Efforts to establish institutions that reflect a people fall within basic human rights law. Different groups have come and left, new ones have risen all pursuing the goal of the restoration and empowerment of Matabeleland social, cultural, economic, and political institutions; this is a legitimate goal and a basic human right. As things stand today, we cannot say whether progress is being made or not. The biggest challenge for the Matabeleland focused agenda has been a lack of tools to reliably analyse and report progress or lack thereof on the ground.
Let us first put to rest accusations that tribalism is the engineer of the Matabeleland agenda. There is a concerted and deliberate mischaracterisation of the Matabeleland focused demand for social protection, cultural freedom, and freedom of political association as a form of tribalism. This is a disingenuous, defensive and guilt fuelled argument that seeks to protect the status quo and perpetuate the repression of Matabeleland by Mashonaland; the argument ignores the reality that Zimbabwe’s current policies are exclusively based on a Shona creed, and the rest of the population is expected to adjust to that.
We shall make no apology for demanding that institutions meant to reflect who we are do just that – reflect who we are. International human rights law lays down the obligations of Governments to act in certain ways or to refrain from certain acts, to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms of individuals or groups.
Over the years different sectors of society have formed organisations and set up goals for the promotion and sustenance of a Matabeleland focused agenda, once referred to as the Southern Powerhouse. The target is social, cultural, artistic freedom, economic, and political empowerment of the territory. However, to this point it is not clear how much progress, if any, is being made in that front.
Gukurahundi birthed political apathy, anxiety, and fear among people in Matabeleland; people are often not honest with their political identity and related decision-making; and safety as opposed to policy has been central to declared political identity. This explains the ‘overwhelming support’ for ZANU PF in villages, that is where Gukurahundi atrocities took place and where the largest concentration of victims is located today.
The most significant challenge in Matabeleland is the fragmentation and a lack of coherence in goals set up for the agenda. We must be honest about the source of internal conflict in the region, social and cultural diversity do not fully explain the political fragmentation being displayed today, but deliberate meddling of mainstream Zimbabwe politics polarises communities and society.
Perhaps there are too many interest groups and uniting many of them under a single umbrella would help to amalgamate the myriad of needs in our society and set up goals covering the various aspects of life across society.
Constructive engagement is required to create a coalition; coalitions do not happen by accident; developing a strong sense of trust, accountability, and togetherness around team goals requires intentional effort; our people must be prepared to sit and talk, weigh and consider.
We return to the question on how do we measure progress of the agenda and at what point of development are we? It is tempting and perhaps convenient to say minor progress has been made in promoting a Matabeleland focused agenda, but in the absence of a shared objective assessment tool, we can only rely on unreliable subjective narratives.
Consideration of two items: politics and economic independence will give a rough idea of where we stand. Political progress is limited on the ground and arguably insignificant in rural areas; in general, Matabeleland focused politics is viewed with scepticism and fear by the region’s population still emotionally tormented by the ZANU orchestrated Gukurahundi. The only reliable assessment tool would be electoral votes. There have been no significant electoral vote gains, candidates have only had a handful of votes, in their tens, no more. There is certainly some activism on social media and out of the country but even that is very limited in both quantity and quality.
An attempt to build an economically independent and resilient Matabeleland was behind the formation of Mthwakazi Heritage Investment Fund (MHIF) around 2020. However, there are no updates from the MHIF’s website to determine levels of activity and infer progress or lack thereof; the site was last updated in 2022.
Growth of the Matabeleland focused agenda requires a clear appreciation of the impact of current interventions; it is critical to draw up a collaborative template or tool to measure progress of actions being taken now. As such, we need an open society that shares information, promotes debate, shares power, promotes rule of law and accountability. It is tempting to say minor progress has been made in promoting a Matabeleland focused agenda, but that is being generous because in most areas of interest we are regressing and rapidly swallowed into the unitary state narrative of mainstream Zimbabwe politics. Unity cannot be achieved by force but by understating. Trying to blackmail some population groups into subordinating their interests for the benefit of one population group is immorality personified and unacceptable today.
MTHWAKAZI INDEPENDENT 