The MDC Debacle – When A Party Mutilates Itself
By Somerset Masikati
The current goings-on in the troubled MDC movement are tragic, shocking and epochal. The demise of the MDC as we have known it – is a tremendous loss to the Zimbabwean political landscape.
Whatever misgivings its opponents have always harboured against it, it remains the case that every country needs a vibrant opposition political party to keep the ruling elite on its toes.
Further, it also goes without saying that since its formation, the MDC has consistently provided hope, an alternative political platform and nurtured the aspirations of millions of disaffected Zimbabweans, thereby providing an outlet for a burgeoning mass of citizens holding a contrary view to the hitherto unchallenged Zanu PF political hegemony and unilateralism.
But for Zanu PF’s political chicanery, prosecuted through the coercive instruments of state power, it would have assumed the reigns of power in the post March 2008 political dispensation. The bloodletting and gratuitous violence that took place during that time remains one of the defining episodes in Zimbabwe’s young and tumultuous political history, together with the Gukurahundi era.
The unravelling of a party entrusted with such a sacred mission, heaving with a sense of history and carrying the burden of expectation is one for the ages and perhaps a terrible indictment on the main protagonists who have occupied the vortex of this mission from the very beginning.
Clearly, the MDC is teetering towards political obscurity regardless of whatever of it will be left after the current debacle. The key questions are, who is / are to blame, could this have been avoided and wither Zimbabwean politics?
Who is to blame? – Tsvangirai Personally or The Entire MDC Leadership?
Like his nemesis, Robert Mugabe, Morgan Tsvangirai has got a ubiquitous presence on the Zimbabwean political landscape. A charismatic figure who had the fortune of being at the right place at the right time at the conception of the MDC, it is an open secret that he is by far the most popular opposition figure in the history of opposition politics in Zimbabwe’s young history.
That having been said, it is clear that he is very thin on political strategy, vision, articulacy, personal and political judgement and prone to arbitrary, inconsistent and questionable decisions. His limited educational background has been used as cannon fodder by his opponents to question his leadership credentials.
Whilst it is difficult to question his commitment to the democratic struggle, it is clear that the task at hand has often appeared too big for him, as exemplified by a plethora of errors that he has made along the way. I will only highlight those that I feel have contributed the most to the current predicament.
The Ari Ben Menashe Saga – represents a very clear example of Tsvangirai at his worst, ie, he was clearly outwitted and although he survived the treason charges that were levelled against him, his lack of judgement and political nous was clearly laid bare as his intellectual antennas were not triggered by the clearly alarmist terms that Menashe was using, such as “eliminating” and “killing”.
Further, in the first place, it is questionable whether there was really a need to waste resources at that stage in the development of the MDC through international lobbying particularly given its standing with the international community at that stage.
Secondly, once a decision had been made to undertake such a policy, due diligence needed to be carried out given how wily Robert Mugabe and his regime are reputed to be.
During the course of the meetings, his behaviour is to be contrasted with that of Welshman Ncube, who was also present during those meetings, although the question has to be posed as to why Ncube did not intervene and counsel Tsvangirai accordingly during the entire episode, which left him pre-occupied with the court process rather than ratcheting up the democratic struggle and creating political gravitas in the run up to elections.
However, it is arguable whether this really damaged him in the political stakes as he went on to win an election in March 2008. It may however have sowed seeds of doubt in his political judgment by some of his colleagues who were not involved in the saga.
Secondly, further poor political judgement was to be found in allowing images to be recorded by CNN whilst addressing white commercial farmers who were busy issuing out cheques like confetti, clearly playing into the hands of Zanu PF’s charges of being a front of the interests of Rhodesians and “Imperialists”.
In a country with such a history of a heavily contested, protracted war of liberation coupled with a restive population susceptible to manipulation through the state media, greater care needed to be taken to avoid the political furore that such images could generate. For this he is partly responsible whilst the entire MDC leadership should also share responsibility.
Arguably, the biggest mistakes that he made were to preside over the rupturing of the MDC in October 2005 and the fateful decision to join the GNU and become a junior and ineffective partner in the so called “inclusive government”, where he and the MDC clearly operated at the periphery of the political theatre at the time.
Although the main reason given for the split is the disagreement over participation in the Senate elections, it is clear that there were significant challenges with Tsvangirai’s style of leadership which resulted in very serious fissures which eventually culminated in the break-up of the party.
Some of the issues raised at the time, as of now include the use of violence to resolve party issues, the failure to uphold / respect the democratic will of the majority during the vote over participation and the circumvention of party structures through making decisions using the “kitchen cabinet”.
In relation to the vote, Tsvangirai should have done his political homework by sounding out his lieutenants to carry out an assessment on the sentiments of his colleagues before embarking on a high stakes game of Russian roulette with his political future.
Further, once defeated, given that his position appeared to resonate with the public and also given his abiding popularity, he could have spun a yarn by feigning magnanimity through accepting the outcome of the vote and thus presenting this as a triumph of democracy clearly averting the split.
In relation to violence, it was vital that he drew a line towards what had happened and made arrangements for due process to take place and for those found culpable to be expelled from the party. His failure to take action is an indication of a terrible leadership failure.
For this he should take individual responsibility. However, those who chose to align with him during the break away without taking the opportunity to institute reforms are also to blame. They include all of the current “renewal team”. One could argue that this was a missed opportunity which has come back to haunt them.
In relation to the decision to join the GNU, the current protagonists, Biti and Mangoma were vital cogs in the negotiations that took place. The ultimate decision to join the GNU presents a clear lesson in failure to muster real politik by the entirety of the MDC leadership. They clearly failed to grasp the significance of the moment.
They had Zanu PF on the ropes teetering on the verge of collapse. They also had the moral high ground following their triumph in the March 2008 national elections, an economy in the ICU and the systemic violence employed by Zanu PF to reverse its loss during its much maligned sham election.
In the end, agreement was reached without any commitment to a clear path of irreversible, fundamental democratic reforms. This is despite the overstated legal and intellectual prowess of the current “renewal team”, including Welshman Ncube’s faction.
In fact, Welshman Ncube is reputed to be a numero uno in Zimbabwean Constitutional Law. In the end, they gave away so much for so little in return making their stint in the GNU as tragic as it was comic as all of them were figureheads. The main reason that they gave for joining the GNU was to rescue Zimbabwe from the precipice.
However, notwithstanding that this was a noble goal, they needed to ensure that such a rescue would be permanent, and not short term. They also failed to realise that in the long term, joining such a political set up without real power would create a crisis of expectation which they could never remedy, whilst sanitising Zanu PF by breathing life into its comatose being which had been hitherto lying prostrate.
In the end, the GNU limped along with no reforms being made, culminating in all the MDCs being outmanoeuvred by wily Robert Mugabe and rail-loaded into another sham election – this time minus the violence but still laden with political chicanery and grand political manipulation. All of them were simply outthought, outfought and outlasted.
Tsvangirai became Mugabe’s Tea drinking chum, Biti a garrulous Finance Minister who was circumvented by the dark forces in Zanu PF and was plagued by parallel channels of channelling resources to the Treasury. The lack of resources notwithstanding, he made very little attempt to curry even the filmiest of favours with the workers, the MDC’s core constituency.
In the end, all of them have to bear responsibility for their failings as recounted above, not just Tsvangirai.
In my book, whilst the transgressions involving women are serious, damaging and rightly pose very serious questions concerning his judgement, integrity and dignity or whatever is left of it, the simple point to note is that he still participated in the July 2013 elections as the MDC leader and garnered significant votes, in spite of the election chicanery so it is difficult to import the nature and extent of any impact this might have had on the MDC’s electoral chances.
Further, in as deeply polarised a landscape as Zimbabwe, it is doubtful whether such indiscretions can sift through to the core constituency and alter the electoral landscape to the extent that critics have alleged. This is particularly so given the country’s social mores and continuing cultural challenges.
However, whatever one’s take on the situation, the blame in relation to this lies squarely on Morgan Richard Tsvangirai’s broad shoulders. His behaviour clearly betrays a fundamental failure to understand the sacred role he had been bequeathed by the people of Zimbabwe and the whole world which, despite his limitations, willed him to succeed if only to bring to an end a brutal regime and give a knackered country new hope for a better future.
Conclusion
Morgan Tsvangirai has got considerable shortcomings, however, he remains highly popular with the generality of the Zimbabwean population especially amongst those opposed to Zanu PF perhaps out of sheer desperation to stumble onto the finishing line of delivering change and ousting Zanu PF, howsoever questionable that change is.
By and large the whole MDC leadership needs to be “renewed”, not just Morgan Tsvangirai. All of them are fake democrats and perhaps true democrats are yet to be born in Zimbabwe. This is because:
a) When the MDC split in October 2005, Tsvangirai faced very serious allegations as recounted above. Biti et al chose to align with him, and made no attempt, overt or covert, to seek changes. They went on to nicodemously and surreptitiously change the MDC Constitution by removing the clause limiting Presidential Terms with the intention to clearly benefit Tsvangirayi. They are clearly culpable for nurturing the beast that they now seek to condemn before.
b) Tendai Biti has been the MDC Secretary General of the MDC since the split. He gained from the split directly as he clearly rose to a more senior position in the party. If he was democratic, then on principle he ought to have identified with Welshman Ncube’s faction, particularly given that by and large, the allegations that he is now levelling against Tsvangirayi are virtually the same with those raised following the split.
c) Further, as the Secretary General, he was at the epicentre of all the policies carried out by the MDC. This includes the very clearly undemocratic constitutional changes referred to above, a central role together with Mangoma during the GPA negotiations, and, amongst others the criteria which was used to nominate candidates during the fractious MDC primary elections. Biti and Mangoma both personally benefited from their incumbency. They never sought to resign on the basis of principle, nor did they propose to decline their “nominations”.
d) As things stand, Biti et al have not only sought to suspend Tsvangirayi, they have also targeted Mwonzora, Chamisa, Khupe, Lovemore Moyo and Bhebhe, amongst others. Other than Tsvangirayi, I am certainly not aware of other protagonists ever having previously faced allegations of violence etc. Given this development, if Biti et al are accusing Tsvangirayi of purging political opponents, are they not guilty of the same charges, ie targeting those who hold a contrary view?
e) The entirety of the MDC-T leadership was elected at the last Congress, including Biti, Mangoma et al. Is it really democratic that a leader elected at Congress, regardless of his weaknesses, is pressured into relinquishing his position through a letter and a systematic media campaign, outside of the process provided by the Constitution for such a far reaching and fateful decision? Further should they be the ones to make such a choice, particularly given that they are interested parties and were also involved, making them potentially equally liable?
f) If leadership changes take place in such a reckless and chaotic manner, doesn’t that create a risk of infiltration and the imposition of leaders? Can such a leader who emerges from such a tainted process claim to be representative of the interests of the general membership? Where would he derive his legitimacy from? Can such people participating in such chaos be entrusted with the reigns of power or running a country?
g) How were important decisions such as participating in the GNU made, by Tsvangirai personally or by the party? If the latter then why is it only Tsvangirai who has to take the bullet, why not the entire party organ responsible for such decisions? Is it seriously being contended that it was only Morgan Tsvangirai who had the responsibility to save the MDC from being outwitted by Zanu PF during the GNU and to force through the so-called reforms?
h) Further, it is common cause that Zanu PF has repeatedly retained power through electoral skulduggery. Short of popular revolt in the streets, how does Biti et al propose to deal with this conundrum? What is that they will be able to do now that they have not been able to do whilst part of MDC-T? By the way, the latter-day attempt to sound nationalistic by making reference to “Pan Africanism” at the end of Biti’s “charge sheet” sounds hollow, contrived, fake and laughable for the simple reason that it sounds like a poor attempt at imitating Zanu PF.
i) VERDICT – Don’t be fooled, all of them are fake democrats. The conundrum is that Tsvangirayi is popular with the masses but terribly flawed whilst Biti et al are reputed to have academic prowess but are clearly politically inept. They should have targeted change at a Congress to deny Tsvangirai a leg to stand on and bring orderly change. As things stand, there will simply be two different factions, with the Biti faction retaining a moral but pyrrhic victory and the Tsvangirayi one retaining the numbers and longevity, yet being compromised in the process.
j) The reality is simply that we are caught between an incompetent incumbent regime & a fractured and self-mutilating opposition. I would venture to say that this is true of all politics in Zimbabwe. It’s a game of hoodwinking the povo all the time. Let’s face it, between the “Cashberts”, Mliswas (Billy Rautenbach’s helicopter Consultant) and Kasukuwere’s of the world and Tsvangirai misguided continued stay in the Highlands mansion whilst still claiming to wait on Mugabe to provide clarification on his position (and yet refusing to recognise him) is the average Zimbabwean’s life really ever going to be significantly changed / shaped by a change of government? I don’t think so. I think one will find it is likely to be more influenced by the individual steps that one actually takes, unless if they are one of the acolytes of the political establishment.
k) It is far better for Zanu PF to continue in power than for fake democrats to seek to hoodwink the public by seeking to bring meaningless and contrived change. So many people have suffered and some have paid the ultimate price in the struggle for democratic change. On the strength of what is happening now, they all suffered in vain.
l) If Biti, Mangoma et al are democrats, then they must assume power through democratic means and either form their own party or go through the route of Congress. As a starting point, in order to draw a distinction between his shenanigans and Tsvangirai, Biti must immediately publish the list of all those who attended the so-called National Council meeting, if only to refute Mwonzora’s allegations, and show that they are actually from registered members of the National Council and representative of the necessary Constitutional quorum across the Provinces, otherwise he runs the risk of being mired in the very electoral chicanery and skullduggery that he is accusing Tsvangirai and Zanu PF of orchestrating. This is particularly so because the meeting took place away from Harvest House.
m) Biti and Mangoma cannot be allowed to tolerate, condone or otherwise benefit from Tsvangirai’s incompetence for so long and then turn around and proclaim themselves to be the very messiahs that the public has been waiting for. The same applies to the current regime – rot has set in for so long that there is simply no reasonable hope for a figure to emerge from the current set up to lead a change for the better in the country’s fortunes.
Somerset Masikati is a Zimbabwean based in the UK who is very passionate about Zimbabwe’s future. He can be contacted at: [email protected].
