04 August 2007

By Ndapuwa Muteme

THE recent fallout in opposition ranks needs to be put in context. On October 12, 2005 the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) leadership split purportedly over the decision to participate in the Senate elections.

Morgan Tsvangirai, the MDC leader, argued then that he did not want to be led up the garden path by participating in an election for a body that had been designed to manage ZANU PF’s succession headaches. While Tsvangirai argued that there was nothing wrong with a Senate per se, the one proposed, was in his view not in the national interest for want of value addition to the legislative process or resolution of the national crisis.

Secondly, he argued that the Senate was part of the 17th amendment, which the MDC had opposed in Parliament. Welshman Ncube, then the secretary-general prior the MDC split, argued that the council’s 33-31 vote to participate in the election should be respected. Tsvangirai stated then that the council was split 50/50 including the proxies send by Sekai Holland and Grace Kwinjeh, which Ncube allegedly refused to recognise. In addition, Tsvangirai argued, the only value to be derived from participation was to give party officials jobs while people were starving.

In his view, government was advised to divert the funds allocated for the elections to salaries for civil servants or maize. As leader of a party, which was divided on a fundamental issue, Tsvangirai felt justified to provide decisive leadership by taking a position, which was also supported by civic society. The Ncube group then labelled him undemocratic. The resultant leadership split saw 27 out of 76 national council members inclusive of nine out of 36 national executive members leaving the party to constitute the Arthur Mutambara MDC faction or is it fraction?

The recent by-elections in Budiriro and Chiredzi seem to suggest that the majority of the ordinary members and supporters remained with the faction led by Tsvangirai. The Ncube group also attempted to stage a palace coup by expelling Tsvangirai, but this failed both in a court of law and public opinion. Justice Yunus Omerjee ruled that the Ncube group had no locus standi to expel Tsvangirai and that his purported suspension had been set aside by the appropriate body in the party — the national council and as such dismissed the application both on procedure and on the merits.

The import and effect of this judgment was not only to confirm Tsvangirai as the legitimate president of the MDC but it also delegitimised the structures of the faction that attempted the coup. This unchallenged judgment remains valid in law today. In the court of public opinion, people largely boycotted the Senate elections, with a less than 19 percent voter turnout. In a subsequent by election in Budiriro, the Mutambara group recorded a paltry 504 votes.
The proposed 18th amendment seems to vindicate Tsvangirai’s apprehensions about the Senate in that ZANU PF now wants the combined houses to elect President Robert Mugabe’s successor.

With the benefit of hindsight, the position taken by Tsvangirai then is, in my view, indicative of a decisive and visionary leader who had foreseen the machinations of his opponent and refused to legitimise them. In addition, the alleged scramble for tractors by the majority of the Mutambara senators vindicates Tsvangirai’s position on the current Senate serving as a platform for patronage. Notwithstanding their showing in by-elections, the Mutambara group has made the issue of a 50-50 coalition with Tsvangirai as president their visible political programme.

Tsvangirai, on the other hand, has been on a campaign trail urging people to register to vote and emphasising the need for unity of all democratic forces. He has stated that unity should not be a boardroom affair but a people-driven process. He has never publicly attacked Mutambara in person, nor sought to enforce his rights in a court of law arising out of the Omerjee judgment, but instead publicly embraced him during the launch of the Save Zimbabwe Campaign. Human as he is, mortals would have expected him to take Mutambara to the cleaners for claiming to be the president of the MDC ever since he was parachuted from outer space to be anointed the replacement leader of a mass party in place of its popularly elected founding president.

On July 28, according to MDC spokesman Nelson Chamisa, Tsvangirai’s council resolved to work towards the unity of all democratic forces. Surprisingly, on the same day, Mutambara announced that his faction was going solo in the next elections because Tsvangirai had allegedly refused to be the opposition presidential candidate. How can one refuse what they are already? Mutambara is on record as having said he will not stand against Tsvangirai in an election. Was he genuine or is his flip-flopping a sign that he is suffering from a crisis of legitimacy? Or is he just a spoiler?

Is it not time for him to be honest with both himself and the people of this country and form his own political party and show that he is an “intellectual giant” without “moronic tendencies” rather than continue to hold onto Tsvangirai’s coat tails by clinging to the name MDC? Or is one asking for too much since he appears not to be his own man considering his outer space origins? Mutambara also allegedly accused Tsvangirai of having a moronic sense of judgment and accused his co-leaders of being intellectual midgets. Most surprisingly, he also said they were pulling out of the Save Zimbabwe Campaign because it was rooting for Tsvangirai as president.

The Save Zimbabwe Campaign is a coalition of mass-based civic bodies such as churches, trade unions, Crisis Coalition and others. A decision by a political party to distance itself from a mass based organisation is, in my view, tantamount to a fish leaving the water and deciding to go solo in the sun. Is this not moronic judgment or am I missing something? First, if Mutambara’s group felt Tsvangirai was a weak leader what prompted them to propose in the draft agreement that they authored that he becomes the presidential candidate? Why plan to lose by insisting on being led by the weak and undemocratic unless you know the opposite to be true?

Secondly, if the objective of the Save Zimbabwe coalition was to support one candidate (Tsvangirai), then why pull out of Save Zimbabwe Campaign for allegedly supporting the spirit of the coalition? These questions beg answers. Finally, Mutambara did not provide any evidence that Tsvangirai had refused to be the leader of the opposition forces. The fact is, this is what he has been for the past seven years by popular will and not by anointment by King Arthur. In fact, more than 1.2 million Zimbabweans gave him that crown in 2002 when King Arthur was in Babylon.

Mutambara should therefore not claim that he offered or donated to Tsvangirai the leadership of the opposition. Tsvangirai earned it and we do not know what Mutambara has earned. The only allegation that he raised is that after signing a code of conduct together, Tsvangirai was not keen to have photographs taken with him. Please, let us grow up. To the contrary, Tsvangirai’s public pronouncements and resolutions of his council are calling for a broader unity of genuine democratic forces. Can someone then tell me who really are the morons and intellectual midgets in this saga?

Ndapuwa Muteme is a Zimbabwean political commentator

Nehanda Radio: Zimbabwe's first 24 hour internet radio news channel.

	Enter your search terms Submit search form
	Web www.nehandaradio.com