|
POLITICAL LEADERS DO NOT OWN THEIR PARTIES OR COUNTRIES
It is appalling that party leaders, especially in Africa, always overburden themselves with a narcissist desire to control and own the parties they lead.
I have watched political parties across Africa and one thing they have in common is that the party leader personalizes the organization.
Party constitutions are totally meaningless in Africa. I have seen party constitutions being rubbished in Malawi, Zambia, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Namibia and in other countries where they love to name their countries after non-existent practices therein.
What is democratic about the Democratic Republic of Congo or the Democratic Republic of North Korea?
Even Libya calls itself a democracy!
We did not see any democracy when the Movement for Multi-Party Democracy came to power in Zambia.
And Zimbabwe’s Movement for Democratic Change has certainly brought no democracy to the country.
Much as we may want, we cannot talk about Zambia’s United National Independence Party (UNIP) without mentioning Kenneth Kaunda. Kaunda became the party; he became more important than the party.
For years, the Malawi Congress Party, along with the vicious marauding Young Pioneers, were kept under Hastings Kamuzu Banda’s armpits to the extent that the party was Kamuzu. He was more important than the party itself.
In Mozambique, Samora Machel was synonymous with FRELIMO.
It is folly of us to let party leaders become owners of our political parties.
A government must be a national administration, not a subsidiary of the ruling party.
Is there any difference between Robert Mugabe and ZANU-PF and between the government and ZANU-PF?
Thus, we hear about the Kennedy, Bush, or Obama administrations.
They administer policies that their parties campaigned for among the people and adopted.
Mugabe and ZANU-PF have become so intertwined that they are one and the same thing in the most literal sense. We allowed a player to become more important than the game itself.
Like other African leaders, Mugabe so personalized the party, after getting rid of its founding members, to the extent that to people Mugabe and ZANU-PF became a compound word, which, unfortunately, is chillingly associated with violence, intolerance, corruption, human rights violations and all the negatives no country deserves.
After hijacking the party, such leaders impose themselves as the unquestioned and sole leaders of the party.
They don’t believe in passing the baton to the next person. They are the alphas and the omegas of their parties.
This is where patronage kicks in.
After attaining power, such leaders always move further and declare themselves the nation’s Life President and no discussion over succession is allowed or tolerated.
At one time, Kamuzu Banda had a gem of a young mind under him. His name was Alecke Banda.
The young man was just brilliant and Kamuzu was only too pleased to have such a protégé under him.
While the young Alecke was on a visit to Zambia, he made a statement, something to the effect that he was next in line…
People say that the bigger they are the harder they fall.
Falling from grace is never pleasant and it never invites humility. It is a hard, cold and sobering reality.
Even if you are vice president to an African president, never bring up the issue of succession. African presidents do not think they can be succeeded even after they are dead.
They anoint their own successors to avoid someone scouting for their early demise so as to succeed them.
Alluding to the succession issue was the end of Alecke Banda.
But it all starts at party level.
Because of patronage, we teach and encourage party leaders to be vindictive and insecure.
We breed monsters at party level.
While recognizing the fact that a president or prime minister is, trustingly, allowed to choose into his cabinet those people he feels he can work with, I welcome any reshuffle in party or government hierarchy for that purpose.
Morgan Tsvangirai, as leader of a political party, exercised such right last week.
But there is something wrong already; his party is called MDC-Tsvangirai.
The party’s identity is personalized to his name. What happens to the party when Tsvangirai retires or, God forbid, passes on?
You are thinking of the Peronists of Argentina, aren’t you? Forget it!
Tsvangirai, of all people, should have strived to remove his name from the people’s movement because Tsvangirai does not own the MDC but is a member who happens to be its leader.
Robert Mugabe, the suspicious old goat who makes appointments not to serve the nation but to help to prop himself up, did the same.
So, I did not mind Tsvangirai’s reshuffle of his little group of party cabinet functionaries. His powers, I believe, emanate from him being the president of a political party. I considered it to be normal procedure.
That is, until I heard other information surrounding that reshuffle.
Tsvangirai is said to have “remained under intense pressure from his so-called kitchen cabinet, led by his permanent secretary Ian Makone and his wife Theresa to remove Biti”.
Hardly three weeks ago, Tendai Biti, Zimbabwe’s hard working Minister of Finance and MDC-T’s Secretary General, refused to loosen his grip on the national purse and stormed out of a cabinet meeting in protest.
Biti’s behaviour in cabinet astonished Mugabe, who had never before been subjected to such independent arrogance of thought.
But, surprisingly, it also angered Tsvangirai even more.
Tsvangirai is said to have been livid at Biti’s walk out.
And I wonder why.
But the reason is simple, really: Biti is full of what Tsvangirai is empty of.
And that is dangerous.
ZANU-PF led the onslaught that brought independence to Zimbabwe but the warriors were totally incapable of ruling and running the country. And that is precisely why there is MDC-T in Zimbabwe today.
Tsvangirai provided the courage to challenge injustice. His bravery was what brought the MDC into life.
Just like Mugabe has shown us, fighting and winning against an unjust regime does not translate into an able leadership.
Just before Tsvangirai announced his reshuffle, Biti was among those to be axed from cabinet.
“The Makones are the nerve-centre of Tsvangirai's inner circle which makes crucial decisions in the party,” said the Zimbabwe Independent. “They are said to be influential largely because of their closeness to Tsvangirai's family and their financial muscle.”
Oh, God! The reshuffle is said to have been precipitated not by necessity, but by the Makones.
This takes from Tsvangirai any semblance of independent thinking.
I shudder to hear that the Makones are said to be influential over Tsvangirai largely because of their financial muscle.
Who are they giving money and why?
What are they getting in return?
Are Ian and Theresa Makone buying Zimbabwe from Tsvangirai?
Is Zimbabwe for sale; I missed the bidding.
We now know that Biti only survived removal from his post in cabinet “after intense inter-party lobbying and interventions, which involved President Mugabe and senior government officials”.
Because this was a personal issue, hastened by jealousy.
Members of Parliament and Mugabe himself made it clear to Tsvangirai that Biti was not to be replaced.
The Independent says that Mugabe is known to admire Biti's work ethic and performance and that a number of ZANU-PF ministers acknowledge Biti's role as Finance minister, despite his constant clashes with them.
The heart of the matter is that Tsvangirai has no criteria to use in assessing performances by his cabinet, especially if Tsvangirai thinks that Biti is one of the under-performers in his party.
Tsvangirai must lead the party by consensus and not be a pawn of a greedy couple who already have cabinet posts they don’t deserve.
What do you think? Send me your comments on tano@swradioafrica.com
I dare to ask who, in the MDC, evaluates Tsvangirai. Who in ZANU-PF assesses Mugabe?
If we are to judge by performance, should Tsvangirai himself not be the one to be replaced since I do not see anything he has achieved besides entrenching and legitimizing Robert Mugabe?
Why should it be Mugabe who reminds Tsvangirai of the best performers in Tsvangirai’s camp?
A reshuffle, like bringing in substitutes in any game, is instigated for improvement, what is it that Tsvangirai thought was wrong with Biti? Was national interest ever considered or has Tsvangirai also fallen into the factions fiasco, rewarding praise-singers as if he cannot see the truth for himself?
Mr Tsvangirai is better advised to avoid becoming an ordinary party leader by imitating the dictatorial tendencies shown by Mugabe and other party leaders across Africa.
Tsvangirai does not own the MDC and he should, right now, refuse the party to be referred to by his name.
That would be a great start for someone who has been around for so long without getting very far.
I don’t feel comfortable to hear that Tsvangirai allegedly listens, obeys and implements orders and advice from an obscure self-seeking husband and wife team of Ian and Theresa Mokone because they are his relatives who have financial muscle.
And is that the reason why he fired some ministers, replacing them by promoting Ian and Theresa at the expense of the party and national interest?
Who conducted Ian and Theresa’s job assessments? Mr Tsvangirai?
Who carried out Tsvangirai’s job assessment, Ian and Theresa?
Va Tsvangirai ka, musaputsa pfuko masvika pamba.
You, Mr Tsvangirai, have not even seen the promised land yet because you have not brought it any nearer.
I am Tanonoka Joseph Whande and that, Mr Tsvangirai, sir, is the Heart of the Matter today, Thursday, July 1st, 2010
|