Conversations around the military takeover of the country in November 2017 now revolve around, at least according to a majority of pro-opposition opinion leaders, defining popular support for it as ‘a mistake’.
On social media some memes have gone relatively viral about how the 18 November 2017 march as enabled by the military and calling for Robert Mugabe’s ouster was “National Dzungu Day”. Translated into English this would be “National Confusion Day”. All because of subsequent disappointment at the Emerson Mnangagwa successor regime. Mainly in relation to the fact that it won the subsequent 2018 elections in their occurrence as well as the fact that a constitutional court challenge of the results ruled in its favour.
With hindsight, what was fairly evident is that November 2017 was rather dramatic for many Zimbabweans. Almost like a soap opera and its typical character plots. That is, an ageing oligarch with a young(ish) ambitious wife and her hangers one and the austere, sly uncle biding his time to take over the family business.
And very few people can claim to have seen this coming. Not by a long shot.
I remember that I was in Johannesburg the week of 14 November 2017 attending a Zimbabwe Solidarity Forum conference on, wait for it, “Possible Scenarios as Zimbabwe Heads for the 2018 Elections”. The night before my presentation, I met up with a friend based in the Diaspora to discuss issues back home. And he shared videos form his social media feed of soldiers driving into town and raised his own suspicions as to what was going on in Harare. I refused to believe his immediate conspiracy that there was a coup de tat underway in Zimbabwe.
It turned out the following morning that he
was correct. He shared the video of now Foreign
Affairs Minister S B Moyo early morning statement announcing that then
President Mugabe and his family were safe. Adding that the military had moved
in to protect their commander in chief from ‘criminals’ surrounding him.
The conference I was attending changed tone and in a media report
by South African newspaper the Sowetan, I highlighted the following, “The
crisis around leadership and succession did not emerge in the villages‚ not in
the townships. It comes from within the ZANU-PF politburo‚ the ZANU-PF central
committee and in part in the first family and its involvement in ZANU-PF’s
succession policies.” And I flew back that evening to a heavily guarded Robert
Mugabe International Airport.
The subsequent events that followed such as the war veterans
organized rally at Zimbabwe Grounds in Highfields, the attempted march on state
house, a visitation by a South African delegation to Mugabe and his infamous ‘Asante
Sana’ statement were as eerie as they were unpredictable. By the time his resignation
letter was read by the Speaker of Parliament to a joint sitting of both houses
of the same, the process of national shock and fear had morphed into a national cathartic
moment.
Where we fast forward from 2017 to the contemporary, it is
now apparent that with most moments of catharsis the aftermath sees an
occupation with either regret at having been ‘overjoyed’ or high expectations of
what that moment should have come to mean.
In this, and for emphasis, it worth recalling a couple of
key issues about Zanu Pf’s leadership transition in November 2017.
One of these being the fact that the ruling party and
establishment (including the military and private capital) strategically
decided to turn the general lack of popular support for Robert Mugabe and his wife Grace to its own
populist advantage. At great risk to the
country’s political stability. I am quite certain that they
asked themselves the question who would not want to see the back of Mugabe? And critically knew that the answer from a
majority of SADC heads of states/government would be an affirmation of a desire
to see the ‘old man’ retire. Or that the
mainstream opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai would accept Mugabe’s departure with
relative enthusiasm at what he would have considered a new opportunity at the
presidency. And of course the broader ‘international
community’ which viewed Mugabe as too much of a symbol of Pan African
resistance to the intentions of globalization and global private capital.
The populist elements of the events of November 2017 therefore eventually worked to confirm the lack of popularity of Mugabe across multiple societal
and global interests.
What is however also interesting in the contemporary is our
continued desire for some sort of catharsis.
Or our apparent search for a seismic event that would hopefully and once
again, change everything. That was the case with the 2018 harmonized
elections which the ruling establishment decided to go ahead with. And all events that have occurred in between
then and now around SADC, African Union or United Nations summits.
In recalling the tumultuous events of November 2017 we would
do well to remember that the ruling Zanu Pf put our country at great political risk
with what it allowed to occur or refused to see coming. That it eventually got away with it via reverse
populism and an awkward shared desire by many to see the back of Mugabe is something
we will have to live with. And for
historians to eventually give us multiple versions of the details that led to
it. What we should collectively agree on
with hindsight and in the present is that if we improve our politics, this will
never happen again. And should have never happened.
*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity
(takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment