PRESIDENT Robert Mugabe's acceptance of a South African clerical initiative to revive the search for a negotiated settlement to the current political impasse has rekindled hopes for a peaceful resolution of the present crisis, analysts say.
The Archbishop of Cape Town, the Most Reverend Njongonkulu Ndungane, visited the country last week for the second time in two months for further "talks about talks" over the deepening national predicament.
Ndungane met President Robert Mugabe and a wide cross-section of Zimbabwean society - including the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) - to explain his mission.
The South African-based Institute for Justice and Reconciliation facilitated his initiative.
Ndungane, who recently met the Archbishop of Canterbury to engage British authorities in the quest for a settlement, said Mugabe was amenable to mediation.
Although Mugabe insisted Britain and the land were the major issues, Ndungane and his colleagues said the Zimbabwe crisis went beyond land.
Political analysts say the ecclesiastical mediation should be given a chance because the objective conditions on the ground have improved the prospects of a negotiated solution.
They say Mugabe now has a new political diet - he is eating humble pie over his disputed re-election and resultant legitimacy crisis. So he wants to talk.
By the same token, MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai has no room to manoeuvre and is also open to dialogue. This offers perfect conditions for talks even though the devil lies in the detail.
University of Zimbabwe Institute for Development Studies analyst, Professor Brian Raftopoulos, said the church rapprochement could work under these conditions.
"It has got off to a good start and it may work," he said. "The major hold up could be Zanu PF's succession issue which has a major bearing on this initiative."
Raftopoulos was, however, quick to point out impediments to the process. "Given Mugabe's record in such matters, there is no doubt the process is going to be very difficult," he said. "It will be an uphill task."
Civic activist and law lecturer Lovemore Madhuku also expressed cautious optimism about the Anglican Church intervention.
"There are reasonable prospects of success provided the major parties concerned are prepared to compromise," he said.
"It is a give-and-take situation and as a result both Zanu PF and the MDC should find middle ground and come to terms with each other."
Madhuku said Zanu PF and the MDC should strike a balance and make a deal on fundamental issues.
"An early presidential election would break this deadlock," Madhuku said.
"For that to happen, Zanu PF must stop its insistence that another election would only be held in 2008 and the MDC must drop its insistence that Mugabe is illegitimate. They must give him limited legitimacy until the next election, say for instance in 2005."
Madhuku said an election re-run should be preceded by a new constitution to level the political playing field.
Churches have in the past successfully facilitated the resolution of political conflicts. In Mozambique, where government fought a 16-year civil war with the rebel movement Renamo, the Roman Catholic Church used mediators from Italy to broker an armistice.
This resulted in the October 1992 truce between the Mozambican government of Joachim Chissano and MNR leader Afonso Dhlakama.
Mugabe's involvement alongside former Kenyan president Daniel arap Moi, considered close to MNR, enabled the agreement to work. Mugabe was close to the ruling Frelimo.
By the end of 1992, the process was sufficiently advanced for Dhlakama to pay an official visit to Harare to discuss implementation of the cease-fire.
Although the Mozambican political situation and its dynamics were different from those in Zimbabwe, "divine intervention" can work, analysts say.
But commentators warn negotiations are often fraught with dangers and opportunities. In this case, they say Ndungane, although he has received popular approval, should guard against Mugabe's pretence and bad faith as well as imperious opposition demands.
While Mugabe wants to make it appear as if the "false fight" between London and Harare is the issue and not his own misrule, the MDC, it would appear, just wants to move into office.
In its latest report titled Zimbabwe: Danger and Opportunity, the International Crisis Group says the reason negotiations over the local situation fail is that they are usually started without clear and common objectives, modus operandi, and timetable, as well as guarantees for the dialogue.
There have been many efforts to resolve the Zimbabwe crisis including last year's collapsed talks between Zanu PF and the MDC brokered by South Africa and Nigeria.
Distinguished political author, Gene Sharp, in his book From Dictatorship to Democracy, examines case studies similar to the Zimbabwean situation.
"Negotiations are a very useful tool in resolving certain types of issues in conflicts and should not be neglected or rejected when they are appropriate," Sharp says.
"In some situations where no fundamental issues are at stake, and therefore a compromise is acceptable, negotiations can be an important means to settle a conflict."
But when the issues at stake are fundamental, Sharp writes, affecting religious principles, issues of human freedom, or the whole future development of the society, negotiations do not provide a mutually satisfactory solution.
"On some basic issues there should be no compromise," he says. "Only a shift in power relations in favour of the democrats can adequately safeguard the basic issues at stake. Such a shift will occur through struggle, not negotiations."
Having said this, Sharp says this is not to say negotiations ought never to be used.
"The point here is that negotiations are not a realistic way to remove a strong dictatorship in the absence of a powerful democratic opposition," he says. "Negotiations, of course, may not be an option at all."
Sharp believes organised resistance is a sine qua non in resolving crises. "Resistance, not negotiations, is essential for change in conflicts where fundamental issues are at stake," he says.
"In nearly all cases, resistance must continue to drive dictators out of power. Success is most often determined not by negotiating a settlement but through the wise use of the most appropriate and powerful means of resistance available."
Sharp says ideal conditions should exist before negotiations.
"Individuals and groups who oppose dictatorship and favour negotiations will often have good motives," Sharp states.
"Negotiations are especially likely to become an issue among democrats where the dictators have clear military superiority and the destruction and casualties among one's own people are no longer bearable."
There would then be a strong temptation to explore any other route, Sharp suggests, which might salvage some of the democrats' objectives while bringing an end to the cycle of violence and counter-violence.
"The offer by a dictatorship of 'peace' through negotiations with the democratic opposition is, of course, rather disingenuous," he says.
"Political violence could be ended immediately by the dictators themselves, if only they would stop waging war on their own people."Sharp says dictators could at their own initiative without any bargaining change if resistance is enormous.
"When the dictatorship is strong but an irritating resistance exists, the dictators may wish to negotiate the opposition into surrender under the guise of making 'peace'," he says. "The call to negotiate can sound appealing, but grave dangers can be lurking within the negotiating room."
On the other hand, Sharp notes, when the opposition is strong and the dictatorship threatened, the dictator may seek negotiation to salvage as much of his control or wealth as possible.
"In neither case should the democrats help the dictators achieve their goals," he writes. "Democrats should be wary of the traps which may be deliberately built into a negotiation process by the dictators."The call for negotiations when basic issues of political liberties are involved may be an effort by the dictators to induce the democrats to surrender peacefully while the violence of the dictatorship continues, he says.
Sharp argues in those types of conflicts, the only proper role of negotiations may occur at the end of a decisive struggle in which the power of the dictator has been effectively weakened and he seeks personal safe passage to an international airport heading for exile.