05.07.2000

Worker-peasant alliance

International Socialist tendency's first MP Munyaradzi Gwisai, a member of the International Socialist Organisation Zimbabwe, sister organisation of the Socialist Workers Party, has just been elected to the Harare parliament. Peter Manson spoke to him for the Weekly Worker

Congratulation, comrade. Can I begin by asking you what kind of campaign the ISO ran?

The International Socialist Organisation is affiliated to the Movement for Democratic Change and we ran the campaign in Harare's Highfield constituency under the MDC umbrella. However, we were able to put forward our own platform, although there were MDC leaflets and posters.

The programme we stood on rejected the free market approach as the way forward - the approach put forward by the MDC leadership and implemented by the Zanu-PF government. It called for a national minimum wage linked to the inflation rate and for a labour act guaranteeing the right to strike, with the same rights for government and private sector workers, to be overseen by a strong labour court. We also called for maternity rights on full pay for women.

We demanded the introduction of price controls and subsidies, and an end to privatisation. The programme also called for the seizure of commercial farms without compensation and the giving of land to the peasants. It contained the demand for state funding for education and health, summed up by the slogan, 'Tax the rich to fund the poor and the workers'. We called for the cancellation of the foreign debt.

Then there was the call for workers' control of the MDC itself - the party has shifted to the right. Finally we called for workers' power and socialism. Our posters proclaimed: "Power to the workers and the poor - for workers' power and socialism!"

Were there other 'worker MPs' elected?

There were nine or so out of the 57 MDC MPs who come from a trade union background or were workers, but we were the only ones who issued an independent platform. The vast majority were middle class academics, lawyers or other professionals. There were also some business people and one or two farmers. But mostly they are petty bourgeois - this class composition is a very worrying situation.

Presumably this reflects the balance on the leadership?

Trade unionists make up only about a third of the national leadership, reflecting the bourgeois and petty bourgeois dominance. White bosses and white professionals are playing an increasingly important role, which will create problems for workers in the party.

This situation seems very unstable. Surely this cross-class alliance cannot last long?

I don't think the conflict will be immediate. Workers feel good about the elections, but the MDC did not win and so the pressure to deliver will not be so high.

Mugabe has been sounding conciliatory the last few days, but we are likely to see an increase in the attacks on the working class early next year. The economy is bad and the black market is strengthening. The worsening conditions are likely to bring the government into conflict with the workers and quite possibly we are going to see spontaneous working class struggles, particularly over the labour bill, which prohibits stayaways and general strikes. The Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions is demanding a national minimum wage and the right to strike - the kind of things we were putting forward in our programme.

This situation will bring to the fore the inherent class contradictions in the party. The MDC has an anti-peasant programme - it is not in favour of far-going land redistribution. Land is the only card Mugabe has. He will want to continue with some kind of direct redistribution, while the MDC says that it should be based on a commission of 'experts' and that the peasants should move off the land they have occupied.

So something is bound to happen unless the party moves to the left, which is looking increasingly unlikely.

So what are you working to achieve within the MDC and what do you think will be the outcome?

As disillusionment sets in, the seeds of conflict will be there, but it is difficult to say what will happen. There will be presidential elections in 2002, which will tend to hold the party together. It is important for us to be closer to the working class in the key towns. The danger had been that we would remain on the sidelines. Our main reason for working in the MDC was to stay relevant and grow from there. We are a small group, but we hope to influence events where we are organised.

It all depends on the class struggle. If it intensifies, our role will come under the spotlight. It is possible that the working class will reassert its influence over the party, but we are under no illusions - there will be conflict between our section and the whole party.

However, we are clear about the imperative of building a revolutionary alternative. And now we have major opportunities to use the MDC.

So will you be looking to split the MDC?

It will depend on the nature of the conflict. Workers must build their factions, especially in the two major provinces where they have the most influence. Morgan Tsvangirai, the MDC leader, has moved to the right, but he remains the most popular figure for the working class.

I can't say at this stage what we're going to do - everything is very uncertain and unclear. We are still small and we need to build our influence. But I know that major conflict will arise between myself and the other MPs.

You have given a clear indication of the class composition of the MDC, but what about Mugabe's party, Zanu-PF?

It is a bourgeois party dominated by the black bourgeoisie with a very strong nationalist orientation. While the black bourgeoisie controls the party, they are also struggling to retain their peasant base.

There is of course some common ground between the MDC and Zanu-PF. They are both for cooperation with international capital, but western governments have a much stronger influence over the MDC than over Zanu-PF. However, the MDC's base is working class. What remains unclear is how this working class base will interact with the middle class with its strong orientation towards international capital.

In fact Mugabe himself reflects the old Zanu-PF with its Stalinist influence. But his peasant base is becoming more and more marginalised within a bourgeois party and is not reflected in the majority of the Zanu-PF parliamentary group. So there will be a struggle for domination within both parties and a cross-party alliance could emerge in parliament.

Some 'revolutionaries' in countries like Britain note that the MDC leadership appears more amenable than Zanu-PF to the west at present and say that Mugabe should be supported because he is an anti-imperialist. What do you say to them?

The orientation of revolutionaries ought to be towards the working class. The class struggle should determine our position. It is very superficial to say that just because Mugabe has assumed certain anti-British and anti-imperialist positions we should support him when he has been guilty of many anti-working class actions. The role of the international revolutionary movement must be to support an independent working class base.

Yes, the MDC is in alliance with international capital (while seeking the best position for itself). But we have condemned Zanu-PF too for its collaboration with international capital. Zanu-PF is committed to privatisation, and Mugabe's last piece of legislation was the labour bill prohibiting stayaways and general strikes. His so-called 'movement to the left' has been driven by motives of keeping power.

The MDC's form is clearly pro-west. But in terms of content, the interests of its base run contrary to the aims of the leadership.

What is your position on the land question?

Our position is very clear. Mugabe has realised that land is now the key. In 1997 there were land invasions in Matabeleland, and he knew that this would be a major potential issue around the elections.

Contrary to the views expressed in the Weekly Worker, we support the seizure of the commercial farms without compensation. We appreciate your critique of our international tendency and of Cliff, and you have made some very good points on Zimbabwe. But you are wrong on this issue. Once the land seizures started, it was imperative for the working class to support the struggle of the peasants.

The peasants should distribute the land in an orderly way - to both men and women - and farmworkers should also get a share of the land. We support the establishment of farmworkers' cooperatives, including peasants who desire to be there. Democratically run state farms are also a possibility.

We need to build up a worker-peasant alliance. In order to win peasant support for the working class base of the MDC, the party must call for land redistribution. Despite the rhetoric, Mugabe is only going for around 40% of the commercial farm land - four million hectares out of about 11 million. He is going to leave the core of white commercial farming intact. He was doing it to get votes.

It seemed to us that the land seizures were purely a Zanu-PF stunt.

Even if that was true, we still need to back them. The peasants voted for Zanu-PF because of the land question, and they are still moving into new farms. Mugabe might have given the occupations a kick-start, but that was in response to a clear demand from the poor peasants. Now he is going to have major difficulties, as the momentum has gone far beyond his subjective control.

Your paper said it was a cynical move. Yes, but as a party the MDC had nothing to lose by supporting the seizures, even if they were started by Zanu-PF. In some areas the peasants are now doing shifts on the farms - they must do two shifts a week if they want to remain.

It was the mass strikes and demonstrations that encouraged the peasants to seize the land in 1997. If there is a spontaneous working class revolt over the next few months, there is a real possibility that it could end up linking up with the peasantry. This is our most urgent task - there is the problem of disillusionment, and workers and peasants being bought off.

The working class must demand its share of the wealth it has created. And for that we need class war, not class collaboration. The only class collaboration we support is between the workers and the peasants.