A week is a long time in Zimbabwean politics

HAROLD Wilson once remarked: 'A week is a long time in politics.’ Joseph Chamberlain's version was that 'there is no use looking beyond the next fortnight'. These assertions ring true in current Zimbabwe politics. Barely two weeks ago Zimbabweans witnessed an ‘unprecedented revolt’ in Zanu PF that many ‘political analysts’ said signalled the beginning of the end Zanu PF and the MDC as protagonists on the political landscape in the country.

That revolt was engineered by Dr. Simba Makoni.

For a good part of last week, Makoni was bathing in the adulation of disgruntled elements from the opposition who expected more from their respective MDC presidents and those from the ruling Zanu PF party.

Elements who expected ‘change-for-the-sake-of-change’ were relieved that Makoni had entered the race; and that he was challenging Mugabe.

So for a good part of the week, the media was awash with ‘political commentators’ defending Makoni’s move; despite Makoni, in his now usual characteristic fashion, remaining mum on the issue.

Exchanges in the media were wild and fantastic. Makoni’s mouthpieces in the form of war veteran Wilfred Mhanda and other political lightweights raised the political bar for the ‘newest sensation to Zimbabwean opposition politics.’

Even some opposition elements joined the band wagon and ran with Makoni. They created what has now come to be called ‘The Makoni Factor’ ─ a cliché that will resonate in the minds of those who care to follow Zimbabwean politics, for a very long time to come.

Yet those who ‘followed’ Makoni’s leadership did so at their own peril. Could he be trusted? This was the question from a few cautious optimists and sceptics who dared go against the grain. The grain was that everyone should rally behind Makoni ─ the new sensation, the ultimate deliverer of Zimbabwe from its woes.

While Makoni chose his words carefully, his assurances that he had wide appeal and insider backing, gave Zimbabweans the impression that they did not have to worry about the future if he was elected. The future would be rosy. There would only be a risk, he implied, if Zimbabweans were silly enough to elect Robert Mugabe again or the ‘docile’ opposition MDC.

With a bit of help from a little known personality, an ex-general, some unknown war veteran, and publisher Ibbo Mandaza, Makoni’s project seemed to be on track. Even this writer almost doubted his own scepticism for a second.

Certain sections of the media were not gullible. We had our hunches. The Zimbabwe Guardian was not gullible, despite the various labels that came with that lack of gullibility.

Makoni raised the media’s eyebrows by holding two press conferences, two days apart. The media was further confused by his attempts to make a distinction between the Zanu PF he was refusing to be fired from, and the Zanu PF he wanted to remain in ─ same difference.

It was an odd distinction to make. It was unclear how one Zanu PF party was different from the other. It would appear that the main thing that separated the ‘two Zanu PFs’ was the inclusion and exclusion of Simba Makoni as presidential candidate. Yet, he failed to understand our concern as media, as voters, and as just plain Zimbabweans. If Mugabe had been endorsed by an extraordinary Zanu PF congress, unoppossed, how could Makoni be a presidential candidate and remain a member of Zanu PF?

Vitriolic exchanges over ‘The Makoni Factor’ filled the cyberspace and the blogoshere. By cyber-osmosis, ‘The Makoni Factor’ drew in non-Zimbabweans to the debate. Some swore Zimbabwe had finally found its saviour; others cautioned against personal ambition paraded as national concern.

Calls for the opposition to join Makoni

Magaisa in a weekly column called for opposition MDC president Morgan Tsvangirai to ‘heed the call’ and ‘sacrifice a personal ambition’ to back Makoni. This he felt was “the fundamental demand[s] of pragmatism in the language of leadership and politics”.

Yet Magaisa could not justify why Makoni should be backed; or why he was bankable. A litmus test on his electability (sic) has yet to be done.

To think Tsvangirai would kill off opposition structures consolidated over the past nine or so years, ditch his support base and his MPs, and support Makoni, the newcomer ─ to opposition politics ─ defies all logic.

To Magaisa, the fact that Tsvangirai has lost previous elections is the reason why he should back Makoni. Losing elections is not new in politics? When was the last time Liberal Democrats in the UK win an election? When was the last time Wurayayi Zembe’s Democratic Party win an election in Zimbabwe? When was the last time Zanu (Ndonga) win an election in Zimbabwe? When did the 15 opposition parties currently in South Africa’s parliament win an election or what are the prospects? You cannot force electoral victory out of impatience. You can only persuade voters to vote for you.

Opposition is healthy for the future of democratic politics in Zimbabwe, and in any country. Maybe Makoni should have joined the MDC and renewed and regenerated it. Other Zanu PF defectors joined the MDC. The MDC has structures in existence already, even though they need some oiling.

It would be senseless for Tsvangirai to join Makoni in a loose coalition without a name or a solid and tested identity; and an organisation based on a hurried, last minute, bullet-point Manifesto.

Makoni swore that he was Zanu PF and that there was no provision in the party’s constitution that he could be fired for running for president. Even Article 6 Section 30 quoted by Minister Shamuyarira and Ephraim Masawi could not justify his expulsion, he argued.

There are arguments that the dismissal of Simba Makoni from Zanu PF should have been handled by the National Disciplinary Committee (NDC) as provided for by Article 10 sections 63-69 of the party's constitution.

Makoni speaking to the BBC earlier in the week contended that he was not running against President Mugabe, but running for the people of Zimbabwe. He said that he merely represented ‘tendencies in the Zanu PF party’ and was not against Mugabe.

“I … belong to the tendency that says the party and the government that it forms must solve the problems effectively and timeously. … Mugabe is the number one citizen in Zimbabwe,” he said. “I’m not anti-Mugabe.”

These views are diametrically opposed to the views of the MDC. How then could Tsvangirai back Makoni?

Makoni believes that the Zanu PF party is capable of renewal, regeneration and change from within; that’s why he’s holding onto it.

So logically Magaisa’s call was tantamount to saying Morgan Tsvangirai and his party should join Zanu PF ─ given that Simba Makoni was adamant he was still a Zanu PF member, and given the unconstitutionality of his expulsion.

The wheels fall off the bus

On Nomination Day, ten minutes after successfully submitting his papers to run for president, Simba Makoni quickly distanced himself from those who were claiming to be forming a coalition with him, or backing him.

Makoni said he was, “not in alliance with anyone. … an independent candidate standing on my own.” He defied his own previous word that he was running with disgruntled elements in Zanu PF telling the BBC, “I’m not going to quibble about names … I’m not going to give you a roll call.”

Makoni forgot that he had pre-empted Zimbabweans by announcing at his first press conference that he had Zanu PF backers, those from his tendency.

Makoni sympathisers, ditched at the 11th hour, were left dumbfounded. Their ramped up energy came to naught. Even Mutambara’s MDC was left in the cold.

Makoni had initially denied that he was opposed to President Mugabe, then tried to file for a parliamentary seat, and then announced that he was running for president, all in the space of a week? How could he be trusted in a coalition?

Now I’m sure many of these pro bono campaigners are trying to conjure up excuses for their naivety; trying to bring some ‘saving the nation’ type argument into their excuses. They had a rude awakening: the politics of the last 14 days of build-up had been trivialised by the crucial minute when Makoni made the penultimate remark that he was his own man.

Makoni has a tendency to keep quiet at the strangest of times and speaks at the most unexpected moment.

For three weeks, in January 2008, the media speculated on Makoni’s presidential ambitions; and he kept silent, only to emerge saying he supported President Mugabe’s leadership; then barely a week later announces that he was running for president.

The new momentum

The momentum in Simba Makoni’s drive for presidency, always a great advantage to have on your side, is no longer with the people of Zimbabwe or his sympathisers. It is back with Makoni himself after he boldly said he was his own man.

The spreading awareness is that a hardcore group of Zanu PF rebels, few in number, see this vote as much less to do with policy itself, or the people of Zimbabwe, and much more to do with exploiting an opportunity to inflict maximum damage on Morgan Tsvangirai and President Mugabe with the ambition of toppling him.

Makoni sympathisers and supporters have realised that what they can't control is the politics of Simba Makoni. He rendered otiose their support. Makoni has no loyalty and is undeniably politically more astute than those who were speaking for him and calling for his support. They forgot that Makoni’s consuming desire is to see Mugabe supplanted by him, nothing more, and nothing less.

Desperately crunching his presidential campaign in such a compressed time span does not look like a stroke of genius. Yet, the concentration of pressure on President Mugabe probably lessens the mortal danger to him. But if Makoni loses favour with Zimbabweans, the chess game might change form and direction.

If Makoni loses favour with Zimbabweans before March 29, 2008 he may well find it difficult to restock his revolt to maximum intensity at the polls, or beyond.

As remarked by this writer previously, Makoni had better win the presidential poll. A defeat by Morgan Tsvangirai and/or President Mugabe could be hugely damaging. A damning verdict from the electorate could be terminal. One or both is possible. Neither is reliably predictable, nor desirable.