Online Reporter
Wesley Zvomuya
“A country’s political party system is a major component of its political framework and makes a critical contribution to democracy.
The system best suited to a country is determined by its history, traditions and realities . . . there is not a single system that is good for all countries.”
THE above quotation is from the preamble of a paper released in 2021 by the State Council Information Office of China titled “China’s Political Party System: Cooperation and Consultation”.
The document goes into detail about China’s political system, whose basic framework is defined by multiparty cooperation and political consultation under the leadership of the Communist Party of China (CPC).
“A new model grown out of the soil of China, it also learns from other countries and absorbs the fruits of their political achievements,” notes the paper.
Under this system, there are nine political parties — the CPC, the Revolutionary Committee of the Chinese Kuomintang, the China Democratic League, the China National Democratic Construction Association, the China Association for Promoting Democracy, the Chinese Peasants and Workers Democratic Party, the China Zhi Gong Party, the Jiusan Society and the Taiwan Democratic Self-Government League.
Further, the system also includes prominent individuals without affiliation to any of the political parties (non-affiliates).
The paper explains: “Following the principles of long-term coexistence, mutual oversight, sincerity and sharing the rough times and the smooth, the CPC and the other political parties have created a multiparty cooperation system in which the CPC exercises state power and the other parties participate fully in the administration of state affairs under the leadership of the CPC.”
There could be vital insights from this system, which countries from the Global South, including Zimbabwe, should interrogate.
After an extended period of destructive politics (and a fatigued opposition-supporting West) it is critical for Zimbabwe to find a sustainable development foundation of political stability, national unity and inclusive governance.
It is also crucial to reassess whether the current democratic framework, with its adversarial tendencies and externally imposed models, truly serves the national interest.
Should Zimbabwe remain beholden to the rigid rituals of Western-style democracy, or should it craft a political model more attuned to its historical experiences and socio-cultural fabric?
While multiparty democracy remains a cornerstone of Zimbabwe’s constitutional order, it is imperative to recognise that democracy is not a one-size-fits-all concept.
In many cases, the Western model of multiparty adversarial politics has amplified divisions rather than resolve them.
Elections have become flashpoints for conflict rather than vehicles for renewal.
In contrast, Zimbabwe’s own political history appears to reveal an alternative tradition — one rooted in dialogue, consensus and unity, as seen in both 1987 and 2009.
This tradition of consultation is not an anomaly.
It reflects deeply held Zimbabwean values and resonates with governance models that have succeeded elsewhere in the developing world — most notably, in the People’s Republic of China, where political stability has paved the way for economic progress.
Zimbabwe has previously experienced two phases of “national unity” governments in 1987 and between 2009 and 2013, which were preceded by conflict.
Mechanisms such as POLAD (Political Actors Dialogue) and PAC (Presidential Advisory Council) were designed to achieve the same goals.
Interestingly, in South Africa, a previously “stable” democracy, a GNU (government of national unity) was formed this year following elections in which the ruling party lost its 30-year parliamentary majority.
And following election-related disturbances in Mozambique and lately Tanzania, key African institutions such as the Southern African Development Community and the African union have encouraged parties to come together in more inclusive and consensus-based systems.
It is clear that the previous “winner-takes-all” model is now being recognised for what it is: a divisive, corrosive and outdated system that has never been truly reflective of Africa’s cooperative and consultative democracy, anyway.
Recent developments, particularly the splitting of the opposition as well as the withdrawal of support from traditional Western funders, are both fortuitous and welcome.
The greatest destabilising force — external interference — is fast disappearing, leaving room for Zimbabweans to find each other and possibly find a way to work together towards national stability and prosperity.
Amid indications of growing consensus towards cooperation, especially a formal consociational arrangement, it could be useful for Zimbabwe to look at models that have worked to ensure national stability and progress.
What could be the form and substance of such a new system?
China’s experience underscores a universal truth: Stability and prosperity emerge from systems that balance diversity with unity.
For Zimbabwe, the path forward lies not in emulating foreign models, but in adapting the principles of consultation and cooperation to its unique context.
By doing so, it can forge a governance framework that honours its democratic aspirations while prioritising the collective good — a legacy that transcends partisan labels.
Cooperation between the opposition-led Harare City Council, which is led by Mayor Jacob Mafume, and the Central Government is instructive.
While cynics would say this is a marriage of convenience, in reality, it is an emulable example of political cooperation that is born out of political maturity, which is the basis for national stability and progress.
Such as system has worked well in China, which has demonstrated that political stability is a prerequisite for modernisation and reform for people-centred progress and development.
Wesley Zvomuya is a Bindura-based analyst and international relations expert.
