Earlier this week, in “Understanding ‘The System’ in Zimbabwean Politics”, I provided a fairly detailed description of the political infrastructure in Zimbabwe and the complex manner in which Zanu PF wields complete control over both the state and non-state structures, and both the formal and informal spaces.

It is this complex and multi-layered system that the opposition parties have to battle with in order to overcome Zanu PF, which is an integral part of The System. The way in which I presented The System gave an indication of the size and complexity of the task that confronts the opposition parties in fighting Zanu PF for political power.

There are, of course, questions that naturally follow from that discussion: Is it possible to affect The System and, if so, how can this be realised? Is it ever possible for there to be change in The System? Can The System, as described be dismantled? In short, is it ever possible for the opposition to defeat Zanu PF in this generation? Or is Zanu PF, propped up by The System, destined to rule for ever? These are difficult but also important questions.

I have said before that the greatest opportunity that the opposition parties ever had to affect and influence The System was the period of the Government of National Unity (GNU), between 2009 and 2013. The major reason why I strongly backed the MDC parties joining the GNU was that, finally, they had an opportunity to occupy space within the structures of the state and that they would use it to break Zanu PF’s stranglehold. Sadly, after 4 years in government, this did not happen. One day, we shall explore in these pages, the reasons why the MDCs failed to break The System and therefore, Zanu PF’s grip on the state.

In the first of two articles, I want to explore two possible ways by which The System might be broken. But as we will discover, one of these two is highly unlikely and while the second cannot be discounted in the same manner, it is only likely to happen in a post-Mugabe era and that, at present, remains only a remote possibility. In the second article tomorrow, we will look at three more possibilities and also assess their likelihood.

Option 1: Zanu PF implements reforms in response to opposition boycott

The first, but most unlikely possibility, is that Zanu PF will carry out political and electoral reforms in response to the ‘No Reforms No Elections’ campaign of the major opposition parties led by the MDC-T.

Stung by the realisation that the electoral landscape unfairly favours Zanu PF and that they stand no chance under such a system, the major opposition parties last year decided to boycott all by-elections until electoral reforms have been implemented. The thinking behind the boycott is that it will delegitimise the elections and force Zanu PF to implement more reforms. This is predicated on the assumption that Zanu PF cares for legitimacy and that the boycott will rob the elections of legitimacy.

It is flawed in the sense that it assumes Zanu PF cares for legitimacy or even if it does, that the boycott has the effect of rendering the elections illegitimate.

The trouble is that for Zanu PF, the boycott has opened an easy way to occupy space that it has struggled to occupy for the past 15 years, in urban areas. For its candidates, it is an easy opportunity to get into Parliament and join the gravy train. The extent to which the boycott robs the election of legitimacy is also diluted by the fact that there is a variety of small opposition parties that are participating, giving the process a façade of democratic competition.

Further and in any event, as I have argued before, the boycott would have carried far greater weight and raised the political temperature if it had been accompanied by other drastic action, such as a total withdrawal from Parliament. But instead, the main opposition party not only resolved to remain in parliament but, further, decided to fill the proportional representation seats created when the vacancies arose in Parliament.

Thus in effect, although the MDC-T is not participating in the contested by-elections, it is, in effect, unwittingly participating in the uncontested “by-elections” for proportional representation seats, because they are by-elections in all but name. This, in many ways, dilutes and partially defeats the purpose and effect of the election boycott.

In addition, the legitimacy-deficit arising from the boycott would have been of greater concern to Zanu PF if the country’s peers in the region were paying particular attention or were interested. But the truth is SADC is weary of Zimbabwe. The GNU and July 31 rehabilitated Mugabe and Zanu PF. After July 31, the political curatorship ended and to cap it all, Mugabe was appointed chair of both the AU and SADC – the very same organisations that had placed it under South Africa’s curatorship.

The regional and continental bodies no longer consider Zimbabwe a problem child. They think they have bigger crises elsewhere. They will not be paying much attention to the by-elections.

In these circumstances, I do not see Zanu PF carrying out any serious reforms in response to the election boycott alone without other creative initiatives. History has shown us that Zanu PF has only ever reformed when it is under severe pressure.

It has never acted voluntarily to cause reforms unless they are specifically designed to favour its interests. During the constitution-making exercise, I observed that Zanu PF was vehemently opposed to political reforms and only acceded to demands when they were cornered. Even now that the constitution is in place, Zanu PF has continued to dither, all to delay and avoid implementing major political reforms, including an entire chapter on the devolution of power.

As VP Mnangagwa said recently, the opposition can continue to boycott and Zanu PF will continue to rule. And Information Minister Jonathan Moyo capped it succinctly in a Twitter post when he said that Zanu PF would never “reform itself out of power”.  They don’t care and they will not carry out fundamental reforms that would reduce their hold on the state which gives them key advantages over the opposition parties.

So in the final analysis, hoping that The System will be broken as a result of the boycott is over-ambitious.