Back to Index

Zimbabwe's civil society and diminishing political space
Alex Magaisa
December 10, 2006

http://www.thestandard.co.zw/viewinfo.cfm?linkid=21&id=5455

THE publication of two articles last week attracted an avalanche of responses. A key and one of the more tantalising challenges that came my way, could be crystallised in a famous line attributed to Lenin, "What’s to be done?" which in this context, this must be read in the context of Zimbabwe.

A mere mortal that I am, I do not claim a monopoly of ideas nor do I hold the single key to the resolution of the Zimbabwe problem. No single person does. But I also have faith in the power of ideas and believe that critical thought provides the invaluable therapy against the ills of complacency and taking things for granted.

The experience of the last five years has taught us that the resolution of the problems is not and will not be accomplished in one event. Rather, it is a process and like all processes, there are going to be phases through which the country must pass and we all need to generate ideas.

I am particularly concerned with the competition for political space between the MDC and the Civil Society Organisations (CSOs), that claim to be apolitical, and the resultant shrinkage of space for the opposition, among other consequences. There are some who will choose to interpret this as an attack on CSOs. It is not. At the basic level, it is a call on CSOs to take a critical self-assessment of their role and purpose in the political process within the Zimbabwean context. Like the MDC, they too need to redefine their perspectives, strategies and purpose in light of past experience.

Let me hasten to add that there are many people within the CSOs who have done great work at very high risk and whose work deserves commendation. But too much commendation and less critical assessment explains why Zimbabwe is in the state it is today so the better to leave praises to a late stage and to others and concentrate on possibilities for reform.

It is unfortunate that there is that view that people can participate and make an impact on the political process through vehicles that do not actually seek political power and that have no mandate to make laws but at best, appeal to moral conscience, pressure, goodwill and support mostly from external forces. Instead of strengthening the political process, the proliferation of CSOs on the political landscape, has simply highlighted the problem but not mobilised enough to effect change.

In fact, while providing people with a convenient forum for debate, it may also turn them away from the political organisations, which are the key to political change and transformation. There is no shortage of opposition forces. The problem is that there is division within the opposition forces between those who participate within the realm of the political party and another large group that calls itself CSOs whose individuals prefer to be known as "activists", at the same time proclaiming to be apolitical. For whatever reason, they do not want to be called politicians. Unlike the ruling party, those who are in the opposition are thus divided into the "political" for MDC and the "apolitical" mainly in CSOs. As I see it, Africa and in this case, Zimbabwe cannot afford people who claim to be apolitical.

This pretence that "we are civil society" and not political organisations is based on a fallacious distinction, which fails to take into account the context within which they operate. To be sure, to most of the population in Zimbabwe, there is no distinction between the MDC and CSOs that have been fighting for human rights, etc. To the extent that the CSOs attempt to portray themselves as apolitical and impartial advocates for rights, they only serve to confuse a population that is already mentally harassed by the conflict between the two main protagonists.

The "No" Vote against the proposed 2000 Constitution is the clearest demonstration that the distinction is known only to those who lead and run CSOs but not the masses. It seems widely accepted that the No Vote was more an expression of protest against the ruling party rather than the Constitution itself, although of course those in the CSOs that led the "NO Campaign" would have us believe otherwise.

We understand them —in order to get more donor-funds, they need to "claim" certain victories. So the "No Vote" is used to state the case for CSOs relevance rather than the MDC, which incidentally rose from within the realm of the so-called apolitical CSOs.

In addition, it is inconceivable, within the context of African politics that CSOs can purport to be fighting for human rights without at the same time being engaged in politics. What is it that makes people believe that they can simply change the opinion of ruling parties in Africa, from self-appointed positions in CSOs without first engaging in the struggle for political power? Arguably, it is necessary to change the political system in order to achieve the human rights goals. In other words, the achievement of human rights is largely dependent on whether one can transform the political system.

This is what the liberation movements had to do against the colonial forces — human rights did not just come through campaigns run by "apolitical" CSOs – the goals had to be achieved through political means and political parties were constructed regardless of how often forms of political organisation were banned. It is simply a pity that after getting political power, the liberation movements cared less about human rights. To the extent that there is a crop of CSOs that purport to be apolitical, they are wasting energy and resources by failing to take a politically bold approach. They are competing for limited space with political parties, which are better positioned and oriented towards political transformation. The same youths who should be running with and for the political parties are instead lured by the donor handouts that come through CSOs.

It is easy to see why people are easily tempted into believing that CSOs are key to change of fortunes on the continent. That may be so only to the extent that they conscientise the masses with regards to their rights and mobilise people to be more vigilant. Others indeed play crucial social functions. But let us pause for a moment. Do CSOs contest elections? How does political power change? No — CSOs do not contest elections and they do not form governments. Yet that is exactly what Africa needs today — an active political culture in which every person realises that they are political and have a role to play in politics. Yet this phenomenon of CSOs appears to be breeding the norm of being apolitical. As I have stated, Africa cannot afford to have millions of apolitical people at this stage.

What then is the point of all this? It is this that even though Zimbabwe appears to have one dominant opposition party, there is in fact a potentially powerful force represented at present by so-called apolitical CSOs. There are too many opposition forces fighting each other for the same space, same resources, same limelight and for the same goal yet some are not bold enough to stand in the clear. There is unnecessary and unhelpful division. The scenario is therefore akin to where you have different opposition parties contesting against the ruling party, which wins not because it is more popular, but because of split votes in the opposition. The key is to unite as political forces from a common political platform. 

* Dr Magaisa is a Zimbabwean lawyer formerly Lecturer in Law at the University of Nottingham, 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