Maravi

Protracted intra-MMD strife

Protracted intra-MMD strife
By Editor
Sat 31 Oct. 2009, 04:00 CAT

There are serious problems, contradictions and conflicts within the ruling MMD. And if these matters are not addressed, the MMD risks losing power and going into political oblivion in 2011. There is need for the MMD leadership and general membership to begin by recognising the scale of their loss of popularity and of their problem.

The MMD is increasingly becoming associated with the most disagreeable messages and thoughts. They may say much of that linkage is not true, it’s merely propaganda and lies by their political enemies, but since it is what people think, it must be appreciated as a deeply felt distaste, rather than a momentary irritation caused by unceasing enemy propaganda. They cannot dismiss it as mere false perception.

The MMD is today linked to intolerance, tyranny, undemocratic practices, corruption, intrigue and all sorts of abuse. They are thought to be uncaring about the plight of the poor. They are thought to be interested only about staying in power, retaining power at all costs.

Their defence and accommodation of corrupt elements like Frederick Chiluba has earned them a reputation of not caring about justice but caring more about their hold on power. They are thought to favour greed and the unqualified pursuit of power, with a devil-take-the-hindmost attitude.

And the intra-party squabbles or in-fighting makes them appear to have almost completely abandoned the qualities of loyalty and the bonds of party without which party effectiveness ceases to exist. Passions about power have led them to attack and despise each other.

If they are to survive politically, they need to rediscover the old instincts that won them public support in the first place. The impact of disunity upon them is clear to see. The party must, in the very near future, learn to display a sense of common purpose that is fundamental to a party’s prospects. If they don’t do so, they stand no chance of being re-elected in 2011 unless they massively rig the elections.

The MMD leadership is also thought to be arrogant and out of touch. And much of it may be no more than personal mannerisms that are grating on the public after many years in office. Some of it is insensitivity.

Corruption and abuse of office have disgraced the MMD in the eyes of the public. A good example of this is their decision to let Chiluba go scot-free of his corruption charges. In the eyes of our people, Chiluba’s acquittal was something they procured from the courts and this is supported by their decision not to appeal that clearly defective judgment and to instead defend it and protect him. The perception of the public is that of corruption and unfitness for public service. Such distasteful perceptions can endure and do them damage for a long time.

They should face these issues head-on and deal with them. They have profoundly disappointed their supporters and disgusted many others. Rupiah Banda, and those in his Cabinet and members of the MMD national executive committee, bear a particular responsibility.

Clearly, people need a rest from them, and they need time to reflect and listen and come to understand one another better than they have of late. They certainly need to do a lot about themselves. They need better and different organisation.

They need to spread their appeal and attract different sorts of people than the mercenaries they have today. They need to take a fresh look in the new circumstances they today find themselves in. Their party needs to renew itself. The wheel of fortune turns and that which once appeared fresh, with the passing of time goes to seed.

The MMD needs to confront head-on the danger of inner-party factionalism that is being caused by the undemocratic practices the party is increasingly resorting to. This danger is being caused by several factors: the rough-handling marginalisation and even demotion that those who are opposed to Rupiah’s leadership are experiencing at his hands. This is producing and leaving behind a very strong legacy of bitterness and resentment – the walking wounded.

This has cultivated tendencies towards excessive defensivism and also to habits of counter-factionalism in some cases, with party cadres running the danger of falling excessively into the politics of palace manoeuvres. There are also some signs of the dangers of disciplinary measures being used to settle political differences. These dangers are fed by and feed, the rear-guard action of small pockets of persisting reformism within the party.

And clearly, the principle cause of factionalism within the MMD is careerism, patronage and ambitions for jobs and business.

However, the factionalist danger within the MMD has emerged most strongly in the recent period around two issues: the adoption of Rupiah as the party’s presidential candidate in 2011 without a vote or say from the general membership or giving others who aspire for the same chance to contest. The other is the issue of holding the party convention to elect a new leadership.

In regard to these issues, there is need to develop a principled and unifying position. All party members should have a say on these issues and participate actively in this process as loyal MMD members, and according to their own views and perspectives. And party structures and resources should not be used to promote a particular candidate.

There is need to advance perspectives on the kind of leadership collectively that party members believe is required to take the MMD forward and ensuring that there is no abuse of state or organisational resources designed to undermine other members of the party who are aspiring to lead it. And when such abuse occurs, all should be committed to exposing and condemning it. These positions in regard to these matters are principled and their consistent application will lay the basis for consolidating party unity in the current conjecture.

However, there have been currents within the MMD that have sought to factionalise everything around either support for or opposition to Rupiah’s sole party candidature for 2011. Both currents are variants of opportunism. They must vigilantly foster unity of their party around its principled perspectives and tasks. Failure to do this will be a major blow to the MMD and to its electoral prospects in 2011.

We say all this because experience has repeatedly shown that a party divided into hostile groups loses its militancy. Protracted inner-party strife inevitably results in party members’ concentration on discords. The party becomes distracted from political struggle and day-to-day work among the masses and loses its influence.

It is within this specific political context that we believe the MMD must situate its leadership debate. And they should not conduct this debate as an academic exercise or in power vacuum. In particular, as they conduct this debate, they need to guard against these dangers: they must not allow this entirely legitimate debate to be ruled “taboo” or out of order.

Indeed, whatever the merits or otherwise, the very fact that there is a debate means that complacency and routinism has been shaken up. The debate must continue. But they must be extremely vigilant not to allow the debate to become factionally divisive within the party.

There is need for all the members and cadres of the MMD to give the fullest expression to their initiative, which alone can ensure the party’s reversal of political fortunes.

This initiative must be demonstrated concretely in the ability of the party’s leadership, members and cadres to work creatively, in their readiness to assume responsibility and in their courage and ability to raise questions, voice opinions and criticise defects.

But the exercise of such initiative depends on the spread of democracy in party life. It cannot be brought into play if there is not enough democracy in party life. Only in an atmosphere of democracy can large numbers of able people be brought forward.

Anyone should be allowed to speak out, whoever he or she may be. Party leaders at all levels should have a duty to listen to others. Two principles must be observed: say all you know and say it without reserve; don’t blame the speaker but take his words as a warning.

There is also need to realise that inner-party democracy is meant to strengthen, discipline and increase organisational and political effectiveness, not to weaken them.

Labels: ELECTIONS, MMD

posted by MrK @ 6:04 AM