admin
Gibson Nyikadzino-Correspondent
In a certain village, livestock owners were losing goats to thieves from another area. As the goat population was dwindling, village elders, men and youths convened to find a solution on the danger that had encroached into their territory.
As deliberations at the meeting were not reaching finality, a poor, old and widowed villager with nothing except wisdom threw in the discussions a dimension which the minds of the strong and energetic had never thought of and about.
From that old villager’s contribution, there were agreed solutions to arrest the problem starting with the establishment of a security team made up of strong men and youths who would take turns to patrol the village overnight, protecting the village and goats from the thieves.
To ensure this idea worked, every household with or without livestock, agreed to make a small financial contribution towards this arrangement which was agreed by all villagers.
This idea pleased everyone because it was arrived at using a collective consensus by grassroots actors.
And, among those that attended the meeting, through the blessing of village wisdom, no one imposed their view, idea, wish, desire, nor were the conveners and attendants filled with ego. It was consensus-based.
Having consensus is also noble, for it is a key pillar that helps understand why some societies, political parties, organisations and countries thrive while others struggle to have effective decision-making institutions.
This is an unfortunate truth which cannot be ignored by all people in political, social and economic spheres because people in search of consensus thrive to reinvent and renew their “people-ness” and identities to respond to emerging realities they will be facing.
Why we need consensus
Consensus is a wholesome product that comes through cooperation. It is a product of grassroots participation of people considered to be on the lowest strata of society or any institution, yet they play a key role in the success of many organisations.
Where leaders make decisions alone and as a small clique, they are likely to face a tumultuous internal revolt in which the grassroots can successfully plan to act with subtlety to stall organisational goals.
Therefore, more often than not, an inclusive decision-making system that does not exclude the views and contributions of the least among its members, it likely has efficient systems than one which uses imposition and employs a one-dimensional concept.
“We the People”
With the benefit of hindsight, the 2013 “constitution making process” Zimbabwe embarked on leading to a more than 90 percent “yes” vote is one that seeks interrogation and the debate for another day.
In voting “yes”, political leaders of the time marshalled people and encouraged them to endorse the document during a referendum.
However, the referendum’s by-product, the Constitution, was later addressed using elite language, with certain individuals bragging that “I wrote the Constitution with my colleagues”.
The preamble to the Zimbabwe’s supreme law starts with the sentence: “We the people of Zimbabwe.” Critical questions also need to be asked on whether, back then, the midwifery of the 2013 as claimed by “we the people of Zimbabwe” was done based on grassroots participation and consensus for the collective good?
If “we the people of Zimbabwe” had sat down and deliberate the contents of the supreme law, without listening to the vested interests of politicians, would “we” have approved the referendum with a more than 90 percent “yes” vote?
After a Zanu-PF victory in the 2013 elections, reality continues to rise and resurrect in that those who have been on the other side of nationalist historiography had vested selfish interests in claiming the stake in Zimbabwe attempting to use “we the people of Zimbabwe”.
Mafume, the on-off Mayor
Harare mayor Jacob Mafume is a man wearing a lot of faces. At one point he wants to appear brave to cover the shameful acts of his councillors, while at other instances he appears really weak. But in the moment of extremes, he has appeared very confused in a wild manner.
A day after President Mnangagwa said, at the burial of national hero Senator Oliver Chidawu on Monday, that the 2023 harmonised elections were an opportunity for people to vote out the opposition for failing to provide citizens with social services, mayor Mafume conceded that reality.
Since the beginning of his tenure, the mayor has been in and out of office for various reasons ranging from recalls to allegations of corruption at Town House, alone behaviour and conduct that does not befit any man holding or not holding that position.
Mayor Mafume conceded that council has failed the residents. That was the moment mayor Mafume spoke with a switched-on mind before going switching himself off, accusing government for the rampant corruption which his councillors like Denford Ngadziore deliberate on.
Under Mafume, his lieutenants in maladministration like Ngadziore have been reportedly pondering turning Sherwood golf course, a recreational facility, into residential stands.
The sin of patrimonialism
By watching events in Ukraine, a proxy war NATO has instigated but is losing against the powerful Russia, there are lessons Zimbabweans can draw from both President Vladimir Putin and Joe Biden.
At the end of the day, when the special military operation or NATO instituted war fold, the citizens will be anticipating service delivery, access to medical care and functional institutions that serve the citizens.
Prioritising the people, through an established consensus, is a valuable trait in maintaining political order. There, however, is a misconception in the opposition political rank that as the “alternative” they will start delivery of proper service to the people when they get into power, something that may unlikely happen in a lifetime.
What the opposition has managed is dominating in political decay in which at a micro-level of political management through running Town House, they have extended patrimonialism in all spheres.
American political philosopher Francis Fukuyama in his book, “Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy”, highlights that humanity’s original sin is “patrimonialism”.
“Much of what passes for corruption” according to Fukuyama, “is not simply a matter of greed, but rather the by-product of legislators or public officials who feel more obligated to tribe, religion or ethnic group than to the national community and therefore divert money in that direction.”
If there is grassroots consensus on the calibre that should lead the people, then patrimonialism should not be happening.
What is to be done?
The question “What is to be done?” was posed by Russian revolutionary Vladimir Lenin in his treatise as a “skeleton plan to be developed in greater detail in a pamphlet now in preparation for print”.
But the question has remained relevant today. To preserve political order rather than decay, voters and citizens should establish a grassroots discourse and write solutions they need for the future of Zimbabwe.
One suggestion this writer offers today is: “this is no longer the time for people to vote for individuals good at dancing to kongonya at political meetings yet carry no substance”.
Zimbabwe is in need of a consensus based intellectual political force that is identified by the people to develop the nation for the people.
Online Reporter