By Petina Gappah|Facebook
Do please excuse the length. The last time I wrote something of this nature it was to defend Zanu PF supporter Reason Wafawarova from attempts to deport him from Australia. If we believe in fundamental freedoms, they absolutely have to be for everyone, and not just for those we agree with. So it is in that spirit that I write here in defence of Nick Mangwana‘s short speech at the Zanu PF Congress.
A few years ago, I was not able to talk to anyone in Zanu PF, I really couldn’t. I could not get over my repugnance for that party. I ended a long friendship with a childhood friend after she took on the job of handling Zanu PF’s campaign during the run-off in 2008. I regret the end of the friendship, but I don’t regret the decision that led to it. That year was a painful one, deeply wounding, particularly to those who lost family, whose family members were murdered, and I use that word deliberately, because it was murder, and to the many who were beaten, tortured, and yes, raped, in the name of winning Mugabe an election. I still believe that Morgan Tsvangirai’s withdrawal from that election was the finest thing he has ever done, the only thing he could do. The fact that people are slowly getting over it says something about how resilient we are.
I am not sure I personally will ever truly get over the ugliness of that election, but it is thanks to meeting people like Nick Mangwana and a few others that I have been able to overcome my revulsion for that party.
I will never be a supporter, too much has happened, but I am pragmatic enough to recognise that, whether in government, or one day, we hope, in opposition, it is in all our interests that Zanu PF attracts good, qualified people who are moderate and broadminded in their thinking. Since my move to Zim a few years ago, I have been really fortunate to meet, and back in Geneva, to work with more than a few such people. They tend to be behind the scenes, quietly doing foreign policy and trade and international development work, not mouthing off at rallies. I have met some amazing veterans who went to war and are now fighting quietly for the dignity and interests of Zimbabwe, not just Zanu PF, a crucial distinction. I have come to respect quite a few of them, and indeed, to admire them.
Which brings me to Nick. I have listened to that speech a few times this morning. He did NOT say the diaspora should not vote.
He said five things:
1. It is undisputed that diaspora remittances are propping up the country.
2. But not all is good within the diaspora: there are destabilising elements there too (nhubu), and gave two examples of Sten Zvorwadza and Evan Mawarire
3. To deal with such elements, he said, we need, and I quote “vanorova vari muchadenga”, we need to hit them on social media, and he specifically mentioned Twitter. So he said we should counter the opposition in the diaspora using means like social media. He did not say we should “abuse their human rights” as is being reported.
4. To be effective, he added, the diaspora needs to be “structured” because they say we are 4 million, but it does not mean that all 4 million should vote; those who want to vote can come home.
5. But while we party members are out there, we party members can mobilise resources, those remittances for our families could also go to the party and its internal structures, so that if we cannot support by voting, we support the party through economic means. Wemust see our role as not just to vote, but also to support the vote by mobilising resources.
Which part of this is controversial?
He did not say anyone should be beaten.
He did not say the diaspora should not vote.
In fact, he simply repeated the party line. Yes to the diaspora vote, but in Zimbabwe, not in the diaspora. How is this new to anyone who knows Zanu PF and government policy on this? He specifically said how the diaspora can vote, by coming home to vote.
Now, I would counter that that is not at all practical, or indeed feasible for everyone. And I support the diaspora vote in the diaspora, and have been thinking about all sorts of ways to make it feasible. So on that I disagree with Nick, with Zanu F and with government policy. But I repeat that Nick did not say the diaspora should not vote.
There is more I would criticise in the speech, I found it regrettable that he singled out two people who have moved between Zim and the diaspora. But nothing he said is violent, or abusive, or trying to shrink the rights of others.
Guys, there are better battles the diaspora should be fighting. Not this faux outrage over pretty obvious statements.
In addition to the vote, there is one crucial, outstanding matter to the diaspora: and that is the status of your children.
Through the clause that makes citizenship by birth inalienable, and thus impossible to take away under any circumstances, the constitution now allows dual citizenship for those born in Zimbabwe, a position confirmed when Mutumwa Mawere took government to court.
The constitution also states that Parliament has the power to enact legislation giving dual citizenship to Zimbabweans by descent (those born to Zimbabweans by birth) and Zimbabweans by registration (those married to Zimbabweans or who qualify by means of residence etc.)
It is almost five years later, and Parliament has still not passed the enabling legislation.
Is that not a battle we should be fighting?
Then there is this:
My favourite part of the video is when someone interrupts Nick to introduce him properly, explaining that Zanu PF has structures in South Africa, Britain etc, and someone shouts, “Takarongeka.”
That my friends is what you should be focusing on, and worrying about.
Because the opposition is where exactly?
In this year of crisis where have they been? What support have they really given to the citizens movements that have been popping up? Because factions or not, Zanu PF yakarongeka.
We can only hope that there are more moderates like Nick who will have a role after 2018, or else that the opposition wakes up in the next six months. Because this country cannot afford any more plunder or wreckage. So let’s focus on that, not on what we think was said, when it actually was not said.
With my warmest regards, Petina Gappah
Related Posts:
- Baileys Womens Prize for Fiction: Petina Gappah’;s death row novel earns first ever Zimbabwean nomination
- ‘The Book of Memory,’ by Petina Gappah
- Book review: The Book of Memory by Petina Gappah
- Sentenced To Death For Murder, A Woman Tells Her Story From Memory
- The Top 20 Influential Zimbabwean Women Who Rocked In 2015
- Literary fraternity mourns Hove