Back to Index

Long walk to freedom
Marko Phiri
October 24, 2005

In the history and tradition of Africa's liberation war politics, militants, civil rights activists and the general citizenry never frowned upon taking up arms to free themselves from political bondage. Other schools of thought would invoke the "just war" principles of the early Christian Fathers as their thesis for taking up guns and shooting their way to power.

Africa is at a cross roads today where the challenge is about improving the lives of the people on one hand and being perennially at war on the other, which itself has seen resources for social projects diverted to the war efforts. Now how do you fight rebels and build hospital and bridges at the same time? But besides the diversion of resources to these mindless wars, countries at peace have exhibited an indefatigable spirit engaged in power politics which have not only stolen resources from social projects but engaged in acts which have left opposition politicians, civil right activist and the general citizenry strongly thinking taking up arms is the only path that will lead to the Age of Enlightenment.

That throwback of ruling parties to pre-independence intolerance to opposing political views is no great surprise in contemporary African politics. Power has proven too sweet just to "forfeit" to anybody. Power and its trappings have therefore been considered virtual birth rights. Amid such histories, it would be strange then if latter-day political opponents do not strongly consider taking up arms themselves and shooting their way to power. Who can argue against this premise judging from the frustration that has hounded opposition parties like the MDC in Zimbabwe, FRELIMO in Mozambique etc.?

But then Zimbabwe offers a more compelling case in the study of liberation politics and the psychology of warlords. Liberation politics continue today here even a quarter century after the "official" end of minority rule. Oligarchs have become the modern enemies of the majority, and now majority rule is not merely defined by simplistic dichotomies of left, right, fat, thin, black, white thus the colour of the government. Rather the base of modern day claims to government is representation of the majority. And this itself would mean if a white man assumes power in a black country via a popular vote, he represents the majority.

Thus within the context of kosher liberation politics - not the asinine liberation war politics as harped on by the Zanu PF regime in Zimbabwe a quarter century after independence - as long as the majority claims no representation by the oligarchs, (which would be an oxymoron anyway) then all the talk about a despotic regime claiming legitimacy because it is black is relegated to that claptrap about white governments in a black country representing minority interests and black despots representing majority interests. That is the repulsive state in which Zimbabwe finds itself. It has become a virtual one-party state existing at the mercy - some will say goodwill - of a minority.

Meanwhile by means of legislative and Machiavellian villainy, the majority is left clueless about how to give the oligarchs one hard kick in the butt and into political oblivion. Thus the thesis on "just war" principles. Amid all the suffering engendered by the minority regime, able leaders from civic society, religion and opposition become the life-size heroes who will save the day. Outside adherence to the sometimes not totally enforceable democratic idealism of the West, a country like Zimbabwe can easily become a virtual failed state once the opposition with the support of the people decided enough is enough and took the street.

From thence usually emerges anarchy, unless the country claims a berth in modern African history with stories being told about a bloodless revolution. But then was it not heard from the Zanu PF regime during the height of the land grabbing madness after the murders of Martin Olds and other white farmers that a revolution was not complete without any casualties? This part of Africa sorely misses the warlordism of Liberia, Somalia, The Sudan and the Great Lakes.

The arrogance of African strongmen is well documented from the Ugandan buffoon Idi Dada Amin to the increasingly paranoid and senile Robert Mugabe, and it is small wonder then that the People of Zimbabwe have not had a Yoweri Museveni (remember he shot his way to power in Uganda in 1986), to act on the despotism of the regime. People hardened by hardships took on the securocrats dreaded across Africa and trusted by despots for their stay in power. These same state-sponsored murderers found themselves taking sides with the people when the heat became too much, some in genuine disenchantment with the status quo, others merely wily snakes trying to escape the wrath of the street protesters.

But then that the people of Zimbabwe have seemingly taken the punches lying down could be a pointer of not merely fearing reprisals from the securocrats, but rather the mood is not right yet. Unless there emerges charismatic and strong willed characters in the mould of the same men who took on the irascible white man more than three generations ago, then what will be vainly hoped for is the ballot as the saviour. But we all know better.

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