Re-Reading Tsvangirai's Bio 'At the Deep End': Reflecting on Legacy, Leadership, Ideology

I recently re-read Zimbabwe’s late former Prime
Minister Morgan Tsvangirai’s biography or memoir, ‘At the Deep End.’  Written in collaboration with the late
journalist William Bango, the book is essentially about  Tsvangirai’s reflections on his own
life.  Both the personal and more
significantly (for me at least)  the political aspects of the same. 

And its purpose was probably to emphasise the political more
than the personal.  Either way it tells
the life story of a man who conscientiously worked to improve the lives of workers
as a unionist and the those of the people of Zimbabwe as a political
leader. 

I was re-reading the biography more out of nostalgia of the activist
days I first encountered Morgan and also in order to reflect on his immense contribution
to the struggle for the democratisation of Zimbabwe.    

This is despite the controversy that has now come to surround the
process(es) of selecting his successors in the mainstream opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) political party
that he led until his passing on. 

I was more interested in what Morgan in his own book felt he had come to represent in relation to political values and principles.  And what both portended for his leadership legacy.   

Like most people born in the 1950’s, Morgan’s initial political
consciousness was based on encounters with nationalist parties and the violence
of the colonial settler state.  He
however does not make any claims to having been an active member of the then liberation
movement at an early age.

His more significant political consciousness stemmed largely
from the work he began doing as a trade unionist of the Associated Mine Workers
Union at Trojan Nickel mine in Bindura. 
And unionism is generally couched in the politics of direct
representation of workers (and their interests or else you lose the
representative post.)

In the euphoria that was national independence, and through
the urging of the new government, that was to see Tsvangirai become a member of
the ruling Zanu PF party.  All trade
unions were now required to join the new Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) led
by Albert Mugabe (brother to then Prime Minister Robert Mugabe). 

In rising up the trade union ranks to become national vice
president of the AMWUZ (and subsequently moving to Harare to take up the post)
Tsvangirai maintains a specific focus on unionism and does not demonstrate any intention
at ascending the ruling Zanu PF’s party leadership ladder.  This is a key point to make because his commitment
to labour unionism would define his leadership of the Zimbabwe Congress of
Trade Unions.

In the position of secretary general that he took up in
1988, his primary concern was the welfare of workers.  But events such as that of the demonstrations
at the University of Zimbabwe in the following year would escalate his political
collision course with the establishment. 
In fact he was detained without trial for at least 90 daysweeks after the
ZCTU issued a statement in solidarity with the university’s students union.

His clearer ideological leanings emerged when the impact of
government neo-liberal economic policy the Economic Structural Adjustment Programme
(ESAP) started negatively affecting workers.  Though he does not claim it in his book, the
documents that the ZCTU authored at that time such as one referred to as ‘Beyond ESAP’ had clear left leaning ideological nuances. 

The acts of solidarity with striking civil servants and the
leadership of the ZCTU to help from and lead the National Constitutional
Assembly, did not however cement any leftist ideological leanings.  But they expanded an attempt at a holistic approach
to leadership that Tsvangirai would come to use a that at the formation of the
labour party backed Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). 

And this meant that Tsvangirai was not an ideologue despite his
evident strong belief in the rights of workers. 
Hence he abhorred the liberalisation of the economy which led to job
losses for many workers and insisted on a form of economic protectionism of
local business and industry. 

It also turns out that Tsvangirai was a strong believer in
people-centered consultative processes. 
Before the formation of the party, and he makes regular reference to
this, ZCTU undertook a study to figure out what the people wanted.  One of his colleagues, who gets commendable mention,
Timothy Kondo, undertook a nationwide research on issues affecting the people
on behalf of ZCTU. 

Combined with a multi-stakeholder approach that led to what
was the National Working People’s Convention (NWPC) in early 1999 which tasked labour
to form what was then called a ‘working people’s party’.

Tsvangirai then fully embraces ‘social democracy’ but in a manner that
I hazard to add is more to the centre than to the left.  This was probably in keeping with what the ‘third
way’ politics that was trending politically via the then ‘global’ leadership of
Bill Clinton,, Gerhard Schroeder and Tony Blair at the turn of the century. 

To quote him on this ideological matter, Tsvangirai says, ‘ Our policies and ideals had been set out at the NWPC and the general policy thrust was for democratic change, in the real sense of the word.  We had said that we were social democrats: we believed in a clearly defined but limited role of the state in governance and in the economy’.   

I am sure that the latter line may have been said with the benefit of hindsight on his part.   And it does sound less genuine than the slightly more radical and protectionist argument against ESAP motivated economic liberalisation.

In this regard it is always useful to keep in mind that Tsvangirai’s memoirs were written at a time when he was already in the inclusive government and decidedly less radical for what in my view at that time were expedient reasons.  And assumptions at a globally acceptable statesmanship.

That is where the rub in recalling Tsvangirai’s leadership is.   Both as a lesson to those that would seek to lead or be led.  It is always imperative to remain true to the values and principles that brought one to leadership.  Even in the most difficult of circumstances.  Contrasting the genesis of his leadership with the time when he passed on there appears to be a coherent pattern of commitment to the working people of Zimbabwe.  Even if mistakes were made, Tsvangirai could never shake off his original understanding of politics. That is the people always come first.  No matter that the methods he used were sometimes out rightly populist and borderline messianic. Or that in the age of the inclusive government they became more neo-liberal in approach and intent.    But above all else he was probably a believer in direct representation (unionism) of an affected majority even if he would come to control its immediate outcome or popular meaning. Ideology or no ideology.

What I personally learnt and now observe with the benefit of hindsight is that however ones political fortunes change, it is always important to remember what got you to where you are and remain as organic as possible with that base.  It helps. Despite new pressures, opportunities or very personal preferences.
*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personality (takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)