THE adage “Murume Chaiiye” never meant more to me until I read Nathaniel Manheru’s article titled “Sibanda: Exorcising the Heresy of Matabeleland” in the Saturday Herald, August 28, 2010, because for the first time in Zimbabwe, a Shona man, decided to stand up and be counted.

That article gave voice to whispers, the desires, and the anger of the majority of the Shona people over the elephant in the room, which are the tribal tensions and contradictions between Shonas and Ndebeles.

For all its sins, the inclusive government has provided for us lesser mortals who, under normal circumstances would have never had the opportunity to engage and debate Nathaniel Manheru, the opportunity to do so.

This time in the corridors of the Comesa Summit in Swaziland, perhaps mellowed by the Reed Dance, I engaged in some debate where the opportunity to respond to Manheru’s article was offered in the spirit of healthy debate, and I very excitedly took it.

The very fact that Manheru in his own words “took the gloves off” over this ethnic issue, has succeeded in ensuring that this silent debate makes it to the public spaces of this country.

Titled “Sibanda: Exorcising the Heresy of Matabeleland” Manheru cleverly sought to hide his fundamental message by simply raising his usual MDC-Zanu PF dichotomy.

However, for some of us, born of a Ndebele mother, a Karanga father and 15 years of marriage to a Zezuru husband, whose friends where the cream de la cream of the Zezuru community I had countless opportunities to eavesdrop on Zezuru conversations.

In short, Manheru basically challenged the notion that — “to succeed politically in Zimbabwe, at this time of our history, one needs to work around the Ndebele and walk around them as if they were eggs”.

To buttress his points, Manheru used the commonly-made arguments that Shona men in particular, and political parties with Shona leadership believe and act upon.

The following are the arguments that Manheru put out: Firstly, while there have been contestations over the issue of National Heroes, in particular over people like Ndabaningi Sithole, most recently even Susan Tsvangirai, Manheru has never been so moved to respond to those contestations in the manner he did over the late Gibson Sibanda.

The tribal attack on the fact that our party had assumed or tried to blackmail Zanu-PF in giving Gibson Sibanda hero status because he is Ndebele, interestingly raises the point that at no stage should a Ndebele be given a political position even in death without that position being linked to where they come from.

As a result no such debates have emanated from those periods in which the national hero status of a person, outside Matabeleland is in contestation.

It would be interesting, however, to know what ethnic dynamics came out of Politburo consultations, assuming that they did take place, i.e how many persons of Shona descent were against Sibanda being accorded the national hero status and how many of the Ndebele were for it.

That Manheru, is why you cannot wish away the social construct that is called Matabeleland because the issue of representativeness of a particular tribe in any institution, by nature becomes political, so it is possible to scientifically prove that a region called Matabeleland does in fact exist and that in fact, the Ndebele are a minority both demographically and by representation

It is interesting that for one who so passionately speaks about racial issues, in which the issue of white domination over blacks from time immemorial, been understood to mean simply “are you black or are you white”, where no reference is expected on whether that black means African-American, Zulu, Chewa, Tswana or Nigerian’.

When we speak at the United Nations, we speak of Blacks versus Whites, when we speak in Zimbabwe about indigenisation, we speak simply of black versus white, when you now speak Manheru, you now seek to create a homogenous Zimbabwean by insisting that even within the Shona there are minorities i.e. that those people in Dande should be understood to be minorities within the Shona and therefore the peculiarities of the minority Ndebele are no different from the peculiarities of the minority Shonas.

For example, in the Gender discourse, feminists are labelled elitist and home-wreckers, in the racial equity discourse, even worse names have been given to black people that stand up against white domination and white supremacy.

Which is why, it is not surprising that Manheru, in his article, seeks to label anyone who has spoken or has potential to speak against this tribal domination in one way or the other i.e. "Mutambara is trying to save his political life", "Professor Welshman Ncube is trying to campaign" and "Morgan Tsvangirai is trying to save his dwindling fortunes in Matabeleland".

It is not by coincidence that Manheru’s article coincided with the media debate on Professor Welshman Ncube and his potential run for presidency.

The theme that runs through these arguments is that ‘‘for a party to have a Ndebele president is to seek to only attract the Ndebele vote’’, in other words, the assertion being made is that no Ndebele person could ever have any form of political appeal to Shona people.

This is despite 20 years, where presidential candidates of Shona descent have had their largest votes from Matabeleland. That Manheru is the arrogance from the majority tribe.

Manheru, it is not a coincidence that structurally, all the major political parties, in particular, those represented in the inclusive Government, have deputy presidents and national chairmen who come from Matabeleland.

In fact, the cause of the MDC split, was the perception that in the united MDC, not only was the top leadership represented by too many Ndebeles but that those Ndebeles occupied positions traditionally reserved for Shonas.

It is also not coincidental that immediately after the split at its congress, MDC-T, reserved or rather reversed that issue and went back to giving the people of Matabeleland positions in the same manner as Zanu PF has allocated.

Which is why at a social level you, can count the number of sixth form schools in Matabeleland, why the biggest hospital in Matabeleland UBH — with the same status as Parirenyatwa Hospital in Harare, does not even begin to match some of the Mashonaland provincial hospitals.

If you were to participate in the current Copac Outreach Programmes you would understand the differences, in terms of priorities that are coming from Matabeleland.

For example, the principle of devolution in Matabeleland is expressed by their anger against the fact that the majority of teachers in Matabeleland are Shona-speaking, that an old grandmother when she is attending a clinic cannot express her illness in her own language and can, therefore, get a wrong diagnosis because healthcare officials are predominantly Shona, that the policemen at every roadblock even as far as Tsholotsho and Lupane think it is okay to call you “Ambuya” and not “Mamzala” — again the list is endless Manheru.

For some of us, who have hated Manheru’s column, we never thought we would come to a point where we would applaud him for taking the bull by its horns.

However, for all the pain he has caused me, his comeback will make sense if it can begin to provide a forum for real debate for some of the difficult discussions that I personally have lived through between my late mother and late uncle — Canaan Banana, who was president at a difficult time in ethnic relations in this country and whose position, created tensions both at a national level and within the family.

I, therefore, salute Manheru for his honesty and hope that my response creates more opportunities for a progressive public debate over an issue which if not dealt with publicly and openly, will fester like a wound and create more problems.

Priscilla Misihairabwi is the Minister of Regional Integration and International Cooperation. She is also the deputy secretary general of the MDC led by Arthur Mutambara