Decolonisation of Africa is a process not an event; the cessation of armed hostilities was a big leap forward, but we need to do more to achieve our freedoms and liberty. We are under no illusion that the past bears meaning today and we recognise that it is essential that we do not historize colonialism, but it must be understood that decolonisation requires steps beyond merely blaming colonisers; it requires a deliberate removal of all symbols of colonialism, including the colonial state institutions. The colonial state was a military state designed to separate natives from their core values and beliefs, control and manage them against their will; the state bore no compassion for native population groups’ interests but focused on the extraction of resources for the benefit of the metropolitan.
Central to the decolonisation politics is the recognition that we adopted a military state, a weakened civil society, we embodied white supremacist socialisation, and a divisive state. Demilitarization of politics is a requirement for progress.
Demilitarization of politics is the purposeful transformation of institutions (e.g., the armed wing of the liberation movements) made powerful by war into those capable of sustaining peace so that the warring parties can confidently change their strategies and adapt to peaceful political alternatives, including elections.
There is a disturbing pattern of perverted power dynamics between the military and the civilian population in Zimbabwe. The power structure projects the military sway of the liberation movement; at independence, the military wing of the movement won the jostling for power and control over the party and the State.
If the military does not submit to civilian authority, and if the military makes it its primary duty to shape State institutions, societal norms and values, civil society will be weakened further; and democratic aspirations will continue to flounder.
We believe advocating for purposeful demilitarisation of internal politics of Zimbabwe is a legitimate discourse as will be the emphasis on compassion in politics. As victims of State brutality, we in Matabeleland, believe demilitarizing politics will offer a concrete strategy for peaceful change that can be implemented, and that can make a difference for the public.
It is important for progress that we acknowledge the fact that it is primarily true that Matabeleland and Ndebele people got a raw deal from the liberation struggle, and that PF ZAPU was caught napping while ZANU took all the initiative when it came to post-conflict political plans for Zimbabwe. We further argue that it is true all Matabeleland’s misfortunes are a by-product of the people having been brainwashed and thinking too well of the PF ZAPU leadership, especially its Matabeleland caucus.
PF ZAPU leadership was guilty of complacence in the period leading to and post elections in 1980; despite all signs that ZANU was not honest in its peace building mission post-conflict and was patently resentful of Ndebele people and PF ZAPU, Joshua Nkomo’s PF ZAPU chose to ignore the signals.
The internal political dynamics between the cease-fire and the voting were clear for all to see that while PF ZAPU and Nkomo thought about Zimbabwe, ZANU and Mugabe focused on ethnic Shona people and total political control. ZANU’s credibility remained questionable when it came to efforts for the demilitarization of politics. While ex-ZIPRA combatants were disarmed and suffered the indignity of ill-treatment from ex-ZANLA commanders, ZANLA combatants had access to their weapons – PF ZAPU leadership sheepishly ignored the alarm bells and continued to tell its forces to comply with the not so peaceful and dangerously unfair process.
It is in this process of cynical demilitarization that power and control ebbed away from PF ZAPU and ZIPRA. ZANU being granted military gains offset the advancement of the dual goals of peace and democracy and left civilians in Matabeleland vulnerable to abuse by the ZANU-led state.
Stigmatization of disenfranchised communities of Matabeleland directly legitimises their victimisation by the state. It is not true that people in Matabeleland are apathetic to politics, rather it is true that the extant politics of Zimbabwe is not compassionate to their needs. State institutions are purposely designed to protect the interests of certain population groups, transfer favours to those groups, and to ensure Matabeleland’s socio-political involvement remains perfunctory, at best.
Democracy is not just about the will of the majority but also the protection of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Compassion in politics offers us that opportunity to see, hear, listen, feel, and respond to the minority voices while facilitating the rights of the majority.
To preside over an unfair socialisation process that depicts the superiority of certain population groups and purposely denies certain population groups genuine choices and when, in the absence of viable choices, disenfranchised communities opt not to choose, you accuse them of apathy is deceptive. People of Matabeleland face a systemic constriction of their socio-political spaces and a risk of being pushed into a state of invisibility.
Politics must change from being primarily about power, security and order to the application of emotion. Consideration of human emotions and human dignity should be at the core of policy formulation. Compassion in politics is not only possible, but also a necessary ingredient to address human security needs. We believe politics needs to be attentive and responsive to the needs of vulnerable communities. Society has been held hostage to the needs of the military and the political elite. The public must reclaim their place in politics because, for surrendering control, we are paid with answers to questions we never asked.
MTHWAKAZI INDEPENDENT 