What’s a coalition without tactical intelligence?

By The NewsDay | Mar. 17, 2017 | 5 Min read

IT’S auspicious that reality is beginning to dawn on some figures in the opposition ranks that, in the face of an unyielding brutal regime, they are in the same boat and they don’t have to take out their frustrations on each other. There could also be emerging that maturity that they don’t have to like each other to work together.

echoes: CONWAY TUTANI

Last year, People’s Democratic Party (PDP) leader Tendai Biti said: “Indeed, our cry for change remains entrapped in the culpable (not capable) hands of a half-thinking blighted cacophony of men and women who are yet to realise the urgency and (imperativeness) of convergence.”

It’s obvious Biti did not include himself among those “half-thinking” people because, also last year, he described his party as made up of “thought leaders” to differentiate PDP from other opposition parties in a thinly-veiled attack on MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai. This was as personal and as scathing as it could get, poisoning the atmosphere for engendering that absolutely necessary convergence.

This week, Biti was singing a completely different tune, saying: “There is no issue between me and Tsvangirai. There are no differences at all. This is beyond personalities. Everyone must be there, as it is time to say no to Zanu PF.”

No, no, Biti, there have been issues and differences between you and Tsvangirai that you cannot now sweep under the carpet because these are in the public domain. What’s important is your acknowledgement that the current situation in Zimbabwe “is beyond personalities”.

You are not the best of friends with Tsvangirai, but you have to work together. That’s the bigger picture. It’s this newfound focus that will make the entrenched Zanu PF system removable, not continually getting in each other’s way.

Now, there is talk of a so-called “third force” that is said to be “unhappy with the calibre of the (current) opposition leaders and could spring a surprise before the 2018 general election”.

Keep Reading

Firstly, let’s not justify the third force on wrong premises altogether such as building it on the presupposition that the current opposition has failed in free and fair elections, whereas the whole world knows that Zanu PF, by nature, kills — it killed over 200 opposition supporters in 2008.

A leader of any calibre — whether the highest or lowest — won’t win against Zanu PF as things stand. Unless this “third force” is saying it is prepared to go toe-to-toe with Zanu PF in violence and embark on another armed struggle, it has nothing new to offer. The criticism of the current opposition is built on a complete misdiagnosis as it ignores the true complexities of the prevailing situation. It’s a fact that the opposition has won at least two elections — in 2002 and 2008 — despite rigging and intimidation. In the circumstances, the opposition has done extremely well.

Secondly, to refer to themselves as a third force in the circumstances is a misnomer. A third force is defined as “a political group acting as check on conflict between two extreme groups”.

Well, in Zimbabwe there is only one known extreme group — Zanu PF — obviating or ruling out the necessity for a third force at this juncture.

There is no raison d’etre for it, there is no justification for that if we stick to the definition and meaning of “third force” as a counterbalancing and neutralising force between opposing sides of equal strength, wrongly implying give-and-take when Zanu PF holds all the cards. It’s the one refusing to align laws with the Constitution.

It is the only one extreme, domineering and violent party which needs to be checked — Zanu PF — while all the others have been at the receiving end of its repression and corruption.

The Arthur Mutambara-led MDC tried to posture itself as a third force of sorts between Zanu PF and MDC-T when Mutambara was Deputy Prime Minister in the Government of National Unity (GNU) between 2009 and 2013, when it was clear in the minds of most people that it was Zanu PF which had to be restrained, not the MDC-T. This could have led to the MDC’s electoral massacre in the 2013 election, as Mutambara ended up sounding more and more like a Zanu PF spokesperson.

In the same vein of posturing as a moderating force, the MDC projected itself as a stickler for the Global Political Agreement, which brought about the GNU, when it pointed out to the MDC-T that it was a power-sharing, not power-transfer, arrangement. This textualism — strict adherence to text — can be a fatal flaw in politics. We don’t have to be so scholarly as to be unaware or out of touch with reality on the ground that those who dare to press home an advantage can win.

This is called tactical intelligence, not to strictly go by the book. Michael Ignatieff, in his book Fire and Ashes (2013), suggests a certain incompatibility between politics “as theory” and politics “as practice”, as this largely or effectively ensures that successful academics — or political theorists specifically — rarely make successful politicians. Machiavelli, Alexander de Tocqueville etc wrote extensively and convincingly on the theory and nature of politics, but their entry into the political arena ended in failure or dissatisfaction.

“Why theoretical acumen is so frequently combined with political failure,” writes Ignatieff, “throws light on what is distinctive about a talent for politics. The candour, rigour, willingness to follow a thought wherever it leads, the penetrating search for originality — all these are virtues in theoretical pursuits, but active liabilities in (practical) politics, where discretion and dissimulation are essential for success. This would suggest that these theorists failed because they couldn’t keep their mouths shut when flattery or partisan discipline required it of them.”

I know some people — including myself — won’t like to hear it, but I will say it: Was MDC legal secretary David Coltart’s “candour” in his book that the MDC-T was allegedly training fighters outside the country the best thing to do? Didn’t it require “partisan discipline”?

Continues Ignalieff: “Equally, theorists may have lacked those supreme virtues that separate successful politicians from failures: Adaptability, cunning, rapid-fire recognition of Fortuna.”

We have rarely seen any cunningness in the opposition — maybe with the exception of the MDC-T now and then — whereas this is an essential requirement in dealing with the slippery, ferocious and vicious adversary that Zanu PF notoriously is. There is need to test the boundaries or limits, and not be legalistic or moralistic because the force we are dealing with has no legal or moral compass. There is need to bamboozle the regime. It can equally be tricked into something. Trickery is not its monopoly.

So, as the coalition begins to take shape, it’s time to go for political basics like tactical intelligence to avoid the “great scholar-poor politician” syndrome (as political science professor Matthew Flinders puts it), which has dogged and stalled the opposition.

Conway Nkumbuzo Tutani is a Harare-based columnist. Email: [email protected]