Stop insulting our security establishment

SOMETHING unusual happened last week. Perhaps reacting to political pressure, something unusual again, the Zimbabwe Defence Forces (ZDF) called a Press conference to talk about their position regarding the July 30 harmonised elections.

The ZDF sent its spokesman Colonel Overson Mugwisi to address the journalists on this. The pressure from opposition political parties and civic society on the military for a long time has been whether they would “allow” a smooth transfer of power in the event that a non-Zanu-PF candidate won the presidential race.

Col Mugwisi was at once diplomatic, respectful and forthright. He told the media; “The position of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces is that we abide by the Constitution, our conduct is going to be guided by the Constitution.”

The following day one of the daily newspapers claimed the military had prevaricated in its response. The DailyNews on the other hand went overboard with the heading, “We will salute Chamisa: Army”.

This opposition obsession with the trappings of power, like its leader being saluted, needs to be contextualised instead of being treated like a child’s game.

At the height of the epoch-defining Land Reform Programme and ahead of the 2002 presidential elections in which former president Robert Mugabe faced MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai, then Zimbabwe Defence Forces Commander General Vitalis Zvinavashe and other security chiefs were forced to take a stand, telling a Press conference; “. . . any change designed to reverse the gains of this revolution will not be supported ...

“We wish to make it very clear to all Zimbabwean citizens that the security organisations will only stand in support of those political leaders that will pursue Zimbabwean values, traditions and beliefs for which thousands of lives were lost . . .

“Let it be known that the highest office in the land is a straitjacket whose occupant is expected to observe the objectives of the liberation struggle.

“We will therefore not accept, let alone support or salute, anyone with a different agenda that threatens the very existence of our sovereignty, our country and our people.”

It is a public secret that the MDC has never supported the land reform; it only professes love and respect for the defence forces and war veterans when it suits it for purposes of elections. This is only lip deep. The whole civil society and human rights movement was formed and financed to subvert land reform, Zimbabwe’s sovereign right to decide its own destiny and its cherished values, traditions and beliefs as captured in the 2013 Constitution.

Come 2018 and Zimbabwe is headed for another crucial election. Tsvangirai and Mugabe may not be running, but they did not take with them the national Constitution. The real question which the opposition, led by the MDC Alliance and Nelson Chamisa, should be answering is whether they have read the national Constitution, in particular the Preamble, which captures and defines who Zimbabwe is, and whether they now embrace in letter and spirit what the liberation war was all about? Do they respect the values, traditions and the liberation legacy which make Zimbabwe unique as a nation?

Instead of which we have our defence forces being asked insulting, provocative, and impertinent questions about whether they know their constitutional mandate and duty to Zimbabwe.

That definitive statement by the defence forces in 2002 went beyond being saluted. It was about what a Zimbabwean national leader stands for and what he represents.

In short, it is the aspiring leader who should match what is in the Constitution, and not the defence forces thinking about who to salute. That statement of 2002 stands today. It doesn’t say the leader should have physically participated in the liberation war; it’s about the values and objectives of that war.

It was therefore laughable that children who can’t tell their left hand from the right sounded miffed that the entire leadership of the security element, led by Commander General Phillip Valerio Sibanda, refused to stoop to the indignity of coming to respond to questions pertaining to their constitutional mandate.

Why does the opposition want military endorsement outside the dictates of the national Constitution? What is their agenda now?