A declaration of independence must surely be meaningful to both the victim and vanquished.
Column by by Mutumwa Mawere
When independence loses meaning, it becomes necessary to go back to the drawing board.
Zimbabwe has always existed as a landmass to allow any generation the right to claim it in the knowledge that it is only a theatre created by God for human beings to play their part in the drama called life.
Zimbabwe’s borders remain the same as they were at independence.
There has been no expansion of the territory called Zimbabwe, but the people who call themselves Zimbabwean have obviously changed in number.
What is a Zimbabwean? When President Robert Mugabe says “Mwana wevhu” (son or daughter of the soil) what does he mean?
Does the term apply to only “sons and daughters of the soil?”
- 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 concept of identity will always be contentious and controversial hence we have to respect Manheru’s honest response to a complex matter that I touched on.
In seeking the answer to what it means to be Zimbabwean, one is forced to go back to the values and principles that informed the struggle for independence.
The primary objective of the liberation struggle was to create a democratic constitutional order in which the people (all the people) would be allowed to select a government of their choice.
The colonial order was undemocratic and the government of the day was not representative of all the people and, therefore, its legitimacy was problematic. The constitution of Zimbabwe does provide adequate answers to the nationality question.
Manheru as a spokesman for the government of Zimbabwe should know better what the provisions of the constitution are in terms of nationality. The liberation struggle was not meant to free blacks only, but also the oppressors in as much as the next election is expected to retire some of the characters in government.
The idea was to create a new dispensation in which all human beings were to be treated equally before the law. The equality principle was to apply to white Zimbabweans and this is the basis on which the foundation of the post-colonial state was founded.
Zimbabwe was to be an open society in which birth would not condemn a person to a single nationality, but would give a person the right of first refusal.
Even Manheru would agree that Zimbabwe belongs to all who live in it. However, not all sons and daughters of Zimbabwe live in the country. Some depart for economic reasons while others depart for political reasons, but the effect is the same.
Even prodigal sons and daughters remain sons and daughters.
Individuals make choices and life allows even daughters and sons to fall in love and marry people who are not family members.
When the choice of marriage is made, it is unAfrican to consider a married daughter who starts a family with her husband as a deserter. The daughter will always be considered a member of the family irrespective of the choice made.
The principle of identity is the same in that a son or daughter of the soil does not change his or her identity merely because of acquiring the nationality of another state. The daughter of Charamba will always be his daughter accepting that the daughter may make choices that will place her outside the boundaries where the family resides.
So when I said my identity will always be African in the first instance, I meant that if, for example, I were to walk on the streets of Johannesburg, there would be no basis to make a distinction between me and a Nigerian. We are, after all Africans, and we do not have to earn the right to be Africans.
The albatross called Zimbabwe It would appear that Manheru misconstrued what I had to say about my identity. He should know that if there were a lottery of life, I would choose to be African.
In defining myself as an African, I am mindful that Africa has 54 different nation states, but in respect of sub-Saharan Africa, the physical distinctions between black people is blurred and, therefore, the question of identity can be tricky. I do not feel condemned to be Zimbabwean. On the contrary, I feel proud to be Zimbabwean and I shall always carry the identity until I die.
However, it should be obvious to Manheru that when Zimbabwe is down, I will be judged by the same standard as he is.
The promise of independence was to create a nation that delivers the promise of a better life.
We all agree that this has not happened for a variety of reasons.
Zimbabwe has not been exposed to any other leader than President Mugabe and, therefore, he has to take responsibility for the success and failure of the revolution. That is the art of leadership.
In taking this position, one must accept that successful nations become so not just because their leaders are smart, but the people are responsible at the micro level for the outcomes they produce.
If the objectives of the revolution have not been met in terms of a better life, it becomes necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of leaders and the appropriateness of the ideas that inform the choices that have been made.
Manheru asks the question: “What is the significance of distinguishing country of birth from the Pan African sentiment which makes every inch of African soil not foreign to one?” That exposes his lack of understanding of the difference between identity and nationality.
A black person born in Ghana, for instance, can cross many African borders with ease if physical features are accepted as representing an identity, but the same person would not be considered Indian if he were to choose to move from point A to B in India.
I am African first and, therefore, any African country that gives me citizenship is only affirming my African identity.
With respect to nationality, the values and principles that informed the Zimbabwean constitution would suggest that my understanding of the national question is the correct one.
Any person born in Zimbabwe can reclaim his or her nationality at any time.
Accordingly, I fail to understand why Manheru would misconstrue the contention that birth does give a person certain rights to the country of birth that must be acknowledged including identity.
It is natural that when Zimbabweans are looking for options to move forward, names come up as they should, of people they consider capable to lead. At one time, Manheru’s boss was in Ghana and his name came up and he responded and the rest is history.
When President Mugabe chose to work in Ghana, there is no doubt that he had applied his mind for he could easily have decided to further his studies in foreign shores.
The people are not naïve to expect that the future will be secured by people who have been tested but found wanting. Even Manheru would accept that Zimbabwe is not where it should be against the backdrop of all the attributes that its people are associated with.
Even President Mugabe would agree that the real threat lies in unemployment, poverty and inequality.
- Please note that follow up articles on Conversation with Manheru can be found on our website: www.newsday.co.zw — Editor
