MDC’s folly of boycotting elections Former Zambian president Fredrick Chiluba

Nick Mangwana View From the Diaspora
They trigger an election. They boycott it. Is this some ingenious political strategy or downright political idiocy by the Morgan Tsvangirai-led MDC? If the meetings and deliberations had happened before the so-called recall then one would give them some benefit of the doubt and credit this some crafty and inventive thinking which is hidden to the simple-minded.

But the fact that there was such ambivalence and equivocation after the fact seems to suggest that some people are making it up as they go along.

The boycott itself comes as no surprises at all. How can it surprise when “boycott” is the second name to the leadership? Isn’t history pregnant with similar futile endeavours?

If it had efficacy in the past, then it should work now, wouldn’t it? But then the problem is that it has never had any efficacy. When it comes to grandstanding, some people are really boring. Come on people, give us some creativity! A repetition of the tested failures is hardly the work of genius, is it?

Similar attempts have been tried elsewhere and the result has always been the same. Nothing achieved.

There is empirical evidence to suggest that a “threat” of a boycott might have a desired outcome in very rare cases. But the election boycott itself just assures of one result, giving power to your rival.

There are those who would point to the GNU.

The GNU was mainly a result of a hung parliament. After the March 2008 elections, MDC-T had 100 seats.

Zanu-PF had 99 seats and Arthur Mutambara’s MDC had 10 seats.

Because Zimbabwe has a bi-cameral House, Zanu-PF controlled the Senate. It also has the presidency (whatever the debate of that election). It was impossible for any work to be done by any government without some sort of coalition.

So in this case the GNU was the only way to go; not because of the boycott.

Of course, there were undeniable problems with the run-off but that does not change the fact the GNU only came about because of the parliamentary configuration which was a stalemate and it would have been virtually impossible to implement any legislative programme without a bi-partisan reaching out.

Without a legislative programme governing is virtually impossible.

This point is important in that it debunks the myth that the run-off boycott worked, because it did not.

For the past 35 years Zimbabwe has held elections every five years without fail. This has been the case regardless who the opposition was.

In 1990 ZUM was the main if not only opposition party. It garnered about 20 percent of the votes with a two person parliamentary representation.

By 1995 despite being the main parliamentary opposition, ZUM did not participate in those elections. Nobody cared. Instead, Zanu (Ndonga) became the main opposition accompanied by many others that made an alphabet soup (FP, ZCP, ZFP, ZA, ANP). Suffice to say the absence of ZUM did not pose any legitimacy problem for Zanu-PF.

Neither has the absence the MDC-T in the by-elections that have just gone. Neither will its absence in the forthcoming 14 by-elections.

Let them boycott and see who bats an eye-lid. Come 2018 they will be representing so few constituencies that if they so choose to boycott it wouldn’t de-legitimises the outcome.

After all if all the by-elections that have taken place and will take place up and until 2018 are legitimate, what would make the big one illegitimate when held under the very same conditions?

The glaring fact is that the opposition knows very well that boycotting the elections would not change the outcome because they have lost traction and they were going to lose anywhere. But like in all contestations, you only have to beat the opponent in front of you. It’s not your role to choose a strong opponent.

If it’s Lovemore Madhuku and his outfit, fine. If it’s the Kisnot Mukwazhi’s one man band, fine too! Even it should be People First, bring it on.

So the jazz goes on.

The only real reason the MDC-T is embarking on this tactic of failed strategy is specifically to try to create a legitimacy crisis in Zimbabwe.

The problem is when you try to create legitimacy crisis the secondary damage is an economic crisis. In fact that is the entire main target.

But the strategy of creating an economic crisis to gain power in Zimbabwe has already floundered for the last 15 years and will only have one result; the suffering of the Zimbabwean masses.

This is the same strategy that came with the “Tongai Tione” (now let’s see how you govern) mantra.

The chief proponents of that idea just ended up on the plane to the United States running away from the liquidity crunch they were all hoping for by trying to create legitimacy crisis with those infamously staged Mt Pleasant election videos.

With the mantra still ringing and the entire Wananchi rhapsody out of tune the governing is still happening. Isn’t there a government in Zimbabwe? Is it not governing?

The boycotting strategy has been tried in many countries.

It is a very well used method by anyone that believes they have popularity but cannot win because of a perceived skewed electoral landscape.

In the last 25 years over 100 cases of electoral boycotts have occurred throughout the world. There has been only one main outcome; the party that participated and came out on top has ruled the whole term. A boycott can only have a moral legitimacy if the turnout is poor to the very extreme.

But going by what was witnessed in Chirumanzu Zibagwe and Mt Darwin West the risk of this happening is quite unlikely. What with by-elections producing figures which are close to those of the July 2013.

The trend world over is that by-elections always produce a poor turnout. As the state of mobilisation is not the same as in general elections.

An election boycott is only effective if carried out by large swaths of the electorate plus political parties and not the latter only.

Especially when the international community and allied institutions are in doubt whether you had any chance of winning the election in the first place.

They would just treat you the way most mothers used to treat people that boycotted a meal as protest of something (kuramwa sadza).

They would just give the meal to those who are hungry.

The digestive gastro-intestinal processes would not stop because someone boycotted a meal.

The only outcome is that the boycotter will go on an empty stomach.

Some examples from the long list would illustrate the point.

In 2009, Abdullah Abdullah withdrew from the Afghan poll in protest and Hamid Karzai served a full term. In 1992 the Christians of Lebanon who had a parliamentary representation of a third of the house boycotted the elections protesting the Syrian influence and they have never regained it.

In contrast the Moslems through Hezbollah surged and now lost ground will never be regained. In 2005 the Sunnis boycotted the Iraqi elections and they are still smarting from it.

How about Mali 1997, didn’t the opposition boycott the elections yet President Alpha Oumar Konare served a full term with international support even though only 10 percent of the electorate participated?

Maybe one more out of the hundreds of examples will help some to see the light. Let us bring it closer to home.

The iconic Kenneth Kaunda’s UNIP boycotted the Zambian elections in 1996 protesting deliberate ploys to disqualify KK.

The outcome was Chiluba and his party romping to victory as well as sending UNIP to near political extinction. And Chiluba served his full term.

In Zimbabwe’s case the opposition is calling for “electoral reforms” they do not even articulate exactly what they want which is not already in the current legislative framework.

It is just vague rhetoric about an uneven playing field.

One of the imperatives for dissolving the GNU was the promulgation of the New Constitution.

This was done.

The new electoral law which went through Parliament in June 2014 is in line with the Constitution.

If it is then it means what the opposition is calling electoral reform is a culture change which of course comes with a change in everyone’s attitude and approach.

This is never legislated.

If the current electoral legislative regime is falling foul of the constitution isn’t it easier to just follow the normal pathway of challenging that through the Constitutional Court?

Nick Mangwana is the chairman ZANU-PF UK branch.

You Might Also Like

Comments

Take our Survey

We value your opinion! Take a moment to complete our survey