IF there is any word that best defines Morgan Tsvangirai’s political character, that word would be “sophomoric”.

No doubt he is a pleasant personality and a jolly good fellow, but if truth be told without fear or prejudice, Tsvangirai is popular but lacks leadership qualities, acumen and vision to take Zimbabwe forward.

The facts for this realistic and frank conclusion will follow in this piece but the reality is that Tsvangirai has been a beneficiary of a protest vote and Zimbabweans’ profound antipathy towards President Robert Mugabe and Zanu PF.

Because people have suffered enough and are desperate to remove Mugabe and Zanu PF from power, they do not want anyone to criticise Tsvangirai. For some this is almost like a hanging offence, but the issue must be confronted for the sake of progress and the future.

Regrettably, most Zimbabweans have now built a cult of personality around Tsvangirai, the same way Mugabe was treated during the 1980s, making it difficult to truthfully and candidly evaluate his leadership qualities and ability to rule the country.

While it is not my business to say who should rule the country (it’s a preserve for the people), it is in the best national interest to interrogate the issue of Tsvangirai. This is particularly important because of his two major recent pronouncements: the first to a French magazine where he claimed MDC leader Welshman Ncube was leading a “regional party”, the second at the burial of the departed Public Service Minister Eliphas Mukonoweshuro where he said that no-one in his party should dare challenge him.

It is ironic that this statement is coming from Tsvangirai four months after his party’s congress. It would have been understandable if it was four months before congress because it reflects a telling tale about his insecurity.

The question is: why does he feel so threatened to an extent of erecting a Berlin Wall around himself when he still has about five years to go? Could it be possible that MDC-T secretary-general Tendai Biti, who was conspicuous by his absence at the funeral, is breathing hard on his neck? Is Tsvangirai, who changed his party constitution to serve more than the required two terms, so much afraid of Biti?

Tsvangirai’s statement about Ncube was just a political cheap shot devoid of substance, but reflected his chronic poor judgment and other shortcomings.  His insinuation that Ncube leads a regional party because he comes from Matabeleland (as a matter of fact he comes from the Midlands, not Matabeleland), which in itself is tragic coming from the Prime Minister of the Republic, shows his limited understanding of nationalism.

What Tsvangirai fails to appreciate is that a party does not become national because it has seats in most of the provinces of the country or vice versa. It becomes national because it has a national vision, carries a national message and has a national programme. The form and content of the party informs the definition of whether it is national or not. It’s not about region or ethnicity.

A national party lifts and highlights issues affecting all people in their diversity onto a national platform and define solutions in a national context. It’s not about the parochial us versus them mentality, which clearly defines Tsvangirai’s paradigm.

Tsvangirai is now showing all and sundry that he is either unwilling or unable to define national issues and propose solutions to problems in a national context. That is why with all due respect I think he is a village politician. He may be well-meaning, but his reckless statements and actions usually don’t help him.

While he claims Ncube’s party is regional, he fails to realise that his own party is in reality in terms of organisational architecture, structure and control confined to regions. His appointments to senior positions also testify to that. That’s partly why Biti is having all sorts of problems in the MDC-T hierarchy.

There is also another compelling variable. While the MDC-T or the united MDC before the split which Tsvangirai presided over, has done well in all other provinces, it has failed to make serious inroads in Mashonaland West, Central and East.

Indeed, if Tsvangirai had managed to take control of the three Mashonaland provinces, he would by now, despite his limitations, be president of this country. Against this background, are we now to make a simplistic conclusion, like Tsvangirai does, that the MDC-T is a regional party because it has not won majority seats in Mashonaland provinces?

If we use Tsvangirai’s template the answer would be yes, but if we seriously interrogate the issue, it is clear the MDC-T has national aspirations. The same applies to the MDC led by Ncube.

A party can be small in terms of representation in parliament or other structures of the state, but remain national in outlook. The issue between Ncube and Tsvangirai, and indeed any other leader for that matter, should not be about who is leading a national party or not or personal rivalries. The issue must be who has a national vision and progressive message compared to the other. Let’s put issues on a national platform and debate without resorting to name-calling and other such despicable propaganda techniques.

I have great respect for Tsvangirai as a person but his political bankruptcy sometimes frightens me. I often wonder what Zimbabwe would be like under Tsvangirai’s leadership and this for me is an important question to ask given precedents we have seen in Zambia under the late Frederick Chiluba and elsewhere.

Yes, Chiluba could have paved a path for Zambia’s transition from dictatorship to democracy, but he was also an incompetent and corrupt leader. That is what we must guard against in Zimbabwe.

Probably the best analysis of Tsvangirai’s character as a politician and leadership qualities I have seen so far came from former United States ambassador to Zimbabwe, Christopher Dell.

While I sympathise with Tsvangirai because of the ruthlessness with which Dell dealt with him, I agree with his conclusion in its entirety. In secret diplomatic cables exposed by WikiLeaks, Dell said: “Morgan Tsvangirai is a brave, committed man and, by and large, a democrat. He is the only player on the scene right now with real star quality and the ability to rally the masses.

“But Tsvangirai is also a flawed figure, not readily open to advice, indecisive and with questionable judgement in selecting those around him. He is the indispensable element for opposition success, but possibly an albatross around the necks once in power. In short, he is a kind of Lech Walesa. Zimbabwe needs him, but should not rely on his executive abilities to lead the country’s recovery.”

This is precisely the point. I don’t think I can put it any better. I am aware Dell also said Ncube is “deeply divisive and destructive” but I find this also aptly descriptive of Tsvangirai in the context of the MDC split in 2005.

Zimbabweans must give Tsvangirai his dues, but let’s also point out his limitations so that we can make informed decisions about who should run this country after Mugabe.