Groupthink in Zanu PF is out of this world: Part 2

By Mike Bambo

There are ways that ZANU PF can use to avoid groupthink in its party. Janis (1982) suggested four conditions that help predispose groups to groupthink namely: cohesiveness, group isolation/insulation, leader intimidation, and an absence of decision-making procedures.

As group members spent more time together, they develop; they become accustomed and grow to like each other. ZANU PF has been in existence for a while since pre independence time. Any information that might threaten the existence of ZANU PF is not accepted.

ZANU-PF maintain their group cohesiveness through a reward system, whereby they give each other “gifts” such that if any member of the group decides to act against the group, they would withdraw the “gift warded.

Tracy Mutinhiri, a former ZANU-PF member who swayed from the group, had her “gift” (farm) withdrawn. Another recent example is that of Edmond Mhere who some people believe that he evicted ZANU PF from his building after the expulsion of Munyaradzi Kereke from the party.

The insulation of the policy-making group is another factor.

In most cases, groupthink groups are removed from interaction with others, perhaps because of their position within the organization. ZANU-PF calls anyone who opposes them, any enemy of the state. In their thinking, the party is synonymous with the country, Zimbabwe.

All opposition parties, especially MDC-T are regarded as enemies and not as opponents. Outside Zimbabwe, ZANU-PF has made it clear that Britain and her Western allies, including the United States, are their enemies because they do not support their position.

Surprisingly, it is these “enemies” that are busy supplying food to Zimbabwean citizens who are in dire poverty, partly because of ZANU-PF policies.

Lack of impartial leadership is a third contributing cause. President Mugabe has emerged powerful, in ZANU-PF that no one dares challenge him. Some of his followers are well known to have said they would have chosen to be Mugabe’s biological son (Webster Shamu).

That is a mockery to your own parents. So how can they challenge him when they say sign off letters, ‘You ever obedient son’ (Obert Mpofu).

Mugabe has become a directive leader who lets his position known and all group members end up supporting the position already made by their leader. Recently, at the UN he made the shame, shame talk to Britain and US, but surprisingly no one dared challenge him, or at least try to caution him.

Finally, the lack or absence of decision-making procedures may also contribute to groupthink.

This writer isn’t aware of this assertion, but based on the readings in newspapers, one would doubt if ZANU-PF has a procedure for making group decisions. This is so because any person who is powerful in ZANU PF can just come up with an absurd decision that you wonder if they had debated it.

Outcomes of groupthink

Outcomes of groupthink are not limited to political groups alone, but also to organizations mainly because of poor decision-making practices that are inherent in these organizations (Peterson, Owens, Tetlock, Fan, & Martorana, 1998).

There are about six products or outcomes of groupthink provided by Janis (1982) which include group limitation on its discussion to only a few alternatives without an initial survey of all the alternatives that might be worthy of consideration. Obert Mpofu and his buddies just woke up from nowhere to say they would introduce urban tollgates. This defies logic.

The second product of groupthink is the failure of the group to reexamine those alternatives originally preferred by the majority, even after they learn of risks and drawbacks they had not originally considered.

Another outcome of groupthink is that the group does not spend enough time discussing the repercussions of their anticipated action. This will result in the group making the faulty decision based on the less amount of time devoted to discuss the issue at depth.

You wonder if Obert Mpofu has devoted any time to discuss the issue of urban tollgates.

Members do show positive interest in facts and opinions that support their preferred policy, and tend ignore facts and opinions that do not. Councilors in the affected towns are already for the idea of urban tollgates for they stand to benefit, and we all know how.

Some of the group members may consider themselves as experts in everything, such that they end up refusing or not consulting expert advice outside their own organizations or group who may supply them with accurate, unbiased information about potential losses and gains (Janis, 1982).

This is the case with ZANU PF. Most of the members in ZANU PF believe they know everything, and never ever make mistakes. The Jonathan Moyos, Kasukuweres believe they are experts and can do what is best for everyone.

How to avoid groupthink?

For groups not to make faulty decisions it is recommended that the leader or the group itself should assign someone the role of a critical evaluator to each member. The basic tenant is that members of the group should be encouraged to speak up and there should be no room given to punish those that critically evaluate others’ positions (Hart, 1998).

ZANU PF needs to transform itself into a modern party, not keep on singing about liberating the country.

In that regard, it should allow people to criticize Mugabe, not to treat him like a god. Mugabe should also be a role model in this through acceptance of criticism of his own judgments so that ZANU PF members feel free to express themselves.

Mugabe and other people in ZANU PF, I believe, do state their expectations or preferences prior to group deliberations, such that when a case is before them, there will be impartial discussions. The result is that members will not engage in open inquiry weighing different alternatives.

Another mechanism to avoid group think especially in an organization is to break up large groups into small ones, each under a different leader deliberating on the course of action to take. Chances are that this action will prevent the insulation of the group (Janis, 1982).

Seeking outside experts may also help remove the bias that the group might have. ZANU PF needs self-introspection. ZANU PF is a danger to democracy, and is sending wrong signals to future leaders.

God bless Zimbabwe, and grant her real leaders.

Mike Bambo is a student in the US and can be contacted on [email protected]