Opinion / Columnist
Counterbalancing Political Opportunism
15 Dec 2010 at 18:05hrs | Views
In many ways the release of the US cables by Wikileaks has brought about controversy and opportunism. Typically we have seen a jerking and flinching response from Zimbabwean politicians and media. The cables stir triggers the debate about the level of maturity of our politics in that the cables relevant to Zimbabwe reveal nothing new in the political discourse. This article argues that so far there is less damaging information from the cables on Zimbabwe on the grounds that they reveal the art of diplomacy not policy formulation or security risk. The article thereby demonstrates that the appetite for gaining political momentum and making headlines are major drivers behind the relevance of the cables. In so doing it challenges some epistemological positions and parsimonious assumptions that privilege instrumental rational actions.
It is important to understand what is meant by diplomacy since our subject involves diplomatic cables before jumping into explaining and analysing the perverse political opportunism. Diplomacy can be simply defined as an art of negotiating, solving and managing affairs through subtle, skilful and orderly practices. Having used this simple definition, caution must be taken not to over simplify diplomacy. However it is important to note that most of the time it is done in private and it provides ingredients for foreign policy. What's more is the package of ethics that comes with diplomatic mandates, specifically confidentiality and moral responsibility.
Freedom of speech and transparency are fundamental tenants of democracy. Considering what underpins diplomacy it is fair to say in the diplomatic universe both freedom of speech and transparency have their limits. This has been the sticking point about the release of the cables and to mature politicians it flies in the face ethical responsibility. Most representatives of democratic and undemocratic states have condemned the release and termed it irresponsible. Three points have to be made here: firstly their condemnation does not prove they disapprove the content in the cables, secondly it is strategic in that they are responding diplomatically and lastly their condemnation does not stop them analysing the cables and making decisions based on their conclusions. With this in mind let us move to Zimbabwe's reaction to the cables.
Political heavy weights in Zimbabwe have broadly approached the leaks cautiously which is commendable. However political opportunism has been demonstrated by some members of political. Typically some politicians from the third largest party in Zimbabwe, having been mentioned in the cables they have sort to maximise the opportunity by speaking for themselves. Furthermore in line with this opportunism, an additional article arguing the case for the tribal President has also dominated online headlines. The tribal article brings forth unrealistic and inadequate facts which attempt to wrap tribalism in a shiny paper but a closer look vindicates divisive politics. The genuineness of the comments and the tribal argument levelled in the article falls apart on instrumental rationality grounds. This becomes clear when we look closely into what these political actors are likely to gain by this course of action. Three things seem to stand out here: firstly it is reported the political party making these assertions is likely to have its congress in January 2011, secondly the party is likely to come out with the candidate from the tribal background discussed in the article as their new leader and lastly this political party has been lacking a unique ideology and a clear strategic capability. Such political opportunism continues to bog factual debates and to play down the ability of Zimbabweans to make choices.
Over the last decade two clear major political battlefields have emerged in Zimbabwe, namely the Land issue and human rights. However these debates have been sold out to two major political parties. It has become increasingly difficult through the course of time to rank the two parties by political command so it remains unclear which one is bigger than the other. For this reason a good alternative will be to use age. The oldest political party has Land redistribution as its unique strategic capability while its rival has human rights as theirs. Harmonising and reconciling the two has always been a bad alternative for both political parties. The introduction of the Government of National Unity brought the rivals into a partnership. The continuation of the taboos is evident in statements which are always bended around in public discussion such as the wedding from hell, marriage of convenience, fighting within, swallowing, dilution and many more. With this background in mind another cable which has gained momentum in media is that a political member of the human rights camp was calling for the maintenance of conditionalities. Political heavy weights from the Land redistribution camp have remained mute on the subject but two of their party members viewed by some as infidels have pounced on this. They argue that the action by their rival is subversive in that it is an act of government betrayal. More specifically they state that the member from the human rights camp crafted the conditionalities. Considering what the cable states this argument seems to be an insinuation and it does not stake up for six reasons, firstly both camps would relish an opportunity to finish off their rival. Secondly the human rights camp has always been accused of crafting the conditionalities so for the sake of evidence their rivals feel this cable is close enough to be fine tuned to fit under that remit. Thirdly with the elections likely to be in 2011 this could be a trump card. Fourthly it could a test strategy to see whether the public buys into it .The fifth reason is that the cable shows the diplomat despised the suggestion so it could not have influenced policy. Lastly it is obvious, the human rights camp was likely to be less motivated to negotiate for the removal of an instrument which squeezed their rivals thereby compromising their political momentum regardless of whether they crafted it or not.
In conclusion the maturity and development of Zimbabwean politics remains stunted. All the discussed political campaigns show instrumental rationalism. The first showed an attempt to reframe voter's perceptions in that there is sense in voting tribally which is a recipe for division. What is more questionable is audacity of these politicians to push aside the importance of national representation based on capacity and people's choice. The two bigger rivals have sleepwalked into dirty politics where they smear each other and play their cards close to their chests as if the decisions they make affect their political parties only. There is serious need for a factual political debate involving the public openly into these matters. Contentment resulting from public silence and fear should not be privileged. It should be known that transparent factual political disagreements and arguments are good and health for the nation. This calls for Zimbabwean to challenge these ideologies and misconceptions before they are institutionalised to the detriment of future generations. To wind up Zimbabweans need to be given a chance to make political decisions and choices after weighing the effectiveness of policies and strategies put forward by different political parties. This makes their vote valuable in choosing the political party that has policies that speaks to their needs. Zimbabwean politics cannot go on like this; there is an urgent need for our politicians to take stock and refocus.
Farai Chikowore: is a Local Governance Reader who graduated in Strategic Public Management (MSc) and also holds a joint BA (Honours) degree in Public Policy Government and Management at De Montfort University. He likes to evaluate the contribution of political discourse to understanding government policies. His main areas of interest are in Research in: Partnership Working, Local government, Local governance, Democratic renewal, Policy process and Strategic Management
It is important to understand what is meant by diplomacy since our subject involves diplomatic cables before jumping into explaining and analysing the perverse political opportunism. Diplomacy can be simply defined as an art of negotiating, solving and managing affairs through subtle, skilful and orderly practices. Having used this simple definition, caution must be taken not to over simplify diplomacy. However it is important to note that most of the time it is done in private and it provides ingredients for foreign policy. What's more is the package of ethics that comes with diplomatic mandates, specifically confidentiality and moral responsibility.
Freedom of speech and transparency are fundamental tenants of democracy. Considering what underpins diplomacy it is fair to say in the diplomatic universe both freedom of speech and transparency have their limits. This has been the sticking point about the release of the cables and to mature politicians it flies in the face ethical responsibility. Most representatives of democratic and undemocratic states have condemned the release and termed it irresponsible. Three points have to be made here: firstly their condemnation does not prove they disapprove the content in the cables, secondly it is strategic in that they are responding diplomatically and lastly their condemnation does not stop them analysing the cables and making decisions based on their conclusions. With this in mind let us move to Zimbabwe's reaction to the cables.
Political heavy weights in Zimbabwe have broadly approached the leaks cautiously which is commendable. However political opportunism has been demonstrated by some members of political. Typically some politicians from the third largest party in Zimbabwe, having been mentioned in the cables they have sort to maximise the opportunity by speaking for themselves. Furthermore in line with this opportunism, an additional article arguing the case for the tribal President has also dominated online headlines. The tribal article brings forth unrealistic and inadequate facts which attempt to wrap tribalism in a shiny paper but a closer look vindicates divisive politics. The genuineness of the comments and the tribal argument levelled in the article falls apart on instrumental rationality grounds. This becomes clear when we look closely into what these political actors are likely to gain by this course of action. Three things seem to stand out here: firstly it is reported the political party making these assertions is likely to have its congress in January 2011, secondly the party is likely to come out with the candidate from the tribal background discussed in the article as their new leader and lastly this political party has been lacking a unique ideology and a clear strategic capability. Such political opportunism continues to bog factual debates and to play down the ability of Zimbabweans to make choices.
Over the last decade two clear major political battlefields have emerged in Zimbabwe, namely the Land issue and human rights. However these debates have been sold out to two major political parties. It has become increasingly difficult through the course of time to rank the two parties by political command so it remains unclear which one is bigger than the other. For this reason a good alternative will be to use age. The oldest political party has Land redistribution as its unique strategic capability while its rival has human rights as theirs. Harmonising and reconciling the two has always been a bad alternative for both political parties. The introduction of the Government of National Unity brought the rivals into a partnership. The continuation of the taboos is evident in statements which are always bended around in public discussion such as the wedding from hell, marriage of convenience, fighting within, swallowing, dilution and many more. With this background in mind another cable which has gained momentum in media is that a political member of the human rights camp was calling for the maintenance of conditionalities. Political heavy weights from the Land redistribution camp have remained mute on the subject but two of their party members viewed by some as infidels have pounced on this. They argue that the action by their rival is subversive in that it is an act of government betrayal. More specifically they state that the member from the human rights camp crafted the conditionalities. Considering what the cable states this argument seems to be an insinuation and it does not stake up for six reasons, firstly both camps would relish an opportunity to finish off their rival. Secondly the human rights camp has always been accused of crafting the conditionalities so for the sake of evidence their rivals feel this cable is close enough to be fine tuned to fit under that remit. Thirdly with the elections likely to be in 2011 this could be a trump card. Fourthly it could a test strategy to see whether the public buys into it .The fifth reason is that the cable shows the diplomat despised the suggestion so it could not have influenced policy. Lastly it is obvious, the human rights camp was likely to be less motivated to negotiate for the removal of an instrument which squeezed their rivals thereby compromising their political momentum regardless of whether they crafted it or not.
In conclusion the maturity and development of Zimbabwean politics remains stunted. All the discussed political campaigns show instrumental rationalism. The first showed an attempt to reframe voter's perceptions in that there is sense in voting tribally which is a recipe for division. What is more questionable is audacity of these politicians to push aside the importance of national representation based on capacity and people's choice. The two bigger rivals have sleepwalked into dirty politics where they smear each other and play their cards close to their chests as if the decisions they make affect their political parties only. There is serious need for a factual political debate involving the public openly into these matters. Contentment resulting from public silence and fear should not be privileged. It should be known that transparent factual political disagreements and arguments are good and health for the nation. This calls for Zimbabwean to challenge these ideologies and misconceptions before they are institutionalised to the detriment of future generations. To wind up Zimbabweans need to be given a chance to make political decisions and choices after weighing the effectiveness of policies and strategies put forward by different political parties. This makes their vote valuable in choosing the political party that has policies that speaks to their needs. Zimbabwean politics cannot go on like this; there is an urgent need for our politicians to take stock and refocus.
Farai Chikowore: is a Local Governance Reader who graduated in Strategic Public Management (MSc) and also holds a joint BA (Honours) degree in Public Policy Government and Management at De Montfort University. He likes to evaluate the contribution of political discourse to understanding government policies. His main areas of interest are in Research in: Partnership Working, Local government, Local governance, Democratic renewal, Policy process and Strategic Management
Source - faraichikowore.wordpress.com
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.
