Matibenga and power politics in the MDC

Matibenga and power politics in the MDC

• Obert Madondo: Tsvangirai must go

• Tsvangirai calls crisis meeting over Matibenga

• Sekai Holland: Male chauvinism betrays MDC

• MDC edges closer to fresh split

• Grace Kwinjeh: Dongo and Matibenga - history repeating itself

• High Court orders MDC congress to determine Matibewnga's fate

• MDC accused of lying over cause of Tsvangirai aide's death

• Minister promised action on violence: MDC

• Tsvangirai 'breaking MDC constitution left, right and centre'

• Mohadi summons Tsvangirai over violence claims

• Sparks fly as UK MDC executive deposed

• Zimbabwe withdraws terror charges against MDC activists

• 'Disorderly conduct' charge for Tsvangirai

• MDC committed to Mbeki mediation - Chamisa

• Misihairabwi & Stevenson: Blame it on the woman!

• Paul Themba Nyathi: What is the role of 'The Zimbabwean' in fight for democracy?

• MDC says death threats made against MP

• Mutambara: Embracing legacy of Zimbabwe's heroes

• Last MDC activists held over bomb attacks freed

• Zim opposition needs leadership renewal -analysts

• 'We'll confront and decimate Mugabe, Tsvangirai'

• Mutambara: Tsvangirai 'weak and indecisive'

• Police faked evidence against alleged bombers

• Statement regarding MDC unity negotiations

• MDC says emigration hurts prospects

• Harare rally ban further extended

• 5 MDC petrol bomb suspects freed

• Mutambara gets passport, off to Europe

• Mutambara's passport seized ahead of London trip

• Courage Shumba: MDC losing moral and political authority to oppose

By Alex T. Magaisa

IT WOULD be very easy to resort to the self-gratifying mode of saying, “we told you so”. It would be too simple to resort to name-calling. It is, indeed, too tempting to take the moral high-ground and throw brickbats at the MDC leadership of the Morgan Tsvangirai formation.

This is neither necessary nor helpful. It adds nothing to the insight that is required into the nature of politics, an opportunity that the current episode appertaining to the sacking of Lucia Mativenga and company from the party’s women’s leadership provides. For none of the parties here, indeed none of us, can rightly claim any moral high-ground. We are, all of us, participants and victims of a near-infantile obsession with a creature -- democracy -- whose characteristics we aspire to, but of which, it seems, we have limited grasp in practice.

We talk democracy incessantly, but every day, it seems, none of us have come to terms with what it is that constitutes democracy. We have, for too long, confused the pursuit of power with the pursuit of democracy and we are, therefore, shaken from time to time, when the seemingly ugly head of power emerges.

Amongst politicians especially, the view of democracy changes, quite often, depending on one’s position of power. Tsvangirai has not suddenly become undemocratic just because he sacked Lucia Mativenga from the women’s arm of his party.

Would Mativenga and company say the same things about Tsvangirai if they were still in power? Or to broaden the question, is the sacking of the Mativenga leadership the only instance that has suddenly drawn large numbers of converts to the view that Tsvangirai is not amenable to democracy? Because if indeed there are other episodes, how come they were happy to endorse his leadership nonetheless? Could it be because their power was, until now, secure? More broadly, is this not really less about democracy but more to do with power?

This is not a simple argument over democracy. This is about power. And it is this that has determined the politics in the MDC for a long time, despite its generous claims to democracy. Arguably, men and women in leadership seek power or to retain their positions of privilege.

To have a name that indicates a desire, let alone, any motion towards democracy does not, at once, entail that the organisation is imbued with the values of democracy. It is simply a claim to that high moral ground in the battle against an opponent that is, supposedly, the antithesis of democracy. It is a signal of the aspiration that the organisation holds, not necessarily an indicator of its existing constituent values. It would be ideal if it put those values into effect but it does not necessarily follow.

It goes without saying that the MDC (or any of its variants) is not the finished article. It might be the key representative of the aspirations and more realistically, the protestations against the existing Zanu PF-managed dispensation, but let it not be mistaken for any indication that it represents democracy. The reality is that the MDC, or variants, represents an aspiration to power – a desire to take power away from the ruling Zanu PF. Whether or not its intended takeover will result in a democracy is a question that cannot possibly be answered at this stage. Nonetheless, present indications are ominous.

Part of the problem, over the years, has been to conflate the desire for power with the desire for democracy, so that, it has often been taken for granted, that because it is known as the “movement for democratic change”, therefore, logically, it is, itself a democratic movement. But sadly, to aspire is not to be. Logic is an endangered creature in politics.

A name, by itself, says very little about the nature of a political organisation or more significantly, the people that run it. A severely undemocratic organisation can still claim for itself any amount of altruistic tags; it can publicly proclaim its democratic credentials for the world to hear, or associate itself with democratic institutions, but it does not necessarily follow that it is democratic. A log might stay in water for a very long time, but it will never become a crocodile.

It is vital that the people of Zimbabwe appreciate this, perhaps harsh, reality of politics. Politics and politicians, tend to have short memories; which is why oft-times people claim that history repeats itself. It does not merely repeat itself – it is that the pursuit of power is the only permanent feature, so that, whenever power is threatened, people tend to resort to the same tactics and strategies, in varying forms and when it happens, people quickly and simplistically claim that history is repeating itself. They are quick, as some have done to draw parallels between Zanu PF’s treatment of Margaret Dongo in 1995 and MDC Tsvangirai’s treatment of Matibenga today.

Quite understandably, as is often the case when, regrettably, women are affected, there is a tendency to resort to a gender-nuanced analysis – arguing, for example, that women’s entitlements have been subordinated to the will of the male chauvinists. Chauvinists they may well be, but they have manipulated other women who simply become their puppets, acting on their whims and caprices.

If, indeed, the new women are lackeys, the true intent of the MDC male-dominated leadership is less to do with disempowering women but more importantly, to do with strengthening their own power. The disempowerment of the women in that process is simply the result of the pursuit of the leadership’s principal desire to retain and strengthen power. It could be any other woman – indeed, those that have been installed today could still succumb to the same tactics.

This means for women, as indeed it is for every other interest sector that is part of the MDC (uneasy) coalition of interests, the matter of fighting for their rights remains where it always was – within the dynamics of power politics, stripped of the lavish accompaniments of democracy.

Not so long ago, the MDC split into two formations, supposedly over whether or not to participate in the December 2005 Senate elections. Both factions claimed and still claim the same identity of being the “movement for democratic change”. That, however, does not make them democratic. The split itself was the consequence of power politics – between those threatened and those seeking power within the party.

Charges may be made, as they have been in various forms, that one is less democratic than the other, but it all comes down to who is more able to access and control the levers of power. Surprisingly, few have been able to draw parallels between that episode and the current one appertaining to the dismissal of the Mativenga. Instead, is it cloaked in the apparel of gender-politics, failing in the process to draw salient parallels, the theme of which is power struggle.

Here stands yet another illustration of power politics – it’s less to do with the disenfranchisement of women but a lot more to do with the retention of power by having those most amenable to those in control of the levers of power. Sooner or later, accusations will be traded, of links to the CIO and the hand of Zanu PF. It is the easy option but yet another failure to accept responsibility of one’s own failings.

In political organisations, when the leadership claims to aspire towards democracy, it does not necessarily become democratic because it says so. It seeks leadership, and when it reaches that goal, it might choose to embrace and give life to the values democracy or it might elect to focus on retention of power.

For too long, the pursuit of democracy has been massaged to obfuscate the pursuit of power. If people are more fully aware that the primary intent is power, they will not be too surprised when episodes such as this happen. Even if amoeba-like, the MDC splits again, those that choose to form another MDC will not be any more democratic than those they have left behind. They will be simply be seeking another route towards power.

Dr Magaisa is a Zimbabwean lawyer based in England. He can be contacted on e-mail: wamagaisa@yahoo.co.uk
JOIN THE DEBATE ON THIS ARTICLE ON THE NEWZIMBABWE.COM FORUMS
newsdesk@newzimbabwe.com