ZHUWAO BRIEF: Cyber superheroes of an imagined revolution

01 Feb, 2015 - 00:02 0 Views

The Sunday Mail

It is surely not correct to suggest that there has been no generation of new knowledge in Zimbabwe since 2002.

This week’s instalment concludes a two-part serving on cyber superheroes of an imagined revolution.

Professor Ken Mufuka has challenged the Zhuwao Brief whilst Kerina Mujati has implored Cde Patrick Zhuwao to tell the President the truth; as if Zhuwao tells the President anything, let alone whether it’s true or not.

These submissions are nonsensical attention-seeking stunts that add no value to the developmental aspirations of Zimbabweans.

It’s vitally important that charlatans like Mujati be responded to.

It is improper to denigrate and insult President Mugabe on issues that do not have anything to do with him.

Mujati cannot use the picture of Beauty Zhuwao standing in front of the Dubai Mall Aquarium and Underwater Zoo as a basis for insulting the President.

It was so surprising to see some people who claim to support the President liking Mujati’s post as she unjustifiably attacked our leader.

Mufuka fails dismally to submit challenges to the three conceptual issues of factionalism, economic development, and tribalism that have been the main threads of the Zhuwao Brief.

The Zhuwao Brief advocates smashing tribal myths to underpin national unity through the concept of Hunhu/Ubuntu. Instead of submitting valid arguments on the issues of tribalism, Mufuka resorts to hurling insults at Zhuwao, describing him as an “enterprising intellectual prostitute”.

What does Mufuka advocate for except to be petty and personal?

Mujati’s attack

Mujati lambasted President Mugabe for the absence of an aquarium and underwater zoo in Zimbabwe after she saw a picture of Mrs Beauty Zhuwao posted on Patrick Zhuwao’s Facebook wall.

It is just not reasonable for Mujati to expect that President Mugabe establishes an aquarium in Zimbabwe.

The idea is nonsensical particularly if one considers Zimbabwe’s magnificent world class record in wildlife management.

The Zhuwao Brief posited that an awareness of the wonders of Zimbabwe was the foundational basis on which we can be able to further develop our country.

It is necessary that Mujati re-engages with some of the wonders that are replete in Zimbabwe so as to re-imagine the Dubai Mall Aquarium and Underwater Zoo within the context of, say, the Mukuvise Woodlands or Ngamo Forest Safaris.

The Zhuwao Brief sought to understand what appeared to be manifesting itself in Mujati as Afro-pessimism by interrogating Benedict Anderson’s concept of imagined communities and identities.

The major questions revolved around understanding why some amongst us are blind to our achievements and opportunities, and what stops some from being proud of whom we are.

One commentator suggested that frustration with the level of development in Zimbabwe was accentuated by the facilities that some of our compatriots encountered abroad.

They understandably wish to see such levels of development in Zimbabwe.

As a consequence, some people resort to complaining in a manner that is derisive and abusive.

That is unhelpful and unproductive. We need to offer solutions, not insults.

This was the case with Mujati who accused President Mugabe of being disorganised as she described him as “your miserable uncle Bob who has turned Zimbabwe into a village”.

Mujati went on to say “just get it your uncle is an incompetent man who is holding on yet the nation is suffering”.

Mujati complains in her response that what the Zhuwao Brief said about her was personal and unflattering.

Her description of President Mugabe is not only personal and unflattering but also offensive, insulting and ungrateful for a person who benefited from the education policies of President Mugabe.

Mujati chooses to totally ignore that she initiated an abusive dialogue about President Mugabe.

She posted on her wall an “assurance” that she was “very sound and safe” in some attempt to foist a self-imagined cyber superhero status.

Mujati wants to present herself as a victim when she is the aggressor.

She also claims she “took her time and energy to campaign for the very same man who has a nephew who had the guts to try and police the social media”.

It is utter nonsense and rubbish to accuse anyone of trying to police the social media for merely posting and responding to posts on their very own Facebook wall.

Zhuwao never went looking for Mujati. She called Zhuwao an “illegitimate bastard” thus casting aspersions on his late mother, a national heroine. She insulted, abused and offended President Mugabe and late national heroine Cde Sabina Mugabe.

Why?

Because Patrick Zhuwao posted a picture of his wife standing in front of the Dubai Mall Aquarium and Underwater Zoo. What is wrong with Patrick and Beauty Zhuwao going on holiday? Ndizvo zvingape munhu mukana wekutuka amai vemumwe?

These posts are indicative of a deep-seated disgruntlement and hatred for President Mugabe.

Whilst Mujati may attempt to hoodwink people into believing she supports President Mugabe, she is part of the Ubhudhi Du contingent that sought regime change from within Zanu-PF.

Her Sunday Mail article is a smokescreen. Mujati is nothing more than a glorified poster girl for regime change.

Bob’s my uncle

Mujati’s posts refer to President Mugabe as an uncle of Zhuwao.

This is a deliberate attempt to navigate away from an acceptance of the position of Cde Mugabe as the President of the Republic of Zimbabwe as elected by an overwhelming majority of 62 percent.

Yet the irony of such vain attempts at denial is that, in the same breath, Mujati requires Cde Mugabe to deliver what she expects of the President and Head of State and Government.

This narrative is indicative of a misplaced subconscious notion that Zhuwao should be lambasted for being the President’s nephew.

If you believe that Zhuwao should be lambasted for being President Mugabe’s nephew, then the same principle should allow you to agree and accept that he should get extra favours and attention by the same token!

Can you honestly say to yourself that you stand on principle if you select to blast Zhuwao as President Mugabe’s nephew and do not agree that he should receive favours from the same?

This narrative seeks to distance President Mugabe from other Zimbabweans with the subliminal message that says he does not belong in the homes and families of Zimbabweans.

Cde Mugabe long ceased to belong to the Mugabe family. He has been appropriated by the nation and belongs to all. I also noticed that a weekly paper sent me questions in which several queries related to the Gushungo clan in Zanu-PF.

What absolute nonsense!

The implication was that the members of Zanu-PF who were active participants in what is now referred to as the Mazowe Crush Movement were largely of the Gushungo totem.

Such agenda-setting narratives are meant to get people to distance themselves from the President.

Flip-Flop

Mujati refers to herself as a supporter of President Mugabe. She claims she has “publicly championed the political cause of this President right here in the Diaspora”.

“Like Daniel in the den of lions, I have stood by this President. I have stared Lions in the face.”

I do not know how to express laughter in a written form except to combine social media’s “kkkk” with “pwapwapwa”, interspaced with “hahaha”.

Her schizophrenic nature manifested itself when she chose to denigrate, abuse and insult the very person that she faced delusional British lions in the face for.

It is unbelievable that she “was part of a group that stood resolutely by President Mugabe” when she says “just get it your uncle is an incompetent man who is holding on yet the nation is suffering”.

After her article in The Sunday Mail of 25th January 2015, she posted the following on 29th January 2015: “The fake Dr . . . wake up and smell the coffee, Gamatox won’t go down silently, we shall claim our glory.”

This was yet another manifestation of her schizophrenic nature as she flip-flops between “supporting” President Mugabe and denigrating him.

What a shame. Imagined revolutionaries in search of a revolution, but at what expense?

And Mufuka said . . .

Prof Mufuka described Patrick Zhuwao as representing “enterprising intellectual prostitutes”.

The most important objection that he has is that the Zhuwao Brief “covers Government policy with a veneer of learning and research”.

That is utter drivel.

The Zhuwao Brief has addressed three fundamentally important issues for the nation, namely factionalism, economic development, and tribalism.

Mufuka does not suggest any alternative solutions to the ones proffered by the Zhuwao Brief.

The man has no idea except to try and pick inconsequential holes in the ideas submitted by the Zhuwao Brief.

On the whole, Mufuka’s numerous objections to the Zhuwao Brief appear to be based on some form of self-anointed intellectual superiority in which he implies that Zimbabwe is devoid of intellectual capital because: “During and after the Third Chimurenga of 2002, many older professors left the country.”

It is surely not correct to suggest that there has been no generation of new knowledge in Zimbabwe since 2002.

The biggest insult was the nonsensical view that Mufuka had the wherewithal to provide what he called the redemption of Patrick Zhuwao.

Mufuka suggests that Patrick Zhuwao should reform and refrain from supporting Government policy.

Government policy is based on the Zanu-PF manifesto that was overwhelmingly voted for in 2013. Government policy is the realisation of the people’s will as reflected in how they voted on 31st July 2013.

Patrick Zhuwao does not seek Mufuka’s approval.

This is the same Mufuka who claims to be a student of the late Prof Stanlake Samkange and yet lambasts his maxims of Hunhu/Ubuntu.

The Zhuwao Brief finds that Mufuka is confused. He misses the whole concept of how the speculative political entrepreneur is toxic to the politician that the SPE benefits from, and chooses to personalise the concept to an individual not named in the Zhuwao Brief. Could it be that Mufuka is singing for his supper? Just asking.

Mufuka mixes the three distinct and different threads that the Zhuwao Brief has dwelt on.

The result is an astounding level of confusion that brings one to question how the title of professor is bestowed on some people.

The one thing that is clear is that he opposes anything supportive of Government policy.

This is similar to the manner in which Mujati and other self-imagined cyber superheroes behave.

These are people who are very angry. All that the Zhuwao Brief can offer to them is a quote from Nathaniel Manheru on 31st January 2013: “We must get out of this anger, the age of anger came, but is now gone.”

The Zhuwao Brief will not be engaging in these retrogressive conversations with people whose political agendas are inimical to development.

The Zhuwao Brief will henceforth take on a decidedly economic perspective and focus on the acceleration of the implementation of Zim-Asset.

Icho!

 

Honourable Patrick Zhuwao is chair of Zhuwao Institute, an economics, development and research think tank focused on integrating socio-political dimensions into business and economic decision-making, particularly strategic planning. He can be reached at [email protected] and [email protected]

Share This:

Survey


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

This will close in 20 seconds