A ghost in Norton
THE main focus of a political candidate is not to only retain an existing electorate, but to expand the voter base. This is the phantom error the ruling party has made for a long time and it cost them the Norton seat. For probably a year, Zanu-PF will leave with a recurring memory of the dreadful day when one of its own dislodged member challenged them again and emerged a second time in one term sworn in politician. The misery in Norton is temporary, but the embarrassment has been engraved in the walls of history. It is important for the ruling party to take serious lectures from this not to allow history to reccur. This election was a plumb in Zimbabwean politics; it brought hopes to those who lunge at the demise of the ruling party, and demise to those who thought Norton was a walk in the park. Many of them forgot the symbolism of this contest, a lot was at stake and the plethora of conspiracy theories born after that dreadful evening stands to testify that. Believe it or not, Temba Mliswa is again Member of Parliament, and Zanu-PF missed a lot in Norton, Need I remind comrades the symbolism of that race.
That is the constituency that stocks Christopher Mutsvangwa. Yes! The expelled former War veterans’ leader. When a vanguard of the party is arrogated “rogue”, he definitely is bitter and wants to send a harsh message. Norton instantly became Winterfell (GoT) with its image associating with power, so whoever courts it, controls a political sway at the moment. Zanu-PF was supposed to win that seat and demystify, not only Mliswa but Chris Mutsvangwa, who still has a large following in that town and anything against him is voted against. The election capitalised much on convergence politics which has been the sermon in opposition politics. Although my argument sets on a bigger picture, the opposition strategy worked against the party. Let me elucidate further.
All major opposition parties agreed to support Mliswa, not that they like him, but to augment their “Mugabe must go” fustian. Even if this election was not of ejecting President Mugabe, it worked well in their favour to use Mliswa as a guinea pig for a political experiment.
They are now confident that a coalition would really deport Zanu-PF, but they still haven’t thought it through. It is almost true that in 2018 Temba will not win in Norton, Why? His current vote will be split, MDC, PDP, Zim PF will field their loyal candidates whose votes worked in favour of Mliswa, while Zanu-PF will retain its original figures or get more. Be it that as it may, a loss is disheartening and currently the party’s morale is low. In the event that opposition agrees to a coalition, the ruling party needs to explore other electoral avenues; such as a rigorous campaign to revive voter confidence. As I have always argued, if opposition agrees to a coalition, there will be leadership mayhem.
Already Mliswa has publicly declared his distaste for Runhaida and counselled the ever-vulnerable Tsvangirai not to allow Mujuru to lead. Even if they would marry, an interesting analysis that most people are ignorant of is that after a coalition dons power, it splits during the tenure of office as their mandate will be done; which is of ousting the regime. Thereafter, votes will be split in the next vote and they in turn become political enemies. Much of the time in office will be spent on political strategising of retaining power after one term rather than continuation of economically viable policies already in place.
This is when Zimbabwe becomes a political stage play where citizens are the audience which paid into its entrance with hunger, civil unrest and dearth of humanity. So the thought of a coalition has not been thought out well by even the educated politicians and the electorate that is fed with a mixed poetic rhetoric of “Mugabe must go”. It worked now in Norton, but it absolutely will not work again in 2018, but that should be a wake-up call to Zanu-PF.
On that note, it should not be forgotten that this election also relived past political experiences where dislodged Zanu-PF members fight their way back into Parliament, not because they have the electorate at heart, but it’s all because they are sending a message to whoever expelled them. It’s a game of “power” display where a person gloats that “it’s not the party that got me into Parliament, it’s my name, and I can still do it without you”.
But this is not entirely true, Zanu-PF members vote for that candidate in party colours because they relate well with the party, comically, the same electorate sympathises with whoever has been expelled and votes for them back into Parliament. Voters use the “now” thought spectre not the “then” mantra to make decisions, that is basic electoral behaviour and electoral strategists should explore it more often. Temba is not the first to pull such a stunt, Margaret Dongo in 1995, Jonathan Moyo in 2005 and 2008, Munyaradzi Kereke in 2013.
Who murdered in Norton? Murder happened in Norton, the ruling party should admit that. In as much as the National Political Commissar accepted the results, I could pick an undertone of utmost displeasure in his voice, Saviour Kasukuwere was not pleased at all. Even President Mugabe did not mince his words, and other party leaders too. This is how much that election meant to him and the party. In any case, Zanu-PF had not put in much effort in that election compared to 2013 when a political marketing of the highest level was displayed and opposition thought branded t-shirts, caps, cloth and torches would not guarantee a landslide. To their ignorance, they too forgot that a party is a brand and it has to be advertised in the most attractive manner possible. I would not delve much into what influences people to vote, but visibility is key in politics and subconscious nudging plays an acute role in decision making.
Mliswa is the first murderer. His win killed the morale of the party, he knew the weaknesses of Zanu-PF in Norton, he maximised on the disgruntled war veterans who were instrumental in campaigning for Mutsvangwa in 2013. He knew opposition is too weak to pit Zanu-PF and would dive at any offer from a former Zanu-PF, and above all he maximised on the in-house hostility in Zanu-PF which limited the party’s concentration on the stronghold. All this cannot conclusively be attributed to Mliswa’s wits but to a level of negligence by the party. These are giveaways that could have been dealt with by the party and definitely cost Temba a consolation after losing in Hurungwe West on June 10 2015.
The second murderer is Ronald Chindedza. I do not personally know this farmer, but what I know is that the President recently had unkind words about him. Firstly, his candidature is so much questionable. It is mixed with allegations of imposition and dislike of his persona hence credible enough for me to conclude that a large sect of Zanu-PF members aided apathy because they felt democratically robbed. When one campaigns, issues of belonging are not individualistic but a collective responsibility. At that time, all that mattered was Zanu-PF. He should have realised that the Pitbull he was going against was gaining impetus and he needed a whole Zanu-PF army to back him. Many a times I have heard the cliché “one should deserve to be Zanu-PF” and at that point, Chindedza didn’t deserve to be one. I wonder how much politically dismal the farm administrator is that he confidently pasted such ugly posters all over Norton. People, a politician is a brand, just like a loaf of bread, consumers are attracted by its package. Some of you may take it lightly but posters are integral in branding: it’s called political marketing. When any voter sees a poorly designed poster, he doesn’t waste his time reading the contents; a quick critical discourse analysis confirms an utter dislike of the candidate.
Stuart Hall talks of representation, where the usual meaning of this term is connected with whether the depiction of something is an accurate or distorted reflection. I draw some lessons from him when he shows that an image can have many different meanings and that there is no guarantee that images will work in the way we think they will when we create them. Hall understands that communication is always linked with power and that those groups who wield power in a society influence what gets represented through the media. One way he does that is through what he calls interrogation of the image. The idea of interrogation normally brings to mind asking hard questions of a suspect. But how do we interrogate an image? By examining it, asking the hard questions about it rather than just accepting it at face value. Just as a good interrogator looks behind the suspect’s story or alibi, so must we probe inside and behind the image. Why should we think this way about images?
Marshall McLuhan once said he wasn’t sure who discovered water, but he was pretty sure it wasn’t the fish. In other words, when we are immersed in something, surrounded by it the way we are by images from the media, we may come to accept them as just part of the real and natural world. We just swim through them, unthinkingly absorbing them as fish in water.
What cultural studies would like us to do is step out of the water in a sense and look at it, see how it shapes our existence, and even critically examine the content of the water which is what I did with Ronald’s marketing and saw nothing of what esteemed scholars purported. There was lack of strategy, marketing and honesty in that election. #Thatposter. Next week I shall explore the need to attract new voters as we toddle to 2018. #2018willtell.
Micheal Mhlanga is a research and strategic communication specialist and is currently serving Leaders for Africa Network (LAN) as the Programmes and Public Liaison Officer. He also administrates multiple youth public dialogue forums in Zimbabwe including the annual Reading Pan Africanism Symposium (REPS) and Back to Pan Africanism Conference. Feedback can be sent to michealmhlanga@ abakhokheli.org