Published by the government of Zimbabwe
Tafataona Mahoso
10 November 2009
opinion
Harare — IN the African Focus column of October 25, 2009 in The Sunday Mail, this writer said that Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai's announcement of a partial pullout from the inclusive Government amounted to a unilateral declaration of voluntary redundancy (UDVR).
Although this writer expressed shock then that the PM would choose to make himself and his party redundant in protest over the fate of a white former Rhodesian Selous Scout by the name of Roy Bennett, he did not know then that the PM was so determined to scandalise Zimbabwe and glorify Rhodesia that on October 31, 2009 he would boycott the burial of national hero Cde Misheck Chando and instead proceed to play golf in Ruwa!
This writer had no idea that Tsvangirai takes the white supremacist declaration that Rhodesians never die to mean that Rhodesia must live so blatantly again through MDC-T.
Television viewers must remember the pictures from the formation of the MDC in 1999 and all the way through the hottest period of the indigenous land reclamation revolution of 2000: that the Rhodesian shadow was always hovering in the background of all MDC activities and movements.
Now, with the Bennett case, it is clear that the Rhodesian shadow has now occupied the front office and MDC-T is threatening to become the shadow of Rhodesia.
What this writer means is that both MDC-T and the inclusive Government are now faced with the impossible task of patching together a credible profile of the PM from the career of a supposed African leader who runs away from being an apparent workers' champion in ZCTU; to hiding in the Royal Netherlands Embassy instead of contesting the presidential election run-off which he swore to contest in June 2008; a leader who then leaves the Royal Netherlands Embassy to join other Zimbabwean leaders in Munhumutapa House and swears to be loyal to Zimbabwe and to protect the interests of the nation; a leader who proceeds to follow President Mugabe in laying wreaths at the grave of every national hero during the burial of Vice President Msika and then runs away again to play golf during another hero's funeral and to join Rhodesia under the pretext of protesting the normal indictment of a Roy Bennett!
This writer shall deal with the question of persona and shadow later. For now, the question which religious leaders asked this week is an ominous one: How can Zimbabwe afford to keep a prime minister who does not know what flying the national flag at half-mast means to all national leaders?
What makes the question ominous is that the President is a symbol; the Prime Minister is a symbol; National Heroes Acre is a symbol. A hero's burial is a symbol; and so is the flag.
Indeed what saves the state from relying entirely on violence to maintain social and political integrity is the smooth forging, arranging and deployment of powerful symbols which transform raw energy, potential aggression and simmering conflicts into community rituals of solidarity and co-operation.
As Eli Sagan states:"(Collective) Psychic health depends directly upon the symbol-making capacity... Included within the symbol-making capacity is the faculty to create symbolic transformations, and nothing is more important for cultural (political) and social development."
The President and the Prime Minister, just like the Mambo and Ishe, are profoundly critical symbolic transformations of resonant and contemporary images mined from ancient family and kinship relationships and yet they cannot be mistaken for family or kinship. "The State, as an example, has been defined... as that form of society in which non-kinship forms of social cohesion are as important as kinship forms...(Yet) All forms of social cohesion are based upon kinship and are descended from kinship. The force that holds the state together in our super-modern, post-industrial society is still intimately connected with the cohesion of the kin."
The relationship between media and the symbolising capacity of a people becomes obvious. Symbols are not only sources of power which one can wield to empower oneself; they also carry and contain the power to destroy the user or abuser. Media are not only instruments of power which one can wield to gain power; they also carry the capacity to discredit and crush the user or abuser.
As Eli Sagan continues: "Patriotism, the sense of nationhood, love of country, are important forms of social cohesion (or integrity) in the most modern... societies; and yet all these feelings are direct (and creative) transformations of the conceptions of kinship. State forms of social cohesion are (converted) kinship forms (which are communicated) as not kinship forms (for the purpose of achieving broad inclusivity.)
The genius of the symbolising capacity in arts, media and protocol is that the converted symbol becomes free from its ancient and narrow origins while retaining its ancient, even primordial potential to register meaning in a searing and lasting manner.
Therefore, modern state symbols "are... transformations of kinship, but a thing and its symbolic transformation are not identical. Certain fundamental tensions within the state arise because what holds it together is both kinship and not kinship at the same time."
That is why, in the debate over the illegal Anglo-Saxon sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe at the invitation of the MDC formations, Tsvangira's image as "the prodigal son" has resonance, even though he may be nobody's son and President Mugabe may be nobody's father as far as the state is concerned. It is the symbolising capacity that allows those without mother or father to enjoy the protection of motherly and fatherly guidance. It is the symbolising capacity that allows those without brothers and sisters of their own to enjoy sibling solidarity in community. Symbols are a source of collective empowerment. Inflicting wild ritual violence upon them is as grave a transgression and provocation as attacking the very people who own them.
In Ideology and Insanity, Thomas Szasz clarifies the challenge such as that facing the inclusive Government and the people of Zimbabwe, by looking at symbols in terms of the transformative powers and functions to which Sagan also refers. Szasz uses the word as an adjective in symbolic classification: We cannot use or adopt symbols without classifying; and classifying is a strategic exercise of power and control.
"Science may be regarded as the sum total of human effort to understand nature and thus gain a measure of control over it. The process of naming, or symbolic identification, is perhaps the basic building block of science. Classification is a refinement over naming. How does classification help us master the world about us? By providing us with certain regularities: as a result we are spared recurrent surprise over various happenings about us."
No matter how angry grandfather or grandmother may get, as Professor Mararike said on November 3, 2009 on ZTV, we do not expect him or her to climb on to the rooftop and strip naked. That is why the diplomatic language for a messy blunder is an irregularity.
Luke 11 verses 11 and 12 demonstrates what Szasz means when he says classification is meant to prevent irregularities, that it is a more powerful means of definition and control than just naming:
"If a son shall ask for bread from any of you that is a father, will you give him a stone? If he asks for fish, will you give him a snake? Or if he asks for an egg, will you offer him a scorpion?"
Indeed, if a Zimbabwean boy or girl cries for the companionship and guidance of an uncle, how can we offer them a white Rhodesian Selous Scout by the name of Roy Bennett? Are we so devoid of morality and decency that we think that Bennett's fund-raising for MDC-T is all that counts?
Luke derives his symbols from kinship and family relations, but the sermon is not about kinship at all.
We have already said that the President is a symbol. The Prime Minister is a symbol.
The minister is a symbol. And in Ideology and Insanity, Thomas Szasz has told us that the strategic purpose of symbolic identification is to achieve power, prediction and control. State operations depend on power, prediction and control.
This therefore means that the President is a classified symbol. The Vice President is a classified symbol. The Prime Minister is a classified symbol. Unlike other persons who might become victims arbitrary naming and classification, our leaders actually asked to be elected as leaders. In other words, they asked to be turned into national symbols, to be confirmed as national symbols and therefore to follow the national rules of power, prediction and control. In fact they all agreed to take oaths of office, swearing in front of a national and global audience that they undertook to live and work as national symbols and to adhere to the strict rules of power, prediction and control which chiefs of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces once described as "a straitjacket."
A careful application of the science of communication, the science of symbolic identification as classification, means that our leaders have gone through narrow gates of both ritual and actual security and classification:
From the signing of the memorandum of understanding stating the intention to establish an inclusive Government in order collectively to tackle the crisis precipitated by illegal sanctions and the external regime change onslaught all the way to the signing of the inter-party agreement. From the signing of the detailed inter-party agreement to the swearing in of the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Ministers;
From the swearing in of the Prime Minister and his deputies to the formation and swearing in of the inclusive Cabinet made up of ministers from all parties.
These are narrow gates of classification and security, which all the three parties mutually agreed to enter in order to serve the people.
Now, as Sagan says, no matter how modern or post-modern a state claims to be, the symbols and rituals that create, contain and discipline its power are transformations and enlargements of kinship symbols.
Members of the inclusive Government have voluntarily passed through the narrow ritual and physical security gates of symbolic classification. In kinship terms, they have been allowed to enter the secret sanctuary of the ancestors: the sacred preserve of Chimurenga, Chaminuka, Nehanda, Kaguvi and others. That's also the meaning of the Heroes Day rituals. To approach the national shrine and proceed to honour each hero and heroine is to agree to cross a certain spiritual and ideological river.
After all these rites, the leaders become strictly classified representatives in the symbolic sense. They are not allowed casual retreats and expeditions that end in shouting from the tops of TV transmitters and antennae about the conditions in which the respective leaders have seen the secret sanctuary of the ancestors. And these sworn leaders are not allowed to bring Selous Scouts and other agents of settlerism and imperialism to come and view the conditions of their father and mother in that sacred sanctuary.
In the case of PM Tsvangirai, he made a journey from hiding in the Royal Netherlands Embassy in June 2008 to hiding in Botswana where he demonised Zimbabwe through foreign media, and back to Zimbabwe to sign the inter-party agreement of September 15, 2008. Then he took an oath of office as Prime Minister and went to join other political leaders at Munhumutapa House.
Then in March 2009 the PM joined President Mugabe and other national leaders at the burial of national hero General Vitalis Zvinavashe, which gesture was crowned by the PM's attendance yet again at the burial of the late Vice President Joseph Msika on Heroes Day in August 2009.
We call this a crowning moment because PM Tsvangirai for the first time followed in the footsteps of President Mugabe and laid a wreath at the grave of every National Hero and Heroine buried at Heroes Acre by that time.
In terms of the rules of power, prediction and control to which the PM had sworn, we can say on National Heroes Day 2009 the PM undergo full symbolic identification, he became a fully classified national symbol, so we thought.
Now, two actions since that fateful August day help to explain the deep sense of scandalisation that Tsvangirai has inflicted upon the nation.
First, on October 15, 2009 he led his MDC-T party in what he called a partial pullout from the inclusive Government.
And the cause of that decision was given as the indictment of former white Rhodesian Selous Scout Roy Bennett on whose behalf Tsvangirai had previously written a memorandum as PM "To all judges" in Zimbabwe's judicial system.
The memorandum had asked whichever judge dealing with Roy Bennett's case to give him bail and use the person of the Prime Minister as a guarantee.
Second, on October 31, 2009, the Prime Minister and his entire MDC-T leadership boycotted Cde Chando's burial. But the Prime Minister did much more than boycott the burial. He took the exact day and hours of the burial to go and play golf, with unidentified white golfers, in Ruwa.
Now, in terms of that power of symbols we have explained here there are two basic acts of symbolic violence.
The first is the casual retreat from the pilgrimage and vigil at the graves of Herbert Chitepo, Joshua Nkomo, Josia Tongogara, Simon Muzenda and tens of other national heroes, the casual retreat from there back to the embrace of the Rhodesian Selous Scout Roy Bennett, who is apparently worth the abandonment of the inclusive Government.
The second is the PM's disregard of the nation's grief and mourning on October 31, 2009 which he chose to dramatise by playing golf during the time of the burial. Even Tsvangirai's sworn enemy would have deserved better regard than what the PM accorded Cde Chando. African morality requires that we mourn even our sworn enemies.
The golf incident on October 31 generated another "irregularity."
The PM chased away reporters from the golf course in order to prevent them from taking pictures. So, now, while claiming to be the champion of press freedom in Zimbabwe, Tsvangirai readily grants interviews to western media demonising Zimbabwe.
He chases away national reporters who want to tell the nation what has happened to all the sworn commitments to serve the people and protect the national interest.
Read comments. Write your own.
Copyright © 2009 The Herald. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
Where does this idiot come from? Bennet was not a selous scout - fool. Or even if he was is the zanupf now going to "get" him? Also my ancestors would never confuse the rubbish that goes on in zanupf today with our customary law. Give the ancestors credit. The writer has been brainwashed to the extent his brain is confusing UDI by the Smith regime with MDC declaration to zanupf to put in some good governance and implement the joint agreement. Obviously the Heralds reporter first went to Robber Mugbe first.
:"Obviously the Heralds reporter first went to Robber Mugbe first."
"obviously"?
The reporter argued his case. But you want us to take your word because it is "obvious". Should the reporter have talked to Tsvangirai first? Would that order of consultation have changed his analysis of the situation or your readiness to consider his/her view?
The wise man has said: if you have nothing to say, then don't say it.
.
" .. my ancestors would never confuse the rubbish that goes on in zanupf today with our customary law. "
Some light, at last. True, the bones of our valiant ancestors of maZimbabwe find no rest in their graves. The circumspection with wich ZANU-PF approaches these rhodies is cause for concern to our ancestors Mbuya Nehanda and our Chief Lobengula.
[Please check online in case you don't know who they are and what they mean to us.]
.
By our ancestors and our customary laws, rabble-rousing, seditious and treasonous hyenas like Tsvangirai and rhodie Bennet would be no more: Their cursed native-denigrating time would have run out many, many harvests ago. .
"The memorandum had asked whichever judge dealing with Roy Bennett's case to give him bail and use the person of the Prime Minister as a guarantee."
Now, if a UK's prime minister wrote such a memo ..
If a leader in USA wrote such a memo ...
Now, suppose the culprit jumps bail ... Can/Should Tsvangirai use a national office in this manner - put the full prestige of the constitutional office of the Prime Minister (and hence the integrity of the Constitution of Zimbabwe) on the line on behalf of one person of dubious allegiances, who is accused of heinous crimes against the state?
Why can Tsvangirai get away with it in democratic Zimbabwe - and still talk about democracy and the "rule of law"?
Is Tsvangirai above the law - perhaps on account of being a lackey? if so, shouldn't Zimbabwe grant him a one way ticket to the lands of his masters who love him and think so highly of his capabilities? There are many of us who would gladly send him the ticket - immediately.
One vying for a high elective office in USA knows that his /her whole life will be scrutinized - the writings (perhaps dating back to kindergarten days), the meetings, churches and preachers, police records, speeches, contacts and friends, financial and business records, private discussions, phone records and any recorded conversations etc.
Because the decisions of one holding such a high office has an impact on the lives of the citizens - and the future of the nation. It is a unique honor and a select few among the nation's best - in capability, temperament and integrity - should access such power.
We are unwilling to admit that Zimbabwe is a land where a buffoon may reign supreme - by merely committing to promote murderous rhodie imperialism. Was Tsvangirai fully vetted by Zimbabwe's security agencies?
.
What would disqualify one from holding a high office in Zimbabwe?
.
It seems to most of us that Zimbabwe's security forces don't know the full extent of the nature of the ties between Bennett, UK/USA and Tsvangirai. If so, then shouldn't an urgent and present danger to the security of Zimbabwe be recognized and a series of corrective actions taken - immediately?
And if such knowledge is available, why was it not acted upon by those sworn to protect Zimbabwe from all enemies within and without?