Back to Index

Acid test for civil society
Webster Zambara
March 19, 2006

http://www.thestandard.co.zw/viewinfo.cfm?linkid=21&id=306

THE conundrums pertaining to Zimbabwe’s main opposition, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) are definitely causing tremors in the body politic of the Zimbabwean landscape.

Whatever the result, our political landscape will never be the same. The entry of Professor Arthur Mutambara into mainstream politics heightened adrenalin levels in many political enthusiasts throughout Zimbabwe.

To Zimbabwe’s young democracy, multi-party politics had real impact with the coming on the scene of the MDC. Personally, I was particularly excited because I subscribe to the functional definition by Diamond, Linz and Lipset (1988). To them, democracy entails meaningful and extensive competition among individuals and organized groups (especially political parties) for all effective positions of government power, at regular intervals and excluding the use of force; a highly inclusive level of political participation in the selection of leaders and policies, at least through regular and fair elections.

Political opposition contributes to ensuring healthy respect for the rules of the game, ready to provide an alternation in government. Robert Dahl (1971) even considers the presence of an opposition party as the “most distinctive characteristic of democracy itself”, and its absence “evidence, if not always conclusive proof, for the absence of democracy”. For this very reason, my excitement is justified.

Another pre-requisite for the inauguration and consolidation of democracy is the existence of a strong and organized civil society which has sufficient opportunities to express its opinions and which also has sufficient possibilities to participate, especially at the grassroots level of society.

The life of civil society has to be coupled with the evolution of a culture of civil mindedness. In other words, civil society is not necessarily in conflict with the government of the day, but is, in the context of a universal struggle for rights, dignity and respect – engaged in an organic struggle with a give and take character.

A strong civil society is an elementary pre-requisite for the development of democracy. By the same token, civil society has to strengthen the role of political society, that is, the political institutions, particularly political parties in a multi-party system like ours, which must be adequately developed to bring about a peaceful national community that celebrates diversity.

This is why I would argue that the MDC split should be put on the agenda by the civil society. My wish is not to end up having splits in civil society organisations, resulting in a multi-polarised society. A cursory review of the reality on the ground shows that besides the professional denial that there is a clear line of separation between the MDC and prominent civic groups, the opposite is quite true.

These two institutions formed what was technically termed the “progressive movement”. They both agreed that President Robert Mugabe has ruled this beautiful and once prosperous country so badly that there was every need to harness all their energies and resources at removing Mugabe and Zanu PF from power. They at times invoked the dictum: “seek ye first the removal of Robert Mugabe, and the rest will be added unto it.”

In this marriage of convenience, the MDC was never put under serious scrutiny in terms of depth, content and character. The argument was, the MDC did not create the crisis we are in, and they are not in power after all.

Two interesting arguments have been put forward in relation to the events unfolding. Firstly, there are those that argue that members of the civil society are playing a “wait-and-see” game. They want to see where the pendulum swings before making public statements and articulating their positions. No wonder why only the Bulawayo-based Zimbabwe Christians for Peace made a public statement, but only on how unfortunate the split is.

There have not been Press statements from associations, coalitions, unions, forums or trusts on this development. This argument concludes that these civil institutions realise how delicate the situation should be treated, in case their very own institutions may start crumbling.

The second argument is that civil society actors are generally frustrated by the split, and particularly by the allegations of intra-party violence, physical and non-physical, that has rocked the opposition. Recorded statistics among civic organizations reveal that Zanu PF is the chief perpetrator of violence. So, the argument goes, if a culture of violence has permeated through our social fabric, when politics is treated as war, then they have to go back to the drawing board.

For long, political events are a curve ahead in terms of determining events. The civil society is forced to be reactive, even to catastrophic decisions by politicians. Civil society should stop the habit of giving themselves the tag “we are the voice of the voiceless”. Who do you think you are? Give the people the voice! Empower the communities to deal constructively with the conflicts they face on daily basis, using non-violent methods. When you invest and empower the people, you will not walk alone.

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