By Dr Masimba Mavaza | It is often said that ‘divided parties lose elections’, with the experience of the MDC in 2013 cited as supporting evidence. It is argued that perceptions of party disunity do indeed play a role in how voters assess the competence of parties. The opposition parties in Zimbabwe now number over fifty five with over twenty forming their own Alliance and others trying it alone.
The fact that they are different parties shows the Zimbabweans two things 1. That they have different aims and policies 2. They are power hungry out fits who want to dislodge ZANU PF and then turn at each other at the expense of unsuspecting masses.
How they turn at each other is not a secret. MDC T will use its violent para military called Vanguard. Thokozani Khupe has survived their cruel bite several times, while Biti bears scars of their violent behaviour. Mangoma can narrate the vivid ordeal one will be subjected to by the MDC T if you disagree with them. Their violence knows no bounds, it can be at the funeral of their leader or at a wedding, let alone a rally.
The union of convenience which only comes during elections erodes all the little confidence people had in the opposition. All the opposition leaders never went through congress, they chose themselves and imposed themselves. They lack the democratic values and they still want people to believe that they are a democratic outfit.
Party members often disagree with their leadership. For example, after Tsvangirai’s death Chamisa rebelled against the leaders and imposed himself a leader with the muscle of the vanguard. Disagreement is a persistent phenomenon.
In response to opposition disagreement, the populace and the media often paint a picture of fractured parties The consequences of this behaviour shows that the country is exposed to divisions should anyone vote for the opposition.
Traditional theories propose motives for party members to diverge from electoral incentives. From this perspective, the opposition encourage candidates to cultivate a personal reputation, individual MPs face strong incentives to deviate from the party’s line and from the national interest.
By focusing on the individual’s incentive to deviate, there is the potential to overlook the harm public disagreements might pose for the party’s reputation and the future of the country.
This explains the politics within parties.
Broadly hope to collectively control office. The general nature of this goal provides ample opportunities and incentives for disagreement over even relatively simple aspects of the party’s policy or strategy. Furthermore, competing factions and activists often seek to draw the party leadership in opposing directions. This then drags the economy down the drain.
Diversity of opinion within parties does not assure that the public is aware of these divisions. Serious disagreements only surface under circumstances surrounding elections and after elections. If the opposition cannot hold the party together how can they hold the nation together?
. Parties negotiate disagreements informally at party meetings, outside of the public’s eye. A veneer of ideological unity gives the appearance that parties are fully ideologically coherent organizations.
Party leaders actively cultivate an appearance of unity. They demand that members stick to the party’s stated position.
Major disagreements when they appear are therefore quite surprising and likely hold implications for how individuals perceive parties’ policy-making ability. In the clear divisive campaign strategy employed by Chamisa, he declared that if he wins he will fire all the Shona speaking teachers from Matebeleland. What a leader who does not have a hope of uniting the nation.
His vanguard vigilante’s called anyone from Matebeleland a dissident, what a way and what a future for the nation. If in doubt ask Khupe what she was called in Bhuhera.
There is a clear relationship between parties’ position in toppling the government but opposition and perceptions of division are so clear and spells doom to the future of the state.
This trend reflects the incentives opposition parties have to respond to changing world events. To appear responsible, they are forced to respond issues they would normally seek to avoid that is the unity of convenience.. Parties in the opposition have
The luxury of picking and choosing their battles. Perceptions of governing parties also change over time likely
Reflecting the effectiveness of the parties’ responses to changes in the economic context.
It is often suggested that these disagreements embarrass the parties’ leadership because the party is incapable of articulating a common, agreed upon policy on an issue.
The logic follows that it is hard to consider a party a competent executer of policy on an issue when members cannot form a consensus position. Upon perceiving parties as internally
Divided, voters must respond by downgrading their perceptions of parties’ policy competence. Voters must respond in inconsistently to observing disunity and never vote for such losers.
Individuals identifying themselves with a party may actually
Reward a party for greater unity. Likewise, voters which consider themselves ideologically close to a party may use a cue such as public disagreement to establish whether a party will be capable of following through with their statements. It must be noted that disunity is not a short term and therefore voting for fifty in one is madness at its best.
People must look no further than ZANU PF, it had its problems it solved them it got hundred days of sorting issues and the fruits are bearing out to be good.
ZANU PF has shown good news broadly for conceptions of democratic accountability.
Voters form perceptions of parties’ policy-making abilities from observing failures in parties’ internal bargaining must notice the great change and unity in ZANU PF. It is not a static party but it is a revolutionary party. It revolves in its united form with the nation at heart.
y. Faced with multiple salient public disagreements, the opposition Party’s policy-making reputation may languish as only strong party supporters pardon the party for their internal disunity.
Zimbabweans must not be fooled by the age of the opposition leaders. The good thing about ED is that he is Seventy Five. There is no way he can be the president for another Thirty seven years. But Chamisa with his excitement and age we will have a vanguard powered dictator for another 54 years.
Vote wisely ZANU PF must have your vote.