Zimbabwean President Emmerson Mnangagwa addresses a press conference at State House in Harare, Sunday, Aug. 27 2023. Authorities in Zimbabwe say President Emmerson Mnangagwa has been re-elected for a second and final term. The Zimbabwe Election Commission announced late Saturday that Mnangagwa won 52.6% of the votes in the midweek election. (AP Photo/Tsvangirayi Mukwazhi)
It’s quite remarkable how ED manages to present his decision as some sort of magnanimous gesture towards the opposition. By not appointing them to important positions, he claims to be allowing them to “play their role of being opposition effectively.” How thoughtful of him! It’s almost as if he believes that the opposition’s sole purpose is to oppose, rather than contribute to the governance and development of the country.
But hey, let’s give credit where credit is due. It takes a certain level of creativity to justify such a move. I can only imagine the thought process behind it: “If we don’t include them in the decision-making process, they’ll have more time to criticize our decisions, which will make them feel important. It’s a win-win situation!”
Of course, it’s all just political maneuvering. The real reason for excluding the opposition from the Cabinet is simple: President Mnangagwa and his party want complete control. It’s easier to push through their own agenda without the pesky interference of differing opinions. Why bother with healthy debate and compromise when you can just steamroll ahead?
But let’s pause for a moment of introspection. Isn’t it possible that ED truly believes that he knows what’s best for the country? Maybe he genuinely thinks that by shutting out the opposition, he can provide strong, decisive leadership. Or perhaps he’s simply afraid that including opposing voices might challenge his authority and disrupt his plans. Whatever the case, one thing is clear: this decision doesn’t reflect a commitment to democracy and inclusivity.
In the grand scheme of things, this may seem like a minor detail, but it’s indicative of a larger issue – the lack of genuine democratic practices in our country. If we truly want progress, we need leaders who are open to different perspectives, willing to listen to criticism, and able to bridge divides. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be the case here.
So, while the President may try to pass off his decision as a clever strategy, it’s important for us, as citizens, to remain vigilant. We must continue to question and challenge those in power, holding them accountable for their actions. After all, a true democracy requires more than just a leader with a comfortable majority; it demands an unwavering commitment to transparency, inclusivity, and the well-being of all its citizens.
In the end, let’s hope that the “Decider” realizes the value of diversity and inclusive governance. Until then, we’ll just have to keep playing our role as the watchdogs, making sure our voices are heard, and pushing for a truly democratic future.