

ignored, not at all, either as a

person or in terms of his party.

We

have talked really politics in this

interview. Let's end by thinking

about something else, just as. Do

you think there is any possibility

that Robert Mugabe and people very

close to him might be brought to

face justice for some of the things

that happens under his command? His

rule of Zimbabwe? I am thinking in

particular of the mass killings that

we know happens in the early 1980s.

Is justice part of this, or not?

Well, one would hope for some kind

of truth and reconciliation such as

we have in South Africa. But if it

were to be revenge, that would

escalate things out of hand. The

human rights factor must be taken

into account. Yes, Mugabe, and those

persons, Mnangagwa and Chiwenga have

much to answer for, for the violence

over the last 30 years, and to

periods which were punctuated by

violence, not only them, but there

massacre of the earlier era which

remained save them a shot at

history. But also subsequent

killings at election time. In 2008

some 200 people perished. Yes, there

will need to be a taking account of

all that, and one might even suggest

we need to go back to be beginning

of the struggle, where there were

many killings among ourselves, as

Zimbabweans. I think a truth and

reconciliation commission is

something that might help to close

the chapter on this sordid history

of hours.

A final thought, before we

end. I was very struck by the joyous

scenes, frankly, which I saw from

Harare and the mass demonstrations,

the people out on the streets on

Saturday at the weekend in your

capital city. Are you feeling full

of optimism, positivity, and maybe

even some joy at the thought of

Robert Mugabe's" right now? Or are

you actually feeling somewhat

alarmed and curvaceous about the

future of your country? -- alarmed

and trepidation as -- trepidatious.

They did so through the four days.

Prior to that the military were

acting on their own. There was not

the conventional mass reception of

the coup which you have seen in

other parts of Africa. I think

people are beginning to sober up and

realise there is something at the

heart of this which has to do with

the manner in which the system has

been run for the last two decades at

least.

Ibbo Mandaza, it is a

sobering thought to end on. Thank

you for joining me on HARDtalk from

Johannesburg.

Thank you very much,

Stephen.