The myth of a monolithic Matabeleland

Unilateral and unrepresentative policy decisions are often a design of arrogance or ignorance or both; these are often designs from the powerful elite who have convinced themselves that their interests should be everybody’s. But such policies undermine public interest and erode public trust in authorities. Throughout the history of the independent Zimbabwe, people of Matabeleland have suffered the indignity of being subjected to a system and institutions that in no way reflect their customs, traditions and interests.

Systemic management as opposed to the empowerment of Matabeleland is, as I understand it, a combination of evil and incompetence; it is a spiteful and flawed policy that takes no interest in the specifics of Matabeleland society.

Treating Matabeleland as a monolithic instead of a diverse and changing society presents real threat to the socio-cultural integrity of the region and is an existential threat. All of Matabeleland’s languages, cultures and traditions are deserving of equal recognition and treatment. It is for this reason that we promote localism as the best policy for the region.

Change is possible, but we must abandon the notion that isolated actions by individuals will solve the injustices that mainstream politics presents. Instead, Matabeleland as a nation must push for policy shift and be consistent and persistent.

Policies that look bad, sound bad, feel bad, are bad. It is a moral obligation for society to ensure such policies never see the light of day but are forcefully challenged until they are fixed. Well-written documents are meaningless if they do not connect with public perception or do not recognise and address real issues for real people.

We believe policies must reflect the public they are meant to serve not interest of bureaucrats who draw them. To achieve that, policy makers must normalise reaching out to engage with the people on the ground who are impacted by policy; they need to listen, listen to understand not to contradict.

Communities must be seen for who they are not what policy makers think they are. We must normalise the ideal that where individual rights are concerned, majoritarianism does not apply; people must not be stripped of their autonomy because of mere demographic coincidence, and they happen to belong in a small population group. Rules that govern community activities must have clear signature of the community and not desires of the largest tribe or the rich and powerful in the country.

Diversity and inclusion are the foundation of Matabeleland. As such, we would like to remind politicians from both sides of the isle that Matabeleland is a diverse region and not a monolith. It is an expectation that systems and institutions governing the region will project that diversity without prejudice.

If Zimbabwe is truly a constitutional democracy and not an autocracy, rules and regulations governing day to day activities in communities across the country must reflect communities in their truest sense, no matter their political allegiance or tribe or religion or race; and they must, without excuse, be a byproduct of negotiations with the ordinary man.

Crucially, in this era-defining sociopolitical moment, it is essential that every community retains the freedom to shape its life in ways consistent with its needs and interests. Consistent with that argument, all that Matabeleland people ask is their autonomy and the right to remain the authors of their own story. We want to ensure that our ever-evolving story does not lose its integrity but remains a true reflection of our experiences, concerns and desires.  

Time and again what we realise is that the ZANU PF cynical approach that insists on compounding and defining Matabeleland as though it were just a Ndebele region with nuances of Nguni dominion inadvertently promotes toxic ethnocentrism. It builds tension and threatens the peaceable coexistence of the diverse ethnic groups in the region. And it is everyone’s guess who the only beneficiary of a divided, dysfunctional Matabeleland is. The mainstream Zimbabwe politics becomes the incompetent referee.

Regrettably, the selfish goals of ZANU PF’s systemic tribalism do not allow for a reshaping of the sociopolitical space so that it does not become a tool for managing certain population groups but reflects society.

We argue that diversity competency, defined here as knowledge about the mechanisms of structural discrimination and privilege, would be essential for government to build a system and institutions that reflect the social and cultural design of Matabeleland.

There needs to be an objective shift in policy. If we are serious about people being equal before the law let that be in reference to all not some. Policy makers must move away from drawing rules and regulations that massage egos of the wealthy and powerful while overburdening the average person with responsibility. Even more important, they must desist from talking at people and start to invest time on consulting communities before they can come up with policies. Communities must see themselves in policies governing their conduct.