INTRODUCTION

The question posed in the title of this article is somewhat provocative in that it implies that the author should suggest a definite answer. It may also be interpreted as implying that all is not how it should be in Mozambique: that there are problems, the development and resolution of which needs monitoring.

In all likelihood neither an affirmative nor a negative answer is available — whether affirmative or not. This article will analyse the historical record, as well as issues that construct and structure present reality in Mozambique. An understanding of the country’s past and present may help the reader to reflect usefully on the country’s future.

PAST AND PRESENT REALITIES

Mozambique is a country in transition, its social sectors and political administrative machinery having changing extensively during the last decade. Indeed, to address the causes, internal and external, of the conflict and to achieve peace after a lengthy war, it was necessary to adopt new attitudes towards legal, political, administrative and economic issues. Even culture had to be addressed, with its perceptions, treatment and role subject to readjustment in a changing environment.

Changes took place. The central planned economy and the monolithic climate surrounding ideas and ideology that were adopted after independence in 1975, were to give way to a commitment to the introduction of a market economy, and an acceptance of the principles of pluralism and democracy in government. Comprehensive reforms took place to change policies and establish new procedures to strengthen the process of state-building and the idea of citizenship under the rule of law. These were fundamental to citizens’ participation in the process of development that would follow the signing of the peace agreement.

Mozambique is currently struggling to achieve sustainable and inclusive development, in the face of domestic, regional and international constraints. The country’s history reveals much about its development. During the colonial period, the colonial power’s priority was not the development of the country, nor the construction of a balanced economy throughout all its regions. The economy was controlled from outside first and foremost to serve external interests. In fact, Mozambique’s economy was not even geographically integrated and there were no major roads or corridors linking the hinterland with the coastline from east to west, or functional national roads between its southern and northern borders. Southern Mozambique had strong connections with the development of the economy of South Africa and, as a result, was the most developed area.

Independence could not reverse this pattern of skewed development. After independence, the new élite failed to find a functional economic development model as a valid alternative to colonial capitalism. The armed conflict, which resumed less than a year after independence, did not make things easier for the new government.

At present, Mozambique is generally regarded as a success story in terms of economic recovery and political reconciliation. The question is whether the rate of development presented to the world is equal — distributed throughout the country — and inclusive — embracing groups of citizens who previously felt excluded. The National Human Development Report of 1999 indicates that Mozambique’s gross domestic product is highly differentiated in the various regions of the country. The high rate of absolute poverty, according to the Ministry of Planning and Finance (1999), suggests incongruities between the high rate of economic growth (more than 12% for 1997), and the quality of life of the majority of the country’s people. In fact, 69.4% of the population live in conditions of absolute poverty.

The article deals with peace and development — two important concepts in addressing the success of a country moving from an emergency situation connected to armed conflict, to one of reconciliation and economic growth.

Complementary questions to be asked about Mozambique’s success story are of a political and economic nature, and include the role of the international community:

To what extent has formal political pluralism meant an improvement in people’s participation in the politics of the country?



Has relative stability been translated into deliberate efforts to alter the socio-economic pattern of unequal development?



What role does the international community play in the process of reconstruction and reconciliation, two important elements in a post-conflict situation?

FROM WAR TO PEACE

The transition from war to peace is a reminder that international and domestic factors have contributed to make Mozambique a divided society for more than 30 years — from 1964 to 1975 it waged the liberation war, and from 1976 to 1992 it was embroiled in an armed conflict initiated from outside, but which eventually deteriorated into civil war.

The international order prevailing during the Cold War was a factor in this conflict. The war was aggravated in Southern Africa by the presence of two powerful neighbours under regimes based on other assumptions: Rhodesia and South Africa. Viewed from their perspective, the success of a country ruled by a majority just across the border would clearly have constituted a bad precedent, and South Africa therefore determined to destabilise independent Mozambique.

Choices made at the domestic level in terms of models for development and economic policies that excluded social groups from the process of governance on the basis of ideology, contributed to the creation of a domestic base for destabilisation. The denial of African culture in the name of modernisation made for a fragility of the structure of local social organisation in rural zones, alienating individuals and social groups from the process of nation-building. The traditional élite were not welcome to participate in constructing the new state and felt compelled to join the side of protest against the government. The forces of destabilisation exploited the legitimacy of traditional élites to penetrate and settle in rural areas.

Because of this, it is important to follow the road to peace if one wishes to understand current events in Mozambique. Firstly, the country has acknowledged mistakes made in the past, bringing about reforms and new policies. Secondly, it has identified the quality of the foundation of the peace agreement, constituting as it does the first stone in the process of development that has marked a departure from the emergency agenda of the war.

Mozambicans constructed their own road to peace, an important element in its success. At a certain stage of the armed conflict towards the end of the 1980s, belligerent parties realised that they would gain more from peace than war. The armed conflict had turned into a civil war and pressure was exerted specifically by the religious community, resulting in the parties agreeing to meet and talk.

By this time the international order shaped by the Cold War was a thing of the past. Realities and policies that had kept social groups apart and sustained a state of war were already under review, constituting a solid foundation for sustainable peace talks. A change in the direction of economic policy had already begun in 1984, and a new constitution was under discussion to enable pluralism in social and political activities.

For Mozambique, peace had to be agreed upon under the umbrella of reconciliation, because the society was divided in terms of ideas and space for participation. Also to be considered was the creation of a new political basis to sustain the rule of law envisaged in a new disposition and delineated in a new constitution. Peace was to be negotiable under the principles of the local culture, considering the cultural specifics of the parties to the conflict as important components of the new disposition.

Reconciliation and the sustainability of peace were two overall principles under discussion before the agreement was finally signed. However, other special principles were also underlined.

One of these principles was to consider peace without exclusion and prejudice. Because it was necessary to build confidence, a general amnesty was granted and political acts legally dealt with, through the imposition of sentences, for example, were reviewed in the spirit of reconciliation. The principle also focused on the question of power relations, in the change to political pluralism, as is shown below.

The new disposition demanded an opening up of society for ideas, ideologies and other principles besides those previously accepted. Consequently, a space was created for those defending and living under principles regarded as valid in a variety of political and religious areas. This new latitude also constituted an act of reconciliation.

Acting according to the local culture in whatever was discussed and agreed upon became one of the principles underlying ownership of the process and, therefore, for the sustainability of the peace agreement to be signed. A peace agreement is never the ultimate guarantee for peace; what is important is to ensure avenues for sustainability to make it last. Peace has thus become a lasting and consolidating reality in Mozambique, because it was achieved under conditions agreed upon and settled by Mozambicans.

To address the causes that ignited and extended the conflict was also vital. Equally important, however, was an appreciation of the dynamics created in social life by the development of the armed conflict; only thus could new problems emerging in a climate of peace be understood and addressed.

An important aspect to highlight in the whole process is development.

A development strategy was seen as constituting a principle for reconciliation, to be designed and implemented in order to enlarge the ‘effective national territory’ in terms of infrastructure and services.

‘Effective national territory’ is a term relating to the fact that there may be a lack of congruence between the total (legal or de jure) territory of a sovereign state and the area which its government effectively controls (the de facto territory). This applied to Mozambique in terms of the uneven spread of development.

A development strategy is thus a prerequisite for sustainable peace to be designed, based on the principle of ‘provention’. Provention refers to the removal of sources of conflict, and the promotion of conditions in which collaborative and valued relationships control behaviour. To establish a relationship between parties previously engaged in conflict was one of the steps connected to development that contributed to Mozambique’s success in this exercise.

SUCCESSES AND CONSTRAINTS

Regarding the premises for success and constraints on the road to peace, changes were made in legal and administrative terms, though power relations remained a serious issue.

Considering the nature of the state, decentralisation was seen as an answer to the issue of participation by citizens at local level. It was an integral part of a policy focused on enlarging the ‘effective national territory’, thus bringing citizens closer to state institutions and to other communities. Moreover, it was also a way to consider powersharing without necessarily having to form a government of national unity.

Decentralisation thus constituted a political administrative policy to encourage and enhance participation at community level, and provide a ‘natural’ space for political parties to participate in political life, in the event that they could not do so at national level. More inclusiveness was supposed to be an outcome, in the end building citizenship from below while lending wider legitimacy to the state. Decentralisation did not pledge cost-sharing in development, only to increase the costs of services for citizens thereafter, but decentralisation had as its aim the enhancement of the concept of citizenship.

Besides strengthening civil society and the plural political setting of the country, another purpose of decentralisation was to strengthen the state. In fact, a strong, functional state was necessary to programme, implement and sustain the reforms and the new political administrative setting. A state was envisaged that would function under the rule of law, with the executive, legislative and judiciary powers functioning accordingly at the side of responsive and responsible participant citizens.

A strong state was to be constructed after peace was made, in which development was to be inclusive and as all-embracing as possible. It was to include the majority of individuals and geographic regions as part of the policy of decentralisation, and was to be sustainable in accordance with the principles of ownership it proposed.

Ownership in this context meant sharing decisions and responsibility, and defining priorities locally. It also meant avoiding general impositions made valid for all under the principle of universal values which are generally demanded by the international community and, at times, embraced by the ruling élite without considering local particularities.

The principle of participation is very important in the case of Mozambique as it constitutes a basis for inclusion. Community participation is equally important as the model according to which social groups are organised. Participation is to be understood as a foundation of ownership and sustainability in guaranteeing peace and constructing development. In fact, decisions based on participatory principles are more easily embraced and accepted by the majority who approve them, than those imposed by a higher power, even if legitimated by the international order that recognises the sovereignty of states.

The government programme approved in 1995 considered reconstruction in its broadest sense. However, local participation was less visible in spite of a legal framework for local government approved in 1994. The programme did not address principles for community participation based on the inclusivity of citizens and regions in the national state, counting rather in this case upon broader political participation in terms of party politics.

The framework of local government under the label of decentralisation was later redesigned to exclude rural areas, considering that it was better to implement the programme gradually in urban areas, and to follow this up in detail and introduce changes as the need arose. Only after this was done would the exercise be extended to rural areas.

There were also reports of the poor performance of Frelimo in the rural areas during the first national elections, which contributed to the decision to exclude the rural areas from the process of municipal government.

The new approach to municipal government was contrary to the principle of peace without exclusion and prejudice as mentioned above. Some citizens had the chance to elect local authorities and plan for participation in local government, while others were excluded. Full participation was therefore hindered by the new law. The law was not inclusive and not based on consensus across party lines, leading to an electoral boycott by the opposition and 85% absenteeism among voters.

PARTICIPATION

The broad participation of all sectors of civil society is of the utmost importance in guaranteeing lasting peace and sustainable development. Because participation transforms individuals into citizens with duties and rights. This occurs in accordance with the norms established by the state. Such norms will be designed and approved by a parliament representing different social groups in society and functioning under the rule of law. This creates a situation where the monopoly of the use of violence belongs exclusively to the state, which thus guarantees law and order, and sovereignty.

However, the international dimension also has to be considered in the process. In fact, because of its dependence on aid, approximately 70% of Mozambique’s national budget is provided by international donors. The international dimension therefore had to be taken into account in the processes of reconstruction, development, peace-building and reconciliation. This dimension is also based on conditions at times imposed on states in the South by the international community, regardless of the domestic situation before or after a peace settlement.

Conscious participation has increased dramatically in Mozambique. In 1991, the government deregulated the activities of political parties and other associations and organisations. At present, there are more than 700 registered non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and some 20 political parties in the country.

Apart from NGOs, there are also numerous civil society and other political organisations that were created after 1990. These include organisations that care for local interests, many of an ethnic nature, labelled associations of friends in districts, provinces and regions. There are such associations in Maputo and Beira, as well as in most districts in the southern provinces. Provinces also congregate some of their citizens in associations, with one association with a regional character for the four provinces in the central region, indicating the importance attached to community life in Mozambique, based on ethnicity or region and common interests.

These associations played an important role in the first local government elections held in 1998. Despite the boycott, they inspired groups of citizens in ten of the 33 municipalities where elections were to be held to present candidates for office. In four places, members of these groups were elected, including Maputo and Beira.

However, the traditional élite is still uncertain about the role they should play, officially or unofficially, in caring for communities. In spite of studies conducted at the Ministry of State Administration over a period of more than seven years, the traditional élite (mainly the chiefs) are waiting for direction from the government on what should or should not be done under the umbrella of the civil administration.

POWER RELATIONS

The space for participation is provided through legislation and people are actively participating. However, the issue of power relations has to be addressed in terms of development after a situation of conflict is resolved. Power relations block the way of sustainable development and pluralist political and economic life in Mozambique.

The principles discussed and approved in the General Peace Agreement have proved to be more ideal than functional. The war ended, but not all aspects of the conflict were properly settled.

The peace agreement is not regarded equally by the former belligerents. The main opposition party — the former rebels — is asking constantly for its revalidation in political life. The government values the document as an indication of an important moment in history that now has to be shelved, however, in favour of the dynamics of actual change in socio-political life. The opposition wants to freeze a moment of glory, while the government wants to move ahead and leave past politics behind.

The behaviour and attitudes of each side vis-à-vis the peace agreement point to those issues they want to highlight and defend, thus revealing an unequal situation in political life. The opposition wants to keep the moment alive that conferred legitimacy upon it, regardless of its origins and the kind of actions it carried out during the armed conflict. In fact, the agreement was the key that opened a space for them in socio-political life, which provided a legal basis for them to leave the bush and become respectable participatory citizens in the urban environment.

On the other hand, the government had to make room for others to participate in governance, and had to accept the presence of previously ‘armed bandits’ in state and political affairs.

The reality of power relations was the first challenge to overcome after the peace agreement was signed. The ideal accord was designed in Rome, implemented and respected by all. In fact, no one is talking about war any more. However, sometime after the signing of the peace agreement difficulties in establishing new power relations helped sour the process of reconciliation, especially after the results of the first election. A plural reality proved to be difficult to manage: promises from both sides were not fulfilled and, consequently, citizens’ expectations were not met.

Where a monolithic reality previously existed, the inclusion of other political forces implied less space for action for some of those who were included in the past, even if the presence of the opposition in parliament could be regarded, at times, as symbolic in the light of the power of the majority vote. Not a single proposal made by the opposition was approved between 1994 and 1999.

Groups inside the two parties called for space in political and economic life, and for the leaders (Chissano and Dhlakama) to make amends: the case of the older combatants from both parties is an illustration. The open and reconciliatory discourse of 1992-1995 has hardened from both sides to please internal groups, and has produced a stalemate reflected in the relationship between the ruling party and the coalition of 12 parties representing the opposition in parliament.

POLITICAL CLIMATE

The political climate in the country resembles a stalemate that is exacerbated by a natural catastrophe of a magnitude never seen before. Increases in oil prices internationally are reflected in higher prices nationally, affecting transport, goods, services and commodities. The catastrophic nature of natural and economic events has to be considered when analysing the future of the country. These will worsen a difficult situation in terms of keeping promises and fulfilling expectations both at domestic and international levels.

How might these (new) factors affect the political climate of polarisation that reflects patterns of vigorous development? How will it affect the programme of the government to address development at present, given the reality that it has probably moved back ten years as a result of natural disasters, especially in terms of infrastructure (roads, bridges, schools, health units, and so on)?

There is no answer yet to these questions, but the country is allowing foreign countries in because it can/could not handle the floods and their consequences properly. Citizens became aware that there is no domestic institution, armed or civil body, able to handle a catastrophic situation of this magnitude. The international airport in Maputo, until recently, appeared to be the headquarters for international peace forces, given the number of aircraft and military personnel taking care of aid arriving in whatever form to help victims of the floods.

The question to be asked about the political stalemate is whether it is part of the dynamics of the post-conflict period, or merely embedded in old attitudes and reappearing situations in the context of the new dynamics of change in the era of peace. It is important to take note of what was planned and what was agreed upon under the peace agreement and the political changes in practice after the agreement was reached vis-à-vis the present reality, considering for the analysis the actions, feelings and suppositions of individuals and social groups.

ECONOMIC DYNAMICS

The problem in Mozambique is not new. It has changed, however, in terms of quality in the process of transition in which the country is immersed. Privatisation and conditionalities imposed from the outside under the structural adjustment programme (SAP) are important features of change in the economic sphere.

In the economic field, a national bourgeoisie is being formed. This is evident in the appropriation of resources and properties previously in the hands of the state, suggesting a clear traffic of influence in the economy. The process is not transparent enough to make it accepted by all. Moreover, in the process, social groups constituting the excluded élite feel marginalised, with statistics demonstrating that their region of origin is generally the less developed in the country.

The present stalemate in political life has both political and economic dimensions. However, the problem is more complicated than merely the greed of élite groups fighting over scarce resources, as some analysts characterise it.

The question remains how to solve the issue of regional imbalances in terms of development and citizens’ participation in acts of governance. These translate into a low level of inclusivity and poor connections between citizens and regions in the country with the (central) government.

Currently, the picture shows participants moving apart: there are those feeling excluded and apart from those who are included in state affairs. Bridging such divides is not an easy task, especially because transition implies the appearance of new forces fighting for space in the same field. Old forces will try to reinforce the structures that sustain power and new forces will fight to break and penetrate what is penetrable. Both forces encompass a civil society in the making within the confines of a weak state.

The opposition is using the imbalances in economic development and political participation to gain dividends with the regions, the people in less developed zones, and those feeling excluded. At the same time, accusations are made against political groups appropriating state resources for private accumulation, as well as against groups connected to the party in power and basically originating from southern Mozambique. The south is the most developed zone in the country, thus receiving the most generous portion of investments. The vicious trend of uneven development evident during colonial times has not yet been reversed, but has been aggravated by the process of liberalisation.

The programme of the government was accepted in parliament by consensus in 1994, but the political reality has changed since then. The political climate has been deteriorating since December 1999, with the opposition rejecting the results of the national election. The new parliament has not yet agreed on a common agenda of work as functional as the previous one. A political stalemate has resulted from the rejection of the election results by the main opposition party, with accusations of fraud leading to a situation of non-dialogue. For example, the opposition did not attend the Attorney-General’s annual information speech to parliament, and the programme of the government for 2000-2004 was not even considered because of criticism by the opposition.

At present, the opposition is capitalising on the weakness of the state and raising the issue of exclusion with regard to the six provinces where they received the majority of the votes in 1999. This discourse could be dangerous given the reality of the developmental imbalances, the lack of opportunities for social groups, issues around ethnicity, regions and zones in the country, with many feeling excluded from the process of reconstruction and foreign investment. The proportions of the problems in the country make it easy to manipulate them for those willing to do so, for example, by politicising ethnicity. It is important to highlight that the regions where Renamo is politically stronger are ‘incidentally’ less developed with higher levels of absolute poverty. The opposition is also, in fact, connected to these regions.

Two questions need attention:

Faced by these (new) problems, what implications do these hold for the success story in Mozambique?



What should be considered as appropriate actions to enhance development and keep the country on track?

The scenario in Mozambique clearly shows the complexities of post-conflict transition and reconstruction with regard to the new collection of political activities aimed at reconciliation.

Because development is, at present, not inclusive, human development continues to lag behind and many regions feel excluded from the ‘success story’ label attached to the country. The programme of the government for 2000-2004 must give careful attention to regional inequalities and must formulate a development strategy for rural development including serious measures to combat poverty. Also included in the programme is the issue of decentralisation and local government, but its expansion to rural areas is not yet addressed.

CONCLUSION

Maintaining peace and sustaining the reconstruction and development of Mozambique are the basis of the success story. However, the process is far from linear, with elements arising from past and present history, found in domestic questions and also clearly in the role played by the international community in state affairs.

The complexity of the situation indicates that Mozambique needs to monitor the process of transition closely, including a reassessment of the last decade. This is, in fact, happening at domestic level under the guidance of scholars, the media, NGOs and groups of politicians of different persuasions.

Mozambican society will continue to experience new influences both from inside and outside at national level, power relations at domestic level and (new) terms of trade being examples at hand. It is therefore important to support Mozambique in struggling to keep peace and bring about sustainable development that will benefit more regions in terms of investment, for example, and will include more social groups in political and economic life.

The consensus so far is that there is a need for continuous dialogue between all parties in the process of transition in order to make peace last — peace being understood as more than the mere absence of war. The dialogue should address the question of power relations and should be kept alive between the state and civil society, the latter involving more than just political parties. An effort is required to reach a situation of functional equilibrium between decision-makers at national and international levels, the political forces in government and in the opposition, and the communities represented by citizens and interest groups in both urban and rural areas in the country.

At the international level, the question of foreign debt needs to be addressed. However, debt has to be discussed in new terms, or written off completely to open a space for real and sustainable success in economic terms. The issues of new terms of trade and a review of the conditions imposed upon Mozambique by the international community should also be addressed.

Because there is a perception that the élite embodies the state, changes in its attitudes and behaviour will be understood as changes in the state itself. This is necessary condition for the state to approach communities and groups of citizens in order to reinforce the sense of citizenship, while at the same time, keeping success on track.

With regard to power relations at national level, clear legislation and good intentions will not be enough, and changes will have to be derived from an interactive dialogue. Moreover, power relations have to be addressed at higher levels on the continent. Decisions need to be taken on what should be done with former heads of state and/or rebel leaders and his or her entourage, when the party he or she represents is not in power. Is there space within a single state for more than one line of thought in political life, and for more than one interest group in a state’s economic affairs?

A final and important issue is to find mechanisms to widen political and human choices which were opened up during the 1990s when the new constitution was approved and adopted, to provide for more than periodic elections in fulfilment of the requirements of democracy. Democracy is needed to maintain peace, inclusiveness and sustainable human development, concepts understood by citizens to form part of the realisation of democracy.

There are many models of inclusivity, classic democracy being the one mostly offered by Western democratic states. But, will classic democracy be enough to address local problems? What about stalemates produced by shortcomings embedded in all electoral systems and procedures?

The underlying question has to do with the principle of accepting ‘the other’ in a state or community. Communities have contours designed and redesigned daily in the process of restructuring state affairs defined in terms of ethnicity, region, religion and other common interests, and including party politics. In this regard, it could be of importance to consider a dialogue to reach agreement on which model of government, besides decentralisation, should be the most appropriate for the country to keep its peace alive — a requirement for sustainable development.

In the case of Mozambique, it is important that the dialogue initiated at the time of the peace talks at the end of the 1980s should continue as long as necessary in order to monitor the dynamics of change of the society in peacetime. This is essential, because every time there is an intermezzo, relationships become strained.