More+questions+than+answers,+MDC+congresses,+Sokwanele



=More questions than answers=

Sokwanele Report: 4 April 2006
Now that the congresses of the two MDC factions have been held many have been passing judgment regarding which of the two factions now is the real McCoy. For many it is simply a case of numbers and both factions appear to be playing the numbers game. For example, a recent article in the Financial Gazette explored discrepancies in reports on the numbers of supporters attending Mutambara rallies, stating that at one rally, the reports on numbers in attendance ranged from between 800 to 10 000 people (30 March 2006). It is however generally agreed that out of the two political congresses, one congress had 15 000 people and the other had 3000 people.

Some have interpreted those figures to mean that the one faction is 5 times more popular than the other. In fact, Eddie Cross committed himself to this view by stating that the Tsvangirai congress now demonstrates that the Tsvangirai faction enjoys the support of 95% of former MDC supporters:

"Well, both sections have had their Congress's and I think we have the right now to say that the main stem of the Party and 95 per cent of its root structure, were left standing with Morgan Tsvangirai. The branch that broke ranks with Morgan over the Senate issue are in reality simply a broken branch that now lies on the ground without sufficient root structure to sustain its mass or deliver any fruit to its members. It will either die or become firewood - like Zanu PF or it will simply lie there on the forest floor a crippled and broken branch of the original MDC." (Eddie Cross, "Seeing wood in the trees", 20 March 2006)

The truth is that it is hard for anyone to judge how much support any political party has in Zimbabwe today. We all know that Zanu PF had thousands of supporters at its December 2005 congress in Esigodini and that Zanu PF regularly "wins" elections. Does that mean Zanu PF is wildly popular? Hardly. And despite the reported 15 000 people at its congress, the Tsvangirai faction of the MDC was not able to hold the recently contested Mayoral election in Chegutu. Likewise, for all the Mutambara faction's stated strength in Bulawayo it was unable to hold on to two Council seats in Bulawayo. The only way to test any party's true support would be through a genuinely fair political process that would enable the public to listen to each respective party's programmes and to judge for themselves the respective strengths of those policies and the people who would implement them. To say the least that is unlikely in present day Zimbabwe.

However before we even consider the numbers game there are two other factors that must be considered. The first is to consider the context of the respective numbers of people attending the two MDC factions' congresses. What is particularly interesting about the Tsvangirai faction's assertion that 15 000 people attended their congress is the claim that these individuals were all congress delegates:

The MDC Congress this past weekend attracted nearly 20 000 delegates and others who tried to secure accreditation to attend on Saturday and Sunday. In the end, 15 000 delegates were accredited (Eddie Cross, 20 March 2006).

At this juncture it is pertinent to recall the provisions of the MDC Constitution regarding the Congress. Article 5.2 states:

The Congress 5.2.1 The Congress shall be the supreme organ of the Party and shall be composed as follows: (a) all members of the National Council; (b) all members of the National Executive of Women; (c) all members of the National Executive of Youth; (d) all members of the Provincial Executive Committees; (e) the Chairperson, Secretary and Treasurer from each District Executive Committee; (f) the Chairpersons of the National Assembly of Women's' Committee and the National Assembly of Youths' Committee from each district; (g) the Chairperson of each Ward Executive Committee; and (h) the Chairperson of each Branch Executive Committee.

There are 72 members of the National Council, 12 of the Women's Executive, 12 of the Youth Executive, 144 members of the Provincial Executives (12 Provinces x 12 members in each), 360 Chairpersons, Secretaries and Treasurers on the District Committees (3 x 120) 240 Chairs of Youth and Women District Committees (2 x 120). The Ward and Branch Chairs are more difficult to quantify. However in some of the MDC's best-organised Districts there have been no more than 5 Wards and 10 Branches giving 600 (5 x 120) and 1200 (10 x 120) people respectively. One should bear in mind of course that there are some places, particularly in Mashonaland rural areas, where there have not even been functioning Provincial structures never mind Ward and Branch committees. What should also be borne in mind is that there is some overlap in that some who are members of Youth Committees, for example, are also on the National Council and they do not have a double vote. In other words, in terms of the MDC's Constitution, only some 2616 people are eligible to attend Congress as delegates. Even if one doubles the number of Ward Committees to 10 and 20 on average per District the numbers of those eligible to attend as delegates only comes to 4416.

This then begs the question - how could there possibly have been 15 000 delegates to the Tsvangirai faction's congress in Harare? It simply is not possible. No one doubts the numbers of people there - one simply questions their right to be there, where they came from and why the organisers allowed them to be there.

It does appear as if not all 15 000 were allowed to vote. Consider what Women Chair Lucy Matibenga stated in her protest note published a day or so after the Congress:

"Even though they lost the election, the vote garnered by Gertrude Mtombeni and Sekai Holland was around 1 900 and 1 800 respectively while Pauline Gwanyanya secured over 500 Votes. Women therefore fared well in the numbers of votes they got for the positions that they stood for.2 (Statement of Lucy Matibenga, 21 March 2006)

It is pertinent to recall that Mtombeni stood against Thoko Khupe in the election for the Vice Presidency of the faction and observers present indicate that Khupe got some 3000 votes. In other words, some 4900 people cast their votes. Whilst this brings us closer to the truth of the number of lawful delegates, the number still seems high and one questions why it was that so many were able to vote - some 500 people more than the most liberal estimates (of those entitled to vote) voted. This sounds like something Tobaiwa Mudede would have been proud of!

So what then was the balance of some 10 000 people doing there? This is the second issue: would all of those present have been there had there not been some inducement? Eddie Cross again provides some insight:

"We ran the whole show on a shoe string - about 10 per cent of our budget, but were able to get all people going home last night enough money to travel. The final meal was served late in the day to ensure people had food before they travelled. Food was provided and served by Servcor who did an excellent job after the shambles on the first day went we were swamped with up to 20 000 people trying to get into the Congress. Eventually we fed them all on day one but on day two we fed only those with accreditation. These were about 15 000 and we had to bump up the food contract from 10 000 meals three times a day to 15 000 - thank goodness for private enterprise."

"In an amazing way we were able to pay for Congress, we rented the Stadium, brought in professional caterers (at Morgan's insistence) and were able to accommodate people all over the City. On Sunday we got all the Provincial Treasurers together and asked them how much money they needed to get home - we then went to a location in the City where we had what money was available and we were able to pay out 95 per cent of what was asked for - astonishing when you know that we had no support from any major donors and our State funding was arbitrarily handed over to the break away group in time for their Congress." (20 March 2006)

For all the bitter complaints about the Mutambara faction having received Z$8 billion from the regime and having to run the Congress on a shoestring, there are some very interesting facts that emerge from Mr. Cross's description of events. The Tsvangirai faction's congress ran from Friday morning to Sunday evening. People were accredited on Friday and the congress proper was held on the Saturday and Sunday. By their own admission they got a private catering firm to feed some 20 000 people on day one and then 15 000 people the next day. These days a hamburger costs about Z$ 90,000. It is highly unlikely therefore that a private catering firm would have been prepared to cater for less than Z$ 100,000.00 per head. Conservatively, exceptionally conservatively, the food alone would have cost about Z$ 8 billion. It is very interesting to contrast the two congresses in this regard. Because of severe shortages of money the Mutambara faction held its congress on one day and was not even then able to feed all its delegates. The Zanu-controlled media had a field day reporting on this as indeed did Nelson Chamisa, the Tsvangirai faction spokesperson. There was clearly no such funding problem at the Tsvangirai congress.

This in turn begs two further questions. Firstly how many of the 20 000 people who attended were from Harare and only there because they knew they would get several square meals? Secondly, for all the complaints that the Mutambara faction received 'all the money', where has the Tsvangirai faction money suddenly come from?

So what then of the resolutions passed at the Tsvangirai faction's congress? Many were expecting that they would put their money where their mouths are. After all they state that the reason for the break-up was because of their deeply held principle not to participate in fraudulent elections. In the run up to the congress there were statements to the effect that the congress would decide on a resolution to abandon the electoral process. The closest the congress got however was in Resolution 8:

"Noting the complete failure of the electoral process in Zimbabwe and the futility of pursuing an exclusive electoral struggle, the party resolves to engage in peaceful democratic confrontation and resistance to the regime."

This was not quite what was expected - clearly those Tsvangirai faction members enjoying the fruits of Parliament are not ready yet to abandon their positions. Indeed the first action of the new leadership of the Tsvangirai faction was to announce that they would contest the Budiriro by-election! Finally Zimbabweans were told that the Tsvangirai congress would usher in a new brand of leadership that will lead the MDC in a new positive direction.

There is no doubt, despite the illegality regarding the numbers of people entitled to attend the Tsvangirai congress, that Morgan Tsvangirai does at present command considerable support amongst Zimbabweans. However, aside from Biti and Bennett's elevation, the Tsvangirai faction's leadership team has been weakened. The discredited and highly suspect Isaac Matongo (one of the foremost advocates for participation in the Senate elections) is still Chairman. (It is worth recalling that Sokwanele raised many questions about Isaac Matongo in an earlier mailing titled "You will know them by their fruits": Is Zimbabwe's CIO involved in the MDC split?). Matongo is now joined by Thoko Khupe, one of the most ineffectual MPs of the last 6 years (as Vice President) and Lovemore Moyo, Zanu PF Cabinet Minister Sithembiso Nyoni's son-in-law (as Deputy Chairman). (We should remind readers here that Moyo had previously contested and failed to secure election to a post in the parallel structures of the Sibanda/Ncube faction of the party). Throw in Tapiwa Mashakada (one of those implicated in MDC intra party violence) and a few others of his ilk and it will be apparent that an overwhelming majority of the new leadership at best simply do not have what it takes and at worst have questionable loyalties. Tsvangirai's controversial cabinet is not simply just still in place; it has been greatly strengthened by the congress.

Conversely, the MDC's long-held position on non-violent political change in Zimbabwe has been weakened by conflicting statements from the Mutambara-led faction on the subject of the use of violence. Media reports early last month quoted Mutambara as laudably saying "We won't be qualified to fight Mugabe if we are little Mugabes". However, at a recent rally at Chitungwiza, Mutambara was reported in the Herald as declaring, " We will not rule out using violence because this is still our option". So which is it? And if he is against violence and the Herald has misreported him then a statement unambiguously clarifying what he said should be issued.

For clarification we turn next to statements made by Mutambara's spokesperson, Morgan Changamire, who explains, "The MDC president, Professor Mutambara, is on record as denouncing violence of any form." However, Changamire's reiteration of that point was immediately followed by what can only be interpreted as a threat:

"This should, however, not be construed by Chamisa, and others like him, as a sign of weakness or lack of capacity on our part to defend ourselves when provoked. We wish to warn Chamisa that he is treading on dangerous ground. He has no monopoly of violence." (Financial Gazette, 29 March 2006).

So, are we to conclude that the Mutambara faction denounces violence of "any form", albeit with some exceptions...? What does that mean exactly? It's worth reminding the Mutambara-led faction that the other political party that regularly justifies the use of violence in the name of so-called 'self-defense' is Mugabe's Zanu PF. Zimbabweans are tired of violence and of political parties that threaten each other with violence.

Changamire's comments (above) emerged in connection with media reports that supporters of the Tsvangirai faction had attempted to disrupt the Mutambara rally at Chitungwiza - reports which raise yet another layer of questionable facts and allegations. SW Radio Africa tried to report on that story and, despite speaking to both factions in an effort to find out exactly what happened, was nevertheless forced to begin their article with the comment that "the split in the MDC leadership is now also creating friction among opposition supporters and making it difficult for journalists to get at the truth" (27 March 2006). If journalists with their well-placed sources can't get at the truth, how can ordinary members of the public - voters and supporters - ever expect to be able to reach an informed opinion? Do either factions of the MDC consider this lack of transparency acceptable in a fight for democracy?

In the midst of all the statistical spin surrounding the Tsvangirai-led faction's congress and the subsequent allegations and counter allegations of violence following the Mutambara rallies, it is apparent to all Zimbabweans that the opposition is now weaker than ever. Supporters find it increasingly difficult to know whom to believe. Morgan Tsvangirai for all his apparent personal popularity has been ring fenced, separated from his competent leadership. The greatest shame is that Tsvangirai himself appears to have been swept away by his faction's own hype and propaganda and doesn't yet understand the perilous position he is now in. But the saddest truth of all - one that both factions would be well-advised to wake-up to - is that while the opposition party is side-tracked by internal politics and squabbling, Zanu PF continues, unchallenged, machine-like, in relentlessly stripping Zimbabweans of their dream for democracy, human rights, and freedom for all in our country.


 * From: http://www.sokwanele.com/**


 * See also the Sokwanele blog at http://www.sokwanele.com/thisiszimbabwe/**

2669 words