Zimbabwe: battle between forces of change and continuity

Zimbabwe: battle between forces of change and continuity

• Ask not what South Africa can do for you

• Games of Powr: Analysing Zim agreement

• Politics and prejudice: plight of Zimbabwean women

• MDC must exploit parliamentary power

• MDC: Making the best of a bad situation

• Zimbabwe: Talks and tears for Tarisai

• There's no bad constitution. It's the human factor

• Managing the bad news from the Pretoria talks

• Sanctions could strangle Zimbabwe 'baby' at birth

• Be watchful when hunting with hounds

• There're no angels in politics

• After the Zanuslide, beware of Zanu PF bearing gifts

• On the legality of Tsvangirai's pullout from election

• 'St Paul moment' can't be far for Mbeki

• What would Masipula say of military rule in Zim?

• Zimbabwe's disenfranchised voters

• MDC must prepare for worst case scenario

• Understanding Mugabe's 'End of History' ideology

• Zimbabwe's winter of discontent

• Zim's presidency and balance of power

• Mugabe's crisis of legitimacy

• Judging Justice Uchena's judgment

• Did they have to die for this?

• Challenging ministers' constititutional authority

• Waiting for Godot

• Mugabe: beware the Ides of March

• The Godfather and the Zanu PF Mafia Part III

• Fallacy of the secret ballot in Zimbabwe

• The significance of Dabengwa's conversion

• Preventing a tyranny of the majority

• Who is imposing whom and why?

• The Tsvangirai-Makoni question: the results

• Can Tsvangirai make the ultimate sacrifice?

• Makoni'sbattle against conspiracy culture

• Makoni and the politics of stability

• The trouble with gifts for the judiciary

• The limits of megaphone central banking

• Makoni, Tsvangirai & Mutambara: wise men from the East?

• Democracy without wealth: the Gordian knot in African politics

• Democracy: Africa's elusive dream?

• A non-human rights perspective of Zimbabwe's collapse

• Zanu PF'succession: Mujuru and Mnangagwa in tactical retreat

• Zimbabwe: when the elephants fight, it's the grass that suffers

• Big Joes, Little Joes: Zimbabwe's merchants of disorder

• Politics is for the well fed, an old timer told me in Mbare

• The Godfather and the African Mafia Part II

• The Godfather of the Zanu PF Mafia

• The President's missing clothes

• Confronting Zanu PF's anti-imperialist rhetoric

• South Africa's self-serving quiet diplomacy

• When will Africa demonstrate solidarity with Zimbabweans?

• Do they sleep soundly at night?

• Indepedence: was it worth the sacrifice?

• Judges under pressure: the Madzimbamuto case

• Succession debate a means of control for Mugabe

• Reflections on Ghana's Jubilee

• What happens when politicians fail?

• Fanon and the car as a symbol of progress

• Could change in Britain have impact on Zimbabwe?

• Machiavelli and perils of change in Zimbabwe

• Of rats, donkeys and the CNN story

IT IS hardly surprising that more than a fortnight after Zimbabwe’s much-celebrated Rainbow Agreement last month there is still tremendous resistance to change, exemplified by the failure to agree on the formation of a new Cabinet.

Change is a difficult thing to deal with. It is hard to accept. We are creatures of habit and find more comfort in familiar surroundings. Old timers at the workplace are more likely to say, “ndiwo maitiro atagara tichiita zvinhu makore ese” (this is how things have always been done), whenever the new, young manager tries to introduce changes.

Part of it is that people do not know how to deal with change. People prefer to stick to what they have always known because the consequences are predictable. Anything new is likely to introduce uncertainty and people do not like that.

Another part, however, is that people do not wish to lose the privileges, however small, that they have always enjoyed under the old order. This is aptly captured in a Machiavelli quotation that I have previously employed in these pages. Machiavelli said, in his most famous work, The Prince:

“It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order … Thus it arises that on every opportunity for attacking the reformer, his opponents do so with the zeal of partisans, the others only defend him half-heartedly, so that between them he runs great danger."

Zimbabwe is at that point where it is faced with possibilities of change; where there is a chance ‘to initiate a new order of things’, to use Machiavelli’s words. It is important to recognise that the process of change in Zimbabwe was always going to be a slow and painful process and is not going to be a stroll in the park.
We have to understand the critical players in this process and how their response to change will ultimately affect its success. These critical players are the people who can be classified into, at least, three categories in relation to their attitude to change:

First, there are ‘change-agents’, namely those at the forefront of initiating and steering change. This category includes the majority of the poor people who can be referred to as ‘change-sceptics’ – in that whilst they badly want change, they have little facility to make it happen and because they have outsourced it to politicians, they remain highly sceptical.

Second, there are ‘forces of continuity’, namely, those in favour of continuing with the status quo and opposed to change. They have interest in a new order of things as it provides no guarantees for the privileges earned under the old order.

Third, is a category of persons that is in between – this group knows that continuity is unsustainable but it is also doubtful of change and its impact on their personal positions. There is, inevitably, continuous attrition between the change agents and the forces of continuity.

The Rainbow Agreement has merely blurred the boundaries between these categories, especially in making some of the forces of continuity, to become ‘reluctant change-agents’. They are not really committed to comprehensive change but they realise that they have limited options given the poor state of the country. They prefer a ‘mixed grill’ approach of the new arrangement, which entails retention of large parts of the old order and reluctant acceptance of limited aspects of the new order. This, however, is a dangerous cocktail that does not inspire confidence and stifles change.

Both Mugabe and Tsvangirai find themselves in a situation where they are change-agents, although the former would seem to be a ‘reluctant change-agent’. But even so, both have to confront, in their own ways, what Machiavelli calls ‘enemies in those who profit by the old order’.

On Mugabe’s part, the systems of patronage around which governance has been conducted in the last 28 years depend to a large extent on the maintenance of the old order. There are, for example, persons who have large and enormously profitable contracts to supply goods and services to the army, the police and other key state institutions. There are also persons who get free seed, fertiliser, machinery, etc under the structures of the old order.

These same people have had unlimited access to cheap foreign currency through the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ), which they have used to earn profits of obscene proportions. Indeed, such institutions at the forefront of the old order, such as the RBZ, which is on dangerous path of becoming all things to all people, continue against the tide of change to engage in activities that characterise the malaise at the core of the old order.

There are the people who have thrived and become richer when everyone else has become poorer. This is what may be called the ‘Vulture Class’ which is inextricably wedded to the old order. These persons personify the forces of continuity that stand in the way of change. Tsvangirai must also contend with the same forces.

But there is now, in addition to the ‘vulture class’ of a political type, a further class of opportunistic business characters, that have adapted to the abnormal environment and, in the process, found great fortune. This group, which falls into the third category above, can be called the ‘Hyenas’, because like a pack of hyenas, they follow wounded prey and, from time to time, nibble at the prey’s wound, until, after a slow and painful struggle, it succumbs to the inevitable.

This Hyena class is not entirely anti-change but because it is a beneficiary of the old order, it is not an ardent supporter of change. They have found loopholes in the system, which they exploit to their advantage. But whilst the vultures are no longer bothered to hide their true colours, the hyenas are very deceptive, often appearing like friends of change but only when it suits them.

The truth, however, is that the hyenas can survive in any environment. They are inconvenienced but comfortable with the old order. Even though they sense some opportunities in the new order, they are reluctant to declare their intentions boldly. This is what Machiavelli referred to as those “who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had actual experience of it”.

Until they actually experience the new order, they are more likely to support the old order. The net effect is that they, too, are standing in the way of change.

The collective result is that of all the persons, those who are anti-change or reluctant supporters of change are also the most economically powerful. They are the men and women who have used the facility of poverty to enrich themselves and have very little appetite for a new order.

Of the multitudes that support change, unfortunately, most are the poor and indigent. They have lost much under the old order that they are now so vulnerable. These are what Franz Fanon referred to as Les Damnés de la Terre (The Wretched of the Earth). But their support is also lukewarm partly because of what Machiavelli referred to as the ‘fear of their adversaries’, of whom he said had ‘the laws in their favour’. The violence wrought on these communities has, over the years, shown them that they have little power or protection of the law against the more privileged political elites.

They want change but they remain sceptical. This scepticism can also be a negative force in the path of change. People need to own change; to be part of change and to be able to control their own destiny.

Part of the shortcomings of the negotiating process leading to the Rainbow Agreement is that it was too secretive and, therefore, marginalised the majority of the people. As such they do not feel they have any ownership or control over how it should work going forward. They are mere spectators in a game in which the politicians are the critical players. Politicians must, at this stage, do everything they can to involve the people in the process of change. Change is more likely to succeed if participants can feel that they own the process.

The important point is that all this resistance to change is not unusual nor is it unexpected. It would be naïve to expect there to be immediate transformation in the aftermath of the Rainbow Agreement. Many of the vultures and hyenas are struggling to come to terms with the new reality. They are re-organising; re-strategising in order to cope with the inevitable changes. But of course the setbacks do cause worry and provide a fertile environment for pessimism. But surely, the forces of continuity must, one day, give way to the forces of change.

Alex Magaisa is based at Kent Law School, The University of Kent. He can be contacted at wamagaisa@yahoo.co.uk
JOIN THE DEBATE ON THIS ARTICLE ON THE NEWZIMBABWE.COM FORUMS