I met Cephas Zinhumwe, chief executive officer of National Association of Non-governmental Organisation (Nango) around 2006 only by default. At about that time, he was drafted to replace Jonah Mudehwe as head of Nango. I admired his somewhat naïve enthusiasm because no one had warned him that running a network of NGOs (non-governmental organisations) in Zimbabwe was akin to lighting a candle from underneath a swimming pool.
Obituary: Rejoice Ngwenya
Having emerged from administering a single-mandate agricultural organisation, it was clear that his optimism deprived him of knowledge that the narrative of non-partisan networks was as much delusionary as it was a fallacy.
It took Cephas many years to resign to that politics of civil society was more toxic than politics of politics, only because of, on one hand, bruising contestations for scarce resources and on the other, intended consequences of infiltration by Zanu PF agents intent on entrenching hegemony.
The thousands of hours I spent with him in conference rooms and highways vindicated what I always suspected — that there is virtually no room for a “good man” in a sector sharing scarce political oxygen with Zanu PF. “Your problem,” he would say to me, “Is your addiction to brute confrontation rather than constructive engagement.” His school of thought was thrust upon him by circumstances resulting from structural deficiencies in the way that CSO networks operate in Zimbabwe.
Cephas’ model of “universal acceptability” was meant to balance the complicated interests brought about by those members that try too hard to disassociate themselves from the so-called “vices of opposition politics”. These are the proponents of the illusory theory of engagement, who, rather than accept that they do the bidding for and are manipulated by the establishment, would rather portray themselves as non-partisan. For Cephas, it became a case of damned if you, do damned if you don’t.
During all this, he soldiered on — vilified for being a CIO agent and criticised for being administratively impotent. What worsened his circumstances was not just the unrealistic demands of members who generally misunderstand the role of a network secretariat, but also “political stratification” invariably reflected in every subsequent Nango board. The ruling party Zanu PF had it easy on him. They could simply dismiss him as being a proxy tool of opposition parties. This meant that the State could easily pretend they were making consultations on policy issues, and blatantly ignore whatever submissions Nango members made.
At the same time, CSOs who carry the government’s favourite “regime agenda” label would threaten to withdraw their support of the network by accusing Zinhumwe of compromising CSO positions to perpetuate the “good man” image and ingratiate himself with ordinarily vindictive and repressive state apparatus.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
This complicated his life not only with the members, but also the media and their strategic partners. Even when he showed spasms of brilliant “statesmanship” — like in the bloodletting contest to keep the NGO Bill out of the statute books — those that mattered most at best only muttered compliments. Even when human, social and economic rights violations were at their worst during the dark years of 2005 to 2009, he tried his best to remain objective, yet principled, but could not prevent arrest by government agents or vilification by devious contestants at AGM elections.
Talking to him, one would get the impression of a man who is exasperated, yet determined to get solace from academic and family advancement, never mind religious companionship. Through all this turmoil, a day would not pass without him saying to me: “You know Rejoice, I want to complete that doctorate, send my daughters to college and make sure my church grows.”
An unwavering family man! As international strategic partners became disillusioned with Zanu PF scare tactics and trickled out, Cephas’ members found it more difficult to sustain operations. At a time when he needed compassion, the sharp blades of spite not only blamed him for adoption impotent fundraising strategy, but also “capturing” the available few funds for Nango “programmes” to infringe on the mandates of members.
Notes were circulated in members’ and strategic partner boardrooms that, perhaps he was not the right calibre to lead a network in a hostile political environment.
In his own words, his competency became a subject of both public and private scrutiny, if not ridicule. As a friend, I would attend most of his meetings out of “official” duty or personal interest.
His opening remarks were getting longer, at times incoherent, yet passionate almost with a touch of “Pentecostal flavour”. He would conclude: “You must already tell that I am a preacher in my other life…”.
I cannot say for sure when his health began to deteriorate. What I know is that he pulled all the stops under the most difficult conditions to get his daughters into quality foreign universities. “It’s good you sent your son to medical school in Europe,” he would say. “I know I will get my daughter there too, even if it means starving”. And so, when I look back at the life of a man who began with a career in agriculture and ended in social activism, I just wonder how many such talents have been interred.
Men and women who have worked so hard to make a difference, used thousands of dollars to give their children university education and their spouses comfortable homes — are buried. This passionate “preacher man” called Cephas would have loved a fitting conclusion with a biblical reference: “Ecclesiastes1:2-11: “Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all [is] vanity. What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun? [One] generation passeth away, and [another] generation cometh, but the earth abideth for ever. The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again per his circuits.”
All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea [is] not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again. All things [are] full of labour; man cannot utter [it:] the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing. The thing that hath been, it [is that] which shall be; and that which is done [is] that which shall be done: and [there is] no new [thing] under the sun.
Is there [any] thing whereof it may be said, See, this [is] new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us. [There is] no remembrance of former [things;] neither shall there be [any] remembrance of [things] that are to come with [those] that shall come after.”
