Opinion / Columnist
Is Zanu-PF party ripe for internal democracy?
03 Nov 2013 at 05:58hrs | Views
Having romped home in an emphatic manner in the July 31 harmonised elections, and with the manner in which the opposition parties have been vanquished, the most probable scenario is that come election time in 2018, Zanu-PF will be the only party to meaningfully go before the electorate.
If there is going to be any opposition, such will come from within, that is to mean that over the coming five years, all those who fail to perform to the expectations of the electorate will be booted out by the same electorate and replaced from within.
That would be democracy at work, that those who are undeserving and with a phobia to be people-centred, will be voted out and those who will have an obsession to be with the people, for the people and by the people be voted in. That would be natural democracy.
But events on the ground in the ongoing provincial elections as well as in the primary elections leading up to the harmonised elections would indicate that the party is not ready for democratic practices within its structures, a cancer that might be the party's undoing as we slowly inch towards 2018.
That there are problems that need to be addressed within the party can be gleaned from the Ignatius Chombo-Marian Chombo charade, from Jonathan Samkange seeking independent office, from Monica Mutsvangwa rejecting the electoral process in Manicaland, the Midlands elections having to be re-run in some districts, the Elias Musakwa-Munyaradzi Kereke fiasco.
Probably the problem stems from the methodology that the party uses to come up with candidates. That an aspiring office bearer needs to have a proven track record cannot be over-emphasised, if the party is to choose those who will represent it from amongst those who have more than five years' service (whatever time frame) then that rule has to be stuck to.
This rule allows the party to be represented by bona fide members and not opportunists who mushroom on the eve of an election. Having served for at least five years, as agreed by Congress, ensures the party is choosing those whose allegiance cannot be questioned. There is a danger in allowing people to come just on the eve of an election and claim to be party supporters and seek public office. The danger being that once they are beaten, as is possible in any election, they can choose to cross the floor to the winning side.
Already, we have seen this happening with the opposition, with some who ran on such tickets in the July elections jumping ship soon after.
Then there is the issue of waivers and that it is up to the provincial elections directorates (PEDs) to decide how to effect waivers, as well as the general vetting of candidates. The first apparent problem with the PEDs is that you find that those who sit in them are, in some cases, also aspiring candidates.
So, how do you ask an aspiring candidate to vet his competitors, without obviously using the advantage that he or she holds of disqualifying them or using his or her powers in such a directorate to effect a disqualification?
Though it is noble that provinces vet their prospective candidates, as they are the ones who know who would have served the party best in the five years leading to an election, common sense would compel us to ask those who are aspiring to be candidates and sitting in the directorate to excuse themselves from sitting in the vetting committee.
Once the party adopts such a resolution, that those who sit in the PED and are aspiring, should recuse themselves from sitting in such a vetting process, then in a way, half the problems that are facing the party when it comes to internal politics will be solved.
If it is not possible for the party to come up with such a position of recusal, as this might see the whole PED falling away, then it might be advisable that an "independent" directorate be always in place. The membership of such a body might not necessarily comprise office bearers in the province, but people of high political standing in that province.
Though it might be arguable, there are people in each province who might not necessarily hold office but whose persuasion and sense of judgment are well-respected. It is such people who can be allowed to vet the prospective candidates.
Though the membership of PEDs can be a subject of debate to no end, what is instructive is that it is wrong for an aspiring candidate to vet and approve the candidature of a competitor. Human nature being what it is, there will always be that temptation to use the unfair advantage.
Once the party has gotten over who and how it vets its candidates, the next thing is to have a proper register of members in place.
In this day and age of ever-advancing information technology, where almost every rural school has a computer, or at least every business centre has an Internet shop, is it not time the party looked towards having an electronic register of its members? And that the electronic register is aided with a plastic party card which will need to be subscribed to, from time to time.
If the 2,1 million who voted for President Mugabe in the July elections were to be paid-up subscribers, at a nominal subscription of a dollar per month, then the party is potentially sitting on $2,1 million every month, money which can be used to run such registers.
But money is not the issue here, since most households are even struggling to put a dish on the table every evening. With a proper electronic register, the party is able to ascertain, without squabbles that become public and disgracing, as to who can and cannot vote. If a member turns up with his membership card, which can easily be cross-referenced with the electronic register, then the party voters' roll, which has always been a subject of debate and numerous confrontations, becomes a thing of the past.
There is an argument that the confusion that usually prevails around internal party elections is deliberate in some quarters, as such confusion aids to reach a certain pre-determined position. Whilst in the short term this might work, but as the electorate becomes more enlightened and demands more answers than questions in any situation, it is advisable that the party works towards ensuring that its internal processes are as transparent and democratic as possible.
The idea that ballot papers are printed and delivered late, thus ensuring a voting process taking place at night, will only ensure there will always be disgruntlement and dissent within the party. And given the previous election experience, especially those of 2008, the party must always be on the lookout for disaffection within its rank and file, and work from the outset to remedy such anomalies.
The results from the July 31 elections have condemned the opposition to the dustbins and the only opposition that will be available, come 2018, will be from within Zanu-PF and the sooner the party readies itself for such a scenario, the better it will be positioned to completely wipe out the opposition.
If there is going to be any opposition, such will come from within, that is to mean that over the coming five years, all those who fail to perform to the expectations of the electorate will be booted out by the same electorate and replaced from within.
That would be democracy at work, that those who are undeserving and with a phobia to be people-centred, will be voted out and those who will have an obsession to be with the people, for the people and by the people be voted in. That would be natural democracy.
But events on the ground in the ongoing provincial elections as well as in the primary elections leading up to the harmonised elections would indicate that the party is not ready for democratic practices within its structures, a cancer that might be the party's undoing as we slowly inch towards 2018.
That there are problems that need to be addressed within the party can be gleaned from the Ignatius Chombo-Marian Chombo charade, from Jonathan Samkange seeking independent office, from Monica Mutsvangwa rejecting the electoral process in Manicaland, the Midlands elections having to be re-run in some districts, the Elias Musakwa-Munyaradzi Kereke fiasco.
Probably the problem stems from the methodology that the party uses to come up with candidates. That an aspiring office bearer needs to have a proven track record cannot be over-emphasised, if the party is to choose those who will represent it from amongst those who have more than five years' service (whatever time frame) then that rule has to be stuck to.
This rule allows the party to be represented by bona fide members and not opportunists who mushroom on the eve of an election. Having served for at least five years, as agreed by Congress, ensures the party is choosing those whose allegiance cannot be questioned. There is a danger in allowing people to come just on the eve of an election and claim to be party supporters and seek public office. The danger being that once they are beaten, as is possible in any election, they can choose to cross the floor to the winning side.
Already, we have seen this happening with the opposition, with some who ran on such tickets in the July elections jumping ship soon after.
Then there is the issue of waivers and that it is up to the provincial elections directorates (PEDs) to decide how to effect waivers, as well as the general vetting of candidates. The first apparent problem with the PEDs is that you find that those who sit in them are, in some cases, also aspiring candidates.
So, how do you ask an aspiring candidate to vet his competitors, without obviously using the advantage that he or she holds of disqualifying them or using his or her powers in such a directorate to effect a disqualification?
Though it is noble that provinces vet their prospective candidates, as they are the ones who know who would have served the party best in the five years leading to an election, common sense would compel us to ask those who are aspiring to be candidates and sitting in the directorate to excuse themselves from sitting in the vetting committee.
If it is not possible for the party to come up with such a position of recusal, as this might see the whole PED falling away, then it might be advisable that an "independent" directorate be always in place. The membership of such a body might not necessarily comprise office bearers in the province, but people of high political standing in that province.
Though it might be arguable, there are people in each province who might not necessarily hold office but whose persuasion and sense of judgment are well-respected. It is such people who can be allowed to vet the prospective candidates.
Though the membership of PEDs can be a subject of debate to no end, what is instructive is that it is wrong for an aspiring candidate to vet and approve the candidature of a competitor. Human nature being what it is, there will always be that temptation to use the unfair advantage.
Once the party has gotten over who and how it vets its candidates, the next thing is to have a proper register of members in place.
In this day and age of ever-advancing information technology, where almost every rural school has a computer, or at least every business centre has an Internet shop, is it not time the party looked towards having an electronic register of its members? And that the electronic register is aided with a plastic party card which will need to be subscribed to, from time to time.
If the 2,1 million who voted for President Mugabe in the July elections were to be paid-up subscribers, at a nominal subscription of a dollar per month, then the party is potentially sitting on $2,1 million every month, money which can be used to run such registers.
But money is not the issue here, since most households are even struggling to put a dish on the table every evening. With a proper electronic register, the party is able to ascertain, without squabbles that become public and disgracing, as to who can and cannot vote. If a member turns up with his membership card, which can easily be cross-referenced with the electronic register, then the party voters' roll, which has always been a subject of debate and numerous confrontations, becomes a thing of the past.
There is an argument that the confusion that usually prevails around internal party elections is deliberate in some quarters, as such confusion aids to reach a certain pre-determined position. Whilst in the short term this might work, but as the electorate becomes more enlightened and demands more answers than questions in any situation, it is advisable that the party works towards ensuring that its internal processes are as transparent and democratic as possible.
The idea that ballot papers are printed and delivered late, thus ensuring a voting process taking place at night, will only ensure there will always be disgruntlement and dissent within the party. And given the previous election experience, especially those of 2008, the party must always be on the lookout for disaffection within its rank and file, and work from the outset to remedy such anomalies.
The results from the July 31 elections have condemned the opposition to the dustbins and the only opposition that will be available, come 2018, will be from within Zanu-PF and the sooner the party readies itself for such a scenario, the better it will be positioned to completely wipe out the opposition.
Source - zimpapers
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.
