

What is wrong with Zimbabwe?
Decades have gone by, philosophies and counter philosophies thrown to the fore and yet still the gears have been failing to engage. Probably the nation awaits a miracle to solve the Zimbabwean crisis, or maybe the power sharing government is that miracle itself!
Events building up to the formation of the power sharing government brought about mixed responses from both within and outside our national frontier. The understanding of such a mixed wave is found in the fact that if you fix Zimbabwe, through the going concern you equally address the auxiliary problems of the region as well.
Zimbabwe is seated on a vast fertile land, and was once known as the food security chief of the Southern Africa Development community, but today its people live in abject poverty as its wealth has over the ages been plundered by an assortment of warlords within a defined party who unleashed a holocaust upon those who chose to stand against them.
If you break Zimbabwe, you literally decapitate the region and if you so wish to mend it, definitely you start sorting out the exported problems in the region. The perennial problem has been that the process of sorting the dormant giant has been locked from both inside and outside. We became land lock polity with inhabitants crying for help and the region watching through the translucent frontiers with ‘cushion’ not to interfere a sovereign troubled republic.
Gradually, the fatigue of intellectuals and the ‘educated’ as in the words of Frantz Fanon in his book The Pitfalls of National Consciousness took sedge of the movement, developing a lethargy when and however clarity of though and position was required, “It so happened that the unpreparedness of educated classes, the lack of practical links between them and the masses of people, the laziness and let it be said, their cowardice at decisive moments of the struggle gave rise to tragic mishaps…”
Maybe I am asking for too much, but what I see in present day Zimbabwe is a dry spell of the intellectual tradition which defines the range and comprehensive work of conceptual analysis. In essence, intellectual work is confused with academic scholarships. The Irish Times of February 2007, made a clear distinction between the two, “… intellectuals seek to occupy a more public sphere as journalists, political commentators and opinion spheres. Academics are usually conservative or middle of the road, while intellectuals tend to be politically dissident. Since they have less investment in power than politicians and entrepreneurs, they can occasionally speak the truth to it.”
As such I do not have any investment in power neither do I qualify myself as an academic; this gives me the elective right to pen the truth. It should be equally articulated that the intellectual’s role requires asking embarrassing questions.
Where are the intellectuals of this struggle, both within the civics and the generality of the sphere we are coming from? It is not the duty of the civics to blindly support a power establishment. If there are still intellectuals left in the civics then we need to start raising questions pertaining the new government. Through out my engagement with members of the civics, who are making it a point to agree with all the developments at the labour movement, when are they going to start differentiating between hook, line and sinker?
This is why, for the political gladiators to a swell time ‘negotiating’ on the precarious power sharing deal which later went on to retain the contentious areas of the same. Shockingly, Zanu PF went on to smuggle extra-ghost ministers on the day of swearing in, and the intellectuals failed to come up with a coordinated response. I m not writing of scholarships within both the civic organizations or the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) because they are many of such creed, I m writing of intellectuals who took us on a sailing journey for more than six months after the signing of the inter-party agreement on the 15th of September 2008 telling us they are finalizing the grey areas.
In a nutshell we lost half a year of productive time arguing for the formation of a balanced centre, a centre that has the capacity and drive to address the deeply trenched economic social and political questions which would muscle out more than five million people out of the mucky waters of starvation and hunger. A centre which will manage to flank the warlords within the government to start serving national interest as opposed to selfish and narrow interests which drives on the edges of corruption and nepotism.
The expectations of such a centre are spilling off the containment of the available capacities. This is with the promises of transforming a government’s system on the day of the swearing in of the prime minister, that in two weeks time civil servants would start earning their salaries in foreign currency in two weeks time in absolutist language, political prisoners’ release immediately (by the time of going to press they were still incarcerated) and the appointment of people without any tried and tested competences at this defining time would definitely weaken the much relied upon centre.
It is a much appreciated fact which I equally prescribe to that Zimbabwe needed a transitional regime that would rescue her sons and daughters from the man made forlorn which saw many house holds loosing their beloved one being exposed to the polemic of cholera, HIV and AIDS among other diseases helplessly.
Across the board there is unquestionable consensus that the newly found marriage should be transitional in outlook but is the transition going to be a click of the baton away. The GPA outlines if the marriage fails the aggrieved party or parties will walk out. Perennial wisdom has equally thought us that marriages are not broken as easily as that. It is from such a background that I posed a question that what is wrong with an animal called Zimbabwe?
How can the whole country prescribe to a position whereby names of people are written in black and white in a constitution that so and so shall become a president and prime minister respectively? Constitutions in their nature should be above the politics of personalities. So if one party is to move out, there is a need to amend the constitution first. What is the other partner is not willing to sign the divorce papers?
So in joining the newly found marriage, the prime minister is cognizant of the fact that the other partner has a promiscuous background. He has joined a vampire state which needs transformation from receiving almost 90% of its revenue through a 50% scheme by taking the last cent from every starving citizen. The slippery trading ground is keeping an eye over elitist cultural clique turning into a multi-cultural aristocracy. The questions will not only target the promiscuous partner but the aristocrat marriage if it is going to emerge.
The Pandora’s Box opened at the swearing ceremony of ministers at the statehouse speaks of volumes and hectorages of miles between the people who are suppose to the center of socio-political and economic activities of the country. As insane as it is to conceptualize what was President Mugabe’s line of thinking when he attempted to smuggle an addition half a dozen ministers into cabinet, Mugabe and his clique strongly believed that they were inline with their plan. The spectre of this line of thinking that ZANU PF should be the one with the final word on national events is an anathema to the much needed unity of purpose. How then are these people going to work together when they spend more than six (6) hours on a party which wanted to rig in ministers? Will there be that clarity of purpose?
On the day of the swearing in of ministers, if the parties are working in good faith, why then do the other party arrests a deputy prime minister designate, Roy Bennet who is now being charged of masterminding and organizing terrorist expeditions? These are some of the questions which need to be answered if the is going to be progression within our body polity.
The other threat to the emerging centre is the rumbling of disgruntlement of the party saving loyalists from both ZANU PF and MDC. Some are raising genuine concerns whilst some are militia groups failing to disband. If this voices of dissent including those who were dropped in the last minute at the statehouse grounds are to continue with the grumblings there is a danger of ‘insurgency’ within the party structure as they seek to undermine the work being coined at the centre.
On the same token, the marriage has been a move to stop barbarians and war lords from continuing with the excesses in the name of abductions, killings and abductions of two year olds under the guise that they are being trained to ouster the regime. Hence the agreement is partly paying for the establishment of peace, but for peace to prevail, you need to keep the warlords and militias happy, hence all the warlords, militias who were fueling polity tension will only see merit in the settlement if there is no pay off between what they were earning before the new structure. They still need the red passport to access their multiple entries to the Chiyadzwa diamond treasury or through lucrative salaries. If that equilibrium is not met then, it’s not an enforceable agreement the clock will be ticking in the wrong direction.
In a nutshell the centre’s plate tectonics will always be shifting and widening the fissures in the centre, that’s why this government can only be transitional.
The new culture required from all the parties evolved is to make sure that the understand the fact that yesterday’s dogmas are no longer adequate for pointing out to the much needed solutions of today’s complex problems. This is despite the fact that the other party, ZANU PF is found and font of such dogma as seen in the retention of the old guard such as Mutasa Didymus, Mnangagwa Emmerson among others. What new philosophies will these recycled comrades bring to the fore? Old certainties do not apply, they are obsolete.
Some nations have moved away from the cold war polarization and Zimbabwe too deserves such. This era was driven by the battle of extremes. It was either you are extreme right or extreme left. Humanity has remained stubborn as it trades in between and those nations and individuals stuck in the extremes will end up preaching rhetoric or face the ruthless of the extreme right which saw the global crunch hitting them from underneath their noses. Reality should force all of use to review the old orthodoxies. It’s no longer the time nor the place to elevate rhetoric and misplaced ideology but to come up with models and prescriptions on our way to recovery.
All the same, I place my belief that if the politicians in the newly found government are to subordinate their personal and frequently narrow interests to those of the nation the country will start building from the negative to reach the zero point so that we can start forward marshalling again. After all, nations are built on crises such as the unfolding ones. If there is a creation such as Zimbabwe, it should seek collective enterprise from every collective synergies.
Our task as critical thinker, writing from a bird’s eye view the politicians who are now running the affairs of the state should be taken to task and ensure that they put a system that can handle elections and transition. This is only possible is all of us are included in the process of writing our own constitution which decentralizes the power to participate in political processes and return government ownership to the people of Zimbabwe. Once that is done I will rest my question. But for now, what is wrong with this animal called Zimbabwe?
Tabani Moyo is a journalists based in Gokwe. He can be contacted on rebeljournalist@yahoo.com or moyojz@gmail.com The article was firstly published in the most read journal in Zimbabwe Thinking Beyond.

