Former finance minister and member of the Zanu PF politburo, Simba Makoni is challenging Robert Mugabe later this month for the leadership of Zimbabwe. Sehlare Makgetlanen tackles the question of whether he represents a break from the past or more of the same.
Zimbabwe under the leadership of Mugabe is facing fundamental governance, democracy and development challenges. It has failed to ‘‘legitimately exercise power and authority over the control and management of the country’s affairs in the interest of the people and in accordance with the principles of justice, equity, accountability and transparency.” Mugabe has prevented some members of the Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) from expressing their governance, democracy and development policy preferences through democratic means to be the president of ZANU-PF and the country. He regards himself as the only leading judge of what best serves the national interests of Zimbabwe which include governance, democracy and development demands, needs and interests of the country and its people.
Mugabe has threatened to be the stumbling block for ZANU-PF to win free and fair elections and for the resolution of Zimbabwe’s governance, democracy and development problems. Processes and issues leading to true national self-determination should not be left into the hands of one leader irrespective of the unquestionable content of his or her commitment to the liberation cause and that the political leadership including the leadership in the political administration of the society is the collective process in which no individual is indispensable. He has in the process mobilised some members of ZANU-PF to implement their decision to use their strength and resources in challenging him not only as the president of the party but also as the president of the country. Those theirs is hostility to the new leadership of the party and the country as required by the present situation – the struggle fought for under the pretext of defending the unity of the party – must be democratically fought against. It is not in the interest of the country and its people in defending the unity of the party if its president is against the popular national interests – the governance, democracy and development demands, needs and interests of the country and its people.
Whether they will use this development to have collective leadership and the democratic means capable of adequately appropriating Zimbabwe’s problems for their confrontation and resolution remains to be seen. These problems have intensified. This development led Simba Makoni to challenge Mugabe in the 29 March 2008 presidential elections. What is the present state of Zimbabwe’s national situation? “The Zimbabwe of today,” according to Makoni at the launch of his election manifesto in Harare on 13 February 2008, “is a nation full of fear, a nation in deep stress, a tense and polarised nation, a nation also characterised by disease and extreme poverty.” It is a nation in which “immediate and urgent tasks to resolve the food, power and fuel, water and sanitation problems, resolve health and educational services” should be undertaken.
Highlighting the gravity of Zimbabwe’s socio-political and economic situation, Makoni in his 5 February 2008 announcement that he would challenge Mugabe in the 29 March 2008 presidential elections as candidate pointed out that he shares “the agony and anguish of all citizens over the extreme hardships we have all endured for nearly 10 years.” Admitting the role played by the national leaders on the development of the national situation, he told reporters that he also shares “the widely held view that these hardships are a result of failure of national leadership and that change at that level is a prerequisite for change at other levels of national endeavour.” He was denied opportunity to a “renewal of the leadership in the ZANU-PF and country” to end economic crisis and “national despair.” It is for this reason, among others, that what he is “offering is the chance for hope” to rid Zimbabwe of fear and poverty. The point is that “we believe that solving these problems will not be intractable, once we remove the barriers and impediments that bar the expression and pursuit of our common interest and common purpose.” If elected, he promises that he would “address national issues that separate and divide us as a nation and institute a process of national healing and reconciliation.” Having been expelled from ZANU-PF, he is standing as an independent presidential candidate in the presidential and parliamentary elections scheduled for 29 March 2008. He calls upon Zimbabweans particularly members of the party to join him in his struggle to prevent Mugabe from winning a sixth term in office. “I particularly invite those compatriots who have been pushed into despair and despondency, but have the qualities of leadership, to please enter the race. I also invite those in ZANU-PF who share our yearning for renewal to contest the election as independent candidates under our banner.” He is contesting elections under the banner of the movement called Dawn (Mavambo/Kusile), whose logo features a rising sun. “The time for decision has come. Jump off the fence, climb out of the false comfort zones.” Contrary to Makoni’s position, members of the ruling alliance are not in “the false comfort zones.” Theirs are structures of wealth and privileges.
There is essentially nothing new Makoni has pointed out since announcing his decision to challenge Mugabe in the elections. He has repeated statements opposition political parties and their critics have been saying about the country’s problems and how to resolve them. On the atrocious abuse of power and public resources and use of violent measures to deal with dissent and opposition including within the ruling party, he maintains: “Zimbabweans are experiencing stress and tension because of the siege mentality in the state, with the state resorting to violence to suppress dissent, a lack of respect for the law and gross abuse of state resources.” He continues: “National institutions have been corrupted, privatised and politicised. We are seeing a scourge of the politics of patronage and gross abuse of power and a culture of chiefdom.” He has served as a senior participant in creating and sustaining this democracy practice. He continues stating what has been attributed not only to the ruling party, but also to two factions of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). “There is lack of a national vision and agenda on the basis which all Zimbabweans could be mobilised for national reconciliation and revival.” What is his vision and agenda on the basis which Zimbabweans could be mobilised to serve as social agents for development and progress of their country is the strategic question which he has so far failed to answer. Predicting a landslide victory in the elections, he is basing his campaign platform on the revival of the economy and the restoration of political freedoms and property rights. He claims that this strategy will “restore our people’s independence, dignity and confidence.” This strategy will continue, if he wins elections, in managing the inequality of power relations between the rulers and the ruled of the country.
As it happened in the past, members of ZANU-PF were denied their democratic rights and opportunity to fight for nomination during its December 2007 congress so as to stand as the party’s candidate in the 29 March 2008 presidential elections. It endorsed Mugabe as its sole candidate. This decision ensured that he should not be challenged within the ruling party in his attempt to be re-elected as the president of the country. Makoni was defying this decision in announcing that he would challenge him as the ruling party’s candidate in the elections. He maintains that at the December 2007 congress, some party members including himself were prevented from seeking nomination as its presidential candidate. In his words: “I would have very much wished to stand as (ZANU-PF) official candidate. Unfortunately, as we all know, that opportunity was denied to other cadre who would have offered themselves to serve the party and country.”
While Makoni’s announcement is viewed by some individuals as a substantial and welcome addition in the arsenal against Mugabe, the MDC faction led by Morgan Tsvangirai and civil society organisations aligned to it regard him as the ruling party agent deployed to divide the opposition vote in the elections. Tsvangirai dismissed him as “nothing more than old wine in a new bottle.” Lovemore Madhuku was more harsh and brutal. He dismissed him as the part of the ZANU-PF-state institutional machinery and its project guilty of many years of its rule. As usual, the ruling party viewed him as the traitor and agent of imperialist interests. Questions are raised as to whether he is honest and sincere in his declared challenge to Mugabe. Is he the intelligence project by supporters of Mugabe designed to identify senior members of the ruling party who are Mugabe’s opponents he maintains support his campaign? Some are of the view that his aim is to split the opposition vote – most importantly urban voters who have supported the MDC in the previous elections.
Why did Makoni decide to challenge Mugabe? At what time did he seriously convince himself that he should summon his courage to challenge Mugabe? Why did he announce his decision so late? Is it because his wish to be the ruling party’s official candidate was rejected? Was he forced to make his decision? If he was forced, who forced him, for what strategic and tactical reasons? The announcement of his decision raises the key question as to whether he is a shrewd politician capable of effectively challenging Mugabe. What are his strategy and tactics to win elections and to effect the democratic transformation of the state and society? Is his campaign individual or collective effort? Can the majority of Zimbabweans regard it as their proud national product? Who within the ruling party are supporting his campaign? Have they participated in the creation and sustenance of the current situation? Are they now convinced that Mugabe is threatening their interests and therefore he should be replaced as the country’s president for their interests to continue being protected? Why they have not publicly articulated what they stand for – particularly how and for what strategic and tactical ends Zimbabwe should be governed? He initially stated that he was standing as an independent presidential candidate within the ruling party challenging Mugabe. He refused, given his loyalty to the party, to end his relationship with it. He was embracing leaderless illusion that the party will not end its relationship with him. As the party correctly pointed out, he expelled himself from it by making his announcement. He continues, after expulsion from the party, refusing to provide a critical analysis of the party and how it ruled the society and articulating this to Zimbabweans so as to with their support for him to solve problems they have been facing as he claims to be his key reason why he decided to contest elections. He continues refusing also to use opportunity to substantiate in practice that he is independent from the ruling party.
Makoni has so far failed to provide failed to provide alternative vision and agenda of the future Zimbabwe to that offered by ZANU-PF and two MDC factions. Despite acute problems confronted by the masses on the daily basis, his strategy and tactics have failed to meet their demands and needs. The consequence is that they do not recognise them as expressions of their own experience. Briefly, they failed to capture their imaginations. Is he for the authentic national popular democratisation of the society and the state for the masses of the Zimbabwean people to be the main authority in achieving, maintaining and expanding their interests? Unless the power to determine the form and content as well as the timetable of the change is in the hands of the masses of the people through the leadership of those who have surrendered their being their representatives to their cause, unilateral declaration of independence of leaders from the people will always be the negation of the popular principle, “we are our own liberators.”
The strategic tasks confronting the masses of Zimbabweans are political. Who should be their national president and why? How should be their national problems be resolved? What should be the nature of the future Zimbabwe’s relations with its regional and continental African countries and the rest of the world particularly developed countries? How best and effectively to improve the material conditions of the millions of Zimbabweans? These are some of the questions which should be answered to the satisfaction of the majority of Zimbabweans.
*Sehlare Makgetlaneng is the head of Southern African and SADC Desk at the Africa Institute of South Africa.
**Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org
