Ambiguity Policy: A major threat to democracy.

Azon Twala

It is always important to remember that democracy does not operate in isolation or as a mystery. Democracy should be transparent, understandable, and visible. If democracy is subjected to political operations that lack visible structure, it is no longer a democracy, but rather the opposite. 

The 2023 Zimbabwean election was dominated by a race between ruling party leader Emerson Mnangagwa and opposition party leader Nelson Chamisa. The former defended the status quo, whereas the latter was expected to win and introduce a new political system. Zimbabwe has been subject to a single line of political dimension since the postcolonial era began in 1980.

There was no doubt that Nelson Chamisa represented the hope for change in 2023. However, he was unable to manifest the love that he was receiving from both public and private spaces. Chamisa's biggest mistake was to form a party with no structures. Simply considering the name of the Citizen Coalition for Change (CCC) leads to the conclusion that the party was intended to bring people together in their desire for change. However, this was not the case at all. 

The CCC most likely performed his face for effective campaign purposes, allowing his supporters to easily identify him on the ballot paper. However, due to the lack of a visible political structure and a constitution, the party earned the nickname "Chamisa Chete Chete," which translates as "Only Chamisa." This was a death sentence not only for the party but also for the growth and development of Zimbabwe's democracy. Democracy cannot be trusted outside the context of political structures. 

Without political structures, Chamisa and CCC had no relationships with one another in terms of patterns of interaction within political systems, as well as the regulations, laws, and norms that exist within political systems. As a result, their invisible party became increasingly chaotic, with a social media X account (formerly known as Twitter) serving as the primary driver. As a result, the question of who was who in the party remained unanswered, and the disappointment extended beyond the party's elite to the general public. 

Everyone was concerned about this version of democracy that had succumbed to hidden societal traits. It is important to note that the Ambiguity Policy was simply a failure to provide accountability and transparency, and Democracy cannot be appreciated without these two components. The argument was that Chamisa's ambiguous party of operations was intended to confuse his political opponents. However, it was a poor calculative action because he overlooked the underlying concept of democracy, which is people. 

Chamisa's victory would have been unavoidable if he had considered Zimbabweans in his political operations leading up to the elections. The constant arrest of well-known members of this party demonstrates a lack of evidence that political ambiguity was simply a mistake, as it continued to cause chaos and poor political management, particularly during election season. 

The CCC was described as a newly formed party, which is a good idea for sustaining democracy. However, without structures, particularly a public, readable, and accessible party constitution, Zimbabwe's democratic achievements would hit a hard surface. When he considered rigging as a tool used by the sitting president, the theory lacked credibility simply because it was not supported by the people. Ambiguity Policy embodies a shameful understanding of Zimbabwean democracy within the context of tangible politics. National politics were reduced to a family gathering in which Chamisa, the party's closest associate, ran the show without informing their supporters who were and was not in the party. It is unfortunate that Zimbabweans, particularly his supporters, had to stand in long voting lines for hours to cast a ballot for something that raises serious concerns about its very existence. Yes, the most important question is whether the CCC party ever existed, and if so, why as a cult. One can ask this question because democracy is a numbers game, and the CCC did not understand that. Numbers may be available where transparency is visible. 

Poor political advisory councils and a lack of ambitious politics shaped this type of political thinking, and it was the people who suffered the most, losing twice in the race to anticipate a new government. 

0 comments