Coalitions! Coalitions! Coalition!
(Initially I thought this will be a once off instalment, but I was wrong, it a three-part article)
Election time in Zimbabwe always brings with it the euphoria about how to unseat the regime in view of the fragmented opposition. The belief is that for as long as parties are fragmented it is impossible win an election, therefore, the best would be to form a COALIT...ION of "democratic" forces. This creates a stupid urgency to get into coalitions without applying our minds to the advantages and disadvantages of the said coalitions. This stupid urgency is buttressed by the ridiculous claims that some parties are "bigger"- whatever that means- and then the small parties are bullied into subservient roles to bigger parties baring their obvious ideological bankruptcy and leadership deficit. This is article seeks to highlight some of the myths about coalitions in Zimbabwe a country that has a lot of historical realities that cannot be sacrificed on the alter of political expediency.
There is a strongly held view in this country that the best - indeed, perhaps the only - way for the democratic forces to win political power is by forming coalitions among themselves. Which such an alliance, the opposition notwithstanding the existence those who have peculiar issues they intend to address, can influence national legislation and national social patterns, tribalism, marginalisation and continued economic and political genocide could thus be ended. This school of thought sees the existence of pluralism as a disadvantage to their fascist inclinations and any formation outside them is viewed as separatist and unwilling to enter alliances. They are quick to say that other political formations are regional/Ndebele and villagized/minority so they cannot have a meaningful impact on the country's political landscape.
We are not opposed to the formation of political coalitions per se; obviously they are necessary in a pluralistic society. But the questions that need to be answered are: Coalition with whom? On what terms? For what objective(s)? Our history has shown that coalitions have only been only at leadership level; dictated by terms set by others; and for objectives not calculated to ring about major improvement in the lives of the people.
Let us examine some of the assumptions of the coalition school of thought and show that our efforts do not eschew coalitions, rather, we want to establish the grounds for coalitions that can be viable. The coalitionist proceeds on what we can identify as the three myths or major fallacies.
First, in the context of present day Zimbabwe, the interest of the MDC green are identical with the rest of the reform groups in the country. Some of the groups that we are being forced and or encouraged to coalesce with accept the legitimacy of the basic values and institutions of society as stated in the 1979 Grand plan - whose authorship has been recently ascribed to Simba Makoni and others- and the 14 page progress report and fundamentally are not interested in a major reorientation of society. Many adherents to the current coalition doctrine recognise but nevertheless would have us coalesce with these organizations. The assumption - which is in itself a myth - is that what is good for these organizations is good for all of us.
The major mistake made by exponents of the coalition theory is that they advocate for alliances with groups which have never had as their central goal the necessary total revamping of society. At the bottom these groups accept the Zimbabwean system and want only, if at all, to make peripheral, marginal reforms in it. Their diagnosis of the cause and solution to the Zimbabwean crisis is totally different from ours. Their reforms are inadequate to rid Zimbabwe of tribalism and other vices which are borrowed from ZANU, which they have benefited from in a very big way. They are also plagued by this overriding sense superiority and Shona supremacism that pervades Zimbabwean politics. Some sections of the opposition no less than others, are subjected and subject to it.
Our point is that no matter how 'liberal' the other groups might be they cannot ultimately escape the overpowering influence - influence their organizations - of their otherness in our tribalised society. Liberals often say that they are tired of being told "you cannot understand what it is to be a minority and the quest for a New Zimbabwe". They claim to recognize this. Yet the same liberals will often turn around and tell us that we should ally ourselves with those who cannot understand, who share the sense of superiority based on otherness. The fact is that most of the "allies" neither look upon the national and pro-Matabele organizations as co-partners nor do they perceive the goals as any but the adoption of certain non-matabele norms and values. Such a view assumes the "desirability of maintaining their institutions, their language and cultural patterns as dominant and standard in Zimbabwean life. [14 page Document] Perhaps those holding these views are not tribalists in the strict sense of our definition, but the end result of this attitude is to sustain tribalism.
We do not believe it is possible to form meaningful coalitions unless both or all parties are not willing but believe it absolutely necessary to challenge tribal conformity and other prevailing norms and institutions. Most of the liberal groups which we are familiar with (MDC-T) are not willing at this time. If that is the case, then the coalition is doomed to frustration and failure. The conformity position assumes that what is good for "Zimbabwe" is good for everyone in the country. Solving the Zimbabwean problem amounts to solving the Matabele problem goes the rationale. But the political and social rights of the people of Matabeleland have been and always will be negotiable and expendable the moment they conflict with the interest of their "allies." They are clear examples that can be found from the previous elections 2000, 2002, 2005 where coalition machine depends on Matabeleland support and unfortunately Matabele votes are consistently for that when others do the opposite. As long as pro-Matabele movements depend of coalitions with the "national" movements, their interests will always be secondary to those movements. Our party is all-embracing and is acutely aware and alive to the political imbalance. This makes working with other actors difficult.
The liberal reform politicians in MDC-T have not been able fully to accept the necessity of the Matabele people speaking for themselves. This is one of the greatest points of tension between these two sets of groups today; this difference must be resolved before viable coalitions can be formed between the two. We all know that ZANU and MDC- T have two political scripts for key issues in the country. Devolution has limits to which it can be advocated in the MDC-T because Morgan believes that it can lead to cessation, while we in the green party believe that it is a solution to the perennial cries about underdevelopment of some regions in the country. ZANU will speak of unity in Matabeleland only because the burden of the unity of Zimbabwe has been placed on Matabeleland by default. To sum up our rejection of the first myth, note that we believe that the political and economic institutions of this country must be reversed if the political and economic status of Matabeleland is to be improved. Cases in point are the de-industrialisation of Matabeleland that is taking place daily. We do not see how these same institutions like MDC-T can be utilized - through the mechanism of coalescing with them - to bring about that revision and reversal. We do not see how pro-Matabele people can form effective coalitions with groups which are not willing to question and condemn tribalistic institutions which exploit Matabele people; which do not perceive the need for, and will not work for, basic change at an elementary but critical level. Morgan got his number of votes from Matabeleland in 2008, but on appointing minsters he had to be reminded about that fact. His mind is stuck on the Shona supremacism and hegemony. Matabeleland and other underdeveloped and undeveloped regions cannot afford to assume that what is good for MDC-T is automatically good for them.
The Second Myth is the assumption that a politically and economically secure group can collaborate with an economically and politically insecure group. Our contention is that such an alliance is based on shaky grounds. By definition, the goals of the respective parties are different. To be continued Tomorrow!
(Initially I thought this will be a once off instalment, but I was wrong, it a three-part article)
Election time in Zimbabwe always brings with it the euphoria about how to unseat the regime in view of the fragmented opposition. The belief is that for as long as parties are fragmented it is impossible win an election, therefore, the best would be to form a COALIT...ION of "democratic" forces. This creates a stupid urgency to get into coalitions without applying our minds to the advantages and disadvantages of the said coalitions. This stupid urgency is buttressed by the ridiculous claims that some parties are "bigger"- whatever that means- and then the small parties are bullied into subservient roles to bigger parties baring their obvious ideological bankruptcy and leadership deficit. This is article seeks to highlight some of the myths about coalitions in Zimbabwe a country that has a lot of historical realities that cannot be sacrificed on the alter of political expediency.
There is a strongly held view in this country that the best - indeed, perhaps the only - way for the democratic forces to win political power is by forming coalitions among themselves. Which such an alliance, the opposition notwithstanding the existence those who have peculiar issues they intend to address, can influence national legislation and national social patterns, tribalism, marginalisation and continued economic and political genocide could thus be ended. This school of thought sees the existence of pluralism as a disadvantage to their fascist inclinations and any formation outside them is viewed as separatist and unwilling to enter alliances. They are quick to say that other political formations are regional/Ndebele and villagized/minority so they cannot have a meaningful impact on the country's political landscape.
We are not opposed to the formation of political coalitions per se; obviously they are necessary in a pluralistic society. But the questions that need to be answered are: Coalition with whom? On what terms? For what objective(s)? Our history has shown that coalitions have only been only at leadership level; dictated by terms set by others; and for objectives not calculated to ring about major improvement in the lives of the people.
Let us examine some of the assumptions of the coalition school of thought and show that our efforts do not eschew coalitions, rather, we want to establish the grounds for coalitions that can be viable. The coalitionist proceeds on what we can identify as the three myths or major fallacies.
First, in the context of present day Zimbabwe, the interest of the MDC green are identical with the rest of the reform groups in the country. Some of the groups that we are being forced and or encouraged to coalesce with accept the legitimacy of the basic values and institutions of society as stated in the 1979 Grand plan - whose authorship has been recently ascribed to Simba Makoni and others- and the 14 page progress report and fundamentally are not interested in a major reorientation of society. Many adherents to the current coalition doctrine recognise but nevertheless would have us coalesce with these organizations. The assumption - which is in itself a myth - is that what is good for these organizations is good for all of us.
The major mistake made by exponents of the coalition theory is that they advocate for alliances with groups which have never had as their central goal the necessary total revamping of society. At the bottom these groups accept the Zimbabwean system and want only, if at all, to make peripheral, marginal reforms in it. Their diagnosis of the cause and solution to the Zimbabwean crisis is totally different from ours. Their reforms are inadequate to rid Zimbabwe of tribalism and other vices which are borrowed from ZANU, which they have benefited from in a very big way. They are also plagued by this overriding sense superiority and Shona supremacism that pervades Zimbabwean politics. Some sections of the opposition no less than others, are subjected and subject to it.
Our point is that no matter how 'liberal' the other groups might be they cannot ultimately escape the overpowering influence - influence their organizations - of their otherness in our tribalised society. Liberals often say that they are tired of being told "you cannot understand what it is to be a minority and the quest for a New Zimbabwe". They claim to recognize this. Yet the same liberals will often turn around and tell us that we should ally ourselves with those who cannot understand, who share the sense of superiority based on otherness. The fact is that most of the "allies" neither look upon the national and pro-Matabele organizations as co-partners nor do they perceive the goals as any but the adoption of certain non-matabele norms and values. Such a view assumes the "desirability of maintaining their institutions, their language and cultural patterns as dominant and standard in Zimbabwean life. [14 page Document] Perhaps those holding these views are not tribalists in the strict sense of our definition, but the end result of this attitude is to sustain tribalism.
We do not believe it is possible to form meaningful coalitions unless both or all parties are not willing but believe it absolutely necessary to challenge tribal conformity and other prevailing norms and institutions. Most of the liberal groups which we are familiar with (MDC-T) are not willing at this time. If that is the case, then the coalition is doomed to frustration and failure. The conformity position assumes that what is good for "Zimbabwe" is good for everyone in the country. Solving the Zimbabwean problem amounts to solving the Matabele problem goes the rationale. But the political and social rights of the people of Matabeleland have been and always will be negotiable and expendable the moment they conflict with the interest of their "allies." They are clear examples that can be found from the previous elections 2000, 2002, 2005 where coalition machine depends on Matabeleland support and unfortunately Matabele votes are consistently for that when others do the opposite. As long as pro-Matabele movements depend of coalitions with the "national" movements, their interests will always be secondary to those movements. Our party is all-embracing and is acutely aware and alive to the political imbalance. This makes working with other actors difficult.
The liberal reform politicians in MDC-T have not been able fully to accept the necessity of the Matabele people speaking for themselves. This is one of the greatest points of tension between these two sets of groups today; this difference must be resolved before viable coalitions can be formed between the two. We all know that ZANU and MDC- T have two political scripts for key issues in the country. Devolution has limits to which it can be advocated in the MDC-T because Morgan believes that it can lead to cessation, while we in the green party believe that it is a solution to the perennial cries about underdevelopment of some regions in the country. ZANU will speak of unity in Matabeleland only because the burden of the unity of Zimbabwe has been placed on Matabeleland by default. To sum up our rejection of the first myth, note that we believe that the political and economic institutions of this country must be reversed if the political and economic status of Matabeleland is to be improved. Cases in point are the de-industrialisation of Matabeleland that is taking place daily. We do not see how these same institutions like MDC-T can be utilized - through the mechanism of coalescing with them - to bring about that revision and reversal. We do not see how pro-Matabele people can form effective coalitions with groups which are not willing to question and condemn tribalistic institutions which exploit Matabele people; which do not perceive the need for, and will not work for, basic change at an elementary but critical level. Morgan got his number of votes from Matabeleland in 2008, but on appointing minsters he had to be reminded about that fact. His mind is stuck on the Shona supremacism and hegemony. Matabeleland and other underdeveloped and undeveloped regions cannot afford to assume that what is good for MDC-T is automatically good for them.
The Second Myth is the assumption that a politically and economically secure group can collaborate with an economically and politically insecure group. Our contention is that such an alliance is based on shaky grounds. By definition, the goals of the respective parties are different. To be continued Tomorrow!
No comments:
Post a Comment