The results of the survey by
the Mass Public Opinion Institute and Freedom House, Change and ‘New’ Politics in Zimbabwe, make for interesting
reading. The findings of the opinion poll that involved nearly 1200 randomly
selected Zimbabweans of voting age has generated animated debate both
internally and externally. This is
hardly surprising. Any study that gives the world a rare glimpse into Zimbabwe’s
complex political maze is greeted with fever. The Zimbabwean crisis has
dominated world headlines for too long. Many continue to wonder what it will
take to see change in a country that has been dominated by one man since
independence in 1980.
The study is even more
interesting in the context of an awkward coalition government that has defied
the odds to survive three years of groin kicking acrimony between ZANU (PF) and
MDC. Predictably what has dominated the news media and political chat is the
survey’s finding that parliamentary support for the MDC has declined from 38%
in 2010 to 20% in 2012, while that for ZANU (PF) has increased from 17% to 31%
over the same period. Acres of media
space have been devoted to analyzing this statistic alone and unfortunately
this has precluded a sober analysis of other variables of the study, which to
me tell a different, but equally interesting story.
Paradoxically, ZANU (PF)
propaganda chiefs have embraced the findings of the survey. A day after its
official release The Herald
newspaper, one of the party’s propaganda mouthpieces, ran a front page story on
the survey, something that I never experienced in my several years as a
pollster at the Mass Public Opinion Institute. This is notwithstanding the fact
that the front-page coverage was followed by a muted attack of Freedom House as
a ‘rightwing regime change’ agent by the same paper a few days later.
Reading through the various
news articles and commentaries, it is clear that the results of the survey have
meant different things to different people, even within the same political
parties. On the one hand rabid ZANU (PF) defenders and MDC bashers have
celebrated the results of the survey as marking the end of the MDC and the
return to ZANU (PF)’s one-party dominance of Zimbabwean politics. Sober supporters of the ZANU (PF) have
read the statistics to mean that perhaps the MDC is losing its luster, thanks
to corruption in MDC-run councils, absence of a sound ideological base and the
disintegration of cohesion in the party. ZANU (PF) political strategists are
quietly wondering whether the indigenisation and empowerment rhetoric has
struck a chord with the Zimbabwean electorate.
On the
other hand rabid MDC defenders and ZANU (PF) bashers have dismissed the survey
findings and have wondered loudly “what has ZANU (PF) done that it would gain
the support of Zimbabweans?’ The sober ones have questioned the veracity of the
survey on the basis of the possibility of sampling errors given the dearth of
reliable population figures on Zimbabwe. MDC political strategists are quietly
wondering how the positive change that the inclusive government has brought
could translate into a decline in its support and an increase in ZANU (PF)’s
popularity ratings.
I fear that all of these
analyses have missed one critical point, which invariably influences public
opinion survey data in Zimbabwe. I argue that fear has become ingrained in the
DNA of our political culture because of the preponderance of violence in our
society and that the fear factor is paramount in explaining the findings of the
survey.
More than 60% of MDC
supporters interviewed said they had experienced threats, intimidation and
harassment. Ominously, 66% of these said they had witnessed someone else being
killed or injured. But this fear also transcends political boundaries as
evidenced by the 32% of ZANU (PF) supporters that said they had experienced
intimidation, threats and harassment. I am not sure if the researchers asked
these ZANU (PF) supporters who had intimidated, harassed and threatened them.
If ‘Oparation Makavhotera papi” is
anything to go by, one would suspect that their own party members could have
been the perpetrators. The orgy of violence in 2008 did not spare ZANU (PF)
strongholds as they were punished for not having done enough to stop Morgan
Tsvangirai from winning. Interestingly, about four in ten of ZANU (PF)
supporters said they had witnessed someone else being killed or injured. Again I am not sure if the researchers
probed further to find who the perpetrators were.
The most telling indicator
of the fear factor is that close to half of the respondents did not want to
openly declare their political affiliation. I disagree with the assertion that
these are undecided voters that could go either way. I argue that Zimbabwean society
is so polarised that there is no room for electoral fence sitters. These voters
are decided but they are afraid of coming out. My experience of analyzing
public opinion data from Zimbabwe since 2000 is that because of fear, a
significant percentage of survey respondents choose not to declare their
positions on politically sensitive issues, including their electoral choices.
In most cases these are MDC supporters who fear a backlash. ZANU (PF)
supporters hardly hide their support for their party because in most cases
there are no consequences. I would therefore surmise that a majority of the 47%
undeclared respondents belongs to the MDC.
While I
agree that there is discernible disillusionment with the MDC’s record in the
inclusive government, I disagree that this has translated into a mass exodus of
its supporters to ZANU (PF), as some analysts of the survey have claimed. The
problem is that the MDC is suffering from the effects of a crisis of
expectation. Because of widespread disenchantment with ZANU (PF) and a
collapsed economy, many Zimbabweans hoped that the MDC’s entry into the
government in 2009 would make their lives better.
Without a
doubt the MDC’s entry into government brought a modicum of political, economic
and social stability. The survey finds out that levels of food deprivation have
increasingly gone down since 2009 when 85% of respondents in a similar survey
said they had gone without. By 2010 the figure had gone down to 50% and now
stands at 31%. The same downward trend is recorded for shortage of clean water
(49 43 and 42%), shortage of modern medicines (80 65 and 37%) and cash income
(94, 91, 79%). Yet more Zimbabweans said they trusted ZANU (PF) (52%) than the
MDC (39%). For me the explanation for this is that a majority of the respondents
felt free to express their views on issues to do with improvements in their
livelihoods but could not freely express their trust in the MDC for fear of reprisal.
While the party did a good
job of bringing stability to a bartered economy, the disproportionate amount of
executive power that the GPA gave to Mugabe and ZANU (PF) precluded if from
fully deploying its ideas and programmes to put Zimbabwe back on a firm path to
recovery and growth. This is because senior bureaucrats including permanent secretaries
are aligned to ZANU (PF) and their brief since 2009 has been to set up MDC
ministers for failure. ZANU (PF) is happy for the inclusive government to fail
because they fear that its successes would be attributed to the MDC.
Admittedly
he MDC needs to do more in communicating
this to the Zimbabwean public. At any rate Zimbabweans are aware of where real
power lies in this inclusive government. And they know how that power has been
abused to deny them a better life as ZANU (PF) has blocked progress on critical
national processes. The constitution making exercise is a telling example. In a
2010 survey by the same organisations for instance, more than seven out of ten
of respondents polled said real power resided with Mugabe.
In the final analysis it is
imperative to critically look at the survey data and situate it in the current
political context. Zimbabwean society is brutalized and fearful. My conclusion
is that it is the ‘margin of terror’ rather than the margin of error that we
should be debating.
