Is the Unity Accord cast in stone?


TIME for introspection does come at the moment when it is very necessary.
Various thoughts and ideals have to influence that process in order to obtain the right answers.
Perhaps this has never been more prevalent than at this juncture when the most crucial ZANU PF Congress elections are beckoning in 2014.
The party will definitely be faced with a lot of questions which must be adequately answered to the satisfaction of all stakeholders.
This brings into perspective the issue of the 1987 Unity Accord which has been stirring debate in the build-up to the Congress.
There are voices which are saying the Accord needs to be revisited specifically in reference to the ZANU PF party chairmanship.
One cannot pass off such voices as echoes of selfishness in the midst of the fact that they belong to a sizeable constituency within the party.
On the other hand, one also has to ask on the repercussions of doing away with that arrangement.
Those voices arguing that the agreement does not contain any written text that speaks to the chairmanship post in ZANU PF might have a point.
Emotions aside, if there is no written clause to that effect, they are certainly authentic voices.
Well, there should be a problem if the Accord could be picked out of the shelves and we realise it contains written text that audibly speaks on the contentious matter.
While as a point of entry, the chairmanship issue could point at how political aspirations can play out, the bare fact is that if there is nothing written down to that result, it is not an issue which must give headaches.
Whoever wants to challenge that reality must then carefully set aside emotions and deal with facts on paper.
Perhaps this argument also points out at the fact that the Accord written in 1987 was arrived at to redressing particular challenges on a specific day.
There was a situation that needed handling through crafting that agreement.
The truth is; that day is gone and the challenges of that moment have also been dealt with.
Obviously questions have to be asked on whether those saying the Unity Accord is cast in stone are not only arguing for personal gain and self- preservation.
It is a well spelt out fact that politics itself is a game of numbers.
In that context, the party has to probe hard on whether abiding by the accord does not come at a cost in terms of numbers.
Who exactly is arguing for the preservation of that agreement?
From what position are they holding on?
Isn’t politics as fluid as any imagined Western animation?
In that fluidity therefore, more focus should be directed at the gains that the party makes by sticking to the agreement.
Logic therefore would suggest that in the manner that politics changes and alters its dimensions, the party must think hard.
Dismissing voices calling for a revisiting of the accord has its own merits even though it attacks sentimental attachment to history.
On the day that the Accord was needed, it was written.
In seeking to strike a balance between the parties, modalities of posts had to be worked out.
They were then put to paper and have guided the revolutionary party since then. There has been no contention on the posts of Vice-Presidents.
The reason is that it is well documented in the Accord, hence there are no questions about it.
This simply explains why there are aspirations for the chairmanship post.
There is nothing written about it in that historic agreement.
As far as that stands, those vying for a piece of the cake should be qualified as reasonable voices.
Dismissing that reality could also prove to be a miscalculation of historic realities. Maybe it is also time the party could conduct a national plebiscite among its members to gather different views.
If the people insist they want the Accord to remain like that, so be it.
If they speak otherwise, then that route should be followed.
The bigger issue in all this is that it could also give pointers to the need for altering certain clauses of the Accord.
If then there is need to revisit or amend the document, then it must be done.
Saying the Unity Accord is irreversible is a reality we cannot run away from.
But as some sing that song, it should be sung in the context of what exactly is irreversible in it?
For certain it is a clear fact that the two positions of Vice-Presidents are well documented in the agreement.
The homework therefore, is to deal with that element that some members in the party argue it came about through a gentlemen agreement.
Gentlemen agreement or not, the Accord must carry the aspirations of all members of the party.
It must speak to the, ‘now’, dispensation and it must do so clearly.
As long as there are silent dissenting voices, then it remains a matter which must be argued out by the party members until it is ironed out.
There should be no fear of revisiting that silent issue in the Unity Accord.
No individual is bigger than the party and this is what has kept ZANU PF rolling on even in the most difficult onslaught.
It has prevailed because it is built on a unified principle which accommodates voices with grievances.
That is what should be preserved at all costs and the party would do best to really ask itself if the Accord is really cast in stone.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here