The morning after

Zimbabweans woke up to frustrating news on 19 September that the country's main political parties - ZANU-PF and the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) - were deadlocked over the allocation of four key cabinet posts in a new power-sharing government.

Under intense diplomatic pressure, President Robert Mugabe signed the political agreement on 11 September with the two factions of the MDC, led by Morgan Tsvangirai and Arthur Mutambara, to end an eight-year political and economic crisis.

The new agreement, negotiated by South African President Thabo Mbeki, caps cabinet at 31 ministries, with 15 earmarked for ZANU-PF, 13 for Tsvangirai, and the balance held by Mutambara's smaller breakaway MDC faction. Under the deal, Mugabe retains his position as head of state, while a new post of prime minister is created for Tsvangirai.

Mugabe met with Tsvangirai and Mutambara on Thursday to try to agree the split of portfolios, but the talks ended abruptly after the parties failed to agree on which party would control the powerful ministries of home affairs, information, finance, foreign affairs and local government.

Zimbabweans have reacted angrily. "We do not care who controls what ministry, what we want is for the ministries to work effectively and provide a change that Zimbabweans desire; the faces and the parties behind the ministries are irrelevant," fumed George Bongani Ncube, who works for a local tyre manufacturer.

The euphoria that we are witnessing is based on people not having a clear interpretation of the power-sharing deal. Many people believe that Tsvangirai is the head of government, when he is not

Political analysts point out that control of key ministries would determine who wielded power in the new government. "If [the MDC] control information, foreign affairs, finance, local government and home affairs, then they are in charge of government," said constitutional lawyer and political activist Lovemore Madhuku.

He added that it would send an important signal to MDC supporters that they had not lost out by agreeing to an interim government, even though they won a majority in parliamentary elections in March, and Tsvangirai was victorious in the first-round presidential poll before withdrawing from the second round, citing the level of political violence against his supporters.

Control of the four ministries would also give that party a significant advantage in elections scheduled for 2012. "Whichever party controls the home affairs ministry will control the police [and] the Registrar-General's office, which is responsible for voter registration," said political analyst Eldred Masunukure.

"That party will cleanse the voter's roll to its advantage, and the same applies for the party which controls the ministry of finance - it will control the general running of the country."

Balance of power

But the collapse of the talks has generated concern that the power-signing deal may have been premature, and was to the MDC's disadvantage. "The starting point is that Mugabe will remain head of state and government - if the power-sharing deal is to be interpreted correctly - while Tsvangirai is not the head of government but a mere supervisor of ministers," said Madhuku.

He added that the planned amendment to create a prime minister would not affect section 27 of the Constitution, which stipulates that the president be head of state, of government, and commander-in-chief of the defence forces.

"The only amendments that will be affected are in section 31, which deals with the executive functions of the president. In other words, Mugabe still remains a creation of the constitution, while the post of prime minister is the creation of an agreement," Madhuku noted.

He said the excitement generated by the signing of the deal was because people had not fully understood the implications of the pact. "The euphoria that we are witnessing is based on people not having a clear interpretation of the power-sharing deal. Many people believe that Tsvangirai is the head of government, when he is not."

He said there was a possibility that the deal could be rejected by his supporters when they realised that he did not have real power. "Based on such a weak foundation, I doubt that it [power-sharing] will take off smoothly unless one party is absorbed by the other."

Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights issued a statement saying the authority to govern should come from the people. "The power-sharing arrangement in itself is a negation of the fundamental requirement that assumption to ... national political leadership must be anchored in credible electoral processes."

ld/ff/oa/he