Youth voices in political spaces: Far from near

IN A few months Zimbabwe will be sealed in the much anticipated harmonised elections, the first without Robert Mugabe. As with any election, there are winners and losers.

But, dear reader, this article offers neither post-election analysis nor after-the-fact second-guessing — well, at least, not in the well-worn, traditional sense.

Instead, I want to use the occasion of electoral progress (not process) to share an insight into the sad fundamentals of electoral democracy.

Regardless of whether political dominance is held by the ruling party, or the myriad oppositions about to break a record 128 (and still counting) registered parties will win, our nation suffers because of youth voter apathy.

The premise of this article is informed by the present-only-towards-elections-debate that youths decide on elections.

This narrative has recently been championed by the Civil Society Organisations whose main architecture has deviated from genuine concern on democratic processes, complementing the government’s functions but now built on strategic timing of swindling donor money particularly towards elections.

When humans become money A number of analysts have always argued that political fortunes for any party lie in the youth bulge which is deterred from democratic processes by numerous reasons.

Some among many have been abject disenfranchisement through disparaging unemployment, infuriating un-made promises, misinformation, absence of provable incentives for voting or political involvement, adultism and disappointingly objectification of young people within political spaces. This has grown to be a tired discursive explanation and it still hasn’t changed.

The youth in Zimbabwe represent an important constituency for mobilisation by political parties and senior politicians because the majority are regarded in the 2018 election as “first-time-voters”, inexperienced in the electoral process and therefore “swing” voters worth competing over.

Because of this perception the youth become the target of political party mobilisation campaigns and of nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) that implement voter education and registration campaigns.

The media and political analysts reiterate the significance of capturing the youth vote, identifying them as the ultimate determinants of the victor in the 2018 elections.

This narrative has not shifted since 2013 and sadly political remoras are feeding on those misconceived givings. We are still plagued by political mis-characterisations of 2013 and I still see no change in the script.

Given the perceived centrality of the youth vote, voter education and registration becomes the subject of a political contest among the major political parties.

Central to that struggle was in 2013 and will be in 2018 the accreditation of civil society organisations to provide voter education alongside that offered by the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (Zec).

With significant financial resources compared to those of the Zec, civil society organisations will, as always be widely seen as aligned to the opposition and therefore likely to use voter education as a political campaign and youth mobilisation exercise for opposition parties at the expense of Zanu-PF.

This character of CSOs being fronts of political movements has not changed and can easily be traced way back to individuals who both were activists or executive directors of NGOs and suddenly turned political party leaders.

Using CSOs as an entrance into mainstream politics has compromised the genuineness of civil society and young people have been used as the currency which the director brings with to or leaves with from the party. With all this, young people are seeing.

Let me admit that efforts to adopt smart politics (the use of technology to campaign) exhibits visible strides within politics, as conversations are ongoing on social media however, arguably limited to urban and semi-urban areas.

We can credit such efforts as it triggered a talkative citizen who to a plausible degree is involved in the discussions however, not realistically as politics would desire.

Nevertheless, the upsurge of political discussions online give a façade of youth political consciousness.

It makes an impression that the town folks’ interaction are a true reflection of youth popular participation in democratic discourses yet the bulge does not tweet and is in rural areas.

From the outlook, one would be convinced that we have reached the climax of youth enrolment yet there are underlying fundamentals that subdue the youth voice. Such misinformed political managements are the reasons why post elections we hear electoral fraud accusations yet proper demographics are mis-represented.

This is one of the reasons why we are stuck on failures to provide a prognosis of youth voter apathy. It informs why we have not moved from the whims of 2005-2013 youth voter resentment.

The same failing cycle will be repeated in 2018 when CSOs celebrate new-yet-old models of attracting less informed young people to register to vote.

When many will reside in the assumption that we have a commendable voter registration yet the youth constitute less than the 60 percent registrants we are being sold. It is the huge disappointment waiting for many when they assume that young people will dominate the polling stations yet voter registration is distantly different from the actual voting.

Have we asked ourselves whom they will vote for? Why they should vote? What incentives are there for anyone to stand the winter frost and a day-long queue and is there any utility in casting a ballot?

Indeed the euphoria for casting a vote is present in many after registering, but the big question is how long will the excitement be till the actual day of casting their vote?

Let’s assume they vote For some parties like MDC Alliance and MRP, it is the age consensus that is being sold and the assumption is that the young registrants will cast their vote for someone 40 years and below, well, that is a greatly misinformed political character.

It presupposes that young voters do not question policy framing as long as you are 40 (as if you will not grow beyond 40). It dangerously uses ageism as an exclusionary political choice tool as if young people do not value experience, respectability, political and social capital and where better opportunities lie.

One sad truth is that conservative youths attach age to wisdom and that will be the turning point of the masqueraded age consensus which has suddenly loomed because of the death of one political leader.

Another miscalculation is that of assuming that youth use a protest vote to eliminate your opponents.

I hasten to say that we have moved past that type of vote as the political dynamics have shifted. What happened in November 2017 preamble a re-think of electoral decisions.

Should that be ignored as a reason why political outcomes are viewed as obvious by young people, then someone is in for an electoral whooping.

Let us remember that the Matabele protest vote is now split along ethnic and factional lines further induced by the landmark voter registration apathy in the region with Bulawayo topping the list.

Bulawayo having failed to surpass its 2013 record of 300 743 registered voters, it also spells a decrease in young people in that process, let alone exact registration.

The same goes for Harare which was last pegged at 788 959 in 2013 against a 747 920 of 2018. These are scary figures when one considers the trend of apathy and how MDC strongholds are fractured by low voter turnout and recent split votes.

The fallacy that young people dominate the voter registration cannot be left out to gain prominence when young people continue to be “othered” and maintained as political currency by both political parties and CSOs.

Following Qhubani Moyo’s submission on social media a while ago, he made a sterling informed revelation that people below the age of 35 years constitute 45 percent of that registration detail after 96 percent decryption. So that is the final give or take and probably half if not slightly above that will cast their vote.

I am convinced (until otherwise) that adultism still dominates the political space. This cult is equally brutal as ageism. It directly collides with ageism in that it assumes young people have no experience and should be voters, not candidates.

Such phenomena dis-incentivises youth participation as some parties will not feature the young blood. For now, let’s be genuine in what bars popular participation.

Let us move from the common NGO mentality of making money by selling the number of young people we can reach yet we do not impart meaningful ideas and franchises.

The time has come for the huge numbers with little voices to be heard and refuse to be used as property that one can bring to a party or choose to leave with.

When will we move from adages that restrict inclusive politics?

Till next week.