The supremacy of the individual over tribe

The supremacy of the individual over tribe

By Dr Alex Magaisa

OFT-TIMES I prefer to steer clear of debates on issues regarding tribalism.

First, participants have a predilection toward generalisations. Second, in many cases there is over-reliance on anecdotal evidence, which informs diametrically opposed perceptions that are often difficult to reconcile. Third, the debate is usually fraught with emotional conflicts and all too often reason gives way to wild emotional and sometimes physical clashes.

It is a vicious cycle that leaves everyone wounded and without making much change. But I am compelled to make a contribution in response to and complement Ms Khanyisela Moyo’s initiative published early this week. I admire her bravery in taking bold position on this difficult matter and sharing it for debate in the public domain.

In my opinion however, framing the issue of underdevelopment and marginalisation of a group of people or region on the basis of tribal distinctions is to a certain extent, problematic. Instead, I contend that the preferable way of advancing freedom and development is to place the individual person at the centre. In other words, I advocate a paradigm that seeks the advancement of individual freedom without basing claims or rights on any other index.

The individual herself is supreme and does not need any supporting index to justify her rights. While there is something to be said about using the tool of group rights – such as basing claims on gender, race, tribe, religious beliefs, etc, there is a danger that within that milieu of group rights, the individual is often stifled and restricted. Put another way, the individual becomes subservient to the group and if the individual deviates from the group he or she is often labelled a rebel and misguided. In order to survive, he or she has to tow the line of the group. For that reason alone, I much prefer an approach that predicates claims around the individual, regardless of any index of affiliation. I am sure those who share this view do so not in order to dismiss tribal identities, which remain useful for other purposes, but because we believe that there is no need to go beyond the individual in claiming specific rights.

In addition, my scepticism regarding the generally applied “Ndebele-Shona” distinction arises from the generalisations that follow and the suppression of the individual in the process. First, there is an assumption often based on nostalgia that there are homogenous and untainted groups so-called Shona and Ndebele. This may have been so during a particular historical period but it is a view that totally ignores the intermixing that has taken place over time. The historical dynamics are not taken into account by purists who privilege the tribe as an index of claiming rights. Secondly, it often comes down to two results: on one hand the Shona are bad and oppressive while the Ndebele are victims of a Shona conspiracy. On the other hand the Ndebele are cry babies with selective memory of history and the Shona are also victims. These opposed views are taken by one who chooses to identify himself within either of the generalised groups and depending on which version of history you wish to take. So in the end there is a vicious cycle of accusations and counter-accusations, with no solution in sight.

"I advocate a paradigm that seeks the advancement of individual freedom without basing claims or rights on any other index"

DR ALEX MAGAISA

The difficulty with this dichotomy is that it assumes that there is homogeneity within each exclusive and specially constructed tribal group. In other words it ignores that there are some rogues who hide within the “Ndebeles are victims” view thereby weakening the cause of the many innocent souls who have suffered for years – especially because it is well known that the ruling elite and business community includes people from Matebeleland who are personally benefiting from the system. On the other hand the “Shonas are oppressive” view lumps the innocent souls within that sub-group together with the rogues who have undermined the country. This is why generalisations based on anecdotal evidence are misleading and it is necessary to carry out independent scientific research to understand and appreciate, for example the patterns of under-development in Zimbabwe. It may show, for instance, that the problem is that the individual is the centre of oppression and that far more than tribe, it is the class distinctions that dominate the inequitable situation in Zimbabwe. It is a class struggle more than it is a tribal one.

That to my mind is the key point of struggles – the dominance of one class of people over another. Ultimately, race, tribe, gender, etc are convenient indices over which people fight but by and large it is the privileges that one class enjoys over another that sparks the problems. The liberation struggle was fought not simply on the basis of race or tribe – the class struggle was very much at the centre. Tribal issues did creep in from time to time when opportunists chose but when for example, the liberation forces had to negotiate at Lancaster, they found it better to do so as a bloc representing the class of the oppressed, many of whom happened to be black Africans. They did not do so on the basis of tribe, though of course others had sinister ideas, which they exploited soon after the conference in order to claim routes to power. I think Ms Moyo is being unfair to Dr Nkomo when she insinuates that he was imprudent not to negotiate a deal for the Ndebele – to his mind and history shows it, Nkomo was a national leader whose constituency was Zimbabwe, not Matabeleland alone. Honoured posthumously and correctly as Father Zimbabwe, Umdala Wethu may have been duped later but that is hardly his fault because he was acting for the common good. Arguably, for opportunists tribe was just a convenient way of achieving certain immediate selfish goals. But I am not sure if it is right for the one who is oppressed on the grounds of tribe, to also make claims based on tribe when clearly the very cause of one’s own predicament is that same erroneous index of reasoning. The fact that some people exploited tribal constructions to pursue their own agenda should be a reason for us to also pursue claims on that basis.

Arguably therefore, the problem in Zimbabwe could be framed as a dialectic relationship between the dominant and the subordinated class of people. It is an argument I have used in respect of a clash of knowledge and cultural systems at the advent of colonialism. In this particular context, the dominant claims positional superiority over the other, which is marginalised. But the marginalised continues to fight for its place while the dominant tries to preserve its position. Observing events in Zimbabwe it is clear that over the course of history, the dominant and subordinated can be defined in many ways depending on one’s choice of perspective. In the current context, the dominant – subordinate is not necessarily one tribe or race over the other because there are commonalities in the suffering of people. The state is the dominant force and the individual is subordinated. In his quest for individual freedom, Strive Masiyiwa received more support from late great Umdala Wethu than he ever got from his counterparts from Mashonaland. He has flourished ever since – for me a triumph of the quest for individual rights. I cannot even imagine his fate had Nkomo chosen to play the tribal card and dismissed him as a Shona oppressor.

It is the fight for the individual that is most paramount because even if Zimbabwe were divided into small fiefdoms, there is no guarantee that the individual would be free. The distinction between Ndebele-Shona by itself stifles other sub-groups whose claims to exclusive identity would also need to be respected. What is needed is a constitution that protects individual rights without reservation and without distinction and the capacity of the people to enforce their rights. Indeed, the Constitution could be structured in a way that promotes representative government.

Finally, I think one of the problems that causes the tribal issue to crop up from time to time is that there has been intolerance and a failure to understand the plight and concerns of each other. In my view, those often referred to generally as the Shona have probably not shown a genuine disposition toward understanding the plight of the people in Matabeleland both during and after the Gukurahundi. The Ndebele have taken the fleeting acknowledgements and what appears to be a generally dismissive attitude as disrespectful. I often say to Shona colleagues who complain about racism and other forms of discrimination, and the failure by people who do not suffer the same limitations to understand their plight that that is exactly the same position the victims of the Matabeleland massacres and marginalisation feel toward them.

On the other hand, some of the Ndebele people have taken a blanket approach toward the Shona, labelling all of them as oppressors and beneficiaries of an unfair regime. They tend to cast blanket blame anyone categorised as Shona for Gukurahundi and marginalisation. The Shona take this is unfair and indiscriminate labelling and accusation because they do not accept responsibility for the transgressions of the government. They also claim to be victims of the same government. There are people for example who in the early eighties supported Muzorewa, Sithole who suffered at the hands of the state and ruling party and today are labelled as the oppressive Shona, which may seem unfair. Thus it is a cyclical debate, one with no end. In my view, even if valid to some point, in both cases there is lack of tolerance for the individual. The group is privileged above the individual with the result that in each case the individual suffers for the plight of being lumped with everyone else.

There can be no total freedom and development for the people of Zimbabwe unless we move away from this tribal dichotomy and define the struggle squarely within the paradigm that privileges the individual, regardless of his race, tribe, gender, etc. In most developed nations of the world in most cases the individual is supreme. Our struggle should rest squarely on that but that is not to say that other problems should not be resolved.

Dr Magaisa is a lawyer and can be contacted at wamagaisa@yahoo.co.uk
JOIN THE DEBATE ON THIS ARTICLE ON THE NEWZIMBABWE.COM FORUMS
debate@newzimbabwe.com