Maravi

(HERALD) Tsvangirai’s ‘them’, ‘us’

Tsvangirai’s ‘them’, ‘us’
By Tendai Hildegarde Manzvanzvike

LINGUISTICS is the systematic study of language, and the result, according to Jean Aitchson in her book "Language Change: Progress or Decay?", is that it is a field of study whose expansion has been embraced by psychologists, sociologists, philosophers, anthropologists, teachers, speech therapists and many other disciplines.

Unfortunately, some disciplines have not yet seen the importance of linguistics. This is why we realise that in Zimbabwe, for instance, people who study linguistics at university end up teaching, because most people have not seen its relevance in other fields. This problem is not confined to Zimbabwe.

Almost two decades ago, Paul A. Strassmann, a US management and IT specialist, bemoaned the failure by the United States educational institutions to train more linguists, whose duty would be to decode, encode, encrypt, decrypt and decipher messages in the global pool of languages, the English language included.

This writer makes this argument because there is a realisation that a large majority in our midst has failed to systematically encode or decode languages, including Shona, and in the process have been unable to understand the depth of messages from the MDC-T and their Western sponsors.

We will start with the name "Movement for Democratic Change".

As this writer deciphered it, there was a realisation that this movement’s name was acknowledging that while MDC had realised that democracy already existed in Zimbabwe, all they wanted was to replace it with another form of democratic principle that they preferred.

And who were these people who preferred another form of democracy contrary to that we had fought for? Not the indigenous Zimbabweans, of course.

This is why the major sponsors of the MDC-T assumed another racial dimension, with black people being used as fronts to advance an agenda that was actually alien to them.

This is why this form of "democratic change" could not sell among war veterans who knew very well that they were the fathers of true democracy in Zimbabwe.

If we follow this line of argument, it could also be concluded that black Zimbabweans, who had accepted and welcomed independence in 1980, actually became part of a movement that advocated a system that was alien to them.

Thus advocating "democratic change" was, from the very beginning, a fallacy, and they were aware that a certain racial and ideological element in its membership was using black people to illegally overthrow a democratic system that the people had fought and died for since the settler colonialists set foot in Zimbabwe in the 1890s.

"Democratic change" also gives credence to the argument that there are various forms of democracy, and not necessarily the Western mode of democratic values and principles, being advocated by the MDC-T.

The Tower of Babel best explains this unitary and multiple democratic systems. In Genesis 11: 1-9 it is recorded: "Now the whole earth had one language and one speech . . . And they said, ‘Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth’.

"But the Lord came down to see the city . . . And the Lord said, ‘Indeed the people are one, and they all have one language . . . Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech." . . . Therefore, its name is called Babel, because there, the Lord confused the language of all the earth . . ."

Using the linguistic perspective, and the above biblical example, one can easily conclude that there is neither one model of democracy, neither two nor three but many, and when the different nodes in each democratic system interlink, they bring out diverse democratic models, which borrow from one another.

It would therefore be a misnomer to say one particular model is better than the other. Instead, the MDC-T membership has made the conclusion that certain democratic models are better than others are because they are force-fed to say so.

Which means that for the MDC-T to believe that Western democratic values are better than the democratic values indigenous Zimbabweans ostensibly fought for is not only wrong, but it is also misrepresentation of reality, and what democratic values entail.

This takes this reader to the second level in the systematic language usage by MDC-T since its formation in 1999.

They presented a construct called "change", which made it look like Zimbabwe was the only nation that was not following natural laws.

In their argument, they presented a Zimbabwe whose growth in all spheres was stunted.

But reality is that change is the only construct known to man that is not only continuous, but also permanent. When some people embraced the much touted change concept, modelled and sponsored by the West, these people failed to interrogate the underlying messages from a linguistic perspective.

If they had unpacked that "change", and related variables, they would have realised that this was nothing but a gimmick being used in an attempt to overthrow the Zanu-PF Government, in order to advance British and American interests.

This decoding of messages in that "democratic change" agenda would have also shown the people who swallowed the idea hook, line and sinker that it was not a people-oriented change.

For, how could a person who purports to advance your interests ask Western nations to impose economic sanctions against you, and then turn around and say that these are not economic sanctions, but travel bans against President Mugabe and his Government and party officials?

If the linguistic model had also been used to differentiate between travel bans, targeted sanctions and/or ‘‘restrictive measures’’, they would have discovered that they were one and the same thing — illegal economic sanctions.

If there had also been any modicum of interrogation in MDC-T circles, and others, they would have asked themselves why these so-called travel bans were hurting them, and every social and economic sector.

They would have also asked why they had resulted in the malfunctioning of the commercial and manufacturing sectors, which resulted in the majority of them being retrenched.

They should also have queried why corruption, which was one of the many reasons advanced, was resulting in the closure of private companies since Government did not have a stake in them, with the exception of parastatals.

But most significantly, they would have asked why a leadership that had even succeeded in having a clause with the wording "sanctions and measures" in the GPA, always got tongue-tied calling sanctions by name, since Western nations that imposed those sanctions had no qualms calling them that — sanctions.

They should also have questioned why their leader Morgan Tsvangirai saw it fit to finally call those travel bans or ‘‘restrictive measures’’ sanctions when the MDC-T commemorated its 10th anniversary on November 29?

Did they not find it peculiar that he was now shifting the goalposts, and could they not question him why they should believe that these were indeed sanctions, and not what he and the others in that movement had always called them?

Why was this term mutating, and assuming various nomenclatures? Now they were finally being called sanctions, how would this affect them, since "travel bans" had caused untold suffering?

Why was Tsvangirai changing tact? What fundamental events made him do this: the ongoing talks among the principals in the GPA where the guarantors of the agreement, both Sadc and the African Union would be made to believe that unlike Zanu-PF, MDC-T was fulfilling to the letter its side of outstanding issues, while they were presenting more so-called outstanding issues?

If MDC-T supporters had from the beginning understood the linguistic differences in the sanctions discourse, why did they allow themselves to be co-opted by their leader into an issue they had not taken part in, which instead had ruined their lives?

For on November 29, Tsvangirai told his supporters in part: "Kuti tizodaidza masanctions iwayo makambenge maita sei?" (For us to call for the imposition of sanctions, what had you really done?)

The linguistic element again comes into play. Who is "Us" and who is "You"? It might sound easy to say that by saying "us" Tsvangirai was referring to the black leadership in the MDC-T, who are usually the ones seen by supporters at the rallies.

Supporters, still in their comfort zone might have also believed that they were part of the "us", since the belief that the MDC-T is a conglomeration of various interest groups has been over-emphasised. Where does labour now come in when unemployment is so high, with the informal sector being the only viable means of survival?

It is sad when people forget to go back in time and history — basic elements in how linguists piece together evidence in order to come up with admissible reasoning.

After failing to read their leader’s lips, the supporters also quickly forgot that none of them had globe-trotted to Western cities clamouring for the imposition of sanctions on themselves, except for those who called themselves "us".

They also forgot that while they lost jobs, and the politics of the stomach took centre stage, what the inclusivity in "us" was only limited to their agitating for "change", while the other bit of "us" was lining its pockets with Western funds, freely flowing since they were the real "us" (no pun intended).

Again, they failed to question why in a short space of time, the number of NGOs had ballooned from a few hundred, to several thousands, while they did not have jobs, although their leader’s background was in labour.

This was a blinding factor when people take language usage for granted for nothing exists in a vacuum, even language is also not value free.

While there was so much concentration on donors, humanitarianism and civil society, terms that are usually agenda driven, the MDC-T supporters actually failed to see that these had also become the single most powerful industry, benefiting a few individuals.

The MDC-T leader’s statement must also not be analysed in isolation, for within a broader context there are other global events that gave impetus to the change agenda.

A good example is Viktor Yushchenko’s much hyped Orange revolution in Ukraine. Tsvangirai’s supporters must ask themselves where it is now since it was a "revolution" that energised MDC-T.

Even Kenya ended up with its own ‘‘sell by’’ Orange Democratic Movement led by Raila Odinga, whose personal interests in Zimbabwe’s internal affairs are fuelled by his relationship with the MDC-T leadership. Just like Ian Khama.

When the West sponsored the formation of these destabilising forces in order to control the world’s resources, they did so with the belief that the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of communism in the former Soviet Union would see them riding roughshod in every territory they so chose. Just like what they did in Iraq, are doing in Afghanistan, and intend to do in Iran.

The formations they sponsor lack credible foundations, and like houses built on sand, they will not last, when real winds of change manifest. The land reform programme was one such wind of change.

Five years on, Yushchenko has no hope of winning elections, even after the popularity he enjoyed during those nights of protest when the thousands he led believed that chanting slogans night after night could bring them real change.

That change did not materialise. In fact, Yushchenko could not change the system. According to reports, he became part of the system. Ukraine’s economy has seriously declined, and its banking system has collapsed.

Ukrainians like Zimbabweans are frustrated disillusioned, and they are tired of empty promises in the change agenda.

The nation continues to face unprecedented power cuts since the imposition of sanctions, more specifically after the passage of the US sanctions law, ZDERA in 2001.

Thus, MDC-T supporters should have priorities, proper focus if they are not advancing the West’s agenda. For once, they must start questioning issues with critical mindsets.

What industry, especially agricultural production, can take off at the rate at which power cuts are being experienced?

What industry will survive these monstrous power outages? What industry can also operate viably when fuel is so expensive, and other infrastructures need a total overhaul, which the 2010 Budget is nowhere near to achieve?

How will Finance Minister Tendai Biti’s envisaged 7 percent growth rate for 2010 be achieved when the situation is the way it is — dire? Maybe the humanitarian sector will do it, even if the funds will not be released.

Obviously there are no prices for guessing who was referred as "they" — President Mugabe, Zanu-PF officials and party cadres and other progressive forces who have aggressively been behind the land reform programme.

To Tsvangirai, these "they" are answerable for something he was not able to say out openly to his supporters.

After successfully waging the liberation struggle, and ushering in a Zimbabwean-style democratic system, suddenly, this whole group did something so awry, and the only way was to collective punish them and all Zimbabweans through the imposition of economic sanctions.

But is it not a wonder that people were being asked to second guess on action that had assumed various names and denials, and only to be told for purposes of convenience that there indeed are sanctions?

One cannot also help but think that the sudden turnaround on sanctions was done to give the impression that MDC-T stood for the people’s interests and not Zanu-PF, and make the latter concede to additional demands on their issues list that gets longer every now and again.

As one observer pointed out, if indeed Tsvangirai had the power to undo the sanctions, why did he not announce that breaking news — when and how this would be done?

He could not because the American administration made it very clear that they were the ones who imposed those sanctions, and they would only remove them when they were satisfied that the desirable "change" they wanted had taken place.

This is notwithstanding that Zimbabwe never stopped surviving since those sanctions were imposed. However, Zimbabwe demands their removal as a right enjoyed by any member in the family of nations — the UN.

Zimbabwe also demands that sanctions be removed for no one (super or small power) has the right to punish it for getting back what rightfully belongs to it — land and the resources therein.

This writer reiterates a statement from the December 12 Movement: "They stole us; they sold us; they owe us? Reparations!"

However, they will never silence us. Even the Muckrakers of this world will never stop us from demanding the true rights that should be enjoyed by sons and daughters of this land.

A content analysis of the sanctions debate should never lose focus of these fundamental historical facts.

Tsvangirai’s "them" and "us" also sounds like Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, where they could not face up to their actions, but passed the buck. Adam told God: "The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate." Meanwhile Eve said: "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

All that Adam and Eve needed to do was repent. The same with the MDC-T leader. All he needed to do on November 29 was to apologise to his supporters, for a majority of that crowd is reeling under sanctions right now.

The second group that needs that apology is Zimbabweans, who have always known that the MDC was being used by the West to implement the sanctions regime to under mine first our sovereignty and then the independence of Southern Africa.

Labels: COLOUR REVOLUTIONS, MORGAN TSVANGIRAI, NEOCOLONIALISM

posted by MrK @ 5:49 PM