DICTIONARIES are flying off bookshop shelves like hot vetkoek from a township spaza shop. The reason the country is seized by this frenzy is because there are some among us who believe there is a crisis in Zimbabwe.

SA’s president, and renowned wordsmith, Thabo Mbeki is of the firm, but gently expressed view that what has been happening in Zimbabwe after the holding of elections three weeks ago does not constitute a “crisis”.

The only reason I did not join in the lexicon frenzy is the parlous state of my personal budget and the fact that my wife is refusing to raise my allowance. So tightfisted is she that I decided to seek the help of my old Oxford Talking Dictionary.

I was not disappointed. I found so many meanings of the contentious word that it made me wish I’d been invited to last weekend’s emergency meeting of the South African Development Community (SADC) at which, we are told, the leaders of our subregion debated the meaning of the word “crisis” for close to 10 hours. Well, according to my lowly dictionary, a “crisis” is “a turning point”, “a vitally important or decisive stage” or “a time of trouble, danger, or suspense in politics, commerce, etc”.

It seems Robert Mugabe is busy trying to prevent the outcome of the March 29 elections from becoming a “turning point”. Furthermore, there can be no doubt that Zimbabwe is going through a time of “trouble” and, yes, “suspense”. Those who are in doubt about whether the country is going through times of “danger” in politics must consult the broken bones of those who are victims of postelection violence.

Since one of Mbeki’s advisers not only enthused about Mbeki’s intervention in the Zimbabwean crisis but also insinuated, with commendable vigour, that the political judgment of his master’s critics was clouded by the distance between Zimbabwe and their analysis, why has proximity to the crisis not affected Mbeki’s analysis?

IF WE want to be kind, we can find the answer in Mbeki’s role as a mediator. Mediation is a very specific process with very specific rules. The rules of mediation dictate that the mediator should not conduct himself in a manner that undermines the confidence of parties involved in a conflict. Successful conflict resolution depends, in part, on the ability of the mediator to be seen to be impartial by the protagonists. Mbeki cannot, therefore, say that there is a crisis in Zimbabwe because this is a view that coincides with the Movement for Democratic Change position. Obviously, if he said this, Zanu (PF) would be forced to feign displeasure.

But Mbeki, in his capacity as mediator was wrong to declare there is no crisis in Zimbabwe because this supports the Zanu (PF) position. Mbeki’s statement is not only undiplomatic but amounts to a breach of mediation rules.

Is it not proper, however, to give our president the benefit of the doubt since he now argues that he never said that there was no crisis in Zimbabwe? He says that he was talking only about the elections and not about the social and economic situation in the country. All I can say is the president is splitting hairs — and the wrong ones.

Since the (lack of a) crisis in Zimbabwe is much deeper than Mbeki and other African leaders would care to admit, and since African leaders cannot claim to be speaking on our behalf on the Zimbabwean issue, civil society all over the continent must pressure their governments to do the right thing. Doing the right thing in this case must begin with SADC reviewing the efficacy of mediation as a form of intercession. Mediation imposes constraints on the mediating party which militates against decisive action. Civil society must begin to impose an agenda of appropriate ways of interceding in crises on the leaders of this continent, who are increasingly bringing Africanness into disrepute.

The alternative is to continue on the road we’re on, towards a calamitous abdication of moral responsibility.