By Takura Zhangazha. *
On Tuesday, 29 August 2012, the Zimbabwean Prime Minister held his
monthly press conference. In his statement, the PM touched on a number
of issues related to political developments in the country. His
pronouncements were given, perhaps as they should be, with an aura of
finality. This was particularly apparent when he addressed the
contentious matter of our current constitution making process. To quote
the PM directly, he informed the media and in the process, the nation
that,
' Article 6 of the GPA is clear that the Constitution-making process
should be driven by Parliament. Some of us have no wish to revise that
position and in any case, the Principals cannot renegotiate a document
agreed by those with our delegated authority. We cannot
negotiate in perpetuity. This Constitution is a product of years of hard
work which included sourcing the views of the people and negotiations
between the political parties. So we say no to any attempts to dedicate
more time in a process where the country has already committed huge
resources and time. It is time the people made a decision
through a referendum and political parties should refrain from
pretending to speak on behalf of the people when the people reserve the
right to speak for themselves in a referendum.'
Such words
from the PM appear somewhat persuasive, or even 'principled' to say the
least, but in effect, the PM is not being as honest as one would expect.
By saying this, I am aware that some of my own colleagues may get 'angry'
on behalf of the PM at my 'daring' to question such a statement for
various reasons. Top of the list of such reasons would be that there
is a general understanding (arguably so) that most colleagues
in civil society do not query or challenge positions that are
made with an air of finality by leaders in the inclusive government. From my own personal vantage point
as a Zimbabwean citizen, I will however depart from what has come to be viewed
as the 'norm' of towing a political party line and state that on the important issue of the constitution,
I respectfully disagree with the PM Tsvangirayi (not
that it may matter to him or his office).
My disagreement is premised on a number of factors but for brevity I
will focus only on three of them. The first being that the PM is not
being politically honest where he seeks to claim finality with the
phrase, 'we cannot negotiate in perpetuity' on the constitution when in
fact, the entirety of COPAC has been perpetual political party
negotiation and sadly will be concluded in the same manner. Similarly
the reference that is made about 'refraining' political parties from
speaking on behalf of the people is ironic.
The inclusive government has
been exactly just that, and it is unfortunate that after the COPAC
process has come to a full undemocratic circle, the PM wishes us to
bestow him with the credit of taking an undemocratically (with
or without Zanu Pf amendments) arrived at document to the people. In any event,
even if the PM's arguments were based on the need to save resources, a
cost-benefit analysis of COPAC logically leads to the fact that what has
been spent and is still intended to be spent far outweighs the real
output.
The second
reason why I disagree with the PM's recent statement on the constitution is
that while he insists on going to the people for a verdict, the end
product of such brinksmanship is obviously a popularity contest between
Zanu Pf and the MDC-T. To explain further, this would mean what the
country would be faced with is not a vote on a constitution, but a
preamble to a Presidential election based on President Mugabe and PM
Tsvangirai's opinion on the same document. Not that it would be a bad thing in itself, but it
would be an extremely deceptive and unfortunate pretense at 'democracy' by
seeking evidently partisan means to establish a people's charter.
The
PM also states rather controversially that, " A new Constitution is
central to elections and to the reform agenda in
Zimbabwe and if this process is collapsed, it will spell doom to the
prospects for a credible, free and fair election". The truth of the
matter is that Parliament recently passed the Electoral Ammendment Bill
and a number of other Bills which have been part of and approved as the inclusive government's 'reform
agenda'. Perhaps the constitution would be the sum total of these
Bills, but to argue that the COPAC draft (in whatever form) is the only
route to elections, is unfortunately to ignore the very matters that
have given credence to the 'incremental change' arguments of both the
MDCs and components of civil society.
The third and final reason
why I hold a different opinion from the PM is that I am certain that
given the usage of a huge amount of resources for COPAC and the
involvement of SADC, negotiations will be the PM's only option (not that
it will make the process or the draft anymore democratic). There is no
real reason why the three political parties, who have been in the
inclusive government for over three years will not be made to agree on
another version of the draft by SADC or even after the extensive Monday
meetings of the political principals. So perhaps the PM's statement is
one that is intended to call Zanu PF's bluff and drive some sort of hard
bargain or at least appear to be doing so. But it will potentially all
come full circle, back to another negotiation and the re-representation
of an undemocratically arrived at constitution to the people of
Zimbabwe.
Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity (takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)
Thursday, 30 August 2012
Tuesday, 21 August 2012
Southern African Implications of The Marikana Lonmin Mineworkers Shooting Tragedy
Southern African Implications of Marikana Mine Shooting Tragedy
By Takura Zhangazha *
The tragic and fatal shooting of 34 mineworkers in South Africa has sadly brought back memories of the violence of the apartheid years. And because memories of apartheid are not only limited to South Africa, the killing fields of Marikana must also be viewed as part of the Southern African narrative of repression, violence and the historical de-humanisation of the African. And this, even in the aftermath of the liberation of the continent from colonial and settler minority rule. This point on its own is a controversial but necessary one. The reason why it must be raised is because parts of the Southern African media debate in the tragic aftermath of these shootings has mistakenly centered around the assumed failures of the leadership of the African National Congress (ANC) as well as general derision of South African 'exceptionalism' on human rights observation in the region.
Some debates have gone so far as to argue that had such a tragedy occurred on Zimbabwean soil, there perhaps may have been an immediate invoking of the Responsibility to Protect liberal intervention doctrine that has been used in parts of North and West Africa in 2012. That too is an argument that misses the meaning and full implications of the dreadful shooting of the miners. In other circles, others are arguing (including some South African labour unions) that because the Marikana miners actions are said to have led to the murder of at least two police officers and that the strikers were also armed, the South African police were acting in self defence. That is an even more controversial argument but one that still skirts the serious meaning of the Marikana shooting tragedy.
In fact, there must now be a distinction that is made between the tragic event as it occurred and the broader and much more important underlying causes to these most unfortunate of incidences. If not for just this one tragic event but also in order to prevent further such from occurring again. I am sure for the nation of South Africa, this may be a task for the Commission that has been established by President Jacob Zuma.
For Southern African citizens this tragedy however must be viewed with the utmost seriousness and examination of our collective regional history as it relates to mining operations, the de-humanisation of migrant labour and finally the emergence of new resource extraction oligarchies that are generally acting in collusion with many of our governments in the region to extract/mine without attendant democratic socio-economic accountability. In effect, such an analysis, given the unaccountable state of affairs in mining and resource extraction in most (if not all) of Southern Africa, a 'Marikana' can unfortunately occur anywhere else in the region, if it has not silently occurred in worse formats in countries such as Angola and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. This is before we even begin to discuss the processes that are unfolding in Tanzania and Mozambique over gas, coal and potential oil discoveries by international mining companies.
It is therefore of importance that we see the borderline heinous shooting of striking miners in South Africa as a tragic but now necessary wake-up call for all of us to reflect on how issues of mining and mineral wealth discoveries are being handled by our own governments and the regional body SADC. In doing so, we must however, unlike most of our governments, place emphasis on the necessity of prioritizing the people's welfare and above all, tackling with finality, the repressive legacy of colonial mineral and labour extraction in our post-independence societies. This would entail a reflection on how initially most of the workers at big or small mines were mainly migrant as well as chibaro (forced labour) recruits from across the entirety of the Southern African region. We must also examine whether it is the same 'colonial' frameworks and attitudes that inform the structure, function and profit of our contemporary mines. Questions such as to what extent do most mines or extractive mineral operations retain the structure of the oppressive colonial past and the extent to which our contemporary leaders are acting as 'replacements' for colonial governments will be critical for such an appraisal.
Further still, we must begin to examine the entirety of the Marikana tragedy, not only from the purview of the state (inclusive of the South African Police Service) but from its most 'human rights' and 'humanity' related angle. This would be from the point of view of the mine workers, their families and their socio-economic circumstances. This not only for South Africa but for the entirety of the region. In this there should be no exceptionalism. Whether one is discussing the controversial diamond mines in Eastern Zimbabwe or the revived copper mines in Zambia, a key question must resonate, 'where in this do we find the people's socio-economic rights?' Even if the investor appears to make the central or provincial governments in our respective countries happy, we must measure whether there is no deliberate elite cohesion in extractive wealth accumulation for the few at the expense of the poor majority.
As it is, the lessons of Marikana may appear specific to socio-economic and political developments in South Africa. Some may have even chosen to view them in relation to the internal politics of the ANC as well in order to falsely claim that all 'African' politics remain the same. The truth of the matter is, Marikana is indicative of a continually emerging and re-emerging Southern African problem around resource extraction, elite collusion against workers and families and in the same process, an active lack of democratic frameworks around resource extraction in the region.
*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity (takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)
By Takura Zhangazha *
The tragic and fatal shooting of 34 mineworkers in South Africa has sadly brought back memories of the violence of the apartheid years. And because memories of apartheid are not only limited to South Africa, the killing fields of Marikana must also be viewed as part of the Southern African narrative of repression, violence and the historical de-humanisation of the African. And this, even in the aftermath of the liberation of the continent from colonial and settler minority rule. This point on its own is a controversial but necessary one. The reason why it must be raised is because parts of the Southern African media debate in the tragic aftermath of these shootings has mistakenly centered around the assumed failures of the leadership of the African National Congress (ANC) as well as general derision of South African 'exceptionalism' on human rights observation in the region.
Some debates have gone so far as to argue that had such a tragedy occurred on Zimbabwean soil, there perhaps may have been an immediate invoking of the Responsibility to Protect liberal intervention doctrine that has been used in parts of North and West Africa in 2012. That too is an argument that misses the meaning and full implications of the dreadful shooting of the miners. In other circles, others are arguing (including some South African labour unions) that because the Marikana miners actions are said to have led to the murder of at least two police officers and that the strikers were also armed, the South African police were acting in self defence. That is an even more controversial argument but one that still skirts the serious meaning of the Marikana shooting tragedy.
In fact, there must now be a distinction that is made between the tragic event as it occurred and the broader and much more important underlying causes to these most unfortunate of incidences. If not for just this one tragic event but also in order to prevent further such from occurring again. I am sure for the nation of South Africa, this may be a task for the Commission that has been established by President Jacob Zuma.
For Southern African citizens this tragedy however must be viewed with the utmost seriousness and examination of our collective regional history as it relates to mining operations, the de-humanisation of migrant labour and finally the emergence of new resource extraction oligarchies that are generally acting in collusion with many of our governments in the region to extract/mine without attendant democratic socio-economic accountability. In effect, such an analysis, given the unaccountable state of affairs in mining and resource extraction in most (if not all) of Southern Africa, a 'Marikana' can unfortunately occur anywhere else in the region, if it has not silently occurred in worse formats in countries such as Angola and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. This is before we even begin to discuss the processes that are unfolding in Tanzania and Mozambique over gas, coal and potential oil discoveries by international mining companies.
It is therefore of importance that we see the borderline heinous shooting of striking miners in South Africa as a tragic but now necessary wake-up call for all of us to reflect on how issues of mining and mineral wealth discoveries are being handled by our own governments and the regional body SADC. In doing so, we must however, unlike most of our governments, place emphasis on the necessity of prioritizing the people's welfare and above all, tackling with finality, the repressive legacy of colonial mineral and labour extraction in our post-independence societies. This would entail a reflection on how initially most of the workers at big or small mines were mainly migrant as well as chibaro (forced labour) recruits from across the entirety of the Southern African region. We must also examine whether it is the same 'colonial' frameworks and attitudes that inform the structure, function and profit of our contemporary mines. Questions such as to what extent do most mines or extractive mineral operations retain the structure of the oppressive colonial past and the extent to which our contemporary leaders are acting as 'replacements' for colonial governments will be critical for such an appraisal.
Further still, we must begin to examine the entirety of the Marikana tragedy, not only from the purview of the state (inclusive of the South African Police Service) but from its most 'human rights' and 'humanity' related angle. This would be from the point of view of the mine workers, their families and their socio-economic circumstances. This not only for South Africa but for the entirety of the region. In this there should be no exceptionalism. Whether one is discussing the controversial diamond mines in Eastern Zimbabwe or the revived copper mines in Zambia, a key question must resonate, 'where in this do we find the people's socio-economic rights?' Even if the investor appears to make the central or provincial governments in our respective countries happy, we must measure whether there is no deliberate elite cohesion in extractive wealth accumulation for the few at the expense of the poor majority.
As it is, the lessons of Marikana may appear specific to socio-economic and political developments in South Africa. Some may have even chosen to view them in relation to the internal politics of the ANC as well in order to falsely claim that all 'African' politics remain the same. The truth of the matter is, Marikana is indicative of a continually emerging and re-emerging Southern African problem around resource extraction, elite collusion against workers and families and in the same process, an active lack of democratic frameworks around resource extraction in the region.
*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity (takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)
Tuesday, 7 August 2012
Becoming heroes of our own time
By Takura Zhangazha*
Each year Zimbabwe has correctly set
aside a public holiday in August to remember the heroes of our national
liberation struggle. The conferring of
hero status upon individual Zimbabweans however remains a contentious issue
given the fact that it is Zanu Pf that decides on the matter. In fact, there
was an occasion where President Mugabe spoke at the funeral of one national
hero where he stated that the Warren Hills Heroes Acre in Harare essentially belonged only to
those that went to the liberation struggle. He added that should anyone else
who was not in that struggle directly or indirectly seek to be interred at the same venue, he or she might as well find their own hillside elsewhere and build one for themselves.
There have been many other debates
about who and what it is to be a Zimbabwean national hero especially after the passing on
of a prominent national political leader or popular celebrity who had/has no direct
link with Zanu Pf. It is however
unfortunate that hero status is normally conferred upon only those that will
have passed on. There is rare conferment of hero status on those that are
living (young or old) who have served the country in varying capacities
inclusive of but not limited to the liberation struggle or post-independence politics.
It is this latter point that is
perhaps in need of expansion. We
have, as a country and in the last
thirty plus years correctly made it a
priority to honour the comrades that passed on in the course of the liberation
struggle as well as those that participated in it and are with us today. This
has however been politically contentious with each passing year and especially
in the aftermath of the establishment of an inclusive govermnent which to all
intents and purposes was/is a sure sign of weakening Zanu Pf political
hegemony. (Hence the regular contestation by political parties around hero status)
The primary issue however is that
where we have remembered our national heroes of the liberation struggle we have
failed to remember that though their heroism led to the founding of the nation,
it is primarily a heroism that was intended to create further heroic deeds in the
name of the struggle and the revolutionary values that established the country. And
this is the primary challenge for all Zimbabweans today. It is not so much to
hold the gun like our freedom fighters but to demonstrate the same commitment and purpose in understanding
our society better and charting principled democratic way forwards that are remembered for
posterity and emulated by generations to come.
The heroic deeds of the armed and
political wings of our liberation war movements were also undertaken with a specific
intention to ensure that while the war was inevitably necessary and tragic, the
struggle itself required that their conduct be consistently revolutionary,
honest and principled on key democratic values that served the best public interest of all Zimbabweans.
With time, it has become
evident that those that led us after independence and those that lead us today
have failed to understand the need to be conscious and stay on the right path
of a continual and democratic people's
victory. In most instances and of their own volition, our contemporary leaders have
sought more self aggrandizement than democratic national leadership and have
tended to function out of sync with the democratic intentions of the liberation
struggle. They have departed further and further from democratically conscious
leadership and are patently failing in becoming revolutionaries of their own time.
Instead of being conscious not only of the liberation struggle and
sticking to democratic values and principles, our leaders are increasingly
involved in elitist cohesion and are functioning in part as though the country
were personal property or belongs to three political parties. They have further
found comfort in believing that all of their actions should be defined by ‘compromises’
in order to acquire or retain political power as an end and without the
necessary social democratic clarity. In the short and long term, the effect of
these tendencies has been inept politcal leadership of government and elite
cohesion around covering up each other’s weaknesses. I fear that perhaps they
too have missed their ‘heroic’ moment despite either having been jailed or tortured at the hands of then oppressors.
And this is why perhaps all
Zimbabweans must discover the hero in themselves and in activities outside of the
political mainstream. By doing so, perhaps we can be heroes and democratic
revolutionaries of our own time. This is regardless of whatever vocation one finds him/herself in. We must act with clarity and appreciation of how our own contributions to our society can be heroic with or without the approval of politicians and politicized matters. This must however be done with the spirit and intent of those that
fought the liberation struggle conscientiously and with belief in democracy,
social and economic justice and the necessity of performing their generational duty
for posterity and not self.
*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his own personal capacity (takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)