Back to Index

Response to article by Trudy Stevenson
Mike Davies
September 19, 2006

Trudy Stevenson has made an important contribution to a nascent debate that needs to take place within the democratic movement in Zimbabwe. (Civil society threatened by political 'incest' Independent 18 August) While there are those who say we should not wash our dirty laundry in public, I believe there is no better place for a healthy debate than in the public arena.

Trudy has done more than observe the development of civil society - she has been and remains an active and committed participant. Indeed her allegiance since the split in the MDC is well-known and based on her commitment to her principles and perceptions. She is an honest and important participant but this must not blind us to her own political role.

Her potted history of the growth of civics does not do justice to the efforts of those Zimbabweans who want to hold their elected officials to account. She portrays civil society as a battleground for opportunists and other political animals seeking to maximise their personal advantage. This may be true in a few cases but it is far from an accurate portrait of the general reality. Civics represent a diverse range of interests and this is only to be expected. In itself, there is nothing wrong with such a situation. The problem arises with those who are duplicitous and keep their agendas hidden. We can only deal with this through peer accountability and healthy vigorous debate. Unfortunately we live in an intolerant polarised society that does not encourage such a dialectic. Those who think outside the box or hold unpopular or awkward views are castigated and ostracised. The failure of civics to condemn the manipulation of the NCA constitution is a case in point. The genera l silence by civics on the split in the MDC or the attack on Trudy all point to a moral crisis that hopefully will be addressed. The truth is that civics are occupied by ordinary people who have all the foibles and weaknesses of ordinary people. Civics have always been based upon interest groups and it is hard to imagine that they would exist without such interests.

Trudy omits entirely the fact that the Movement for Democratic Change was created by civics, spearheaded by the unions and the NCA, to contest directly for political power in the 2000 elections. She herself was our delegate to the National Working People-s Convention and we wholeheartedly endorsed the creation of the Movement. As a Movement, the MDC embraced a diversity of opinions and agendas. Bringing together black Trotskyites and white capitalists, it was a broad church that promised to provide a vehicle for meaningful change. Unfortunately for various, mostly venal and mundane, reasons, the Movement rapidly became the Party and dissenting voices were silenced. The split in 2005 was just one more, entirely expected re-ordering of the MDC. The failure of the political party route to deliver change continues to demoralise many Zimbabweans and demobilise activists. The current quest for some sort of broad front must be encouraged. As I have consistently maintained, our present struggle is not for this or that ideology but to establish a country in which we can engage in such ideological contestations, free from intimidation and fear.

As a founder member of the MDC, CHRA maintained a sometimes difficult relationship with those who were active in both organisations. While we appealed for non-partisanship, we could never be sure of where people-s primary allegiances lay; with the residents- movement or with the pursuit of political power. We are well aware that some individuals have used our organisation as an entry point for their political ambitions. Indeed our former chairman actively sought to be the MDC mayoral candidate in the 2002 elections in Harare plunging CHRA into a crisis when Eng Elias Mudzuri was elected, a crisis which took several months to overcome through a dogged persistence in our non-partisan principles.

Since early 2003 it became clear that CHRA needed to address this problem through structural reform. Trudy is aware of our efforts to carry out these reforms even if she casts aspersions upon our efforts (" . . . ostensibly changed its constitution . . . "). The anomalies she mentions arise from the slow implementation of our constitutional provisions due to numerous constraints. I assure Trudy and our members that those who continue to hold office in both CHRA and any political party will be held to account.

Foremost of the constraints responsible for the supposed incestuous relationship she mentions is the simple lack of human resources. In 2003 Herbert Murewa stated that 30% of Zimbabweans (or 70% of adults) no longer lived or worked in Zimbabwe. This statistic certainly hasn-t improved in the last three years. The truth is that Zimbabwe has suffered a massive population drain because of the policies of the regime. As such, we do not have the luxury of drawing upon the skills of wide number of people. CHRA relies on volunteerism: we can only draw upon the skills of those who come forward to offer their services. Activists are thin on the ground: most Zimbabweans seem more concerned with finding their personal coping strategies rather than engaging in seemingly futile social responses. This is the fault of the MDC and civil society who fail to offer a convincing alternative to the regime. Trudy is well aware of the difficulties we face in mobilising our citizens for any for m of action whether rates boycotts or street demonstrations. This is no excuse for the glaring deficit of transparency, accountability or democracy we see in civil society but it is a reality. Unless we as leaders actively promote and develop the participation of our citizens in the pursuit of social responses to our crisis, we will continue to fail to enthuse ordinary Zimbabweans with our vision of the future.

Trudy-s contribution resonates with understandable bitterness given her experiences allegedly at the hands of erstwhile colleagues but it offers little in the way of constructive criticism beyond a broad appeal to save our civics from inbreeding!. She portrays us as self-serving perverts engaging in some sort of proto-sexual activity: a metaphor that is both vulgar and unconstructive.

Let us engage in an open healthy debate although I suspect the result will be yet more polarisation between players in the democratic movement. Zimbabwe is an immature society undergoing massive changes; it has always been intolerant and parochial and I have my doubts that a constructive debate is possible but we must try for the health of our struggle and ultimately our society. Let us guard however at throwing the baby out with the bath water.

* Mike Davies Chairperson Combined Harare Residents Association. He wrote this article in his personal capacity and the views expressed herein may or may not reflect CHRA official policies.

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