Who is killing democracy in Zimbabwe? Morgan Tsvangirai
Mr Tsvangirai

Mr Tsvangirai

Lawson Mabhena Assistant News Editor
To serve as a credible alternative to the ruling government: That is the purpose of opposition political parties. Well, at least according to the African Democratic Institute (ADI). In reality, Zimbabwean opposition parties are only in existence to remain as the opposition. They are neither credible nor an alternative. This hard fact is not only painful to those who long for an alternative, but also to those who are content with the ruling party but are well aware of the need for checks and balances.

If unchecked, any governing political party — Morgan Tsvangirai’s MDC-T included — can lose focus.

This particular function according to the ADI: “. . . is crucial because competition is healthy in ensuring better service delivery and preventing complacency by the sitting government.”

The Johannesburg-based non-governmental organisation lists other functions of opposition parties as that of holding governments accountable and promoting and stimulating debates in parliament.

So the million dollar question which begs for an answer is: Who is killing democracy in Zimbabwe?

To answer this question the following considerations must be made:

Who is tampering with the credibility of opposition parties?

Is the opposition holding the Government to account?

Is the opposition stimulating debate in Parliament?

Before jumping into conclusions, lets go deeper.

There is a difference between making noise and holding a government to account.

Zanu-PF MPs like Justice Mayor Wadyajena — who heads the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Youth and Indigenisation — have done more to hold Government to account than many MDC-T MPs who are yet to speak in Parliament. We learned recently in the media that only 35 MPs out of 350 have been actively contributing to debate.

Do the math. You can’t be heard without speaking. You can’t hold anyone to account without communicating.

Further, it does not follow that all 35 MPs who are contributing are speaking sense, truth or reason.

Some are just opposing for the sake of opposing. (This is assuming that the majority of the 35 MPs who are active in Parliament are from MDC-T).

Wrote Gareth van Onselen on Democratic Alliance leader Mmusi Maimane in the Financial Mail: “During his campaign, his offer to the DA was simple. He said it had to become a party ‘that communicates a vision for SA’, as against one that merely opposed the ANC.

“. . .Ultimately, Maimane lacks a grand economic manifesto.”

A relevant opposition party, as Maimane got right during his campaign, communicates a vision. In other words, any activist can oppose a ruling party. But an alternative, on the other hand, sells a vision to the electorate. You cannot be an alternative without better policy or “a grand economic vision” as van Onselen put it.

The main debate being stimulated by opposition parties right now is on who will lead the “grand” coalition.

It’s not how the coalition will become grand, but who is best suited to lead.

The debate is not about alternative policy, what the coalition will offer ordinary Zimbabweans or even why a coalition is needed in the first place. We are half way through the year before elections and only the governing Zanu-PF is selling policy.

President Mugabe is already on a whirlwind tour of the country’s 10 provinces meeting the youth — arguably the most important voter population.

And the opposition, well, is just doing what they now best. Trying hard to remain as opposition.

Ultimately, no one is a winner. Not even Zanu-PF. Even old nationalist parties need healthy competition. Zanu-PF would be better than it is today if there was an alternative.

Without a threat from opposition, Zanu-PF bigwigs have turned to opposing each other. Why waste energy on a non-threat, right?

Addressing thousands at a rally in the Midlands over the weekend, Morgan Tsvangirai declared — and without shame — that President Mugabe’s advanced age and infighting in Zanu-PF would “deliver victory to the MDC”.

President Mugabe’s age and Zanu-PF infighting have become an election manifesto; MDC-T’s “grand economic vision”. And victory, according to the frontrunner in the “grand” coalition leadership race, will be “delivered”.

That’s right, delivered and not achieved or gained. Which actually makes sense. You can’t take ownership of something that is beyond your control — President Mugabe’s age and Zanu-PF infighting.

Let’s be serious. A whole rally to remind people that President Mugabe will be 94 next year. And Tsvangirai is an alternative because he is not 94.

That’s the “grand” idea behind the “grand” coalition.

That’s the calibre of opposition leaders. They’re waiting for President Mugabe to “deliver” election victory to the opposition on a silver platter.

In any case, how different is the so-called infighting in Zanu-PF from the infighting in MDC-T and the tug-of-war over the leadership of a non-existent coalition. What is better: to fight over the control of an efficient machine or to fight over the control of a dream yet to be fulfilled?

President Mugabe will not be going to the electorate to remind them of Tsvangirai’s age, overstay as opposition leader and ill health.

He will sell jobs, a vibrant economy, empowerment, food security and more.

If he does fall into the temptation of complacency in the face of a weak opposition, successful Government programmes like Command Agriculture have a better chance of “delivering” victory (if ever there is such a thing) than talk about age.

I ask again, who is killing democracy in Zimbabwe?

You Might Also Like

Comments

Take our Survey

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