Zimbabwe’s inclusive government

The Inclusive Government of Zimbabwe was formed under the auspices of the Global Political Agreement (GPA) in 2008. The GPA had to deal with key issues in Zimbabwe which include the restoration of the economy and the rule of law, removal of sanctions, the land question, media reform, the drafting of a new constitution, and the promotion of national healing. The agreement was formed under the cloud of long-time political rivalry, between the Zimbabwe National African Union-Patriotic Front (Zanu PF) and Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), each seeking to muscle the other out of political power.

Though there are two factions of the MDC – on the one hand is MDC-T led by Tsvangirai, on the other hand having MDC-M led by Mutambabra – Tsvangirai has for years led MDC since its formation and he has been Zanu PF and Mugabe’s political rival. As the Inclusive Government was formed, the political rivalry was coupled with the dilapidation of the economy of the country that was once the breadbasket of Southern African Development Community (SADC) region.

The paper identifies and discusses the issues that have placed Zanu PF and the MDC-T at odds within the inclusive government and under the GPA provisions, with specific focus on battles for positions of power, disagreements on executive powers and authority as provided by the GPA, differing positions on constitution drafting and issues on security sector reform vis-à-vis the land audit. Having identified the issues of political contestation, the paper tries to point out how these political battles stall socio-economic progress in Zimbabwe. Furthermore contraventions of the GPA are identified and discussed as part of the sources to political battles between the parties.

INTRODUCTION

On 15 September 2008 the GPA was signed in Zanu PF and the two factions of MDC (MDC-T lead by Morgan Tsvangirai and MDC-M lead Arthur Mutambara). Under the auspices of the GPA an inclusive government was formed, retaining Robert Mugabe as president while Morgan Tsvangirai became prime minister,[1] with Arthur Mutambara as deputy prime minister. The GPA came into effect on 11 February 2009, after months of disagreement over the sharing of cabinet portfolios. Key amongst the priorities of the GPA was the restructuring of the economy and the rule of law, lobbying the international community to drop sanctions, the land question, media reform, the drafting of a new constitution, and the promotion of national healing.[2]

Since 2000, the MDC has contested every election – both the presidential and parliamentary – and has since emerged as the only political opposition to challenge Zanu PF’s hold on power. From the year 2000, Zimbabwe has witnessed continuous political battles between Zanu PF and opposition MDC over the former’s violation of human rights, violent and undemocratic electoral politics, draconian laws such as the Public Order and Security Act (POSA), and the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA), all of which limit political and civil liberties.

The GPA was signed by long-time political rivals whom their political differences now saddled with the restoration of the depressed economy of the former bread basket of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region. Unfortunately, the GPA’s implementation was delayed due to disagreements over the sharing of cabinet portfolios within the inclusive government. The year 2010 marks the second year since the formation of the inclusive government and the signing of the GPA.

Having said that, this paper seeks to interrogate the relations between the signatories of the GPA, in particular Zanu PF and MDC-T in the inclusive government, and to ascertain whether these relations have been that of political antagonism between the two parties trying to entrench their hegemony in governance, or whether the focus has been on advancing the objectives of the GPA.

It goes on to analyse whether the GPA’s effective implementation has been impeded by political battles between its signatories. The paper identifies and discusses the issues that have placed Zanu PF and the MDC-T at odds with each other within the inclusive government and under the GPA provisions, which includes battling for positions of power, disagreements on executive powers and authority as provided by the GPA, differing positions on constitution drafting and issues on security sector reform vis-à-vis the land audit.

Having identified the issues of political contestation, the paper also tries point out how these political battles stall socio-economic progress in Zimbabwe. Furthermore contraventions of the GPA are identified and discussed as part of the sources to political battles between the parties.

BATTLING FOR POSITIONS OF POWER

Since the formation of the inclusive government in Zimbabwe and the signing of the GPA in 2008, the Zanu PF and the two MDC factions have been battling each other in a bid to gain the upper hand in the country’s political landscape. Hence most commentators observed that the GPA created two centres of power, that of the prime minister and that of the president, which would in the medium or long-term lead to a dysfunctional state at war with itself.[3] The GPA has experienced battles amongst the political antagonists for control and influence within the inclusive government.

Significantly the political disputes between Zanu PF and MDC have been centred on the allocation of cabinet portfolios, provincial governorships, and the status of Reserve Bank governor, Gideon Gono and the attorney general, Johannes Tomana. The three main political party leaders, Mugabe of Zanu PF, Tsvangirai of MDC-T and Mutambara of MDC-M have also contributed to the stalled progress of the GPA. However, the most central figure to the stalled GPA progress has been Mugabe, who has pressed Tsvangirai and Mutambara hard to agree to create ten ministerial and fifteen deputy ministerial positions in addition to the inclusive government beyond the number agreed in the GPA, in order to accommodate more allies and prevent rebellion within Zanu PF.[4] This decision to expand the number of cabinet portfolios beyond the expected number was not for the benefit of achieving the GPA’s objectives, but rather to ensure that within Zanu PF no politically disgruntled individual(s) emerged who would threaten his grip on power.

Having pleased his political allies within Zanu PF, this move however left the two MDC factions discontented with Mugabe’s actions. This was because MDC-T complained of under-representation in the government, while Mutambara of MDC-M wanted an extra slot with which to appease his faction’s vice president, Gibson Sibanda.

In the expanded cabinet, Mugabe obtained six additional ministerial posts for his allies, while MDC-T received two more, and MDC-M one minister of state.[5] Drawing inference from the above, there is unequal share of power distribution within the GPA leaving other parties unsatisfied, particularly the two factions of MDC, In an attempt to appease every party there must be equal distribution of power across the political divide, thus distributing portfolios in an equal share amongst parties within the GPA. Unequal power distribution results in other parties not being pleased, translating into political battles for control and influence, rather than focusing on the GPA objective of the restoration of the economy and the rule of law, removal of sanctions, the land question, media reform, the drafting of a new constitution, and the promotion of national healing. Indeed unequal distribution of power results in political battles.

Adding more weight around battles on ministerial portfolios distribution, is the factor of allocation of key portfolios to parties which, according to Human Rights Watch[6], has left Zanu PF with most of its power intact, effectively maintaining the status ante quo: The report indicates that Zanu PF has kept control of all the senior ministries, including home affairs, foreign affairs, justice, security, and defence. This has seen the MDC lacking real power in the government and being discontented by this fact. In addition the MDC-T wanted the appointment of deputy agriculture minister, Roy Bennett,[7] who was on trial on charges of trying to overthrow the Zimbabwean government prior to the signing of the GPA, while the government was still under Zanu PF’s unilateral rule.

President Mugabe has been refusing to swear Bennett in until the latter charges against him were cleared, while MDC-T argued that there is no legal basis for refusing to swear in Bennett.[8] Though Bennett was recently acquitted, the issue of MDC pushing for him to be sworn in, while being met by Mugabe’s resistance, has contributed largely to and fuelled tensions within the inclusive government.

The status of Reserve Bank Governor Gideon Gono and Attorney General Johannes Tomana has become critical to the disputing parties. The contestation on the two revolves around the MDC’s belief that, they were re-appointed to their positions unilaterally by Mugabe, in violation of the GPA provision, which clearly indicates that the president, in consultation with the prime minister, makes key appointments under and in terms of the Constitution or any Act of Parliament.[9]

As a result, Tsvangirai has been seeking for Mugabe to reverse the unilateral appointment of both the Reserve Bank governor and the attorney general. Yet, to date, the reversal of the appointment of the two officers has not been realised.

Besides not having met the GPA requirements in the appointments, there are other unsatisfactory issues concerning appointed officers. The Reserve Bank governor Gideon Gono, stands accused of presiding over the destruction of the country's economy through a slew of quasi-fiscal activities as well as funding activities infringing upon people's human rights. On his part, the attorney general Johannes Tomana is accused of using his office to persecute opposition supporters and human rights activists.[10] Considering what the two officers stand accused of, arguably their roles within the inclusive government are likely to be retrogressive to GPA provisions such as article 3[11], which prioritises the restoration of economic stability and growth of Zimbabwe and articles 10, 11 and 12, which embrace and advance the entrenchment of international principles of human rights in Zimbabwe.

DISPUTES ON EXECUTIVE POWERS AND AUTHORITY

GPA article 20 clauses 20.1.4. (a) and (b)[12] state that the prime minister chairs the Council of Ministers and is the deputy chairperson of cabinet and also exercises executive authority. Based on the provision that the prime minister is deputy chairperson of cabinet, it thus means that the prime minister acts as chairperson of cabinet during the president’s absence. However the above has not been the case in Zimbabwe’s inclusive government, as the stated GPA provisions have been violated; this has been observed through the fact that Tsvangirai has been prevented from demonstrating authority, as he has not been able to chair any cabinet session in the president’s absence.[13]

Zanu PF has maintained that the GPA negotiations that allowed the prime minister to chair cabinet in the absence of the president would make the two vice-presidents, Joice Mujuru and John Nkomo redundant and cause further tension in the fractious party.[14] Consequently, this has seen the two vice-presidents alternating the chairing of cabinet in the absence of Mugabe.[15]On the part of MDC-T this has meant contravention of the GPA provisions. While boosting efforts by Zanu PF to maintain control of key state institutions and further reducing Tsvangirai to a ceremonial prime minister.[16]

Still under GPA article 20, clauses 20.1.4. (c), (d), (e) and (f)[17] state that, the prime minister shall oversee the formulation of government policies by the cabinet; ensure that the policies so formulated are implemented by the entirety of government; ensure that the ministers develop appropriate implementation plans to give effect to the policies decided by cabinet: In this regard, the ministers will report to the prime minister on all issues relating to the implementation of such policies and plans; ensure that the legislation necessary to enable the government to carry out its functions is in place: In this regard, he/she shall have the responsibility to discharge the functions of the leader of government business in parliament.

Based on these provisions of the GPA, it is clear that the prime minister oversees the formulation of policies and plans and the implementation of such policies and plans by cabinet ministers; this makes cabinet ministers accountable to the prime minister with regards to government business.

Unfortunately, there are occurrences that have further deepened disputes stemming from violation of executive powers and authority of the prime minister provided in the GPA. For instance, on the 25 January 2010, Mugabe issued a written order for all ministers to report to the vice-presidents and their permanent secretaries, but not to Tsvangirai on the execution of government business. However, the order was subsequently withdrawn, while the MDC-T considered it a blatant attempt to neuter the prime minister’s office.[18]

In this vein, the tensions around executive powers and authority provided by the GPA have emerged from the Zanu PF’s violation of such provisions, while on the other hand the MDC-T is fighting to ensure that these provisions are not contravened. The prospects for future violations of the GPA remain unknown. However, the violations that have been experienced set precedents to the GPA signatories for further violation of the agreement. This will worsen political battles between the parties, thereby compromising cooperation within the inclusive government to establish political stability that serves as a prerequisite for restoration of economic stability and growth, which is one of the primary GPA objectives.

DIVERGING POSITIONS ON DRAFTING NEW CONSTITUTION

One critical challenge to successful implementation of the GPA is the drafting of the new constitution, a process that could cause the inclusive government to collapse.[19] The political rivalry within the inclusive government has seen attempts by parties to narrow the constitution-making process to serve their own interests.[20]The battles regarding drafting a new constitution have not been limited only to political parties in the inclusive government, but have spiralled down to civil society and unions.

This has occurred in the sense that civil society activists and unions have complained that constitutional outreach programme which commenced on 7 January 2010, has been a process driven by political elites for their own purposes.[21]As a result some have even called for the international community to withdraw support for the transition until credible consultation process has been adopted.[22] This call will indeed concretise negative steps taken against Zimbabwe by the international community, in particular the EU and the USA.

These negative steps include sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe by the EU that are still in effect; retaining of the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act (ZIDERA) by the USA, which imposes multilateral financing restrictions pending an effective democratic change and restoration of the rule of law in Zimbabwe;[23] and the reluctance of most western governments to contribute to Zimbabwe’s economic restoration and growth because of their mistrust of Mugabe.

In addition this move by civil society activists and unions intensifies the move by several western countries which have made the lifting of sanctions and increasing aid conditional upon the return of democratic rule and the pursuit of democratic reforms.[24] Considering these the steps taken against Zimbabwe, the GPA faces difficulties in being fully and effectively implemented; the economic sanctions have proven to be counterproductive because they have left Zimbabwe in a state of social, economic and political collapse prior to the formation of the inclusive government.

On the front of political parties, there is increased acceptance across the political divide that the ‘Kariba Draft’ agreed by the inclusive government three parties under Mbeki’s mediation cannot be the only reference for the new constitution, as it includes a number of potentially anti-democratic principles, such as the enhancement of executive powers at the expense of legislative or judicial authority.[25]

Many political figures believe a broadly acceptable compromise draft is likely to be ready by end of the year.[26] Though the parties have concurring views on the Kariba Draft, sharp differences on the drafting of the constitution still remain.[27] For instance, Zanu PF and MDC-T’s constitutional positions differ. On the one hand, Zanu PF intends to preserve an authoritarian centralist government, though the notion of an imperial presidency is not shared by Zanu PF vice-president Joice Mujuru.[28] The MDC-T on the other hand, wants executive authority to be shared between president, prime minister and cabinet, with internal checks and balances within the executive.[29]

Moving forward on parties’ positions on composition of the executive, the MDC-T prefers the current executive as prescribed by the global political agreement GPA, comprising a president and prime minister; however this must be effected with the exclusion of the vice-presidents and deputy premiers.[30] The MDC-T party is proposing in its position paper on the constitution an elected president, who appoints a prime minister from a party which commands a majority in parliament.[31]

On the contrary, Zanu PF is opposed to the position of prime minister, preferring the retention of the old executive comprising a powerful president, two vice presidents and cabinet as also proposed in the Kariba draft constitution.[32] Zanu PF in its position paper on the constitution states that ‘We need an executive president who shares executive authority with the cabinet and no prime minister as it results in an endless unproductive contest for power between the president and the prime minister that results in a weak state in which neo-colonialism can thrive’.[33]

Besides disputing views on the composition of executive, Zanu PF and MDC-T are at odds regarding appointment of cabinet ministers. The MDC-T believes that the cabinet should be chosen by the premier to ensure checks and balances, while Zanu PF holds a view that the appointment of cabinet ministers should be done by the president.[34]

The composition of the national assembly is also central in diverging views between Zanu PF and MDC-T on drafting the constitution. On the one hand, Zanu PF has proposed that the country be divided into the existing 210 national assembly constituent seats and 60 senatorial seats.[35] Zanu PF wants 10 seats for provincial governors, 18 seats for chiefs and five members to be appointed by the president to the Senate.[36] On the other hand, the MDC-T is proposing the direct election of 120 members for the House of Assembly and 60 senators appointed by proportional representation.[37] Furthermore, the MDC-T does not want the current system where the president appoints members and some seats being reserved, the party has indicated that there should be no unelected members of parliament.[38]

The Bill of Rights equally is of critical contestation within the inclusive government. Issues of contestation include abortion, homosexuality, sodomy and same-sex marriage. Zanu PF’s position is opposed to legalising and entrenching abortion, homosexuality, sodomy and same-sex marriage in the constitution.[39] In their view, abortion, homosexuality, sodomy and same-sex marriage are unacceptable and will be banned.[40] The MDC-T has indicated that it will not enter into such discussions, saying isssues of abortion, homosexuality, sodomy and same-sex marriage should be left for interpretation by the Supreme Court or any other court.[41]

Having observed the diverging views by the signatories to the GPA it is thus clear that the drafting of the constitution will indeed be a steep mountain to ascend for the inclusive government, unless all parties are willing to compromise their positions. Coupled with efforts by civil society activists and unions calling for non-support by the international community on GPA and inclusive government until credible constitutional consultation is realised, progress made on political, social and economic stability is likely to retrogress.

Thus continued differences by parties on constitutional drafting will hamper all efforts at socio-economic development in Zimbabwe. The most recent development is that Zimbabwe will be embarking on a constitution-making outreach programme. With consideration of the differing position on how the constitution should be drafted, the programme will be coupled with battles between the Zanu PF and MDC, with the intention of outmuscling each other to ensure the constitution caters for the parties’ interests.

These contending views have introduced an element of the country falling back to political violence as a measure of intimidating citizens to gain political upper hand over opponents, a strategy that Zanu PF has employed in the past. These elements of the reemergence of violence are intensified by press reports, which indicate war veteran’s leader Jabulani Sibanda has been forcing villagers, traditional leaders and government workers to attend campaign meetings in parts of Manicaland, telling them to support Zanu PF position ahead of the constitution outreach programme.[42]

In addition, the MDC-T has accused Zanu PF of setting militia bases to intimidate people from speaking during the outreach programme and that Zanu PF supporters are instructed to campaign for kariba draft and to whip villagers into line to support the document. Zanu PF, however, has repeatedly denied this, indicating it as untrue.[43] It is noteworthy that slipping back to violence will definitely pose a major challenge to Zimbabwe’s inclusive government and effective implementation of the GPA. This will lead the country into political and social instability, which impedes economic stability. This been evident in Zimbabwe prior to formation of the inclusive government and signing of the GPA, as the country experienced socio-economic collapse.

SECURITY SECTOR REFORMS VIS-À-VIS THE LAND AUDIT

ZANU PF held power from 1980 till the formation of the GPA in 2009. As a result, it has and still wields authority and influence on most of the government organs and institutions. As indicated earlier, key ministries that Zanu PF refuses to lose its grip on include security and defence. In the midst of the stalemate experienced in Zimbabwe since the formation of the inclusive government and signing of GPA, Zanu PF is still having a grip on security sector and firmly rejects attempts at its reform.[44]

This is coupled with major factors impeding and undermining transition which have emerged. These include hard-line generals and other Mugabe loyalists in Zanu PF who have refused to implement the government’s decisions, boycotting the new national security organ and showing public disdain for Tsvangirai.[45] Under these circumstances, farm seizures have continued virtually unabated.

Though most attention has focused on completing the GPA, Zanu PF has delayed or ignored important commitments provided in the document, such as security sector reform and land audit. Security related steps including ending arbitrary detentions and arrests and the regular functioning of the National Security Council in place of the infamous Joint Operations Command have been blocked in light of the prevailing situation.[46]

Another challenging issue on the security front is that a relatively small number of officials in the security sector are considered to use their positions and nepotistic relationship with Mugabe to exercise veto power over the inclusive government’s decision.[47] Moreover, powerful factions of generals with the support of some elements within the Zanu PF still hold a view that Tsvangirai should not be allowed to lead Zimbabwe even if he wins election, they believe that they guard the liberation heritage against Tsvangirai and the MDC, which they view as fronts for white and Western interests.[48] Hence, MDC-T officials and civil society activists have expressed fears that a coup could come shortly after MDC-T electoral victory or should Mugabe die in office.[49] This further introduces prospects of social and political disruption which will have a far-reaching negative impact on the country’s political and economic stability.

The inclusive government has difficulties to achieve the GPA’s objective of security sector reform, with the army generals and some within Zanu PF having de facto veto power to oppose any move to reform undermining their interests. This means they will effectively veto any decision that is not favourable to them, overlooking the general good of the GPA’s success for Zimbabwe and its people.

It is thus clear that, senior security sector leaders have undermined the transition process and security sector reform.[50] This has come with Mugabe’ support, as he has fully backed the military leadership, which is his last remaining line of loyal support given his fractious party.[51] Mugabe has further intensified the security sector reform attempts by indicating that Zanu PF shall not allow security forces of Zimbabwe to be subject to any security reform negotiations.[52] They are motivated by differing factors including fear of losing power and its financial benefits, fear of prosecution for political or financial abuses.[53] For instance in the past they have reportedly benefited from packages administered by Reserve Bank governor Gono through the so-called ‘quasi-fiscal measures’, as well as largesse channelled through Mugabe’s wife Grace.[54] Furthermore, a number of generals have reportedly built up substantial landholdings, either personally or through family members and other proxies, as result of farm seizures ostensibly designed to assist the rural poor.[55] Their desire to protect these holdings is a key reason why Zanu PF is opposing the implementation of the GPA requirement of conducting a transparent and comprehensive land audit because it would expose these ownership patterns.[56]

The above discussions indicate that Zanu PF is opposed to conducting a transparent and comprehensive land audit. This means the party continues to undermine and violate the GPA provisions – in this case article 5[57], particularly clause 5.9. (a), which states that parties agree to conduct a comprehensive, transparent and non partisan land audit, during the tenure of the parliament of Zimbabwe, for the purpose of establishing accountability and eliminating multiple farm ownership. In this regard Zanu PF’s opposition to security sector reform in light of the above impedes on the implementation of GPA article five agreements and economic restoration and growth, through restoration of full productivity on all agricultural land, as indicated by GPA article 5.9. (f).[58]

The importance of a land audit, though opposed by Zanu PF for reasons stated above, comes from the view that agriculture is one of the sectors identified in the GPA for parties to work together and develop a full and comprehensive economic programme to resuscitate Zimbabwe’s economy.

CONCLUSION

When discussing Zimbabwe’s inclusive government it is significant to note that politics and economics are inseparable. Therefore, to fix the Zimbabwean economy, there is need to deal with the political disputes and the parties involved should work collectively to come up with policies that restore economic stability and growth and to improve the social welfare of the people.[59] The political squabbles have a negative effect on the GPA’s successful implementation as they increase the level of antagonism and threaten the fragile economic stability experienced by Zimbabweans since the formation of the inclusive government.

The successful implementation of the GPA rests on its signatories. In this sense, if the Zanu PF and MDC continue with their disputes, the economic, social and political stability experienced since the formation of the inclusive government, will be short-lived. Without the buy-in of both Zanu PF and MDC the inclusive government has little chance of making a difference.[60]

There is need for the parties to realise that none holds unilateral control of government institutions and therefore must work cooperatively with each other and give priority to restoration of economic stability and growth in Zimbabwe. The parties within the inclusive government should act as equal partners and manage government activities on mutual respect and in accordance with the GPA provisions as this will provide ground for the lifting of sanctions by the international community as they have proven to be economically counterproductive for the country. The focus must be on achieving the objectives set out in GPA rather than on political disputes advancing their own interests. Constructive engagement, compromises and inclusivity of all stakeholders in the inclusive government is significant for successful implementation of processes such constitution drafting and security sector reform.

BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS

* Jonathan Oshupeng Maseng is in the research division of the sustainable development unit, Africa Institute of South Africa, and a master's student in political science at the North West University.
* Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at Pambazuka News.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

[1] E Kisiangani (2009), Zimbabwe’s inclusive government: A tentative assessment. Institute of Global Dialogue, Global Insight a focus on current issues: issue 89/August 2009
[2] Zimbabwe Global Political Agreement
[3] Ibid
[4] ZimOnline (2010), Zimbabwe’s Independent News, International Crisis Group. Africa Briefing No.59, Zimbabwe: Engaging the Inclusive Government, 20 April 2009
[5] Ibid
[6] Human Rights Watch (2009), Zimbabwe Events of 2009. http://www.hrw.org/en/node/87455
[7] Zimbabwe parties fail to agree-Zuma receives report (2010), http://news.radio.com/index.php/national-news/3600.html accessed 8 April 2010
[8] Sunday Times (2010), Zimbabwe turns to SA, again, page 2, 11 April 2010
[9] Global Political Agreement (2008), Agreement between the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU PF) and the two Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) formations, on resolving the challenges facing Zimbabwe
[10] Zimbabwe parties fail to agree-Zuma receives report (2010),http://news.radio.com/index.php/national-news/3600.html. accessed 8 April 2010
[11] Global Political Agreement (2008), Agreement between the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU PF) and the two Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) formations, on resolving the challenges facing Zimbabwe
[12] Ibid
[13] ZimOnline (2010), Zimbabwe’s Independent News Agency, Zimbabwe: Political and Security Challenges to the Transition 04 March 2010
[14] Ibid
[15] Ibid
[16] Ibid
[17] Global Political Agreement (2008), Agreement between the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU PF) and the two Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) formations, on resolving the challenges facing Zimbabwe
[18] ZimOnline (2010), Zimbabwe’s Independent News Agency, Zimbabwe: Political and Security Challenges to the Transition 04 March 2010
[19] Ibid
[20] E Kisiangani (2009), Zimbabwe’s inclusive government: A tentative assessment. Institute of Global Dialogue, Global Insight a focus on current issues: issue 89/August 2009
[21] ZimOnline (2010), Zimbabwe’s Independent News Agency, Zimbabwe: Political and Security Challenges to the Transition 04 March 2010
[22] Ibid
[23] E Kisiangani (2009), Zimbabwe’s inclusive government: A tentative assessment. Institute of Global Dialogue, Global Insight a focus on current issues: issue 89/August 2009
[24] Ibid
[25] ZimOnline (2010), Zimbabwe’s Independent News Agency, Zimbabwe: Political and Security Challenges to the Transition
[26] Ibid
[27] Ibid
[28] Ibid
[29] Ibid
[30] Zimbabwe Independent (2009), MDC-T sets out its Constitution Proposals. http://www.theindependent.co.zw/local/23713-mdc-t-sets-out-its-constitution-proposals.html Date accessed: 22 June 2010
[31] Ibid
[32] F Zaba (2010), Zimbabwe: New Constitution-Where ZANU PF, MDC-T and NCA Diverge. http://www.africancrisis.co.za/Article.php?ID=71908&M=W& Date accessed: 22 June 2010
[33] Ibid
[34] Ibid
[35] Ibid
[36] Ibid
[37] Ibid
[38] Ibid
[39] Ibid
[40] Ibid
[41] Ibid
[42] F Zaba (2010), Zimbabwe: ZANU PF Out to Defend Mugabe’s Position. AllAfrica.com. http://allafrica.com/stories/201006180791.html Date accessed: 22 June 2010
[43] Ibid
[44] ZimOnline (2010), Zimbabwe’s Independent News Agency, Zimbabwe: Political and Security Challenges to the Transition 04 March 2010
[45] Ibid
[46] Ibid
[47]Ibid
[48] Ibid
[49] Ibid
[50] Ibid
[51] Ibid
[52] Ibid
[53] Ibid
[54] Ibid
[55] Ibid
[56] Ibid
[57] Global Political Agreement (2008), Agreement between the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU PF) and the two Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) formations, on resolving the challenges facing Zimbabwe
[58] Ibid
[59] F Zaba (2010), Zimbabwe Independent, Zimbabwe: GNU instability Blights Economic Recovery Prospects, 12 February 2010.
[60] E Kisiangani (2009), Zimbabwe’s inclusive government: A tentative assessment. Institute of Global Dialogue, Global Insight a focus on current issues: issue 89/August 2009