Much commotion about nothing: Zimbabwe supports the military
THE native army in Zimbabwe since colonial rule has repeatedly sought to guarantee the recognition of human rights and democracy. Despite the diversity of the debate about security in Africa, one fact remains indisputable: Security institutions remain accused of being mal-democratic by the markers of colonial thinking towards native creations. When the political definitions are deliberately misconstrued, an act against minority rule is misinterpreted as an act against the majority. In this dilemma, during the liberation struggle, selective mainstream media channels repeatedly called every fighter for democracy a terrorist, and it branded every terrorist against democracy a champion of democracy. Therefore the native army not being active in mainstream discourse trajectories, the false accusations of it being a terror squad, were augmented. Amazingly such stereotypes still live even in post-independent Africa. However, the saddening part is that in post independent Africa, the narratives have become a franchise for even native criminals to buy into and advance oppressive programmes.
The security elements remain democratic; they fought and are fighting against all forms of oppression regardless of its racial format. In 1978, Josiah Tongogara, a decorated commander of the Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army (Zanla), attested the army’s position in issues of democracy and elections. He out-rightly argued that the position of the army in Zimbabwe will always be aligned to the democratic aspirations of the polity.
Commander Tongogara in his words said, “Our demand is just and legitimate. We demand a free and fair election where international observers will oversee.”
The same sentiments have been reiterated by President Mnangagwa and most importantly the Zimbabwe Defence Forces has repeatedly guaranteed the recognition of those fundamental pillars of liberty.
Although colonialism was successfully defeated in 1980, coloniality of rational still remains; it is this coloniality of thinking that continuously accuses native institutions for being mistaken even if they are correct. This coloniality of thinking flourishes from pre-conceived notions about native institutions, it firstly discredits native institutions because it is racist in nature and it can never see anything moral from blackness. Secondly, because it was created to preserve colonisation which demonised freedom, in support of majority oppression, in this case it sanitises demons and demonises sanity thereby presenting victims as killers and killers as victims.
It is then not surprising that native institutions like the army are condemned even if they do the most liberating activities desired by the majority. Coloniality of thought strives to understand native institutions for what they are not before it understands them for what they are.
Ignoramus claims have been made. They misleadingly claim that the November 2017 marches only reflected the will of the urban population; this claim is nothing more than a simplistic approach to the ongoing attempt to reclaim power. The authors of this assertion neglect that the urbanites are also Zimbabweans, they overlook that the concerns of the alleged urbanites have a bearing on the democratic determination of Zimbabwe’s freedom. As if that is not enough, the authors of the “urbanite people” mantra forget that they themselves would legitimise themselves in the very same urban spaces which today they discredit. In 2016, the very same cabal prided itself with the Million-Man March. It organised the youth to occupy the very same urban spaces, hence reaching a conclusion that it is legitimate.
It then becomes double standard to come back today and argue that urban protests which it used to legitimise itself is wrong when it is rightfully used to reflect the will of the people, instead of the will of the masses. The masses who were masquerading as the youth, unconscious of themselves, uniform and quantitative in nature. These masses were devoid of specific political principle, without foundations and empty hence they became gullible to promote factional agendas that overlooked the interests of Zimbabwe thereby jeopardising the outlook of the ruling party to its genuinely loyal supporters. This crop of the youth (masses) is the cause of this debate due to its emptiness hence becoming an object of propaganda, destitute of responsibility and its life at the lowest level of consciousness. This is what warranted the demand to restore the Zimbabwean legacy founded on the ideals of the liberation struggle. The army’s intervention rescued Zimbabwe from an impending doom.
It is factual that activities in Zanu-PF, when they are translated to government circles, have an effect on even the common man, and it is the duty of institutions like the army to act in the best interests of the common man. Above all, the connection between security elements and political parties like Zanu-PF has always been immense; during the liberation struggle the army legitimately had a right to inform intra-party political discourses in Zanu-PF. Historically, the leadership of Zanu-PF played a key role in the struggle to eliminate white settler rule and imperialism from their nation and to reclaim Zimbabwe for African people. Under the slogan put forward by Zanu-PF, “Liberation through participation”, thousands of natives actively joined the people’s war in every capacity.
The same re-occurred in November 2017 when all Zimbabweans joined together in the Chimurenga spirit and reclaimed the humane position for every Zimbabwean who had been dismembered. Army-civilian partnerships are not a new thing in Zimbabwe; they have always played a crucial role in the ultimate liberation of the state by the immediate capture. Interestingly, the participation of the military in Zanu-PF does not always have an impact on the entire inter-party political spectrum of Zimbabwe, but its scope is limited to relevant issues within Zanu-PF that have an average impact to other political actors outside Zanu-PF. That being the case, the interventions made by the army in Zanu-PF remain as an internal reserve for Zanu-PF members who are governed by the awareness of the linkage between the military and Zanu-PF, they do not affect leadership politics in other parties hence the thread of Zimbabwe’s plural democracy remains undistorted.
For some peripheral noise makers, there is a Ndebele saying that talks of “ukuzincweba” a discourse that implies ones’ attempt to appropriate a problem that is non-existent using the strategy of deliberately misrepresenting facts to reach an incorrect conclusion that creates struggles were non-exist. In this discourse, the perpetrators go to an extent of creating fictional narratives that present them as the victims. Such has been the direction taken by political entrepreneurs in their baseless and ahistorical antigovernment narratives.
The “ukuzincweba” discourse is hinged on the sole attempt to assume a victim position thereby seeking empathy from mostly the donor community or the unsuspecting undecided voter. It is the existence of such a thinking that accuses institutions of power for being unmerited not because the institutions in reference are unfair, but because the accusations thrown to those institutions are as a result of rehearsed thinking. These minds have a simplistic assumption that when soldiers manifest during the transfer of power, that suddenly amounts to a coup.
This thinking is parochial in the sense that it does not examine and accurately spell how the army conducted itself; it simply demonises the army because of its preconceived notions about the army and power transfer. Well, in Zimbabwe the army was/is patriotic and it acts in a manner that gives instead of taking away civil freedoms.
For the criminals who had some of their freedoms reduced, it is naïve to universalise your experience neglecting that your commissions are not universal. Just like how other criminals are detained and responded to with the proportionate force to their status, the same is true with the criminals who were detained for being the antithesis of universal liberty for Zimbabweans.
After three decades of independence, perspectives on the institutions of power remain unchanged. One thing that remains apparent is the failure to appreciate the sanity and ethicality of African institutions, both internationally and mostly intra-nationally. Institutions of power have been repeatedly accused of acting in contradiction to the set framework of “a liberal democracy” not to democracy itself. In the name of the “majority”, Zimbabwe was robbed of its freedom and autonomy. Ironically, the same cabal is now teaching us to value freedom and to resist the idea that we cannot be free without it.
The Zimbabweans who risked their lives fighting against colonialism and oppression in the border, the popular forces that fought to free the continent from colonialism, the unemployed urban masses and peasants who braved to the streets, all showed their support for the military. The role of the military in sanitising the political space has always manifested itself in an indispensable manner. The people have spoken; the voice of the people is the voice of God, Zimbabwe supports the military.
Tedious Ncube is a Political Scientist.