“Always bear in mind that people are not fighting for ideas, for the things in anyone’s head. They are fighting to win material benefits, to live better and in peace, to see their lives go forward, to guarantee the future of their children” - Amilcar Cabral
Few Zimbabweans were surprised when General Constantine Chiwenga, Commander of the Zimbabwean Defense Forces, declared that the army would “not support or salute sell-outs and agents of the West before, during and after the presidential elections.” He was after all merely following in the footsteps of his predecessor who had said those exact words before the previous presidential election.
During this time Robert Mugabe’s election machine was in full swing, spewing out familiar Liberation war rhetoric. Again Zimbabweans could not have been surprised. The only extraordinary thing about the campaign was that it was largely non-violent, leading some to contemplate what was previously unimaginable - an opposition victory. Still, when asked how he viewed his election prospects President Mugabe responded by saying he felt “Overconfident!”
Election Day has come and gone and Mugabe’s overconfidence has been emphatically affirmed. His response to the vote of no confidence has been violently swift and Zimbabweans have given leave to their expressions of surprise because the familiar has returned. Following March 29, the results began to trickle in. Then that trickle diminished to a drop after lonely drop and today the Zimbabwe Election Commission has completely abandoned the pretence of quenching the popular democratic thirst. The Movement for Democratic Change’s (MDC) Secretary General, Tendai Biti, called the silence “deafening”. That silence is continuing amid the din of thrashing batons, breaking bones, desperate cries and slamming prison gates.
Mr. Mugabe’s venture into the heights of defiance continues to wow the world. He recently reminded his lieutenants, “The land is ours; it must not be allowed to slip back into the hands of whites.” As regards democracy and consent, the baby and the bathwater were both thrown out a long time ago. Now, Mr. Mugabe has been reduced to cloaking his continuing illegitimate rule with a tattered brand of Liberation mythology of which he claims exclusive authorship. Unfortunately, the gallery of African leaders to whom he plays is unlikely, even now, to challenge him in a serious way.
Much of the recent election coverage focused on those in the rural areas who historically have been Mugabe’s staunchest supporters. While many seem to recognize that the hardships of daily life that they face can be attributed to his rule they also seem hesitant to betray the figure that brought the country to independence. Clearly, what is needed is for the Liberation struggle to be recast into a new framework. Zanu PF’s grip on power will only be overcome when an historical interpretation other than its own is asserted, substantiated, and accepted by regional leaders and more importantly, by Zimbabweans themselves. This new outlook would represent the first step toward the complete ideological isolation of Mr. Mugabe and Zanu PF.
But the problem of reclaiming the legacy of our struggle from one of Africa’s heroes of decolonization remains. How do we solve it? The answer lies close to Mugabe himself because what is needed is to rediscover what classical revolutionary theory and practice says about the nature and ownership of struggle. The extent to which we can demonstrate Zanu PF’s departure from the classics shall determine our own ability to retake our history.
Being influenced by Marxism and socialism as they were, the Liberation movements of the colonial era struggled for the black African to “re-enter history” as Cabral said. In other words, an economic and cultural transformation of society was necessary for true liberation to materialize. The degree to which the transformation was achieved forms an important basis on which the legacy of the war can be reclaimed. Another is to study the agency of revolution or the means by which the opportunity to transform society would be generated. I will not dwell on the degree to which an economic and cultural transformation has occurred. Abuses such as corruption, cronyism, nepotism, neglect of essential social programs, disregard for the law and violent oppression have been well documented. That debate ought to be closed. The focus hereon in will be the study of revolutionary agency and its compatibility with Mr. Mugabe’s interpretive monopoly. The agent is known as people’s war.
Perhaps Mao’s most famous maxim is that of the fish in the ocean. Since the guerrilla army is small and lacking in resources it is unable to withstand a frontal assault by the professional army. It must therefore be extremely mobile, limit itself to ambushes and hit and run tactics and always ensure that it can disperse quickly. To meet these conditions the co-operation of the people is indispensable because they provide the only source of food, medicine, shelter and information. Therefore in order for the struggle to be successful, the guerrilla must be a fish using the expansive sea of people for safety and survival.
The vast majority of African guerrilla leaders, from Cabral to Machel and even Mugabe himself, stressed that the most important aspect of the struggle was the political one because this was the tool with which the ocean would be built. The importance of the political aspect was reflected even in the organizational structure of the liberation movements, with the military command always being subordinated to the political leadership. Furthermore, military units often had a political commissar whose function was to ensure proper interactions between the soldiers and the people. No action could be executed without the commissar’s approval and his rank was equivalent to that of the field commander.
It can be said therefore, with only a cursory review, that ownership of the revolution always was and had to be seen as being shared with the people. In the case of Zimbabwe, there were often violent power struggles within and between competing political hierarchies. Regardless, nominal unity was maintained to safeguard the credibility of the revolution because its success relied on the approval and decisive participation of the masses. The people did not only support the liberation movements in Africa, they filled its ranks and formed the basic unit of its composition.
By attacking democratic institutions, unleashing violence on the people and now ignoring the people’s call for change, the government of Robert Mugabe has undeniably exposed its diametric opposition to the spirit and basic laws of the liberation struggle.
The minimum requirement for breaking the monopoly on the Liberation struggle’s legacy is to substantiate the bid of another. Yet it is clear that we can go much further; we can do more than merely ask that our voice be included. Because after having studied who was decisive to the success of the struggle and after having re-examined upon whom its burden fell heaviest, we can say definitively that the answer is the people. And if we know that there would never have been a revolution without the people, how can anyone accept an interpretation of the revolution that ignores the people? We can do more than ask to be included; we can do more than damn the myths have been erected around what is ours. Finally, we can condemn Mr. Mugabe and Zanu PF as counterrevolutionaries and exclude their discredited myth to the rubbish heap. As the old adage from the struggle goes: Iwe neni tine basa (You and I have work to do)!
Few Zimbabweans were surprised when General Constantine Chiwenga, Commander of the Zimbabwean Defense Forces, declared that the army would “not support or salute sell-outs and agents of the West before, during and after the presidential elections.” He was after all merely following in the footsteps of his predecessor who had said those exact words before the previous presidential election.
During this time Robert Mugabe’s election machine was in full swing, spewing out familiar Liberation war rhetoric. Again Zimbabweans could not have been surprised. The only extraordinary thing about the campaign was that it was largely non-violent, leading some to contemplate what was previously unimaginable - an opposition victory. Still, when asked how he viewed his election prospects President Mugabe responded by saying he felt “Overconfident!”
Election Day has come and gone and Mugabe’s overconfidence has been emphatically affirmed. His response to the vote of no confidence has been violently swift and Zimbabweans have given leave to their expressions of surprise because the familiar has returned. Following March 29, the results began to trickle in. Then that trickle diminished to a drop after lonely drop and today the Zimbabwe Election Commission has completely abandoned the pretence of quenching the popular democratic thirst. The Movement for Democratic Change’s (MDC) Secretary General, Tendai Biti, called the silence “deafening”. That silence is continuing amid the din of thrashing batons, breaking bones, desperate cries and slamming prison gates.
Mr. Mugabe’s venture into the heights of defiance continues to wow the world. He recently reminded his lieutenants, “The land is ours; it must not be allowed to slip back into the hands of whites.” As regards democracy and consent, the baby and the bathwater were both thrown out a long time ago. Now, Mr. Mugabe has been reduced to cloaking his continuing illegitimate rule with a tattered brand of Liberation mythology of which he claims exclusive authorship. Unfortunately, the gallery of African leaders to whom he plays is unlikely, even now, to challenge him in a serious way.
Much of the recent election coverage focused on those in the rural areas who historically have been Mugabe’s staunchest supporters. While many seem to recognize that the hardships of daily life that they face can be attributed to his rule they also seem hesitant to betray the figure that brought the country to independence. Clearly, what is needed is for the Liberation struggle to be recast into a new framework. Zanu PF’s grip on power will only be overcome when an historical interpretation other than its own is asserted, substantiated, and accepted by regional leaders and more importantly, by Zimbabweans themselves. This new outlook would represent the first step toward the complete ideological isolation of Mr. Mugabe and Zanu PF.
But the problem of reclaiming the legacy of our struggle from one of Africa’s heroes of decolonization remains. How do we solve it? The answer lies close to Mugabe himself because what is needed is to rediscover what classical revolutionary theory and practice says about the nature and ownership of struggle. The extent to which we can demonstrate Zanu PF’s departure from the classics shall determine our own ability to retake our history.
Being influenced by Marxism and socialism as they were, the Liberation movements of the colonial era struggled for the black African to “re-enter history” as Cabral said. In other words, an economic and cultural transformation of society was necessary for true liberation to materialize. The degree to which the transformation was achieved forms an important basis on which the legacy of the war can be reclaimed. Another is to study the agency of revolution or the means by which the opportunity to transform society would be generated. I will not dwell on the degree to which an economic and cultural transformation has occurred. Abuses such as corruption, cronyism, nepotism, neglect of essential social programs, disregard for the law and violent oppression have been well documented. That debate ought to be closed. The focus hereon in will be the study of revolutionary agency and its compatibility with Mr. Mugabe’s interpretive monopoly. The agent is known as people’s war.
Perhaps Mao’s most famous maxim is that of the fish in the ocean. Since the guerrilla army is small and lacking in resources it is unable to withstand a frontal assault by the professional army. It must therefore be extremely mobile, limit itself to ambushes and hit and run tactics and always ensure that it can disperse quickly. To meet these conditions the co-operation of the people is indispensable because they provide the only source of food, medicine, shelter and information. Therefore in order for the struggle to be successful, the guerrilla must be a fish using the expansive sea of people for safety and survival.
The vast majority of African guerrilla leaders, from Cabral to Machel and even Mugabe himself, stressed that the most important aspect of the struggle was the political one because this was the tool with which the ocean would be built. The importance of the political aspect was reflected even in the organizational structure of the liberation movements, with the military command always being subordinated to the political leadership. Furthermore, military units often had a political commissar whose function was to ensure proper interactions between the soldiers and the people. No action could be executed without the commissar’s approval and his rank was equivalent to that of the field commander.
It can be said therefore, with only a cursory review, that ownership of the revolution always was and had to be seen as being shared with the people. In the case of Zimbabwe, there were often violent power struggles within and between competing political hierarchies. Regardless, nominal unity was maintained to safeguard the credibility of the revolution because its success relied on the approval and decisive participation of the masses. The people did not only support the liberation movements in Africa, they filled its ranks and formed the basic unit of its composition.
By attacking democratic institutions, unleashing violence on the people and now ignoring the people’s call for change, the government of Robert Mugabe has undeniably exposed its diametric opposition to the spirit and basic laws of the liberation struggle.
The minimum requirement for breaking the monopoly on the Liberation struggle’s legacy is to substantiate the bid of another. Yet it is clear that we can go much further; we can do more than merely ask that our voice be included. Because after having studied who was decisive to the success of the struggle and after having re-examined upon whom its burden fell heaviest, we can say definitively that the answer is the people. And if we know that there would never have been a revolution without the people, how can anyone accept an interpretation of the revolution that ignores the people? We can do more than ask to be included; we can do more than damn the myths have been erected around what is ours. Finally, we can condemn Mr. Mugabe and Zanu PF as counterrevolutionaries and exclude their discredited myth to the rubbish heap. As the old adage from the struggle goes: Iwe neni tine basa (You and I have work to do)!
No comments:
Post a Comment