FOLLOWING the convoluted succession race in President Robert Mugabe’s Zanu PF party demands the patience of a seasoned marathon spectator.
As any Zimbabwean journalist will know, there exists an enormous archive in the media spawned by ‘succession journalism’, dating back to the early 1990s. The press created an industry out of announcing frontrunners and spotting dark horses, crowning kingmakers and clowning ‘spoilers’ and Johnny-come-latelies.
But in all of that frenetic future-scoping, one fact remained constant: Robert Mugabe’s defiant fist at the helm of both Zanu PF and the Zimbabwean state. But there is a bigger, underlying challenge that has hardly enjoyed media attention.
The problem with Zanu PF’s succession plan – if one can call it that – is that it is being considered outside of a holistic framework of reform. The centralised nature of the party is sustainable only under the leadership of a ‘Big Man’, and ‘Big Men’ are usually the products of specific, novel historical circumstances.
These circumstances range from leadership of the anti-colonial movement (Mugabe in Zimbabwe, Jomo Kenyatta in Kenya, Julius Nyerere in Tanzania, Sam Nujoma in Namibia), assumption of leadership following the death or incapacitation of a founding leader (Paul Biya in Cameroon, Daniel arap Moi in Kenya, Jose Eduardo Dos Santos in Angola), leading a post-independence ‘liberation’ struggle against an internal dictatorship (Yoweri Museveni in Uganda), to the classical coup d’ etat (Jerry Rawlings in Ghana, Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, Blaise Compaore in Burkina Faso, Ben Ali in Tunisia).
The political machine constructed by such leaders accords special deference to the personality of the leader in such a way that he is allowed to rival or even eclipse the party itself as an institution in his own right. Now, the Big Man’s lieutenants are never allowed to grow to the kind of stature that would lend them clear successor status. In fact, if I’m not mistaken, rarely has a Big Man been succeeded by another in his lifetime in Africa.
The Big Man’s lieutenants are never in agreement as to who should ascend to the throne as the next demigod. In the absence of a special historical moment to swing one candidate to the indisputable position of ‘Big Man-in-waiting’, it is hard to see why any one aspirant should relinquish his power ambitions for the benefit of another, hence the dogfight.
The only way to proceed in a manner that secures internal consensus is to deconstruct and reform the Big Man’s political machine. This redistribution of hitherto centralised powers within the party cannot be complete without a corresponding redistribution of executive powers within the state, for so often the personalisation of the ruling party under Big Man rule also extends to the state. The daunting powers of a near-monarchical executive president inspire dread among the vanquished competition; hence losing is not an option.
But by reforming party and state and creating functional institutional structures in both, the core lieutenants may cease to see the succession race as a zero-sum game. However, as things stand in Zanu PF right now, the two leading factions see the success of the other in the race to succeed Mugabe as heralding their utter decline or even demise. And so they engage in mortal combat to the death, with their party appearing and acting less as a unitary force than a creaking amalgam of disparate factions.
Of course, all this should be good news to Morgan Tsvangirai and his MDC party. With former Zanu PF stalwarts Simba Makoni and Dumiso Dabengwa having jumped ship to form rival parties, the MDC will no doubt hope that Zanu PF’s denudation continues. All rosy then – except that the MDC itself does not appear to be in any better position concerning its own future succession challenge.
A clause in the MDC’s constitution that made it mandatory to renew the party presidency after a maximum of two terms was jettisoned in a rather Nicodemus fashion in recent months in order to give Tsvangirai a free run. The MDC has constructed its struggle for power in Zimbabwe around the personality of Tsvangirai.
Quite clearly, the MDC’s removal of the term limits without congressional approval is a very blunt expression of Tsvangirai’s confidence in his personal power within the party. Without a constitutional clause to back its commitment to term limits, the MDC will now have to prove its credentials on leadership renewal by actually running a transparent, accessible and above-reproach internal electoral process.
Mugabe has continued to be returned as Zanu PF president without having to run against anyone. This process of selection by affirmation is of course corrupt, elite-driven, and frustrates democracy by stifling internal competition. The erstwhile ‘democratic’ opposition fares no better than Zanu PF in this regard. Ten years on from the formation of the MDC, Tsvangirai is yet to face an election for the party presidency.
It is even worse in the breakaway MDC faction, where Arthur Mutambara was simply imported from the Diaspora into the leadership of the party. The message this sends out is that a leader does not necessarily need to be a product of the organic struggles and processes of his party or movement. A party can scout for a leader in pretty much the same way a company recruits a chief executive.
With the formation of the inclusive government following the signing of the Global Political Agreement (GPA) in September last year, Zimbabwe’s democratic deficit has been further compounded.
First, the GPA is a creature of boardroom negotiations; therefore the resultant power-sharing government is not a reflection of the popular will. Secondly, the GPA was signed into effect by three principals who have never faced an open election in their own parties.
Zanu PF is preparing to hold its national congress in a few weeks’ time where Mugabe will be formally affirmed as leader for the next five years. The sad reality in all this is that the democratic opposition in Zimbabwe has also adopted and is now perpetuating the culture of leadership coronations as popularised by Zanu PF.
It is a travesty of democracy when leaders fail to subject themselves to that indispensable pillar of the democratic process and the source of legitimacy for any leader – an election.
Innocent Chofamba Sithole is a Zimbabwean journalist based in London
Sir.. I give my hat to you… You have touched a very fundamntal problm ye Zimbabwe..
What you have given is a sir a good position that every average Zimbabwean finds himself in..
What if like Abraham Bob lives to see 2059 almost 150 years. If there is religion in you- check your faith. The politics in Zimbabwe is not rescued by new leadership that school of thought is good but is not informing the masses.
Zimbabwe needs to “have sanctioned dropped” If you sanction the father or mother the kids are bound to die. Even in birds is the same you snare all of them in the Nestle the worm for the young wont come, and death by hunger issues.
Chain on leg in Global operations including the young is oppression of the highest order, denying an individual to exercises their natural instincts is worse than slavery.
Make it fair and say sanctions are out, then elections will become a liability for people who called sanctions for the country. Its an abomination to call sanctions against your country is treason!
Zimbabwe is well resourced, in terms of human resource with the land redistribution made the Zimbabwean Human resource move and open their eyes in global village, is how we manage that human resource that will shape Zimbabwe. It is on managing the human resource that efforts of social science is necessary. Advertise for Zimbabwe to the Zimbabweans should be the focus. Honesty Hedge funds for Zimbabwe is a ripe market.
The investment could go a long way. Ali-ya in Israel they say.
The big picture first, how do you want as Zimbabweas a Zimbabwean. How do you see it relation with the world. Why Mugabe Robert Land issue. How are you treated by nostalgia, and how do you retire in a foreign land and again what do you say about Bank of England printing £200billion. or £200 000 000 000. where is then aid coming from. Aquired immune dependence syndrome. Again! after the slave and colonial philosophical coup. It is still a stockholm Syndrome.
“Secondly, the GPA was signed into effect by three principals who have never faced an open election in their own parties” – point well driven home. This is the tragedy of our beloved country. The MDC and MDC-T have done the very same thing that they say they are fighting in ZANU PF.
Kule well done for articulating point blankly what most of people dont see.
Mzala
This is a very important observation for Africans, let alone Zimbabweans. We have held ourselves at ransom to the so called political heroes of liberation struggle that we feel we owe them something because ‘they fought for the struggle’. This is a sick view of leadership. Look! We have found ourselves in probably a worse situation that did colonialism to us, because our own leaders are perpetrators of the worse evils because somehow we can’t do an armed struggle against them, because in the first place we never suspected they would be suckers. They are worse criminals than imperialists, because they have stolen the same freedoms they claimed to win for us. What I see is that we are victims to our own culture because if you can remember that African culture has no separation between inheritance and succession. It is the first born who inherits the estate and succeeds as head of the agnatic group (family). In the mind of bob, he is probably waiting for his son to grow up and inherit from him and succeed as chief of the stupid 21st century Zimbabweans? What do you think?
there is democracy in choosing leaders in Zanu pf ,man Bob is chosen by his people democracy doesnt mean changing leaders ,if people nolonger want zanu they ship out man .if people in zanu still choose him it means thats democracy .Anyone can form his party…so if the Mdc are comfortable with Tsvangirayi and they choose him its democracy on their party .if you dont like you ship out man.Guys form your own party and campain then you can become leaders …to bank on other people doing wat yu guys like …oh you wont see the light
Zimbabwe is run by a foolish old man who is dragging the country to the grave cheered by his simpleton followers. Mugabe epitomises the Greatness of Africa’s stupidity……
Different parties have a different way of doing things. If you are not impressed you go out and form your own party which then challenges the ‘not-so-democratic’ one and wins the elctions. simple. seiko vanhu vanoti havachada zanu vachingoramba vakaomerera muzanu macho? mhinduro ndaishaiwa ini. i feel that the more parties we have, the better for democracy. Can someone tell me: why does America have ONLY 2 strong parties.
The theory of ‘big man politics’ you are highlighting clearly refers to dictators who would have hijacked a political party, completely departing from the core tenants of democracy, allowing the main objectives of their organisations to play second fiddle to their own personal ambitions. carefully moulding their personal images to drive and unite the organisation instead of the ideas, vision and objectives of the party.
It is clear that within the MDC there are members who as individuals yearn for and dream of democracy what they do not realise is that as an organisation rot has long set in.
In a democratic institution members are entitled to elect the leadership (president and deputy) – clearly this is not happening here and most importantly is that the members are not doing anything about it. The leadership have gone a step further by completely putting aside the need for such elections and what is the reaction of the membership = nothing.
members, branches, provinces, NEC should remedy this anomaly not by quitting the party but lobying for a return to democratic lines and adherence to the constitution
check the MDC websites advertsing and promoting only the president of the party, where are the other leaders, where is the team
zimbabweans should not allow anyone to be big in politics least he becomes a problem tomorrow ordinary men and women should lead us. We, however, need very strong principled followers and members who will neither worship leaders nor permit leaders to take them for a ride.