War vets must reconstitute their leadership

Zvakanyorwa Wilbert Sadomba Correspondent
NOT long ago, I wrote in this paper about liberation, heroism and the constitution in which I illustrated that heroes are important as they possess unique attributes intrinsically linked to their love and dedication to the nation.

Pursuant to the expectations that people have of a hero, it is fundamental that I focus on the role of a hero in the post-war period.

Here I pursue the role of a hero after a war, questioning how the hero should act as part of the society.

Those who completed basic political education in the camps during the liberation struggle will recall being constantly reminded of the bigger task ahead.

We were reminded of the difficult task ahead given the fact that the enemy was to be less visible and amongst us while other comrades will not see the need to continue the fight post-liberation battles. Some people would use their hero status for personal aggrandisement. Zimbabwe has witnessed this from 1980 and it is the debate at this critical juncture in the liberation movement.

The question is: If one fails to adhere to the ethos and objectives of the revolution he or she fought, does he or she remain a hero?

A change in the state of mind about one’s role towards that society and one’s commensurate behaviour may warrant a hero to lose title because society does not continue to be obliged and indebted to a person who turns against it despite the initial sacrifice.

We need to understand that the sacrifice was not for personal gain but for the good of the majority.

We have heard the born-frees protesting that: “Dzokai munoisungirira payanga yakasungirirwa.” This statement angers some of us to the marrow but when one reflects upon it carefully, one can also note the anger in the born-frees.

“Does liberation mean suffering of society and enrichment of heroes?” they ask themselves and end up with a negative answer.

The continuous task of a hero is to complete the revolution, to fulfil the objectives of the war which are summarily to empower and transform the lives of the marginalised.

Heroes need to actively participate in the politics and economic development of the nation to carry this historic task to its end. Falling along the way risks rejection by society no matter one’s status.

Participation of a hero in economic development is not for their sake but it is a serious duty.

If heroes fail in this respect they risk confronting an angry impoverished society. Heroism soon loses its meaning.

War veterans realised this when they led the land revolution. Other non-war veteran revolutionaries like Roger Boka played their part in transforming the finance and commercial sectors.

Heroes need to strategically position themselves to deliver to society what they promised during the liberation war or risk society’s rebuke.

If they allow others to take-over their project and they are reduced to spectators, whose fault is it? If they change their mind and begin to line their pockets at the expense of society why should they not be rebuked?

If liberation proves to be in the end a process of raising few individuals to be filthy rich then society does not feel obliged. This is the story everywhere even seen in the lamentations of some Israelites demanding Moses to take them back to Egypt.

Society demands infinite commitment and fulfilment of promise.

Strategic positioning means that heroes have to occupy a position that allow them to discharge economic, social and political tasks effectively, without fear or favour.

They should be able to direct society towards final liberation which is beyond change of skin pigment. They lead society, opening space and facilitating people to bring about positive change.

A protracted war provides space and time for mental engagement and reflection. The objectives are clarified and the nature of transformation required is considered by both society and the fighters. The war becomes a platform for a covenant between society and the heroes.

They envision what is to be done as the war unfolds.

A breach of the agreement is tantamount to selling out and leads to demotion of the hero. Corruption, abuse of office and other vices that compromise on delivery to society are the breach of agreement.

If a hero occupies a strategic position and uses it for personal gains at the expense of society then the hero status falls away and the person is criminal in the eyes of society and perhaps of the law.

In analysing the vicious intra-party fights in ZANU PF one is able to decipher that in content it is a succession battle and in form it is a service delivery question.

ZANU PF, whether by design or default has now invoked a question that can change the politics of this society.

How should leaders be chosen and what criteria shall be followed? What code shall leaders follow? Are heroes beyond reproach?

We have read in the Press and watched on TV jockeying and confrontations of the magnitude perhaps unseen before in post independent Zimbabwe.

I only witnessed such vehemence in 1977 at Chimoio when ZIPRA was ousted. It is not easily predictable how this shall end but I am interested in the new twist the process has taken — sucking war veterans into the conflict. What does this mean?

It began with the First Lady’s meeting at Mazowe where for the first time specific reference was made to war veterans.

All along, mobilisation of forces had focused on youth and women.

At Mazowe, war veterans began to take an overt part and presented a document. The culmination point was at ZANU PF HQ where Jabulani Sibanda was denounced and a call for a new leadership was made and to hold elections before the December Congress.

War veterans are a critical group of heroes in terms of their numbers, role and influence in society.

This country has seen this from the mid-1990s. Anyone who tries to exclude them in a political equation risks failure. This could have been the main lesson of the MDC.

The fact that factions in ZANU PF begin to scramble for war veterans’ support shows the magnitude of the conflict and its potentials to escalate. It is therefore important to analyse more deeply what this means for the political future of the country.

What does society expect of war veterans as its heroes when they involve themselves in affairs of national leadership? This is important for war veterans because their guiding principles ought to be based on serving society.

This does not mean that they do not themselves benefit. Their economic position should be guaranteed by society as a restitutive measure. If society does not provide this basic restitution it tempts heroes to act for themselves, to mind their own business of survival and they will be incapacitated to fulfil the historic role.

As war vets get sucked into this factional conflict of ZANU PF what should they do?

It is my humble submission that war veterans must be able to play the catalytic or the arbiter role depending on their calculations, transform internally and build a new leadership.

First, there is need for both grassroots and “elite” war vets to be more united and forge a common strategy. This is only possible if a respectable (to both levels) leadership is chosen at the forthcoming elections.

War veterans should choose leadership bearing in mind that they have to fulfil their historic role as heroes to satisfy expectations of society. This is a leadership that should be independent, with the ability of making critical decisions on the governance of the nation as they are custodians of the liberation they fought for. They need to be free from frailty and ought to have proven commitment towards the interest of the people they liberated.