Brian: Thank you Violet.

Violet: Now so much has happened in Zimbabwe, especially where the opposition is concerned since the last time we spoke. That was late last year, around the time that the MDC had split. Now the two parties have gone their separate ways and are now led on the one hand by Morgan Tsvangirai and the other by Arthur Mutambara. So lets start with your assessment of this.

Brian: Well the split is an unfortunate event. Unfortunate in the sense that it's a much weaker opposition in terms of its capacity to contain ZANU PF. Even before the split, there were already difficulties in the sense that ZANU had managed somewhat to outflank oppositional forces through the use of either force; the use of repressive legislation and sheer wear and tear. I think people were growing weary; the rejuvenation of energy that we began to witness last year seems to me would be dissipated by this positioning within either faction. And, in any sense, it is important for us to remember that the leadership based in Zimbabwe within the opposition is not that broad. So this splintering into small units; for whatever reason; is undesirable. This is exactly where the opposition in Zimbabwe was before the formation of the MDC

Violet: And now it seems if we are to compare the popularity of the two parties by the numbers that they are drawing to their rallies, it seems Tsvangirai is drawing enormous crowds compared to the people that are attending Mutambara’s rallies. First of all, does this say the Tsvangirai camp is the peoples' party?

Brian: I think there are several ways to look at this. Tsvangirai has been around for much longer, he has been associated with the pro-democracy struggle, if you like, on a consistent basis, much longer and also basically it could be a signification that Zimbabweans generally do not accept that there should be a split in the opposition. It's not necessarily a vote of confidence in Tsvangirai and a vote against the other party, I think it is against the concept of a split opposition. And in there view the broader party might represent that opportunity to finally deal with the ruling party. That's one way of looking at it.

There is another way though; several other ways in fact. The notion that is often not articulated amongst many circles in Zimbabwe is that the other faction represented some ethnic interest, an ethnic minority interest. Whether or not that is a correct assessment is neither here nor there. What is important is there are people within the country in whose opinion the faction, previously led by Welshman and now led by Arthur, represented an ethnic clustering of people from Matabeleland. And, I think the desertion of various characters, Gift Chimanikire and others back to the Tsvangirai camp, might actually help prop up that perspective; that the broader national interest is greater served in the Tsvangirai camp - it has a broader ethnic spread than the other camp.

Violet: And then also Brian, on the issue you mentioned that the other party, which was formerly led by Professor Welshman Ncube, had this ethnic tag surrounding it and also some say that it also has this elitist tag. Now what can you say about this? And still on this same issue, would you agree that the Tsvangirai side may be bottom heavy without the generals at the top and the opposite being said about the Mutambara faction?

Brian: I think the best way to look at what has happened in the opposition politics is to look at what is elitism. Elitism is not the fact that a person has a degree. There are many people in the Tsvangirai faction who are degreed; who are well educated, in fact, well-off by Zimbabwean standards. Equally so there are many people in the Ncube camp, now the Mutambara camp, who are perhaps not that educated and not that well off. So it is not easy to make generalisations.

However, the perception is that the leadership is entirely elitist or is broadly elitist. Former student leaders, university lecturers and that ilk of person. That therefore its linkage and real concern with grass roots issues may be remote, that its capacity to deliver programmatically in the interest of poor people is also remote. Now, those perceptions matter; I think from a public relations perspective and also from a political programming perspective it would be incumbent upon the Mutambara faction to demonstrate firstly, that although they are well educated, they are not elitist; that they are organic intellectuals who have an interest in the welfare of ordinary Zimbabweans. That they are not simply concerned with arguments and abstractions and fancy policies that are done in hotels. That they have a strategy to get to the real issues that affect ordinary Zimbabweans.

On the other hand the tag that all that you need is simply a populist thrust - that all that matters is really just that you should be seen as popular and linked to the grass roots - has its limitations. Countries are not run by popularity. Countries are run through systems and systems are run by competent personnel. Competent personnel often require training, and therefore there is always a fine balance that one needs in any movement and political system. A balance between activists and populism, to balance or counterbalance that with a broad base of expertise, what others may see as bureaucratic elitism.

In my view, I think the issue for me is really critically whether either faction or both factions actually have programmes beyond being popular. We want to know whether either faction has political programmes that will address the hunger that Zimbabweans are facing. Whether they will have political programmes that will address unemployment - rampant unemployment. Whether they have political and social programmes that will result in an economic turn-around. Whether they have conceptual clarity as well as practical experience to implement whatever ideas they might have. Because, governance is, at the end of the day, not simply about ideas in as much as it's not simply things that you say at the rally to the cheer of the masses.

Violet: And judging from what you have seen so far from the two factions, do you think that either faction has what it takes to change things in Zimbabwe right now?

Brian: The real comedy Violet, is that MDC 1 and MDC 2, which ever way you choose to allocate the numbers, are like identical twins that insist to the whole world that they are different in looks. In the sense if you talk about what their programme is around ; divesting state owned enterprises, it's the same. What their programme is regarding economic recovery - it's substantially the same. What their programme is regarding constitutional review - it's substantially the same. What their programme is regarding democratic renewal - it's substantially the same.

So, you literally would have two apes leaping and sitting - looking at each other and saying 'oh - you look funny', in a sense! I mean it's insufficient for political difference to be founded purely on the character deficiencies of either leadership. I think that is insufficient in modern politics. What we expect as a sign of political maturity and leadership is that people would be able to appreciate that every human person will have character deficiencies.

And, this is why we invest so much in building systems and processes. The question to either side is to what extent are the systems and processes strong enough to contain the excesses of the leadership? Because there will be excesses. Politics is not a game of virtue. It's a game played by imperfect men and women in an attempt to achieve a sound political society. And because of the very fact that it is done by human beings who are imperfect you are going to have allegations either of dictatorial tendencies, kleptomania, allegations of discrimination against people. So the potential to be evil resides in every politician.

I'm quite sure, if you were to find one politician who is not guilty of evil, I would be able to confess to a politician myself, if that were possible. But because all politicians anyway are great salesmen trying to sell ideas and agenda, they are bound to overstate their case; they are bound to understate their weaknesses. In my view the issue for MDC 1 and 2 is not for distinction in their political programmes, because there seems to be none. For example, if you take ideology, none of them is out rightly anti neo-liberal. None of them is saying to hell with the IMF and World Bank, none of them is saying we are totally against privatisation, none of them is saying we are totally against scaling down the state. So ideologically they are sitting on the same side of the fence.

Violet: And can the two groups work without each other?

Brian: No. I mean that is the reality. I think the only one laughing all the way to the bank right now is ZANU PF, because the focus that is being paid as to why the nation is starving, why there is food insecurity, why we continue to have harassment and this democratic deficit that we are experiencing in our country - That focus has been turned away from the real object of change, which is the state and its undemocratic nature, as presided over by the ruling party.

And that attention is now being wasted upon each other. So you will meet the Mutambara faction talking broadly about the Tsvangirai faction and the Tsvangirai faction talking broadly about the Mutambara faction. As though the country has no bigger problems! In my view Mutambara is not a problem and Tsvangirai is not the problem. The problem is at some stage we have to decide if we believe in the same thing let's get to the same church, because, in order to achieve change there is no way - I am not persuaded - that there is going to be one singular victory headed by Mutambara or by Tsvangirai.

Violet: There are those who say that even though he seems to have the popular support, some believe that Morgan Tsvangirai is partly held responsible for splitting the MDC and should now allow fresh blood to come and take a back seat. Do you agree with this?

Brian: (Laughs) That is a joke! I mean the downfall of the MDC; it's split, is not the single responsibility of one individual. There is no caricature when you look at the degradation that we witnessed in the MDC. It is the responsibility of several actors: some internal to the party, and others external; several interests: some internal to the party and others external.

I think the reality is that there are people who are sitting on the outside of the Tsvangirai camp crying foul, who for years when characters like myself and Madhuku and Makumbe were being critical of the direction that the MDC was taking, were the very ones who were taking out big sticks and whipping us, trying to whip us into line. In a sense I think it is if you like poetic justice. Some of the biggest victims of the so-called new split and what they now regard as the excesses of Tsvangirai, are the same people who themselves acted as gate-keepers against the party being held accountable.

When notions first were being raised about the party being held transparently accountable in relation to resources, they were the very first people to cry foul and to suggest that anyone who should so much as say that there was need to be transparent and accountable, was just a mischief maker. So, I have very little sympathy for that sort of politician because they are totally dishonest.

Many people raised issues relating to the MDC's accountability to it's civic and labour backgrounds. Many people raised issues about the accountability of the MDC to the electorate; their ability to give feedback beyond just rallies. Many people raised questions about leadership style; decision-making style: whether it was about the 'final push' or other decisions. So I'm surprised that some of our colleagues now find that there were dictatorial tendencies. When they were beneficiaries of these tendencies they hardly accepted any criticism. Now that they are on the other end, the receiving end, it is unacceptable that they should cry louder than those who should be grieving.

Violet: So when you say that now they are on the receiving end, are you, in a way, agreeing that there were dictatorial tendencies when the MDC was still one?

Brian: Yeah, and those were not attributable to Morgan only - not attributable to Tsvangirai only. There's certainly many instances in which we saw Executive dictates - either as the collectivity of Morgan and his 'Top Six', or some of those colleagues who were in the Top Six that are now not in there. In my view there are no saints in the MDC split saga. There is absolutely no angel in that. There's no way one can sit back and say this faction is made up of the virtuous ones and the other is made up of sell-outs and the pretentious ones. No. No, if the truth be told, there was common culpability. They were commonly and collectively responsible for whatever degradation occurred in the MDC.

Violet: And so what about Arthur Mutambara himself? Do you see him as someone who can bring new energy or new strategies to unlock the political impasse?

Brian: Which political impasse? The one in the MDC or the one in the country?

Violet: Both.

Brian: Look, I have lots of respect for Arthur as an individual. I'm not sure that I am totally persuaded; I'm not persuaded that his alignment with one faction was necessarily the wisest political decision on his part because it essentially means he is no longer neutral arbiter. He is seen as pushing a particular envelope and the envelope that belongs to Ncube and his colleagues. Whether his decision was based on judgement of which faction presented greater opportunities or which faction is more amenable to his type of ideology really is a matter of his personal political judgement.

But in the broad perception, the danger, the real danger, is that whatever good intentions Arthur may have to bring both factions together and rework the political opposition so that it is united and forceful are right now mired in the accusation that he is a faction member, or he has become a faction member. But as an individual I think it would be remiss for anyone to suggest that Arthur is incapable. It would be remiss for people to dismiss him as he's been out of the political game plan in our country for too long. I think as an individual he must be given a chance. A chance to prove that he is genuinely committed to making sure that Zimbabweans of different persuasions come together in order to unseat dictatorship.

My only advice to him would be; the best entry point is not to pull down those who have been around. No matter what their imperfections may be. The best entry point might be to build on the strengths of those imperfect ones who have paved the way for him to come on board. In a sense it is impossible to suggest that the nation should forget Morgan Tsvangirai. As it is impossible for anyone to suggest that the nation should forget Welshman Ncube, Gibson Sibanda, Paul Themba Nyathi, Priscilla Musihairambwi Mushonga, umm Isaac Matongos.

In fact, no matter what people think, it's important to realise that these individuals are part of the folk tale or folklore of Zimbabwe’s democratisation project. They are part of the heroic struggle that began in the 90s and culminated in the 2000s to try and unseat dictatorship in this country. And, for that reason, I think that Arthur owes it to himself as a new entrant, or re-entrant to the political landscape, to acknowledge; not only acknowledge the contribution, but also to acknowledge that these people still have a role to play.

Violet: And Brian, what exactly is there for the ordinary person and also how do you propose the MDC sway public opinion?

Brian: I think the first one is, if they insist on competing against each other or as factions in the political landscape, they should expend their energy and the few resources they have in a robust communications strategy. Communicate as they have done previously. Communicating what they intend to do, because I think right now a lot has been lost in translation. There is a need to communicate clearly. What is the political programme? How do those political programmes take on board the failures of the last couple of years? How does it build on the strengths and successes of the last couple of years. Firstly, so there's the issue of communication.

Secondly there is the issue to look at, the issue of human resource capacity. We need to mobilise. It is correct that the new faces rejuvenating in every movement is the best medicine. We saw it in ZANU with the entrance of Jonathan Moyo and others; whatever their ultimate fate became in ZANU. But we saw how that brought a new energy; a new impetus. And I think the both Tsvangirai and the Mutambara faction require this new energy, this new impetus to drive this democratic struggle forward. I don't think we should fossilise the struggle around the same political dinosaurs that have pushed it for so long. They have done well, they must be commended, they must be honoured. But there is also a need to look at where do we do renewal. So I would be pushing for greater articulation and engagement of civil society and the citizenry around political programmes.

Violet: And on the issue of new energy that you talked about just now, some analysts, like veteran journalists Geoff Nyarota, have said that pro-democracy groups need to form a national rescue team that includes some elements of ZANU PF. Do you agree with this?

Brian: Yeah, well Geoff has a point. I'm not sure that this includes some ZANU PF elements, but, certainly, the notion of an expanded leadership base, the notion of bringing in new energy- some of it is not entirely new, the notion of getting people who have been working on national issues and some who intend to. There are great people who have never been prominent in our country, who have never worked for NCA, for Crisis, but who are great. They have great ideas.

I mean each time I read Alex Magaisa - whether I agree with him or not - I realise here has energy that is waiting to be utilised. I read many others, whether its Chido Makunike, Mavis Makuni and many others in our newspapers. I mean those are the ones whom I get to read. There are others whom I meet; I meet in Universities, I meet on shop floors, I meet as I move around the country. Great men and women who have lots of ideas; lots of energy, and I think that great leadership must entail going out there and finding this new energy. Bringing it on board and saying 'listen, we have been fighting for so long and we are now beginning to suffer from some kind of fatigue'.

And to avoid becoming some form of internal cannibalism because we start fighting ourselves and each other when we think we are not winning against the enemy. We need new energy, energy that hasn’t been expended. There are many people in the Diaspora. You know sitting in Zimbabwe, right now I am sitting in Harare, you have a lot of people who say 'oh no, those Diaspora people must stay there'. For me that's nonsensical. For me there are many people who now are out there in the UK and in Australia, America and elsewhere who would be critical to the recovery of this movement. I would want those forces tapped, I would want those interests, those energies tapped and galvanised towards re-inventing opposition parties in my country.

Violet: And what about on this issue of jambanja - mass action? Some have said that people are tired and hungry and that this is the time to take matters into their own hands and this is the time for change. Do you think that they will support this action? You are in Harare right now, what do you gauge from the mood on the ground?

Brian: Ya, you know Harare has always been difficult. In I998, in January, I would have sworn that there would be no further mass action and as you recall there were bread riots - totally un-organised; spontaneous. In January 1998. I would have sworn in March to June 1998 that because of the response of the State, the stay-aways would not work; and they worked. And equally so in 2002, 2003 and 2004 I would have sworn that given the frustration with the electoral process Zimbabweans were so on edge that mass action would succeed, and, as you know, mass action was a disaster. I think that the magic that turns on mass action is neither people's fatigue, hunger or no any other such factor. It is the capacity of the leadership to capture the imagination of the populace. It is the capacity of the leadership to organise people effectively. It is also the capacity of the leadership to present a plan that goes beyond just the action itself. A plan that say; “what if; what happens; what is the plan B if this doesn’t work? In my view I think mass action stands or fails on leadership. Ya.

Violet: And finally Brian, some have asked that since you are well spoken and very eloquent, many people are not sure where you actually stand in this whole struggle. Where do you stand? How would you answer these people?

Brian: I am certainly still a very active member of Zimbabwean civil society - the pro-democracy civil society. I am not a member of either MDC faction and certainly will never be a member of ZANU!

Violet: Thank you very much Brian Kagoro.

Brian: Ok Violet.
JOIN THE DEBATE ON THIS ARTICLE ON THE NEWZIMBABWE.COM FORUMS
newsdesk@newzimbabwe.com