THERE are many stories that have been told about the formation of the MDC but one that has stood the test of time is that of the role of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU), a body that purports to represent the ‘interests’ of workers in the country.
Time and again, it has been said while the ZCTU was instrumental in the formation of the MDC, it has remained stuck as an entity pursuing a political narrative that has threatened to destabilise peace and stability in the country.
Confusion has reigned supreme on whether the ZCTU intends to be a political body or a real workers’ representative that it should be.
Only recently, the ZCTU attempted to wade into the nurses’ saga, pushing for a nationwide strike in ‘solidarity’ with the nurses when the issue had been dealt with by Government.
A few days ago, The Patriot was availed with information which showed that the same organisation has been working in cahoots with teachers as they push for yet another strike.
The strike, sources said, was meant to boost the popularity of opposition leader Nelson Chamisa who will be contesting in the country’s elections to be held in July this year.
The MDC has found its fortunes waning following the coming in of a revamped ZANU PF in November last year.
The teachers have indicated that they intend to strike when schools open next week.
What has been lost on the ZCTU is that the ‘Zimbabwe is open for business’ mantra is an economic strategy aimed at cushioning the worker from the economic ills of the recent past.
Government has been attending to those issues with vigour and the deafening silence by the ZCTU on the country’s re-engagement efforts, the many investment pledges and the investors who are coming is telling — and in many ways too.
So many questions are drawn from the conduct of the ZCTU.
Why is it the ZCTU never pushes for collective bargaining with the Government?
Why does the ZCTU always take a political direction when it comes to workers’ issues?
Why has the ZCTU failed to come up with an alternative economic strategy if they say Government has failed?
History is the best teacher in answering these questions.
From February 26 to 28 1999, the ZCTU held what it called a ‘National Working People’s Convention’ to form a political party and on September 11 1999, the MDC was formed.
However, this is a party created to look after the interests of big business, the rich white cormercial farmers and inward investors, not the working class.
Never at any point did the ZCTU confront white capital and commercial farmers who were exploiting black workers on the farms.
They, in fact, worked with the whites to confront the Government.
Their target was, and still is, Government.
This is buttressed by former MDC-T leader, the late Morgan Tsvangirai in an interview with the South African Mail and Guardian on December 17 1997.
Said Tsvangirai: “We were surprised by the level of support. Things are falling apart.
There’s no health system to talk of.
Education has suffered because it is not linked to any economic plan – because there is no economic plan.”
What, then, was ZCTU’s economic strategy?
Why was Tsvangirai denying that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) had caused the social crisis in the country then?
Below is what Tsvangirai said:
“That’s the Economic Structural Adjustment Programme (ESAP) not the problem.
The problem is Mugabe doesn’t have an economic strategy. He had this huge bureaucracy, which was used for patronage. But the economy was not growing and he was spending more and more money.
We are not living within our means.
At the stage we had reached, some form of structural adjustment was needed.
The general vote is thumbs down for structural adjustment. But it’s a failure of administration, not policy.
It’s a failure of the Government not the strategy.
We had to relax and open up and allow business to operate without these constraints.”
Pressure on Government was coming from all angles.
The Employers’ Confederation of Zimbabwe (EMCOZ) then formed an alliance with ZCTU to ‘bring workers under control’.
The then EMCOZ director, Peter Kunjeku, explained this.
Said Kunjeku: “What is causing us to get together with the ZCTU is the militancy of the workers.
There is a potential for industrial unrest which could spread across the country.
Emerging trends, reminiscent of the 1997 collective bargaining period, are cause for concern.
For 1999, collective bargaining settlements so far show signs of being economically unsustainable and yet labour militancy is on the increase.”
Is the ZCTU really representing workers?
According to a 2017 Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency (ZIMSTATS) survey of six million people, only 11 percent of Zimbabweans are in formal employment.
About 84 percent are in informal employment; the largest group being in the wholesale and retail sector, repair of motor vehicles and motor cycles, thereby constituting 52 percent, followed by other services and manufacturing at 14 percent each.
The informal sector contributes around 20 percent of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or a total value added contribution of about US$2 billion.
This has negatively impacted the ZCTU which relied on 85 percent donor funding and subscriptions from the members who no longer subscribe since they are no longer in formal employment.
At independence in 1980, there were six trade unions, namely; the African Trade Union Congress (ACTU), the National African Trade Union Congress (NACTU), Trade Union Congress of Zimbabwe (TUCZ), United Trade Unions of Zimbabwe (UTUZ), Zimbabwe Federation of Labour (ZFL) and the Zimbabwe Trade Union Congress (ZTUC).
On February 28 1981, all these unions came together to form the ZCTU.
And during the first five years of independence, a good relationship existed between the Government and the ZCTU.
It was only after the union’s second congress in 1985 that the ZCTU began to take an increasingly confrontational position against Government.
It is important to note that the ZCTU died when it gave birth to the MDC in 1999.
In many instances, officials in ZCTU were MDC officials at the same time.
So the ZCTU was MDC and the MDC was ZCTU.
At one time, the UK also had problems with its trade unions in the 1970s.
The wage demanded by the unions were unrealistic.
When the Government failed to meet their demands, they resorted to crippling strikes.
Another tactic which had an adverse effect on production was ‘work-to-rule’, where workers were urged to do only basic requirements of a job and no more.
This led to ‘three-day weeks’.
Things came to a head during the ‘Winter of Discontent’ (1978-1979), when unions called for countrywide strikes over a Labour government’s plan to limit pay rises due to inflation.
Even the Labour Party, an ally of the unions failed to share a common vision with the labour body.
This ushered in Margret Thatcher, a Conservative leader determined to curb union power.
She succeeded.
That the Conservatives went on to retain power for the next 18 years, shows how popular Thatcher’s move was.
Thus, while trade unions are essential, they shouldn’t go to the extent of inducing people to ask the question: ‘Who governs?’
It remains the responsibility of any effective government to see to it that people are not denied essential services.