HAS POWER CHANGED HIM ALREADY? CAN HE HIMSELF AVOID CHANGING WITH `CHINJA(!)'?
Andrew Marr interviewed Morgan Tsvangirai on the BBC this bright Sunday morning. I was as interested in what he had to say as I was the first time he rose to address us as the Chairman of the NCA back in 1998. Marr came straight to the point: "Is the split in the MDC a personal one?" Morgan's answer, well rehearsed I am sure: "No it is ideological." Still on the edge of my seat, I waited for more enlightenment: The pro-Senate people wanted to do a deal with the regime, Mugabe's ZANU (PF) government and I did not - or words to that effect - is what he blithely alleged.
He lost me there. I have never let my eyes stray from the reports - from whatever quarter - about what went on in that catastrophic series of meetings which ended in disaster for the MDC as a bright hope for all Zimbabweans looking for new and better leadership. In a ten-minute interview, Marr couldn't possibly ask him: "What about the violence which began with the attempt on the life of one of your `internal' critics? What about the overriding of your party's constitution when you ignored the majority decision to go into the Senate?" And finally: "Is this allegation about the motives of the pro-Senate group really true? Why should some of the most dedicated of your followers turn against you? Did you not dismiss their concerns about your apparent change of character when you condoned internal violence and ignored your own party Constitution? Have you not considered that they went into the Senate because `realpolitik' dictates that you become irrelevant if you do not participate in the political process - however distasteful that may be?"
I say: Morgan, you have been less than truthful. You have a great following and they are so sick of the current regime that they will remain loyal to you no matter what. This looks worryingly like history repeating itself. Deja vu and all that. A quarter of a century ago,Zimbabweans were so sick of the suffering they endured in the liberation struggle that they allowed themselved to believe that their troubles would be over under Mugabe's leadership. Little was known about his character except that he was clever and embraced violence as the path to power. We all know where that has led us. Your own character has now been closely examined and until the first moment of the `split', you came through as a man who could be trusted with high office - a man of principle, a true democrat. Well, democracy went out of the window after that unfortunate man nearly did at the hands of your youthful thugs at Harvest House (and as you yourself narrowly missed doing when attacked by ZANU (PF) thugs at the start of your political leadership. Principle is what is now under the microscope.
The pre-independence Zimbabwean `masses' as Mugabe liked to call them, were denied access to information about nationalist leaders by the previous regime - mostly by default, since they were the rural poor, with little access to the print or electronic media. Far worse, today: positively no access to information about opposition leadership. They have only your rallies - and a few copies of the independent newspapers reaching them - to be persuaded that you are brave, that you are against the current dictatorship and that you are willing to go on leading them however hard the battle has become. What your former admirers need to know is, where are you leading them? Do you know yourself? Does your leadership require you to demolish your internal opposition by fair means or foul - just like ZANU (PF) - whatever it takes? And will you be able to hold on to the principles enshrined in your Constitution, of non-violent change and adherence to your party's promises of a better leadership? Can your leadership remain faithful to the rule of law within your own party and be ready to deliver justice to Zimbabweans within a restored rule of law - should you achieve the power to do all these things?
Weighty questions, but they need answering. If you yourself are changed too much in the process of bringing about change, what greater disaster can befall Zimbabweans?
This is an `I was there' commentary as far as his first five years in political leadership proceeded. I watched him with admiration as he chaired our NCA (National Constitution Assembly) meetings and my respect for him grew as he faced each new challenge as the undisputed leader of the MDC. This was a man who distinguished himself as a Trade Union leader: self-made, confident and daring, rather than opportunistic, in joining the NCA and taking on the leadership of the MDC at its inception. His next launching pad was made before the people and those others living outside of Zimbabwe who still cared about the country's future.
Copyright © 2004 Diana Mitchell
No comments:
Post a Comment