Implications of Tsvangirai's Vice Presidents' appointments

The MDC-T fiasco precipitated by President Tsvangirai's controversial appointment of Honourables Nelson Chamisa and Ellias Mudzuri to the triumvirate of his deputies has played intermittently in the legal and political spheres alike. The debate seems to be whether or not the unilateral appointments are constitutional. Unbeknown and indeed tragic to Tsvangirai and his coterie of disciples, assuming they win legally in courts of law they will inevitably lose in the court of public opinion, which in fact matters more politically.

It is unfortunate for Morgan Tsvangirai that he cannot easily get away with a disservice or short-cut that any other politician would normally pass unnoticed. History has burdened this hasty man with a cruel fate as the face of Zimbabwe's democracy struggle; hence bestowing in him the custodianship of people's hopes and sense of democratic principles, constitutionalism and justice. Indeed, these expectations are justified considering the MDC-T leader's role in the struggle for constitutional reform as an inseparable part of the democracy agenda.

The MDC together with ZCTU and NCA spearheaded Zimbabwe's constitutional reform at a time when the establishment was seemingly invincible. Tsvangirai played a pivotal role hence becoming the most recognized icon for the anticipated second Republic, the first being Zimbabwe's independence in 1980.  Tsvangirai's stand for the rule of law became an all-inspiring clarion call and exemplar to democrats local and internationally. Little did fellow Zimbabweans, the toiling workers and masses, know that their icon paid lip service to rule of law and constitutionalism. To him and most politicians like him, it was just a gimmick to woe votes and public office.

Therein lies Tsvangirai's dilemma. His dilemma is not on how he sweetens his misdemeanour to his loyal party members and supporters, for that is least his worries as they can be cajoled, cowed, bribed and lied to. The dilemma is on how to extricate himself and what has been of late referred to as his ‘Karanga cabal' from the political entanglement and double standards that Zimbabweans in general and democrats the world over are watching with disbelief. In other words, how would Tsvangirai sanitize this political bankruptcy and regain lost honour and relevance?

Unfortunately, those in support of Tsvangirai's treachery to democracy and constitutionalism seem to cherish resorting to legalism and text meaning of the MDC-T constitution. A paper subjected to manipulation to ensure that its textuality conforms to personal interests of the party leader.

Such legalistic view of the constitution deliberately subvert the very foundations of constitutionalism and negates the principles of democracy. The legalistic view concerns itself with procedural regularity and ignores commitments to liberty, equality and justice. Through the legalistic approach assuming they gain victory within the formal confines of judicial opinions while undermining the constitutional culture and principles of democracy. Hence, our earlier claim that this is a case Tsvangirai cannot win, except maybe in the narrow legal sense but never socially.

Zimbabweans expected Morgan Tsvangirai to selflessly pursue constitutionalism as a way to fundamentally restructure core institutions of governance but instead at party level has subverted the same for political expediency.  How do Zimbabweans entrust him or his appointees to protect the separation of power between the Executive, Judiciary and Parliament?

The MDC-T constitution is no lesser constitution that Tsvangirai may manipulate and misinterpret at will. The very essence of constitutions is to legally restrict powers of those in leadership like Tsvangirai. They are meant to impose legal restrictions on officials as a way of protecting democracy and ensuring public accountability. But Tsvangirai thinks otherwise, to him the constitution is worth the paper it is written on it as long as it bestows privilege on his person. Like all constitutions, the MDC-T constitution seeks to ensure conformity with expected norms and appropriate behaviour. Tsvangirai's ethnically motivated appointments can hardly pass as appropriate behaviour.
 
Let those fooling themselves with the legalistic justification continue swimming against the tide, for this cannot and should not be won in the public sphere. If Tsvangirai wishes to restore some iota of respectability and salvage the legacy soiled by opportunism he should do one last positive act: To resign as president of the MDC-T.