TRADITIONAL Zimbabwean legend has it that when the Haya bird sings, it is because a storm is on its way.
It is called the rain bird. It rarely sings and when it does, elders take notice and prepare for the rains.
When you see vultures hovering in the vicinity, it must be that there is a rotting carcass somewhere.
Others talk of the bird that signals the presence of a snake in the surroundings. Locals have devised the art of observing and listening to the signs; the omens. And so we should in politics. We must read the signs and try to find what lies beneath.
We must not let our prejudices obscure our judgment. And so it is that when I read the proposal attributed to Water Resources Minister, Sam Sipepa-Nkomo about the idea of decentralising power by subdividing Zimbabwe into five self-governing provinces, I listened and tried to explore the meaning of that sign. In so doing I heard a cry; a yearning to be heard.
It is not surprising that Nkomo’s statements have sparked intense debate among Zimbabweans. Yet as so often happens in these matters, the debate at times took the downward spiral into tribal altercation once again highlighting the perennial fault-line on the edifice of every young African state. It is a fault-line from which an unstoppable and destructive tsunami can so easily be spawned. It is not supposed to be like that.
It does not have to be like that.
To my mind, we have to rise above ‘tribalisation’ of issues and engage in constructive discussion of the issues behind Nkomo’s call. As a people going through hard times, we have to sit down, listen and discuss.
The democracy we yearn for is far more demanding than most of us anticipate. It demands that people make hard decisions on difficult and complex political issues, some of which might at first sight seem unpalatable.
It demands that people engage in difficult, sometimes heated discussions in order to make very hard choices. Nkomo’s proposal may not be the brightest idea on the table but that is no reason to dismiss it out of hand by simply characterising it as a tribal rant.
For my part, I have thought long and hard about this matter and attempt here to identify the problem which Nkomo’s call highlights. In the process, I also argue that perhaps even he and the MDC may have missed the core of our problem as a country and that therefore the proposal as it stands may fall short in trying to address that problem.
The problem of marginalisation and underdevelopment referred to is real but it is a symptom of a greater problem which requires far more than decentralisation of power or indeed the subdivision of the country into five provinces.
Yet first, let’s consider the cause behind the proposal carried by Nkomo. It is the problem of how our political system has handled the interests of minorities since independence.
I view Nkomo’s pronouncements as representing the cries of the minorities in Zimbabwe who have felt marginalised in the political system. It is that the way political authority is defined and constituted in Zimbabwe is such that when they have had opportunities majorities have appeared to run roughshod over minorities. I say ‘when they have had opportunities’ because as we know from our recent history majorities have not always had their way. And this is where Zimbabwe’s problems lie — the inverse of majorities oppressing minorities.
I argue that Zimbabwe’s problem has not simply been the classical majority/minority disequilibrium where the majority always oppresses the minority. The problem, in my view is that Zimbabwe over the past 10 or so years has been subjected to rule by a political minority. It is vital to understand the source of this problem.
It arises primarily from our general conception of political authority in the country, which privileges a particular political class. In this regard, we have to ask the question: What is the basis of political authority in Zimbabwe? To my mind, there have been two competing sources of political authority since independence:
The first is a circumstance of history, namely the liberation struggle. There is a powerful school of thought which suggests that one can only derive political authority from his/her connection to the liberation struggle. The second is the election process.
In this case one derives political authority from winning a free and fair election. To add some clarity to this let us observe another example which was believed to be a source of political authority centuries ago:
Religion. It was believed that good government derived from a religious source so that the leader ‘appointed’ by God to rule over other people. Of course, we have had our fair share of crazy ideas in our time, with some politicians declaring that President Mugabe is the son of God, implying that his political authority is derived from the Almighty.
Our problem is that between the two sources of political authority, the liberation struggle has so far out-competed the election process. This has been reiterated time and again and more recently we observed that even those who lead state institutions such as the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe derive their authority from those whose political authority is sourced from the liberation struggle.
It is this rigid definition of the parameters of political authority that has deprived the country of conditions in which a democratic culture can properly thrive. Where these conditions exist, it should be easy to foster a culture in which not only the majority will is respected but also where the interests of minorities, whose plight Nkomo’s proposal highlights, are protected.
There are a number of constitutional mechanisms which can be set up to ensure the protection of minorities against oppression by the majority. Nkomo’s proposal could be one of them but if it is not the most desirable, other ways could be devised. This is what we should be doing — trying to debate Nkomo’s proposal as a response to a problem and putting forward alternatives where available.
So when I listen to Nkomo’s proposal I appreciate the problem that it highlights; a problem that must be solved but I worry that it also misses the source of the challenge.
To put it another way, I ask this question, would Didymus Mutasa behave and act differently if he was in the provincial government of Manicaland? Would John Nkomo be any different if he was leader of the provincial government in Matabeleland?
Likewise, would Josiah Hungwe have been a different leader if Masvingo were governed separately? Would these men be more amenable to free and fair elections as a source of political authority or would the liberation struggle still reign supreme as the ultimate source of political authority?
The flaw in the idea that being governed by your own is the solution to this problem can be seen in what happened at independence. Many black Africans thought the same at independence but it turned out to be horribly wrong. One of your own can be just as oppressive unless a proper political culture fair and amenable to free-will is fostered. Being governed by one of your own, whether at national or provincial level is not the answer to the problems we face in Africa.
We have to go further and define the parameters and principles of governance; to reform our conception of political authority so that the election can truly triumph as the legitimate source of political authority. Unless that is achieved, the problem we face at the national level could very easily be replicated at the five provincial levels, with worse consequences.
But all this notwithstanding, we need to appreciate the context and cause of Nkomo’s statements.
It is a call that requires us to engage in serious discussion because it points to problems that require our collective attention. Let us not be swayed by emotion. Let’s identify the cause of that proposal and discuss ways of dealing with that problem.
If Nkomo’s proposal is wrong, show why it is wrong but by all means try to offer solutions to the problem that it highlights.Yet Nkomo and others would also do well to realise that the greater problem we face as a nation is that, in fact, the political majority has not been and continues to be thwarted by a political minority.
And all this stems from the way political authority is sourced in our politics, whether at national or provincial level.
* Alex Magaisa is based at The University of Kent Law School and can be contacted at wamagaisa@yahoo.co.ukThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it or a.t.magaisa@kent.ac.uk
07 June, 2009
Decentralisation gud 4Zim
TRADITIONAL Zimbabwean legend has it that when the Haya bird sings, it is because a storm is on its way.
It is called the rain bird. It rarely sings and when it does, elders take notice and prepare for the rains.
When you see vultures hovering in the vicinity, it must be that there is a rotting carcass somewhere.
Others talk of the bird that signals the presence of a snake in the surroundings. Locals have devised the art of observing and listening to the signs; the omens. And so we should in politics. We must read the signs and try to find what lies beneath.
We must not let our prejudices obscure our judgment. And so it is that when I read the proposal attributed to Water Resources Minister, Sam Sipepa-Nkomo about the idea of decentralising power by subdividing Zimbabwe into five self-governing provinces, I listened and tried to explore the meaning of that sign. In so doing I heard a cry; a yearning to be heard.
It is not surprising that Nkomo’s statements have sparked intense debate among Zimbabweans. Yet as so often happens in these matters, the debate at times took the downward spiral into tribal altercation once again highlighting the perennial fault-line on the edifice of every young African state. It is a fault-line from which an unstoppable and destructive tsunami can so easily be spawned. It is not supposed to be like that.
It does not have to be like that.
To my mind, we have to rise above ‘tribalisation’ of issues and engage in constructive discussion of the issues behind Nkomo’s call. As a people going through hard times, we have to sit down, listen and discuss.
The democracy we yearn for is far more demanding than most of us anticipate. It demands that people make hard decisions on difficult and complex political issues, some of which might at first sight seem unpalatable.
It demands that people engage in difficult, sometimes heated discussions in order to make very hard choices. Nkomo’s proposal may not be the brightest idea on the table but that is no reason to dismiss it out of hand by simply characterising it as a tribal rant.
For my part, I have thought long and hard about this matter and attempt here to identify the problem which Nkomo’s call highlights. In the process, I also argue that perhaps even he and the MDC may have missed the core of our problem as a country and that therefore the proposal as it stands may fall short in trying to address that problem.
The problem of marginalisation and underdevelopment referred to is real but it is a symptom of a greater problem which requires far more than decentralisation of power or indeed the subdivision of the country into five provinces.
Yet first, let’s consider the cause behind the proposal carried by Nkomo. It is the problem of how our political system has handled the interests of minorities since independence.
I view Nkomo’s pronouncements as representing the cries of the minorities in Zimbabwe who have felt marginalised in the political system. It is that the way political authority is defined and constituted in Zimbabwe is such that when they have had opportunities majorities have appeared to run roughshod over minorities. I say ‘when they have had opportunities’ because as we know from our recent history majorities have not always had their way. And this is where Zimbabwe’s problems lie — the inverse of majorities oppressing minorities.
I argue that Zimbabwe’s problem has not simply been the classical majority/minority disequilibrium where the majority always oppresses the minority. The problem, in my view is that Zimbabwe over the past 10 or so years has been subjected to rule by a political minority. It is vital to understand the source of this problem.
It arises primarily from our general conception of political authority in the country, which privileges a particular political class. In this regard, we have to ask the question: What is the basis of political authority in Zimbabwe? To my mind, there have been two competing sources of political authority since independence:
The first is a circumstance of history, namely the liberation struggle. There is a powerful school of thought which suggests that one can only derive political authority from his/her connection to the liberation struggle. The second is the election process.
In this case one derives political authority from winning a free and fair election. To add some clarity to this let us observe another example which was believed to be a source of political authority centuries ago:
Religion. It was believed that good government derived from a religious source so that the leader ‘appointed’ by God to rule over other people. Of course, we have had our fair share of crazy ideas in our time, with some politicians declaring that President Mugabe is the son of God, implying that his political authority is derived from the Almighty.
Our problem is that between the two sources of political authority, the liberation struggle has so far out-competed the election process. This has been reiterated time and again and more recently we observed that even those who lead state institutions such as the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe derive their authority from those whose political authority is sourced from the liberation struggle.
It is this rigid definition of the parameters of political authority that has deprived the country of conditions in which a democratic culture can properly thrive. Where these conditions exist, it should be easy to foster a culture in which not only the majority will is respected but also where the interests of minorities, whose plight Nkomo’s proposal highlights, are protected.
There are a number of constitutional mechanisms which can be set up to ensure the protection of minorities against oppression by the majority. Nkomo’s proposal could be one of them but if it is not the most desirable, other ways could be devised. This is what we should be doing — trying to debate Nkomo’s proposal as a response to a problem and putting forward alternatives where available.
So when I listen to Nkomo’s proposal I appreciate the problem that it highlights; a problem that must be solved but I worry that it also misses the source of the challenge.
To put it another way, I ask this question, would Didymus Mutasa behave and act differently if he was in the provincial government of Manicaland? Would John Nkomo be any different if he was leader of the provincial government in Matabeleland?
Likewise, would Josiah Hungwe have been a different leader if Masvingo were governed separately? Would these men be more amenable to free and fair elections as a source of political authority or would the liberation struggle still reign supreme as the ultimate source of political authority?
The flaw in the idea that being governed by your own is the solution to this problem can be seen in what happened at independence. Many black Africans thought the same at independence but it turned out to be horribly wrong. One of your own can be just as oppressive unless a proper political culture fair and amenable to free-will is fostered. Being governed by one of your own, whether at national or provincial level is not the answer to the problems we face in Africa.
We have to go further and define the parameters and principles of governance; to reform our conception of political authority so that the election can truly triumph as the legitimate source of political authority. Unless that is achieved, the problem we face at the national level could very easily be replicated at the five provincial levels, with worse consequences.
But all this notwithstanding, we need to appreciate the context and cause of Nkomo’s statements.
It is a call that requires us to engage in serious discussion because it points to problems that require our collective attention. Let us not be swayed by emotion. Let’s identify the cause of that proposal and discuss ways of dealing with that problem.
If Nkomo’s proposal is wrong, show why it is wrong but by all means try to offer solutions to the problem that it highlights.Yet Nkomo and others would also do well to realise that the greater problem we face as a nation is that, in fact, the political majority has not been and continues to be thwarted by a political minority.
And all this stems from the way political authority is sourced in our politics, whether at national or provincial level.
* Alex Magaisa is based at The University of Kent Law School and can be contacted at wamagaisa@yahoo.co.ukThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it or a.t.magaisa@kent.ac.uk
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment