Print article   email story

Khathu Mamaila

MORGAN Tsvangirai might be behaving like a president – flying by private jet from one capital to another – but he did not win the presidential election. Neither did Robert Mugabe.

The election produced no winner. But this is the best outcome for Zimbabwe.

Had Mugabe won, the situation was just going to get worse. Tsvangirai and, more importantly, his sponsors in the West, would not have accepted the results. They would just tighten the screws on Mugabe and his regime.

That Tsvangirai got more votes than Mugabe, 47.9% and 43.2% respectively, legitimises the election results significantly.

Common sense must dictate that Zanu-PF could not cheat in the election only to deliver a majority to the MDC.

The outcome of the presidential election is in line with the undisputed outcome of the parliamentary election.

Had Tsvangirai won an outright majority, there was bound to be a serious problem of the transfer of power from the dominant Zanu-PF to the MDC.

In fact, there is no guarantee that the army and security forces would have accepted serving an MDC government.

The no-win situation provides a sound base for serious dialogue about the future of Zimbabwe. The process should be an allinclusive affair that navigates and avoids the outbreak of war.

There lies a lesson for states in their embryonic stages. There is a need to separate the state from the party.

After independence there is a deliberate effort to conflate the state and the party. In Zambia they coined the phrase: “The party and the people are one. The party is the people. The people are the party. One Zambia, one nation.”

Revolutionaries always want to seize power to take control of the state apparatus – the army, police, civil service and the executive.

Little wonder that the ANC had a deployment committee which looked at the appointment of cadres to key positions in the state and in parastatals.

This in part explains the anxiety of the new ANC leadership to gain control of the SABC board.

It would be ideal if only there were a separation of powers and functions.

Former Limpopo premier Ngoako Ramatlhodi once intimated that it would be better to follow a model that emphasised the separation of the state administration from the ruling party. Sadly, the idea was stillborn.

It is in the interest of the country to have a separation of roles. If this happens, merit will replace political allegiance.

A local municipality would be able to appoint and retain a qualified engineer instead of appointing a former school teacher simply because he has the right political connections.

Patronage has an adverse impact on service delivery. In many local authorities cadres have been appointed with little regard for skills and qualifications but mainly because of political considerations. Consequently, there are chief financial officers who have no accounting background.

Little wonder that the councils spend millions on consulting fees.

The problem of linking politics to the administration is that each time there is a change of political office, there is an upheaval in the administration. The hard-gained experience is lost as the new generation of cadres takes over.

In order to justify the merging of politics and administration, politicians often speak of the need to transform the bureaucracy.

There is an erroneous assumption that the transformation can be implemented only by cadres of the ruling party.

People from the opposition parties are considered enemies of the state. In any event, transformation cannot be a permanent feature of governance.

In order to avoid the Zimbabwean situation, where the change of government can precipitate the implosion of the state, we should separate the party from the state.

We should embrace the ideal of a free country with equal opportunities for all.

Subscribe to the print edition of City Press