Tribute to Sekuru Alex Tawanda Magaisa

 

WHOSE MPs ARE THEY?

At some colourful political press conference, Dr Thokozani Khupe, with a straight face, claimed temporary custodianship over a party that had garnered over 2 million votes, plus 100+ MPs. This was besides the fact that she herself had garnered 45000 votes plus 2 MPs, in the same polls. Zimbabweans immediately saw her as political comic relief and simply laughed her off. About 2 or so months later, the joke is no-longer funny. In fact, it has become dangerously worrisome. She has gone from just claiming to be what she isn’t, but has begun acting using powers she doesn’t have.

How does someone with 45000 votes become leader of an institution which was a political opponent? I once told a friend that one day, someday, when future generation go through our history and realize what is actually happening now indeed happened, they will be convinced that 2020 was a long movie. This has been a strange year full of political abominations.

The Supreme Court ruling!

It is perhaps for some, convenient to contextualize the current MDC drama by referencing to a particular ruling which judged that the elevation of Engineer Mudzuri and Advocate Chamisa as core Vice Presidents, and the subsequent take-over of the MDC-T party Leadership by the latter, after the demise of Dr Tsvangirai were both unlawful. Even after realizing that the one who by virtue of her election, and not appointment, as Deputy President, was supposed to have taken over, the ruling recognized that so much had happened ever since. By that material time, Dr Khupe had Acted as President in her own MDC-T faction and taken it to a Congress which legitimately elected her as substantive leader and successor to Tsvangirai, with Chamisa taking his own MDC-T faction to the MDC-ALLIANCE coalition which later on held its own Congress. One interesting thing, need I add, is that whereas some maintain that the Chamisa Gweru Congress was actually a MDC-T 5^th Congress, what remains undisputable is that post the Congress, the Chamisa group slowly moved away from using the “MDC-T” name. It, for the most part, simply identified as MDC. One of the many reasons being that the “T” could no-longer be defined. In this context, it was no-longer necessary for any court ruling to judge that MDC-T succession was still in contention. It was only Dr Khupe, and no-one else, who identified as MDC-T President. Even when she herself couldn’t explain what the “T” stood for.

Anyways, as has become public knowledge, not only has the faction which decided to implement the ruling taken over the MDC-T Leadership, re-relegating Dr Khupe to a position she held before her Bulawayo Congress, the faction has gone all out to try and annihilate Chamisa and his ALLIANCE party. Firstly, they successfully reposed the iconic MRT House, before they were then illegally awarded the PPFA money by government, which seems to be salivating at the thought of a Chamisa-less election. The MDC-T has now gone for the MDC-ALLIANCE’s electoral capital, i.e. its votes and representatives. The latter is the focus of this opinion piece. Dr Khupe is now being regarded as the President of the MDC-ALLIANCE (the very reason why she stopped attending MDC-T events, even snubbing all MDC-ALLIANCE launch rallies, including in Bulawayo), by virtue of being MDC-T President. Now, as the MDC-ALLIANCE MPs and councillors recalls and replacement goes on unabated, the big question is, whose MPs are they?  

Whose MPs are they?

Some are comfortable that the MDC-T is simply handling its internal affairs by recalling MPs and Councillors it seconded to the MDC-ALLIANCE Coalition in 2018.  However, this argument that a party owns representatives and thus has the right and obligation to recall them is too narrow and simplistic. This is even bigger than the MDC-T MDC-ALLIANCE fight. In fact, one would also recall that Dr Khupe herself was once recalled by the MDC-T party. The only difference perhaps being that her recall was a direct MDC-T affair, whereas the shenanigans of today are based on a dubious Supreme Court judgement which has resulted in an unnecessary conflation of two distinct institutions.

As a bit of context, Nelson Chamisa recalled Dr Khupe in his capacity as the interim Leader of the MDC-T, a party to which both belonged. Put differently, the MDC-T recalled Dr Khupe, one of its legislators. The scenarios at play here, are particularly discomforting, because it’s actually the MDC-T, recalling MPs who belong to the MDC-ALLIANCE party. In fact, by recalling them, the MDC-T is recognizing the existence of such a distinct party, different from their own. Regardless, the narrative that the MDC-T not only owns the recalled MPs, and has legal basis for recalling them is a convenient lie.

Here are four reasons why it is not sustainable to argue that representatives belong to a party which seconded them to the electorate, who then elected them, on the same basis and can thus willy-nilly recall them:

i.                    The by-election system

Firstly, the law that requires for the replacement of National Assembly Members through a by-election, logically exposes the weak narrative that MPs represent their party. If indeed people voted for a party, then our laws would have simply allowed for their direct replacement without a need for another mandate from the voters. Within the period before the next election, the party would, using that logic, be allowed to make whatever determination, using the same mandate they got from the voters. So clearly, the assumption that voters vote for the party is defeated by the process of replacing “recalled representative”, simply because they do not only represent the party, but those to whom they actually got a mandate to “represent”. In that contest, a legislation that reduces voters to by-standers, remembering them again during a by-election, is patronizing, citizen- disempowering and out-rightly dangerous.

ii.                  Harmonized elections

Secondly, harmonized election have exposed this shallow fallacy that the voter actually votes for a party and its policies. If this was the case, how then does it happen that its representative within the same constituency get different votes? It can only mean that the average voter is interested in other things, and not just the party. In fact, this anomaly became one of the sticking points, during the Chamisa led appeal to the Constitutional court. The results did not tally and it did not make any logical sense. In a harmonized poll, the voter has 3 choices to make, in one ballot. They have to choose a President, a MP and a Councillor. These votes should eventually sum up to a figure three, even if one or all of them are spoiled. The ZEC pronounced votes had more figures for the Presidential election, which meant that some votes either disappeared where they should have appeared, or appeared where they shouldn’t have appeared.

Harmonized elections have also shown that a voter can actually vote for candidates representing two distinct parties. Which manifesto would they want implemented if they vote for individuals coming from institutions with different policy positions? The point thus remains that in our system, the voter votes for more than just a party and its policies.

iii.                The primary election system.

The inter-party political contestation known as primary elections is another indication that the voter does not vote for a party. Through this system, those who feel they possess political appeal, contest for the same position in their party. They engage the voter on the promise of what they plan to individually plan to achieve, should they be entrusted with representation. Post this, they seek a broader mandate from those outside their institutions. Some eventually loose. Interestingly, some candidates, as a protest, contest against their own parent party, without rescinding their membership of the same, with some standing as independent candidates. And at times they win. Regardless of the eventual outcome, this system again opposes the narrative that people vote for parties. Truth is, they vote for people because of what they individually offer.

iv.                Which policy position gave the MDC-T a governing mandate?

If those pushing the narrative really believed in it, they would reflect and hide in shame. The narrative is premised on the thinking that at the polls, the electorate votes for a particular party, because they believe in what it represents, its manifesto for instance. Currently, the MDC-T party is a political bastard. It’s a product of a strange political act of immorality. If the voter in 2018 voted for the MDC-ALLIANCE, a coalition to which the MDC-T was a member of, it would mean that they voted for the implementation of the SMART policy. Those who didn’t want to vote for what was in the smart policy document, alternatively voted for those who represented the PEOPLE’S MANIFESTO policy, i.e. ZanuPF, or the BEST policy, represented by the Dr Khupe led MDC-T party. It then follows that, once the party ceases to represent that which gave them electoral mandate to govern public affairs, it becomes a political deception. Now, which policy is the MDC-T representing? Is it the MDC-ALLIANCE SMART, or the MDC-T BEST? Within the court constructed MDC-T party, you have Hon Mashakada who was voted for, because of the MDC- ALLIANCE SMART, and Madam Misihairambwi-Mushonga who got votes representing the BEST manifesto. Now that they have become “one party”, which policy do they represent? Can they choose one and disregard the other without deceiving their particular voters?

In fact, justifying the recalls, the MDC-T Acting Spokesperson, Mr Phugeni says: “We are recalling those who have ceased to be members of the MDC-T. We are recalling those type of kids who look at their neighbour and wish to have him as their father?” Using this interesting analogue, it would be clear that the MDC-ALLIANCE kids have decided to have Dr Khupe as their father, and not Advocate Chamisa. Anyone who will be voted for at the MDC-T Extra-Ordinary Congress will only but become these MDC-ALLIANCE kids’ step-step-father. Such is the madness we are experiencing in Zimbabwean politics. In fact, Mr Kagoro put it more candidly by christening this whole drama “a festive of absurdities”

The MDC-T post the court judgement has shown no indication whatsoever of being part of the MDC-ALLIANCE Coalition, whose agreement they maintain hasn’t expired. There hasn’t been any consultation on the actions taken by the MDC-T thus far. In fact, Senator Mwonzora even alleged that a meeting had been held with “ALLIANCE partners”, a position embarrassingly and publicly disputed by one of the ALLIANCE Leaders, Jacob Ngaribvume. It would seem like the MDC-T is not interested in respecting the MDC-ALLIANCE agreement, but being the MDC-ALLIANCE, the same way the MDC-T Standing committee has become the MDC-T National Council and the MDC-T Constitution. It’s a balancing act of saying and acting whichever way feels convenient.

The Basis for the recalls.

Even the explanations put forward, for the recalls, have left a lot to be desired. It is clear that it’s mere politicking which is sadly counter-productive. Whereas it is well within their rights to act for the benefit of their party, the MDC-T cannot be allowed to hide in plain sight, whilst at it. This history needs to be recorded, and eventually recounted correctly. From the recalls, certain issues have become clear:

i.                    Recalls vice-a-vies the MDC-T Constitution

The MDC-T has stated numerously, that it has not vindictively recalled MPs, but rather that MPs have recalled themselves by claiming to be member of another party, besides the one which allegedly took them to Parliament in the first place. If this constitutional requirement was to be adhered to, in the letter and spirit of the MDC-T constitution, then by now, the MDC-T would have recalled all, save for just above 20 legislators. Sadly, there have been double standards instead. So many MPs, who came from the MDC-T party which was part of the electoral agreement have stuck with the MDC ALLIANCE party and naturally would have deserved a recall, as per the argument. Soon after the recall of Chikangwe-Dangamvura law maker, who doubled as MDC- ALLIANCE Manicaland Chairperson, and MDC-ALLIANCE Chief Whip, Prosper Chapfiwa Mutseyami, the MDC-ALLIANCE replaced him with former MDC-T Harare Province Chairperson, Eric Murai. He remains a MP for Highfield East to this day. The man who replaced Murai as Harare Province Chairperson, Glen Norah MP, Wellington Chikombo, Rusty Markham Harare North, James Chidhakwa Mabvuku, among others identify as MDC-ALLIANCE MPs. The past immediate MDC-ALLIANCE Spokesperson and Whange Central Law maker, Daniel Molokela remains an MP and has on numerous occasions dared the MDC-T to recall him. Others such as Chitungwiza’s Sikhala, Starman Chamisa from Mbare, Nicola Watson in Bulawayo Central, James Sithole Makokoba, Costa Machingauta in Budiriro, and Madam Karenyi-Kore, MDC-ALLIANCE Vice President, remain legislators, even after having been “forwarded to the ALLIANCE by the MDC-T party”.

Clearly, the fear is that once everyone associating with Chamisa is recalled, the MDC-T would be left with no basis for arguing that it is actually the main opposition party. Interestingly, one would expect them to alternatively argue that they are part of the main opposition coalition, as per their ALLIANCE agreement argument, as the MDC-T only got just above 45000 votes in 2018. It would also be interesting to see the consequences, should MDC-ALLIANCE MPs all resign en mass opposed to waiting to be recalled.

The MDC-T plan, away from the constitutionalism excuse, was clearly aimed at using recalls to corner MDC-ALLIANCE MPs into submission, by deliberately removing the National Assembly Chief Whip, the party Chairperson, the Senate Chief Whip and the party Secretary General. But how do you corner someone standing in a circle?

ii.                  Cometh December cometh by-elections

The MDC-T looks neither interested, nor ready for a political contention with the Chamisa group. Perhaps this is too much to ask for a party that has failed to run a simple internal election. Through the expected, yet strange claim to being the MDC-ALLIANCE, the MDC-T is exposing its lacks of political identity to mount a successful fight. You can’t claim to be itching for a conversation with a man whose tongue you’re attempting to cut off. By claiming to be the MDC-ALLIANCE, the MDC-T is simply exposing their fears. If the MDC-ALLIANCE is a party, how then can the MDC-T be two parties at the same time? If the MDC-ALLIANCE is a coalition, who are the other coalition partners?

Sometimes an attack is simply defence in disguise. The plan is simply to push and hope on a Chamisa-less election, or one with a completely new Chamisa led party, where they would benefit from anti-ZanuPF protest votes. After all, there isn’t a single leader in the MDC-T with a measurable political clout. In the Standing Committee, not even one of them got into the National Assembly through a direct election. The SG, Chairperson, and Deputy are all Senate political appointees. The party Spokesperson and Organizing Secretary both are not MPs. Their current Acting President only managed 45000 votes out of a possible 5 million. To make matters worse, yesteryear coalition partners like the ZCTU have distanced themselves from this faction.

iii.                And what is this party called anyways?

Another question exposed by this circus has to be on the actual identity of the party which now claims ownership over these legislators. This party identifies itself as MDC-Tsvangirai. In the same breath, it identifies itself as just MDC. The reason for this can be traced to the MDC split of 2005 where Prof Ncube registered first, as the MDC party. Alternatively, Tsvangirai had to “rebrand” and form the MDC-T party. But interestingly, those who claim both membership and ownership of this party, claim that the “T” was simply an election trade name to differentiate themselves from the Ncube led MDC party. Logic then follows that the “T” is simply for electoral purposes, and not the actual identity of the party. Yet it is shot down by the fact that what was originally supposed to be temporary addition of the “T”, has stubbornly remained, 15 years later. In fact, in the MDC-ALLIANCE coalition, what was supposed to be the MDC party, signed in as MDC-T party. It wouldn’t make sense to identify through an electoral vehicle, yet the MDC-A name served the same purpose. It should have been the MDC, being a member of the MDC-A electoral vehicle, if indeed it was just an electoral vehicle. Truth of the matter however is, the MDC of Tsvangirai is a new party formed in 2005. All its documents post 2005, even at their Congresses post 2005, show that the “T” became part of the party’s actual trade name, outside the elections.

But why is this point even important? Well, it exposes the heist currently underway. The MDC- simply wants to be everything. It has no alternative message to offer the electorate, serve for a scorched earth policy aimed at dismantling the Chamisa group.

 

Conclusion

Clearly, the actions of the MDC-T party are dirty political games conveniently characterized as a new democratic political culture. They find resonance with ZanuPF for they have a common agenda. As already stated, the MDC-T itself has become a political bastard.  It’s a product of a politically immoral procreation happy hour. Those who formed the MDC of 1999 would find it impossible to relate to this Zanu-lite creature. Equally important is the fact that the law which allows for recalls is undemocratic and disempowering. Sadly however, it is likely to remain. The only amendments perhaps will be on the replacement criteria, as has been suggested by some in ZanuPF. The law turns little men into political heavyweights. Imagine the nerve of the MDC-T Leadership. They are just but a group of political rejects who sat inside Harvest House one fateful morning with each raising a hand to which position they wanted. They have now used their intra-party arrangements to undo what many stood in long queues for. Their own intra-party mandate long expired. But they do not care. In fact, because they are running out of time, the idea is to make maximum damage. After all, the core of them feel that Chamisa owes them a lot and could have shielded them from political contestations which relegated them to party portfolio secretaries. Such is the behaviour of self-styled modern day constitutionalist and democrats.