Mugabe and the White African" is in essence a David and Goliath story. Appalled by the state-orchestrated crimes against humanity on a massive scale countrywide, with horrific violence perpetrated against white commercial farmers, their farm workers and the rural population, a farming family takes on President Mugabe's government in a landmark court case heard by the Sadc Tribunal in Windhoek, Namibia. They know the risks, but they believe it is what God requires of them.

Set on Mount Carmel farm in the Chegutu district of Zimbabwe, this deeply moving book is the chronicle of a Christian family's struggle to survive, to protect the land it purchased legally from the government, and to protect the lives and livelihoods of all those working on the farm.

The British State in Devotion

The past week has been a significant one for the Anglican Church, itself a schismatic offshoot of the Catholic Church, and the official Church of the State in the United Kingdom.
The last point, including the consequential role of the British Queen as the Head of that Church, is often overlooked in discussions of church, state and unfolding politics in and of Zimbabwe. We need to keep that dimension in mind, in which case we can soundly understand why in spite of the fact that Lambeth is not a State, the way that the Vatican is, its foremost official - the Archbishop - carries the aura of a head of state when on visits abroad, especially in countries with which Britain has had colonial links in the past.

The Anglican Church has evolved as the British State in worship or devotion. A cursory reading of the evolution of the British political and governmental system will clearly show its crucial near-ethereal role as the earthly agent for God's benediction on the British Monarch, the State, its apparatus and its minions.
The past week had seen the head of the Anglican Church, Archbishop Rowan Williams, paying a visit to Southern Africa, including Zimbabwe. The visit, particularly its Zimbabwean leg, was almost engulfed in controversy, something that guaranteed it maximum publicity.

The man who turned 80
A great week for the Anglican Church in another sense. One of its shepherds - now retired - hit 80, to great ululation, joy and fanfare. This was Archbishop Desmond Tutu who, alongside well-wishers, organised a great "bhavhadeyi". It still remains to be explained to me how the same age zone that invites deep obloquy for Robert Mugabe, triggers jingle bells for Desmond Tutu.

The day Tibet divided South Africa
But much more than jingle bells. The event also generated lots of bile and brickbats, this time against President Zuma's government. The good archbishop had decided, apparently without any reference to his Government, to invite the Dalai Lama, the Tibetan spiritual leader who has been a thorn in the flesh of the Chinese Government, so the spiritual leader could be part of the party. The South African Government would have none of that and they simply played a dilatory game with the protocol of visa granting, creating a situation where the bhavhadeyi passed before the Lama's papers were in place for his travel.

The Archbishop was furious, as was the Western world which has heavily invested in the spiritual leader to keep the sides of the rising dragon needled all the time by uncomfortable questions, uncomfortable situations. The script abroad was the Zuma Government had succumbed to pressure from the Chinese Government which would look dimly at any profile-raising concessions to it's spiritually suffused opponent.
The script went further. South Africa would not risk billions-worth of trade with the giant Chinese economy for the sake of a mere birth-marking ritual involving some old man, albeit spotting a collar on his shirtfront.

This was condemnable in the extreme, went the Western script and its multiple echoes in our subcontinent. Zuma, added these magisterial voices, had yet again fumbled on foreign policy, with Zimbabwe, Libya and many other areas being cited in accusatory illustration.

Seeking an expensive Birthday gift

This attack on Zuma, much of it quite gratuitous, should be deposed of with the swiftness it deserves. From flashes of anger which the media recorded from Archbishop Tutu, it is clear the cleric expected an expensive gift from the South African government, all to mark the occasion. He expected the South African government to indulge him, all to the value of billion upon billions of dollars in Chinese trade which South Africa was sure to forego in consequence.

That was going to be the dollar value of the gift Tutu expected from the South African Government. Turn that into jobs, or some other welfare index, and you graphically quantify the sacrifice Tutu hoped from South Africa's poor, never mind that the link between trade with China and benefits to the poor should never be posited as obviously given.

I have not yet mentioned the fact that South Africa and China both belong to Brics, an alliance which we all hope can be nurtured into a meaningful counterpoise to arrogant American and European global dominance.

What was being asked of Zuma was that Tutu's birthday soar above the foreign policy of South Africa, indeed play first fiddle to South Africa's strategic interests in Asia. No one cared to explain how and why a matter between China and the West, a matter between China and her religiously recalcitrant citizen, should excise South Africa. Or why a citizen of South Africa, simply on the strength of worn-out Anglican robes, should found and consecrate friendship outside of, insensitive to, and defiant of the foreign policy concerns of his government and State. Or why he should piously remonstrate with that offended State for not bending low to wipe clean his dirty feet and sandals, so entangled in a worthless of ecumenical friendship.

Bad for the gander
The argument goes deeper. This year alone we saw Western leaders, including American and British leaders beat the road to China, begging bowl beneath the robes of haughty Caucasian pride.
The China they were now visiting was far, far different from the China of servile urchins in the days of the Opium Wars, and the subsequent triple occupation of Shanghai. To this day Shanghai bears its triple disfigurement: a third of it British, another third French and the last third American. They were now paying visits to a new, roaring China with trillions of American dollars in reserves, a mighty China playing donor to virtually all western economies, so buffeted, so much in financial turmoil.

However much their liberal media howled - and howl they did - all the leaders steered clean of any controversies, indeed punctiliously ensured great China was not, would not be, offended by extraneous issues, including human rights and the rights of the Tibetan people as led by their spiritual leader.
Were they leaving this very sensitive matter to South Africa to raise at her own expense in the month of October, towards the end of the year of our Lord two thousand and eleven? They, and only they, have the right to shelve larger matters in deference to their immediate needs and strategic interests. We don't. We do not have that latitude to pass over matters which injure the pursuit of our interests? We are obligated to raise such touchy issues for the sake of Europe, America and the idealisms of western liberalism?

Above all, how come the Queen never invites the Dalai Lama on the occasion of her birthday? Or Robert Mugabe? Or wa Mutharika? Or Ahmadinejad? Or Chavez? Or Castro? Or better still the spiritual leader in Iran?
When will our own people realise the value of harmonising their pursuits with the larger interests of their nation, rather than generating valueless dilemmas and controversies for their Governments, all for personal fame and glory?

Bitterly divided Anglicans
I want to go back to the visit to Zimbabwe by Rowan Williams, the head of the Anglican Church. Until on the eve of his departure from Malawi, itself the headquarters of the Anglican Province of Central Africa, the man of God was content to call his trip a pastoral one, with the prime purpose of sharing the worship with his brethren in Zimbabwe.

Appropriately, the Archbishop could not peg enormous cosmic goals to his mission. Unlike the Catholic Church whose spiritual epicentre is the Vatican, whose spiritual head is the Pope, the Anglican church pretends a diffused, non-hierarchical order whose hub is the "province" in a given geographical region which must give direction to parishes under it. As is now well known, the province of Central Africa to which the Zimbabwean Anglican Church is, or was, affiliated, depending of course on where you stand vis-à-vis the current controversy, was torn apart a few years back on account of the gay question. It is a divided church, bitterly divided.

Divided by Caesar's things
And because the Zimbabwean church wields the financial wherewithal, this controversy has become a dispute over church assets and resources. It pays to remember that throughout the colonial days, the Anglican Church in Rhodesia stood by successive colonial governments, which is how it was able to accumulate fabulous wealth by way of real estate, orphanage and educational business.
It was a church of settler and racist conformity, by and large, which is why conscience-led bishops like Knight Bruce soon lost to Bishop Burrough who openly endorsed UDI and consecrated soldiers before their deployment for wanton, genocidal "kills" of natives. The sheer financial muscle of the Zimbabwean Anglican Church explains why its schism has sucked in the whole of Southern Africa.

The rich simmer in the pot
Much worse, unable to marshal a common position on the land issue, the Zimbabwean church soon found its bishopric badly divided in a way that mirrored the larger political divide in the country. It is simply dishonest to call Kunonga a "Mugabe" or a "Zanu-PF" bishop without acknowledging the MDC-T politics so explicitly "embedded" in Gandiya, Bakare, etc, etc. The matter gets even more entangled when you bring in Julius Makoni, that faction's latest catch through a nexus of relationships.

The Anglican pulpit has been heavily politicised and I challenge any of its bishops to swear by the holy book that they have not pledged their allegiance to competing political parties, to the princes of power! That situation has created quite an explosive concoction for the church: gays, land, property and politics. You add the issue of relations with Britain, and the pot simply gets thicker than poor porridge after a very long simmer. I am not even bringing in the juridical dimension. Such is the church the archbishop came to, and it is not a surprise he needed a large entourage from the whole Province to fortify his own courage.

Gathering interest
Until the Archbishop made a suggestive if not incriminating comment on the eve of his departure for Harare, no one in position of authority in Zimbabwe took much notice of his mission. The interest had remained strictly journalistic: had the Archbishop sought audience with the President; was the President going to meet with the Archbishop, etc, etc. Beyond that, the sun rose from the east, set in the west, both to no cloud cover or rumbling thunder.

In fact the sending church in the UK was more excited about the trip than the host society, never mind the jostling and jockeying that visibly picked pitch within the Zimbabwean Anglican church itself. That was hardly new to this quarrelsome church. But the moment the Archbishop spoke of raising the issue of division and persecution in the Anglican Church with President Mugabe, aggressive interest gathered within the country. The Archbishop's homily inside the country reinforced this eagerness to engage him.

Rationalising matters of morality
In a well-calculated pre-emptive denunciation of colonialism, he raised issues of post-independence governance, hoping his fawned anti-colonial tirade had secured him all-time insurance against instant retort founded on the historical culpability of the Anglican Church as a partner in genocidal colonialism.

And of course the well-attended church service in Harare gave him and his Gandiya faction an illusion of carrying the bigger moiety of the deeply divided church. Here and ahead of his arrival, the church had distanced itself from homosexuality, stressing the Church did not condone such a moral monstrosity. The announcement was a calculated pre-emption, meant to leave Kunonga and his group with no cause, no grievance.

Later, the Archbishop would seal the argument through a highly intellectualised argument to the effect that the Church, while scornful of homosexuality, respected homosexuals as human beings entitled to dignity and respect in their deviance. After all, American churches which had sanctified homosexuality belonged to another province which had no lordship over the rest. That way, the matter was deposed. Or so the Archbishop thought.

The dossier for publicity
Sanctions? Well, the Archbishop insisted he had not been favoured with evidence of hurtful sanctions in the country and thus could not react to the matter. As far as he had heard and read, sanctions in Zimbabwe were targeted. And to overwrite this touchy subject, he presented the President with a dossier on the persecution of the Anglican Church in Zimbabwe, urging the President to intervene to end it.

The dossier was soon published on the internet for wider reading. It thus became a public document, never privileged communication between a Church anxious for some resolution and a Head of State whose intervention it implored. And like most Western officials, the Archbishop had also been asked to assess the health and mental acuity of the President. To the disappointment of those interested in that side of the President, the Archbishop gave the man a clean bill of health, at least as confirmed by the faith stethoscope!

Flying a British Kite
Now let's deal with the hard balls of this narrative, without fear, without favour. The decision by the Archbishop to visit Harare generated lots of controversies within Britain itself. Would he be well received? Would he not present Mugabe with a propaganda coup? Would he not legitimise Mugabe, thereby redeeming him from splendid isolation?

Such worries, so acutely and fervently put, attested to the fact that in the visit, the British State was in fact breaking with its self-imposed protocol, to initiate contacts with President Mugabe and his Government. It had invested heavily in the visit which played deep stick to bilateral relations. Indeed, the Archbishop received the courtesies of a foreign official, including State security.
Alongside that visit was an opinion filtered through a think-tank linked to the British establishment. This Commonwealth think-tank suggested the impending Chogm be used to make overtures to Zimbabwe.

Expectedly, a British Minister moved in to shoot down the suggestion, seemingly making tougher demands on Zimbabwe. But the purpose had been served: the balloon had been flown, the idea of re-engaging Zimbabwe had been placed in the public domain without binding the British Government, indeed with all the safeguards against a public fallout well in place.
Indeed, opinion leaders in quality British papers proceeded to hail Lambeth for having a better foreign policy than Whitehall, urging the British Government to do better! One perfectly understands the game in town. It would be quite naive, if not foolish, for the divided Anglican church to visualise itself as the subject matter of the week. Simply, it was not. Much worse, it would be downright silly and idealistic for its bishops to imagine their differences can find resolution outside of the abiding question pitting Zimbabwe against Britain, indeed finding play in sanctions.

So many questions for Gandiya
Which takes me to my first charge against Bishop Gandiya and all those he leads. Why did he not prepare a dossier against sanctions for presentation to the Archbishop? Does he think this country is not under sanctions? Does he think that his Anglican laity, Elijah-like, enjoy a sanctions-free universe that hovers above all of us, flying well beyond and above sanctions and the travails they spawn?

Or is his denial of sanctions secular, in which case he needs to tell us in what way it differs from that of MDC-T? Could this provide a clue to the politics of his faction in the church, as well as its appeal to the mother church in Britain which is at one with the British Government both historically and in terms of contemporary politics? That the issue of gays is but the icing on the cake to this untoward dalliance?
Clearly the effort in compiling a dossier on alleged persecution is just about what was required in compiling a dossier on sanctions which have affected church schools, hospitals, orphanages, followers, etc, etc. Or is the church unconcerned, the same way it was under Ian Smith except where white interests are concerned? I hope the good bishop noticed that among the worshipers who came to meet the Archbishop were Zanu-PF office holders who cannot be indifferent to sanctions, and whose presence cannot be interpreted as endorsement of his politics with their attendant blind sports.

Ecclesiastical colonialism
My second question to the bishop gets me agitated. At no time did the bishop seek audience with the President. Why? Was he waiting for the Archbishop's intercession? To achieve what? Personal profile? Greater damnation for the President? A strong image of a persecuted Church later to translate to greater gifts to that church? Clearly there are real moral and political issues which are at stake and which will not go away.

While the local church thinks it has ducked the issue of gays and their so-called rights, hardly had the Archbishop's footmarks evaporated on our land than had the British Government announced a policy tying its own overseas aid support to gay rights. The British State is clearly enforcing an eleventh commandment through its alleged financial power over the Third World.
The idea of a local bishop by-passing the State President and the Committee set up to resolve that matter, to reach a British Archbishop reeks of ecclesiastical colonialism of the worst order. Such a disposition does not build a national church; rather, it builds some church in Zimbabwe appended to Lambeth. Needless to say such power relations in an institution so steeped in history and governmental politics implies not just a political outlook, but also a disturbing answer to the current stand-off between Britain and Zimbabwe.

However holy this holy man of Lambeth may be, he cannot be our father who art in Britain, and Bishop Gandiya should know that. He is a mere believer whose efforts heavenwards trigger numerous questions in all of us, whether religious or cultural.

Overrunning national institutions
Bishop Gandiya did more to entangle his own skein. He went to the courts. Later, he abandoned the same courts, followed by a not so holy scent of a bad loser. He turned to Lambeth, denouncing a national institution of the Bench which he had freely accosted, before which he had placed holy matters he and his brethren should have resolved anyway, well away from secular institutions.

As I write, he is back in the courts, and has just been awarded a favourable judgement. What attitude does he now adopt with regards to the Bench? That it is good and competent only when he wins? It is a very poor showing by a holy man, but also a showing passing as a reminiscent echo from a political party we know from some electoral past.
Could we be looking at the same strategy and tactic? Looking at the same brains behind the same campaign whose objective is ultimately to trash the Bench? I have a problem with politics which seek to overrun national institutions and discourse, while apotheosising the outsider as the answer we are looking for.

Dressing sin in Anglican robes
I opened this piece with a quote. I am sure the gentle reader is wondering whose statement that is, and what relevance it has to this article. Well, the quote is from Archbishop Desmond Tutu. The words are part of his foreword to Ben Freeth's book titled "Mugabe and the White African".

In fact, the book has two Anglican voices, one from Tutu and another from Archbishop Sentamu. Curiously Sentamu is Ugandan-born Anglican cleric now ministering in York, in Britain. More curiously, the endnote to his preface to the same book reads: "We, the people of Britain and the United Nations, need to hear the voices of our own consciences and heed the cries of the suffering people of Zimbabwe."
The cause which Archbishop Tutu biblically dismisses as comparable to that of Goliath is that of our Land. Put differently, the cause which the holy man beatifies as Davidian, is that of Rhodesia's settlers whom he thinks should not have lost the land. Sentamu sees himself as part of Britain; Tutu as an arbiter of the interests of Britain's kith and kin here.

The South African Archbishop mistakenly thinks Freeth and his ilk lost land they had bought from the Zimbabwe Government. Freeth himself does not feel burdened to say so in his narrative, which clearly related to a settler community whose land rights preceded Zimbabwe. Was the archbishop misled? Did he write the foreword? Archbishop Tutu thinks he is defending a Christian "white African". Freeth does not feel constrained to prove his African parentage, real or vicarious. He clearly visualises himself as a superior white man from Scotland, subsequently adopted by settler Rhodesia, and seeking to exorcise the powerful evil demon afflicting the otherwise "noble African savage". And I am not quoting Joseph Conrad. I am quoting Tutu's Christian Freeth.

As I write, the Sadc Tribunal which Tutu worshipfully regards as that which sets right the sins of this world, has been disbanded by a full Summit of Sadc. Again Tutu has wrong-footed his Governments, all for personal fame. To all that add his demand soon after South Africa's independence, demand that Zimbabwe releases white terrorists who had bombed ANC cadres here, and a worrisome picture emerges, fully dressed in Anglican robes. What has become of the Anglican Church? Can someone tell me? Icho!