Two is company, but Three is even better: Why Duopoly politics poses a threat to our Zimbabwean way of life
As a people, our narrow understanding of political processes needs to stretch beyond the formal 5-year voting exchange. Because of the nature of Zimbabwean politics, however, most of us believe that we only have two, right options, making the third, and possibly better option an antagonist in our political narrative. A new and urgent approach to civic storytelling is crucial — one which moves the act of marking an X from the core to the periphery of political engagement. A paradigm shift that allows us to appreciate the dynamism of politics and guide who we vote for and why.
Recently, what started as a cursory read of a Harvard Business Review article led me down a rabbit hole of discovery. The article, Fixing U.S Politics is written by Katherine Gehl, and Michael Porter, co-authors of the highly acclaimed, The Politics Industry, How political innovation, can break partisan gridlock and save our economy. The writers discuss the U.S. two-party system at length, candidly labelling it anti-competitive. They unpack a political system they believe predetermines compromise, rather than delivering the best candidate. By the third or fourth paragraph, I could not help but begin drawing comparisons between Whitehouse challenges and the issues we are facing in the Zimbabwean context. Though slightly different, our political landscape is also dominated by two political parties who control 95% of the market share from local government to the national government. Similar to the U.S, Zimbabwean politics is a duopoly.
In a duopoly, two entities control almost the entire market. While other entities may operate in the same space, only two entities are considered significant players, and through their interactions, shape the operating market. In Zimbabwe, the political landscape is similar, offering the citizen the minimal two choices and thus, the barest form of democracy. This one-dimensional approach to politics poses multiple challenges.
Firstly, neither parties feel compelled to perform to retain their share of the citizens’ vote. They have no incentive to solve the problems of the country in a sustainable and scalable way. In industries that are competition-driven, this would not be sustainable. Parties do not even optimise a primary resource such as the time allocated for parliamentary debates. Considering the many challenges faced by the country that need to be solved, it is unfathomable that so much time is spent debating differences instead of coming together to work on solutions. In essence, elected officials are free to underperform or not perform at all, yet still, retain their jobs.
Secondly, the political candidate presented is selected based on ideology rather than efficacy — for example, the independent political party campaign of the now MDC Alliance, Fadzayi Mahere. Anyone who engaged her campaign would probably attest to her commitment to the needs of her constituency, and would likely argue that she was well equipped to present the needs of her community. In a value-based political system, Fadzayi would have been a competitive candidate. Still, her campaign was drowned by party politics and the unwavering support of the MDC Alliance in the urban areas. To this day, people remember Fadzayi, and I doubt many people in the constituency can say that they know the name of their current Member of Parliament.
This feeds into a third issue that manifests when the elected official takes their place in the legislature. The role of an elected official is to present the problems of their constituency as their representative. When presented with an issue for voting, the official should ask three primary questions: Is this the right thing to do, will this be beneficial to the people I am representing and is this what my constituency represents and wants? Unfortunately, most times, the questions at the top of mind are: “Will my vote ensure my spot as the party candidate in the next election?” or “Will my vote force a recall for going against party lines?” A good case in point is the recent and infamous RBZ Assumption of Debt Act that was passed. The control over candidates by party leadership facilitates voting in support of party agendas detrimental to the official’s electorate.
It is therefore crucial that we, as Zimbabweans change the way, we vote. We need to get more involved in the electoral process so that parties are forced to present candidates that represent constituency needs. We need to understand that politics means more than simply putting an X against your party choice every term. Politics has a face — it is your mother failing to get treatment at the local hospital because there is no medicine or staff; it is your child dying in the city because of avoidable diseases such as cholera; it is you as a professional living hand to mouth for years with no pension. When we vote based on universal and fundamental principles and values, we open the political market to candidates who can represent our community needs well. Candidates who are accountable, transparent, and effective.
I can understand the reluctance to play a political game that appears pre-rigged, but this is a paradigm shift I am talking about, one that shifts the focus from differences between parties and individuals to solving human problems. Is this not what we elect our officials to do? Every candidate should have the freedom and incentive to solve the problems of the people, and we as the people need to set political ideologies aside and vote for the candidates who represent our core values and needs. The politics that we want are not only about trying to change the winners; it is also about changing what the winners do. Even though the duopoly of the party politics has fed us the narrative that we only have two options. We must realise is that there is a better way for this. A third way.
