Balancing the Necessity and Reality of Transformative and Regional Politics

Democracy, human rights and regional marginalisation are now at the fore front of Zimbabwean politics. The emergence and formation of more political parties by defecting transformative politicians seems to challenge the authenticity of the current mode of politics. The writer uses the term transformative politicians to refer to those politicians who have been involved one political party then defected for the sake of rebranding themselves.

This article explores the necessity and effectiveness of having many political parties in Zimbabwe. The article will also digs around the new rhetoric articulated by transformative and regional politicians. More specifically it questions the implementation tools and assesses the feasibility of this happening in Zimbabwe.

The author will argue that having many political parties in Zimbabwe is counter effective and the notion of regional marginalisation is being used by instrumental rational actors. Instrumental rational actors are individuals who seek to maximise their utility through a calculated and planned course of action. In other words politicians do this by calculating and planning how they should act by assessing the costs and benefits of different actions.

Multi Party System
"Politics is either a one or two horse race"
The misconception that multiple political parties have the capacity to gain control of government separately in Zimbabwe has been fused with another misconception that the more political parties and pressure groups there are the more democratic the system. In order to dislodge these misconceptions we need to separate facts from conjecture.

Firstly it is important to note that it is in the best interest of any political party to sustain an argument for its existence even if its existence is less progressive.  Secondly it is in the interest of the incumbent to show case examples of democratic activities within the country. The mushrooming of political parties can be used for this purpose. Lastly multiple political parties are likely to be glorified by those who can achieve desired electoral results through splitting votes which is similar to gerrymandering practices. Having said that lets turn to the evidence on multiple political parties.

Evidence shows that not all political parties have the capacity to gain government control separately in Zimbabwe. More over worldwide evidence shows that elections in countries using multi party systems are a one or two horse race. The only chance for smaller parties to get into power is through coalitions. Typically in Zimbabwe it's a two horse race while South Africa is good example of a one horse race. Whatever small political parties say to the electorate in marketing themselves is something else but the reality is that  their influence depends on the ability to gain inside tracking and influence policy and legislation.

Transformative Politics
"Chameleons only change their colour"   
Rebranding or transformative politics dates back to the 1960s when the National Democratic Party was banned and it re-emerged under a new name. In many ways the National Democratic Party (NDP) is the father of Zimbabwean political parties and there is no doubt that political parties have followed NDP's trajectory. Indeed most of the established and successful political parties in Zimbabwe transformed or defected from another established organisation.

Zimbabwe's political pitch is now flooded with many actors jostling to make to the top of the league. Transformative politicians have recently failed to win the hearts and minds of the electorate. Some have argued that the electorate no longer trusted politicians who defected because the saw them as political chameleons. In some cases they have been accused of trying to fool the electorate by setting up false political parties which discreetly work with the one they defected from.

It has become clear that transformative politics on its own is not enough to win the confidence of the voters. This means transformative politics has got to be coupled with something unique which differentiates a political party from other parties by having its own identity. Indeed there are two political parties which seem to have defined themselves in Zimbabwe. There are different from others in that one claims to be the custodian of the nation by giving back land to its people while the other claims to be advocate for change and human rights.

 If other transformative political parties are to make headway they must find something else to give or promise the electorate. Some political parties and pressure groups have made a breakthrough by seizing the 1980s atrocities and regional marginalisation to define their identity.

Regional Politics
"Some do it by conviction and some do it out of opportunism"  
Whilst there is serious need to address the 1980s atrocities and regional marginalisation, the fidelity and motivation of transformative politicians is debatable. In many ways Zimbabweans have heard the rhetoric by the politicians. I deliberately use the word rethoric because the public has been told half of the story about the intentions of the politicians.

Although they have spelled out what they intend to do, they have failed disclose how they are going to do it. What's more is that they have focussed their attention on borrowing policies from other countries and playing a moral justification card which suggests that  this might be more about sensitising and persuading the public.

Three points have got to untangled here, firstly just because a policy is successful in another country does not mean it will successful in every country. Secondly the compatibility and incompatibility of an adopted policy either comes with positive or negative consequences and lastly the process of transferring and implementing a policy has got to take into account the legal parameters of the adopting country.

Regional politics is planned and calculated in that it seeks to secure the positions of politicians and afford them with many excuses which enable them hold on to their positions. For example regional politicians and political parties could argue that their failures are due to their inability to influence legislation and getting their issues on the national agenda. It is important to note that the bigger risk remains with the electorate in that after supporting and propping up regional politicians and political parties they will not deliver.

Implementation
"if you fail to plan you plan to fail"
Zimbabweans have broadly shown a greater understanding of factual politics and the problems facing their country but politics in Zimbabwe remains stagnant and less progressive. There is nothing new about the way politicians are using the 1980s atrocities and regional marginalisation, it's very much similar to the way the land issue was used.

The land redistribution process was long overdue. However land was only thrown at the people to rescue politicians who were losing their grip on power. Many Zimbabwean supported the process but disagreed with the way it was done. Typically there is urgent need to deal with the 1980s atrocities and regional marginalisation but it seems politicians don't a clear strategy of how this is going to be done. The current rhetoric seems to suggest that 1980s atrocities and regional marginalisation are likely to be dealt with in the same manner as the land issue.

In conclusion the emergence of many political parties has not changed the politics of Zimbabwe. Evidence still shows that it's still a two horse race and the oldest political party in government seems to be not feeling the pressure of the existence of these parties. In fact the biggest danger to the oldest governing party seems to be itself and the impact of nature on its leader. Despite this danger the oldest governing party's culture seems to have permeated its rivals. Typically the biggest rival has been accused by some of transformation while regional political parties are using the tactics used on the land issue by the oldest governing party. In many ways this is not about people it's about politicians being rational actors. Indeed politicians have calculated and planned how they should play their game.

--------------------
Farai Chikowore: is a Local Governance Reader who graduated in Strategic Public Management (MSc) and in Public Policy Government and Management (BA, Honours) at De Montfort University. He likes to evaluate the contribution of political discourse to peoples understanding of policies and governance. He also likes to analyse how institutional rules privilege or constrain different political and social spaces. Farai's articles seek articulate issues around institutional design, governance and politics. His speciality is in: Partnership Working, Local government, Local governance, Democratic renewal, Policy process and Strategic Management. Farai can be contacted at chikoworefarai@gmail.com