The Sunday News
Richard Runyararo Mahomva
THE past three articles on Pathisa Nyathi’s book Zimbabwe’s Cultural Heritage (2005) and Cain Mathema’s Zimbabwe Diverse, But One (2013) have attempted to provide the needed dialogue in a bid to reflect on Zimbabwe’s rich political and cultural identities. As argued by both scholars, the need to celebrate the plurality of our nationhood remains high above all priorities of national belonging and citizen patriotic duty. Regardless of a pro-partisan standpoint, Mathema has made it clear that national plurality needs to be celebrated.
The said diversity of the people of Zimbabwe transcends meagre tribal constructions that have been created to denounce the cordial historical past of the nation. Nyathi and Mathema’s respective methodological fore-groundings of national homogeneity are alien to other philosophical tenets which are locally applied from imposed Western philosophical importations (Anderson 1991). However, the approach by Nyathi and Mathema does not dismiss other extensions of this debate. One of which is championed by Masipula Sithole (2009) — “A Struggle with a Struggle”. Sithole’s approach was founded on deconstructing the celebratory nationalist narrative of Zimbabwe’s birth. In further extending this notion in one of my articles Professor Sabelo Ndlovu-Gatsheni argued that:
“Ever since the time of colonial conquest we have been trying to find each other across ethnic, racial, regional, generational, gender and partisan fault lines. Nationalism fostered by anti-colonialism did not mature into patriotism at the end of direct colonialism. Coming from this perspective and from an experience of a people who could easily decapitate each other every time there is an election . . .’’
The same scholar Ndlovu-Gatsheni serves as an instrumental point of reference as he goes further to interrogate the concept of “Becoming Zimbabwe”, Raftopolous and Mlambo (2009). Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2011) bluntly probes: “Do Zimbabweans Exist?” Beyond all these contestations some of which are the reason for Nyathi (2005) and Mathema (2013)’s analytical invitation in this particular series prompts readers to continuously enquire: what is the unifying factor of being Zimbabwean?
Could it be our cultural heritage as espoused by Nyathi? Moreover, could liberation theologies professed by Mathema be enough an excuse to have one dominant national political voice?
The Third Chimurenga: Monologue or Dialogue?
Mathema recommends a mandatory requisite for the people of Zimbabwe to understand that without the knowledge of the past claiming any entitlement to the present would be a worthless endeavour. This is inherently hinged on the idea of the past existing in the present. The same contemporary unfolding of national belonging also owes its very being to the past. Likewise, those with an ahistorical approach in the nation’s political conundrums only armed with mischievous leverage of fragmenting the Afrocentric paradigm of nationhood will be short-lived. In no time of reaching the culmination of their guiding values; their interests shall be found in the slums of forgotten memories of “Becoming Zimbabwe” as they for long envisage their prospects. Mathema (2013) presents the leftist alternative as a simplistic power grab fantasy which cannot be afforded the monopoly to dismantle the sacred liberation struggle remembrances which unify Zimbabweans from all walks of life.
Mathema (2013) radically presents a homogenous narrative which counters all that which does not belong to the unifying historical national values chiefly pronounced by the ruling Zanu-PF. At the same, Mathema castigates all potential coup de tat plots to the history that is nation binding. Thus to be “Zimbabwean” in this particular perspective is to subscribe to what 1980 means to all who belong. It is understanding that ‘‘struggles within the struggle’’ manifested, but what was achieved in 1980 outshines all the challenges that were met on the rough road to the unifying 1980 moment. After 1980, the insurgency flare-ups of 1982 were buried in the 1987 treaty of unity.
It is on this grounding that Mathema validates the meaning of being Zimbabwean and that any change which does not recognise this is unZimbabwean. Mathema further emphases that any change catalysed by those who are the reason for the country’s military resistance must not be tolerated. Change must be home-centred, change must be influenced by whims of nationalist continuity and not imported liberal thoughts. Mathema (2013) further emphases on the importance of a ‘‘patriotic’’ human factor (Chivaura and Mararike 1998), as such Mathema chooses to celebrate the country’s ethnic plurality.
This is another gesture which is well articulated by Nyathi from a high socio-cultural leaning.
The unZimbabwean absurdity
In Mathema’s perspective those opposed to the above represent the unZimbabwean and partisan fingered antithesis of national belonging. As substantiated by history, the stillbirth of these unZimbabwean political manoeuvres is facilitated by a surrogate venom congested umbilical cord commanding life to their unwanted being in the mothering plant. This is where the idea of the nation as a mother comes in by virtue of harbouring of all ideologies that give cradle to the concept of the nation.
This adds to the total sum of the nation as a motherland of all-embracing unitary ideologies and fraternal comradeship of its people. The review of these two books has been critically placed at a time Zimbabwe has been going through numerous phases of self and externally exerted rethink of the being of the nation. In a short space of time — the national pledge — the war-veterans indaba — MDC demos and the recently held Zanu-PF Youth League One million man match have been the centre of the re-projections of the land’s motherhood to ideological fragmentations of her children. On the other end, social media witnessed the clamouring of the politically unfortunate diggings of one Lumumba and another Pastor Evan Mawarire.
One clearly finds the need for an Afrocentric paradigm of conceptualising the nation in all these prevailing debates. The need for a Zimbabwean-centred problem-solution niche becomes essential. There is clear demand for the betterment of ourselves all by ourselves, the other part of ourselves as a nation is the African continent in its large diversity hinged on its inclusive colonial experience. As clearly prescribed by Thabo Mbeki, the time is now for African solutions for African problems.
Mayibuye!
Does Zimbabwe not have a mind of her own?
This rethink of national belonging must be guided by thinking in local terms to find local solutions to the national dilemmas confronting Zimbabwe. The major challenge faced is that local political projections have been guided by values that are not well-matched with African political culture maxims and socio-economic values that are purely African. Every time one rises to challenge the status-quo the first point of comparison is the West’s economy if not its intellectual worth in making impositions to Third World politics. Out of ignorance and selective amnesia the same global political moral prefects are spared the interrogation of the source of their current political-economy dominance. In the same manner, issues of culture have been adulterated to suit the dominance of colonial interests.
If read closely, these are the two main points of epistemological contestations raised in Nyathi and Mathema’s books. The two thinkers are clearly advocating for a thinking that is Zimbabwe-centred on all national issues. Other intellectual projections have favoured Western thought inducements and construction of political polarisation. However, Nyathi (2005) and Mathema (2013) have emphasised on the need to build Zimbabwe’s cultural and political identities taking pride in the country’s accessible pluralities.
Richard Runyararo Mahomva is an independent academic researcher, Founder of Leaders for Africa Network — LAN, Convener of the Back to Pan-Africanism Conference and the Reading Pan-Africa Symposium (REPS) and can be contacted on [email protected]
