AS Zimbabwe heads for crucial harmonised later this year, there has been an unsurprising increase in calls for unity among the country’s citizenry.
This is in response to the highly toxic nature of our political environment which, for the past two decades, has been characterised by polarisation and hatred, with elections largely being tainted by violent incidents.
Indeed, these calls are noble since there is really no justification for any nation to allow itself to be divided simply because of citizens’ different political party affiliations.
Surely, why should Zimbabweans fight if their political leaders’ desires to serve the nation are sincere and unquestionable?
For instance, if I want to help an elderly lady who is burdened by a heavy load and, there so happens to be someone else also intent on assisting the same granny, why should we then end up literally exchanging blows simply because we both desire to help?
It just does not make sense.
If those in politics are genuine in their proclamations that their intentions for public office are purely out of a desire to improve the citizenry’s standards of life then there is no justification for any divisions and fights between them.
Every hopeful for political office must be given the opportunity to campaign freely and openly to sell their programmes and policies to the nation without any hindrance and impediments so that the electorate can make informed choices in the ballot box.
It is sad that there have been those in the habit of preaching unity during the day and fomenting anarchy, hatred and disunity by night.
There are too many to mention, mainly in the ruling elite – who have a totally different and weird interpretation of “divisive acts and divisiveness” — whose goal is not to foster national unity, but to stave off any close scrutiny of their deeds, and being held to account by the citizenry.
That is why those in power in Zimbabwe are now targeting the media and civil society organisations to simply intimidate them into silence, and cower them into subservience — so that they cease playing their watchdog role of ensuring that the leadership is answerable to the people.
This is where the line has been wilfully crossed between what is a legitimate cause, as far as the need for unity and desisting from divisiveness is concerned, on one hand — and on the other, a leadership that does not want to be questioned by the people for its shortcomings and failures.
While there is everything wrong in those who seek to spread hate speech, particularly that which incites violence and hatred among Zimbabweans, it is deplorable and unacceptable that those in leadership positions seek to hide from public scrutiny, under the veil of preventing divisions and disunity.
It is horrendously unacceptable to label as mhandu (enemy) those opposed to one’s leadership, or a journalist or civil society organisation exposing the rampant looting of national resources by those in public office.
Referring to fellow compatriots, who are simply interested in participating in elections, or demanding accountability from the government as enemies of the State is divisive hate speech.
This is fomenting divisions and polarisation.
Let me hasten to elaborate that this is not something witnessed only in the ruling party, but a very common feature of the opposition as well as the nation watches in utter shock the bombardments directed at those who dare question or challenge leadership in both the ruling and opposition parties.
In other words, intolerance in the Zimbabwean political landscape has been the greatest threat to national peace and stability.
Those who are spending sleepless nights formulating and promulgating laws that restrict or even clamp down on the legitimate work of the media and civil society are the real enemies of the nation, who want to cause hatred, division and disunity.
Honestly speaking, what purpose will the Private Voluntary Organisations Bill, the proposed Media Practitioners Bill and the Zimbabwe Media Commission Amendment Bill, as well as the Cyber Security and Protection of Privacy Act serve in preserving national unity and safeguarding our national sovereignty when their very enactment is creating divisions?
In what way is shutting up or severely restricting those who are mandated to speak out whenever those in authority have erred, supposed to help the nation and our national interests?
When our national resources are being plundered on a daily basis, while disgraceful criminal acts are swept under the carpet, and citizens being pushed into destitution — what peace and unity are to be preserved, or national interests served?
What peace and unity will we be promoting when poor villagers are forced off their ancestral lands without any meaningful compensation or benefit by foreign companies that are connected to powerful people in Zimbabwe?
What benefit is there to the country when we choose tosee no evil, hear no evil, or speak no evi in the midst of billions of public funds vanishing into thin air — or rather, into the pockets and bank accounts of the politically-connected, yet millions of Zimbabweans wallow in abject poverty?
Let us remember that peace is not necessarily the absence of violence – neither is unity the mere absence of questioning those who would have done wrong.
A nation can never be built by silencing its people each time they see and seek to speak against wrongs by their leaders.
In fact, holding our leaders accountable is exactly what is expected of a responsible citizenry.
Those who blindly support, and even shield a leadership that is taking the country in a dangerous direction are the real enemies of the State and unpatriotic. They are guilty of propagating division and disunity among the nation through their intolerance.
Division and disunity is prevailing in Zimbabwe simply because we have a leadership that strives to benefit from ill-gotten wealth, while riding roughshod on a subjugated people.
Real peace and unity flourish when those in office are made to respect the rights and dignity of the people they are supposed to lead. Anything less is purely a façade — which will inevitably crumble, and lead to real divisions and conflict in future.
.
This is in response to the highly toxic nature of our political environment which, for the past two decades, has been characterised by polarisation and hatred, with elections largely being tainted by violent incidents.
Indeed, these calls are noble since there is really no justification for any nation to allow itself to be divided simply because of citizens’ different political party affiliations.
Surely, why should Zimbabweans fight if their political leaders’ desires to serve the nation are sincere and unquestionable?
For instance, if I want to help an elderly lady who is burdened by a heavy load and, there so happens to be someone else also intent on assisting the same granny, why should we then end up literally exchanging blows simply because we both desire to help?
It just does not make sense.
If those in politics are genuine in their proclamations that their intentions for public office are purely out of a desire to improve the citizenry’s standards of life then there is no justification for any divisions and fights between them.
Every hopeful for political office must be given the opportunity to campaign freely and openly to sell their programmes and policies to the nation without any hindrance and impediments so that the electorate can make informed choices in the ballot box.
It is sad that there have been those in the habit of preaching unity during the day and fomenting anarchy, hatred and disunity by night.
There are too many to mention, mainly in the ruling elite – who have a totally different and weird interpretation of “divisive acts and divisiveness” — whose goal is not to foster national unity, but to stave off any close scrutiny of their deeds, and being held to account by the citizenry.
That is why those in power in Zimbabwe are now targeting the media and civil society organisations to simply intimidate them into silence, and cower them into subservience — so that they cease playing their watchdog role of ensuring that the leadership is answerable to the people.
This is where the line has been wilfully crossed between what is a legitimate cause, as far as the need for unity and desisting from divisiveness is concerned, on one hand — and on the other, a leadership that does not want to be questioned by the people for its shortcomings and failures.
While there is everything wrong in those who seek to spread hate speech, particularly that which incites violence and hatred among Zimbabweans, it is deplorable and unacceptable that those in leadership positions seek to hide from public scrutiny, under the veil of preventing divisions and disunity.
It is horrendously unacceptable to label as mhandu (enemy) those opposed to one’s leadership, or a journalist or civil society organisation exposing the rampant looting of national resources by those in public office.
Referring to fellow compatriots, who are simply interested in participating in elections, or demanding accountability from the government as enemies of the State is divisive hate speech.
This is fomenting divisions and polarisation.
Let me hasten to elaborate that this is not something witnessed only in the ruling party, but a very common feature of the opposition as well as the nation watches in utter shock the bombardments directed at those who dare question or challenge leadership in both the ruling and opposition parties.
In other words, intolerance in the Zimbabwean political landscape has been the greatest threat to national peace and stability.
Those who are spending sleepless nights formulating and promulgating laws that restrict or even clamp down on the legitimate work of the media and civil society are the real enemies of the nation, who want to cause hatred, division and disunity.
Honestly speaking, what purpose will the Private Voluntary Organisations Bill, the proposed Media Practitioners Bill and the Zimbabwe Media Commission Amendment Bill, as well as the Cyber Security and Protection of Privacy Act serve in preserving national unity and safeguarding our national sovereignty when their very enactment is creating divisions?
In what way is shutting up or severely restricting those who are mandated to speak out whenever those in authority have erred, supposed to help the nation and our national interests?
When our national resources are being plundered on a daily basis, while disgraceful criminal acts are swept under the carpet, and citizens being pushed into destitution — what peace and unity are to be preserved, or national interests served?
What peace and unity will we be promoting when poor villagers are forced off their ancestral lands without any meaningful compensation or benefit by foreign companies that are connected to powerful people in Zimbabwe?
What benefit is there to the country when we choose tosee no evil, hear no evil, or speak no evi in the midst of billions of public funds vanishing into thin air — or rather, into the pockets and bank accounts of the politically-connected, yet millions of Zimbabweans wallow in abject poverty?
Let us remember that peace is not necessarily the absence of violence – neither is unity the mere absence of questioning those who would have done wrong.
A nation can never be built by silencing its people each time they see and seek to speak against wrongs by their leaders.
In fact, holding our leaders accountable is exactly what is expected of a responsible citizenry.
Those who blindly support, and even shield a leadership that is taking the country in a dangerous direction are the real enemies of the State and unpatriotic. They are guilty of propagating division and disunity among the nation through their intolerance.
Division and disunity is prevailing in Zimbabwe simply because we have a leadership that strives to benefit from ill-gotten wealth, while riding roughshod on a subjugated people.
Real peace and unity flourish when those in office are made to respect the rights and dignity of the people they are supposed to lead. Anything less is purely a façade — which will inevitably crumble, and lead to real divisions and conflict in future.