By Takura Zhangazha*
There has been a little bit of social media banter about the
professions that populate our Zimbabwean and African politics at its most executive
decision making levels. With some of the
same said banter arguing that we have too many legal professionals in our top executive
government leadership. While on the
opposite side of the relatively populist debate is that if we had for example ‘engineers’
(of all types) in charge of our governments, we would easily see faster
implementation of development projects and the betterment of the livelihood of
the people.
Mainly because ‘engineers' are deemed to be more pragmatic,
even mathematical in solving specific problems afflicting our societies. Be it
in the form of infrastructural rehabilitation or even in some cases the militarization
by army engineering corps of health or transport services.
I must confess that I was alerted to this debate by an engineering cde who is based in the Diaspora and is very passionate about Zimbabwe and its progressive future. It had already been doing the rounds, as it turns out, via a blog he also shared title ‘Zimbabwe’s Lawyer Heavy Politics Not Good for Development’.
It is not clear who wrote this particular article.
But the article as its title suggests its
main argument is to pit the legal profession against what are perceivably more pragmatic
professions where and when it comes to governance of countries. Something that dovetails almost too nicely
with the new educational emphasis of many African governments around Science, Technology,
Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) syllabi frameworks. Not only for educational
purposes but also for preferred leadership purposes.
There are however at least two sides to political
leadership. There is the ideological or
value based side. And then there is the administrative and technical or administrative
side. Both work in tandem. But with the
ideological/values based element being in charge.
Almost like we used to argue during our own liberation
struggle about the politics leading the gun.
Because you cannot fire a gun without a cause. You cannot fight for the sake of fighting
without a justiciable or even popular cause.
Nor can you establish a rules based system for legal professionals or lawyers without an underpinning value system. One that may recognize human rights as is legally but not pragmatically the case in Zimbabwe. While expecting those read in the rules to be the only ones best at either implementing or interpreting the same said rules.
For a clear example of this one
just needs to just crosscheck the USA and Trump’s administration of justice and
how it is disrupting long held democratic value systems. To the extent that it is now a society now
arguably ruled by fear of what the government will do next via executive
order. Even if their president is not
even a lawyer.
So the argument about the background professional qualifications
of a president or prime minster may be populist in nature but it does not
really matter. In fact it should not
matter.
But what I consider relatively abstract and populist social
and other media conversations make it matter.
Including particular competitive economic interests for state power to
enable self-enrichment at the expense of a majority poor.
These interests include private capital, religious sectors, self
regulating professional associations (lawyers, nurses, doctors, teachers, engineers,
labour unions and even makorokoza or others 4ED, women’s and youth groups that
all want a specific narrative about ‘qualified’ leadership. One that suits
their peculiar material and political interests.
So leadership is not as simple as is being made out on
social media banter. Be it between engineers
and lawyers. Or even as is the case in
the current Zanu Pf party where its being regarded as ‘our generational turn’
to be at the top of the table between nationalist, militarily trained nationalists,
pure guerillas and subsequently ex-detainees of the Zimbabwean liberation
struggle.
Or in the opposition political circles where religion and
messianic tendencies gained un-politically believable ascendency. Much to the destruction of the opposition
where you had well known lawyers and engineers falling into a valueless
trap of ‘cultism’ in order to either become a president, member of parliament
or councilor. Something that still obtains today.
But back to my Diaspora based engineering cde and I. The issue of the professional background of a
political leader is important in its own electability right. Adding a prefix like Dr. or Engineer,
Reverend or LLB to your electoral ballot and rally name helps you win
votes. It is however not the sum total of
leadership.
What matters the most is the underlying value system of your
politics and its relevant or organic historicity to the existence of the country. Hence we talk of the now both historical and
proverbial ‘struggle’. For example while
revered national heroes such as Chitepo were lawyers they knew the fundamentals
of the struggle beyond the legal skills they had acquired. They wanted the independence and freedom of
all Zimbabweans from a very political angle that eventually ended up being a
long drawn guerilla war. With their say
so. As illegal in then Rhodesia as it was.
Even in post indepedence Zimbabwe, we had many technocrats trained in the global east running government departments including the late national hero Chidzero whose expertise regrettably missed the historicity of ‘gutsaruzhinji’ and introduced the Economic Structural Adjustment Programme (ESAP) that decimated local production and caused severe poverty among the people. A development that led to the reawakening of Tsvangirai (a miner) led Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU).
For brevity I will not delve into the
formation of the MDC against such a rich organic historical background in the
labour movement of Zimbabwe since at least 1948.
It is however important to indicate that the issue of
qualifications in political leadership is not a new phenomenon. It is both colonial, anti-colonial and
post-colonial. The more educated you were the more likely you were to end up in
some political leadership role.
The question that emerged was who were you leading for? Were you going to be a Muzorewa (a bishop), a Chirau (a chief), or a Mugabe (teacher and lawyer).
Or alternatively were you going to be like the agronomist Amilcar Cabral and lead for the people? Or Samora Machel the nurse and again lead for the people?
Or Julius Nyerere, a
teacher, Mwalimu and lead the whole continent together with the lawyer Kwame
Nkrumah? This is before I mention Mbeki the economist and his dream of an
African Renaissance or Thomas Sankara, a soldier, and his brave Pan Africanism.
You see cdes, leadership is not about where you went to school. Or how much you ‘engineered’ or ‘lawyered’ up.
It is about your values, the values and fundamental ideology of the organization that you are
leading and its progressive acceptance of those by the masses of Zimbabwe. Always therefore, in political leadership, ask yourself the questions, ‘Who are
you leading for? Yourself? Acceptance by the global North and global Capital? Or the people? ”
And most importantly, “Why?” In that way you establish an
organic value system beyond your education certificate that you most likely
acquired from a university or college run by your previous oppressors.
*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity (takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment