Zimpapers Logo

THE Chronicle’s Political Editor Nduduzo Tshuma on Thursday sat down with MDC leader Professor Welshman Ncube in the wake of a spate of resignations of senior party officials, including secretary general Priscilla Misihairabwi-Mushonga, vice chairman Frank Chamunorwa and spokesperson Nhlanhla Dube, who left the party altogether.

The trio, along with party chairman Goodrich Chimbaira, were accused by Ncube’s supporters of plotting to stop the law professor from securing the leadership of the United Movement for Democratic Change (UMDC) — a merger of the MDC and MDC Renewal which is fronted by Tendai Biti and Elton Mangoma. Here are excerpts of the interview:

Tshuma: What is the current state of your party following the resignations of Priscilla, Nhlanhla and Chamunorwa?

Ncube: If you ask a generic question about the state of the party, obviously the resignations are something that would be of concern to us as a leadership collective. In any political formation, it is always a source of concern and worry when you lose members at any level, more so members at the senior levels of the party. The three people you mention are part of a 25-member standing committee and those three have left, we expect that one more might yet leave, so we expect that some four people in the standing committee of the party would leave the party and obviously when that happens, it is a source of concern.

But in any political organisation, you get to a stage where there might be fundamental differences which have occurred among leaders. There are normally two ways of resolving them, the first one is those who feel that in good conscience they can no longer continue, they resign either from their positions or from the party altogether. Alternatively, you go to congress and congress resolves the fundamental issue which divides the leadership in one way or the other.

Those would have been the two ways that the matter would have been decided, our colleagues chose instead the route of resignation under the circumstances where they deemed that there were sufficiently serious differences with the rest of their colleagues. That’s basically what happened and it is normal and it is natural, you resign if you find yourself, the positions you are proposing on any matter you are standing for or any official positions taken by the leadership collective or the principles for which the party stands, you find it unconscionable to continue in that position or in that organisation. This is what has happened and we believe that ultimately it strengthens the party, ultimately it means that as a leadership collective, you are supposed to at all material time have cohesion, similar vision, ideas, to debate things and once an agreement is taken, to abide by those things.

In my view, what has happened has happened and we thank these colleagues for the long period of time that they had their shoulders on the democratic struggle with us in leadership positions and most of them have resigned not from the party but from their positions and have expressed their commitment to a continuing membership of the party and to the values and principles of the party and we appreciate their continued membership and we hope that in future, they will be able to play once again leadership roles in the party in particular once the owners of the party have spoken on the direction they want the party to take at Congress.

Tshuma: You say a fourth member to is expected resign. Are you confirming the existence of a “gang of four” that we have been hearing about, that they rebelled against you and were now canvassing for Tendai Biti to lead the coalition arrangement?

Ncube: I’m not confirming any such thing. The more important aspect of the question you raise is this foundation which is what I must respond to, that there is a rebellion against me and that in fact the disagreement which existed in the party had something to do with the narrative which has been repeated again and again in the newspapers, which narrative regrettably is false. That narrative is that our colleagues had expressed to be or rather are believed to have preferred Cde Biti to lead the reunited party and myself to deputise him and as a result of which they were subjected to unfair treatment and abuse by party members. That is the narrative that has been put and repeated that there are leadership wrangles over who should lead the united party.

Unfortunately or fortunately, depending how you want to look at it, this narrative is 100 percent false. The truth of the matter is that we have a reunification roadmap and agreement which dealt with general principles and processes. These are the values of the party, these are the structures that we will create. This is the process that will come up with a new constitution combining the two constitutions, this is the process by which we will integrate the structures of the party beginning at district level to provincial level and ending with national level as congress. That was negotiated and agreed to by the parties and you can get it from me wrapped and guaranteed that we had not arrived at a stage that even among ourselves as a party we had started the discussion of which of our leaders we will deploy to what position in the united party, let alone to start a conversation with our colleagues in Renewal over who will be deployed to what position.

Let me say in terms of the agreement, we would only discuss the issue of national leadership and negotiate it because you can’t go to an elective congress when you are bringing together two different parties. Any party which then loses there will walk away from the agreement, clearly we are not foolish, we would understand that the positions would have to be negotiated in a manner which is acceptable to both sides and both sides must therefore accept that both the presidency of the party could go to a Renewal person or come to us just as any other position could go to either side and clearly therefore no side can start from the premise that we will have this position.

I say this in order to say, at no forum internal to us, at no forum external to us, at no forum involving us and Renewal has the the leadership question been discussed, all that has been discussed and agreed on was the process of how it would be done. We have not got to the stage where we would discuss who gets deployed where, which then must tell you that any suggestion, any insinuation that there was a conflict around this question is patently false.

The fundamental problem is that among ourselves, there were those who then believed that a small group of them could literally construct the entire leadership of the new party and after constructing them as a small group, would engage in a process which would make their views the official views. It is not a coincidence that since about November to December last year that you wrote it in your own newspaper, The Chronicle, that ‘Biti to lead the united party, Prof Ncube to deputise him’. How many times did you read that story in The Chronicle and how many times did you see that story in the internet newspapers? Several times. Those of you who wrote that story know that they got that story from among some of our people yet we had not started the process for this thing.

The dispute in the party is not what has been projected, the dispute has been simple, is it right, okay or consistent with our values and principles for a small group to seek clandestinely to impose their construction of a leadership without consultation with the rest of their colleagues? That is the dispute, anything else, I assure you, and it’s not true. And I might add, I as a person recognise that if we go through with the reunification process, the leadership of the new party might be someone other than me. If one is a democrat, they must accept that the possibility that your colleagues might choose someone else who at this particular historical moment they believe might be better suited for the exigencies of the moment of growing the party.

Tshuma: So in essence what you are saying is that this “gang of four” did not necessarily rebel against you but engaged in activities that were not sanctioned by the party?

Ncube: I don’t want to call anyone “gang of four”. I don’t know whether there was or there is a gang of four.

Tshuma: Or rather the small group that you referred to?

Ncube: What I’m prepared to say is that the nature of our differences which led to resignations was a disagreement over that process and not on whether Prof Ncube wants to lead the united party. That is the core of the dispute and we must be honest enough to admit it. If we had all waited for these processes to take place, if we had all said this issue stays in adherence until internally in our standing committee we debate it and then after that engage colleagues in Renewal, there would be no problem.

Tshuma: Some say the people who resigned were your loyalists, your critical core, and that their resignation points to your political demise. What do you say to that?

Ncube: I believe that the MDC as a party works as a collective and I have said at the apex of this collective is the Standing Committee which has 25 people. As president of the MDC, I believe that each and every one of those 25 people have performed exceptionally well, the duties which have been assigned to them including those that resigned. They did an excellent job during the time they had their shoulder to the width. And clearly as I said at the beginning, clearly our capacity as a party is negatively affected by the departure. But we have been grooming leaders during all our time of existence and we have sufficient leaders to step into the shoes of anyone who departs.

My presidency is not dependant on three, four, five individuals. It is dependent on the confidence of the collective and that confidence, I have no doubt continues to exist and will exist until we get to congress where each of us has an obligation to re-assess, “Am I the best person who can continue at this relay at that stage?’ I insist that all the 25 have the obligation to critically analyse, who will be the best person to grow us as we go forward.

As a democrat , I must accept that even Josh (Mhambi), even as he sits here has the right to say Prof at this particular stage of the struggle, I think maybe Cde Mzila (Ndlovu) will be better suited to carry the baton or Cde (Edwin) Mushoriwa or maybe it’s time that we put a woman there. That’s part of the efforts of being democratic and it’s not about me as a person, it’s about the institution that we have tried to build over the years and I have no doubt in my mind that, that institution is able to survive all the turbulences which are part of human nature and be able to survive the departures, including my own departure when it comes. If the party is not able to survive my departure, then it means over the last 15 years we would have failed to build the institution that we intended to build.

Tshuma: On that note, we understand Misihairabwi-Mushonga was in England looking for funds on behalf of the party when she tendered her resignation. Her resignation, we are informed, scuttled her programme and now you are facing serious financial problems.

Ncube: On the contrary, the only truthful part of that statement is that she handed her resignation in person to myself while both of us were in London. That is correct, it’s a fact. It’s not correct that I was looking for funds, what is correct is that we were infact on a diplomatic mission to talk to opinion makers, to leaders in that country for diplomatic relations with the party. You might be aware that we are a social democratic party. You might be aware that we have relationships, we have sister parties all over the world who are also social democratic parties. The labour parties in the UK and the labour parties in the Scandinavian countries, the social democrats all over the world.

Clearly, when we are engaged in a reunification process, we talk to our sister parties located in Africa, located outside Africa. The process we were doing in England when she resigned was a process of having conversations with our sister parties together with our colleagues in Renewal to say this is the new, if you like, political direction that we want to take so that even when we come together, can we continue affiliated to you because our values and principles remain the same. That’s the business that we were doing.

Tshuma: On the proposed coalition of the five parties (Mavambo Kusile Dawn, Zapu, MDC, MDC Renewal and National Constitutional Assembly), we understand the reason that it is going at a slow pace besides the issue of going to consult their members is that there are parties who feel there is need to include MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai, which you strongly oppose.

Ncube: I don’t know whether there are some parties who feel there is need to include the MDC-T led by Tsvangirai, they can speak for themselves, I’m sure if you interview them, they might be able to confirm that they feel so. Not being their spokesperson, I cannot try and attribute a position to them if they are there. What I can explain is that, when we met as the five we agreed that we didn’t have any antagonistic contradictions among ourselves and that there was sufficient foundation for us to form a coalition.

Clearly, the reason that the MDC-T was not brought to the table is that it has antagonistic contradictions with some of us. It’s not a secret that we have antagonistic contradictions with them and therefore in the absence of a resolution of those antagonistic contradictions, we cannot be in a coalition. We certainly don’t believe in a coalition whose sole purpose is to remove President Mugabe.

A coalition must be a coalition of like-minded people who can formulate policies for a future government collectively and who can actually believe in each other, who can trust that once in power, we will act in the manner we said we will act. So that’s the reason that the MDC-T was not invited to those processes. Those processes as far as I know, we negotiated, and we have a draft document which is being taken to the people. If anyone had thought it was not possible to do that, they would have said so but we negotiated and reached an agreement. We have a draft document which each party is taking to its structures, this leads me to believe that we have sufficient consensus of who should be at the table, what the values and principles which bind us together, what are our political roadmaps should be.

Tshuma: The MDC-T has already indicated that they won’t be taking part in by-elections for the 14 parliamentary seats left vacant by expelled MDC-T MPs who defected to form MDC Renewal). Will you take part? It’s an opportunity surely?

Ncube: As one of the most informed journalists that you are, you will no doubt know that immediately after July 2013, we declined to participate in any and all by-elections that is why in 2013, 2014, unlike others, we never fielded candidates in the council by-elections which took place across the country. We have not participated in a single election since the “Nikuv election” that we took part in at the end of July 2013 and we have maintained that consistent position of non-participation in those elections. We will maintain that position and ensure that the things we found fundamentally wrong with 2013 are addressed.

They include, for instance, a refusal to have a transparent, open, verifiable voters roll and we have no doubt in our minds that it was largely due to the absence of such a voters roll that allowed multiple voting in 2013. Because they had failed to do a proper voters’ roll, they then said anyone and everyone with a voter’s slip must vote.