By Nick Mangwana
Recent events in the party are
said to have left the community in Chitungwiza in a state of shock. Yours truly has spoken to a lot of people on
the ground to get sense of what actually transpired. It is clear that there is
not going to be a trial since the chief suspect took the coward’s way out and
committed suicide rather than face up to the responsibilities of what he had
done. This is also quite tragic. You see
comrades whenever there is a loss of life in a violent and avoidable way, it is
a very heartrending.
It is said that all the deceased
had just secured positions within the Zanu PF structures in their areas. It is
also said that they had aligned themselves with two different leaderships of
the party. It is also reported that there was an argument in which the subject
involved the names of two Politburo members and one took strong umbrage towards
both the results of the recent restructuring exercise as well as the language
used by the other and therefore reacted very violently by hacking his comrades
to death. As usual the European Union has already given its own two pence
worth. It has already said that it is concerned by the violence “against”
political parties. It then alluded to the Hopley Suburb violence by the MDC-T
against the police and of course the Chitungwiza incident.
There is a clear distinction
between the two incidents here. In the first instant, the violence by the MDC-T
is institutional violence. They set out to disturb the peace and hoped that
they could ignite something with their provocation which would send Zimbabwe on
a pathway of massive violence and destruction. The police responded by
arresting them. They responded by attacking the police. That is called institutional
violence.
Most people are comfortable
defining institutional violence as violence that is employed by an organisation
as a means to achieving its objectives.
When such violence happens then the institution or organisation can be
labelled “violent”. So here we make the distinction between the incident in Chitungwiza
and the Hopley suburb one. In the Chitungwiza incident there was no political
objective whatsoever. The subject of the argument could have been politics but
the incident was not political. One could replace that subject with any other
and the outcome would have been the same. These individuals could have been
discussing football with one side supporting Dynamos and the other Caps or
Highlanders and there still would have been bloodshed. This is because in this particular incident
it is very clear that we are dealing with someone who was very disturbed. His psychological instability just manifested
in the political realm. This is where part of his passion was. If his passion
was women, he would have killed for a woman.
That violence would have been attributed to him and him alone and not to
his amorous liaisons. The same applies to this case. The violence perpetrated
by this sick individual who eventually took their own life should be attributed
to them and them alone and not Zanu PF.
What political objective would have been advanced by this
callousness? The answer is that there
was none. This was about a bruised ego,
misdirected passion or simply pride hurt by a disagreeable outcome. The result
was a purely criminal act. There is no affiliated political reason. Possibly there was alcohol and other illicit
substances involved as well. Saka marambadaro (those that can’t handle their
alcohol) are not only found in politics.
Now let us compare that to the
Hopley Suburb violence. It had all the hallmarks of institutional violence with
the MDC-T as the institution. That is political violence. There were political objectives to be met.
That was to try to ignite a fire that would make Zimbabwe ungovernable and
therefore effect political change in Zimbabwe through unconstitutional
means. A peaceful society is never
achieved through violent means. This is what the MDC-T has to learn. If they want to live in a democratic country,
then democracy is the way that they have to use to achieve their democratic
objectives. Subversion of the people’s will is never going to achieve that.
Zanu PF has a violent history.
It’s all purely justifiable in the sense of the Liberation Struggle. That was a
justifiable cause and it is the type of violence one should be proud of. But beyond that Zanu PF should win the
intellectual argument. Nobody should be pummelled
into submission. Only those people that would have lost the intellectual
arguments turn to violence. But let us
face the fact that the right tool has to be used for the right job. If there is
a violent confrontation, then if violent is deployed as a weapon that may be understandable.
But if the confrontation is intellectual and one wants to win it with violence,
then the conclusion is that they are intellectually challenged and therefore
resort to animalistic behaviour.
Where Zimbabwe is now is where
the brain is the weapon of choice. It is the heart and mind of the voter that
has to be bought in by sound programmes as well as sound arguments. They say
you catch more flies by using honey than by using vinegar. It means that the
power of charm and persuasion should be deployed to win the heart and mind.
Violence might appear to do good,
but the good that comes from violent methods is ephemeral. A wise man once
said, “Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent”, and boy, was he right!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment