| The best Zimbabwe news site on the world wide web |  |
Aborting democracy, rearing ethnicity
By John
B. Mkobi and Bulelani Mokoena
WE HAVE followed with interest the unfolding saga in the Movement for
Democratic Change (MDC). It is trite to mention that most of us are
relying on both the print (public and private) and electronic media
for information about what is happening within the MDC.
Media institutions tend to take a certain slant when reporting issues, especially one about a major rift in a hitherto significant political formation like the MDC. But be that as it may, what we have read and heard so far seems to be a fair picture of the goings-on in the once mighty MDC. On the face of it, the issue that has divided the MDC is whether or not to participate in the upcoming senatorial elections. Let us examine the issue as presented to us in the media.
In a democracy, when two opposing views on an issue emerge and there is a stalemate, the issue is put to a vote. We are failing to find a place for the argument that the National Council of the MDC is elitist. It is one of that party’s decision-making bodies that were established in accordance with the party’s constitution. The assumption of all reasonable men and women is that all what the MDC has done in the last six years was guided by the party’s constitution. In the past six years of the party‘s existence, the National Council made decisions that were respected by all members of the party, including Mr. Morgan Tsvangirai.
Before the March 2005 parliamentary elections, the MDC, after much disconfitting dithering, met in the same way that they have done recently to consider a boycott or participation. We were told that the majority of the provinces had voted for participation. They entered the election race with a heavy heart.
Why then, all of a sudden, should the National Council become an illegitimate structure? Is it because Mr. Tsvangirai did not get his way? There was more at stake during the parliamentary elections in March in terms of legitimacy that was sought by Zanu PF. Why do we get arguments like “Votocracy is not democracy” at this stage? So “Votocracy was democracy" only when Mr. Tsvangirai’s views carried the day? Sorry by the way Mr. Tsvangirai is said to have confided in the votocracy priest that his personal views were to not participate in the March parliamentary election (Standard 30 October 2005 page 9). This is quite a revelation.
The difference between the March 2005 National Council decision on participation and the Senatorial Election saga is that in the former, Mr. Tsvangirai felt bound by the “Collective responsibility” principle of all democrats. The will of the majority in the context of the vote subordinated that of the minority. This is important for all of us to appreciate including our compatriots in parliament. The laws of Zimbabwe that were passed in the presence of MDC legislators are not Zanu PF laws unless one is addressing a rally. They are Zimbabweans laws in the sense that the principle we alluded to still applies. The fact that they are bad laws is another issue altogether.
This, therefore, tells us that the MDC saga, while it is an internal party squabble, has lessons to all of us that democracy has its challenges. Even when you may be proved in future to have been right, it behoves you to respect the decision of the majority as defined by the party’s constitution. How are we to know that the Tsvangirai-led faction has the people behind it before we get to the Party’s Congress? Perhaps for now the pro-senate faction may claim some following based on the number of provinces that registered candidates for the forthcoming elections. If media reports are anything to go by, then close to seven (7) provinces are pro-senate elections.
If one were to visit the anti-senate argument one gets the impression that when the MDC entered the election race in 2000 there was a level playing field. Is that so? What other option, if one may ask, was available to the MDC in the context of our political dispensation, as we know it today? How, for instance, does the anti-senate election hero intend to mobilise people given the spectacular and embarrassing failures of mass action in recent times?
We hold no brief for the pro-senate election lobby. Admittedly, the Senate will not bring bread to the tables of Zimbabweans. But from a strategic and tactical point of view it could be helpful for the MDC to participate in the election. The argument that the same people who opposed the 17th Amendment should not be the same people who support participation in the senate election is burdensome syllogism. The MDC MPs opposed the 17th Amendment out of principle. Zanu PF had the majority in parliament which passed the Amendment. It is now law. It is now reality. In life we deal with objective reality. This is what informs your strategy and tactics. Does this not take us back to the Daily News saga where ANZ refused to register on grounds that AIPPA was unconstitutional only to have the dirty hands doctrine hurled at them by the Supreme Court? Chances are that if ANZ had registered they could still be publishing today and no doubt the struggle for democracy in this country would be many steps forward now. The absence of a paper like the Daily News has taken the struggle for democracy countless steps backwards.
In the absence of identifiable viable extra-parliamentary alternatives, it is playing macho to call fellow democracy crusaders sellouts simply because they do not share your view. It is such a shame when Cleops begins to sniff blood because he has been told that he is seeing only part of the world! The term ‘sell-out’ is normally used by tyrannical and single-track absolutists whose world is either black or white. To them, you either agree with them or you are an enemy. In their political culture, an enemy has to be eliminated. Isn’t God kind to us that in his wisdom he delayed His Deliverance in 2002? We would have jumped from the frying pan into the fire! The MDC is in an arm of Government – National Assembly. They are in government by consensus. They need the same consensus to pull out of government altogether if we are to listen to the senate boycott.
The current constitution is, admittedly, one of the most defective pieces of legislation that needs Zimbabweans’ common effort to correct. Let us please stop calling it the Lancaster House Constitution. With 17 home inspired amendments and with an 18th one on the cards, how does it remain a Lancaster House Constitution? It is sad that we have a severe drought of gray matter when it comes to what we shall call the national good.
| "Isn’t God kind to us that in his wisdom he delayed His Deliverance in 2002? We would have jumped from the frying pan into the fire!" |
| J MKOBI and B MOKOENA |
Franz Fanon in The Wretched of the Earth makes a very pertinent observation about oppressed people. During the struggle for independence they all rally behind the leadership elite in the hope that the future will be bright. Unbeknown to them is that the ruling elite in the post Independence era habour aristocratic ambitions akin to those of colonial rulers they sought to overthrow. Hence the rise of tyranny and dictatorship. The same applies in the post-colonial struggle for democracy. When you have a leader of a party that is supposed to be a government-in-waiting publicly repudiating the party constitution on grounds that it was authored by his enemies what other hope can you have? One of his major functions is to defend the constitution at all times and not to rubbish it when its processes yield an uncomfortable outcome. If the same leader can organise hit squads to eliminate ‘enemies’ within the party, what should you expect from him when he is in charge of all the awesome state instruments of coercion? Mighty, merciful God, thank you for delaying your Deliverance in 2002. You know all of us very well!
The tragedy of African politics is the inability to accept opposing views. This is further complicated by the ethnic factor. All along we have believed that the MDC is a ‘rainbow’ party with all its leaders elected on a democratic ticket. Were we wrong? The Management Committee of Six, as far as we believe, was agreed to in accordance with the party constitution. Those who sit in that committee do so by virtue of their positions to which they were elected democratically, unless we were misled in the past six years. Even those who are not in the Management Committee but hold certain positions, such as the party spokesman, were either appointed using constitutionally delegated authority (which is perfectly democratic) or they were directly elected. We are therefore quite intrigued by Mr. Morgan Tsvangirai’s outburst that the pro-senate lobby is vending a tribal/regional agenda. We are baffled even more by the zealous peddling of this breathtaking and clearly divisive claim by the so-called observers, commentators and analysts. This issue is about strategy and tactics. Perhaps Mr. Tsvangirai may find it worth his while to educate us about how it is a tribal/regional issue. Why are tribal/regional allegations so handy in Zimbawe’s political discourse? Remember that after the 2000 parliamentary elections a senior Zanu PF official made an outburst about the results in Matabeleland as if it was only there where people had voted against Zanu PF. He said, “The vote in Matabeleland was tribal!” So much for tribalists and regionalists! Any clue about where Mr. Tsvangirai cut his political teeth?
Let us cast off all pretensions. There are tribes in Zimbabwe and people belong to these tribes. We are all tribal, at least to the extent that a tribe is a social/anthropological formation with an identifiable culture. Nations are apex formations. Rules and regulations are meant to surbodinate, in an orderly manner, our primordial dispositions to a higher multicultural way of life. They are a covenant that brings order in our lives. When the more regarded amongst us choose to be free from these regulations, then we are back to the state of nature, where life is nasty, brutish and short. Let us not tribalise issues in order to score cheap short-term political victories.
Opinion leaders in Zimbabwe must be responsible in their articulation of issues. They must look beyond what coincides with their political philosophy. The reason why we have a political crisis in this country is the belief in absolute positions. The national good, which, in simple terms is the welfare of the ordinary people, has been turned into narrow party and individual dogmas. Yet the truth is that Zimbabwe belongs to all of us who respect its flag and its existence as a unitary State. The mandarins in both Zanu PF and MDC are but passing actors in a permanent stage that is Zimbabwe. None of them is more Zimbabwean than you and I. None of them has right in their pocket or under their armpit.
As the MDC/Zanu PF internal squabbles rage on let it be placed on record that Zimbabwe is bigger than both parties put together. Their failure to address the issues that uplift the lives of our people may not be for given by posterity. Let us remember that there was Zimbabwe before Zanu PF and MDC and there will be Zimbabwe after the two institutions. The prosperity of this country lies in our collective effort as Zimbabweans to seek the common issues that may make the lives of our people worth living. Those who masquerade as national heroes when in fact they are sectarian to the core shall reap thorns. As we forge ahead we need always to remember posterity. Look at your child and ask yourself: Am I laying a firm foundation for the future of this child?
For those in the MDC, they owe it to the millions of those who voted for them to show maturity in what they say and do. By all means avoid the tribal card. There are many examples in history, including the war of liberation here and the nasty events of the Great Lakes region, that bigotry and arrogance in the conduct of national affairs can be very costly. Let us not allow history to repeat itself. History tends to repeat itself in worse forms! We have a collective responsibility to see a bigger picture. We are all Zimbabweans. We are all equal. There are no underdogs. Let us unite in dignity. Only then will our unity endure the test of time and Zimbabwe will be the marvel that it rightly deserves to be.
The dignity of all
Zimbabweans is sacrosanct and let no one delude themselves that they
are more Zimbabwean than others. Like birds in the air, we can enjoy
our Zimbabwean space without collisions, only if we respect each other
and think beyond shot-term political gains.
John B. Mkobi and Bulelani Mokoena write from Ireland and can be
contacted at mamainpeace@yahoo.ie
JOIN
THE DEBATE ON THIS ARTICLE ON THE NEWZIMBABWE.COM FORUMS
newsdesk@newzimbabwe.com
All material copyright newzimbabwe.com
Material may be published or reproduced in any form with appropriate credit to this website