MDC-T threatens culture of pluralism

22 Apr, 2018 - 00:04 0 Views

The Sunday Mail

Richard
Runyararo Mahomva
Mama Winnie Nomzamo Madikizela-Mandela – an epitome of African nationalist motherhood and certainly a deity in the nationalist discursive framing – is worth celebrating.

In his farewell to her, Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) leader Julius Malema threw a supplication for signs/signals for Azania to confront the dilemmas and hypocrisies of incongruent and intermingling realisms of national belonging in South Africa.

Malema recollected Mama Winnie’s rejection and how those who sold her out to the apartheid regime where present at her funeral, mourning louder than the genuinely bereaved.

Likewise, when Zimbabwe celebrated her 38th Independence Day, even those whose role has been to invite agony through sanctions were present at the National Sports Stadium.

As Nelson Chamisa entered, he got his fair share of applause.

Of course, it was nothing compared to the jubilation that greeted Vice-President Constantino Chiwenga’s entry into the stadium, not to mention double-fold harmonic ovation which escorted President Emmerson Mnangagwa to the podium where he performed the rites of this great day.

Through selective social media reportage from timelines known as being mini-broadcasts of polarity, Nelson Chamisa was awarded ownership of a crowd he did not invite.

This evidently points to the depth of pettiness – if not subluminal narcissism – in the psyche of partisan appropriation of opportunities and platforms to unite Zimbabweans beyond the chasms of difference we have nurtured over the years.

The fact that Chamisa’s presence at the national Independence Day celebrations is hyped with falsehoods of his gigantic applause than any other leader betrays the opposition-inclined activists’ fallacy that past national events were a monopoly of the ruling zanu-pf.

However, it is even further revealing that accusations of partisan patronage linked to zanu-pf in the convening of national events were a reality to those who assumed the propensity of the absurd.

To those amused by misdirected populism, events such as the Independence Day – particularly this year’s celebrations – were characterised by pluralism which has been mistakenly captured as a cavalcade platform to demonstrate “who has got more fame than the other?”.

Of course, the agenda is to falsely propagate insinuations that an aspiring opposition presidential aspirant has a bigger following than the incumbent.

However, the 2018 question will not be resolved by such petty play at the nose of a party in power.

In its defined and mature approach, zanu-pf won’t give attention to such.

Tipabate ipapo!

While it is crucial to engage in dialogue, anti-zanu-pf cyber marshals must avoid preoccupation with magnifying the trivial.

I deliberately raised this matter to expose our divided claims to national belonging every time we permit our split patriotic consciousness to supersede the common national good.

It is these different interests and deferred commitments to the national project which partially motivate Professor Sabelo Ndlovu-Gatsheni’s enquiry “Do Zimbabweans Exist?”.

Wednesday’s celebrations made it clear to me that Zimbabweans do exist and that our nationalism is far-reaching and permanent.

This is against a milieu of dichotomous and contrasting realities to national belonging which accelerated an expedite revamp of our politics. As a result, Zimbabwe is heading towards an open sphere of political association.

This change has not been exclusively embraced – in fact, opposition activists are completely sabotaging this unfolding political trajectory as it is paving way for tolerance, inclusion and enhanced civil participation.

This antagonism to national good is at the behest of this superficial left’s comforts underpinned in Zimbabwe’s erstwhile highly polarised and conflict-charged politics.

The hostility of our political environment justified NGOs’ continued donor income.

Therefore, a systematic dormancy of the State in its iron-fisted habits of the old era means that there is no need for the old time funded advocacy.

That past is gone and of course the broad plan of externally assisted regime change dramatically failed in the past years.

Such changes in the domestic policy imply less need for Western democracy funding as was the case in the past.

Government’s commitment towards democratisation irks the civil society’s profit-making interest that was sustained through massive misrepresentation of Zimbabwe as a crisis-laden State.

Now the election is upon us and its outcome will shape the fortunes of the country’s future.

As our political parties enter into their respective campaign modes, their messaging must not be characterised by pettiness – as is the case; particularly from politicians who exaggerate their popularity before the elections endorse the credentials they claim to have.

Key focus should be on bringing more citizens to any winning side by any positive means necessary.

This is why State media have been giving fair coverage to activities of all political parties.

However, Government’s effort to liberate the airwaves has suffered the opposition’s goodwill to reciprocate the courtesy.

The disparaging of zanu-pf in some social media platforms reflects the extent to which the envisaged culture of pluralism is under sabotage.

Only recently, there were irrational cyber rants about the imported fleet designated for zanu-pf’s election campaign.

This on-going debate is widely characterised by criminalisation of zanu-pf’s decency to assert its footing in the coming election.

zanu-pf’s right to consolidate its power is being demonised on many online platforms.

These critics definitely miss the fact that it is not a zanu-pf problem that other political parties are not in any capacity to have equal competitive campaign machinery.

Therefore, zanu-pf must not be deterred from acquiring more campaign missiles, fearing the usual blackmail on the need for the party to fund Government business.

zanu-pf cannot stop financing its programmes simply because this and that hospital has no medication.

zanu-pf is an independent political party which is in Government.

Therefore, Government business must be stomached by its various ministries, departments and parastatals.

If zanu-pf membership subscriptions and well-wishers can afford the party an extravagant campaign, is that a problem?

No other party is barred from doing the same and those parties and leaders who claim to be genuinely concerned about welfare and interests of the public are allowed to divert their campaign funds to mitigate Government’s financial gaps.

I am sure such handouts from the opposition to Government will be most welcome. If that is not possible, then zanu-pf must be given room to campaign like any other party than to be unnecessarily held at ransom.

All political parties must exceptionally flourish in the uniqueness of their dissent; at the same time their participation in national business must be founded on sincerity to their respective values.

Consequently, our political parties must not be fundamentally preoccupied with seeking short-lasting fame and unnecessary demonisation of one another.

A civil approach to confronting difference may enrich the anticipated sobriety of our current political environment.

Iwe neni tinebasa.

Share This:

Survey


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

This will close in 20 seconds