Back to Index

A movement that lost its way?
Dr Alex T. Magaisa
January 14, 2006

http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/magaisa12.13634.html

Titles of artistic expressions often form the starting point of ideas and articles that I write. A song, a book, poem and as readers may have noticed, even the idea embedded in a folk tale or every day phenomenon, such the story of the arrogant boy who would always take away his football at the slightest hint of irritation, usually form the basis of my thoughts. A couple of years back I was inspired to write a story by the title of Maya Angelou's beautiful book, I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings. The title seemed apt to describe the experience of the Zimbabwean, whom to me is akin to a caged bird, but sings nonetheless. A decade ago, when I was in law school I read a book entitled, Zimbabwe: A revolution that lost its way? by Andre Astrow. It is an historical polemic of how the new leadership in Zimbabwe had betrayed the people after independence. And today I borrow that title, for the theme of this article, and question whether the opposition movement that promised so much has also lost its way. Is history, in some way, repeating itself?

I have previously argued that the two factions in the MDC ought to consider the bigger picture, in the hope that such a perspective would enable them to find common ground despite the differences that have emerged recently. Sadly, events in the past few weeks seem to suggest further polarisation fuelled in part by the partisan media coverage, which as usual seems to revel in scandal and bad news rather than providing a platform for constructive engagement. Some national newspapers seem to have created an "MDC Watch" column with nothing good to say. Not that there is any, but its just that in times gone by they never found so much space for that opposition party. Rather than fight through the media where there is no face-to-face meeting perhaps they should be mature enough to sit together and debate their problems. Then at least, we will have no excuses of having been misquoted. As it is, dialogue through the medium of journalists does not help in conflict resolution. Journalists love good quotes and a nasty statement provides good copy. The nasty they are the better. They are in the business of selling news and they always pick the parts they consider marketable, sometimes ignoring the main substance of one's message. All is lost in the delivery. Yet the politicians are happy to tag along and fight their wars through the media.

The appeal for a stronger MDC is not necessarily based on the fact that it is the best political party there is on the Zimbabwean political landscape. Rather it is because in any country, it is necessary to have a strong opposition party that keeps the ruling party in check. In the UK today some people are happy to see a regenerating Conservative Party - not because they really like it but because they know that a strong opposition is good for ensuring that the Labour government is kept in check and performs better to ward off the new challenge. Likewise the Liberal Democrats are renewing leadership in response to the changing political environment. The MDC may never become the government in the immediate future but its presence as a viable alternative is good enough to provide choice to the people and to keep the government on its toes. The demise of the MDC is sweet news to all those who have always wanted to maintain a single-party system and avoid any challenge to political hegemony. It is quite possible that the two factions will go on to form their own parties, whatever names they choose to use. But it is unlikely that they will have the same potent force that the MDC of old had.

The country's economy is at its weakest point as is the morale of the general public. Yet paradoxically, the party that has presided over this demise and should be more vulnerable, appears to be actually maintaining its political grip. Therein lies the greatest failure of the MDC and its inability to exploit the advantages, which if it were a viable alternative, would have exploited. The one possibility that is available, if Zanu PF is prepared to modernise, is to present a new package because the present one is past its sell-by date and they know it. At MDC's weakest point, one would expect the ruling party to reinvent itself and present itself as a reformed organisation ready to take on the current challenges. Against common judgement, there is no reason to believe that this is impossible. Yet because of perennial delusions of grandeur and believing one's own lies, it is unlikely that the ruling party has the will to reform. Zanu PF must be true to itself and admit that it is in power not because it has done well or that in its current state it offers any better prospects. There are the tactics that it has used which have been questioned both locally and internationally and now there is the weak opposition that is driving itself into the ground. Zimbabweans need a government that will deliver them from the current mess. All they want is a chance to relive life under the sunshine and I am not sure that they care who does it. Yet a perusal of the landscape at present shows no party with the potential and will to do that. And that is where the tragedy of Zimbabwe lies.

Many people thought in 1999 that the MDC would usher a new era in which the principles of democracy would be established and developed. It represented hope and an alternative. But recent events would have knocked their confidence in politics. It is believed in some quarters that the low voter turnout was a positive response to one of the MDC factions' call for a boycott. A few others, including myself hold the view that it is not that easy and such a simplistic view cannot properly explain the behaviour of Zimbabweans and their attitude towards elections at present. In my view, people are simply withdrawing from politics in the same way that they did prior to 1999, when Zanu PF virtually had a walk-over in the 1995 elections because people had withdrawn into their shells, there being no viable alternative. In other words, there is a danger that the hope that had carried the people back into politics and buoyed the MDC in 1999, is slowly but surely dissipating. The leadership of the MDC must assess their background and their performance. They did not convince people to join the MDC when it was formed. They did not have to because people were ready for an alternative. Bar a few they had not done anything to demonstrate the leadership credentials. After six years, people are entitled to judge their performance and they are obliged to account to the people whose support they received over the years. Unfortunately, all they ever do is try to defend their positional superiority on the basis that they are founder members of the party.

Now, this founder-member syndrome is a very dangerous phenomenon especially in the context of our national politics. It is used primarily to pursue politics of exclusion. Often the new are referred to disparagingly as Mafikizolo. The old ones' claim is based on nothing else but the fact that they were there when the party was founded. But being a founder member does not entitle one to close space to others nor does it mean that what he or she says is right all of the time. The danger with the founder-member syndrome is that it excludes new blood and new ideas that would regenerate any political movement. The irony in fact, is that the MDC members, who use the founder-member argument to exclude and claim position, have also been victims of the same idea when pursued by fighters of the liberation struggle who claim eternal power and perpetual legitimacy on the ground that they are founding fathers of the country. In this regard, the MDC leaders have learned nothing and forgotten nothing. Unless we get over this retrogressive idea of claim space on the basis of being a founder member, we will stagnate. What is required is an opening of spaces for regeneration of the political movement, be it the MDC or Zanu PF. Whoever is in power, the country is best served by the presence of a viable alternative.

Finally, the opposition must learn that those that live in glasshouses must not throw stones. If they choose to fight for democracy, then they must practice democracy internally. They cannot take shortcuts. As they say, they can't have their cake and eat it at the same time. If they have lapses in their pursuit of democratic structures they will be found out and when that happens it is hard to recover. The biggest challenge of either faction in the MDC leadership is not who will emerge bigger than the other after the parallel congresses in February - rather, it is whether they can regenerate the hope that existed in the last six years and consequently, whether they can convince the people to return to politics because I fear, if indeed the movement has lost its way, many people have simply retreated to the margins and see very little hope in politics. And more will follow. In short, people have lost trust in politics and politicians. For the MDC factions and Zanu PF, that is one of the greatest challenges in 2006 - to restore people's trust in politicians and bring them back to participate in politics.

*Dr Magaisa is a lawyer specialising in Economic and Financial Services Law. He is also a columnist for the Zimbabwe Independent newspaper. He 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