The Sunday Mail
Lovemore Ranga Mataire
What has become apparent to anyone following developments in Zimbabwe is the irrefutable reality that the situation in the country can never by any stretch of definition be called a coup.
According to various scholarly sources, a coup is a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics especially violent overthrow or alteration of an existing by a small group.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica Dictionary states that the chief prerequisite for a coup is control of all facets of governance.
It is clear from several scholarly definitions that the dominant trait of a coup is that of usurpation of civilian rule by the military including taking over all facets of governance.
Going by that definition, it becomes difficult to describe what has happened in Zimbabwe as a coup.
In a televised address, Major-General Sibusiso Busi Moyo, the Zimbabwe Defence Forces Chief of Staff (Quartermaster), made it clear that the military’s major concern was to rid President Mugabe’s Government of criminals who have led Zimbabwe to social, political and economic ruin.
Major-Gen Moyo emphasised that the military was “only targeting criminals around (the President) who are committing crimes that are causing social and economic suffering in the country in order to bring them to justice”.
He said: “As soon as we have accomplished our mission, we expect that the situation will return to normalcy.”
Indeed, to confirm and reinforce the idea that the army had not usurped power, President Mugabe continued to discharge his duties including officiating at the Zimbabwe Open University graduation ceremony in Harare on Friday.
The basic characteristics of coups involve outbreak of chaos, violence or bloodshed with complete alteration of normal way of life including business.
Since the announcement by the army that it was taking some corrective measures in the governing party, ordinary people and businesses have continued to go about with their normal lives without any impediments.
The peace and tranquillity prevailing in the country completely disqualifies any intervention by Sadc or the African Union.
It must be noted developments in Zimbabwe are mainly to do with Zanu-PF as a governing party the whole state fabric.
As stockholders uniquely bequeathed of that role by their direct participation in the liberation struggle, the military felt it paramount to intervene in order to halt what they said was an attempt by some within the revolutionary party to whitewash that noble historical legacy.
Unlike in other countries where Sadc has had a direct intervention, Zimbabwe remains peaceful without any incidents of bloodshed.
Short of the military intervention, the Zimbabwean situation has developed into a fully-fledged popular discontent over President Mugabe’s rule.
Due to the developments that have outplayed in Zimbabwe, the planned Sadc Extraordinary Summit becomes irrelevant as Zimbabweans from all walks of life have come out to redefine their destiny by calling President Mugabe to go.
At its formation in 1980 in Lusaka, Zambia, the then Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference’s primary aim was to advance the cause of liberation of southern Africa and reducing its dependence on the then-apartheid South Africa.
The transformation of Sadcc into Sadc in 1992, via the Sadc Treaty and Declaration in Windhoek, Namibia, was followed by the landmark amendment of the Sadc Treaty in March 2001.
The amendment established institutional mechanisms that were key in the delivery of the organisation’s mandate.
Among these mechanisms were the Sadc Organ on Politics, Defence and Security Cooperation and the related Troika.
As provided for under Article 2 of the Sadc Protocol on Politics, Defence and Security Co-operation signed in Blantyre, Malawi in August 2001, seeks to “promote peace and security in the region”, and one of its specific objectives is to “prevent, contain and resolve inter and intra-state conflict by peaceful means”.
The Organ presents a framework upon which member states coordinate peace, defence and security issues, and comprises two committees that make key decisions- the Inter-State Defence and Security Committee and the Inter-State-Politics and Diplomacy Committee.
While the swift intervention of President Zuma in sending envoys to Zimbabwe to mediate is commendable given the fact that the regional body strives to resolve emerging conflicts peacefully within and between member-states, their involvement has now been rendered redundant.
The situation that prevailed in the DRC, Lesotho and Madagascar when Sadc intervened was different from the situation prevailing in Zimbabwe.
Also different is the fact that the situation in Zimbabwe is the consensus among the populace that corrective measures needed to be undertaken to halt the direction the country was taking politically, socially and economically.
What has happened in Zimbabwe resonates with the 1917 Russian Revolution which had massive civilian support and general public participation accompanied by military backing. What has happened in Zimbabwe can be described or framed as “guided transition” where the military temporarily takes control of a country during a time of danger.
As one Zimbabwean remarked, developments in Zimbabwe are “a bloodless correction” that would restore normalcy in the country.
Given the direction the governing party was taking in terms of the purges that were targeting anyone with liberation war credentials without due process of the party’s constitutional dictates, the army which is a major stockholder in the revolutionary party felt compelled to intervene.
It is for this reason that people like Dumiso Dabengwa have poured cold water on Sadc’s intervention in Zimbabwe.
It is hoped that the events that took place yesterday in which tens of thousands marched in Harare in solidarity with the military will send an audible message to Sadc that Zimbabwe is simply redefining its own destiny.
