Zimpapers Logo

Gibson Nyikadzino Correspondent

During the bloody years of the US Civil War from 1861 and 1865, it was then US President Abraham Lincoln who was faced with the options to either continue the war and get the personal glory or stop it for the nation’s health, while on the other end stop slavery through signing the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation.

It was at this height of internal frustrations within the US during this era between leaders of the Union in the north and those of the Confederacy in the south, that Abraham Lincoln’s quest to hold the national consensus became more relevant.

Despite losses that had been made on both sides, to keep the hope of unity within the American establishment he remarked that “we are not enemies, but friends. Though passion may have strained, it must not break the bonds of affection.”

It is imperative to recall that war is politics with bloodshed, while politics is war without bloodshed, and for the latter in the case of Zimbabwe’s August 23 elections, the contesting parties were involved in a contest that both those declared victors and the politically unfortunate work from a position that political contests are not the basis of enmity.

President Mnangagwa highlighted that in his inauguration speech that in last month’s elections there were no “losers”, while ZANU PF spokesperson Ambassador Chris Mutsvangwa commended the opposition parties for waging a democratic fight that in the end only wanted one winner to cross the finishing line, and that happened to be President Mnangagwa.

Both ZANU PF and the opposition CCC are alive to the need for initiatives that promote national development.

The CCC’s priority positions that were in its 2023 election manifesto had already been worked at and most of its proposals are already underway and have been executed.

This means the two major political parties are cognisant that the only way to forge ahead is through embarking on national development projects.

Opposing through proposing

While there are prescribed roles of parliamentarians, Zimbabweans should be mindful that the role of opposition parties in the legislature is not only to perennially oppose, but rather to oppose through proposals in policy formulation.

It remains the duty of the opposition to act as a counterbalance to the ruling party by providing alternative viewpoints and challenging the government’s policies.  To understand why the opposition remains key in a democracy is because they are a necessary part of the legislative framework agenda.

Indeed, Zimbabwe’s democracy can only be reinforced by robust political discussions in search of policy contributions that advance the welfare of the people, development of the economy and safeguarding the interests of the country in a collective manner.

This also reinforces good governance since the opposition is always keen to take to task the ruling political party.

 Framework of toleration

There are indications that have been sent since the beginning of the week that the CCC is today likely to boycott the swearing-in ceremony of legislators on the basis that they do not recognise and reject the official results from last month’s elections.

There have been no legal challenges from the CCC to contest the outcomes of officially announced results and by so doing, they will have exposed themselves to open disgust from the electorate after campaigning on the platform that they will represent them.

In Parliament, political opponents will dialogue together on what they will view as important for the people. So, for the CCC legislators to boycott the ceremony, they will have shown their incapacity to tolerate dialogue in an institutional body like Parliament which is a platform that advances a framework of toleration.

The Parliament building is meant to ensure that inter-party dialogue is initiated through policy discussions in an inclusive and sustainable way for government to find solutions to challenging national issues.

Besides the opposition’s presence in Parliament, the Political Actors Dialogue (POLAD) platform will remain open for political interactions between President Mnangagwa and other candidates who contested but could not get to the finishing line in the presidential race.

There is a willingness of compromise in all forms of dialogue, as people make peace with people they disagree with and by respecting each other’s rights and fostering the spirit of reconciliation over national issues, there is hope that real solutions will be found pertaining areas where disagreements are.

Differing perspectives, one outcome

For a long time, the words “political polarisation” have been used to define and describe Zimbabwe’s political environment and landscape.

This polarisation at the turn of the millennium became so intense that many people no longer trusted anyone who held a differing perspective.

It is time to thoughtfully analyse and assess how as a nation we got to such a disturbing divide and ensure that we provide useful suggestions for dealing with the problem of political polarisation.

It is time to think carefully and map out a way forward because what we all strive and thrive is being best Zimbabwean.

It is both possible and imperative for members of our society to find common ground in dealing with the problem of political sectarianism for Zimbabweans to remain united.

Such divisions, sectarianism and polarisation is left unchecked may end up resembling identities and affiliations that will enable a volatile mix coupled by a lack of trust and disinformation ratcheting up tensions.

It is no longer the time for the creation of echo chambers where people only enjoy the tendency of politically grouping and aligning on the basis of moralised identities rather than shared ideas or policy preferences.

It is only one outcome that all citizens should aspire to have, that is, the sharing of common objectives through respect of different political opinions.

It is not enough for people to only trust or associate with their own side, without hearing what the other party says. There should not be any contemptuous expressions of the other side, no need of “othering” other political competitors and stop seeing them as less moral or existential threats.

Nothing, even politics, must be used as the basis to divide the people.

In this regard it is not sin to apply Abraham Lincoln’s remark that “we are not enemies, but friends. Though passion may have strained, it must not break the bonds of affection.”