Whilst political parties have remained the most popular mechanism for the installation of leadership the world over, they are currently proving to be a retrogressive façade whose continued existence is now a threat to proper governance.
Since their evolution a couple of centuries ago, political parties have fast alienated themselves from the people becoming stumbling blocks to societal progress. As such, debates on the success or failure of a state such as Zimbabwe should not be centred on party capabilities, but the viability of a political party as a credible system for national leadership recruitment.
Political parties have become a modern anachronism and a fetter to the further development of society. When they first emerged, they were indeed a radical development. But now, the party as an idea and a form of political organisation has run its course. It is an exhausted idea.
First, participation in party politics and even voting in the West and the rest of the world is declining. The recent unprecedented low turnout of voters in June 10’s Parliamentary by-elections, particularly in urban areas which reduced the polls into a sham, is an indication of an incipient decline of citizens’ confidence in political parties as well as electoral processes. Second, a lot of the advances in political rights — for example, women’s and labour rights — have been achieved not through political parties, but through interest group pressure.
Third, political parties, especially in Africa, have been divisive, and indeed the most effective instruments of transforming brothers and sisters into enemies. Fourth, political parties stifle critical independent thinking – the political commissar thinks for you while the party spokesperson speaks for you. Finally and related, following the party line makes it difficult to judge issues on their merit as ideology substitutes reason.
The moment a system prioritises idiosyncrasies over merit and credentials there is bound to be massive governance crisis. If one is to assess the calibre of Members of Parliament, Ministers and Senators, then you are rest assured that nothing meaningful is likely to come out. Their appointment in public offices has never been about their capabilities, but simply where they can be fitted at the pleasure of the President.
So if you are a member of a political party the secret is simply to appear less intelligent, less wise or even less reasonable than the party president. The prize of outshining your master is very costly to one’s political career. In other words, if party leadership exhibits some stupidity, the rule of the game is for all the other cadres to jump into the ship and parade more stupidity than that exhibited by leadership. In such a scenario, as a world, a state or a modern society we are unlikely to reap anything meaningful that benefits the entire polity emanating from the political party system. So what is the option? The desired option is preference of a meritocratic democratic system in which leaders are chosen from the grassroots level to the top on merit and demonstrated capabilities. For instance, in order to choose a minister of education all stakeholders (teachers, parents, students, civil society) at each level of society elect the most qualified. From among those chosen at district/council level, the provincial representative is chosen, and from these the minister. The modalities to implement this principle could be worked out. Whilst I do not have anything against Education minister Lazarus Dokora as an example, I do not believe he is the best brains we have in the country to preside over the critical noble Ministry of Education. But the current system is one which promotes those with greatest degrees of loyalty and humbleness to party leadership. They make it to the top not because of their capabilities but their subservience to leadership. In governance principles this is wrong and costly in the long run.
It explains why a country with a remarkable learned populace like Zimbabwe remains poor. It points out why despite abundant natural resources the majority of country’s citizens live in abject poverty. Since 1980 the current political party system from across the divide has created a sophisticated paternalism system — a policy or practice on the part of people in authority of restricting the freedom and responsibilities of those subordinate to or otherwise dependent on them in their supposed interest. Rationalism has largely been suppressed and punished.
- 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
In the 1990s Edgar Tekere and Margaret Dongo were expelled from Zanu PF because of their “deviant” behaviour. Their expulsion was neither based on rationality nor merit but simply that they were not in thinking terms with expectations of the party. The same fate befell MDC’s Welshman Ncube, Tendai Biti and Elton Mangoma. They fell from grace because they were no longer at same thinking wavelength with expectations of the MDC leadership. The recent Joice Mujuru, Didymus Mutasa and Rugare Gumbo debacle in Zanu PF explains similar predicament.
One of the constant themes underlying contemporary world politics is voter apathy. Political party systems promotes patronage and reasoning based on gut feeling of the leadership, and such will not take a country forward. In the United States of America, official government data states that between 1960 and 2008, the percentage of eligible voters who have bothered to cast their ballots during the presidential elections have ranged from about 49% to 63%. This means that as much as half of American voters do not care enough to decide which candidate would make a good chief executive of the great nation.
One of the grievances surrounding vote boycott is the limitation of political parties to indulge in the much needed governance intervention. In Africa elections have turned out to be an exercise of voting without choosing and when people have at their disposal choiceless democracy, they would rather exercise their democratic right of choosing not to vote.
Everything indulged by political parties in this land tends to be cursed. From ambitious and impractical manifestos to delusional conferences and congresses; from dubious housing schemes to desperate empowerment gaffes. All points to simple reasoning that entrusting the whole governance matrix to a political party simply because it is the one that would have begged more votes at an election is costly. This is so because more votes do not necessarily translate to monopoly of competence, talent, merit and credentials.
Is it not absurd that, while in other organisations managers and directors are appointed on merit, in politics it is the most loud-mouthed and violent demagogue who is elected? The Bible in Proverbs teaches: “Without knowledge, zeal is not good.” Zeal and enthusiasm cannot be adequate substitutes for knowledge. Similarly, good intentions alone are not enough. To be effective, they must be backed by technical knowhow and well-thought-out strategy.
Political leaders, given the enormities of their responsibilities, and especially that they hold the fate of a nation in their hands, need training in leadership. Training in leadership should be a requirement for political office. Greatest political philosopher of all time Aristotle once retorted that the wise and knowledgeable should rule, but I am not convinced whether it is the scenario in Africa, Zimbabwe included.
Alexander Rusero is a Harare-based political analyst who can be contacted on [email protected].
