There is a sad and tragic continuing trend in Zimbabwe’s
national politics. And this is the seemingly enduring challenge of politically
motivated violence against would be opponents in contestations for state or
political party power.
It rears its ugly head through the form of physical
violence, hate speech and acts of exclusion (barring each other from meetings,
censoring differing views in mainstream and social media).
Recently there have regrettable incidents of politically motivated
violence by alleged members of the mainstream opposition the MDC-T. The assumed reason/motivation for the
violence has been the issue of who succeeds the party’s late leader Morgan
Tsvangirai. Or at least who acts as president
until an elective congress of the same party is eventually held.
The party’s own leaders and even the ruling Zanu Pf have
condemned the acts of violence with the former promising thorough investigations
and bringing the culprits to book. Some
of the alleged perpetrators have also been arrested and questioned by the
Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP).
There is however more to these unacceptable acts of
political violence that must be examined if we are stop them recurring either
in the short term electoral future but also as a dark part of our national political
culture.
There is therefore a need to examine the origins of a
culture of politically motivated violence in contemporary Zimbabwean
politics. And some of these origins are
historical where coercion and direct violence were tools of not only the
colonial state but also ended being those of leaders of the liberation struggle. n fact the colonial state was the primary purveyor of politically motivated violence by way of both state structure and intention. It meted out forms of violence not only by way of enforced physical dominance by a minority group but as the anti-colonial movement grew by atrocious levels of violence with impunity that included bombings, parading deceased bodies of liberation struggle comrades, enforced encampment (keeps), abductions and evictions. Just to list but a few.
With those that led the liberation struggle,
violence was formally adopted as a necessary change of strategy against the
settler state but it also had its own tendencies to be meted out against the
people it sought to liberate. Hence the jarring
tales of violence at ‘pungwes’ or abductions and murder of those that were
alleged sellouts in rural areas. the settler state did not do the same.
In the urban areas, again, the use of violence between rival
nationalist movement camps Zanu and Zapu is well recorded in the urban history
of what were the then African townships.
Add to this the perennial and overriding violence of the colonial state
(riot police, abductions, confinements) and we have a compounding of a
regrettable culture of violence.
It is a culture that is carried over to post independence
Zimbabwe through again the legacy of colonialism and the struggles against it.
But more significantly it is instrumentalised by the ruling establishment to
retain power.
Though contemporary leaders of Zanu Pf would deny this,
violence and exclusionary language was to reach its zenith with the rise of the
opposition MDC in the late 1990s. And the violence also included the use of
state apparatus’ such as the police, prisons and party leaders/youths.
In the conundrum that it became this violence also then lead
to a developing culture of mimicry in the opposition. Because the culture of violence had led to
many opposition supporters feeling they had no option but to stand by their party(ies)
and individual leaders, they copied some of the habits of the ruling
party. They also protected political
turfs with youths, embraced subtle ethnic undertones to their politics and began
to use the language of exclusion in public (making statements on how they have
been there from the beginning of the party etc).
In both the ruling party and opposition the culture of
violence is largely internal before it is meted out on others. And this is largely
due to the lack of organic internal democracy in the parties (this includes
even the smaller ones). Perhaps with
changes in leaderships of the main parties this culture might change but it
looks less likely in the short term. There
is too much entitlement to political leadership especially by way of ‘long
duree’ status in the ‘party’ and slogans such as ‘chine vene vacho’ (it has its
owners). Thelatter phrase having found
its way into opposition lexicon after the ruling establishment’s ‘coup-not-a-coup’
change of leadership.
And the thousands of unemployed young Zimbabweans will take
the hand that they are dealt. If not to
make some sort of income but also just to belong to some forward looking
cause. Especially in an election
year.
But the reality of the matter is that acts of contemporary politically
motivated violence are in the final analysis, futile. Both for the party and
for the individuals involved. They do
not portend ideas nor do they inspire toward greater democratic consciousness
and progress. Instead they create fear
and always the potential of victims becoming perpetrators if they survive it
all.
Those in the leadership of the various political parties
including the ruling Zanu Pf and mainstream opposition MDC-T need to understand
that it is not enough to condemn political violence. They need to act concertedly to embrace
internal party democracy and also allow
others to democratically arrive at leadership positions. Regardless of age,
gender, ethnicity or race. They need to
allow in particular young members of their parties opportunities to lead at
earlier stages of their membership and democratically institutionalize their parties
more than they do the individuals that lead them. ‘Vene vacho’ will then become not the individual
but the values and principles that the party stands for. And for an immediate posterity where
politically motivated violence will become a thing of the past.
*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity
(takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment