The debate about the factionalism in ZANU-PF has tended to focus on two things. First, it focuses on whether the citizens, particularly the broader opposition, should take sides with Cde Blessed Geza and associates to remove President Emmerson Mnangagwa.
The second side focuses on what citizens should demand as a condition for siding with Cde Geza to remove Mnangagwa. In this article, I focus on the second side of this debate. I argue that the demands and expectations of the people must be based on four key considerations.
The first consideration concerns the reasons why the liberation struggle was fought. We need to juxtapose the values and expectations of the liberation struggle with where we are as a nation.
There is no doubt that Zimbabwe took an outrageous departure from the values and expectations which undergirded the liberation struggle. We therefore need to take the country back to all the values and expectations of the liberation struggle.
The second consideration concerns the nature and culture of governance which has dominated Zimbabwe since independence.
Zimbabwe has been under a governance culture of vile corruption, nepotism, tribalism, exclusion, incompetence, unaccountability, intolerance, egregious violence, abuse of human rights and democratic freedoms, brazen election rigging, capture and abuse of state institutions, institutionalization of individuals, the pursuit of individualistic instead of collective arrival, and the use of political office for personal gain. This vile governance culture must be unapologetically obliterated.
The third consideration concerns the copy and paste governance systems that we inherited at independence which are alien to our culture, values, practices and being.
There is no doubt that some of the governance challenges that we are facing in Zimbabwe and Africa are rooted in the systems of governance that we adopted at independence. We need to boldly shift from these systems of governance to systems that work for us.
The fourth consideration concerns a collective vision of what we want as Zimbabweans. We need to be able to think beyond our individual interests and political affiliations.
We need to have collective interests which transcend any issues that may divide us, especially tribe and political affiliation.
What should the people demand?
The discussion of what the people should demand has focused on the establishment of a National Transitional Authority or a Government of National Unity. I believe that these expectations and demands must be guided by a number of key considerations for them to be realistic and fruitful.
They must be based on a forensic understanding of the complexities of the politics of transition in Zimbabwe, particularly the nature of ZANU-PF as a party that is not willing to cede power; the political leaders in ZANU-PF who want to continue enjoying the privilege of power and use political office not only to protect their plunder, but to also protect themselves from being made accountable for the abuses they committed during their time in office; the November 2017 coup and how it deepened the militarization of the state; and the interests which pushed Cde Geza and associates to fight for the removal of President Mnangagwa.
The truth is that Cde Geza is fighting for the ascendancy of Vice President Constantino Chiwenga. The 2017 coup is a long and entitled one, it will always protect its interests. Relatedly, he wants those who fought the liberation struggle to be put at the center of ZANU-PF.
He is disgruntled that ZANU-PF has been taken over by what he calls criminals. Indeed, it is, as always, a chinhu chedu (this is our thing) fight.
It is not about the people, but about promoting shareholder interests in ZANU-PF. However, Cde Geza and associates raised some issues that speak to the views and expectations of the masses.
He condemned the vile corruption and criminality, incompetence, nepotism, state capture, the mishandling of Gukurahundi, and violations of human rights and democratic freedoms, particularly against the opposition.
Probably the highlight of his press statements is where he stated that:
“As we move forward, this is our plan. We have put enough mechanisms to make sure that the revolution will not be hijacked again. Going forward, all stakeholders of various parties and civic groups will be consulted on every next step we take.
We want to liberate all, so this should never be viewed as a ZANU-PF internal fight. It should never be converted into such. We are going to call for action soon. Stock up in preparation for a national shut down as we march to a free Zimbabwe. This was prophesied long back.
The people of Zimbabwe, get ready for action. Be ready for action once you receive the signal. We have called upon you (Mnangagwa) to step down peacefully and immediately but you have ignored.
The people are going to force you to step down in line with the provisions of the constitution. Once you go, we will allow for a transition to a democratic government where people’s voices are heard and their rights are respected”.
Should the people demand a National Transitional Authority?
The most popular expectation is that Zimbabwe should establish a National Transitional Authority. This expectation is based on the view that the problem of Zimbabwe is not Mnangagwa and the criminals around him, but ZANU-PF as a system.
The solution is therefore to remove the system, not to remove a few elements from the system and bring elements that have been part of the system. We must not be naively excited by the possibility of removing Mnangagwa and crown a “new” president.
We may remove Mnangagwa but end up in the worst of situations just as we removed Mugabe and ended up with the Mnangagwa curse. Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o says that “when a bird in flight gets tired, it will land on any tree”.
This is what happened in 2017 when citizens naively got involved in the removal of Mugabe. We should never land on the same tree that we landed on in 2017, regardless of how desperate for change we are.
The demand for an NTA is not new. People like Dr Ibbo Mandaza have been vocal about it. An NTA is a transitional arrangement, especially established after a violent conflict or major political upheaval.
While NTAs are mandated to execute a number of tasks such as the restoration of peace, security, human rights, and fundamental freedoms, their key mandate is to organize a free, fair, and credible election which facilitates a transition to democratic rule.
While an NTA is the ideal option, there are a number of factors that make it realistically difficult, if not impossible. First, an NTA is necessitated by extraordinary circumstances such a civil war, military intervention by a foreign government(s), or a military coup.
While Zimbabwe has been going through difficult challenges, the conditions are not sufficient to force ZANU-PF to accept an NTA.
Second, if ZANU-PF agrees to establish an NTA, it means that it would have agreed to cede power to the opposition, particularly to Advocate Nelson Chamisa. This is because if the NTA arranges a free and fair election, Nelson Chamisa will win.
This is not something which I think ZANU-PF is ready to do for a number of reasons. First, the leaders in ZANU-PF want to continue enjoying the privilege of power and they are afraid that should there be a drastic transition of power, they will be made accountable for the corruption and human rights violations they committed and they will lose their plunder.
Second, the war veterans who have been excluded from the feeding trough, those who risked their life to remove Mugabe, and those who are risking their life to remove Mnangagwa are all waiting for their turn on the feeding trough.
They cannot risk their life for the opposition to walk into power. This is especially considering that an NTA is a short-term arrangement which they may not be required to be part of, given that it has to be run by people who have no political interests so that they can sincerely implement political and electoral reforms.
I therefore believe that while the NTA is the ideal arrangement because it allows us to transition from the vile ZANU-PF regime to a democratically elected government, it is unrealistic because of the complexity of the political interests in ZANU-PF.
An NTA is also difficult to demand because the opposition, including civil society, is currently weak, disorganized, and disoriented.
An NTA, by its nature, is not given but demanded. Authoritarian regimes are not so magnanimous that they can decide to establish an NTA.
Any promises by those who are fighting to remove Mnangagwa that there will be an NTA are hardly believable. We should be careful, otherwise we will be Hukuwinked.
Should the people demand a Government of National Unity?
When Cde Geza said that “we will allow for a transition to a democratic government where people’s voices are heard and their rights are respected”, he was most likely referring to a GNU, not an NTA.
Unlike an NTA, a GNU can accommodate the interests of ZANU-PF leaders that I explained above. It allows them to retain power and protect their interests. It also allows for the gradual as opposed to drastic loss of power by ZANU-PF.
A GNU is not an arrangement which Zimbabweans are excited about because of the 2009-2013 GNU experience. The GNU of 2009-2013 failed to deliver any reforms, with the exception of the 2013 constitution which ZANU-PF is seeking to tear down.
The crisis of trust between ZANU-PF and the opposition, coupled with the lack of common values and vision, makes it extremely difficult for them to establish a fruitful GNU.
If a GNU is to be established, ZANU-PF will consume its time and energy towards infiltrating, outwitting, and exterminating the opposition. For this reason, there is no fruitful dialogue or reforms that can take place within the context of a GNU.
A GNU is a transient palliative, it is incapable of healing Zimbabwe’s deeply troubled soul. The best it can offer is short-term relief from toxic polarization, political violence, and economic wretchedness.
This explains why Alex Magaisa argued that “If there is to be any dialogue, it would not be to form a GNU but to carry out comprehensive reforms that would mitigate the risk of yet another flawed election that would produce an illegitimate outcome”.
However, depending on how it is structured and the culture that characterizes it, a GNU may be a useful way of slowly but surely transitioning from ZANU-PF rule.
Under a GNU, Zimbabwe may take a long electoral Sabbath and focus on implementing electoral reforms and promoting national unity, healing, and reconciliation. However, the chances of the opposition going into a GNU and coming out with nothing are very high.
The dilemma which faces the people of Zimbabwe is that an NTA is the best option, but it is unrealistic in the field of realpolitik. On the other hand, a GNU is realistic, but it cannot deliver the genuine reforms which the people are seeking.
I conclude by arguing that whether we demand an NTA or GNU, our focus should be on the need to introduce a new governance culture that is built on inviolate values, with either an NTA or GNU as a vehicle to take us to that culture.
The search for a new Zimbabwe should be premised on a national pledge to converge on inviolate values despite our political and other differences. For these values, see my paper titled “The Geza inferno and factionalism in ZANU-PF: The search for a value-based Zimbabwe”.
Dr Moses Tofa is a Research Leader, political analyst, and self-critical Pan-Africanist. He holds a PhD in Politics from the University of Johannesburg and a PhD in Conflict Studies from the University of Kwa-Zulu Natal. He is also an Investigator at the University of Andes, Colombia. He is the founder of the Zimbabwe Opposition Monitoring and Support Group (ZOMSG). He writes in his capacity. Reachable at [email protected], Follow him on twitter handle: @DrDrMTofa.
