The Sunday News
Michael Mhlanga
THE experiences of 16 August 2019 once again confirm that our protest culture has become a dangerous way many people engage in the political process. Coupled with genuine concerns of economic hardships the common men faces daily, and political foils to use people’s suffering to squeeze out political moves, the common men continues to suffer more and is a perennial political pawn.
Last week taught me something invaluable. Protests are a beginning, not an end. Real change happens when you roll up your sleeves, square your shoulders, get involved and are determined to make a difference. What people have to understand is that protests have limits. Protest alone is not how real change happens. Anger is not an agenda. Passion without focus is pointless. There comes a time when protesters must put down their signs, lower their voices, and have a seat at the table. That’s when crucial conversations can take place and progress can be made.
A debate ensued before and during the course of 16 August on what the end game of the protest series was outside the 10 issues listed which were said to be the bogs that triggered the protest. The end game is still not given, and those waiting for a signal are only privy to the fact that they should occupy the streets. If they occupy then what? What exactly should happen next? The 10 issues, among them, an escalating and insanely exorbitant cost of living are genuine bread and butter issues that need resolve imminently, but how the issue is brought across either guarantees its address or possibility of it being clouded by unnecessary events such as focusing on violent elements and spending much time resolving blame. Raising pressing issues to the Government is paramount, but the question remains: have all options that do not pose any risk been exhaustively explored?
Sun Tzu’s words can be instructive: “Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” In our passion, we may believe the tactic of protest can alone bring about a victory. But wisdom tells us that these tactics must be combined with a strategic civil dialogue and a willingness to engage in the process.
Actually, adopting the protest route is a register that all other avenues are exhausted and the only one left is of civil disobedience. Subliminal, the act of demonstrating against a Government is aggressive in itself, however, constitutional aggression, that is why it is regulated and closely monitored, to protect the active and inactive participants. Because of its aggressive undertones, it operates on the tip of any interpretation that is always defensive on both ends. The state is defensive in its role as much as the citizenry is defensive in its grievances, but what suffers the most are the genuine grievances that are not amicably and efficiently addressed because they are overtaken by events.
Don’t get me wrong, historically, protests have often inspired positive social change and improved protection of human rights, and they continue to help define and protect civic space in all parts of the world. Normally, they encourage the development of an engaged and informed citizenry and strengthen representative democracy by enabling direct participation in public affairs. I draw this argument from a trend of protests that stretch as far back as 1950s when the monumental bus boycott was a powerful symbol of resistance by Black people who felt marginalised.
I also draw this from the tutorship of Professor Alois Mlambo who aptly documented the 7 August 1973 Chimukwembe University of Rhodesia student’s protests. Importantly, protests have been instrumental in bringing about significant and positive changes in our nation. The protests of the 1950s, 60s and 70s led to the liberation of the black people and the November 2017 marches facilitated the new dispensation. Imagine where we would be without the principled protests of 1970s beginning with the bus boycott in 1957 and Umvukela which was a response to many attempts of failed dialogue.
Arguably, August 16 2019, even as a constitution-permitted action, recent trends such as August 1 2018 and January 14 2019 have “dismissed” protests in Zimbabwe as violent, even when least expected. In that lieu, the provisions of section 50 of the Zimbabwe Constitution which permits peaceful demonstrations is found easily disqualified because most of the times, the demonstrations are unpredictable, militant and mobile, meaning they have no centre of drive, they suddenly become sporadic because those who call for them randomly distance themselves raising fear not only for the Government as a regulator, but for every other citizen. Ungoverned protests are hazardous and they have become common in Zimbabwe.
Be that as it may, demonstrations as a freedom of expression enable individuals and groups to express dissent and grievances, to share views and opinions, to expose flaws in governance and to publicly demand that the authorities and other powerful entities rectify problems and are accountable for their actions. Protests play an important part in the civil, political, economic, social and cultural life of all societies. Essentially, the freedom of expression, association, assembly and public participation is central to any developing state whose envisages are to graduate to a better class. The correlation between political culture enveloping human rights positionality and economic development is indubitable, and it is a deciding point of every developmental state such as Zimbabwe.
The sustenance of the two is only a product of a sane social contract that is dual. The Government has a paramount task of regulating both the political and economic environment that ensures confidence in its citizenry, yet equally, the citizens have a moral obligation to the social contract of exercising their rights responsibly.
This entails the knowledge that the right to protest involves the exercise of numerous fundamental human rights, and is essential for securing all human rights. While important in all societies, few protests are completely free of risk of harm to others. Hence, international standards allow for restrictions on many of the human rights engaged in protests; however, these are allowed only under limited and narrowly defined circumstances.
If you choose to participate in a protest, remember that it is not the end. It’s a start. A lasting and stable Zimbabwe can’t be born without that crucial shift. Change started in the protests of November 2017, but we must move on to the principles of rebuilding what has been broken for almost four decades. Joining the round table for dialogue is the best foot forward for the country.
