Zimbabwe Information Center in North America
A project of the North American Coalition for a Free Zimbabwe (NACFREEZ)
By Stanford G. Mukasa
Letter from America
November 5, 2007
MDC
Intra-party conflicts in the opposition movement must stop
Letter from America
November 5, 2007
For superstitious people October appears to be a haunted month for the Movement for Democratic Change. Simmering serious disputes seem to always explode during this month, leading some people to suggest that the party needs some exorcising!
Barely two years after a split in the leadership that left MDC reeling, the party is caught up again in a serious dispute over the women’s assembly leadership.
During his visit to North America MDC leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, talked about the need for discipline and resolve among the party membership, adding that members must remain focused on the real enemy, namely, Robert Mugabe.
The events in past few weeks have had a potentially damaging effect on the MDC as a movement.
And the obvious beneficiary of such conflicts in the opposition movement is none other Mugabe. It does not matter who in the opposition is to blame for the conflict. Destabilizing the MDC is Mugabe’s No. 1 project. It is known that Mugabe has poured billions of dollars of the taxpayers’ money to exploit such conflicts and destabilize the MDC.
As Mugabe increasingly comes under the international spotlight in the Mbeki-brokered talks between ZANUPF and the MDC, leading to his giving even more concessions, Mugabe is increasing his efforts to destroy MDC by exploiting the conflict in the aftermath of a more vigorous campaign by individuals who may have had genuine grievances for whatever causes they are championing.
It is an open secret that the MDC is very heavily infiltrated by Mugabe’s secret intelligence agents from the CIO. And this infiltration can complicate any efforts to keep the conflicts within manageable levels.
The majority of Zimbabweans have not being fully appraised of the secret talks between MDC and ZANUPF but they have been given the impression that some progress is being made and that the March 2008 elections could be free and fair if all issues under discussion are agreed to by both parties.
However, what is probably baffling the Zimbabwean masses is why at this potentially historic time, just when victory against the Mugabe forces appears within reach, the opposition movement, particularly the MDC in which they have invested so much trust , support and attended its rallies in hundreds of thousands, appears to be riddled with so many conflicts.
Zimbabweans are probably asking: Why are people fighting each other when they should be united to face the enemy? Why is it difficult to resolve amicably and without acrimony and vilification these conflicts? What exactly is the nature of these conflicts that they become so intractable?
Looking at the latest conflict there are two key issues that need to be discussed here.
The first is the question of procedures within the party structures. Conflicting reports seem to suggest that party procedures for dissolving and the holding the women’s assembly in Bulawayo were either followed or not followed.
The second, and perhaps more important, is the simmering dispute on gender issues in the party. The concern expressed by some of the members of the party points to what they feel is lack of gender balance in the top leadership.
Both issues above are a legitimate subject of a rigorous discussion and action to ensure that procedures are followed in a transparent way and that gender balance is achieved, or at least there must be measurable progress towards achieving gender balance in the shortest possible timeframe.
But the overarching question is: How does one begin to address these pressing issues?
Should it be through the megaphone diplomacy of the mass media? Or should it be within the party structures? What are the advantages and disadvantages of both strategies?
Yet another question is : How do the party members frame the debates or discussions on these issues ?
Should the debates and discussions be based on gender biases that some people see as inherently embedded in mindset of men?
Should they be based on the strict interpretation of the constitution?
Should they based on the recognition that MDC is operating in a hostile and adverse political environment that characterizes the country today?
Or, is this a class struggle among the MDC top leadership?
It is quite possible that debates, arguments and conflicts are based on different interpretations of the nature of the issues in question.
There are those who will see the problems as symptomatic of the male chauvinistic attitudes towards women by men. In this neo-feminist context proponents of this approach will argue that whatever efforts they tried to get this gender imbalance rectified fell on deaf ears.
They will bring a list of male behaviors that they say point to the institutionalization of this gender imbalance in favor of men. They believe that it’s time they made their concerns heard in a more forceful manner, to vent their frustrations at what they see as lack of appreciation for their major contributions to the dynamism of the party. Lucia Matibenga has probably become the rallying point for this framing of the two issues above.
However, there is yet another perspective that sees the issues not so much in gender terms as in the abrogation of the respect for the party constitution. These “constitutional proceduralists” will not necessarily see a gender bias but merely point to the need to respect the party procedures. They will, therefore, support Matibenga, not because she is a woman but because of the way they feel she and her executive were removed from office.
Another perspective is class based. It will essentially see this as a class struggle. In this neo-Marxian class context the issues raised above are a reflection of the jostling for positions, power and influence among the ruling elite or top party officials, especially now that the year 2008 could potentially bring real change in Zimbabwe.
In this class struggle scenario, the ordinary rank and file – both men and women – probably had nothing to do with these conflicts – just as the conflicts that led to the leadership split two years were essentially an in-house power struggle among the top leadership in the MDC.
It is therefore naïve to believe that MDC was split right in the middle. The vast majority of the people remained united and intact – a situation that prevails today. This is why Arthur Mutambara’s group is referred to as a splinter or breakaway faction. It never attracted any significant followership in Zimbabwe.
Yet another view or framing places the two issues within the context of a hostile environment that confronts the MDC on a daily basis. It has been repeatedly said and acknowledged that Mugabe has declared war on the Zimbabweans. The MDC is the representation of the body politic of the vast Zimbabwean masses. So, in declaring war against Zimbabweans Mugabe has, in fact, declared war on the MDC. This is evidenced by over 500 MDC supporters who were killed in cold blood and thousands injured in the past seven years.
When both men and women leaders of the MDC were savagely assaulted by Mugabe’s thugs they both equally suffered but ,thankfully, survived an assassination attempt. Under this scenario the two issues in question are seen as necessary actions carried out on the battle front. Gender or ethnicity had nothing to do with it.
This act of redeploying the party’s top soldiers is seen as an effort to maintain a high level of synergy among the party’s battalions. The survival of the party and the need to rejuvenate the party leadership point to a cabinet, or decision by cabinet to, reshuffle. The MDC management committee can be seen as commanders on the frontlines in the battle against Mugabe. As such they have to be constantly monitoring the synergy and the effectiveness of various party organs.
Whichever perspective one adopts, there can be no escaping the brutal truth that escalating intra-party conflicts will not do anyone any good. The reason is not far to find. The higher the crescendo for conflict, especially the megaphone protest through the mass media, the more people will dig in their positions, creating a stalemate out of which many people will find it difficult to get out without losing face.
None of the scenarios I mentioned above can stand out on their own as the sole explanation of the roots of the conflict.
What is needed is to address and rectify the issues in a way that will not create winners or losers but partners in a team that will be focused on defeating Mugabe.
The MDC major players in this dispute might well heed the advice given by a chief during a trial before the chief’s court and in which one villager was accusing another of stealing his goats. Before the trial began, the chief said everybody gathered at the chief’s court must be aware that no one was being tried or accused. Yes, the villager was accusing another of stealing goats. And this might seem like a clear- cut case of one villager being branded as the accused. But , said the chief pointing his finger to the sky, in my court there are no accusers or the accused.
The chief said the only thing that stood accused was this bad act of stealing. He said what people should discuss is how best to avoid thefts in our society. Then the chief said: “As we discuss the strategies to avoid further incidences of theft we need everyone to put their heads together or join hands in the search for a resolution to this problem of stealing.”
What then happened was a remarkable experience for the observer. Both the accuser and the accused and their friends were involved in a friendly banter, not confrontation, on how to deal with the problem.
The MDC needs all its members to be active participants in the struggle for democracy in Zimbabwe. It cannot afford to sacrifice any of its members through unproductive wrangling. Members also need to recognize that in times of crisis or war procedures may not be followed to the extent of connecting all the dots. Certain decisions must be taken to achieve certain objectives that benefit the party in the minimum of time. But care must be taken, that in many such expedient decisions no member of the party must be vilified, disadvantaged or discriminated against simply because or ethnicity or gender.
There are times when aggrieved individuals lose faith in the ability of the party leadership to deal fairly and decisively with their concerns. This certainly would appear to be the perspective held by some members of the party.
Faced with such a situation the more desirable strategy should be not to go to the mass media to vent one’s frustrations or grievances, no matter how genuine; but to look for individuals who are respectable and can mediate the dispute. To argue, as people have done, that there are no people to mediate the dispute is as laughable a joke as to argue that the MDC is not capable of governing Zimbabwe.
By the same token, some people have argued that it’s a waste of time to continue efforts to mediate the conflict because previous efforts have not succeeded. This is a defeatist attitude. Many successful negotiations and mediation efforts in case studies in Zimbabwe’s own history as well as around the world were not concluded on the first day, or second day, but took days, weeks, months and even years.
What is needed now, as a matter of urgency, is for all stakeholders in the MDC leadership to put together a team of eminent persons who will give an outside advisory opinion on how to resolve the problem.
In many cases such eminent persons will try to stay away from the blame game or finger pointing. Instead, they will seek to put in place a strategy for resolving the dispute that will not create winners or losers but will involve all parties to the dispute in a meaningful progress towards the real mission of the party.
What the MDC needs now is a group of respectable people who will play the role of a watchdog. Former president of the Philippines, Maria Corazon Sumulong Cojuangco Aquino, formed what was known as the Committee on Good Government. It was made up of citizens who were committed to monitoring government behavior and whether it was keeping its promises to the people.
If the conflicts within the MDC leadership appear intractable or irreconcilable, as would seem to be the case now, then this would be a good time to form a committee of eminent citizens from outside the leadership.
This is a momentous occasion for the opposition movement in Zimbabwe. Mugabe is beginning to crumble like a cookie under pressure, and he is making all kinds of concessions that no one would have ever imagined at the beginning of this year.
Barring any unforeseen circumstances 2008 may well be the year Zimbabweans took back their country, and their independence from the evil clutches of Mugabe.
Internal conflicts that escalate to shouting accusations are the last thing Zimbabweans and the MDC need at this time. Yes, deal decisively and fairly with the gender and procedural problems but not in way that will create consciously or subconsciously the feeling of a winner or a loser.