Zimbabwe reaping the full results of war

Zimbabwe reaping the full results of war

RECENT OPINION ARTICLES

• An open letter to Robert Mugabe

• What Zimbabwe for which Zimbabweans?

• Mugabe's Waterloo is beckoning

• If Zanu PF is damaged, the MDC is hapless

• Africa must raise the bar for good leadership

• It's the ideas not money, stupid!

• Made must stop this monkey business

• Desperate times for Zimbabweans in foreign capitals

• A revolution that lost its way

• Why every protest matters in Zimbabwe

• Leadership renewal only way for Zimbabwe

By Farai Maguwu

LET ME me start by admitting that my views in this article may open a Pandora's box and throw me into a harrowing, hair-raising panga-duel, and excruciating contest with those who think they are patriotic and more Zimbabwean than others, those who think there are just wars, those who subscribe to the idea that they have a moral right of taking another's life for whatever reason however silly, the so-called heroes of our liberation struggle, as if they liberated anyone from anyone.

As Zimbabwe continues to cascade into the Hobbesian state of nature where life is short, nasty and brutish, we need to rewind the clock of time and find out where we got it wrong.

The year 1963 marked the official split of ZAPU over ideological differences. Joshua Nkomo wanted to pursue political pressure as a means to attain national independence. Ndabaningi Sithole, Herbert Chitepo, Enos Nkala, Robert Mugabe and many others accused Nkomo of being a coward and argued that independence can only come through a violent liberation struggle. Their idea seemed plausible to many a Zimbabwean such that ZANU replaced ZAPU as the leading political party during the struggle for independence.

This brings me to the moral question asked by Karl Jaspers in 1947 with regard to the Holocaust. He asked how far were Germans responsible for the crimes of Hitler. He argued that Germans are responsible, not guilty, for the crimes of Hitler because they voted his National Socialists (NAZI) party into power and furthermore supported him in his merciless extermination of the Jews. We in Zimbabwe created our own Devil called Robert Mugabe. We should have seen it coming. By the way how did he end up at the helm of Zanu PF? Was he not fighting war on two fronts, one against the 'enemy', the other against his own kith and kin senior to him in the party? And didn't we vote for him in 1980?

Zimbabweans supported Zanu PF because it was a violent political party that was capable of extinguishing the white community in Zimbabwe. By that act we rubberstamped masculinity in Zimbabwean politics. In other words you have to be a brave monster to be a Zimbabwean politician, 'a man of spine' to quote Mugabe. The distinction between ZANU and ZAPU was war (ZANU) and negotiation (ZAPU), any wonder that Mugabe continues to refuse talks with the opposition MDC. Here is a leader of a guerrilla movement that was taught one skill -- to kill the enemy. Now the enemy is no longer only the White Man, but the general population of Zimbabwe. Is it too hard to say we are now testing our own medicine? Lets make it categorically clear: violence will always lead to more violence. Is it not the Holy Bible that says you reap what you sow, if you sow violence you are sure to reap it later. It is my humble submission that colonial wars did not make Africa any better but ushered in a new era of monsters that use the wars as a license to oppress people.

Ever wondered why Mugabe talks little about his post-independence achievements: he keeps talking about our 'hard won independence, gallant sons and daughters of Zimbabwe who sacrificed their lives, those who paid the ultimate price etc'. I will never love my country to the point of killing or being killed for it. That's madness and stupidity of the highest order. Life is so precious to be given away for such an obscure and abstract goal. The nationalist argument is a philosophy of obscurantism that was used to blur the masses into helping a very small clique of tribally chauvinistic people conquer the majority. Now that they are there at the top their real motives are clear for all to see.

Have you ever spared a thought to reason why Mugabe and his partners in genocidal, direct and structural violence came back from Lancaster with political power for themselves without land for the masses, only to resurrect the issue twenty years later when challenged by Tsvangirai? It's because to him the whole war was not about freedom and economic emancipation for the people. It was not about the lie of land he frothed about when garnering the peasantry support. He wanted power at whatever cost. Imagine if the Lancaster House delegates had stood firm that it should take twenty more years for Zimbabwe to have black majority rule. Was Mugabe going to take that? Why then did he accept independence without the land our fathers and mothers lost their everything? Because the Lancaster outcome satisfied his need for power and not land for the majority.

I believe Zimbabwe could be better off had it never engaged in that barbarous civil war. Perhaps Muzorewa was right! Due to the war we lost a lot of precious and hardworking people (both black and white) who forever lie buried in those shallow graves with their skills and dreams while a directionless, thoughtless and heartless monster called R.G Mugabe rules the roost. People composed songs to ridicule Muzorewa as a coward and traitor. They wanted a 'brave' leader who feared nothing and no one. Perhaps he is doing what we 'loved' him for. He fears not Bush nor Blair, not even the IMF or the World Bank, what of the United Nations Secretary general, the European Union, the Commonwealth etc. Here is a man monster that dares take the whole world head on. His security men attack a hapless Peter Thacthel in front of the global media and world dignitaries. He is a brave man!

Muzorewa was trying to promote a win-win scenario for Zimbabwe, a situation that would have ensured that we retain our skills as well as expand knowledge and economic activities through opening space for the previously marginalized blacks. We chose war and not peace. Mugabe did not want any power sharing deal. He wanted absolute power, and now we know that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Once given none can ever give it away easily.

What then is the conclusion of the matter? As we contemplate on the avenues and possibilities of removing Mugabe and his Zanu PF party from power, let us reject any violent form of removing Mugabe. A new spate of violence will produce a new clique of 'heroes' who will load it over us in the future. Let us not harden our future leaders by encouraging them to do what is immoral and inhuman -- we will be the next victims. Biologically envisioning, counting the years Mugabe has lived, one can safely say our salvation is nearer now than when the struggle began.

The way forward is continued political pressure, exposing the regime for its Machiavellian brutality and Hobbesian primitivism. By doing so we are building a culture of tolerance and democracy. It will be credited to us as political maturity. This will also ensure that the change that we desire is durable and sustainable. I therefore call upon all the democratic forces in Zimbabwe to use non-violence strategies to social change. Let us all know that today's perpetrator is tomorrow's victim.

Farai Maguwu is the Director of the Civic Alliance for Democracy and Governance. He writes from the European University Center For Peace in Schlaining, Austria and can be contacted at: fmaguwu@yahoo.com

JOIN THE DEBATE ON THIS ARTICLE ON THE NEWZIMBABWE.COM FORUMS
debate@newzimbabwe.com