My colleague recently captured what I think is the general feeling among Zimbabweans. He said: “You Zimbabweans do not seem to understand what has happened to you, apart from knowing that former President Robert Mugabe is out of power.” He implied that other than the departure of Mugabe, the rest remains the same, but coated by a different face. Change might not have started.
By Tapiwa Gomo
As President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s reign unfolds, so are the true colours of his administration. I noted last week that what is said is not always what is meant. What is done is what is meant. The increasing militarisation of our politics and government is defining a new era — one that we may not have envisaged when Mugabe stepped down.
We are not short of technocrats, but they have preferred soldiers. And we now know that the army will play a part in next year’s elections and that certainly Zanu PF is not ready to reform or junta itself out of power.
These developments must understandably be a cause for some concern. We are passengers in the same old bus, but with a different driver. And again, do we stop the bus because the driver is a product of the school of bad driving or we proceed, but at our own risk?
Zimbabwe has already lost two decades due to bad politics and it needs to move on. It is these two positions that are dividing political opinion — the teleological or the moralistic. This is not academic, but a real life and death conundrum. Those on the teleological corner are advocating for allowing the new administration to focus on ensuring stability, rebuilding the country, mending the economy, attracting investors and creating employment.
These are indeed attractive benchmarks. They are real bread and butter issues and the essence of national development and poverty reduction and they define our well-being. That agenda deserves everyone’s support.
However, the pursuit for economic growth, while silent on principles such as human rights and democracy certainly raises alarm bells. A subtle reductive, exclusionary and harmful teleological approach that undermines those whose stories bear the scars of brutality of our past and present should not be condoned.
- 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
Gukurahundi cannot be dismissed just like that, in exchange for an economy that is still a pie in the sky.
We may be headed towards the China model, especially with Christopher Mutsvangwa at the helm of the government’s strategic thinking. There is plenty of literature on the role of the army in the economic growth of China. Their economic growth model has been described as the miracle of our recent history for two reasons:
Firstly, China surpassed other big economies in less than three decades and secondly, it did that by demonstrating that poor people are not of any meaningful value other than providing service to the oligarch.
The oligarch in our case are those in power today and foreign investors with the wherewithal of production. To understand this, watch as they tinker with the indigenisation policy. Your rights will be undermined by a reward of a job and the need to protect those who offer the job.
This is where the moralists have a strong point and we can dismiss them at our own peril. Let’s not allow the short-lived euphoria to cloud our minds. Zimbabwe used to have the best of what the new administration is trying to sell to us today, but we are here today because of the same leadership that disregarded the laws and Constitution of the country. Their behaviour destroyed what was once a booming industry and vibrant economy because power was centralised and easy to abuse.
On that account, the demand for reforms is genuine and deserves everyone’s support because it draws from lessons from the past. It is no longer about a mere decorative democracy, but about humanity, your dignity and your right to be treated with respect as an equal human being.
As demonstrated in China, the capitalists of today care more about profits and less about human rights. They are attracted to high profits and lower wages. A foreign investors-stampede can be anticipated once the new administration solidifies its position after elections next year. The army will help them win the elections as already warned.
The moralists, therefore, are right in premising their argument on the presupposition that the behaviour of those in power today will remain influenced by their past gluttony and, therefore, a risk to their and our own ends. Or in other words, by deciding not to engage with opposing voices and incorporating the military in their administration, they are already shaping their means of using force to stay in power.
As one economist, Ludvig von Miles (1962) writes: “No action can be devised and ventured upon without definite ideas about the relation of cause and effect, teleology presupposes causality.”
The military deployments we are witnessing today are simply going to solidify the current administration’s hold on power.
The fact that the administration is not keen to engage with opposing voices is evident of the direction they wish to pursue — one voice and one centre of power and instruction. It is not their wish to seek common ground, as their agenda is already set. Nonetheless, both the teleological and the moralistic positions are supposed to be complementary for a broader cause.
Contradicting views must sublate into a scenario that leads to national consensus without violent conflict. In any case, for a nation to achieve development, autonomy and freedom, contradicting parties have no choice, but to acknowledge a reality that is replete with multiplicity of world views and egalitarianism. We need each other and without each other we will continue to fight and fail.
Tapiwa Gomo is a development consultant based in Pretoria, South Africa
