On Monday, 26 January, SADC leaders will meet in Pretoria to yet again attempt to nudge the Zimbabwean political leaders to resolve what seems to be an intractable political crisis whose root cause and solution remains elusive. It is not incorrect to state that one of the principal objectives of the MDC was to effect a change of leadership in Zimbabwe at the national level.

The struggle for change has been a long one but what seems to be a constant is the quest to change the face of the government of Zimbabwe (GOZ). Zimbabwe has not known of any other leader than President Mugabe and it must be accepted that at nearly 85 years old one would expect him to be tired and exhausted but his energy and determination to remain relevant defies all logic.

Only last week, the world came to a standstill on 20 January as President Obama was inaugurated and what was significant was that millions of people witnessed this defining moment in not only American but world history. Through Obama, Americans reclaimed their future and were able to get the change they can believe in. Even Republicans have come to accept that nothing short of having a new face in the Whitehouse could be satisfactory.

For any change to be sustainable, it is important that not only the actors should believe in it but it must address the fundamental issues that compel citizens to fight for it. America is in need of renewal and, therefore, if McCain had been elected President, I do not believe that the majority of Americans would have been satisfied that the outcome represented what they wanted to see.

Zimbabwe is in need of renewal too but what is remarkable is that the AU/SADC leaders have accepted that President Mugabe can deliver the change that they believe Zimbabweans can believe in merely because the outcome of an election whose real credibility may never been known. Beyond the constitutional amendment number 19, it is not clear how a government led by the very actors under whose watch the economy has collapsed can be trusted to deliver on the promise of a better and prosperous Zimbabwe.

The majority of Zimbabweans continue to vote with their feet and, if anything, an increasing number of Zimbabwe’s diminishing human capital is effectively in the departure lounge waiting for a turn to leave the country at a time when the country can no longer afford the brain drain. What the post-March 2008 elections period has demonstrated is that Zimbabwe’s future is not in the hands of the people to whom sovereignty is constitutionally vested.

An argument has been and continues to be made that any quest for change can only be motivated from without because the country’s leaders who have enjoyed unfettered access to state power do not believe that citizens are capable let alone can be trusted to make rational choices on the kind of leadership they should have.

The country needs to turn a new leaf but the incumbents are not satisfied that this can be in the national interest especially if the face of change enjoys the support of the West. The Bush era made it easier for the world’s autocrats to justify why they should remain in power and to a large extent the reaction of African head of states to the Zimbabwean question is principally informed by their distrust of Bush’s ideological thrust on foreign policy.

I have often questioned what I would have done if I were in Tsvangirai’s shoes. Would it be in the national interest for him to join the inclusive government when arguments continue to be made even before he joins that the current administration has no legitimacy problems and therefore can do as it pleases. A position has been advanced that all the significant appointments made by President Mugabe are irreversible notwithstanding the fact that when the appointments were made President Mugabe was fixed with the knowledge that without an inclusive approach to governance his administration no longer enjoyed the support of the majority of the citizens.

President Mugabe has approached the GPA negotiations on the basis that he is the legitimate leader of the country and, therefore, does not need Tsvangirai. How valid is this assertion? It would appear that it is unreasonable to argue that Tsvangirai did not earn his stripes by winning the first round of the Presidential elections to give his demands some legitimacy.

It is not uncharacteristic for Africans to label someone they do not agree with as an agent of external powers or forces. One naturally expects that ZANU-PF members would try to demonise Tsvangirai as a puppet of the West and in so doing attempt to diminish his role.

If I were Tsvangirai, I would also be apprehensive about joining an administration whose operative assumption is that I am irrelevant and they can do whatever they please and I have no jurisdiction to question decisions and seek to set them aside that were made after the people had spoken in their majority that change was what they want to see.

Change that leaves President Mugabe with the same powers that he held on 28 March 2008 cannot be considered credible change and yet that is what SADC appears to have endorsed. With the passage of time since the signing of the GPA, it is obvious that President Mugabe has no intention of letting go the powers that he thinks ought to be vested in him as the last protector of the Republic against neo-colonialism.

It would be naïve to argue that Zimbabwe can lift itself out of its quagmire without the support of the West. SADC would add no value economically to Zimbabwe’s future in terms of capital injection and there appears to be no plan in place to move the agenda of the country in the minds of SADC leaders beyond the installation of the inclusive government.

It has been argued that all the outstanding issues will and must be resolved by the inclusive government. This may very well be the case but trust among the actors ought to be the starting point. One encouraging sign is that Tsvangirai and Mugabe did meet this week without any external party.

Tsvangirai has demonstrated that he also has his own ideas about what kind of Zimbabwe he wants to see. By refusing to jump into the lion’s den he has shown that he can maintain his own ground. It is Mugabe who has been paralysed and it is evident who calls the shots now in Zimbabwe. If Tsvangirai does not like something, he is the only SADC national who can cause summits to be held in order to address his concerns.

The GPA is the only deal that is on the table and one shudders to think of the alternatives other having new elections with ZANU-PF in exclusive control of the state machinery. It would be suicidal for MDC to allow Mugabe to control the state in this defining transitional period. MDC must and should be part of the state that delivers the kind of change people can believe in. Already it is now self evident that ZANU-PF will only deliver change that the leader believes in and leaves him in control at whatever cost.

It has generally been accepted that President Mugabe must step aside for Zimbabweans to reclaim their future. The brain drain is so serious and debilitating even for Tsvangirai to willy-nilly enter into a deal that will not restore confidence. Tsvangirai is within his rights to be cautious because it is his future political career that risks being sacrificed for political expediency.

The notion that Tsvangirai is being handled by the West must and should be rejected with the contempt it deserves. Tsvangirai was one of four Zimbabwean candidates and the people who voted for him must have believed that he represented the future they want to create for themselves and their successors. It is not the place of ZANU-PF to define who Tsvangirai is when the people who are important i.e. voters have already spoken. What is required now is for the person who has less to offer for the future to compromise and allow the country to move forward.