Year for decisive action, for whose benefit?

THE debate that has generated from the publication of Edgar Tekere’s autobiography, A Lifetime of Struggle, and the historic link between its publication and the debate on Zimbabwe’s constitutional options demonstrates the lack of depth and maturity that is systemic in many developing countries in general and Africa in particular.
With respect to Robert Mugabe and politics, we are now being told that he was a reluctant politician who had no mind of his own without any explanation as to what and how a person like Mugabe should have behaved in the face of an ivory tower created leadership vacuum in Zanu PF.
One needs to understand and appreciate the views of those who seek to describe Mugabe as a coward on democracy and leadership and how any person who respects institutions and the role of the governed in selecting a leader of their choice ought to have behaved in the face of what should properly be described as an illegal and unconstitutional removal of Ndabaningi Sithole from the party that he helped found.
Yes, Zimbabwe is worse off today than it was at independence and yet that should not encourage political opportunism and a rewriting of history by those privileged to have been part of the country’s history making. Zimbabweans are at risk and vulnerable to attacks by political vultures now more than ever given the political transition challenges that face not only Zanu PF, the ruling club, but the country in general.
The conversations on Zimbabwe in the post colonial era are pregnant with testimonials that the state of health of Zanu PF is symptomatic of the general state of health of the country and as such the Zanufication of Zimbabwean politics seems to have been crystallised to an extent that there appears to be no life or discussion beyond the party’s leader and the institution. If one carefully examines Tekere’s statements that have been echoed by Enos Nkala, it becomes evident that after all Mugabe may possess the very misunderstood democratic values that the country appears to be in search of.
It is for this reason that I read with interest Professor Jonathan Moyo’s opinion piece entitled: “Hysterical reaction to Tekere belies fear” in which he makes a number of observations that need to be interrogated in the interests of elevating the conversations that are necessary to better inform change in Zimbabwe and the kind of leadership values that should be expected of anyone seeking the highest office in the country. In addition, history may not judge our generation appropriately if we gloss over some historical events and subjectively record other people’s stories in the interests of political expediency.
The fact that Mugabe has remained in power for the entire post colonial period and that he is a towering figure in the politics of Africa should ordinarily inform us that we should avoid any intellectual dishonesty in our evaluation of the reasons underpinning his hegemony over the political landscape.
This is what Professor Jonathan Moyo had to say about the reactions from a number of archived politicians and political observers to Tekere’s book. He observes that Tekere’s autobiography makes three history-marking disclosures about how Mugabe rose into and remained in power to the point of becoming a terrible liability to Zimbabwe today. The Prof targets what he terms Mugabe’s propagandists for attack by alleging that their interventions by providing their own recollections of the events described by Tekere is an abuse of the public media as if to suggest that if he were still the propagandist of Mugabe he would have shut them.
I have always believed in conversations as a way of better understanding my friends and adversaries alike and believe that it is important that history is informed by both sides of the story. It may be true that Mugabe is an embattled leader but that should never be used as an excuse of frustrating debate. In saying this, I am reminded that Zimbabweans should find a way of disagreeing with each other without being disagreeable to one another.
In as much as Tekere is entitled to narrate the story of his lifetime of struggle in his own words through his own memory, I think the Prof and many of those who have joined the debate should allow the archived George Rutanhires and the Commissioner of Police, Augustine Chihuri, to give their own narrations without labelling or targeting them.
Intellectual intimidation is no different from the political hooliganism that people accuse the Zanu PF government of engaging in. It is important, therefore, that those who purport to seek genuine change try to exhibit different values from those they seek to remove otherwise the prospect of Zimbabwe, the patient; ever waking up from this long sleep will be doomed.
It is instructive that the Prof has suddenly become the defender of Tekere as if he needs one. When the Prof was occupying the position of chief propagandist of the government, he never saw merit in giving Tekere the same space to make disclosures that would have been seen as tarnishing Mugabe’s reputation and legacy.
The disclosures in Tekere’s book that the Professor feels have annoyed Mugabe’s cronies are set out below:
Disclosure OneThat Tekere played a leading role in paving the way for Mugabe’s rise to the leadership of Zanu PF.
It is difficult to reconcile this disclosure with the kind of values that should have informed the selection of leaders in any democratic club. I would have thought that the Prof as a learned gentlemen would have prefaced his analysis with an acknowledgment that it is wrong for any individual belonging to a club to claim that his/her rights are superior to the general rights of members to decide who should lead them. I have no doubt that if the Prof had been placed in Mugabe’s shoes he would not have seen any problem in a scenario where a few individuals decided to co-opt Mugabe in the club without any consent from the general membership, and then forty four years later to then be reminded that it was not the people who selected you but you were a product of the decision of a few wise people!
In trying to understand the history of ZANU as a democratic force that was established to fight against political and economic hegemony of a race-based cabal of wise persons, it is important that we critically analyse the actions of those who want their versions of history to be the only ones in relation to how leaders in Africa ought to be selected. We need to ask critical questions that naturally should flow from the disclosure by people Zimbabweans should look up to like Tekere, Nkala, and others with a view to better understanding what values they seek to impart to contemporary Africa.
Should leaders of political organisations be elected by members? Should citizens have the right to choose who should lead them? How should citizens or members of political clubs select their leaders? Is it fair and just for citizens to surrender their sovereign right to choose their own government to an incumbent President? Should Zimbabwe be a dynasty or a republic? What are the obligations of a republic on leaders who believe that they should manufacture a President?
I share the sentiment that George Rutanhire in seeking to advance this own version should not have insulted Tekere by alleging that he "went mad and formed his own party (Zum) in the past". It is this kind of attitude that limits the progress and altitude of not only the country but the continent. Yes, Tekere should have an opportunity to express his own views without fear or prejudice in as much as Zimbabweans must invest in an institutional framework that will prevent individuals above the people from claiming credit for manufacturing political leaders. If Mugabe has overstayed then surely Zimbabweans are culpable because we do not have any record of Mugabe being comfortable as a beneficiary of an opaque selection process or seeking to avoid elections.
Yes, we can argue whether elections have been free and fair but no one can allege that Zimbabwe has missed an election because Mugabe or his lieutenants were afraid of the vote. It is important that history is properly recorded. If Zimbabweans now find Mugabe objectionable after electing him, then it is important for intellectuals like the Prof to suggest in what way the country should respond while respecting the fundamental position that leaders must come from the people.
Having read what has been written about Mugabe by Tekere, it occurs to me that Mugabe’s values have been consistent from the outset. According to the Prof, Tekere recalls in his autobiography that: “Mugabe’s road to power started after his return to Zimbabwe from Ghana, when he was approached and incorporated into the nationalist leadership under the NDP. To attract his incorporation, Mugabe had not demonstrated any notable leadership qualities besides his impressive proficiency in pronouncing English words with an acquired if not exaggerated accent that leaves the uncanny impression that he is a highly learned person when he is not.
As to how and when Mugabe came to head Zanu, Tekere’s autobiography recalls a fact, which has been corroborated by various independent sources, that he was elevated after the Kwekwe prison sacking of Sithole by his fellow leaders in mid-1974 in a vote spiritedly moved by Tekere and supported by Enos Nkala and Maurice Nyagumbo but opposed by Sithole himself with a cowardly abstention from Mugabe while Moton Malianga did not vote as he chaired the meeting to sack Sithole from the leadership of Zanu.
About this Tekere recalls that "the votes were cast with three in favour of the sacking, one against (Sithole), and one abstention — Mugabe. Once more Mugabe did not want to "break" with his leader. His abstention was total. He sat silently in the meeting and did not raise a finger. This is when he was appointed to head the party. For the structure was clear on this. Since the Vice-President, Leopard Takawira, had died, Mugabe, as secretary-general of the party, was the next in line.
Sithole’s dismissal from the presidency of Zanu by his colleagues in prison was communicated to all party structures, especially guerilla fighters, within and outside the country. Therefore subsequent seemingly landmark events, including the December 1974 "Nhari Rebellion", Chitepo’s assassination in March 1975, the crossing into Mozambique by Tekere and Mugabe in April 1975, the October 1975 Mgagao Declaration and the letter of January 24, 1976, from the Dare reChimurenga signed by Josiah Tongogara, Kumbirai Kangai and Rugare Gumbo, were footnotes to the sacking of Sithole and his replacement by Mugabe through an indubitably courageous motion that was moved by Tekere in the presence of both Sithole and Mugabe.
As such, only those who have been blinded by the whims and caprices of Mugabe’s personality cult and who because of that have become either malicious or sycophantic can deny that Tekere "was instrumental in catapulting Mugabe to the helm of Zanu PF". The supporting evidence is unimpeachable. In any event, it is clear from the public record that the October 1975 Mgagao Declaration sought to make Mugabe, who had already crossed into Mozambique with Tekere, only a spokesman and caretaker leader pending the release from prison in Zambia of Dare reChimurenga members who had been accused of murdering Chitepo and who were seen by the comrades in Mgagao as the real true leaders of the armed struggle who had inspired their declaration. That is why the Mgagao Declaration referred to Mugabe as the "…only person who can act as a middleman". The difference between a middleman and a leader is like that of night and day.”
Any student of democracy would agree that the behaviour of Mugabe appears to be consistent with anyone who believes in democracy. To argue that Mugabe should have been at the forefront of a coup de etat against Sithole and then proceed to criticise Mugabe for being a dictator can be best described as intellectual dishonesty. If the architects of Zimbabwe’s democracy are themselves guilty of setting a wrong foundation then history may never know that out of all the characters that have come to symbolise the struggle, Mugabe may be the most misunderstood leader by his own friends and countrymen. One would have thought with the passage of time, people like Tekere would understand Mugabe and the values that inform his choices.
In as much as the Prof has never understood the animal called Zanu PF despite having been a member of its structure in the party and the government, it appears that Mugabe’s values may not be in sync with the values of any power hungry person who has no respect for the will of the people. One has to recognise that in seeking to promote and entrench democratic values, Mugabe may have alienated himself from his colleagues who believe in democratic centralism as the guiding force.
For me coming from the private sector, I do appreciate where Tekere, Moyo and Nkala may be coming from given that leaders of commerce and industry are rarely chosen by shareholders. Shareholders typically are never involved in the selection of executives and in the case of directors it is typical that directors co-opt their friends and not enemies and all shareholders have to do is to ratify the choices made. Zimbabweans should make the choice of whether they want leaders to come from directors or themselves as shareholders.
Disclosure TwoThat, because Mugabe is basically an insecure heartless person given to brutal vengeance, he has over the years used the political power he got with a whole lot of help from his senior nationalist colleagues to marginalise and ostracise those very same colleagues who helped him rise to the helm of Zanu PF in the first place. This is what accounts for the political misfortunes of the likes of Zanu stalwarts such as Nkala, Nyagumbo, Eddison Zvobgo and Tekere himself not to mention similar misfortunes of many others in Zapu including the late Vice-President Joshua Nkomo who was humiliated by Mugabe into submitting to a treacherous unity accord. In the circumstances, Mugabe has come to be surrounded by dodgy political characters along with other bureaucratic and media sycophants who are known for their malice and incompetence.
It is being argued that since Mugabe’s legitimacy as a leader was a manufactured one, he should be eternally grateful to his principals and not the people who eventually elected his party at independence as a governing party. It is not clear from the Prof’s comments, how Mugabe should have behaved in relation to his so-called principals particularly given that a President of a country should act in the interests of the nation rather than partisan interests. In provoking discussion on Mugabe’s legacy, I believe that it is important that Zimbabweans rise above personal issues and debate issues in an objective manner.
I would like to believe that if Prof Moyo had been allowed to participate in the last election as a Zanu PF candidate, he would not object to other people calling him names as shown above. Is it fair and just to keep reminding Zimbabweans of the undemocratic values that informed the liberation struggle without providing any insight into what kind of institutional framework is required by Zimbabwe to provide checks and balances to the kind of mess that is described in Tekere’s book.
In as much as the Prof wants us to believe that it was wrong for Mugabe to ditch his principals, would it also not be fair to use the same analogy for him in that he used the Zanu PF party and government platform to ascend to power, albeit as an legislator for Tsholotsho? Would it be fair and just for the Prof to criticise the hand that profitably fed him? If the Prof was Mugabe what should he have done in relation to the Zanu PF stalwarts is a question that should occupy our conversations. Yes, Tekere’s life in many ways demonstrates the other side of Mugabe.
It is important to draw lessons from Zimbabwe’s rich political history and understand that when Nkala and others disagreed with ZAPU leadership, they proceeded to set up their own institutions to compete for political space without seeking to unseat Nkomo in ZAPU. They did not behave like what we have seen in the recent past where opposition parties have sought to disagree and then proceed to remain divided in the same party with two leaders without any courage to set up their own institutions.
Tekere set up his own political organisations as it should be and was allowed by the same Mugabe to compete for national political space and the rest is history. If Mugabe is as evil as we want him to be then surely Zimbabweans must be honest with themselves and take responsibility for their own inadequacies. It is wrong and naïve to blame Mugabe while congratulating each other on historical obfuscation. The crisis in Zimbabwe deserves better and Africa needs a Zimbabwe that is more intelligent than our intellectual and political leaders are displaying.
I have written previously on Imperial Presidency and having read Professor Moyo’s article, I have had to change my thinking on the Zimbabwean crisis. The crisis may ultimately be located in the minds of those who seek to confuse and rewrite history for self serving ends.
Disclosure ThreeThat the blame for 90% of Zimbabwe’s ills should go to Mugabe, not the much touted economic sanctions, and that there is now a critical and urgent need for bold leadership within Zanu PF with courage to tell Mugabe that he is now a liability to Zimbabwe and that he should retire and pass the baton to a younger and more imaginative leader.
Having read the articles on Tekere’s book and the interest that it has aroused, I am now convinced that the governance crisis in Zimbabwe will take longer to resolve because it is patently evident that the foundation of the liberation struggle particularly in terms of political leadership and democracy is fundamentally flawed. This is not a problem unique to Zimbabwe but to the extent that Tekere has opened the can of worms it is incumbent upon Africans to take ownership of the problem in a holistic manner with a view to establishing a consensus on whether leaders should be help culpable while their followers allow themselves to rewrite history in a manner that perpetuates the crisis by misleading citizens into believing that they should not have a say on who governs them but the right should be reserved for self appointed godfathers. If we seek to argue that Mugabe is the only problem, we should also seek to critically examine to what extent we have also personally and collectively contributed to the crisis.
I am persuaded to agree that even if Zimbabwe was not under any sanctions, the crisis would still be evident. Just to demonstrate the gravity of the Zimbabwean crisis and its location beyond the confines of Mugabe, I thought that it would be beneficial to step back and reflect on the following New Year messages for 2007 that were published on New Zimbabwe.com. I have picked on three individuals in an attempt to show that there may be many realities in Zimbabwe that may escape our attention in an attempt to target Mugabe for political and not national interest expediency.
Reserve Bank Governor Dr Gideon Gono: 'I aim to redouble my efforts this year. 2006 was a challenging year, but I am committed to the task at hand and challenge all Zimbabweans to help steer our country out of the current situation. This, we will do only if we are guided by honour, sincerity, integrity and purity.'
The questions we need to ask ourselves is whether the Governor is himself an honourable person, a man of sincerity and integrity, and finally whether he is pure. Yes, he wants every Zimbabwean to make suboptimal choices by buying the cheapest cars while he allows himself to enjoy the ultimate mobile luxury. We are told that the board of the RBZ allocated him an S500 top of the range Mercedes Benz as a company car.
He then proposed that the same car be provided to him as a loan, effectively taking the asset out of the balance sheet of the Bank. We are not told whether the policy of the bank was changed to allow all eligible staff members to have the same dispensation. We are then told that the car was then imported into the country and the Governor then decided to swap the car for an S600 that happened to be available in the market. No one attempts to explain why the board of the RBZ that is chaired by Gono would approve an S500 when it is evident that Gono was of the opinion that an S600 was the appropriate vehicle. We are also not told of who was the supplier of the vehicle. Could it be someone who had benefited from the opaque fertiliser or wheat deals that have now become the order of the day?
Then we read from the Standard that Gono was living large with the most expensive car in town. The story is then rebutted by the RBZ using institutional money. We are now told that the real car is the S600 with a V12 engine.
When one reads stories like this against a background of an economic crisis, one is tempted to believe that it cannot be Mugabe alone who is the problem. What has sanctions got to do with this kind of story? It is clear that even if Gono cannot go to Germany, Germany will come to him in form of an S600 luxury car.
I strongly believe that Moyo would not have a problem with a public officer of a state institution like Gono appropriating himself a luxury car with no evidence of Mugabe approving such a deal. Can you imagine how many lives would be saved if Gono and the RBZ had decided to sacrifice his personal comfort to buy a car that requires foreign currency to purchase and maintain for better health care? However, we are told that we should hold Mugabe culpable for the actions, tastes and appetites of people like Gono.
Property magnate and former Chinhoyi MP Phillip Chiyangwa: 'My resolution is to get stinking rich and blow the minds of my detractors apart. The more money I make, the bigger the distance between me and them.'
When you read the above resolution, you may be confused about the state of the Zimbabwean crisis. While many occupy their minds with the challenges of putting the next meal on the table others in the same country are thinking of getting stinking rich and blowing the minds of the poor. Who ever said that Zimbabwe was in a crisis when the velocity of primitive accumulation becomes the clarion call?
What would the Professor and Tekere say about the 2007 resolution and what should be the message to the increasing number of vulnerable Zimbabweans? When you read the above statement would you be wrong in saying that Mugabe is not the problem for I do not believe that any 83 year old person would have the capacity and energy to know what the time is as they say. Even if Mugabe was not there, the problem may be in the appetite and attitudes that are difficult to change even with a change of government.
Yes, Chiyangwa represents a different reality but how many other Zimbabweans have been victimised for doing what he may be doing for personal interest? Yes, Gono who lectures about patriotism and nationalism is evidently silent on Chiyangwa begging the question of selective and self serving treatment of business persons.
Tsholotsho MP Professor Jonathan Moyo: 'For me 2007 is a year for action and more action of the decisive kind not only within my personal sphere but also and even more importantly in national terms.'
No one needs to remind Professor Moyo that 2007 is only a year for action by Zanu PF and no significant national event is in the political calendar except decisions that have to be made by the ruling party for its own survival. I am not sure why the Prof is of the view that Zimbabweans should expect better and significant developments during this year. If the Prof was wrong on Tsholotsho, can anyone seriously expect him to be right on 2007? Only time will tell.
Yes, the Prof got into political leadership as a nominated legislator by the same Mugabe and yet he did not have the courage to say no and prove himself without the umbrella of patronage that he now seeks to condemn. Maybe the Prof would see no problem if Mugabe appoints the future President of the country and the dangers of investing in appointed leaders are all too evident from the Prof’s own short but remarkable record as the ultimate spin doctor and what many have described as the axis of evil.
I have previously observed that the only power people who do not have power is the power to be organised and not confused by simplistic messages. The air is pregnant with bad news about bad people making wrong decisions about the future of the country and yet there is no attempt to broaden the analytical and conceptual framework from the politics of the struggle to the politics of nation building.
Yes, political machinations may have been acceptable during the liberation struggle but a nation that builds a future on conspiracy projects ultimately undermines itself than promote its strategic interests. The real enemies of Zimbabwe may not be the nations that have imposed ineffective targeted sanctions but Zimbabweans themselves who rightly or wrongly may have invested in values that are allergic to progress and transformation.