×
NewsDay

AMH is an independent media house free from political ties or outside influence. We have four newspapers: The Zimbabwe Independent, a business weekly published every Friday, The Standard, a weekly published every Sunday, and Southern and NewsDay, our daily newspapers. Each has an online edition.

Why Zanu PF will emerge stronger

Opinion & Analysis
THE factional fights which had characterised Zanu PF over the past few years had weakened the party and offered opportunities for an opposition victory in the 2018 elections.

THE factional fights which had characterised Zanu PF over the past few years had weakened the party and offered opportunities for an opposition victory in the 2018 elections.

By Moses Tofa

However, the military take-over, former President Robert Mugabe’s resignation, and Emmerson Mnangagwa being readmitted into Zanu PF and taking over the reins of power have suddenly changed the shape and trajectory of Zanu PF. The Zanu PF which will emerge from this process will be a rejuvenated, spirited and united one. Zanu PF is going to participate in the next elections stronger than it would have been under Mugabe’s leadership.

First, for too long, the opposition’s main message was that Mugabe must go. Yes, the opposition talked about the need to remove the entire system, but its focus on Mugabe communicated the message that Mugabe was Zimbabwe’s devil incarnate. When the opposition agreed that Mugabe must go and when it joined the anti-Mugabe marches and other efforts to remove him, it reinforced this message.

The opposition became part of the factional battles in Zanu PF, fighting on the side of Team Lacoste. Unknown to the opposition is that this act of benevolence will not be rewarded by a post-Mugabe Zanu PF. I argue that the moment that Zanu PF started to take steps to remove Mugabe, the opposition should have started to preach the gospel that it is not Mugabe who should go, but the system in its entirety.

This is because this will be the main message of the opposition going forward, but it should have been the main message since 1999. It does not make sense for the opposition to say Mugabe must go and after he is gone, it says Zanu PF must go. It appears to send the message that there is a difference between Mugabe and Zanu PF. The message that Mugabe must go enabled the opposition to mobilise mass support.

But it will now work against it because scores of people are going to believe that the change which the opposition fought for has been completed, whether in whole or in part. They will expect change from a “new Zanu PF”, especially considering the fatigue and frustration which has characterised the opposition’s support base. The current developments will undermine the relevance and efficacy of the unfinished coalition of opposition parties, because of the perception that it was more about Mugabe than it was about Zanu PF.

Second, it is not the opposition but Zanu PF which played a decisive role in the removal of Mugabe. It is undeniable that all Zimbabweans, including those in the Diaspora, contributed to Mugabe’s fall. The historic marches which took place in Zimbabwe and in the Diaspora played a crucial role in removing legitimacy from under Mugabe’s feet. War cannot be won through military superiority alone. It is essentially won in a sea of public support and morale. Even in football, fans play an important role. That people across the political divide contributed to Mugabe’s fall should make it difficult for the army or Zanu PF to monopolise the “new patriotic history”. Monopolisation breeds the politics of entitlement.

However, Zanu PF will distort this history. It will claim that it removed Mugabe without any contribution from other parties. If Zanu PF had the temerity to “hide” the role which was played by the masses and by the late Vice-President Joshua Nkomo and Zapu in the liberation struggle, it will surely “hide” the contribution which was made by the opposition in the fall of Mugabe.

These sentiments have already been expressed by Zanu PF secretary for legal affairs Patrick Chinamasa who claimed that the ruling party needed no support from the opposition to remove Mugabe. However, Mnangagwa’s Press statement indicates that he believes that the removal of Mugabe was not a Zanu PF project, but a people’s project. Going forward, Zanu PF’s legitimacy claim will be two-pronged: its participation in the liberation struggle and its removal of Zimbabwe’s devil incarnate. If it was a soccer match, it will be a 2-0 defeat for the opposition.

Third, Zanu PF will readmit those cadres who were banished by Mugabe. The party is unlikely to experience distracting factional battles in the near future while the main opposition MDC-T is likely to experience factionalism in the battle to succeed leader Morgan Tsvangirai. Zanu PF will be a big tent once again. War veterans who had vowed not to support the party in future elections will certainly reclaim their position in the party. They may not beat opposition supporters as before, but they will have a strongly symbolic role in “defending the revolution”.

People such as former Vice-President Joice Mujuru can no longer be regarded as opposition cadres, if at all they were in the first place. Chances are high that Mujuru will go back to Zanu PF. The strategic moment to do so would be immediately before elections. A Mujuru who goes back to Zanu PF with the knowledge of what’s obtaining in the opposition trenches will be more useful to the party than before. Mugabe has already done the job for Zanu PF in terms of mobilising the youth constituency and efforts will continue in that direction.

Fourth, the Crocodile will rebrand itself. He will be a soft crocodile who can allow people to touch him without doing them harm. There are entrenched perceptions that the Crocodile is the god of evil cards. These are based on his alleged role in Gukurahundi and the perpetration of politically-motivated violence with a view to block the democratic will, especially in 2008. It is in the best interests of the Crocodile to try and prove that these are myths and that Mugabe was responsible for the atrocities.

Mugabe no longer has the ground to defend himself from the claims which could be made by the Crocodile. The best way of making these claims would not be through words, but through a perceptible departure or at least a long detour from the Zanu PF of Mugabe to the Crocodile dispensation. This means that going forward, Zanu PF is unlikely to rely on physical violence, especially considering that the 2013 elections were peaceful. Any use of physical violence will be used to validate the perceptions that the crocodile is the cruelest of all species. An atmosphere of violence is already embedded in the Zimbabwean society and Zanu PF can take advantage of it without using physical violence.

In future elections, Zanu PF is likely to use intimidation, coercion, and patronage. This will give the impression that it was Mugabe who was responsible for violence. Zanu PF will also try to eclipse the Crocodile’s past with the claim that his removal of the devil incarnate is evidence that he is the liberator, that he too abhorred what was happening under Mugabe’s leadership. Scores of frustrated opposition supporters and those who were sitting on the fence are going to warm up to the Crocodile, especially considering that the party will take an inclusive outlook.

Mnangagwa claimed in his Press statement that “in that new Zimbabwe, it is important for everyone to join hands so that we rebuild this nation to its full glory, this is not a job for Zanu PF alone, but for all people of Zimbabwe”.

Fifth, the “new” Zanu PF will try as much as possible to make itself acceptable, not only to the people of Zimbabwe, but to the international community. In his Press statement, Mnangagwa stated that “my desire is to join all Zimbabweans in a new era where corruption, incompetency, dereliction of duty and laziness, social and cultural decadency is not tolerated”. Zanu PF will take a middle of the road drive in which it will try to strike a balance between neo-liberalism and “defending the revolution”.

The inconvenient part of Mugabe’s legacy will be removed while the convenient part will be kept, preserved and deepened. Zanu PF will put efforts to restore the economy and to ensure that the sanctions regime has been lifted. It would want to be seen as a Zanu PF which does not tolerate corruption. Corruption will still take place, but this time, not as openly and shamelessly as it happened under the “old” Zanu PF.

The party will make some superficial reforms, especially in the areas of land and indigenisation. The aim would be to restore investor confidence. It will not reverse the land reform programme because this will conflict the principle of defending the revolution. But it will try to deal with issues of multiple farm ownership and underutilisation of land.

Zanu PF will get more resources while the opposition will forage in the dry lands. All these factors will change attitudes towards Zanu PF, but will not change the electoral playing field in such a way as to allow the conduct of democratic elections. The pain is that going forward, very few will listen to the opposition when it cries “rigged”.

Sixth, given the role which the army played in the removal of Mugabe, it will be at the heart of Zanu PF. It will be the kingmaker and kingpin of Zanu PF. The army would not want to pay the price of removing Mugabe today and have Tsvangirai or any other opposition candidate as the President of Zimbabwe tomorrow.

Zanu PF has the army as surety if “elections go wrong”. To many, the army’s intervention has passed the message that the country can plunge into civil strife if people elect someone who is not supported by the army. This is especially among the rural voters.

I conclude that we should be conscious that the removal of Mugabe in and of itself is not the end of an era. Mugabe is not a person, but an institution. Mugabe the person is gone, but Mugabe the institution will take a long time to go, especially considering that Zanu PF is still in power.

Without radical changes to our institutions, values, and practices, Mugabe the institution will continue to rule over us, this time in other bodies. It takes great and selfless effort to remove Mugabe the institution. The removal of Mugabe the person is just the first step. It is only when we have removed Mugabe the institution that we can begin to talk about the end of an era. But for now, we celebrate Mugabe’s fall, not the end of an era nor the dawn of a new era.