Back to Index

Zimbabwe claims place in African politics of patronage
Marko Phiri
March 25, 2005

One of the manifold banes of African politics is brazen cronyism where so-called founding fathers - and even those who came after them - make no attempt to respect their compatriots as they groom scions to take over when their time is up. There seems to be some effort to literally keep the family secrets within the family, such that with power in the hands of what these people imagine to be interlopers, they will never know peace. At least until the gods call them to their abode.

It is the brazen nature of that pursuit to create political dynasties which raises questions about so-called democracy in Africa. At what stage will the continent be called democratically mature, and this based on politicians acting on the will of the people? But then experience has shown political parties do not assume public office based on the will of the people. (Is it the people of Manyame for example who asked for their own constituency?).

One of the African continent’s last strongmen Gnassingbe Eyadema whose posthumous wish to have his 39-year old son taking over was a brazen violation of the Togolese constitution in February this year, was but a continuation of that tradition where political power is only safe in the hands of the founding father’s bloodline. Never mind that Faure went on to claim victory in a hastily arranged election in April, about ten weeks after the he acceded to pressure to respect the Togolese constitution. And as an adjunct of that tradition where sons take over from fathers as Joseph Kabila did and Faure Gnassingbe tried to do - and claims to have succeeded in a disputed democratic election - the continent still holds on to politics of tribal and ethnic loyalties.

Zimbabwe has itself sought not to be left out as it has been raised within ZANU PF’s political hierarchy pitting Shonas from different dialects. Each time the power politics of the ruling party are discussed and especially prior to the elevation of Joice Mujuru to the post of the country’s first female vice president, we inevitably hear about so-called powerful cliques from some Shona dialects positioning themselves for what are considered powerful posts in the party. One tends to wonder then the place of former Zapu loyalists now part of the ruling party - themselves from a small ethnic group - where they fit within the scheme of things when the party that swallowed them up still wrestles for the power reigns based on influential Shona dialects.

But it is the election into parliament in March of three members of one family which brings Zimbabwe on board in the debate about Africa’s politics of patronage and the apparent grooming of scions to take over from ageing patriarchs. These developments make relevant questions about what would be the case had the president a son old enough to throw his hat into the political ring. Would he not have been "groomed" for the take over the party leadership considering we a re seeing his nephews entering gladiatorial politics at a time the most relevant question being asked is the president’s retirement? But then African politicians have that obsession of treating their countries like what has been done by successive Rockefellas in America running the family business since the 19th century! The appointment of the president’s nephews to the position of a deputy minister is proof enough that laws of nepotism form the ruling party psyche. And because the highest office in the land sets the standard, small wonder then that every rung in Zimbabwe society has adopted this as a normal order of things.

Lessons galore about how this has bled nations from Kenya’s Moi years, to ethnic troubles in the Great Lakes, it all points to a continent whose economic, political and social development has been stagnated by ethnic loyalties and family considerations. The history of African families in this country is one coloured with stories about parents who were teachers during the Smith years. The children followed in their footsteps, and we had whole families virtually becoming teachers or nurses. Take this to post-independence politics, and we see politicians grooming sons and relatives who failed in other spheres imagining they will do better holding public offices as guardians of people’s wealth! What does this all do to efforts towards national development when the preoccupation seems to be with keeping power within "homeboys" with no clue about anything?

Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.

TOP