admin
Elliot Ziwira At the Bookstore
The recently published “Fulfilling the Promise: Zimbabwe from Munhumutapa to the Second Republic”, is a heritage training manual that aims to give Zimbabweans a chance to locate themselves in the history that shapes their destiny as a way of tackling present challenges for a better future.
With an introductory message by President Mnangagwa, the handbook, capitalising on reader-friendly language, chronicles the country’s history from pre-colonial times, through colonialism and its attendant intrigues, to the First and Second Chimurengas, post-2000 Fast Track Land Reform Programme, and Zimbabwe’s post-colonial achievements.
Furthermore, it captures the devastating impact of the heinous illegal economic sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe by the West at the instigation of the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and their genesis.
Through ingenuity, initiative and foresight, the Government of Zimbabwe, particularly in the last five years, managed to achieve notable milestones, notwithstanding isolation from the international community for more than two decades.
Through the highs and lows characteristic of nation-building, the manual gives Zimbabweans a sense of belonging, not necessarily through historical innuendo, itself key in collective recalling of memory for the greater good, but by also highlighting that history goes beyond the recording of seemingly silent past events.
Africa has a history too
“Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past,” writes George Orwell in “Nineteen Eight-Four” (1949).
As such, it is possible to implore the past to speak to the present; it is possible to silence it even, but it is impossible to blackout its memory, for the past is stubborn. It is not in its nature for the past to forget.
Yet, the Hegelian Philosophy of History insists on a supremacist theory that uses past memories to depict the African as subhuman, intellectually confounded, lacking in agency, culturally insolvent, and devoid of a history of his own.
White supremacist god Cecil John Rhodes informed opinion on the “European cultural onslaught on the identity of Africans” (Gwekwerere, Magosvongwe and Mazuru, 2012:94).
He influenced Rudyard Kipling, with his “half-devil, half-child” idea of the African. Both Rhodes and Kipling were following in the tradition of Hegel, Voltaire and Montesquieu.
In Hegel’s (2004:80) view, Africa, “the land of gold”, has “remained cut off” from “the rest of the world”. He asserts that the continent is “the land of childhood, removed from the light of self-conscious history and wrapped in the dark mantle of night”.
In Hegel’s (1956:93) eyes the African “exhibits the natural man in his completely wild and untamed state (in whom) . . . nothing harmonious with humanity is to be found”.
In the European’s eye, Africans have no history; hence, the use of the derogatory term “pre-historic” in their supremacist view of Africa before colonialism.
Presumed to have no history of their own, Africans “could enter history, but only as a beneficial result of European conquest” (Armah, 2010:41).
It is against such a disparaging view of the African that the reading of “Fulfilling the Promise” becomes revealingly apt.
A crucial takeaway from the book, therefore, is its emphasis on an Afrocentric conception of history. The strength of this philosophy is that it erases past and present memories of Africans for a future thrust independent of colonialism, where Africans take control of their destiny leveraging on their heritage—the land.
So, why study history?
“There are two primary purposes for studying history. The first is to inform and educate. The second is to build confidence in individuals and communities.
Through history, societies or nations identify with their past, which in turn gives them an identity that can either preserve or bolster sovereignty, national pride and patriotism.”
Thus, opens the book to a chapter on pre-colonial Zimbabwe states.
Among these states are Mapungubwe, Great Zimbabwe, Mutapa, Torwa, Rozvi, and Ndebele. By recalling pre-colonial statecraft, the book puts issues of national heritage, democracy and selective amnesia on the history of Africa by the continent’s detractors for nefarious motives into perspective.
Reading the manual, makes it clearer why ancestral heritage and national interest should override individual aspirations for the common good.
Heritage, a fundamental take-out from “Fulfilling the Promise”, encompasses tangible and intangible property that may be inherited; a tradition, practice or values that are passed down from generation to generation through families or institutional memory.
In other words, it refers to the tangibles or material gains that accrue through ownership of the means of production—land. And, the intangibles, also enshrined in the land, refer to spiritual and cultural connectivity as well as the moral codes that keep the Zimbabwean society intact.
The land, therefore, is a national heritage that should not be tempered with, for it straddles interdisciplinary spheres capable of shredding the societal fabric embodied in the family unit, and mirrored in communal and national discourses.
As observed in the book, the land remains central to the contests leading to the challenges that Zimbabwe faces today. Hence, due diligence needs to be exercised in its handling for the benefit of present and future generations through correction of past mishaps.
For Zimbabweans to reclaim and be in control of their heritage, they should free themselves from the influence of colonial gods and their proxies. While history is important in situating land in the struggle for independence, it should not be an end in itself, but a means to an end, where the past is reflected in the present and the future.
It is this that makes “Fulfilling the Promise” an essential manual in fostering unity, identity and patriotism among Zimbabweans.
Because the past exists in human memories and records, depending on their clout as informed by prevailing ideologies, individuals have a way of selectively recalling from a people’s repository of memories whatever speaks to their interests, and deliberately forget whatever imperils them.
This fastidious forgetfulness is used to recall past memories, and temper with them even, not so much as to inform the present, but to erroneously pass it on as collective history for posterity.
Since history is always a conflation of accomplishments and miscarriages, which can be used as learning slates for both the present and the future, Africans, Zimbabweans among them, should tell their own stories.
Although it may have shortcomings of its, principally arising from editorial glitches here and there, and use of a timeframe of more than 10 centuries, which stretches the reader’s concentration span and compromises output, the handbook remains a must-read for those seeking an understanding of the Zimbabwean story from an African vintage point.
Reflections on the Lancaster House treachery
“The agreement marked the beginning of a process of transition from settler colonial capitalism to an indigenous-neo-colonial state.
However, the constitutional agreement constrained this transition process. It required 10 years before any changes that disrupted the capitalist regime (that was protected by the constitution) could be made.”
The above citation from “Fulfilling the Promise”, reflects on the deceitful outlook of the Lancaster House Agreement.
Historians, Raftopoulos and Mlambo (2009: xxviii), point out that after a long-drawn-out liberation struggle, the Agreement gave the nation of Zimbabwe a Constitution at birth on April 18, 1980, which “embodied a series of compromises over minority rights, in particular on the future of land ownership.”
Section 16 of the Lancaster House Constitution, which advocated for property rights, was aimed at safeguarding the minority interests of white Rhodesians who owned the means of production.
Therefore, white capital was guaranteed glory in the sunshine.
Even though some may want to pretend otherwise, as Chigwedere (2001) avers and collective memory concurs, the Lancaster House Conference of 1979 was a contestation of heritage designed to legitimate robbery and justify murder in the name of modern negotiation.
The Lippert Concession of 1891 testifies to the same.
At the conference, delegates from the Patriotic Front of ZAPU and ZANU, and the Zimbabwe-Rhodesian government haggled for more than three weeks over the land issue.
Fighting in the corner of the Rhodesians, his kith and kin, Lord Carrington pressed for a clause in the Constitution protecting individual property rights.
The Patriotic Front, on the other hand, wanted to do away with the existing land tenure in Rhodesia after independence.
Having built a legacy around the land, White Rhodesians did not want to let go. Thus, the land was the major stumbling block to progressive negotiations.
Sir Shridath Ramphal, Commonwealth secretary-general (1975-1990), who was Robert Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo’s advisor at the Conference, said Lord Carrington was negotiating with Mugabe and Nkomo on one hand, and Smith, and General Peter Walls, on the other, so “there was no way he was going to get a constitution that didn’t guarantee the status quo on land” (New African Magazine, 2007/2008:5).
He revealed that “there was a sleight of hand because when Mugabe and Nkomo threatened to leave Lancaster House, unless the land issue was dealt with in a way which would allow for land redistribution, the fudge was: ‘You will be helped to pay the compensation that the constitution requires to be paid'” (ibid).
Playing God, Lord Carrington told the Patriotic Front: “If you do not agree to the provision of the draft constitution, but other delegates do, the conference will resume without you” (ibid: 6).
What that meant was the British government, Bishop Muzorewa, Ian Smith and General Peter Walls could negotiate for a settlement without the Patriotic Front.
In view of Lord Carrington’s arm-twisting antics of the Patriotic Front delegates, authors of “Fulfilling the Promise” observe: “The fact that the issue of land reforms was not handled properly by the Lancaster House Constitution continues to haunt Zimbabwe to date.”
The 10-year moratorium on the Constitution regarding land ownership, and that 20 seats in the “new 100-member National Assembly and 10 in the Senate” were reserved for white settlers limited options for the Government of the newly independent nation-State of Zimbabwe.
Sanctioning a people’s heritage: Politics of sabotage
Of profound interest is the way issues of sanctions, regime change proponents disguised as non-governmental organisations, and multinational companies are highlighted in the handbook through adept reference to history as a lived experience.
Drawing from scholars, experience and history, authors of “Fulfilling the Promise” maintain that economic sanctions, which the United Nations has referred to as a “tool for all seasons,” lead to terrible humanitarian concerns. They argue that economic sanctions rob citizens of a target State of the right to live in dignity.
The Hegelian supremacist idea does not only manifest itself in the sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe following the post-2000 Fast Track Land Reform Programme, but the manner in which the European nation regroups in its laager enclosure to thwart efforts for success in the African nation (Chigwedere, 2001).
Zimbabwe has been on the receiving end of sanctions since 1966, either by the United Nations, United States of America, the European Union or both, thus qualifying the country for candidacy in the ‘sanctions industry’ (Ogbonna, 2015), which impedes the rights and well-being of ordinary citizens.
In a study titled, “Politics of Sanctions: Impact of US and EU sanctions on the rights and well-being of Zimbabweans”, Chidiebere C Ogbonna, an academic, researcher and peace facilitator, observes that Zimbabwe has “been sanctioned in six episodes: 1966, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2008 and 2009.”
This makes the Southern African nation “one of the most sanctioned countries in the world,” hence, scuppering economic growth, and consequently, threatening the overall welfare of Zimbabweans.
The 1966 episode followed Ian Smith’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence on November 11, 1965, which led to the isolation of Rhodesia from the international community.
“In 2000, Zimbabwe engaged in a Fast Track Land Reform Programme in an effort to resolve the long overdue Land Question. Consequently, the United States of America imposed illegal and unjustified sanctions under the Zimbabwe Economic Recovery Act (ZIDERA) of 2001. . .The European Union (EU) also introduced its own sanctions in February 2002,” reads the training manual.
Amended in 2018, ZIDERA has a series of Executive Orders which are renewed yearly.
Concerning human rights, “Fulfilling the Promise” attests that sanctions impact on the rights to healthcare, education, reliable transport, potable water, and quality standard of living, which, on the overall, affect social welfare.
The illegal sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe, which are claimed to be targeted, negatively impacted key economic factors like inflation, access to foreign currency and foreign direct investment (FDI), credit lines and markets.
In concurrence with arguments raised in the handbook, Dr Geoffrey Chada, a historian, notes that, although sanctions appear non-violent, their impact is extremely violent, as they have a social effect on ordinary citizens.
Sanctions, in the global context, refer to penalties prescribed for the breach of international treaty obligations, such as those set out in the Charter of the United Nations.
Dr Chada asserts that economic sanctions applied at international level, like those against Zimbabwe, involve restrictions on trade, financial transactions, and communications between the target state and the imposing states.
They fall in the intermediate class of collective measures; being more severe than diplomatic, or political measures such as votes of protest, votes of censure, expulsion, or suspension from international bodies and non-recognition.
Concerning their ruinous nature, “Fulfilling the Promise” concludes that by the end of 2019, Zimbabwe had lost over US$42 billion in revenue due to sanctions. Also, the country has lost about US$4, 5 billion annually in bilateral donor support since 2001, and US$12 billion in loans from financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and African Development Bank.
In addition, Zimbabwe suffered US$18 billion in commercial loans and a gross domestic product (GDP) reduction of US$21 billion.
As all this plays out, proxies of the Empire, in the guise of opposition parties and some non-governmental organisations, “wittingly and unwittingly”, play into the postcolonial agenda to “resurrect the Rudd Concession” in an attempt to “restore the colonisation of Zimbabwe” by surrendering the country’s ancestral heritage—the land, and all that grows in its womb, to former settlers.
All in the name of democracy—an impoverished democracy.
However, despite all the spanners thrown in the works, the Government, notably in the Second Republic, delivered on its promise to Zimbabweans through people-oriented socio-economic policies as 2030 beckons for the attainment of an upper-middle income economy.
Online Reporter