Any leader, either political or civil, is a reflection of his advisers or the people around him.
The recent South African jaunt by CCC leader, Nelson Chamisa, where he addressed a paltry crowd, is reflective of a badly advised individual who lacks strategic vision and emotional intelligence.
Chamisa’s SA rally raises a number of questions. What was the real purpose of the rally? What were the intended goals or benefits?
In a Zimbabwean or an African context, it is very unusual for a political leader to hold a campaign rally in a neighbouring country for an election which is decided by locally registered voters.
Given that no new voters are to be considered by the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) for this year’s election after the proclamation of the election date (23 August), it boggles the mind as to why the CCC leader thought his SA rally would have any impact on his election bid.
If the CCC leader had hoped that the SA rally would provide him with regional good optics, then the whole plan fell flat as only a handful of seemingly intoxicated sympathisers turned up for his ill-fated and ill-advised excursion.
Whoever advised the CCC leader that it was a good idea to address a bemused and politically detached audience in a foreign county, did a very bad job of revealing to Zimbabweans what they have always thought of the former Harare Polytechnic student leader.
The rally revealed to everyone that the opposition politician lacks proper domestic grounding as it is clear that he operates within a framework of a Western template and is obliged to follow or copy whatever has been done by an admired American leader.
This is so because the idea of holding a campaign rally in a foreign country in recent times was initiated by former American President Barack Obama in 2008 when he ran for the Presidency under a Democratic Party ticket.
But unlike the Obama campaign, which was premised on gauging Europe’s acceptance of a first American black president, Chamisa’s rally was a damp squib – lacking in both substance and vision.
In fact, there was no strategic policies or vision that he articulated to an audience that anxiously anticipated a broader plan in dealing with a myriad of issues confronting the country.
As usual, his message was so hollow that some people started leaving the rally before he had concluded his speech.
Without any hint of irony, he urged his audience to donate funds to his campaign and to come home to vote.
This is despite the obvious fact that the majority of Zimbabweans domiciled in SA are primarily there to fend for their families and also that the majority are not even registered voters.
There were no any sensible take-aways from the rally save to confirm the man is not grounded and has no appreciation of the peculiarity of his country’s political dynamics.
He simply confirmed to everyone that he is unfit even to run for a headman’s position.
His embarrassing characterisation as a Western puppet has flattened the poetry of Zimbabwe’s founding philosophy – a country born out aspirational ideas of freedom and independence.
A country born out of the aspirational ideas of freedom, independence and pan-Africanism cannot be governed by an unstable, stubbornly uninformed, authoritarian religious fanatic.
It’s always hard to discern policy from bluster and one has to feel sorry for those who kowtow to an individual with penchant of drawing back into public discourse things that we thought we had outgrown – anti-democratic (making people stand in a queue behind a candidate instead of a secret ballot), pledging allegiance to God on an application form to be vetted by him, glaring misogyny (making a jibe about pledging his sister as bet) anti-intellectualism – are all creeping back.
Even though his close buddies tried to play down the lukewarm reception in SA, it’s clear that the campaign rally could have been a decoy for a meeting with his benefactors – the Brenthurst Foundation run by Nicky and Jonathan Oppenheimer.
Their main man in Zimbabwe is Tendai Biti.
The CCC leader’s relation with the abrasive Biti recently turned sour after he elbowed him out of the Harare East parliamentary contest.
It was thus incumbent upon Chamisa to try to mend relations with one of the major funders of post-independence opposition political parties in the region – the Brenthurst Foundation.
No wonder in his address he tried to draw similarities of what had happened in Malawi and Zambia with what he expects to happen to Zimbabwe.
Chamisa’s cosy relationship with anti-liberation organisations and individuals must be a cause for concern for Zimbabweans in particular, and conscientious Africans in general.
Maybe the ANC Secretary General, Mr Fikile Mbalula knew something about this “appeasement jaunt” by Chamisa and just had to let the cat out.
Addressing the ANC 9th Western Cape Provincial Conference last week, Mr Mbalula said South Africa was opposed to Western-sponsored regime change in Zimbabwe.
He said although President Mnangagwa had implemented some reforms, the West did not recognize them and “want a man called Chamisa.”
“Till they (Americans) get their puppet into power they will never be satisfied,” Mr Mbalula said.
Even our neighbours are aware that Chamisa does not represent the interests of Zimbabweans but those of America.
As we head for the harmonised elections on August 23, Zimbabweans have a simple task of choosing a “black masquerade” who is a willing lapdog of the West or a tried and tested revolutionary who is rallying his country towards an Upper Middle Income economy spurred by the mantra; “Nyika Inovakwa Nevene Vavo” – None But Ourselves can build our country. – The Herald
