In a vintage case of the grass getting trampled when two elephants wrestle, Zimbabwe is under threat of completely disintegrating into ashes as the jostle for political power between Zimbabwe National Unity-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) and the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) creates an impasse around the already minimal progress that has been achieved towards a government of national unity. The Zimbabwean situation is a typical example of the problem posed by a parliamentary system dominated by only two political parties in a nascent African multiparty democracy. In most instances in post-colonial Africa – where one-party state dictatorship has been the norm – it has been difficult for political forces with no historical link to the anti-colonial struggle for independence to break the hold of the ‘party of liberation’ on state power and popular support. The trend thus far has been that real opposition resulting in the peaceful electoral deposing of the party ruling since independence has often emerged as a consequence of fractures, dissent and divisions within that party, or an organic process of a labour and civil society movement breaking ranks with the ruling party to constitute itself into an alternative political group.

Often when this happens, the animosity between the two parties involved becomes so deep-seated that they are most of the time in deadlock, putting the contest for political power above the collective interest of the nation. The lack of civil society activism coupled with a weak and inefficiently organised social movement literally leaves society at the mercy of two strong parties who are very hostile to each other. Often the hostility is such that the two parties are so obsessed with upstaging each other for seizure and/or control of state power that there are minimal opportunities for any form of cooperative governance that would prioritise national unity and national interests above party interests. In the absence of other parties with enough electoral strength, popular currency and lobbying, advocacy and mass action capacity to be significant role-players and stakeholders in the political arena, you have a situation where a one-party dictatorship is replaced by the dominance of two parties preoccupied with nothing but showing their prowess against each other in the political kraal.

This is the scenario playing itself out in Zimbabwe, where the endless tug-of-war and political chess game between ZANU-PF and MDC has put the hopes and possibilities of political reconstruction and economic recovery in the once affluent country at bay. The absence of other powerful parliamentary and extra-parliamentary voices outside of ZANU-PF and the MDC reduces the chances of breaking the deadlock between the two parties. Here you have a formidable party with strong ‘struggle’ credentials locking horns with a party that has its roots in the labour and civil moment and has a swelling membership in the urban areas. While the former has a history of entrenching its rule through a combination of populist anti-imperialist, Third World nationalism rhetoric, tight control of the military, civil service and all state apparatus, and repression of private press and political dissent, the latter's Achilles' heel is the stigma of having strong and loudly pronounced backing from Western powers.

Zimbabwe holds powerful lessons for South Africa as the Congress of Democrats presents the opportunity of a strong opposition party with the leadership with enough struggle credentials and grassroots support to seriously contest for state power in the years to come. For many years, socio-political critics, commentators and analysts have been alarmed by the fact that South Africa is quickly falling into one-party state dominion, and that the current official opposition party's association with elite corporate and white minority interests, as well as its lack of ‘struggle’ credentials, does not have the capacity to become a formidable opposition party, let alone a serious contender for seizure of state power. With the South African National Civic Organization (SANCO) and the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) effectively representing the ANC on the ground and the ANC in labour respectively, you have a situation where, other than the emergent social movement, there is no powerful people's watchdog or well-organised civil society voice outside government. A politics of patronage and opportunism has also seen to it that private business becomes a consort of government where kickbacks such as tenders and hefty black economic empowerment (BEE) deals are commonplace. The corporate media is becoming increasingly a lapdog, echoing his master’s voice and keeping corporate interests are intact, while the public broadcaster is effectively a mouthpiece of the government and the ruling party. These are conditions very conducive for a one-party dictatorship to thrive, even behind the veil of liberal representative constitutional democracy.

For many analysts the resolution of the crisis of one-party domination lies in the emergence of a strong opposition party, which the Congress of the People (COPE) promises to be. Already pundits have proposed that in this year's national general elections there will be only two real players. To use a soccer metaphor, the rest belong in the junior league. Already COPE is said to be planning a labour federation alternative to COSATU, and SANCO is divided between ANC and COPE supporters.

This will imply that both within and outside parliament, the main choice will be between COPE and ANC. As already indicated by the Zimbabwean situation, it will be a mistake for voters to pin their hopes on one powerful opposition party. It might be a smarter move to consider boosting rather than depleting the electoral strength of political parties other than the ruling party (ANC), the current official opposition in the Democratic Alliance (DA), and COPE. This will help to widen the possibilities of having as varied and many as possible watchdog, conscientious, and alternative voices within parliament. At the moment chances are high that COPE's prominence will eat into the support base of parties like the United Democratic Movement, the Independent Democrats, Azanian People's Organization, Pan Africanist Congress, Socialist Party of Azania and others. If this happens, these parties might be weakened with the weakest among them even facing the possibility of marginalisation or even their complete disappearance from the political scene.

The country and its citizens will benefit far more from having as many strong and articulate political alternatives as possible than they could from a political landscape dominated by only two parties. In addition to as many powerful voices as possible within government, democracy also flourishes where there is a vibrant and articulate civil, social and labour movement.

It might therefore be prudent for those who wish to see a sustainable and flourishing democracy to invest in improving the resources and capacity of smaller parties and in defending the independence of the civic movement, the social movement and the labour movement. The unfortunate reality is that often it is the very forces and institutions that loudly pronounce on democracy that are quick to scuffle smaller alternative voices, while befriending and patronising those who hold political power. This produces a situation where the private sector simply funds the dominant and established parties, while the media focuses its attention only on the powerful, deliberately snubbing independent, alternative voices. These institutions uphold such a situation at the peril of wider society, as it can ultimately only lead to a one-party dictatorship or two-party junta.

* Mphutlane wa Bofelo is a writer-activist with a passion for using creative education, literature and theatre as tools for transformation and development.
* Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org/