SSR FOR ZIMBABWE

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Theko Dlomo on September 17, 2008 at 5:55am

Dlomo!

I see you focus on the SSR in the Zim matter. However, you seem not to take into consideration the parlous uncertaininty the exiles have towards their country. Of primary importance is their security and safety against possible prejudices that may have to deal with on their return. Unfortunately, the country has to first manage its current economic situation, and sociopolitical activity will come to play thereafter; which ever way they deem fit or vice versa.
Just to quote you, " the agreement acknowledges the need to change the role of state organs and demands that they have act impartially and that they must be taught to distinguish between state and party and that all formations should be made to respect the rule of law, accept the supremacy of the Constitution of Zimbabwe and be non-partisan in their orientation and practice". Indeed the agreement is inherently a good political pronouncement and act brought into law. However, another view will undoubtedly be a call for the need for monitoring mechanisms. Will the government of the day adhere to the agreement? These are skceptisisms by the ordinary citizens and the West at large.

President Mugabe still has control in the security formations and all related structures thus assuming partisanship and loyalty. I think we should not turn a blind eye to that effect, to the extent that we convence ourselves that this is a historical landmark in the politics of the region, that peace has been consolidated in Zimbabwe. Other observers would agree that the transition in that country is just politics of "security containment" which to some extent make one to sense that the agreement is fraught with loopholes. I emphasise on observers because in most cases they are lay persons, so am I! On that note please forward me the agreement, I have not set my eyes on it, for us to take this discussion further.

Am I on the right perspective?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Dennis Thokozani DLOMO on September 17, 2008 at 8:11am

Theko,

I am of the view that economic transformation amidst instability and insecurity, amidst violence and uncertainty about the future as a result of the role played by the security services is impossible. The key area in the experience of South Africa that had to be addressed effectively and as a priority was political stability and addressing the challenges that arose as a result of violence. When people are dying, who would want to risk their lives to till the land, sweep the floors, make tea, undertake jobs that important in getting the economy going? The right to life is for me the most important and derives from the security services who have to guarantee that when you wake up to go to work you can get there without being attacked or intimidated. Security is a prerequisite for peace, development, democracy and a prosperous nation. Hence my focus on SSR. I believe that it is only with non-partisan security services, professional, effective and efficient security services that conditions conducive to development, healthy exchange of views and rigorous debate, effective health, education, cultural and other delivery is possible. The issue of safe return of refugees is a subset of stability. When they were complaining about stability in South Africa, those affected foreigners did not want to live to even more unstable environments. Security sector reform therefore assures them that something is being done to change the orientation of the security services, that these services would be able to exercise the responsibility of the state to protect its people. This is what security sector reform is about. It seeks to ensure that intelligence and other security services do their work without fear, favour and prejudice as is expected of the prosecution and the judicial arms of the state. It is just a basic tenet of good governance necessitated by the politicisation of these structures and putting them to the service of sectarian politicians as instruments of regime security. Ultimately, such abuse of these state structures has, in the recent past, seen coups in some parts of Africa despite the position of the African Union not to regocnise any government that has come into power illegitimately and through unconstitutional means. So, parts of the argument you make, make sense and are sound but the core of what I wanted to highlight with regards to SSR in Zimbabwe is that the time has come to address the posture of those senior official who argued that " they would not salute anyone who was not part of the liberation struggle" by teaching them what professionalism in state structures is about and that from this point onwards, professionalism, service delivery on a non-partisan, non-racial, non-sectarian basis has to be their focus and priority or else we may not yet be out of the woods. However, I am optimistically cautious with the hope that they can and shall rise to the challenge. This is their historic mission if they do want to see a prosperous, peaceful, non-racial and soveraign Zimbabwe that can once again hold its head high amongst the community of nations.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Daniel ozoukou on September 20, 2008 at 3:38pm

Dennis:
I don't know if you received my comments about your raisen question about Ivory coast and ZIMBAWE.
please tell me!

kind regards
RSVP ozoukoud@yahoo.fr

Daniel ozoukou
political analyst

▶ Reply to This