Pachipamwe. I trust this finds you well. Last week, we took a slight detour to commemorate the second anniversary of the Global Political Agreement (GPA) which forms the basis of the current coalition government. Today, I focus on an issue that interests a number of those in the Diaspora.

Now, this is a matter that I have previously addressed elsewhere and it is not necessary to regurgitate the same here save to state that using the enabling power provided for under the current Constitution parliament has indeed made provisions under the Citizenship Act, prohibiting dual citizenship. Note that contrary to common belief, the Constitution itself does not prohibit dual citizenship. It simply gives an enabling power to Parliament to do so by law if it so wishes, which it has done. An amendment passed in 2001, required holders of dual citizenship to renounce their foreign citizenship within a specified period failing which they would lose their Zimbabwe citizenship.

It easy to see why foreign-based Zimbabweans worry about the exclusionary effect of the current provisions. By taking citizenship of the country in which one is settled, he risks losing Zimbabwean citizenship. Most who would oppose dual citizenship cannot understand why someone would be eager to take foreign citizenship if he so covets his Zimbabwean citizenship. What is often overlooked is that in dealing with the issue of citizenship one has to balance competing interests: on the one hand, their desire to maintain their Zimbabwean citizenship for whatever reason and on the other hand, the imperatives of their host country which could mean that gaining citizenship rights brings with it certain advantages.

In any event, Zimbabwe does not lose more economically by reason of that person gaining new citizenship – indeed, the country might benefit from that foreign-based person’s exploitation of opportunities from a more stable platform. Taking up foreign citizenship is usually not an abandonment of one’s identity or heritage and certainly does not signal lack of loyalty and commitment to the home country. In many cases, it is simply a necessary accessory to one’s economic adventure in foreign lands.

I do not wish to dwell much on the pros and cons of dual citizenship, the arguments of which are now commonplace. I wish, however, to add to the debate an historical perspective of the contestation over dual citizenship which could possibly open some avenues to resolution of this vexing issue. It might shed some light on the oppositional attitude by some elements in government and highlight to those contesting it that perhaps their attitude is now misplaced given the present character of the Diaspora and changed circumstances.

I blame our curriculum and the hands that designed it for failing to cover key aspects of national history from an objective standpoint so that few among us actually have an appreciation of even our more recent circumstances. Due to this poor exposure, when we encounter phenomena nowadays, we think it’s new when in reality, it is not. Dual citizenship is one such issue. The contestation over dual citizenship presently is no more than a repeat of what transpired in the transition from Rhodesia to Zimbabwe and the immediate aftermath of independence. An understanding of the leadership’s attitude towards dual citizenship then may help to explain the attitude to wards the same in the current period because that leadership has not changed and so has its mindset.

You see, we are faced here with a leadership whose world-view regarding dual citizenship is shaped by the colonial constructions of citizenship. The colonial construct of citizenship towards Africans was exclusionary and elitist. Education, training, employment were among certain qualifications necessary for the African to attain full citizenship, including the ultimate expression of personhood in the state, namely the right to vote. Through organisations such as the multi-racial Capricorn Africa Society, some of those still in leadership fought to change these colonial constructs of citizenship. Those efforts were in vain hence he resort to nationalist politics and the armed struggle.

Independence in 1980 provided an opportunity to create a new construct of citizenship and this much was influenced by events at Lancaster the Lancaster House Constitutional Conference in 1979 (“Lancaster”). The issue of dual citizenship featured prominently in the package of rights deemed necessary by the British government for the protection of the minorities. Plurality of citizenship had been recognised since the 1949 Citizenship Act. And laws passed in 1978, towards the tail end of the war, also made guarantees for dual citizenship. The provisions agreed at Lancaster guaranteed automatic citizenship to all settlers, including those who had come in after the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (“UDI”) in 1965. Dual citizenship was permitted indefinitely.

Not surprisingly, the reaction by the Patriotic Front to these rights was decidedly hostile. They saw these as special privileges for the white minority that was soon to lose power. The justification that the provision for dual citizenship was a confidence-building measure necessary to retain white skills to help the new Zimbabwe state may have made sense but right from the start dual citizenship was seen by the new leadership as a ‘white’ issue. That attitude, it seems to me, has hardly changed, notwithstanding the reality that the racial profile of those demanding dual citizenship presently has changed fundamentally.  The Patriotic Front eventually succumbed and agreed to these provisions but with hindsight, only on a tactical basis, knowing they wanted take power first and they could always change the laws upon gaining control of the state.

And this is exactly what happened just two years after independence. In 1982, a constitutional amendment ensured that the Constitution became silent on the issue of dual citizenship, where it had been specifically protected. Parliament had the residual power to regulate citizenship and this it did two years later under the 1984 amendment to the Citizenship Act. This, in effect, was the post-independence challenge to the notion of dual citizenship, which was criticised by the new government as representing lack of loyalty and commitment to the new state. The contention was that one must show allegiance to the new state and that dual citizenship demonstrated split loyalties.

These challenges were informed by suspicion and mistrust of the times. These were people coming out of a bitter war; the white minority may have lost political power but they still held much leverage in other sectors including technologies of the state and economy so there was a level of insecurity (and perhaps, paranoia) on the part of those newly arrived to stations of power. The sabotage at Thornhill Airbase in Gweru and destabilisation from Apartheid South Africa did not help matters. The result was the law that required dual citizenship holders to publicly renounce their foreign citizenship.

The problem of course is that renunciation under Zimbabwean law was largely symbolic since there was no compulsion to renounce the citizenship under the laws of the foreign country. Anyhow, given the politics of the times, getting thousands of white people queuing up to perform the charade was new government’s way of asserting itself against those whose loyalty it was demanding.

Years later in 2000, after ZANU PF’s sternest political challenge emerged in the form of the MDC and the apparent allegiance towards that party shown by the white minority (who had largely remained outside mainstream politics) the issue of dual citizenship was revived. Again we notice that it was raised in the context of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme, when white farmers were being forced off their farms and those whom it affected most would be whites, it was yet again represented as a ‘white’ issue.

A new amendment to the Citizenship Act in 2001, sought to do what the 1984 had failed, that is, to force any person holding dual citizenship to renounce his foreign citizenship in accordance with the laws of the foreign country and to make a declaration of renunciation within a specified period. Although this affected the white minority it also had collateral effect on the farm and mine workers of Malawian, Zambian and Mozambican origin. It also affected people of Asian origin and those of mixed race. The cabinet realised the problems and directed that those with merely a potential right to (but did not actually hold) foreign citizenship need not renounce – later formalised by legal amendment to the Citizenship Act. Judith Todd, author and human rights campaigner fought a protracted legal battle against the new rules.

• First, the contestation over dual citizenship in Zimbabwe is not new but has a longstanding history. 

• Second, the issue of dual citizenship has always been seen as a ‘white’ issue, namely, appertaining to interests of the white minority who allegedly have split loyalties between old Empire and the Zimbabwe state.

• Third, therefore, like most things, dual citizenship is probably perceived as an instrument of Empire and part of the colonial edifice that must be fought to the end.

• Fourth, it matters that the generation of leaders that opposed dual citizenship then are still in charge and, it seems, their world-view and attitude towards the same has hardly changed.

• Fifth, their attitude to dual citizenship was informed by the politics of the times, which was quite racialised and tainted by the suspicion and bitterness arising from the colonial denial of full citizenship to Africans and insecurities over divided loyalty. 

• Sixth, loyalty and commitment are the two key values informing the construction of citizenship in the post-independence era. So dominant are they that everything else attaching to citizenship pales into insignificance.

In my view, it is necessary for the Zimbabwean state to reconsider its attitude and views on dual citizenship. However justifiable their views may have been towards dual citizenship, it’s important to acknowledge the changes in circumstances. The Diaspora is not a security threat but an opportunity. Most other countries are trying to court their sons and daughters; indeed, many of the economically advanced and advancing nations recognise the value of their citizens, local or foreign-born.  I cannot see how Zimbabwe loses anything by simply recognising its foreign-based human capital. The commonly held suspicion that those in the Diaspora are likely to vote for one party and not the other is misplaced and presumptuous.

But the Diaspora itself must also be pro-active in advocating for their rights. The trouble is that the Diaspora is often hamstrung by lethargy. They scream and complain bitterly in internet chat-rooms, discussion boards, etc but call for a face to face meeting to advance a cause, few are forthcoming. No wonder they say people get the result they deserve. If you are in London and can spare a moment, colleagues in the Zimbabwe Diaspora Development Interface  (www.zimdiasporainterface.org) are hosting a constitutional conference on 2nd October 2010, to help gather views for onward submission to the constitutional reform process in Zimbabwe.

Be the change that you want to see – excuse the cliché, but I can’t help it.

Till next week …

Siyabonga, Tatenda