| |
Back to Index
"Zimbabwe's
heritage of violence": Sokwanele comment on the 26th anniversary
of independence
Sokwanele
April 18,
2006
http://www.sokwanele.com/articles/sokwanele/zimbabweshistoryofviolence_18april2006.html
Zimbabwe has
a history of violence, in both the public and the private sphere.
Pre-colonial narratives disclose on-going conflict within clans
over succession, and between clans over the process of state-building.
The nineteenth century brought invasions by Zulu off-shoots and
the occupation of the western part of the country by Mzilikazi's
Ndebele, followed by European invasion and conquest. Violence became
the instrument again to dislodge coercive settler rule and achieve
independence with majority rule in 1980. By 1980, Zimbabweans could
hope for a peaceful development, but too many had learned a fearful
lesson - power is gained and retained by the use of force. The use
of state perpetrated violence as a political weapon has marred our
post-independence history and deprived us of the opportunity to
establish a democracy based on the will of the people.
The private
sphere is less transparent, but few would dispute that violence
is also prevalent in our personal relationships and in our institutions,
whether it take the form of domestic disputes, disciplining of children,
or sexual assaults on young girls and women.
The effects
of violence and torture on human beings, whether it occurs in the
public sphere, perpetrated by political enemies or state institutions,
or whether it occurs within families, has been well documented by
research in many countries. While some personalities are less affected,
many bear deep scars which cripple their ability to form normal
relationships throughout their lives. Unable to trust other people,
the victims, traumatized and often emotionally disabled, live with
suppressed anxieties and fears, while the perpetrators' guilt and
their memories of what they have done to others leads all too often
to mental disturbance.
We are talking
here not just of the effect on the victims; perpetrators of violence,
too, are affected. Violence takes two, just like the tango. But
violence in Zimbabwe does not conform to the classic dance routine.
The normal, right-side-up and justice-based version of violence
in fairy tales and mythology presents us with the evil, ugly (often
male) perpetrator, who ravishes the innocent, beautiful (usually
female) victim. The perpetrator is punished, the victim is rescued
by prince charming, and equilibrium is restored.
That is the
fairy tale. The Zimbabwean reality is quite different - in fact
the very opposite. In Zimbabwe, the perpetrator is excused, if not
glorified. It is the victim who is blamed for not avoiding the violence.
Whether it is a girl who is raped (she should not have been there,
or have tempted the perpetrator), a child who is beaten (he was
disobedient), a wife who is thrown out of the house (she was a witch,
or she did not serve her husband well enough), a white farmer beaten
to a pulp (his ancestors stole the land and he didn't give it back),
or the tortured opposition member (he was working against a legitimate
government) - the perpetrator is blameless. It is the victim who
is seen to have caused the violence. In the public sphere, we have
had amnesty after amnesty excusing perpetrators of unspeakable brutality
and cruelty performed in the name of the state or of a political
party. Domestic violence is routinely dismissed or ignored not only
by the police who receive reports, but also by family members who
try to persuade a woman that to be a victim is her destiny.
How did violence
become so deeply ingrained in our culture, our relations with each
other and our relations with the state? And how can the victims
be held responsible? Is there no obligation on the perpetrator to
stay his hand, to contain his emotions, and to find peaceful ways
to resolve disputes?
Apparently we
approve of physical force to achieve, not tranquility, but submission.
And this lesson is learned, not first in the political or public
sphere; it is learned initially in the home. Most children experience
violence first in the home, then in the school. At home many - not
all of course - witness violence between adults, most frequently
perpetrated by their fathers against their mothers. They learn that
it is acceptable; it is the privilege of the perpetrator and must
be suffered and tolerated by the victims. Not because the perpetrator
is right, but because he has the power.
A substantial
number of girl children experience sexual assault from early ages;
they learn to suffer and to keep silent. And almost all children
are "disciplined" by physical beating. By the time they reach school
they are well socialized to accept beating, pinching, and slapping
by teachers, which not infrequently becomes unacceptably abusive,
intended to humiliate and rob a child of his dignity rather than
to punish. Children learn to become victims of superior force backed
up by the authority of a revered institution.
The next step
in their socialization for violence is even more frightening - they
are taught to become perpetrators of violence. This occurs in the
training of police, where the young people are told that they must
have the civilian beaten out of them. But it also takes place in
some of the "best" of our secondary schools, particularly boys schools.
The "prefect
system", passed down from the English "public school", the molder
of colonial officials, requires senior pupils, rather than teachers,
to become responsible for the discipline of younger boys. Their
duty is not to be leaders by example, by creativity and by sensitivity;
their duty is to punish. They are permitted to exert considerable
brutality, humiliating younger children by forcing them into uncomfortable
positions, crawling on gravel on hands and knees, carrying heavy
bricks. School administrations with little understanding of the
means of developing leadership and morality support the prefects
in the name of school discipline. There is little protection for
the victimized. In one prominent religious boys secondary school
a headmaster recently told his pupils that they must not report
to their parents if they are punished by prefects; those who do
have been further victimized. Where are the checks which would prevent
the system from becoming abusive? What are these boys learning,
both prefects and their victims? They are learning that there is
no justice, that brutality and sadism rule. They are learning that
when it is your turn to be victim, take the medicine and be quiet,
and wait until it's your turn to perpetrate violence yourself.
You will get
back at those who tortured you by torturing other innocents. Boys
at this particular school in the junior forms will complain about
their treatment, but those in the senior forms will tell you it's
all right "because we were treated like that". Do as was done to
you, not as you would like others to do to you.
We should not
be surprised then that the experience of the family and the school
is carried over smoothly into the public sphere. We are a nation
of victims and perpetrators of violence. When we are not in power
we will be abused and suffer injustices. When we see that we are
being exploited and cheated by those holding political power we
will shrug our shoulders and say "what can we do?" But when we get
our own chance, we will be every bit as brutal as those who tortured
us. How else do we explain the ministers who sit happily at the
cabinet table with those who tortured them a generation ago? Victims
of trumped-up "arms cache" charges preside over the same fabrications
against others twenty years later. They seal their lips, keep quiet
about their own mistreatment, and allow the torture of others.
As a people
our solution to all conflicts is not to seek justice, to instill
respect for human dignity and protect the powerless. Our solution
is to resort to the coercion which is allowed by unrestricted power,
a coercion which robs both victim and perpetrator of their ability
to respect each other. We teach our children in our homes and in
our schools that the powerful rule, with brutality if they choose;
the weak must not offend them or provoke, for there is no justice,
no reconciliation, only an endless chain joining one cohort to the
next - first we become victims, then violators.
Are we surprised
that our political life is plagued by violence and coercion? We
shouldn't be; it is all one seemless garment. Once we accept that
human beings can be humiliated and abused we take on the roles,
depending on our status in a given situation. Ian Smith taught us
that only superior violence could dislodge a recalcitrant undemocratic
regime; but once that regime was dislodged, we continued to allow
violence to be the ultimate determinant in our political relationships.
We simply took over the machinery from our predecessors and turned
it on each other.
This is our
heritage; will it also become our future? Is it possible to change?
How do we build a democratic society, where many voices are heard,
where persuasion and enlightenment prevail to create a political
consensus, not violence and submission? It is not easy, given such
a legacy. Those who are cowed, as are most Zimbabweans today, would
rather suffer in silence than raise their voices in their institutions
or march in the streets to exercise their rights. Journalists write
about street protests as if they were inevitably violent, failing
to understand the non-violent nature of civil disobedience. The
present political opposition has seen that the violent way has brought
disaster, and have vowed this time to dislodge a tyrannical regime
through non-violent action. But they cannot resist using violence
and intimidation (the threat of violence) themselves; they already
seek to use coercion to establish hegemony in what they consider
their own territory. Is it the only way they know? Have they not
yet understood that the democracy and social justice which they
claim to espouse cannot be built through coercion?
Change is always
possible, but it takes a great amount of commitment and effort by
those who wish to eliminate this culture of intimidation - violence
on the one side and fear and submission on the other. It is, however,
necessary, unless we are prepared to continue to replace one cycle
with another of the same, with new perpetrators and new victims
each time around. What can be done?
The most important
thing is for political leaders to speak for non-violence, to practice
it within their own organizations, to teach their followers the
discipline of non-violence and to punish those who depart from its
principles. And then they must go further, to teach them democratic
and non-violent means of political organization; loyalties need
to be built by open policy debate, argument and persuasion, in order
to create a new politics that depends not just on tribe or personality
and artificial unities, but binds people on the basis of ideas,
and commitment to just solutions by leaders who respect others as
human beings.
The day has
not yet come for a public reckoning in which those who have brought
suffering and confusion to our nation will be held to account. But
some day it has to happen. We allowed the Rhodesian government and
their adherents to go free for the sake of independence; we allowed
the perpetrators of gukuhurundi to go free because we were forced
to submit to them; we have so far allowed the perpetrators of violence
against the MDC to go free. Only those who commit violence against
members of ZANU PF are called to account. The impunity must come
to an end.
If we are ever
to end the acceptability of public violence as a political instrument,
people who promote it have to be punished, and punished publicly.
That is the beginning. It will have to be accompanied by steps to
build a political culture based on respect for difference, and the
development of skills and commitment to peaceful methods of conflict
resolution.
But what about
our socialization as young people? What about the violence and abuse
in our homes and our schools? It is important that we also deal
with these problems, to stop our youth from learning to become victims
and perpetrators at a young age. Violence in our institutions can
only be effectively dealt with over a period of time, with the lead
being taken by a government that itself eschews violence. Government
must create the moral leadership which makes abuse in the schools
unacceptable socially and legally. There are already strict controls
on physical punishment in schools, but they are largely ignored
by staff and administration, and parents who complain on behalf
of their children find their children further victimized. This attitude
can only be stamped out by a Ministry of Education committed to
do so and by creating a framework for whistle blowing and complaints
that will not punish the complainant. The same applies to violence
in the home. It requires a cultural change, which comes slowly,
and will only take place if a public mood which condemns violence
is created by social and political leaders, who then introduce legislation
and enforcement measures to reduce it.
For the moment
we continue, entrapped in our various cycles of violence. Those
who dream of an early political change to rescue us from this tragedy,
need to study carefully how deeply all this abuse and the trauma
it causes is embedded in society, and commit themselves to a long-term
programme of social change. The peace-builders have a great deal
of work to do. They must not only heal the wounds of past violence;
they must also show the people that violence of any kind, whether
public or private, degrades a human being, whether he is victim
or perpetrator. Only when we are prepared to change some of these
essential elements of our culture will we be in a position to take
meaningful strides towards a peaceful Zimbabwe based on justice,
not power.
Visit the Sokwanele
fact sheet
Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.
TOP
|
