Reading the privately owned newspapers, one gets the impression that newly elected President Emmerson Mnangagwa cannot revive the economy without the cooperation of Movement for Democratic Alliance leader Nelson Chamisa.
Indeed Chamisa put up a good fight, he is a key player in Zimbabwe politics, but in every contest there is a winner and a loser, and it is easier to work with graceful losers rather than with bitter ones.
Chamisa paralysed the country for three weeks when he refused to concede defeat. Even when the country’s highest court ruled against him, he rejected the court’s decision, so why should Mnangagwa work with someone who refuses to recognize his victory, someone who regards him as a “thief” that stole the election from him?
Mnangagwa told Britain’s Sky News, three days after his victory was announced and before Chamisa had challenged the result, that he did not need a government of national unity.
“In 1964 Harold Wilson of Britain beat the Conservatives by one seat and he formed the government and ruled England,” Mnangagwa said.
“I have a two-thirds majority and you are talking about me abandoning my two-thirds majority to form a government of national unity. Not that it’s a bad idea but it doesn’t show that there is any need.”
The question is, is there a need now?
The idea of a government of national unity is good, provided there is unity of purpose. There is no such unity of purpose between the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front and the MDC Alliance.
Right now Chamisa is raising money to file a petition with the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights to nullify the court ruling that said Mnangagwa was the legitimate President of Zimbabwe, so how can the two form a government of national unity?
Perhaps the right question is: Who is really pushing for this government of national unity? Is it Mnangagwa and ZANU-PF? Is it Chamisa and the MDC Alliance?
Continued next page