To say that the
tail no longer wags the dog in this instance where the civic society no
longer controls western capitals as they previously did through false,
concocted and manipulative reports on Zimbabwe, is more than a mere
Dundrearism.
Tichaona Zindoga
statements this week by the EU Ambassador to Zimbabwe, Aldo
Dell’Ariccia, regarding the moribund and increasingly irrelevant
political actors parading as civil society organisations in Zimbabwe
were bound to hurt.
And they hurt — hurt very much — given the grief that has befallen the various parsonages associated with civic society.
A brief historical context: hundreds of civic society organisations
were formed circa 2000 ostensibly to fight for civil and human rights
and democracy in the country.
They were sponsored by American and
other Western governments directly or through proxies to not only act as
appendages to the opposition MDC but also to provide a false
“independent” voice of the populace.
Together with sanctions, the
civic society and opposition were meant to achieve regime change of the
revolutionary Zanu-PF and President Mugabe.
The politics and, ultimately fortunes, of the civic society organisations and opposition were intricately linked.
In
light of the cruel fortunes that have afflicted the opposition, namely
losing the elections last year and the implosion of the MDC-T, the West
is rethinking, or at least appears to be disinterested in both the
opposition and its civil society appendages.
This is for likely reasons.
One, the high noon of politics has just slipped past and secondly, it
may not hurt the West, particularly the EU, to see Zimbabwe in a more
receptive manner, especially when the latter is showing signs of
relenting on key issues such as the indigenisation policy.
(Many
may have observed how lately the hard-working Dell’Ariccia is prodding
and prodding and prodding on the indigenisation and investment issue.
The more imaginative may think of sharks that may have smelled blood.)
So,
most probably out of pragmatism, the EU is changing tact and engaging
Zimbabwe. It has also lifted most of its sanctions against the country.
The EU is seeking no confrontations and thus will not worry about
engagements and partners that do not serve its new purpose.
Hence, Dell’Ariccia told the NGOs that they were “living anchored in the past” and failed to “catch the flare of the moment”.
To drive home his new-found disdain for the NGOs, he accused them of behaving like “charity organisations”.
This
was guaranteed to unsettle civic society activists, most of whom had
enjoyed full-time employment as regime change agents and were always
flush with cash, some of which they never accounted for.
The
setting of his statements, at one organisation called Crisis Coalition
in Zimbabwe, was even ironic for someone to declare that there was no
leadership crisis in the country.
Here are some of the rumblings
as reported in the media: Zimbabwe Social Democrats Secretary General
Wilbert Mukori was quoted as saying Dell’Ariccia’s comments were
“tragic”.
Charles Mangongera imperilled the envoy saying, “ . . .
as ambassadors and as analysts we tend to speak from the comfort of
air-conditioned hotels without understanding the situation.”
Mangongera
was quoted as adding: “To castigate the civil society and say they
shouldn’t do this or that I don’t think that is the responsibility of an
ambassador . . . ”
Takura Zhangazha, one of the eminent civic
society players, writing on his blog, accused the ambassador of
“diplomatic opportunism”, being “conveniently pragmatic”.
The writer speculates that Dell’Ariccia intends to redefine Zimbabwean civic society.
And strongly: “To make such broad but shallow statements as Mr
Dell’Ariccia did, together with the sectional applause he got from those
that would have previously been most shrill in opposing his every word,
is the stuff of diplomatic opportunism. It is unfortunate that in his
case, it would appear to be patently dishonest.”
To say that the
tail no longer wags the dog in this instance where the civic society no
longer controls western capitals as they previously did through false,
concocted and manipulative reports on Zimbabwe, is more than a mere
Dundrearism.
The tables have surely turned and it is so tragic for the local activists.
Yet they should have seen it coming.
The
political environment in the country has changed drastically from what
it was 10 years ago where sanctions-inspired economic hardships of
shortages were a new phenomenon.
After years of suffering the
same, and given the clemency of the weather in sparing droughts, the
mood of the country was different in 2013. Years of suffering and job
losses had significantly hardened Zimbabwean people into resourcefulness
and industriousness.
Besides, political awareness crept back to
the people, especially after seeing through the poor performance and
fallibility of the opposition MDC while it was in government. These
dynamics lend the necessity of a paradigm shift in the civic society.
Ambassador
Dell’Ariccia offers handy advice that the NGOs must “catch the flare”
because “there is an opening” in the form of engagement.
Trevor
Maisiri, one of the more prominent civic society actors locally and
regionally, could be said to be way ahead of his ilk that are whining
today.
After last year’s elections, outlining the role and
opportunities of the civic society post-election, he called for
depoliticisation of the civic society as well as engagement with
“domestic institutions”.
“Engagement, in the civil society sense,
and given Zimbabwe’s political context, establishes civil society to
represent citizens in the community and broader national issues that
have amply been dominated by the politics in the past. Engagement
creates a voice for those majority citizens, who have otherwise been
voiceless, outside of political party domains.
“In the past many
civil society organisations have not prioritised engagement with key
domestic institutions such as parliament, government ministries, local
government authorities, government departments, independent commissions
and others. Some of the disengagement or lack of upfront interest by
civil society has been due to these institutions’ reluctance to engage
with civil society. This can only be addressed if civil society emerges
as intently refocused on occupying non-political party space and
mandated from the citizenry base.”
Civil society activists in Zimbabwe will have to heed such counsel given the circumstances they are in.
Besides, the very essence of the civil society is to represent the
voice of the citizenry and be independent of the politicians.
In
which case, those who seek to be members of the political society must
declare their interests and be seen in the arena where politicians play.
No comments:
Post a Comment