News / National
'Zanu-PF infighting good for opposition parties'
05 Dec 2013 at 03:46hrs | Views
INTERNECINE infighting in Zanu-PF could provide opposition parties in Zimbabwe with an opportunity to organise and reach out to disgruntled members within the ruling party, representatives of the opposition parties said this week.
In the past month, Zanu-PF has struggled to hold its provincial elections due to factional fighting which resulted in all but three provincial elections being postponed repeatedly before finally being held on Saturday.
Of the three provinces that managed to hold elections - Manicaland, Midlands and Mashonaland Central - results were being disputed.
Simba Makoni, president of Mavambo/Kusile/Dawn party, said despite Zanu-PF's resounding victory in the July 31 elections, the party was currently at its weakest.
"The internal struggles within Zanu-PF can actually help those democratic forces who are fighting for the people. A combination of the democratic forces on the outside and the party's internal contradictions can help strengthen the momentum for change," he said.
"Even though our causes as the opposition and those of the disgruntled within Zanu-PF are different, we can join hands and unite against those oppressing the will of the people."
Makoni believes one grand coalition against Zanu-PF could still be formed to provide a formidable opposition to President Robert Mugabe's party.
"All those who want to see genuine change in our country must accept the need for working together. And this is a good time to do that," he said.
The main opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC-T), has failed three times to topple the revolutionary party from power.
Besides rigging allegations, one of the unfair advantages the ruling party has had over opposition is its control of the state apparatus used to thwart and frustrate attempts by rival parties, activists, the independent media and other voices or entities clamouring for change.
Political commentator, Kuthula Matshazi, a Zimbabwean based in Canada believes Zanu-PF is still in power because people identify with it.
"Generally, political parties win support by appealing to voters. By its very nature, a revolutionary party embodies the aspirations of the majority and that is why it is difficult to dislodge as opposed to suggestions that they remain in power by controlling the state apparatus. If that were the case, Smith would not have been defeated, or Zanu-PF would not have been defeated in the March 2008 elections," Matshazi said.
"A majority of Zimbabweans still identify with Zanu-PF because they believe the revolutionary party fulfills their wishes. This is the soft power that keeps Zanu-PF in power."
But Obert Gutu, a provincial spokesperson of the MDC-T party believes it is not that people want Zanu-PF but that the ruling party has effectively made use of state apparatus to strengthen its hold on power.
Writing on his Facebook wall, Gutu says, "Elections are not going to be won simply because we are popular and also because the majority of voters support us. This is a very serious game of political power dynamics and believe (me) Zanu-PF will not lose the ordinary conventional harmonised elections. They will invariably continue to manipulate, inter alia, the national voters' roll, the state controlled print media as well as the traditional leaders and other opinion leaders to ensure they 'win' the election."
Gutu advocates for soft power.
"If no serious investment is deployed in soft power development, 2018 will come and once again we will 'lose' the elections," Gutu said.
Within the context of public diplomacy in general and the realist school of thought in particular, hard power is linked to the possession or manipulation of certain tangible resources including population, territory, natural resources, economic and military strength.
While hard power describes a nation or political body's ability to use, for example, economic incentives or military strength to influence others' actions; soft power, on the other hand, is a key element of leadership which uses the power to attract, to engage and get others to want what you want, to frame the issues or to set the agenda.
According to Harvard University's Working Knowledge publication, soft power has its roots in years of human experience.
Skilful leaders have always understood that power attractiveness stems from credibility and legitimacy.
Power has never flowed solely from the barrel of a gun; even the most brutal dictators have relied on attraction as well as fear, experts say.
While soft power has been touted by many a scholar and international diplomats as the way to go, there are instances where it has failed.
In 2004, Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Professor of International Relations at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, noted that the United States' soft power - its ability to attract others by the legitimacy of US policies and the values that underlie them - was in decline.
According to Gallup International polls, at the time (2004) 29 countries said that Washington's policies had had a negative effect on their view of the US.
A Euro barometer poll found that a majority of Europeans believed that Washington had hindered efforts to fight global poverty, protect the environment, and maintain peace.
Such attitudes undercut soft power, reducing the ability of the US to achieve its goals without resorting to coercion or payment.
But Gutu insists, "Soft power is the buzzword in political and international relations. Organisations that fail to purposefully invest in the development of soft power invariably wither away and are overtaken by events before eventually collapsing into oblivion. Hard power has somehow become rather backward, unfashionable and retrogressive…Globally, crucial elections are no longer won through the use of mass rallies or public meetings but increasingly they are being won through the sustainable use of soft power and its associated tools," Gutu said.
Although he acknowledges engagement and collaboration as critical in the country's current political climate, Makoni scoffs at the possible application of soft power on President Mugabe and his associates.
"If you look at any of them from President Mugabe and the rest of them, which one of them do you think you could effectively engage with? None of them," Makoni believes.
In the past month, Zanu-PF has struggled to hold its provincial elections due to factional fighting which resulted in all but three provincial elections being postponed repeatedly before finally being held on Saturday.
Of the three provinces that managed to hold elections - Manicaland, Midlands and Mashonaland Central - results were being disputed.
Simba Makoni, president of Mavambo/Kusile/Dawn party, said despite Zanu-PF's resounding victory in the July 31 elections, the party was currently at its weakest.
"The internal struggles within Zanu-PF can actually help those democratic forces who are fighting for the people. A combination of the democratic forces on the outside and the party's internal contradictions can help strengthen the momentum for change," he said.
"Even though our causes as the opposition and those of the disgruntled within Zanu-PF are different, we can join hands and unite against those oppressing the will of the people."
Makoni believes one grand coalition against Zanu-PF could still be formed to provide a formidable opposition to President Robert Mugabe's party.
"All those who want to see genuine change in our country must accept the need for working together. And this is a good time to do that," he said.
The main opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC-T), has failed three times to topple the revolutionary party from power.
Besides rigging allegations, one of the unfair advantages the ruling party has had over opposition is its control of the state apparatus used to thwart and frustrate attempts by rival parties, activists, the independent media and other voices or entities clamouring for change.
Political commentator, Kuthula Matshazi, a Zimbabwean based in Canada believes Zanu-PF is still in power because people identify with it.
"Generally, political parties win support by appealing to voters. By its very nature, a revolutionary party embodies the aspirations of the majority and that is why it is difficult to dislodge as opposed to suggestions that they remain in power by controlling the state apparatus. If that were the case, Smith would not have been defeated, or Zanu-PF would not have been defeated in the March 2008 elections," Matshazi said.
"A majority of Zimbabweans still identify with Zanu-PF because they believe the revolutionary party fulfills their wishes. This is the soft power that keeps Zanu-PF in power."
But Obert Gutu, a provincial spokesperson of the MDC-T party believes it is not that people want Zanu-PF but that the ruling party has effectively made use of state apparatus to strengthen its hold on power.
Writing on his Facebook wall, Gutu says, "Elections are not going to be won simply because we are popular and also because the majority of voters support us. This is a very serious game of political power dynamics and believe (me) Zanu-PF will not lose the ordinary conventional harmonised elections. They will invariably continue to manipulate, inter alia, the national voters' roll, the state controlled print media as well as the traditional leaders and other opinion leaders to ensure they 'win' the election."
Gutu advocates for soft power.
"If no serious investment is deployed in soft power development, 2018 will come and once again we will 'lose' the elections," Gutu said.
Within the context of public diplomacy in general and the realist school of thought in particular, hard power is linked to the possession or manipulation of certain tangible resources including population, territory, natural resources, economic and military strength.
While hard power describes a nation or political body's ability to use, for example, economic incentives or military strength to influence others' actions; soft power, on the other hand, is a key element of leadership which uses the power to attract, to engage and get others to want what you want, to frame the issues or to set the agenda.
According to Harvard University's Working Knowledge publication, soft power has its roots in years of human experience.
Skilful leaders have always understood that power attractiveness stems from credibility and legitimacy.
Power has never flowed solely from the barrel of a gun; even the most brutal dictators have relied on attraction as well as fear, experts say.
While soft power has been touted by many a scholar and international diplomats as the way to go, there are instances where it has failed.
In 2004, Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Professor of International Relations at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, noted that the United States' soft power - its ability to attract others by the legitimacy of US policies and the values that underlie them - was in decline.
According to Gallup International polls, at the time (2004) 29 countries said that Washington's policies had had a negative effect on their view of the US.
A Euro barometer poll found that a majority of Europeans believed that Washington had hindered efforts to fight global poverty, protect the environment, and maintain peace.
Such attitudes undercut soft power, reducing the ability of the US to achieve its goals without resorting to coercion or payment.
But Gutu insists, "Soft power is the buzzword in political and international relations. Organisations that fail to purposefully invest in the development of soft power invariably wither away and are overtaken by events before eventually collapsing into oblivion. Hard power has somehow become rather backward, unfashionable and retrogressive…Globally, crucial elections are no longer won through the use of mass rallies or public meetings but increasingly they are being won through the sustainable use of soft power and its associated tools," Gutu said.
Although he acknowledges engagement and collaboration as critical in the country's current political climate, Makoni scoffs at the possible application of soft power on President Mugabe and his associates.
"If you look at any of them from President Mugabe and the rest of them, which one of them do you think you could effectively engage with? None of them," Makoni believes.
Source - fingaz
