Coalitions: A rape of our democracy
of the time is spent on allocating offices, agreeing on the memoranda, reflecting on the past signed agreements and dissolving the coalition.
The citizen, who is coerced into voting for that one candidate they had no will for in the first place, is the most vulnerable. In the 2000 first round elections in Senegal Abdoulaye Wade failed to beat the incumbent yet he had a coalition, when he expanded his coalition with Moustapha Niasse, he won by 58,5 percent but the livelihood of the common Senegalese worsened because Wade’s term was characterised by attempts to consolidate power and retracts of betrayal. That Senegalese government addressed outstanding coalition issues than protracted economic and social agonies the citizens were facing.
Although the true goal of coalitions is achieved, the imminent and ever present dream of a better society by the common man remains a facade, mist in the early winter mornings and probably fog in hot summer’s noon. Commoners continue wallowing in disdain when the coalition leaders take office and have no idea on how to revive the economy of social deficits because it was never their main goal to deliver the nation from that but to remove the incumbent using the electoral numbers. I should say opposition coalitions have become common across Africa, remember the 1997 and 2002 and 2007 elections in Kenya, however, which resulted in a terrible ethnic conflict and the recent ones which have been nullified by their own courts, the 1993 election in Malawi, 2000 Senegalese elections and a close win by the CUD of Ethiopia in 2005. But the big question is: Did they change the livelihoods of the people? Didn’t they limit political choice of the people? What is the purpose of splitting if you then parade a lie to us that you have a common goal? Those with a common philosophy are always together, aren’t they? This is the frivoling political environment we live in today, most of the times, politics lies to us especially if it is desperate for power.
We suddenly if not ignorantly become selective of principles we value. Making a choice of joining party X not Z is a monumental choice which defines anyone’s humanness and sanity. The intention of willing to be led by Mr or Mrs X is proof of what defines a good world to me and how I identify with whatever each one of them represents. When I make a choice of not joining party D, it is my declaration of how detesting I am to their whole movement and everything they believe in so when my leader in party X then says let us join party D isn’t he proving that I made a mistake following him? Is it not a classical sign of ideological weakness and the highest sense of collective low self esteem?
People join parties knowing pretty well that they are few to dislodge party W but what keeps them there is their free will and appreciation of its principle thereof. They are cognisant of the fact that their party president may not be the President of the country but they will fight to have someone in council or parliament who reflects their thinking and that is the most important thing — principle of choosing and being represented by one they share an identity with.
As it stands, someone in Kuwadzana will be represented by someone they do not want, who does not carry their interests at heart, whom, probably they ridiculed long back by ditching the party which has imposed him because of coalition allocations. This is another strategy of imposing candidates on people because everyone from MDC is now forced to vote for an MDC-T candidate yet they split because they did not align well, but because Professor Welshman Ncube maybe wants to be the Vice-President, everyone has to dance to the tune. The reason why some people followed Tendai Biti and left Tsvangirai has not changed, but they are coerced to vote Tsvangirai as president because Biti maybe wants to be second VP or SG again. So the principle of free will is trampled, the interest of the leaders embalmed as “the peoples’ choices” take precedence and everyone sits quietly and says Yay! We are democratic — maybe it’s the new definition, who knows.
Let us strongly reflect on Thokozani Khupe’s stance of refusing the coalition in Matabeleland, maybe she is right, protecting the democratic interests of Matabeleland people. Let us think hard about it, not on party position threat grounds, but on principle grounds, should a people’s democratic privilege be subdued because people want “Zanu-PF out”? What is more important, a principle or the interests of the elite?
Follow @mhlanga_micheal