 |
| Zanu PF has decided to stick with its long serving leader, 89 year-old President Robert Mugabe, as its candidate in the forthcoming general elections. |
Zanu PF has become stripped down to a political machine for
gaining and keeping state power. It is afraid of losing control of the
ideological state apparatus (the media, especially broadcast media, and the state
bureaucracy) and the coercive state apparatus (soldiers, police, intelligence,
youth militia) because those are the two pillars of central resort without
which it becomes an ordinary party, exposed for its governmental failures and excesses.
The main challenge to reforming Zanu PF is that it has been overrun by lifelong
careerists and treasure hunters.
President Mugabe's desire to rule for life opened the door
to all his comrades who go back to the liberation struggle to also see their
role in government as lifelong. In that sense, Zanu PF has failed to emulate
the leadership renewal that its fellow National Liberation Movements in SADC
have done, such as Chama Chama Pinduzi in Tanzania, Frelimo in Mozambique, ANC
in South Africa, and SWAPO in Namibia. Only MPLA in Angola
shares Zanu PF's experience, but again Angola spent more than 20 years of
post-independence locked in a brutal civil war.
Secondly, the system of patronage that evolved to secure
this long incumbency also sustained a culture of patronage spreading its
tentacles deep into the national economy. So, when Phillip Chiyangwa said
recently on national radio that he told aspiring businessmen that they couldn't
be rich unless they joined Zanu PF, he was right! Every treasure hunter in town
now knows that, and the entry requirements are simply that one should be able
to chant a party slogan and throw empty epithets against the imperialists (even
though the treasure hunter really wants to be able to fly to imperialist
America and Europe and enjoy his Zanu-enabled money, purchasing BMWs, Benzes
and Range Rovers!). Even the party President Mugabe himself has come out on
numerous occasions attacking moneyed people who think they can buy their way
into positions in party structures. Sadly, many a times they have, and such
distortions of participatory frameworks have caused much rancour during
candidate selection primaries.
Is it possible for Zanu PF to reform while in power?
Certainly, the possibility for some form of reform does exist because the MDC (taken
together) has failed to develop into an AUTOMATIC alternative (I didn't say that
it’s not an alternative at all; it is, but it has to work hard to totally
eclipse its rival). The MDC has failed to evolve from its coalition roots to
achieve ideological clarity. It remains a ‘spaghetti mix’, as described by its
leader, Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai. A Bolognese, more likely! The MDC has
been forthright in its critique of Zanu PF’s failures and in its clamour for
further democratisation of state and society. But it has failed to connect with
the original agenda of national liberation because it has deliberately ignored
doing so.
Testament to this is its failure to engage proactively with land
reform, at worst appearing totally antithetical to the agenda for wholesale
land redistribution (senior officials such as Fidelis Mhashu went on British
television to announce that the MDC would return land to white farmers). And while
the current economic indigenisation programme is deeply flawed, it nonetheless
holds an unassailable principle at its core and instead of being totally thrown
out it needs more fine tuning. But again, there is also a glaring absence of
policy debate on that score within the MDC; instead there is umbrage and vows
to roll back the programme once in government – alone. By contrast, the debate
in Zanu PF is heated and it is centred on alternative approaches to
indigenisation. RBZ Governor Gideon Gono has proposed a supply side approach to
indigenisation while advocating restraint on the financial sector (which, truth
be told, is already indigenised).
When Deputy Prime Minister Arthur Mutambara joined the MDC
proclaiming that he stands on the shoulders of Tongogara and Nikita Mangena, he
was trying to infuse something that was damagingly missing in the MDC
movement's ideological lenses. He correctly read that national liberation is
the bedrock that makes everything else possible and that while attacking the
failures of the party of liberation, the MDC equally had to clearly and
unambiguously voice their support and defence of the values and aspirations of
national liberation.
But unfortunately, the MDC parties have largely failed to
do this even after more than 13 years in existence. This explains their failure
to attract significant following among war veterans. For such a widely popular
movement, it is amiss that the MDC's prominent ex-military men are all former
Rhodesian Front, including the MDC-T’s long-serving defence secretary, Giles
Mutsekwa. It is no wonder, therefore, that there has not been any real
engagement between the MDC and the Zimbabwe Defence Forces on the much talked
about security sector reforms.
So in a word, because the MDC is an incomplete post-nationalist
alternative that has ignored the necessity of deliberately connecting with the
bedrock of national liberation and being as vocal about it as they have with
the democratisation agenda, there is a possibility that Zanu PF can repair
their car while they're driving it. But do they have the courage to make a pit
stop and take a look at the engine while the tyres are changed? By sticking
with the 89 year old President Mugabe, it doesn't appear so. They're determined
to cross the finish line on the old tyres first before they can really look at
major repairs in the safety of a fresh term. What worries most people is how
Zanu PF will ensure their gamble of sticking with President Mugabe and the
entire old guard intact will secure that much needed fresh term without
resorting to violence and electoral chicanery. One hopes that conditions akin
to that of the June 27 presidential runoff in 2008 aren’t revisited.
Comments