Tolerance in politics
The other former crimes no longer wash under ED Mnangagwa of course. The man has immensely opened the democratic space in the country.
Muckracker from The Standard has never forgiven me for failing to make the compliance grade of a writer based in the West – the grateful praise singer for the wonders of Western democracy.
If you reside in Sydney, Australia, you are seen as stabbing the heart of your host for daring to challenge the foreign policy of Australia, even if that policy was a threat to the sovereignty of your own motherland.
Once you are seen as intolerant, rightly or wrongly, you then face the deemed remedy for the paradox of tolerance -- that tolerance must not tolerate intolerance if it is to protect itself.
Our own state apparatus in Zimbabwe have sometimes used the same remedies. There have been people seen as undeserving of the tolerance expected of a state to its citizens.
It is encouraging that state tolerance has immensely improved under the dispensation of ED Mnangagwa. Now a fringe opposition leader can afford to be foolish enough to assault a Zanu-PF official on national television because he simply cannot stand the sight of someone wearing ruling party regalia. That kind of intolerance and foolishness was unheard off in the Mugabe dispensation, but now the madness passes unremarke – no repercussion at all.
At times the people at the receiving end of intolerance have been political activists carrying out frivolous noise making gimmicks in city parks, or simply passing reckless opinions in public, or at drinking places.
During the Mugabe era there was this unwarranted overzealousness by some in the security power corridors. Virtual jokers would be given undue national attention for petty foolishness. The Law and Order section of our police force looked like it was run by officers whose only qualification for the job was their volcanic intolerance.
Security by its very nature means there are things that cannot be tolerated, things that at law are deemed unacceptable. From a security point of view tolerance is not this warm, woolly, feel good attitude of smiling at everything that goes around.
But what was the point of these numerous arrests on the charge of “insulting the President” when not even one person was ever convicted of the offence?
Tolerance is a principle based on the philosophy that everyone must respect everyone else’s rights and principles, for as long as the behaviour does not threaten the security and rights of all others.
Our media sometimes leads ahead of its readers in the crusade of intolerance, and one just needs to read the Zimbabwean papers to get the point, especially during electioneering like what is happening right now.
Our papers run on editorial policies where rights and entitlements of one side of the political divide are totally disregarded and disrespected, simply because their views and interests are deemed intolerable. The deprived rights and entitlements include the right of reply before a story is published.
Nelson Chamisa habitually exaggerates, makes up stories, lies completely, but is also sometimes quoted out of context. It is sad that the man is rarely ever taken to task by being given the right of reply. It had to take a BBC Current Affairs anchor to interrogate Nelson Chamisa over his many infantile baseless claims and utterances.
This publication had to quote Steven Sackur when in fact it is the most widely read paper in the country where Chamisa was making these unfounded and childish claims. Why Chamisa was not interrogated by The Herald to account for his baseless claims remains a mystery.
Tolerance, pluralism, and individual liberties are principles so central to the running of a good society, and also pillars to the principle of democracy.
We live in a country where intolerance reigns supreme from our political parties right into Parliament and other state institutions, not to mention the disastrous filter-down effect to the generality of the populace. We cannot wish away supporters of the ruling party the same way we cannot wish away supporters of the opposition.
Intra-intolerance in our political parties is rampant, and it is the role of the media to report on it without fear or favour. Yet one media house will choose to look away if the intolerance is happening in a party so favoured by the particular media house for one reason or the other.
Purges, expulsions and unjust suspensions are common within the two top parties in the country, and when these acts of intolerance happen, the media is not there to defend the victims. Rather the media becomes accomplices to those wielding the unfair hand of unbridled authority to railroad everyone into submission.
We are not even going to write about the intra-party violence that often receives partial coverage from our media, depending on who has been beaten up, and who has done the barbaric deed.
While tolerance is not a demand to licence just anything whatever, least of all behaviour that threatens the existence of organisations, it must also be noted that there have been clear cases of unwarranted heavyhandedness within our political parties, only traceable to mere intolerance.
Thokozani Khupe deserved tolerance and respect at the burial of Morgan Tsvangirai, yet she was brutalised by mercenaries of intolerance hired and sponsored by people aspiring to be our national leaders.
Free speech and tolerance are fundamentals in an open society in which individual rights are respected and protected.
It is hard to imagine any right that can be effective without free speech; for when one is silenced they cannot lay claim to any of their rights, or even seek remedy for the abuse of any such rights.
Of course a society in which free speech is essential is a society that must by necessity be tolerant.
Where free speech is not tampered with, frequently someone will be offended by someone else’s utterances, this being an inevitable concomitant of free speech itself. I am not surprised at all when I read angry outburst against some of the things that I write.
I write freely, and my views are bound to offend one or two people whose own views could equally offend me. But I have trained myself not to be angered by views and opinions of those I disagree with. Anger is a sign of defeat, and I try as much as possible to avoid being angry.
There must be agreement in principle and in practice among members of the same society that they are all prepared to tolerate sentiments, opinions, attitudes, affiliations and views that are different from their own. It does not matter that these views may differ radically or offensively. For social cohesion to be possible such views must be tolerated.
Zimbabweans on social media specialise in insulting each other when it comes to political debate. I deliberately post very provocative lines on social media, and I can only enjoy the saddening intolerance among our people.
Instead of the perceived high intellectualism of Zimbabweans being evident in the debates, one is confronted with the most primitive of abusive language; as protagonists trade the most tasteless of insults. I am often the target of these graceless lowbrow attacks, but my many years of writing have given the tolerance to put up with whatever amount of derision.
It is very important to know that tolerance is hard work. It entails people putting up with what others do, even when those actions of others look strange, stupid or simply unfavourable. It involves recognising the right of other to be different, and allowing them a chance to openly express their views, for as long as they are not harming others.
It really does not matter I may seem odd, offensive, obnoxious, or disagreeable. Tolerance entails the ability to put up with all that on the part of those offended, as it equally applies on my part.
Of course we as people can argue, try to persuade each other, mock each other, satirise each other, criticise each other, and so on and so forth, expressing our own freedom of speech that way, but we cannot forbid or prevent other people from expressing their views.
Freedom of speech is not in itself absolute, and tolerance does not mean limitless acceptance of anything that goes.
Radical views associated with terrorism today are sometimes nurtured in communities practising the principles of tolerance, raising the question of how big the margin of tolerance should be stretched.
You come to this situation where in the name of defending the right of people to their views and opinions, society inadvertently allows unsavoury opinions to flourish, and to attract followers, endangering the same tolerant society in the process.
We remember the Nairobi Law School graduate who just saw it fit to spray hundreds of bullets at defenceless students at another Kenyan university a few years back, and it is reported the psychopath had been freely allowed to develop his radical views within the Kenyan community.
The risk that tolerance can breed monsters is a real one, whether we are talking of common political thuggery or the more egregious scourge of terrorism.
Perhaps this is the price that tolerance itself exacts, and that we must pay.
Zimbabwe we are one and together we will overcome. It is homeland or death!
Reason Wafawarova is a political writer based in SYDNEY, Australia.