Given the enduring suffering the Matabeleland population is exposed to under the auspices of representative democracy in Zimbabwe, preventing tyranny of the majority must be central to our politics, and a review of how we are governed is inevitable. For this and the next generation we must be clear about what we need politics to do for us and what we need to do for the shared political space.
On paper, Zimbabwe is a typical republic; it has a bicameral legislature. In the lower chamber, the 270-seat National Assembly, 210 members are elected through a first-past-the-post (FPTP) system with one member per constituency, and 60 women are elected by proportional representation. The 80-seat Senate includes six members from each of Zimbabwe’s 10 provinces who are elected through proportional representation. Sixteen are indirectly elected by regional councils, two seats are reserved for people with disabilities, and two are reserved for tribal chiefs. Members in both houses serve five-year terms.
In practice the country is an atypical republic with the military interfering in civilian institutions and processes which compromises any perceived checks and balances; the politics is dominated by ZANU PF and ethnic Shona people who form the largest population group in the country. That has often led to criticism that the system personifies Shona culture, and Shona creed turned into law.
We have previously argued that Zimbabwean politics lacks effective checks and balances to protect Matabeleland interests, and that scenario does Matabeleland injustice, that position has not changed. Zimbabwean systems actively suppress and marginalise Matabeleland and Ndebele people from decision-making processes and from accessing power.
Democracy in the public eye is synonymous with fairness where the majority rules, but is there always justice in that?
It may sound fair that the majority rules, but where does that leave the minority who too have rights that deserve respect? To address the question, we would define two important terms ‘republic’ and ‘democracy’ which are often used interchangeably although they are different.
By definition, a republic is a representative form of government that is ruled according to a charter, or constitution, and a democracy is a government that is ruled according to the will of the majority. The main difference between a republic and a democracy is the charter or constitution that limits power in a republic, often to protect the individual’s rights against the desires of the majority.
Clearly, democracy is not enough; political progress and real change in Matabeleland politics will be measured by the specific standards: it must mean ensuring the right of the majority to rule does not preclude the protection of rights of minority population groups; this requires a deliberate focus in how rights of minority population groups are protected in our charter or constitution.
We must look at a real transformation of how politics is done in Matabeleland and not just fall into the ‘first remove ZANU PF’ claptrap.
Admittedly, as the principal figure and creator of today’s political system that also forms the mainstream politics of Zimbabwe, ZANU PF is the problem, but so too is the opposition within the mainstream politics.
For all we know, the main opposition is nothing less than a secret admirer of the current system that legitimises tribalism and Shona supremacy; the opposition has never raised objections to the inherent injustices to minority population groups that the mainstream politics presents, only who heads it.
At the heart of mainstream politics of Zimbabwe is the idea that Shona people are the owners of the territory and Matabele are immigrants or invaders, women, and cattle raiders. In a socio-political system where the candidate’s tribe, more than their policies, informs the electorate’s choice, the larger population size of Mashonaland is convenient for present-day ethnic Shona leaders whose goal is to manage and control Matabeleland than empower its citizenry.
Securing the political and physical safety of Matabeleland and its people is integral to the Matabeleland agenda. To that end, stalling the inherent dangers of the injustice of the tyranny of the majority must be the priority of all Matabeleland political players. The need for a governance system with checks and balances cannot be overemphasised; we need a system of government carefully balanced to safeguard the rights of both the majority and the minority.
Diversity is the foundation of Matabeleland, and forestalling the tyranny of the majority is key to the Matabeleland political agenda. The value of humans must never be measured by the size of their communities. Big or small, communities must be respected and protected equally. The role of political legislators must be to create a very carefully considered political structure to balance the competing interests of large and small regions. We need a system that prevents candidates from wining an election by focusing only on high-population centres, ignoring less populous regions.
MTHWAKAZI INDEPENDENT 