‘Third Force’ or counter revolutionary claptrap?

‘Third Force’ or counter revolutionary claptrap?

MUGABE and Tsvangirai

• YOUR SHOUTS: Nyarota, Ncube have lost their bearings

• Brighton Musonza: Trevor and Geoff spread confusion

• Lance Guma: Trevor has lost the plot

• Ncube: Zimbabwe needs 'third way' solution

• Nyarota: Time may be ripe for third force

Veteran journalist Trevor Ncube has put forward a 'third force' argument as the only route to rescue Zimbabwe. Another journalist Geoff Nyarota has put forward a similar view. The curious timing of their arguments - just days before an important election - has got many of you talking. Journalist and activist Grace Kwinjeh asks: is this real of is it just counter-reoluctinary claptrap?

By Grace Kwinjeh
I TOLD a friend a while ago that Everjoice Win is one of those people who drafted the concept paper that led to the formation of the National Constitutional Assembly, which was part of the process in the formation of the Movement for Democratic Change. This friend looked at me wondering why then was ‘EJ’ such a strong ‘critic’ of the ‘movement’.

In 90’s South Africa ‘third force’ is the term that was given to shadowy elements involved in assassinations and drive by shootings, targeted at innocent South African citizens in an effort to discredit the liberation movement and derail the negotiating process to a democratic transition from apartheid.

An equally chilling ‘third force’ concept has now emerged in Zimbabwe, whose intentions are not very clear. Trevor Ncube the publisher of the Zimbabwe Independent and journalist Geoff Nyarota, seem to think there is a ‘third way’ solution to the Zimbabwe crisis. While they differ on the role of the evil dictator Robert Mugabe they both seem to agree that the MDC has lost relevance and propose a ‘third force’, to finish the job of liberating Zimbabweans. It is these two gentlemen’s democratic right to espouse such positions even if they fly in the face of current political thinking.

The fact that the MDC is still, alive, standing in defiance, against one of the most repressive and dictatorial, regimes on the African continent.

The fact that the party, has managed to, field 120, candidates even in the most volatile constituencies, in Zimbabwe.

The fact that Zimbabweans of all walks of life still throng MDC rallies in large numbers in spite of the consequences to their personal security, that of their families and communities.

All this and more is testimony of the party’s durability and continuing relevance as the only viable answer to reversing the slide away from democracy, in Zimbabwe.

The tragedy is that we seem to have tied down the discourse to celebrating the above strengths and capabilities without any open vibrant debate on the consolidation of above in a united effort with the broader ‘movement’ while fostering a debate or critical analysis on strategies for moving forward.

One needs to go back to how the MDC was formed as a national project by Zimbabweans and for Zimbabweans to understand this continued relevance on the political scene while engineering an honest debate on the way forward.

I had the fortunate experience of not only founding the MDC but naming it. At the end of the National People’s Conventions in1999 before the launching of the party, participants proposed many names for this new party, varying from Workers Parties, Labour Party, Peoples Party, to other suggested names. The name that found resonance among the different sectors, organizations and individuals in the room was MDC.

I remember explaining the Movement bit. That we are a broad based mass of people wanting change or an alternative political culture to that which Zanu PF had promoted since independence. This history is important because the party was formed in a process of discussion and negotiating leading to agreement or resolutions for a democratic alternative to Zanu PF. From the very first congress to date the different sectors within the MDC discuss openly their different positions, on internal as well as national matters. Such is the internal democratic framework that was agreed to. I came in through the women’s constituency in civil society, others through the labour movement, academia, media, war veterans and so on. No one component of that alliance can survive without the other and neither can any part of the alliance claim full legitimacy and survive without the support of the its mothers who are in the various sectors/aspects of civil society. The MDC has ushered in a culture of consensus politics and participatory democracy.

"The real challenge for us in the ‘broader democratic movement’ is to reunite the revolutionary forces once again and take back the initiative of democratisation"

GRACE KWINJEH

Our vision was beyond just change of the political leadership of Zanu PF but a change of the political culture of patronage, moving away from corrupt tendencies by those in leadership and above all departing from authoritarian tendencies in leadership.

We yearned for a departure from the ‘selfish politics’ practiced by those who liberated us from colonialism, that we must remain eternally grateful to them, we must love no other but them and above all we must never criticize them.

It can seem like the timeliness of this suggestion by Nyarota and Ncube smacks of political opportunism, based on total ignorance of the political situation in Zimbabwe.

But you know for me the ‘third way’ debate has come at time, when we all should be taking two steps back in order to map out a realistic way forward. It is one thing to just dismiss Nyarota and Ncube without articulating a proper alternative that will take us out of the current political impasse amongst ourselves, in the ‘movement.’

Computers can never generate a viable political alternative that will have or command the same legitimacy, respect, ownership such as that commanded by the MDC today. Those who believe so are clearly leaving in a fools paradise, so removed from the reality of how organizational politics operate, or the work that has gone into keeping the MDC alive to this day. Mugabe and his Zanu PF party cannot deal with the legitimacy of the MDC as a peoples movement to the extent of creating a fictitious campaign against British Premier Tony Blair.

The real discussion should be on the way forward post March 31st Parliamentary elections. By all of us the ‘critics’ and the ‘criticized’ as Zimbabweans, because if we could get together once upon a time to initiate a process that the regime with all its might and resources has failed to reverse we can do it again. Get back to the basics.

The real challenge for us in the ‘broader democratic movement’ is to reunite the revolutionary forces once again and take back the initiative of democratization. This process will involve a critical analysis of the past five years, to map out a way forward.

At times one gets the feeling that we have mortgaged different aspects of the ‘movement’ to different personalities and interest groups. So for those who do not really belong to a ‘click’ participation becomes very difficult. Some then opt to watch from the sidelines others try to fit into ‘clicks’ they do not even belong to ideologically, others become just ‘critics’. In a way we are reproducing that very system we are fighting against, with questions of ownership and legitimacy haunting us everyday.

But the fact remains that we have to consolidate our capacity to fight this regime. That can only be done through the establishment of a common vision and agenda, with a sound ideology based on our experience as Zimbabweans. Based on our own programme of action, which Zanu PF has to be forced to respond to. We have forced Zanu PF to respond to constitutional reform in the past, that was ‘our’ initiative.

Zimbabweans themselves have to once again sit down and map the way forward. What worries me also at times is the way we rely so much on external expertise and influence for our own liberation. Yet the experience of 2000 was us doing it on our own, complimenting each other from student unions, labour movement, women’s groups, academia and so on. Then we saw a value in each of us, then we had trust and confidence in each other.

But now the ‘movement’ seems to have lost flavour. If in 1998 ‘EJ’ was not a ‘critic’ but a resource person then I am sure we can harness all our resources, expertise and energy to chat a way forward for Zimbabwe by Zimbabweans.
Grace Kwinjeh is a political activist she writes in her personal capacity
JOIN THE DEBATE ON THIS ARTICLE ON THE NEWZIMBABWE.COM FORUMS
debate@newzimbabwe.com