The Sunday News
Michael Mhlanga
I respond to this by referencing last week’s article which suggested the establishment of a Youth Commission on conflict and peacebuilding.
The intention of the article was to build momentum for a conversation on conflict resolution mechanism in Zimbabwe.
I borrowed thoughts from past strategies that have overlooked the burgeoning young population which has later been the main actor in conflict and violence. I also argued that every epoch of violence produces a new constituency whose experiences and opinions in resolving impasses has been overlooked.
Importantly I revisited the argument that there are a lot of unresolved conflicts stretching as far back as 1893.
The paramountcy of that article was that the conflict we always resolve has a constituency (those who believe in the justifiability of the perpetrators and those who import and inherit victimhood).
The adversity is not only a legacy of conflict, but it is used as a trigger for later clashes. It possibly explains the cyclical violence and conflict we face today.
As I have argued numerous times in this column, violence does not necessarily mean the loss of life or inflicting of pain and forced displacements, it is the deprivation of a decent livelihood, lack of national and self-esteem, absence of household economic and social security, circumstantial displacement and an existing polarity in politics which threatens the very being of investment, possibility of prosperity and generally affects the national mood.
In that character, should any element be in existence, we have to know that the most vulnerable citizens are women and children with youth being agents used as weapons to attack their families and peers.
To further understand why the need for that commission is urgent, I have to prove the uniqueness of youth involvement in conflict. I draw this argument from the positionality of their residency which can better explain why they are most prone to be both perpetrators and victims which will possibly justify the necessity of a unique commission.
While young people are spread across the country wherein those in rural areas have been pointed to be easy actors in political violence yet they are equally the most vulnerable because of lack of security.
This is owed to the distance between the institutions of law enforcement and security and the villages and their limited ability to cover as much area as possible in conflict mitigation. I decide to bring to your attention how the urban space has turned to be the centre of political violence.
Urban areas have been known to be centres of political struggles because education, modernity and impact of policies are first felt by the civic active, the working class and the rate payers who are urban dwellers.
It is the space that has recently been characterised by violence. Urban violence is now becoming more common than in the past, as Zimbabwe’s rate of urbanisation is rapidly growing.
Moving from the tradition Mabvuku, Mbare, Makokoba and Mpopoma as sites of political struggle and strife, one gets to see the emergence of Cowdray Park, Nketa, Glen View and Glen Norah with a predominantly young population being spaces of urban violence whose conflict remains unresolved because young people are left out in the process. Population is increasing dramatically in urban centres, while the economy has been deteriorating thus raising urban unemployment to a very high level. The parents of these young people could be disgruntled and their anger is passed and inherited by the very young people who are militant.
The urban centres, especially Bulawayo and Harare are where politics is conducted and where politicians concentrate.
These two are also where a large number of the volatile university students generally concentrate, where the opposition political parties practice their opposition to the governments, where the media (both local and international) is ever present in search of stories, from where most of the advocacy NGOs and civil society groups operate and where most of the embassies monitor all aspects of a country’s activities.
And it is in the urban centres that differences in wealth are exhibited and sharply contrasted.
Given these conditions and the presence of many of the most politically sensitised actors, it is not surprising that politicians have been seen to mobilise their supporters and organise political activism which often results in conflicts between these supporters who are mostly young.
This has been true in cities such as Nairobi, Lagos, Khartoum and Tripoli across Africa.
In responding to why there is urgency on such a Youth Commission on conflict and peacebuilding I point to you that recent empirical research suggests that youth bulges may be associated with increased risks of political violence and conflict. While young men are undoubtedly the main protagonists of political, as well as criminal, violence, the vast majority of young men do not engage in violent conflict and these are the victims we need to protect by tapping into their thoughts about action in dealing with dissent physically.
In fact, given the right conditions, young people not captured in the Mothlante Commission and whose experiences on 14 February may represent a significant resource that can boost development, a so-called “demographic dividend”.
There are ample opportunities to engage young voices that are poised to be main actors in violence later because they have been made to believe that violence easily registers dissent and captures Government’s attention.
There are, indeed, numerous cases where seemingly intractable conflicts have eventually given way to more peaceful or at least more stable situations.
For instance, many conflicts linked to racial segregation, from the United States to South Africa, have meanwhile been replaced by political orders that promote racial equality, at least at the formal institutional level.
Or look at the situation in Rwanda, after a horrifying experience of violence and terror the situation today is more stable than it has been for a long time, the role of the gacaca in its uniqueness provided utility and the bushingantahe of Burundi also being an example of unique conflict resolution that clamped possible national fallouts.
Zimbabwe needs a unique approach and attention on the silent yet frustrated voices is urgent.
