Maravi

(HERALD) Dialogue: way forward for Zim

Dialogue: way forward for Zim
By Stephen Mpofu

THE heated-up pre-election adrenaline that boiled over in parts of Zimbabwe is cooling down like mercury in a thermometer after a day of searing heat. Now is the time for leaders of opposition and ruling parties to wave the olive branch across the narrow divide to flag off a meeting between them to find a homegrown solution of their political conflicts. Other credible opposition leaders will also find empty seats drawn out for them around the conference table.

After all, a dependable and reliable mediator has long been in place in the person of South African President Thabo Mbeki whose initiatives have already borne results in the parliamentary unanimity over some Bills that have now become law.

Any words that have bolted out of the stable of some careless lips trying to lower his esteem as a referee should be regarded as war words and ignored and this means also that the hate language of the recent past as the parties prepared for battle should now become extinct.

Moreover, the different political parties are familiar with their common social circumstances, so they are bound to reach a state of inter-subjectivity in any indaba held with neither party concealing hidden agenda in a hand drawn close to their chest as such gimmicks can sabotage efforts towards durable amity in our country.

The combatants embracing and smiling for cameras and the public at large? Why not? Did not blacks after the revolution in 1980 blaze a trail impossible not to follow by political organisations around the world with our policy of reconciliation between sworn enemies emerging from years of a brutal war of liberation? Yes, Zimbabweans did although some whites fled the country suspecting that the olive branch that the then Prime Minister, Cde Mugabe preferred camouflaged an AK47.

The war of liberation was between complete strangers with nothing in common except the soil that accommodated the different colours, different cultures, and different aspirations.

Zimbabweans from the ruling and opposition parties share a common ideology of belonging in the same motherland but that they can easily kill by burying their heads and hearts deep in political intransigence to the detriment of present and future generations since this is the only country we can call our own.

In any case, the war between blacks and the former ruling culture was for social, political and economic space, all of which were denied.

The "war" between Zanu-PF and the other political parties is for political space, which can be stretched out to accommodate as many tenants because it is elastic.

Consider the foregoing and you (yes, you) will agree that the margin of difference between the contending parties is narrow and can easily be melted out with saliva at the conference table.

Moreover, the conflict this time around is between "first-degree" brothers, where as in the armed struggle it was between complete strangers. President Mugabe and MDC-T leader, Morgan Tsvangirai have already stated their willingness for dialogue to find a solution to the country’s challenges.

But, of course, let us face it, foreigners with hidden agendas are trying strenuously to magnify the differences between the ruling and opposition parties in Zimbabwe by loosing their foreign Press, infamous in Africa, to magnify events in Zimbabwe and other third world countries out of proportion. They do this by validating centuries old Eurocentric beliefs that nothing good can come out of Africa.

It is indisputable that the foreign media have become their countries’ war weapons fired at targeted countries and emptying fusillades of falsehoods as their bullets. Examples of these deliberate demonisations can be sighted closer to home.

For instance, when xenophobic attacks on immigrants in South Africa began, the Western Press reported that Zimbabweans were targets of the brutality when, as everyone in Africa knows, Mozambicans, Malawians, Nigerians, Somalis and so on suffered the same fate with more Mozambicans killed than Zimbabweans as a matter of fact.

Just last Sunday, the Voice of America State radio reported in one breath that South Africa had "deported" hundreds of Zimbabwean immigrants but in the next breath the news bulletin said those affected had fled violent attacks on them to seek shelter and had said "they wanted to return home."

While the contradiction should have been so obvious to the news writer, it appears that the over-riding desire to cause antagonism between the South African and Zimbabwean governments over the "deportations" blinded that medium to the conflicting statements in the bulletin.

But why such antagonism? Easy — obviously to alienate President Mbeki whose mediation efforts in Zimbabwe do not please imperialists who wish to see rivers of blood flowing across different Zimbabwean political organisations so the enemy can sail through to plunder and pillage our natural resources while our people are disarrayed, nursing internecine wounds.

The same radio station also quoted former Church of England Archbishop Desmond Tutu as saying "a strong case could be made for sending foreign peace-keeping troops to Zimbabwe" to quell what he claimed was a crisis here.

This pen is reluctant to believe that the Anglican Church man of God, on the one hand, President Mbeki and African National Congress leader Mr Jacob Zuma stand on the other with their heads back to back on the Zimbabwean situation instead of facing in the same positive direction that has already been recorded concerning the Zimbabweans political challenges.

Or was Tutu merely speaking to prevent the spotlight on his Nobel Peace Prize fading which would be understandable as that keeps him in the world limelight?Or was his remark an abstracted close-up from a broader context of a statement he may have made concerning the Zimbabwean situation?

If that is not the case, then the godly man accidentally engaged his pious tongue in reverse gear to suggest that such a peace-keeping force had been desirable to deal with the xenophobic outrages that have seriously dented his own country’s image by raising fears of security on the eve of the World Cup.

It is unfortunate that so many politicians around the world slam their tongues into reverse on issues they know very little about then drive dangerously until stopped at "road blocks" by people who know better, whereupon they make a U-turn with lame apologies.

Obviously, Tutu like other "specialists" on matters in countries they have not toured to observe the situation on the ground must have based his remarks on this country if he was correctly quoted, on foreign Press reports.

Then there is that holier than thou in East Africa who was also reported in the same Voice Of America radio world news bulletin as strongly agitating for deployment of African Union peace-keepers to this country without, like other critics of Zimbabwe knowing fully what has been going on in this country.

Raila Odinga, Kenya’s Prime Minister and opposition party leader, neglects the political rottenness in his own country from which he recently emerged to be in his cozy seat by wagging one finger at sties in Zimbabwe’s eyes while more of his fingers point back at his own eye and saying: "oaks, oaks, oaks, Odinga!"

Perhaps he should re-read his Mau Mau revolutionary father Odinga Odinga’s book, "Climbing Mount Kenya." Then he should climb up that mountain to have a clear worldview of the situation on the ground in Zimbabwe.

Progressive peoples of the world should be warned that if its antics are not checked, the foreign Press will one day trigger a third world war. But Zimbabweans would stop worrying themselves to the grave if only they realised that an invisible warrior waits patiently for them to humble themselves and allow him to fight all their wars for them.

His name is Jesus Christ.

Labels: ELECTIONS, POLITICS, ZIMBABWE

posted by MrK @ 2:35 AM