Divided opposition will always fall

LONDON - For all its authoritarian tendencies, the Zanu PF regime has allowed political pluralism.

Since abandoning the idea of a one-party State, as long as one meets the basic requirements, they can form a political party.

From the pitifully unsophisticated Egypt Dzinemunhenzva to the savvier Simba Makoni, a disaffected former senior Zanu PF official.

The latest to join or re-join the fray is Margaret Dongo, no less politically pedigreed and rebellious.

A former liberation war fighter now a strident Zanu PF critic and president of the Zimbabwe Union of Democrats (Zud), Dongo announced she will now be leading a new outfit, the Movement for People First (MPF).

The occasional emergences of political parties like the MPF have been celebrated as the democratisation of the political space. To speak against such manifestations equates to denigrating a venerated idiom because pluralism is equated to democracy.

But the truth is that pluralism and democracy bear no equivalence. A society can have multiple parties without democracy.

President Robert Mugabe does not lose sleep over the formation of rival political parties: while fulfilling normative expectations of political pluralism, he ensures the democratic space does not create threats to his hold on power.

Revelling in this vacuous pluralism, challengers of Mugabe form ineffective parties that do not threaten his rule.

The troubling thing is that the opposition parties do not have any significant or noticeable ideological differences among them to justify separate political identities when they can be stronger in unity.

One the one hand you have the MDCs, the “renewalists” in their various guises, and the NCA. One cannot identify variances in ideology among them, let alone historical origin.

For their common emphasis on civil liberties and human rights, we could call them the “liberals.”

On the other hand, you have Dumiso Dabengwa’s Zapu, Makoni’s Mavambo, and now Dongo’s MPF. Soon we could have another outfit led by former Vice President Joice Mujuru.

Again, these have the same genealogy and ideological inclinations. They are all aggrieved former “liberators” victimised by Zanu PF in one way or another.

Yet again, it is easy to see that a single party of the former liberators, comprising Mujuru and colleagues, Dabengwa, Makoni and Dongo would present a far more frightening challenge to Zanu PF.

Clearly, we have here two ideological camps that have the potential to coalesce into two stronger entities to challenge Zanu PF hegemony.

The liberals could easily constitute or reconstitute a single powerful party instead of the current five; and the former liberators, the four into one.

One could take the argument further that, apart from origin, the differences between the liberals and liberators themselves are scant.

Stripped of all other familiar promises, they all gravitate towards the same objective of seeking to remove Mugabe from power.

Melding the two groups might be difficult; but there is certainly room for only two stronger parties from both ideological camps.

This can only eventuate if politicians decide to work in the national rather than personal interest that seems to motivate the epidemic of political party formations.

Political pluralism without effect is hopeless and self-defeating.

We seem content with the ruse of unfettered pluralism that allows us to form parties but does not translate into true democracy; for real democracy always creates room for possible change of government.

The benefit of stronger parties does not necessarily lie in defeating Mugabe at the polls but in collective confrontation in the face of the usual prospect of stolen elections.

If Mugabe’s challengers seek democratic change, they need to stop forming weak parties but single strong ones where ideological differences barely exist.

Evidently, there is hardly any tangible differences between the two existing opposition camps.

United, they can mobilise, challenge chicanery, possibly dislodge Mugabe from power or at least, force some change.

Divided they will always “lose” and go back to leading disparate and ineffective groups.

Comments (5)

You read them very well Conrad. They are all dreaming of one position: that of president (nothing less) depite their obvious lack of guts and brains to out manoeuvre him. The culture of self first which has killed the country is what occupies their minds. They are sort of fools who fight for something not yet in their hands which, for that matter, they know is not easy for any of them alone to grasp.

Masamba Akareyo - Tanganda - 12 August 2015

People First or People Last ah same same zvakangofanana

ruru - 12 August 2015

Well said article this is spot on , everyone want to be president , if they real want to dislodge Zanu Pf they must all come under one umbrella and form a coalition and have a coalition government , thats the only answer out of this evil regime or else they are dreaming

Mudhara - 12 August 2015

“For all its authoritarian tendencies, the Zanu PF regime has allowed political pluralism,” you said. You clearly have no clue what you are talking about do you? Only when all the democratic reforms agreed in the 2008 GPA have been fully implemented can one say Zimbabwe has the right environment for “political pluralism”!

Patrick Guramatunhu - 12 August 2015

their main problem is always who will be president of the coalition, Tsvangi here? Mujuru here? Biti here? Makoni here? Dabengwa here? all these feel they are best suited to be the president. No one is willing to let the other take the leadership of the coalition, maybe they should find a way for people to decide

Jekiseni - 12 August 2015

Post a comment

Readers are kindly requested to refrain from using abusive, vulgar, racist, tribalistic, sexist, discriminatory and hurtful language when posting their comments on the Daily News website.
Those who transgress this civilised etiquette will be barred from contributing to our online discussions.
- Editor

Your email address will not be shared.