Zimbabwe — Bifurcated Identity Politics
If God sends an Angel to come to Zimbabwe and establish a new political party, the people, who still have free will, will not vote for the Heavenly Party led by that angel. The people will still vote for either Zanu PF as led by ED or CCC as led by Chamisa. Such is the state of affairs in the country’s political landscape.
Even if God sends down his own son, the electorate will still reject him in favor of Chamisa or ED. Even if God comes down himself, the people will still rebuke him. It doesn’t matter who comes with an alternative, he will be embarrassingly rejected.
Understanding this is key to understanding the psyche of the nation. The moment we understand this, we begin to understand Identity Politics and the Bifurcation thereof. Failure to understand this translates to a failure to understand a thing called “context”. Everything exists within a context. Nothing exists outside a specific context.
Bifurcation means splitting into two parts. Our politics is bifurcated due to our post-independence history as a nation. As Mugabe’s dictatorship took hold, it became necessary to either identify yourself with the regime or to identify yourself with the opposition. This applies to those who are into politics. Splinter groups and new formations do not gather enough traction and the critical mass necessary to metastasize into proper political outfits, regardless of what they offer. There are some members of the public that sincerely do not want to associate themselves with either the regime or the opposition. They typically fail to successfully be recognized as apolitical by others. They are either regarded as regime apologists or members of the opposition that are unfocused with regard to what they ought to do politically. No one is truly and honestly regarded as neutral.
Identity Politics only means that you identify yourself with a certain political party. Support of or membership of the party becomes an integral part of your identity as well. Instead of politics being just politics, our politics rightfully and correctly boil down to identity because we are existing under a dictatorship. The issues at hand are so fundamental. It is not just about economic and social policies. It is as fundamental as human rights and freedoms. The basicness of the issues is what drives us into that identity mode.
Within this context of Bifurcated Identity Politics, the leader of each side of politics is merely a vessel. There is only one recognized regime party, Zanu PF, and only one recognized opposition party. It doesn’t matter what you call the opposition party. You can give it any name, the one that gets recognized by the majority of people wins almost all the people on the opposition side. The same applies to the leaders. Whoever emerges as the leader of each party gets to harvest the winner-take-most benefits.
It does matter who the party places at the top as the leader. However, once chosen whoever is the leader becomes elevated to a god-like status. He is worshipped as a hero, even if he is not a hero at all. The support of the people, after a leader emerges, is unwavering. In that case, even if a stone is selected to be the leader, the people will rally behind that stone. Thus, in a way, it doesn’t really matter who is chosen. It doesn’t change the dynamics of the bifurcated setup that much. The setup remains bifurcated.
The context has already been set. The current iteration of leaders (ED and Chamisa) is an iteration of the late Bob and Tsvangison. The iteration cannot stop as long as Zanu PF is in power.
Nelson is just a Vessel, yet we don’t treat him as such
Many people confuse and conflate the importance of Chamisa (the person) vis-a-vis the position that Chamisa holds as the leader of the opposition. Chamisa the person (though we treat him as a god) is actually dispensable, but the position that he occupies as the leader of the opposition is indispensable. Because of the personality cults and hero-worshipping attendant within Bifurcated Identity Politics, it is very hard for the average person to separate the Person from the Position. Even if Chamisa fails dismally as the leader of the opposition to achieve the KPIs his organization sets to achieve, people will defend him to the end, because not defending him is incorrectly understood as akin to not defending the position of the leader of the opposition.
Chamisa can die, and another vessel can take over the leadership of the struggle. Chamisa himself can retire from active politics and emigrate to another country. Another person will emerge to be the leader. When we elevate the person to a godhood status, we create a false god. Chamisa is thus not a god, even though we treat him like a god to the extent that even if God sends down his own son to lead, we will rebuke him in favor of Chamisa.
Tsvangirai was there before Chamisa and another one can and will come after Chamisa. Our conflation of the person and the position within a bifurcated context is one of the reasons why we can be less effective in fighting the regime. The limitations of the person extend into the limitations of the movement for democratic change and there is no way to escape that. CCC cannot remove Chamisa via a Vote of No Confidence just like how MDC could not get rid of Tsvangirai. We are stuck with whoever emerges as the leader until death or until that person retires from politics. Likewise, it took Zanu PF ages to get rid of an old Mugabe. It will take time for Zanu PF to get rid of a very ineffective ED.
Many who try to Break this Political Duopoly Fail Dismally
There are numerous outfits and persons that have tried to break this political duopoly and failed dismally. The country is not yet ready to move past bifurcated identity politics. The bifurcation is still necessary. It is needed in order to galvanize toward the removal of one part of the duopoly (the evil regime part). Once the struggle against the regime is over, a multiparty pluralistic version of democracy can emerge where people challenge each other based on who has the best ideas regarding running the country, whilst fundamental issues such as human rights and freedoms have been resolved.
As long as the fundamental battles have not been won, the duopoly ought to exist.
With this understanding of the context, it is evidently folly for anyone to venture outside of the duopoly. Any such venturing will not attract a Critical Mass. Non-political formations (NGOs, pressure groups, advocacies, etc) can co-exist with the duopoly because they are not constituted as political parties. The moment any pressure group tries to morph into a political party, it loses support.
So, what shall we do?
There is not much we can do about this. We simply have to understand why the context is like this, accept it, and wait. Actively attempting to change it is a foolish endeavor. It is a task that will highly likely never be accomplished because you have to change the underlying dynamics. You cannot re-write the history that led to this bifurcated state of affairs. You can only wait for time to gradually diminish the importance coefficients attached to such history.
Ciao!
