|
Back to Index
Towards
a Federal State in Zimbabwe: reconciling liberty and loyalty
Freeman
Chari
May 03, 2011
The challenge
to any writer when faced with a concept as complex as federalism
is presenting it in a manner that makes it simple for the reader
to understand but at the same time maintaining a certain level of
depth that can withstand intellectual scrutiny. The decision to
advocate for a federal system in Zimbabwe did not erupt out of me
like a volcano, rather it was a culmination of serious thought-process
which most of the time occurred when I was drinking chibuku, herding
cattle or guarding our fields against marauding baboons. Thus, this
article is a product of a layman-s thinking. It is therefore
important that I also take the reader through the same wild thought-process
I went through so that when we hopefully converge on federalism
we both know the journey that we would have travelled.
In defense
of the individual-s ability to choose
A human being is an animal capable of free moral
choice. Thus if a man is left to make a decision on the fate of
his environment he would not only decide on it based on the perceived
total value that he may get from it but also based upon rules that
he would have set for himself. In the presence of a hen, man can
behave differently. One may decide to kill it and eat it, another
may decide to take it, look after it knowing that it would one day
provide him with eggs but another one may let it go because he is
vegetarian. In all these instances he would have exercised his ability
to make free choice based on his conscience.
Before there
was society there was a man. This man knew that he is alive and
he is what he is - a man. This man-s interaction with other
man would determine how society would be shaped. If this man was
huge, strong and violent he could subdue other man and they would
be his slaves. If this man viewed other man as equals, he would
respect them so would the other man. In this state man would live
at peace with each other.
John Locke in "A Letter Concerning Tolerance" though
not strictly political work; for he dealt mainly on the separation
of Church and State provides a basis of understanding moral truth
that has strong political implications. Broadly put, he argues that
it is impossible for the state to compel moral behavior. Rather
it is only light and evidence that can work a change in men's opinions.
This meant that a person is able to build an independent opinion,
view or understanding of a certain thing. This perception cannot
be changed through force but voluntary persuasion of the mind by
reality.
Given that all
human beings are capable of free moral choice political leaders
are in no superior position to grasp the truth than any other men
are, and therefore have no right to even attempt to force their
opinions on others.
The freedom to associate and dissociate
Should it be a question to anybody that even if
I was born in Zimbabwe, I choose not to be Zimbabwean? Or should
I be a Zezuru because my father and mother prefer to recognize themselves
as Zezuru? What if I want to be Ndebele? What if I don-t want
to be anything?
It is my perception that since I am a human being
capable of free moral choice then I should be able to choose a path
that satisfies me as an individual. Thus I would not want to sustain
a relationship that limits my desires and aspirations. In other
words I want to exist as a free human being with no collective obligations
that limit my freedom. So whilst I have the freedom to associate,
the association should exist only for as long as it serves my best
interests, in the event that it ceases to then I should have the
right to secede.
The freedom to associate and dissociate is however
complicated by the notion that man is a product of environment;
that, man develops himself on the basis of what he inherits (in
the socio-historically context). This involves family, society and
collective identity. One is born in a family which becomes the primary
group of association. Each family has its own ways and methods of
accomplishing goals. The individual is then assigned responsibilities
based upon gender and utility to achieve maximum perceived efficiency
in the family. In my family, as a boy I was tasked with looking
after goats and cattle, ploughing and cutting firewood while my
sisters did the household chores like cooking and washing. It is
from my family that I first became involved in social life; where
I absorbed its values and standards of behavior, its ways of thought,
language and certain value orientations.
This primary group (family) gave way to the broader
society. I began to be recognized as a Moyo who did not eat his
totem - heart. I began to know that there is chief Masunda
whom whenever he passed by I had to squat and greet. I began to
respect Wednesday as a scared day that I wasn-t supposed to
work in the fields. At the same time I also learnt a lot of survival
skills from interaction with different people.
This interaction with groups though beneficial also
limited my personal freedom. I could not choose to be different
for it would be perceived as infringing on rules that society had
imposed on me by virtue of association.
I have watched people who died as paupers because
of societal restrictions. Some women were denied the chance to school
because their society viewed them as child-bearing machines. Some
children died of polio and measles because of restrictions on modern
medicine. How can Daniel Chingoma break free from the chains of
a retarded society that thinks he is incapable of making a helicopter?
Of what good
will it be that I can think good but cannot do good because doing
good is not good for this society?
Just to be me!
One Alexander Spirkin in Dialectal Materialism writes
"The wealth and complexity of the individual's social content
are conditioned by the diversity of his links with the social whole,
the degree to which the various spheres of the life of society have
been assimilated and refracted in his consciousness and activity.
This is why the level of individual development is an indicator
of the level of development of society, and vice versa. But the
individual does not dissolve into society. He retains his unique
and independent individuality and makes his contribution to the
social whole: just as society itself shapes human beings, so human
beings shape society."
In this regard Spirkin seems to suggest the relationship
between an individual and society is reciprocal where society influences
the man and the man in turn influences society. Each society has
its culture, that is according to Edward Tyler ; "that complex
whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, law, morals, custom,
and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member
of society".
If I had not been exposed to other cultures how
would I have known that heart meat is rich in nutrients like Coenzyme
Q10 which helps improve cardiac function?
To me a man who has a blind and brittle allegiance
to a society (jingoism) and its culture is an undoing to it. He
slows down its evolution. I would love to think of a society that
allows me to blossom outside of its paradigm. Where I can be allowed
to flourish in my own sphere of influence, own the product of my
enterprise and have all man respect what I own in as much as I respect
what they gain through enterprising engagement with other man.
I am not a proponent of selfishness but as Hugo
Grotius wrote "It is not against the nature of human society
to work for one-s own interest, provided that one does so
without wounding the rights of others."
Making
the case for federalism in Zimbabwe
I have tried to take the reader into the realm of
the individual and then man in the presence of other man. We are
primarily conscious of ourselves as individuals with the unique
ability to choose. We however grow up in a family that usually has
its ways that may not necessarily be in tandem with our desire to
be independent. This exposure coupled to the group relationship
shapes the way we hold those in our families. Usually they show
us affection and care thus we develop a social bond that makes us
love them as our parents, sisters and brothers. This bond is the
one that compels us to defend our brothers when attacked. Thus we
develop a patriotism that is local to the family.
Through interaction with other families, we learn
of other relationships. We develop another bond which in most cases
is not as strong as the primary bond of family. I remember the days
when we used to herd cattle, I used to fight with my cousin over
an insult on his mother-s or my mother-s breast. After
the fight we would then team up for soccer against others from another
clan.
The strength of the bond amongst people weakens
as we move out of the family epicenter. Thus we may have a hierarchy
of loyalties; where one is most loyal to himself, then family, clan,
tribe and ultimately nation or kingdom. In cases of geographical
loyalties we may have village, ward, district, provincial and national
loyalties. The vigor with which one defends his clan is usually
more than the one when defending his country unless one chooses
to be a pure nationalist.
Your family knows how much you invested into your
business, they know of the countless nights your spent working to
make it a success. They respect you for that. Your village knows
your general history. They saw you growing up and they saw how you
started by selling mangoes on the roadside until you grew to own
a shop of your own. They put a good name for you.
They know how efficiently you manage your personal
affairs and they begin to grow some faith that you can manage even
their affairs in a better manner than they can do. Sometimes they
ask you for advice, sometimes they ask you to keep their savings
in trust. Eventually they may decide to make you their representative
in government.
You also know these people. You know how much they
trust you. You also know how much they value a tarred road. You
know that you used to walk 15 kilometers to school and your people
would be grateful to have a school nearer to them. This background,
coupled to man-s inclination towards morality usually compels
you not to disappoint them. We know the desires of our people and
when opportunity avails itself for us to help we rarely think twice
about doing it.
The man and women who make money with Marange diamonds
do not know the people of Marange. They don-t care about them.
So does Mines and Minerals Minister, Obert Mpofu. It is easy for
Joyce Mujuru and Obert Mpofu to sign papers authorizing Emmerson
Munangagwa to use the army to forcibly relocate these people with
no compensation for they do not have sentimental or historical attachment
to these people. It was easy again to displace Mwenezi people without
compensation for structures to allow the erection of Manyuchi dam.
It was easy for Perence Shiri to lead an army from Harare to massacre
people in Kezi because he knows nobody there. Would he have done
that if his family was from Kezi? Even the looting of Ziscosteel
which was a pride of the people of Midlands is evidence of lack
regional patriotism.
Despite claims of sins against the liberation struggle
Ndabaningi Sithole never let down his community. Even when the Mugabe
regime wanted so much to portray Roy Bennet as a racist his relationship
with the people of Chipinge proves otherwise. Nkomo was labeled
a dissident but not a single soul ever fingered him for any blood
and the people of Matebeland loved him. To make a point the relationship
between Mr Mugabe and his nephew James Chikerema was not as solid
as we would expect.
I have touched on loyalty and local patriotism as
drivers of responsibility. I assumed mainly that the individual
and society are at peace with each other and that the individual
finds freedom and satisfaction in exercising himself within his
society. This is just one angle of justifying the need for a federal
state in a multi-tribal, multicultural and multilingual country
like Zimbabwe. I hope my next installment will be on political and
economic justice in a federal state.
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
|