LONDON - President Robert Mugabe gave as one of the reasons for his continued stay in power the desire to leave his party united.
It is the assumption then that he had long known that his party was fractured.
But his continued stay seems to have only achieved the opposite; the divisions have only worsened.
What does he do now?
Mugabe has already accepted nomination by his party’s Women’s League to stand as the Zanu PF candidate in the next election.
Whether Mugabe decides to be the candidate for the 2018 election or not, the reality is Zanu PF is now a seriously divided party.
It was only inevitable after Mugabe’s lengthy rule some would position themselves for a take-over.
If Zanu PF becomes a weakened party as the fissures portend, Mugabe should therefore take the blame.
Had he wanted his party to survive, he would have ceded power and promoted internal democracy.
Other regional vanguard parties — some after periods of one-party rule, have since learnt the value of leadership change for their survival.
Frelimo in Mozambique and the ANC still enjoy dominance after periodic changes in leadership after dispensing with personalistic rulerships.
Two Frelimo leaders have won elections since Mozambique switched to multi-partyism in 1994.
South Africa has had two ANC presidents since Nelson Mandela.
These parties have evidently managed to foster democracy internally.
The Malawi Congress Party (MCP) of the late Kamuzu Banda (president from 1961 to1994) and the United National Independent Party (UNIP), once led by Kenneth Kaunda ( from 1964 to 1991) took far too long to nurture internal democracy.
These inordinate personalistic rulerships eventually cost the two parties.
MCP and UNIP have been losing elections.
Lengthy stays in power that have anchored themselves on the charisma of liberation war legacy have thus proved self-defeating.
Zanu PF could suffer the same fate.
For a long time, it has proved to be ill at ease with internal democracy, choosing to engender lengthy personalistic rule.
The mention of Mugabe’s removal has invited repercussions. The departure of Simba Makoni, the so-called Tsholotsho declaration and so on, all attest to Zanu PF’s aversion to
internal democracy when it comes to Mugabe.
As the internecine battles now show, this philosophy has been self-defeating.
For Zimbabwe, the hope for change may now lie in a party that is defeating itself in the face of an imminent end to personalised rule.
This is a party that the opposition has failed to defeat since 1980 — partly because of the unity around Mugabe, and partly, because of Zanu PF’s electoral fiddling.
However, that unity is now in peril.
Mugabe might decide to stay longer but, as pointed out earlier, this is unlikely to heal the divisions. At 90, the inevitability of his eventual departure means camps might now remain, covertly or otherwise.
In the event that he stands, “bhora musango” might occur in 2018 as frustration in his party’s ranks mounts.
This protest transfer of the vote to the opposition has happened before when the divisions in Zanu PF were less visible.
The electoral prospects may be worse if either Mnangagwa or Mujuru takes over. Either camp may not lend electoral backing to the other.
It is too early to predict, Zanu PF might confound all and emerge a united force after its December congress, but if these divisions persist, they could create ground for long-needed regime change.
It now depends on whether the MDC can organise itself, capitalise on Zanu PF’s self-immolation and become more vigilant during elections.
Compared to the events in Zanu PF, the ructions in the MDC are stuff of the kindergarten.
The divisions in the MDC have pretty much defined themselves quickly and conclusively, one group publicly detaching itself.
The factions might as well now concentrate on what they can offer to the electorate.
On the other, Zanu PF’s divisions are far more insidious without the purported faction leaders openly declaring interest.
The plotting and scheming will continue until Mugabe’s departure.
