admin
gives the gun direction.
There is a symbiotic relationship between the gun and politics.
Both are governed by an agreed political philosophy that must be in the interest of the majority, a philosophy that allows peace and stability to exist.
This is called a covenant of political life.
Both the politics and the gun (the military) must be guided by the covenant of political life.
Politics sets the vision of a nation and the ideology it religiously follows.
The military is built, trained and structured in a manner to protect the national vision and ideology.
The military is equipped and managed to protect, respect and create a peaceful political environment that allows economic, social, cultural and political growth and development.
Once that is achieved, a nation is said to be stable and peaceful thus allowing economic growth, resulting in wealth creation.
Defence Minister Emmerson Mnangagwa’s comments in The Herald issue of February 4, 2013 are in line with what happens on the international scene.
It is international best practice that the military is either increased or decreased to continually safeguard a nation’s vision, ideology, interests and sovereignty.
The defence of these good tenets of nationhood cannot be regarded as partisan, never.
Many people are mistaken by the belief that the military is governed by professionalism.
This belief is understood by many to mean the military should not be involved in politics.
It is believed that professionalism is the major guiding principle that governs the operations by the military.
Some even believe that professionalism is a cast in stone rule that forbids the military to be involved in politics.
However, National Defence Colleges are meant to politically equip defence forces with geo-political knowledge that enables them to understand what to defend.
The world over there has been a strong belief that a professional military force is neutral in politics or is apolitical.
History has disapproved this belief which was carefully crafted by the west.
This belief has been carefully practiced by the west to protect imperialism.
It has been manipulated by the west to destroy communism and socialism.
Their philosophy was designed as a long term political science for the protection of colonial powers who new well before hand that the oppressed shall wage revolutions to liberate themselves.
The concept of professionalism was designed by the western military as a means of maintaining their hegemony on the militaries created out of a revolution such as China, Russia, Iran, Zimbabwe just to mention a few.
The strategy was meant to be used for time immemorial. It is a strategy that is haunting armies born out of a revolution like Zimbabwe.
While there is nothing wrong with any military becoming a professional force, it is how the term professionalism has been lobbied and interpreted.
This writer strongly believes professionalism enables the military to sharpen their skills and competencies making them a strong and formidable force that is capable of defending their nation’s vision, ideology and sovereignty as it is in America.
A professional military force is a force that has various capacities and capabilities that enables it to safeguard its national resources and sovereignty.
It must be able to read, analyse, evaluate and respect the covenant of a nation’s political life.
Indeed, it is exciting to hear the Minister of Defence say “We went to war for us have power to control the direction of politics in the country”.
Fellow citizens, Minister Mnangagwa’s comment demonstrates a clear revolutionary covenant of political life that also exist in China.
A Chinese General said “The state is as strong as its Generals”.
This philosophy has sent shivers down the spines of the west as they have failed to break the bond that exist between the Chinese “politics and gun”.
This strong bond has seen the Chinese economy grow from strength to strength becoming the world’s second largest economy today.
Professionalism demands that the forces must respect political leadership and humanity.
However, the world has experienced worst human killings from western militaries. Western militaries in their claim of professionalism and political neutrality have caused devastating human catastrophes the world over.
People must be aware that Al-Qaeda was created by the West against humanity.
In Afghanistan Bin Laden was created by the US to fight communism which resulted in millions of people being killed.
In Eastern Europe, the West funded a lot of uprisings causing millions of people to die. The so called professional Western military force funded various terrorists groups in Latin America resulting in loss of lives.
In Africa, terrorist formations and opposition groups continue to get funded by western militaries as a way of regime change.
Africa has suffered many coups, all being sponsored by the Western so-called professional militaries.
The West has sent militaries to the Arab world to suppress those fighting to liberate themselves from dictatorship rule.
When the militaries are sent to these so-called black sports they take sides with the government’s political standing.
So where is the neutrality and the apolitical standing.
To make matters worse, it is the militaries that fund and train terrorist groups for a political objective.
In case of Zimbabwe, much has been said by the MDC formations about alleged lack of professionalism in the Zimbabwe Defence Forces.
The notorious civil society organisations who recently were not ashamed of wanting to rubbish the country in Addis Ababa have weighed in with the same nonsense.
Surprisingly, all civic groups and NGOs who must be neutral and apolitical are politically aligned to MDC formations and the West.
The MDCs and civil societies have conveniently used the word professionalism to cover their treachery work, which, if they were in the USA would have seen themselves in Guantanamo Prison.
In the USA and Europe soldiers, practice exactly what was said by Comrade Mnangagwa.
Sadly, MDCs and Civil Societies would want a situation where security institutions are unionised.
They also want the administration and management of the Security Institutions to be under daily supervision of political parties and Civil Societies in what they call democratic oversight.
One wonders where they get this satanic idea and where this phenomenon is practiced without compromising national security.
Whilst I agree that the military must exercise their right to vote, they must however be guided by their constitutional mandate to protect the nation state’s sovereignty and constitution.
It must be remembered that once a soldier becomes a general he aligns himself to the nation’s vision, ideology, sovereignty and the constitution.
It is international practise and not perculiar to Africa.
He therefore has a duty to make sure the whole force is committed to the defence of the nation state’s vision, interest, ideology and sovereignty.
This is where the issue of “straight jacket” comes in hand.
In my view those who fear the practice of a “straight jacket” system that has been practiced for centuries by America are by nature treacherous thus deserve to be jailed for treason.
It must be noted that the world over, military institutions that are well-trained and are guided by the nation’s constitution in the discharge of their duties will always protect their nation state’s vision, interests, ideology and sovereignty.
Countries like China, Britain, USA, Russia, Tanzania, Angola and even Zimbabwe have militaries that discharge their duties applying these tenets of protecting and providing peace and security to their nations.
It is my strong belief that politicians, civil societies and NGOs must observe and respect the constitution, the national vision, ideology and sovereignty for them to be respected by the military whose leadership is sworn to safeguard the constitution.
It is only, when the above stated organisations disregard and disrespect the constitution that the military views them with the treachery treatment they deserve as the case is in America and Europe.
Surely when one respects his national constitution there will be no reason for the military or any security institution to ill-treat them.
As the politician are charged with putting in place a sound political environment that allows peace and stability to exist, the military or security institutions are charged with the protection and defending of a nation state’s ideology and sovereignty.
The issue of democratic oversight seems to be overplayed by opposition groups, civil societies and NGOs in developing countries particularly in Africa and specifically in Zimbabwe.
The concept is a Eurocentric strategy designed for the west to continually enjoy hegemonic control over developing countries.
America’s debt is largely a result of defence spending.
Why are these groups that talk about democratic oversight, accountability and transparency not investigating America’s huge defence budget and its use for undemocratically changing governments in third world countries.
Panganai Kahuni is a political socio- economic commentator.
Online Reporter