STEMBILE MPOFU
A lesson from the field of Systems Thinking is, when analysing any system never consider what it says it does, but examine how it behaves and then look at what it actually does. Simply put, its actions will speak louder than its words.
Applying this simple lesson to our political system, we will find that politics has little to do with politics and a great deal to do with money. This is the case because it is financing from the sponsors that drives and directs political agendas and not the voter’s “X”. A voter’s ability to choose his/her leaders only comes at the very end of a long process of political campaigns. This is only after the people with the money have selected their candidates by sponsoring their election campaigns.
Zimbabwe has recently undergone an election that fielded 23 Presidential candidates.
The most successful of these were individuals with access to the largest amounts of resources. Or to put it another way, the most successful were the ones who attracted the most funds. By the time the voters had their say the candidates had already been selected for them by the candidates’ financial backers.
The American system demonstrates this best because when each candidate is campaigning to represent his/her party, the candidate’s political party and the media track the amount of funding each candidate is receiving.
Those who attract the least funding fall out of the race and those attracting larger sums are the ones who invariably emerge as their party’s candidate of choice. Only after this process is the voter given the opportunity to “choose” his/ her leader.
So if we apply our systems thinking lesson we will find that our political system is saying one thing and doing another. It says that voters are the ones who choose their leaders, but this is hardly the case as such a statement stretches the truth. If we describe what actually happens and what the system is doing, it is more accurate to say that those who sponsor political campaigns decide which political leaders they want voters to choose. The candidates that are not good to the sponsors’ preference will never be offered to the voters.
What we must understand is that a political party is not an income generating entity and depends on sponsorship to survive. This aspect of the political system means that whereas it says political parties are independent entities driven by their various ideologies, this is not the case. To exist, political parties rely mainly on sponsorship without which they could not survive. With little or no resources, a political candidate will not be able to run a campaign with access to media platforms and public forums to sell his or her agenda. Zimbabwe’s recent presidential election illustrates this point because the majority of the candidates were confined to social media platforms where only the curious were likely to seek them out. If asked to, an ordinary Zimbabwean would struggle to name more than five of the 23 Presidential contestants.
The fact that political parties rely on sponsors for their survival has far reaching implications. If a political party has sponsors who are not getting value for their money they are likely to fund an opponent who may deliver better on their expectations. Therefore a political party must ensure that their sponsors have their interests satisfied. This means that it is the sponsor’s agenda that drives and directs the political agenda. Again America illustrates this point well. The world has watched numerous mass shootings take place in the US. They have also witnessed massive demonstrations advocating for tighter gun controls but little has been done towards enacting legislation to achieve this. It has made little difference whether or not a sitting US president supports the idea of tighter gun controls. Obama was moved to tears by the Sandy Hook Elementary school shootings where 20 school children were shot and he begged for gun laws to be changed. Trump’s solution for school shootings after the Parkland, Florida school shooting was to arm teachers.
The laws remain generally unchanged under both presidents.
The reason is that the National Rifle Association (NRA) provides sponsorship to politicians for their individual political campaigns. The Centre for Responsive Politics estimated that in 2016 the NRA and its affiliates spent $54 million to secure Republican control of both the White House and Congress. Over $30 million was committed to securing Donald Trump’s election.
Earlier this year at the international level, we saw the US attempting to block a World Health Assembly resolution promoting breast-feeding as being the healthiest feeding option for babies. In a bid to protect the $70 billion dollar infant formula industry, the US threatened Ecuador, who had tabled the resolution, with the withdrawal of military aid and punishing trade measures if they did not withdraw their motion. Ecuador relented and withdrew. Other developing countries refused to take up the issue fearing similar retribution. It was Russia that saved the day by stepping in to reintroduce the measure and America did not threaten them.
So from the high stakes of guns to the seemingly benign world of breast-feeding and infant formula, the agenda drivers are the sponsors who the politicians front.
As we can see none of these issues are resolved in ways that is in the interest of ordinary citizens.
For a developing country like Zimbabwe and its African counterparts the implications of this phenomenon are the same in that it will be the sponsors that drive the political agenda. The difference emerges when we look at who the sponsors of political parties are within the African context. Generally we will find that political parties holding political power will have access to state resources through legislation granting them government grants and by virtue of the fact that they have access to government resources while campaigning. For example in the recent election Zanu PF used their political advantage, the fact that as the sitting government they were responsible for the distribution of inputs for the Command Agriculture Programme. As a result they combined government business with their campaign activities and voters were treated to government “benevolence” combined with the campaigning candidate’s benevolence. In addition a sitting government will have the benefit of sponsors looking for “instant gratification” in as far as their immediate business needs are concerned. What results is a quid pro quo arrangement where campaign funding is directly linked to immediate business concessions. This part is not at all different from what happens in the developed world.
Where stark differences appear between the developed and developing world’s political systems is that in the developing world political parties receive sponsorship from foreign governments. Again the political system says that this does not happen because foreign governments are not permitted to influence or sponsor electoral processes in other countries. However foreign governments will use their taxpayers’ money to fund development agencies like DFID and USAID.
These organisations fund civil society activities in the developing nation. These funds are given to CSOs for particular projects with specific objectives and clear deliverables. The CSOs then ostensibly promote good governance and democracy, behaviour change, voter education and other things through their activities.
The agenda of foreign governments is not inspired by benevolence as it is often said to be but by the pursuit of their own national interest.
The last 20 years of Zimbabwe’s political journey illustrates this point very well. The issue of land expropriation without compensation and the indigenisation policy threatened the national interests of western investors. Western governments as the cavaliers of their business sponsors were spurred into action. Their agenda was to protect western business interests from expropriation. They framed this agenda in the mold of human rights and democracy inspired by the deep discontent being experienced by Zimbabwe’s populace with oppressive Zanu PF leadership. The real agenda being to effect regime change with the hope that the opposition MDC government would reverse land expropriation and the indigenisation law.
Opposition parties across developing nations are oftentimes created through foreign government funding. They do not have the same leverage with financial backers as their ruling party counterparts making them vulnerable and oftentimes desperate for funds. This dependence on the benevolence of foreign government funding means their strength is determined by the state of the relationship between foreign governments and their ruling party opponents. If that relationship is good they receive little or no funding if the relationship is poor they become the recipients of robust financial support from foreign donors. Looking at MDC’s financial fortunes over the last 20 years will expose this ebb and flow.This particular election saw the MDC Alliance in a pitiful financial state as the relationship between Western governments and Zanu PF thawed. With their traditional financiers in retreat, they were available for the taking by other sponsors. This saw them reportedly receive 25 million dollars and twelve cars from the G40 faction led by former President Robert Mugabe and his wife Grace.
On examining how our political system behaves our demand of the system should be to have a system that makes it mandatory for political parties to disclose their financiers. The system should recognise the fact that political party sponsors drive the agenda and as such these funders and their motives must undergo detailed scrutiny.
This will at least ensure that when voters are given the opportunity to “select” their leaders they have an idea whose agenda will be pursued over the next five years. In addition there must be considered reflection by Zimbabweans and the citizens of other developing nations on the extent they wish foreign interests to determine the future trajectory of their nation. Perhaps taking back control will require citizens of developing nations to begin to fund their own political parties because it is he who pays the piper that will always call the tune.
