Alex T. Magaisa
“There is one major difference between Zanu PF and MDC,” said Emmerson Mnangagwa, the Vice President of Zanu PF and Zimbabwe, at a recent by-election rally.
“Zanu PF fires while the MDC splits. Look now we have about five MDCs, MDC Tsvangirai, MDC Mutambara, MDC 99, and MDC Biti. So MDC splits and Zanu PF fires,” he added.
He must have had a smug face as he said those words, and that proud smirk, taunting the opposition, but at the same time speaking an uncomfortable truth.
Opposition supporters won’t have liked the sound of it, but with a party being formed before you can say the ‘D’ in the MDC, it’s hard to ignore the statement. We are at that point now where the image in the public consciousness is of an opposition that is forever fighting small internal battles or creating smaller and smaller entities, each claiming to be the solution.
Weakness of a Divided Opposition
Everyone knows the fights and splits in the opposition only serve to weaken them against a formidable and wily opponent.
Take, for example, what happened during the period of the GNU. Mugabe successfully played the opposition leaders against each other. It was either Mutambara versus Ncube or Ncube against Tsvangirai or all against each other. All the while, Mugabe watched and let them fight each other.
In 2008, Tsvangirai and Makoni had enough combined votes to defeat Mugabe in the first round. It would have been harder to cook these figures and deny Tsvangirai the victory that he deserved. In a number of constituencies, the opposition lost to Zanu PF simply because they contested each other. Their combined votes were far superior to Zanu PF’s.
The benefits of unity among the opposition parties were obvious, especially going into a crucial election, but somehow, opportunities were always squandered. I remember the night of June 14 2013 in Maputo. On that occasion, in a rare show of unity, Tsvangirai and Ncube had formed an impressive tag-team that delivered remarkably well at the hastily convened Extraordinary SADC Summit.
Later, diplomats from various countries would whisper to us – “If you guys work together like you did today in there today, you will do so much better”. It was not pre-arranged but their combined force had been felt by all. Sadly, Maputo was a one-off and the glory of Maputo fizzled as the flights took off. Back home, the united of Maputo had become separate protagonists, each fighting from their little corner.
Renewing the Renewal?
A year ago, a group of senior leaders and their followers left the MDC-T, the main opposition party, to form what they called MDC Renewal Team. There was a lot of talking and a lot of shouting. Then things got quieter. And then last week, things got rather noisy. Some scandal here and some violence there. And suspensions along the way, all captured in dramatic language that you would normally find in the realm of student politics.
This week, not even before the MDC Renewal Team has held a long-promised Congress, a group led by one of its senior officials, Elton Mangoma left. A statement was issued announcing Mangoma’s suspension. The next day Mangoma announced that he and others had formed their own party, which they are calling the Renewal Democrats of Zimbabwe. Yet another opposition party resulting from a split. A split from a splinter group. Like a colleague said, it’s now like a virus called The Opposition.
I thought of Mnangagwa as I read the news of Mangoma’s new party and imagined him with yet another smirk, saying to his chums, “I told you so. They have split again, now they have MDC-Mangoma!” He once claimed that God loves Zanu PF, attracting severe criticism from the corner of believers, but on reflection some might have to admit that he had a point. Why not, with the opposition seemingly self-destructing at a time when they should be taking advantage of Zanu PF’s woes?
Mangoma’s new outfit adds to the swarm of opposition political parties seemingly flying in all directions, colliding with others along the way. But why do opposition parties split so much? Why do opposition politicians go off to form political parties as soon as they are dissatisfied with their colleagues?
This is, perhaps, an understudied subject in our politics, probably one that must occupy able minds in the field of political science. Here we attempt only a rudimentary analysis of the causes of splits.
Of particular interest is how by comparison, Zanu PF has managed to avoid similar splits as we have seen in the opposition in its much shorter history. The reasons are diverse and here we pick a selection for analysis. This Part 1 of our analysis. We will publish Part 2 in the next article tomorrow:
Factionalism
Contrary to common thought, factionalism is not, on its own, a problem. Factions are natural in any group of people. In a classroom, there are factions. In football teams, there are factions. Even in families, there are factions. In corporate boards, too, there are factions. So it is hardly surprising that there are factions in political parties. Whenever you have a group of people there is bound to be divided opinion on issues and the growth of factions.
Indeed, when the Founding Fathers of the US Constitution were writing the document over 200 years ago, they understood the problem of factions, and in this way, they recognised the importance of creating safeguards to protect minority factions from the tyranny of majority factions in politics. Hence the system of checks and balances that exist in most modern constitutions.
Opposition parties, like Zanu PF also face the challenge of factions. Factions can be around issues but more often they are around personalities within the party. People rally around their favourite leaders, which results in factionalism based on personalities. The disappointment is that the factionalism has never been issue-based, but has been about personalities. People follow people and not ideas. It’s not unusual in political parties to hear people saying “munhu wanhingi” (he is someone’s follower). When I worked with Morgan Tsvangirai, I was surprised there were people who were even labelled as “vanhu vaMagaisa” (Magaisa’s people)!
The difference between Zanu PF and the opposition parties is that Zanu PF has been able to manage factions, with Mugabe using his vast political skills to play one faction against another for decades, while maintaining power. The MDC, on the other hand and its formations, have not been able to contain the factional wars – the result has been splits. The trick is in developing systems within the party to manage and contain factional wars and to avoid splits. Factional wars will never cease, they just have to be managed.
Lack of Discipline & Loyalty
People outside Zanu PF like to criticise its seemingly rigid, command and control structure as inflexible and undemocratic but it is also part of its strength. I suspect it owes this quality to its military history going back to the liberation war, but there is by and large a form of discipline in the hierarchical structure of Zanu PF that you do not find in the opposition parties.
In the opposition parties, there is a laissez faire approach and some of the conduct that is couched as freedom borders of insubordination and indiscipline. In Zanu PF, there is a clear hierarchical structure – orders come from the top and the subordinates listen and implement. This might sound dictatorial to others but it’s also called leadership. Leaders drive the party and the rest follow. There is nothing undemocratic about that – after all, the buck stops with the leaders.
I have often criticised the MDC (both privately and publicly) for trying too hard to be democratic and that oft-times this has worked against the party. In other words, at times it has tried to be too democratic for its own good – far too often important decisions are left to the mob and the mob rarely agrees on issues and the decisions of the majority are not always the right decisions. Democracy is not always about the majority; it also understands the minority view, which might actually be the correct one. The result is conflict, with the minority often feeling hard-done by. The leadership has to be firm and give direction on important issues.
When I participated in the constitution-making process, I noticed that the command and control structure was both Zanu PF’s strength and weakness. It was clear that there was vertical structure of command and they all worked to instructions from above. It soon became clear that every day, after our sessions, they would go and report to the head office. You could agree one thing one day but the next day they would come back with a different story, trying to reverse everything. We got used to the routine and at the end of each day, we would taunt them saying while they had done a good job it would all come to nought as it would all be reversed overnight by the bosses.
It was a weakness because it limited their creativity and flexibility in negotiations. They could not make firm decisions on the spot and this was frustrating because it delayed negotiations.
But from an organisational point of view, I admired their discipline, loyalty and dedication to the hierarchical structure of their organisation. These were men and women who respected their organisation, whatever its weaknesses. Whatever they did, they knew they had to toe the party line. The party was obviously very important to them, whatever their individual views on specific issues.
These were men and women who respected and defended their leader, whatever his weaknesses. I cannot remember an instance when a Zanu PF person spoke ill of Mugabe, although this did not mean they did not have their reservations. This type of behaviour was the opposite of what you would see among the opposition personnel. You certainly did not see the same level of discipline and loyalty. Leaders took liberties with their language in respect of other leaders and sadly, this also extended to discussions with key stakeholders.
In Zanu PF, people rally around the party and their leader. If they are not happy, they might sulk, but eventually they will keep around. If they are suspended, they will live in hope of returning again. In the opposition parties, if someone sulks, he is likely to go and form his own party. Lack of loyalty and discipline are important factors in this regard.
Lack of opportunities for advancement
There is a view that parties split and people form their own parties because they are frustrated by the style of leadership and lack of opportunities for advancement. The lack of succession planning and the refusal by leaders to give way to others are often cited as major points of disagreement in opposition parties, leading to the formation of splinter organisations.
When the MDC Renewal Team was created in 2014, moving away from the MDC-T, the major grievance was against party leader Tsvangirai, whom the dissenters thought had outlived his usefulness to the party but was refusing to let go. When Professor Welshman Ncube and others left in 2005 to create their own MDC, they complained about the leadership style but the split was sparked by a major disagreement over the decision to participate in that year’s Senate elections.
Yet while one can understand the causes of the disagreements, it is interesting that in both cases, they led to a split in the party. Did those problems really have to cause a split in the organisation? Zanu PF has faced equally heavy problems in its history. The lack of opportunities for advancement is in fact well defined in Zanu PF were Mugabe has been at the helm of the party for almost 40 years now. Any leadership aspirants are given the harsh treatment, as Joice Mujuru saw last year. Sometimes decisions have been made that were unpopular with other factions. But all this has not led to those unhappy factions leaving and forming their own parties.
Take the Tsholotsho Declaration for example. On that occasion, a faction led by Mnangagwa was angling for a better position in the succession race. Mnangagwa was almost certain to become the Vice President, ahead of his rivals before his bid was cruelly thwarted, leading to the decimation of his own faction.
Mnangagwa and his group could have walked away, sulking and deciding to form their own party. But they did not do that. They took their punishment silently. One of the alleged architects Professor Jonathan Moyo was fired. But only a few years later he was back in the fold and ten years later, the Mnangagwa faction are in the ascendancy and Moyo is back in his old post. If what happened in 2004 in Zanu PF had happened in the opposition, it’s a safe bet that a new party would have been formed.
The cost of leaving
One reason people stay within or around Zanu PF even after facing serious frustrations or being mistreated is that the cost of walking away to form a new party is too high compared to the cost of leaving opposition parties.
As we have seen in previous articles, Zanu PF is part of a complex web of interests and structures, which we have referred to as The System. It is possible to be outside the Zanu PF party structures, but to still remain part of The System. If you behave well, you can maintain your place within The System. This is why those who get suspended or expelled choose to be contrite and to remain silent in order to keep their spaces within The System.
The System can also be vindictive. Since much of the wealth and assets that most Zanu PF officials own are derived from the benefits conferred by The System – through corruption, patronage and state benefits – there is always the risk that The System can withdraw those benefits if one becomes a political nuisance. For that reason, most of those who are mistreated by Zanu PF choose to take their punishment quietly and hope to live another day.
This is different in the opposition parties. The opposition has very little opportunities. Unlike Zanu PF, the opposition does not control the state and the vast resources under its jurisdiction. There is little to lose if one leaves the opposition party.
In addition, unlike Zanu PF, the opposition is not part of The System which controls state machinery like the police and prosecution services that can easily be deployed to deal with those who become politically difficult. There are none of those harsh consequences for leaders who leave the opposition to form their own rival parties.
In short, the cost of leaving the opposition party to form your own is much lower than the cost of leaving Zanu PF. Zanu PF malcontents stick around while MDC malcontents go on to form their own parties, all in the name of democracy.
In the next article we will look at the remaining reasons for party splits in the opposition. We look specifically at the problem of agency costs, the benefits of leaving, the problem of delusions of grandeur, poor dispute resolution systems and the problem of purchased loyalty.
Alex Magaisa can be reached on wamagaisa@yahoo.co.uk. You can visit his blog Alex Magaisa.com
