MDC-T: How Sustainable is the Movement?

THE inception of the Government of National Unity (GNU) in February 2009
ushered a new political reality for the mainstream Movement for Democratic
Change (MDC-T). The historical comfort of being an opposition party suddenly
transformed into an expectation of government responsibilities and an
inevitable task of the party’s internal conformance to this new dimension of
political participation.

Given a decade of playing prominence in being in the realms of opposition
politics, the MDC faced and still faces some transitional considerations
from a perspective of trying to balance the act of effective government
involvement and strengthening the resolve of internal party capacity.

The party is now faced with two political fronts that need critical mass,
wisdom, political maturity, strategic thinking and a clear intention in
order to serve government well whilst maintaining internal party functions
intact.

This is a new act that has come out of the familiarity of the party’s
protracted stand which needs transformation from being a political
alternative into a political operative.

Before the MDC, Zimbabweans saw the perennial mushrooming of
pseudo-opposition political parties that had neither internal capacity nor
the heartbeat of conventional politics. These parties came into the fray as
fast as they disappeared.

This left a lot of Zimbabweans in doubt of whether opposition politics were
supposed to be on the natural menu of Zimbabwe’s political table.

However the launch of the MDC had some flair that gave Zimbabweans a new
hope of multi-party democracy in Zimbabwe. Many a Zimbabwean rallied for the
MDC mainly based on the issues of the economic downturn and the need for a
political alternative.

In that regard, the MDC gained sympathy from people who were adamantly
seeking political pluralism.

The majority of these people were united by the issues at hand rather than
the ideological framework, or principles of the party.

Many of Zimbabwe’s opposition political parties arose out of the need to
address certain crises that could have taken shape during some historical
period.

Given such a background a lot of opposition parties have had no life of
their own except for the projected issues they desired to address. This has
led to many of them being tormented by the metrical differences of being
either a political party or a political movement.

The main theoretical definition of the difference between a political
movement and party is based on their focus.

Political movements basically bring together people who are focused on
addressing certain issues or agendas.

Political parties however bring along people who are united by the
synchronised, harmonised and common platform of political values and
ideologies.

In political parties ideologies and values are the guideline to addressing
issues. In political movements the common stand against or for an issue is
the main unifying factor.

Many political movements face peripheral transitional challenges once they
have managed to address the common issues.

The MDC faces this challenge; the party will now not be sustained by what
Zanu PF has done wrong, but by the marked life of the MDC as an entity that
has capacity to do right.

This therefore is not determined by just raising issues, but by employing
key values and principles in addressing such issues.

Because a movement brings people that are bound together by common issues
rather than principles and values, it does not necessarily translate to
their congruency after the issues are addressed or attended to.

After the issues are settled, people normally sober up to find the positions
and places where their hearts appeal to most. After the emotions of dealing
with issues, there usually sets in the motion of heart-defined values and
principles.

If the movement thereafter sustains, internal squabbling and major
differences will start to alight due to the surfaced position of value
systems, which were however not central during the movement’s focus on
issues.

So after dealing with issues, political movements can either disband or
structurally transform themselves into political parties by defining a set
of political ideals, values and principles – normally termed as ideology.

Many political parties in Zimbabwe operate without a defined political
ideology. Ideology is a set of values, ideals and principles on how an
entity or persons discharge their political service.

At the heart of ideology is a guided framework of worldview, which must sway
the political party in its direction.

It is one thing to get into a boat and be swayed away into a direction that
the wind and the waves take you to. It is another to get into the same boat
and row towards a desired destination. Ideology provides this “rowing” power
and direction.

Zimbabwe’s political parties of the future will therefore require to be
identified by their political ideology.

In the wave and confusion of the many challenges that Zimbabwe is and has
been faced with, people were primarily focused on issues. Political
movements including the MDCs were formed based on Zimbabwe’s issues and
contextual challenges.

However as Zimbabwe desires to grow and develop its political framework
(which thereafter determines its economic and social prosperity), there is a
need to develop political parties driven from value-basis outlined by
positive and sober ideological fundamentals.

What political parties in Zimbabwe need to do is to go back to basics. They
need to draw up a framework of political ideologies upon which to base their
sustainable future.

Ideology also assists in wrestling political power from individuals, who
have become the immortals behind certain political parties.

Ideology will safely deposit the future of political parties in their value
systems rather than in individuals. Every individual in the party will then
be subject to the ideals, values and the principles of the party rather than
the reverse.

No individuals will hold the parties to ransom, as they themselves become
less powerful than the party’s enshrined ideological framework and
value-base. The dissolution of the elitist power base of political party
leadership is a critical factor in the democratisation and sustainability of
political parties in Zimbabwe.

As the MDC considers its life in government and the current challenges of
alleged corruption in its leadership, the party must not neglect the need to
fully transform its “movement” status into a fully-fledged political party,
whose values and principles are clearly articulated.

This will enable it to sustain its political life while creating a brand
that cannot be tainted by opportunists who may straddle across values and
principles and still survive within its structures. The party must realise
that the days of “issues” may be coming to an end and what it will face are
the days of values and principles.

In fact it is these values and principles that will determine how issues are
handled and addressed. In that regard, the MDC must infuse sustainability
into its entity.

Trevor Maisiri is the executive director and co-founder of the African
Reform Institute – a political leadership development institute and
political “think tank” operating from Harare.

By Trevor Maisiri