By William Muchayi

The paralysis that grips Zimbabwean politics is as dire as the state of the impoverished country’s economy, virtually in shambles. This comatose state of affairs has been exposed by the just concluded by-elections all won by the ruling party.

Indeed, to spice the drama in this soap opera, victory in the crowded political terrain has become the subject of semantics with both the opposition and ruling party claiming to have won the contest.

As for the former who boycotted the whole process as a sham exercise, the low voter turn-out at the ballot box is argued to be clear testimony that they outclassed their adversaries while on the other hand, the ruling party interpret victory in terms of territorial gain at the expense of the opposition.

That being said, perennial wisdom dictates that each side reflects on its strategies post-elections while being guided by the past and present as they navigate the thorny terrain ahead as the nation heads towards the historical 2018 general elections.

In this context, the assumption is that warring factions in this game of chess keep their cards close to their chests but can’t afford to do so indefinitely before they strike as and when it is convenient and most effective.

Regrettably, the opposition appears to be trapped by the past as they seem to be allergic to advice for which they will pay a heavy prize indeed in the long run.

As Gregory Simpkins, a US director in the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Human Rights and International Organization observes, the opposition’s rigid stance on election participation premised on electoral reforms is unfortunate and at worst ill- advised if not an amateurish strategy, for, they can’t be justified to criticise a system that they are not part of.

In fact, by boycotting elections, it is as good as if there is no opposition in the country at all. The statesman queries the wisdom on which the futile boycott strategy is premised.

It is this constructive criticism from a long time ally which is dismissed with contempt by the opposition as evidenced by Obert Gutu’s undiplomatic response laced with venom that can easily be mistaken to George Charamba’s who reminds the US  that opposition parties in the country are not an extension of the US foreign policy.

In Gutu’s own words, ‘’ We don’t think on behalf of the Americans. They are perfectly entitled to hold their own views,’’ the MDC-T spokesman categorically dismisses American advice. It is one thing for the opposition in Zimbabwe to be independent of foreign influence and a totally different scenario altogether to be allergic to advice necessary for its growth and survival.

In this context, the Yankees are only expressing an opinion which the opposition can take or reject and to assume that by so doing, the former wishes to extend their foreign policy domain is misleading. In any case, since when has constructive criticism been the subject of scorn by the wise?

How then is the opposition wrong in pursuing this dead path of no reforms no elections? Firstly, it is reckless and at worst immature for opposition parties especially the MDC-T to be held hostage by a resolution of their making, for, the Sabbath is made for man and not man for the Sabbath.

It is futile and self- defeating on the part of the opposition, as Simpkins observes, for them not to reflect on the effectiveness of their strategy and adapt to the prevailing changes as the political dynamics on the ground keep on shifting.

For, how can the opposition expect to influence the political dynamics in the country while being stuck in a hole of their making through election boycotts? In as much as the international community sympathises with their plight and acknowledges the existence of an uneven electoral playing field, shunning the ballot box altogether in protest is self-defeating and a subject of scorn even among sympathisers, hence, Simpkins’ criticism.

Secondly, this non- participation strategy is futile more so as it is not buttressed by Plan B as a contingency measure in case it succumbs to a natural death for which it is destined. This is the basis of Simpkins’ criticism of the boycott strategy which the opposition dismisses as unwarranted interference in local politics in the country.

Historical evidence is abundant that proves that election boycotts are an ineffective tool to fight an entrenched dictatorship. As such, the opposition in Zimbabwe is advised, as Simpkins reiterates to have other strategies in place in case the first  fails to achieve cherished dreams.

In the 1960s, opposition parties in the country resorted to election boycotts but were under no illusion that this strategy was to unseat respective colonial regimes. At best, election boycotts only helped to express the discontent among the majority blacks and the strategy was never viewed as an end in itself but a prelude to the armed struggle that forced Ian Smith to the negotiating table.

It is this Plan B that Simpkins identifies as lacking in the opposition’s strategy for which he is being castigated for.

Thirdly, by retreating to their comfort zone through election boycotts, the opposition in Zimbabwe loses power to dictate the pace of change in the country’s crowded political terrain, a handicap that further weakens them, for, their strategy would be akin to whistling from the grave.

Indeed, who would listen to their tune except the dead? In this context, attacking Gregory Simpkins for exposing the futility of a dead strategy is being naïve and at worst unfortunate at a time the opposition needs more friends on their corner than enemies.

In fact, empirical wisdom dictates that a genuine friend is one who sounds the alarm when their friend’s trousers expose privates in a dancing manoeuvre instead of ululating. In this case, Simpkins needs to be embraced as a genuine friend indeed rather than an enemy.

What then can be done by the opposition in Zimbabwe? As observed, the boycott strategy has a dead end and even the opposition’s long term allies, the US included, are baffled by this tactical blunder on the part of the former, for, theirs is an effort in futility.

In fact, it is no secret that Mugabe is an advocate of a one party state and this boycott strategy would have come at the most opportune moment when poor health and factionalism threaten the nonagenarian’s grip on power.

On the part of the opposition, to console themselves by claiming to have the backing of the electorate is as futile as whistling in the wind just like celebrating the low voter turnout at the ballot box, for, that will never unseat Mugabe which is the primary objective of the struggle.

Alternatively, the opposition can pursue the legal route in their bid to force Mugabe realign the electoral laws with the new constitution. Indeed, this is not a new strategy but as observed in the past, the strategy can’t be relied upon in the absence of other strategies, for, the Judiciary and the Executive have never been independent of each other in a dictatorship and Zimbabwe can’t be an exception.

As usual, any court challenge that threatens Mugabe’s grip on power will fail as evidenced by the recent court rulings presided over by Chinembiri Bhunu before the Constitutional Court. Mugabe has long prepared the ground as he foresaw these scenarios unfolding in the future when he fired those judges perceived to be obstacles to his grand plan and replace them with stooges.

It is the Egyptian scenario at play in the impoverished southern African state of Zimbabwe. Or, the opposition can confront the geriatric head on through mass demonstrations. Unfortunately, this strategy, although the most effective to topple the nonagenarian is not without risk as it might play in the dictator’s grand scheme.

Itai Dzamara was targeted by the regime because he was perceived to be a threat to its existence. Indeed, no one was touched for advocating election boycotts, for, the strategy is known to be dead in spite of the opposition’s views to the contrary.

In any case, are Zimbabweans prepared to sacrifice their lives for a cause they believe in as early nationalists and Itai Dzamara did? Sadly, at present that appears not to be the case. The best the opposition can do, given the little space available to manoeuvre although unpalatable is to team up with their former adversaries in the Mujuru camp to confront the dictatorship head on.

The mere fact that former enemies could shake hands at Itai Dzamara’s prayer meeting during the weekend is a sign that Zimbabweans can set aside their differences and confront a common enemy in Mugabe and Mnangagwa and this gesture needs to be saluted.

The best Joyce Mujuru can do is not only to apologise for her past wrongs but to mobilise her supporters and unite with the opposition to confront the bigger threat in Mugabe.

Those in opposition circles who claim to be renewal advocates should come up with viable strategies at this hour of need to confront dictatorship rather than whistle in the grave. However, after all is said, the contest can’t avoid the ballot box as Simpkins advises in spite of the known prevailing electoral flaws. Akuruma nzeve ndewako.

William Muchayi is a pro-democracy and political analyst who can be contacted on [email protected]