Zimbabwe Information Center in North America
A project of the North American Coalition for a Free Zimbabwe (NACFREEZ)
MDC
By Stanford G. Mukasa
Letter from America
February 26, 2007
What next for the opposition movement?
Robert Mugabe and ZANUPF’s behavior in banning MDC rallies, jailing leaders of the opposition and using brute force to harass MDC supporters sends one very clear message to Zimbabweans.
Mugabe is the same yesterday, today and forever.
Mugabe has, to his advantage, the monopoly of State -sponsored violence in the country. He controls the army, police, CIO and youth militia thugs. All of them are heavily militarized and can be mobilized to any part of the country to wreak havoc. Their budget far exceeds the legitimate needs of the country.
Some would say Mugabe now has the country neatly wrapped around his finger like a string.
However, the only thing he cannot control is the economy and the volcanic rumblings of dissent within ZANUPF.
This leads to the view that the only real prospects for change can come from within the ruling party or the economy.
Does this mean that the opposition movement has been effectively emasculated? Is there any hope or expectation that the opposition movement will play a strategic role in the struggle for democracy in Zimbabwe?
It all depends on what options the MDC adopts.
Right now MDC has been given only one option by Mugabe: that is to operate within the law according to Mugabe’s rules and interpretation of that law. Under this option Mugabe can ban an MDC rally even if it is within the law!
Mugabe’s rules that govern the laws of Zimbabwe mean that the MDC can be severely punished for following the law as happened recently when two MDC rallies were banned even after MDC had followed all the legal procedures and had obtained permission to hold them.
The question for the MDC now is: Do they see this as their only option? Are there other options at the table that the MDC can and should consider?
MDC is now in an untenable position where its commitment to following the law has undermined its agenda for social and political change.
MDC has reached a quagmire. By following the only option Mugabe has left for them MDC is, ironically, indirectly undermining its role as a vibrant opposition movement.
The question is: Where does MDC go from here? What is MDC’s strategy now that all its efforts have been severely undermined by Mugabe?
This is a historic question. In his strategy document in 1902 Vladimir Lenin asked the question: What is to be done? The main themes focused on where to begin; the character and main content of protest; and the organizational tasks that face the opposition movement.
In as much as Lenin had to confront this question as he plotted the strategy for the Russian revolution 16 years later, ANC leader, Nelson Mandela, faced the same question in apartheid South Africa.
After the Sharpeville massacre on March 21 1960, Mandela commented: “There are many people who feel that it is useless and futile for us to continue talking peace and non-violence — against a government whose only reply is savage attacks on an unarmed and defenseless people. And I think the time has come for us to consider, in the light of our experiences at this day at home, whether the methods which we have applied so far are adequate.”
Today, the MDC and the opposition movement in Zimbabwe are confronted with the similar historical question: What is to be done?
For seven years now the MDC and the opposition movement have followed the same strategy of participating in hopelessly futile elections, participating in Parliament, seeking permission from the police for holding meetings and rallies. In almost all the cases the results have been very dismally similar: rallies denied, elections lost, supporters beaten, jailed and some killed.
The vicious cycle goes on and on. If the MDC ensconce themselves in this option they will find themselves irretrievably stuck in the vortex of a vicious not-so-merry -go- round game , doing the same things with the predictable results.
Admittedly, the opposition movement has few options, given the geopolitics of the region. There is widespread support for Mugabe and ZANUPF from presidents of neighboring countries. The international community does not see the problem in Zimbabwe in the same light they saw apartheid. This places a greater burden on the opposition leaders to organize a much greater internal resistance against Mugabe and ZANUPF.
In addressing the historic question ‘What is to be done?’ the opposition movement‘s leadership will need to identify and define its strength. Just because Mugabe controls state violence and can easily overwhelm the opposition militarily does not mean the opposition movement has no strength.
Mugabe’s security and military chiefs have advised him that the masses are now ready, willing and able to stage successful protests against his regime. They have, in fact, defined the opposition movement’s strength. The message to Mugabe was simply that no amount of military force can overwhelm a determined population.
And examples abound everywhere. Almost everyday we read about popular protests around the world. The latest is the standoff in Guinea where a determined population has stood its ground and used mass protests to force the president to make major concessions. A similar protest took place in Togo last year.
In Zimbabwe the teachers and nurses are reported to have called off their strike after they won their demands as a result of the strike.
The opposition movement in Zimbabwe should now be strategizing how to mobilize the masses into an effective protest against Mugabe. Some will argue that this suggestion has been made several times in the past and it contains nothing new. But the fact of the matter is this is the only realistic and potentially effective strength the opposition movement can mobilize.
If they tried in the past and failed to mobilize mass action the opposition movement should be looking at what went wrong and how they can increase the chances of its effectiveness.
One obvious reason why previous mass protests were unsuccessful is announcements were made in the glare of media publicity. Not only was there a soap box public announcement of the mass protests but when and were they would take place! One can well imagine a smiling Mugabe taking necessary measures to frustrate the protests!
In contrast, recent demonstrations have been relatively effective because they were not widely announced. The spontaneous demonstrations that have spread around the country recently are a crystal clear message to the opposition movement’s leadership that there is a real potential for mass action in Zimbabwe.
What the opposition movement needs now is a major shift of emphasis in its strategy, or paradigm shift. More focus and resources should be placed in organizing the masses for a mass action. Too much time and resources are being wasted participating in elections. Elections under Mugabe’s rules are a dead end for the opposition movement. There is no chance in hell that the opposition will make any significant victory in elections as long as Mugabe retains the capacity to rig them.
Against this background it is a misplaced priority for the opposition movement to agitate for presidential elections in 2008 unless the opposition has a sure proof strategy for ensuring that the elections are not rigged. If Mugabe were to agree it’s because he knows his rigging machinery will guarantee him victory. What will the opposition movement do next? Wait for 2016 presidential elections?
Participating in rural and urban council elections is another wasted resource. These local government councils do not wield real power. They exist under the shadow of ZANUPF.
There was a time when MDC controlled most urban councils, giving the opposition administrative power over 50 percent of the country’s voting population. But these councils operated at the whim of ZANUPF. They were virtually Bantustans! Look at what happened to Mayor Elias Mudzuri in Harare. He was removed from office and replaced by a ZANUPF supporter.
It may well be better to use the old adage “Seek ye the political power of the state and all others will be added to you!” Unless the central and fundamental question of how to effectively confront Mugabe is addressed and strategized the opposition movement will be severely handicapped in achieving its primary goal of liberating Zimbabweans from the oppressive rule of Mugabe.
Mass action cannot come about overnight. It is a product of a negotiated campaign that involves a wide array of acts of civil disobedience. The opposition movement in Zimbabwe should seek to exploit opportunities for civil disobedience. This means, for example, operating in small groups to identify situations and opportunities that can be mobilized into acts of civil disobedience.
Some opportunities for civil disobedience exist in the aftermath of the widening cracks in the ZANUPF organization. Mugabe’s speech amply demonstrated that the jostling for power is now reaching epidemic proportions. We now know one of the major reasons Mugabe wants to stay in power indefinitely – he wants to keep the cracks from tearing ZANUPF apart.
But above all Mugabe wants to protect himself from prosecution once he leaves office. With such bitter squabbling within ZANUPF Mugabe has no assurance that whoever succeeds him under this circumstance will effectively guarantee him immunity from prosecution.
Given the deteriorating conditions in Zimbabwe it is quite possible that mass action may ultimately not be necessary after all, especially if the Mugabe regime was to fall on its weight like a rotten fruit.
But the opposition movement would be ill advised to mark time in the expectation that this will indeed happen. There are many who now see the economy and the internal dissent in ZANUPF as two forces that will bring Mugabe down.
The economic argument as one possible cause of Mugabe’s fall is based on the fact that, as the national cake gets depleted, Mugabe will not be able to sustain bribes to his cronies who have now formed a protective ring around him. These cronies will turn against him and that will be the end of the Mugabe era. Most of the discontent within ZANUPF and among the military points to poor living conditions as the major cause.
Mugabe is also vulnerable to external forces. Zimbabwe is not an island. Its survival relies on the international community in terms of trade, tourism as well as remittances from Zimbabweans in Diaspora.
The opposition movement should strengthen contacts and ties with other civil society groups in neighboring countries.
Namibia, for example, has a strong human rights organization that has taken effective steps to protest against human rights abuses by Mugabe.
COSATU in South Africa has in the past often expressed solidarity with the ZCTU.
The French trade unions reportedly put pressure on the French government to deny Mugabe permission to attend the Franco-African summit.
In the United States some trade unions are ready to support their counterparts in Zimbabwe.
The opposition movement strategies for civil disobedience should mobilize these regional and international groups to give them support when the acts of civil disobedience begin.
Zimbabweans in Diaspora can play an important role in helping to seek all kinds of support from these external organizations.
A civil disobedience campaign, backed by the international civic organizations like trade unions and churches would significantly reinvigorate the struggle against Mugabe’s dictatorship.