The Pharisees of our politics!!

LINK!!!

Zim Standard

Sundayview by Tamuka Charles Chirimambowa

23 September, 2007

THE recent political developments regarding Constitutional Amendment 18 compel me to contribute to the debates that have arisen within civil society and the country in general. Key to my contribution is to implore ourselves to ponder on the role of civil society and the political parties in finding a solution to the Zimbabwe crisis.

There seems to be some misinformed and fundamentalist innuendos particularly within civil society in Zimbabwe. The accession by the MDC formations to Amendment 18 is seen as a betrayal, and some have even further vowed to server ties with the opposition.

Let me hasten to say such actions are unfortunate and cocoon ourselves in grand delusions of self piousness. There seems to be a tendency of increasing culture of political Pharisees, who preach right and walk left in the evening. Such behaviour reminds me of an old fable of the grasshopper which my grandmother used to tell me about, which I termed the grasshopper syndrome. It would react vigorously whenever you touch it and in the process break its hind legs yet it would need them for take off to fly and the result has always been it gets stuck and becomes vulnerable to prey.

There seems to be lack of appreciation of the SADC initiative within our civil society movement. There is a great distinction between civil society and political parties. Whilst political parties can enter into alliances with civil society organisations, the two entities will never be the same and always pursue the same agendas. One thing that has to be acknowledged by civil society as so far done by all political parties is that we have a major crisis and as such we can't have the burn-the-house-to-kill-the-snake mentality. The accession by the MDC in tandem with promoting the SADC led dialogue is to create conducive and confidence building measures to the inroads made so far.

It should be noted that even Zanu PF has agreed to discuss and possibly reform contentious issues such as the Public Order Security Act, Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and governance issues.

In this case most of the people who have become critics of this process have failed to appreciate that any process that tries to unlock our deadlock and encourage negotiations, has to be promoted. This does not mean that this route has no political risks, and at the same time is sacrosanct to the MDC and can therefore not be abandoned if it fails to deliver. More so, there is a deliberate mischief of the reductionism syndrome that because there is still violence then agreeing to the amendment is betrayal.

What people are failing to note is that these talks are actually meant to deal with that violence and there is nowhere the MDC has claimed that Zimbabwe's problems are over. Therefore there is need for us to begin to engage within the framework of the SADC initiative as finally agreed to by Zanu PF and the MDC. It seems we are also failing to recognize that Zanu PF all along has been saying there was no crisis in Zimbabwe. The positive step in this case is that there is that recognition and they have agreed to play ball. Reducing everything to Robert Mugabe or Zanu PF misses the essence of the talks.

Besides, there is a failure to recognize that Zanu PF has a two thirds majority in both houses that can allow it to change the Constitution. Thus the argument of going to bed with Zanu PF is rather more than grandstanding populism.

There is a need within civil society to begin to forward substantive issues to be considered for debate within these talks. However, it seems civil society is ignorant of its responsibility and assumes that Rome was built in a day. I firmly believe what the MDC has done is part of the many steps that various Zimbabweans may take on the journey to our liberation from dictatorship. Henceforth, the debate should focus more on the agenda of these talks, rather than labelling each other as sell- outs.

Just as food for thought both the National Constitutional Assembly and Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition recently changed constitutions to keep certain dynasties. This reminds us of Jesus' words to the Pharisees that let he who has not sinned pick the first stone to strike the woman adulterer. Not saying that the MDC has sinned, but the point being that let us stop this self vindictiveness.

If civil society organisations feel that the MDC and Zanu PF should not negotiate then they should not try to impose their will on these parties. I think my colleagues in these movements fail to understand rudimentary processes of conflict resolution. There is no way we can say we won't negotiate with Zanu PF, when they are occupying organs of the State. That is not realistic at all even in a utopian world, and as such our energies need to be synergized getting the best out of all opportunities present to liberate us from serfdom.

What is fundamental for us as Zimbabweans is to make sure that we do not sleep on our laurels as we did in 1987. There is strong conscious need to guard against a deal that would lead to the two parties agreeing to form another gravy train as happened between Zanu PF and PF Zapu.

The role of the SADC mediation is not to install any leader or political party, but to create an environment that is free and fair. It is my humble opinion that within the framework of parliament there is hope to achieve what we have been searching for. The argument that Mugabe is cunning can't stop negotiations but serve as a call to be alert in our dealings with the regime.

Participation or giving a chance to the SADC initiative should not be an end but one of the means to an end. It is my contention that attempts to demonise the MDC leadership by some civic leaders are unfortunate and self serving. They are not at all representative of the people, and it would be foolhardy for them to assume that their interests are the people. There is a danger of some civic organizations and leaders becoming irrelevant and out of touch with reality.

Let us explore all alternatives before us and if it fails we leave it, and move on. The ahistoric interpretation of the 1987 Unity Accord will not take us anywhere.