Just by refusing to go for a debate-show, Chamisa has scored big again Mnangagwa. Why is Zanu PF refusing to go for a kill in a televised debate with the youthful Chamisa? This is the moment Mnangagwa will have demonstrated his years of political experience he got in the liberation struggle, 37 years in government and now in six months as President and First Secretary of Zanu PF. For many reasons Mnangagwa is scared stiff, he will lose the battle to the youthful Chamisa, he will be humiliated by the “Boy-scout”. Much as we have been told that Mnangagwa is smart and can do things different from Mugabe, this statement has proven to be wholly untrue.
If Chamisa was to make a television debate with Mugabe at his age, Chamisa was going to struggle to win the debate. Surprisingly and curiously Mugabe at his age is still witty, articulate and awake, can be able to outsmart any in a debate. We watched in awe and wonder how Mugabe outsmarted the Generals during the coup d’état of November 2017. However, Mugabe left to power through a blackmail and not through negotiations. Mugabe was above board all the time when the transition from constitutionalism to military rule was negotiated. Mugabe is smart: Nkosana Moyo should have said that instead of claiming that Mnangagwa is smart, wholly untrue: there is not smartness we see in his friend or relative.
Chamisa should accept advice and learn from mistakes. It appears as if Chamisa has no team of advisers who sit down with him to strategise the coming elections effectively. It could also be that his style of leadership does not accommodate advice from others. Most African leaders shun advice because it is a sign of weakness to be advised by anybody, a leader is above all of them. Politicians in African countries have this village-head mentality that they are above all others in the presidency and leadership. Chamisa should learn to accommodate powerful women leaders in his party and they must be visible for all to see. A powerful woman is not a threat but a great asset to the party. The international community and donor agencies are sensitive to male-dominated parties: no woman is seen in the grand country rallies they do.
Chamisa should be realistic when talking. Talk too much, yes its allowed especially in politics, but never to please the electorate with falsehood. Talk realistic issues that the electorate can relate to easily. A simple person cannot imagine a bullet train or a spaghetti highway, an airport at the backyard of every village in rural areas. Where does the money come from, our treasury boxes are empty. Is Zimbabwe going for chronic money-begging the coming century? So why talk about objects that cannot be imagined by anyone living in Lupane or Dodo. The fact that Chamisa has the likes of Professor Ncube, Advocate Biti, and all other intellectuals in the Alliance leadership, they cannot for a moment advice Chamisa to be realistic in his rallies, makes all of us think that they are only interested in getting their parliamentary positions and forget the dreamy youthful President of MDC-T. To think of it their grievances are grave and not possible to imagine a full forgiveness.
If Chamisa was to make a debate with Mnangagwa, he was going to cause irreversible damage to Zanu PF. Chamisa is no measure to Mnangagwa when it comes to staging debate. Chamisa is vibrant articulate and alive in any given situation. Again Mnangagwa lacks confidence what Chamisa has in abundance. Mnangagwa is not presidential, Chamisa is an attractive politician -not his looks- but by his delivery speech and convincing ability. His looks may add flavour perhaps! Chamisa can go to Iceland and manage to sell a fridge to the person next door, even if he does not need one.
Chamisa is not tainted by the past atrocities that darken the history of this great nation; on the other hand, Mnangagwa lacks all self-confidence because he is tainted by the past dark history. When Mnangagwa realises he is losing the argument, he gets angry, and those are not good leadership traits: he has threatened journalists for asking too many penetrating questions about his past Gugurahundi atrocities. Mnangagwa believes in absoluteness of law and order: he does not recognise democratic approach as standard to normalcy and decency.
What puts Mnangagwa and Chamisa on the same page are their violent attributes. Chamisa believes in violence in as much as Mnangagwa too. Chamisa has a private army that he oils with his new found riches. Anyone who disagrees with Chamisa is brought to the line, reduced to size by ruthless beatings from his “gangsters”: gangsters whose paymaster is Chamisa himself and not the party. On the other hand, Mnangagwa refuted that the 2008 elections were marred by extreme violence: but all evidence is there for all to see, well documented even by the international community: that the elections were the worst in the history of election violence in the country.
Chamisa’s secret army is responsible for his ascendency to power: to be President of MDC-T and alliance. In today’s news, Chamisa has threatened violence again if he lost elections to Mnangagwa. This time around it will be violence against violence. The women and children will be used again as fodder to be part of those demonstrations just to put one person in power and never for the benefit of the masses.
Chamisa realised this early that to be effective in politics one needs money. He has viable businesses that financially back him up in his campaign for the highest civil service post. Like all politicians in Africa, having money is not enough; it is money and the love of power combined that brings fame to a black person.
The reason why Mnangagwa refuses to debate with the youthful Chamisa is that it will be an embarrassment of the twenty-first century. Mnangagwa does not match Chamisa’s eloquence by any stretch of our imagination. Like him or hate him the boy can talk, able to articulate, knows his Shona language proficiency very well, his accent is Zimbabwean and not Zambian. If Chamisa learns from others, to speak the truth and not sugar-coat his speeches: he has a great future even if he does not win the 2018 general elections. He should disband the secret army that terrorizes dissenting voices against him. Chamisa should learn to accept criticism it does not matter how it comes to him.
Chamisa should respect the rule of law: constitutionalism. Donor agencies are watching him closely how he handles democratic processes in his party. Unconstitutional traits can play against him seriously, today and in the future. Chamisa should have serious mature people around him who advise him on every step he takes as from now till the election time. He cannot be the know-it-all in the party as a leader. Chamisa should push those powerful, forceful, experienced women to the forefront and be seen to be part of his presidency.