WHO IS WHO?: BATTLE FOR THE CONTROL OF THE MDC

 This article attempts at providing a political prognosis to the developments in the MDC. By now, understandably so, one gets confused at which MDC is the MDC. The context of this article takes cognisant of the fact that the MDC, as led by Dr Morgan Tsvangirai was faced by a Leadership dispute after his demise in February 2018. A titanic battle ensured amongst his three Deputies, i.e. Dr Khupe, Advocate Nelson Chamisa and Engineer Elias Mudzuri. The Leadership wrangle also found its way outside the MDC-T, as Dr Tsvangirai, together with six other political players, had agreed on an electoral coalition to topple the Mnangagwa led ZanuPF, leading to the formation of the MDC ALLAINCE. Critical to this prognosis, something which is public knowledge, is that the factions of the MDC-T found themselves faced with different legal battles to settle both the succession of Morgan Tsvangirai, and the general Leadership of the strongest opposition party since independence. Attempting to ignore political developments, the Supreme Court judgement of 31 March 2020, ordered the MDC-T to converge, as of 2016, with the immediate mandate of electing a successor to Morgan Tsvangirai. Therein lies the political madness.

Who went back to 2016?

The Supreme Court ruling basically ordered that Dr Khupe assumes political reigns as Acting President of the MDC-T, and through officials elected at the 2014 MDC-T Congress, call for an Extra Ordinary Congress of that MDC-T party. In this article, I will do everything in my power to resist the temptation of masquerading as a lawyer. Rather, I will use the accepted legal realities to expose how they are politically nonsensical. One clear thing is, the ruling came a day late. It attempts to resolve this by extending the expired legal terms of MDC-T officials, by 3 months, for the sole purpose of conducting the Extra Ordinary Congress. Expectedly, this mischief has disturbed the balance of political nature. This comes as no surprise since the ruling itself had been affected by a number of political developments. For instance, the people being ordered to constitute as per 2016 are simply saying “we have moved on”. Most of them now identify as MDC-ALLIANCE officials. No court case can force them to do otherwise. The same was clearly exposed by the meeting of 2014 MDC-T National Council in Harare, by individuals with political positions in the party calling itself MDC-ALLIANCE. This is illegal madness. But don’t blame them, blame the ruling. It is forcing people to belong to two formations, at the same time.

Whereas the quick fix solution would be for these individuals to simply “move on”, there will be two consequences. Dr Khupe and her camp will continue to act on their behalf. The ruling whereas citing Dr Khupe by name, recognised her within the context of an institutions. Dr Khupe cannot be a President, or an Acting President unto the Supreme Court Judgement. If she is a President to the MDC-T, then she is answerable to its structures and stakeholders. She cannot unilaterally act on their behalf. Neither can she do that with Senators Mwonzora and Komichi. Secondly, and more importantly, ignoring the judgements renders it moot and unimplementable. Those individuals associating with Advocate Chamisa and the MDC-A do not need the MDC-T. The MDC-T needs them, because it is the MDC-T which is going back to 2016. The failure to hold the 2014 National Council by Dr Khupe is her own way of confronting this uncomfortable political reality. In fact, if these people decided to ignore the ruling, the EOC cannot be constitutionally constituted. Only those who held certain positions between 2014 and 2016 can claim extension of expired terms of office and meet to solve their quagmire. Using new and co-opted Executives is tantamount to forming a new part altogether.

Constitutional Legitimacy VS Political Legitimacy

Some quarters, since the Supreme Court ruling, have advised that Dr Thokozani Khupe simply be allowed to preside over the affairs of a united MDC towards an extra ordinary Congress. Some Chamisa supporters even see him easily winning at the EOC. The challenge however is, that makes no political sense. Even armed with constitutional legitimacy, in the MDC-T, Dr Khupe lacks political legitimacy. She lost it in a number of ways. Firstly, there are many die-hard Tsvangirai supporters who might find it difficult to accept her in their party, because of her ill-advised decisions to snub their founding Leader, till his death. Whereas she has her own version of events, whereas she actually visited Dr Tsvangirai in hospital a few days before his death, by that time, she had lost the narrative. Once could be tempted to draw comparisons between Dr Khupe on one side, and Prof Ncube, Job Sikhala and Tendai Biti on the other, who not only split the MDC at one point, but exchanged harsh words with the revered Dr Tsvangirai. Fortunately for them, and unfortunately for Dr Khupe, they publicly met and ironed out their differences. As for Dr Khupe, the narrative is, she snubbed Morgan and only showed up on his funeral. It’s simply her word against theirs. Tsvangirai is no longer here to exonerate her. Even if that narrative doesn’t tell the whole story, the perception has been embraced.

Secondly, Madam Khupe lost the political legitimacy to exercise constitutional legitimacy in a United MDC because she campaigned and ran against it. Even though the MDC broke into two factions, the bigger one was the one led by Chamisa. That faction, together with other parties, went on to perform well in the polls, further strengthening its claim, to being the official opposition. In the same measurement, the faction of Madam Khupe performed dismally, further solidifying its place on the political food chain. It was further relegated to a faction of the opposition MDC, with little to no political relevance. These developments cannot be wished away, nor can they be changed by a court ruling.

Thirdly, Madam Khupe made the cardinal error of embracing Zanu PF. For some MDC supporters, that is a line you cannot cross. Even if the MDC embraced the events of November 2017, Dr Tsvangirai knew how and when to draw back. Furthermore, the MDC felt cheated by ZanuPF after their marriage of convenience didn’t last to the expected honeymoon. There are some who have embraced our political polarization, such that MDC and ZANU PF are mortal enemies. Post 2018, perhaps as a way at getting back at her erstwhile colleagues, she publicly endorsed President Mnangagwa, at a time when others in the democratic space, maintained that the elections had been rigged. As if that was not tragic enough, Dr Khupe then joined the Political Actors Dialogue [POLAD] platform, a loose Dialogue platform established by President Mnangagwa to talk about everything else, except the disputed outcome of the 2018 elections. Dr Khupe dutifully joined POLAD and began ripping the results of that association. As MDC supporters were still struggling to come to grips with what looked like a betrayal, there was a fallout in Dr Khupe’s MDC-T, with her controversial Spokesperson, Ms Linda Masarira exposing the depth of ZanuPF and MDC-T relations. She argued unequivocally that her former party, MDC-T, was getting funding from ZanuPF. All these developments dealt a huge blow to Dr Khupe’s acceptance as an Opposition Leader. So problematic have been these developments that the new MDC-T she now leads cannot tell whether or not it is still part of POLAD.

The game and the players

The other challenge with the Supreme Court ruling is on the characters that have jumped to have it implemented. Obviously the first one is Madam Khupe herself. It is not lost to MDC supporters that she held her own Extra Ordinary Congress in Bulawayo and successfully succeeded Morgan Tsvangirai unopposed. The other characters are all bound by the Gweru Congress. Now, the interesting this is not on which MDC went to the Gweru Congress. Whether it was MDC, or MDC-T or MDC-A’s inaugural congress, politically, all that is irrelevant. The important thing is, there was a Congress. In that Congress, Senator Douglas Mwonzora, originally angling to battle Chamisa, battled Charlton Hwende for the SG post and lost. Senator Morgan Komichi, originally Deputy to Chairman Lovemore Moyo, ran for the Vice President position, which he was actually occupying after some co-option exercise by Advocate Chamisa. Even with the power of incumbency, he lost. The other one is obviously Senator Engineer Mudzuri, again, with the power of incumbency, he lost the Vice President post. You can add new entries such as Shakespear Mukoyi, who was too old to remain in the Youth League and Dr Tapiwa Mashakada, a stalwart in the MDC, who lost the Treasurer post. But these people didn’t just loose. Senator Mwonzora lost to Hwende, his sworn enemy. Dr Mashakada, Senator Komichi and Senator Mudzuri lost to Senator Coltart, Biti and Professor Ncube respectively, whom they accuse of previously splitting the party. But in the context of the issues being raised, they all lost. It then becomes difficult, near impossible, for them not to look like sore losers. After all, they willingly participated in that Congress. It will take them eternity, to convince some, that they are motivated by regaining positions they lost. Their Damascus moment is difficult to label genuine.

The day after

“Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.”

It was always important to see what the self-styled Constitutionalists were going to do with the Supreme Court Ruling, which they have turned into a political nuclear weapon, against their erstwhile colleagues. In one interviews, Senator Mwonzora argued that the Supreme Court ruling had “brought together the two MDC factions”. Obviously he was not being honest. Neither to himself nor his audience. The challenge with court rulings, just like elections, is that they produce winners and losers. Only dialogue, had it been pursued, would have provided the best chance at uniting the factions. I do say so, fully cognisant of the fact that the MDC-T, and the MDC-A, are not factions of the MDC. They are now two distinct political formations. If anything, a faction of the MDC-A has, together with a faction of the old MDC-T, attempted to resurrect the MDC-T.

Another challenge for the constitutionalist has been how they have sheepishly exposed themselves. Armed by the mischief of a Judgement which although labelling itself “moot and academic”, goes on to give an individual political authority to fire and replace people who defeated her in an election, Dr Khupe has become vindictive. They have decided to behave like hammers, with everything else being nails. A systematic approach has been employed to recall MPs. The first act deliberately targeted Parliament and Senate Leaders, with the intended effect being to leave the rest Leader-less. In fact, after the successful recall and subsequent High Court wins, Senator Mwonzora warned he expected MPs to shape up, since the jury was out on who held the axe. Regardless, most MPs continued to put their heads on the chopping board. They continued to defy the MDC-T Leadership much to the chagrin of Dr Khupe who has since recalled 9 more.

Legitimate questions have been asked on the constitutionality of the actions of the main characters in the MDC Game of Thrones. As if coming to the court with a prepared speech was not eyebrow raising enough, Senator Morgan Komichi began reinstating people without any structure having had met. Dr Khupe, Senators Mwonzora and Komichi began acting unilaterally, pushing a narrative that the Supreme Court ruling had become the party constitution. Betraying their bravado, they have resisted meeting other structures. The National Standing Committee of the MDC-T as of 2016, which had been meeting virtually, only had 3 members, opposed to the required fifteen. New entries have simply been by co-option. Constitutional directives on parliament recalls have been abused to conflict process and action. Party structures that deliberate on recalls have been suspended by a dubious reading on how an individual ceases to be a party member, as per the MDC-T Constitution.

The continued recalls of so called MDC-T legislators has done more damage to Khupe than Chamisa. The obvious benefit being that Chamisa and his allies are continuously seen as victims of a corroboration of Dr Khupe and state institutions, primarily the court and Parliament. Secondly, Dr Khupe is exposing the fallacy of her Leadership over a United MDC minus Chamisa. Many would recall her hugely ridiculed claim that she was now presiding over a party with 103 MPs, who defeated her own MPs in 2018. Drawing parallels with the DA in South Africa, where Mmusi Maimane was replaced by John Steinheisen only but exposed her shallow understanding of South African electoral systems. In essence, Dr Khupe has turned into a Leader with no followers. Its difficult to claim Leadership over people you are firing because they have rejected you. What would bother you is not their defiance, but your bizarre claims of a court ordered leadership. Even the MPs who have jumped to her outfit have been evasive over their support for her, with those remaining in the MDC-A being unequivocal in their support of Advocate Chamisa. These developments simply complicate Dr Khupe’s political positioning.

Equally exposing has been the outfit’s conduct post the Judgement. Whereas the Chamisa group has been multi-tasking, balancing their political fights with the other group and continuing being an alternative political party, the Dr Khupe camp has concentrated on annihilating Chamisa and has remained fixated at showing their might. Chamisa’s group has since appointed Fadzai Mahere as Party Spokesperson, which has received much praise, especially on social media. Within days, their party communication has tremendously improved. The party, now more than ever, looks as if it is playing watchdog to the government. The group’s Leader has seemingly gone about his business, declaring he is more concerned about State House opposed to Harvest House. The party has set up a well-received online platform which has even attracted some of its critics .The MDC-A leadership continue facing all forms of harassment from the State. The MDC-T group on one hand has been scoring embarrassing own goals, such as the unfortunate claims by Senator Komichi on how he and Mwonzora had been plotting Chamisa’s downfall for a while. It does more harm than good, to the relevance and acceptance of two men who were previously in-charge of a party’s election machinery where there weren’t enough polling agents, with the party having double candidates in some constituencies with the two gentlemen’s signatures. The other camp has been receiving state security and airtime on State media. In fact, many things being considered, it would seem like it’s the Chamisa group which looks more focused on the fast approaching 2023 national elections.

Unscrambling the egg.

The Supreme Court ruling has attempted to unscramble an egg. Tragedy however is, the egg has already been eaten. It is impossible to treat the MDC-T and the MDC-A as factions of the same MDC party. To sanitize this baseless argument, those in Dr Khupe’s camp have argued that the votes accumulated in 2018 by the MDC-A were simply “institutional votes”. They do so without explaining which institution that is. If the narrative is that the MDC ALLIANCE was a coalition of individual political parties, how many of the over two million votes belong to the MDC-T which was part of the ALLIANCE Coalition? How many belong to Biti’s PDP, Jacob Ngaribvume’s Transform Zimbabwe and so forth? The institution can only be the MDC-ALLIANCE, and one of the constitutive parties cannot claim those votes and take them with it to its union with one of its so called factions.

In the same breath, if the Political Parties Finances belong to MDC-T, why shouldn’t it belong to PDP and Transform Zimbabwe? What would be the criteria for sharing that money amongst the so called ALLIANCE partners? Surely, if the MDC-ALLIANCE was a coalition in 2018, it then follows that, whatever it accumulated actually belongs to all members. However, who would take what? That problem would be unsolvable if they attempted to base on the number of MPs, Senators or Councillors which the individual parties has. The reason being, the ALLIANCE simply campaigned as one entity. Someone who originally would have voted for Transform Zimbabwe voted by Nelson Chamisa. How then would you separate those who align themselves with the individual institutions which make or made up the electoral coalition? All these questions are difficult, near impossible to answer.

Building a House on quicksand

Another political challenge immediately facing the MDC-T is a lack of coherence and proper political foundation. The first challenge for Senator Mwonzora was to prove that those who belonged to a party called MDC-T were clear about the same. The identity of the MDC-T could not be interpreted by the courts. It is tragic that a MP actually requires a court order to indicate which party they belong to. What would that tell the electorate? It’s too simplistic to argue that officials who have decided to stick to Advocate Chamisa have no respect for constitutionalism and rule of law. They were conscious to political developments since the demise of Dr Tsvangirai and decided to act accordingly. From the onset, it would seem like the MDC-T, although claiming parentage over 103 or so MPs, began with about four, who then became nine at one point. With time, chances are, the number will keep increasing. Challenge however is, if these MPs were not sure on where they originally belonged, and actually waited for political developments to decide, how sustainable is this?

It is on this basis that the MDC-T is riddled with confusion that all point to a still-birth. It would seem like some legislators have employed a “wait-and-see” approach with regards to the legal battles since the indefinite lockdown has paralyzed any political actions by the MDC-A. Sadly, the same confusion has found its way in our judiciary. On 7 May 2020, Justice Munangati-Manongwa ruled in favour of the MDC ALLIANCE and issued an interdict to stop  the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs and the Minister of Finance and Economic Development from the disbursement of funds under the Political Parties (Finance) Act to the MDC-T. In doing so, the immediate consequence was the recognition of the MDC-A at law as a legal person, as well as its legitimate claim over the MPs that were elected under its ticket. Another Judgement, by Justice Chitapi was of the view that the founding affidavit of the MDC ALLIANCE had not sufficiently proved its locus standi as a legal persona that could sue or be sued. Obviously the convenient narrative for some was that the MDC-A had been seen as not being a political party. The Judge however accepted that the MDC ALLIANCE was a political formation, basing on ZEC records. The most damning Judgement came from Justice Mafurise who castigated not only the incoherent Judgements by the High Court, but also the elitist “abuse” of the “recall” processes which relegated voters to being by-standers when they are an important stakeholder in the election processes. The diction used by the Judge was that the applicants before him, that is Senators Temvious and Thabitha Khumalo who were seeking an interdict against their replacements in the Senate, had been recalled “on the basis of a process of dubious legality”. There is also a third Judgements where the MDC-T diverted from the foundation of their “win” in Justice Chitapi’s High Court where they convinced the learned Judge that the MDC-ALLIANCE was not a legal persona that could sue or be sued. The MDC-T successfully applied for a temporary peace order against the MDC-ALLIANCE over the use of Harvest House, thereby successfully suing the MDC-ALLIANCE.

These legal contradictions have aided the confusion in the MDC battles. And obviously, some legislators are undecided on the next course of action. Their indecision however is based primarily on the need to safeguard their Parliamentary positions. This is extremely worrying. Regardless of the consequences, one would expect a law marker to know the party they belong to. But it is not only the courts which have left citizens confused as to the interpretations provided thus far. Dr Mashakada, originally went back to Parliament arguing “let’s go and all get recalled”. Harare legislator, Hon Peter Moyo defied a temporary party Parliament disengagement position yet at the same time still recognizing Chamisa as his Leader, going on to say “I will vote for Chamisa again in 2023”. Senator Mudzuri, perhaps sensing an opportunity to behave as the Voice of reason, castigated Senator Mwonzora, advising that ‘being in possession of a divorce certificate does not mean the wife or the husband should throw their former spouse out in the middle of the night”. In other words, he was expressing disdain over the recalls of legislators. The important thing to read here is obviously that there is no sanity, neither in the judiciary system, nor the political field. And these are the consequences of a ruling that demands the impossible.

What if Chamisa attends the EOC as per the Supreme Court Judgement?

I attempt to respond to two issues here. The first one being on what the MDC-A is. The second question, which I was asked by a fellow citizen some time ago, was on the effects of Chamisa attending the EOC as prescribed the Supreme Court ruling.

Now, on what the MDC-A is, the question is confusing, understandably so. Whereas the immediate answer is that the MDC-A is a party, something recognized by two High Court Judgments to date. The follow-up question as it were, would be on when it became a party. The basis for that question emanates from the constitutive documents of the MDC-A called the Composite Political Cooperation Agreement. Whereas a few can claim to have ever seen that document, what is in the public domain, is that the MDC-ALLIANCE is an electoral coalition agreement with 7 individual parties. The challenge with that narrative however is that the constitutive document was not followed for even before the elections. For instance, the original logo of the electoral ALLIANCE had a palm, with Dr Tsvangirai’s face inside it, with the distinct 7 parties individual logos surrounding it. Even the MDC of Dr Tsvangirai had its own party logo amongst the seven. However, in the ALLIANCE logo at the polls, there is only a palm with the face of Advocate Chamisa in it. Secondly, the constitutive document of the party is said to have stressed that each party maintains its original status, with different Parliament Chief Whips. Before the recalls, there was only one Chief Whip in Parliament, and one in the Senate, even when both houses had MPs and Senators previously from MDC-T (Chamisa faction), MDC- Ncube and PDP (Biti faction). Thirdly, according to the arguments, the constitutive ALLIANCE agreement allowed for each party to have its own Propositional Representatives candidates. That did not happen. Towards the Gweru Ordinary, not Extra Ordinary Congress, Leaders from these three parties integrated towards the Gweru Congress. All these changes do not help those who maintain that the parties maintained their independence. Rather, it would seem like the original ALLIANCE agreement, which hovered around Tsvangirai the person, simply changed when a new Leader took over. But I would argue that there was sloppiness. This could have been handled better. And it sadly wasn’t.

The second issue is on what Chamisa would lose or gain should he attend the MDC-T EOC. Without bothering on what is to be gained, what is to be lost is the MDC-A as it is constituted now. In fact, in his wisdom, Dr Tsvangirai signed an agreement which allowed for consultations to have the seven parties turn into one. It’s unimaginable to fathom the administrative confusion of managing Parliament and Council affairs, with the parties represented in the MDC-A still maintaining their individuality. For the sake of sanity, the parties had to find a way of managing their governance systems better. The best way, naturally, would be to form one party. The challenge however would be that, this would destabilize political hierarchies in those individual parties. In fact, this fear is being experienced now. Dr Khupe specifically left the MDC, or at least disapproved of the MDC-A in whichever form, precisely because of the return of Prof Welshman Ncube. When the latter originally left in 2005, she became the defacto godmother of the Matabeleland regions. His return, as per 1999, made him Junior only to Tsvangirai himself. When Tsvangirai died, even though Chamisa became President, Prof Ncube was a Leader. He became the most Senior. One would equally remember that Dr Khupe was yet to come to terms with the vote of no confidence passed on her when two VPs were appointed. Mwonzora, Komichi and Mudzuri equally had their issues with Biti. Politically, they felt pushed aside. Whatever political capital they had accumulated suffered the fate of the bond notes.

So the question answers itself. Chamisa would have to leave Biti and Ncube, to go back to the MDC-T. Those resurrecting the MDC-T have no room for these two in their party. When Dr Khupe expressed her dissatisfaction with the MDC-A, she questioned the relevance of PDP and MDC-Green. If the end justifies the means, electorally, the MDC-A increased the political fortunes of the main opposition party in Zimbabwe. There can’t be any wisdom, as of now, to argue that Biti and Ncube have no political relevant, and that the MDC is better as of 2016. Equally so, individuals, would have to answer for themselves, as to which trio improves the political fortunes of a Chamisa led MDC, between the group of Dr Khupe, Mudzuri, Komichi, and that of Biti, Kore and Prof Ncube. It’s clear as to which trio have maintained relevance, within their parties and outside.

CONCLUSION

The benefit of hindsight has the mischief of making one appear smart. Questions have been asked on why the MDC of Dr Tsvangirai did not fire Dr Khupe after she begun snubbing party activities and meetings. Other have asked why Chamisa did not just go for an EOC without Khupe, even though it is clear that the ruling which nullified his and Senator Mudzuri’s elevation would have reached the current conclusion. Others have asked why Advocate Chamisa accommodated those who now claim they have never had faith in his Leadership. Others are asking whether or not Advocate Chamisa did enough to accommodate other ALLIANCE partners outside PDP and MDC- Ncube, who are now being weaponized by Senator Mwonzora, as a way of pulling the ALLIANCE back to their faction. The “what ifs” are many. The important question for the ALLIANCE however is what’s next? The burden of Leadership is not exposed by the ability to describe the problem, rather to proffer solutions. The MDC-ALLIANCE is being mutilated and has to respond. Again, it’s easy to demand that others offer solutions. But then, those are the demands of Leadership. After all, it is Professor Welshman Ncube who, when campaigning for the Vice President position towards the Gweru Congress said, “My promise is to assist the President. I am going to think. To think until it hurts”.

Enkosi!!