Opinion / Interviews
'Zanu-PF must reform or perish'
11 Jun 2015 at 03:49hrs | Views
ZIMBABWE'S political terrain has undergone significant transformation, but the more things change, the more they remain the same. The Financial Gazette's Deputy Editor-in-Chief, Dumisani Ndlela (DN), spoke to Alois Masepe (AM), who has flirted with the democratic movement since Independence, on the politics of the country. He says, "The MDC is a party that naively failed to understand the determination of Zanu-PF to fight democratic reform and entrench the one party state rule".
DN: Mr Masepe, you were very active in politics in the late 1980s with the Zimbabwe Unity Movement and in the 1990s with the Forum for Democratic Reform and the Forum Party but in the 2000s, you suddenly disappeared from the scene. Did you deliberately retire from active politics, suffered burn-out or you are of the position that the cause was achieved?
AM: I never regarded myself as a politician or that I was involved in politics. In the same vein, I do not believe that the then young sons and daughters of Zimbabwe who crossed Zimbabwe's borders into Botswana, Zambia and Mozambique in the 1970s were politicians in the making. They were answering the call to save and serve the fatherland.
I am an ardent believer and proponent of the God-given right of man as a free-willer. God gave us the right of freedom of choice and we are bounden by duty to fight for, uphold and safeguard this God-given birth right. You do not have to be a member of a political party to partake in the freedom march. Someone once said ‘One man with courage makes a majority'.
DN: Are you saying you are no longer active because the goal was achieved in 2000 with the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) winning a number of Parliamentary and council seats?
AM: I make a distinction between the struggle for independence, which we attained in 1980, and the struggle for freedom. The two are not synonymous - freedom is a higher and on-going ideal. While the struggle for independence had a clear destination and timeframe, the struggle for freedom has no journey's end, only milestones defining how far you have come on the road to freedom and how far you have to go to achieve an idealised state. But it's an on-ward moving target and you have to continue creating more rights and freedoms for the people.
The struggle for freedom has its core thrust in fully empowering the people so that the obtaining political reality reflects and mirrors the manifestation of the will of the people. Governments must rule on the basis of the unencumbered free will of the people. The arch enemy in this struggle is the career politician who wants to rule on his wishes, is always trying to empower himself at the expense of the people and will not hesitate to short-change the people if given a slight opportunity.
I am still participating, through articles and other fora, in the struggle for freedom.
DN: So you are saying we achieved our struggle for independence in 1980 but the freedom agenda is still unfinished?
AM: I stand four-square on this position. The list of items to be ‘righted' is very long; we have a serious deficit in terms of people freedoms and human rights. The problem of trammelling and trampling human rights is prevalent even in advanced democracies but more pronounced in developing countries where the political space or environment is so stifled that it does not allow the development of organs and institutions that advance or pursue and uphold or defend people's rights and freedoms. What you have in place in most developing nations are pervasive omnipotent and omnipresent, pro status quo and pro ruling elite organs and structures that are used by the politicians as political coercive and regulating mechanism against the people.
DN: Given that situation, how then do you classify and categorise the political scenario in Zimbabwe from 1980 to the present?
AM: Fortunately for clear thinking and untainted analysts, the political situation in Zimbabwe is very simple to define. It is the problems that have been caused by the political environment that are complex and complicated to define and deal with.
The fundamental issue is that Zanu- PF believes in a one party State based on Marxist-Leninist principles. They do not shout about it from the roof tops as they used to do in the past as a result of the results of the 2000 referendum that showed that the majority of Zimbabweans are anathema to the one party state anachronism.
On the opposition side you have the pro-multiparty movement largely represented in the late 1980s going into the early 1990s by the Zimbabwe Unity Movement and by the Forum Party in 1999 going into the 2000 era. So in short, the Zimbabwe scenario is that of a struggle between proponents of the one party state and those for multi-party state political doctrines.
DN: In Zambia and Malawi the opposition managed to bring change in the 1990s, why has democratic reform eluded Zimbabwe?
AM: The winds of plural democracy started blowing across the sub-region in the early 1990s. There was a change of government in Malawi and Zambia because the leadership resisted change and dawdled respectively. But in Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, Namibia and even apartheid South Africa, the leadership read the writing on the wall, embraced change and became the catalysts and vanguard of change. The incumbent political groups in the above countries survived because they became the drivers of change instead of being opponents of change. All these countries, including Zambia and Malawi undertook honest-to-goodness constitutional reforms before elections.
In Zimbabwe, Zanu-PF, honest to its one party state stance, play-acted at constitutional reform and subtly but resolutely frustrated the democratic reform agenda.
The 2000 Constitutional Review Commission was a mere political ruse and it suffered a still-birth. Even the 2013 Constitutional Review programme was a gigantic political subterfuge in that Zanu-PF is not in a hurry to implement the new constitution.
Constitutional review and peaceful democratisation can only happen if those in power are enlightened and inspired enough to realise that peace and stability are guaranteed in a country if the rulers are ruling with the will and wish of the ruled. If the rulers are contemptuous of and do not care a hoot about the popular wish, democratic reform will not happen.
DN: In this scenario, where do we place the MDC?
AM: The MDC is a party that naively failed to understand the determination of Zanu-PF to fight democratic reform and entrench the one party state rule. In 2000, the MDC agreed to contest a Parliamentary election based on the 1987 one party state constitution and repeated the fundamental and fatal error in the succeeding years?
DN: I recall you remonstrating the MDC saying, and I quote "Contesting elections under the present constitutional framework is tantamount to drinking from the poisoned chalice…." Where you referring to the lack of strategic thinking within the MDC at the time?
AM: I was startled that the MDC was, absent-mindedly and light-headedly, entering the lion's den. They were unwittingly going to the slaughter house singing and rejoicing if they were going to confront Zanu-PF without a truly democratic constitution. I felt duty bound to warn them.
Bear in mind that the old opposition had, in 1994, resolved not to participate in any future election before constitutional review and had proceeded to boycott the 1995 parliamentary and the 1996 presidential elections. These boycotts were instrumental to the setting up of a Constitutional Review Commission in 1997 because the opposition also threatened to boycott the 2000 parliamentary election.
We canvassed and lobbied the Commonwealth countries, Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the then Organisation of African Unity to ensure that Zimbabwe has a democratic constitution before the 2000 parliamentary election.
Zanu-PF was force-marched, kicking and squealing, to the constitution review table in 1997.
Its tampering with the 2000 draft constitution was predictable, and the draft was rejected by the electorate in the 2000 referendum.
What was required of the MDC was to demand constitution reform before elections as the other countries in the sub region had done and not to rush headlong and blind folded into an election.
DN: So you are saying the MDC should not have entered the 2000 Parliamentary election?
AM: You do not go into an election or any competition or tournament for that matter, on terms set by your contestant. The MDC repeated the same mistake in 2013 when it went into the harmonised election — against SADC advice — on the basis of an incomplete new constitution and without an election roadmap.
It is a cul-de-sac; a merry-go-around affair from 2000 to 2013: same strategy by Zanu-PF, same response from the MDC. Well, not exactly, because now they have finally realised, 20 years later that you cannot contest multi-party elections on a platform that was set up to serve the purpose and objectives of a one-party state. They are now boycotting parliamentary by-elections.
DN: Turning to Zanu-PF, we have seen in-fights, purges and radical restructuring, do you think the party will implode and self destruct?
AM: What is happening in Zanu-PF are signs of a party failing to manage the decline phase of an organisation's life cycle. Every organisation, like a human being, goes through a life cycle comprising incorporation or birth, early development, growth, maturity and decline.
The early signal to renew the party was not heeded in the late 1980s to early 1990s. The decline accelerated in the late 1990s leading to the defeat of Zanu-PF in the 2000 constitutional referendum. But again the party refused to reform and instead came up with an arrangement that keeps it in power on the basis of political coercion and electoral manipulation. Zanu-PF must reform or it will perish.
DN: Do you think Joice Mujuru (former vice president) will form a new political party and contest the 2018 elections?
AM: It is possible though I am not sure about the constitutional challenges because she is a retired vice president and, as such, entitled to receiving a pension. If she offers herself as a potential political gladiator, it means cancelling her retirement. I do not know the constitutional implications of such a move. But it does not have to be Mujuru; there are quite a number of people who can lead a break-away Zanu-PF - Simba Makoni, Dumiso Dabengwa, Didymus Mutasa and Ray Kaukonde among others.
However, the first item the new party needs to do is to sincerely apologise to the people of Zimbabwe for the political excesses Zanu-PF indulged in and humbly commit itself to honest political reform. The old Zanu-PF can also do a turnaround and embrace democratic reform but the chances of that happening are very slim.
DN: Mr Masepe, you were very active in politics in the late 1980s with the Zimbabwe Unity Movement and in the 1990s with the Forum for Democratic Reform and the Forum Party but in the 2000s, you suddenly disappeared from the scene. Did you deliberately retire from active politics, suffered burn-out or you are of the position that the cause was achieved?
AM: I never regarded myself as a politician or that I was involved in politics. In the same vein, I do not believe that the then young sons and daughters of Zimbabwe who crossed Zimbabwe's borders into Botswana, Zambia and Mozambique in the 1970s were politicians in the making. They were answering the call to save and serve the fatherland.
I am an ardent believer and proponent of the God-given right of man as a free-willer. God gave us the right of freedom of choice and we are bounden by duty to fight for, uphold and safeguard this God-given birth right. You do not have to be a member of a political party to partake in the freedom march. Someone once said ‘One man with courage makes a majority'.
DN: Are you saying you are no longer active because the goal was achieved in 2000 with the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) winning a number of Parliamentary and council seats?
AM: I make a distinction between the struggle for independence, which we attained in 1980, and the struggle for freedom. The two are not synonymous - freedom is a higher and on-going ideal. While the struggle for independence had a clear destination and timeframe, the struggle for freedom has no journey's end, only milestones defining how far you have come on the road to freedom and how far you have to go to achieve an idealised state. But it's an on-ward moving target and you have to continue creating more rights and freedoms for the people.
The struggle for freedom has its core thrust in fully empowering the people so that the obtaining political reality reflects and mirrors the manifestation of the will of the people. Governments must rule on the basis of the unencumbered free will of the people. The arch enemy in this struggle is the career politician who wants to rule on his wishes, is always trying to empower himself at the expense of the people and will not hesitate to short-change the people if given a slight opportunity.
I am still participating, through articles and other fora, in the struggle for freedom.
DN: So you are saying we achieved our struggle for independence in 1980 but the freedom agenda is still unfinished?
AM: I stand four-square on this position. The list of items to be ‘righted' is very long; we have a serious deficit in terms of people freedoms and human rights. The problem of trammelling and trampling human rights is prevalent even in advanced democracies but more pronounced in developing countries where the political space or environment is so stifled that it does not allow the development of organs and institutions that advance or pursue and uphold or defend people's rights and freedoms. What you have in place in most developing nations are pervasive omnipotent and omnipresent, pro status quo and pro ruling elite organs and structures that are used by the politicians as political coercive and regulating mechanism against the people.
DN: Given that situation, how then do you classify and categorise the political scenario in Zimbabwe from 1980 to the present?
AM: Fortunately for clear thinking and untainted analysts, the political situation in Zimbabwe is very simple to define. It is the problems that have been caused by the political environment that are complex and complicated to define and deal with.
The fundamental issue is that Zanu- PF believes in a one party State based on Marxist-Leninist principles. They do not shout about it from the roof tops as they used to do in the past as a result of the results of the 2000 referendum that showed that the majority of Zimbabweans are anathema to the one party state anachronism.
On the opposition side you have the pro-multiparty movement largely represented in the late 1980s going into the early 1990s by the Zimbabwe Unity Movement and by the Forum Party in 1999 going into the 2000 era. So in short, the Zimbabwe scenario is that of a struggle between proponents of the one party state and those for multi-party state political doctrines.
DN: In Zambia and Malawi the opposition managed to bring change in the 1990s, why has democratic reform eluded Zimbabwe?
AM: The winds of plural democracy started blowing across the sub-region in the early 1990s. There was a change of government in Malawi and Zambia because the leadership resisted change and dawdled respectively. But in Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, Namibia and even apartheid South Africa, the leadership read the writing on the wall, embraced change and became the catalysts and vanguard of change. The incumbent political groups in the above countries survived because they became the drivers of change instead of being opponents of change. All these countries, including Zambia and Malawi undertook honest-to-goodness constitutional reforms before elections.
In Zimbabwe, Zanu-PF, honest to its one party state stance, play-acted at constitutional reform and subtly but resolutely frustrated the democratic reform agenda.
The 2000 Constitutional Review Commission was a mere political ruse and it suffered a still-birth. Even the 2013 Constitutional Review programme was a gigantic political subterfuge in that Zanu-PF is not in a hurry to implement the new constitution.
DN: In this scenario, where do we place the MDC?
AM: The MDC is a party that naively failed to understand the determination of Zanu-PF to fight democratic reform and entrench the one party state rule. In 2000, the MDC agreed to contest a Parliamentary election based on the 1987 one party state constitution and repeated the fundamental and fatal error in the succeeding years?
DN: I recall you remonstrating the MDC saying, and I quote "Contesting elections under the present constitutional framework is tantamount to drinking from the poisoned chalice…." Where you referring to the lack of strategic thinking within the MDC at the time?
AM: I was startled that the MDC was, absent-mindedly and light-headedly, entering the lion's den. They were unwittingly going to the slaughter house singing and rejoicing if they were going to confront Zanu-PF without a truly democratic constitution. I felt duty bound to warn them.
Bear in mind that the old opposition had, in 1994, resolved not to participate in any future election before constitutional review and had proceeded to boycott the 1995 parliamentary and the 1996 presidential elections. These boycotts were instrumental to the setting up of a Constitutional Review Commission in 1997 because the opposition also threatened to boycott the 2000 parliamentary election.
We canvassed and lobbied the Commonwealth countries, Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the then Organisation of African Unity to ensure that Zimbabwe has a democratic constitution before the 2000 parliamentary election.
Zanu-PF was force-marched, kicking and squealing, to the constitution review table in 1997.
Its tampering with the 2000 draft constitution was predictable, and the draft was rejected by the electorate in the 2000 referendum.
What was required of the MDC was to demand constitution reform before elections as the other countries in the sub region had done and not to rush headlong and blind folded into an election.
DN: So you are saying the MDC should not have entered the 2000 Parliamentary election?
AM: You do not go into an election or any competition or tournament for that matter, on terms set by your contestant. The MDC repeated the same mistake in 2013 when it went into the harmonised election — against SADC advice — on the basis of an incomplete new constitution and without an election roadmap.
It is a cul-de-sac; a merry-go-around affair from 2000 to 2013: same strategy by Zanu-PF, same response from the MDC. Well, not exactly, because now they have finally realised, 20 years later that you cannot contest multi-party elections on a platform that was set up to serve the purpose and objectives of a one-party state. They are now boycotting parliamentary by-elections.
DN: Turning to Zanu-PF, we have seen in-fights, purges and radical restructuring, do you think the party will implode and self destruct?
AM: What is happening in Zanu-PF are signs of a party failing to manage the decline phase of an organisation's life cycle. Every organisation, like a human being, goes through a life cycle comprising incorporation or birth, early development, growth, maturity and decline.
The early signal to renew the party was not heeded in the late 1980s to early 1990s. The decline accelerated in the late 1990s leading to the defeat of Zanu-PF in the 2000 constitutional referendum. But again the party refused to reform and instead came up with an arrangement that keeps it in power on the basis of political coercion and electoral manipulation. Zanu-PF must reform or it will perish.
DN: Do you think Joice Mujuru (former vice president) will form a new political party and contest the 2018 elections?
AM: It is possible though I am not sure about the constitutional challenges because she is a retired vice president and, as such, entitled to receiving a pension. If she offers herself as a potential political gladiator, it means cancelling her retirement. I do not know the constitutional implications of such a move. But it does not have to be Mujuru; there are quite a number of people who can lead a break-away Zanu-PF - Simba Makoni, Dumiso Dabengwa, Didymus Mutasa and Ray Kaukonde among others.
However, the first item the new party needs to do is to sincerely apologise to the people of Zimbabwe for the political excesses Zanu-PF indulged in and humbly commit itself to honest political reform. The old Zanu-PF can also do a turnaround and embrace democratic reform but the chances of that happening are very slim.
Source - Financial Gazette
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.
