Morgan Tsvangirai, a fake democrat

WHEN MDC-T leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, entered the political fray claiming to be a democrat, all people expected him to exhibit democratic traits in sync with his purported political doctrine, but alas, the opposition leader proved to be an unmistakable autocrat.

Tsvangirai has proved to be more attuned to his personal whims and utterly impregnable to advice from MDC-T party structures.

His undemocratic credentials could be traced back to his selfish branding of the opposition as MDC-Tsvangirai.

The personalisation of the party name was a clear indication that Tsvangirai regarded the party as his personal property, despite it initially being an amalgamation of labour, student unions and civic organisations.

Without doubt, such personalisation of a supposedly people’s movement flies in the face of the tenets of democracy that Tsvangirai and his party claims to pursue, but smacks of his despotic tendencies.

Only three years after the formation of the MDC, Tsvangirai sacked one of its legislators, Munyaradzi Gwisai, for holding socialist views that ran counter to the party’s neo-liberal ideology. The expulsion of Gwisai in 2002 became one of the earliest manifestations of Tsvangirai’s despotic and undemo- cratic leaning.

Gwisai had previously clashed publicly with Tsvangirai when the outspoken lawyer had accused the MDC of being hijacked by “elitist forces” that had ganged up with the rich and intellectuals at the expense of the poor.

In 2005, Tsvangirai further exhibited his autocratic qualities when he imposed his will on the party concerning its participation in the 2005 Senate elections.

The MDC national council had voted 33 to 31 in favour of participating in the Senate elections, but Tsvangirai unilaterally declared that the party would boycott the polls as he was personally opposed to the plebiscite.

He was quoted by the Zimbabwe Independent saying, “I’m the leader of the party. I’m giving direction when you have a stalemate.”

This is despite the fact that the majority of the party’s national council members had voted in favour of participating in the 2005 Senate elections.

In 2009, Tsvangirai was back to his dictatorial ways when he surreptitiously amended the party’s constitution to drop a clause that limited his term in office as party president.

He removed clause 6.1.3 which said the president shall serve for a maximum of two terms, which meant his tenure was supposed to have expired in 2011.

Tsvangirai superimposed the constitutional changes despite stipulations in the MDC constitution that any amendment to the constitution required approval by at least two-thirds of delegates present and voting at congress. Without a congress and popular approval, Tsvangirai whimsically amended the constitution to extend his stay in power.

Later in 2014, Tsvangirai flexed his autocratic powers by compelling delegates at the party’s 2014 congress to tinker with the party’s constitution in order to concentrate party powers around his position and simultaneously trim the powers of the party’s secretary general.

Previous secretary generals, Professor Welshman Ncube and Tendai Biti, were accused of trying to usurp Tsvangirai’s powers.

As secretary-general, Biti was accused of creating a centre of power that directly challenged Tsvangirai’s office.

As a result of the amendment, all power was given to Tsvangirai. He became the custodian of the party name; all party assets; supervisor of party leaders; and became the party’s chief fund-raiser. Most of these duties previously fell under the office of the secretary-general and treasurer-general.

With such a shoddy record of undemocratic credentials, it is not surprising that Tsvangirai this week announced that he had banned primary elections in the MDC-T. Tsvangirai declared that he will personally select members that would participate in future elections.

Everywhere in the world, primary elections are regarded as a democratic barometer to choose candidates, who will represent the party in elections, but Tsvangirai unilaterally dropped the practice from his party.

It is not surprising that under Tsvangirai’s despotic stewardship, the MDC fragmented into pieces, with its other leaders forming their own rival parties.

All these instances unassailably prove that Tsvangirai is not the democrat he claims to be but a sheer autocrat interested in eternally safeguarding his position as party leader.

Now he is saying there will not be any primary elections to choose party candidates preferring a fraudulent and controversy-ridden consensus system.

Tsvangirai declared that “as regards the Senate, this time, I will choose representatives on my own.

I will personally vet those whose names will be put forward because I know every MDC cadre and their contribution to the party from the formation of the party.”

This means that Tsvangirai will constitute himself into the party’s elections directorate and personally vet all candidates as he “knows” all party members since the formation of the party.

Several issues arise out of this declaration.

First one is that Tsvangirai has stayed for too long as leader to the extent that he has effectively personalised the party.

His word has become law in the party.

How does one explain a situation where a party leader abrogates the party’s rules and regulations on electoral candidates to personally choose candidates?

His claim to know every member and their contribution to the party since its formation is the clearest confirmation to date that founding membership status in MDC-T supersedes its rules and regulations.

Tsvangirai is basically saying that “I formed this thing so I will choose those I know to stand as candidates.”

Would we be faulted then, to assume that among those known by the leader are cadres contributing towards his cancer treatment or family upkeep in these hard times?

In that case, President Mugabe may be known as he contributed US$70 000. Tough luck kune vakaomera nevasina chinhu!!

What Tsvangirai needs to appreciate is that what he refers to as “our biggest problem, as a party . . . the division of supporters” is basically not division of supporters.

It is rather the emptiness of its vision and paucity of viable economic revival strategies.

It is the reason why MDC-T supporters abandon ship at crucial election time to vote for better policy alternatives.

A historical check will confirm that the MDC-T has not grown its support base behind the 1,2 million supporters despite all the noise on social media.