Harare — Jonathan Moyo must be a very happy fella. Born surly and generally wistful as if plagued by unanswered questions at birth, today he beams with achievement after finally attracting the eye of feudal Britain.

The Monday debate in the British House of Lords acknowledged him, placing him on a lofty pedestal as an interpreter of this enigma called "the Zimbabwe situation".

And this recognition came in the form of one Lord Avebury (pronounced as Shona's Ave buri!) who appears to have listened to his precocious perorations aired on the British-sponsored SW Africa.

He suggested a helpful rupture and schism was developing within Zanu (PF). Certainly the recognition by the lords was long in coming, if one considers the arduously coquettish motions he went through to attract this benefactor constituency every opposition figure in Zimbabwe seems so happy to connect with.

This column alerted readers to this drawn out courtship between him and the British establishment, a courtship which started with Hard Talk; was developed through many encounters with various faces of the empire, including that of the feline Peta Thornycroft; was cleansed through numerous self-cursing, remorseful episodes on SW Africa, and eventually got crowned through this recognition by a gathering of these hoary, fake lords who paid Blair for handsome knighthood.

Of course I am sure he regrets the fact that he was more audible to politically effete British lords than he can ever hope to be to Zimbabweans who vote and thus carry his fate as a Zimbabwean politician. It sounds like telescopic megaphone: volubly blurring abroad, eerily thin and inaudible at home. And home is where the ears are.

Hovering on the brink of nothing

But he got something that pleases, I am sure, made stronger by a belief across MDC factions that his opposition-within-Zanu (PF) thesis -- itself reminiscent of his sekuru's (Masipula) "struggle-within-a struggle" thesis -- is persuasive and beginning to win repeaters. He can claim some modicum of success in hegemonising the intellectual space within the dwarfish opposition camp.

But therein lies his value to Zanu (PF), the party he has departed from, but without leaving. If there is growing rebellion within Zanu (PF) and with it, the possibility of building new alliances incorporating or including the opposition, so why strive and struggle to mend the tattered opposition?

Why build alternative power point outside that evolving within the "crumbling" structures of Zanu (PF)? All you do is to wait for this dissent to build and boil over, all the time making sure you deploy lewd smiles of self-promotion and goodwill to the triumphing side, so you are not forgotten when Mugabe eventually gets putsch-ed aside! That easy! It is a professorial ode to opposition indolence, a thesis of helpful inaction, at least from a Zanu (PF) point of view. And one feels the professor continues to work hard, very hard, for his party!

Stoking sanctions, leavening the British

Of course the challenging side to it all is that the British who were about to give up on the fight, today stand leavened by this interpretation, more so when buttressed by reports of fast shrinking economy, both of which coalesce to make certain Zanu (PF)'s supposed conclusive demise.

So Britain is roused and today triumphantly says sanctions will be rolled over for another foreboding year. And with that kind of threat, Zanu (PF) -- the real one outside that of Jonathan's imagination -- ironically will not need to debate the place of President Mugabe in the scheme of things. As always maintained, for as long as the British threats remains, President Mugabe's leadership will be asked for. And an important point needs to be made.

Whether in 2008 or 2010, Mugabe will win any plebiscite in this country, hands down. Everyone knows that, which is why there is this prayerful vain hope that either his party, the economy or in the case of the ungodly Pius, nature vanquishes him. The first two will not, both and singly. The latter is the fate of all things bright and living, once God made them all.

Another Save the Rhino campaign?

Within the opposition camp, something else is brewing to justify this alibi that Jonitani built. It is called Save Zimbabwe Campaign, itself reminiscent of the Save the Rhino Campaign! At least the latter succeeded, if you ask the good lady Charlene Hewett.

As for this other one, well, it is a perfect alibi. Born out of the Christian Alliance, it is a vain hope for a neutral platform on which to escape schisms, on which to coordinate oppositional acts. And the players are exactly the same: the MDCs, DP, UPM, UPP, Zanu Ndonga, Zapu FP, Christian Alliance, Zimrights, ZCTU, ZESN, Crisis Coalition, Bulawayo Agenda, MISA, MMPZ, Bulawayo Dialogue, etc, etc.

A whole political rag-tag lumbered and gnawed by age-long contradictions. But very useful for attracting fresh donor funds which shall be eaten by the clever ones, but not before the vlei of British opposition is strewn with more political carrion. Tsvangirai says unity of the MDCs is not a prerequisite for Save Zimbabwe Campaign.

Mutambara says it is; it is not in the equivocation mould of Lancelot Gobbo, Shakespeare's clown in Merchant of Venice. One Buluwayo is for the agenda, another for dialogue and both look apart sembambo dzedenga! You have UPM snorting at its uncle, Zanu Ndonga.

You have Shumba wondering whether to corner tourists for non-payment, or Transport for non-issuance of license. I do not need to refer to the various Z-eds. Or Alliances and Coalitions within the campaign, all giving back to the Zimbabwe we want! It's a parade of contradictions, only read by the eager British as a display of transcending unity. Ha! ha! ha!

A flash of struggle, a lifetime of hate

Another development adds to the brew. Enter Edgar Tekere-cum-Ibbo Mandaza, and A Lifetime of Struggle. For the gullible British what better validation of the internal schism thesis! What vindication of the oracular Jonathan Moyo! And like piranhas, hostile press tears away sound-bites from this fallen imaginary colossus.

A bit of recall helps. 1980, Edgar Tekere, then as Manpower Minister, had Ibbo Mandaza as his permanent secretary. It has been a lasting relationship, re-energized by shared sense of grievance. Mandaza will not forgive the President he blames for the loss of the Mirror, which is why he has been using all manner of small media girls and boys to stir the succession pot.

Of course the performance has been abysmal and costly to certain ambitions. The foul incest pervading that book makes it difficult to say whose loins brought it to life; whose life it traces; which struggle it portrays; which politics it serves. Mandaza who writes it, also introduces it in ways and words that spit out more his own embitterment with Mugabe, than honestly trace a lifetime of struggle.

And the life whose time must be traced gives way to another life whose present time and form is resented. Mugabe's life at the helm is the main story, to which Edgar's escapade is a mere uneventful digression. The passion of the narrative is its diatribe against Mugabe, never the great moments of a lifetime of struggle.

It is a costly inadvertence, an unintended tribute to a man the whole narrative vainly seeks to belittle, yes, a huge confession that both men cannot, could not have existed outside the greater life they acknowledge backhandedly.

Is his head correct?

And there is much both men need to atone for, when their lives are read against that of Mugabe. Much will be said on that matter in subsequent instalments. But just two small tit-bits. What was Enos Nkala meant to do at the launch? To suggest a building, broad front against Mugabe within Zanu (PF)? Led by? It is a bit desperate to imagine these politically inert men to challenge the President.

For a man who wants his autobiography to be published posthumously, Nkala came close to breaching this unsolicited, self-declared pledge, indeed came close to making many wonder what disease eats his until-now thrust-ful brains.

What was he saying at the launch? Is his head still correct? How were his testimonies augmenting on a lifetime of struggle? Whose life? Or was his own struggle the riveting Gukurahundi madness about which he seems so plagued with guilt? From both men's performance, their disparate lives did not seem to intersect which is what left many wondering why they chose to be neighbours at the launch.

From both men's shared hatred of Mugabe, their lives indeed seemed to find common purpose and focus. History did not seem to matter; contemporary feelings did. And given that the three men parted ways in the late eighties -- well after the liberation struggle -- the undue focus on the life after that separation could not have been "a lifetime of struggle". Only an inglorious excerpt of it.

Fawning hatred, close buddies

But it shall be shown that all this is fawned hatred. Mugabe lives and looms large in both men's lives. Not through history, but through contemporary acts of life-giving generosity to both men.

Each of them turned to the President when both separately reached their tether's end. Not too long ago, in fact. Rescue packages came from State House, in a demonstration of lasting comradeship against which the present spate seems a hideous failure and lapse in gratitude.

It is as if President Mugabe saved both men to earn a combined curse. But Cde Tekere will also recall his address to University students in 1983/4, at the height of the operations in Matabeleland and Midlands. Nkala will recall the many interviews he gave at the height of the conflict. History will have occasion to recall both for the two men.

Tekere will also recall the last interview Chief Rekayi Tangwena gave as he reminisced over Tekere and Mugabe's odyssey through Nyafaru. In that riveting account, the old man spelt out who between the two men almost derailed the mission by crying to go back to Rhodesia, fearing the foreboding dark emptiness that lay ahead. This is on tape.

History is tricky especially when it has many tellers who live and are ready to speak out. It records moments of heroism, records moments of haunting weakness. And depending on the dignity of its tellers, it either brings out and celebrates the greatness of human actions, or simply traduces each and all as ignoble actors.

And when great men tell great moments of history, care must be taken to banish knaves whose urge is to convert great stories into cheap farces. For history is made by men of myriad frailties, men of myriad virtues. As far as history is concerned, the beautiful ones are the ones who never lived. Icho!