Why there is hope in Chamisa, rather than in ED

Sadly, while we have people who support Mnangagwa’s government, for corrupt reasons, there are those supporting him without justification. It is doubtful that most of the ZANU PF youths are paid anything in return for loyalty. The problem with the culture of loyalty is that it serves to shut a person’s intellectual capability.

Patriotism should be interpreted on the basis of principles of the common good, rather than on the basis of personalities in leadership positions. What sustained bad leadership in Robert Mugabe, was a failure to understand this simple maxim. Mugabe’s supporters could not distinguish between personality and the common good for the Zimbabweans.

Most of those supporters could not imagine Zimbabwe without Robert Mugabe. The myth, sustained in G40, is complicated by those opposed to the coup plotters, on matters of principle, as distinguished from those having idolized Mugabe. In the so-called G40 group, there were those who genuinely saw the looming danger of ED’s vexatious ascendance. But the majority among that group sought to maintain Mugabe’s pseudo monarchy.

Those people could not interpret the realities of Mugabe’s disastrous achievements on the ground. Instead of viewing these as manifesting bad leadership, they sought to blame Western nations. But nothing can be worse than blaming Western Countries for failures, in light of having attained independence from such colonialists. Unfortunately, this may be too complicated for most Zimbabweans, unable to see through this kind of tomfoolery.

The majority of those believing in the supremacy of Western countries are the uneducated of our society. Some of them may be holding enviable educational degrees, yet remaining uneducated. Such people assert their standpoint on the basis of ignorance, rather than on the basis of intellectual understanding. This is why the idea of compensating white farmers, is viewed as nobler than compensating the victims of Matabeleland massacres.

Nelson Chamisa - Zimbabwe's young political crusader - BBC News

Unbeknown to many people is that ZANU PF has always been a British project to sustain white supremacism. Robert Mugabe did not win a popular vote, in 1980. Except using the tribal card, hoodwinking the uneducated Zimbabweans, who then became tools for supporting white supremacism. Genuine historians will highlight the fact that Margret Thatcher saw the protection of white interests in Mugabe, rather than in Nkomo.

This is notwithstanding that Nkomo sounded as moderate, compared with Mugabe’s rhetorical radicalism. Such rhetoric was clearly calculated to hoodwink the majority of the uneducated Zimbabweans. They believed that Mugabe had brought true independence to the previously marginalized black people. But the opposite was true.

Everything that is wrong about Zimbabwe, stems from that false datum. Our independence was ushered on the basis of falsehood. The British became more excited with what was evolving in Zimbabwe, more than the black Zimbabweans. The British were aware of the negative effects that would emerge from Mugabe’s ruinous leadership policies. It would lead the Zimbabwean black populace towards believing that white administrators are better than black administrators.

Indeed, there are many who, actually, believe in that scandalous falsehood. The fact that Mugabe reduced the country into shambles, due to the British shenanigans, does not mean all blacks are like Mugabe. But the British, actually, took advantage of tribalism, existing at the time of independence. Although not many blacks believed in tribalism, its existence, in some quarters, was sufficient in elevating the treacherous Mugabe.

The British intelligence manipulated that weakness, fanning the idea that Mugabe was a great leader, compared to other African leaders. The British press attempted to expose this scandal in the early 1980s, but their government managed to play it down. Bear in mind that Mugabe was, actually, knighted during the Gukurahundi fiasco.

As far as the British were concerned, there was nothing wrong with Mugabe massacring the Ndebele-speaking populace. I emphasize the Ndebele-speaking term, as specifically different from the Ndebele tribe. The racist British government capitalized on the historical tribal differences, aware of the effect it had on the uneducated Africans. But, the usage of Ndebele as a spoken language does not necessarily define one’s tribal identity.

The Gukurahundi commander, Perence Shiri, was, actually, awarded special military training in the UK. Meanwhile, Mugabe continued with maintaining his rhetoric of being anti-Western. Through organizations like Lonrho, the Zimbabwean minerals were being siphoned, at the expense of the uneducated ordinary Zimbabweans, used only for sloganeering.

Of all the people, it seems no-one else understood the schemes of the British government better than Ian Douglas Smith. Many still view him as having been a rebel leader of the former British colony, Rhodesia. Apparently, his only sin may have been his skin-color, more than he could have been the real enemy of Zimbabwe.

Most black people had become blinded by the emotional hatred of the Rhodesian system. They could not pay attention to the visionary viewpoints of Ian Smith. Margret Thatcher, known to have originally opposed Zimbabwean independence, suddenly became a darling to the new dispensation, under Robert Mugabe’s leadership.

If truth be allowed, the British government must be held responsible for what later transpired in Zimbabwe. It is unfair to label the entire black populace for supporting Mugabe. There is no proof that Mugabe was popularly supported at independence. The terrible Gukurahundi fiasco became supplanted in people’s minds, making it impossible to entertain ideas of other political parties, other than ZANU PF. Many of those attempting to oppose the established system, had their lives prematurely cut short.

The Gukurahundi debacle had nothing to do with Ian Smith, but more to do with the British and the apartheid South Africa. The uneducated continue to believe that such debacles revealed that blacks were incapable of governing themselves. But that is exactly the point that the British sought to prove when facilitating for a man like Mugabe into power.

Sadly, the wickedness of the British government remains veiled. Today, most people believe that it was Britain who sponsored the emergence of MDC and Tsvangirai. This is due to ordinary people’s inability to see through ZANU PF’s well calculated pretentious revolutionary facade. Fast forward to 2017, when the Blue Ocean document, was revealed by Jonathan Moyo. The same British government wanted Mugabe’s successor from ZANU PF, rather than from MDC.

They found Mnangagwa to be the most suitable candidate. This, obviously, shows that Mugabe had previously been their darling—until the shambolic land reform exercise, prejudicing their kith and kin. Hence, their private arrangement with Emmerson Mnangagwa, to eventually address the land question in exchange for backing his coup expedition. This is exposed in the now known three billion-dollar deal, with white farmers.

In the public domain, the British are opposed to ZANU PF policies, on matters of governance. But in private, the existence of ZANU PF is necessary for maintaining their interests. Under normal conditions, no government of integrity could have supported Mnangagwa, with his well-documented track record. But the treacherous British supported Mnangagwa, not for lack of more suitable candidates. ZANU PF policies are more favorable to their interests, rather than facilitating the granting of true independence to Africans.

The ZANU PF propaganda machinery makes everyone believe that MDCA is a puppet of the West. But, that is a ruse, forever remaining in the minds of the uneducated. MDCA, especially under the leadership of Nelson Chamisa, is a threat to the British government’s interest. They could have sided with MDCA, only if MDCA advocated for violence.

Chamisa is a threat to the British government, more than he is a threat to ZANU PF. This is hard to sell, especially, to those, all along believing that ZANU PF is anti-Western countries. But Jonathan Moyo’s Blue Ocean document should put to rest any cause for doubting the shenanigans of the British government. Through its intelligence apparatus, Britain prefers that Zimbabweans remain under a dictatorship rather than acquiring self-determinism.

They prefer a strong dictator that they can control and manipulate in safeguarding their interests. This is confirmed in the scandalous decision to pay back over three billion US dollars to former white farmers. This could not have been the initiative of Mnangagwa, necessarily. He was manipulated to commit himself, for the purpose of receiving British support.

It is true that the British government did not complain about the Gukurahundi massacres. Just as it is also true that the British government complained strongly when Mugabe violently took over white farms. The symbolic British complaints about the activities of the Ferret forces are simply for PR purposes. If MDCA assumes having the British behind them, they had better think again.

It is only the older generation that is entangled in the web of confusion, under colonialist paranoia.  The younger generation should be trusted with the positive direction of this country, rather than those affected by the aberrations of the previous generation. There is hope, as long as Zimbabweans become aware of the existence of British shenanigans.

In my view, that is exactly what makes Chamisa the best candidate for Zimbabwe’s next leader. When a leader like that comes to power, Zimbabweans become free indeed. Zimbabwe has the potential to become richer than Britain, as long as allowed to be self-determined. That does not save the British’s secretive agency, obsessed with proving a point that black rulers are incapable.

Since the last forty years, Zimbabwe is yet to attain independence, having been under the effects of the British machinations. It is now time that young Zimbabweans should realize the meaning of independence, as implying self-determinism. There is no truth in assuming that white people are more superior to blacks. But there is truth in that the blacks have remained in slavery, even after assuming independence in the last forty years.

My prayer remains in that Nelson Chamisa and his group, remain focused, even against the most acerbic provocations. There is real hope at the end of the tunnel. His supporters should just ignore most of what comes out of the media, and encourage ordinary people to be aware that they are masters of their own destiny. There is no independence that comes with preconditions. The greatness of any country lies in the ability to use sober minds, by those concerned.

Andrew Masuku is the author of Dimensions of a New Civilization, laying down standards for uplifting Zimbabwe from the 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 relief to those having witnessed the 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