Disagreements are part and parcel of human dialogue therefore learning to deal with disagreement with dignity is essential to democracy. To achieve that, we require effective institutional capabilities for conflict resolution. Latest events in the Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC) where some representatives were recalled from their parliamentary duties push the party’s democratic limits.
Whether people agree or disagree with Sengezo Tshabangu’s action of recalling some CCC parliamentarians, senators and councillors, invaluable lessons have been derived from the political crisis triggered by the intervention.
The latest recall of CCC parliamentarians is evidence that a lack of structure is a certain structure to failure; a political institution without a constitution and mechanism to deal with internal dissent and conflict struggles with any slight shocks to its system.
We underscore the importance of conflict resolution in politics; we emphasise that political parties are human created institutions and are thus fallible and not impervious to failure: it is essential that institutions have in-built and well-equipped structures to address internal and external challenges to their authority and/ or existence.
Arguably, convenience was the creator of CCC, and convenience would be its tombstone; fundamental institutional mechanism (a working constitution) was sacrificed leaving the organisation without a protective kit in the event of turbulence; in the race for power, that natural phenomenon (turbulence), was naively ignored by Chamisa and his advisors who – in a sense of guilt – are now vociferous in their attack of Tshabangu’s person, not his arguments.
Attacking Tshabangu solely to deflect attention from the obviously flawed political set up by Chamisa and his advisers does CCC the organisation and Chamisa the leader no favours. In that normalised abnormality of constitutional absence, Chamisa became the party, its face, and its authority, and he revelled in that as he profited from unconstrained power and attention that went with it.
Suffice to say in this whole episode, Chamisa has suspiciously maintained a loosened relationship with, and separated himself from, law and justice.
A real leader owns up to their mistakes and immediately sets up corrective measures. Chamisa can say whatever he wishes about Tshabangu, but personal attacks on the man are not only inadequate but are seen for what they are: an opportunistic avoidance measure that unfortunately will live to haunt his leadership.
Chamisa is an experienced politician and leader, and surely understands he cannot have it both ways; in the absence of legitimate party laws and oversight, he enjoyed boundless powers, he must take full responsibility for the outcome of his poor judgement.
Leaders are elected to make difficult decisions hence the man who, in the hope he escapes responsibility, dithers, refuses to judge, who neither agrees nor disagrees and who, as a matter of principle, maintains a position of neutrality even where circumstances require absolute decisions, is not worthy of a leader, and he alone is responsible for all the instability and latest failures of CCC.
Failure to convene a party conference to constitutionalise CCC and elect members to fill up NEC positions is down to his indecisiveness; the fact that someone saw and exploited that loophole does not make him a victim but a power obsessed leader whose manoeuvres have just blown in his face.
In the absence of robust institutions, CCC is overwhelmingly overcome by the emotion of the conflict triggered by the October recalls of its parliamentarians, etc.; the organisation has focused on the conflict and less on its psychological and tactical resolution.
The adversarial mindset adopted by CCC leadership has led to an unhelpful polarisation, public spats, bellicose rhetoric, ill-conceived decision-making, resentment, and a potentially damaging political impasse that may lead to yet another split of the opposition.
Overcoming scenarios of institutional crisis requires a method of negotiation and demonstrations of empathy between political rivals, and not belligerence.
What needs not be forgotten is that despite the strong political differences, everyone is part of the national project; the demise of CCC is the demise of the opposition to ZANU PF politics. In the case of an existential threat, all sides should work to avoid scenarios in which attempts at dialogue are transformed into political battles.
Those who support Chamisa’s stance and performance as the CCC leader need to appreciate the importance of defending democracy against individual interests; they must open their eyes to the reality that by sweeping his weaknesses under the carpet, under the carpet they will bury him along with the democratic aspirations of the people.
It is important for political institutions to set up strong conflict resolution mechanism to withstand political attacks from within and outside. We would like to remind the public of their responsibility to call leadership to account. Challenging Sengezo’s actions is a democratic right, but this should not be misused to divert attention from Chamisa. We argue that by his actions and inactions, Chamisa is fully responsible for the latest events in the CCC.
MTHWAKAZI INDEPENDENT 