The historical record of revolutionary struggles show nothing progressive. It is true that revolutions aim at, and can be credited for removing unacceptable systems, for better ones. But, when carefully analyzed, there is no revolution that ever brought acceptable results. In the African continent we can only see the negative effects, instead of what had been intended.
In Zimbabwe, the elderly people can attest to the fact that Smith’s administration had been many times better than what prevails. To the blacks, the governing system of Rhodesia’s Ian Smith may have, indeed, been unacceptable, as justifying revolutionary uprising.
But, when rationality is given credence, we have to balance what prevailed against the outcome of that liberation struggle. The cause of revolutionary struggle, in Zimbabwe, had nothing to do with what currently prevails.
This is not, necessarily, suggesting that Smith’s governing system ought to have continued unabated. Change was necessary, but it is a question of how that change ought to have been pursued. Naturally, the beam of light is the only effective force, necessary to remove darkness.
Jesus—as light of the world—advocates for communication, which makes it unnecessary for humans to continue fumbling in ignorance (John 1:7, 9). Jesus introduced communication as better method, than revolutions. Positive change is only possible when using Christ’s methods.
Christ’s own people rejected Him, although He brought acceptable information to everyone (John 1:11). Jesus could have been well accepted, had He projected the revolutionary concept—seeking to violently change what prevailed then. The interesting question, therefore, is; why did His own people reject Him?
Simply put, the concept that Jesus introduced was the opposite of what everyone had been accustomed with. In our revolutionary struggle, it would have been laughable to advise the comrades to love Ian Smith and turn the other chick. The 1893 history of the Matabele rebellion shows this as having been what caused the murder of Lotshe.
Loving your enemy is not applicable, in human civilizations. Lobengula and those of the first century, should be forgiven, as the enlightening information had not yet dawned on them. However, it ought to be different in modern civilizations, whose education draws lessons from historical revolutionary struggles, whether positive or negative.
Our Zimbabwean scenario clearly shows that there was something wrong with our revolutionary struggle. Those conferred with being true liberation heroes, can attest to the fact that what prevails in Zimbabwe is embarrassing. They may have been comfortable, at independence in 1980, but, definitely uncomfortable today.
Scientifically, there is, indeed, a cause for every effect. Jesus revealed that revolutions cannot be Godly sponsored. Satan, as author of confusion, is to be credited as sponsor, whose effects can be proven, through the results of revolutionary struggles (1 Corinthians 14:33).
In retrospect, we can analytically review merits and demerits of revolutionary struggles. Unfortunately, the present state of Zimbabwe, serves to invalidate any merit in revolutionary struggles, except embarrassment. If what transpired after the revolutionary struggle is unacceptable, the concept of turning the other cheek, as advocated by Jesus, ought to apply.
The positive datum—providing lessons—can help future generations to avoid emulating their forefathers. But, to the rational thinkers, the revolutionary struggle was an embarrassment. As the way, the truth, and the life, Jesus ought to have guided those desiring change in Zimbabwe.
Nevertheless, in God, there is time for everything. The timing for attaining independence in Zimbabwe was designed by God, without consulting the fighters. The 1980 independence was not pre-planned by fighters in battle-fields.
Whether true or not, what is written in Ian Smith’s 2008 edition of “Bitter Harvest,” John Blake Publishing Ltd—appears saner. That is, when compared with what our revolutionary heroes advocated.
It may have been fashionable to engage in armed struggle to influence change. But the methodology used, is difficult to separate from barbarism.
Ian Smith states that he had never been opposed to black governance, after all. He simply advocated for evolution, rather than revolution, for the uneducated blacks to come to the level of being trusted with leadership in government.
If what is in Smith’s book, is true; what could have been wrong with his concept? This is, as also opposing the terrible violence, perpetrated during the guerrilla war-fare which, unfortunately, negatively affected blacks more than the whites. Emotional reactions are always different from rational considerations.
I suppose our black leaders had evidence that their white counterparts, had better skills, compared to blacks? What could have been wrong with learning from them? The process of learning can be arduous. But, what is important is appreciating learning—including what one intends to do with that knowledge.
The evil, and unnecessary suspicions, caused the blacks to assume that the white people’s education was intended to brainwash the blacks to remain subordinate. Such suspicions originated from the Chinese Mao Zedong—whose unruly youths committed heinous murders to influential people—suspected of being enemies.
This is what influenced change, in Chinese culture, though instigated by the devil. It is that revolution that makes it difficult for Christianity to penetrate China, even today. Those from Western influences, probably, find it inconceivable, that an apparently progressive nation like China, cannot embrace democracy.
The simple answer is that the Chinese culture is dominated by Mao Zedong’s influences. Surprisingly, our black people found comfort in copying Mao Zedong’s influences, thereby, approving perpetration of violence, to attain independence. Yet, most of our Zimbabwean people had already been exposed to Christianity.
How could they find Mao Zedong’s influences more appealing than Christ’s teachings? Mao Zedong advocated violence, which, probably killed more innocent people, than the so-called culprits. Jesus advocated non-violence—saving more culprits, but including the so-called innocent ones.
In ‘Bitter Harvest,’ Smith appears as not having been difficult to deal with, after all. In other words, Smith did not commit mass murders, on reasons of suspicion, against blacks, when compared with Mao Zedong. Smith may have been racist, just like Mao Zedong could not have been free from racism.
Even the poor blacks, were not free from racism—as, basically, causing them to suspect Smith, due to his skin-color. But the iconic leaders of that revolutionary struggle always stated that they were not fighting against whites. But against the evil system that segregated blacks against their white counterparts.
It could be a question of whether many people understood Smith’s argument. But, there could not have been any reason to engage in war, had the black people understood Smith. Possibly, Smith understood those blacks?
This is when considering what later transpired in a country, having been a jewel of Africa. Nevertheless, those whites, as human beings, had racist tendencies in their ranks, associating the cause of liberation with skin-color.
Humans are different in skin-colors, characteristics and mannerisms. Some are short and others are taller. But, when civilized, people cannot allow such differences to take away their humanity. Simply put, if the leaders of the liberation struggle had been civilized, they could not have engaged in war.
Instead, they were driven by emotional suspicions—assuming that all whites were racists. This continues, even today, against the white people—even though the blacks claim to have attained independence. This does not rule out the fact that some whites are racists, just as some blacks are racists.
But, how else could our iconic liberation heroes have pursued the idea of independence? According to Jesus, communication prevents fighting, as softening interactional solidity—thereby, ensuring attainment of improved relationships.
Those unable to talk, are susceptible to fighting or killing each other. Suspicions are a result of inability to talk to one another. Mao Zedong’s red brigades had no time for talking to their victims. Anyone suspected of being an enemy had to be killed, one way or the other.
As long as not allowing communication to take place, such behavior is uncivilized. When regarding another person as human, it is impossible to suspect him, first and foremost. You seek to understand him, before engaging him/her to also understand your concerns.
The enlightened person eventually wins. The intensive liberation struggle of the early sixties could have avoided violence, in favor of proper communication. But, some people may have asked; how could communication be advanced to the considered intransigent white rulers?
Unlike South Africa’s apartheid policies—maintaining the stance that blacks were inferior—at least Rhodesians were amenable. The predominantly white rulers had acquiesced to allow a few blacks in parliament.
The black populace were influenced to regard those few black parliamentarians as sell-outs. This reveals how deep Mao Zedong’s policies had been entrenched. With the dominance of such suspicions, the back-ground of those black parliamentarians became questionable.
But, in his book, Smith insists that they selected those black parliamentarians, appearing as projecting positive influence over their fellow blacks. This was for purposes of easier dissemination of progressive information. This is just as democracy is adjudged as unworkable to the uninformed general public.
The values of democracy, can only be possible to an informed public. This is why, democracy appears as unworkable in most African countries. Education is, therefore, ideal, before democracy is introduced to the uneducated. Why couldn’t our nationalist leaders find logic in Smith’s viewpoint? Apparently, Smith was viewed as a racist, due to suspicion.
I suppose, even what is written here, could not have been advanced, during that time, without inviting suspicion? Being conciliatory, at that time, was dangerous. Many people died, simply for advancing the idea of communication with whites.
Mao Zedong’s influences were not limited to China. Virtuous people were mercilessly killed through Mao Zedong’s influences, just as many were killed in Zimbabwe. Observably, suspicion and mistrust, ahead of communication and reason, should be viewed as uncivilized.
Those advocating for communication with whites, were labelled as sellouts. Governed by such murderers, there is no wonder why Zimbabwe is in current state of shambles. Supposedly, the suppressed, but potentially good people, may have, accordingly, preferred to subdue their best ideas?
Propaganda is powerful to the uninformed populace—through the power of suspicion. For instance, the perpetrators of Gukurahundi crimes, were influenced by suspicion, but assuming to be advancing just causes. Driven by the same spirit, the Gukurahundi victims could justify committing similar vengeful heinous crimes on innocent people in future.
Mao Zedong may have not intended to cause such massive deaths against influential people. But, certainly, the communist China, needs deliverance. That nation’s economic advances appear as fortifying stability. But as long as the epitomes of suspicion are not retracted, the unpredictable danger lies ahead, for that country.
Communication, when seeking to address other people’s concerns is the only civilized idea, ensuring peace to humanity. Communication serves to break barriers and entrench relationships that make life predictable. This describes a new civilization that was introduced by Jesus, during His sojourn on this planet.
As communication implies exchange of ideas, language can be viewed as barrier, regarded as preventing communication. But, communication is possible, as long as intention is present. Without intention, people misunderstand each other, even when using same language. See [Knowledge is more important than Gold]
It is not difficult to understand another person if desiring to understand, regardless of language. Interestingly, the survival requirements of humanity are always interlinked. Human activities—except murder and other forms of criminality—are directed at survival.
Communication is the only way towards survival, as advocated by Jesus. That way enables dissemination of progressive information, as needed by all. Biblically, such progressive information suggests what is described as Good News. The reason why this information is called good news, is that it projects the proven and applicable information about human relations.
It is driven by virtues of understanding—doing the reverse of what was advocated by Mao Zedong. All suspicions have no room in God’s Kingdom, as communication is given priority over everything else. Through understanding, humans hold no reason to fight.
It is important to clinically answer one question in this life: Has any revolution ever won anything? Where, in the world can we point to—when seeking to describe successes in people’s revolutions? Uprisings are driven by reason.
But nothing positive appears as having been the outcome of any revolution on this planet. In Zimbabwe, people committed themselves to engage in revolutionary struggle, unknowingly removing a system that was, demonstrably, better than the successor. They have to blame themselves, than others.
Mao Zedong is used as an example, showing the evil effects of suspicions and mistrusts. In our society, relationships are guided, to some degree, by the philosophy of mistrust and suspicions. Marriages succumb to divorce on a day-to-day basis, due to suspicions and mistrusts. Solutions hinge only on adopting principles of communication as recommended by Jesus Christ.
Andrew Masuku is the author of Dimensions of a New Civilization, laying down standards for uplifting Zimbabwe from current state of economic depression into a model for other nations worldwide. A decaying tree provides an opportunity for a blossoming sprout. Written from a Christian perspective, the book is a product of inspiration, bringing reliefs to those having witnessed strings of unworkable solutions––leading to the current economic and social decay. In a simple conversational tone, most Zimbabweans should find the book as a long awaited providential oasis of hope.
The Print copy is now available at Amazon.com for $13.99
Also available as an e-copy at Lulu.com for $6.99