|
Back to Index
Their
land, our sovereignty: The rise of native imperialism in Zimbabwe!
Itai
Masotsha Zimunya
May 19, 2005
Zimbabweans
suffered colonialism for 90 years since 1890 during which period
political power and land was taken from the natives. The Apartheid
political project thrived on racial segregation, where blacks were
the minors and white seniors. The 1970s saw Zimbabweans rising up
in the Mozambique and Zambia fronts in demand of two things, 1)
Majority rule and 2) Land. On the 18th of April 1980,
Zimbabweans celebrated majority rule and formed the first democratic
government in the people’s history. The negotiation to independence
had a cautious clause that allowed farm owners to only sell their
land when willing, the much touted "willing buyer- willing
seller" base. In March 2000, after losing the constitutional
referendum, the government embarked on a fast track land reform
exercise where the black elite in the ruling Zanu PF became the
new prime land masters. Again the peasants emerged losers. The process
of land reform and its resultant socio-economic order are opposite
to the demands of the liberation struggle.
Several issues
arise from this scenario. The liberation struggle was fought on
the basis of land to the peasants and not the political elite. Whilst
appreciating that Zimbabweans of all tribal and racial backgrounds
contributed to our liberation, the outcome of the fast track land
reform expose other ills as certain tribes have risen to the crown
of the Zimbabwean socio-economic and political hierarchy, condemning
other tribes into second class citizen status. Thus to other tribes,
Uhuru is not yet here as they are experiencing a new form of oppression,
native imperialism. This resonates with the new land ownership pattern
of Zimbabwe where, despite peasants contributing significantly to
national independence, the grabbing of prime agricultural and mineral
rich estates point to the rise of the new black oppressor.
These issues
rise in the presence of a hijacked liberation struggle where the
new bourgeoisie class abuse the national media and security to protect
personified interests at the expense of the national good. A living
example is where some scholars are persuading the nation to celebrate
that land is in the hands of the black people, whilst the true situation
on the ground is that very few blacks have amassed prime land as
the majority continue to hop from one food queue to the next transport
queue. This is Zimbabwe’s dilemma, where people are asked to celebrate
the new aristocracy because it is of black bloodsuckers that replaced
the white suckers.
The chief commander
of the Mozambique based revolutionary command Josiah Magama Tongogara
answered this dilemma in 1978 when he said, " they were not
fighting the white person simply because they are white, but fighting
the systems of the white person that made black people second class
citizens". What we experience in present-day Zimbabwe is the
maintenance of the oppressive systems by the black government against
its citizens, whether black, white or of mixed race.
The state controlled
media, which has a monopoly in Zimbabwe coerce people to support
Zanu PF without which labels fly. Agent of imperialism, traitor,
uncouth and if white, unrepentant Rhode are common labels to people
that do not support the despotic systems of the black government
in Zimbabwe.
As a Zimbabwean,
I find it extremely evil to celebrate land in the hands of a few
"black" people because what my parents suffered for was
not just for "the black" person to have land but for the
poor to have access to the prime resource. The argument of restoring
the injustices of 1890 fall away in that the people who have looted
land today are not direct descendants of the big empires of 1890.
Secondly, this government sponsored fast track land reform was not
based on either ideology or principle but sheer greed.
Certain tribes
have amassed prime land in all provinces, which, for example, if
a person from Mashonaland Central is to grab primeland in Matabeleland
North, in their true senses do they mean that there are no deserving
people in that province? Though these despots are quick to argue
that they have a right to get land where ever in Zimbabwe, that
argument falls away in light of the shameless and very tribal silver
jubilee medal awards. Any liberation struggle awards that ignore
Josiah Magama Tongogara, the only person whose head Rhodesia offered
1000Pounds for, Herbert Pfumaindini Chitepo, Jason Ziyaphapha Moyo
and Ndabaningi Sithole is theatrical and a mere dummy.
It is this tribalism,
elitism and one-partisan that will see the flop of the so-called
"Third Chimurenga". It will not fail because of sabotage
or that white people still want their land. The chief factor is
the partisan manner that Zanu PF used to endorse the people who
grabbed land. Mugabe designed a new form of citizenship where only
those that supported him deserved land. This was accompanied by
the privatization of the liberation struggle, where even on its
website, Zanu PF claims to have liberated Zimbabwe. Zimbabweans
fought for their independence with the assistance of the frontline
states, and today these Zimbabweans support political parties of
their choice including the MDC, Zapu and others.
Zanu PF created
and believed their own fiction, that all non Zanu PF people were
and still are enermies of land reform. This fiction is the one that
is most likely going to haunt their land project even if the government
signs 99 year leases. The misnomer was of substituting Zimbabwe
with a political party -Zanu PF. The public media celebrates Zanu
PF and any critic; even constructive criticism will see the end
of the scribes job contract. The state suffers from militarisation
and Zanunisation. Zanunisation to say if one does not subscribe
to the Zanu PF tenets, then they are enermies and that all enermies
must be "crushed". This art is in keeping with the one
party state doctrine which the Zanu PF elite praise every day of
their lives.
Sovereignty
means people’s dominion over their own land. In Zimbabwe it is only
those that support Zanu PF that are sovereign, assuming Zanu PF
has functional internal democracy (notwithstanding the Tsholotsho
fiasco). Thus, all those that do not support Zanu PF are not sovereign
people in Zimbabwe. The question therefore is: Why, if we do not
have land should we celebrate their sovereignty since land is the
economy and the economy is the base of any nationhood? The Zanu
elite is the new Vapambevhu and they must be fought.
Dr Tafataona
Mahoso, the media freedom czar and his club of yesmen dream from
time to time on national television. In a country they clearly know
is sharply divided along political opinion, abuse the unfair access
they have on the media to attack those that do not agree with their
political orientation. It has to be stated that the people of Zimbabwe
are not silly in silence. A mathematical derivation of stupidity
in people’s silence is very wrong and dangerous. In fact, for Mahoso
and his self-esteemed think-tank partners, it is only normal for
them to be auxiliaries in an anti-Povo struggle, because if they
stop praising, the fruits of capital will fall. They have been caught
in the net of post independent race and ideology contradictions
when they confuse a white person for a capitalist and take a black
person as a Comrade. No wonder why, even those that are most corrupt
with public funds in government continue to be called comrades whilst
those that are trying to restore Zimbabwe’s pride are dismissed
as nonentities and denied access to and from the media.
If our parents
went to war against the Ian Smith government in demand of free and
fair elections and land, what can stop Zimbabweans from waging a
war against Mugabe in demand of land and free and fair elections.
Ian Smith had no greater restrictive laws like the coalition of
the Public Order and Security Act (POSA) and the Access to Information
and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA). Oppression remains the same
nomatter the colour of the tyrant.
Unlike most
scholars that end in criticizing, we note several avenues to resolve
the crisis in Zimbabwe. The governance question must be resolved
by the institution of a new people driven constitution. A constitution
that is Zimbabwean in spirit and letter. We can not preach sovereignty
when our supreme law is just a surrender document made in Lancaster
26 years ago. Secondly, our leaders need to restore the values of
truth, peace and love, and treat all people equally irrespective
of their political opinion.
It is shocking
to note that the political emperors that preside over Zimbabwe has
refused to accept even the smallest of errors since independence
in 1980. Numerous examples come to mind. The Matebeleland genocide
has found no father or mother, but was just said to be a "dark
epoch" in the history of Zimbabwe. The economic problems that
have grounded the nation are a creation of the west, we hear. The
food shortages are a result of sabotage by unrepentant Rhodesian
farmers and the shortages of basic commodities is engineered by
supermarket owners. Any average reasonable person can safely conclude,
from the above examples that our leadership is 100% right and has
never been wrong for the past 25 years.
The truth shall
make Zimbabwe prosperous and fallible leaders must not find space
in our cabinet chambers. Wish if Comrades Shamuyarira and Kaukonde
teach their fellows the meaning of Chokwadi / Iqiniso- the truth.
Issues of land vis-a-vis race and tribe must be revisited and an
all-encompassing socio-economic reform take place.
Otherwise, the
issue of making us the hungry Povo celebrate whilst the political
elite feed is dangerous and may lead to the fourth Chimurenga, now
black versus black, fighting for our land.
* A
former student leader and human rights activist currently with the
Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition.
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
|
