The Motlante Report and the missed rationale of national healing in Zimbabwe

BENEDICT Anderson (1993)’s mostly popularised political theory proposition of nations as “imagined communities” serves as a realist proclamation to how the nation as an institutional-being perpetually evolves. Through his reflective scope, as nations whither they regenerate, refocus and reassemble consciences of cohesion and gravitate towards cardinal terms of homogeneity which inspire rational propensities towards democracy and good governance. In our most immediate context, this view can be located within Zimbabwe’s historic transition from being a colony and later a post-colony. To this end, the First-Republic assumed its life under the leadership of Robert Mugabe — whose power management style had a significant bearing on the country’s political-culture. His rule uniquely embellished the complexion of the national project, not to mention its “pitfalls” as ascribed by Fanon (1963) in his characterisation of the fault-lines of the postcolonial state in Africa. At the same time, there are positive legacies that emanate Mugabe’s rule which the Second-Republic is bestowed with the honour to safeguard.

Pursuant to the publication of the 1 August Motlante Report last week, it is beyond doubt that the Mnangagwa administration has fully pledged a sincere long term commitment and precedent to peace-building in Zimbabwe. On that note, Zimbabweans across the political divide must reflect on how this development generally marks a cultural transformation to our body-politic especially in the renewed interactional terms of the governors and the governed. From the outset, the launch of the 1 August Commission signalled the maturation of the idea of a modern nation — namely the facets of integration, peace-building, healing and reconciliation it embodies. This follows a long history of the erstwhile Zimbabwean national question which was characterised by a culture of impunity. If we are to be true in reading the change of the times, we must at be least be grateful to have witnessed a turnaround in the old character of the state towards more openness, inclusion and promoting citizen participation. The first phase of our nationhood was characterised by repressions of truth to power. A plethora of Commissions of Enquiry were enacted, but none of them had highly pronounced liberal expressions as was the case with the processes of the Motlante Commission. All the Commissions had a sole submission to dictates of the powers and manipulation of the Executive. For the first time in close to four decades of independence, citizens had a virgin opportunity to engage the once iron-fisted character of the State. For the first time, through public dialogue the state and citizens were brokered into equality by this Commission.

The public hearings initiated by the Commission marked the crumble of the masses’ old fears of the State which largely characterised the FirstRepublic. For the first time, those who are famous of lamenting the old Zanu-PF hegemony became beneficiaries of their perceived villain’s dishing out of the freedom of expression.

The media was open to receiving dissenting submissions. Likewise, the State media enjoyed the monopoly of reaching out to wider audiences; at the same time demystifying its alleged bias towards the establishment. The State broadcaster went above board by giving real-time programming of all public testimonies of the witnesses’ likes or dislikes of the establishment. In all that, it’s clear that Zimbabwe has evolved from exceptionalist politics to incisive levels of re-engagement politics — a clear delivery of the winning election manifesto.

The wide-stream sources of evidence used to construct the case merits of the Motlante Report immensely substantiate the monumental premise of objectivity and impartiality which informed the conception of the Commission. To this end, Chapter Three of the document takes into account the asymmetrical contributions of both Zanu-PF and MDC Alliance to peace-building on the road to the 2018 Harmonised Elections. Advocate Nelson Chamisa and Tendai Biti in their rallies are directly quoted instructing their followers to resort to violence if the election outcome turned out not to be in favour of the MDC Alliance. Likewise, even before the election results’ announcement was due Harare was incarcerated by MDC Alliance aligned rioters who decimated private property and mercilessly demolished public infrastructure.

In the same Chapter, on the contrary, VicePresident Chiwenga is also quoted in Insiza at a Zanu-PF Rally on the 20th of February where he was imploring Zanu-PF supporters to be peaceful and complement the party’s then newly assumed route to peaceful participation in the elections. In the same vein, on May 18, 2018 the report makes reference to Vice-President Kembo Mohadi’s Public Lecture at the University of Zimbabwe. During the lecture, Vice-President Mohadi clearly called for peace and out-rightly declared Zanu-PF’s commitment to ensuring that the elections were peaceful.

Basing on this perspective, the report gives clear insights to the reader on the exact source of political violence. It’s clear, the culprit is the MDC Alliance. However, one wonders why the Report does not explicitly caution the MDC Alliance from being at the centre of inciting violence in the near future under the pretentious whims of calling out for electoral reforms as if the 2018 Harmonised Elections took-off in the absence of clearly outlined and parliamentary prescribed terms of plebiscite reform. Any objective and rational mind can allude to many electoral reforms which gave a defining mark to a change in the management of our elections in Zimbabwe. Therefore, the recommendation placed by the Commission on the enhancement of the terms of electoral reforms is not in tandem with the existing realities of the political-culture renewal which was effected by the new-dispensation on the road to the 2018 elections.

Moreover, while the call for enhancement of electoral ICT systems is valid, that proposition is premised on a generously misconstrued position of the opposition’s unfounded allegation of election results announcement delays. That recommendation factors an unfounded concern that the 2018 results were not announced in time, thus leading to the so-called “spontaneous” outrage of the voters who resorted to taking their frustrations into the street. We all know that the announcement of the election results only “delayed” to those who were awaiting patiently to carve an opportunity and an excuse to stir violence and destabilise the prevailing peaceful electoral environment.

Furthermore, the compensation recommendation in the report is silent on the collective responsibility to be borne by the State and those who agitated the State to inflicting “disproportionate force”. The aspect of compensation

To Page 9