The revolution that Manheru seeks to be a custodian and spokesman for sought to create a nation of laws.
Column by Mutumwa Mawere
The constitution of Zimbabwe despite its imperfections provided a foundation for the new nation.
Naturally, a transition from an ethnic-based to a value-based society always presents a challenge.
History will inform that the territory called Zimbabwe belongs to certain ethnic groups and yet the constitution broadens the definition of a Zimbabwean beyond the confines of ethnicity.
If being is a consequence of choice then it becomes critically important that the issues that have been raised by Manheru receive the attention they deserve.
I deliberately raised the issue of interests in locating my response to Manheru in the broader framework of the enterprise of nation-state building.
The concept of interests was used during the colonial era to justify the exclusion of natives in the model hence Manheru’s reaction is understandable to my contention that there is a link between interests and the country’s future success and stability.
- 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
Manheru’s career in the post-colonial state is well established as is his role in undermining free speech.
There can be no doubt that my views and Manheru’s on the role of the state in the media are diametrically opposed.
The limitations imposed on the media under Manheru’s watch would be sufficient to lead any rational person to conclude that his interest in the media is not motivated by a genuine desire to promote the values enshrined in the constitution but in protecting the political status quo.
Another Nick Oppenheimer?
The fact that Manheru places my interests in Zimbabwe in the same category as Nicky Oppenheimer goes a long way towards revealing his true state of mind.
The view held by Manheru that any Zimbabwean-born black person who elects voluntarily to acquire the nationality of another state has deserted is to some extent a generally held view.
In fact, it is not unnatural for people in Zimbabwe to claim non-resident Zimbabweans as part of the country’s asset base.
The acquisition of foreign nationality poses a challenge to people who regard non-residents as the asset of the country of birth.
The calls that are often made for non-residents to contribute to the enterprise of nation-building in their countries of origin often disguise the feeling inherent in Manheru’s response that so-called “deserters” should not have any legitimate interests in the country of birth.
In response to my contention that I have substantial interests in Zimbabwe, Manheru conveniently asks the question: “Are back to the Southern Rhodesian era where citizenship, and with it, the power to vote, reposed in property?”
The link between native Zimbabwean-born persons and Zimbabwe is permanent. The country that can never close its doors on native born persons is the country of birth.
Oppenheimer was born in South Africa and it should be obvious to Manheru that although in life he may choose the nationality of another state, he will always carry a South African identity. Although he may choose not to assert his rights as a voter or participant in the political process, his South African interests are substantial and well established.
During the Southern Rhodesian era, all black persons were placed in the same category and, therefore, Manheru’s choice of comparison is in bad taste.
It should be obvious that not all the citizens of Zimbabwe who are eligible to vote do register and actually vote. Such persons who elect not to vote also have interests in the country’s future. A value-based approach to nation-state building would regard the state as a living organism that requires nourishment from citizens and external partners.
Every citizen who earns income becomes of interest to the state as the contribution from effort can be used to advance the national interest.
Accordingly, the role of the state is to serve the people from whom the resources required to administer the government are derived. A civil servant who understands his role would not insult the people from whom the state expects revenues from.
Manheru probably has not known of any other employer than the government of Zimbabwe.
There is nothing wrong in this but he should appreciate that human beings like any other animals do not need government to survive rather governments were created to serve citizens and not think for them.
Manheru should know better that one does not need to be a citizen to have interests in a country.
Equally, the contribution to nation-state building is not restricted to citizens only.
Manheru sarcastically asks the question: “What interests are those which Mawere has in the country?”
If I did not have any interests, why would the government of Zimbabwe in 2004 issue a specification order against a person whose interests are purportedly hypothetical?
Manheru would be aware that SMM was specified in August 2004 and subsequently placed under reconstruction in early September 2004. For President Mugabe to use emergency powers to place SMM under state control, he must have been alive to the interests that I had in Zimbabwe.
I would presume that Manheru has selective amnesia when it comes to my interests in Zimbabwe.
In relation to my interests in Zimbabwe, he says: “They do not sound so obvious to me?” suggesting that he has no knowledge of the SMM story.
If a person so close to President Mugabe can behave in this manner, it is not surprising that President Mugabe is now permanently protected from reality.
By reminding Manheru that I have interests in Zimbabwe, he responds by saying that I sound like Oppenheimer who to my knowledge has not been a beneficiary of a targeted law whose sole purpose was to destroy the value that the companies concerned added to the nation.
Indeed Oppenheimer has interests in Zimbabwe and the import of Manheru’s response is that such interests are of no value to the nation merely because he is a citizen of South Africa and, therefore, is barred from claiming his rights in Zimbabwe.
Manheru should know better that civil servants do pay taxes on income.
However, the income that the state generates must come from a source.
In progressive nations, civil servants know who their real bosses are i.e. the people who need the state for services.
Manheru asks a legitimate question regarding the relationship of interests (commercial) to identity and citizenship.
The right to vote is prescribed and legally defined to allow for any misunderstanding.
However, should any Zimbabwean-born person decide to return to Zimbabwe and assume his or her position in society, there is no legal impediment that I am aware of that would make such a person stateless simply because the powers that be believe that his return poses a threat to their political hegemony.
People who invest in Zimbabwe have as much interest in the future prosperity of the country as that of citizens.
Anyone who chooses to sacrifice consumption in the interests of making his or her money work in the pursuit of reducing the frontiers of poverty, unemployment and inequality must be regarded as a friend and partner.
I have yet to hear of a country that advances its interests by making it a habit to insult the very people whose choices make the country tick.
The real question that needs to be posed to Manheru is what plan exists to convert the promise into real prosperity. Can Zimbabwe do it alone? If so, he must explain why the last 33 years have produced unintended consequences?
Manheru concludes this Oppenheimer piece by saying: “But as Zimbabwe begins to pick up its own monied class, or those who claim to be monied, the issue which Mawere raises in his diatribe assumes centrality.”
It is not difficult to appreciate Manheru’s warped worldview that places sovereign beings as property of the state, itself a creature of citizens.
The construction that Manheru posits is fundamentally flawed in that monied people have choices and the millions who remain in the country may very well have been condemned to poverty by destructive public policy choices that have been made in their name.
The secret of success for any country lies in its ability to attract value adding instruments including non-residents to believe in the country and its possibilities.
Human beings do make choices and a decision to depart or return to the country will in the majority of cases be voluntary accepting that failed states do encourage involuntary departures.
Obviously Manheru is afraid of the implications of non-resident Zimbabweans asserting their voices through the vote for he knows better what it will take for them to believe in the revolution once again.
Even Manheru would agree that Zimbabwe’s value will only be enhanced when people get jobs and consequently incomes that can fuel a better life.
