Politics, violence in Zim, Siamese twins?
POLITICAL theorist, Niccolo Machiavelli’s 16th century political treatise, The Prince was an attempt by the Italian diplomat to decisively divorce politics from ethics. Past thinkers like Aristotle saw politics as a sub branch of ethics wherein politicians were expected to be of unquestionable morals.
To Machiavelli, political analysis centred on ideal republics or imaginary utopias was divorced from reality, hence the need for a handbook tackling political discourse from a pragmatic perspective.
In the book, Machiavelli grappled with the question: “How does a prince acquire and maintain power”? He provides a plethora of ideas one of which was the use of violence.
“Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved?” writes Machiavelli.
“It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with.”
Machiavelli contends that besides being as cunning as a fox, a leader should be as fearsome as a lion so as to crush his enemies.
From this, it appears as if the use of violence on the political arena is justified if one is pursuing or attempting to maintain power.
Violence in politics was evident during the colonial period in Africa where colonialists used violence to break the spirits of nationalists.
In South Africa, Steve “Bantu” Biko, a non-violent but militant black, radical leader was at the receiving end of apartheid’s violent and repressive system at whose hands he died on September 12, 1977.
Late liberal white South African journalist Donald Woods, Biko’s personal friend, wrote in Biko’s biography that his friend was “handcuffed, put in leg irons, chained to a grill and subjected to 22 hours of interrogation in the course of which he was tortured and badly battered, sustaining several blows to the head which damaged his brain, causing him to lapse into a coma.”
Such violent acts were to act as a deterrent to wannabe revolutionaries. In Zimbabwe, the culture of violence in the political history of the country deserves scrutiny.
In his book, Mugabe, Power, Plunder and the Struggle for Zimbabwe, Martin Meredith explains how the white minority used violence against nationalists and the black majority to maintain their hold on power.
“White officers had hung him (President Emmerson Mnangagwa) upside down by leg irons from butcher’s hooks that ran along a track in the ceiling and then batted his suspended body back and forth on the track from one end of the room to the other,” writes Meredith.
These acts of violence radicalised people like former President Robert Mugabe who realised that counter violent acts were necessary if nationalists entertained any thoughts of majority rule.
Power politics within the nationalist movement triggered acts of violence as Zimbabwe African National Union (Zanu) and Zimbabwe African People’s Union (Zapu) supporters clashed following the 1963 split. Hate speech was spewed by prominent nationalists fuelling an already volatile situation.
The formation of the Zimbabwe People’s Army (Zipa), a joint liberation army of Zanla and Zipra forces in 1975 pushed for by the Organisation of African Unity liberation committee was shortlived as violence reigned supreme.
“Some would go to the war front saying forward with Zanu and others would be saying forward with Zapu, so they started shooting at each other ...,” the late former Zipa commander Solomon Mujuru was quoted as saying.
The bloody running battles were a struggle within a struggle as political figures in the nationalist movement fought to strategically position themselves for powerful positions in an independent State.
Writing in the book, The Army and Politics in Zimbabwe Mujuru, the Liberation Fighter and Kingmaker, Blessing-Miles Tendi quotes former Cabinet minister Rugare Gumbo as saying: “Tongo (Josiah Tongogara) was a good military strategist. His problem was that he was too ambitious. So he sometimes went overboard with his steps to consolidate his power. He felt threatened by the Nhari rebellion, so he came down hard…”
The ghosts of violence continued to stalk the newly independent nation as Mugabe sought to tighten his hold on power. Gukurahundi will always be a dark spot in the country’s history.
“It (Gukurahundi) was an act of madness. We killed each other and destroyed each other’s property. It was wrong and both sides were to blame. We have had a difference, a quarrel. We engaged ourselves in a reckless and unprincipled fight,” said Mugabe at a memorial service for the late Vice-President Joshua Nkomo in July 2000.
Politically motivated violence escalated with the formation of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) in 1999. Upon its formation, this party posed a real threat to Mugabe’s hold on power and in typical Machiavellian fashion, violence was used to quell the rise of the opposition.
The opposition also unleashed its own violent side, creating a case of the proverbial two wrongs never make a right. Violence stuck its ugly head in Zimbabwean politics post-2000 during elections with the 2008 presidential plebiscite being one of the most violent elections in recent memory.
Some lost their lives during this period while others bear permanent scars from beatings at the hands of political rivals. The culture of violence in our politics is not confined to inter-party clashes, but intra-party dog fights have often turned violent with different factions wrestling for political control.
An upsurge of cases related to abductions, whether staged or real speak to a violent political culture.
This triggers a fundamental question. Can violence be eliminated from our politics or violence and politics are Siamese twins?
Analyst Rashweat Mukundu believes that the use of violence as an instrument of political control is a historical legacy in Zimbabwe.
“There has been no discontinuity of the use of violence as a political tool. We have seen its continued deployment by those in power to the extent that even when Zimbabwe changed political leadership in 2017, violence was used.
“The presence of the military in the streets was a show of violence that we are willing to use it if need be. In fact, some people actually lost their lives during that period. It appears violence is a generational and part of the DNA of Zimbabwean politics,” he said.
However, another political analyst Norman Pinduka disagrees, arguing that events that have taken place in Africa have made people believe that it is difficult to separate politics from violence, but in Zimbabwe political tolerance among supporters has improved immensely.
“It is very possible for a State like Zimbabwe to conduct its political affairs with limited cases of violence. Elements of politically-related violence will probably be there, but the magnitude and intensity of it can be reduced and has in fact reduced in the past two decades.
“I am always saying that Zimbabwe is undergoing a democratisation process which is obviously protracted. So the shunning of political violence is probably a vision but reducing its magnitude is possible. It is a democracy that is on the rise and the populace is literally starting to understand the whole essence of participating,” he said.
Whether politics and violence can be separated is a polarising issue but one can argue that a historical and contemporary analysis of violence in our politics points to the two enjoying a good relationship albeit at the expense of the people.
Violence has long-lasting effects and serious repercussions on nation building and one wishes the country’s leadership nips it in the bud and promote a more civilised and mature political culture.
●