Alex T. Magaisa
On Saturday the 4th of July, Newsday, the private daily ran a story reporting on a secret recording of remarks made by senior Zanu PF politician Oppah Muchinguri at a meeting.
Muchinguri, who is also a Government Minister is alleged to have been recorded by one of the participants at a private meeting. Apparently, she made some critical and scathing remarks on her party colleagues. This has apparently been recorded on CD, which is now being publicly distributed. If true, it places Muchinguri in an uncomfortable position.
But secret recordings are not an unusual tactic in the murky world of Zimbabwean politics – and perhaps in politics anywhere in the world! It was the blow that seriously wounded former Archbishop of Bulawayo, Pius Ncube, when he was secretly recorded in a compromising situation with a married member of the church. At the time one of the most vocal critics of President Mugabe’s regime, the cleric was forced to retreat into the background. He continues to pursue his holy and civic duties but now more quietly, the secret recording having dealt a mortal blow to his moral authority and public voice.
During my stint on the political frontline, I learnt that the risk of being secretly recorded by the state was an ever-present reality. Meeting rooms, hotel rooms, vehicles – the possibility of being bugged was never far away. But more sinister was the fact that private individuals also recorded each other’s conversations. The fact that the state eaves-drops on private individuals’ conversations is not unique to Zimbabwe. States that pride themselves as bastions of free speech have been known to take more than an active interest in the conversations of private individuals and all this is often based on security reasons.
Knowing that the state records conversations is one thing. But knowing that private individuals, colleagues even, also record conversations is a rather discomforting prospect. When you are aware that private individuals record each other, it is like walking in a field infested with landmines.
When you are in such an environment, you have to adapt quickly or perish. You learn to keep out of the way of people, to speak less to and of other people, to be wary of those who speak about others and to keep quiet altogether – to speak only when it’s necessary. If you are in a meeting, you have to assume that your counterpart may be recording your conversation. If someone calls you on the phone, you have to assume that you are being recorded. So you kept your guard.
When I was in the field, I remembered what my legal mentor had told me in my early years in legal practice: whenever you write anything, you must assume that it may be called in as evidence in a court of law. Inherent in this was the advice that whatever you do, exercise caution at all times.
Not surprisingly, there is little useful communication in the political field. People in politics often engage the discreet gear. They raise the shutters and withdraw into their shells, refusing to speak or if they have no choice, to speak very little.
And oft-times, people dilute the truth in order to hide their true beliefs. In politics, when you are talking to someone, they anticipate what you want to hear and they tell you exactly that. If you are stupid, you believe them. A colleague would come to tell you what so and so was saying about you, but as soon as he leaves, he will be with that so and so telling them what you were saying about them – with a recording to back it up, too!
All this breeds a lot of mistrust between people in politics. The end result is that it is often very hard to have an honest conversation with anyone. You’re never sure if your counterpart is being sincere. You’re not even sure if you can trust yourself!
Another you learn very quickly is that friendship in politics is an overrated concept. There are no real friendships in politics. It’s a fiercely competitive world infested with inflated egos and unrestrained ambition. In this dog-eat-dog universe, the pursuit of self-interest ranks high on the agenda of almost every individual. People will do anything to gain an advantage.
In fact, the most dangerous persons who will hurt you are your own counterparts. This is because when you are in their company you’re likely to be more relaxed and therefore at greater risk of dropping your guard. You think you can be open and truthful among your comrades, but it is often one of them who will sell you out to the highest bidder.
This always reminded me of the great scriptures. “Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.” Those were the words of Jesus Christ to his disciples during the Last Supper. “Is it I, Lord?” each one of them had asked sorrowfully. The story of betrayal by one’s closest is as old as time itself.
And it is this that inspired the joke that in politics you are probably safer in the company of someone from the other side of the political divide, than with one of your own. At least with an opponent you are conscious of the risks and you are more likely to retain your guard and you are more careful!
It wasn’t unusual, for example, to wake up to false and scurrilous allegations splashed out in a newspaper. The stories never mentioned the sources, but privately, journalists would tell where they were coming from. Sometimes the stories contained details of internal meetings. The only way such details would have reached state media is if they had recording equipment in the meeting venue or if they had a mole within your camp. By the time you typed out your resolutions, the mole would have sent the recording to the media!
But there would be sympathetic journalists who would advise you that so and so was divulging information to them.
“My brother, what is your relationship with politician so and so?” they would ask.
“Why, we are comrades, aren’t we?” you would ask back.
“Uuum, be careful mkoma, he is the one who gave us this and that information. I thought you should know. Be careful” they would warn and quietly retreat to their desks.
The problem with moles is that they don’t realise that their dark habits are frowned upon, even by those whom they think will be pleasing. People like loyalty and those who betray another’s trust can never gain the trust of anyone because if they are capable of doing that to their comrades, they are capable of anything.
The big irony though, is that they don’t realise the boomerang effect of this dark art. If it can affect your opponent, it can also be used against you, as Muchinguri may well be discovering, if the story of her recording is true.
Last December, when Mujuru lost her job it was alleged that she had been recorded saying some nasty things about President Mugabe and his wife. In her public attacks in the weeks leading to the inglorious ouster, Grace Mugabe alleged that Mujuru had been recorded wearing skimpy clothing speaking ill of her and her husband. These were shocking allegations but they demonstrated the extent to which the phenomenon of secret recordings to hurt opponents is prevalent.
If the allegations were true, it suggests someone she trusted had secretly recorded Mujuru. At the time Muchinguri was leading the bunch of cheerleaders egging on Grace Mugabe as she prosecuted the assault upon Mujuru. Now, however, barely a year later, she appears to be the victim of similar tactics. If true, this would be like falling onto the sharp end of the proverbial sword, her own sword.
The problem is exacerbated by the ubiquitous availability of smart phones which present wider and easier opportunities for audio and video recordings. One way to manage the risk was to ask all meeting participants to leave their phones and other gadgets outside the meeting room. But technology is almost always ahead. There are smart pens, smart watches, smart ties, etc, all of which perform the very same tasks.
The boomerang effect can also be seen in the case of Didymus Mutasa, in his former life as a senior Minister in the President’s Office, once warned opponents of President Mugabe’s regime that they risked being secretly recorded in their bedrooms. Now, of course, he is on the other side and singing a completely different tune. It turned out that secret recordings were being used against his own political faction.
The problem is widespread in Zimbabwean politics and civil society. During the run-up to the 2013 elections, no day passed without the fear of publication of secret recordings. There was a threat that The System had a stash of nasty secret video recordings, which they were going to publish on national TV and social networks. In the end, nothing serious materialised but the threat was enough to cause worry in the opposition. The opposition had been in bed with Zanu PF for 4 years and anything was possible.
The end result is that the political environment is quite toxic. People record each other’s conversations. Email communications are leaked. There is no trust. People become defensive and less truthful. People say things that they think their counterparts want them to say. There is no honesty. People are pretentious. Then again, that’s probably how politics is everywhere else. And probably why it is not one of the most productive and progressive industries.
