http://www.thezimbabwestandard.com
Tuesday, 21 October 2008 11:24
FOR a man of his age, intellect and experience, it boggles the mind
why President Robert Mugabe does not appear to have learned from the
precedents before him.
For a party of its collective experience, it is difficult to fathom
why Zanu PF has failed to learn from the mistakes of its counterparts across
Africa.
Because, if there is one discernible feature in the trajectory of
African politics since independence, it is that liberation parties that fail
to adapt are doomed and will often contract terminal illness at the
departure of a long-serving leader.
One day, Mugabe shall depart, yes, even if that has to await God's
will as he suggested a few months ago. At this rate, Zanu PF is unlikely to
survive his departure and the power-sharing deal is no more than a
palliative for an ailing patient - it may reduce the pain but it does not
remove the cause of the pain. The sad spectacle is that it is dragging
Zimbabwe down with it.
Liberation parties are those organisations that orchestrated the
struggle for independence in African countries. It is interesting to observe
the way these parties have handled the challenges of governance in their
respective countries; how and why some have survived and others have failed.
There is a clear line, which is that, in a process akin to natural
selection, the more adaptable have survived whilst the less adaptable have
suffered inevitable demise. It is in this context that it is arguable that
the power-sharing deal in Zimbabwe is an attempt by Zanu PF to cope with the
spectre of extinction but that this, too, is only likely to be temporary
relief.
The trajectory of African politics indicates that at independence and
for thirty or so years thereafter, most countries followed the authoritarian
one-party state system. Statistics show that by the end of the 1980s, nearly
50 African states were one-party states or ruled by a military junta. In 32
states, opposition parties were illegal and elections were mere formalities
to confirm the incumbent.
Daniel Arap Moi, then President of Kenya is quoted as having said in
1984: "I would like my ministers, assistant ministers and others to sing
like a parrot after me. That is how we can progress." (Meredith 2006). This
typified the mentality of the leaders at the time, influenced mainly by the
Soviet-style communist paradigm. The result was that liberation parties
claimed all political territory and suppressed, often violently, any
opposition or dissent.
The end of the Cold War, signified most visibly by the collapse of the
Berlin Wall in 1989 and the disintegration of the Soviet Union brought
fundamental changes to African politics. The Soviet Union was no longer able
to sustain its large network of client states. Suddenly, the ruling
liberation parties had to conform to a new environment of multi-party
politics, driven mainly by rising internal opposition due to repression and
poverty caused by the authoritarian politics.
It was also fuelled by renewed Western influence in African politics.
The US in particular made the spread of democracy a key part of its foreign
policy. The structural adjustment programmes of the International Monetary
Fund (IMF)/World Bank tied democracy to potential assistance. It is hardly
surprising, therefore, that there was a flurry of elections in most African
states in the early 1990s, as they embraced multi-party politics largely for
convenience rather than in good faith. Accepting the challenge of the
opposition was a new phenomenon which the liberation parties, long used to
dominating all political space, had to cope with.
As a superficial measure of democracy, the election suddenly enabled
the transformation of authoritarian strong-men into "democrats". The ritual
of the election was, rather unfortunately and inaccurately, equated with
democracy. The wider values and institutions, developed through struggle
over long periods of time and, therefore, firmly in place in the Western
political universe where democracy appeared to flourish, were non-existent
or at best, limited, in the African context. For example, where the
judiciary, responsible for resolving conflicts, is emasculated by one of the
contestants, the election process is ineffective since the incentive to be
fair is limited.
It is interesting to observe how, using examples from the South and
East African regions, the liberation parties responded to the challenge of
multi-party politics. I have divided the countries by response into two
sets, the Adaptable and the Non-Adaptable sets, depending on how the
liberation parties have coped with change.
Tanzania: When Mwalimu Julius Nyerere saw that the end was nigh he
departed gracefully in 1985 and was succeeded by Ali Hassan Mwinyi. Mwinyi
who handed over to Benjamin Mkapa. Mkapa passed the baton to the current
President Jakaya Kikwete. All these leaders belong to the liberation party,
Chama Cha Mapinduzi ("CCM") - a clear example of adaptability, even though
it was at the forefront of the one-party system in the 1970s.
Botswana: It is rightly held as Africa's longest multi-party
democracy, having adopted the system at independence in 1966. But in those
42 years, the ruling party, the Botswana Democratic Party ("BDP") has never
lost power to the opposition. Sir Seretse Khama, the first President was
succeeded by Sir Ketumile Masire who later stepped down for Festus Mogae.
Mogae recently handed over power to Seretse Khama Ian Khama.
Mozambique: The country that got off to a tumultuous start with Samora
Machel at the helm has calmed down lately. When Machel died tragically in
1986, he was succeeded by Joachim Chissano who successfully steered the
country out of the civil war, served his terms and gracefully left power to
the current President Armando Guebuza. As in Tanzania and Botswana, the
liberation party, FRELIMO, has retained power since independence and enabled
internal leadership succession and change, thereby providing a respectable
façade of democracy.
This is the set of countries where the liberation parties failed to
cope with change and have suffered a terrible patch after the leader's
departure. These are:
Zambia: Kenneth Kaunda led Zambia for 27 years since independence in
1964. He lost heavily to Frederick Chiluba in the watershed election in
1991. He became one of the first high profile victims of the new age of
politics and his party, UNIP, was left in the doldrums after his demise. It
has not recovered since.
Kenya: Moi took over the leadership after the death of Jomo Kenyatta
in 1978. By 1982 Kenya was a one-party state and Moi retained power, with an
iron grip, until 2002 when he "retired" before the election which his
party, KANU, lost to the opposition. It, too, has never recovered.
Malawi: Hastings Kamuzu Banda ruled this small country with an
iron-fist from independence in 1964 until he lost power to Bakili Muluzi in
1994, after reluctantly accepting multi-party politics.
So where, then, does Zimbabwe's Zanu PF fit?
It is the liberation party in Zimbabwe. Mugabe has dominated Zanu PF
politics since independence. The subject of succession in Zanu PF is almost
taboo. It has failed to learn from the mixed fortunes of the other
liberation parties
The power-sharing deal may have saved Mugabe from humiliation of
Kaunda and Banda, but the likelihood is that for Zanu PF the relief is only
short-term; a mere painkiller rather than a cure against a terminal disease.
It is odd that the many men and women in Zanu PF watch idly whilst their
party partakes the poison-pill.
Alex Magaisa is based at, Kent Law School, the University of Kent
and can be contacted at wamagaisa@yahoo.co.uk
No comments:
Post a Comment