admin
Richard Runyararo Mahomva
Identity and belonging shape the character of citizen and state antagonism in the post-colonial state. It further explains superficial differences on who should belong and who must govern or not. Whose voice should be heard more than the other in matters of public policy? This is the challenge of disruptive identity constructions of both the Africans themselves and the overseers of neo-colonialism delighted by Africa’s disintegration.
It is sad that identity as a social construction now builds our negative perceptions for one another. As such a good initiative can be dismissed because it was facilitated by X and not Y. This is the reason why Africa is at war with herself because her children consider themselves as emblems of contradictions shaped by politics, religion and ethnicity. Before people consider themselves as Africans they are defined by their affiliation to these contradictions namely politics, religion and ethnicity. There are a lot of points of reference that can be used to explain this problem confronting Africa which has led to so much wars and division of the continent’s people. We may not realise that Zimbabwe just like other African countries is at war with herself and the reason is politics, religion and ethnicity.
Today’s war is no longer conventional, it’s a war of ideas, a war of the minds. This is the problem of borrowed mindsets that does not add value to the totality of being Zimbabwean, at large being African.
The national pledge and national contradiction
Currently, the nation is involved in a debate which confirms this challenge of borrowed thinking here contextualised as misrepresented ideas of national belonging. To help breakdown the issues around the national pledge debate I exploited private conversations with various thinkers (academics and civic society activists). As the series of the analysis continues, I will be positing their analysis of the national pledge debate. My justification being that the function of such thinkers helps policy-makers and the nation to think accurately without reliance on bias.
One of them is Professor Sabelo Ndlovu-Gatsheni, a prolific Zimbabwean decoloniality scholar at the University of South-Africa (Unisa) posited an important intervention to the national pledge debate. I had no option, but to share it outside confines of my private conversation with him.
Ever since the time of colonial conquest we have been trying to find each other across ethnic, racial, regional, generational, gender and partisan fault lines. Nationalism fostered by anti-colonialism did not mature into patriotism at the end of direct colonialism. Coming from this perspective and from an experience of a people who could easily decapitate each other every time there is an election; I would support a national pledge that is born out of a consultative process of all involved stakeholders.
The above claim confirms that the rise of the modern “nation” in Africa followed problematic sequences of coloniality and neo-colonisation. This is why we remain divided to this day and take comfort in our differences than our common ground as Zimbabweans. What we embrace as national belonging has diverse fault lines that need to be bridged so as to achieve common national interests. This will not materialise if we always resort to knowledge bases of Europe to define the post-colonial “nation”.
Professor Ndlovu-Gatsheni argues:
“When I wrote the book “Do Zimbabweans Exist? National Identity Formation and Crisis in Postcolonial State” (2009) I was preoccupied with the lack of deliberate efforts at nation-building and social cohesion. I challenged the simplistic idea that once we were named as Zimbabweans in 1980 we then became Zimbabweans. After creating Zimbabwe as a state we had to create Zimbabweans as a people. National pledges to me are part of this process and I am happy that the debate is beginning to take a national scale.”
Therefore, the pledge should be appreciated as a medium of localising our understanding of the concept of the nation. Furthermore, it makes us appreciate the knowledge of who we are and how it unifies us as new beings emerging out of direct and indirect coloniality. This is better explained by Professor Ndlovu-Gatsheni’s call for parents to support the inception of the national pledge in primary and secondary schools in Zimbabwe:
Instead of being dismissive we must ask deeper questions about national reconciliation, nationalism healing, national agenda and national vision. For instance, asking where the Organ of National Healing Reconciliation and Integration (ONHRI) is entrenched in the national pledge.
Professor Ndlovu-Gatsheni’s proposition requires us to debunk issues that promote our perception of difference to zero into the national agenda defined in Zimbabwean terms. This is an open call to challenge borrowed self-definitions of the nation from scholars like Benedict Anderson (1993). The Anderson school of thought is easily and overly manipulated for escapism from localising the definition of national belonging. The idea of nations as “imagined communities” as forwarded by Anderson is used to obliterate the localised rethink of national belonging. Instead Ndlovu-Gatsheni’s forward-thinking is relevant to our experience. Zimbabwe is desperate for definitions of national belonging which are in touch with our local experiences and entitlements to the past to shape the present.
This commands modern national aspirations to resonate with the struggle for liberation as a unifying point of our belonging. As such religion, politics and ethnicity have been deconstructing the liberation struggle as a symbol of national unification and belonging. In this case as we grapple with the controversial issues around the national pledge we face the challenge of nationalism at war. To be specific, the non-affirmative side of the national pledge debate is hinged on religion and politics. Why religion and politics?
The introduction of the national pledge has been challenged by church (Christian) and some civic society lobby groups. Among the concerned civic society groups some serve obvious political intentions guised as the human-rights mantra which we all know is now redundant. The religious side of this debate purports to be the inclusive voice of the churches and mainly mission schools in Zimbabwe. The political frontiers of the “I will not pledge” campaign are civic society groups whose agenda of ousting the Zimbabwean Government failed to be fruitful in the past decade.
Just like Tsvangirai who recently led a donor fundraising demonstration recently, some NGOs have started the anti-national pledge campaign. They have called for a boycott of the official schools opening day. The tag team of the church and the civic society is a clear demonstration of how much the two institutions pay their allegiance to ideas that do not resonate with “local” Zimbabwean framings of national belonging. This indicates that the church is still pursuing the agenda it inherited from the duties of the missionaries. On the other hand, some concerned civic society groups in their fake bid to promote human rights are taking the anti-national pledge route to please their regime-change Western handlers.
The manifestation of the contradiction
The two anti-national pledge proponents (churches and NGOs) argue that relevant stakeholders were not consulted for the national pledge’s introduction. True as it may be, but what these interested parties forget is that the national pledge is a mimic of the preamble of the national constitution. The same constitution emerged as a result of the Copac public consultations and it was complemented by the 2013 elections and its outcome in favour of Zanu-PF. Due to that it’s narrow to challenge the national pledge’s introduction in schools because some groups feel they were marginalised. This would be valid if the same groups denounce their participation in the Copac constitution-making process. It is not surprising that the anti-national pledge campaign lacks rationale of its frontiers, chiefly the church.
This can be highlighted focusing on the allegations of the national pledge’s infringement of freedom of conscience to the student populace. However, what the church as religious frontiers of this debate omit is that the Christian Lord’s prayer has been forced on all students since time immemorial.
At the same time this has implied a time immemorial infringement of the freedom of conscience for students with no background and appreciation of Christianity. However, it is logical to appreciate the national pledge as a necessary alternative for students who are not inclined to Christian values that the church conservatively maintains. The national pledge should be received as a post-colonial restructure of the long overdue missionary position of Christianity in the psyche of some Africans who do not subscribe to it. This is because all we have ever known was the Christian Lord’s prayer. I do not seek to divert the focus of the discussion by addressing how Christian values contacted the African continent. It is in the same manner I would not want to spend time explaining why the churches still want the Christian Lord’s prayer as an all-encompassing creed for primary and secondary schools where not all students are Christians.
Dr Sihle Nyathi, a former lecturer at the Lupane State University in her independent academic capacity appraised the plague noting that:
“There is no idolatry associated with the pledge, people have failed to understand what the minister wanted to do. In America there is a similar national oath which informs American pride. Why can we not have something that also inculcates Zimbabwean pride? The pledge gives room for national dialogue in Zimbabwe. Apart from other framings of nationalism we need to understand that we have a common destiny. The pledge is one element that can make us feel that we are Zimbabwean. It is the emotional conviction that it builds which is necessary. It also constitutes an important national dialogue.”
Dr Nyathi went on to dismiss that the national pledge is meant to promote partisan indoctrination as most political anti-national pledge frontiers argue. Her emphasis was on the need “for students to be socialised in a manner that promotes their emotional attachment to their country at the same time promoting national dialogue”.
On another note, Micheal Mhlanga, a student politics expert condemned the dismissal of the national pledge by teachers unions in the country:
“It is disheartening to witness such objectivity shortfalls in the reasoning of our educators’ community who are desperate to legitimate their association, Zimta. I am keen to question the intellectual capacity of this educators’ association in which the future and reasoning ability of our children rests. This is a body that does not assess its public opinion, only to question the process of domesticating the pledge but seemingly agree with its existence.
From their poorly “congress” crafted argument, it is the absence of consultation that delegitimises the authenticity of the pledge, if the process of consultation was undertaken, then it would be fine. In fact consultation does not guarantee inclusion, so lamenting lack of consultation on the pledge which reflects the constitution reflects lack of objective thinking on the part of Zimta.”
Mhlanga also condemned Zimta for its hunter’s cry more than the hunted:
“Secondly, it is irrationality for Zimta to cry foul about the National pledge yet it’s not solely purported for them. The pledge mainly targets the pupils who are the future of Zimbabwe’s development. There is absolutely no problem in coerced patriotism to usher development oriented thinking since the pledge entails the need for hard work for the good of the country. Let us not remunerate emotional venting especially when it clouds our judgements for important initiatives that better define our national identity.”
Next week, I will be offering an analytical extension of this debate focusing on the constitutionalism of the pledge.
Online Reporter