Former Minister of Foreign Affairs Walter Mzembi has explained the reasons why Frederick Shava has been removed from the post.
Mzembi says while all ministries are equal in terms of importance, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is considered superior in that its holder is the face of the President to the outside world and enjoys proximity to the Principal.
He writes: Ministers are not Permanent deployments anywhere in the world but some abrupt changes just raise eyebrows.
Presidents can reassign anyone to anywhere and in fact drop some unlucky folks altogether!
Being moved to Foreign Affairs is always considered a “promotion” and being moved from it a “demotion” but in essence all Cabinet deployments are equally important, members of one body, like the arm, leg, eye, ear or mouth scenario.
There is not one unimportant or more important than the other. The only thing making Foreign Affairs prestigious is proximity to the Principal and ofcourse visibility.
Often you wear borrowed robes but they are exactly what they are
“borrowed.” If any thought lingers on as a result of conduct that you now want the robes permanently you are quickly disabused.
January Makamba former Minister of Foreign Affairs in Tanzania, a young and vibrant fellow in my opinion fell victim to this “borrowed robe” theory.
In his bid for a multilateral post as African Union Commission Chair he expressed unauthorised ambition. He was instantly dropped.
Naledi Pandor former Minister of International Relations could easily have been reappointed too in South Africa but in my opinion she also had become an authority of sorts in this much coveted deployment often speaking her mind and perhaps dragging her principal along in some global escapades.
I have Israel and Ukraine in mind. In the GNU of RSA clearly there was a recalibration through a deployment. From assertive to quiet diplomacy.
However having said this often Foreign Affairs Ministers are seen as being a core part of critical decisions of a Country and its general direction and how it wants to be understood by global polity.
The deployment in this portfolio often signals either a hawkish thrust or a dove approach to international relations.
It is also in this portfolio where one of the Cardinal 48 laws of power “thou shall not shine more than the Master” is most practically tested and often the deployment is the most “gossiped” about with the Principal especially if one is shining.
The quickest way out of this portfolio is to be “gossiped” about on ambition to succeed the Principal, a narrative often sponsored and conspired from all directions including the very Embassies you supervise and even your Permanent Secretary if he is political.
All Ambassadors report directly to a President so its a minefield, one slur or slip of the tongue with any of them and you are snitched on.
Sometimes you don’t even need to have done or said anything wrong , just “shining” will ground you. I mean performance. Parrots or do nothings last longer in this portfolio.
Often a sudden movement from the portfolio is linked to loyalty issues perceived or real than meritocracy. In fact meritocracy threatens loyalty and before you know it , you are out .
But back to Zimbabwe with all ahead of it, including a bid for readmission to Commonwealth, UN Reforms, SADC Chairmanship & Regional politics, Domestic Policy, International Trade, Geopolitics & the crucial balancing act required and finally Sanctions (Global Magnitsky) what do our deployment in this portfolio signal?
Zwnews
