Massive displacements, an unfortunate norm in Zimbabwe, have exposed a stark reality – the callousness of both Zanu PF and the pre-independence governments towards economically vulnerable communities and their disregard for good governance principles. This article delves into how the so-called Zanu PF revolution has turned against its own people, reflecting a deeply flawed revolutionary ideology and a limited understanding of independence, democracy, and good governance. These failures have left minority communities vulnerable to massive displacements.
Historically, settler governments, like Smith’s regime, concealed critical information about conditions in their territories, serving both minority and majority populations. Zanu PF follows a similar path, employing media repression to disseminate disinformation and maintain a hideous, illegal, and illegitimate status quo. This common trait between Zanu PF and settler governments perpetuates the suffering of minority communities.
Media repression serves as a strategic choice, akin to hiding a light under a basket. Darkness allows Zanu PF to evade accountability and transparency, especially concerning the treatment of minorities. Regrettably, Zanu PF abandoned transparency and accountability in the early weeks of its term in April 1980. The Zanu PF TV (ZBC) continues to keep Zimbabweans in the dark about past, ongoing, and future displacements.
The cultures and heritages of minority communities provide no deterrent against Zanu PF’s profit-driven agenda. Similar to settler governments, Zanu PF does not consult with affected minority communities or involve them in the decision-making process. Their representatives, all from the ruling Zanu PF party, prioritize retaining power for personal enrichment, exacerbating the displacement of minorities and flouting regulations such as tax payments.
The Chilonga and Nambya people share common characteristics – both are minority communities that have consistently supported Zanu PF’s grip on power. This is not a surprise but a reflection of Zanu PF’s approach. A people-centered opposition party would have respected these minority cultures, engaged them, and ensured protective regulations were in place.
Moreover, a genuine opposition would not rely on opaque, potentially unconstitutional special permits to strip minority communities of their ancestral heritages. Instead, it would pursue community-centric initiatives transparently and accountably. Activities aimed at exploiting marginalized communities for personal gain would not flourish under such a watchful eye, explaining the recalls of figures like Biti.
The affected communities stand to gain little due to exploitative labor practices, particularly for the Nambya people employed by Chinese companies. Decades of marginalization, evidenced by subpar education infrastructure and demotivated educators, create an impenetrable glass ceiling for the youth of these communities. The government and unscrupulous companies take advantage of this vulnerability.
This is why the opposition, under constant pressure from Zanu PF, fights for proper and institutionalized devolution of power. Communities like the Nambya would have a say in their governance, significantly reducing exploitation by Zanu PF, rendering special permits powerless.
In conclusion, minorities facing displacement by Zanu PF should heed this wake-up call. Rather than aiding Zanu PF’s illegal retention of power, they should consider the alternative – the people’s project opposition. This alternative promises devolution, a synthesis of democracy and good governance, valuing the input of all communities, and ending Zanu PF’s legacy of marginalization. Together with minority communities, the opposition can safeguard their cultural heritage and ancestral lands, signaling a democratic break from the undemocratic past of Zanu PF and settler governments.