Independence promised freedom and choice.
Column by Mutumwa Mawere
Manheru must be aware that without choice freedom is meaningless and yet he states boldly that: Öne thing I hate with full passion is to be made answerable for any identity dilemma arising as a result of a choice which a full-grown up man, well educated at that, voluntarily made in the full presence of all his faculties.”
While Manheru chose not to define the alleged identity dilemma it is clear that he feels strongly that any Zimbabwean-born person who chooses to live in a foreign state and proceeds to assert acquired rights in the foreign state in terms of citizenship automatically loses his or her identity.
I am a black person and remain so whether I choose to be a citizen of Japan, for instance, or Germany. My identity will not change but the rights I am entitled to change because of the choices I make.
The concepts of identity and nationality are complex and emotional making it understandable why Manheru would feel incensed by choices made by others and not the choices he or his boss may make.
It is common cause that the first family made a choice to allow their daughter, for example, to pursue her education outside the country.
To one person, such a choice means betrayal of the values of the liberation struggle in that it would be hypocritical for any leader to preach nationalism and patriotism to others while making choices that would seem to undermine the principle of nationalism.
- 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
However, some may argue that the choice made by the first family’s daughter like the choice made by Manheru to study in the United Kingdom is in the national interest for it exposes the beneficiary to new experiences that may be of benefit to the country of birth.
If for instance, the daughter of the first family were to fall in love and decide to marry a non-Zimbabwean, I have no doubt that the first family would have to respect her choice for in allowing her to be exposed to a foreign culture implicitly means that her market for a husband broadens.
If she were to make a choice to be a citizen of the host country in order to assert her rights to vote and in so doing fulfill the promise that her father fought for that if a person contributes to the fiscus, he or she must have a say as to how his income collected as taxes is applied.
Even small minds would accept that there is no difference between a resident and a citizen in terms of taxes levied but the real difference is that citizens can vote.
If a choice is made by a Zimbabwean-born person that is also a choice that can be made a non-Zimbabwean born person to acquire Zimbabwean citizenship, I have difficulty in understanding Manheru’s outrage unless he is saying that non-Zimbabwean born persons must not be allowed to acquire citizenship through naturalization and, therefore, should never be allowed to vote in the adopted country.
A person born in Zimbabwe today will not automatically enjoy the right to vote but will have to wait for 18 years before such right can be exercised.
Equally a person who chooses to immigrate to Zimbabwe, for instance, will have to qualify for the right to vote by first residing in the country for a specified period.
The effect on Zimbabwe of departing temporarily or permanently is the same as the person will not ordinarily be resident in Zimbabwe for anyone to conclude that temporary exit poses any more threat to Zimbabwe than permanent exit.
It must be remarked that one can make the choice of belonging to the adopted country or remain a citizen of the country of birth that is a resident of the adopted home.
The difference between a person who chooses to acquire the nationality of the adopted country and the person who chooses to be a resident is the same as both are subject to the same rights with the exception that a resident may not have the right to vote or be entitled to a document that allows him or her the right of passage at a border post, called a passport.
A passport is really a travel document and for people who do not cross border posts, it means nothing.
The document does not give anyone an identity and, therefore, the choice to use a travel document issued by the adopted country does not pose any real threat to the country of birth.
I made a choice to acquire the nationality of South Africa not because I was turning my back on Zimbabwe but to assert my earned rights in the adopted country.
This does not mean that in life I cannot choose to be a citizen of a third country if in my opinion such a country delivers the promise of a better life.
If on the other hand, I decide to return to the country of my father, I do not believe that I owe Manheru or anyone for that matter an explanation.
Such a choice is personal and, therefore, it is regrettable that after 33 years of independence, Manheru would frown upon a purported decision by anyone in the diaspora to return to the country of birth to use the acquired experience and exposure to the benefit of the country of birth.
What could lead a man who claims to be educated to see evil where it does not exist? The only rational reason is that he believes that exclusion is the best way to win an election.
If he believed that his party had a credible leader he would be less concerned about my so-called foreign status for my absence from Zimbabwe would naturally be an issue to be considered by the voters without the assistance of a political hatchet man like Manheru.
Manheru must trust Zimbabweans to make choices that are in their self-interest.
He must never assume that he or his boss has a superior claim on intelligence and that sovereign human beings are not capable of making rational choices including that of acquiring foreign nationalities.
It would appear that Manheru’s outrage is really aimed at his boss who annually makes a voluntary choice to spend his vacation in foreign lands.
I have no difficulty appreciating why the first family would want to spend their vacation outside the country and such choices pose no threat to any rational Zimbabwean.
The fact that the choice I made is available to foreign-born persons in Zimbabwe should tell Manheru that asserting and exercising such right is constitutional and must be respected and not frowned upon.
It would not be surprising to establish that Manheru would rather have the right to vote being restricted only to potential supporters of ZANU-PF.
Is his anger driven by the love of his boss or by fear of losing an election? Anyone who frowns upon competition cannot be a democrat.
In business, the first lesson one learns is to expect a competitor anytime and like citizens, customers benefit from competition yet Manheru would want to protect Zimbabweans from change that may advance their own interests.
Manheru evidently angry that I had chosen to link his intimidation to the proposition that the promise of independence has been betrayed by its purported custodians could only observe as follows: “Well, let him tell us where his faculties were, if he seeks to beg for, and aims to deserve our pity, this man of South Africa.”
It would appear that the proverbial üs” used by Manheru would be limited to like-minded people who believe that citizenship is a privilege conferred by the people in power.
Manheru should know better what is enshrined in the constitution.
It should be obvious that Zimbabwe is a creature of statute and, therefore, it belongs only to people who choose to be part of the social contract.
The country does not have a homogenous face but the faces that constitute Zimbabweans are the aggregate of all faces including people who choose to acquire citizenship through naturalization.
The only country a Zimbabwean-born person does not need to qualify for citizenship is Zimbabwe and this principle is universal.
When, therefore, one chooses to be a citizen of an adopted country, he or she does so on the understanding that should another choice be made to return to the country of birth, statelessness as would seem to be implied in Manheru’s response is not an option.
The mischief in Manheru’s warped thinking becomes obvious when regard is made to the fact before any Zimbabwean-born who has acquired foreign citizenship can re-assert his or her Zimbabwean citizenship, he or she must first renounce the foreign citizenship.
This would mean that the person would have to surrender all the documents including the passport prior to asserting the rights conferred by birth in the country of birth. This would be absurd in that the person would have no identity temporarily and would not have a travel document to leave the adopted country.
As usual, Manheru fails to explain how a Zimbabwean-born person would be able to practically re-assert the citizenship of birth without violating the constitution of the adopted country in that no civilized country would accept renunciation of citizenship without assurance that the person already has acquired the citizenship of another country.
Manheru must know that it will always be a sad day for democracy when individual choices that do not undermine another’s rights become the subject of debate and ridicule.
Manheru must explain how my choice to acquire what I am entitled to in terms of the Constitution of South Africa offends the provisions of the constitution of Zimbabwe.
