Zimbabwe’s military takeover fits the narrative of its patriarch - Financial Times

Zimbabwe’s military takeover fits the narrative of its patriarch

The generals claim to be saving Robert Mugabe from himself and his enemies

DAVID PILLING

When a man in green fatigues comes on state television and says, “We wish to make it clear that this is not a military takeover of government”, you can be pretty sure of one thing: a military coup is in full swing.

In Zimbabwe, in the early hours of Wednesday morning, that is precisely what happened. Yet this may not be a classic coup d’état. Africa is now a continent where old-fashioned military takeovers are increasingly seen as passé and countries like to present at least a veneer of constitutional democracy.

For a start, Mr Mugabe has not yet been deposed as president. Nor has General Constantino Chiwenga, the military commander who oversaw the takeover, declared himself head of state. Instead, he has sought to portray the military intervention as a means of saving Mr Mugabe from himself and from the young pretenders — in a clique called the G40 — who have been jockeying for position around him.

A statement read over Zimbabwean TV by the military spokesman announcing the “coup” made it clear that “his excellency the president of the republic” and head of the armed forces was “safe and sound” — along with his immediate family. The statement went on to say that the military intervention was targeting only “the criminals” around Mr Mugabe, who were said to be committing social and economic crimes.

The wording appeared to exonerate Mr Mugabe from responsibility for ruining the economy and for presiding over an increasingly factionalised ruling Zanu-PF party. Rather, it fits the narrative of an ageing patriarch, a great man brought low by the passage of time and by the vultures — including his wife, Grace, who is hated by the military — circling around him. Grace may only be safe from arrest by virtue of deference to Mr Mugabe who, after all, chose her as his spouse.

No one can possibly predict what will happen next. But one scenario is that Emmerson Mnangagwa, a liberation hero and, until very recently, the vice president in pole position to succeed Mr Mugabe, will take over in at least an interim role. Friends of Mr Mnangagwa, whose sacking last week set off a chain of events that led directly to this week’s military takeover, said he was preparing to fly to Zimbabwe within hours. That scenario is made more likely by disarray in the opposition, which has splintered into many parts and which, in any case, is often made up of defectors from Zanu-PF.

If Mr Mnangagwa does take over, he may then press ahead with a planned Zanu-PF congress, originally planned for next month, at which he could be formally confirmed as the successor to Mr Mugabe and Zanu-PF’s candidate for 2019 elections.

If that, or anything similar, plays out, then it might indeed not be accurate to regard this week’s takeover by the men in green fatigues as a standard coup. In a coup, power usually changes hands. The military’s real purpose in taking over may be to purge Zanu-PF of its rogue elements — and thus ensure its continuation in power.