The Sunday News
Micheal Mhlanga
Recent weeks have been laden with a glut of interests. Zambia embarrassed the West, when it was confident that their lapdogs would win. Some Zimbabweans were heartbroken when their darling of the moment escalated his world tour to Atlanta and Washington DC enroute South Africa. The “sweetheart” confirmed my first article that he indeed is “The Devil on the Cross”.
He told his “lovers” that they are “haters”, Hebanna! William a.k.a Acie deprecated Joyce and Morgan while Tsvangirai and Mujuru got betrothed, politically of course. I simply could not assimilate the fruition of my political prophesies that heaped in just one week.
For all those who are civically heartbroken that #Thisflag dejected them and proved that I was veracious, I say to you, it’s not too late to swot your political choices, I am your civil Jeremiah, I will oracle the doom, but I assure you deliverance. So far so good, as Professor Jonathan Moyo hash tagged, I am still correct. Richard Mahomva told you about Evan, Professor Jonathan Moyo did too, I bequeathed you a double dish, Evan and Acie, and here I am, reminding you that Evan is an entrepreneur, he is in business, Acie was bitter, he will cool down for sure, he now is desperate, let’s wait for his turn when he thwarts his young disciples. Perhaps my people need political tutelage lest you seem like a vocal thought humdrum.
This lecture, which I give at your involuntary request, will necessarily disappoint you in a number of ways. You will naturally expect me to take a position on actual problems of the day. But that will be the case only in a purely formal way and toward the end, when I shall raise certain questions concerning the significance of political action in the whole way of life. In today’s article, all questions that refer to what policy and what content one should give one’s political activity must be eliminated. For such questions have nothing to do with the general question of what politics as a vocation means and what it can mean.
Now to our subject matter. What do we understand by politics as a vocation? Politics, just as economic pursuits, may be a man’s avocation or his vocation. One may engage in politics, and hence seek to influence the distribution of power within and between political structures, as an “occasional” politician, for instance Evan Mawarire. 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. Politics as an avocation 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.
Surely, politics is made with the head, but it is certainly not made with the head alone. In this the proponents of an ethic of ultimate ends are right. One cannot prescribe to anyone whether he should follow an ethic of absolute ends or an ethic of responsibility, or when the one and when the other. 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.
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.
Only he who in the face of all this can say “In spite of all!” has the calling for politics. It is such comprehension that is wanting in most of my people today. You failed to asses Evan when he ensnared you to subscribe to his YouTube channel; you muddled politics of religion with the role of religion in politics. It is such schizophrenia that crushed your civil optimisms to pulp. Next time remember what I said.
Let me confirm to you how the social movements are in business and the populace is the market commodity. 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 most nationalists depicted in the past years since our liberation. Either he enjoys the naked possession of the power he exerts, or he nourishes 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.
Under the dominance of the private property order, some, if you wish, very trivial preconditions must exist in order for a person to be able to live “for” politics in this economic sense. Under normal conditions, the politician must be economically independent of the income politics can bring him. This means, quite simply, that the politician must be wealthy or must have a personal position in life which yields a sufficient income.
However, a new wave of entrepreneurship has emerged, new ideologically starved imbeciles rob the masses of their hard acquired reasoning, making them believe that permanently failing models are miraculously changed only to realise that politics is a way of life, that those who are not called to it, do not survive, they serve a temporary mood and disappoint followers. It’s a trend in opposition politics. They selectively or perhaps are ignorant that it’s a matter of devotion and calling, just like priesthood.
You don’t’ know what you don’t know
Every evil belongs to Zanu-PF — is the avowal on every opposition politician’s lips. It is absurd how every opposition failure has been attached to Zanu-PF interference. When they fail to make credible decisions as a party, they blame Zanu-PF, when they succumb to competition pressure they blame Zanu-PF when their leaders misguide them they blame Zanu-PF, every failure is alleged to be Zanu-PF machinations. I think its high time opposition joins Zanu-PF once and for all because there is no essence in competing in a plateau where you already assume that your competitor will out-do you.
The problem is we use stomachs to think than our brains. When you are hungry you cease to rationally think, all you think about is how to satisfy that grumbling stomach and not use your head to make decisions that will feed you, your family and generations to come. Whenever a new political phenomenon emerges, people throng with allegiance, assuming its redemption for them, but redemption from what, is my question. My people do not take time to evaluate their redeemer who in every case fails and they turn to blame Zanu-PF for mechanising that failure.
I then wonder why one would continuously not join Zanu-PF, if it is that good at thwarting opposition.
The height of naivety is when your party fails and you create conspiracies of how Zanu-PF has a hand in it; 1) assuming that its true; you are confirming that Zanu-PF is that good in competitive terrain that your party was out-done again; 2) because it’s a lie, the fact that you think that Zanu-PF is capable of doing it confirms that you consent that they are good at doing it, either way you consent that Zanu-PF is a political headlock against its competitors.
When you think of it being able to do what you allege, you do not deny the weakling of opposition, the fact that you thought of it is consent enough. Bvuma! Zanu-PF is that good!.
I do not recall Zanu-PF approaching Tsvangirayi to marry the daughter of one of their Politburo adherent; neither did they genetically transfer his spring of infidelity stubbornness.
His 2005 refusal to be democratic to the point of Welshman Ncube and Gibson Sibanda walking out or Tsvangirayi walking out (The Jonah syndrome-kukhona owaginywayo),is a result of bad leadership decision made by the electorate.
It is at this point that you hear pedestrians and even esteemed political “mavericks” blaming Zanu-PF for planting its people to disengineer opposition politics. Well, since opposition participates in a multiparty democracy where the political space is competitive, they should admit that they have been outdone. Again!
My gist is not to campaign for anyone, but to enlighten my fellow comrades that opposition politics, whether we call it a social movement should refrain from its political hypocrisy and bigotry.
When you adopt democratic culturalism, do not forget that it’s a competition and stop assuming that people cannot think on their own without being paid. Because you are paid, it doesn’t mean we are also paid to think this way.
#borrowedmindsetsmustfall.
Last but not least, let us not fool ourselves that Patriotic parties have lost support. Politics does not happen on Facebook and in chat groups.
Deep in the heart of Muzarabani, Madabe, Siansundu, the electorate does not subscribe to YouTube channels. This is where people are. This is where real politics happens.
If your hallucinations tell you that Patriotic parties have failed people, then visit Zambia and ask them who is ruling today, Go to Tanzania and ask them what Chama Cha Mapinduzi is, infact do not go far, ask Namibians if SWAPO is not politically rich.
Politics is made with the head, not with the other parts of body, nor the soul.
The most effective politician is one who can excite the emotions of the people who follow, while governing strictly with a cold hard reason the head.
I am tired of sentimental quandaries by day dreamers. Let us wait for 2018. #2018willtell
Micheal Mhlanga is a research and strategic communication specialist and is currently serving Leaders for Africa Network (LAN) as the Programmes and Public Liaison Officer. He also administrates multiple youth public dialogue forums in Zimbabwe including the annual Reading Pan Africanism Symposium (REPS) and Back to Pan Africanism Conference. Feedback can be sent to [email protected]
