Back to Index

The pitfalls of opposition politics in Zimbabwe: On why (MDC) is struggling
Dr Alex T Magaisa
July 28, 2005

The great challenges that the MDC is facing should not be a source of surprise. These are challenges that at one point or another were bound to materialise – the only question was when that would happen.

First, that the MDC was a coalition of otherwise disparate groups was known from the very beginning. It was, to put it mildly a choir of discordant voices. It didn’t sound right, but those who listened chose to pay attention to the sales, rather than the quality of its production. It was always a shaky alliance – of previously opposing groups, which were united by one aim: the removal of Mugabe and his government and the introduction a new dispensation led by a new government, whatever it was. No one really cared about the quality of the change. It was change for change’s sake. Disparate groups, lack of leadership scrutiny, amateurism, greed, unbridled ambition, riding on a wave of protest rather than support – a dangerous concoction it was.

The result justified the means. An alliance of farmers, farm workers, businesses, trade unions, the urban and the rural, middle class (or aspiring) and the working classes was bound to be shaky at the very least. It was an alliance based on the prospect of imminent success. Failure was not an option or was deliberately dismissed as an impossibility. The failure to respond to apparently unfair electoral defeats demonstrated that the MDC had based its strategy on the basis of the belief that it would win elections. The possibility of loss, by means fair or foul, had not been accounted for and when it materialised the MDC has always been caught napping. After three elections, some have begun to say, fatigue has set in. It is not simply fatigue – it is careless, amateurish planning and unrestrained lust for power – the over-eagerness of a young man who meets a woman for the first time, and in his bid to impress fails the basics and flounders.

Secondly, the MDC became misdirected in its strategy and approach to the issues facing the country. It found itself between two constituencies – on the one hand, the people of Zimbabwe and secondly the international community. Unfortunately, it became a "captured" movement – responding more to the demands and concerns of the international community and less to the daily concerns of the local people. It became distant and its leaders were more interested in flying to Western capitals than they were prepared to rally the masses in the townships and the rural areas – except during the pre-election phases during which conditions were manipulated to cause maximum difficulty for the MDC. In the end the MDC was not quite visible beyond the urban areas.

Yet Mugabe plotted well and repeatedly dismissed the MDC as an instrument for Western imperialism. We all thought it was nonsense of course but the idea was repeated so often in the state-controlled media, and true to Goebbels’ tactics, some people began to believe that it was true. What did the MDC do to avert that impression of being a stooge for the West? Nothing, besides shallow media denials that it was not. Worse, perhaps drawing comfort from the support it received as a pro-democracy movement the MDC publicly displayed its friendship with the Western powers. Unsurprisingly, in its folly the leadership ended up eating from the same plate with the "consultant", the notorious Ari Ben Menashe, who turned out to be Mugabe’s spy. People tended to forgive the leadership, but this showed the ineptitude and weaknesses in the leadership especially the misguided affinity for all things Western.

So like a rabbit glaring at the headlights, the MDC stood there in awe, hoping that the solution would come from outside and that in the scheme of things, the people of Zimbabwe were powerless and had no role to play beyond participation in a clearly manipulated electoral process. There was a saying in my youthful days, which was told in Shona as "Kudyiwa wakatarisa seMatemba" – Matemba are small fish. When captured and cooked their eyes appear to be glaring at the consumer. They can "see" that they are being eaten, people say, but they do not resist. It connotes a foolish person, who knows he is getting into trouble but does nothing to avert the outcome. The MDC knew, or should have known that they were losing in the elections due to the unfair system, but they went along nonetheless and had no alternative strategy. Yakadyiwa yakatarisa seMatemba.

The biggest problem however is that the MDC seems to have lost focus on the primary reasons for its emergence in 1999 and the key points of challenge against ZANU PF that really matter to the people. This is connected to the above point in relation to "capture" by the international community. Instead of focussing on the wider primary reasons for people’s disgruntlement against ZANU PF, the MDC became obsessed with the matter of "human rights". Everything became human rights; Everyone was talking of human rights; "Mugabe must go because he violates human rights", etc. I do not discount that there have been human rights abuses in the country. However, what causes concern is the Reductionist approach to the Zimbabwean problem whereby everything is reduced to the human rights argument and must fit the human rights paradigm. Therefore every problem, every other issue which many of the groups that make up the MDC had against the government became quite simply a "human rights" issue. The key challenges against the government, such as economic mismanagement (which by the way was the primary problem long before the current human rights problems) have become marginalised topics that are discussed on a "by the way" basis.

It is easy to see why the MDC became so obsessed with human rights that it began to base its campaign against Mugabe on the basis of violation of human rights. It could not ably articulate the many issues represented by the many voices in the MDC choir. The leadership probably listened to the tune and realised that there was too much discord. Their advisers, the "consultants" probably heard the discord too and advised them to stick to one issue as the rallying point against Mugabe: Human Rights – for that is universal and affects everyone. It universalises the problem and covers all issues under a single umbrella. But it also meant lost opportunities to challenge Mugabe on key areas that directly affect people on the ground – education, health, transport, employment, development, etc. Even Mugabe knew this – when he was donating computers to rural schools across the country, what did the MDC do to address the weaknesses of ZANU regarding the education policies and practices? Nothing on that issue which is dear to people’s hearts. The restoration of human rights will not necessarily change the way public exams are run in Zimbabwe – the MDC needs to articulate these issues that find resonance in the community. Instead, all we hear is Mugabe violates human rights and nothing more.

But on a more crucial note, how well does this "human rights" talk resonate with the local population? This is a population of which more than half of the people probably did not have a clue about the Constitution, let alone the Bill of Rights before the constitutional debate in 1999. There is no doubt that human rights matter to everyone, the knowledgeable and the ignorant alike. But as a political strategy, it is necessary to put at the forefront, issues that are uppermost in the psyche of the people. A campaign predicated on human rights sounds very right and sweet to the international community, especially Western countries. The introduction of democracy and promotion of human rights and removal of tyrannies is well in line with the current US foreign policy.

What the MDC has done and its campaign strategy based primarily on the need to remove Mugabe because he allegedly violates human rights and is undemocratic elicits support and sympathy from large sections of the international community, especially the West. But does it really touch the key areas of the local population? Do Zimbabwean people primarily dislike Mugabe and his government because of human rights violations or because of economic mismanagement? In other words, do people want the government replaced because it closed the Daily News or because it is not delivering bread? Okay, it could be said more generally that both reasons apply, but surely there is something that is uppermost in the mind of the people and foremost in their hearts and I argue that in this case it is bread. And you do not need to argue this point on the basis of human rights to make it a relevant issue. The MDC has chosen to discuss almost everything in the language of human rights. It is good for the international community to understand our problem but it is also necessary to base the campaign on issues that resonate in the local context. This, I fear, the MDC has not done very well – the leaders are more often in London and Brussels or addressing the BBC and CNN than they are in Dotito or Esigodini.

Unless the MDC, refocuses its energy on the local, it will continue to look to the international community – which frankly has more interests elsewhere and will continue to shout against Mugabe, but ultimately do nothing, but all the while, their businesses are still doing business in Zimbabwe.

* Dr Magaisa is a Zimbabwean lawyer and formerly Lecturer in law at the University of Nottingham, UK. He is a weekly columnist for the Zimbabwe Independent newspaper and can be contacted at wamagaisa@yahoo.co.uk

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