By Jonathan Chando.
London. (News Of The South) – Politics is a segment of the societal framework that plays one of the most important roles in making or breaking humanity and its existence.
When one looks at society, they will observe that the irreducible element which makes up a social complex is the individual.
Every human group and therefore every geopolitical community, is made up of individuals. An individual is a psychosomatic being, endowed with a transcendent spirit.
Individuals are not totally determined, neither through the environment nor genetically, or socially, but are able to jump freely towards something beyond their determined reality. It is this possibility of freedom beyond determinism which is called the transcendent spirit and which differentiates radically, an individual from any other animal.
It is these free spirits that form societal or geopolitical communities, which in themselves, are social collective persons, all made by free choice, be they a chess players club, a political party or a professional association.
Embodied in this social complex in the modern times is the freedom of every free spirit(individual) to be part of the particular societal community (literally). This is called Freedom of association.
(br>
Freedom of association is the right to join or leave groups of a person’s own choosing, and for the group to take collective action to “pursue the interests of members”.
*PURSUING THE INTERESTS OF MEMBERS*
It is every society’s desire, expectation and goal, that the interests of members is the foremost purpose for formulating collective groups of individuals who are entrusted with advancing their particular but diverse interests. In comes political parties as some of these collective groupings.
Political parties are meant, and expected to advance the interests of the social communities( nations) that formed them and entrusted them with the role. I will emphasise the purpose, which is pursuing the interests of members, as it is the core value that underpins the formation of Zimbabwe People First.
*ZIMBABWE PEOPLE FIRST*
The above analogy falls right into the lap of the party called Zimbabwe People First. This is a party that was formed on the basis of advancing the interests of the members internally and those of the nation of Zimbabwe at large.
Registered with the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) on 12th February 2016, Zimbabwe People First was mooted and incepted by individuals who had either been expelled or had voluntarily left ZANU PF, together with some who had been members of other political parties and some who had never been in politics before.
With the aim of revisiting and re-enacting the original principles and values of the liberation struggle, whose ideology was that of advancing the goals of the people’s freedom, welfare and social development, the party resonated with the values of the Zimbabwean society.
But looking at and reflecting on the direction the party is taking, it is no longer attached to these values, as it has taken the very route that other parties have taken before, that of queuing for relevance and recognition in the face of those very countries that propagated the oppression and disenfranchisement of Zimbabweans.
Zimbabweans are a humble, hardworking, accommodative and tolerant people, who are also resilient and enduring. They are trusting and believe in giving those they choose to lead them, the onus to serve them, with honour and with the firm belief that their interests will be taken care of, albeit with their collective input.
It is this priceless value that the party should maintain at all costs as it is the basis of its fruitful existence. This then requires it to be wilfully accommodative to the people’s views, desires and values. It requires a leadership that represents these values, aspirations and expectations, and are receptive of criticism and caution on its actions and, or mis-actions.
It is on the basis of this people oriented principle, that I write this article, with the strength of the free spirit philosophy that I feel obliged to make my thoughts known on issues that I feel affect the social complex that is Zimbabwe today.
I feel it is my right to present my analyses and observations on the process path and direction the party is taking of late, particularly the just concluded visit to the UK by the ZPF team led by the President.
*THE ZIMBABWEAN VOTER*
Zimbabwe is a unique and special societal community, whose values and aspirations are totally different from any other community. The advent of its liberation war transformed the collective mind of this society in a way that it redeemed itself from the general continental mentality of subservient communities serving colonial masters.
The war of liberation was anchored on the retrieval of land, violently stolen from forefathers by colonial “masters”. This was the core value that prompted many a young boy and girl to abandon homes, families and school to take up arms and liberate the country.
The then combatants emphasised to the masses the main reason for the fight for freedom, “land”.
Today, land remains the core value of the Zimbabwean voter, whether we like it or not, and anyone who negates this value is in self denial. The majority of Zimbabwe’s voters are in the rural communities and politicians must target these people.
The ownership of land by the people is close to the hearts of the Zimbabwean populace, regardless of how ZANU PF may have mismanaged the land reform programme.
Ownership of resources and assets is valued greatly by Zimbabweans.
I recall one day when I was waiting at Crowne Plaza, for a car to pick us up for a business meeting in Msasa, with a South Afrian white colleague. He had observed cars driving through the gCrown Plaza driveway, picking or dropping guests and he retorted to me, “Do you know that Zimbabwe is the only place, where if you see a car or a house, you must know that it is fully owned by the individual whose title is on it?”
I did not understand his logic until he explained it to me. He went on to say that in Zimbabwe there were no lending financial institutions that advanced loans for purchase of vehicles or mortgages for property, hence every such asset was wholly owned by the individuals. In other parts of Africa and abroad, many drive cars and live in houses and mansions belonging to banks and financial institutions. I reminisced on his assertion and realised that, unfortunate as it was, that we had no financial instruments in our banking systems that facilitated such purchases, it was also good that Zimbabweans owned what they had and were unique as a hardworking community.
The point of my narrative is that as a nation, Zimbabweans have gone through a very difficult but self educational path which has taught them to learn to own their resources.
Zimbabweans have grown, through hardship, resilience and tenacity, to value the meaning of ownership of the factors of production, with land being the core element.
Land ownership is not a negotiable subject matter in as far as its ownership is concerned. Much as they would want robust funding for agrarian productive activities, from whatever section of the international community, it is naive or dumb to think or even believe that Zimbabweans are willing to see their land acquisition reversed in lieu of jobs, development and funding.
Although ZANU PF mishandled the methodology of land redistribution, mainly through corrupt, violent and partisan machinations, the objective, as espoused by the original virtues of the liberation struggle, was, is and will always be one progressive decision, which is supported by Zimbabweans.
Any party that can or will wrestle power from ZANU PF must realise that the rural vote is anchored heavily on the land question. Negating the benefit of land redistribution to Zimbabweans and attempting to reverse, scuttle or drastically modify it, to the benefit of former land barons will backfire in its face.
I will revisit the land issue in a latter section as this article progresses as it is central to Zimbabwe’s current crisis.
*CHATHAM HOUSE*
The Chatham House project by the President of ZPF should not have happened in the first place. Much as we, as Zimbabweans need support from the international community, politically, morally, financially and technically, what Chatham House represents is not anything that will ever bring democracy, development and freedoms to the people of Zimbabwe. Any politician who makes his or her way to Chatham House, purporting to represent Zimbabweans must take a deep look at history and analyse the consequences of grandstanding and dining at Chatham House. We are not privy to who facilitated, and the reasons behind the Chatham House escapade, but it smacks of an uninformed, haphazardly planned, and executed sojourn of mediocre standards.
Chatham House does not and will never advocate for democratic space for Zimbabweans at any given time, now or in the future. It represents the very ideology that oppressed Africa and the world, and continues to seek that very one sided or unfair influence which benefits not our people but the architects of our former oppressors.
I will not overly dwell on the intricacies of its pros and cons, but surmise to say any person, whose legacy was and is that of fighting for the liberation of Zimbabwe, must be aware of the history surrounding Chatham House and how it promoted the oppression of our people in colonial times, and how that objective still prevails today, albeit in different form.
I have always pointed out that, much as we hear about these big democratic nations being advocates and funders of democratic transformation across the world, from Africa., Asia, South and Central America, not one country the world over has benefited and become a functional democracy through the help of these nations. All that the world witnesses is chaos, death and confusion in all countries they have been involved in, be it civilly or militarily. What difference will it make when it comes to Zimbabwe when we see the Middle East and North Africa in turmoil as a result of their involvement?
Availing oneself at Chatham House as a revolutionary is tantamount to selling out the revolutionary legacy one may have possessed and turning oneself into a reactionary.
It is therefore my well researched opinion that the visit by the ZPF President was ill-advised and unfortunate.
*COMPENSATION FOR LAND AND OR INFRASTRUCTURE TO FORMER WHITE FARMERS*
The issue of compensation to Mr
Guy Watson Smith by the ZPF president came as a surprise to many, as it plunged into chaos the position of the party on land reform.
Although the President in her offer to compensate Mr Smith for infrastructure on the farm acquired by the late Gen Munuru under the farcical but constitutional land reform programme, acted in her personal and individual capacity, this impacted heavily on the party’s position on such compensation by individual land beneficiaries.
The majority of land beneficiaries are poor peasants who do not have the capacity to pay $1.4 million or such related bills to the former farmers.
The danger is the resultant influx of law suits at the High Court by former White farmers as a result of the precedent set by the ZPF President. My question is what is the party policy on the compensation issue?
At a time when citizens cannot achieve a meal a day, it feels and appears ironic that the President affords to pay $1.4 million for developments on a farm that one has no title except the benevolence of ZANU PF, which can repossess the land at any given time, given its unpredictable partisan invasions of such.
The majority of voters are in the rural constituencies and land is their core value. Encouraging infrastructural compensation in this way without a clearly defined policy definitely serves to alienate the party from these voters.
I mentioned in another article just before the Chatham presentation that this would slice off a big chunk of current and prospective voters who will feel betrayed by this action.
*PRESIDENTIAL ETIQUETTE*
I do not know the composition of the ZPF Presidential advisory and strategic team, but from the mediocre way, some of the presentations, interviews and talks, the team is doing more of a disservice to both party and president. The advisory and strategic team should do more work on the President’s etiquette. A lot of work needs to be done to improve her image and that of the party in that regard. The telephone answering debacle, while in the middle of a presentation/speech in Luton, exposed the weaknesses of both party and the advisory team, together with the security team. The security team and the aides should have ensured the prevention of calls to be brought to her while addressing people in such gatherings.
The advisory team must make a thorough research on the potential questions the particular audience to a gathering may pose, and formulate robust and water tight responses which leave the public satisfied. What is currently being witnessed is the ducking of pertinent questions, whose responses may potentially inspire the public to support the party.
Because of lack of preparedness by the advisory team, the President is exposed through mediocre responses to these pertinent questions and the risk is that of dissuading the public from support and sympathy.
*COALITIONS*
Zimbabwe needs a strong and formidable coalition in order to dislodge ZANU PF from power. However I find the overtures by ZPF towards coalition with other parties premature, mediocre and destructive.
ZPF has no substantive structures and no national executive, except the interim president, who has not yet been endorsed by Congress. It has no substantive Constitution which must guide its relations with other parties, let alone it’s own activities, as it only has a draft constitution.
This prompts one to pause a number of questions:
1. How is it going to bargain for a share of the coalition working structures when it has no elected office bearers?
2. Have the members of ZPF been consulted and given the mandate to the leadership to embrace the coalition strategy at this premature stage?
3. Does the membership and leadership (albeit interim) have a strategy to fend off the blurred nature of existence between ZPF and other parties in this existing mix up?
My observation points to the fact that the answers to these questions are in the negative, as many members are actually in awe, and do not know what is happening and only know of these events as and when they happen. Clearly this negates the party’s values of putting people’s interests and opinions first.
Both the membership and the potential members are left wondering why the party was formed in the first place when all it is now doing is glorifying other party leaders at the expense of advancing its own policies and ideology at every gathering.
It is my opinion that such premature overtures are disastrous and self defeating.
If the party continues on this path, the crucial vote that the party so craves, will be lost.
ZPF should have concentrated on mobilisation and preparation for substantive elections to fill party structures and a congress before talking of coalitions. Other parties are established and have substantive structures and registered membership, which they can bring to the table, yet ZPF has none.
*TAKING RESPONSIBILITY OF ONE’S ACTIONS*
Zimbabweans are aware that some in the ZPF leadership have been part of the regime that has oppressed them throughout the years. They are cautious to lend support to a leadership that they believe participated in the unfortunate mismanagement of the country.
The leadership of ZPF must not pass the buck at Mugabe for everything that went wrong. They must take responsibility and accept their part in the mis-governance. Apportioning blame to Mugabe for everything that went wrong only but insults both members, potential members and the citizens at large. Zimbabweans are intelligent people, who can see through false pretences and superficial denials. It is naive to believe that the public will be so blind to accept that Mugabe is the sole culprit in the mismanagement of the country and that he has been the sole decision maker, without question, yet there were the Politburo and Central Committee decisions in the party, and Cabinet and other collective decisions in government, throughout the period. Mugabe did not loot the national resources single handedly and the public know this fact.
It is prudent for the leadership to apologise and come clean, if the electorate must decide to vote for them. One cannot profess innocence when their life style reflects a picture of affluence and comfortable living, yet they were civil servants in a country where public officials earn close to peanuts. The electorate will view this as ridicule, and will respond by withdrawing their vote.
Not owning up to past actions shows insincerity and dishonesty to members of the public.
The leadership must acknowledge mistakes and show contrition without passing the buck on Mugabe after 34 years of participation in government.
Owning up to one’s previous actions only but extricates animosity and redeems the leaders from continued mistrust.
*ONE CENTRE OF POWER*
The reason why many left ZANU PF and other parties is the quest for freedom to express one’s opinion, the need to promote constructive criticism and the collective participation of all members, which resonates with the party name, People First.
From the peripheral view, it looks like decision making in the party has become centralised and the one centre of power prevalent in ZANU PF and other parties is now evident in ZPF.
The membership is kept unaware of the direction of the party, save for what they hear at rallies and other gatherings. Decisions are now too centralised and more and more opaque.
Hero worshipping, it appears, is now prevalent in the party, with anyone who proffers an opinion being labelled either ZANU PF or an agent of detractors.
Gossip, backbiting and nepotism has taken root in the party’s business. Transparency seems to have been shelved and only a few are privy to important party decisions, with security around the president alienating her interaction with members.
At the pace and with the direction the party has taken, it is evident that divisions will emerge in the party and some, who value the revolutionary principles and values of the original quest for freedom in the 1970s will distance themselves from this reactionary route the party has taken. Some will seek alternative means to continue to promote these original revolutionary values elsewhere.
If action is not immediately taken to arrest these problems, there will be no smooth sail to power for the party as both existing and potential members will withdraw their support.
The party needs to address the above concerns expeditiously as the negative impact will soon be evident.
Comments
About Author
