By Francis Mwaijande, Ph.D

Africa has witnessed another power-sharing agreement in Zimbabwe. Political power sharing is defined as the process of involving ad hoc concessions intended to give opposition groups a stake in transitions to democracy. The political power sharing phenomena involves political elite negotiated cooperation to form coalition cabinet, whereby executive power is shared by opposition and majority parties (Lemarchand, 2006). This paper examines the power-sharing agreement signed on September 15^th, 2008 between the government ruling party (ZANU-PF) and the opposition (MDC) in Zimbabwe. It argues that power-sharing phenomenon is replacing the power of ballot box in the African politics that does not reflect the will of the voters, instead power-sharing is driven by opportunism and reflects the evolving political culture in the African politics.

The controversial elections in Zimbabwe, March 2008 has provided precedents of emerging new political culture of democracy. We have witnessed political crisis emerging from dominant government political parties and the opposition, whereby the opposition party claimed victory and the dominant party not conceding to power shift. Political solutions to the crisis led to extended mediations for power sharing between political rival that led to an agreement of power-sharing.

There are probably many questions than immediate answers we can provide for understanding the evolving culture of power-sharing in the African politics.

1. How power sharing represent the will of voters in Zimbabwe?
2. How power sharing and government of national unity affect democracy in Africa?
3. What are the political risks for African political leadership embracing power-sharing?

In the political agreement signed between the government ruling party and the opposition, President Robert Mugabe relinquished some political power to his rival Morgan Tsvangirai of MDC and Arthur Mutambara, the leader of a splitter party from MDC. Although there are cases of successful power-sharing models such as the Burundi negotiated power sharing government, power sharing can be translated as the failed democratic change whereby the will of the people is not represented.

In a short term, the power sharing agreement  in Zimbabwe can be seen as a positive approach for restoring political stability and economic growth in Zimbabwe as the new Zimbabwe Prime Minister, Morgan Tsvangirai puts; “the deal as far as we are concerned is the best thing for the country, to be able to work to achieve the necessary transformation”. Indeed the country needed a political and economic rescue from the collapsing economy where inflation has reached at 11 million percent.

However, the question is to what extent the power-sharing represent the will of the people? How can the March 2008 election results be reflected in the power-sharing and government of national unity? Obviously voters’ will is not reflected at all on the power sharing and governments of national unity.

Although there are immediate merits from the power-sharing agreements between rival political parties, the evolving political culture; (the belief, values, and practices. Thomson, 2007) poses high political risks to democracy consolidation in Africa. Once the opposition party takes stake in the government of national unity, it becomes uncritical to any bad governance in the government. In addition the will of the people is not felt in the elite negotiated government. The impact of power-sharing in running governments could have farfetched effect to democracy consolidation in Africa.

The international community and the African Union (AU) need to step up helping Zimbabweans in rebuilding their devastated economy and democracy. The international support must be accompanied with national policy and constitutional reforms favorable to flourishing democracy. This raises another difficult question; can Tsvangirai work with Mugabe to reverse land reforms policy? Can the governments of national unity do in the short term and long term for the people of Zimbabwe? Again there could be more questions than answers. However, I think power sharing and the government of national unity could be meaningful to the people if the government addresses the immediate needs such as building trust among people to their government, eliminating political hostility, enhancing rule of law, and addressing economic shortcomings including  food security and land reform policy.

In addition, addressing the food and hunger crisis the government of national unity ought to build confidence for large farm entrepreneurs and foreign investment as well as providing support to small farmers.

Conclusion

Behind the power-sharing agreement and the government of national unity, there is “hidden costs” (Denis, 2005) on democracy. The power-sharing and government of national unity do not represent the will of the people; instead it pleases the differences of the political rivals and creates opportunism. The power-sharing phenomena is endangering democracy. In order to consolidate democratic changes in Africa, African political leadership must strengthen democratic institutions such as National Election Commissions, and conduct free and fair elections. The power-sharing evolving culture should concede to the ballot box for the benefit of democracy in Africa.

Reference

Denis, T. (2005) The Hidden Costs of Power- sharing: Reproducing Insurgent

Violence in Africa. African Affairs, Vol.104 Issue 416 p375-398

Lemarchand, R. (2006). Consociationalism and Power sharing in Africa:

Rwanda, Burundi, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. African Affairs, Vol. 106, Issue 422

Thomas, A. (2007). An Introduction to African Politics. Rutledge, New York