There have been so many swings from optimism to pessimism and back again, that Zimbabweans might find it hard to believe there finally appears to be a power-sharing deal after two months of talks.

According to both sides, President Robert Mugabe has agreed to share power with opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai after 28 years of rule that concentrated power in his own hands.

The details are not clear yet, but it appears to be something of a coup for South African President Thabo Mbeki, whose critics had long said he was too soft on Mugabe.

As Martin Rupiyah, Director of African Research at Cranfield University in Britain, put it, though “I don’t think we are out of the woods yet,” pointing in particular to uncertainty over the role of the powerful security forces.

Plenty of questions remain - not least over how two men who have long made their animosity plain might be able to work together.

What do you think the chances of success are? Who will be the real winner? Will this be able to pull Zimbabwe out of its catastrophic decline?

This week’s reopening of Zimbabwe’s parliament had been seen by many as a show of defiance by President Robert Mugabe against an opposition that has so far rejected terms of a power-sharing deal that appear more acceptable to the veteran leader and to at least some of his regional counterparts.

But it may not have gone quite to plan.

The election of the parliamentary speaker chosen by the main opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) came in spite of efforts by Mugabe’s ZANU-PF to bring in the candidate of the breakaway MDC faction. Members of that faction appear to have sided with opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai rather than their own party leadership.

Then Mugabe faced unprecedented boos and jeers as he delivered his speech at the reopening of parliament, where ZANU-PF has lost its majority for the first time since independence from Britain in 1980. Mugabe nonetheless said he was optimistic that a power-sharing deal would be reached.

Is there a shift in the balance of power in Zimbabwe? What might it all mean for talks and for chances of an agreement that could help to revive the stricken country?

First on Zimbabwe, now on Darfur, Western countries have lost out at the U.N. Security Council to African states backed by China and Russia.

A Western attempt to get sanctions imposed on Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe’s government flopped on July 11. Three weeks later, when it came to renewing the mandate of peacekeepers in Darfur, Western countries bowed to demands to include wording that made clear the council would be ready to freeze any International Criminal Court indictment of President Omar Hassan al-Bashir for genocide. The United States abstained, but that made no difference to the vote.

The question had long come up in Western countries as to how much Africa mattered to them given what often seemed intractable wars, famine, disease and poverty. From an African perspective, Western countries - often former colonial powers - have sometimes been accused of arrogance, meddling and ignorance of the continent’s realities.

But while Africa’s economies were once dependent on aid and finance from the West, it is China and other Asian countries that are now rushing to invest, helping to drive unprecedented growth. How Africa will deal with the new investment was a key topic at this week’s meeting in Mauritania with the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. G8 countries, meanwhile, appear to be falling short on their promises of aid.

Investment from China comes without the conditions that Western countries or institutions might insist on. Meanwhile, China has been very ready to back African friends in diplomatic forums such as the United Nations. Russia is less important as an investor, but has taken a similar diplomatic line.

So how relevant does the West remain in Africa? And if its influence is waning then will that give African countries a chance to do a better job of solving problems their own way? Will it give a freer hand to leaders with little concern for democracy, human rights and government accountability?

What do you think?

It’s decision time again for Morgan Tsvangirai. 

With violence spreading and African countries joining the ranks of those who say Zimbabwe’s election run-off cannot be fair, the opposition leader is considering whether to withdraw – which would leave President Robert Mugabe to continue his 28 year rule unchallenged.

Talk is still doing the rounds that South Africa’s President Thabo Mbeki has been trying to get the sides to call off the election and form a national unity government, but progress seems limited at best. South Africa’s Star newspaper said Mugabe rejected the proposal.

“It would be very difficult because neither side would want to be the junior partner,” commented Knox Chitiyo, head of the Africa programme at the Royal United Services Institute in London, to Reuters.

So what would Tsvangirai gain if he pulled out of the election? His Movement for Democratic Change has been claiming moral victories for years, but Mugabe is still firmly in State House. If Tsvangirai withdrew now, would it encourage the region and the world to take stronger action? Could they do anything anyway? If he took part and lost would that make his position even worse?

What do you think?

When Kenya played Zimbabwe in last Saturday’s World Cup qualifying game, the chant of “Mugabe must go” echoed around the stadium from some 36,000 Kenyan fans as Zimbabwe’s football team came onto the pitch.

Africa’s leaders have tended to take a much less vocal approach to Zimbabwe’s crisis.

Some are certainly starting to use tougher language - South African ANC leader Jacob Zuma told Reuters he did not expect a fair election on June 27, former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan wrote in the Financial Times that Zimbabwe was “tarnishing the reputation of Africa as a whole” and Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga has also spoken out.

Serving heads of state, South African President Thabo Mbeki among them, generally take a more cautious approach. Some say nothing at all.

Taking a tougher line on Zimbabwe has traditionally been difficult for countries in a region where President Robert Mugabe was widely seen as a hero of the struggle for independence.

But beyond the words - or lack of them — what should Africa do about Zimbabwe? Nobody really expects African states to use force and any sanctions could end up making the plight of Zimbabweans worse? Kofi Annan says it is time to get Zimbabwe’s leaders to talk to each other on resolving the crisis?

What do you think?