×
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.

Zimbabwe 2013 – Revolution Betrayed – A conversation with Manheru – Part Ten

Opinion & Analysis
If there was any doubt of the disconnection between Manheru and President Mugabe’s worldviews on African identity, the article published by the Herald on 16 January 2013 under the title: “We’ve put aside our differences”

If there was any doubt of the disconnection between Manheru and President Mugabe’s worldviews on African identity, the article published by the Herald on 16 January 2013 under the title: “We’ve put aside our differences” http://www.herald.co.zw/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=63519:weve-put-aside-our-differences&catid=37:top-stories&Itemid=130#.UPeF_2dad8F did a lot to confirm that the idea of creating a borderless and indivisible Africa is still resident in President Mugabe’s mind.

The following is an extract of what President Mugabe was reported to have said after meeting the outgoing African Union Chairman, H.E. President Boni Yayi of the Republic of Benin: “He bemoaned the divisions among African countries and called for the integration of the African regional groups into one. He said the AU summit should discuss issues that have also divided African people within their countries.

President Mugabe said the two leaders had discussed problems that are directly confronting Africa.

He said Africans were not as united as was expected by the founders of the Organisation of African Unity in 1963.

“We really have not become integrated as an African people into a real union. And this is the worry, which my brother has, and the worry I have; the worry perhaps others also have. That we are not yet at that stage which was foretold by our fathers when they created this organisation.”

He said the AU founding fathers had a vision of a continent that is united politically, economically, and culturally. “We are not there yet. As we stand here people will look at us, as me Anglophone, him Francophone, you see. There is also Lusophone, but we are Africans first and foremost. Africans, Africans! Look at our skin.

“That’s our continent, we belong to one continent. We may, by virtue of history, have been divided by certain boundaries and especially by colonialism.

“But our founding fathers in 1963 showed us the way and we must take up that teaching that we got in 1963. That we are one and we must be united,” said President Mugabe.

He said African leaders should integrate the different regions on the continent.

“Get them to get out of the regional shell and get into one continental shell. The continent of Africa! This is what we must become. And there, we must also have an African head. He was talking of the president of Africa. Yes, we need one. We are not yet there.

“This is what we must go and discuss, but we must also discuss the issues that divide us.”

The above helps to put in context the conversation that was triggered by Manheru on Friday, 28 December 2012 when he asked the question: “Is he not better dealing with post-Mangaung South Africa, his adopted country?” in an attempt to remind me that Zimbabwe’s future is exclusively a matter for people who are domiciled in the country.

My response to him has been consistent with the position articulated above by President Mugabe that as Africans we must rise above the limitations imposed by inherited colonial boundaries.

The founding fathers of the One Africa Project were as nationalistic as Manheru probably is but they all understood that Africa rises or falls as a unit and, therefore, their actions and words were guided by shared values. Regrettably the views expressed by President Mugabe are not supported by his administration.

As President Mugabe correctly observed that it is important to get African leaders out of the regional shell into one continental shell, the message to Manheru should also be that he must get out of the Zimbabwean shell into a continental identity.

This identity allows us as Africans to connect, share experiences and hopefully explore ideas that can lift Africa up. One would expect that Manheru knows better what his boss believes in to allow him to project the message of African unity more eloquently but it would appear that Manheru is not really a spokesman for the President but has his own ideas about identity and nationality issues.

I fully concur with the position taken by President Mugabe, albeit presumably because the visitor was the Chairman of the AU, that we must discuss the issues that divide us and there can be no better starting point than engaging in an open conversation with Manheru on the issues that divide us.

President Mugabe’s audience ought to include Manheru who evidently is so close to him but far away in terms of understanding that it is not poisonous for people of Zimbabwe to search deeper for economic salvation even if it means crossing the Limpopo for a face that can make them believe once again that the future is bright.

We were born in the same country and the destiny of Zimbabwe defines all of us and yet Manheru would see evil in people of Zimbabwe that are groping for solutions to the current economic and social challenges even dreaming of changing the face of government.

My name has been mentioned not by me but by other people and therein lies an injury that Manheru believes can be best cured by ridiculing me.

Manheru should know better that the difference between a Zimbabwean and a South African is the same.

The proposition spelt out by President Mugabe that we are Africans first and foremost is not only supported by our skin but by the mere fact that if one country in Africa does not succeed, we all would be judged not by the standard of the most successful but by the standard of failure.

We all know what happened to Trevor Ncube under President Mugabe’s watch.

The stories are many including the one I heard recently that the son of the late Tongogara who is resident in the USA was told that before he could renew his passport he had to renounce his Zambian nationality on account of the fact that he was born in Zambia.

This gentleman has no connection to Zambia other than it being the place of birth. Just because he is deemed to have a potential right to acquire the citizenship of Zambia, he was denied the right to a Zimbabwean passport.

This obviously must be of concern to Manheru who wants the legacy of Tongogara to be reserved for ZANU-PF and yet in reality his son is exposed to humiliation.

Although President Mugabe is right on the mark, the law in Zimbabwe is framed on the basis eloquently articulated by Manheru that the concept of putting the African identity at the centre of everything does not make sense rather what makes sense is that one must be Zimbabwean first and the role of government is to ensure that any Zimbabwean-born person who chooses the nationality of another African state ought to be ostracised.

A national who wants to be regarded as a partner

The millions of Zimbabwean who are resident in South Africa need some direction. Some may be called by their country men and women to return to the country of birth to represent them in government as councillors, parliamentarians or even President.

It must be accepted that some of the non-resident Zimbabweans are now citizens of the adopted countries. If the call comes, what should they do? What is the precise legal position if they were to decide to return to their country of birth and add their faces and voices to the issues of the day?

Would they need as Trevor Ncube discovered to first renounce the nationality of the adopted country before being entitled to the citizenship of Zimbabwe? If so, what would be the implications?

There is no doubt that Manheru would be aware of the import of General Notice 584 of 2002, as gazetted by the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs on 22 November 2002 that provides as follows: “A Zimbabwean citizen does not have to produce written proof or confirmation that he is not a citizen of a foreign country in order to establish his Zimbabwean citizenship status.”

I have no wish to represent the millions of Zimbabwean-born person living in the diaspora but to the extent that my name and experiences may be used to clarify the position on citizenship, I have no objection assuming the role.

I deliberately used the example of the influx of Chinese people to Zimbabwe and the fact that it would appear that they are more welcome to exploit the natural resources of the country than people like me who are perceived rightly or wrongly as deserters.

I note that even President Mugabe agrees with my contention that Africa should be the natural home for natives to get preference and excel but regrettably our minds never meet on what matters to our common future.

There is no doubt that to President Mugabe, a native born black person should ever be considered as a partner in any African state but a national yet Manheru would want to compare me with the Chinese let alone Mr. Oppenheimer on Zimbabwe matters.

He is entitled to opportunistically question my interests in Zimbabwe but to doubt my commitment to the African cause is to go too far.

Like President Mugabe, I dream of a day when all Africans will realise that there is more that unites us than divide us. Perhaps the value of this conversation with Manheru lies in its potential to generate constructive discourses on what is required to make Africa deliver on the promise.