End of colonialism marked Zimbabwe’s transition into yet another political crisis. This time it was the crisis of democracy. The long hoped and fought for political rights and civil liberties rapidly deteriorated to their lowest point in 1983, exactly three years into the country’s independence, extending a period characterised by emboldened ZANU autocracy, and the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from its leadership role in the struggle for human freedom as it prioritised its diplomatic relations with the government of Robert Mugabe.
There is no question that democracy has been in crisis from day one of ZANU PF’s ascension into power in a newly independent state of Zimbabwe in 1980, what is in question is whether in 2023 the opposition in the mainstream politics is capable and willing to fight for the protection of democratic institutions, and the people.
Naturally, as the main opposition, focus is on the CCC, and we argue that the democratic credentials of the party are also coming into greater public scrutiny with concerns of ineffectual processes.
The opposition has not been a convincing defender of democracy; in recent years the opposition movement has been beleaguered by accusations of not only undemocratic conduct but overt despotic inclination.
Behaviours reminiscent of despotism are apparent in the CCC where politically microwaved formulations that oversaw the suppression of fundamental democratic operational structures – under the auspices of ‘strategic ambiguity’ – that have left too much power in the hands of one person, the leader, Nelson Chamisa, and the 09/12/23 parliamentary by-elections triggered by the party’s interim secretary general’s recalls illustrate the party’s vulnerability due to absence of leadership structures.
Allowing Chamisa too much power has seen him capitalise on the implicit perception that he, alone, is the saviour of the country against ZANU PF despotism. He unwittingly maintains among his supporters a popular sense that they are helpless and ineffectual.
Zimbabwean history is replete with lessons from the Mugabe regime that if people think of themselves as helpless and ineffectual and depart the political space leaving it for career politicians, it is certain that in the CCC we will create a despotic government to be our master.
While people perceive the democratic crisis of the CCC, they have somehow convinced themselves that compared to ZANU PF, CCC is a lesser evil. However, the comparison is based on a false premise in that the CCC has never been entrusted with executive power or given the chance to act out its own evil for us to make an objective comparison.
The outcome of that flawed algorithm is that people are increasingly receptive to the idea of embracing a despot that is perceived as less troublesome to them, but that should never be the dream. We need not embrace evil, no matter how tiny it is and/ or what its source is.
Setting ourselves lofty ethical standards will help increase our expectations of all institutions governing society and demand more of those individuals whose dream is to lead those institutions.
There are serious reservations over the CCC’s ability to translate popular views into public policy when its ability to collate popular views is itself in question. Are CCC’s structures fit for purpose? The party has no formal structures to elect its own leaders and it has no formal mechanisms through which it can effectively engage the public to inform its policies.
Even more worrying is the absence of checks and balances to rein in Chamisa. That leaves him with unconstrained power to do as he pleases which increases the threat to internal democracy.
Consequent to the absence of checks and balances, the main opposition politics has become less reflective of popular opinion because of the growing role of its populist leader, Chamisa, and his allies. Riding on his popularity and charisma, he has (with uncanny regularity) circumvented democratic principles of checks and balances to maintain power.
Without reasonable formal structures to restrain his access to power, Chamisa has morphed into a typical dictator easily agitated by dissent and who perceives any form of opposition to his views as disloyalty and prone to use abrasive language to galvanise his political base and disenfranchise those individuals perceived as disloyal and a direct threat to his influence and leadership.
Under Chamisa’s leadership a pattern is developing wherein dissent does not trigger introspection but attracts, deflection, protection, denial, and party splits or renaming of the organisation. Time and again important party figures who have opposed his views have found themselves excluded from his inner circle and marginalised from party activity leaving them with no choice but to leave.
It is easy to romanticize charismatic leaders, and to see their opponents as inherently disloyal and working for the enemy. It is easy to strip dissenters of their human dignity, to reduce them to objects of ridicule. This has never been clearer than in the presentation of a dissenting member of the CCC, Tshabangu, by an opposition aligned media platform, in which we see a cartoon used to perpetuate stereotypical views of a whole ethnic group.
Protecting rights of minority groups is central to democracy, by not condemning the cartoon, the CCC leadership condones the message that spotlights a certain population group for the behaviour of an individual within its own ranks. Tshabangu’s behaviour does not reflect Matabeleland society. Freedom of speech is not to be confused with hate speech of which the cartoon was.
Democracy in Zimbabwe is at a critical juncture with both government and the main opposition willingly bypassing democratic institutions. A party that relies on an undemocratic formulation dependent on the charisma of its leader over institutional oversight cannot be a reliable gatekeeper for democracy. In its current form, the CCC is not structurally primed to defend democratic institutions against autocratic tendencies.
MTHWAKAZI INDEPENDENT 