MDC must address immediate and long term issues

MDC must address immediate and long term issues

By Dr Alex Magaisa

AN ASSESSMENT of the recent exchanges between and among observers in relation to Zimbabwe demonstrates a fundamental difference in the way issues are framed and consequently, seemingly divergent perspectives and strategies targeted at dealing with those issues. The framing of issues has also influenced the characterization of the two factions.

To my mind the issues can be categorized as first, the immediate and second, the long-term issues. The point of difference within the MDC appears to centre on the approach toward those sets of issues.

Perceptions, probably wrong have been created in relation to those issues the result of which is that each faction is considered to have a firm grasp of one set but not the other. This paper seeks to demonstrate the importance of understanding the wider picture – to take into account both the immediate and long-term issues – and therefore show that the protagonists are singing the same hymn, except that some are on the first verse while the others are on the next one.

The set of immediate issues encapsulate the problems that people are facing on a daily basis. These are inter alia, the food shortages, transport blues, sky-rocketing prices, unavailability of basic commodities and services such as electricity, fuel, access to healthcare and medicinal drugs, etc. These are problems that manifest on a daily basis they are visible, they are felt each day and they are escalating, with no end in sight. People are desperate for an end to the current scenario. It is normal for people to concentrate on these immediate problems, because like any other members of the animal kingdom the human being’s basic need is survival. The people of Zimbabwe are suffering and it is natural instinct to seek survival and enjoyment of life. The predominant belief in relation to overcoming these immediate problems is that ZANU PF must go and be replaced by a party that understands and responds to their daily suffering.

The long-term issues, though not fully divorced from the immediate ones are not always immediately apparent or relevant to the general public. They are often framed by the leadership and brought to the people for consultation but ultimately the leadership has the onus of raising awareness and demonstrating their importance as far as solving the existing problems is concerned. They require more patience, thought and properly tailored strategies and are generally leadership-driven. When talking about long-term issues people often refer to creating a proper land distribution system and carefully tailored agricultural policy, developing a long-term economic policy that promotes investment and growth, rebuilding the image of the country, developing an appropriate ideology, revamping the political and economic culture, self-determination and anti-imperialism, etc. These issues do not have immediate appeal to the people who are struggling to pay school fees and wondering as each day passes, whether they will have a meal the next day. It is common to dismiss those who seek to address these issues as being out of touch – to state contemptuously, that “we do not eat policies” or “we do not have anti-imperialism for breakfast”. But the public skepticism that does not mean the leadership must shy away from addressing these issues.

The key point here is that it is important for politicians to frame the issues properly when they address the public. The main worry is that there are those who tend to focus on the immediate issues which have wider appeal among the general public but forget their responsibilities as leaders who should define the agenda for change and guide the public. These politicians tend to defer to the public, usually framing each statement as the “voice of the people”. “People-driven”, “the poor”, or generally “the people's will”, become catchphrases which dominate public statements but given their elasticity and fluidity, they really mean very little. The strategy here is to talk the language of suffering, to appear to be closer and more favorable to the public, to be “with and for the people” as is often stated. The promises centre generally on escaping the immediate problems – on delivering bread and putting an end to the visible hardships. These politicians are often liable to be referred to, perhaps harshly, as populists.

"'People-driven', 'the poor', or generally 'the people's will', become catchphrases which dominate public statements but given their elasticity and fluidity, they really mean very little"

DR ALEX MAGAISA

They have good grasp of the tough conditions, read the mood well and sing the tune that the public wants to hear – it is about survival. However, because of a fixation with the immediate issues, there is unfortunately, often a poor grasp of the long-term issues and consequently, a lack of coherent strategies for permanent solutions. Unsurprisingly, a few years down the line, people who were attracted by the popular speeches that touched on issues of immediate concern and expected a quick escape from poverty realize that their honeymoon is often short-lived. The economic and political culture does not change, there are no proper policies tailored to deal with the long-term issues because the agenda focused on the immediate issues. This has occurred in countries close to home – Zambia, Malawi and more recently in Kenya where the popular Rainbow Coalition that took power in 2002 speaking the language of suffering has begun to entrench itself and has no strategy to address the underlying causes of the immediate problems.

On the other hand, those that seek to address the wider, long term issues often face the criticism that they are taking an academic, elitist and sometimes unnecessary approach. They are accused of being out of touch with the issues that affect the people. In other words, by addressing the long term issues, they are deemed to be out of touch with the immediate realities. Perhaps they make the mistake of not speaking the language of suffering more prominently. They may have the most rationale and well-thought out policies and strategies for tackling the problems facing the country, but because they are outshone by those who speak the language of immediate suffering, those who appear closer to and claim to represent the poor, their message is often lost or misrepresented.

This is a most unfortunate result because to my mind, it is those long term issues and strategies that require more attention in the process of long-term transition. The danger is that when leaders continually refer to “the people” they are simply trying to use politically correct language, to sugar-coat their words while they are in fact abdicating their responsibility to make leadership decisions. When people choose you to lead they expect you to generate ideas and to implement them for their benefit. Yes, you can consult the public, but you have the responsibility, ultimately, to make decisions and follow the right course. Should you fail, the public’s recourse is to elect new leadership. You are the leader and you must create the ideas and strategies to bring them out of poverty. When leaders purport to be acting “with and for the people”, they hardly acknowledge that there is a minority which is left on the sidelines. Handling minorities or dissenting voices is something that both ZANU PF and the MDC have so far failed to properly deal with.

In my opinion, long-term issues are as important as, if not more, than the immediate issues which more often are symptoms of deeper, underlying problems. The immediate issues are important to the extent that they enable the party to identify with the public and therefore attract popular support. However, if Zimbabwe is to achieve long-term change, stability and prosperity there is an urgent need to address the long term issues at the root of immediate problems. As I have said, these issues are not always popular but they are crucial. Politicians should not be afraid to address issues of land, self-determination, anti-imperialism, relationships with international financial and aid organisations and other issues which are often contemptuously dismissed as not meeting or relevant to the immediate needs. Similarly politicians must be prepared to lead from the front – to bring to the table the issues that may appear unpopular. The challenge for the leader is to demonstrate to the public why those issues are important and how they can be addressed. The challenge is not to promise to bring bread to the table – that is the easy bit - but to convince the public that the shortage of bread will ultimately be solved by a proper agricultural and land tenure policy.

Having observed the exchanges that have taken place in recent weeks there seems to be a view that the Tsvangirai-led MDC is in touch with and therefore for the people because they speak the language of the suffering. In other words they are talking about the immediate problems which resonate with the views of the common individual. Critics dismiss them as lacking a long term strategy and failing to address the less-eye catching wider issues. There is a view that shows respect for the qualities of Mutambara indicating that he probably has what it takes for the future. Critics, mainly from the opposite side argue that although he is good and has the characteristics that are required for a new Zimbabwe he ought to have joined the Tsvangiari-led faction. They dismiss the faction as elitist and out of touch with the immediate issues. In my view, it is the way issues have been framed that causes an artificial barrier to change. The challenge for the opposition is to be able to address both the immediate and the long-term issues. Those identified with the immediate agenda will ultimately deliver little in the long run if they go it alone on the back of popular support. Those identified with the long-term agenda may be marginalized for allegedly lacking a grasp of the current realities – and sadly, their strategies and expertise in dealing with the long term problems would be lost to Zimbabwe.

Despite the problems, my optimism has not waned. Properly done and far from the public stage where grandstanding is the norm, there is a chance to create synergies. As much as we must address the immediate issues, it is imperative that we do not dismiss the long-term issues even though they may not have popular appeal in the immediate sense. And importantly, much as it is important to listen to the public, we expect our leaders to think, generate ideas and implement them. They are elected to lead and the must do exactly that and not wait for people to tell them what to do. Perhaps that way we can start to see leaders bringing in issues that can be deployed for long term change rather than a fixation with sweetened words that appeal to the ear of the poor, without much substance that is the ultimate goal.
Dr Magaisa is a lawyer and can be contacted at wamagaisa@yahoo.co.uk
JOIN THE DEBATE ON THIS ARTICLE ON THE NEWZIMBABWE.COM FORUMS
debate@newzimbabwe.com