admin
constitution or the amended Lancaster Constitution or any other negotiated conditions, they will most likely be held in an environment different from any other since the advent of the MDC.
While these elections have drawn much excitement both at home and abroad, there are countless potential voters who will forgo their contribution to the political discourse of their country. Analysts have given varied explanations for the emerging voter trends.
Apathy is usually associated with a voter’s dilemma regarding the existing alternative choices and a perception among voters that one’s vote does not count. What dilemmas do the voters face? Besides the excitement and, many times, the anxiety generated by the prospect of elections, it is prudent for every single voter to consider carefully before casting their precious vote.
What does one’s choice of party mean? For those who forgo their right to vote, what does the vote you do not cast mean? My approach will involve zooming in on the key players in the current political dispensation as the rest can be considered to be rats and mice in the scheme of things. What does your party stand for?
If you vote for them, what is it really that you will have voted for? If you do not vote, again, what is it that you will have failed to bring about? I base my writing on my personal analysis as a potential voter in these crucial elections. Obviously, because they are my views many will not agree with all of them. It would be surprising if everyone agreed with my thinking.
Zanu-PF
Zanu-PF represents a lot of things to voters. Here we have a mighty liberation movement with veterans who were at the forefront in the blood-spilling liberation struggle that brought about the independence we attained in 1980. One can never talk about the struggle for majority rule in Zimbabwe, and in Africa at large and fail to mention Zanu-PF and PF-Zapu.
For the benefit of others, PF-Zapu later merged with Zanu-PF ironically to form the current Zanu-PF. Most of the leadership in the opposition, I mean the MDC’s, the revived Zapu, the Mavambo’s, they are all children of the movement. So the liberation credentials form the greatest leverage that the party possesses.
We all know that they have not been shy to remind us on every turn, and rightly so. They have fully exploited this since 1980 and have entrenched themselves as an invincible force by stretching their tentacles in every area, be it the army, the police, business, the traditional chiefs and all spheres. Their influence can only be underestimated by a novice in African affairs.
Zanu-PF has policies that favour the majority of the indigenous Zimbabweans. Anyone in Africa will remember the bravery, almost every time, displayed by President Mugabe when he gets a platform to speak, be it at the UN or any other summit. They undertook the bold move to reclaim land from a few white farmers who possessed the bulk of the arable land in Zimbabwe. War veterans, those who fought in the war for majority rule, will tell us that they fought for their land. So Zanu-PF in this was advancing the original wishes and dreams of Zimbabweans. They are essentially the vanguards of our African heritage. At least their policies seem to indicate so. So voting them might mean the preservation of our heritage? Critics have been vocal about the alleged violence that accompanied the land reforms.
Their indigenisation drive was widely criticised by the West and the opposition in Zimbabwe, but the criticism has been much more to do with the way the policy was implemented. Their challenge has been to convince Zimbabweans that their policy will not only benefit Zanu-PF and a connected minority.
So voting Zanu-PF might mean the restoration of the ownership of our natural resources to benefit us. Again, critics have been vocal regarding those who are benefiting from the resource ownership re-orientation.
Zanu-PF represents the preservation of the African culture and its values. President Mugabe’s stance regarding the issue of homosexuality, although widely condemned by the Western countries, has been gladly received by Zimbabweans, who are predominantly Christian and conservative.
This is in sharp contrast to their main opponent, the MDC, who seem to have a more tolerant view of the culturally and religiously repulsive practice. But the voters are in Zimbabwe and not in the West.
A substantive problem arises. The agrarian reforms are almost complete. Indigenisation and economic empowerment have already taken effect. How many lives have been transformed? Have the standards of living improved for the majority of our people?
What does Zanu-PF promise now regarding land and indigenisation looking into the future? Maybe we should vote them for Zanu-PF to complete what they started and to preserve the gains for which we as a nation have already suffered birthing pains? We, and our children after us, should in future look back and see the fruit of our travail since 2000 when sanctions where inflicted upon us. The gains need to be defended for posterity.
MDC-T
On the other hand, the MDC-T, the larger MDC led by Morgan Tsvangirai that emerged after the acrimonious split in 2005, was initially thought to bring much promise for the future of the country.
Having come at a time when people of Zimbabwe had been wearied by one party rule, it became easy for them to be regarded as the future of Zimbabwe. Since 2009, they have been part of the inclusive Government that has often been credited for the improvement in the economy after it had reached its lowest depths in 2008 following the disputed run-off elections.
That the MDC is liked by the West and United States of America, and not the greater part of Africa, is undisputed. We have seen recently Australia, France and Britain fall on each other as they showered praises to Morgan Tsvangirai. The motive for the praises can only be a subject of speculation. I am not sure if this support actually helps Tsvangirai as some may be tempted to think the key Zanu-PF achievements like the land reforms and the other resource ownership moves could be reversed under an MDC government.
Prior to 2008, before the GNU was formed, the MDC’s major campaign rallying point was perceived corruption under the Zanu-PF leadership. This point has widely been refuted by the experiences within the councils that the MDC-T has been leading where embarrassing corruption and scandals have tainted this movement.
What does MDC-T represent? A brief look on the salient features of the Juice (Jobs, Upliftment, Investment Capital and the Environment) policy document are, apart from the apparent struggles with issues regarding resource ownership and indigenisation, largely similar to those espoused by Zanu-PF. So Juice will not bring anything new apart from a possible reversal of the empowerment drives that Zanu-PF has made pillars for our future.
Many would say the MDC represents change. Yes, but, what change? Maybe of the predominantly Zanu-PF policies that continued even after the advent of the GNU. The question then becomes: Which policies?
The key Zanu-PF policies are premised on Land, sovereignty, indigenisation and empowerment, so which of these need to be reversed? Promising changes to these fundamental areas will only alienate the MDC from the masses. That is why, as alluded earlier, the MDC-T’s Juice does not present any much difference.
The position of the MDC with regard to the issue of homosexuality raised a heated debate last year following an interview in which Morgan Tsvangirai indicated that he would fight for the rights of the gays to be included in the Constitution. This was a serious miscalculation on the part of the MDC because it signified a somersault from the previous position which had been made by the same party.
That raised concerns within the social media with some expressing disappointment at the ease with which Tsvangirai flip-flops under pressure from the West.
The position of the MDC-T regarding sensitive historical issues like Gukurahundi is clear. It has tried to play on the emotions of the people of that region. The emotions and attendant pain of the people of Matabeleland have often been whipped for political expediency.
No doubt, this has scored a few credits for the MDC, in any, since this position rubbishes the unity accord of 1987 signed by the late Father Zimbabwe, Joshua M. N. Nkomo. VP Nkomo was a great unifier who was not moved by cheap political scoring and myopic manoeuvres but valued the demonstrable unity and national healing that followed after 1987.
That things, unimaginable things for that matter, happened seems to be without question but then why threaten the people’s unity and peace by irresponsibly opening tribal wounds? I do not see how the ushering in of a new era of revenge by an MDC win will help the country move forward. Peace, which became the legacy of the late Nkomo, is what the nation needs if the rebuilding of the nation is to be realised.
Zimbabweans, the people of Matabeleland in particular, should refuse to let the voice of reason be drowned by a few meaningless irresponsible voices.
One reading Eddie Cross’s “2013 Outlook: Prophecies by Eddie Cross”, cannot deny that Eddie Cross is passionate about the Zimbabwe he would like to see.
That is betrayed by the thumb-sucked numbers he presents. Just how only an MDC win will bring all that can only baffle my mind. Not that I doubt that Zimbabwe will rise to prosperity again. But Zimbabwe requires an election outcome that results in peace and stability, that is the one that can usher in a breath of fresh air. As a Christian, I sincerely believe that God will soon visit his people again and Zimbabwe will flourish.
I do not, however, think that it is only an MDC win that will change the people’s fortunes. In fact, Zimbabwe has suffered the birth pains in trying to bring an equitable Zimbabwe where resources can be owned by a majority. If Eddie’s prognosis is based on the reversal of these gains it should be dismissed at first sight because it might be the strongest indication of a looming civil unrest.
Zimbabwe. Yes, we require jobs. Yes, we require electricity. Yes, we require running water. We require a lot of things. Those things will definitely come. They, however, should not come by despising our birthright. The 2013 elections need us to look beyond our nose. The short-term can often be the thief of the long-term joys. Zimbabwe should remain our heritage. Vote wisely.
Mbango Sithole is a Zimbabwean Consultant currently based in South Africa. He writes in his personal capacity. Email: [email protected]
Online Reporter
dyton mupawaenda