“No more important challenge faces us today than how to deal with our differences” this statement by Ury could not be more relevant than to Zimbabwe today. Often than not we try to resolve our differences through coercive force when we could simply talk to one another. Margaret Atwood says “War is what happens when language fails”.

Since the beginning of the year the country has seen a rise in street demonstrations. From formerly silent churches to innocent high school students. People are angered by the government’s inadequate response to their social and economic challenges. Frustration can be heard from the pulpit right through to various social media platforms. Voices are being raised against a government that refuses to listen to its citizenry. As the economy continues to deteriorate, perhaps slide back to the 2008 levels it is important for the government to abandon its arrogant attitude and engage the people in a constructive discourse. Together we can solve some of our challenges if not we can at least clear some of our differences.

Stop insulting citizens, just engage them

Two weeks ago, I read Nathaniel Manheru arguing eloquently in favour of the national pledge in the Herald. Viciously chastising the church and its leaders for questioning and criticising the powers that be. Then a few days later, Joram Nyathi in his wisdom or lack thereof pounded even heavier on the citizens who had remonstrated their displeasure at the government’s recent pronouncements by marching in the streets of Harare. Powerless as these ordinary citizens may presently seem, they have a constitutional right to reject laws and policies they do not want. Even those policies that may actually be good for them. What I find ironical is that people have to demonstrate to demand an ear from their government, the very government that pretends to be of the people and for the people. The two gentlemen could not understand why people reacted in the manner they did. Their arrogance can only be the doing of power. Beyoncé sang drunk in love but I say these gentlemen are drunk in power.

Now looking at the arguments put forward by Manheru and Nyathi in favour of that pledge one could see that they could have easily convinced people to support their policy. But no, they prefer confrontation to consultation, chastising to dialoguing. Manheru being a senior civil servant ought to know that it is the responsibility of the government to explain its policies; to allay people’s fears, to answer questions people may have and above all to rally people behind its programmes. Just after independence a majority of rural schools and clinics were built by their respective communities with the aid of government and donor funding. That was only possible because communities were consulted, educated and thus they took ownership of these government programmes.

The Zanu PF way

Instead of building on these early successes by instituting consensus building mechanisms in their drafting and implementation of their policies they chose confrontation. Looking at a few policy pronouncements recently made by the government, one can see that the executive needs re-education and re-orientation. Dokora of the national pledge fame, not long ago announced the banning of Scripture Union in public schools. Now this does not make sense to my liberal mind. Joining Scripture Union has never been mandatory, its members join voluntarily. If students want to participate in this student organisation they should. They too have a constitutional right to the freedoms of association and of religion.

As if that was not enough an attack on the Christian population in our country, the overzealous minister came up again banning the renting of school properties to churches. This again without having consulted anyone. Without even offering compensation for the lost revenue to the affected schools. When people begin to speak out, to organise themselves to demonstrate against such behaviour from government it is not rebellion but an act of patriotism. There is no need to remind the government it should know that this is our country too. Speaking out on any government issue is our right not a privilege.

However, expecting to be consulted by Zanu PF would be expecting too much. How can they consult relevant stake holders and ordinary citizens when Ministers do not even consult one another? Even on a matter of national importance like the indigenisation policy. A mere junior Minister is found criticising the Finance Minister and the Reserve Bank Governor in public. Why couldn’t they iron out their differences in private and come out in the public with one position. If they could not agree why not consult with their principal and go out in the public with one position. With such high profile contradictions within the government in the public domain, how do they expect the populace and investors alike to have confidence in their government and its policies? In these instances, one gets the feeling that some ministers are more interested to be in the news than to actually achieve any real objectives.

Early debate in parliament over the indigenisation policy proved that with good leadership the nation could have easily come to a consensus. We all agreed on the need for indigenisation we only differed on how it was to be implemented. Simple logic demanded from us not to adopt a blanket policy to cover all the sectors of the economy. But instead of talking to one another Zanu PF chose to talk over everyone else. The indigenisation policy which was supposed to transfer wealth from a few privileged non indigenous people to the native citizenry has only managed to benefit a few privileged, highly corrupt Zanu PF elites.

The Governor of the Reserve, I am told by people who know him that he is well meaning. But his recent behaviour has not done him any favours. His rush to announce the introduction of bond notes was shambolic. What use is it to hold consultations after the policy has been announced. It thus does not come as a shock when credible business leaders say that the RBZ measures are only addressing symptoms rather the real deep macro-economic problems. Why not consult business leaders and representatives of workers in order to find solutions to our monetary challenges? For what it is worth the Governor should already know that no one trusts the Central Bank. Trust can only be cultivated by open engagement with the relevant stakeholders. Talking to one another might not solve all our challenges but I am more than sure as evidenced by the days during our GNU that we can do so much together.

Mugabe has been a bad example for his ministers

The Opposition are not saints in this regard either

If the opposition thinks that this problem is only existent in Zanu PF, then Tsvangirai’s debacle on the expulsion of the Harare Mayor Ben Manyenyeni exposed this folly. The MDC-T executive rushed to make a press announcement without having first consulted the councillors who run the city council affairs. It is not surprising therefore that before nightfall, the party directive had been disobeyed by the acting Mayor. This small incident must be a lesson in the future, to never disregard other key stakeholders that we might regard as less important. 

The failure of MDC Renewal and Ncube’s MDC to unite speaks loudly of this failure to talk to one another. Although supporters from both parties all agreed on the need for unification, without any debate or consultation with the grassroots supporters the unification was called off by the party elites. Neither an apology nor an explanation was offered. As if that was not enough the MDC Renewal then went on to split. The fact that the MDC Renewal was itself a splinter was forgotten. As the saying goes ego is the only requirement to destroy any relationship. Mangoma and Biti could not put aside their own personal egos for the greater good of the movement they had started.

Conclusion

As the saying goes leave two Zimbabweans on the moon and they will form three political parties. There is a real problem in the Zimbabwean body politic that needs urgent addressing. We need to accommodate one another despite our political differences. A contestation of ideas does not make us enemies. We must be able to coexist with our political differences, more so when our political differences are cosmetic rather than fundamental.

 The failure to talk through our differences does not only exist in politics but exists in every fibre of our society. This is why we have high rates of domestic violence, two adults failing to resolve their differences amicably. I only talked of politics because of my own personal interest in politics but as a nation we must improve on how we resolve our differences. When we consult, we must learn to listen not just to listen but to listen to understand the other person’s point of view. We must always strive to build consensus and ensure we implement win-win solutions. This is how national cohesion is build which will in turn provide a platform for national ownership of government programmes. We have politicised many non-political issues for too long making it harder to find common ground. In the end Zimbabwe has been the loser.

But not all hope is lost the youths are beginning to find their voice, speaking truth to power from across political lines. We might be affiliated to different political parties but we are Zimbabweans before we are party members. Cash and food shortages knows no party membership. We must come together as Zimbabweans and solve these our challenges. The opposition parties are beginning to talk to each other. There is a shift happening, people have realised that no one is going to come and save Zimbabwe but ourselves. During the Unity Government, Zanu PF used to blame the opposition for impeding the economic recovery. Now having a majority in parliament they must admit and accept that they have failed to turn things around. As a matter of urgency they must invite other political parties, together we might be able to avert this impending crisis.

But it must be known with or without Zanu PF, the train is moving towards a new and a better Zimbabwe.

1.  The other parties can organise mass protests to show their party’s organising skills and their scale of support base.

2. They can organise large rallies, not the meet the local leadership tours they have been having countrywide. This also simply to show what following they have.

3. They can also start penning incisive well-articulated alternative policies and countering the regime at an intellectual level. Brains are always welcome to any coalition table, albeit not a strong arm to negotiate on.

It makes no sense to fight an authoritarian regime like Zanu PF from many little different corners. We must join hands and fight our common enemy from a united front. But if we must, the earlier we start the process the better, for we learned during the formation of the Government of National Unity that forming a coalition is difficult and time consuming. The wise would say make hay while the sun shines, 2018 is not far away.

Over Exaggerated Support Base

Judging from past elections and the by-elections taking place now, we can see that Zanu PF’s electoral support, which is mostly based in rural areas, has not changed much over time. We also already know that the majority of Zimbabweans live in rural areas, it is thus imperative not to over exaggerate our support when we see large demonstrations or rallies in urban areas as they are not enough to dethrone the regime.

We should also bear in mind, that in the past elections we did little as the opposition to help those who were victimised for supporting the opposition in rural areas. Now it is harder to convince the rural folk to support the opposition, more so when there is no guarantee that we will be able to topple the regime in 2018. Joining hands with former Zanu PF people should be able to reduce the credibility gap, and induce those who would otherwise fear to vote for a losing opposition to participate in the elections.

Since Zimbabwe People First has been operating in rural areas as Zanu PF in the past, it has better networks and infrastructure to woe some of that rural support to our cause. Anyway, what would Tsvangirai’s party lose if they were to let Zimbabwe People First contest in rural areas and in turn not contest urban areas and they both rally behind each other?

Another point many know but never want to acknowledge, is that a lot of young people have lost hope in Zimbabwe recovering any time soon. They have lost hope in the opposition and in elections. The fortunate ones are able to seek greener pastures across the border, but some of those who remain have lost hope to even want to participate in elections. It is therefore important we do not over emphasise the youth support base.

Zimbabwe People First brings with it a heavy baggage from Zanu PF, but it also brings with it a rich history of the liberation struggle which can be used to mobilise support throughout Africa and the African diaspora. This should help in weaning the opposition from that derogatory tag of “puppets of the West”. For with the collaboration of former freedom fighters our struggle for democracy will be seen for what it really is. Once that tag has been successfully removed if for whatever reason any inter-mediation is required in 2018, the mediators will be able to operate freely without the fear of being taken as Western lackeys if they act against the regime.

Donor Fatigue

Not only have the voters been fatigued, but so have the donors too. They have grown weary, pouring money into a struggle that has failed to yield results. We certainly cannot blame them and neither are we surprised that they have begun to warm up to the regime.

Whilst we want their money, we do not want to be “Western puppets” or regarded as such. On this issue I am a little worried that all the opposition’s economic blue prints are neo-liberal in outlook but I will reserve this topic for another day. What is important to note is that the international community is most likely open their financial tapes when there is a pre-election coalition and a higher probability of regime change.

Not only will the coalition be able to open the international community’s cheque books, but it also has the potential of convincing Zimbabweans in the diaspora to play a meaningful role in financing the struggle.

In as much as money is important in running a successful campaign in politics it should never be our primary objective of coming together. We have to own this unity, motivated by the right reasons. Monetary issues are only but an added advantage.

The Splits left Tsvangirai poorer in terms of the party’s intellectual depth.

This, my last point, might seem a bit harsh, but dear reader bear with me I promised nothing but honest truth. Tsvangirai’s latest shadow cabinet is testimony to this fact. People on that shadow cabinet do not inspire any confidence, the cabinet does not show a party that is serious, a party that wants to govern in two years’ time. Whilst there could have been loads of improvements in the selection of the shadow cabinet, it is self-evident that there is a serious lack of talent and intellectual depth within the ranks of the Tsvangirai led party.

This concern can easily be addressed by having the whole opposition come together and provide a wider pool of intellectual resources. You might not like Tendai Biti, Welshman Ncube, Simba Makoni, Elton Mangoma and Lovemore Madhuku but you cannot deny they all possess intellectual stamina. If this talent were to be combined and put into one shadow cabinet, would signal a serious opposition ready to demand back our country from the greedy and selfish regime.