ABOUT INDONSAKUSA

CONTENTS

AUTHOR INSTRUCTIONS

The Matabeleland Question: Is Federalism the answer?

Mpho A Ncube: 04/05/03

The current impasse in the political situation has brought about a number of suggestions as to what ought to be the way foward for Zimbabwe .  The last few weeks saw fresh attempts by African heads of state to bring Zanu Pf and the Movement of Democratic Change (MDC) back to the negotiating table.  Meanwhile, civic groups like the National Constitutional Assembly (NCA) continue to bring great pressure to bear on constitutional change.  Outside the country, Zimbabweans are exploiting the freedom of action in their host countries and organising into formal action groups.  The internet has proved an invaluable tool for linking disparate Zimbabwean communities together.  A visit to the discussion forums on Ndebele or Shona websites will make it clear how enthusiastically Zimbabweans have taken to the spirit of debate.  It also becomes clear how divergent people's views are on a range of issues, suggesting that Zimbabweans do not share a united "nation building" view.  All these efforts, in their different ways, seek to achieve the same goal - that of an "African solution" to Zimbabwe's socio-political crisis.

 It has become clear to me that one of the main tasks for any post-Mugabe government will be to give conscise meaning to the process of "change."   If recent stories about Robert Mugabe's succession plans are anything to go by, then no change can be expected from Zanu Pf, it will be business as usual.  As for the MDC, it has always been the assumption of the party that its members attach the same meaning to the slogan "Guqula Izenzo. Chinja Maitiro."  Evidence on the various websites suggests otherwise. Change for the two main groups (Ndebele and Shona) in Zimbabwe means different things, especially when it comes to the question of which new constitutional order to adopt, post-Zanu Pf.

 That this assumption still prevails in the MDC would suggest that the party, just like Zanu Pf, is out of touch with people's feelings.  How then should the MDC give meaning to its slogan? It should be unambigous on the questions of constitutional change and human rights abuses by Zanu Pf - issues, perhaps more than any other, which highlight the sharp differences between Ndebele and Shona people. Often, when Ndebele people speak of human rights abuses, they begin with Gukurahundi whereas the Shona will largely refer to the post 2000 abuses only. Talk of amnesties by the MDC leadership has further widened the gulf in opinion. 

 Has the party sown the seeds of discontent within its rank and file, even before it assumes power?  Possibly, but now, while still in opposition, would be a good time for it to give coherent policy guidance to its members so that they are all singing from the same hymn sheet.  This however, is not a paper about the MDC or Zanu Pf, but a review of the federalist concept, which some Ndebele people are calling for. 

This article, contrary to what detractors will say, is not intended to "fan the flames of tribalism" but rather to critique the concept of federalism.  Proponents of federalism fiercely argue that the present unitary state has failed and it is therefore time for a different system of government. 

A spokesman for Paul Siwela's ZAPU, was quoted in African Times(21/4/03) as saying "the whole idea is to federate the country into MaShonaland and Matabeleland. We want to have our own government separate to that of ZANU-PF. We want to manage our own resources in a way that will boost the ordinary people of Matabeleland who since independence have suffered under the hands of Robert Mugabe."

A contributor at  www.inkundla.net  says " It is not about changing the guard and putting in place some checks to prevent dictatorship, but rather, it is about changing the basic form of government." The word federalism is being branded about on discussion forums but what does it really mean, is there one type or many different types of the system? 

The Longman dictionary of contemporary English describes federal as "a system of government which consists of a group of states which have their own government to decide their own affairs and are controlled by a single national government which makes decisions on foreign affairs, defence, etc." Applied in a Zimbabwean or indeed African context, I will substitute the word state for nation because it is important to draw distinction between the two. 

Philip Bobbitt, writing in The Shields of Achilles, describes a State as a political community that bears international status or international legal sovereignty. A Nation, on the other hand, is a self-conscious ethnic community, which Bobbitt says does not make a State, though it can destroy it. From these definitions, Zimbabwe is a Nation-State which, it must be pointed out, has failed (except for a select few) to provide for the material well-being of its citizens.  Lack of legitimacy for the Zanu Pf government lies in this breach of the nation-state's raison d'etre. Even if, as Robert Mugabe insists, the MDC were to drop their court case and accept his presidency, that still would not legitimise the Zanu Pf government. 

It becomes clear also, that the Ndebele are today not a State but a Nation, even though this was not always the case.  In the 18th century, Mzilikazi, through war, created and was able to sustain the Ndebele State-Nation.  Right up until King Lobengula's demise, existence of the Ndebele State-Nation depended on military prowess which was made possible by a constantly motivated force (warriors).  To motivate the warriors, the monarchy developed a sort of reward (financial) system in the form of cattle, land and women.  All the State asked of its citizens was that they be prepared, if the need arose, to sacrifice their lives in war. 

The demise of the Ndebele State-Nation was only possible when its military strategies, particularly the weapons system, could not match those of the white settlers.  The development of gunpowder not only spelt the end of the Ndebele State-Nation as it was but also made sure that it never made the transition to Nation-State, unlike most state-nations of the time. 

 Going back to the concept of federalism.  Is there one type of federal system, have the proponents of federalism considered the type they want, is Zimbabwe ready for such a system? I will answer the last question first.  Zimbabwe is a country comprised of the Ndebele nation and a horizontal, amorphous Shona system of chiefs and spirit mediums who have, at one point or another in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries, been at war with each other. 

The two co-exist alongside each other in an unequal arrangement that has seen the subjugation of the Ndebele threaten their very survival.  It is precisely this subjugation which, apart from fuelling some federalist feelings amongst the Ndebele, also deepens the mistrust between the two peoples.  It is also because of this mistrust between the Ndebele and Shona that a federal system of government cannot work in Zimbabwe. The Ndebele do not trust the Shona to ensure the survival and growth of their nation while the Shona suspect that the Ndebele want to use the pretext of federalism to restore their state. It is unlikely that the Shona, as the political majority, will see the need for a new system of government, not least federalism.  Judging by comments posted on internet forums, they see federation as being synonymous with loss of power or sovereignty to a "settler" nation. 

Those who call for a federal system of government in Zimbabwe do so, as far as I am aware, without serious study of the concept.  Would a federal system guarantee an equitable distribution of resources? A look at Nigeria, which introduced a federal system in 1914, will show that it has failed to guarantee peace and stability.  Proponents of federalism in Zimbabwe would be wise to study the situation in Nigeria if similar problems are to be avoided.  It is not all doom and gloom though, countries like Germany and America also have federal systems which seem to be working fine. 
A closer look at these two countries will reveal that their systems are different. 

The German type of federation is co-operative, allows for overlap between unitary and devolved and based on a strong regulatory framework.  Central government prescribes policy for federal states to apply resulting in uniform policy. The American model is competitive, has clear seperation of powers and allows for exclusive policy domains for each level (defence, economic etc).  Unlike in Germany, there is no uniformity of policy across states. 

Zimbabwe already has a system of Governors which could be the basis of a federal system.  There are provincial administrations which are run by State appointed governors.  This provincial set-up is a relic of British colonial rule based hugely on tribal communities. Regionalism, for that is what it is, has not proved much of a success in Zimbabwe because of government reluctance to delegate substantial political and legal power to the supposedly semi-autonomous regions.  Instead of promoting the growth of indegenous institutions that benefit the regions, too much state interference has rendered these regional administrations ineffective. 

 If regionalism, which is devolution on a smaller scale, cannot be trusted by the government what chance has federalism, which would require more substantial transfers of authority to state governments? 

 Greater onus lies with proponents of federalism to demonstrate not only its feasibility but also a people's mandate.  It is unlikely that a Zanu Pf or MDC government will be receptive to the idea of federation as a system of government. Already, the National Constitutional Assembly (NCA), a body whose views or findings have no legal or constitutional validity, has been on record dismissing the idea of federalism saying the people of Matabeleland do not support it. As things stand,  the NCA draft does not include a federalist system. As far as it is concerned, the concept is dead and buried.  How then do proponents of federalism hope to get it onto the agenda?  I await their response.

There is no doubt that the unitary state has failed the country for the last 23 years.  Given that one of the main tenets of federalism is mutual trust, which clearly does not exist between the Ndebele and Shona, how then would it be made to work in practice?