What third way in Zim politics?

to emerge,” maybe from the Diaspora.

I think it is just wishful thinking to expect anyone in self-imposed economic exile to appear on the Zimbabwean scene to serve the people.

What many nations have done is to send their cadres to universities in foreign countries to obtain relevant degrees, especially in engineering, and come back to revive industry and then venture into politics.

The present leader of the Communist Party in China went to study in the USA. The same goes for the current president of Indonesia.

The difference with the Diaspora of Zimbabwe is that most of them left the country to claim asylum in order to remain in the host countries with no ambition to come back to stand shoulder to shoulder with their countrymen and women to develop the nation.

To claim that the Diaspora will provide the third way political emancipation against what Mukwananzi terms as the two parties present at the moment of the politics of Zanu-PF and that of the many MDCs and others, is the height of wishful thinking.

If I can start with Zanu-PF, its politics is rooted in the liberation movement. To think that any leader may emerge from Zanu-PF ranks to renounce this ethos is unbelievable.

This liberation movement ethos was born from intellectualism of leaders such as Herbert Chitepo and President Mugabe himself.

This was not a fly by night hallucination but something that is embedded in the party itself.
But Mukwananzi thinks that the liberation policy of Zanu-PF is indistinguishable from that of the MDCs just, maybe, the major parties are led by Shonas. It is another way of promoting tribalism by predicting that there can be a third way in Zimbabwean politics.

As for the MDCs, I differ with Mukwananzi’s assertion that Zanu-PF and the MDCs are the same.
Zanu-PF was born with the ethos of liberating this country from colonial rule and to reclaim the natural heritage of the people of Zimbabwe.

The MDCs are a product of trade unions whose main purpose was to fight for the rights of a worker whether in colonial rule times or in the times of independence.

The policy of trade unionism is to get a reward for workers from their sweat in a capitalist environment but not to own the means of production or the resources that the capitalists exploit with the use of the labour of the workers.

When the workers staged stay-away as a political force, the result was capital flight from Zimbabwe and the factories closed, causing massive unemployment and the migration of the people to other countries where they claimed persecution at home.

I agree with Mukwananzi that the issue of succession in Zanu-PF, “is a creation of the media”, and “probably assisted by the opposition parties”.

As for the Diaspora and opposition politics, I agree with Mukwananzi that there is a lack of intellectualism to come up with any new thinking to the political environment in Zimbabwe.

Yes, there are many educated people in opposition ranks, but they are being led by trade unionists whose politics is to get as much as possible for the workers from the capitalists.

But in Zanu-PF, the intellectuals have figured it out that the people have to be empowered by giving them land, indigenisation and empowerment to control their destiny through their natural resources.

This policy does not bar any foreign investment but that investment should be shared with the people of Zimbabwe.

Mukwananzi concludes his article by saying that a new way must provide the solution to the problems of this country. There are no problems in this country, except those caused by the sanctions imposed in anger of the politics of the liberation movement of owning our resources, be they land or mineral resources.