Another typical opposition blunder

The Flip Side with Kuthula Matshazi

The strategy of Save Zimbabwe Campaign was broken thanks largely to itself because its actions were, to a great extent, managed in a clumsy manner. The campaign was not undertaken in the spirit of engaging the government to find a lasting situation for our country, but to put Zimbabwe in the spotlight on the eve of the 4th session of the recreated United Nations Human Rights Council that started in Geneva, Switzerland on 12 March to 5 April. The campaign timing demonstrated its tactical character whose purpose was to achieve a specific near goal as opposed to long-term goal of a peaceful and prosperous Zimbabwe.
That near goal is to have Zimbabwe discussed at the current 4th session of the UNHRC. Sadly, that has been the myopic nature of opposition politics in Zimbabwe. Giving Save Zimbabwe Campaign all the benefit of doubt about its grievances, it was still wrong to engage in provocation in an attempt to solve a complicated matter such as ours through confrontation and in a manner that broke the law. While the gathering was described and indeed could have been organized as a church event, however we saw on British Broadcasting Corporation footage, some Movement for Democratic Change supporters waving Vote MDC signs. The police imposed a one-month ban on gatherings under the Public Order and Safety Act in Harare. Whether that law is fair or not is a matter for the courts to decide as opposed to Save Zimbabwe Campaign taking matters into their own hands. The Daily News incident should have taught us a lesson. In fact, some of the personalities in Save Zimbabwe Campaign previously acknowledged that the Daily News had erred in failing to register under the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, no matter how contestable the statute was. Now put in a similar situation, they have proceeded to behave in a similar manner. But we must not lose sight that this was not a genuine struggle to engage the problems of Zimbabwe in a progressive manner, but to get a way of putting Zimbabwe up for discussion at UNHRC’s current session.
Of course, I am not oblivion of the rights of people to engage in civil discontent and also practice their democratic rights as citizens, but what Save Zimbabwe Campaign did was not conducted within these confines. We must also remember that a couple of weeks back when the European Union was deciding on renewing the economic sanctions against Zimbabwe, the same people under different organisations engaged in violence. That is not the way we, as Zimbabweans can entertain the pursuant of democratic expression. If we are going to be arm twisted to accept such violent tactics then we lose our moral high ground to insist on government to behave in a restrained manner. Also, let us not forget that government has constitutional duties as well to take whatever actions it deems suitable to govern a country. Therefore, whenever we engage in any forms of democratic expression, we should have that in mind.
Democracy entails us understanding that we also owe the state and nation our responsibilities. Hyperdemocracy – power that is proportionately distributed within a society, but ultimately causing cultural degradation and deterioration - will not work. But of course, because the West has an agenda of regime change to pursue, they will just push us to do whatever it takes for them to achieve their illegal policy. And some of us (Zimbabweans) are beholden to the asymmetrical relations arising from funding by the Western countries and thus have no option but to be co-opted into the system strongly condemned by Bob Marley.
It is interesting to examine how this spectacular action was organized. The Save Zimbabwe Campaign had succeeded in bringing together several civil society groups. Such a make up had the effect of portraying this group as the epitome of Zimbabweans coming together for a common cause. Yet, when the gathering was broken, the strategists and more pointedly, the communications experts of this group failed dismally in their media management. Instead of controlling the way the message was communicated by the media that Save Zimbabwe Campaign members were arrested and others beaten, they let the media focus more on one of MDC’s factions President Morgan Tsvangirai. For instance, we heard nothing or little of Arthur Mutambara in some media or the diversity of the group. The disadvantage of such a portrayal was reducing the event now solely to Tsvangirai and not a group effort. I am not suggesting that the Save Zimbabwe Campaign was not mentioned, it was, but the greater part of the focus was on Tsvangirai. This relegates the whole event back to Tsvangirai’s MDC faction. The Save Zimbabwe Campaign is, firstly overshadowed and also by association, discredited in the process because of Tsvangirai’s history of serial blunders and failings. This failure adds to his long list of blunders such as the “final push” and “winter of social discontent”. Symbolically, the overpowering by government of the Save Zimbabwe Campaign demonstrates the defeat of all the various opposition civil society groups with a single effort. By failing to save their leaders, they have effectively been defeated.
The BBC quoted Tsvangirai saying government miscalculated. In essence, it could be Save Zimbabwe Campaign that miscalculated and Tsvangirai specifically. By breaking an existing law that has not been challenged in courts and engaging, and even escalating violence, the coalition gave the government grounds to easily justify their actions.
The dilemma of the opposition will persist if they let weak leaders such as Tsvangirai define or symbolize their action. The dilemma would be that if they engage in democratic resistance within the confines of the law, they would lose because of the weaknesses of the leadership and lack of strategy. Equally, if they do it outside of the confines of the laws, they would give the government an excuse for dealing with them in a tough manner.
We must also note the reporting of the Western press of the situation in Zimbabwe. For instance, the they were elated that the South African government issued a statement, which was interpreted as condemning Zimbabwe and yet they ignored reporting another part which one would equally argue that they we condemning the opposition. In that part the statement read, “[W]e appeal to leaders of opposition political parties to work towards a climate that is conducive to finding a lasting solution to the current challenges faced by the people of Zimbabwe”.In this statement, which was widely reported by the Western media, it is interesting to note that no acknowledgement was made of the opposition segment of the civil society gathered as Save Zimbabwe Campaign, but political parties. By failing to highlight such omission, the journalists could indicate that they knew the true political nature of the gathering. Alternatively, Save Zimbabwe Campaign suffers name recognition problem and therefore would not have made an immediate impact on the intended agenda to put Zimbabwe in the spotlight of the UNHRC. A decision had to be made, therefore to forsake everything else but firmly locate the event around Tsvangirai who enjoys name recognition in the Western countries.