As different and conflicting views about how to go about forming an opposition coalition ahead of the 2018 elections surface and even harden along with mutual suspicions among the “big boys” and petty jealousies with some insignificant voices making disproportionate noises, a few home truths would assist in making some people aware of the compromises borne of the practicalities demanded by what lies ahead.
echoes: CONWAY TUTANI
Firstly, casting a long glance across the Atlantic would provide painful and sobering lessons. One can’t help, but feel for Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party candidate, over the nature of her loss to the Republican Party’s Donald Trump in the recently-held United States presidential election because, according to the latest figures, she won 2,5 million more votes — and still rising — than her conqueror, the same tally of votes that Barack Obama collected in winning the 2012 elections.
For Clinton, it was, as it were, a winning loss, while for Trump it was a losing win because in the electoral college system in the US, a popular win does not necessarily translate into victory as presidential polls are weighted according to state-by-state wins. If you win more votes but less states — as Clinton did — this becomes inconsequential.
The lesson is that you need a spread-out win rather than a concentrated win to achieve victory. This can be done through aggregation of votes. It’s essentially the collective amount or sum of votes arrived at by putting together all components, elements or parts of the electorate to have a voting bloc or critical mass that is a sure winning combination.
With the rural-urban dichotomy in Zimbabwe, it is, thus, vital to have a strong foothold in both towns and the countryside to get that winning combination. It’s the combination — not necessarily the amount — of votes that wins the day. In Zimbabwe, Zanu PF plays to its strengths by ensuring — through State capture of institutions like the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission — a disproportionately high number of constituencies in rural areas to cancel out and overturn its perennial wipeout in urban areas.
So, it’s up to the opposition to join hands with disgruntled war veterans, Zanu PF moderates and former Vice-President Joice Mujuru’s Zimbabwe People First to reap from the rural vote in the same way Clinton got the vote of moderate Republicans disgusted by Trump’s racist and sexist demagoguery.
Albeit in a losing cause, this shows how political barriers can be breached — and this is sorely needed in Zimbabwe to achieve that breakthrough in order to loosen Zanu PF’s stranglehold on the nation that has seen bigwigs and their cronies get away with murder and corruption. Being a serial winner solely in urban areas — like the MDC-T — won’t get you over the line. The same urban electorate will vote for you year in year out, but it won’t make the slightest difference in Zimbabwe’s power dynamics. It’s about trying to win over new voters — and many of them can cross over to you if you join hands with those they identify with.
- 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
So, appealing to the converted won’t broaden the opposition’s appeal to that crucial segment without which no party can win power.
And we don’t need straight-line thinkers who sanctimoniously preach that those expelled from Zanu PF cannot be part of the change. FW de Klerk, despite “being complicit” in perpetuating apartheid, joined hands with Nelson Mandela to drive change in South Africa from apartheid to democracy.
And the assumption that Zanu PF has zero support is wide off the mark. Zanu PF, to a considerable extent, speaks the language of rural folk — not the academic narrative churned out weekly in some publications.
Some in the opposition ranks cannot comprehend this because they concentrate on first line rights, such as those for women and gays. Rural people are a socially conservative lot and so will be outraged by the propagation and promotion of such rights. Prioritising is not to suggest that violation of any constitutional rights should be ignored. Far from it. But for rural people, it’s more of group rights than individual rights because rural life is not as individualistic as urban life.
Zanu PF chauvinistically taps into this “Africana” — African civilisation, African culture vis-a-vis “decadent” Western culture — the way Trump exploited “Americana” as a cover for his racist, misogynistic and xenophobic campaign.
Secondly, this is not to downplay the importance of numbers. Not at all. You cannot dispense with numbers because politics is a ground game, as seen at Clinton’s and Trump’s rallies and their overwhelming share of the vote with the other two candidates hardly getting a mention because they were insignificant players with hardly any followers.
Some critics will say that once leaders depend solely on numbers, stagnation begins to creep in. Well, one raconteur expanded a common saying, going thus: “Money is the root of all evil, but before you say that, make lots of it.” Sure, who doesn’t need money? And which politician doesn’t need numbers to vote for them? Secure the numbers first in order to have the privilege and leverage to call the shots.
In that vein, coalition talks must not be reduced to an ultra-democratic Tower of Babel where there are all Indians and no chiefs, where anyone without any political credentials can be accommodated and humoured.
Some 16 political parties have been reportedly invited to South Africa for coalition talks. Do we have that many functional political parties in Zimbabwe? Positively no. We need some cut-off criteria.
Thirdly, following from the above, coalition negotiations must not become a mere talk shop, where discussions are of a jargon-filled academic nature. They should avoid the paralysis of overanalysis. They must not be reduced to forums where discussion is all that happens and nothing else actually comes out of it.
And there is need to clip the wings of egotists, who constantly talk and, somehow, know more than they should know, and tell everyone around all that they know.
One or two such characters declared some months ago that they would bring, to quote them, “intellectual prowess” to the coalition. As has been proved from their failure to make a political impact, their only product is their vainglorious verbosity and nothing much else.
Fourthly, some of these parties are demanding that they be given a seat at the coalition talks, but have no stomach for a long, arduous political fight. They haven’t evinced that fighting spirit. At times you take the fight to your opponents by confronting them directly. You refuse to blink first. You seize the initiative. If you take the fight to them, then you get to pick where, when, how etc — it’s own your terms. You have to be proactive, not always being reactive through mere media responses. You go on the offensive. If you have no desire or guts to do something difficult and dangerous, then you don’t deserve to be accorded such pride of place at the high table.
The current politics in Zimbabwe is for people, who are made of sterner stuff. Thus, a coalition cannot be a substitute for direct action or activism. Pacifism and activism are not mutually exclusive. You can talk as much as you like, but it’s all nothing without direct action. There can be no separation between means and ends. You can’t call yourself a politician if you are not an activist.
No one is calling for violence or suicide bombers, but we need militant pacifists — people who love peace so much that they are willing to fight for it even on the streets taking all the blows from the brutal partisan police — not mere talkers.
A coalition arrangement without militant pacifism serves no purpose — it might as well not be there.
Conway Nkumbuzo Tutani is a Harare-based columnist. Email: [email protected]
