Tsvangirai now resisting change

Elton Mangoma, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC-T) deputy treasurer-general, has stirred up an hornet's nest indeed.His letter to MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai calling on him to consider stepping down to pave way for leadership renewal has ruffled some feathers. Using the law of diminishing returns, Mangoma argued that Tsvangirai's continued stay at the helm of the MDC-T "will result in diminishing returns and eating into your legacy".

The law of diminishing returns is an economic concept which states that if one factor of production is increased while other factors are held constant, the output per unit of the variable factor will eventually diminish.

In other words, Mangoma is arguing that more of Tsvangirai while other factors remain constant would result in negative returns, thereby justifying his call for the MDC-T leader to step aside.

But, more importantly, Mangoma's letter gives more insight into the goings-on at Harvest House. For a decade, the MDC-T has positioned itself as a formidable fortress, both internally and externally, and strong enough to fend off any attacks from enemies.

However, Mangoma's letter affords outsiders with a glimpse of a side of the party, which the world had not really known. Whether Mangoma has the democratic right to confront Tsvangirai or whether he was right or wrong in his approach are issues that have been discussed extensively since his letter was leaked to the media.

He highlights some issues key to the survival of the MDC-T. He points out the following: that the party is in a crisis; that the blame-game is rife in the party; that the party is in a state of confusion; that the crisis of leadership and that of confidence with the leadership in the party is declining. In short, Mangoma is saying "party yaora" (the core of the party is rotting).

What is critical in Mangoma's missive is the admission that indeed the MDC-T is in a crisis. Mangoma said his views were meant to build the MDC-T and its leadership for it to remain relevant on the Zimbabwean "menu of politics" and for the party to be able to challenge for highest political office in the next election.

He said his views were a genuine well-thought out expression of his desire to see a strong MDC-T emerging out of the "incumbent crisis".

Mangoma believes that the electoral loss of catastrophic proportions in the 2013 polls escalated the crises in the party, highlighting that the MDC-T was suffering from a crisis of leadership, crisis of expectation and above all a crisis of confidence, externally and internally. ccording to Mangoma, the manner in which councillors voted during the election of mayors is manifest of the crisis of leadership and the crisis of legitimacy engrossing the party.

Mangoma must be applauded for giving the people, the MDC-T supporters and external stakeholders a rare window into the fortress. Whether it was noble for Mangoma to expose the weaknesses of the party is irrelevant. His assessment of the MDC-T provides progressive forces with a starting point in a process of introspection, which is critical if the party is to remain relevant. This is an admission of epic proportions. For a decade, the MDC-T has appeared well-coordinated and well-oiled. However, it is high time the party confronts those issues they do not want to hear about which are, however, causing "diminishing returns". After all the diminishing returns are there for all to see.

Mangoma encourages the MDC-T leadership to be responsible and shoulder some blame for allowing the alleged fraud of the July 31, 2013 election to take place. In many circles, the MDC-T has argued that it did not lose last year's election in which Zanu-PF won two thirds majority. The party has blamed rigging as the reason for the electoral fraud.

But here, Mangoma makes it plain that the leadership of the MDC-T slept on duty and allowed the theft.

Questions that would then be asked would be; how did the MDC-T leadership "allow" the grand theft? Was the MDC-T leadership, as a group, complicit? Or were there some among the MDC-T leadership who allowed the theft? Why is the entire leadership of the MDC-T not offering to step aside to allow the so-called renewal? What guarantee do the MDC-T supporters and stakeholders have that the same leadership, if they stay on, would not "allow" another electoral theft going forward?

These issues are critical for the party to make an assessment of itself before blindly claiming false unity. Is the MDC-T not morphing into Zanu-PF by keeping the status quo despite the "electoral loss of catastrophic proportions," as Mangoma puts it?

Many MDC-T activists have lost life and limb fighting for democratic change, which essentially means a change of manpower in government. Is Tsvangirai not taking after President Robert Mugabe; stay on no matter the results of your leadership? Is quashing debate on leadership renewal in the MDC-T any different from the quashing of the same debate in Zanu-PF?

Zimbabwe is one country where the leadership, be they in business or politics, refuse to accept blame. Blame apportioning forms the leadership's DNA; it has become part of the system.

Granted, there were irregularities in the July 31 election, but what did the MDC-T leadership not do that could have minimised or curtailed the damage? Still, until now, the MDC-T leadership would not accept their failure to stop the rot.

The reactions by the MDC-T supporters, some of whom have done worse things than Mangoma, reflect a party in a state of confusion.

Instead of engaging in robust debate around the issues raised by Mangoma, insults and verbal abuse on why the deputy treasurer called on Tsvangirai to step down permeate debate.  A party in a state of confusion would not allow debate because nobody leads the way and therefore no one controls debate gamut. Mangoma said in his letter that the aftermath of the election has been a state of confusion, consternation and apprehension on the part of the movement.

Some of this confusion is demonstrated by the reactions to his letter.

A dangerous culture is being promoted in the MDC-T; that of attacking any opposition to Tsvangirai and voices of dissent.

Why is the democratic struggle tied to Tsvangirai's presidency of the MDC-T? Is this not creating a demi-god out of Tsvangirai? Granted, Tsvangirai has made immense contribution as a fighter for democracy but he is not the only one. Even Mangoma acknowledges Tsvangirai's contribution to the democratic struggle but tying the whole struggle to an individual is myopic. It is a state of confusion that Mangoma seeks to clear.

Mangoma's "unbending resolve" is that leadership renewal could be the only avenue to restoring the credibility of the party. What Mangoma does not tell us is to what extent should the leadership cleansing go? If, for instance, Tsvangirai only were to resign, would we call this leadership renewal?

The other thing is whether Mangoma's letter represents his thoughts as an individual. That party vice president Thokozani Khupe and secretary general Tendai Biti accompanied Mangoma to present his exposition to Tsvangirai adds mystery to the whole debate. What is Khupe and Biti's involvement and contribution? What is their position on the matter? Could this be a case where Mangoma is playing the ball for another super-sub?

The deputy treasurer makes a very critical analysis; that confidence in the party, externally and internally is waning. Political parties are entrenched in the fabric of society and when confidence in political parties is compromised, the whole democratic process suffers.

If the MDC-T is to remain relevant, there is need for these and other questions to be discussed and answered in detail without which the party could be a moving silhouette of its former self.