This time is more about the BDP than it is about Guma
Lawrence Ookeditse | Thursday December 5, 2013 12:58
When that happens, like organic species, parties get to be subjected to something akin to a theory of evolution-in particular the aspect where that hell of a natural scientist, Charles Darwin, speaks of the need for species to continuously adapt to survive. With political parties across most parts of the world, the temptation at first is to change the environment. This is borne out of politicians’ belief that they can condition their environments: but history shows they cannot.
As argued for by V. O. Key, Jr’s 1955 seminal article, ‘A Theory of Critical Elections’; American elections, parties and policymaking routinely shift in swift, dramatic sweeps. Basically, he argues that electoral cycles are identifiable: often, one sees a systematic pattern in American politics where a new order replaces an old one. They say it occurs once every 36-years or so. Some argue the cycles are longer- up to 50 0r 60 years. Most, agree that the cycles exist. Many cite the Democratic dominance from 1800 to 1860, and Republican rule from 1860 to 1932.The 30 year or so periods are linked to generational changes. Generational changes bring about sharp changes in issues, party leaders, the regional and demographic bases of power of different parties, and structure or rules of the political system (such as voter eligibility or financing).
Central to this realignment thinking is that voting groups tend to change their voting behavior, preference shift as a result of the times. Similarly, there is a danger of voter dealignment- where a loyal voting group for an organization jumps ship or merely stops voting. This is even more so in systems where voters tend to develop loyalty to some party and are not as whimsical in their party choices as is often said of say voters in the UK.
What has this to do with the BDP? Everything.
Now, often, parties seem to forget the concept of a Realigning election or critical election or political realignment. They all exist under its shadow but just heartbreakingly fail to take note of that. A political realignment in this sense means the rise of a new power block that takes over power for several decades, replacing an old dominant party. Often, it is born not out of a commission/action of a ruling party but out of its omission of the correct action- the glaring omission of responding to the environment.
The BDP has governed for over a generation-with relative excellence. A great movement it has been but today faces a huge challenge: the challenge to adapt, to confront not necessarily its own internal weakness but an inevitable confrontation with time that can only be avoided through constant renewal to ‘catch up with the times’.
The resignation of party Chairman Guma Moyo for the reasons that he has advanced for example points to just one thing: power play within the organization. This is normal in political parties; there is always competition for places.
What is amiss here though is that contrary to the times and the dictates of the modern era, you still have people within the BDP being ambitious but not declaring their ambition. This is one thing we have not learnt from the British for some strange reason: when John Smith died suddenly, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were among those seen as successors, Gordon Brown more so. In typical British fashion though, on a visit from Peter Mandelson who came to warn Blair not to even harbour dreams of taking over as it was for Gordon to ascend, Blair told Mandelson: “Peter, this is mine. Do not even dare try taking it away from me”. He believed he was the right man for the time, the British public was warming up to him and he believed the party needed to take a new course to stay relevant. And of course he confronted Gordon to reason with him that he was the right man for the job, not Gordon. They are not perfect I know, but at least they disclose their ambitions then it is out in the open what is to happen next.
See, when for some reason, those who aspire to be Vice President or President at some point do not come out to show course why they should be that this breeds conspiracy theories. It may be a result of the demon that is automatic succession but the deafening silence by day and what evidently is plotting and scheming by night is not in the interest of the broader organization. This secrecy and timidity when people should be expressing ambition more openly is one that leads to all sorts of conspiracy talk- humans generally do not trust each other and always wonder what the other is up to. This is more so in politics. Uncertainty then feeds this ugly side.
This is why: First, whenever such uncertainty exists, it leads to plots and counter plots. Conspiracy theories also emerge on who is doing what to ascend. In the face of such, each side begins making its own moves in order to counter the other- even when there may be nothing at all to counter.
The real battle today in the BDP should be out on the table with not hidden but open lobbies each showing what direction it would take the party. Different schools need to be showing how they would be in a position to reignite the bones of this organization, ready it for further forays into the millennium.
We are in a century that certainly dictates fundamental shifts- in curt, the party can no longer shape the environment within which it operates, and it rather has to be shaped by the environment if it harbours thoughts of remaining relevant and winning elections. This party needs some sort of vision into the next 2 decades that involves survival post the years in power- this seems not to be coming out clearly from the different poles- what is, seems to be ambition for when it still governs. Debate needs to be opened on getting the BDP to respond to a generation that clearly is different from the past one, and debates need to be opened on how a BDP that is out of power would survive. This is a critical question that all must be aware of but somewhat finds it rather better to keep mum about. Guma may be gone but the critical juncture at which the party is at is not and it calls for just one thing: acknowledgement and being dealt with.