Maravi

(ZIMBABWE GUARDIAN) Is MDC a revolutionary party?

Is MDC a revolutionary party?
By: Nancy Nyamhunga
Posted: Friday, April 16, 2010 2:38 pm

IT is often said ignorance is no defence. We have all fallen victims to fraud in way or the other at some point in our lives, and the risk will always be there as long as we have trust in other people. But then again, how can we relate to each other if there is no trust? I guess it’s a Catch-22 situation.

Behind the hysteria that surrounded African National Congress Youth League (ANCYL) President visit to Zimbabwe and his subsequent snub of the MDC, anyone with a clear mind would have noticed that there is something absolutely wrong with the way the MDC projects itself to the Zimbabwean black audience and what the party actually represents in reality.

When Malema indicated that his visit is only intended for revolutionary parties and therefore would not be meeting the MDC as it had nothing in common with the ANC, MDC South African branch asked this question during a press conference: "Does Mr Malema mean to say MDC is not a revolutionary party?"

One has to examine the whole structure of the MDC, its formation, its composition and its corporate governance, to answer that question.

MDC is a party that was formed based on misrepresentation of facts, (the claim to fight for democracy when the true fact is that its purpose seeks to sustain white supremacy in Zimbabwe’s economy). Its unique selling point is the ability to influence economic sabotage (sanctions) on Zimbabwe through its white members, with the resultant economic decline wholly blamed on poor governance on the part of the ruling party. It, therefore, becomes obvious that the majority of black members in the MDC do not have adequate information of what exactly the party represents because there has been, and continues to be, a lot of deceit between stakeholders.

That is why its black membership was shocked by the Malema snub. They could not understand why ANC, touted as a democratic party, could not relate to their own fight for what they perceive as democracy. To understand this confusion, one needs to examine the composition of the MDC.

Mr Roy Bennett controls the powerful treasury position and Mr Eddie Cross is responsible for policy direction. This is where the power rests. These are the managers of the MDC. They know exactly what the party wants to achieve and how. They hold superior information and the true purpose of the party which the majority of stakeholders (black party members) do not know.

This withholding of information is deliberate because what these two are fighting for is the right to maintain white supremacy in the economy of Zimbabwe, but in order to mask the true intention; they had to misrepresent the facts to a black audience, who happened to have personal grievances against the government.

The black members in the MDC hold promissory notes of democracy, right to freedom of speech, etc. in exchange for their support and votes. To weigh the probability of these promises being honoured when the time comes (if it ever does), one needs to examine the MDC symbol, the open palm.

All progressive revolutionaries who fought and are still fighting against black oppression, i.e. the late Samora Machel of Mozambique, Nelson Mandela of South Africa, the late Joshua Nkomo and Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe are well known for using the raised clenched fist as a symbol of resilience and defiance against black oppression which Mr Bennett and Mr Cross fought hard to maintain.

CLENCHED FIST: Robert Mugabe salutes a group of supporters as he arrives at Lusaka Airport, Zambia, on January 8, 1977. Zimbabwe celebrates 30 years of independence this weekend.

As managers of the MDC, both Mr Bennett and Mr Cross are still fighting against black independence and empowerment; hence they are challenging the signature of African revolutionaries, by proposing the opposite of the clenched fist — which is an open palm. It is a subtle way of demanding their old way of life, access to cheap black labour, access to natural resources, ability to destroy African culture and identity. In a nutshell, they are challenging everything that the African revolutionaries stood for.

By campaigning for sanctions to be imposed on the black population of Zimbabwe, the managers of the MDC are using the psychological warfare that was used by early colonialists, which forced us to embrace Christianity where we were taught that Jesus was white and Satan the devil was black.

Images of the ‘white Jesus’ were hanged in all places of worship and schools. The aim of this strategy was for black people to hate themselves as much as they hate their other number, Satan the devil, who was projected as black.

Sanctions are meant to achieve the same psychological effect, they are meant to corrupt our psyche so that we begin to think that former white farmers made life easy for black people when they owned the means of production and that blacks are better off as workers. That is why the MDC is vehemently opposed to the Indigenisation Act.

Whether the MDC is a liberation party or not depends on whose liberation it is. I would like to believe that to someone like Mr Cross to have challenged the African revolutionary signature symbol, the clenched fist, and replaced it with the open palm; itself signifying submission and surrendering of black freedom and economic empowerment to white capital, is a revolution indeed.

____________________
Nancy Nyamhunga writes from Leicester, United Kingdom. She can be reached via nancydmu *** yahoo.co.uk

Labels: JULIUS MALEMA, MDC, NANCY NYAMHUNGA, NEOCOLONIALISM, ROY BENNETT

posted by MrK @ 2:35 PM