Power-sharing: Peace without victors
By Reason Wafawarova in SYDNEY, Australia

Monday, September 15, 2008 (First published by The Herald,Harare)

THE BBC made an interesting and revealing observation about the power-sharing deal involving Zimbabwe’s top three political parties.

That observation was that there was "no celebration by MDC supporters and no protests by Zanu-PF backers."

To the British establishment there are only backers for Zanu- PF and real support lies with the MDC, the wing led by Morgan Tsvangirai, MDC-T.

This is despite the fact that Zanu-PF was reportedly entitled to most Cabinet posts because it commanded the majority vote in the parliamentary election of March 29.

In fact the BBC decided to side-step this fact by combining the total cabinet allocations for MDC-T and MDC, all in a bid to portray an image of victory for the opposition.

Only the BBC can explain why it was expected that MDC-T supporters were to fill the streets of Harare celebrating while Zanu-PF "backers" were meant to be protesting. What is clear is the rancour that drives the British establishment when it comes to this party called Zanu- PF.

To all progressive Zimbabweans this deal brings peace with no victors, it is a deal that comes with a solution that is driven by the power of negotiation and not the victory of political competition.

To the extremists from each of the three political parties involved in this process this is a sell-out deal embracing unwelcome compromises with unacceptable enemies.

The negotiated political settlement may be described as the end of the beginning of the real deal that Zimbabweans want.

This is the collective aspiration of the Zimbabwean people, the desire to live with dignity and integrity among other nations, a wish to access such basic necessities as food, shelter and clothing.

The process of people getting involved in the political process that seeks to realise the attainment of their collective aspirations is what is called democracy.

This is the concept of democracy that says a democratic society is one in which the public have the means to participate in some meaningful way in the management of their own affairs and the means of information are free and fair.

If one attended a political rally or looked up democracy in the dictionary, this is the kind of concept and definition that is portrayed.

However, it is imperative that we make analysis of the alternative but more practised conception of democracy that is often found in the process of real governance.

This is the conception of democracy that says the public must be barred from the managing of their own affairs and the means of information must be kept narrowly and rigidly controlled.

There is no doubt this reads like an odd conception of democracy, but it is important to understand that it is the prevailing conception in what are called successful democracies.

In fact, it has for a very long time been the prevailing reality, both in operation and in theory.

The 17th Century England is a classical example of this view.

The Woodrow Wilson era is another classical example.

After the election of Wilson in 1916, an extensively pacifistic American population was stirred into hysteria by a government propaganda commission called the Creel Commission.

This propaganda machine only needed six months to effectively turn a pacifistic population into a hysterical war-mongering lot that wanted to annihilate everything German, to tear the Germans limb from limb and to break them bone after bone.

This achievement by the Creel Commission led to the whipping up of the Red Scare, another propaganda blitz that was so successful in destroying workers unions, eliminating such ‘dangerous problems’ as freedom of the Press and freedom of political thought.

This is the great soul of power, the power that has just been shared among the politicians of Zimbabwe.

It is a great soul that perceives things beyond the comprehension of the weak, choosing always to decide what is best for the blind masses.

The progressive intellectuals participating in this conception of democracy enthusiastically bestow upon themselves the power to direct society as the "more intelligent members of the community".

Sometimes society needs this kind of leading, especially in terms of technocratic guidance but many times what happens is that the community is misled into hysterical fanaticism by the enlisting of firebrand preaching of superficial freedoms and also by jingoistic rhetoric on matters of nationalism.

The British propaganda machinery invented a lot of the awful things we read in history books about the atrocities of the Huns; all the stuff about Belgian babies with their arms torn off.

The same propaganda machinery has created awful images of Zimbabwe, literally tagging every dead man with the tag of political persecution or political mismanagement.

It is very easy to preach liberal democracy and the Zimbabwean opposition will know this very well. However, as Walter Lippmann, who was a dean of American journalists; noted of liberal democracy, it is a "revolution of the art of democracy" that could be used to ‘manufacture consent."

Basically, this is when a clique of politicians brings about agreement on the part of the public for things the public did not want.

They do this very effectively by simply using the technique of propaganda.

Many times politicians think this is a good idea; in fact it is something they view as necessary, because, as Lippmann aptly said, "the common interests elude public opinion entirely."

This is the thinking that sees a specialised class of "responsible men" who are viewed as smart enough to figure things out on behalf of everyone else.

It is a theory that asserts that only a small elite can understand the common interests; what all the peasants care about, what all the workers want and need and that these things "elude the general public".

It is a view that can be traced back to many centuries.

To the left wing politicians it is the Marxist-Leninist perception that says only a vanguard of revolutionary intellectuals can control state power, using popular revolutions as the force that brings them to state power, and then drive the unthinking and stupid masses toward a future that they are too dumb to envisage for themselves.

It is therefore important to note that the ideological assumptions of liberal democrats and that of Marxist-Leninist democracy are fundamentally the same. Both conceptions assume that the masses are largely incapable of thinking for themselves.

This is why it is very easy for politicians to switch very easily from the right to the left or vice versa.

It is easy because there is no fundamental change required, save in the rhetoric that covers the intention.

For many politicians it is a question of saying maybe there will be a popular revolution one day and if that happens then that revolution will put us in state power; or maybe there will not be one, in which case we will just work for the people with the real power, the corporate sector controlling all wealth.

Whichever way, the result is often the same — drive the stupid masses toward a democratic world that they are too dumb to comprehend for themselves.

This is what Lippmann called "progressive democracy".

He argued that in every proper democracy there are classes of citizens; first the group that takes the role of running the affairs of the general public and what he called the "bewildered herd", that is the general public itself.

The first group is the specialised class of people that analyse, execute, make decisions, and run things in the political, economic and ideological systems.

This is a very small group and it can be joined by anyone that cherishes the idea of figuring out "what to do with those others".

The function of this class is to think, plan and understand the common interest, and the function of the "bewildered herd" or the majority is to be spectators with no right to participate in the action.

Their bigger role however is to occasionally get allowed to lend their weight to one or the other of the members of the specialised group.

They can only express this by saying "We want you to be our leader" and this is what makes a democracy as opposed to a totalitarian state.

This process is called an election and we have had a few too many for Zimbabwe in recent times and this is part of the reason the country has resorted to negotiations over the sharing of power.

The sad reality we have to remind ourselves is that once the election process is over the people are often expected to sink back and become spectators of action, but not participants.

That is the prevailing conception of a properly functioning democracy.

Is Zimbabwe going to adopt this kind of a democracy? What does this kind of democracy say of the land reform programme?

We have heard in the past nine years the moral principle and logic that says the masses of Zimbabwe are "too inexperienced" to understand farming, too stupid to compete at the world stage of agriculture.

This is the doctrine that says if the masses try to participate in managing their own affairs; they just will cause trouble.

It is therefore perceived as immoral and improper to permit them to do this in a functioning democracy.

Is the new collective Government for Zimbabwe going to see things differently?

Or are they going to be like every other leadership in a functioning democracy — taming the bewildered herd so that this herd does not trample and destroy things.

In fact many people in the West today squarely place the blame over the economic crisis in Zimbabwe on the shoulders of "inexperienced and unskilled black farmers."

The bewildered herd can only destroy the establishment and nothing else. Sanctions and lack of support do not matter in this kind of logic.

After all the world is often reminded of the specialised group that used to farm for these "failing unskilled black farmers" and what happened to them in a period described as Zimbabwe’s "crisis of excessive democracy."

Bolivia is currently in the middle of this "excessive kind of democracy" and the US has already earned themselves diplomatic expulsions in Bolivia and Venezuela, with Nicaragua and Honduras declaring that they may follow suit.

In fact, Honduras has already turned down a US ambassador who was just about to assume office.

It is all because the US has deep resentment for people participation in the running of national affairs.

The concept of barring the masses is the logic similar to the logic that says it is improper to let a three year old run across the street.

One cannot give a three-year old that kind of freedom because the toddler has no idea how to handle that kind of freedom.

Correspondingly, you do not let the masses be participants in political action because they will just cause trouble.

Will this kind of leadership mentality really bring Zimbabwe back to prosperity?

The idea of getting the common person out of the way by propaganda in a democracy is exactly what a bludgeon is to a totalitarian state.

It is this writer’s hope that Zimbabweans will monitor the new collective Government in a participatory manner that will ensure that we are not deemed too stupid to comprehend what we really want and need.

Zimbabwe we are one. It is homeland or death and together we will overcome.

Reason Wafawarova is a political writer and can be contacted on wafawarova@yahoo.co.uk or reason@ rwafawarova.com or www.rwafawarova.com

Add new comment Thumbnail