Roy Bennett and the Zimbabwe we seek

Roy Bennett and the Zimbabwe we seek

• The promise and challenge of a new Zimbabwe

• Your country needs you!

• The Obama Factor in African politics

• Zimbabwe: banana republic or casino economy?

• My Zimbabwe and my Africa

• Who really controls post-colonial Africa?

• My lessons in post-colonial injustice

• Zimbabwe on road to nowhere

• The moral vacuity of Mugabe's Obama embrace

• Bridging gap between land ownership and economic progress

• Unholy alliance forms around KMAL carcass

• Unpacking the cabinet talks stalemate

• Chanakira: the unlikely foot soldier for expropriation schemes

• A conversation on nation, nation state and nationalism

• Mbeki is victim of a culture he helped create

• Towards a new Africanm identity

• Where is Zimbabwe's Obama?

• Power sharing versus power transfer

• Business has role as change agent in Africa

• Interrogating Ownership in Africa

• Actors might change, but Zimbabwe plot stays same

• The world according to Mandela and Mugabe

• Mugabe needs incentives to reform, not sanctions

• The agenda for change post-Sharm El-Sheikh

• What is the meaning of independence?

• Has Mugabe's war bluster won it?

• Imperialism no threat to organised people

• Mugabe using language of xenophobes

• SA's BEE project intersects with xenophobia

• A Rainbow Nation without black

• A post-election conversation with Mugabe

• Doubts aside, Tsvangirai now best bet for a New Zimbabwe

• African mines remain theatres for foreign operators

• Mugabe's self-help constitutional order

• The New Zimbabwe is almost upon us

• Zimbabweans have spoken, and the message is in the detail

• Mugabe's re-election would be disaster for private enterprise

• Zimbabweans at the polls: the great debates

• Change cannot wait for Madhuku's post-election ambitions

• Voting for change in Zimbabwe

• Can an independent win in Zimbabwe? Yes he can!

• Makoni: puppet, Zanu PF agent or national hero?

• Who is behind Makoni? Please count me in!

• Obama v Billary Clinton: lessons for Africa

• If Zuma is corrupt, who isn't?

• Charamba gives civil service a very bad name

• Be the change that you want to see

• The paradox of African liberation and change

• Zimbabwe and the Jacob Zuma factor

• The EU-Africa relationship post-colonialism

• Beyond Lisbon: setting the African agenda

• Implications of Zuma winning ANC presidency

• Africa's enduring economic apartheid

• Does indigenisation threaten law of succession?

• Defining the role of the State in post-colonial Africa

• Mushore's ordeal and the Zimbabwe we want

• Does rule of law pose a threat to Africa?

• Capitalism may challenge the poor, but it gives them hope

(www.mmawere.com)
Posted to the web: 15/02/2009 23:32:37
ROY Bennett is not just another ordinary Zimbabwean. He is after all the treasurer general of MDC-T, a position he acquired through an electoral process.

His recent arrest at a defining moment in the history of the country exposes the lack of investment at independence in a social contract that would have assisted in defining the kind of Zimbabwe that people wanted to create and see.

Zimbabwe's new Prime Minister, Morgan Tsvangirai on Saturday blamed Bennett’s arrest on minor Zanu PF elements and defiant small pockets of resistance who want to destroy the country's coalition government.

Is he right in concluding that Bennett is a victim of defiant forces? To what extent is Bennett’s problems related to the colour of his skin?

The arrest is not accidental but goes a long way to highlight the unfinished business of the colonial era that regrettably was not addressed at independence. Beneath the veneer of reconciliation, President Mugabe has yet to accept that white people can be full citizens with the same rights and obligations as the majority black citizens.

When he makes the statement that “Zimbabwe will never be a colony again”, he is clear that post-colonial Zimbabwe has no obligation to white people and as such they should know their place. He simply sees Bennett as a nuisance and his presence in the senior ranks of MDC-T confirms Mugabe’s position that a party that can accommodate a person of Bennett’s background and worldview cannot be considered as a legitimate political actor.

At independence, no discussion on race and its place in post-colonial Zimbabwe took place among Zimbabweans. It was left to political actors to assimilate the few white people they deemed to be patriotic but in doing so they were clear that it was not part of the project to confer rights on white people equivalent to the rights of blacks.

By adopting a republican constitution, Zimbabweans accepted that civil rights were open to all irrespective of the past. The democratic constitutional order compelled all citizens to be afforded the same rights.

Bennett, by deciding to remain in post-colonial Zimbabwe at independence, gave his consent to be governed like any other citizens and such consent gave legitimacy to the government.

Unlike the colonial state, the post-colonial state had legitimacy in that it was a creation of all the citizens rather than a select few. All Zimbabweans expected to be treated equally under the law. Many white people who believed in Zimbabwe and its new social contract took citizenship after independence and some of them decided to engage in agricultural activities without the knowledge that their rights were perishable.

Part of the social contract at independence was that the state of Zimbabwe being a collective project was the sovereign over the land and, therefore, the true owner of all the resources. What President Mugabe may not understand is that the theory of law for real property in every country even where freehold title is applicable is that what individuals can own is not the land itself but an estate in the land, that is, a transferrable right to use and exclude others from use. Human beings die after all and, therefore, it would be nonsensical for a concept of permanency to take root in terms of land ownership. What should be critical is the access to land by all and its productive use.

At all material times, the true owner of land is the sovereign because it can make and enforce laws that restrict what one can do on one’s estate. However, the Zimbabwean constitution has been amended to treat land as a different asset class. For the past 29 years, President Mugabe has been at the helm and, therefore, had instruments at his disposal to transform the agricultural industry with minimum disruptions and a diminishing white population need not have posed a threat to an organised majority with clear thinkers at the top.

Even the power sharing agreement has recognised the irreversibility of the land reform programme and to some extent Bennett’s problems may stem from his decision to visit his former farm. By claiming that Zimbabwe will never be a colony again, President Mugabe has accepted that the right to land will be reserved for blacks that he regards as the true sons of the soil.

President Mugabe and his colleagues in Zanu PF hold the view that white people’s constitutional rights must be waived on the question of land and his decision to remain in power may be motivated by a desire to frustrate any white person who may believe that the inclusive government will change the land policy framework as well as compromise the intended indigenisation programmes.

I have no doubt that when President Mugabe learned that Bennett was MDC-T’s nominee as the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Joseph Made’s name must have been the first one to come to mind. Made has done a good job at destroying commercial agriculture and there could be no better person to counterbalance Bennett than Made in President Mugabe’s mind.

President Mugabe has not shifted in his thinking that MDC-T is a surrogate of the West and, therefore, his cabinet selection was primarily informed by this worldview. Prime Minister Tsvangirai may hold the view that Mugabe is not the problem but part of the solution but the reality is that it is unlikely that President Mugabe will change his views on citizenship and land ownership.

Bennett’s case raises more fundamental issues than the allegations of treason. To President Mugabe, any white person who believes he is a full citizen and, therefore, entitled to the same economic rights like his fellow black citizens is guilty of treason.

It is obvious that President Mugabe believes that the votes garnered by MDC-T do not reflect the genuine will of the people of Zimbabwe. Rather, it reflects the manipulation of the West through the use of financial resources as well as the sanctions regime. Bennett has been credited for raising funds for the election and it will take sometime for President Mugabe to forgive him for what he regards as the execution of an almost successful regime change project.

At the core of Bennett’s problems is that he has refused to be cowed down. He remains defiant and he recognises that without a change of policies, it is unlikely that Zimbabwe’s future is secure.

Bennett’s case is a test case and the mere fact that his arrest has dominated the airwaves goes a long to show that the credibility of the inclusive government is on the line. It is unlikely that sanctions will be lifted if senior politicians of MDC-T continue to be harassed.

The change that people can believe in will be evident when the state ceases to be an agent of oppression. Through democratic means, the MDC-T is now part of the government and to the extent that Bennett is a nominee to join the very government that he is now alleged to be trying to overthrow through unlawful means is laughable to say the least.

If it were someone other than Bennett then it would be believable. Bennett was one of the advocates for proceeding with the inclusive government and yet finds himself accused of undermining it.

There is no doubt that President Mugabe will try to prevail on Tsvangirai to distance himself from Bennett. he problem of Bennett cannot be blamed on junior officers when it is accepted that President Mugabe is yet to be convinced that his administration’s failure to deliver was a consequence of bad policies.

President Mugabe will no doubt take the position that as the Executive, they cannot and should not be seen to be interfering with Bennett’s matter and this should be left to the judiciary and he was not responsible for arresting him.

He will no doubt make the point at the first cabinet meeting that the separation of powers doctrine should be the guiding principle. It is unlikely that he will be persuaded to change his mind and seek to do the right thing for the country by releasing Bennett so that he can focus on the peoples’ agenda.

The assault on Bennett is no different from the treatment that some of us have been subjected to. We have no choice but to follow the Bennett matter with concern and interest. Its resolution will have a material bearing on the credibility of the government as well as in inspiring confidence.

President Mugabe believes that people opposed to Zanu PF are automatically enemies of the state. It is important that with the advent of the inclusive government a distinction be made between the state and political parties. Without such distinction, the future is less secure. President Mugabe must know what time it is and surely it is time to advance the interests of Zimbabwe rather than protect and promote partisan agendas using the state.

Mutumwa Mawere's weekly column is published on New Zimbabwe.com every Monday. You can contact him at: mmawere@global.co.za
JOIN THE DEBATE ON THIS ARTICLE ON THE NEWZIMBABWE.COM FORUMS
newsdesk@newzimbabwe.com