malvernmugadzikwa
New recruits at guerilla training camps were issued with sticks symbolising the iconic AK-47 rifle that they were mandatorily and religiously supposed to carry wherever they were.
From sunrise to sunset, when eating or bathing, when training or not, the sticks were always — always — supposed to be at arms’ reach.
Being spotted without the stick attracted an imponderably heavy punishment for offenders.
The stick would, however, progressively give way to the actual rifle, which, in a way, became the guerillas’ third arm.
In all this, the instructors wanted to teach and inculcate in liberation fighters the indispensable value of their weapons as tools for mobilising the masses, clearing obstacles in their path and prosecuting the liberation struggle against an entrenched white settler regime.
Throughout the bitter and bloody 14-year armed struggle, the AK-47, or “Sabhu”, as it was affectionately named by fighters, was the weapon of choice, only separated from the gallant and determined wielder by death.
But even then, it was passed on like a baton to ensure the struggle continued to the bitter end, which it did.
After uhuru, the AK-47, which we had used to ferociously fight our way through, became a symbol of our grit, resolve and victory.
It now stands as an instrument that underpins and undergirds the security and stability of this sacred teapot-shaped Republic.
So revered was this handy and effective weapon, which was invented by that Russian military engineer Lieutenant-General Mikhail Timofeyevich Kalashnikov in 1947, that it found its way on our coat of arms, as well as on the national flag of our fellow comrades in neighbouring Mozambique, where Frelimo also ferociously fought to dislodge the Portuguese.
But in the hands of power-hungry aggressors, it has sometimes been weaponised to inflict untold pain, trauma and suffering, often taking millions of lives, including innocent ones.
This grim fact haunted its creator, Kalashnikov, to the grave.
On April 7, 2013, about six months before his death on December 23, 2013, Kalashnikov, in apparent mental anguish and spiritual turmoil, wrote to the head of the Russian Orthodox Church: “My spiritual pain is unbearable. I keep asking the same insoluble question. If my rifle deprived people of life then can it be that I . . . a Christian and an orthodox believer, was to blame for their deaths? . . . The longer I live, the more this question drills itself into my brain and the more I wonder why the Lord allowed man the devilish desires of envy, greed and aggression.”
So, inasmuch as the AK-47 can underwrite and guarantee peace, it can also be a source of grief, which makes it a double-edged sword.
Enter social media
Social media is also the same.
The same way it can have an alluringly utilitarian value as a platform to connect the world is the same way it can be equally baneful when weaponised for nefarious ends.
Critically, the launch of Facebook (February 4, 2004), Twitter (July 15, 2006) and WhatsApp (November 2009) radically changed the way we communicate, as well as information dissemination by creating a bottomless portal to share information from across the world.
It essentially gave the same power Big Media (or corporate media) enjoyed for years to individuals.
Collapsing borders through its extraterritoriality, it reshaped the information and communication landscape, and with it, the territorial sovereignty of states.
Unfortunately, the awesome power, ability and capabilities provided by these platforms have created a new digital frontier for adversarial forces to wage a new kind of warfare — asymmetrical warfare — against targeted states or jurisdictions.
Remember, our struggle did not end with political independence; it continues, albeit in different form, on different terrain and with different weapons.
Further, these platforms have created convenient hunting grounds for various interest groups to recruit and mobilise communities around a cause, however good or bad it might be, making them a potent force that can potentially build or destroy communities or societies.
Nowhere is the deleterious impact of these platforms being felt more than in the United Kingdom, which finds itself in the throes of violent demonstrations by so-called far-right, anti-immigration groups that were incited by fake news on social media after the fatal stabbing of three children — Bebe King (6), Elsie Dot Stancombe (7) and Alice Dasilva Aguiar (9) — on July 29.
Conspiracy theories falsely blamed the heinous crime on a Muslim immigrant, helping whip up anti-immigrant sentiment in a country where opposition to immigration and immigrants is already feverish.
And the UK authorities have absolutely clamped down on individuals who have been inciting and fanning violence online.
On Friday, 28-year-old Jordan Parlour infamously became the first British man to be jailed for using social media to encourage disorder.
But Bishop Lazi would like to draw you to what UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said after the sentences, which might be instructive to our fellow countrymen and women.
“This (social media) is not a law-free zone. And I think that’s clear from the prosecutions and sentencing today for online behaviour,” he said.
“That’s a reminder to everyone that whether you are directly involved or whether you are remotely involved, you are culpable and you will be put before the courts if you have broken the law.”
We should also remember that our very own William Chinyanga — yes, that clown who told young Nelson Chamisa that there were special election-rigging ballot papers that allowed an X to migrate from one candidate to the other — was sentenced to three years in prison on December 16, 2022 after he live-streamed a number of speeches on Facebook in December 2019 encouraging bombings and attacks on soldiers and the police in Zimbabwe. Kikikiki.
He was arrested at his home in north London on February 25, 2020.
He was found guilty of two counts of encouraging terrorist acts.
The Bishop is sure that after recent episodes of anarchy, the UK authorities’ resolve to introduce the Online Safety Act, which also gives the police power to take action against online speech, has been further strengthened. Some legislators are already taking aim at Big Tech, as it is considered culpable in the proliferation and promotion of harmful content on its platforms.
“That mature modern states should allow them unfettered freedom to regulate the content they monetise is a gross abdication of duty, given their vast financial interest in monetising insecurity and division . . . ,” wrote Shami Chakrabarti, a lawyer and Labour member of the House of Lords, in The Guardian on Wednesday last week.
“Isn’t it time we had judicial processes that would allow for the removal of particular material and the proportionate blocking of certain users?”
There is also now a push to deliberately police explicit violent threats, incitements to violence, dangerous and deliberate misinformation, which can easily be weaponised by hostile forces, in the “virtual universe”.
Criminal agitators
For a country that has been under siege for the past two decades, especially in an age where political power and influence are now increasingly projected less by superior firepower and boots on the ground and more through technological prowess, we, too, have to interrogate our digital sovereignty, as it will likely shape our future national security and territorial sovereignty.
While the Cyber and Data Protection Act(Chapter 12:07), which we passed in December 2021, gives us the power to police the digital sphere, there is clearly need to build capacity to monitor and enforce it.
What happens online has real world consequences and what is illegal in the real world should sure be also illegal online.
Words and actions should have consequences.
Proverbs 15:1-6 says: “A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger. The tongue of the wise adorns knowledge, but the mouth of the fool gushes folly. The eyes of the Lord are everywhere, keeping watch on the wicked and the good. The soothing tongue is a tree of life, but a perverse tongue crushes the spirit. A fool spurns a parent’s discipline, but whoever heeds correction shows prudence. The house of the righteous contains great treasure, but the income of the wicked brings ruin.”
Besieged Zimbabwe knows all too well the perils of misinformation and disinformation.
And, as the SADC summit begins, and with Zimbabwe, as hosts and incoming chair of the regional bloc, is set to take its pride of place in the region, we are seeing frenetic online activity from individuals trying to incite Zimbabweans to protest — protests that we know are seldom peaceful.
All this is calculated to soil its image and generate negative headlines to make it difficult to engage and re-engage with the world.
This is anti-Zimbabwe.
Worse, it is criminal.
It is high time these people, who are not many by the way, face the full force and wrath of the law.
Bishop out!
Online Reporter