Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Luke Tamborinyoka's exercise in futility

Except with propagandists, bona fide writers and artists should accept the basic fact that they no longer have control over the message the moment it reaches the other end. Sooner or later, propagandists, too, have to contend with the knowledge that their messages might find no takers entailing them to be more persuasive or subtler.

By Tichaona Zindoga
Many people may have been left fascinated reading the op-ed piece by Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai's spokesperson Luke Tamborinyoka yesterday in which he sought to foist a guided reading of his boss' book.
He was responding to reviews of "At the deep end" by the media and other analysts, including Professor Jonathan Moyo. Predictably, Tamborinyoka reserved a couple of potshots at Prof Moyo, which had nothing to do with the analysis of the book itself. By and large, the article could have been a mistake on Mr Tamborinyoka's part, who wrote on behalf of the master, although he pretended otherwise.
He exposed himself so glaringly, just as PM Tsvangirai ultimately did through his book that he today might be cursing the very idea of having it published in the first place.
First, it is astounding to learn that the premier's spokesperson believes, and actually wishes, people would read and get the message just as the premier wanted. This is fallacious. It is not only impractical and unrealistic but also undesirable in a democratic society.
MDC, the "party of excellence" the premier leads, is a democratic party, by all means! Or so we are told.
All works of art, from sculpture and painting to music and writing are open to various interpretations that are informed by the audience's backgrounds, philosophies, orientations and so forth. Even in media schools,
which Tamborinyoka, a former editor at the Daily News no doubt went through, this basic communication fact is taught.
For Tamborinyoka to therefore teach what constitutes the "juicy" is not only unfortunate but also impractical. It is anathema to democracy that allows for free thought and expression. It is a slightly different case with newspapers where classically it has been taught that news is what the editor says is news. Mr Tamborinyoka's editorial background could have misled him.
Except with propagandists, bona fide writers and artists should accept the basic fact that they no longer have control over the message the moment it reaches the other end. Sooner or later, propagandists, too, have to contend with the knowledge that their messages might find no takers entailing them to be more persuasive or subtler.
In the case of "At the deep end", which was written for PM Tsvangirai by William Bango, his former spokesperson and who interestingly also has a Daily News background, there are things that are less subtle.
They are in black and white, as PM Tsvangirai's ruing that he lacked weapons to fulfil people's wishes after a "stolen" election. This is on page 485 in which PM Tsvangirai states: "I had won two elections in a row
but still failed to execute the people's mandate. For a moment I did not know what to do. I had no arms of war. I lacked the wherewithal to force myself into power to fulfil the people's wish."
This is, it has to be emphasised, in black and white and all those who can lay their hands on the book can see it. It is an uncomfortable and incontrovertible truth. Perhaps it was said without much thought in what is called "kuomoka" or "kuvhumuka" in Shona.
This is where the beauty and the bad of artworks are.
One can betray what is hidden in the dark crevices of conscience. Words spoken in sleep can give away a cheating spouse just as a troubled and sickly soul of a witch can account for the death of the village's children.
A single word can be the tip of an iceberg. Those who have elementary knowledge of psychology will quickly relate to Freud. You cannot wrap that which has horns, counsels traditional wisdom.
In which case, it is only logical, but almost fruitless for Mr Tamborinyoka as the PM's current mouthpiece, to do a bit of fire fighting. He is fighting the fires stoked by his predecessor. In part, he tries to do that by diverting readers and analysts from the uncomfortable zones to the "juicy" ones. It is little doubt whether other readers would share Mr Tamborinyoka's assessment or take of the "juicy".
What if they regard his professed lack of knowledge of electoral laws, which does not bode well for a leader aspiring high office in the land, as juicy? Or if people find out that he profited from tribalism, of which he has shown to be a great practitioner, as juicy?
Or still that he did not go to war against racist Rhodesia because he was self-centred? All this is contained in PM Tsvangirai's book. This means that there cannot be a universal matrix of the "juicy". There is a very compelling dimension to this whole thing. Looking at precedent, it might appear as though Mr Tamborinyoka might be headed for writing another book for his boss.
So he better be more careful with what he writes and says on behalf of the former trade unionist. There won't, and cannot be, a monolithic reading of the words. People are bound to read both the black and white as well as between the lines.
Unfortunately, one won't have control over what people think or say, unless authoritarianism is taken to the Divine stretches. This means that one should not lose sleep over what some people think or read into art.
One can take comfort, as Mr Tamborinyoka tries to do, in the belief that there are other people who think favourably or who find the "juicy" elsewhere where there could be mutual pleasure for the source and his interlocutors.
This is why Mr Tamborinyoka apparently wasted his precious time trying to parcel out blinkers with which to read his boss' book.
It is his democratic right, though.

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Tsvangirai: Avoiding the deep end


... if Tsvangirai seeks to portray himself “at deep end” of fighting the national struggles of Zimbabwean people, he fails dismally.

In fact, reading the story of his life, one gets a picture of someone who all but avoids the deep end of Zimbabwe’s national questions.
He shows to be an opportunist who swims with the tide, which trait generally erodes the little credit he otherwise deserves at times.

By Tichaona Zindoga
Many people have been surprised by the publication of Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai’s memoirs at the beginning of this month.

Typically, political memoirs are published at the end of one’s career but Tsvangirai’s autobiography, “Morgan Tsvangirai: At the deep end”, ghost-written for him by journalist and his former spokesman William Bango, is out in the middle of his career.

Tsvangirai says: “So much has been written from other people’s perspective and not from my perspective.

"There has been so much distortion, so much undermining of my character, even misrepresentation of certain events over the last 20 or so years, so I am just putting the record straight.”

Bango chips in saying Tsvangirai has been “swimming against a very harsh tide which was determined to stop any movement towards the democratisation of this country”.

The book traces the MDC leader’s life from Nerutanga village in Buhera where he was born on March 10 1952, his modest education of up to “O” Level, through his first job in Mutare, to Bindura Nickel Mine, the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions, the formation of the MDC in 1999, its split in 2005, up to the present when he is premier in the inclusive Government.

But if Tsvangirai seeks to portray himself “at deep end” of fighting the national struggles of Zimbabwean people, he fails dismally.

In fact, reading the story of his life, one gets a picture of someone who all but avoids the deep end of Zimbabwe’s national questions.

He shows to be an opportunist who swims with the tide, which trait sometimes erodes the little credit he otherwise deserves at times.

Apart from the book being written for him by Bango, formerly at MDC propaganda mouthpiece The Daily News (Tsvangirai admits as much), Tsvangirai’s autobiography draws heavy influences from conservative and neoliberal sources ranging from Ian Smith to western-sponsored anti-Zanu-PF websites.

As such the ordinary “village boy” he tries to portray himself in the first chapter, for example, is stilted and does not come to life when he is made relate history through, and pouts the words of, the likes of Ian Smith, whose book Tsvangirai uses profusely.

Despite claiming that “My life was destined to be closely interwoven with political, economic and social changes in Zimbabwe,” Tsvangirai failed in the first big test of his time.

He did not join the liberation struggle against Rhodesian settler rule.

“Perhaps I would have become a political activist but my parents needed financial help to support the other children through school,” rationalizes Tsvangirai.

He claims that his father, Dzingirai Chibwe, “as always, pressed me to finish my studies and enter working life.” (page 25).

While working in Mutare (then Umtali) in 1972 for a company that made underwear elastic bands and curtain tapes, Tsvangirai says after being questioned by Rhodesian authorities over the use of the name Morgan instead of the Christian Richard, “It was a warning to stay out of politics”.

Later, while working in Bindura at a time when the liberation struggle became more intense, Tsvangirai states that he could not join the war because his wife, Susan was pregnant with his son, Edwin.

In fact, he revels in his opportunism as, following the “constant conscription of white managers into the police and army, I soon found myself with additional responsibilities at work which set the stage for professional growth.”

He was to stretch his opportunism at Independence in 1980 when “suddenly” he “felt a surge of renewed interest to participate in politics.”

He thus joined the local branch of Zanu-PF well in the safety of the Independence which he could not sacrifice to bring.


Trade unionism and politics

Trade unionism illustrates the best and worst of Tsvangirai.

He started at Bindura when he joined the Allied Mineworkers Union of which he was later to become second vice president.

He later joined the Zimbabwe Congress of trade Union as vice president and later secretary general.
On one hand, it must be admitted that Tsvangirai did exceptionally well as a worker representative in post-independent Zimbabwe.

He had a bit of luck, too, as Government’s ill-advisedly adopted the International Monetary Funds’ Economic Structural Adjustment Programme in the early 1990’s.

The austerity programme set Government apart from workers who bore the brunt of retrenchments and erosion of social services.

ZCTU’s “Beyond Esap” programmes led to the formation of the Movement for Democratic Change in May 1999, albeit with the manipulation of Tsvangirai who had over the years seen his profile rise and rise and wanted the highest political office.

He admits in the book that he used the resources of the labour body, which was supported by Western and Nordic countries.

Although he says “people said that they regarded the 1990s as a totally wasted decade”, clearly the 1990’s had belonged to the trade unionist Morgan Tsvangirai.

But then if anybody had trusted that Tsvangirai would champion the cause of workers whose background he shared, they were wrong.

No sooner had Tsvangirai formed the MDC did he take up the cause of white commercial farmers.

He fought in the corner of white commercial farmers to block passage of a new constitution that threatened their hold on colonially-gotten land.

A referendum on February 12, 2000 saw MDC and the whites succeed in the “No” vote.

Tsvangirai admits it was a mistake, though, believing he lost an opportunity to oust President Mugabe as the envisaged new constitution provided for his leaving office within the a short time of the operationalization of the new supreme law.

But he had drunk a poisoned chalice, moreso for workers he purported to represent.

Tsvangirai became a hit with western capitals who saw an opportunity to make a go at President Mugabe who had angered Britain and its western allies over the question of land.

As if to sanitise his veering off the course of workers’ struggle at the party they birthed, Tsvangirai claims MDC is “social democracy”, as the guiding ideology of the party.

Perhaps Tsvangirai could also have pointed out that his association with the white interests is what set him apart from the “false starts” of the likes of Edgar Tekere.

When it comes to his alliances, Tsvangirai tries to come clean on his dalliance with the West, which has been an indictment on his type of politics.

Incredibly, Tsvangirai says he has not received any money from Britain except for “£12 000 sterling from the Westminster Foundation for the training of our election agents.”

“Beyond that,” declares Tsvangirai, “we received nothing from London, either in the form of cash or ideas.

“To eliminate all doubt, as president of the MDC, I challenge any person in Harare, London or anywhere else to prove me wrong on this basic historical fact.” (pp 318)

This is despite the fact that the UK government officials have on numerous occasions said they were working with the MDC to effect regime change in Harare.

London has also stated that it consults the MDC on the direction of sanctions.

However, maintaining that he has no links with Britain, Tsvangirai even complains that UK has spoiled his game.

On the other hand, though, Tsvangirai is silent on the role of America and does not stand up and challenge anyone who questions MDC-US links, in the fashion of his challenge on Britain.

The US has taken the forefront in supporting the MDC and its civil society allies financially, diplomatically, materially and morally under the so-called democracy promotion.

Tsvangirai is also silent on a number of awards he has received in western capitals in which he is cited as a democratic player.

Tsvangirai has also been awarded with an honorary degree by a South Korean university.

Hate speech

It is remarkable and disturbing but unsurprising that Tsvangirai who has claimed to be a victim of hate speech, uses his book to propagate hate against President Mugabe.

While being self-indulgent and self-adulatory Tsvangirai is coarse and caustic against President Mugabe.

He makes sure that he does not mention a single achievement by the Zanu-PF leader and tries to portray his rule as unmitigated failure from 1980.

Where he grudgingly accepts achievements of the Zanu-PF government, he makes sure that pins an underside of the achievement.

For example, Tsvangirai seems to blame the country’s education system for producing graduates, whom he says were soon to find no employment.

He is unsparing when he comes to university education, which coincidentally he did not get.

He says: “The narrow technical traits our universities prize as higher learning can easily block our access to wisdom, deform our morals and deplete our intuitive gifts to a point where common sense ceases to be common.” (pp467).

He despises Prof Arthur Mutambara for his learnedness saying it was through him that “I realised that one could easily pass through law school, a university or any structured technical training course and still come out totally unfinished as a human being.”

Interacting with degreed ministers and other officials Tsvangirai says, “I found myself surrounded by lots of well-read and knowledgeable officials but many lacked the requisite wisdom to handle changing circumstances.” (pp 527).

But it is against President Mugabe that he reserves his venom and contempt.

He calls the President a “national disgrace” and “dictator” who had lost his legacy which he could salvage by associating with Tsvangirai.

Discussing the circumstances that led to the GPA and formation of the inclusive Government, Tsvangirai portrays himself as the proverbial knight in shining armour.

In part, he does that by denigrating President Mugabe and seems to have a pathological obsession with his age.

For example, he describes a meeting they had at Rainbow Towers one day.

He writes: “As I entered the Rainbow Towers meeting room, I was shocked to see a frail senior citizen huddled on a chair at a corner table.

“I had not seen Mugabe at close range for more than ten years. He certainly looked much older than I expected.

“He stared at me with an ashen face, looking deeply troubled.

“He reminded me of my late father, Dzingirai-Chibwe. In fact, Mugabe was older than my father had been when he died.

“I wondered why Mugabe’s close friends and relatives didn’t insist on his retirement. Surely a person of his age should be allowed to rest?” (pp 500).

During the meeting Tsvangirai patronizingly portrays himself as the more alert, intelligible, and generally the better politician.

It is understandable.

Only Tsvangirai exposes himself to be immature, base and compensatory.

He does not do any good to the identification with the simple “village boy”, the father, or the widower which one could identify with.

This makes his book, which largely is bound to be of little value to any discerning reader, generally ashy-tasting.

Thursday, October 13, 2011

Last chimurenga: says who?

There has always been the danger, especially in the last decade or so, that the gains of the liberation struggle are under threat, and could be undone if Zanu-PF, winners of the Second and Third Chimurengas and custodians of all the Chimurengas, are defeated by the MDC
The Herald

Tichaona Zindoga
Zimbabwe's history records with pride the exploits of Murenga, a High Spirit of the Njelele Shrine, referred to as the Mlimo based in Matobo District, Matabeleland South.
It is said that this spirit was more superior than, and gave instructions to, other spirits such as Kaguvi, Nehanda, Mkwati which are well-known today.
In 1896, this heroic spirit led the national uprising against British settlers, who had come to Zimbabwe under the banner of the British South Africa Company.
Although the black people of Zimbabwe fought that losing cause, having been endowed with only the rudimentary munitions of war, their bravery and inspiration was remarkable. As remarkable was the leadership of Murenga that the uprising was quickly identifiable and synonymous with him, hence the name "Chi-Murenga", meaning "Murenga's kind (of war)".
Subsequently, the initial resistance against settler rule was referred to as the First Chimurenga. The nationalist struggle, the liberation war that eventually led to the country's Independence in 1980, is known as the
Second Chimurenga.
The land redistribution exercise that Government embarked on as it reclaimed colonially-stolen land and gave it to the majority has been dubbed the Third Chimurenga. Still, a Fourth Chimurenga - some call it the Last Chimurenga - is underway as Government embarks on the indigenisation and economic empowerment process which seeks to give the majority control of the economy.
A Chimurenga, as has been shown by history, is an instrument of revolution. A common thread runs through these chimurengas. First, these struggles are homegrown. They represent a determination by the black people of Zimbabwe to see off constraining status quos and historical epochs imposed by settlers. There is a price to pay, and a heavy one at that.
The black people of Zimbabwe died in their thousands trying to defeat colonialism. As people asserted themselves, their adversaries could only be more stubborn and brutal. In contemporary times, the West has rallied against Zimbabwe and imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe which are meant to, as they have done, cause untold suffering to the people.
It has thankfully not happened so far, though there can never be a guarantee that it will not.
For example, what guarantee do beneficiaries of the Third Chimurenga have when they largely do not have security of tenure and the 99-year leases have not shown to be such? If successful, will the current indigenisation provide an ambient air of economic ownership among Zimbabweans as much as they now walk freely on First Street, from which they were previously barred?
A good guess is that it might not, what with the avarice of a few fat cats, as many people have feared.
Does history not say something about a revolution sowing seeds of own destruction? This is where the problem with naming the current indigenisation programme the "Last Chimurenga" at least from the perspective of semantics.
If what people fear comes to pass that fat cats will control the means of production, and they revolt against it some years from now, will it not be another Chimurenga? In essence, to call the current Chimurenga "last" is not only an attempt to put a lid on history but also sounds myopic. Zimbabwe's history, as far as its Chimurengas are concerned, has evolved over a more than a century. It cannot be chained in 31 years of Independence.
That attempt to put a lid on history will not only be unsuccessful but will also be drowned in history, too.
Struggles and revolutions and histories are as varied and spontaneous and respond to conditions that characterise them. Struggles and revolutions and histories are as constant as change itself because they change, revolve and evolve.
There has always been the danger, especially in the last decade or so, that the gains of the liberation struggle are under threat, and could be undone if Zanu-PF, winners of the Second and Third Chimurengas and custodians of all the Chimurengas, are defeated by the MDC. The MDC are funded and otherwise supported by those against whom the three Chimurengas up to the land reform programme, and now the fourth, have been directed. Zanu-PF has had a close shave with defeat at the hands of the MDC led by Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai. There is a chance that Zanu-PF, sometimes with a tendency to self-destruct, might someday lose to their Western-sponsored rivals.
If that happens, surely people might have to revolt against the Western puppets the same way North Africans intended to do when they rose up against long-time puppets Hosni Mubarak and Ben Ali?
Granting the western-sponsored MDC will not have pilfered and bastardised the Chimurenga and call the defeat of Zanu-PF a "Fifth Chimurenga" - and possibly name their undoing of the gains of the liberation struggle the Sixth - then there will be another Chimurenga, this time the seventh?
Providing all this does not happen, there simply are many facets of struggle that are still to be undertaken and explored. For example, will there not be a need in future for cultural, information and even religious revolutions? Politics, in its inherent idiosyncrasy to produce contradictions, can be trusted to produce situations previously unimagined.
It will be a big surprise indeed if Zimbabwe's continuum of struggles is to end today with the indigenisation programme, however glorious it sounds.

Friday, October 7, 2011

Can Zim trust Jesse Jackson

Rev Jackson sounds dangerously paternalistic or big-brotherly, which could well be acceptable to such people as PM Tsvangirai but not to nationalist politicians like President Mugabe.
On the substance of his view, it becomes clear that his efforts are not moralistic as his civil rights pedigree points to but he is in pursuit of business for his country.
Zimbabwe has no “national interest” in the expansion of the imperial America and it is hardly imaginable that Zimbabwe allows to be so used.

The Sunday Mail

By Tichaona Zindoga
PRESIDENT Mugabe recently met an American business delegation led by civil rights leader Reverend Jesse Jackson on the sidelines of a United Nations meeting in New York.
To an observer, the meeting was quite interesting because of the context in which it took place.
First, it came hard on the heels of a meeting between President Mugabe and Ambassador Charles Ray, America’s envoy to Zimbabwe, who requested the meeting and emphasised the need for commonality between Harare and Washington.
Business was the theme, with a meeting to explore and discuss investment opportunities in Zimbabwe slated for America soon.
Secondly, Rev Jackson had earlier met Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai in Chicago, the substance of which meeting is understood to have been similar to the one he held with President Mugabe.
Factor in the fact that the American envoys are “men of colour”, deployed to do the errands of white America with this black nation of Zimbabwe and, equally, black leaders.
Addressing a meeting in Chicago, PM Tsvangirai aptly called Jackson “my brother”.
The fourth context is that of Rev Jackson’s pedigree as a civil rights activist, which renders him an acceptable voice of reason both in his country and abroad.
But there is also something even more interesting in what Rev Jackson said after meeting President Mugabe.
He said in part that he was “interested in trying to work on ways to have more reconciliation in Zimbabwe which will create more opportunities for economic investment and growth”.
He also said: “So, our interest is to try to figure out a way to get the rival forces to see that there are some values that transcend politics.
“There is a national interest in opening up access to capital, industry, technology, medical equipment, housing, deal flow and those things we have in common.”
Rev Jackson also said he looked forward “to being a factor in helping to bring them (President Mugabe and PM Tsvangirai) closer together so that Zimbabwe’s interests and growth can take place”.
Against all this is the super background of an America that is losing out on business in Africa, Zimbabwe included, to its nemesis from the East, China.
The same America has imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe that other than constricting and/or restricting commerce with Zimbabwe at multi-national institutions, prevent individuals and companies from dealing with Zimbabwe.
America sanctions and fines those who breach this regime.
Additionally, it sniffs and hounds legitimate Zimbabwean business money through the Office for Foreign Assets Control. 
But with the economic reality that has seen America managing only about half of China’s African bounty, America now wants to shift, and engage.
In particular, it is said that it now wants small and medium-scale business to lead in the gaining of ground.
Zimbabwe cries for and conduces to such investments.
Rev Jackson said the Americans were eyeing investment in health, construction, tourism and the media.
So Zimbabwe must, without questioning, accept these businessmen and women who have no connection to the American state, or have they?
It must be noted that what America is trying to do is wiggle out of its sanctions against Zimbabwe.
The leadership must be trusted to realise this.
It would do a lot of good had Rev Jackson been preaching against sanctions.
They not only punish, hurt and dehumanise the poor black folk of Zimbabwe but also America itself.
Does the Bible not have some very moralistic passage on those who set traps for others ending up falling into them or some such message?
Rev Jackson did not bring himself to comment on the issue of sanctions but chose to blabber about “Now is the time to engage and talk it out and not fight it out . . . find common ground”; etc.
Does the good reverend not consider sanctions an issue, or its very mention triggers uncomfortable situations?
If he is so dishonest, or is simply in denial, he does not have business dealing with the Zimbabwe issue.
And, by the way, since when has Rev Jackson become facilitator to the Zimbabwe dialogue?
He incredibly talks of reconciliation and bringing President Mugabe and PM Tsvangirai together.
Does this mean Sadc-appointed mediator South African President Jacob Zuma is out of his job?
Will Sadc, and the parties here, at least those that are reputed to be sensible in the GPA, accept the superimposition of the newest Uncle Tom on the scene?
Rev Jackson will, no doubt, learn that the generous amounts of melanin in his body, which about equal ours, will not be a passport to get his and, by extension, the empire’s way here.
America has not had much joy with its dark coloured agents here and these include the likes of James McGee, Jendayi Frazer (whose name it has been observed almost sounds Zimbabwean) and Condoleezza Rice.
Ambassador Ray and ultimately President Barack Obama are part of a not-so-short line of what some would call “house niggers”.
That Rev Jackson sides with the imperialist forces and plays a role similar to what the likes of Rev C. D. Helms played during colonialism, erodes his moral pretences.
In one of the quotations above, he tries to teach Zimbabwe’s principals that “there is a national interest in opening up access to capital, industry, technology, medical equipment, housing, deal flow . . .”
Without sounding paranoid, it has to be observed that as his main point, Rev Jackson blows his cover on this.
Before venturing into the implications of this statement, it has to be asked: since when have outsiders defined “national interest” of another country?
Rev Jackson represents a country that has imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe, which is an act of aggression.
Rev Jackson sounds dangerously paternalistic or big-brotherly, which could well be acceptable to such people as PM Tsvangirai but not to nationalist politicians like President Mugabe.
On the substance of his view, it becomes clear that his efforts are not moralistic as his civil rights pedigree points to but he is in pursuit of business for his country.
Zimbabwe has no “national interest” in the expansion of the imperial America and it is hardly imaginable that Zimbabwe allows to be so used.
Zimbabwe is in a process of promoting locals in industry as opposed to opening up to ravaging well-heeled foreign capital.
Although this policy provides for partnerships with foreigners, Western corporates have shown not to be partial to such an idea.
The idea of promoting the majority has never been entertained in the West and they have fought it in Zimbabwe and other countries in South America and elsewhere.
Rather, they are at least partial to comprador alliances that milk the poor countries.
Zimbabwe needs a genuine wealth-creating middle class that is home-grown and empowered.
Perhaps Rev Jackson could preach about that, too, if he were genuine about Zimbabwe’s “national interest”.
Only he is not.
Importantly, he must declare his interest as an Uncle Tom in the service of America.
After all, we are reliably informed that he sought to usurp the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission’s function when he declared Mr Tsvangirai the winner of Zimbabwe’s presidential election at his church in Chicago.