Why South Africa won't try tough love approach with Zimbabwe's Mugabe

South Africa is hoping to avoid further isolating Zimbabwe and repeating the refugee crisis that followed the country's 2008 election.

Elias Asmare/AP
South Africa's President Jacob Zuma, center-right, and Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe, center-left, share a joke at the African Union summit in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Sunday, May 26, 2013. Critics accuse Mr. Zuma of capitulating to Mr. Mugabe on issues surrounding Zimbabwe's upcoming presidential election.

•A version of this post first appeared on the blog Africa in Transition. The views expressed are the author's own. 

It is no secret that Zimbabwe’s two days of early voting for the country's security forces on July 14-15 did not go well. Lindiwe Zulu, former ambassador to Brazil and current international relations adviser to South Africa president Jacob Zuma, had the temerity to say so.

She commented publicly that the polling in the general election, slated for July 31, would be challenging. In response, Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe, who previously called Ms. Zulu “an idiotic street woman,” demanded that President Zuma “stop this woman of [his] from speaking on Zimbabwe.” Whereupon President Zuma, through his spokesman, promptly disavowed Zulu, as did South Africa's governing African National Congress. 

Knuckling under to Mugabe recalls the Zuma government’s failure to issue a visa to the Dalai Lama for fear of offending the Chinese in 2011. How do we account for it?

Writing in the South African Daily Maverick, Greg Nicolson provides one credible explanation. Zuma has consistently followed a “soft diplomacy” approach to Mugabe, appeasing him in public while (presumably) talking sternly in private. The thrust of Mr. Nicolson’s piece is that South Africa and the Southern African Development Community (SADC) have failed to reform Zimbabwe politics in the aftermath of the 2008 post-elections bloodbath. Looking toward the upcoming 2013 Zimbabwean elections, if South Africa and SADC want to stay involved, they know they will need to work with Mugabe. So, he writes, “Lindiwe Zulu was sacrificed on the altar of diplomacy.”

South Africa's official political opposition, the Democratic Alliance (DA), sent election observers to Zimbabwe for the special polling earlier this month. Unsurprisingly, the observers reported serious irregularities in the polling, including the police and the army campaigning for Mugabe’s ruling ZANU PF party.

In response, the DA argues that Zuma should abandon his diplomatic soft approach: “It is clear that the South African government’s quiet diplomacy has done nothing to curtail poor pre-election preparations and continued aggression towards voters, especially in rural constituencies. It is now time for President Zuma to consider a hard line approach," they wrote. 

What happens in Zimbabwe, of course, has consequences for neighboring South Africa. Not least because, if there is widespread violence following the upcoming elections, there could be a new refugee flow from Zimbabwe to South Africa. That's what happened after the last election, in 2008, helping to trigger a wave of xenophobic attacks across South Africa. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.