The word “change” has so many meanings which make it difficult to pin it down on one definition.
Develop me with Tapiwa Gomo
The word change and its different meanings have dominated our political discourse since early 2000.
For those behind the formation of the MDC, change symbolised a new political beginning which would have been marked by an end to Zanu PF rule.
On the other hand, Zanu PF picked on the word as part of its propaganda campaign to imply that the proposed change was an externally imposed regime change agenda.
The political characterisation of the concept of change became contaminated and polarised between two extreme ends — one deemed necessary, full of promise and hope and another that was filled with fear of being recolonised.
The collision between the two conceptualisations resulted in the loss of many lives, broken limps and widespread suffering for many.
It was evident that the conceptualisations of change were driven largely by emotions than reasoning. And the damage was emotionally hard and beyond repair.
- 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
Whichever way one looks at our political scenario today, change has occurred, none of which was any of the parties’ agenda. Both parties have experienced unanticipated change and they have embraced it as they live with each other.
The mantras that MDC would never rule Zimbabwe has assumed its place in the annals of political rhetoric and similarly that Zanu PF days were numbered is reduced to a miscalculation distant from the realities of today.
Whether this seemingly natural change is good or bad remains a fertile arena for political debate and varying opinions. It is beyond debate, however, that the situation has stabilised, perhaps rekindling the dying hopes of a country.
But change has claimed many victims. This includes those who died for it or those who died against it including those who were shipped out of it by either circumstantial choices or political difference. Our learned constitutional activists.
Lovemore Madhuku fits into one of these categories.
Whether he dropped out of the “change” train by choice or by accident remains a million dollar question, but change seems to have left him a lone voice out in the cold.
He is among the few people who have managed to bring issues constitutional on the national agenda. His knowledge and eloquence on the subject made him our then voice of wisdom on matters constitutional.
But today, his constitutional views, credible as it may be, seems irrelevant to the current context.
Dynamics have shifted faster than anticipated. Tsvangirai and many of his front-liners of the 2000s are now part of the system. They have become the system themselves.
They now share a cup of tea every morning with those who inflicted pain on them. The draft constitution is now matter of agreement between three principals and that language did not exist during Madhuku’s heydays.
Maybe he feels or knows this is not right, but life is not always about doing the right things. Sometimes people do what is necessary compromising what is right.
For that reason, perhaps that is why he finds himself a lonely voice. That is what change does to people, if one does not hold on. It is easy to be left out.
Given these circumstances, the change agenda remains relevant and raw in Zimbabwe, but it needs new faces and new ideas. Madhuku’s knowledge on constitutional matters cannot be discounted or questioned, but may be his day have passed. For the same reasons, the change agenda is dying or has already died in the hands of those who promised it.
You cannot promise change for more than a decade, in as much as you cannot promise development after 33 years of regression.
Those who preach change have been sucked into the corridors of power that are arid of any meaningful ideas about the future of the country.
The last nail is when people are forced to trade their aspirations and hope in exchange for the temporary stability born out of the marriage between the two parties.
Stability does not imply development. The current stability in a sense equals a country frozen into poverty and has found comfort in inadequacies, and has taken it to the end of the horizon because the three gentlemen are now sharing a cup of tea every morning.
Next elections, whenever they are going to be held, will not be about change, but recycling unless new faces emerge from somewhere with new ideas and a new vision.
For those who claim to be change agents have lost their touch and they can no longer be trusted to purvey such an agenda. Consequently the change agenda is now vacant. It needs someone to claim it and redefine it. The country needs a future beyond the battles between MDCs and Zanu PF.
People need their space to determine their future, not one crowded or determined by political principals. The country needs a government that worries about people’s welfare and service delivery not one that is locked in a battle over outstanding issues. Zimbabwean needs policies that set the country back on the development track not porous indigenisation policies.
