NJELELE: OUR SHRINE TOGETHER

NJELELE: OUR SHRINE TOGETHER

JULIUS SAI MUTYAMBIZI-DEWA

I am a direct descendant of EMPEROR Netjasike, the last King of the Lozwi/Rozvi/BaNyai[Kalanga]. My greater grandfather Ntinima/Mutinhima was his first son. I have taken interest in the continuing debate about Njelele, a shrine that we are traditionally linked with but that has unfortunately become the centre of immature tribal bickering. Essentially it was and is a Kalanga shrine, we have always been the custodians but it was and is always a shrine for everyone. Religious shrines do not serve the priests and their families; they serve the religion and its followers as one whole.  I must rush to say I am not oblivious of the sensitivities surrounding the issues here but seek to correct misconceptions for the good of the nation of Zimbabwe.

Gukurahundi

Yes Gukurahundi did happen and it is a very sad part of our history. But Gukurahundi remains a legal and accountability issue not a spiritual matter. Those who were responsible will have to stand trial and the truth should be ascertained on that. But Gukurahundi was neither commissioned by the Zimbabwe Defence Forces nor committed by people who are today collectively known as Shona. It was committed by members of a military outfit that was known by that name and in approaching issues of this magnitude politicians must be careful not to unnecessarily fan fires of hatred. It is as irresponsible as what I have heard about Chaminuka being killed by Ndebeles and Lobengula selling the country out. Let us all be brave and approach matters that are sensitive as mature people. When we talk about Ndebele, Kalanga, Shona, Ndau, Black and White relations we must remember one thing; that we are talking about people and not objects.

I am always cautious that in dispensing of criminal liabilities people must always be reminded that individuals are responsible, I am not and will never be persuaded by the presumption of general and group guilt that is sadly being advanced when it comes to crimes against humanity in Zimbabwe, criminal liability must pass to individuals, they could be acting collectively in a group or acting alone but we cannot safely say a people, a group or an organisation is guilty as an entity or institution. There always exists at any time in a group conscientious objectors and I am so sure we had conscientious objectors in the Smith regime, in forces that were collectively known as Gukurahundi, among war veterans and even in the Border Gezi Militia. I do not think generic liability exists and it is dangerous to allow ourselves to even think along those lines.

Gukurahundi and the UDI atrocities before it should have been buried by now, by making sure perpetrators are identified and tried by a publicly-acknowledged process that also is subject to due process as we all know it. That this has not happened is a clear sign of the irresponsibility that has for long stuck on our politicians and politics. To that end I applaud ZAPU for taking the lead. By acknowledging that in fact they had hidden weapons, they have revealed a very important piece that in fact could have helped in retracing the issue of Gukurahundi but up to now this has not happened. I am not going to discuss much about Gukurahundi here; it is a topic that I wish to fully address in another article. I am going to talk about the issue of Njelele here.

Is Njelele a holy Shrine and according to whom?

The question that needs to be asked first is whether Njelele is a Holy Shrine. The answer to that seems a resounding “Yes”. Njelele is the holiest of the shrines of the Mwali Religion. However it is not the only such shrine. Other Shrines are to be found at at Mahwemanyolo, Domboshaba in Botswana, Mapungubwe in South Africa, Domboshava in Mashonaland East in Zimbabwe, at Khami, at Nzhelele among the Venda in South Africa, etc. The next question is “Whose shrine is it?” The answer is it is clearly a shrine for people who were at one time part of the Lozwi Empire and these include parts of South Africa, Botswana, Mozambique and the whole of what is now Zimbabwe. It has never been personalised or tribalised. It is our Njelele together, as a people. When Mzilikazi settled in what is now Matabeleland he found the shrine there and also worshipped and respected everything he found there. I am in no doubt that his respect for Njelele extended to its inclusiveness and this is why Mashonaland based prophets such as Chaminuka continued to have access to Njelele even under Mzilikazi and Lobengula’s rule. He never closed Njelele to anyone and this is why at no point did Njelele become an issue surrounding Ndebele-Shona relations.

But yes Njelele like any other holy shrines, has rules that must be observed. Njelele has its own custodians and traditionally it is the Moyo, Ncube, Mpofu and Dube people that have leadership and prestine roles at Njelele. The question to ask at this point is “has this been observed”?

Chiefs Nematombo, Chivero, Nyajena and Marange

I have picked the above for a reason. Does their entrance into Njelele breach anything? Do they have the locus standi to be in Njelele? The answer is “Yes”. In fact all the four chiefs are originally from Matabeleland which is popularly referred to as “Guruuswa” or “Butwa” in pre-colonial Zimbabwe. The founding ancestor of Chief Nematombo is Ntinima/Mutinhima, my ancestor and Emperor Netjasike’s first son. History has it that he left Matabeleland after a quarrel with his father, passed through places such as Buhera and ended up in Mhondoro in Mashonaland West. Apart from the name Ntinima/Mutinhima he was also known by the code names “Nyakuvambwa” and “Nevanji” which simply meant first born. He had another shine at Nharira. His brothers were Basvi, Luzani (also known as Ruzane/Rozani) and Rovanyika [who settled in Wedza], Lukuluba[ also known as Huruva, Mukuruva and Washayanyika], Dlembeu [also known as Mashonganyika], Tohwetjipi [also known as Sibumbamu]. They had several sons among them Mhepo [also known Mawachini [what have you heard], Mutyambizi [also known as Kaseke/Kasekete], Chigavazira [also known by the names Tumbale and Chitomborwizi], Dzumbunu, Tandi, Chimombe, Matibenga, Gumunyu, Malisa, Mangena, Bidi etc. Some of their sons were Kadungure, Mapondera, Kunaka, Chitate, Chikumbirike, my grandfather Munemo etc.

But as a King he never moved alone. The Lozwi had spies, known as “gwanangwa” and their chief spies where the Mpofu, who were known by the titles Tjibelu and Mundambeli, meaning those who were the advance party in military terms. Chief Chivero [Shonalised version of Tjibelu] was tasked with this. Up to now the praise lines of Chief Chivero’s people are: “Shava[Mhofu], Chivero [Tjibelu], Mwendamberi[Mundambeli]; gwenzi rakaviga Mambo[the one who hid the King] and this meaning the one who was with Mutinhima/Ntinima as he escaped from his father Netjasike. Nyajena and Marange are also of the same line as Chivero. Mutinhima had many sons with different women and this led to so many chiefdoms in Mashonaland that are directly descended from him and through him, Netjasike. These are Negomo, Nematombo, Nyamweda, Samuriwo, Kasekete, Chimombe, Tandi, Chiduku etc. Chivero has other related chiefdoms such as Chirau.

I haven’t mentioned Makumbe, Goronga, Makoni as I am not so sure what roles they were playing but I believe Makoni’s presence may have been due to his relationship with Chiduku, another of chiefdoms that have direct links with Mutinhima[Ntinima] and through him, Netjasike. Nyajena neighbours Samuriwo and Marange neighbours Tandi and both Njajena and Marange may have played the same role that Chivero played on Mutinhima to Samuriwo and Tandi, being his advance party as both are Mhofu. One thing is clear, all these chiefs have their recent roots in present day Matabeleland. Everyone in present day Mashonaland whose isithemo/chidawu/praise title is Vakabva Guruuswa [those who came from Guruuswa] has his or her origins in present day Matabeleland and they left that area in the late 19^th century.  All of them are clearly permitted as a matter of their bloodline to take part in rituals in Njelele.

If Chief Nswazi could return to Botswana I do not see how the above chiefs could be blocked from entering Matabeleland and taking part in holy rituals there. Their attendance at Njelele has clearly been blown out of proportion to gain political mileage which is unfortunate. Matabeleland is their homeland, and Njelele is their shrine. We cannot hide behind political correctness in these matters. These chiefs are Kalanga by all accounts, and going back simply is retracing their roots. We can’t be more direct than that. Father Zimbabwe Joshua Nkomo was given his treasured emblem by a Mashonaland Chief, Chinamhora following rituals that had started at Domboshava which is in Chinamhora’s area. The Longwe people of Malawi still have connections to this day with their Swazi cousins and they conduct joint rituals even to this day. As Ndebeles discuss the possibility of restoring their Monarchy some point at Nkulumane’s family, and they are based in South Africa and have never been in Matabeleland. Obvious if the Lozwi[Kalanga] start discussing about the possibilities of restoring their own Monarchy they may also have to discuss the possibilities of someone based in present day Mashonaland or even Botswana or Malawi as they trace Netjasike’s family.

Consulting other traditional leaders

Respect is always important and has always been the cornerstone of healthy relationships. Chiefs of the area should have been contacted. This do it alone mentality is really defeatist and it is what should be criticised. But the Chief’s must be able to discuss these issues in the Chief’s council. I am sure Chiefs Bango and Tshtshi can bring the issue forward. I don’t see how politics should then become seized of a matter that can easily blow out of hand if in the hands of politicians. We have systems that can be used and this is why we have a Chiefs’ Council. This is a sensitive area which demands responsible approach as at the centre of it are historical issues that politics has been unwilling to discuss.  Had issues of accountability and the powers of traditional leaders including the return of monarchs been addressed without the influence of political correctness we wouldn’t be where we are. Uganda has several kingdoms, any people that ask for it and can justify it have been given the go ahead. The UDI-era atrocities and Gukurahundi are long overdue we should have done with them already and moved the country forward.

History, geography and genotype, not contemporary demography that is largely a design of colonialism and irresponsible politics means Zimbabwe was, is and ought to be a united country. Anyone thinking otherwise unnecessarily plays into a very sensitive matter and risks being judged harshly by the future. What happened in Rwanda is not a play, not even a real life drama. We lost people there. What happened during Gukurahundi is not a campaign matter; we lost people then. Maturity is very important and this is why I condemn in equal measure those who are attempting to block people from Mashonaland from accessing Njelele as if it’s in Europe and also those who went to Njelele without the clearance of the local traditional leadership. Inventing no go areas that never happened in our country is cheap. So is the defeatism portrayed by the traditional leaders from Mashonaland. Real leaders would have sat down together and mapped the way as all the traditional leaders of Zimbabwe and done the cleansing rituals for everyone who took part in the liberation struggle and that includes both ZANLA and ZIPRA. Without any doubt and judging with the behaviour of some of the war veterans, a cleansing ceremony is long overdue. But doing it alone will not benefit anyone.

Be Judge!

mutyambizidewa@yahoo.co.uk or 00447401182271

COMMUNITIES POINT SA STATEMENT ON THE DEATH OF BOXER CORNELIUS “CORRIE” SANDERS

                                             

                             UK Company registration no 6248305

The World Office, Communities Point, 108 St Thomas Road, Derby, DE23 8SW, United Kingdom phone   

                                     0044 7988292795 email: ethnicrecords@yahoo.co.uk

______________________________________________________________________________    

COMMUNITIES POINT SA STATEMENT ON THE DEATH OF BOXER CORNELIUS “CORRIE” SANDERS

PRESS STATEMENT: 27092012

Communities Point SA learns with shock the untimely death of former world heavyweight boxing champion Cornelius Corrie Sanders.

We are profoundly shocked that the primary suspects in the murder are in fact Zimbabwean citizens based in South Africa. While Communities Point does not have control over what Zimbabweans in South Africa do and will not try and police anyone, we are worried at criminal activities by Zimbabweans in South Africa as they will portray nationals of Zimbabwe in bad light.

 As we join the aggrieved family of Corrie in their hour of bereavement by expressing our heartfelt condolences for such a tragic and unnecessary loss we call upon Zimbabweans in South Africa to refrain from criminal activities in our host country. We continue to encourage Zimbabweans in South Africa to attach value to the very Zimbabwean tenets of hard work, honesty and decency. We believe the “get rich culture” that cuts corners promotes laziness and glorify the culture of violence, criminality and prostitution and this in turn breeds social decadence and result in host communities shunning integration with us. We believe as Zimbabweans we are the selling point for Zimbabwe in South Africa and an appetite for crime will in turn mean negative publicity for Zimbabwe and an attack on the virtual Zimbabwe that we all aim for.

We therefore condemn in the strongest sense the murder of Corrie and believe justice will take its course on the perpetrators.

ACTING CHAIRPERSON COMMUNITIES POINT SA CALLISTA PAYARIRA

TABITHA, WHY THE PEOPLE’S PROJECT MUST BE RESTORED!

TABITHA, WHY THE PEOPLE’S PROJECT MUST BE RESTORED!

It is not the sad news that worries me but it is the saddening, that which continues the failings and the negative trajectory that worry me. And the demotion of Tabitha Khumalo is not sad news but even though the mere act of her demotion is in itself clearly tragic, it is even worse when you are confronted with the reality that the act in truth represents a mindset and that if the actions are a continuum that have been depicted before and that in all likelihood will be repeated in the future, the act bears testimony of a total tragedy.

Yes I have known Tabitha for quiet a time. She is a comrade, we were together in ZESN, Community Working Group on Health, NCA, Civil Alliance for Social and Economic Progress, MDC etc but I am not saying her sacking is flawed because of that. And I mean no disrespect to Joel Gabuza because I do not know his competencies. So I can never judge him. But I must rush to say Joel Gabuza, with due respect, must realise that he does not deserve the post, well at least at this point in time. Not because he lacks the competencies no, but because he has been whisked to the post through the back door. One thing he shares with Tabitha in all this is that both are victims of circumstances; they are the living testimony of what has gone wrong and what is going wrong not only in the MDC led by Morgan Tsvangirai but in Zimbabwean politics at large. What one cannot avoid is the evidence that this is largely countervailing to democracy whether it is sanctioned properly by a lawful mechanism or instrument such as a constitution or a precedent-setting practice. Mindful that I am not writing for a journal I will attempt as far as possible not to bore readers by technical language but try to be plain.

People who have worked with Tabitha will agree if I say she is an epitome of a really free mind, someone who speaks her mind something many people in our country still find problems living with. I believe through and through she is a rare voice for women, a representative of the often looked down upon type of woman who has been championing their cause. She does not represent the utopian, the perfect society in which every woman has a husband and every man is so perfect that they stick to their one wife. No, she talks about the contemporary, the reality, the broken society that we live in, the single mother who is not employed and who is eking her living through unprintable means, she represents real victims of pertaining realities; she only goes one step ahead; she knows that they are real people with real lives. I believe she has done a good job for herself and even the MDC. I believe she is an astute student of the school of frank talk and that people could be that threatened by her to a certain extent. But I also believe once she assumed the role of deputy spokesperson all should have respected the enfranchisement that had been bestowed upon her.

I am not so sure how helpful it is that a position such as Deputy Spokesperson can easily be reshuffled and replaced. Probably the enabling procedure could come from the way in which she ascended to the post; ie by appointment. And this is where all the problems begin. If political parties are trying to be democratic they should show us their desire in practice. You cannot blow hot and cold at the same time. MDC has a secretariat and one would believe it is the Secretariat and only the Secretariat that should be appointed through a combination of merit and commitment to serve the party neutrally. I said neutrally because it is the secretariat that should not involve itself in the politics of the party. But all political positions must always and exclusively be the creation and responsibility of membership. In a truly membership organisation members must retain the rites of ownership and authorship. Ownership as they are the vanguard of the party. They should be allowed to authorise through a mechanism of appointment. This they should do so by their ability to elect all leadership. It follows therefore that every representative position must be directly elected. And the same goes for party representatives in national and local elections who should also be directly elected. A membership that has such rights must also be aware that rights come with burdens; they have to be responsible.

The responsibility of membership to their party should be as a feeder for the finances that run the party, a feeder for the policies that make the party, growing the party and the backbone of the party in times of strife. Once the issue of responsibility is settled, the issue becomes that of accountability. Every elected position including the Presidency must be accountable to membership. And national leaders cannot be accountable to one individual, or party structure or to the district that they came from. Makokoba Constituency cannot decide the fate of Tabitha as the Deputy Spokesperson of the MDC, the position is national. Similarly Morgan Tsvangirai and even the National Executive Committee acting on its own without seeking the empowering hand of membership should not be allowed to make decisions on fellow senior party members. They may surely have not liked what she was doing, it may be that the majority of them felt disgusted at her conduct but it is not them that matter, it is the entire party membership. What does it say? Why are they being disenfranchised? Where is the bottom to top approach? They should always be consulted.

Enter democratic centrism

Slowly MDC is closing internal debate in the same way that ZANU PF, ZAPU and ZANU did. When you close internal opposition then you start pretending that internal dynamics that are an inevitable nature of institutions even families and which in progressive minds must be tolerated, do not exist and you expel divergence and promote the quick rapture of an institution. Party members must be allowed to criticise their leaders and a spokesperson should not be left in limbo or be shocked by statements she hears for the first time in the press. We have so far seen the emergence of a lot of political parties from the MDC. Whilst that on its own is a natural consequence who said the unity dividend was bitter? Those formations emerge because there is that clear attempt to muzzle out internal vibrancy through dynamism and people are being urged to toe the party line even where there is corruption.

And this thing called factionalism is an unnecessary excuse to muzzle internal debate. Institutions will definitely evolve to have different groupings. That is what politics is and if those are not visible then surely they will exist in the grapevine. The opposite of “factionalism” in this context will not be unity but totalitarianism. So we are seeing the politics of Zimbabwe clearly and shamelessly embracing totalitarianism which in this day and age will never happen be it in ZANU PF, MDC or whichever party. Instead of the Matson Hlalo-Gorden Moyo dynamic or should I say the Thoko-Tabitha dynamic being allowed to claim victims which in all likelihood will even worsen it, MDC should have had mechanisms to manage internal dynamics. The punishment model that is being pursued will certainly be unhelpful as one camp will view it as evidence of the preferred and the loathed and the buck will surely stop at the very end of the leadership spectrum and I do not see how the party will emerge unscathed. People in institutions will always be positioning themselves and plotting against each other and I feel membership organisations are better placed because once a person is elected they should all wait for the appointer to dis-appoint. And membership should be the one to play that part not party structures. The whole not a fraction must be involved. That is inclusive politics.

Self regulation

At the end of it has been the attempt at self-regulation. Like the other parties MDC has a disciplinary mechanism and I am so sure that will work one day. But at the moment the mechanism is being impeded by lack of honesty and instead of following due process it seems to be a witch-hunt in which the guilty and innocent are decided by procrastination and not on the basis of pertaining facts. Had there been a clear and transparent self-regulatory mechanism which would be deemed fair and fit for purpose at all time, I am sure there wouldn’t have been incidences that we have seen. That argument takes one back to 2001, 2002 and 2003 in Chitungwiza and Harare when these incidents of internal dynamics reared their ugly face. Even then we had people who would swear that they were untouchable and surely they were allowed a free reign. The mother of it all came in October 2005 when the leader of the party again could not be subjected to the same self-regulation that others would have been subjected to. I am clear that I would not and never did, support the expulsion of Morgan Tsvangirai for that reason and without the consultation and involvement of membership but yes he should have been censured. If there are internal dynamics in Bulawayo then fair self-regulation should entail that both warring sides be brought before a fair and transparent process.

The recall clause

I have always been an advocate of the recall clause as an empowering tool for the electorate. But its implementation is clearly problematic because it really does not take account of the electorate but the Constituency Party of the MP. Something tells me that it is wrong that an MP, elected by 16000people should simply be recalled at the instigation of 30 executives of his or her sponsoring party. I feel this is clearly narrow and unrepresentative and believe it will be fair if a formula could be arrived at where say a significant fraction of the electorate, even 10% should sign a petition before an MP is recalled. I believe that way those outside the structures of the Constituency Party can also have a voice.

Yes I am minded that those people have the permission to put their popularity to test by contesting again but I am also aware of the sinister use of the recall clause as countervailing to democracy. MPs are not voted to proffer guided democracy by always playing to the whims of their party leaders they are national leaders elected to represent their constituencies in national politics and forums. I am also aware of the economic realities of Zimbabwe, surely we cannot manage senselessly punitive recalls that are necessitated by party political dynamics. Recalls must be necessary and popular and this is why they ought to be widened in scope. The regime that sanctions them is too narrow and open to abuse; “you are suspected of voting with the party opposite” you are recalled, “you don’t greet the party leader” you are recalled and “you don’t toe the party line” you are recalled? This is clearly reactionary. All the political parties, particularly those in the GNU, are showing signs of restlessness that are simply put very laughable. It now seems there is urgency to show their followers the “who is who” of their party.

Leaders and cadres

I equally got the shock of my life when I read the addresses of the MDC when they are mailing the membership. They always say “Leaders and Cadres”, what a salutation!  Why that separation? Why does it matter much to remind recipients that among them there are leaders and cadres. One comrade, I think it was Briggs Bomba, coined the term “comodification of the struggle” and that restlessness is a depiction of that comodification. I do not see why it is necessary to address people as “Leaders” and others as “Cadres” if it does not serve the sole purpose of discriminating people while aggrandising others. Political leadership is through obtaining and holding a franchise and this is done by one’s election. Let’s call a Secretary a Secretary and a Chairman a Chairman whenever that is necessary. Why should the aim be bigger than the objective? I am worried some in MDC are becoming too important to the detriment of the bigger picture which is the growth of democracy itself. For sometime ZANU PF did the same, they became bigger than the revolution they fought and started violating the same democracy, the objective, they had fought hard to bring and saw nothing wrong in beating the same mother, father, brother and sister who only a few years back had sheltered, clothed and fed them. They seem to be taking remedial lessons although that could be too little too late. The Tabitha Khumalo case has opened a pandora’s box for the MDC but it is also a time to learn and remedy the slide into oblivion that is slow but evident.

Too big to fail

There are those who think they are too big to fail. They should look around themselves and see what is happening. In Zambia and Malawi both UNITED NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE PARTY and MALAWI CONGRESS PARTY, the parties of their independences are now but existing in names. But so are the Movement for Multi-Party Democracy [MMD] and the United Democratic Front the parties that successfully ousted autocracy in both countries. If Greece and Spain can fail, with all that history, if the Soviet Union could fail then no one and nothing is too big to fail.

Be Judge!

Julius Sai Mutyambizi-DEWA

DIDYMUS MUTASA: ZANU PF TOO IS CAPABLE OF CHANGE

JULIUS SAI MUTYAMBIZI-DEWA

I have followed keenly on the recent euphoria for glasnost that seems to have gripped some of the leadership in ZANU PF. My particular regard is their open acceptance of the problem of violence and their commendable efforts to distance themselves from it.

From President Mugabe, Deputy Presidents Mujuru and Nkomo and the party’s Chairman Simon Khaya Moyo, one thing has been coming out, that at the top the right words about non-violent politics seems to continue coming out. I have listened to all this with interest. I also heard the President’s Independence speech and I must say I was impressed by what I heard. I have been cautious though, as we have heard these speeches before from the leadership of ZANU PF but that has never transformed into something tangible for the nation. I must say there has been nothing to encourage me that this is nothing more than rhetoric. Leaders of political parties need to commit themselves to non-violence and words are bare if they are not shored up by real commitment.

Enter Didymus Mutasa.

It is his speech more than anyone’s that should encourage us to believe that there is something. While addressing ZANU PF’s Harare Province Mutasa went further than any of the leaders had done, he identified the problem, Chipangano by name and in implied admission that it is the creation of ZANU PF, he asked the Chairman of ZANU PF’s Harare Province Amos Midzi, why the group is still there. It is interesting that he too believes that Chipangano must be disentangled at the political level and not at a law and order level reinforcing the already held fear that all along ZRP’s efforts were being frustrated by politicians where it came to the issue of political violence.

This is what leadership is all about. I have previously expressed disappointment with ZANU PF that they have failed to live up to the legacy of their liberation credentials. The images of log-wielding barbarians calling themselves war veterans and chasing up opponents of ZANU PF still linger in the minds of many. A liberation party must have a liberation charisma, an identity that separates it from others and I must say those images are a clear depiction of the opposite. They are a depiction of a thoroughly-bred mafia forcing their will on a subjugated citizenry. Brand name ZANU PF was never helped by those beatings it was damaged and the militia and war-lord mentality that brought about the likes of Chipangano is simply kindergarten politics. It reminds me of the days when I was growing up, the “gangs” that thrived our neighbourhoods; ZERO Boys, Ninjas, Crew 17 etc. They had one common thing they were formed and manned by young men and women who were out for a thriller and all because of immaturity. Once they became mature they left and founded families, jobs and settled down. How a political party that has so much history behind it manages to align itself with adults who have ZERO boys mentality and who refuse to grow up escapes me.

Understanding one’s legacy

I was born into a very big family and my grandmother was among the junior-most wife of a royal. This therefore meant that I was in this rare situation of having cousins that were much older than my father. In my country we simply call our cousins brothers and sisters if they are related to you through a same-sex sibling of either parent. But in the event that they are related to you an opposite-sex sibling of one’s mother and they happened to be female then they are your aunts. This is the dilemma that my cousin’s daughter, Ossie found herself in. She was 8 but she got the shock of her life when I called her auntie. Being the talkative character she is she refused and said “No, I am not your aunt. You are my uncle!” That meant she was refusing all the entitlements of mother that she rightfully must get and instead she was reversing that and giving me all the credentials and entitlements that come with being her father’s brother.

Sadly ZANU PF finds itself in the same dilemma. At what point does ZANU PF lose in Zimbabwe? Do they lose if there is rule of law? Do they lose if they are defeated in elections and a new party starts to govern? Do they lose if there is justice? Their fear clearly shows the wrong mindset that they think they will lose if either happens. They are clearly wrong as such fears are premised on sheer ignorance of what ZANU and ZAPU represent. The mere fact that people are voting, that there are opposition parties in Zimbabwe, and that we have a country called Zimbabwe, our own country, where we can aspire to be councillors, MPs, ministers and Presidents is down to ZANU and ZAPU and their selflessness during the liberation struggle. That can never be taken away from them. When George Bush was hit by a shoe while addressing a forum in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq he said: “They are enjoying their democracy”. Whether he meant that from the bottom of his heart or not is not a matter for this discussion but what interested me is that he thought his efforts had brought democracy and even the punishment he was getting from Iraqis were the fruits of his labour as Saddam had never allowed them that.

Ian Smith banned our political parties and it only took the barrel of the gun for him to even fathom discussing with blacks. His stance was supported by psychology, white scientific knowledge that he used as the basis for his argument that the black majority was not ready and was not capable of voting let alone form political parties and he thought a whole millennium was necessary to see that evolution coming. ZANU and ZAPU fought to change that perception and with it brought democracy to the country.

Democracy and not entrenchment

One of the fundamental goals of the liberation struggle was achieved through the advent of democracy and the rule of law. Like every other political player ZANU and ZAPU put themselves before public scrutiny in 1980, and I must say rightly so. Of course both are political parties and want to survive and to do so they have to win in elections. But like everyone else they have to be prepared for the verdict of elections. They have to train their mindset towards that and always understand that they never fought to remain in power in perpetuity but to bring democracy to the country. They should not treat the verdict of democracy as scorn because their struggle was never for entrenchment but for democracy, for liberation from the apartheid and racist oppression that Ian Smith had imposed on our motherland. Yes everyone should be passionate about their political organisation if they want to but to go beyond passion and demonstrate that you want to introduce repressive laws, repressive measures and all forms of oppression just to remain in power in perpetuity is a clear betrayal of the same principles that led them to war. Liberation movements must marvel in that they were able to bring the dignity of a vote to their people without which all these political parties could never have been there. Whether that vote is then used to remove them from office must not be viewed begrudgingly as all it represents is a setback. If they are defeated they will fight the election another day.

Going to the extent of training, arming and sustaining gangs that fight the same democracy and tolerance that they fought for is retrogressive. Strong countries are not built by creating a constant state of tension among the citizenry. Contrary to what others have said it is the polarisation and not the dollarization in Zimbabwe that has ensured we do not move forward. Words that intend to stop that are very commendable but it is the extra mile that Didymus Mutasa has travelled, the naming and shaming of Chipangano and his acceptance that it is ZANU PF’s problem that is really encouraging since it is commitment and not mere talk.

The responsibility to protect their legacy encompasses the responsibility to protect democracy. Picking up a fight against the freedom to choose is ZANU PF fighting itself as theirs was never a struggle for entrenchment. Chipangano may disband but that’s not the end. They have to re-orient their supporters some of whom I must say are never in ZANU PF as supporters but for something else. They love the institution not because of its relevance as a player for the whole country but its relevance to their own survival as individuals. In the same light MDC too must face it and start addressing the issue of violence among its members. Pretending that violence only comes from ZANU PF will never help matters. Leaders must embrace tolerance and address this issue that has bedevilled our politics for long. MDC has in the past also attacked ZANU PF supporters, assaulted people who were wearing opposition t-shirts and tore those t-shirts, taken down opposition posters and also attacked each other on the basis of internal dynamics. That “green on blue” violence was deliberate, and we have people like Trudy Stevenson who bear the scars of such violence. Acceptance will save us, we have to agree that violence has become a feature in our politics, across the divide and stop it now. It is necessary because it is the only way towards our salvation and the salvation of future generations. As for me I don’t want real democracy to come in the future, I want it now because we are all capable.

Be Judge!

Julius Sai Mutyambizi-Dewa

mutyambizidewa@yahoo.co.uk or 00447401182271