BY DR MASIMBA MAVAZA | My thing is on the ZANU PF to win this March’s By-elections for the simple reason that they have remained resolute in the face of trouble. They have been tested in fire and came out stronger. They have listened to the people and acted on their information. They even listened to Chief Murinye and any other constructive voice which cut through the peace and shook them to action.

As we head into the month of the By- elections the race seems to be narrowing. Just like the 2018 election there are various estimates of who will win what but the polls appear to suggest a ZANU PF victory becoming far more likely than we would have imagined some weeks ago.
Looking at all we have seen in the MDCC one would have a few bonds on the ruling party to squeeze past the all-important majority and increase the majority they are enjoying now and retain control of the country. The reason one will be so bullish about the prospects of ZANU PF is not down to its leadership, or its policies. Many have no no clue about how any of those stack up.We believe ZANU PF will win a majority in March because they are better at marketing and have succeeded in keeping their promises half way through the mandate and ZANU PF has took marketing very seriously,Specifically, digital marketing. More specifically, Facebook advertising. And even more specifically, because the party has remained united in the face of very strong dividing currency.
We might want to ask a bigger question about disunity, one we have been carrying around since time and time of time. Forgive this indulgence, we need to get this off our chests.
Citizens will know that politicians intone with all the sobriety of an undertaker that “disunity is death”. People in politics tend to amplify that line dutifully, not because they are ciphers, but because it appeared to be true – one of those truisms so true it required no rebuttal.
But now, we not so sure, because Zimbabwean voters will not re-elect a party that had recalled through fifty members of parliament in only two years. Rather than harbouring a grudge about political instability being out and proud, a majority of voters will not look past the cycles of revenge tragedy perpetrated in full public view.
Zimbabwe has seen that its not only MPS who have suffered even councillors and mayors. The nation was treated to a circus of the most vindictive nature and shown how the personalisation of a political party becomes a big problem for the nation at large.
Zimbabwean voters see divided political parties as less able to make sensible or coherent policies. It is often said that ‘divided parties lose elections’, with the experience of the MDC A-Z cited as supporting evidence. perceptions of party disunity does indeed play a role in how voters assess the competency of parties.
Party members often disagree with their leadership and with themselves. Disagreement is a persistent phenomenon.
In response to opposition disagreement, opposition parties and the media often paint a picture of fractured parties.
MDC has cried about electoral reforms yet they had never as a party raise it in parliament. They had never sponsored an article to address the reforms. This hypocrisy by MDC of not fighting for reforms in parliament but on to Britain and America is wrong” and that other options would be more “honest” to members of their own party and tell them that our electoral system is good but not whole. They must fight this in parliament thats what they are elected to do. Unfortunately they only managed to recall each other there by showing their disunity to the people.
The consequences of this behaviour is to alienate the voters and this why in March the MDC A-Z will pay heavily for their disunity. Traditional theories propose motives for party members to diverge from electoral incentives. From this perspective, in countries with election rules that encourage candidates to cultivate a personal reputation, MPs face strong incentives to deviate from the party’s line and in this case they paid by being recalled.
The MDC will chose to go against its voters in times of hardships.
MDC has performed very well is the lessons of disunity and breaking up. This started with Tsvangirai himself.
*MDC made very interesting News Headlines Since 2005 which affected the quality of the opposition in Zimbabwe.
In 2005 after dictatorial tendencies were raised against Tsvangirai in 2005 Tsvangirai suspends Welshman Ncube in a turn of events Welshman Ncube fires Tsvangirai from MDC in retaliations. This is repeated again in Khupe and Mwonzora circus. Mwonzora new Khupe is not a team player and was motivated by tribalism he joined her anyway. In the same year of circus in MDC Tsvangirai suspends Mangoma after he had sent his vampires the vanguard to beat Mangoma up before suspending him.
Without breaking his record of leading a disunited party
Tsvangirai suspends Biti. Then the circus was in full swing. Tsvangirai then fires Job Sikhala who responded by forming MDC 99.
Then as they say the fish rots from the head. Tsvangirai started firing at will using his manhood and his political power ending up having fired five wives within two years if his wife’s death and fired several founding members of the MDC. With Tsvangirai the sharp shooter in his death bed he was in turn quietly fired by Chamisa who took over his wife and the party. His first meaningful contribution to the party Chamisa fires Khupe and as a custom and a ritual in MDC circus Khupe in turn Suspends Chamisa.
The circus continued with
Mwonzora Firing Chamisa and Chamisa keeping the culture and tradition on Chamisa Fires Mwonzora. Then the disunity continues Mwonzora fires Khupe and Khupe goes on to fire Mwonzora. The in the breaking up spirit MDC Zimbabwe is launched. Now we have MDC Z
Tsvangirai loses MDC even in death. Tsvangirai created MDC T Job Sikhaka created MDC 99 Welshmen formed MDC N and
Biti formed MDC B which Created MDC Renewal.

It was Tsvangirai who Created MDC Alliance bringing back the political prostitutes. Then
Chamisa inherits MDC Alliance
and Mwonzora Is MDC Alliance leader. Then this week
Khupe Creates MDC T Z and Khupe Fires Mwonzora who in turn fires Khupe.

Seriously this merry go round has caused excessive dizziness in some innocent blind followers
Not even one headline about people’s welfare it’s only about snooking & smoking each other *OUT* -*purging after purging Can any straight thinking person vote MDC in these coming by elections.
Chamisa is not changing the name and the name fight is another side attraction.
Can any person thinking straight vote for this circus.

Can MDC problems be called Democratic Disunity Rhetorical Tribalism in MDC addresses that while attention has recently and rightly been paid to the tribal bifurcation the Democratic movement is not moving at all.
A central claim of democratic theory is that democracy induces governments to be responsive to the preferences of the people. Political parties organize politics in every modern democracy, and some observers claim that parties are what induce democracies to be responsive. Yet, according to others, parties give voice to extremists and reduce the responsiveness of governments to the citizenry.

No amount of spin will change the fact that it has taken Chamisa and company two years to accept the reality the party needed a new name! No wonder MDC failed to implement even one reform during the GNU. MDC leaders’ indecisiveness made them absolutely certain to forget about the reforms they only talk about them each time they lose elections. Parties are organizations with diverse memberships that 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.
Diversity of opinion within parties does not assure that the public is aware of these divisions. Serious disagreements only surface under rare circumstances. 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. Parties in the opposition have the luxury of picking and choosing their battles. When a party publicly divides, 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. Extending this approach, We add that upon perceiving parties as internally divided, voters respond by downgrading their perceptions of parties’ policy competence.
Individuals respond to new information based on their pre-established beliefs.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.
One wonders whether we are now so saturated in conflict that people in politics trying to take one another out just seems normal. democracies, has been picked up and set down in a different place, a place where disunity, rather than “death”, has become what is expected in public life.
Technology has pushed us into tribes. Our shared reality, rather than being a commons, is increasingly animated by fealty rather than agreed facts and a spirit of inquiry. Conflict has become the pulse and the respiration of our harried and hyperconnected lives but in MDC it has presented an ugly face of politics.We think it is at least possible that collective expectations have bent to that new normal.

If you can not unite your party how can you unite a ward a town and indeed a country.

Vazet [email protected]