| The best Zimbabwe news site on the world wide web |  |
| NEWS |
| FORUMS |
| NEWS ANALYSIS |
| READERS' FORUM |
Zimbabwe opposition on self-destruct mode
By Kuthula
Matshazi
ZIMBABWE’S
opposition groups are undermining themselves and setting bad precedents
when they promote bad practices amongst their followers and themselves
in order to score points against Zanu PF and President Robert Mugabe.
Over the years, I have noticed a disturbing trend whereby the opposition groups try as much as possible not to censure each other when they commit mistakes fearing that doing so would equate to playing into the hands of Zanu PF.
Unfortunately, this practice breeds lawlessness and tramples on democratic values, the very principles the opposition says it is determined to deliver to us.
Some of the major characters in the opposition camp such as Movement for Democratic Change President Arthur Mutambara and Brian Kagoro noticed these disturbing practices and conduct, and have advised their colleagues to be democratic themselves before they demand that from other people. It is important to do so as well when trying to apply the same standards on Zanu PF and President Mugabe.
However, recent events demonstrate that the message has not been heeded. One issue that illustrates this failure to heed the advice is the way Archbishop Pius Ncube's alleged sexual escapades have been dealt with.
At best, instead of waiting for the judicial process, through which the matter is being handled, to take its course, we saw activist opposition groups protecting Ncube and alleging that he is a victim of the Central Intelligence Organisation sting.
Well, he could be, but these groups do not want to let us think that first, Ncube might not be a victim of the CIO or indeed he was a victim of a CIO sting who could have indeed committed the alleged offence.
In the latter scenario and assuming that the allegations are true, even if he is a victim of the CIO, Ncube was not abducted, forcibly taken to the bed where the alleged act is supposed to have happened, to perform the alleged acts.
The activists focused less on what it means if Ncube indeed did what is alleged and instead focused on what they claim was the public media's agenda to discredit him.
Even if we are to accept that the conduct of the public media was inappropriate, still the kind of activism that we saw emerging from the opposition elements, who normally claim the high moral ground, was disgusting.
These activists downplayed or glossed over the implications of allegations against Ncube, should they be true. What do the opposition elements think about Ncube's conduct, supposing the allegations are true?
In short, the so-called champions of democracy, good governance, and morality are abusing all these virtuous principles (supposing they ever existed in their ranks) because they want to blunt the alleged Zanu PF exposure of Ncube's alleged acts. We read a report outlining an apparent strategy being pursued by Ncube's lawyer to try and discredit the claims of Ncube’s accuser.
Reports tell us that Ncube does not deny these allegations. Judging by the way Ncube is trying to fight this case, it seems although he is not denying his involvement, he is neither acknowledging that he committed it. Well, good enough for him, at least for now, considering that his case is still to be tried. He cannot incriminate himself.
However, if he really knows that he committed these alleged acts and is a God-fearing man who fears the Ten Commandments and the morals he preaches to others, then he will be doubly hurt when the whole case finally unravels. But for now we cannot judge him until his case goes to court.
However, as a man of principles and high morality, we expect him to tell us, in no unclear terms, whether he did it or not. He has demanded accountability and honesty from public servants and he, as a public servant of God and public commentator of national issues, is falling short of being as accountable.
What the opposition has taught us is that many times, if one is a Mugabe or Zanu PF critic, they can get away without accounting for themselves. Generally, the opposition would vigorously defend anyone of their own (even where they are clearly on the wrong side) whose misdemeanours would likely make them fall prey to Zanu PF.
This is unfortunate because it militates against the very principles of democracy, accountability and morality that the opposition purports to champion. To make matters worse, when third parties highlight this hypocrisy, they are attacked and called all sorts of names.
They are also accused of being CIO operatives or Zanu PF members. But these people would not have manufactured scenarios that do not exist. It is these people's actions that bring scrutiny upon themselves.
Such rabid attacks demonstrate a pathetic bankruptcy of meaningful ideas to engage issues and not irrelevant and imaginary vengeful attacks. In a democracy, people are free to do largely what they desire, but that democracy demands, in reciprocity, responsibilities from citizens. It is absurd to merely demand democracy that is not reciprocated by responsibilities. Sadly, that is what many in the opposition desire and are currently practising. Well, they cannot have their cake and eat it too!
The shielding of bungling opposition elements is responsible for the mess in which we, as a country find ourselves. The other MDC faction President Morgan Tsvangirai was allowed to pursue his reckless "Mugabe Must Go" campaign where he vowed, and was urged on by his cheerleaders, never to discuss with President Mugabe, but topple him by all means necessary.
Tsvangirai engaged in well-supported cocktail of sabotage acts that culminated in calling for and successful implementation of the devastating economic sanctions by Western countries that have largely backed him. The Tsvangirai inspired economic sanctions have caused unprecedented suffering to the people of Zimbabwe.
When some of us cautioned against this reckless approach by Tsvangirai and called for national dialogue among stakeholders, and specifically for Tsvangirai to engage Zanu PF, we were treated as idiots and thoroughly insulted with all the vulgarity one could think of.
Five years later the very same Tsvangirai is neck deep involved in negotiations with President Mugabe and Zanu PF. It is a shame that it took five years for Tsvangirai and his followers to understand this simple imperative. But because these elements were from the opposition that wanted the total elimination of President Mugabe and Zanu PF, they were allowed to err on the wrong side and to rehabilitate.
The Lovemore Madhuku case is instructive on the hypocrisy of the opposition. It demonstrates how the opposition can fail to live up to the same standards that they try to impose on their opponents. When campaigning for the capping of presidential terms through a constitutional clause, Madhuku was himself, as head of the National Constitutional Assembly, changing his organisation's constitution to eliminate the term limit clause so that he could run again!
He claimed that
it was the desire of "the people" (NCA members) to retain
a certain kind of leadership that would take the constitutional struggle
forward. Madhuku was applying standards to President
Mugabe that he could not meet or if he did meet them, were exactly in
the same manner President Mugabe had justified them: accepting the will
of "the people" to serve them. Both justified the legitimacy
of their positions on the power of "the people".
The opposition members were totally blind to any similarities. Madhuku could amend the constitution while President Mugabe could not. In this clear anomaly, where did Madhuku get the authority and moraliy to demand from President Mugabe that which he and his organisation could not deliver? Simple: from the so-called civil society. It conveniently overlooked Madhuku's misdemeanour.
As things stand right now, it is dreadful to imagine what animals we are creating in the current opposition ranks should they be voted into power and given access to state institutions. They would probably become brutal and vengeful, as we have seen many times, against people who simply hold views different from theirs.
They would be unaccountable, as we have seen how they dealt with matters portraying them in bad light. They would entrench their hypocrisy, as we have seen by their preaching of one thing and doing exactly the opposite.
Kuthula Matshazi is a Zimbabwean journalist and a graduate student
in globalisation studies writing from Canada. Visit his blog at http://kuthula.blogspot.com
JOIN
THE DEBATE ON THIS ARTICLE ON THE NEWZIMBABWE.COM
FORUMS
debate@newzimbabwe.com
All material copyright newzimbabwe.com
Material may be published or reproduced in any form with appropriate credit to this website