The Sunday News
Michael Mhlanga
‘LANGALEZO’,’ the conventional Ndebele condolence greeting was far from being imagined that it would be made in referral to the doyen of African politics. ‘‘Langalezo’,’ a sombre-loaded and commonly teary contextual word in an assembly of mourners, this time, ‘‘langalezo’’ the melancholic innuendo accompanying a hearse should reflect on the entire life of “uMgabe’’ as my granny always called the former President of Zimbabwe Robert Gabriel Mugabe. Every aspect of his life is a lesson to Zimbabwe, wrought and shapes history of individuals, institutions and the State of Zimbabwe.
I write this piece reflecting on his adventurous illustration of what politics is. Agree or disagree with him, like it or not, even to his ascension to power, Robert Mugabe frolicked his part in this world, he left his mark and evidence is sprayed all over. Importantly, I want to remember him for his consistency in his politics and treating politics for what it is — paramountcy of realism embedded in one man. His life in politics is an important lesson to understanding power in all organisational facets.
I resurrect an article I penned in July 2018 which asks: What is it about politics we don’t understand? Before I do that, here is a hexastich by the legendary Forbes T K Karimakwenda titled “If we must die”. It reads:
“If we must die”
We must not die
Like dogs
Or martyrs
Or for that matter
Alone.
Cde Mugabe lives as a testimony that adheres Forbes’ advice, he did not die “Alone”. Now to the political lesson drawn from Mugabe’s life. Not to exonerate him from his humanness, he remains a giant of politics both regionally and globally, and I stand to speak of his theorising of politics, alone. In the simplest yet fundamental explanation of politics, politics is who gets what, when, why, and how and even where. From his life, an important lesson is that politics is made with the head, but it is certainly not made with the head alone. In this, politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards. It takes both passion and perspective. Certainly all historical experience confirms the truth that man would not have attained the possible unless time and again he had reached out for the impossible.
A lot can be elaborated upon on Cde Mugabe’s life, among it is that he was a leader and hero of and in his politics. In July 2018 I wrote that: But to do that, a man must be a leader, and not only a leader but a hero as well, in a very sober sense of the word. And even those who are neither leaders nor heroes must arm themselves with that steadfastness of heart which can brave even the crumbling of all hopes. This is necessary right now, or else Zimbabweans will not be able to attain even that which is possible today. Only he who has the calling for politics is sure that he shall not crumble when the world from his point of view is too stupid or too base for what he wants to offer.
In an almost similar article, published in 2016, I argued that politics is a vocation where I underpinned my submission on Max Weber’s position on politics in the industrialisation of Europe. Weber’s understanding on that subject is greatly influenced by Aristotle who talks of the philosopher King (well, that’s a subject for another day). In submitting that, I reflect that Cde Mugabe, who did not die “Alone” as Forbes Karimakwenda advised, had a vocation to politics. To learn more about his life over the years, I have indulged his speeches, articles and interviews compilation by Cde Mugabe himself — “Our war of liberation” where his eloquence is louder even in printed words, confirming his vocation to politics. Politics, just as economic pursuits, may be a man’s avocation or his vocation. Cde Mugabe engaged in politics and sought to influence the distribution of power within and between political structures as a brokering politician, sustained and revered by occasional politicians.
In July 2018 I argued that we are all “occasional” politicians when we cast our ballot or consummate a similar expression of intention, such as applauding or protesting in a “political” meeting, or delivering a “political” speech, etc. The whole relation of many people to politics is restricted to this and every person’s role in domestic politics was shaped by Cde Mugabe’s theorisation of politics. From his life we learn that politics as a vocation is today practised by all those party agents and heads of voluntary political associations who, as a rule, are politically active only in case of need and for whom politics is, neither materially nor ideally, “their life” in the first place. The same holds for those members of state counsels and similar deliberative bodies that function only when summoned.
Like I argued in 2018, his life confirms that there are two ways of making politics one’s vocation: Either one lives “for” politics or one lives “off” politics. By no means is this contrast an exclusive one. The rule is, rather, that man does both, at least in thought, and certainly he also does both in practice. He who lives “for” politics makes politics his life, in an internal sense which is what the Nationalist depicted in the past years since our liberation. Either he enjoyed the naked possession of the power he exerted, or he nourished his inner balance and self-feeling by the consciousness that his life has meaning in the service of a “cause”.
In this internal sense, every sincere man who lives for a cause also lives off this cause. The distinction hence refers to a much more substantial aspect of the matter, namely, to the economic. He who strives to make politics a permanent source of income lives “off” politics as a vocation, whereas he who does not do this lives “for” politics, Robert Mugabe theorised his politics wisely. The foundational lesson is that politics is made with the head, not with the other parts of body. The most effective politician is one who can excite the emotions of the people who follow a leader with a balanced head- his life is packed with political mastery, and he ascends with that.
“If we must die” . . . let us not die alone.
