Unity Day – ZANU PF fantasies and historical fallacies!

Alexander Rusero

EXACTLY 33 years ago, the main political protagonists of this land in form of Robert Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo entered into an agreement that resulted in the dissolving of the Patriotic Front Zimbabwe African People’s Union (PF ZAPU) and the formation of Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front (ZANU PF).

Prior to this development, PF ZAPU had existed as a bonafide political party and its military wing of the Zimbabwe People’s Revolutionary Army (ZIPRA) was for most of the time the most authentic liberation movement army in Southern Rhodesia with a status recognised at the level of Organisation of African Unity (OAU).

ZAPU was checkmated by Mugabe’s ZANU, on the eve of the 1980 general elections. Despite that at Lancaster House Agreement negotiations ZANU and ZAPU had jointly participated together as the Patriotic Front, ZANU made a last minute summersault by announcing that it would participate the 1980 general elections as a stand-alone party.

The electoral outcome which tilted in favour of ZANU which won 57 seats and ZAPU only garnering 20 seats was the genesis of political polarisation in Zimbabwe which hardly after two years of independence manifested into a crisis amounting to a genocide commonly referred to as Gukurahundi. More than it being an ethnicity cleansing project, Gukurahundi was actually an extension of ZANU’s logics of power matrix, aimed at conquering all political space in Zimbabwe. Although Gukurahundi had ethnic undertones it was not necessarily an ethnic project. Gukurahundi is really at the core operations of ZANU’s logics – the logic of Chimurenga and Gukurahundi is not ethnic, it is a power matrix of power.

People who grew up in Mashonaland where ZANU’s military outfit the Zimbabwe National Liberation Army (ZANLA) forces operated attest that Comrades were in some instances a danger to the citizenry. ZANLA introduced night vigils in communal areas, known as Pungwes aimed at orienting masses on the objectives of the liberation struggle. Some researchers allege that at every Pungwe, two or three people were killed. 

More than just being a morale boosting exercise the Pungwe was a grotesque element of killing.  ZANLA’s thrust outside waging a protracted struggle for independence was thus to conquer society on behalf of ZANU. Besides engaging the enemy whom we know where the Rhodesian Forces, ZANLA also engaged in another process of conquering societies on behalf of the party.

As a matter of principle, ZANLA always destroyed ZAPU structures which were there and if one did not convert quickly he would be killed. So the party became supreme and when elections came, the party would obviously sweep through. ZANLA successfully captured the peasants and by 1980 they had successfully conquered the peasants in all provinces apart from the Midlands and Matabeleland. It became clear and as a matter of strategy that these provinces required to be subjected to the same process of conquering.

During Gukurahundi, ZANU introduced Pungwes; ZAPU supporters were publicly made to surrender their cards and given new ones of ZANU. That was the completion of the conquest of the peasants. Mugabe always said it every time, when he always made it a threat that “if you do not vote for ZANU we go back to the bush.” What made people afraid instead of being happy to go to the ‘nice time’ of the bush?

They obviously knew the horrors associated with the bush and would rather secure ZANU victory than that route. Far from being docile or politically unconscious, majority of rural masses who vote for ZANU PF up to this day largely do so due to this violent conquering culture imposed on them during the liberation struggle.

What has become known as the Unity Day as we know it today was thus a compromise made by Joshua Nkomo – by far the greatest liberation luminary in Zimbabwe and thus having the befitted title of Father Zimbabwe. Infuriated by this characterisation and being a revered figure in Zimbabwe and beyond, Mugabe cowardly attempted to reconfigure and rewrite history by calling Nkomo Father of Dissidents at the height of the Gukurahundi massacres. 

The Unity Day thus came courtesy of the agreement between ZAPU and ZANU which was dubbed the Unity Accord. Unity Accord was supposed to be the anecdote of national building in Zimbabwe, following first the ravages on the nation brought about by the liberation struggle as well as immediately after the Gukurahundi crisis. Far from being a nation building project, Mugabe and ZANU had their own ulterior motives, they were fantasising on the feasibility of a one party state, they were fantasising on the extent at which opposition to the ruling elite could be crushed and silenced in eternity and this was all morphed into an agreement that masqueraded as a unity agreement. 

Provisions of the Unity Accord are evident of its objectives – in ZANU’s logic it was never about unity, it was about annihilating ZAPU, cow it into submission and swallow it altogether. For Nkomo, it too was never about unity, it was a gun-point negotiation, bend to the whims and caprices of ZANU in exchange of the indefinite stopping of the extrajudicial killings of people of Matabeleland and Midlands which by any standards where largely strong holds for ZAPU. The agreement thus spelt:

1. That Zanu PF and PF Zapu have irrevocably committed themselves to unite under one political Party;

2. That the unity of the two political Parties shall be achieved under the name Zimbabwe African National Union (Patriotic Front) in short Zanu PF;

3. That Comrade Robert Gabriel Mugabe shall be the First Secretary and President of Zanu PF;

4. That Zanu PF shall have two Second Secretaries and Vice Presidents who shall be appointed by the First Secretary and President of the Party;

5. That Zanu PF shall seek to establish a socialist society in Zimbabwe on the guidance of Marxist-Leninist principles;

6. That Zanu PF shall seek to establish a ONE-PARTY STATE in Zimbabwe;

7. That the leadership of Zanu PF shall abide by the Leadership Code;

8. That the existing structures of Zanu PF and PF Zapu shall be merged in accordance with the letter and spirit of this Agreement;

9. That both parties shall, in the interim, take immediate vigorous steps to eliminate and end the insecurity and violence prevalent in Matabeleland.

10. That Zanu PF and PF Zapu shall convene their respective Congresses to give effect to this Agreement within the shortest possible time;

11. That, in the interim, Comrade Robert Gabriel Mugabe is vested with full powers to prepare for the implementation of this Agreement and to act in the name and authority of Zanu PF.

This was never about unity as ZANU PF would want us to believe, neither was it a nation building exercise. It was a power consolidation agreement in favour of ZANU and a compromise agreement for ZAPU. It remains a historical fantasy to celebrate Unity Day in Zimbabwe at the backdrop of a Gukurahundi crisis which 33 years after has not found closure. It is a historical mischief to claim Unity against the scourges of political polarity, division and strife that Zimbabwean citizens on one hand are stifled in and on the other political players are experiencing at national level.

A morphed unity project by ZANU PF in the absence of truth and reconciliation of what transpired during Gukurahundi remains hollow. Characterising Gukurahundi as a “closed chapter” as has been the attempt by ZANU PF simply because an agreement with 11 clauses where upon unity is peripheral in the agreement is unacceptable tomfoolery. Every national trajectory has its own good and bad history. History does not and must not stop because it taints a negative image on a certain powerful clique. 

Forty years after independence and 33 years after the Unity Accord, what remains apparent is that history and ZANU PF are two opposite ends. Whenever ZANU PF is captured on the wrong side of history as was the case with Gukurahundi years – that history is rubbished or eradicated from the national memory altogether.

The burden of the 21^st century Zimbabwean historians or at least those passionate about the country’s history is to unlearn and deconstruct the ZANUfied history which has been in our midst since 1980.  Perhaps time is now ripe to rejuvenate historical contributions of the voices and deflated presences of those excluded and marginalised by ZANUfied historiography. As one Zimbabwean history professor observed, ‘it is as if anyone who participated in the anti-colonial struggles and failed to enter the halls of power in 1980 failed to enter history’. 

That Nkomo was the architecture of Unity and not necessarily ZANU or Mugabe is out of question. History is saturated with documentary evidence showing Nkomo’s unity-centred leadership. Unlearning, disrupting and disbanding ZANUfied history will be an insurmountable task but it shall be done.

The biggest mistake of ZANU PF celebration of unity has been its narrow depiction of unity as the silencing of the gun. To have unity whilst people are starving is a historical contradiction in need to be unmasked. When we talk of human security, Zimbabwe has had a long war without guns. There is an ongoing social war in Zimbabwe whereby people are fighting everyday to be alive. 

Zimbabwe has had bottled anger which has been contained for far too long but with risks of explosion. Paradoxically, the state in Zimbabwe is unfortunately the greatest threat to unity. The internal contradictions in ZANU PF have explicitly made the party itself an anachronism to the entire unity project as well as the nation building project.

In 2008 the SADC brokered peace deal – the Global Political Agreement was a low hanging fruit for unity, but for the Command element in ZANU PF it was portrayed as power slipping away. Whereas people are still nostalgic of the GNU between ZANU PF and the two MDC formations, which brought a modicum of economic stability and peace, heavy resistance of unity was self-evident. In the bureaucracy it was quite shocking for civil servants serving under MDC allocated ministries to be warned “chenjerai kubiwa” beware of ‘being stolen’ – itself evident that the expectation was that civil servants belonged or at least owed allegiance to ZANU PF. That thinking is still prevalent to this day.

Like an octopus, ZANU PF’s legs dip in every corner. They have gone to the extent of disrupting and decimating the opposition after President Mnangagwa’s Political Actors Dialogue (POLAD) initiative has since proved to be a dismal failure. 

With an opposition that they have ruptured, with a nation that it has failed to unite and with the social, political and economic infrastructure that the ruling party has failed to mend – in Zimbabwe talks of unity are just a delicate balance of fallacy and fantasy by the ruling ZANU PF elite.

 

Decaying attractiveness of the Zimbabwean State

Decaying attractiveness of the Zimbabwean State

Alexander Rusero

Past weeks have once again witnessed Zimbabwe being put on global spotlight for all the wrong reasons.

Three MDC youth activists, including a Member of Parliament for Harare West Joana Mamombe were abducted by suspected state agencies, brutally tortured and sexually harassed only to be found dumped in the mining town of Bindura after two days.

The state has since denied any responsibility, whilst diplomatic missions from the UK and EU have issued strong messages charged at the Zimbabwean government.

The developments come as a smack on President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s government, where it is now clear his re-engagement initiative is not only a farce but a smokescreen. Contrary to world expectations that Mnangagwa’s government would morph a complete departure from the late former president Robert Mugabe’s modus operandi in dealing with perceived opponents, the difference has since proved to be the same.

Mnangagwa’s government has actually renewed and perfected the erstwhile ZANU PF way of doing things – strangely with less sophistication and botched approach as compared to Mugabe’s era.

Amid choking fumes of the barbaric political culture of violence and horror, the Mnangagwa government in more predictable ways has issued an unashamed statement, devoid of substance, devoid of polished propaganda in its vehement unforgivable denial of responsibility and involvement in the recent abductions.

The statement was issued by Foreign Affairs and International Trade Minister, Dr Sibusiso Moyo who noted that “While the relevant agencies of the State are fully seized with the matter and are already investigating all aspects of the allegations made by the three ladies in question — including the circumstances surrounding the unauthorised staging of a demonstration during the national lockdown, in deliberate violation of the SI 77 of 2020 it is most disconcerting to note some sections of the media and some within the diplomatic community appear to have already concluded that the Zimbabwean Government was responsible for the alleged abuse.”

Moyo’s statement came on the backdrop of the trading of accusations by ZANU PF enthusiasts and functionaries, with some going to proportional levels of bizarre by claiming the trio engaged into a stage-managed act, even as the state was claiming to be seized with the matter.

From the state position as insinuated in Moyo’s statement – the government is more worried of  COVID19 violations and “illegal” demonstration, more than they are worried about the fate that befell the three, including serious crimes against humanity perpetrated upon them in form of rape, torture and forced disappearances, despite the authoritative minister’s claims that “These allegations are particularly grave in that they involve alleged abuse of the rights of the girl child, a vulnerable group of our society which this Government is on record as resolutely promoting and protecting.”

It is not clear which record the minister was making reference to as much as ZANU PF-led government is resolute in promoting rights of the girl child. Such kind of posture, lack of seriousness and brinkmanship has no place in a state that wants to be taken seriously as a ‘new dispensation’, as ‘open for business’ and as ‘ready to re-engage the international community of nations’.

This bold and rather hardliner stance made by the state should be taken within the context of Zimbabwe’s history of violence and political culture. The state should be reminded that three activists are not hallucinating when they claim they have been abducted, neither are they fabrications aimed at tarnishing the so called new dispensation led by Mnangagwa.

The state has proceeded by pressing charges against the trio and dragged them before the courts, even in the trio’s visibly shaken and traumatised state. The Mnangagwa-led government has in all its wisdom found that it is importantly more urgent to prosecute these helpless young women for violating lockdown rules than it is to investigate their sexual abuse, torture and the heinous abductions.

In such circumstances, there is absolutely nothing left for the Mnangagwa’s image and reputation let alone legacy. From hiring United States of America public relations firms to the constituting of the Motlanthe Commission, the level of state impunity and state-sanctioned extra-judicial killings have consistently and perennially been laid bare.

The current context of the three MDC activists abductions should be located within a broader understanding of a party and government having a feeling of siege from the entire citizenry they purport to lead and represent.

Zimbabweans under ZANU PF now understand that political violence has not been a means to an end, but is actually the end itself. Abductions were the state is brazenly involved and or implicated is not strange. Accusations that victims engaged in self-act of staging their own abductions are also not new even in circumstances were the state is later implicated. This is very unhealthy for Mnangagwa’s diplomatic posture and his desperate desire to engineer an attractive state.

One of the dominating power approaches of contemporary diplomacy is a state’s ability to get what it wants, not through the traditional military coercive approach but through persuasion and attractiveness – a phenomenon called soft power.

Soft power is something that a political outfit serious about remodelling itself to the dictates of the 21^st century approach should grapple itself with. For the umpteenth time, I will continue arguing that ZANU PF is an epitome of failure, in as much as transforming itself from a liberation movement into a political party is concerned.

It is through this legacy rather manifesting itself as perennial fate to this potential great nation that informs the political culture of violence, intolerance, strife, enmity and barbarism.

Transformation from being a liberation movement into a fully-fledged political party could have smoothly taken place had Mugabe voluntarily relinquished the reins of power way back in the 1990s. It is for such refusal for a political party to reform that led Zimbabwe to crash-land following the November 2017 military coup.

It is for this reason that Zimbabwe will crash-land again as whispers of Mnangagwa to be the sole candidate of ZANU PF in 2023 has already gathered momentum. Nothing wrong with the party’s choice – but Mnangagwa will turn 81 in 2023; he cannot certainly at that age re-present the future, never!

So Zimbabwe under ZANU PF is still pursuing the retrogressive politics of hard power, more guns and more artillery as opposed to the politics of attraction – the pursuance of soft power.

A state can simply be able to attain soft power through its tactful ability to get what it wants through attraction rather than coercion or payments. It arises from the attractiveness of a country's culture, political ideals, values and policies. When a state’s policies are seen as legitimate by others, then its soft power is enhanced.

A balanced foreign policy combines government and domestic satisfaction with regards to the adaptation of external demands and resource allocation. In addition a balanced foreign policy should have clarity of purpose amidst complex, demanding and confusing foreign policy dynamics and it should be consistent with broader foreign policy of an actor and it should be compatible with domestic and international conditions as well as expectations.

Resources that produce soft power are culture, values and policies. When the culture is attractive to others this will obviously enhance the country’s attractiveness, but an increasingly dangerous and potent threat to the preservation of Zimbabwean culture and thus its soft power has been the violent nature of its society and more importantly the increasingly growing intolerance of political leadership under the watch of the ruling ZANU PF.

There is a slowly creeping trend by the government to vilify and delegitimize any one perceived as an opponent. Trade Unionists, students unions, nurses and doctors associations, teachers’ associations, the opposition MDC, activists, NGOs, activists, civil society organisations and lawyers among several categories that do not agree with ZANU PF have all been brandished in one category – enemies of the state.

The event provides adequate indication that Zimbabwe under Mnangagwa’s government is degenerating into privatization of the state and creation of a medieval fiefdom, something standing at the opposite of a country’s attractiveness.

Values are also a critical resource of soft power only when a country lives up to those values. If values are broad, universal and attract others they obviously can produce a positive effect to a country, but a country have to live by them.

Coercion is an unattractive option for simple reasons. Use of force is not only costly, it also fundamentally undermines the prospects for democracy for the simple and straight forward reason that democracy flourishes in environments of peace as opposed to that of violence.

Indeed the incipient and inevitable decline in governance in Zimbabwe, including massive corruption has come as a big blow to all those who supported envisioned Zimbabwe as a jewel of Africa that ought to be jealously safeguarded.

Whatever his legacy shall be, Mnangagwa shall always carry a tainted tag of being a statesman who presided as the undertaker of the Zimbabwean state.

Perhaps it is time we dare to ask: Does Mnangagwa even cares at all?

Obsolescence politics of political parties

Obsolescence politics of political parties

“I have no time (to) waste in party politics. In any event, I think political parties are outdated as instruments of reforms for real change in Zimbabwe. What is now needed is a broad movement of coalitions.” These were Professor Jonathan Moyo’s utterances during a recent interview with Open Parly on 14 May 2020 run on the microblog of twitter under #AskProfMoyo.

I once wrote about the same five years ago, questioning viability of political parties ever since they came into existence. Professor Moyo’s sentiments, which I concur with, have led me rekindle the debate and interrogate through modification on what I once said pertaining the idea of a political parties as viable instruments of change in Zimbabwe.

Although it is a critical defining feature of democracy, political parties, in their current form have largely become archaic and thus in desperate need of revision, remodeling or discarding altogether.

Political parties have for the umpteenth time been enduring organisations under whose labels candidates seek and hold elective office. However, as we have witnessed and continue to witness in Zimbabwe, political parties have largely contributed to political division, instability and violence.

This is in contradiction with their long-held belief of being organisations that seek political power to govern and implement certain policies and programmes. In parts of Africa and elsewhere in the developing world, the competition for power and influence has tended to precipitate the degeneration of politics into strife, violence and warfare.

This is the current predicament that we find ourselves in. The current wrangles within the MDC remind us once again that politics is not always about representing the people. Name-calling, labels, salvo and derogatory language targeted at those who have ‘deviated from the norm’ have become the order of the day.

All that has been happening since the (in)famous Supreme Court ruling has not only been unhelpful but retrogressive in as much as the principle of diversity, agreeing to disagree as well as democratic plurality is concerned.

Some have assumed oracle positions in their parties and establishments, telling us who the sinners and who the saints are, who are God-sent and who are devilish. The battle has fast become one of the good versus the evil. These are shocking indicators of those who assume the role of an alternative – an aspiring government in the post ZANU-PF reign.

Ever since its formation as a splinter liberation movement in 1963, ZANU and later ZANU PF dismally failed to transform itself from a liberation movement into a political party. The undertones of the liberation struggle and the logic of war still inform the party’s ethos in the contemporary.

It explains why the party’s leadership succession and power transfer from long-time leader, the late president Robert Mugabe, to the current President Emmerson Mnangagwa, was militarily embedded. Typical of the Mgagao Declaration of 1975 where the military wing of ZANLA and not ZANU deposed founding president of the party Ndabaningi Sithole, the ghost manifested yet again in 2017 with the military ouster of Mugabe. It was never through an election. The orientation of that political party thus, is one where an election will never resolve leadership dispute as well as the transfer of power at any given stage.

One researcher succinctly put it that apart from fighting the war of liberation and independence, ZANU was also running a parallel project of conquering the masses and all political spaces in Zimbabwe. The researcher notes that at every Pungwe (liberation all-night vigil), more than just the orientation and the mixing and mingling of guerrilla fighters with the masses, three or four people were killed. Yes – at every Pungwe!

This explains why failure to ‘capture’ Midlands and Matabeleland provinces manifested into Gukurahundi were at least 20 000 people were killed, at a time Zimbabwe was still excited with the liberation hangover and euphemisms of reconciliation and independence. Gukurahundi which might not have been an ethnicity cleansing project but a Zimbabwe conquering project was indicative of a political party that absolutely did not tolerate let alone imagine a day it would be out of power.

As such, a political party premised on this logic has neither the capacity nor the features of projecting the aspirations of the future Zimbabwean generations. Forty years after independence, the party has failed to transform and or reform.

Whilst political parties have remained the most popular mechanism for the installation of leadership the world over, they are currently proving to be a retrogressive façade whose continued existence is now a threat to proper governance and modern day progress.

Since their evolution a couple of centuries ago, political parties have fast alienated themselves from the people becoming stumbling blocks to societal progress. As such, debates on the success or failure of a state such as Zimbabwe should not be centred on party capabilities, but the viability of a political party as a credible system for national leadership recruitment.

Political parties have become a modern anachronism and a fetter to the further development of society. When they first emerged, they were indeed a radical development. But now, the party as an idea and a form of political organisation has run its course. It is an exhausted idea.

First, participation in party politics and even voting in the West and the rest of the world is declining. Continued unprecedented low turnout of voters in Africa and Zimbabwe, particularly in urban areas which reduced the polls into a sham, is an indication of an incipient decline of citizens’ confidence in political parties as well as electoral processes. Second, a lot of the advances in political rights — for example, women’s and labor rights — have been achieved not through political parties, but through interest group pressure.

Third, political parties, especially in Africa, have been divisive, and indeed the most effective instruments of transforming brothers and sisters into enemies. Fourth, political parties stifle critical independent thinking – the political commissar thinks for you while the party spokesperson speaks for you.

All political parties speak of democracy but internal articulation of views and or positions are not on the basis of democracy but what the leadership feels. The current discord within the MDC on the position to disengage and or withdraw from Parliament attests to this. Finally and related, following the party line makes it difficult to judge issues on their merit as ideology substitutes reason.

The moment a system prioritizes idiosyncrasies over merit and credentials there is bound to be massive governance crisis. If one is to assess the calibre of Members of Parliament, Ministers and Senators, then you are rest assured that nothing meaningful is likely to come out. Their appointment in public offices has never been about their capabilities, but simply where they can be fitted at the pleasure of the President.

So if you are a member of a political party the secret is simply to appear less intelligent, less wise or even less reasonable than the party president. The prize of outshining your master is very costly to one’s political career. In other words, if party leadership exhibits some stupidity, the rule of the game is for all the other cadres to jump into the ship and parade more stupidity than that exhibited by leadership. In such a scenario, as a world, a state or a modern society we are unlikely to reap anything meaningful that benefits the entire polity emanating from the political party system.

So what is the option? The desired option is preference of a meritocratic democratic system in which leaders are chosen from the grassroots level to the top on merit and demonstrated capabilities. For instance, in order to choose a minister of education all stakeholders (teachers, parents, students, civil society) at each level of society elect the most qualified. From among those chosen at district/council level, the provincial representative is chosen, and from these the minister.

The modalities to implement this principle could be worked out. Whilst I do not have anything against Education minister Cain Mathema as an example, I do not believe he is the best brains we have in the country to preside over the critical noble Ministry of Education. What about Dr Sekesai Nzenza, will industrial fortunes of this country surely turn around because of her? Covid19 has surely shown us the calibre of the Minister of Health we have in this land.

Tragically the current system is one which promotes those with greatest degrees of loyalty and humbleness to party leadership. They make it to the top not because of their capabilities but their subservience to leadership – their unashamed boot licking. In governance principles this is wrong and costly in the long run.

It explains why a country with a remarkable learned populace like Zimbabwe remains poor. It points out why despite abundant natural resources majority of the country’s citizens live and wallow in abject poverty. Since 1980 the current political party system from across the divide has created a sophisticated paternalism system — a policy or practice on the part of people in authority of restricting the freedom and responsibilities of those subordinate to or otherwise dependent on them in their supposed interest. Rationalism has largely been suppressed and punished.

In the 1990s Edgar Tekere and Margaret Dongo were expelled from ZANU PF because of their “deviant” behaviour. Joice Mujuru, Didymus Mutasa and Rugare Gumbo met almost the similar predicament. At some time it befell Mnangagwa, Chris Mutsvangwa, Victor Matemadanda and several others at the height of succession disputes in ZANU PF whose script ended with a military coup.

Their expulsion was neither based on rationality nor merit but simply that they were not in thinking terms with expectations of the party leadership. The same fate befell MDC’s Welshman Ncube, Tendai Biti and Elton Mangoma. They fell from grace because they were no longer at same thinking wavelength with expectations of the MDC leadership.

One of the constant themes underlying contemporary world politics is voter apathy. Political party systems promotes patronage and reasoning based on gut feeling of the leadership, and such will not take a country forward.

In the United States of America, official government data states that between 1960 and 2008, the percentage of eligible voters who have bothered to cast their ballots during the presidential elections have ranged from about 49% to 63%. This means that as much as half of American voters do not care enough to decide which candidate would make a good chief executive of the great nation.

One of the grievances surrounding vote boycott is the limitation of political parties to indulge in the much needed governance intervention. In Africa elections have turned out to be an exercise of voting without choosing and when people have at their disposal choice-less democracy, they would rather exercise their democratic right of choosing not to vote.

Everything indulged by political parties in this land tends to be cursed. From ambitious and impractical manifestos to delusional conferences and congresses; from dubious housing schemes to desperate empowerment gaffes all what we have witnessed from political parties notably in Zimbabwe is high loud sounding nothing.

All points to simple reasoning that entrusting the whole governance matrix to a political party simply because it is the one that would have begged more votes at an election is costly. This is so because more votes do not necessarily translate to monopoly of competence, talent, merit and credentials.

Is it not absurd that, while in other organisations managers and directors are appointed on merit, in politics it is the most loud-mouthed and violent demagogue who is elected? The Bible in Proverbs teaches: “Without knowledge, zeal is not good.” Zeal and enthusiasm cannot be adequate substitutes for knowledge. Similarly, good intentions alone are not enough. To be effective, they must be backed by technical know-how and well-thought-out strategy.

Political leaders, given the enormities of their responsibilities, and especially that they hold the fate of a nation in their hands, need training in leadership. Training in leadership should be a requirement for political office. Greatest political philosopher of all time Aristotle once retorted that the wise and knowledgeable should rule, but I am not convinced whether it is the scenario in Africa, Zimbabwe included.

In Zimbabwe, evidence is there for all to see that we do not have the wisest of leaders or come even think of it the rulers!

alexrusero.blogspot.com

MDC Squabbles – History versus the End of History

BY way of introduction I should say I have always procrastinated in creating a blog and contributing to the national discourse. It is something several colleagues have requested me to do without much success.

After five years of occasional writing of newspaper columns and opinions, in August 2013, I took a stand to hang the boots on column and opinion writing and started pursuing other publishing avenues – writing journal papers, text books, book chapters and modules. An exciting venture, given the wider audience and to some of us living on writing, more lucrative indeed.

Being addicted you of course here and there come from the cocoon and throw a reminder that you still exist by making contributions in the body politic through churning ideas that are constructive.

I must therefore give credit to Takura Zhangazha – a long time brother, friend and mentor who in an irritating way told me at some time that for as long as all presentations I made where not captured for memorification and memorialisation purposes, they would come to naught.

In June 2015, I gave a presentation at Ambassador Hotel’s Quill Club – the famous place where journalists in Harare convene. The Voluntary Media of Council (VMCZ) had organised a discussion to deliberate on the ethical compliance and consequences of door-stepping in journalism. The late former President, Robert Mugabe had been door-stepped in seemingly more uncomfortable and ‘unethical’ ways by the much famed Sahara Reporters’ Adeola Fayehun.

After the deliberation which was received by a thunderous applause that brought the whole of Ambassador Hotel down, Takura came to me and as usual said “Cde, imagine this presentation being captured in a blog?” As usual, I promised him I would make time for that. So here it goes – I have finally made time.

In those circumstances, I find it only appropriate to enter straight in the topical issue of the day – the current squabbles within the MDC Alliance.

A day is surely long in politics, only recently MDC Alliance Secretary General Charlton Hwende, National Chairperson Tabitha Khumalo, Chief Whip Prosper Mutseyami and Senator Lilian Timveous were honourable Members of Parliament, this is no longer the case now.

The parliamentarian stripping has been necessitated by the recall instituted by MDC T acting president Thokozani Khupe following the April Supreme Court judgment which placed her as the bonafide leader of the MDC ahead of Advocate Nelson Chamisa.

Political temperatures have risen and partisan debates have manifested with the one that the tripartite combination of Khupe, Douglas Mwonzora and Morgan Komichi are a conspiracy project of ZANU PF aimed at neutralising and weakening the ‘real’ MDC led by Chamisa.

The debates have gone as far as labelling these political protagonists as the contemporary version of the ‘well accomplished sell-outs’, Bishop Abel Muzorewa and Chief Chirau who in defiance of the national collective went to bed with the racist colonial regime of Ian Smith and formed the short-lived Rhodesia-Zimbabwe. I personally disagree with such narrow parochial views polished with biases, self-hate and cheap propaganda which cloud genuine motives to go deeper to the core of the current troubles rocking the party.

The ongoing narrative has a tendency of over exaggerating ZANU PF capabilities to destabilise other political parties. If truth be told, ZANU PF has its own squabbles and deep-rooted divisions that may come with greater proportions typical of the unceremonial military ouster of Mugabe in 2017.

The manifestations of the current squabbles within the MDC can best be characterised as history versus the end of history. In the circumstances, the two camps have invoked history to their defense. In 2001, Oxford University Emeritus Professor and accomplished academic Terrence Ranger gave a farewell lecture at the University of Zimbabwe where he was visiting professor, entitled History Matters. Surely events that have been unfolding in the MDC formations show and validate Ranger’s claims on the centrality of history. As has become the case in the MDC formations, history has fast become the last resort and defense shield.

This approach by the MDC is rather strange because ZANU PF is known for its notoriety to propagate a historical monologue of Chimurenga at which it is the sole party claiming historical proprietorship of the country. It is through this approach that has manifested in the compulsory teaching of National Strategic Studies, rebranded National Studies in polytechnics and teachers’ colleges.

It is through the same logic that the moribund 1978 National Youth Service Programme was reactivated with much vigor with the coming of the new millennium. All these were a deliberate ploy towards the Zanufication of history – a cynical endeavor to edit the nation’s collective memory in order to rewrite the history of the struggle for independence and the role of ZANU PF onwards.

For the MDC Alliance, the competing historical narrative being pushed is that much of the membership in its rank and file are founding leaders of the MDC of 1999 which the late firebrand trade unionist Morgan Tsvangirai tirelessly led up to the point of nearly wrestling power from Mugabe and ZANU PF in 2008, triggering a SADC-brokered power sharing arrangement for the next five years.

As such, this historical reference is reflective of party members on the correct side of history. This a mischievous claim as I shall briefly ponder. Similarly, the other group that has fallen out favour with the MDC Alliance and now armed with a Supreme Court judgement as the authentic party leadership with representation in Parliament also invokes MDC’ sheer endurance and journey in the fight for constitutionalism in Zimbabwe.

We are daily reminded of the critical roles Mwonzora and Morgan Komichi played during the Constitution Parliamentary Committee (COPAC) which authored the much-hailed new constitution of Zimbabwe. Again this is a mischievous invocation of history to buttress cheap propaganda.

Invocation of history by MDC Alliance protagonists that they were there in the beginning and thus remain on the correct side of history blindly and dangerously attempt to bury certain ‘accidents of history’ in which some were also chief culprits prior to the formation of the MDC Alliance.

On 12 October 2005 the MDC split after a faction led by Tsvangirai insisted the party should not take part in senatorial polls that year. Professor Welshman Ncube, then secretary general of the party, together with his backers insisted participation.

The development which both Tsvangirai and Ncube later regretted reversed Zimbabwe’s democratic gains consolidated in 1999 such that in 2008 Mugabe could have been defeated in the elections outright in typical fashion that the party lost majority in parliament in the same election.

For Ncube to invoke historical correctness and alleging a ZANU PF hand in what is happening in the MDC now will be sheer historic mischief if he remains silent on the same on what transpired in 2005, whether he also went to bed with ZANU PF. Paradoxically, Ncube acquired a 99-year farm lease from ZANU PF in December 2006 – a feat his adversaries for long continued to use as ‘evidence’ that he was a Central Intelligence Organisation (CIO) operative as if unlike any Zimbabwean he did not deserve such.

Senator David Coltart and the late Trudy Stevenson parted ways with Tsvangirai and went with Ncube. Stevenson was barbarically assaulted by youths affiliated to the Tsvangirai formation and left for the dead. It is on record that she dismissed the feasibility of a ZANU PF conspiracy in the whole saga. Good thing is the two leaders, Tsvangirai and Ncube closed ranks and reunited in 2017 – a progressive democratic development, but sad episodes of history cannot be wished away and only cherry-pick favorable historical unfolds – that will be absurd amnesia!

In April 2014, then secretary general of MDC T Tendi Biti and his group convened their own National Council at Mandel Training Centre in Harare and resolved to suspend Tsvangirai and the top leadership of the party backing him.

The Biti group at that time calling themselves the Renewal resolved to suspend Tsvangirai, deputy party president Thokozani Khupe, national chairman Lovemore Moyo and his deputy Morgen Komichi, organising secretary Nelson Chamisa and his deputy Abednico Bhebhe, and party spokesman Douglas Mwonzora. Unlike the Ncube-led camp, the Renewal went berserk in calling Tsvangirai all sorts of names issuing a statement that in the Tsvangirai-led MDC “There is a culture of malice, rumours and gossip, the abuse and disrespect of the constitution, the personalisation and privatisation of the party, the suppression of free speech and internal democracy in the party and the tyranny of impunity in the party and the selective application of rules.” Tsvangirai’s MDC was characterised as a fascist organisation far worse than ZANU PF, with Tsvangirai himself labelled an ‘Idi Amin’ or a ‘Mobuto Seseseko’.

Likewise, Biti and many in the MDC cannot invoke history when apportioning blame on Mwonzora, Komichi and the rest without reminiscing on this sad episode of history – that will be duplicity and double standards on the part of the ever-meticulous honourable. Does it come as a surprise that the current setbacks have claimed the scalp of Hwende first? In August 2017, Hwende was suspended by Tsvangirai over allegations of attacking Tsvangirai’s Khupe, Moyo and Bhebhe by party youths in Bulawayo.

The tiff was on allegations of sabotaging Tsvangirai’s bid to form an opposition alliance to fight Mugabe in the historic 2018 elections.

All these sad episodes rocking the MDC point to some constitutional flaws that have always been dodging the party for the umpteenth time. Blame cannot solely be levelled on MDC functionaries who choose to be indifferent without necessarily pointing the same to the founding constituting document of the party – its own constitution.

In a similar fashion, the paragons of constitutional virtue – the likes of Mwonzora and Komichi cannot convince us on the need to adhere to the same constitution now. When all the sad episodes of constitutional violations occurred back then, it was under their watch; the entire legal meritocracy Mwonzora is exhibiting now of constitutionalism could have been more useful at that critical hour of need when the constitution of the party was brazenly being violated.

For them to invoke history of constitutional compliance and being silent on the salience of constitutionalism when violations were occurring under their watch is hypocritical, crookedness and sheer dishonest.

What we are painfully witnessing within the MDC is no longer just a matter of history but could spell ‘the end of history’ itself. The setbacks will not necessarily spell the end of MDC per se, far from it; but it could the nadir of an end of the MDC as a formidable movement with prospects of tackling ZANU PF from power anytime soon.

Democratic dividends have been slow to realise ever since the party started with these splits. It has become apparently fashionable for the party to splinter each time they vehemently disagree. Levelling blame without self-introspection is not only misleading but hypocritical on protagonists genuine in acquiring power. ZANU PF is not a political saint in all this – it has traceable foot prints of causing destabilisation in the opposition.

However, on its part, the MDC is not a pietistic movement. It is a grouping full of power hungry political mongers with absolutely little sense of political virtue other than their self-importance.

alexrusero.blogspot.com