The new Zimbabwe stumbles in its first steps after an election that was the MDC’s to lose
Post-election Zim will need both parties to come to the table
● It has been said almost to the point of nausea that Zimbabwe’s general election was about bringing the country to the post-Mugabe era through normalising its political and economic situation. Since November, the government of Zimbabwe has been seeking to return to the fold of the international community, and the stakes were high for this election.
Perceptual issues were key; numerically speaking, these elections attracted the most foreign observers, with more than 43 institutions, states, regional and international organisations — including the EU — sending personnel to ensure the elections were free and fair.
The election was also the first in a long time to not feature two traditional faces in Zimbabwean political life, Robert Mugabe and the late Morgan Tsvangirai.
The violence in Harare made clear the extent to which the country has not moved on from its troubles. Equally clear is the fact that the election was Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) Alliance leader Nelson Chamisa’s to lose. The
MDC has never had an opportunity such as this one. The lack of a grand plan, both by the MDC Alliance and Chamisa as a leader, was their ultimate undoing.
Zanu-PF, on the other hand, has done all that is possible in a short time and has sung the right tune. Its messaging, that Zimbabwe is open for business, buttressed by its invitation to foreign (and especially Western) observers, has been consistent and gained traction.
However, elements of Mugabeism remain, most clearly in the use of force. Even more demoralising than the use of force is the issue of from where it emanated: the army. The army, which was the author of the change in government, is also not seeing eye-to-eye with the police service, which is seen as pro-Mugabe. This hints at unresolved differences in the Zimbabwean state machinery.
The rapid deployment of the military speaks to a challenge at the heart of Zimbabwe’s political system: can the country have a non-militarised formation? The sad turn of events on the eve of the announcement of the election results tainted the democratic image Zimbabwe is desperately trying to project. What went wrong?
The election was not characterised by open cheating, but challenges persisted. The first of these stemmed from a lack of resources, which denied the realisation of a free and fair election. The economic situation in Zimbabwe, as well as limited external funding, were at play here.
There was also the Zanu-PF hold over traditional leaders, who were in positions to influence their village constituents.
Another issue that shone through was that the timing worked in Zanu-PF’s favour. Despite the MDC’s acquiescence to early elections, this factor favoured the incumbent party.
It also appears as if the government overreacted in its crackdown on urban dwellers, who are seen as anti-Mugabe, while Zanu-PF’s support base is overwhelmingly rural. There is a danger in this use of military force for what should be a civilian issue in that it will taint Zimbabwe’s image.
As for the MDC, its biggest challenges lie in its new leader. Chamisa is not Tsvangirai. Even at his weakest and most justifiably enraged, Tsvangirai was mature and measured, to the point of being perceived as too soft. He seemed to be determined to do what was in the best interests of the country, and even went into the government of national unity against the grumblings of some in the MDC.
Chamisa wanted to be his own man, but this backfired. His utterances seemed ill-considered and his desire to play the role of an energetic young leader made him seem too radical and eroded his credibility. In short, he appeared reckless, and seemed to be putting people’s lives on the line to achieve his political aspirations in asserting that he would accept only an MDC victory as a legitimate outcome.
He should have allowed due process to take its course and the observers to play their role. He jumped the gun and, as a result, however credible his allegation may have been, he forfeited their weight by not making use of the proper channels.
Another great disadvantage for the MDC was its lack of policy clarity. There was complete silence on the economy, while Zanu-PF was solid in its “open for business” platform.
This, in combination with the lack of a common strategy within the makeshift alliance, failed to win even Matabeleland — though the disparate elements garnered more votes combined than Zanu-PF. Another disadvantage for the MDC was its pinning its hopes on younger voters, many of whom did not register to vote.
During the Mugabe era, the MDC was painted as being too close to “Western imperialists”, yet in this election Zanu-PF based its campaign on its appeal to the very same West. It appears the West wants to give President Emmerson Mnangagwa a chance despite his somewhat stained record.
Hope is not lost for the MDC. Its chances of attaining power remain alive. But it will need a clear strategy, and avoid overreliance on rhetoric and complaints, the most baseless being perhaps that rural villages are closed to the party.
Post-election Zimbabwe will need both parties to come to the table. Mnangagwa, despite his victory and new-found air of legitimacy, must remember that he still needs the urban elite, many of whom are pro-MDC, and should reach out to them accordingly.
From Chamisa to Tendai Biti and Arthur Mutambara, the MDC has many bright, relatively young leaders who could be of immense help to the national agenda. Many voices will need to chime in as Zimbabwe attempts to reposition itself, navigate uncharted territories in reform, and open up to the West while gearing up relations with the East. Above all else, as it seeks to convince the diaspora that Zimbabwe is still capable of keeping the promises encrusted on its national regalia: unity, freedom and work.