A touch is a move, or is it?

Growing up we used to play a game called "draft" which was the closest substitute to the then elitist chess.

One of the golden rules of that game was that  “touch is a move”. This principle was adopted to ensure fairness. Each player was allowed to one move at a turn after calculating all possible scenarios. These preconditions meant each move had to be preceded by a clear understanding of implications towards winning or losing the game.

The rule was also punishment to those that misjudge and miscalculate their moves. Another rule was that if one plays wrongly their opponent will have an opportunity to punish them and have an extra chance to play, a scornful "good move".

Looking at the political dispensation today I am wondering whether the touch is a move applies especially now when everyone is either doubtful or convinced of the MDC's move of wanting to disengage from government after participating in the harmonised elections which they lost- rigged or otherwise.

The MDC has made an official announcement that they are regarding the recently held election as null and void- meaning their touch was not a move.

Going by what is circulating, news or opinions, it appears that the MDC had prior intelligence that the election was not going to be free and fair but they still went on to participate.

What then baffles anyone who cares to think differently is why did MDC participate convinced that it was going to be rigged- why make a touch and then decide not to move?

Maybe they considered a counter premise that one cannot judge the fairness of a fight without getting into the ring to fight it out. If so what gains then come from one getting into a ring with a monster fully aware that it would eat them up without even standing a chance?

Would it have been naivety on the part of the MDC that they thought ZANU PF wouldn't turn up to be the monster that they feared it to be all these years given the "intimate" relationship they had within the inclusive government?

Is it not wishful thinking that ZANU PF would at this 9th hour of their life (as symbolised by their candidate), participate in an election in which they knew would not usher victory?

The MDC should have known the opponent that they were dealing with- I think they did but the bravado of pending victory blinded them to think strategically.

The years of working together with ZANU PF should have taught them something- the COPAC experience, the outstanding reforms, the disregard of the office of prime minister, the constitutional court, the ZEC...are all pointers to what ZANU PF is capable of doing.

Or was it an issue of confidence that most people where fully behind them because they give all credit of the stability we enjoyed to MDC and rationally they will "vote for more".

The MDC has been a fierce opponent to ZANU for the last decade and it knows more than anyone that ZANU PF can adopt, create or reinvent any strategy necessary to win an election and gain "legitimacy" to rule.

You could sense it by the silence that befell the announcements of the election results that the country was mourning but unfortunately the collective emotions alone will not change the principle of a touch is a move.

MDC had an opportunity to play the offensive, they were right to demand for the voters roll before elections, they were tactful to demand reforms before the elections and they made sense to request extension of voter registration and postponement of the election. Unfortunately they still fell to the trappings- they made the touch and move.

Some feel that it was difficult to withdraw from the election given that people wanted to strongly participate and dislodge the regime.

It's fair to think so but then the dictates of strategic leadership demands that one thinks beyond the seemingly obvious.

MDC had an opportunity to sway public opinion and influence everyone to understand that they were not going to win this election under the prevailing conditions (isn't this what they are currently doing albeit a little too late-for a touch is a move).

If you ask me, people were prepared to have a prolonged inclusive government than to out rightly give power to ZANU PF as what happened in this harmonised election.

MDC had to cast its eye in the view mirror and remember how in 2008 they were supposed to assume power only to be matched by an unwanted but violent regime that changed a peaceful environment in March into an anarchy by June of the same year, all in the name of gaining political power.

We can mistake ZANU PF for anything else but not for its style of leading by polls. They will play to the gallery on anything else not elections and winning political power. Let's remember that in each passing year these guys would claim that they will go for elections even when all other indications showed otherwise- simply they had to make sure their structures remained active for the obvious.

It appears that in the false luxury of the inclusive government the MDC snoozed and forgot that there will come a time that they were supposed to make a move and that a wrong move would change fortunes.

Now can  we say a touch is not a move when SADC and the region is endorsing this election, when all we can gather as evidence is almost subjective now in retrospect, when on election day we were bubbling of an eminent victory?

As painful as it is, we have touched  and now is time to prepare ourselves into life after ZANU PF's "punishment plus good move".

Gains have been sold cheap by participating in a flawed process especially if we continue to pin our arguments on "we knew this and that" for if we knew why did we make the touch and then decide it's not a move when we should know "a touch is a move!".