By Takura Zhangazha*
Zimbabwe’s mainstream political opposition in its current divided
formations, Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) Alliance or MDC-Tsvangirai is
evidently in crisis. The MDC-Alliance which
brought other opposition parties, including its own splinter groups, together
for the 2018 general/harmonized elections has found itself in a split that has sought
to distinguish the original MDC-Tsvangirai from the then electoral alliance.
Based on a Supreme Court judgment that gave the then first vice
president, Thokozani Khupe of the MDC- Tsvangirai (before the Alliance was
formed) control of the party, there have now been recalls of opposition members of
Parliament and also elected local government councilors. It has not ended there. There have also been battles for the control of
the headquarters of the opposition in Harare. A development that means either this will not end well or will not end soon.
It is an interesting if not tragic conundrum. One which has had the characteristics of not
only being personal but also populist.
The personal has been mainly found in the leaders of these
opposition factions taking potshots at each other’s integrity or
intentions. As well as their partisan
supporters taking to social media and occasionally to their Harvest House
headquarters to claim some sort of ownership of being the ‘authentic’ opposition
leadership. Or argue on behalf of those that they deem best placed to lead a now
very disunited opposition.
I am however more interested in the populist dimensions of
the state of the opposition and the attendant contradictions thereto. I also use the term populist because to all intents
and purposes that is the current approach of the leadership of the opposition to what it
considers its democratic change mandate.
It is a populism that has at least three main elements.
The first being that it is Manichean. It really does not matter who you are as long
as you are against the ruling Zanu Pf party.
That is the tie that sort of binds.
Hence the formation of the MDC-Alliance while strategic forgot that the
members of the same were only bound together by the same said Manichean view of
Zimbabwean politics. Attention to
ideological detail was not high on the list of priorities as it was assumed
that was already taken care of by supportive domestic or international ‘think-tanks’
in one form or the other.
The second being that in either case of the MDC-Alliance or
the MDC-T, there is the leveraging of the charisma of the founding leader,
Morgan Tsvangirai. From arguments about his chosen successors through to quite
literally claiming him for legitimacy (even though a majority of the current
leaders were at loggerheads with him.) But even if they were to push it to its
populist ends, it eventually wears off.
These leaders will need to stand on their own, even if they claim to be
standing on Tsvangirai’s shoulders.
The third is that it’s a populism that seeks recognition
from the global west. A development that
is understandable given the general Zimbabwean mindset of admiration of
everything that occurs in the global north.
Opposition and also ruling Zanu Pf party leaders appear to need to be popularly recognized
by Zimbabweans as being close to leaders of the United States of America, the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or the European Union. As opposed
to taking more time to understand the Southern African Development Community (SADC)
or the African Union’s (AU) historical and liberation struggle based international
relations dynamics. In their regional,
continental and global elements. This may be understandable given the legacies of colonialism as well as our overt admiration
of those global north societies and neoliberal consumerism, but it unfortunately is not enough to cross Rubicons.
A frequent question however, and I am sure it will be asked
in social media threads to this blog, is “What would you do better?” And it is
an easy one to answer if I was an opposition political party leader. In at least four parts.
With number one being that I would be ideologically
clear. No ambiguities. To the extent of for example, not lauding
current American President Trump’s xenophobic nationalism and neoliberalism. Or Chinese President Xi Jinping’s version of
state capitalism. And always remembering
Amilcar Cabral’s words at the first Tri-Continental continent in Havana, Cuba in
1966 where he advised delegates of the ‘the struggle against our own
weaknesses.’
And also, “that however great the similarity between our
various cases and however identical our enemies, national liberation and social
revolution are not exportable commodities; they are, and increasingly so every
day, the outcome of local and national elaboration, more or less influenced by
external factors (be they favorable or unfavorable) but essentially determined
and formed by the historical reality of each people, and carried to success by
the overcoming or correct solution of the internal contradictions between the
various categories characterising this reality.”
Secondly, it would be important to understand that it is
internal political processes that give meaning to external ones. No matter how unpopular or against the trends
they may be. Intra-party democracy
matters as much as national democratic practice. Even in the most populist of moments.
Thirdly, it remains important that we lead for posterity.
Not just ourselves and our moment in the sun.
We must always lead for the future. While the past and present remain
important, they are more relevant to an envisioned future if leadership is designed
to perpetuate long-duree equality in our society.
Finally, in all of the aforementioned three points, it is
important to have ‘praxis’. To combine
both ideological theory and practice. That is to create progressive counter-hegemonic
frameworks that last beyond the moment.
All with an understanding of other existent hegemonies and how best to
try and navigate a path toward the peoples’ progress going forward.
*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity
(takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment