By Takura Zhangazha*
A decent number of previously publicly unheralded war veterans of Zimbabwe's national liberation struggle have recently been interviewed by internet based journalists.
(Kindly crosscheck CITE Zimbabwe, Zimbeat or , Chimurenga Files or SlyMedia YouTube accounts for examples of these interviews.)
These include those war veterans that were with the then Zimbabwe Peoples Revolutionary Army (ZIPRA) and those that were with the Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army (ZANLA).
As politically controlled by PF ZAPU and ZanuPF respectively.
In some instances others interviewed made impassioned reference to the Zimbabwe Peoples Army (ZIPA) which was an attempt at a unitary combination of both liberation armies.
In most of the interviews one can easily discern a dichotomy or division between the historical understanding of what was then referred to as fighting from the 'front'. Or fighting from the 'rear'
There were those that fought at the battle front from the mid-1970s and those that were considered the nationalists that fought from the diplomatic rear.
Neither could do without the other. But simultaneously there was a question of who is more legitimate to lead Zimbabwes struggle for liberation.
Or at what stage do cdes from the diplomatic rear (nationalists) make way for cdes from the military front (guerillas) in leading the same said struggle? During its actual and real-time occurrence.
While the politics, as a general Maoist dictum was meant to lead the gun, within the liberation movement both separately and as a united military front under ZIPA, there was a general assumption by commanders of the thousands of trained guerillas that the nationalists were not pulling their weight in the capitals of Lusaka- Zambia, Dar es Salaam-Tanzania and Maputo- Mozambique.
The key evidence of this was in a dichotomy of diplomacy versus the war in and of itself after Herbert Chitepo's assassination in 1975 and the now legendary Mgagao declaration in Tanzania of the same year.
Inclusive of the jailing of Josiah Tongogara by the Zambian government and his subsequent release at the instigation of the more influential members of the then Frontline States.
All in order to carry on the more military version of the struggle under ZIPA which eventually collapsed due to ethnocentric divisions as allegedly instigated by cdes who were at the rear and not the war-front (crosscheck cde Dzinashe Machingura's memoir on this).
This historical thread remains somewhat whispered or deliberately unsaid in Zanu Pfs contemporary succession politics.
They still have a 'rear' and a 'front' historical cadreship as they had when the late Robert Mugabe was still in power.
But also more critically that when the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) emerged in the late 1990s, it was to help them by default to blur up those 'rear' and 'front' divisions within Zanu Pf in order to protect what they considered the revolution. As they understood it.
Hence we had not only the Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP) but also the violence that accompanied the 2002, 2005, 2008 and 2018 elections.
It was arguably the military 'front' that once again came to the defence of the nationalists 'rear' in the aforementioned elections.
Moreso when we had Mugabe's now infamous 'asante sana' speech in 2017. As our military had asked all of us to 'remain calm' when they took control of the country with popular support.
Albeit and arguably politically briefly. (For some cdes this was/is more permanent.)
What was however demonstrated and clear was the centrality of the historicity of the 'rear' and the 'front' of defending a 'revolution'. Again.
Meaning as their political civilian leadership faltered, the politised military once again, in its self-assumed historical role remained key in holding the national revolutionary ship steady.
So when you look at Zanu Pf succession politics as they are occurring now, you have to bear this historicity of their party in mind. It is 'unignorable.'
If this was the United States of America (USA) I would call it our own version of a Military Industrial Complex (MIC) without the capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction.
But with a clear partisan intention of not relinquishing power to anyone deemed inimical to the original intentions of what they still consider to be a national revolution. Ideological warts and all.
And there's the contemporary rub.
Zanu Pfs ideological ambiguity within a fluid contemporary capitalistically multi-polar global political economy is beginning to creep into their national political character.
Where, as a ruling party they are embracing neoliberal and ironically state capitalism and cronyism they have reignited their own internal contradictions about liberation struggle values and narratives about 'zvigananda'.
A term that was also used as a value based reflection of the difference between the 'rear' and the 'front'.
Or those that were benefitting versus those that were directly suffering in the military liberation struggle.
Even further, as exemplified by those that were in the now proverbial comfort of Lusaka/Maputo versus those that were at Nyadzonia or Chimoio.
Except that in the now, the so called nationalists have a numerical and economic advantage.
They have greater control of younger, materialist Zimbabweans.
From young(ish) urban land barons who are beneficiaries of the FTLRP, miners, bankers, small scale traders, tourism operators, tenderprenuers through to educationists and health care professionals.
Inclusive of those that are also somehow highly politically ambitious such as your Tagwirei's and Tungwarara's with their legion of fans.
Some of whom are also now either in Parlaiment or local councils already.
In tandem with owning football clubs and running cultural and musical shows in a new celebrity and 'mbinga' culture.
They can win, at least monetarily, any future general harmonised election for Zanu Pf.
Inclusive of eventual if not already existent co-option of the opposition political parties via money or politicised protection.
But the war veterans have a riposte to this based on security sector issues.
In this we revert to their ruling party's historical contestations of the 'rear' and the 'front' of their revolutionary war.
Neither has historically been able to do without the other. In their own party's context. It is just that the nationalists won the long duree post independence round under Mugabe as crossed over to Mnangagwa. For now.
So whatever is being said about 2030 or will be said about its scheduled 2027 national elective congress and the 2028 constitutionally scheduled Zimbabwe general elections, it is necessary to understand Zanu Pfs positioning on these matters.
With a key question to its next leader being ,
"Are you historically operating from the 'rear' or the 'front'?"
Either way #Songambele
*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity
No comments:
Post a Comment