ZIMBABWE has been experiencing civil unrest for almost two months now. Various groups of people have been protesting against the government’s failed policies. It is necessary to explain why the once-prosperous country has been mired in deep political, economic, and social chaos. It is also vital to imagine and propose how the country can be restored back to normalcy.
GUEST COLUMN LINDSEY MACHONA-MAENZANISE
This opinion piece is a reaction to the narrow construction of citizenship in present-day Zimbabwe, which has seen a significant percentage of the population being disenfranchised for holding political views that are contrary to those of the ruling party. I was inspired to write this article by remarks made by two politicians in Zimbabwe, both linked to the ruling Zanu PF. The first statement was made by Zaka Central MP Paradzai Chakona, who said that Zimbabweans who do not support Zanu PF were “sell-outs” and that they did not deserve to get food aid. The second remark was made by Nathaniel Manheru, a shadowy columnist who writes in the State-controlled media. Manheru said that Zanu PF caters for the interests of its supporters and for people who voted for the party only. He argued that people who did not vote for Zanu PF in 2013 do not have the right to ask the government to deliver on its election promise to create 2,2 million jobs. I found these statements to be distasteful and in urgent need of a rebuttal.
These statements are sad and regrettable because they point to the impunity, egotism, and sense of self-importance that characterises the people who made them. These remarks by politicians linked to Zanu PF imply a narrow and selective definition of citizenship in Zimbabwe, which is undesirable and explains why Zimbabwe has been in a political and economic morass for close to two decades, with no end in sight. Because of their divisive and dangerous nature, these statements do not have a place in a democratic society.
When I thought about the implications of Chakona and Manheru’s utterances, I asked myself the question: What is a citizen and what is the role of the government in the life of a citizen?
A citizen is a person recognised under the custom or law as being a member of a country. This means that every Zimbabwean is a citizen, irrespective of their political affiliation or ethnic origin. The definition of citizenship along party lines, which is what we see in the utterances of Chakona and Manheru, is dangerous and deserves condemnation from all progressive Zimbabweans.
I also pondered over the role of the government in the lives of citizens. We need to comprehend at this point that how our government defines this role will determine the social and political order of our country and ultimately how the government will treat its citizens. One of the obligations of a government is to secure the rights and freedoms of all citizens. This means that the Government of Zimbabwe is responsible for ensuring that all Zimbabweans have access to basic human needs, including food, water, and shelter. Therefore, the distribution of food aid along party lines violates people’s rights and indicates failure by the part of government of fulfil its mandate. It is also the government’s responsibility to protect the people’s right to work and provide them with the opportunity to engage in productive employment. Although the promise to create employment was made in order to lure voters, an environment in which all citizens are able to provide for themselves and their families is a right. It is wrong to argue that only citizens who voted for the ruling party deserve opportunities, because the government should be inclusive. The universal principle of human rights to food and productive employment should never be exploited for political mileage.
Theoretically, Zimbabwe is a democracy, but the principles of governance that deny people basic rights because they do not submit to the ruling party illustrate Zimbabwe’s democratic deficit. The statements by Manheru and Chakona are testimony to a backward, wayward and archaic way of thinking; which should be uprooted in a society like Zimbabwe. Our leaders need to understand that when you take an oath of office to serve the people in a government, you are there to serve ALL Zimbabwean citizens regardless of political affiliation. I have the right as a Zimbabwean citizen to question to demand my rights which you are supposed to protect as government.
- 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
My recommendation is that we need to start thinking in the collective, and to put our differences aside and realise that we are first and foremost Zimbabweans. That it is the duty of every Zimbabwean to actively participate in a better life for ALL citizens and that government should make it possible for every Zimbabwean to fully participate and contribute to the socio-economic prosperity of our country. The selfish pursuit of power has conditioned us to be suspicious of each other and to hate one another. This has resulted in a fragmented society in which our sense of collective belonging has suffered. Our country is highly polarised along political, economic and ethnic lines.
It is the responsibility of our leaders to promote inclusivity and reckless statements that disenfranchise people for holding political views that are contrary to those of the ruling party deserve our contempt. It is not wise to teach the next generation the language of exclusion because the country should come first before the party.
I would like to cement this argument by citing from a renowned African leader, Haile Selassie, who taught us that, “History teaches us that unity is strength, and cautions us to submerge and overcome our differences in the quest for common goals, to strive, with all our combined strength, for the path to true African brotherhood and unity.”
Lindsey Machona-Maenzanise is a Zimbabwean media and communications professional living in Canada
