President Cyril Ramaphosa’s attendance at Zimbabwean President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s inauguration on Monday has raised questions.
Political parties want Ramaphosa to answer “ubuyokwenzani eZimbabwe (what were you doing in Zimbabwe)” and if his attendance could be seen as giving “false legitimacy to Zanu-PF”, particularly after the highly disputed election last month.
The questions come after polls, marred by pre-election violence and intimidation, were criticised by observer missions from the Southern African Development Community (Sadc), AU, EU and the Commonwealth.
Political analysts say opposition parties have a right to take Ramaphosa to task for attending the event and congratulating his counterpart.
However, international relations expert Siphamandla Zondi says South Africa should tread carefully on the matter and respect Zimbabwe’s internal affairs.
“Zimbabwe has long been a domestic issue for South Africa since the days of former presidents Thabo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma and so it’s not surprising that Ramaphosa is in hot water for attending the inauguration in Zimbabwe,” said Zondi.
“I think what is being debated here is really the domestic contestations about how you should treat this situation of Zimbabwe. There are divided views about how you should handle Zimbabwe and those who have difficulty with the president attending the inauguration at the invitation of the government of Zimbabwe, are of the view that South Africa needs to ostracise, isolate or sanction Zimbabwe somehow.”
Zondi said there are some who want Ramaphosa “to almost interfere” with Zimbabwe and “unfortunately it’s a position that cannot be carried through because it has huge implications for South Africa, the region and our international standing in the world”.
When he appeared in the National Assembly on Tuesday, both the IFP and DA wanted Ramaphosa to tell the country why he attended the inauguration. Ramaphosa was also criticised for South Africa being one of the few countries to congratulate Zimbabwe after the country went to the polls, despite some claiming that the elections were not free and fair.
IFP’s Mkhuleko Hlengwa asked Ramaphosa: “Ubuyokwenzani eZimbabwe?”, while the DA’s John Steenhuisen accused Ramaphosa’s Brics “club” of not caring about South Africa.
However, Ramaphosa defended his decision saying he was invited, and he was not the only head of state in attendance.
“The presidents of South Africa, Mozambique, Democratic Republic of Congo, two prime ministers who are head of governments in the region and many other countries were also represented.”
On Monday the DA launched a scathing attack against Ramaphosa, saying his attendance “demonstrates the extent to which the ANC is removed from the plight of the Zimbabwean people under Zanu-PF’s long-standing autocratic dictatorship”.
Steenhuisen said by showing support for the Zanu-PF, “Ramaphosa is endorsing a stolen government and a stolen democracy that has caused hyperinflation, the collapse of the Zimbabwean economy, the suffering of tens of millions of fellow Africans, and the mass migration of much of Zimbabwe’s population, causing immense instability in the Southern African region”.
He said Zimbabwe is an “utterly broken” country whose 16-million citizens are held in “hunger and despair and denied dignity, healthcare and education, so that a small, highly extractive Zanu-PF elite can live a life of obscene luxury in a closed cycle of parasitic dependence.”
“The DA views Nelson Chamisa and his Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC) as the truly elected leader and party of Zimbabwe.”
Prof William Gumede said opposition parties’ attack on Ramaphosa was warranted because what happens in Zimbabwe has a direct impact on SA’s economy, security, crime and resources.
“The right response from the president would have been to say rerun the election or get a government of unity with a 50/50 split with the opposition. That would have been fair for stability.
“What we are doing now is endorsing Zanu-PF’s manipulation of the votes and there will be real consequences for us because with Zanu-PF in power again, the country is going to plunge into a failed state and it is already in the dumps.”
Gumede further said: “We are going to see the informalisation of the economy and we are going to see a wave of people leaving with their skills to South Africa, Namibia, Botswana and other western countries. I think there is going to be a wave of free-for-all and we are going to feel it directly in South Africa.”
Political analyst Prof Susan Booysen said it’s known that there is a deep bond of solidarity between former liberation movements in Southern Africa and they normally do not go against one another. They have been very consistent over decades and regularly meet to share strategies.
“I think Ramaphosa finds it extremely difficult to balance these two worlds, especially at a time when things are not going well for the ANC. I wonder now that things are not going well electorally for the ANC, whether there is not going to be an increasing delegitimisation in these democratic institutions.
“So much is obvious in the Zimbabwean elections but it was for Zanu-PF and president Mnangagwa, the perfect election, and before the elections the system was perfectly designed to destabilise, ensure an element of intimidation, confusion over refusing to give out the voters’ roll, ballots as well as hogging the media. By Zanu-PF standards, that was the perfect election.”
Booysen said Ramaphosa has been “far too shy to critique those elements of which there is consensus that they went wrong in that election, and I think Ramaphosa should be very careful that it is not taken as bad news for South Africans who believe in free and fair elections.”
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.