This is the second instalment of a conversation with Manheru as we try to establish whether in truth and fact, the revolution that sought to create an inclusive, just, cohesive and prosperous Zimbabwe has been betrayed by the very people entrusted with prosecuting it.
Opinion by Mutumwa Mawere
Manheru’s views in his capacity as the spokesman for the presidency would seem to suggest that unless he is rebuked by his principals, the views so expressed represent the general thinking of the leadership.
Accordingly, it would be naive to ignore the implications of the views expressed by Manheru.
Rule of Law
Independence promised that Zimbabwe would be governed under a democratic constitutional order.
After 33 years of independence, Manheru should inform the nation whether the values and principles that informed the liberation struggle have been met. If not, why?
At the very least, the expectation of every Zimbabwean was that the constitution would protect not the strongest members of society, but the weakest.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
The rule of law was to prevail and the role of the president was to uphold the constitution.
State actors, including the president, are expected to be custodians of a new political morality embracing diversity of thought and actions.
Even Manheru would accept that the President of the Republic, once in office, was expected to represent all the people, including those that did not vote for him and also those that did not support him.The President should represent all the people in the Diaspora that call Zimbabwe home.
His office, therefore, was supposed to be manned by people who understood the promise and there is no better time than now in the run-up to the election for Manheru to look himself in the mirror and ask the question whether he is the right person to speak on behalf of a person who has been in office for an uninterrupted period of 33 years.
Any 33-year-old would be proud of his existence on earth and would be expected to boast of doing something extraordinary. In the animal kingdom, there is no president or even a press secretary for the law in the jungle is written by the strongest and meanest animal.
However, in the human kingdom, even a child born today expects the constitution to protect him or her.
Against the above background, it is ironic that the strange views held by Manheru on identity, nationality, political morality and governance are not challenged by anyone in the State. Clearly, when things fall apart, the centre cannot be expected to hold.
Could it be that Manheru now is the protector of a new Republic founded on the principle that the President has a duty to Zanu PF members only rather than to the people from whom his power and legitimacy is to be found.
If there was any reason why people who imposed targeted sanctions are reluctant to remove them Manheru’s weekly sermons in The Herald provide an eloquent answer.
Effectively, he is the author of the sanctions as it is eminently clear that Zimbabwe is under sanctions and that people who fall into the same category that he has placed me should not enjoy the same constitutional rights that are enjoyed by other people, including the freedom to choose to be considered for electoral office.
One would expect a clear message from the President who is the founding father of the nation regarding the rights, if any, of Zimbabwean born persons who, for one reason or another, departed and like adventurers have been exposed to new knowledge and experiences that can be used to advance the interests of nation-state building.
Manheru, presumably in his capacity as the messenger of the President, chose to insert a paragraph in his piece on the status of the constitution making process evidently expecting that I would not respond.
In fact, I was initially tempted to ignore the mischievous statement, but realised that the author has developed a habit to use the platform of the State to divert attention from what is germane to the future prosperity and stability of Zimbabwe.
By taking him on a journey that he started, I also expected him to respond so that a conversation can begin that may add value to the process of strengthening the democratic process.
The language he uses exposes a deeper problem. It would be unthinkable to have someone so close to the President use the language that Manheru uses to describe perceived State enemies.
Manheru wants the forthcoming elections not to be about the betrayal of the revolution by people who purport to be revolutionaries in State positions, but about side issues, including the rights, if any, of the millions in the Diaspora in shaping and defining the character of the nation.
Who really is the tonne of rained cement? It may very well be the case that Manheru is an enemy of the State and through his words, people are daily and weekly armed with the energy to do something to change the direction of the country, especially when regard is taken of the fact that Manheru appears to be in a league of his own. He will not be rebuked because he is the main man in the crumbling model.
The people who are undermining the President are the very people he relies upon to remain relevant. What a sad state of affairs.
I agree with Manheru’s observation that this seemingly adversarial conversation has a creative side to it and I sincerely hope that even The Herald will find it appropriate to carry both sides of the argument. Stop it, Casanova!
Is it not ironic that after 33 years of independence, the space for debate has been reduced and The Herald, a State controlled platform, is now a theatre so blatantly monopolised by people holding tired arguments when the empire is crumbling and decaying that people who hold different views to those held by Manheru will not be granted equal space to respond.
I am a columnist in a newspaper that Manheru would want closed because its control is outside his sphere of influence.
If this experience was occurring under the watch of the colonial masters, one would know what to do in terms of finishing a hijacked revolution.
The message that is more appropriate is: “Stop it, Manheru for not all the people are fools” as people of Zimbabwe deserve better from their State actors.
Animals do not need a government and surely State actors have to stop behaving as if they are living in the animal kingdom. You would get the impression that Manheru has known me since university days when the truth is that we shared the same address at the university, but I did not know him, yet he now is an expert of my personality.
How he acquired the expertise to analyse personalities is not explained beyond the fact that we happened to be studying at the same university at the same time.
Unknown to me, he was watching my behaviour and not my mind to arrive at the conclusion that I was driven by ambition presumably informed by the fact that I was elected to represent students in the Representative Council as Secretary General and to him this represents a crime.
Manheru would know that for one to be elected, there are real people who see in the person some values that they would wish to be promoted and protected.
Equally, a president is elected by the people to represent their views and aspirations.
What is clear is that Manheru appears to be paid to read more into people’s minds exposing his limited understanding of democracy.
Manheru will be aware that even President Mugabe did not write an exam to be President and, therefore, his eloquence in describing the injury to African people by so-called foreigners does little to resolve the triple challenges of poverty, unemployment and inequality.
The debate with Manheru ought to focus on what is required to lift the country up rather than limiting ideas to what is already known in terms of producing absurd outcomes of corruption, unemployment, mismanagement, unaccountable and arrogant bureaucracy.
Mutumwa Mawere is a businessman based in South Africa. He writes in his personal capacity.
