Opinion / Columnist
The Tsvangirai demo: Unpacking the work of detractors during the count-down to Independence Day
17 Apr 2016 at 22:39hrs | Views
When war-veterans had a demonstration in February the government was quick to give them attention. Why did the war-veterans get such preferential treatment? One may argue that the war-veterans are ZANU-PF's ideological and hegemonic assets. As a result the party had the mandate to heed to the demands of the war-veterans. In Machiavellian terms that was a good move towards ZANU-PF's internal power consolidation. The war-veterans' demonstration had a fair advantage compared to opposition leader Tsvangirai's demonstration aimed at giving a mirage to Zimbabweans and the international community that he still has control over the electorate. The war-veterans had demands clear enough to command President Mugabe's intervention, as such their demonstration conceived transformative-dialogue. It is always known that when the opposition embarks on pseudo revolutionary moves the idea is to attract funding and not serving the needs of the masses. However, it is the same mobilised masses who are used to substantiate the magnitude of the regime change work which always suffers electoral failure. Private and foreign media has been on the fore of publicizing the demonstration because Tsvangirai receives his mandate from his sponsors with access to such public-sphere outlets. The demonstration has since received limited attention at home where it should be the centre of high political debate. Except for social media posts and private press releases, it is as if nothing happened. The state is not moved at all and had it been shaken there would be moves to engage Tsvangirai. In other words, the demonstration was not intended for ZANU-PF since it did not force the party into a space of compromise. It is clear that from here its 'money in the bank' for Tsvangirai and not transformative-dialogue at home which is the centre of the crisis Tsvangirai's party has claimed to tackle for the past decade.
What demonstration for whose interests?
Again, it is not like Tsvangirai expected to get significant attention from the state and the nation at large, because this is not the first time he is clamouring the "Mugabe must go" funding rhetoric. In the back of his mind he is aware that Zimbabweans are worn-out of that same old slogan which he has failed to transform into practical reality considering the millions invested by the West for that project. I am not wholly concluding that the demonstration has gone unseen, but my contention is that it has not addressed the key economic challenges facing the nation as envisioned in its projections. The demonstration makes more sense to regime change assessors than it does to the masses who catalyzed the process yesterday. Again, the demonstration was not driven by noble ideas of engaging the government of Zimbabwe. Rather the demonstration was staged to attract the fading attention of the donor community that has financed Tsvangirai's luxurious life-style under his pretentious whims of vindicating the masses from the wrath of Mugabe's sadistic rule. The demonstration led by Tsvangirai was nothing, but a "keeping-up appearances" type of event. In other terms, the demonstration can be befittingly summarised as a 'political gala' organised by Tsvangirai. Zimbabweans do not want that, Zimbabweans want political opposition that is vibrant enough to bring change; Tsvangirai has failed to do that since MDC was formed. However, the main point here is that the April 14 protest against Mugabe's regime will not be given attention at home because it is not meant for the people of Zimbabwe, but the financers of Tsvangirai's projects. Locally, it will only make sense to those with a less critical appreciation of Zimbabwe's current political situation. The demonstration, here termed the MDC gala was for Western spectators and the masses used in that theatrical practice served as a good complimenting cast for the script written by Tsvangirai the good political playwright.
Political gatherings and multitudes blurring scientific understanding of political trends
The outcome of the demonstrations by war-veterans was the indaba which was called by President Mugabe on the 7th of April. The indaba was attended by 10-000 instead of the intended 35-000 delegates. The sad irony of the much emphasised Tsvangirai's demonstration only had a fraction of the delegates who assembled for the 7th of April's indaba. What emerges from this fact is that the mentioned 10-000 only constitute a fraction of ZANU-PF's support base. The war-veterans only constitute a constituency which is a fragment of ZANU-PF's electorate. The war veterans do not symbolize the entirety of ZANU-PF's support base as epitomised by the MDC protesters drawn from varying sectors of the opposition party. Moreover, the multitudes that conveyed at the National Heroes Acre a few days ago for the double burial of Mai Chitepo and Cde Mwashita further substantiate that ZANU-PF also has its multitudes. This assertion is buttressed by the opposition's association of national rituals and shrines to ZANU-PF and its patronage interests. This makes it political childish for MDC-T to be highly appraised for mobilizing the approximated 3-000 demonstrators in a country with such a population magnitude. Worse-off in a country that is portrayed by private and foreign media as highly populated by citizens supporting anti-government political initiatives mainly led Tsvangirai the brains behind the demonstration under analysis here. In 2013, ZANU-PF had a massive rally at the White-City stadium in Bulawayo and the election results in favour of the party were not massive as anticipated through the hopes raised from rally congregants. It is not empirically sensible to think that people who attend these partisan crowd pulling forums will be a reflection of ballot outcomes in 2018 for any political party. Zimbabwe's election culture is fatigued though in favour of ZANU-PF's well-grounded ideological standing. Today as Zimbabwe turns 36 it is important for opposition leaders to be reminded that the masses are far too conscious about political manipulation. The people of Zimbabwe are aware of how much the West and its agents are willing to use numbers through the ballot so that coloniality is reversed.
Demonstrations as a media for transformative dialogue
History is awash with examples of the role played by public protests in challenging the status-quo. This dates back to the civil protests of the days of Martin Luther, Nkrumah. Even those led by the ANC in apartheid South-Africa and colonial Zimbabwe. These provided opportunity for the protesters and those held accountable for public disgruntlement to map the way forward for change. However, some demonstrations have failed to meet such benchmarks of promoting change as such they have vanished with history as 'events' than they served their expected intention as tools for what I choose to call "transformative dialogue". Demonstrations must create space for transformative-dialogue between the protesters and those accused of giving justifications for particular protests. Political protests must not be events like the just ended political gala misnamed as a 'demonstration' by a man perceived as a formidable opposition leader. Had the demonstration provoked transformative-dialogue, ZANU-PF must be on its knees right now begging to come to terms with MDC's demands. It's sad this did not happen at all as it ought to have happened. Instead the demonstration has worked well in convincing the world the naked lie that Tsvangirai has it all in terms of popular support.
Tsvangirai's just ended gala failed to pave way for transformative dialogue which could have benefited the populace of Zimbabwe if he was genuine in his demands. It was just an event, a moment for Tsvangirai to leave the comfort of his Western funded luxury to rehearse empathy for the "suffering masses" under ZANU-PF rule. This yardstick for measuring the role of protests in championing transformative-dialogue qualifies the view that the demonstration by war-veterans was successful as it yield the expected end-result of transformative-dialogue in the form of the indaba that was held on the 7th. The indaba reminded Zimbabwe and her detractors that unity is the binding denominator of this country won through a war in 1980. Basically, demonstrations are an attempt to create transformative-dialogue at all costs, but if the demands of the demonstrators were not met that means the process of mobilizing people into the streets by was "a much ado about nothing" event. The demonstration could not stop Zimbabweans from celebrating their independence as expected. The MDC gala has failed to suppress the independence-day celebrations momentum. It was in only 2008 when Tsvangirai could lead a demonstration that could win his interests from ZANU-PF and not now. He is now a political novice. The recent demonstration is nothing more than a joke considering its mandate, chiefly its call for the ouster of a leader who was elected by a majority in 2013. The main demand of the demonstration to unseat President Mugabe as indicated by several press houses home and abroad does not make sense in democracy and political realist terms.
However, Tsvangirai must be wise enough to comprehend the deeper political scheming motive behind the freedom granted to his MDC formation to hold these demonstrations. The opportunity given to him by the courts on behalf of Zimbabwe for him to openly give his demands to the state disqualifies his claims about suppressed freedom of expression in Zimbabwe. This must awaken some members of the international community financing his party to realize that there is need to fund other progressive initiatives since displacing ZANU-PF through Tsvangirai has failed. However, the demonstration may do him well in attracting donor funding ahead of 2018 from die-hard anti-Mugabe initiatives since he has proved that he has a better crowds than his other counterparts in Zimbabwe's opposition politics. On the other hand, ZANU-PF can now bank on the nod it gave MDC to hold the demonstrations as a precedent of portraying itself as a party tolerant of democracy rituals like the just ended gala led by Tsvangirai though its agenda of disrupting the Uhuru fever is known. It was well packaged, but it cannot defeat the spirit of Independence Day celebrations. This is a warning from the martyrs of the liberation struggle that the West can give much material finance to the opposition but it cannot transform ideologies watered by the blood of the sons and daughters of the soil.
Richard Runyararo Mahomva is an independent academic researcher, Founder of Leaders for Africa Network - LAN. Convener of the Back to Pan-Africanism Conference and the Reading Pan-Africa Symposium (REPS) and can be contacted on rasmkhonto@gmail.com
What demonstration for whose interests?
Again, it is not like Tsvangirai expected to get significant attention from the state and the nation at large, because this is not the first time he is clamouring the "Mugabe must go" funding rhetoric. In the back of his mind he is aware that Zimbabweans are worn-out of that same old slogan which he has failed to transform into practical reality considering the millions invested by the West for that project. I am not wholly concluding that the demonstration has gone unseen, but my contention is that it has not addressed the key economic challenges facing the nation as envisioned in its projections. The demonstration makes more sense to regime change assessors than it does to the masses who catalyzed the process yesterday. Again, the demonstration was not driven by noble ideas of engaging the government of Zimbabwe. Rather the demonstration was staged to attract the fading attention of the donor community that has financed Tsvangirai's luxurious life-style under his pretentious whims of vindicating the masses from the wrath of Mugabe's sadistic rule. The demonstration led by Tsvangirai was nothing, but a "keeping-up appearances" type of event. In other terms, the demonstration can be befittingly summarised as a 'political gala' organised by Tsvangirai. Zimbabweans do not want that, Zimbabweans want political opposition that is vibrant enough to bring change; Tsvangirai has failed to do that since MDC was formed. However, the main point here is that the April 14 protest against Mugabe's regime will not be given attention at home because it is not meant for the people of Zimbabwe, but the financers of Tsvangirai's projects. Locally, it will only make sense to those with a less critical appreciation of Zimbabwe's current political situation. The demonstration, here termed the MDC gala was for Western spectators and the masses used in that theatrical practice served as a good complimenting cast for the script written by Tsvangirai the good political playwright.
Political gatherings and multitudes blurring scientific understanding of political trends
The outcome of the demonstrations by war-veterans was the indaba which was called by President Mugabe on the 7th of April. The indaba was attended by 10-000 instead of the intended 35-000 delegates. The sad irony of the much emphasised Tsvangirai's demonstration only had a fraction of the delegates who assembled for the 7th of April's indaba. What emerges from this fact is that the mentioned 10-000 only constitute a fraction of ZANU-PF's support base. The war-veterans only constitute a constituency which is a fragment of ZANU-PF's electorate. The war veterans do not symbolize the entirety of ZANU-PF's support base as epitomised by the MDC protesters drawn from varying sectors of the opposition party. Moreover, the multitudes that conveyed at the National Heroes Acre a few days ago for the double burial of Mai Chitepo and Cde Mwashita further substantiate that ZANU-PF also has its multitudes. This assertion is buttressed by the opposition's association of national rituals and shrines to ZANU-PF and its patronage interests. This makes it political childish for MDC-T to be highly appraised for mobilizing the approximated 3-000 demonstrators in a country with such a population magnitude. Worse-off in a country that is portrayed by private and foreign media as highly populated by citizens supporting anti-government political initiatives mainly led Tsvangirai the brains behind the demonstration under analysis here. In 2013, ZANU-PF had a massive rally at the White-City stadium in Bulawayo and the election results in favour of the party were not massive as anticipated through the hopes raised from rally congregants. It is not empirically sensible to think that people who attend these partisan crowd pulling forums will be a reflection of ballot outcomes in 2018 for any political party. Zimbabwe's election culture is fatigued though in favour of ZANU-PF's well-grounded ideological standing. Today as Zimbabwe turns 36 it is important for opposition leaders to be reminded that the masses are far too conscious about political manipulation. The people of Zimbabwe are aware of how much the West and its agents are willing to use numbers through the ballot so that coloniality is reversed.
Demonstrations as a media for transformative dialogue
History is awash with examples of the role played by public protests in challenging the status-quo. This dates back to the civil protests of the days of Martin Luther, Nkrumah. Even those led by the ANC in apartheid South-Africa and colonial Zimbabwe. These provided opportunity for the protesters and those held accountable for public disgruntlement to map the way forward for change. However, some demonstrations have failed to meet such benchmarks of promoting change as such they have vanished with history as 'events' than they served their expected intention as tools for what I choose to call "transformative dialogue". Demonstrations must create space for transformative-dialogue between the protesters and those accused of giving justifications for particular protests. Political protests must not be events like the just ended political gala misnamed as a 'demonstration' by a man perceived as a formidable opposition leader. Had the demonstration provoked transformative-dialogue, ZANU-PF must be on its knees right now begging to come to terms with MDC's demands. It's sad this did not happen at all as it ought to have happened. Instead the demonstration has worked well in convincing the world the naked lie that Tsvangirai has it all in terms of popular support.
Tsvangirai's just ended gala failed to pave way for transformative dialogue which could have benefited the populace of Zimbabwe if he was genuine in his demands. It was just an event, a moment for Tsvangirai to leave the comfort of his Western funded luxury to rehearse empathy for the "suffering masses" under ZANU-PF rule. This yardstick for measuring the role of protests in championing transformative-dialogue qualifies the view that the demonstration by war-veterans was successful as it yield the expected end-result of transformative-dialogue in the form of the indaba that was held on the 7th. The indaba reminded Zimbabwe and her detractors that unity is the binding denominator of this country won through a war in 1980. Basically, demonstrations are an attempt to create transformative-dialogue at all costs, but if the demands of the demonstrators were not met that means the process of mobilizing people into the streets by was "a much ado about nothing" event. The demonstration could not stop Zimbabweans from celebrating their independence as expected. The MDC gala has failed to suppress the independence-day celebrations momentum. It was in only 2008 when Tsvangirai could lead a demonstration that could win his interests from ZANU-PF and not now. He is now a political novice. The recent demonstration is nothing more than a joke considering its mandate, chiefly its call for the ouster of a leader who was elected by a majority in 2013. The main demand of the demonstration to unseat President Mugabe as indicated by several press houses home and abroad does not make sense in democracy and political realist terms.
However, Tsvangirai must be wise enough to comprehend the deeper political scheming motive behind the freedom granted to his MDC formation to hold these demonstrations. The opportunity given to him by the courts on behalf of Zimbabwe for him to openly give his demands to the state disqualifies his claims about suppressed freedom of expression in Zimbabwe. This must awaken some members of the international community financing his party to realize that there is need to fund other progressive initiatives since displacing ZANU-PF through Tsvangirai has failed. However, the demonstration may do him well in attracting donor funding ahead of 2018 from die-hard anti-Mugabe initiatives since he has proved that he has a better crowds than his other counterparts in Zimbabwe's opposition politics. On the other hand, ZANU-PF can now bank on the nod it gave MDC to hold the demonstrations as a precedent of portraying itself as a party tolerant of democracy rituals like the just ended gala led by Tsvangirai though its agenda of disrupting the Uhuru fever is known. It was well packaged, but it cannot defeat the spirit of Independence Day celebrations. This is a warning from the martyrs of the liberation struggle that the West can give much material finance to the opposition but it cannot transform ideologies watered by the blood of the sons and daughters of the soil.
Richard Runyararo Mahomva is an independent academic researcher, Founder of Leaders for Africa Network - LAN. Convener of the Back to Pan-Africanism Conference and the Reading Pan-Africa Symposium (REPS) and can be contacted on rasmkhonto@gmail.com
Source - Richard Runyararo Mahomva
All articles and letters published on Bulawayo24 have been independently written by members of Bulawayo24's community. The views of users published on Bulawayo24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Bulawayo24. Bulawayo24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.
