• A week of appointments

Last week was a very busy one for political appointments in both Zanu and MDC T. Congratulations to all the appointees, especially to our two vice presidents advocate Emmerson Mnangagwa and former Zipra commander, diplomat Phelekezela Mphoko. Let us all and pray that the two gentlemen will serve Zimbabwe with great distinction.
However, I hope I am not the only one concerned with the way both Zanu and MDC T constitutions allow those who lose elections to be returned as leaders through the back door of political appointments. The two parties’ constitutions entitled their presidents to appoint more than 10 individuals into their national organs. For Zanu, these appointments can subsequently go into governments. The constitutions give all power to the president, violating the supreme law of the country and very essence of democracy and the fundamentals of conducting of an election. Other than defying the whole point of elections, it ensures that bootlickers and lazy candidates will know they will still be appointed into leadership positions. If Vice President Mnangagwa lost twice as MP, why did he deserve a leadership post when his constituents have clearly indicated that they do not support him? As it is, he is now vice president and just a heartbeat away from the presidential throne itself? If we are to go by the recent Congress results; some of those who did not win have been brought back through these appointments. Doesn’t this become an insult to the whole process of elections when the losers are still appointed as leaders for the very populace that rejected them? I am also surprised as to why Vice President Mphoko was not subjected to an election if he was in line for this appointment.
With regards to these appointments, can someone explain what criteria a party-leader would use to opt for one loser whilst excluding another? I have no doubt that those who sing more praises than others get chosen. Anyone whose loyalty is not visible, or is dependent on the electorate gets excluded. In essence it means leaders are not necessarily where they are because of their support or performance. It also makes one ask, how effective is a leader forced on those who have rejected him in an election? How does that individual present himself as a leader before those who rejected him in an election? I think it’s an issue that needs revisiting if we are serious about democracy. However, we all know both Zanu and MDC T are allergic to democratic principles, leaving them their leaders as political demi-gods.
The two parties’ constitutions obviously create monsters out of leaders. To succeed, the leaders need to be surrounded by hero-worshippers who don’t need the electorate to vote for them. These unelected officials tend to be sources for ‘kitchen cabinets’ used to silence and destroy intra-party rivalries. They are not accountable to anyone but the leader from whose appointment they derive their power. All they care about is their position in the party or in government; hence do not have the electorate’s concerns at heart. They will thus diligently further the dictatorial tendencies of one who appointed them so that they retain their dependent positions. Such a constitution makes the leader take precedence over the party as an organisation instead of it being the other way round. The leader becomes an institution, the Alpha and Omega of the party; thus subsequently controls and owns the party through his appointments.
The recent reports that MDC T has asked its MPs to make $50 monthly mandatory contributions towards its president’s upkeep, and that those opting out from doing so will not be fielded in the next election, is a good pointer to this constitutional anomaly! The leader has power to dictate directly or indirectly whatever he wants in the party. This is effectively blackmailing and arm twisting democratically elected leaders into paying a protection fee, mafia style. Everyone who aspires to be an MP has to be beholden to the party president and his hatchet men. Surely, in a democracy MPs do not need to pay for the upkeep of the party leader.  Politics is not a career and thus leaders have to earn their own upkeep elsewhere unless if the party has funds to pay its officials. If MDC T can afford it, then it should pay Tsvangirayi accordingly and stop strangling the people’s elected representatives.
Our politics needs to go back to basics and the ethos of democracy. We cannot allow this gangster type of politics akin to mafia. This is how mafia gangs found themselves in for instance Italian and American politics. We therefore have to be wary of constitutions that allow leaders to own political parties that coerce or compel MPs to pay protection fees to the party leader. If this is allowed to be part of political culture, soon all party leaders will be surrounded by very powerful gangsters of unelected bootlickers, friends and relatives such as what we have just witnessed in Zanu.