Back to Index

MDC suffers ideological confusion
Gift Nyandoro
October 11, 2005

WHEN the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) was formed on 11 September 1999, a wave of change in the governance of the country was astronomically felt in every corridor of Zimbabwe. The writing was on the wall that Robert Mugabe's regime had to go.

A five-month old opposition party went on to win 57 seats in the 2000 parliamentary election, an electoral feat which neither ZUM, ZANU Ndonga and Zapu ever tasted since Zimbabwe got independence in 1980.

Zanu PF, in the aftermath of the results, became even more vicious to the citizens of the country, punishing them for voting the opposition, but people remained steadfast in their political beliefs. Arbitrary land seizures and victimisation of the perceived MDC supporters by the regime strengthened from one day into another. Draconian laws were sporadically passed by the regime in order to cripple the opposition. This saw the emergence of Posa, Aippa, and even the NGO Bill that never materialised into law. MDC responded by calling for 'stay-aways' and mass actions (demonstrations).

In the formative years of MDC's emergence, 'stay-aways' reflected the strength the MDC had on the urban electorate. Surprisingly as time passed by, people started ignoring the MDC calls. As if that was not enough, the MDC encountered a parliamentary tragedy in March 2005. It was a tragedy in that the party could not come out clean and clearly on whether to participate or not in the elections.

Amazingly, the MDC stopped the electoral bickering at the eleventh hour by getting into the elections. Only a month remained to the polling stations. That eventually culminated in MDC getting 41 seats out of 120 contested seats. Rumour ran amok that the MDC believed the election was rigged by Zanu PF and consultations were underway to boycott the parliament. The state machinery, led by the ZBC had a field day on the MDC's inconsistencies.

MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai got televised during the campaign period saying:

"There is no way Zanu-PF is going to win the election. A top CIO has told us all the rigging techniques of Zanu PF and MDC is going to drive the electoral victory home."

Immediately after the results were announced, Tsvangirai appeared on Sky News, fuming, saying the election had been stolen. Is this not a contradiction in itself?

Resultantly the Sky News reporter was left with no option but to suggest that he was talking to a man without an idea of what to do. Put in juxtaposition, a video-clip of an MDC legislator also got flighted, it was still during counting of votes with him acknowledging that the election was free and fair. Is this not another fundamental contradiction?

Operation Murambatsvina emerged, but still the MDC could not come out clearly with what its position was in the face of its predominantly urban electorate being persecuted by the regime. One only head of Nicodemous visits by Morgan Tsvangirai to the destroyed densities. People still wonder as to what was MDC's position on the satanic exercise by the regime.

This reminds me of a great leader, Winston Churchill, who once said: "A crisis is when events go beyond human reasoning and control."

Indeed Zimbabwe is now in a crisis. Prices are galloping, fuel and foreign currency are nowhere, and medical institutions are a nightmare. Everyone is asking the question: Is the MDC the party to take Zimbabweans to the Promised Land? If so, what exactly is hampering the legitimate expectations of the people from MDC? I wish not to delineate on the question whether the MDC is the party for national deliverance or not, but I would rather contend with what could be the greatest weakness of the MDC: lack of ideological identity.

Primarily, it would be quite useful to the reader if the term ideology could be defined. An Ideology could be generally defined as the assumptions underlying human life. This could therefore be taken as the science of ideas, and visionary speculation that can only be given practical translation into the political, economic, religious, philosophical and scientific dimensions of daily existence. By such definition, and though not exhaustive, the question of ideological imperative and clarity therefore emerges as a cornerstone of the success of every political party in the domain of the struggle for supremacy and governance of any given country. It is this ideological identity, which expresses the outlook of political life, general attitude of mind, mode of thought and intellectual bearing. For a political party, it is a functional necessity that defines the policies, and objectives it aspires for the governed.

It is a saddening reality that the MDC as the biggest opposition to the oppressive regime of Zanu PF has dismally failed to clearly define what it stands for in the eyes of its predominantly sympathetic followers.

Due to the lack of identity, Tsvangirai publicly announces that those people supporting the idea of going for senate elections are "sell outs" of the struggle. On the other hand, his Secretary General Welshman Ncube believes that it is the MDC's National Council's party position that election participation is the agreed standpoint. Tsvangirai says that's a "legal interpretation". It is such radical differences that manifest deepening ideological arguments, which without doubt have created rifts amongst the MDC leaders and confused the rank and file of the MDC support base. How can the MDC, as the official opposition party, succeed when it is so disorganised and apparently not clear as to who calls the shots?

What is more worrying is the way the MDC projects the senate issue. An ordinary mind in constitutional matters would be made to believe that the senate issue is something very different from the Constitutional Amendment no. 17. It seems as if not enough weight has been given by the MDC to critical questions like the freedom of movement, disenfranchising of voters and the threat posed to investor confidence due to the nationalisation of the deemed agricultural land by the state. The voters would also want to question the constitutional approach that MDC is taking as a political party. Is the MDC happy with cut and paste constitutional amendments or attention should be given to the due process of a home grown constitution? This suffices to expose more on the lack of ideological clarity by the MDC.

Divisions have emerged, the Secretary General being mainly backed by the intellectuals and the opposition leader Tsvangirai, receiving the backing of the trade unionists. Does this reflect a theory that MDC was simply a Marriage of Convenience from a loose coalition of ideas at its formation? Each group is quick to declare themselves as the only true proponents of liberty and dismisses the others as detrimental to the greater cause of freedom. Could this not be enough evidence to the opposition electorate as to what exactly bred the 2005 parliamentary tragedy?

Tsvangirai should not become a perpetual and perennial victim of false-glory advisors, some of whom, by Medieval or feudal politics standards, do not deserve to be in the secretariat of the party. These divisions should be a warning to Tsvangirai that there is need for an honest audit of what is it that the MDC stands for as a political party.

Tsvangirai should know that the battle over political ideas is a battle of pure numbers and majority, and this demands tactical and shrewd calculation in political circles. The world over, such calculation should not be entirely limited to political rumblings but rather demands a strike of balance between intra-party leadership on one hand, and the handling of Zanu PF on the other extreme. Zimbabweans are tired of populist ideologies but anxiously wait for practical results to deal with the Zanu-PF hegemony.

The MDC should therefore come up with a clear position whether it is participating in the senate elections or not and this should be echoed with one voice. If therefore, Tsvangirai fails to control a five-year-old party, then does it not bring into question his credibility to become a decisive leader of Zimbabwe? Every movement starts from a losing position in terms of popularity. What is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right. It takes men of honour and courage to defend principles of deliverance to the whole of the Zimbabwean citizenry. The success of any political ideology depends on the ability of rulers to utilise, gain support and action from the citizenry. The goal of Zimbabwean liberty is not centred on political intra-party disputes and wasting time having ideas diluted by moderacy: but rather convincing the citizenry of the benefits of liberty. Once the people are convinced, Zanu PF will be pitted against a body of independent individuals and be forced to change the face of its authority, if not completely and ideally, at least in the direction of true liberty and freedom!

Mr Tsvangirai Sir, without taking anything away from your most honourable and remarkable efforts in the struggle against Mugabe, l humbly remind you that Zanu-PF rallied around the ideology of socialism when it fought Ian Douglas Smith. It was that ideological identity that made every Zimbabwean in every corner of the country speak with one language. It is on the basis of such properly defined ideology that the voter is turned into a traditional party voter not a sympathiser and is also endowed with political identity. Could I therefore finish by suggesting that you need urgent ideological definition before you become a victim of a noble cause?

*Gift Nyandoro is a law student and chairman of the Zimbabwe Youth Network for Good Governance. Contact Gift at nyanzy2003@yahoo.com or cell: +26391903082

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