Reflections on the MDC splits: The dilemma of a democratizing society

MDC’s continuing and increasingly notorious splits as opposed to ZANU PF ‘unity’ reflects a great deal about structural challenges MDC faces and broader national issues faced by the nation as a whole. As the party with arguably the most realistic chance of defeating ZANU PF in a general election, it is important to reflect on the dynamics of MDC politics.
Since 1999, MDC has split three times. We now have MDC-T, MDC-M and now MDC-99 and each one of them believes it best represents the aspirations of the people. However, there is no doubt that MDC-T has the greatest support amongst the three. It is difficult to discard the individual roles played by the respective faction leaders in the formation of the ‘original MDC’ with Tsvangirai as the well-known labor union leader, Ncube as a prominent civil society leader and academic and now Sikhala as a former students’ leader.
From the very beginnings of the party, it has to be recalled that MDC was a started as a party with individuals united not necessarily by philosophy or ideology but by a common enemy, that is Robert Mugabe and his party. There was no time from 1999 to the watershed 2000 elections to unpack and synchronize the different worldviews of the key players. Zimbabweans in the urban areas particularly, were fed up and understandably demanded change. That definition of the change was not adequately interrogated. The general point of convergence was the removal of Mugabe and his party and anyone who was bold enough to castigate Mugabe had a decent chance of landing a leadership position in the party.Sadly,being brave is not synonymous to being competent or even incorruptible (Zveidi Zimbabwe haivakwi nechivindi basi). We are now in the uncomfortable position of having to do away with some of the opposition’s bravest men and women as they have shown inexcusable character flows over the few years of MDC existence.
While it is too early, or maybe too harsh to dismiss the MDC, it is important to understand where this all came from. Indeed the foundations of a party matter. Inasmuch as I do not believe in determinism, the complex and confusing constitution of the foundational leadership of the MDC makes decisions based on votes alone in the party unacceptable to small but highly influential sections of the party. The farmers who joined MDC may not have had the philosophy that the ordinary woman from Chipinge who also wanted changed might have had. Labor and business, which converged under MDC, obviously had different ideas. Labor rose to greater prominence in the 90s by opposing ESAP yet business wanted a more unfettered market economy. These two positions are contradictory. On the other hand, students have not had a coherent philosophy in that regard but their energy and culture of frequent leadership elections and generally limited loyalty to politicians also needed expression within the MDC.To make matters worse, the strong foundational alliance of labor and students was veritable in energy, popularity and appeal but short on resources hence overtime, it had to court funding sources like international donors, business and the party has had to incorporate in its ranks the likes of Ian Makone.
Consequently, Tsvangirai has had to do a delicate balance of a plethora of fastidious partners from international donors, local business, labor, civil society and others. Democracy does not always bring forth the conclusion that will please all these ‘coalition partners’ within the party. President Tsvangirai’s challenge is to meet the expectations of these stakeholders whose style, philosophy clearly differs from each others. This role does not always suit the strong willed and aggressive nature of Tsvangirai, a man of undisputed dedication to the democratic struggle. Tsvangirai’s personality is vital particularly in the dangerous and conflict- laden decade we are just completing but it has its own pitfalls as exemplified by the way he handled the 2005 split.
To his credit, he asked a pertinent question recently; How do you fight a dictator using democratic means? Yet another important question is how do you maintain discipline and loyalty in the opposition movement using democratic means? ZANU PF is ruthless with internal and external opposition hence its implementation of party decisions is swifter and more ‘effective’. Within the MDC, the democratic process has to be followed, and this is intrinsically complex, slow, and decisions, which are unpopular with the most powerful officials, may be arrived at. Tsvangirai thought the party was ‘wrong’ in backing senate participation in 2005 and he did not mind splitting the party as long as he did what was ‘right’.
Noteworthy is the fact, protracted fights against ZANU PF have had the effect of certain ZANU PF tendencies emerging in MDC ranks. We become what we are fighting against if we are not careful. The ZANU PF culture has become our culture. The earlier we believe it the more we desire a constitution and a system of governance that puts term limits to public office and that maintains strict adherence to the rule of law.
The sad thing about our society is not just ZANU PF, but our societies in general do not nurture a democratic culture from the local level to the national level. Consider our culture, it is hierarchical and it has a strong sense of right and wrong. Infact, we believe in an absolute moral or social truths and this makes coalition politics and democratic processes a little harder because people dig in deeper into their positions even when compromise is the reasonable way forward.
Consider our educational system and the near absolute authority of headmasters, principals, lecturers and vice-chancellors over students. One grows up in an environment where people in authority proudly and emphatically flex muscles with little to no opposition and or substantive debate. The concept of shared governance even in our universities is fuzzy when it comes to lecturers’ and students input in the general financial and adminstrave planning of the respective colleges. School is a key arena of democratic practice and nurturing yet that is not the case today.

Even the usually influential religious institutions are not democratic but theocratic hence there is an objective reality, which is not subject to majority and or minority opinion. Our culture and respective religions teach people to ‘not conform to the patterns of this world’. I am not necessarily opposed to this, l guess my attempt here is to reveal the contextual obstacles to the creation of a democratic culture in a societal structure such as ours. The road to the institutionalization of a democratic culture is thus littered with challenges. What we need is fundamental social change and a paradigm shift in our view of power and authority.

We ought to be a Socratic people that relentlessly questions self and beliefs. Why do we do what we do? We are good at handing emphasizing adherence to our cultural practices but we don’t effectively explain the principles behind the practices we do hence certain practices we do now appear misplaced or misapplied. On the political front, MDC needs to take stock not just of its tools to fight dictatorship but also of its progress as a movement in adhering to the tenets of democracy. There is no democracy without democrats. After a closer look at the MDC, I am left with the question John the Baptist posed to Christ ‘Are you the one or there is another we have to wait for?’It remains to be seen whether MDC can take us beyond the ‘Age of Anguish’ under ZANU PF to a definite place of transformation for our great nation. I remain optimistic.