| The best Zimbabwe news site on the world wide web |  |
| NEWS |
| FORUMS |
| NEWS ANALYSIS |
| READERS' FORUM |
Zimbabwe: majority under pressure
By
Arnold
Mutaviri
IS Robert
Mugabe’s Zimbabwe government legitimate? Yes, it is. Does it have
credibility? No, it does not. Is the official opposition legitimate?
Yes, it is. Does it have credibility? No, it does not. Is the ''international
community'' legitimate? No!
Under the circumstances, the majority in Zimbabwe is under relentless economic, social and political pressure. What is really and truly under pressure is democracy. Can the majority contribute meaningfully to the development of their country if they are under such immense pressure? Majority is therefore not ruling as power should freely flow from the people to their chosen leaders in a democracy. So who is ruling and with what power? From where?
Who is responsible for the illness of democracy in Zimbabwe? I believe it’s the Majority.
The majority is responsible for the unhealthy democratic situation we have today. From 1980 to the present day minority groups suffered at the hands of the majority as democratic space was continuously denied them. Houses were burnt; activists were beaten and sometimes killed in broad day light. Majority assumed that by denying the minority democratic space it would automatically increase its own. Co-existence guarantees the joy and survival of both parties and democracy. Minor political parties were treated as traitors, lacking both credibility and legitimacy.
Rev. Ndabaningi Sithole and Bishop Abel Muzorewa entered into the leadership race with a traitor tag on them. Their performance was ''embarrassing''. Instead of glorying in the fact that the two Zimbabweans represented a different view and sought legitimately to offer that view to fellow Zimbabweans for consideration, the majority and their leaders sought to humiliate the two men and those who supported them. They eventually left the country and settled in the United States for a very long time. They were under pressure and the majority was not bothered. It is important to state at this juncture that some of the ''democratic forces'' of today were part of the majority of 1980 upwards and may have participated in the heinous crimes stated above.
Joshua Nkomo and his party represented a minority (dominantly concentrated in Matabeleland). He did not come from the right tribe and therefore did not have the right name. The majority refused to give him the mandate to rule Zimbabwe. His party suffered (mentally and physically) at the hands of the majority and he eventually gave in and joined them. The Unity Accord signed by Zanu PF and PF Zapu averted more deaths and more suffering. The story is an open book. Thereafter, majority felt very secure and Zimbabweans witnessed relative peace even though some individuals still lived in fear of harassment and disappearance for one reason or another.
From 1980 (and 100 years before that) to about 1995 it was democracy which was at stake. It was under pressure as the majority constantly and consistently denied others the right to assemble, freely vote, freedom of and after speech, associate and move.
What we are witnessing now is that the majority is now the one under pressure. Could this be punishment for past sins? Their cries are going right up to the heavens, but unheard. I am sure God is waiting for the right moment as the majority still needs to appreciate the beauty of democracy by living once more in an undemocratic state. The majority needs to understand that the rights of the minority must be protected by all costs in a democracy. So are basic rights such as freedom of the press, assembly, right to freely vote and the right to dissent from the majority opinion. The latter right is the one fellow Zimbabweans need to understand more.
There is a dangerous and false doctrine of ''presidential infallibility'' in Zanu PF which reared its ugly head in the MDC. Any man who is made to feel and understand that he is not capable of making mistakes is bound to believe it and act that way. Mugabe was treated that way and now he believes he has a divine right to rule Zimbabwe until ''the second coming''.
Morgan Tsvangirayi is another. I think it is typical of people who find themselves in desperate situations. Ian Smith made normal living almost impossible and the majority found their saviour in Mugabe. Now the majority feel the need for change and they want it now. Morgan Tsvangirai has been identified by a substantial number of people as their appointed saviour.
Some 160 years ago prophet Joseph Smith penned these words in Doctrine and Covenants 121 verse 23: “It has come as a sad experience to note that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men that as soon as they get a little authority as they suppose they begin to exercise unrighteous dominion, hence many are called but few are chosen.”
It is a truth that when Zimbabweans go to the polls, their choice of a parliamentary candidate or party is influenced more by the man standing as the presidential candidate than on the issues of the day. Mugabe is Zanu PF. Tsvangirai is MDC. The departure of these two men heralds the death of their parties. They have been made ''institutions unto themselves''. This is a serious threat to democracy as it does not reflect power flowing from 'demos' (populace). Power is flowing from 'kratia' (ruler). Without the ruler (Mugabe/Tsvangirai) people have no power. The ruler should not have power without the people! Unfortunately, the opposite is true in Zimbabwe. I do not blame the two men. It is the people (majority) to blame.
So where do we stand as far as change is concerned? The MDC presidential candidate went into the presidential race with three problems, namely allegations that he had handlers in some Western capitals, a lack of clarity on the land question and that he turned his back on the liberation struggle in Mozambique when the first shot was fired. This last point puts him in the same class with Muzorewa and Sithole if proved true. I advise him to explain the circumstances of his departure 'from the front' at a time when many sons and daughters of Zimbabwe were fighting for our cherished freedom from oppression and apartheid (ideally before the next presidential election).
History will surely repeat itself if he does not take this kind advise. He must not blame the illiteracy of the rural population for his failure to sit where Mugabe is sitting today. In an effort to explain the MDC’s shock loss at the polls, the rural population has been branded an uninformed lot, illiterate and living under the fear of the chief. It is true that there is some level of illiteracy and l suggest Tsvangirai looks into this if (not when) he takes over power and government.
It is not true, however, that the rural population is so illiterate that they cannot read the situation and make an informed decision. It is not true that the villagers are not aware of inflation and their environment. These people are as sensitive to inflation as their urban colleagues. They may not discuss inflation the way you and l discuss it but it is inflation anyway. They do not even give it the name inflation but it is inflation anyway. Theft in a different language is still theft. The rural population does not need newspapers to know things. Word moves faster in rural areas in some cases than it does in urban areas. Most things are done in groups. There is a lot of interaction and reason to meet and assemble in villages than in towns. This enables them to engage and share notes.
Robert Mugabe may have fooled the international community in 1980 by declaring publicly the policy of national reconciliation but those who held different views on issues were persecuted and harassed. The villages and towns were not habitable for people who belonged to Rev Sithole and Bishop Muzorewa during the early years of independence. I submit that these humble and simple Zimbabweans suffered more than what we are witnessing MDC followers going through today.
Hundreds of families relocated to areas where their political affiliation was unknown only to move again when discovered. People in Bulawayo can give us many testimonies. Where was the international press and the international community in those difficult years? I read Enos Nkala's letter to Mugabe recently and it was very informative. We thank him for that but we also kindly say to him that nothing short of apologising for what he personally did will pacify our feelings. He should learn to say sorry to Zimbabwe for at least his contribution to what happened. He cannot exonerate himself. Since he told us he held the position of Treasurer General he should also tell us what happened to the millions of dollars donated to the comrades by China, Russia, Cuba, Tanzania, Zambia, Lybia, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Korea and other countries. Did all these monies go towards the liberation of Zimbabwe or were some channelled somewhere?
I am not accusing him but we noted that some 'comrades' bought farms, low density houses, hotels and other businesses during and immediately after the liberation struggle. Our interest stems from the fact that the money was sourced under the pretext that it was for the freedom of Zimbabwe and l therefore submit that it belongs to all Zimbabweans. Since Zanu PF/PF Zapu was a government in waiting, the balance of the donated money should really have gone to Government after independence. Some informed academics may want to probe this issue further and try to quantify money which was sourced in my name and yours.
Arnold Mutaviri is a political analyst and writes from Zimbabwe. He can be contacted at: arnold@zol.co.zw
JOIN
THE DEBATE ON THIS ARTICLE ON THE NEWZIMBABWE.COM FORUMS
debate@newzimbabwe.com
All material copyright newzimbabwe.com
Material may be published or reproduced in any form with appropriate credit to this website