Zimbabwe: a revolution postponed

Zimbabwe: a revolution postponed

RECENT OPINION ARTICLES

• Neo-liberalism distorts development debate

• The anatomy of the Zimbabwean problem

• Gono's reforms grounded by bad politics

• From new farmers to squatters

• Can the real Matemai please stand up?

• Mawere wrong on Gideon Gono

• Vilifying good intentions fueling Zim's downfall

• Bioinformatics key to reducing drug prices

• Zimbabwe: when politicians employ judges

• Normalising the abnormal

• Good riddance to Doha trade talks

• A shopping list for a New Zimbabwe

• Messy mix of football and politics

• Mkapa a wrong prescription for Zimbabwe

• MDC's 'Mugabe must go' strategy ill-thought

• The many lies told in your name

• Denial: Zimbabwe's collective psychosis

• Mugabe mortgages country to highest bidder

• No easy passage, but safe landing

• Mugabe can, and must face justice

• Civil society double standards inimical to change

By Lloyd Msipa

IT IS an agreed standpoint among the democratic opposition forces in Zimbabwe, that the current government of Zimbabwe is illegitimate following the stolen or rigged elections of 2002 and 2005.

If we are in agreement this is their position, it then follows that Zimbabwean opposition politicians are hypocrites themselves.

The reason I say this is because, if we pursue the concept of illegitimacy, it is defined ‘as something unlawful or not in accordance with the law’.

Put in the context of governance, illegitimacy would mean that the government of the day does not have the blessing of the electorate to govern. From a world perspective theoretically, an illegitimate government is not able to enter into diplomatic relations, bilateral, multilateral agreements or otherwise with the legitimate governments of this world.

The question that arises then is, why do the opposition democratic forces in Zimbabwe continue taking part in the governance business in a country with an illegitimate government, and at the same time claim to be pioneers of democracy? This is hypocrisy at its worst. The arguments put forward by its leaders include that of compromised democratic space as a result of the legislation in place including POSA and AIPPA, and how “we want to change things from within by influencing policy”. This is not, at least for me, sufficient an excuse for compromising a democratic struggle. We are all mindful of the legislation that was in use before the independence of Zimbabwe, the Law and Order (Maintenance) Act, passed in 1960, which suffocated dissent.

The refusal of the Rhodesian Front regime to embrace democratic reforms led to an exodus of young Zimbabweans who organized themselves outside the country in what eventually became the Patriotic Front. Today, the country’s political situation has come full circle. We now have a similar situation before us.

There is no democratic space for those leading the democratic resistance. Can the real liberators please stand up. Is it possible that we have pseudo businessmen and women masquerading as the opposition? The calls by the democratic forces for a “peaceful resistance” in order to drag the current regime "kicking and screaming” to the negotiating table will obviously come to naught. Why? Because I know of no case in history, where a “peaceful resistance” convinces a government to talk, let alone hand over power.

Considering that the democratic forces' claims of the ‘illegitimacy of the Harare government’ have not been followed by concrete action on the ground, it is no wonder the rest of the world, including their own kith and kin within the SADCC States have not taken them seriously. They do not walk the talk. The Patriotic Front, despite the draconian limitations of the Law and Order maintenance act, managed to organise themselves into a formidable force outside the country to a point where they constituted a government in waiting. In fact they commanded greater legitimacy as a government in waiting than the then ruling Smith regime in the eyes of the world. Hence the support from neighbouring states. Has it not crossed anybody’s mind as to why the opposition forces are not openly supported by the neighbouring countries? Why do they have to travel far and wide to get any forum or platform?

One then wonders, if the democratic forces' claim to legitimacy has any substance. If it does, why then do they continue to govern together with those that constitute or are an illegitimate government? One would assume by now they would have formed their own government in exile and then proceed to lobby the rest of the world into recognising them as the legitimate government of Zimbabwe.

A government in exile consists of a political grouping that claims to be the country’s government, but for various reasons is unable to exercise its legal power, and instead resides in a foreign country. Governments in exile operate under the assumption that they will one day return to their country and regain power. There are numerous examples of where popular opposition forces have taken this route to power. Examples of governments in waiting include the Western Sahara’s Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) based in Algeria. The government of Somalia exiled in Kenya.

Is it possible that the democratic forces are so set in their ways that they do not see themselves living the life of refugees in foreign countries? It is often argued that real liberators in any struggle are people with nothing to lose. Considering that the majority of the opposition members have jumped onto the gravy train and now own farms and other property courtesy of the ruling party, it would appear they have something to protect. Will we ever see a real struggle in Zimbabwe with the current crop of leaders in the opposition? They seem to have refused to compromise their comfort zones for the greater good. How then can they claim to have the interest of the people of Zimbabwe at heart if they are not ready to make these sacrifices? Obviously the new breed of liberators are not prepared to forego their ‘hard won’ parliamentary seats, plush offices and their suits for a life in exile.

Our history is quite clear as to the sacrifices made by the old guard that run the country today. They were in and out of Zimbabwe via informal border posts, detained numerously for breaching the infamous Law and Order Maintenance Act, under the Ian Smith regime. One old timer I bumped into the other day told me, he remembers leaders of the Patriotic Front going from door to door clad in their safari suits soliciting for financial contributions for their cause in the seventies. They would spend a good ten minutes talking to you by your door about their struggle to liberate Zimbabwe. If this was not commitment, then I do not know what is.

The hypocrisy displayed by the so-called democratic forces is what lends legitimacy to the Harare government. These men and women, it seems, have carved themselves a piece of the national cake; hence the lukewarm approach to a people’s struggle.

Lloyd Msipa is a lawyer and writes from London in the United Kingdom. He can be contacted at lloyd.msipa@ntlworld.com

JOIN THE DEBATE ON THIS ARTICLE ON THE NEWZIMBABWE.COM FORUMS
debate@newzimbabwe.com