ACCUSATIONS and counter-accusations are being thrown between the MDCs following the expulsion of 21 MPs from Parliament after they crossed the floor from the main opposition MDC-T to, first, form the MDC Renewal Team, and then merge with the Welshman Ncube-led MDC to set up the UMDC. They took a gamble with a capital “G” — and lost.
Not only that, within the MDC Renewal Team itself there has been contradictory reactions to the expulsion.
Interim UMDC president Sekai Holland, who was one of the 21 expelled MPs, to her immense credit, took this stoically, saying: “At least there is one place (Parliament) the rule of law is being upheld. We hope the rule of law will be upheld in all of Zimbabwe.” Holland viewed the matter beyond herself as an individual. She accepted her fate with open-mindedness and level-headedness.
This is as honest as it can get because one should not only see the justice of it when they win and cry foul whenever they lose when the Constitution is clear that on joining another party after being elected, ejection from Parliament is a sure bet, it’s a cert.
It’s like activating that clause — with a capital “C”. It’s like turning a gun on yourself. It’s as plain and as clear as that. There is no need to split hairs. The issue was simple and straightforward for the Speaker to rule. It was an open-and-shut case like when a suspect is caught with a murder weapon or a person leaves a suicide note.
On the other hand, MDC Renewal Team spokesperson Jacob Mafume remarked: “It is with all due respect a decision that is bad at law and, in fact, it is contradictory and defies logic.”
This is paralogism — a display of illogical or fallacious reasoning, especially one which appears superficially logical or which the reasoner believes to be logical — at its worst. There is no need for legal semantics.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
There is no need to resort to legalese or bombastic language. It’s most irritating when people behave as if they know everything and are never in the wrong. They took a risk — with a capital “R” — and it backfired, simple as that.
But they are not the first ones or last ones to do that. All they need to do is go back to the drawing board.
But Mafume can’t resist the urge to touch or dwell on a fragment or one portion of an issue that is heavily biased to his area of interest — law with a capital “L”. This is narrow — with a capital “N”.
Advice couched in narrow legal terms is of little value in any situation. In real life, there are much broader, concurrent, multi-layered issues at play. Reality does not take a break to say for now we are dealing solely with purely legal issues, so political issues must be shelved. A smart politician will make different aspects work together.
Even when dealing with legal issues, one needs to be contextual. The language should be broadened and structured in such a way as to be meaningful to people and processable by their minds — not moot room or courtroom stuff.
But would-be politicians like Mafume end up speaking to themselves. He has been busy telling the world how clever he is, but so far he has nothing to show for it. Now his party is on the brink, possibly because of narrow legal advice from, among others, him.
It should be about rendering frank advice that is not limited to narrow legal technicalities, but includes relevant socio-economic and political factors. Bulawayo-raised Holland won the Chizhanje Senate constituency (incorporating Mabvuku and Tafara in Harare) not because voters knew her.
She is a total stranger there. She won because of the party she stood for. If she were to stand as an independent, her chances would be next to nil.
It is such a high-horse approach which fails politicians to win over voters who want to hear down-to-earth proposals for, for instance, economic relief instead of the high-sounding mantras about ZimAsset.
Now, the talk doing the rounds is that the MDC-T has, by activating the expulsion clause, donated those 21 seats to Zanu PF. I beg to differ.
First, you cannot donate what is not yours. You only donate what you have. The 21 MPs were as good as lost to the MDC-T for all practical purposes except in Parliament, but in name only, not in reality. You are either in or out, not half in, half out.
Second, there are now vicious — with a capital “V” — in criticising their erstwhile MDC-T comrades as they are with the ruling Zanu PF, with MDC Renewal Team secretary-general Tendai Biti labelling MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai “an idiot” as recently as last week. They took gloves off, showing intention to damage Tsvangirai by any means, fair or foul, but strangely still expected Tsvangirai to take this lying down. That is asking for the impossible.
They shouldn’t have burned bridges like that if they harboured any hopes of Tsvangirai doing them a favour at least in the immediate future. It’s not only about the politics of it, but also about the management of it — with a capital “M”.
Can you mock someone to your heart’s content, but demand that he protects your seats? Well, it won’t happen and hasn’t happened. Someone has to take back their words at the very least. The same way Biti swallowed his words in his overtures to Ncube last year, saying: “We are sorry for attacking you, for calling you sellouts and that you were a Zanu PF project.”
You either fall on your sword or fall on your knees. You accept the consequences of a blunder or make amends for the insults. It’s not retreating as such, but advancing in a different direction. There is this saying: “When facts change, I change.” It’s only fanatics like the Islamic State and Boko Haram terrorists — who have redefined wickedness (with a capital “W”) by beheading and burning alive their captives — who won’t change.
Third, if it will take Zanu PF reclaiming some of those seats to knock sense and political maturity — with a capital “M” — into some opposition elements, so be it.
Maybe after this, they will have more respect and more appreciation of each other — like after a trial separation. If not, a complete divorce is in order. That would give rise to a new, worthwhile realignment — not this kindergarten stuff.
You can’t have everything you want at the same time and all the time — you can’t have the best of both worlds. [email protected]
