Back to Index

Beneath the Zanu PF, MDC Feud - Notes for Mbeki
George Mkhwananzi, New Zimbabwe
May 21, 2007

http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/mbeki38.16415.html

IN THE Sudan until 2003, it had always been assumed that the resolution of the feud between the Arab-led government of that country and the Southern-based separatist SPLM would effectively lead to peace and tranquillity.

Little did the world suspect that the people of the Darfur region harboured deep-seated grievances whose enormity would sink the country into one of the most catastrophic crises right on the stroke of a political deal that exclusively involved the Arab government and John Garang's movement.

In Zimbabwe today, the assumption is that any mediation exercise intended to resolve the national crisis should be treated as a bilateral quarrel between the ruling Zanu PF and factions of the opposition MDC. This is an extremely tragical approach to the country's future stability as it is wrongly premised on the fallacy that Zimbabwe's problems started in 1999.

When the MDC euphoria swept across the country in 2000, there was already a resolve in Matabeleland to review the region's status as a province of Zimbabwe and it was becoming increasingly clear that its marginalisation emanated from a unitary constitution that concentrated all power to the Mashonaland provinces.

The formation of the Forum Party in 1994 and the revival of ZAPU in 1999 strongly reflected this aspect as they both advocated a federal constitution. More importantly, the MDC storm found in Matabeleland a hard layer of discontentment that stretched beyond the 1990s issues of economic mismanagement and bad governance. These were issues of a misdelivered independence and the genocides perpetrated against the people by the Zanu PF regime.

It should be clear that the white settler regimes took many decisions on behalf of the indigenous people which in most instances were unpalatable. They are the ones who decided that Matabeleland and Mashonaland be merged into Rhodesia in 1895. They are the ones who decided that Rhodesia should not join the Union of South Africa in 1923. They are the ones who decided to form the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland in 1953. They are the ones who decided that Salisbury be the capital. They are the ones who decided that the country's constitution be centralist (a bambazonke constitution). All these decisions were being made for the convenience of colonial administration and capitalist exploitation without regard to African preferences.

Regrettably, the desire to acquire independence tended to overlook these historical factors resulting with gruesome experiences being witnessed after independence. Signals during the course of the struggle indicating that there was a divergence of visions amongst the nationalists on tribal grounds were ignored. When ZAPU split in 1963, it was an illustration that not even such a grand cause could unite the two peoples. Other such abortive attempts to unite included the 1972 ZLP fiasco, the 1976 ZIPA collapse, the 1979 PF disaster, the 1980 GNU break-up, the 1995 Forum Party split, and the 2005 MDC split.

All these are symptoms of an incompatible nation pretending that it is one when in fact pursuing fundamentally different agendas. There is clearly an unresolved colonial question which politicians appear to be too embarrassed to countenance. There is no proof that before colonisation, Matabeleland and Mashonaland were one country. Inheriting a colonial legacy of a one Rhodesia was double standards for Zanu PF and its British handlers in 1980. Without proper appreciation for historicity, the British handed over the colonial status of Matabeleland to black colonisers and called it independence.

When Robert Mugabe created the Five Brigade in August 1980, three months after being granted independence in April, he was very clear that this was a campaign to subjugate a historically independent nation and prepare it for a new colonial status under his government. Zanu PF rule in Matabeleland or any other future Harare-head quartered party remains illegitimate. Reality has demonstrated that such parties are unanimously agreed that access to power, resources and opportunities should be barricaded from a Matabeleland man or woman.

Now that President Mbeki has decided to engage only these 'opposam' parties, will Zimbabwe's crisis be explored beyond the manufacture date of the MDC? Zanu PF and MDC curiously exude the same order. They are both centralist. They are both tribalistic (no Ndebele qualifies to lead the respective parties). They are both suffering from an ideological crisis. They are both linguistically chauvinistic (their presidents address meetings in Matabeleland in Shona).

There seems to be a dangerous political hallucination amongst some Ndebele people in thinking that issues of justice should wait until Zanu PF is removed from power. They forget that Chief Khayisa Ndiweni was told the same story by Joshua Nkomo before Ian Smith was removed only to discover that they had aided a much more brutal, hungrier and numerically superior adversary into power.

The Zimbabwe crisis should not be considered resolved until it is forced to accommodate the Matabeleland question. Part of the package should include adopting a federal constitution that recognises that Matabeleland is an equal partner with Mashonaland

The constitutional framework should ensure that resources, opportunities and power are distributed equally between the two regions regardless of population and size. There should be a 50-50 representation in parliament as in the case of the Hutu and Tutsi in Burundi. The presidency should be a rotational one between the two territories. These are notes that President Mbeki ought to familiarise himself with before he could possibly turn Zimbabwe into another Sudan.

*George Mkhawanazi is the National Vice Chairman of the National Constitutional Assembly and writes in his personal capacity.

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