For once, space Chamisa

MAGIC realism is a genre of literature.

In it, reality, dreams, fantasy and mythology merge, mix and cavort to spin a tale that when the telling is done, it is understood by few and accepted by none.

It seems just too incredible. Zimbabwe’s history is cast in the very best traditions of magic realism.

Who could have anticipated that less than a year after the August 2023 elections all the opposition gains in Parliament would have been reversed?

That Zanu PF would have a two-thirds majority and opposition leader Nelson Chamisa would be left without a party?

All these events, including a reversal of the humiliated Scott Sakupwanya’s fortunes, would come to pass, (the latter is now preening and crowing in the august House.)

The nondescript figure of self-proclaimed Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC) interim secretary-general Sengezo Tshabangu is credited with bringing about this surreal turn of events and unleashing mayhem in Zimbabwean opposition politics.

Chamisa has come out as the ignorant, naïve villain of the party.

Or worse, has been cast as a Zanu PF deep covert operation being just ignorant, naïve or hardheaded enough to leave vulnerabilities in the opposition.

These, in turn, allowed Tshabangu the opening he needed to come in and do the hatchet job as ordered by his handlers.

Political commentators have lambasted the CCC for not having a constitution.

In its wisdom, the opposition had thought that by not having one, they would be safeguarding their project.

In the end, it turned out to be a case of damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

Either way, the CCC was vanquished while still basking in its neonatal glory and euphoria.

This is unfair on the opposition. The issue is and never was about constitutions, structures or anything else.

It’s about the lack of democratic space in Zimbabwean politics. Zimbabwe is not a democracy, period. It is, instead, a soft dictatorship.

At present, Zimbabwe is a strictly Zanu PF project, the so-called liberation movement has a monopoly on the country’s affairs past, present and future.

Opposition politics are tolerated so long as they do not pose a credible threat to the ruling party.

Once the opposition looks like it can do so, it is cut to acceptable size.

This is a political model that dominates much of Af Whoever interprets a document speaks on its behalf, a document, therefore, says what those who have been entrusted with its interpretation want it to say.

They interpret the words in it and that interpretation is passed on or assumed by different arms of govern and society at large for actioning.

A constitution in itself does not make a declarative statement, this is up to those who interpret it. A good example would be that of the American legal system.

The United States Supreme Court’s rulings on constitutional matters usually reflect the divide between the liberals and the conservative justices, even though the document being considered is the same.

So if the CCC had a constitution, that document still would have been subject to interpretation by a partisan Judiciary that is undeniably just another arrow in Zanu PF’s quiver.

All that those acting for Tshabangu would have done would be to find a clause or word that gave him a barely reasonable case before the courts and the party would be his.

In such a case, Zanu PF would no doubt have the finest legal minds poring over the CCC constitution for just some pretext to shut it down.

Zanu PF can and probably does, gather even the judges themselves together to get their opinion on legal matters.

If our Supreme Court justices were summoned today to pore over CCC’s constitution with the intent of finding a barely reasonable legal pretext to shut it down, they would no doubt do so.

They would be able to come up with a word, clause or an out of place punctuation mark that would allow them to do this.

After all, they or other justices of their ilk would make the final determinations under instruction from Zanu PF.

The CCC was, therefore, doomed with or without a constitution.

Zanu PF does not intend for there to ever be a viable and credible opposition party in the country.

This is because Zanu PF is a criminal enterprise bent on making as much money out of the suffering of the people of Zimbabwe as it can; nobody has ever made enough money.

Therefore, there will never come a time for Zanu PF to concede power.

There are people just out of school or university who are looking to make millions out of proximity to the ruling party.

They too need Zanu PF hegemony to continue by every foul means and device possible.

Therefore, the longer the discussion centres around the acts of commission or omission of the opposition, the longer Zanu PF’s guffaws will echo through the halls of power.

The momentous question of the day is not what Chamisa needs to do next. It’s what the people of Zimbabwe need to do in order to have genuine democracy in their country.

Obsessing over Chamisa and finding fault with his every move or lack off is like blaming a rape victim, looking at her dressing, where she was, with whom at what time.

In order for a woman to be raped, it means she was overpowered, coerced and could not clearly help herself.

The fault lies with the thug who abused her and perhaps those who stood around and let the dastardly deed take place.

The maladapted individual is the rapist, not the victim; Zanu PF has consistently desecrated our democracy and the opposition since 1980.

Zanu PF is the problem. Zanu PF will not let go of power willingly.

The opposition is struggling and fading in the constricting grip of Zanu PF.

We can either step into help the opposition thus help ourselves or have the basic intelligence to shut up.rica, where opposition parties should not and cannot win an election; this exists in Mozambique, Botswana, Angola and a host of other countries.

The 2008 election loss was a nightmarish moment for Zanu PF, not only in terms of the loss of power and humiliation, but with such widespread criminality, many, if not all, feared for their freedom.

Zanu PF has no doubt resolved that never again must it lose an election.

One way of ensuring this is never to allow the opposition to gain traction much less momentum through preemptive, disruptive asymmetrical attacks.

Such attacks fit into the soft dictatorship model of government because no one can call out the regime as being autocratic when it allows opposition parties, elections and a vibrant free Press.

To top it off, the opposition party in whatever guise even receives government funding.

And, of course, it is the opposition that time and again turns the hatchet on itself, decimating the people’s aspirations at the same time.

The ruling party in its turn gleefully holds up its squeaky clean hands and theatrically rolls its eyes at the lack of a serious opposition to take it on.

The real reason for the demise of the CCC is that Zanu PF has captured the State.

It was recently reported that Zanu PF, now that the Sadc’s coronation of ED is over, has given the go-ahead for the release of detained opposition activists led by Jameson Timba as well as pro-democracy human rights activists and all dissenting voices.

It is neither the Justice ministry nor Home Affairs ministry that is saying this, but Zanu PF. Ergo Zanu PF is the State.

Zanu PF controls the security sector, Judiciary and civil service.

Zanu PF, if so disposed, could ban the CCC, the courts would uphold the ban, the police would enforce it and it would be lights out for the opposition.

The Judicial Service Commission is an extension of Zanu PF intent on all politico-legal matters, therefore, a constitution would not have saved the CCC.

A constitution is, at its most prosaic, a piece of paper with words on it.

This document is mute, static, it only gains kinesis and animation through interpretation.

So when legal minds sit down to decide a constitutional matter, they are in effect giving life to this document a very particular kind of life after their own biases.

Whoever interprets a document speaks on its behalf, a document, therefore, says what those who have been entrusted with its interpretation want it to say.