The reasons why I cannot join the Tsvangirai faction
It is 7 months since the divisive meeting of the MDC National Executive was held on the 12th October 2005. I have refrained from making public statements since then but am now of the view that the public have a right to know my perspective.
I have always believed that the two factions of the MDC, which emerged after the 12th October 2005 meeting, would never be as strong independent of each other as they were as one united party. Accordingly despite my deep concerns about certain issues, I felt it was necessary to try to reconcile the two factions and, failing that, to broker an amicable divorce between them. Moments after Morgan Tsvangirai walked out of the National Executive meeting on the 12th October I proposed that the remaining members of the Management Committee meet with him urgently to convey our continued support for him as MDC leader and our desire to accommodate his concerns.
During October, November and December I met with and wrote to MDC National Executive members in both factions urging them to refrain from making the vitriolic statements that so badly exacerbated the tensions between the two camps. For example, on the 12th November I met with Morgan Tsvangirai in Bulawayo and urged him to reign in those in his camp making divisive and inflammatory statements. On the 19th November I met with Gibson Sibanda, Gift Chimanikire and Job Sikhala. I urged Gibson Sibanda, likewise, to reign in those in his camp and I challenged Gift Chimanikire and Job Sikhala regarding some of the statements made by them. I repeatedly wrote and spoke to Eddie Cross during October, November and December about some of his newsletters which in my opinion exacerbated tensions between the two factions.
Believing that the unresolved intra party violence was one of the main stumbling blocks to reconciliation I put forward proposals to both Morgan Tsvangirai and Gibson Sibanda in November and December as to how that issue could be dealt with. When it became apparent to me in January, for reasons I will elaborate on below, that those proposals would not be accepted I accepted that reconciliation was unlikely. I however made a few further attempts to reconcile. I met with Morgan Tsvangirai and a few leaders of his faction in Bulawayo on the 27th January and urged those leaders, who were responsible for making divisive statements, to stop. I met with other leaders in both factions in January and early February but by mid February it was clear that both factions were determined to go ahead with their respective Congresses and that the holding of separate Congresses would end any hope of reconciliation.
Accordingly on the 20th February I wrote identical letters to both Morgan Tsvangirai and Gibson Sibanda advising them that I would attend neither of the Congresses and would not seek office in either faction. I offered to assist, with others, to mediate a settlement between the two factions. In doing so I did not offer to arbitrate (in other words I did not suggest that I be given any power to decide finally on the various contentious issues). I set out what I believed to be the contentious issues, including the question of the name, the assets of the party and the position of MPs. I did not suggest how I thought those issues should be resolved. In other words I did not say which faction I thought, for example, should be allowed to use the name. All I set out was a suggested process in terms of which these issues could be resolved. I stressed that irrespective of whatever support either faction thought it enjoyed these issues could only be resolved through either mediation or litigation. I pointed out that litigation would not be in either faction’s best interests as that route would effectively give Zanu PF the power to determine the length of the process and the final outcome.
I concluded by recognising that both leaders would have to await their respective Congresses and the election of respective National Executives before responding to my offer. I also said that once the mediation process was over I would then have to decide on my own political future. Both letters were hand delivered. On the 29th March I received a letter from the Mutambara faction accepting my offer to mediate. Having not heard from the Tsvangirai faction I spoke and wrote to several National Executive members of the Tsvangirai faction to ask them whether the issue had been discussed. Eventually on the 2nd May I received a letter from Tendai Biti, in his capacity as Secretary General of the Tsvangirai faction, rejecting my offer to mediate.
I can but speculate why my offer was rejected. One of the reasons given by Tendai Biti was that I was not neutral, something that I readily concede and indeed made mention of in my original letters to Tsvangirai and Sibanda. I pointed out that no-one is genuinely neutral, and I am no different, but some have to at least try to mediate if litigation is to be avoided. Other National Executive members of the Tsvangirai faction I have spoken to state that they found themselves in a catch 22 situation: if they agreed to mediate that would undermine their claim that there is in fact no division and therefore no need for an amicable divorce (with the corollary that the Mutambara faction is not a faction at all but just a small renegade break away group); and yet if they turned me down on those grounds it would appear petty in the minds of MDC supporters who are generally distressed by the divisions and who would like the dispute to be resolved amicably.
Be that as it may the fact is that my own efforts to mediate have clearly failed and I must now move on. I have indicated recently that I have one of four options: to join the Tsvangirai faction, join the Mutambara faction, be an independent or resign and go back to civil society. Becoming an independent is well nigh impossible constitutionally and not attractive personally. Most people I have consulted with so far want me to remain in politics and I believe that I have an obligation to the people who elected me. That leaves me with a choice between the two factions, neither of which is palatable because of my fundamental belief that the split has gravely weakened the opposition in its battle to bring freedom and democracy to Zimbabwe.
The reasons for the split in the MDC are numerous and complex. It has become a deeply emotive issue and many are so entrenched in their positions that they have stopped listening. Accordingly it will serve no purpose to enumerate or analyse all the reasons for the split. I will simply deal with what is for me personally the key issue, namely our commitment to non violence in waging this battle against tyranny. I reiterate that there are many other important issues involved but our approach to this particular issue is pivotal to me.
I have had the misfortune of experiencing two civil wars in Zimbabwe. As a teenager I saw the horrors of war first hand during the liberation struggle. As a young lawyer I had to represent many victims of the Gukurahundi and my wife, a physiotherapist, had to treat many of the injured. Those experiences made me vow that I would do all in my power to prevent further conflict in Zimbabwe. Those experiences taught me to be very sceptical of elderly politicians who are very happy to sacrifice the lives of gullible and impressionable youths to achieve their own political ends.
Zimbabwe is afflicted with a disease akin to alcoholism, namely endemic violence. For well over 150 years leaders of this beautiful country, bounded by the Zambezi and Limpopo, have used violence to achieve their political objectives. Violence was used by Lobengula to suppress the Shona. Violence was used to colonise and the threat of violence was used to maintain white minority rule. Violence was used to overthrow the white minority. And since independence violence has been used to crush legitimate political opposition. The use of violence has been compounded by another phenomenon - namely a culture of impunity. Those responsible for use of violence have never been brought to book. Not only is there a long history of violence being used successfully to achieve political objectives but also those who have committed horrendous crimes have prospered through their actions. As a result the use of violence is now deeply imbedded in our national psyche. Political violence is accepted as the norm.
Political violence is not the norm in democratic societies. It may be the norm in tyrannical states; it may have been used in the formative stages of democracies. But it is now anathema in democracies. There is also no doubt that the use of violence inhibits economic development and creates a whole barrage of social problems including domestic violence. The sustained and long term use of violence in Zimbabwe lies at the very core of many of the problems our nation faces today. We are indeed afflicted by a very serious disease and need help.
What then attracted me most to the MDC was its commitment to breaking this cycle of violence by using non violent means to achieve its political objectives. I was also impressed by its commitment to end impunity in Zimbabwe. Whilst there has always been a vigorous debate within the MDC about whether tyranny could be ended solely through the use of non violent methods, there was always a broad consensus t