Security and Democracy in a transforming Zimbabwe

22 Sep, 2019 - 00:09 0 Views
Security and Democracy in a transforming Zimbabwe Dr Magombeyi

The Sunday News

Micheal Mhlanga

IN TIMES where Zimbabwe is battling with the debacle of peace and security, strong security institutions are paramount to ensure a balance in constitutional exercises. After the past week’s demonstration by health professionals in Zimbabwe in protest for the disappearance or alleged abduction of Dr Peter Gabriel Magombeyi, one would not help but see that the protest by doctors was peaceful. With that backdrop, it is important to reflect on the demographic character of the protesting citizen who appears to be different with every protest and the role of the security institutions that should be instrumental in ensuring public safety by thoroughly and impartially investigating what transpired to Dr Magombeyi. 

Further to that, institutions of security should actively conscientise the public on lawful actions of announcing disquiet. As experienced in the past week, this avoids unnecessary casualties where those who are not part of destructive mobiles are the casualties of such a right exercised irresponsibly, as I argued in an article in January on why Zimbabwe needs strong institutions. I draw the analysis from academics, past-immediate history and their interface with real-politick. 

With a lot of speculation and conspiracies surrounding what happened and what will happen to the young acting leader of the Hospital Doctors Association, it stands prudent that it should be the role of security institutions to efficiently draw an informed conclusion on abductions in the country and to conscientise the public in their right to register dissent responsibly as much as it should be their role to curb any criminal activity during demonstrations. 

Today, with a population whose social, economic and political consciousness is enabled by extensive education, media and interaction exposure, quarters of difference are multiple hence you will not find normally “binary-homogenous” groups dissenting. The level of consciousness has bred conscientiousness that has created strata that do not agree with those dissenting or those supporting; it is those groups, together with those agreeing with the status quo who should be protected by strong security institutions. Equally, those intending to exercise their right to demonstrate, should be protected by the same security institutions. Perhaps it is time we establish dialogue on security, protection and limitations of civil rights in a modern society, methods of security reaction in highly emotive times.   

The demonstration by health professionals is arguably a monumental one whose subject focused on pushing for protection of one of theirs. The behaviour of the health professionals in the demonstrations registers them as a unique strata in protest history in Zimbabwe. What John Lunn, a notable historian, describes as “a watershed decade in the evolution of African labour” was marked by 20 October 1945, recorded to be the first major protest by railway workers, who for nine days, staged a protest that spilt to Broken Hill in Northern Rhodesia and involved approximately 10 000 workers. This historical strike only ended when Government promised to set up a commission of inquiry to investigate workers’ grievances and related matters such as rising inflation and stagnant wages that were eroding the workers’ living standards as well as poor and overcrowded accommodation. On that occasion, 74 years ago, private property was not destroyed, protesters were not coerced, general citizens did not feel unsafe at the hands of the protesters, at least there is no such record. What makes 1945 favourable and probably a point in history to ponder on is what it yielded thereafter, a significant change in law and well-being of the worker to the extent of expanding the advocacy net in 1948. 

However, had the demand for the return for Dr Magombeya been hijacked by non-health professionals, it would have turned hazardous. Reflecting on 1956, led by the City Youth league that had the brains of young activists namely George Nyandoro, James Chikerema, Edson Sithole and Duduza Chisiza, the Bus Boycott was successfully staged. The youths used the increase in bus fares as a microcosm agent of registering dissent against an organism of structural violence meted on Africans in Rhodesia. It is reported that this well organised boycott, which encompassed most of Harare’s townships, became violent. Reading through various analyses of that “shutdown” in 1956, some historians such as Scholar Alois S Mlambo, writing in 2008 argue that it is more likely that unruly elements took advantage of the boycott to pursue their own ends to the possible embarrassment of the leadership; there is no evidence that City Youth league leaders sanctioned violence, especially sexual violence. It is with no doubt that the 1956 bus boycott after incidence happened because the colonial security focused on how to thwart African dissent instead of balancing between protecting property, citizens and allowing citizens to register their discontent. Of course, back then, democracy was a reserve for a few racially privileged, but lessons should be drawn from then.

In 1956, even with the existence of repressive colonial laws, strides had been made to dismantle the Industrial Conciliation Act of 1932 which excluded Africans from the definition of worker and thus prevented them from forming trade unions and engaging in collective bargaining. It would be suffice to compare 1945 strike to the 1956 and the succeeding ones. In 1945, the Rhodesian government denied the poor from protesting, but none to minimal casualties are recorded.  

Protests should be genuine, not politically engineered. Protests should be peaceful to avoid expansive conflicts. Discontent in a transforming state such as Zimbabwe should be exercised within the dictates of the law and all this should be insured and ensured by strong security institutions. In 1956 it was women, in 1996 and 2016 it was the economy that became casualties of protests. In 2019, January, indiscriminately, private property, officers of the law, shops that serve the lower class, police stations meant to protect the lower class, public transport for the lower class and even non-affiliate and silent men were victims of active protesters. After what obtained last week, I would want to emphasise the need for establishing strong security institutions that allow citizens to exercise their right to demonstration as enshrined by the constitution but equally protect private and public property as well as the safety of those who want to exercise their freedom not to be part of anything.

Share This:

Survey


We value your opinion! Take a moment to complete our survey

This will close in 20 seconds