War vets, or ventriloquists? Chris Mutsvangwa
Chris Mutsvangwa

Chris Mutsvangwa

On Thursday, a handful of members of the Zimbabwe National Liberation War Veterans’ Association leadership issued a cheeky statement in which they purported to be withdrawing support for President Mugabe.

In fact, the statement, which was met by wild cheers by the traditional opponents of zanu-pf, President Mugabe and Zimbabwe by and large, was a personal attack on the Head of State and Government and an attempt at rewriting the history of Zimbabwe and the ruling party.

It was also a classic example of how to deviate from the ruling party.

The statement accused President Mugabe of “systematic entrenchment of dictatorial tendencies”, “disregard of the Constitution” and “bankrupt leadership”.

It charged: “When Mr Robert Gabriel Mugabe arrived in Mozambique, he walked in to join those of us who were already armed and prosecuting the war as political soldiers. He was not the President of the Party zanu-pf, but we made him so, thinking he was one of us. Our decision to make him the President of zanu-pf, was accepted here at home, regionally by the Frontline States, and internationally.”

Other accusations included: sidelining of President’s political colleagues in prison “as he has put all his effort in sidelining them”; “systematic elimination of those in the struggle’s leadership in Mozambique, and his continued outfoxing of colleagues in leadership after independence up to this day, is unmistaken” and fragmentation of party and the writers described factions as “President’s project, again to outfox his peers in leadership”.

 

“Super hero”

or villain?

One would be hard pressed to fathom just for who the so-called war veterans were speaking.

It is quite clear that the small band of those in attendance were made to mouth the disgruntlement of one Christopher Mutsvangwa who was expelled from the ruling party for his factionalist tendencies and an incorrigible knack to drag the whole institution of war veterans down for the sake of his ego.

That is a fact and ever since disciplinary actions have been instituted against him by the party – to which he should have submitted himself and shown contrition – Mutsvangwa has gone for the offensive.

It would seem he was angling for expulsion or worse.

In his mind and behaviour, Mutsvangwa sees himself as a super hero whose exploits in the field of war trumped those of everyone.

His narrative has been shockingly consistent in the past couple of years where he has tried to make the world believe that the moment that he left the University of Zimbabwe in the mid-70s is the moment that the history of the country was altered.

With all due respect, it is known that he was not as heroic as he would want us to believe as there were other valiant and self-sacrificing cadres out there.

Not that it was a stunt completion – a kind of drag race or adrenalin sport.

People went to war to free the fatherland.

We shouldn’t be hearing all this boisterousness.

Unfortunately, this has overtaken Mutsvangwa, which has led to many a people questioning his sanity.

We do not want to go into this kind of talk, naturally as we have respect for our war veterans.

However, Mutsvangwa has well and truly gone to undo what he may have achieved or stood for.

He has an ego problem.

And reading through the statement will show a critical eye just how it is all Mutsvangwa.

It is him.

It is his bitterness.

It is his being a loser.

Too bad that some people have been drawn into this ego trip which we bet will end in grief.

If they have dared the President, they have not just dared a man but the whole institution and millions of his loyal supporters.

We are not sure if those associated, or being associated with Mutsvangwa have a stomach for it.

It can easily go nasty – the way all rebellions from the 1970s to Joice Mujuru’s 2014 have.

Again, we wait and see.

Kujamuka futi?

And we have noticed a particularly keen development.

The so-called war vets – or war vets loyal to Mutsvangwa – have openly backed reactionary forces in the opposition and when the groups, one of them petulantly calling itself Tajamuka, called for strikes a fortnight ago, that gang of war vets came out in support.

We were all shocked.

And in Thursday’s statement the vets underlined the same support and gave us their new neoliberal side lecturing about human rights, etc, which we know are a smokescreen by regime change apparatchiks.

We heard that, “instruments of State power in the hands of a responsible administration remain constitutionally bound to defend and uphold the Constitution, the rule of law and defend the sovereignty of the Republic of Zimbabwe. We therefore condemn the use of excessive force by the State against the citizens who were peacefully exercising their right to demonstrate against poor governance. We demand that those who exceeded the call of duty be held accountable in terms of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. We further demand that the State and all its actors respect, promote, protect and uphold our Constitution.”

You would bet that came from an opposition mouth!

But then, the war vets or a clique thereof, have all but declared as such.

Didn’t they thus conclude: “… we the veterans of Zimbabwe’s war of liberation, together with our toiling masses, hereby declare that, henceforth, in any forthcoming elections, will not support such a leader who has presided over untold suffering of the general population for his own personal aggrandisement and that of his cronies”?

The die has been cast.

And who are cheering the war vets, if not the opponents of Zimbabwe including the media?

The next few days will be interesting.

You Might Also Like

Comments

Take our Survey

We value your opinion! Take a moment to complete our survey