Chamisa: Different democrat with many 'shades of grey'

"In a democracy, someone who fails to get elected to office can always console himself with the thought that there was something not quite fair about it," remarked Thucydides, a respected Athenian historian and army general.

A democracy is functionally made healthy by exchanging views, social, political and economic policies, and not rejecting its tenets. People who appreciate a democracy are mindful that it is governance by dialogue. Zimbabwe's post-election narrative is an amazing scenario that is emerging from the ashes of political polarisation, to the apex of dialogue and tolerance.

In any election, the minority are always a victim of the democratic process. This is the way democracies really work and Zimbabwe is no exception to that in reality. Those that deny the existence of a democracy, aptly put, losers, are often forgetful that there is no second place in politics, hence when they face defeat, they blame the electoral process using Thucydides' words that "there was something not quite fair about it".

Thucydides' view is proof in an opposition context that Mr Nelson Chamisa has for a long time been exhibiting. The losing MDC-Alliance presidential candidate has denied everything democratic in Zimbabwe.

The continued rejection of presidential results, the denial of the Constitutional Court ruling and his blind eye to the reality that the progressives are moving ahead are signals to his evaporating "legacy". When people embrace change, they ought to be careful and diligent about the decisions they make, because the political path is highly spiked with thorns.

The task ahead of Zimbabweans has more thorns that need to be cleared to have an improved economy, good infrastructure, service delivery and global re-engagement. Zimbabwe can no longer afford to be vulnerable on the global platform by choosing to walk alone.

Mr Chamisa's political and religious morality are both off-tangent to the needs and desires that fit Zimbabweans and its founding principles as his refusal of dialogue has made him a different democrat with many "shades of grey". The opposition leader has been given space in the private media, which is aware of his short life as a politician, to try and resuscitate his political vitality that is on life support.

Allegations of a plot by ZANU-PF to destroy the MDC in six months have been given prominence even if there is no evidence to substantiate the claims by Mr Chamisa. The mercurial, inconsistent and erratic behavioural characteristics he exhibited before, during and after the just-ended elections are what development-oriented Zimbabweans should scrutinise.

Mr Chamisa is known as a politician, a lawyer and a pastor who has lived far away from the "truth". He has brought in a mixture of politics and religion in his campaign, which made him fail to live to the expectations of a pastor on one hand and a politician on the other. Politics and the pulpit are terms that have little agreement.

Mr Chamisa, in his political campaign, violently opposed the view that he could not mix politics and religion at once. There is no doubt whatever that human nature may be the same, but human beings are different and will remain so. Religion and great religious teachers teach followers to be good human beings - honest, tolerant, selfless, noble - though in many instances they are not.

Likewise, political leaders have the same traits and naturally the parties they lead. As a politician, Mr Chamisa said, "if we lose this country will be ungovernable" and as a pastor his followers see heaven on earth. History has pointed out that religion is the epicentre of many of the world's bloodiest conflicts, a testimony that to modern conviction, faith and politics should never mix.

This is adequate enough to explain the messy post-election violence triggered by MDC-Alliance supporters who heard the voice of a pastor vehemently rejecting a democratic process by violently destroying property.

It is never simple to separate the two. Traditionally, if the electorate spots something good in a politician, they reward him or her with a vote. If they spot something bad, they give their vote to somebody else.

It is that simple! Mr Chamisa has used religion as a form of human tribalism in which he has made his followers saints, while others he grouped as profane. Those looked at with an eye of profanity, ZANU-PF, managed to organise their campaigns at cell level as opposed to the online political "organisation" by Mr Chamisa's advisors, Dr Alex Magaisa and Dr Nkululeko Sibanda.

The erudite doctors forgot that when facts are being debated online, it is possible that opinion from the educated and elites would gradually direct the mood of the common masses. An online opinion does not translate to people voting. Mr Chamisa's thirst can only be quenched when he tastes power, which if improperly gotten, can be likened to a small boy wielding a gun and feeling big.

In either victory or defeat, a great leader is one who adjusts himself to the circumstances and tries to win the affection and respect of his people by convincing them that he too is one of them, their servant and not their master.

The hybrid model of Mr Chamisa's politics, mixed with religion, should be treated with contempt since the results are never adorable.

As highlighted by Larken Rose, politics is the art of using euphemisms, lies, emotionalism and fear-mongering to dupe average people into accepting or even demanding their own enslavement. This describes the strategy of the MDC-Alliance frontman. In this epilogue of Mr Chamisa's political life, ZANU-PF should realise that the peaceful are the strongest.