By Bernard Bwoni
The political spectrum in Zimbabwe has blurry
definitions, hence a state of what seems to be uncertainty, intraparty and
interparty variations of views. A look at the two main political parties in
Zimbabwe reveals a ruling party, which appears to lean towards the right and
the opposition more towards the left and centre-left. The ruling party upholds
what clearly appear to be conservative right-wing values and similarly the main
opposition is the opposite. There are a lot of movements occurring at the centre
from both parties and hence the switching and the waiting games. Any political party
is made up of millions of members and has thousands in its leadership ranks.
The party vision is an expression of the sum of all its component parts. Each
and every member has a vision; many visions and their visions may run in the
opposition direction of the party. The key though is that when members join the
party, they then automatically subscribe to the collective vision of that
party. Individual visions may be considered but they do not replace the
collective vision. There is no exception to the rule; there can never be
exceptions, for that is when weaknesses are bestowed upon the party. The
decision by the ruling party to back the winning candidate Terence Mukupe in
Harare East brings about clarity and consistency. This is about collective
vision, the collective strength of the polity and a true reflection of the
voters’ preferences.
Ideology plays an important part in any party and that
party’s positioning on the country’s political spectrum. Electoral competition
is often based on an ideology that appeals to those voters who float at the
centre of the spectrum. The centre of the political spectrum in Zimbabwe is
that space that falls between Zanu-pf and the MDC. The question is, is there
such a space? Which party represent that space? The ruling party puts its main
thrust as valuing tradition, equitable distribution of the national cake,
economic freedom and though unsaid, the principle of survival of the fittest.
Worldwide right-wing politics uphold the belief that business should not be
regulated and that people should look after themselves. Zanu-PF’s main
ideological thrust is economic freedom to enable people to succeed, to be the
owners of the means of production and be able to look after themselves as
opposed to being permanently dependent. The right-wing view is, if you have
more money, then you should keep it and buy better services for yourself, the
belief is that business should not be regulated and that the more money the
business earn, then the more benefits to the country as a whole. The ruling
party’s manifesto from the 2013 election was clear on ‘taking back the economy, indigenisation, empowerment, development and
creation of employment, all clear and core right-wing movement.
The essence of Zanu-PF’s ideology is a clear right
wing value to ‘economically empower the
indigenous people of Zimbabwe by enabling them to fully own their country’s God-given
natural resources and the means of production to unlock or create value from
those resources’. The key words to note in this ideological statement are
‘enabling’ and ‘unlocking’. Indigenisation and empowerment are meant to enable
and unlock that potential to learn, to earn and create employment. Zanu-PF
speaks in terms of ‘collective national aspirations’ and one of the fundamental
right-wing values is the belief in the freedom to succeed rather than equality
for its own sake. The ruling party upholds traditional values and condemns such
practices as homosexuality and upholds the death penalty. The opposition’s main
message is about jobs and food on the table and the ruling party has always
questioned how they are going to create jobs without empowering people to start
businesses, which in turn will create more jobs. Left wing politics puts
emphasis on regulating big business so as to save the interests of the majority
and that is a commendable value. One could argue that the ruling party’s land
reform is regulation but then the counter argument would be that correcting a
historical wrong is not regulation but rather a requirement and necessity.
Right wing politics is often associated with elitism or the privileged label
and when you look at politics in Zimbabwe you can see some traits of that in both
the left and right spectrums. Politics should not be about earning money, but
looking at in Zimbabwe it is those in politics who thrive more hence why the
political posts in the country are over-subscribed. It is does not make it right
at all, but it is what it is.
The ruling party’s manifesto and party constitution
portrays right wings beliefs that seek to promote a brand of assertive
nationalism, a distinctive Zimbabwean culture and the need to reassure the
people of their traditions and beliefs without sounding too authoritarian or
too prescriptive. A common outcry from the left wing opposition in Zimbabwe is
their belief that the rich should not be rich whilst others are poor and that
incomes from the rich should be redistributed so that others are well off as
well. The right wing ruling argues that people should be empowered to start
businesses, to own businesses and the business owner should enjoy the fruits of
their hard work. If one looks at the developed economies of today, their
capitalist systems were developed on the back of the theory of survival of the
fittest, on right wing value systems. Alexander Hamilton in the USA was clear
on the need for government protection and promotion of domestic industry
against competition.
The centre of the political spectrum in Zimbabwe is uncertain,
unstable and woolly to have a permanent space. The balancing act of rewarding
those who do well and creating a fair and equal society is what makes the
centre way too unpredictable. The right or left political spaces have more of a
chance to turn Zimbabwe’s economic fortunes than the muddled centre of those
who claim to be ‘moderates’. It is the moderates who preside over the centre
who have caused more damage to both sides of the political spectrum. These are
individuals who hold no clear values or ideology and they jump from left to
right. These are the same individuals who go wherever the wind blows. The
moderates in a right wing movement like Zanu-pf have a more of a strong
ideological affinity to the left because a ‘centre’ space does not exactly
exist in Zimbabwean politics and the centre itself is not exactly a coherent
ideological space. The ruling party is under threat owing to such individuals
who believe that they have a vision far greater than the vision of the party
itself. The fact of the matter is that everyone has a vision but the core of
any polity is defined by the central idea as agreed by the whole polity.
Everything else is just a weakness. The ruling Zanu-PF as enshrined in its
manifesto and party constitution is the central vision and there can never be
any deviation from that without the go ahead from the polity. Call me
anti-centre, but this crafty preoccupation with the centre by the so-called moderates
is nothing but a weakness and is weakening for the party.
Agreed that both parties in Zimbabwe sometimes move
to the centre especially during election years and just like anywhere else in
the world, this is often driven by fundamental motivation of politicians to
attain power. The demarcation of the left and right in Zimbabwe is based on
ideology and voter preferences and it is social justice and economic efficiency,
which formulates the broad parameters of the centre politics. The electorate
will go with the candidate who will bring them more benefit. The primary
motivation of politicians is to attain power and there is absolutely nothing
wrong with that. The problem comes when the primary motivation becomes solely
to attain proceeds, prestige and power, which comes with being in power. Now
this is where both the main political parties in Zimbabwe need to clearly
define their spaces on the spectrum. It is the lack of clarity of party
positioning which often leads rational men and women to make systematic errors
in politics. The electorate needs to be provided with the right information to
enable them to make rational choices. Those who make irrational choices do so
because they were provided with the wrong information or partly because someone
who stands to gain ‘from being in power’ encourages them to make these
irrational choices.
People vote for a particular party if they consider
that its policies or ideology has potential to bring the greatest gains. The
electorate is a rational being and would vote for a party they consider would
bring them the greatest benefit. The electorate desires uninterrupted streams
of benefits from government action, voters want roads constructed, potholes
repaired, street lights working, they want to feel safe, they want constant and
clean water supplies, uninterrupted power supplies, rubbish collected timely,
clean streets and so on. From an electorate point of view the centre is a
comfortable zone and gives them options. However from a party point of view, it
is important to make it clear to the electorate where you stand because
anything else is as good as deceit. The centre moves from left to right
depending on the consistency of the politicians from both spectrums.
bernardbwoni.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment