| The best Zimbabwe news site on the world wide web |  |
The many flaws of boycott politics
By Priscilla
Misihairabwi, MP
WHEN I became
active in the women's movement one of the people I found in that space
was Everjoice Win, who over the years has become a close friend. Then,
her favourite statement was: "Sweetie, decisions are made by those
who participate."
That statement compels me to participate in the current debate about the developments in my party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). On the other hand the debate on the decision to participate or not in the coming Senate elections is a simplistic way of addressing symptoms of other underlying problems and not-so-public issues within the party. While one cannot deny that there is general lethargy and dislike of elections, largely as a result of fatigue from electioneering, the trauma that elections in Zimbabwe have caused, I still have considerable difficulties appreciating arguments proffered by those calling for a boycott.
Firstly, the proponents of boycotting argue that participating in the Senate elections is legitimizing Zanu PF. The question that I ask is: If the past three elections did not achieve that for Zanu PF, what is it about these elections that will change world opinion on the government of Zimbabwe. The second commonly argued position is that the senatorial elections are a costly exercise. The whole rage is purportedly justified in that those who support participation are supporting the squandering of scarce resources that the country desperately needs but which could be channeled towards improvement of civil service salaries, health care and fuel. Without these Senate elections, goes the logic, Zanu PF will make a saving and patriotically allocate the resources to the needy areas and that Zanu PF will not buy luxury cars for the Senators and that no celebrations will be held for winning the Senate seats unopposed. I need convincing that this government, with its history of prioritizing selfish and self-serving projects will now invest in health care, fuel, food, water if we boycott the Senate elections. Dream on!
The other argument, which for me is classic is that because President Robert Mugabe already has 16 seats, there is therefore no point in participating when you know you cannot secure a majority. While this is true of the seats already in the kitty, I ask what then the merits were for participating in the 2000 and 2005 parliamentary elections where a similar arrangement, 30 seats reserved, existed. Most fundamentally, the overriding principle in this argument is that the MDC should only participate in elections in which they are assured of becoming a government. Our detractors have, with some degree of success, told the world that those of us in the MDC are only driven by one motive - that of removing Mugabe from power. I want to argue that the quest for change for some of us is embodied in our slogan "Chinja Maitiro". The change referred to is not confined to only changing leaders or the Constitution, but changing systems and values. It is about being at the centre of creating a new Zimbabwe.
What we also don't seem to get from those arguing for a boycott is, what is the alternative strategy other than agitating for constitutional change if elections are not an option. What would be our position in the event that Mugabe resigns and calls for an election? Will Joice Mujuru get in without a fight? The period before the 2005 elections witnessed robust debate on the same question: participation or not participating. The difference with the current debating space is its intoxication and degeneration into name-calling, abuse, death threats, the violence and the utter viciousness targeting individuals. The only logical explanation, in my view is that what is at stake is not a few individuals in Parliament, but the control and ownership of the MDC. What we are witnessing are power games at play. The real issue is political contestation.
The MDC congress is set for February next year. Congresses are about elections and consequently about leadership change. The period before congress is for canvassing, lobbying and jockeying for positions. By nature this results in alignments and realigning based on a number of factors, including gender, class, background and more dangerously regional alliances. The Senate elections come at the peak of political maneouvering. Whilst campaigning for political power is expected and accepted, what becomes important is how individuals and institutions manage that period in a manner that reflects the inherent values not only of individuals but the institutions. How individuals seek to either maintain or change the power politics in the organisation reflects and provides useful insight into how they would manage political contestation at a national level.
There certainly has been an attempt by some individuals to privatize the struggle. Utterances such as: "I am the MDC, without me there is no MDC", are in fact anti-free choice and deny people their right to choose a leader. Is this any different from the utterances of the former defence chief General Vitalis Zvinavashe who on the eve of the 2002 elections declared that the defence forces of Zimbabwe would not salute anyone who does not have war credentials. It is scary that in the name self-preservation, MDC members are now singing the same songs that, in the past, were targeted at the MDC, with the only difference this time being that they are targeting party colleagues. There is just a certain vocabulary that we do not need in MDC. Sell out, mafikizolo, puppets, among other words, should never constitute the vocabulary for persons wishing democracy to prevail.
This leads me to the point of ethnic dimension the debate has assumed. In analyzing the voting patterns at the last MDC council meeting, what is striking is those provinces that have experienced the most vicious brutality by Zanu PF such as Matabeleland and the Midlands - especially during the Gukurahundi era - voted for participation. Even in the initial "yes" vote from Manicaland, a province that traditionally has experienced both political and development marginalization, one notes a peculiar pattern. I argue that while these areas have endured Zanu PF brutality they also have a history of contesting and controlling political space and scoring victories. The ZAPU and Ndonga eras bear testimony to this. It did not matter to them being a minority but what was important was showing resistance, hence politics of boycott are a new phenomenon to them and not easily understood and accepted. While most of Manicaland and Masvingo have always experienced total Zanu PF domination, ceding political space to Zanu PF, is a more attractive option. Clearly voting patterns have nothing to do with people being sell-outs or revolutionaries. They are informed by lived realities; they are about past experiences and engagements with the status quo.
What is of concern, however, is the abuse I have heard in recent days directed at Ndebeles. People who during the past campaigns would speak so highly of the late Dr Joshua Nkomo have now started calling Professor Welshman Ncube "a Joshua Nkomo, a sell-out, a compromiser". How can anyone who has been to Nkayi and witnessed the trauma those people have gone through in challenging Mugabe, have the audacity to even begin to insinuate that their victory was a donation. Most fundamentally the way the Matabeleland issue has been handled in this debate raises unresolved ethnic issues of the relationship between the people from Mashonaland and those from Matabeleland, their role in the MDC and overall the space accorded to them as Zimbabweans and full citizens. Pretending these are not issues is behaving like an ostrich.
My final point is on the role of Zanu PF in the crisis and how it has used the media to divide and ultimately destroy the MDC. The State media has only one role, which is to advance the interests of Zanu PF and ensure that Zanu PF becomes the one and only political party in this country. If featuring Paul Themba Nyathi, and writing about Ncube expedites the split in the MDC they will do it. It was a calculated high level intelligence operation. It started at the formation of the MDC and indeed the media has kept its eye on the ball. An example is how in the recent days the State media has sought to misrepresent the South African visit and make it look like a collusion between Ncube and Mbeki, yet that was partly a Mbeki agenda, aimed at remaining relevant in the Zimbabwe crisis, albeit by being seen to be concerned about MDC. Having set that context, four issues emerge from that political contestation: Congress agenda campaigning and leadership change; Leadership style and values; Ethnicity; and Zanu PF's role and the use of the State media.
From a purely feminist perspective, both my private and public position on participation in the Senate was that it served no real purpose in advancing the women's cause. I felt that among its other evils, the fact that Zanu PF had chosen to disregard an inclusion of either a quarter or for proportional representation, which would allow for more women representation was a demonstration of how unimportant the issue of women's rights and empowerment was to Zanu PF. I made this point both outside and inside the MDC.
However, like many
others who were anti-participation I lost when the vote was taken in
the National Council. Why then are those who are anti-participation
considering me an undesirable element. I argue that it is precisely
because the current events are not about the Senate.
Misihairabwi-Mushonga is the Member of Parliament for Glen Norah. This
article was originally published in the Standard newspaper
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