Unity is desirable, but not all

WHEN Arthur Mutambara was elected as President of the break-away faction of the MDC he repeatedly reminded us that his task was to unite the MDC despite deep divisions that existed at the time. There was an almost palpable, yearning among Zimbabweans, in general, and MDC supporters, in particular, for unity. And Mutambara’s repeated and eloquent claims to being able to unite the MDC could have been a major reason for running for leadership, and very possibly eventual, success in becoming leader of the faction.

No one doubted Mutambara’s sincerity. The wish that all people be united is an elemental human desire. But there were two major problems with it. First, he was a new comer (despite his student leadership days) onto the political fray; and by becoming leader of one faction, could not become a neutral unifier. Second, the divisions were much deeper than saw the naked eye.

In many ways the MDC is a party of contrasts. It is full of clashing personalities who exude jangling messages with no clear ideology or clear direction and different ideas about the type of change they seek for Zimbabwe.

Therefore, socially and politically, the MDC is inherently extremely divided. We would expect, then, to find these divisions reflected each time a crucial or landmark event emerges, for instance, a general election or any type of election for that matter. The last time the MDC split was over Senate elections, or at least that was the pretext. We would not be wrong, therefore, to assume that the recent split was predictable. The two MDCs had this fault-line running through them since the last split and any chances of unity were slim.

One of the most important principles at the outset of this audacious MDC unity project was transparency and openness. Too often with the MDC, what you see is not what you get. The MDC leadership’s dishonesty is quite conspicuous ─ at least in its calls for unity. In any case, virtually all calls for unity – national or party political (as in calls for Zanu PF/PF Zapu unity) -- do not tell the whole truth.

Take for instance, Morgan Tsvangirai’s statement that, “The people of Zimbabwe know who they want to be their leader. That is very clear. There’s only one MDC and we all know which one it is,” juxtaposed against Mutambara’s “intellectual midget” “with no strategic thinking” rant. How would the two leaders work in harmony with, say, the fiery Jonathan Moyo, or NCA’s Madhuku who has criticised them on the 18^th Amendment to the Zimbabwe Constitution? How about the issue of the Senate elections, which still lingers? Can they really unify under these circumstances?

Those who were pinning their hopes on the unity of the MDC factions were choosing to ignore the deep divisions that existed since the last split; the public brawling between the two Presidents, the dubious alliances and the confusing manner in which both MDCs were preparing for the March 2008 elections.

Today the media is awash with the story of the split. Should we not have expected tension and difference? The differences were not merely differences of style, attitudes or even opinions but of two quite different views of politics.

The contact politics exhibited by Morgan Tsvangirai was always going to be at loggerheads with the text-book style pseudo-intellectual politics of Welshman Ncube and Arthur Mutambara. Even if the unity had been achieved, there was always going to be the risk of disintegration, at a later stage.

Unity for the sake of ousting President Mugabe could sound precious to others, but the MDC cannot have unity just for that reason – that is politically dangerous. If there is little hope of convergence, let alone agreement, would it not be better to take different paths rather than pretend to be on the same one? Many people sincerely prayed that the factions would unite. There was a determination to walk in the same way. But, separation may actually lead to less bitterness, a greater willingness to converse and, perhaps, even some scope for future political cooperation in areas where this is possible.

Many of those critics who proposed unity for the MDC were often thinking too rigidly in terms of either/or, black/white distinctions. Many of those critics, including those passionate proponents of the Third Way, in talking about unity, tended to deny or play down political and individual diversity, as if it were in some way not real, or not important in Zimbabwean politics. They looked at politics in Zimbabwe in a distant and abstract way, and ignored its particularity.

To assume that Morgan Tsvangirai would have allowed Arthur Mutambara a ‘safe urban seat’ is in itself problematic. Tsvangirai was quite certain that he would lose the Presidential race; through rigging as some have suggested, or otherwise. Arthur, by getting into Parliament, would have easily risen to prominence, leaving Tsvangirai out of mainstream politics. We all know that Morgan’s political career after the March 2008 election could easily hang on a shoestring.

Now that the MDCs have failed to unite, it's important to reflect upon what each of them could accomplish in the current political situation, which is in a state of flux, and build on a sense of what is possible in this crucial March 29 election.

The initial drawback was that both MDCs lacked forward-thinking and bet all their cards on unity. Myopically, they made the theme of unity and the necessity of bridging the partisan divide an absolutely central theme of their election campaign. They spent a considerable amount of political energy fighting for a new constitution and dilly-dallying about whether or not to contest the March election.

They waited in the wings and procrastinated on the crucials. They let the rumour mill run for too long about impending unity talks. They were also steered in various directions by other non-MDC groups (civil society, media, NGOs, donors, diplomats, etc) who suggested to them that a unified MDC was the only hope of solving the nation's mounting problems. Even Simba Makoni, Zanu (Ndonga/Mwenje), Jonathan Moyo and other dubious variables were thrown into the melting pot.

This was going to be a gagantuan task. In a larger sense, they wouldn’t have accomplished what they were setting out to do ─ that is unify too many divergent groups and individuals. Honourable in principle, they were always going to fall short on the specifics and logistics.

Unity has proven to be a lot harder than they expected. How would they have resolved the issue of assets? They battled it for too long. How about issues around constituencies, funding, logos, violence, leadership, etc etc?

Each of the MDCs got caught in a peculiar catch-22; they wanted to break the faction by merging with the other, but needed to maintain a factional identity. For instance, Morgan Tsvangirai and Arthur Mutambara would have still wanted to be recognised as top leadership, so would Tendai Biti, Welshman and others. Who would deputise who, now and in a future government? How about other individuals who were comfortable in their positions? And how about party rebels who preferred to remain separate?

And so reluctantly, especially given the volatility of the situation, they were forced to suspend the impossible unity project. They left it too long and many were already comfortable in their own positions.

Yet the MDC should not close their doors.

We still believe strongly that they had the right idea, but it was left too long and not well-thought out. Solutions to our nation's problems are going to take ideas and hard work from all sources. A political system whose stock-in-trade is division may well be the biggest problem of all, but diversity could yield some unexpected benefits.

The two MDCs have already made a difference and are at the forefront of a movement that may yet save the country. However, unity needs clarity of purpose, trust and openness for it to materialise. That is yet to come!