WHEN dozens of African leaders gathered in China for the Forum on China–Africa Cooperation, most of them if not all must have admired the wealth, power and prestige their host wields.
All too must have envied the stability and durability of the Chinese Communist Party.
The latter with its air of near omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence represents the ideal end state of a one-party State dictatorship.
African tyrants and would-be tyrants of various shades and hues have over the years claimed that democracy is a Western concept that is not universally applicable.
They have put forward the somewhat cynical view that there is an alternative to democracy. (Perhaps even one with Chinese characteristics, whatever they maybe) .
Our African ruling elite has often snatched at this refrain and snarled it at anyone who sought to question their authoritarianism and general high-handedness with the suffering masses.
This line of reasoning must be challenged and be exposed for what it is: a sorry excuse for authoritarianism by those who benefit the most from it.
Today in Zimbabwe, many despicables have wriggled out of the festering cadaver that is Zimbabwean democracy and are crawling all over social media celebrating the mayhem that has been wreaked on the Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC) by one Sengezo Tshabangu.
- Corruption Watch: Get scared, 2023 is coming
- Corruption Watch: Get scared, 2023 is coming
- Letters: Ensuring Africa’s food security through availability of quality seeds
- Is military's involvement in politics compatible with democracy?
Keep Reading
Their unbridled glee is no doubt fuelled by the realisation that this should be the end of the nascent CCC and a de facto return to the one-party State which Zanu PF has been fantasising about.
None of them realise just how dangerous this latest development can be to the nation and ergo themselves.
Democracy confers rights on us all, those rights empower the people.
That empowerment gives us a stake in our nation.
We all become full citizens of a country through the participation we are allowed through democracy.
Leaders are beholden to the led, their longevity is directly proportional to the approval accorded to them by those they lead.
A key shortcoming of despotism as a system of governance is that it does not recognise the fallibility of the supreme leader and by extension of his underling.
I remember listening with utmost incredulity as a Zanu PF factotum frothed at the mouth.
The reason? He had not been attended to quickly enough at a government office “. . . I sit at the same table in the central committee as (the late former President Robert) Mugabe and you want me to wait here . . .”
To him, it was worse than blasphemy that someone who sat close to Mugabe could be treated as an ordinary human being.
The leader is deified, superhuman abilities and rights are assigned to him.
Reason goes out the window and what obtains thereafter is a political Alice-in-Wonderland.
Democracy demystifies and humanises political leaders. It is above all a recognition of the universal fallibility of humans.
Humans fail in terms of performance and humans make mistakes.
Democracy gives the governed the power to remove from office those who have failed in their performance as leaders.
Democracy imposes a performance straitjacket on those who lead and, rightly so, makes them servant to the people.
Therefore, democracy is not optional, but a standard requirement for the peaceful coexistence of a large number of people.
If a person is placed in a leadership position much is expected of them.
Sometimes and quite naturally, those expectations exceed that person’s abilities.
Just about every person wants to lead, but not all are good at it.
It stands to very common logic that leadership ability is not conferred by the position, but is brought to the position by the incumbent.
This is one of the fallacious assumptions that doomed the absolute monarchy being premised as it was on the divine right of kings to rule.
Being born to royalty is not being born to lead.
The absolute monarchy, therefore, denied the people the means to remove an ineffective leader.
Inevitably, the end result was revolution and bloodshed all around.
This is a trite warning to all despots: democracy guarantees the leader a safe, dignified exit and peaceful retirement.
On the other hand, with authoritarianism, well the leader takes his/her chances.
Zanu PF has failed, so the people would like to remove Zanu PF from power. But Zanu PF will not be removed.
What is the answer to this political paradox? The answer is perhaps a resigned “It cannot end well”.
Can the people’s anger and aspirations be kept bottled up forever?
This is unlikely because Zimbabwe is not a true dictatorship in the mould of China, where the ruling party exercises absolute control over its people, there is no free Press, no dissent is tolerated and there is absolutely no opposition party.
We have a vibrant and defiant free Press that exposes the government’s excesses and general incompetence.
There is also a token opposition around which the people’s hopes of a better future periodically coalesce.
The Chinese people cannot reasonably dream of freedom and democracy, but for the people of Zanu PF, such a dream seems to be only one “if” away.
Zanu PF has failed to enforce a dictatorship not only at the national level, but also internally. There still remains too much room for dissent and the contestation of power.
It is conceivable that all these factors and dynamics can converge and push the people beyond the fear and docility that has hitherto guaranteed Zanu PF every luxury and the exercise of unbridled power.
It must, therefore, be well minded by all the level-headed that democracy represents both the best hope for the long-term and short-term survival of Zanu PF.
Zanu PF should, instead of focusing on power retention at any cost, be focused on engineering an exit strategy that guarantees the peaceful transfer of power and transition to a full-fledged democracy.
Such a transfer will allow the party to regroup, rebrand and come back as a genuine political party instead of the criminal syndicate it is today.
This can only be achieved if this happens through a constitutionally-managed and mandated process.
However, if it happens through a catastrophic and cathartic removal of Zanu PF from power, the latter might never recover.
The coups up north, and even our very own “coup-lite”, have demonstrated just how vulnerable dictators are to being overthrown if they are left to atrophy or decay in office without a legitimate means of removing them.
Someone in Zanu PF must learn this lesson verily when it is being taught to others, because at some point, Zimbabwe, too, will reach its breaking point.
History is a gentle teacher, it never presses its case on the obstinate. Rather, it lets them learn at great cost from experience.
Someone from Zanu PF must mind, there will never be a thousand year Zanu PF rule over Zimbabwe. It will end someday.
What is in their power is how.
Democratisation of the country is their best hope for survival and enjoying the fruits that will undoubtedly flow from change.
The young born-free generation in Zanu PF must not allow themselves to be used by the old guard to hang on to power.
The “We died for this country” generation can only reasonably expect to live for at most the next decade or two, they might hold on to power for that long.
There is no way a middle-aged Zanu PF functionary can expect to be in power for the next 40 or more years.
They are the ones who must be thinking and planning an exit strategy and for the day after democracy.
- Roger Takundwa is a political commentator. He writes here in his own personal capacity.
