Zimpapers Logo

Qhubani Moyo Correspondent
Two important issues ignited my writing of this article. The first one was the provocative debate about Gukurahundi which was started by Nathaniel Manheru, a columnist in The Herald, who sought to nationalise the debate and that take it from those who felt they had sole ownership of the issue whose sustainable solutions can only be found in building national consensus and not sectional approaches.

Manheru in his analysis hit a raw nerve and, as was expected and obviously as was his intention, he drew the ire of those who wanted the debate to remain within the small confines and for use in whipping up political emotions than construction of permanent solutions that would be useful to the current and future generations.

In putting the debate in the public forum, the talented wordsmith has done what should have been done way back, allowing the huge national problem to be thrown into public discourse and thus debated by all who have a view and ultimately having it go to a position of exhaustion in terms of practical solutions.

In so doing, the debate will enable those tasked with national healing and reconciliation to have a defined point of entry in dealing with this dark phase of our history.

Allowing for debate by both the victims and those viewed as perpetrators could lead to a national consensus so that future generations will have a full know-how of the kind of teething problems that the country went through.

This can serve as an important lesson and reminder of what we should not do to each other and why we should cherish peace and unity through the provision of equal opportunities for all as well as respect and reward all Zimbabweans regardless of tribe and thus take pride in celebrating our diversity and the colourful reminder of the beauty and rainbow nature of what constitutes Zimbabwe.

The debate that Manheru raises is fundamental in that it pinpoints the real elephant in the room and thus seeks to find practical ways of ensuring housekeeping is done to allow for a new beginning.

In opening the debate and allowing for extensive national discourse and taking it out of those who feel they own the process and are the only ones with solutions, Manheru is making a huge national statement that the time for building a solid future foundation is now.

Again, opening the debate which I am sure will be joined by all, will assist us find localised solutions to the problems because the one-size-fits-all approach might not work in our context.

National debate on the subject is the only way of ensuring that we find the real and workable solution.

However, it is not my intention to get into that Gukurahundi debate as yet, I do commit that I will sooner rather than later make my own contributions but for now let me be a beneficiary of the front-runners in the debate, at least until the emotional arguments are vented out.

It was the second issue that also got me writing this piece, an issue that came out in both The Herald and the Chronicle on the challenges of the unification of the MDC Ncube–Holland/Biti formations which came out on January 5, 2015.

It was the presentation of the challenges of leadership of the proposed political party that struck me as worth taking note of.

Quoting unnamed sources, the writer cited that one of the problems faced by the coalition process was the rift between Tendai Biti and Elton Mangoma who both want to lead at all costs. He presents the second one as a much bigger challenge, the perceived liability status of Professor Welshman Ncube because of what he calls his “tribalistic” tendencies.

And for me the writer just crossed the red line because therein lies the very source of what bedevils us a people and the challenges we face in addressing the divisions that happened way back.

While ordinarily I would not have responded had the article stated that Ncube’s problem could be viewed to be one of weak leadership, it was the tribalisation of Ncube’s leadership which creates a polarised and dangerous environment for all of us.

Why the man should be judged as a tribalist without qualifications of his actions warranting that title boggles the mind just like how such a story finds prominence in a national newspaper.

The conclusion is simple that you are because you are Ncube and therefore a Ndebele and therefore a tribalist. It’s as basic as all that.

But if you were to ask about those things that Ncube has done to get that label none will point that out; it is used loosely by people to label any leader from Matabeleland as tribalistic and therefore not worth of national leadership.

While my intention is not to get into the merits of Ncube’s leadership capabilities, it is the usual easier retreat to the issue of tribalism that has caused some of the big problems for the country.

The man should be judged on the basis of his actions and deeds not a blanket stereotyping of him on the basis of his ethic origin.

This kind of behaviour should not be given space in the new order as it is the breeding ground for the divisions and disharmony that bedevil us today.

In that regards and consistent with the desires to create a more coherent Zimbabwe, there should be blanket condemnation of anyone who attempts to use the trivial card to denigrate others or to use it to their advantage.

In fact the country needs to criminalise any behaviour and actions that are aimed at promoting tribalism. If in soccer they have criminalised and impose heavy sanctions for racist behaviour, why should it be difficult for us to impose punitive measures against anyone who promotes tribalism.

It should be the responsibility of all Zimbabweans to condemn utterances like speaking of Ncube as a man of tribal tendencies without indicating why.

If someone thinks he is indeed a tribalist then let it be mentioned with qualification that he has tribalistic tendencies because he has done this or behaved in a way consistent with tribalism.

Why should all other political leaders from Mashonaland be judged on the strength of their political performance no matter how useless they are to the nation and Welshman Ncube or any other political leader from Matabeleland be judged on the basis of tribe?

We can do better as a nation!

Equally and in line with the discourse that has been raised by Manheru, it makes no sense to continue imagining the existence of a fictional state called Mthwakazi to which the Ndebele people should live alone in perceived prosperity.

The problems affecting the region cannot be solved by escapism through a demand for cessation.

In fact it is the compartmentalisation of other people like is done to Ncube which has led to discrimination against people of Shona origin in some parts of Matabeleland.

Dr Qhubani Moyo is a policy and political analyst from Bulawayo East Constituency, he is contactable on [email protected]

NB: READ FULL ARTICLE ON HERALD WEBSITE

We should be embracing of our diversity as a nation because, how does one claim that someone born here in Bulawayo is not a person from Matabeleland by virtue of having a long surname? It makes no sense to treat some people in Bulawayo as foreigners because they are of Shona origin.

What some people ignore is that there are people here who are Zimbabwean and have Shona surnames but were born in Bulawayo and have no other home than Bulawayo and made remarkable contributions to the development of this city and region.

Even those who were not born here but have chosen to settle should be applauded for their desire and interest to be part and parcel of the region’s future.

Let all Zimbabweans be judged on the basis of their capabilities and not their tribal stigmatisation.

It is my conclusion that it does not matter whether you are in ZANU PF, MDC T, MDC, MDC Renewal, ZAPU, Mavambo or any other party, when it comes to condemnation of labelling other players as tribalistic without qualification, there is need to stand up and speak with one voice.

Dr Qhubani Moyo is a policy and political analyst from Bulawayo East Constituency, he is contactable on [email protected]