Maravi

(TALKZIMBABWE) MDC-T muzzled by mixed loyalties

MDC-T muzzled by mixed loyalties
By: Nancy Lovedale
Posted: Monday, September 6, 2010 2:26 am

IN his famous speech in 1774, British politician and statesman Edmund Burke said to the voters of Bristol that a politician has four loyalties: "To his conscience; to the wishes of his electorate; to the nation; to his party".

Zimbabwe’s current political landscape has been highly polarised for the better part of the last ten years, with many questions being raised about loyalties, and one's responsibilities to society.

Burke omitted loyalty to “other interests”. This is the crux of the problems facing the Movement for Democratic Change party led by Mr Morgan Tsvangirai. It has loyalty to "other interests": western interests.

These interests explain why he sought refuge at the Dutch Embassy in Harare running away from some fictitious threat, just before the 2008 Presidential Election; or represents the government in Washington when that same government is under sanctions; or finds solace in playing golf with people who impose sanctions on his own people.

There has been a struggle between Zanu-PF and those emerging political parties that have sought to replace it, not on the basis of ideas and ideals as one would expect in politics, but on some whimsical, capricious and crude agenda inspired by “other interests”.

With its desperate drive for power, no matter the cost, the MDC-T has become the party of "quid pro quo" – give us this ministry and that ministry; give us governorship posts; fire this person and that person from that post.

Thrown into this equation is an independent media that were once relatively impartial but have now morphed into a propaganda machine dedicated to shamelessly advancing the agenda of the MDC-T; and demonising and criminalising Zanu-PF by innuendo.

The MDC-T has morphed itself into a party that subscribes to "politics of fear of failure" – their own! If they can't/won't/don't make it on their own, someone else has to provide for them, and Zanu-PF is the “fall guy”. This fail-safe guarantee has caused the MDC-T system to self-destruct and fail to present a credible challenge to Zanu-PF.

It now remains, ten plus years after its formation, as a shadow of its former self – with no credible agenda to present to the people of Zimbabwe, but a combative attitude that despises everything that Zanu-PF does without presenting a credible alternative. This has helped parties like Mavambo/Kusile/Dawn and recently constituted Zapu to clamour for that opposition space.

The hype and euphoria that propelled the MDC-T to prominence, helped by the support of an increasingly marginalised and discredited neo-liberal lot, has completely died down and the party is at pains to try and achieve relevance on the Zimbabwean political space; hence, the confusion about which policy to adopt.

Each way it looks, the MDC-T finds itself on some Zanu-PF policy (or agenda) turf; for example, painfully admitting the importance of the land reform programme at the same time trying to disqualify it using some ludicrous disclaimer about how bad “they went about it”.

The irony and tragedy of the inclusive Government is that part of it (the two MDCs) is currently involved in some re-engagement agenda with the European Union – the same people they worked with in framing the illegal and ruinous sanctions on Zimbabwe. This presents a moral and ideological and intellectual dilemma for those who find themselves working to outdo what they did for the last decade. This explains the ideological confusion that is characteristic of the MDC.

The MDC-T mantra about how the land reform programme will be disastrous for Zimbabwe is now so discredited, it needs no further rebuttal. It is as ridiculous as the sanctions-denial mantra. The successes scored in agricultural production in the last season by the new “Chibero College breed of farmers” are an indictment on these ill-advised claims.

Before the formation of the inclusive Government, many of the MDC-T politicians were presented as “men of excellence” ready to take on the honourable job of running the country. They were presented as men who were wedded to their work.

Yet there was always an undercurrent that came from their handlers that muddled their capacity to perform diligently.

That party was constrained by the shackles of the anti-Zanu PF political rules of engagement placed upon them by their handlers. This made them oppose Zanu-PF policies that the west opposed; even if the rest of the Zimbabwean populace thought them honourable. For example, no Zimbabwean has opposed, at least in principle, the land reform programme; or the indigenisation and economic empowerment policy. The litmus test has always been: “Will the public benefit?”

This is why, despite the unrelenting demonization of Zanu-PF, the pinching of the economy by the West, and the avalanche of American dollars in its way, the MDC-T failed to garner enough support, or mobilise enough mass anger (Final Push, Winter of Discontent), to oust President Mugabe.

The MDC-T party has also failed to appreciate the relevance of the emotive issue of the liberation war. They have called for those who fought white imperialism to “move on” or to change. This has ruffled up feathers in the Zanu-PF camp and reminded those cadres of the sacrifices they made in order to free Zimbabwe, juxtaposed with the contribution made by many of those now resident in the MDCs.

The war veterans gave up many of their prime years, shed their blood, lost their limbs, sacrificed their sanity and gave their last true measure of devotion to free even those who now want them to change.

The war is still fresh in their minds; it’s only been thirty years since the last anti-imperialist shot was fired. In any case, even if it was two hundred years later, that very episode cannot go in vain; and those who call for them to “move on” are only failing to appreciate the extent of the sacrifices made.

The questions then to the leadership of the two MDCs are: “Do you wake up in the morning, look in the mirror and truly say everything you’ve done is for the welfare of the Zimbabwean people? Are you loyal to your conscience; to the wishes of the electorate; to the nation; or just to your party?”

________________________
Nancy Lovedale comes from Arcadia in Harare, is based in Beijing (China) and is an avid supporter of Dynamos FC and Arsenal FC. She can be contacted via nancy_lovedale *** yahoo.com

Labels: MDC, NANCY LOVEDALE, NEOCOLONIALISM

posted by MrK @ 2:53 AM