Zimbabwe 2008: The triumph of the politics of fear

It is now a reality that the harmonised polls will be held on 29 March 2008.

Only last year this time, the conventional wisdom in many opposition circles was that President Mugabe would not secure the mandate of his party as a candidate when his term expired let alone him being democratically endorsed as candidate of the party for the 2008 elections.

Many experts advanced the notion that Mugabe would not last the year as the head of state and ZANU-PF will disintegrate into tribal factions. A combination of internal party contradictions and confusion was meant to facilitate the exit of Mugabe from the political scene.

A proposition was then advanced that Mugabe had lost his grip on the party to the extent that his proposal to shorten the parliamentary term from 2010 to 2008 and the harmonization of the presidential, parliamentary and local elections would be opposed by his party’s central committee. Some of Zimbabwe’s best minds were occupied with scenarios of the impending post-Mugabe era and many options were explored excluding the prospect of Mugabe being relevant in 2008 and beyond.

It is reasonable to ask the question why intellectuals and policy analysts including the MDC failed to read the politics of ZANU-PF. What has been striking is the naivety of the political players and there could be no better demonstration of such infantile approach to political discourse than the manner in which the SADC mediated talks were handled and concluded with the constructive support of the opposition who now seek to cry foul after the event.

There was an acceptance in many circles that ZANU-PF was fast disintegrating and the perceived factions in the party would constructively assist the opposition to oust Mugabe. This assistance would come in the form of a spirited opposition to the harmonisation project and Mugabe’s candidature.

It was Mugabe whose term of office was to constitutionally end in March 2008. In the face of this inevitability and recognizing the dangers of Zimbabweans going to the polls to elect a President against a background of an economic meltdown, President Mugabe had no choice but to reflect not only on his prospects for electoral success but also the implications on his party whose legitimacy is now premised more on fear than hope.

President Mugabe’s reaction was predictable and his assessment of the situation was spot on. He mooted the idea of harmonising the presidential and parliamentary elections and initially even his own colleagues in ZANU-PF did not comprehend the rationale for such a move.

It was evident then as it is now that if the choice about who should lead Zimbabwe for the next five years was informed by hope, then ZANU-PF would not be on the radar screen. It would be unthinkable for any rational citizen to condemn his/her future to the politics of fear by electing a party that chooses to distance itself from its own record in government and instead selectively chooses to position itself as an opposition party.

ZANU-PF has accepted the notion that if you cannot beat them join them and it is now evident that the election manifesto of any opposition party has been stolen by the ruling party who will go into the election campaigning for change while offering nothing new.

I have no doubt that even President Mugabe is acutely aware that Zimbabweans are afraid of the future and are not free to make the choices that any free citizen would be expected to make in any democratic society. What are the real choices available to Zimbabweans in 2008?

Like any strategist, President Mugabe has successfully executed a scheme that many of his adversaries thought would not see the light of day.

The presumed factions in ZANU-PF vanished into thin air and not only was he democratically endorsed at the extraordinary congress held in December but he managed to convince not only his party but his political nemesis, both MDC factions, to support the constitutional amendment paving the way for the term of parliament to be cut so as to make the landmark election a referendum not only for him but for the party as would have been the case if he had taken the gamble to contest the elections under the old constitution.

There is no doubt that President Mugabe is going into this election with a party whose political fortune is inextricably linked to his own but more fundamentally that he has exposed the naivety of his political enemies who failed to appreciate the real agenda that motivated ZANU-PF to accept SADC’s intervention.

President Mugabe can legitimately argue that he is not what the Western countries perceive him to be. He has allowed the opposition that never acknowledged his legitimacy to be part of the kamikaze/(suicidal) politics while at the same time presenting ZANU-PF as a democratic party that respects the sovereignty of citizens to write their own constitution and determine their own destiny.

The MDC is now more challenged intellectually and politically having been part of a process whose outcome has clearly been poisonous to its own survival. For MDC to argue that its actions are informed by democratic values when its residual argument after the Mbeki facilitated talks is that ZANU-PF and MDC should replace the citizens of Zimbabwe in the task of writing a new constitution does not make any sense even to a kindergarten politician.

If MDC thought that a new constitution was a deal breaker then surely they should have raised this issue at the outset. President Mugabe’s position on the face of it appears to be more reasonable and in line with the founding principles of the post colonial state. The position taken by Mr. Tsvangirai that negotiations should have produced a new constitution is not even supported by his colleagues in the non-state space.

What ZANU-PF can now take to the electorate is a position that when MDC was tested in the context of the negotiations it has exposed itself on key and fundamental issues that should help in defining the party’s democratic credentials. ZANU-PF’s arguments are now similar to the National Constitutional Assembly that has argued for the past 8 years that a constitution is a serious document requiring the participation of citizens and this can only be done in a fair and transparent manner.

Political games produce their own heroes/heroines but in the final analysis we have to ask whether it is fair and just for the future of 13 million Zimbabweans to be condemned by the actions of the few who see in politics career advancement and opportunity maximisation.

As Zimbabweans brace themselves for the elections, the excitement that should accompany such an endeavour has already evaporated and the choices available may not have anything to do with advancing the interests of the national democratic revolution but the interests of the political actors of the day.

ZANU-PF has positioned itself as an anti-imperialist political institution that is under siege and, therefore, any electoral outcome that will displace it will necessarily be regarded as constituting a negation of the founding principles of the post colonial state. Accepting this premise, it is evident that the stakes will be escalated to a situation in which citizens will be placed with no real choice but to surrender to the status quo ante.

ZANU-PF will argue that there is no better person to lead the fight against imperialism and neo colonialism than President Mugabe. Accordingly, anyone who is against imperialism would have no other choice but to support ZANU-PF not because such a choice will advance any national interest.

President Mugabe has been at the helm for the past 28 years and in normal circumstances he would be running on his record of achievements but regrettably he will be running on his liberation credentials. Nation building is a far more complex project than liberation politics.

Whereas President Mugabe led the struggle against colonialism informed by the injustice of the system unfortunately nation building has to be informed by positive values. Any modern state that is progressive requires the participation of citizens in shaping its destiny and fear has never been credited as an instrument for nation building.

What motivated the liberation struggle was the desire by the majority to create a new civilisation based on freedom, justice and equality. One would have to ask whether it is the case that the last 28 years have advanced the interests of Zimbabwe in reducing the frontiers of poverty and expanding the envelope of opportunities, justice, freedom and equality.

If the choices were to be informed by objective principles, I am convinced that it would be patently obvious that Zimbabweans have been robbed of their future by a few wise men and women. While ZANU-PF’s engine is driven by the purported hatred of the colonial system, MDC appears to be equally driven by a hatred of President Mugabe and less by the policies and programs of ZANU-PF.

President Mugabe has demonstrated that ZANU-PF is solidly behind him notwithstanding the constant rumours about factionalism in the party. Unlike the opposition forces, Mugabe is the undisputed leader even in the face of acknowledged moral and economic management deficits.

Mr. Tsvangirai has been placed in a political corner and it is not clear how he will wiggle himself out of it without undermining and compromising his constituency. While MDC is still trying to figure out what to do, the ZANU-PF machine is in full gear. The destination is known and there is little doubt about who will be in charge after the ritual of elections.

The choices for MDC are difficult. If they participate in an election managed and controlled by ZANU-PF, the outcome is as inevitable as the outcome of the Mbeki-led talks. The winner is not only predictable but the actions of the loser after the elections are also predictable.

It is evident that the politics of fear has produced an atmosphere in which it is difficult to attract good Zimbabwean minds to intervene in the political space and ZANU-PF must take responsibility for this.

Many of the proponents of the third way who have invested in an alternative political paradigm without Mugabe have largely misread the situation. It all started with the abortive Tsholotsho project, and then an investment was made on Mujuru and it fizzled out and finally out of desperation an investment was made on Makoni.

It is now evident that Makoni was not part of the deal but a few wise men devised a scheme to politically embarrass Makoni as an incentive for him to join the race for which he like many Zimbabweans are afraid to join as long as President Mugabe is at the helm.

The track record of ZANU-PF dealing with citizens who naively thought that the road to statehouse is smooth is all too familiar to give people like Makoni the courage to enter a political lion’s den. Predictably, Makoni whose career has largely been shaped by ZANU-PF declined to associate himself with an ill conceived political project leaving its promoters in a state of shock. However, the promoters of Makoni’s candidature are not different from the promoters of Mnangagwa and Mujuru. Only time will tell whether they will shift attention to another unsuspecting Zimbabwean.

What kind of system would produce this kind of spectacle whereby 13 million citizens become so helpless and leaderless? Surely, the promoters of Makoni must have known his weaknesses and that anyone who dreams to occupy the statehouse before the incumbent is dead would be committing political suicide and inviting violence and possibly prison time.

The mere fact that the opposition appears to be in disarray confirms that the politics of fear does work and has, indeed, triumphed in Zimbabwe. Citizens are afraid and if well placed individuals like Makoni would rather be condemned into silence while the future of the country is daily being mortgaged then we can only say: “Cry the beloved country”.

The future of Zimbabwe will not become better if hard choices are not made now and preferably before the elections. It will be difficult to advance an argument after the elections that Mugabe is not legitimate and also to suggest that the constitution that MDC has already approved should not be presented to the people of Zimbabwe for them to approve it.

It has been argued that even the members of MDC have accepted that Tsvangirai’s political fate will be sealed in March and, thereafter, a new dispensation will be negotiated between the opposition legislators and ZANU-PF that will lead to a constitution. Such a process will naturally be led by ZANU-PF and President Mugabe will then presumably bow out at the 2009 party congress that is expected to elect a new leadership for the party and possibly the government.

What President Mugabe has managed to do is to place the fortunes of ZANU-PF ahead of the nation. If you vote for ZANU-PF, then surely you must accept that no change is change. Anyone who loves Zimbabwe would agree that change must visit Zimbabwe sooner rather than later because if the status quo remains the risk of a whole generation being sacrificed to satisfy the egos of the few is high.

When the future of a country is at stake, it behoves on everyone to step back and reflect on what needs to happen in Zimbabwe for hope to take centre stage as a value driver in nation building. The triumph of the politics of fear produces the worst in mankind and intimidates citizens from being part of the change they want to see.