State of Zimbabwe’s Political Opposition: No Historicity and Misreading the Passage of Time.

By Takura Zhangazha*

There are, in the contemporary at least, three ways to look at Zimbabwe’s mainstream political opposition.  The first is to allege that as it has evolved from the historical 1999 Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) as led by Tsvangirai and to now barely exist in name after acrimonious factionalism that has spanned at least 23 years. 

With the main reasons for this being profound factionalism ranging from personality clashes based on egos or proximity to Western embassies and a global liberal interventionism (end of history) political/economic ideological outlook. As then largely championed by the then USA and the United Kingdom

Be it as MDC (in its current convoluted form) and what an attempt at political reinvention became with the short lived MDC Alliance for the purposes of the 2018 harmonised elections. As well as the post 2023 fractured political outfit that was and is still referred to as the Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC).

Or even the emergence of smaller political parties that were quite literally offshoots of the same original MDC as it continued to splinter.  So on the face of it, without any need to over analyse the facts, the general initial view and understandable view is that without a doubt it is a former shadow of its organic self.  Beyond being an electoral phenomenon that dissipates after court or SADC processes. Until next time when there’s another harmonized election.  With all the opportunities it may present.

The second popular perspective of what remains of our national political opposition is that Zanu PF as a ruling party, in control of various arms of the state, worked very hard to decimate it.  Inclusive of the use of political violence during the opposition’s strengthening years from 1999 to 2008.  Thereafter the SADC mediated inclusive government that was to last until 2013 saw a significant change in the strength of the mainstream opposition. 

To the extent of losing its slight parliamentary majority to the ruling Zanu Pf party in elections that were held in the same year. This was largely due to cooption but again due to a carry over of factionalism based on not only egocentric individual tendencies but also desires to demonstrate greater proximity to the global political economic order. Embassies and all.  Anyone remember Wikileaks and the files released on Zimbabwe’s political leaders?  What they would say and the assessments in particular of the Americans? 

In this second instance the general perception has been Zanu PF is the cause of the demise of its nemesis that began as the MDC and is now a multi-headed but non-lethal beast. This view is fair but it cannot be allowed to miss the point of the oppositions own complicity in its demise.

A complicity that brings us closer to a truer reflection on why Zimbabwe’s opposition is in such a bad state. This is a perspective that is shared in smaller circles or those that may be considered to be more akin to Zanu Pf contempt.  But it also a view that must be considered seriously.  The mainstream Zimbabwean opposition was hoist by its own internal petard.  What goes for popular social media talk about its poor state at the moment is more like pub conversations.

The reality of the matter is that Zimbabwe’s opposition has generally made the mistake of not having a complete understanding of its historicity and the passage of time.

I use the term ‘historicity’ in a dual sense.  The first just being the fact that all opposition parties that emerged after 1999 in Zimbabwe tended to forget their origins or why they were formed and had the popularity they had. This included the highly unpopular policies of Economic Structural Adjustment (ESAP) policies of the then government and a rising labour union demand for a place at the table of the state. And this was representative of both urban and rural citizens of Zimbabwe. 

The second part to a lack of ‘historicity’ is the ideological question that in the contemporary we keep trying to avoid as Zimbabweans.   Organically (in relation to true lived political meaning) the people of Zimbabwe have not desired a capitalist state.   Hence they fought a liberation struggle that was popular based on socialist ideology.  Hence they also formed a labour movement rooted in both socialism and social democracy as ideologies.  

Inclusive of having the labour movements of the late 1990s being the first to re-amplify the land redistribution agenda before the war veterans initiated what we now know as the Fast Track Land Redistribution Programme (FTLRP). And worked violently hard to seek to prevent the opposition from getting power for a good 10 years (1999-2009) until the inclusive government. They are yet to apologise for that.

But the opposition itself morphed into a conduit of neoliberal political/economic ideology particularly during its time in the inclusive government.  While it did not denounce its labour roots openly, it  became the frontrunner for neo-liberal capitalism in a country that required on the clear face of it, a re-emergent social welfare state. 

Even if just for economic recovery after the terrible hyper-inflationary period of 2007-2009 before the introduction of a pro-rich multi-currency regime.  

One that still negatively affects the national consciousness to its core because of our very existential worship of foreign currencies and by default materialist political, economic and social cultural practices.

With that said let me briefly delve into the other point about ‘misreading the passage of time’.  This is more an assertion that seeks to question a little discussed element of Zimbabwean politics.  This is that of inter-generational value-based and ideological consciousness.    

Because of a lack of its own historicity, Zimbabwe’s mainstream opposition has resorted to basic populism.  And I quite literally mean ‘basic populism’ that mistakenly considers ‘age’ as an ideology.  Or that age in and of itself is a major political asset within Zimbabwe’s historical context.  That is not correct.  Age also comes with lived and desired experiences.  

And these desired experiences can be completely illogical in Zimbabwe’s context. They will relate to materialistic assumptions, religious superstition (and I am being polite here), gambling and high levels of individualism as quite literal political causes.  When in reality we know  that these cannot be long duree political causes by any stretch of a calm political imagination. Nor can they be values.  We all age. And time passes.  IT is what you stand for that matters the most. 

But here we are.  The opposition’s lack of historicity and inability to understand the need for a consistent time-based thread to its existence across generations has been what has been debilitating it.  Desires for power for egoistic purposes, lack of ideological grounding based on not only founding values but also a clear understanding of the passage of time and generational praxis are its major albatross. 

By 2028, it may recover.  Even if not to win an election outright.  But at least to reignite a progressive national consciousness that strongly challenges and prevents a wholesale neo-liberal, pro-capitalist takeover of Zimbabwe as Zanu Pf keenly intends to do. More so in the age of Trump. 

*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity (takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)