Giant dreams of a truly democratic Zimbabwe have fallen flat on their face as we increasingly face a desperate future of political uncertainty; there is no disputing that ZANU PF rule has been nothing short of a socio-political catastrophe but so has been the Morgan Tsvangirai’s leadership of the main opposition, the Movement of Democratic Change (MDC-T). Tsvangirai has failed, his leadership has been nothing short of a monumental disaster, a giant experiment that has spectacularly crashed; it is perhaps time to put this embarrassment to a halt now.
The measure of a good leader is not merely doing things right, that is management; leadership is doing the right things; it is being clear to one’s values and having the ability to translate vision into reality. Significantly, leadership means taking full responsibility for your failures as much as you take compliments for successes.
Let us temporarily set aside the colonialism argument as we attempt to understand why politics of the postcolonial Africa continues to fail the continent and its citizens while the Western politics grows from strength to strength. The global powerhouses of the West continue to get more powerful the very same way they have; they understand how politics works and make politics work for them. Change, as we continue to be informed witnesses, is the only constant in Western politics and the central feature protecting innovation and growth.
For as long as one is alive, growth and change should be the only constant or one will have to be either exceptionally wise or be the most stupid being not to change. Tsvangirai needs to understand and do soon that growth is never by chance but hard work and that in the absence of change there is no progress. He needs to appreciate that political change in Zimbabwe will only happen when he changes himself.
Far from being the leader of political change, Tsvangirai has been an inconvenient disruption to it. Over the course of his leadership, Tsvangirai has persistently shown an uncanny discomfort whenever excellence has been expected of his leadership. While Zimbabwean politics requires new ideas, Tsvangirai’s leadership has helped to assist ZANU PF in constricting space for political innovation. He has moulded a structurally rigid MDC built to endorse the rich and powerful while pretending to understand the working class and the weak.
Leaders are charged with dealing with problems including self-reflecting to rule out their own actions being a problem themselves. Tsvangirai has continually shown little patience with political creativity and dissent; because Tsvangirai lacks a clear comprehension of his own values, he has failed to make use of creative minds within his organisation choosing instead to reward innovative thinkers who dared question his leadership with ejection from the party. We see that trend in the MDC since 2005, anyone challenging the Tsvangirai stale vision has been rewarded with ejection orders from the party.
Under his stewardship, the MDC party is not a reflection of democratic principles, yet he wants to convince the public that he can deliver change to the country. He pursues a politics that only looks at yesterday and the present and not to the future. He has looked only at his right to captain the ship and never considered his responsibility for its sinking. That he may be the problem has never been a considered alternative view in his political world and that of all the beneficiaries of his leadership failures – the individuals his politics of patronage has shielded him from scrutiny.
Tsvangirai cannot alter reality; he may attempt to change the eyes that see that reality, but he knows fully well that in the absence of change there is no progress. Change happens when people change; rigid minds such as Tsvangirai’s cannot change anything. It is for that reason that I argue that Tsvangirai is the wrong alternative in the Zimbabwean political space.
When people endorsed Tsvangirai, they expected more than mere democratic rhetoric, they expected democratic action on the ground; Tsvangirai cannot act like a despot but expect to change Zimbabwe’s despotic political space; he cannot change the politics playing out in the country when he is unwilling to change himself. It would appear that as the leader of the MDC, Tsvangirai has fought hard for his personal goals but not hard enough for the genuine liberty of Zimbabweans; he has only fought a good fight to be the president of the country. He may be relevant in the opposition but not as a leader.
MTHWAKAZI INDEPENDENT 