×
NewsDay

AMH is an independent media house free from political ties or outside influence. We have four newspapers: The Zimbabwe Independent, a business weekly published every Friday, The Standard, a weekly published every Sunday, and Southern and NewsDay, our daily newspapers. Each has an online edition.

Conversation with Manheru – Part three

Opinion & Analysis
The mere fact that a post-colonial administration is born from the womb of colonialism poses a challenge to post-colonial State actors in that in as much as they may wish to distance themselves from the values and principles that framed the institutions that they have to use in order to deliver the promise

The mere fact that a post-colonial administration is born from the womb of colonialism poses a challenge to post-colonial State actors in that in as much as they may wish to distance themselves from the values and principles that framed the institutions that they have to use in order to deliver the promise, they are inevitably assimilated into the inherited foreign culture without the necessary preparation required to be effective and efficient.

Opinion by Mutumwa Mawere

After 33 years in power, it is difficult to make a clear case for a State-driven empowerment agenda because the very essence of seizing power is to use it for the purpose for which the power was sought in the first place.

Under colonialism, even Manheru would accept that the single most important right that natives were denied of was the right to vote.

This was not accidental, but reflected the thinking behind the colonial model. The settlers were clear on why they needed to exclude natives in their model.

They also understood that universal suffrage could produce outcomes that would undermine the project’s objectives of delivering the promise of a better life to settlers and not to so-called inferior sub-human actors.

Natives were put in the same class as animals, and in some cases, as commodities that could only be valuable as service providers rather than competent and rational decision makers who through the ballot could be trusted to make optimal choices.

The destiny of natives was effectively controlled by a few settlers who put in place an exclusionary institutional and administrative framework.

The fact that the colonial model had a philosophical and theological basis is no secret, but one must accept the reality that for the majority of natives to be colonised by a few actors exposes the weakness of the pre-colonial African model that could easily be displaced.

The law of conquest suggests that the applicable law is that of the conqueror hence long experience of native subjugation. When a messenger is not the message

Manheru, who evidently regards himself no different from the colonial masters, sought to place me in what he believes is my right place.

By right place, he means that in life I should live up to my name only. Although the constitution of Zimbabwe has a bill of rights, to Manheru such rights cannot and should not be universally applicable.

His worldview is that there are people destined to govern and others to be pawns in the game.

This model has worked for the last 33 years to give Manheru confidence that it will continue to work. The colonial model was founded on the same principle that natives would never wake up, but history has confirmed that nothing lasts forever.

Manheru believes that I should be “a mere runner, a bearer of news whose consequence lies not in your importance or in the news you carry, but in the deftness of your feet as you transport the important missive to its important consumer” and by default this role is essentially meant for all who happen to be outside the Zanu PF power structures.

During the colonial era, the same thinking informed the design of the State.

Zimbabwe is privileged to have at its helm people who fought for the voice of every citizen to count and yet under their watch the strange thinking that Manheru holds has taken root and in the name of the State that he represents he now has the audacity to insult the people whose power is borrowed in between elections by an elected executive leadership.

What informs Manheru’s thinking? It would be naive to assume that Manheru speaks on behalf of President Robert Mugabe and the administration in general on every issue.

I have learnt to accept that Manheru may very well have assumed the role of a principal and, therefore, his personal worldview and distorted understanding of the liberation struggle and the values and principles that informed it allows him to temporarily step into the shoes of the President and make pronouncements that go a long way towards undermining the administration that he serves.

Independence was expected to produce independent thinking people capable of asserting their rights without fear or prejudice, yet I find myself after 33 years having to be told by a civil servant that I should be “down-to-earth” meaning that if I have any views on any issue I should shut up.

Manheru has a distorted and myopic understanding of contemporary African culture and thinking when he says: “When it comes to African thinking, the medium is never the message . . . .” and this kind of self-serving understanding of African values and principles has contributed to undermining the promise of a better life.

Africa can efficiently and effectively deliver the promise of a better life when every African counts for the aggregate could never be expected to be larger than the sum of the individuals who constitute it.

Manheru must know that great nations only become so because they are underpinned by individuals who in the pursuit of their dreams produce extraordinary outcomes that when aggregated help shape and define the character of the whole.

To Manheru, it is only the President who has the right to give character to the nation.

The difference between God and a great leader is evidently not apparent to Manheru.

By now, Manheru should know that the real messenger is the President for he assumes the position to represent the aspirations of the people.

As a civil servant, Manheru ought to know why the term servant is used to describe providers of service to the State and more significantly, why such persons must be civilised.

Is Manheru civilised?

His utterances would seem to suggest that he has no real boss for if his boss existed, who understood the true purpose of the government, he would by now have been reprimanded rather than leaving some of us to do the job. The role of the President

The promise of independence was to bridge the divide between the governors of a colonial state and the governed.

So, it was the expectation that the post-colonial administration would secure its legitimacy from all the people who, in terms of the constitution, had the right to vote and exercised such a right. The best president would be one that can lift people up and make them believe first in themselves.

A new nation of laws was to be born and hence the emphasis on the need to respect the “rule of law” for without the law, the law of the jungle where some animals are more important than others would be the natural progression.

A good president would be a messenger and the owner of a simple message that the difference between the poor and the rich is that the rich have more choices in life and the challenge of any government is to allow people to be principals for without the income generated by free spirited individuals, no State can produce outcomes in a vacuum. However, the seed of freedom that independence promised has been transformed into a crop of fear with people like Manheru playing the role of barbarians at the gate. What kind of president does Zimbabwe need?

I have no doubt that any rational person would want the president to know everything and everybody. Equally, elections can never be expected to produce smart outcomes.

A president is no different from anyone who borrows a car, for example. The car belongs to the people and not the president and his family. Accordingly, he should drive the car and protect it so that when he completes the journey that the people give a mandate for, the car should be returned in better form to the owners.

Regrettably, in Manheru’s world, the president in between elections owns the car and uses it without regard to the wishes of the true owners.

After 33 years in power, there is no doubt that President Mugabe would be proud that he has added value to the promise and his message, as the exclusive driver of the car, should never be to discourage other would-be drivers, but to welcome alternatives especially if the car has dents from the journey travelled so far.

A good president should see competition as healthy and necessary. Such a person should always know that the power he has is borrowed from the people.

So when Manheru says that the Shona culture belittles the messenger he is right, but in this case, the relevant messenger is his boss. Instead of directing this important message to me, the appropriate audience ought to be the Presidency.

The effort I am taking to respond to Manheru is not born out of anger but love for my country of birth. If Manheru does not understand that his boss is a messenger of the people, then elections are not really necessary.

So when we say the revolution has been betrayed we do not have to look further than to the people closest to the centre of political power gravity, who either through ignorance or mischief would seek to elevate a messenger to a Little God.

  • Mutumwa Mawere is a businessman based in South Africa. He writes in his personal capacity.