Is Tsvangirai villain of the piece?

I WRITE not in defence of Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai. I write not to excuse the man’s alleged failings for, indeed, no man is infallible. I write, however, to put events of the last quarter into perspective.

Tsvangirai has come under some sharp criticism in recent weeks. The unity government has had mixed fortunes, weighing heavily south of average. The mayhem on the farms, the arrests and harassment of activists, the refusal to give ground on the notorious ‘outstanding issues’ have all conspired to cast a dark shadow on the prospects of the new administration.

Tsvangirai seems powerless and helpless in the relentless pressure and domineering shadow of President Mugabe and his associates.

Regular readers of this column will know by now that I am a boxing enthusiast – not that I could ever step into the ring myself, no. In that sport, I almost always find myself in favour of the underdog; the one on the receiving end. I admire their courage and feel for them when they are down. Perhaps that’s why I am uncomfortable with the kind of vitriol that has been directed at Tsvangirai. Perhaps that’s why I feel for him on this occasion. To my mind, some of the criticism has been harsh, almost to the point of vilification.

It’s as if the man has not tried. It’s as if he is the villain of the piece. There is, in the criticism an unfortunate tendency to shift responsibility from the real authors of the troubles plaguing Zimbabwe.

I must admit that I have, from the outset, had some sympathy for the decision taken by Tsvangirai and the MDC to join the government in February this year. I am painfully aware of the scepticism that greeted that decision. The scepticism was not without reason. It was a hard decision; a great risk which could yield either enormous success or catastrophic failure.

I doubt that Tsvangirai and his colleagues were unaware of the enormity of that risk. But I also believe that the decision they took was made honestly and in good faith believing it to be in the best interests of the nation. It may be fair if someone accused them of lacking good judgment, but I do not think their honesty and good faith can be questioned.

The situation in Zimbabwe was desperate. People wanted some respite but the options were severely limited. None of the critics offered a viable alternative other than the ‘tongai tione’ view, oblivious of the fact that this has been the approach all these past years, which had yielded very little good and great suffering. It was time to try something new.

Of course, fervent critics today have one circumstance in their favour. It is the advantage of the unknown which avails them room to speculate about what might have been. It is that no one knows for sure and no one will ever know what might have happened had that momentous decision not been taken in February 2009.  It is easy to speculate. Tsvangirai and his team have to live with the reality but at least they did not shy away from making that decision.

It is incredible that they can be blamed for seeking to get the ‘outstanding issues’ resolved. Surely, if those issues were irrelevant, the other party would not be refusing to budge? How can it be that one who is seeking to get matters resolved is blamed for it, whilst those refusing to budge seem to get a bye from the critics?

Honest and fair critics have to take into account the other possibility – the potential that the situation could be worse – that Zanu PF could still be on a solo-flight to the unknown; that the repression could be worse; that indeed, the situation could be no better than it is presently.

One has to look at the bigger picture; to see this as a process and one that will meet stiff resistance. It is fanciful to think that the resistance could be overcome in a single quarter.

Surely, Tsvangirai must be just as frustrated at the slow pace of change as his critics are. He has been criticised for acting like Mugabe’s public relations officer; for trying to rehabilitate a severely and irreparably broken image. Is he really as ignorant as his critics allege?

To my mind, Tsvangirai has taken the harder option. It would be very easy for him to publicly criticise and vilify Mugabe. If he wanted to be populist, he would simply speak the language that he is used to from his days in opposition. People would cheer, but then what? The strategic position he has now does not afford that luxury of populist chants. He may well be mistaken but I do not think one can question the genuine belief in trying to do the right thing for Zimbabwe. 

Then again, there is a tendency to shift responsibility; to find culpability beyond one’s own acts or omissions. Critics, even supporters, speak of the MDC as if it were an entity that only consists of the leadership. Hence some will say that the MDC has failed. Surely, the MDC is the larger collective of the leadership and its supporters?

If a supporter says the MDC has failed, where does that supporter locate himself? If a citizen says Zimbabwe has failed, where indeed does that citizen locate himself? It is a matter of individual and collective responsibility.

It is against this background that one is reminded that the unity government is not a creation of Tsvangirai, Mugabe and Mutambara. It is a creation of the people of Zimbabwe. That old and often-quoted cliché rings true – people get the government they deserve.

As for Tsvangirai, he and his colleagues have the unenviable task of introducing new tricks to an old dog. I am reminded of the challenges faced by the farmer when he tries to train his young ox in preparation for the farming season (kupingudza mombe). It is a delicate and unpredictable task, one that can have hazardous consequences.

The challenge is even worse if the ox has passed a certain age. The old ox will lie down and refuse to move. It will be lazy and tired and won’t want to work. It wants to be left alone to graze in the green fields. It will be set in its ways.

The farmer has to be careful and patient with the young one. The farmer must make sure the sharp tips of the horns are cut because the ox can be hostile and dangerous when it attacks. The farmer must exercise extreme caution.

If he approaches from behind, it can kick out ferociously with his hind legs. If he approaches from the front it can charge at him viciously. He has to coax him with incentives – offer a maize cob or two and then catch him unawares. Even when he has managed to harness it, he has to be careful because it can run amok with the yoke on its shoulders charging at everything in its way.

Sometimes it will just drop on its knees and refuse to get up. The farmer has to use the carrot and stick – threaten it a bit or give some incentives. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn’t but the farmer must never tire. He has to keep trying. He may have to send it to an expert who knows best how to handle the untrained ox.

I do not for a moment try to make excuses for Tsvangirai. As regular readers know, I firmly believe that politicians must be kept on their toes but it must be fair, honest and constructive criticism.

Tsvangirai might well leave the stage today but I doubt that anyone who would step into his shoes will find the challenge any different than it is now. Like the farmer, they will find the challenge of training the ox, let alone one that is set in its ways, equally daunting.

I’m probably wrong in all this. Then again, I always had a weakness for the underdog. I do not think he has failed, yet. But if he has, then we all have, because we are the collective authors of our own fate.

Alex Magaisa is based at the University of Kent Law School and can be contacted at wamagaisa@yahoo.co.uk