Maravi

(TALKZIMBABWE) Ndebele President or President of Zimbabwe? The debate rages on...

Ndebele President or President of Zimbabwe? The debate rages on...
Itayi GARANDE
Sun, 23 Nov 2008 20:47:00 +0000

DEBATES about the election of Senator Barack Obama to the Presidency in the United States of America are predicated on an a-priori assumption that US politics and society is organised around racial lines. There is a truth to this, but we live in ever-changing times where socio-political, cultural and economic systems are constantly being transformed. They are not static, but are in a state of constant flux. The ‘new’ exists alongside the old and the narratives used to explain that co-existence differ with the passage of time.

The debate around race in the US is not entirely misplaced. Political tribalism has been a phenomenon of US politics for a long time; especially in the roaring '60s. American Catholics backed John F. Kennedy and later his brother Ted. Whole segments of the Church, bishops and priests included, bought into this political machine. But they mistook a surface "identity" with their religious or cultural background (for example, working class Boston Irish) for real principles.

Up to now, the exclusion of the Black population in mainstream politics was a consequence of the chequered history of the United States and the institutionalisation of racism, perhaps more than it had to do with how individual American White people viewed Black Americans.

Many arguments advanced by critics of the US electoral system have concentrated on the race issue: that America was/was not “ready for a Black President”. One of the assumptions of these critics was that White Americans, or Americans in general, are a homogenous lot who view the world in some synchronised unidirectional way and could easily switch from one mental form to the other, if political circumstances change – that they can all elect (not elect) a particular President, from a particular racial or other background.

Another assumption is that social and political relations in the US have been optimised to a point where conflict is minimized and individuals in the US political system have an identical mindset that necessitates the harmonious endorsement and election of a “Black President” – even by White conservative America.

Other critics argue that race is no longer an issue in American politics – that somehow post-modern America is now in the post racial stage. The election of a Black President is viewed as endorsement of general Black leadership in mainstream American politics – never mind their political orientation. The assumption here is that institutional Washington has completely transformed.

This argument has been extended to the Zimbabwean political scene. The editor of New Zimbabwe.com, Mduduzi Mathuthu, argues that there can never be a “Ndebele President” in Zimbabwe because the political system will not allow a Ndebele leader to become president – never mind that the argument advanced in the US was about race, not tribe (two entirely different arguments).

Mathuthu argues that the election of Senator Obama as US president has “projected America as a beacon of democracy where the idealism of its founders remains alive” – never mind that the founders of the US (who were mainly Whites) did not factor (or entertain) the election of a Black President as a possibility.

He says this single incident - the election of Sen. Obama) in American politics and society has trumped “centuries of prejudice and racial cleavages” adding that “Obama’s seminal achievement redrew America’s political map and confounded generations of hitherto sure-proof political wisdom.”

In presenting his argument Mathuthu borrows from the election of Sen. Obama and tests whether the same “feat” can be repeated in Zimbabwe through the election of a Ndebele leader as President. “How feasible is the prospect of a Ndebele president, Nambya, Tonga, Venda, or mixed race, disparagingly still officially referred to as ‘Coloured’ almost 30 years since the end of white colonial rule?” he questions.

To support his question he opens up a war-time Zanu / Zapu debate over control of electoral constituencies.

Quoting David Smith and Colin Simpson’s book simply entitled “Mugabe” and published barely a year after independence in 1981, Mathuthu devotes his entire argument to a quotation by the authors where President Mugabe said to Lord Soames at election campaign time: “Look Lord Soames, I’m not new to this game, you know. That’s my part of the country, Manicaland, that’s mine. The fact that Nkomo can’t campaign there is down to the fact that I control it, I’ve had a cell there for five years. Is it surprising that people don’t turn out there for Nkomo? Would I go to Nkomo country (Matabeleland) and expect to raise a crowd there? Of course I wouldn’t.”

Mathuthu uses this period sensitive quotation to suggest that Zimbabwean contemporary politics is polarised along Shona/Ndebele lines and that there is a “Nkomo country” and a “Mugabe country” in Zimbabwe. He also argues that “this polarisation still holds, and will remain political currency for a while.”

He adds: “For that reason, the miracle of the American election – translated in Zimbabwe to mean the election of a President from a minority tribe – is as distant as the last page of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.”

Mathuthu then suggests that this process has repeated itself in the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) party where a Ndebele leader, Mr. Gibson Sibanda, "should have been" the leader as he was senior to Mr. Morgan Tsvangirai.

He adds: “National political leadership in Zimbabwe remains the preserve of the Shona majority,” he says adding that “Other than through war or some act of God, it is difficult to see how a minority leader can win an election in Zimbabwe. It is largely because Mugabe’s doctrine of ‘Nkomo country’ and ‘Mugabe country’ was executed so methodically as to leave the nation permanently divided and condemned to an eternal pursuit of elusive oneness.”

Understanding the argument: What is tribalism?

Although the struggle for power in Zimbabwe has been littered with tribalism, it has never been confined only to Shona-Ndebele form of tribalism. Pre-1987 Zanu and Zapu parties drew significant membership from both the Shona and the Ndebele – and so does the MDC party today. War stories from Zimbabwe record significant Manyika/Karanga fighting within Zanu/Zanla (military) in Zambia in the early 1970's. Zanu Chairman in exile, Herbert Chitepo, a Manyika was allegedly murdered by his Karanga rivals.

It cannot be dismissed though that tribalism has informed some political choices and affected Zimbabwean politics, but it has never been solely responsible for explaining the ascendancy of certain individuals or the breakup of parties – even the original Zapu.

Political maverick, Edgar Tekere still claims he was instrumental in helping President Mugabe’s ascendancy, but he is a Manyika. He criticized Rev. Ndabaningi Sithole, who came from the same region as him, for “selling out” the struggle.

The breakup of the original Zapu, many people would argue, was not caused by tribalism, but ideological (and personal ambition) lines. In any case intra-Shona ‘tribalism’ was even stronger during the period Mathuthu talks about than the Shona-Ndebele variation of tribalism.

Using Mathuthu's line of argument what would deter other tribes from calling for a President from their own part of the country? One commentator argued: “Should we in Manicaland then nurse a perpetual grievance that Bulawayo is bigger and more developed than Mutare? Should we complain that Beitbridge is more developed than Forbes border post? Should we complain that Victoria Falls and Hwange have better hotels than Nyanga, Chimanimani and Vumba?”

The word "tribalism" never became an entirely important emic term in Zimbabwean politics and the a-priori assumption that somehow Zimbabwean politics, especially its contemporary form, is organized around tribe is misplaced.

Tribe has only been invoked at a time of crisis by those who seek meaning and explanation, for instance the latest desire to resuscitate PF-Zapu or calls by extreme groups for the creation of a Matabele state.

I do not think that tribalism persists as an active contemporary phenomenon that can be used to provide a sound narrative of mainstream and contemporary Zimbabwean politics.

Modernisation

By only using arguments advanced in 1979 (1980) to understand the present, Mathuthu misses some very vital points.

Even if we, for argument’s sake, accept the validity of tribe as explanatory of the supposed reason why we cannot have a Ndebele president, the last thirty years has seen many developments in politics, society and economics (commerce), globally in nation-states. These developments have impacted on politics: nationally, regionally and internationally and people’s perceptions of that politics.

Such developments are often missing from discussions by current political pundits and many of the pundits advancing the story of ‘the present’ do not understand how ‘the present’ is constituted. That theoretical gap in understanding ‘the present’ often impacts on the effectiveness of solutions (or narratives) advanced.

It is no longer possible to talk of Zimbabwe without understanding the regional context within which it is placed. Regional centres have become the new centres of competition and governance. To export beef to the UK one would have to pass the EU sanitary and phytosanitary tests. Likewise oil and petroleum prices are very much dictated in the Arab world. So whatever visualisations of the centres of power Mathuthu might have (tribe in this case) might not be where power is currently located. Besides, power is in a constant flux and shifts with changing times.

Power is thereby understood in many different ways. There are power rearrangements in different historical epochs. Zimbabwe has gone through many epochs. Ian Smith once vowed that there will never be majority rule in his lifetime – and many people believed him. His statement was placed in that era, just as President Mugabe’s statement to Lord Soames was placed at the height of the Zimbabwean struggle for independence (crisis time).

Every epoch has a crisis which reorients the locus of power. In 1923 during the Great Depression, there were global and national power shifts, as at the break-up of the Soviet Union and now we are witnessing another crisis: the global financial crisis which will affect global, regional and national power relations. Today with the Global Financial Crisis, we are seeing another seismic power shift as China and India affirm their power positions.

So our conceptions of power and what (or who) determines power should also shift. If we are stuck in the tribal mode, events might move faster than us.

Barrack Obama's appeal to 90% of black American voters is indeed an example of "political tribalism” but is not sufficient to explain his ascendancy to presidency. Rev. Jesse Jackson when he ran for the Democratic nomination had almost a similar approval rating from the Black voters.

All sorts of people and races indulge in this sort of identitarian or group mentality; but also share many other essentialisms; manifested mainly through other influences in the polity, for instance the influence of popular culture.

Republicans in America who under-estimated the rise of Sen. Obama failed to understand the socio-political and cultural elements that were shaping (and reshaping) America. America of yesteryear (and today) was (and is) dominated by some powerful Black images that have made the acceptability of Sen. Obama as President of the US possible: These include the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, Revs. Jesse Jackson Sr. and Jr., Oprah Winfrey, Michael Jordan, Aretha Franklin and even Russell Simons (Def Jam), P. Diddy, 50 Cent, Tyra Banks, Jay-Z, Oprah, etc.

A young white boy in the US South (Mississippi, etc) listens to music by Jay-Z, P Diddy or Jennifer Lopez. This is the symbolization that drives political decisions and alters the political ideological field.

A well-known Zimbabwean scholar calls these symbols “strategic essentialisms” – they alter our notions of ‘the present’ and our conception of what is acceptable and possible, and the choices we make in ‘the present’. The American people, besides viewing Sen. Obama as merely a Black president; they also believed that he could be a good US President today, in ‘the present’.

These essentialisms are also in a state of constant flux, and have an unknown durability. What happened when a teenage White boy replaced heavy metal with rap? Surely it has nothing to do with race, but with what is perceived as strategically essential, and therefore acceptable, at the time.

Any sort of balkanized politics is easily being eroded by the power of popular culture and the influence of these strategic essentialisms.

But it is simplistic to suggest that Sen. Obama won the Presidency because of his skin colour. He worked hard and had many personal attributes that gave people the confidence that he could be US President. His record spoke volumes. He was the first Black President of the Harvard Law Review (appointed on merit), was one of only 5 Black State Senators in the history of the US Senate and the only African America Senator to get a re-election (1998, 2002) and the third to have been popularly elected. He is also the only Senate member of the Congressional Black Caucus. Congress.org ranked him as the eleventh most powerful Senator, regardless of race.

Race alone, therefore, does not explain Sen. Obama’s election to the presidency. Tribe alone will not explain why there is not a Ndebele executive President in Zimbabwe.

The election of Sen. Obama has no permanent explanatory meaning as to where the US is, and will be, in terms of race relations in the aftermath of the 2008 US presidential election. This is an exceptional individual who worked hard, understood the system and was in the right epoch in US politics.

How could one explain the fact that 67% of Hispanics and close to 49% Whites voted for Sen. Obama. Where these people were voting for a Black President, or able President? Would Rev. Jesse Jackson Jr. of the Rainbow Coalition and son of Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr. have won if he ran for US presidency?

A UK Barack Obama?

When Trevor Philips the Chairman of the UK’s Commission for Racial Equality in Britain said there can never be a Barack in the Labour Party, he understood that the European take on race, is not the same as in America and what drives the election process in the UK is significantly different from what drives the same process in the US.

Popular culture in Britain takes a different dynamic. Even Black music awards are carefully named Music Of Black Origin awards (MOBO). Yet, even in that context, exceptional talent seems to be rewarded above race. Leona Lewis was simply unstoppable, and so was Lewis Hamilton and we have seen a Black man, Paul Ince, managing an English top division team – Blackburn Rovers.

The institutional barriers are still there, but the formidability of exceptional talent cannot be underestimated and the influence of popular culture has to be factored in.

Although there was some truism in Philips’ assertion, he failed to acknowledge the role of events (including popular culture) and individual conviction to elevate oneself to unimagined power positions.

Margaret Thatcher still exists as the lone female British PM. Many would have heralded her election as a sign that Britain had gone past sexism. Can there ever be a Margaret Thatcher in America, or another ‘Margaret Thatcher’ in Britain? Yes, indeed! Can there ever be a woman president in Africa? There’s already one – the Liberian President, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf. Other examples include the late Pakistan President Benazir Bhutto and the late Indian Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, who became leaders in societies were women traditionally are not afforded the same opportunities as men.

'Mugabe Country' vs 'Nkomo country'

Mathuthu’s prediction that there can never be a Ndebele President because of what President Mugabe said in 1979(80) true, or untrue, is simplistic. To suggest that a country with such a rich tribal and cultural history can be divided by one individual is preposterous and mind-boggling. His suggestion that there will only be a Ndebele President “through war or some act of God” is irresponsible. War can never be condoned as a process of changing leadership, or suggesting such a change.

One cannot argue that the late Dr Joshua Nkomo had the right credentials to become President, so did Martin Luther King Jr., but they both didn’t. Not everyone becomes President, although many individuals are eligible for that post. Dr. King and Dr. Nkomo however, paved the way for future generations, but so did any other leader not in a presidential capacity. It would be irresponsible to tell a young Ndebele boy that they can never aspire to be president simply because they were born Ndebele. Such reductionist thinking should never guide our politics or our society.

The statement, “Mugabe’s segmentation of Zimbabwe into ‘Nkomo country’ and ‘Mugabe country’ still holds,” is banal and incomprehensible.

What is particularly devious about tribal politics is that unlike the old barbarian clannishness, it makes a sham appeal to universal morality in denouncing oppression or discrimination. There's always a hidden assumption that the majority is always out to get the minority.

Some claims to tribalism have some currency, for instance certain institutions in Zimbabwe might favour Shonas over Ndebeles, or vice versa. But critics make one fundamental mistake. They go on to apply a totally subjective remedy which is no more than an expression of envy or hatred, for instance suggesting that war or an act of God will ensure that a Ndebele is elected President.

Mathuthu’s remedy is troubling and shocking. After suggesting that Shona's are deliberately blocking the possibility of a Ndebele President, he then recommends that there should be a process of creating “a collective responsibility to cultivate healthy politics that guarantees opportunities for all who are qualified for the task.” In an sense he rubbishes his entire argument by suggesting that meritocracy should be the test. How then can you talk about “war or some act of God” when he is aware that the right credentials are what makes one president?

The exemplary leadership of Dr. Joshua Nkomo had nothing to do with his tribe, nor that of Rev. Canaan Banana or Vice President Msika. In any case, Zimbabwe has only ever had one President, so what precedent is there for Mathuthu's assertion?

Mathuthu then further dilutes his argument by suggesting that leadership of a party (and therefore Presidency) should be based on regionalism, implicitly suggesting that leadership should be rotated. Such argumentation is unproductive. L:eadership is a product of meritocracy, not some fancy idea about tribal, racial, sexual or any other equality.

Rotating the presidency keeps the wheels of vengeance turning, and reduces human polity to a series of never-ending vendettas – where each time a Shona is elected, tribalism is evoked, and vice versa. This may be the way of savages (of the cultural or ideological variety), but it is totally out of keeping with our African moral heritage or even our Roman-Dutch and customary notions of law and socio-legal organisation.

What Mathuthu calls “the miracle of the American election” is a product of hard work, self belief, geopolitical shifts, popular culture and many other factors. It cannot be explained only by the colour of one’s skin (or by the Kenyan tribe from which Sen. Obama comes) or the tribe one hails from. I am sure US President-elect Obama hopes that his election was predicated on his sound campaign and the strength and depth of his character, and therefore his suitability for presidency. He also accepts, I am sure , that race might have played a role in 2008 US politics, but could not be singled out as the sole reason why he won.

Tribalism in contemporary and future Zimbabwe

Tribalism exists in our Zimbabwean society, but does not, to a large extent direct our politics or move the engines of our society. It is the preserve of a mischievous minority few. Zanu PF and the MDC (combined) all have significant tribal representations.

Whether or not there’ll be a Ndebele president in Zimbabwe is not the issue. There will definitely be a president from some ethnic tribe, as long as they are of the calibre the electorate prefer and the socio-economic and political terrain is allowing of that candidate at that time.

When humans are challenged by basic survival, tribalism becomes an adaptive device that helps people cooperate to reduce risk. In that process they create even more conflict through polarization and suspicion of the activities of each other. With tribalism you get an in-group/out-group mentality that is a liability in the current political crisis in our country.

The arguments about a Ndebele President or not are important arguments. They should be discussed. But suggestions that someone will (will not become) president because of their skin colour or their ethnic (or tribal) group are regressive, counterproductive and a manifestation of a restive and anxious populace that is tittering on the edge.

Mathuthu in arguing that there will never be a Ndebele President in modern Zimbabwe somehow looks as if it was inspired by what Lenin aptly called the "trade union" mentality in politics.

Itayi Garande
itayi@talkzimbabwe.com

Labels: PRESIDENCY

posted by MrK @ 10:49 AM