The Sunday News
Micheal Mhlanga
Choice — Choice is the only lie that we have clung to for as long as human existence has ever been known. Although humankind is reluctant to believe that free will is non-existent, we have always chosen to happily believe that our lives revolve around the choices we make, despite the growing knowledge that we have no power on anything that happens to and around us.
Philosophy teaches us of what is called hard determinism — the belief that all events are caused by past events such that nothing other than what does occur could occur. Those who believe in it hold the notion that the world is void of options, what we feel as free will or perceive as options are facades created for us to assume that we have dominion over anything we see, yet in fact whoever gave us those options knew what they wanted us to do and we definitely did exactly that.
Despite these agonising philosophical concepts, what is more marvellous is living in that figment of reality which we have embraced as the true outcome of our cognitive perceptions and selections. We have designed rules and contracts which we adhere to in order to preserve and observe that human beings enjoy the facade — the imagination of choices. Our global institutions have prescribed penalting actions should those choices be stifled or subtracted from our livelihoods. Should anyone limit, harangue, exempt or let alone obscure any of the choices we feel are human obligated, we immediately ransack the platform of ideas and use another facade — “freedom of expression” to ridicule the abominable action of taking away the “non-existent” choice from us. That is who we are and it is what keeps the world mobile — fake choices — and we value those choices because they are central in “shaping” our future — so we feel as we lie to ourselves.
So it is, in our political decisions choice is priceless, it is the monumental currency in purchasing the future of our nations and for generations to come.
The reason why we join political parties, social movements and even “choose” to be apolitical in its sincerest form is a valuable action which no one should take away from any living soul. Any political action determines the future as it fairly fits within the Hard Determinism philosophy that all events are caused by past events such that nothing other than what does occur could occur — you see! Truth is manifesting.
Our association choices, candidates choices and electoral choices should not be limited by whatever reason can be named, whether for the reasons of that a trend has been seen that it is failing in Africa, greed of offices or a common hatred of someone that almost two decades sprint by still harbouring hatred of a man who has crafted his legacy — so a group of men and women dedicated to retiring him should agree that our choices are not important than theirs — that is foolish and cruel.
This is one thing people have not fully reflected on — coalitions limit or in fact relegate our political choices just for a paraded charade of a “common goal” which is only common to the political elite who envisage political offices should the coalition win. Coalitions are the best example of an insult to the precepts and tents of democracy because by virtue of association, one is pushed to believe in a “common” goal of merging offices not ideas just for the purpose of attaining political office. When I choose to join a political party and I am interested in having council man X and Parliamentarian Z accompanied by Senator D, it is my choice and I allow those people to sell their dreams to me even if they do not win, what matters is the principle of free will and belief which I have exercised according to the supreme law of the land which dictates that privilege for me.
Surprisingly, the world has adopted the concept of coalitions in politics and Africa is on steroids. Current political trends are showing us how politics is now shaped around coalitions, small numbers merging to dislodge incumbents with the small numbers’ leaders being more interested in positioning themselves should they win. This has proven to be the easy access to political office for parties that value offices than issues and ideologies. Even the ideological bankrupt politicians find themselves administrating in a country where millions still suffer with a coalition in power because much of the time is spent on allocating offices, agreeing on the memoranda, reflecting on the past signed agreements and dissolving the coalition.
The citizen, who is coerced into voting for that one candidate they had no will for in the first place, is the most vulnerable. In the 2000 first round elections in Senegal Abdoulaye Wade failed to beat the incumbent yet he had a coalition, when he expanded his coalition with Moustapha Niasse, he won by 58,5 percent but the livelihood of the common Senegalese worsened because Wade’s term was characterised by attempts to consolidate power and retracts of betrayal. That Senegalese government addressed outstanding coalition issues than protracted economic and social agonies the citizens were facing.
Although the true goal of coalitions is achieved, the imminent and ever present dream of a better society by the common man remains a facade, mist in the early winter mornings and probably fog in hot summer’s noon. Commoners continue wallowing in disdain when the coalition leaders take office and have no idea on how to revive the economy of social deficits because it was never their main goal to deliver the nation from that but to remove the incumbent using the electoral numbers. I should say opposition coalitions have become common across Africa, remember the 1997 and 2002 and 2007 elections in Kenya, however, which resulted in a terrible ethnic conflict and the recent ones which have been nullified by their own courts, the 1993 election in Malawi, 2000 Senegalese elections and a close win by the CUD of Ethiopia in 2005. But the big question is: Did they change the livelihoods of the people? Didn’t they limit political choice of the people? What is the purpose of splitting if you then parade a lie to us that you have a common goal? Those with a common philosophy are always together, aren’t they? This is the frivoling political environment we live in today, most of the times, politics lies to us especially if it is desperate for power.
We suddenly if not ignorantly become selective of principles we value. Making a choice of joining party X not Z is a monumental choice which defines anyone’s humanness and sanity. The intention of willing to be led by Mr or Mrs X is proof of what defines a good world to me and how I identify with whatever each one of them represents. When I make a choice of not joining party D, it is my declaration of how detesting I am to their whole movement and everything they believe in so when my leader in party X then says let us join party D isn’t he proving that I made a mistake following him? Is it not a classical sign of ideological weakness and the highest sense of collective low self esteem?
People join parties knowing pretty well that they are few to dislodge party W but what keeps them there is their free will and appreciation of its principle thereof. They are cognisant of the fact that their party president may not be the President of the country but they will fight to have someone in council or parliament who reflects their thinking and that is the most important thing — principle of choosing and being represented by one they share an identity with.
As it stands, someone in Kuwadzana will be represented by someone they do not want, who does not carry their interests at heart, whom, probably they ridiculed long back by ditching the party which has imposed him because of coalition allocations. This is another strategy of imposing candidates on people because everyone from MDC is now forced to vote for an MDC-T candidate yet they split because they did not align well, but because Professor Welshman Ncube maybe wants to be the Vice-President, everyone has to dance to the tune. The reason why some people followed Tendai Biti and left Tsvangirai has not changed, but they are coerced to vote Tsvangirai as president because Biti maybe wants to be second VP or SG again. So the principle of free will is trampled, the interest of the leaders embalmed as “the peoples’ choices” take precedence and everyone sits quietly and says Yay! We are democratic — maybe it’s the new definition, who knows.
Let us strongly reflect on Thokozani Khupe’s stance of refusing the coalition in Matabeleland, maybe she is right, protecting the democratic interests of Matabeleland people. Let us think hard about it, not on party position threat grounds, but on principle grounds, should a people’s democratic privilege be subdued because people want “Zanu-PF out”? What is more important, a principle or the interests of the elite?
Follow @mhlanga_micheal
