Zanu PF is the ruling party. The ideas of the ruling elite shape what we commoners do. Leftist scholars have written on this, showing how a revolution should aim at dismantling the ideas or the machinery of making and transmitting the ideas of oppression.
The struggle for ideas became part of the struggle for liberation. From the working class elites who wanted to get voting rights as well as enjoy the privileges of the white (wo)man to the rural poor who had been dispossessed of their land. It was a struggle between the new religion versus the traditional religion. The traditional religion, on seeing that it was losing members to Christianity, fought back accusing the new religion of causing the various mishaps, including diseases and pestilences that affected Zimbabwe (the Southern Rhodesia) in the 1890s. The struggle for ideas was escalated into open conflict, though it pitted the defenders of traditional religion versus the military that had come in to defend the new political dimension. Triumph, using the Maxim gun, was like saying the gun leads the brain. It was the technology that won. As such, the idea was not defeated, thus when African nationalism resurfaced in the 1940s it was clothed in certain ideas. The workers in the 1940s, premised their struggle around oppression. It seemed the working class ideology would take over. However, with time, the ideas expanded and questioned the why there was oppression in the first place and it was blamed on imperialism. This saw the coming in of anti-imperialist ideas. These ideas continue to date.
There were variations of these ideas in the 70s when Zimbabwe waged a liberation war struggle.
An attempt was made to have a school of ideology, where ideas would be processed or the students taught to formulate ideas.
The Herbert Chitepo School of Ideology never took off, but the question is, was it not necessary?
The struggle between the two factions in Zanu PF calls for an analysis of what the ideas shape the struggle. Have we heard any ideas spelt out. Is it wrong to say the fight is over who should be at the feeding trough?
Tuesday, 4 November 2014
10 Simple Questions to Complex Political Actions
I am a survivor of the bullets. I doubt if I will survive the current stream of bullets aimed at my being. I have been seeking answers to a lot of things that affect us in the village. I tried my MP, he explained all in factionalism. One of our sons who is at the university, stammered before he said something like "it can all be explained in dialectics." and he never said what this meant. We no longer trust the local traditional leaders, as they clearly showed, during the drought, that they think of themselves first. The only choice I have is to try and put my thoughts on paper.
Reading through the media, one would think we are a nation at war. Its not the obsession with the language of war, we witnessed since 2000. Then it was aimed at a target. Zanu PF trained its guns on MDC, the newly formed part also did the same. The hangover of an unexpected landslide in 2013, has opened new forms of opposition to Zanu PF. This new opposition is not from the MDC. It has no capacity to oppose. In fact, MDC specialised in opposing until a time it opposed itself. Thus its loss, which if you ask me is of its own making. One needs no Nikuv, to defeat a party that was at war with itself. Zanu PF learnt the hard lesson in 2008, and vowed to bury the hatchet as they went to the 2013 elections, or so we thought.
Now with the MDC on a rapid decline, new opposition has appeared in Zanu PF. It is new, not because its new, but new actors have come in, new thrust and new pretenses.
New in that the 1st Lady, who until now appeared a simple housewife has entered the fast turning Zim politics arena and when we expected Oppah to take her through her first steps, we were surprised to see she hit the arena running.
She was called a verbal suicide bomber, rightly so. Her speeches, a rich data set for a student of rhetoric or discourse analysis, show a certain trend. Whether deliberate or as an afterthought, it is clear the pattern was evident: move from the obscure to the definite. At first we heard her say some people, we were made to make our own conclusion. But we saw the things change as she became clear on whom she targeted, it became apparent that the some people were Teurai Ropa.
This now makes one ask questions:
1) Did she mean to attack Mai Mujuru from the onset, or she realised it made more punch when she was midway through the meet the people tour?
2) Her elevation to the Women's League, calculated to frustrate those angling to topple Oppah, seem to have been just that at first but it seems it was hijacked as it was used to pre-empty a "coup". Did she take the offer to serve the women or her family or her interests or its an interplay of all?
3) Did she gain support from what she did? Would this be the best way to enter into politics? Was there no other way?
4) The open attack of not only Mai Mujuru but Kaukonde as well seem a grand plan, did it help the cause? How would one interpret the Mash East Vote of Confidence. Is it vote of confidence or its open defiance against the 1st Family?
5) The open, clumsy and illogical purging of those thought to be supporting Mai Mujuru (Jabu, attempt at Kaukonde, Gwanetsa) is open warfare. Did it help heal factions or it widened the rift?
6) When she came, she claimed to be healing factions, would we say she has?
7) Mujuru's silence and the feeble attempt at silencing Herald can be seen as a weak and simple response to a complex situation. Is this the best they can do? Or they are up to something BIG? Or what we saw in Mash East is just a tip especially when married to what happened in Masvingo and Mash West where those who had voted against Themba decided to withdraw though it was too late?
8) In the final analysis, when one looks at what has happened in the past two months, would we say Zanu PF has done much to fight factionalism or it has increased it?
9) The factional leaders keep claiming loyalty to the President. Is this the truth or they have seen it as the best approach but plan something grandeur behind doors?
10) Where do the think tanks (Ibbo et al) securocrats (army, policy, intelligence) stand on this?
As we get answers, we may get more question and during times like these, it is better to ask than to wait for answers to questions forgotten long ago.
Gandanga
Reading through the media, one would think we are a nation at war. Its not the obsession with the language of war, we witnessed since 2000. Then it was aimed at a target. Zanu PF trained its guns on MDC, the newly formed part also did the same. The hangover of an unexpected landslide in 2013, has opened new forms of opposition to Zanu PF. This new opposition is not from the MDC. It has no capacity to oppose. In fact, MDC specialised in opposing until a time it opposed itself. Thus its loss, which if you ask me is of its own making. One needs no Nikuv, to defeat a party that was at war with itself. Zanu PF learnt the hard lesson in 2008, and vowed to bury the hatchet as they went to the 2013 elections, or so we thought.
Now with the MDC on a rapid decline, new opposition has appeared in Zanu PF. It is new, not because its new, but new actors have come in, new thrust and new pretenses.
New in that the 1st Lady, who until now appeared a simple housewife has entered the fast turning Zim politics arena and when we expected Oppah to take her through her first steps, we were surprised to see she hit the arena running.
She was called a verbal suicide bomber, rightly so. Her speeches, a rich data set for a student of rhetoric or discourse analysis, show a certain trend. Whether deliberate or as an afterthought, it is clear the pattern was evident: move from the obscure to the definite. At first we heard her say some people, we were made to make our own conclusion. But we saw the things change as she became clear on whom she targeted, it became apparent that the some people were Teurai Ropa.
This now makes one ask questions:
1) Did she mean to attack Mai Mujuru from the onset, or she realised it made more punch when she was midway through the meet the people tour?
2) Her elevation to the Women's League, calculated to frustrate those angling to topple Oppah, seem to have been just that at first but it seems it was hijacked as it was used to pre-empty a "coup". Did she take the offer to serve the women or her family or her interests or its an interplay of all?
3) Did she gain support from what she did? Would this be the best way to enter into politics? Was there no other way?
4) The open attack of not only Mai Mujuru but Kaukonde as well seem a grand plan, did it help the cause? How would one interpret the Mash East Vote of Confidence. Is it vote of confidence or its open defiance against the 1st Family?
5) The open, clumsy and illogical purging of those thought to be supporting Mai Mujuru (Jabu, attempt at Kaukonde, Gwanetsa) is open warfare. Did it help heal factions or it widened the rift?
6) When she came, she claimed to be healing factions, would we say she has?
7) Mujuru's silence and the feeble attempt at silencing Herald can be seen as a weak and simple response to a complex situation. Is this the best they can do? Or they are up to something BIG? Or what we saw in Mash East is just a tip especially when married to what happened in Masvingo and Mash West where those who had voted against Themba decided to withdraw though it was too late?
8) In the final analysis, when one looks at what has happened in the past two months, would we say Zanu PF has done much to fight factionalism or it has increased it?
9) The factional leaders keep claiming loyalty to the President. Is this the truth or they have seen it as the best approach but plan something grandeur behind doors?
10) Where do the think tanks (Ibbo et al) securocrats (army, policy, intelligence) stand on this?
As we get answers, we may get more question and during times like these, it is better to ask than to wait for answers to questions forgotten long ago.
Gandanga
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)