But the judgement is about MDC-T and not MDC Alliance
Not exactly. The judgement is germane to the MDC. MDC-T was
a moniker developed to distinguish the Tsvangirayi faction from that of
Welshman Ncube/Arthur Mutambra. Officially, they both remained MDC. Similarly,
the MDC Alliance was a vehicle for elections used by seven political parties
led by the MDC, hence the prefix to its title. The MDC Alliance was never a
stand-alone party but a group of parties coalescing around the MDC for purposes
of elections. At the conclusion of elections, some alliance members joined the
MDC whilst others reverted to their own structures.
Therefore, the MDC, and not the MDC Alliance, held its
fifth elective Congress in Gweru where Advocate Chamisa was elected president.
It was not an inaugural MDC Alliance Congress but the fifth iteration of the
MDC’s elective congresses at which they celebrated 20 years of existence. This
is the MDC that was before the Court which has to fulfil the judgement order.
The Supreme Court made this abundantly clear by that stating without
equivocation that Advocate Chamisa “…was unanimously elected as the President
of the Party, i.e. the one that is presently before this Court, at its Congress
convened in June 2019.” It is the party which elected Advocate Chamisa as
president which is required to abide by the court's findings. Given that the
alliance is something that collapsed into the party after elections, it is
counter-intuitive to suggest it can be extricated and presented as the bona
fide entity which held a congress 2019. Neither the facts nor the judgment
sustain this claim.
But Khupe held her own congress
This is true. The Court noted that Dr. Khupe may be
involved with a different political formation, but found that it does not
amount to abandoning her rights and interests terms of the MDC constitution.
Her activities are insufficient basis to cleanse the constitutional abrogation
by the MDC and its functionaries. In the absence of a judicial determination
regarding the circumstances that led to Advocate Chamisa’s elevation, her
rights and interests in the party remained extant, her activities elsewhere
notwithstanding.
What does it mean going forward
This judgement reinforces Dr. Khupe’s claim to the reigns
of the MDC in real and material terms. She is the Acting President of the MDC
at law. Matters to do with party assets, participation in the MDC Alliance as
well as disbursements from the state all fall squarely under her stewardship.
These are not trivial matters. It could mean an ability to recall members of
parliament and local authorities, which comes with the capacity to whip elected
representatives into conformity. Further, it enhances her ability to engage
with regional and international actors as the only legally recognized leader of
the main opposition. The swift moves by Morgan Komichi and Douglas Mwonzora to
take assertive action and shape the political narrative suggest that those
dismissing the judgement out of hand might be underestimating its utility.
Of course, Advocate Chamisa retains his public appeal. He
can opt to use his numbers to trounce Dr. Khupe at the court-ordered
extra-ordinary congress. But even as you are reading this, I suspect you share
my doubt regarding the plausibility of such new found collegiality. The
Advocate has done everything in his power to avoid any eventuality in which he
is not at the helm of the Party, even temporarily. His loyalists' retorts at
the courts were as swift as they were sharp, signally continued disdain with
any adverse rulings from the courts. Without any substantive critique of the
judgment, they have opted for insistence that the judgement is inconsequential since
their new found titular home is under the banner of the MDC Alliance.
Insisting on the identity of MDC Alliance involves
relinquishing that of the MDC – which may come with loss of real and material
power (and possibly assets). It is conceivable that grounds will be found to
mount a constitutional challenge. However, the political dividend from such a
move would be minimal in circumstances where there is no impending congress or
plebiscite at which electoral performance can countenance constitutional
misfeasance. The most certain outcome is that the Chamisa camp will not take
this lying down. I previously presented this as a clash of constitutionalism
against populism; a mild but alarming version of ZANU PF’s conviction that its
electoral majority is a license to freedom from constitutional constraints.
After the High Court and Supreme Court have both restated the contents and made
orders in terms of the MDC’s own (now undisputed) constitution, they will no
doubt retort…but we have the people! If they follow the court order they will
also have legal propriety, without which new machinations will ensure that this
is not the last installment in this ceaseless yet needless confrontation.
Read the full post here https://davidhofisi.blogspot.com/2020/04/process-vs-populism-unpacking-supreme.html?fbclid=IwAR32QSD7M8AdsMsSML77HlruXeffOxvnQfhPRF-Nv57yUBX2SnxY7L9gpec
0 comments:
Post a Comment