Monday 26 September 2016

An open letter to African Americans: African lives matter too

I am a fan of Black American history. As such I have read a bit on Fredrick Douglas, Harriet Turban, Booker T Washington, Marcus Garvey, Martin Luther King junior, Malcolm X among many others. But Marcus Garvey’ solid Pan-African philosophy touches my heart the most. More so because I identify with this philosophy. Africa and the African diaspora we are one, including you too, our brothers and sisters in America.

Which is why I was shocked flipping through the news channels on Wednesday the 21st of September. African Americans demonstrating in support of Mugabe at the UN headquarters in New York. Effectively countering the Zimbabwean demonstration, against Robert Mugabe’s rule. I was angry with all African Americans at first but then I figured it would be too harsh to do so. How could I paint all African Americans with the same brush. Most of you do not even know about this demonstration let alone the organisers. As a result, I bear no grudge with all of you.

I will not cast aspersions on all of you, but I will take my issue with the December 12 movement which organised the demonstration in support of Mugabe. A tyrant who has run down his country into a basket case. Reducing his once admired fellow citizens into paupers, all in the name of fighting imperialism.

Now December 12 movement, I am not challenging your right to demonstrate. I accept that right totally. But I found it most interesting that most of your members participating in that demonstration could not point Zimbabwe on the world map. They did not even know basic facts about Zimbabwe; like the year we got our independence or that we do not have oil. Maybe next time, educate your members when you engage in issues that do not concern you.

It is typical American behaviour of you to meddle in our internal affairs. Zimbabweans simply wanted to tell their President that he has over stayed his welcome but for some weird reason you chose to join in the discussion. We know your imperialist nation meddles in domestic issues of other smaller nations. We somehow thought since you are family, you will respect our sovereignty to hold this internal conversation without outside meddling.  

Since you have chosen to meddle in our affairs, come let us dialogue. Converse and find each other. Believe you me, there are so many issues that we can agree on. You might not know this because we have not been as loud or equivocal as Mugabe in the past. Rest assured we agree on many issues. I am however willing to find out areas where we do not agree.

When Mugabe talks about taking back our natural resources the whole country is in agreement. He stands out to the outside world as the true champion of his people. But we who know him disapprove his abuse of this noble idea. Instead he using it to build patronage. Rewarding his cronies at the greater majority's expense. Zimbabweans are wallowing in poverty. For rhetoric cannot feed their empty stomachs. Our demonstration in New York, was a cry for a Zimbabwe that works for everyone. Your banners said he was right. Is it because you support a Zimbabwe that works for Mugabe’s cronies only? Do our sorry African lives not matter to you? If not then what kind of Pan Africanism is that?

 When Mugabe says the United Nations needs to be reformed and democratised, of course he is right.  We are in agreement with that view too. But do not expect Zimbabweans to shower hypocrisy with praises. Charity must always begin at home. You cannot be a democrat at the UN and an autocrat at home. In Zimbabwe he arrests, detains and tortures opposition activists. At times abducting and or even murdering opposition activist. Now can you understand why we are not enthused by Mugabe talking about democratising the UN. If he believes in democracy, why does he not exercise it, in his own country? Yet you say Mugabe is right, do our African lives not matter?
When Mugabe talks about ending the Palestinian occupation and the Two State solution, of course he is absolutely right and we are in total agreement. Zimbabwe’s stance is unequivocal, Palestinian occupation must end without fail. Mugabe may have wider exposure and international platforms to air his views whilst we have none but our views on this issue are the same.

When Mugabe talks about the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) double standards he is right and we are in agreement. But we also know that the court has not convicted innocent Africans. Should the African lives that are lost at the hands of these monsters count for nothing? Is their African blood that worthless?

When he talks about sovereignty and the ills of imperialism of course he is right and we are in agreement. But sovereignty is not shoving the leader’s will down the people’s throats. We have a right to tell our leaders to go when we no longer want them. We have a right to demand accountability from our leaders who behave more like emperors and kings.

Mugabe is a great orator and a man of high intelligence. His rhetorical exploits are matched by a few. But that cannot make us forget his corrupt leadership. The country lost more than US$15 billion worth of diamond revenue through corruption. If it were the only scandal to grapple our country it would be better but time and again Mugabe has turned a blind eye on corruption. At times even rewarding the culprits. He talks right but talk is cheap. What happened to one man one farm? Together with his wife they have more than thirteen farms. What then are you exactly saying when  you say Mugabe is right?  Don't our sorry African lives not deserve better?

We are not in agreement with his mala-administration, as we speak hospitals do not have basic medicines including pain killers. Whilst he has been at the country’s helm, the past 36 years, he cannot even trust the healthcare systems he administers. Together with his family they receive treatment in Singapore. Is not what is good for the goose also good for the gander? We demand and deserve better our African lives matter too.

University education is now a preserve of the rich and the middle income. Poor people can no longer afford to send their kids to University. Government support has been withdrawn due to lack of funding. Whilst most ministries with a direct bearing on social services are cutting back on their spending, Mugabe’s travel budget continues to balloon every year. Currently it is bigger than the ministry of Industry and Trade and other important ministries. With such clear lack of vision, how can we expect him to take the country out of this current mess he created in the beginning. I hope you can forgive me, when I do not understand what you mean when you say, Mugabe is right. Are we Zimbabweans then expected to smile at our president and pretend that our country is heading in the right direction? Just in case you did not know we value our African lives to just let things continue as they are.    

Even though the movement Black Lives Matter started in the US it is now bigger than just African American lives. Black Lives Matter must be more than just a slogan or a preserve of African Americans being shot by the American police force. It must be all encompassing for black people everywhere across the globe.

Mugabe must go because  Black Lives in Zimbabwe matter too.

Best Regards

Whitlaw Mugwiji

Monday 19 September 2016

The last Stay-away was not a failure it was just less successful

Protests by their very nature have their ups and downs. It is a very difficult exercise, to sustain protests over a long period of time. However, that said, I think the failure to understand our economy’s new realities was at the heart of why this last stay away was “less successful”.

Under Zanu PF’s mismanagement, industries have closed and continue to do so. A walk around Zimbabwe’s industrial areas clarifies this picture. In city centres across the country, streets are packed, full of vendors trying to eke a living. Every day is a struggle. A hassle to feed the family. With no savings to rely on, demonstrations are just but a heavy burden on the already struggling masses.

As if that was not enough, last year’s Supreme Court, anti-labour ruling, made firing employees even easier. With no guaranteed employment for workers, going on strikes and demonstrations is quite a risky business. Naturally out of self-preservation, workers are reluctant to engage in non-ending strikes and demonstrations. Unozosara kudzokera kubasa chitupa chava pahwindo ukawedzera matambudziko gumi pazana (You will end up getting fired, adding more problems to your already existing ones).

On top of these two main factors, you then have sceptics sowing seeds of self-doubt in the masses asking mundane questions. What did the stay-away/demonstration achieve? What has changed after your protest? These people did not start today though. Yesterday they spoke in hushed tones. Today they are shouting on top of their voices. Sometimes hiding behind pseudo intellectual questions. Brazenly challenging people to provide #ThisFlag’s ideology and the way forward after stay-aways/demonstrations. Their questions have managed to contaminate people’s hopes and dilute their high spirit. People are beginning to wonder if their actions are worth the risk they are taking.

What is the pastor’s ideology?
Thus it is imperative that we try and answer these questions. For the benefit of those who were about to lose hope and give up. The question of #ThisFlag’s ideology is a non-question, #ThisFlag is a citizen’s movement not a political movement. It’s a citizen’s movement, whereby people are simply airing their concerns about the economy and other affairs of the state. Including corruption and incompetence in government among other issues. Surely people do not need to have an ideology for them to speak to these ills. It is their right as citizens to express their displeasure at their government’s actions or inaction. In fact, intellectuals have the moral responsibility of analysing actions vis-à-vis their causes and motives not this people bashing we see online.

Then what after the stay-away/demonstration?
Now this is a very interesting question. I am more than convinced that if it had not been asked with so much cynicism, it would have sparked a necessary debate. In attempting to answer this question, I hope to arouse some discussion around this difficult question. I am sure you will agree with me that this is a conversation we must have among other conversations if we are to succeed in removing Mugabe.

The primary objective of protesting is to communicate to the authorities, that the people do not want a certain policy, government action or inaction. Protests as a means of such communication can only work when the government in question has a conscience and is willing to listen to its people. The one we have in Zimbabwe is well known for its non-listening policy towards its own citizens. It has neither the capacity nor the interest to address our concerns
.
So why keep talking to someone who is not willing to listen? Through our protests we are no longer talking to the government, we are talking to one another as fellow citizens. Saying to each other enough is enough. In the process re-energising the support base that was otherwise growing weary of the ever promised but never coming change.

When we protest we are crying out to our African brothers and sisters, telling them that things are not okay in Zimbabwe. We are speaking to the Pan Africans that African lives matter and they do not feed on empty rhetoric. By doing so we are putting pressure on the dictator who flies around pretending everything is okay back home.

When we are protesting we are screaming to the international community. Asking them to keep their eyes on Zimbabwe. Thus making it much easier to demand electoral reforms. Much more importantly when momentum of protest is on the ground, it is much easier to organise people to vote in their numbers and defend the vote afterwards if necessary.

However, these protests must be taken to the rest of the country. Since demonstrations and stay-aways are our main tools to speaking to one another and the international community at large they must have wide spread appeal and support in order to be heard. People in the rural areas need to be engaged. But in a different kind of conversation since we cannot guarantee their safety. We need to send flyers with pictures of their Zanu PF leaders’s houses. Tell a story of affluence in the midst of poverty. Show that their leaders’ houses cost more than schools and clinics put together in their home districts. Prove to them beyond any doubt that their leaders do not care for them.

Sometimes our talk and our cries are not loud enough but that doesn’t make them failures. It means we have to talk louder and at times, scream on top of our lungs if we must. Thomas Edison says in his famous statement, “I have not failed. I have just found 10,000 ways that won't work”. We can only fail when we stop trying.

How do we make the stay-away/demonstrations more successful?
In my last article which can be found here. I state that we must accept nonviolence only if it is a superior tactic but not because of its moral soundness. Thus we should never be apologetic for adopting the right tactics even if they maybe too radical and morally unsound for some other people’s liking. Since people are forced to go to work either because they are self-employed or because they are afraid to lose their jobs they have to be coerced not go to work.

How do you coerce people not to go to work? You disrupt the transport system either by blocking strategic routes to and from the cities with boulders or by spreading threats through flyers to commuter omnibus drivers that if they defy the stay-away their commuter omnibuses risk being burnt. People must be willing to carry out these threats if the commuter omnibus drivers defy the threat. Nothing is as damaging as an empty threat.

However as Nietzsche says “the mother of excess is not joy but joylessness”. We have to be creative and vary the nature of our protests. Many people disparaged the pastor for calling people to sing Ishe komborera Africa during the Highlanders versus Dynamos match at Barbourfields stadium. But it is such creativity we need if we are to sustain our protests. Imagine the whole stadium waving Zimbabwe’s flag. Putting aside our football rivalry and putting our country first. Enjoy our football game and protesting at the same time. We need to be flexible and above all proactive because the regime will obviously react to our actions.  

Conclusion
Mugabe can take as many pain killers as he wants but a loose tooth can not rest until it is pulled out. The state might be able to counter the citizen’s protest today and maybe tomorrow but as long as the citizens’ concerns are not addressed it is just a matter of time.

Let’s be relentless and not tire. At times we can be less successful but still we can complete this change together. A new Zimbabwe is possible in Mugabe’s lifetime.

Monday 12 September 2016

We must accept nonviolence but not as an absolute moral principle

It’s easy for non-participants in this our struggle for democracy, economic and political justice to say that all violence is abhorrent. Quite easy for them to stand aloof and retain their moral purity, condemning both the oppressor and the oppressed. Quite easy for pacifists deeply influenced by their philosophical idealism and absolutist ethics to let their fellow citizens suffer violence from the state than sacrifice their own non-violent principles to defend them.

We must accept and respect nonviolence but not as an absolute moral principle. We celebrate the war of liberation. At the same time, we castigate nationalists who were against the liberation war. Yet these nationalists believed independence, could be achieved through nonviolent means. We need to pause, sit down and reflect.

When you hear government representatives and their surrogate state media, you would assume that violence is by definition something done by non-state agents. In their eyes what is done is not important, but who does it. When the police use violence, it is in defence of the security of the state and its citizens. But when the citizens react violently to this violence it is terrorism and counter revolutionary. That kind of logic fellow comrades is idiotic.

We have endured so much violence at the hands of our government as citizens of this beautiful country. For violence is not only physical. We have been stripped of our dignity. Firstly opposition members were denied land under the land reform programme now those living in areas affected by draught are being denied food through Zanu PF’s partisan food distribution. Some have been forced to live as illegal immigrants in foreign lands. Our decent sisters forced to engage in prostitution. Our disenchanted brothers forced to become petty criminals. It is of paramount importance for ordinary citizens to recognise that they are capable of reclaiming their authority over the Zanu PF ruling thugs. We must break our bonds of passivity without fail. For with them we are totally incapable of decisive political action. If violence does move the citizenry to break these bonds, then I think there’s a pretty strong case for violence.

Virginia Held asks an interesting question, what can a people do to free themselves from oppression and have their rights restored and respected? Malcolm X believed that oppressed people should use whatever means is necessary to secure their freedom. As citizens we have tried to engage our government through peaceful marches only for the peaceful protests to be quashed by a rogue police using button sticks, water cannons and teargas canisters.

Dismantling such an illegitimate and brutal regime even through the use of violence is actually a moral improvement. However, to me the question of whether we can use violence to overcome Zanu PF evil, is not a moral question but a tactical question. I am only concerned if violence is going to be more efficacious than a nonviolent programme of action. I would only accept advocacy of nonviolence, not as an absolute moral principle, but as a better tactic to achieve our desired ends.

There are numerous philosophical arguments justifying the use of force. I personally do not have any problems with the use of force, more so in countering the oppressor’s violence. I am a firm believer in distributive justice, an eye for an eye and an arm for arm. They must know that they are just as human as we are, if they are pinched they too can feel as much as we do. In 2008 we allowed Zanu PF to set up bases across the country. These bases later became torture chambers for the opposition. Unfortunately, many of these bases are still functional to date that. Days of being slapped on the cheek and giving the other cheek must come to an end. However, we must be careful to target the right people. Targeting the wrong people is counterproductive, like looting stores, destroying vendors’ wares and other private property unless of course it belongs to Zanu PF chefs. The last thing we want is to lose the people’s sympathy.

 We must know that governmental lash back to violence is inevitable, and when it comes, it is usually more severe than we anticipate. But government’s overreaction can help radicalise the formerly passive, win international support and more importantly put Zimbabwe back on the agenda of international agencies like SADC and the AU.

Conclusion
Thus we cannot afford to condemn people who are acting in self-defence, against a violent regime. Doing so is by default to accept that the government’s use of violence is legitimate. If I were to seat on God’s seat of judgement I would judge and punish harshly those who are unable, for lack of imagination, courage and support, to respond to violence and injustice violently, it may be better to respond non-violently than to endure it passively without protest.

"Where slavery is the given order, fighting for freedom appears as disorder."


Powered by Blogger.