The 'people'

The 'people'

RECENT OPINION ARTICLES

• Our collective hatred for one another would burn Zanu PF

• The flies in Mutambara's hands

• Nyarota has selective memory

• IMF contributes to Zimbabwe's hyperinflation

• Let's fight the common enemy

• Mutambara might be his own threat

• Why we must get off Mbeki's case

• Is Zimbabwe a failed State?

• Economic reform impossible under Zanu PF

• I'm not a political robot for politicians

• Of idolism, cult status and African politics

• Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf election: what it means for Africa

• Non-resident Zimbabweans part of the solution too!

• Martin Luther King: lessons for Zimbabwe

• Why we are at where we are.....

• Silencing Silence Chihuri

• A leader who thrives among raw talent and flourishes in dull environs

• Reporting MacDonald

• Zimbabwe and software development

• Where is our Mandela?

• The myth of mass action in emerging democracies

• Sadc and human rights - bridging credibility gap

• A tribute to Rosa Parks

By Msekiwa Makwanya

A LOT of things in this world have been said and done in the name of the ‘people’ but who exactly are the ‘people’ and who are not the ‘people’?

Once in a while, we hear of the ‘people power’ and now the debate in the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) centers around who is coming from the people: Arthur G.O Mutambara or Morgan Tsvangirai?

So who defines the ‘people’ and who should speak for these ‘people’?

The common sense view that has been presented by those who claim to champion the ‘people’s cause' is that the down trodden or the less privileged and less educated and in short those in the high density areas such as Mbare, Mzilikazi and the rural people in Chomuruvate and Bulilima-Mangwe are the people.

The only problem with this discursive strategy is essentialism, which is the belief that people and/or phenomenon have properties that are essential to what they are. The poor in this case will always be with us in this understanding of the ‘people’ being- the poor and the down trodden, but what happens when up the social ladder like Mutambara did when to become a professor?

If this Mutambara comes from the Mutambara area as we know him, with years of experience among the people why should the last 15 years disqualify him from being part of the people? In Shona they say, chitsva chiri murutsoka, that is to say you always learn new ideas when you travel and others say mwana asinga fambi anofunga kuti mai vake ndivovega vanogona kubika, that is to say, you can learn of better ways of doing things when you travel to other parts of the world. The point is not about where Mutambara was but rather what he has brought for the people. It does not make sense to say that, because he has been away, he should go to the cell level of the party before he can be allowed to contribute anything regardless of the wealth of experience he is bringing in.

Is there a difference between a person speaking for the ‘people’, assuming for a minute that one actually does, and a person with whom the ‘people’ agree?

It is possible that people need leaders who can come up with robust policies that they can understand. It is no longer helpful to have a popularity contest measured by how many people attend rallies or congresses. It is now a battle of ideas and the people can follow a person with ideas that come through a qualitative debate. A country has more stake holders than the poor people, and influence or power moves in all directions. In fact, even the poor people’s votes, hearts and minds are not a give and take, political parties have to fight for them. In the end everyone matters, the rich and the poor.

When Zanu PF give out land, and talk about the liberation struggle some people naively think that it is not important but why should your history not matter? People are not just about consumption and wealth, they are also emotional beings. As some MDC people talk of scars post 2000, such an argument cannot survive the emotional test of the scars of the liberation war. The idea of a new Zimbabwe, noble as it may appear, has connotations of cutting off from the past which was a people’s struggle. This view is not helped by people who refuse or feel offended to refer to the liberation struggle and acknowledge the heroes of that struggle. Our heroes are not just dead people as Tendai Biti was quoted saying, they are founding fathers of our nation. Those in the United Kingdom and America know too well that the so called first world continue to honour their heroes or founding fathers of their nations who lived centuries ago.

Every nation-state has its struggles and it is a product of conflicts, myths and the values which have to inform their struggles as a rallying point. People are always embedded in their historical and cultural context and the concept of a new Zimbabwe should be explained carefully to the ‘people’ especially as the other MDC group attends their congress next weekend whose theme is, “Rallying People for a New Zimbabwe”.

The people’s identity is not only explained by where they live for people will always move socially or physically but they will remain people. The politics of exclusion done in the name of the people will not get us far as a nation. Arthur Mutambara and Morgan Tsvangirai now have to show the nation their vision; Zanu PF has been on the scene and people know what it stands for.
Msekiwa Makwanya is a Zimbabwean social commentator based in London
JOIN THE DEBATE ON THIS ARTICLE ON THE NEWZIMBABWE.COM FORUMS
debate@newzimbabwe.com