Zimpapers Logo

Innocent Mujeri-Correspondent

In the contemporary political realm, it is common to hear discussions on the role of regional organisations in shaping the course of a country’s politics. 

For Zimbabwe, the recent clamour around the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and its supposed ability to determine leadership positions has become a focal point. However, it is essential to separate myth from reality.

To initiate this discourse, one must first delve deep into the foundational purpose of SADC.

Established as a regional organisation, its core function is to foster growth and development among its member states. This is achieved through collaborative initiatives and mutual understanding. 

There is a pervasive misconception, likely fuelled by political rhetoric or misunderstanding, that SADC possesses the power to dictate or “appoint” national leadership figures. 

This is fundamentally incorrect. 

SADC is not an entity designed to impose or “create” Presidents in any of its member nations.  Instead, it interacts and collaborates with the already elected or recognised leaders of these countries. 

By working hand-in-hand with these leaders, the SADC promotes a unified approach to tackle the varied socio-economic challenges the region faces. 

Moreover, its role extends to providing a platform for political dialogue and ensuring the region’s safety and security, always emphasising co-operation and co-ordination.

Recent public statements made by Nelson Chamisa and his political outfit, CCC, seem to indicate an assumption that SADC would play a decisive role in his ascent to the presidency of Zimbabwe. 

This notion, however, appears to be rooted in either a misunderstanding or perhaps a deliberate misrepresentation of what SADC’s mandate and functions truly encompass.

The SADC, as a regional bloc, primarily focuses on fostering cooperation among its member states in areas of economic growth, political stability, and security.

Its aim is to ensure that the Southern African region progresses harmoniously, leveraging the collective strengths of its members. 

Within this context, it neither has the authority nor the inclination to interfere directly in the domestic political processes or to “appoint” national leaders.

Therefore, suggestions by Chamisa and the CCC implying that the SADC can or would intervene in such a manner in Zimbabwe’s internal political affairs seem to be misguided. Such claims may serve as fodder for political discourse or rallying cries for supporters, but they do not resonate with the realities of how regional organisations like the SADC operate.

It is imperative for political leaders and the general populace to understand and respect the boundaries and mandates of regional bodies, ensuring that expectations remain grounded in fact and not veer off into the realm of wishful thinking or political posturing.

One must also consider the protocols established by the SADC. Currently, for entities like the CCC to solicit an official stance from the SADC on Zimbabwean matters, the route necessitates engagement with the Vice Chairman of the organisation—President Mnangagwa. 

The established protocol suggests that Chamisa could only formally challenge election results in a court of law, not through SADC channels, including its election observer missions.

Furthermore, any attempts by Chamisa to sidestep established protocol—for instance, by liaising directly with the outgoing SADC Chairman, President of Zambia, Hakainde Hichilema—would be a short-lived endeavour, lapsing by December 2023. 

From that point, President Mnangagwa will hold the SADC Chairmanship, making any by-pass attempts futile. This transition would inevitably see the continuation of #EDiplomacy, promoting diplomatic etiquette over any irregularities.

Talks of a Chamisa-led diplomatic offence, under such circumstances, appear hollow. 

Not only is there no precedent for SADC intervention in these matters, but there is also no tangible need for such mediation or arbitration.  

It is essential to emphasise that SADC lacks an arbitration mandate. 

Instead, it operates by urging, nudging, or persuading member states towards specific actions, always contingent on the concerned state’s consent.

The SADC has consistently shown its understanding of the complex geopolitical factors influencing its member states, particularly Zimbabwe.

A salient demonstration of this understanding is the declaration of the annual Zimbabwe Anti-Sanctions Day on October 25, 2023. 

This day is not just a symbolic gesture; it is a profound assertion against the external sanctions which have, over time, tilted the electoral scales.

Such sanctions have significantly hampered the ability of parties, like the ZANU PF, to function on a level playing field, thereby posing challenges to the nation’s democratic processes.

Furthermore, this move by the SADC is not merely an isolated event but part of a broader strategic approach that can be attributed to the #EDiplomacy initiative.

Through such diplomatic efforts, regional bodies are not only highlighting the challenges faced by individual countries but also rallying support to counteract these issues. 

It stands as a testament to the power of regional cooperation and the importance of a unified stance in addressing the challenges faced by member states. Therefore, claims by the CCC, suggesting the SADC’s intervention in Zimbabwean leadership positions, seem misguided. 

SADC operates alongside State Presidents and cannot manufacture them. 

Any assumptions otherwise only mislead the public.  The sooner this reality is accepted, the better for all parties involved, as dwelling on a distorted narrative is neither progressive nor healthy.