Into the Federal Republic of Zimbabwe: What Manner of State?

My fellow Zimbabweans, in the name of justice, freedom, equality, unity in diversity, self-determination, self-government, and above all, the indivisibility of Zimbabwe; and in light of the manifold problems that we are facing: the threat of civil war as a result of secessionist calls; inequality; tribal domination; discrimination; unequal national development; tyranny and imperial rule from the capital; the terrible, bad and inefficient bureaucratic government; unequal distribution of national resources and a polarized society, I hereby propose that we establish the Federal Republic of Zimbabwe along these lines, that the country be partitioned into five provinces, one of them being the federal capital territory (or FCT) housing the federal capital, as follows:

1. MANICALAND PROVINCE - made up of the Manicaland, the province would have its capital at Mutare. What Manyika would not want to see that great city, capital of a province where is located some $800 billion dollars in diamond wealth, not growing into a world-class city characterized by cloud-piercing skyscrapers, freeways and a Singaporean-type skyline?

2. MASHONALAND PROVINCE - made up of what is presently the three Mashonaland Provinces - Mashonaland East, West and Central - this country's agricultural and platinum mining province would have its capital at the country's present capital city of Harare. As shall be seen below and already mentioned in the preface, I propose that the federal capital be moved to the country's central City of Gweru.

3. MASWINGO PROVINCE - headquartered in Maswingo town and further partitioned into three counties - Karangaland, Pfumbi and Xangani territories - the Province would be made up of the current Maswingo Province.

4. GWERU AND THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY - it is my proposal that once we decide to build Zimbabwe into a Federal Republic, the federal capital be moved from Harare to the nationally central City of Gweru, which would also be the capital of the Federal Capital Territory, the present Midlands Province. FCTs are common to almost all federal republics and they remain under the jurisdiction of the federal government as opposed to any particular ethnic group. I know almost any and every Zezuru will condemn this move, but I know too that almost any and every Karanga, Manyika, Kalanga and every other will support the move, knowing the pains of imperial rule from Harare that has reduced the rest of the country to a feeding trough for Mashonaland. Midlands also qualifies for being the Federal Capital Territory for its great ethnic diversity. It can serve as a far better cosmopolitan melting pot of Zimbabwe than Harare can ever be, for despite being the capital for about a century, Harare has remained an invariably Shona city.

5. SOUTH-WEST PROVINCE - whilst in The Rebirth I proposed that the name Matebeleland should be changed to Bukalanga for its little being truly representative of all groups in the region, I also indicated that even the name Bukalanga itself suffers a similar set-back. Whilst it is truly representative of the majority of the inhabitants of the region, it has in recent times come to be more representative of Bakalanga than of Banambya and Vhavenda, and has also never been representative of the Tonga and Khoisan. For these reasons I am in this book proposing the non-ethnic name South-West Province taken from the geographical location of the region. The region would be further partitioned into four counties plus the City of Bulawayo as the Provincial Capital as follows:

Kasambabezi-Nambya (a Tonga and Nambya County made up of the Binga and Hwange Districts) ; uMthwakazi County (made up of the six Ndebele-speaking districts of the present Matebeleland, i.e., Lupane, Nkayi, Bubi, uMguza, Insiza and uMzingwane); Venda-Sotholand (also known as Vesoland by the preference of certain members of the two communities, Vhavenda and BaSotho, the country would be made up of the Gwanda South and Beitbridge Districts); Shango-Ya-Bakalanga or Bukalanga (made up of the western portion of Matebeleland, the county would by typically Bakalanga country, made up of Bulilima, Mangwe, Matobo, Gwanda North and Tsorowotso Districts).

As the Provincial Capital, the City of Bulawayo will not be left under the jurisdiction of any of the ethnic groups of Matebeleland, but will be self-governing under a Metropolitan Council headed by an Executive Mayor. The same council and its staff will have to be also representative of all the ethnic groups in the Province. Whilst in all the other counties the traditional and historical languages of the communities there will be used in government, the media and education, in addition to English, within the City of Bulawayo all of the languages will be used equally just as is the situation obtaining in the highly cosmopolitan City of Johannesburg. This also means that tri-lingualism and multi-lingualism will become the order of the day in the Province. For example, children in the Kasambabezi-Nambya County would have to learn English, Nambya and Tonga languages at school, whilst those in Vesoland will have to learn Sotho and Venda.

There can be no doubt that this kind of arrangement not only preserves our languages and unites the country, but it also makes the development and administration of these languages very easy as it will be the primary responsibility of the Provincial Governments. Even the Ndebele in the Mthwakazi County can happily establish their monarchy in their area if they so wish, as long as they would not ask the Xhosa and Bakalanga in that area to bow down to that king against their will! With that said, let us now explore one of the most contentious questions as far as federalism is concerned whenever it is under discussion, that is, will ethnolinguistic federalism divide the country or incite tribalism? This is a line usually taken by the unitarists, and yet the unitarist approach itself has already divided the country along ethnic lines.

Will Ethnolinguistic Federalism Divide Zimbabwe?

There are those amongst us who argue that any kind of federalism will divide the nation. Such are indeed dishonest souls. What they are not realizing or ignore intentionally is that Zimbabwe is already divided as it is. The increasing calls for secession are evidence enough of division. It is forced assimilation of ethnolinguistic communities, blind nationalism which ignores diversity and domination by the ruling classes that causes division in this country. Other countries, Switzerland, Canada, Austria, Belgium, and India are good examples of ethnolinguistic federations that have remained united and peaceful for decades now, and are some of the most prosperous countries in the world. The argument, therefore, that federalism (or devolution of power) brings division is baseless and unwarranted, only real in the minds of the unitarists who want to continue to dominate other ethnolinguistic groups, most usually driven by nothing but greed, selfishness, and hunger for power!

These misguided souls also want to make us believe the lie that Zimbabwe is too small for a federal form of government or, in their language, to be Balkanized into Bantustans. This is a lie of hellish proportions and is not based on reality but imagination. Perhaps we need to remind them of what is happening in other federal countries of the world. For some good examples let us look at the situations in Switzerland, Belgium, Austria, Federated States of Micronesia and the United Arab Emirates in comparison to Zimbabwe. Common to these nations is that they have smaller land mass and populations than Zimbabwe, and yet they are fully fledged federations. Let us look at this in table form so that we can make clear comparisons (data from Wikipedia Online).

COUNTRY LAND MASS POPULATION APROX GDP (US)

Zimbabwe 390 757 km2 ~12 500 000 ~$ 9.323 Billion

Belgium 30 528 km2 ~11 007 00 ~$405.47 Billion

Austria 83 855 km2 ~8 414 700 ~$351.87 Billion

Switzerland 41 285 km2 ~7 900 000 ~$512.07 Billion

The reader can easily see from the above table that the argument that Zimbabwe is too small does not hold water. In comparison to the other federal, multi-ethnic and multi-linguistic countries, Zimbabwe is far larger than them in terms of population and about five times larger than most of them in land mass. In fact, Manicaland Province, at 36 459 km2, is larger than Belgium, and Maswingo and Midlands Provinces at 56 566 km2 and 49 166 km2 respectively are larger than Belgium and Switzerland. One would say some of these countries are just a few times larger than the combined size of the farms of some of the very people arguing that Zimbabwe is too small for federalism. Not only so, some of the very same people, during the constitution-making process wanted Zimbabwe divided into ten provinces with ten provincial governments, or provincial councils as they would have it. The same people also increased the number of Members of Parliament from 210 to 400! What are they but hypocritic liars bent on injustice and domination of others?

Also, some state that the environment is not conducive to building the country into a federation or devolved state. Should we remind them that most of the world's federations reverted to federalism as a result of inter-ethnic conflict, and federalism has served them well in maintaining peace for decades? Even the United States itself chose federalism as a way out of war, so did Ethiopia, so did Switzerland. Federalism is not a cause for war but a solution to war! Let us take the example of Switzerland. The country has four ethnolinguistic communities - German (63.6%), French (20.4%), Italian (6.5%) and Romansh (0.5%). With a Federal Constitution adopted in 1848 in response to a 27-day civil war, and modeled on the lines of that of the United States, the country has not been in a state of war since. The country is one of the richest in the world by per capita GDP. Zurich and Geneva, the country’s two largest cities, have respectively been ranked as the cities with the second and third highest quality of life in the world. In 2010 the World Economic Forum ranked Switzerland as the most competitive country in the world, while ranked by the European Union as Europe’s most innovative by far. This is a country full of mountains and without much of the resources that Zimbabwe is blessed with, and under good management, we can easily attain such high levels of prosperity. Whilst the Swiss are predominantly German-speaking, they do not form a nation in the sense of a common ethnic or linguistic identity. Their strong sense of belonging to the country is founded on the common historical background, shared values of federalism, direct democracy, and neutrality. That is what keeps them close and united, not the suppression of minorities as we see happening in Zimbabwe.

The foregoing shows that the establishment of federalism has nothing to do with land mass or population size. It has everything to do with nation-building which recognizes diversity as an essential part of a nation, and that unity can only be attained through building on that diversity, not forced assimilation! Forced assimilation leads to blind nationalism, or the other way round, and that is what leads to disintegration of countries. This will be imperialism, not nation-building, and as history has taught us, all empires fall, but nations remain for centuries. If Zimbabwe (and Botswana) are to live long in peace and unity, it is important that we accept that nation-building and assimilation or imperialism are two different things. Building empires of one language, one king and one culture will only backfire with the direst of consequences. It is urgent for us all to remember that at the heart of most of Africa’s civil wars has always been the tendency on the part of the majoritarian forces and ruling classes to impose their language and culture on the rest of the population, whilst marginalizing those who refuse to be assimilated. It has always been the practice of allocating national resources on the basis of what ethnic group one belongs to or does not belong to, with the result that those associated with the ruling classes have a larger share of the national cake so to speak, and those not associated are marginalized, treated as second-class citizens, denied their ethno-linguistic and cultural rights, and many other negatives that arrest their political, economic and socio-cultural progress and development, that leads many nations to war. It is this that is the primary cause of the seemingly endless civil wars that are plaguing the African continent today. Capturing this very situation on the marginalization of so-called minority ethno-linguistic communities and the need for the promotion of their languages in the context of fear by some politicians that this causes division, Isaac Mumpande, that brilliant Tonga, had the following to say:

************

Those politicians in Zimbabwe who believe such promotion would introduce division overlook the fact that linguistic differences do not cause conflict. Rather, it is the intolerance of linguistic diversity that can lead to violence. For example, Somalia has one predominant ethnic group and yet has a seemingly endless civil war. Likewise, civil war in Burundi has persisted, it being a small country with one dominant language. By contrast, many countries that are multilingual have avoided civil war. South Africa has nine official languages and Zambia has eleven (sic?), yet these countries are the two most politically stable countries in southern Africa. Not surprisingly, one must then question the basis for the fears of Zimbabwean politicians who are reluctant to promote the use of minority languages within our nation (Mumpande 2006:11).

************

These politicians who fear that the promotion and celebration of our diversity will lead to the division and disintegration of the country also want to foist into our thinking that lie that before colonialism, or before the coming of the Ndebele, Zimbabwe was somehow one monolithic "nation" having a homogenous language and culture. This is a lie of extremely intolerable proportions. We have never been one homogenous people at all. We have always been a diverse people. Bakalanga have been Bakalanga for many centuries, so have been Vhavenda, so have been the Tonga, and so have been the Zezuru themselves. True, there have been intermingling and amalgamations, such as between the Shona and Kalanga to produce the Karanga, but the reality that remains is that we have always been a diverse people with different languages and cultural practices. We have never, at any point in history, been some monolithic enterprise of one language and culture. Therefore, any desire today to turn us into such in post-independence Zimbabwe will always meet resistance and cause even more divisions and conflict. The best we can do is accept our diversity as a given, and do all in our power to harness it for the good of the 'nation', if we are to use the word nation loosely.

I have also heard it declared by some that Zimbabwe cannot afford Ethnolinguistic Federalism because our people cannot manage this kind of government set-up due to their levels of ethnic consciousness. It is charged that Ethnolinguistic Federalism will lead to the disintegration of the country as each ethnic group will seek to set up for itself. It is propositioned that our people haven’t reached a level where they can handle this kind of federalism, whatever that level means. To me this is just another lie coming from unitarist forces. I do not believe that our people need someone in Harare to be deciding for them on a daily basis how to live their lives and govern themselves. I believe in the essential decency of our people, that the citizens of this great country know what is best for them and will take decisions that are in their best interests. We don’t need some bureaucrat in Harare deciding what is best for us. This Platonian type of politics that says that somehow there are people in our society who have more expertise to decide for the rest of the population what is in their best interests does not apply in a twenty-first century world. Zimbabweans are decent and intelligent people who know what is in their best interests and would not take decisions that jeopardize their own welfare. I don’t even see them allowing a few zealotic and nationalistic elements hijacking their freedom for narrow sectarian interests, which is precisely why they consistently reject such elements at election times.

There is also the idea that as Africans we are not ready for this kind of governmental arrangement. This is a very stupid way of looking at things. It assumes that only white nations can handle federalism, and what this amounts to is a subscription to the worn out theories of black inferiority and white superiority. I cannot accept in the 21st century that Africans cannot do what Caucasians can do!

On the National Unity and Security of the Federal Republic

We have already touched on this issue above when we dealt with the disadvantages of Federalism in Chapter One. But I would like to deal with this issue just a little more here. I would like to point out that unfortunately, in the present set-up of Zimbabwe, the national security apparatus is not really something to be proud of, especially the police services. The Zimbabwe Republic Police, truly speaking, in Matebeleland, is more of a force of occupation than a police service. It will be in the interest of national unity and security that the ZRP be disbanded and the duty of policing left to the individual Provincial Governments, with the line of command reporting to a Federal Bureau of Investigations, a federal agency under the direct management of the Federal Government. For how do we explain that in most police stations in Matebeleland one finds, in many cases, exclusively Shona-speaking police officers who insist on their language whether one be in Venda or Victoria Falls? I know there are those who will argue that our people do not want to join the force, but that itself is a result of the domination of other ethnolinguistic groups by the Shona. How do we expect the children of Matebeleland to happily join a police service, or even the national army, in which at training they are told that they have to speak Shona, as if being Zimbabwean is equal to being Shona? That cannot be said to be nation-building but imperialism. For our children to proudly serve in the security arms of the nation there is need for inclusivity and acceptance of diversity. This federalization of the police services will also help prevent the abuse of the services for political ends as we have often seen in the last 30 years.

Taking the example of Ethiopia, I propose that the country's Police Services be left under the management of each of the Provincial Governments. The Ethiopian Federal Constitution's Article 52 (2) (g) states: "Consistent with sub-Article 1, States shall have the following powers: To establish and administer a state police force, and to maintain public order and peace within the State." There is no doubt that policing is one of the most important services in any nation. And people feel much secure and protected when the men and women patrolling their streets are from their own nation and understand their languages and cultures. It is unfortunate that in Zimbabwe today the police service appears more as a force of occupation than a security arm and upholder of public order and peace in many areas. One could also take the example of South Africa where a good police service system is in place. Although facing tremendous challenges of fighting crime, as a public service South Africans have a measure of pride in the police force. When travelling on South African roads, even if one didn’t know the geographical location they are in, communication from traffic police will quickly alert someone which province they are in or have entered if they know the languages and provinces of South Africa. But alas, in Zimbabwe police officers make it look like one is in Mashonaland everywhere across the country, giving the impression that Zimbabwe is Mashonaland and Mashonaland is Zimbabwe!

I also propose that the only other national security apparatus that would have to remain directly under the management of the Federal Government would be the Secret Service, the Central Intelligence Organization, the National Prosecuting Authority, and above all, the National Defence Force. But these apparatus too, in their recruitment and leadership, will have to reflect the diversity of the country, as opposed to the present scenario in which all the country’s service chiefs are from the Zezuru tribe, which happens to be the tribe of the President! Also under direct management of the Federal Government would be those institutions that support democracy such as the Constitutional Court, the Auditor-General, the Public Protector, the Human Rights Commission, the Anti-Corruption Commission, the Media Commission, the Financial and Fiscal Commission responsible for fiscal policy, the Inter-State Commerce Commission and any other such commissions as may be deemed necessary to establish, as well as Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation.

Representation and Tiers of Government

There can be no doubt that there are several models of representation and tiers of government in any given federal republic. All I would like to do here is to present just one so as to make it clear to the reader what federalism might actually mean not only just for the whole country but for each of the five individual provinces. We in Zimbabwe already have a bicameral legislature which is the type commonly used in federal states. The representation I propose is one in which the upper house of Parliament, the Senate, will have an equal number of representatives from each of the five provinces, regardless of population size. This system is in use in the United States and Australia, both great democracies. The lower house of Parliament, the National Assembly, would then represent the nation as a whole, elected through a system of proportional representation.

Apart from the two houses of the Federal Parliament, the Senate and the National Assembly, each Province would have its own Assembly or legislature which deals with matters specific to that Province as spelt out in the Federal Constitution. This assembly would be headed by the majority party leader at provincial level, whereas a popularly elected Governor will be head of the government of that particular Province, just as the President of the Federal Republic would be the head of the Government at that level, whilst the Senate would be headed by the Senate President and the National Assembly by the Speaker. Briefly, that is how representation would work in a Federal Republic.

The competencies, functions and responsibilities of each of the tiers of government would be spelt out in the Federal Constitution, with powers to do with the Federation as a whole - like national defense, foreign affairs and international relations, standards and measures, patents and copyrights, enforcement of federal laws and rights, immigration, possession and bearing of arms, fiscal policy and the Reserve Bank, etc - being the preserve of the Federal Government, and all other areas like education, tourism, health, infrastructure, etc being the preserve of Provincial Governments. Certain infrastructure like major interstate highways, the rail line, airports, and lakes might sometimes be in the hands of the Federal Government.

The Legislative Agenda of the Province

It is important to note that Federalism is not Secession; therefore no Province will have absolute sovereignty, but will be part of a Federal Republic of Zimbabwe with a Federal Constitution which would be the supreme law of the land. It then follows that each Province's legislative agenda will have to be guided and informed by the Federal Constitution, and no law can be passed by any of the Provinces which is contrary to the supreme law of the land. All Provinces' legislative agenda will be within the confines of the Federal Constitution, and only limited to matters affecting that particular Provinces. The counties or districts would be able to pass further by-laws if need be, which too would have to be consistent with the Federal Constitution.

How about Labor Laws and 'Immigrants' into other Provinces?

From various discussions and debates that I have held on Facebook, one of the recurring questions was: are we not creating some kinds of Bantustans if we embrace Ethnolinguistic Federalism in which people from other Provinces cannot work and settle in Provinces that are not traditionally theirs? This again is a line of thinking advanced by the unitarists. What they ignore is the fact that even in a unitary system, people move from one region to another, especially from the outlying areas to the imperial center. The major problem with this arrangement is that whoever moves to the imperial center now has to change who they are and adopt the language and culture of the imperial rulers, without much choice, and yet those from the imperial center have the freedom to move wheresoever they will across the country and insist on using their language, the imperial language, without any respect for or need to adapt to local communities' languages and cultures, which does a lot to destroy those languages and cultures.

But in Ethnolinguistic Federalism, one can move from one Province to another as per their choice, and as is natural with humanity, they will have to adapt to the language(s) of their hosts, or use the nationally agreed link language, English in this case. This will serve to protect all our languages and cultures as well as foster unity and mutual respect in the country. In practical terms, here is what this will mean: people from Mashonaland who travel to work and settle in say South-West Province, will have to adapt themselves there and learn the local languages, as much as people from Bukalanga working in Harare also adopt and use Zezuru in their conversation. A Zezuru person moving from Mashonaland to work in the diamond fields of Manicaland will too have to adapt to the language there, than impose their dialect on the Manyika as is currently the case. Some will freak at this and say it is divisive, but we might love to remind them that this is exactly the system they have used in other federal countries such as Switzerland, Belgium, Canada, India, Ethiopia, South Africa, and Austria for many decades and it has served them well. Of course we have to mention that in the large metropolitan cities, all languages will be used as is the case in Johannesburg today, or Addis Ababa in Ethiopia and Bern and Geneva in Switzerland.

This kind of system will prevent any kind of discrimination when it comes to labor laws, for indeed if one is qualified for a job they can take it up anywhere in the Federal Republic, though obviously certain jobs will be reserved for locals, especially in the public sector. This may sound a bit undemocratic, but this is the only way we can ensure that we remain united as a country. To just give an example, why would a Nambya in Victoria Falls have any hard feelings against a Zezuru from Harare when his or her community is holding the largest number of jobs in Victoria Falls hotels? But if Zezuru people from Harare are the majority employees in Victoria Falls, obviously the Nambya will feel cheated, and will develop hard feelings against the Zezuru. The same thing can be said in Manicaland. To take another pertinent example, we know that this country's largest diamond reserves are found in Manicaland, and yet, as a result of the current imperial and unitary system of government in Zimbabwe, the diamond cutting and polishing college was built in Mashonaland. What this means is that it is either diamonds will be airlifted raw from Manicaland and processed in Mashonaland where there are qualified people, or qualified people will be exported from Mashonaland to Manicaland. In both ways, the Manyika are deprived of the benefits that are supposed to accrue to them as a community as a result of the diamond mined in their community. Had we had a federal system of government, the diamond cutting and polishing college would have been built in Mutare, and the locals would be the first ones to obtain training from that college, and be the primary beneficiaries both in terms of jobs directly from the diamond industry as well as from line industries that would set up base there. Whoever from Mashonaland wants to work in that industry would have to travel to Manicaland for training and work, and since they have chosen to settle in the land of the Manyika, they would have to adapt themselves to Manyika language, hence preserving that language as it is, for after all: "not all ethnically discriminatory regional state laws, decisions and practices are prohibited. Only those that are unconstitutional and not reasonably justified in a democratic society are disallowed. In fact, in ethno-linguistic federalism like that of India opening more opportunity for the indigenous inhabitants of regional states is taken as sign of success of ethno-linguistic federalism" (Weiner and Katzenstein 1981, 121-135 in Maru 2008, Online). If indigenization and affirmative action are great ideas, why should we not logically take them right down to the Provinces?

Again, I would repeat as I have done so many times throughout this book: only the opponents of freedom and human liberty will stand opposed to this kind of arrangement. It is the opponents of peace and unity who would oppose Ethnolinguistic Federalism, for any continued insistence on a unitary system which results in imperial rule from the capital would lead to conflict. And as surely as British imperial rule was defeated, so will Zezuru imperial rule be defeated. The smartest thing to do is acknowledge we are equals in this country, and we have an equal claim to it, therefore let us share power and work together for the common good.

The Media - Radio and Television

On the radio and television media front I propose that the current ZBC-TV be expanded to a number of channels that will be adequate to accommodate all our languages and cultures. Not only so, but to work hard on its transmission system to see to it that it reaches the whole country. In its programming, it would have to include all the country's languages and cultures in the same way South Africa's SABC does. This will make all of us across the Federal Republic to be aware of the various cultures and languages available and, indeed, to easily learn and understand one another's languages. One of the tragedies of the present system is that it gives the impression that all the citizens of this country are all either Shona or Ndebele. It is not uncommon to walk down a street in Harare, and when you cannot speak Shona, hear someone ask you what country you come from, for some of the people in Mashonaland seem to be totally unaware that we have well over a dozen ethnic groups in this country. A while ago I heard someone tell a story in which a man was speaking TjiNambya in a supermarket in Harare. The till operator asked what languages he was speaking, and the gentleman say TjiNambya. Surprised, the till operator asked: "are you from Namibia?" Now, this is a fellow citizen who is being treated this way. In the back of the till operator's mind, all in this country are Shona, and presumably Zezuru.

The only way for us to defeat this kind of attitude which is totally not beneficial to nation-building is to expand the reach of the national broadcaster and to make sure its programming is inclusive. It cannot be the exclusive preserve of the Ndebele and Zezuru, for we all, as citizens of this country, pay taxes which fund the operation of ZBC. Not only that, we are full citizens of this country, and there is no reason why we should hear news in other people's languages. Yes, I know that English is another people's language too, but we surely all agree that it is neutral to us all. News, current affairs and drama should certainly be heard from ZBC in all of our languages, not just the languages of a few.

Moving from Television to Radio, I propose that each Province have its own radio station(s), still a part of the national broadcaster. Each radio station would broadcast in all the languages of the particular Province to which it is aimed, and be based there. Again, this is in contrast to the present imperial system in which National FM; a station supposed to serve Bakalanga, Vhavenda, BaTonga, BaNambya and others was taken and thrown far away in Harare. Not only is it far from the intended audience who are supposed to use it, but its broadcasting signals cannot even reach where the audience is. In addition to that Shona and Ndebele are compressed into an already crowded radio station when the two languages are already enjoying a monopoly in Radio Zimbabwe. A fair and just system should see each Province have its own government funded but independent radio station, located right in the capital of the community it is intended to serve. This too is a way of ensuring justice, freedom, fairness and equality, for why should I pay my tax money only for it to be taken to develop someone else's language at the expense of my own? Why should my tax money be used to educate somebody else's child via national television to the exclusion of my own child? As a country we need to reform our media policy and ensure more inclusiveness. This brings us to the issue of sacrifice on the part of those languages that have hitherto been dominating others.

Sacrifices on the Language Front for Justice and Equality

In the past I have held debates with some individuals on Facebook regarding Ethnolinguistic Federalism and the division of the current Matebeleland as proposed above. There has been strong opposition from the Mthwakazi proponents who argue that there are Ndebele people in the other territories that have not been listed as uMthwakazi above, and therefore those "Ndebele" cannot be "forced" to learn and use the historic languages of Bakalanga in Bukalanga territories. I really think this just confirms my fear that the Mthwakazi Project will only lead us into the throes of Ndebele domination, for they argue against the Ndebele living in our territories learning and using our languages, and yet for the last 30 years they have been comfortable with the rest of us - Bakalanga, Vhavenda, BaNambya, Babirwa, etc - being "forced" to learn and use isiNdebele!

Frankly, they will need to understand that certain sacrifices will have to be made if we are going to achieve genuine nation-building as an Ethnolinguistic Federation. Perhaps let me address them and those who think in like manner with the following words from former South African President Thabo Mbeki delivered at the University of Natal on a similar issue. These words also go to the Shona, especially Zezuru, who on a national level want their own language to dominate others. They too need to understand that they will have to make tough sacrifices to open the way for others, for there is no need why the Karanga or the Manyika have to learn ChiZezuru in schools in their own areas, when surely, they can learn ChiKaranga and ChiManyika respectively. It was observed by President Thabo Mbeki that:

**********

There can be no gainsaying the fact that the realization of reconciliation among the different national groups in our country is among the most noble of our objectives. This has, as one of its elements, respect for the language, culture and identity of each of the national groups on the basis of equality. The achievement of these goals would be both an expression of the objective of national reconciliation and an instrument for the accomplishment of this aim. The question must be posed: Is it possible to achieve reconciliation between the former two official languages [English and Afrikaans] and the rest of the languages of our country without also effecting a transformation in the relationship among all these languages? If the answer is no, then we have to deal with the question of how to end the relationship of domination of the two over the others, so as to ensure the termination of the conflict which is inherent to the relationship of domination on the one hand and subservience on the other. This clearly has to be done in a manner that does not undermine but enhances the other objective we have already stated, of respect for the language, culture and identity of each of our national groups on the basis of equality. I believe it would be dishonest to pretend that the process of achieving an equitable relationship among our languages can be achieved without the former official languages feeling some pain, if we can put the matter thus. But similarly, no reconciliation among our languages can take place unless the old relationship among them is changed and transformed (Mbeki 1998, 43-45).

**********

Indeed, the Ndebele and Zezuru will have to make painful sacrifices and accept the fact that isiNdebele and ChiZezuru can no longer be taught anywhere else apart from Mthwakazi and of Mashonaland. These languages will have to be replaced by each of the official languages of the other Provinces, and like all the other languages, the only place outside of their territory that they will be taught in school will be in the cosmopolitan federal capital City of Gweru, which, I have no doubt, would be going to take over as the most cosmopolitan city in Zimbabwe. Perhaps it already is anyway. As for the rest of the languages, they would have to be restricted to the respective Provinces and counties.

On the Education Front

On the education front, taking the model of Singapore, I propose that no student shall be admitted to any university or college without having passed at the university or college entry level their mother tongue. This will ensure the preservation and promotion of all our languages and cultures, and ensure that none of them is disadvantaged in terms of human resources. Over the years, I propose that we develop a hybrid educational instruction system which will see our languages being used as instructional languages from the lowest level up to university, with English only taught as a second language for purposes of international communication in the face of the onward march of globalization, the as well as used solely for the teaching of mathematics and perhaps the heavily mathematical sciences as the educationists may determine and deem suitable.

All the languages will also have to be used in the media, with each ethnolinguistic community having its own government-funded radio station broadcasting in all the languages of the Federal Republic. The national television channels, both at Federal and Provincial Level, will also have to incorporate all the languages in their programming, from news to entertainment to education. This will ensure that as a nation, apart from having to use English as a national language, we can learn each others' languages via the media and communicate well with one another. Again, South Africa has led the way in this regard, and we have a lot to learn from there. If a Xhosa and a Sotho can meet and communicate well with each sticking to their language, especially in the cosmopolitan cities, there is no reason why a Karanga should not be able to communicate with a Ndebele if all our languages are out there in the national media and regarded with equal importance and used daily in the national media.

The administration and development of these languages will not be a difficult task as already stated above since that will not be the job of the Federal Government in Gweru. The Provincial Governments, working with the ethno-linguistic communities, will be responsible for the development and administration of their languages and cultures with funding and support from the Federal and/or Provincial Government. I propose that a Federal Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Linguistic and Cultural Communities be set up to work jointly with the ethnolinguistic communities and Provincial Governments in creating, developing and monitoring educational standards. Its additional job would be to preserve, protect, promote and uphold the linguistic and cultural rights of every community, and ensure that no one’s such rights are trampled upon by the Federal or Provincial Governments. It will be very important that the composition of the Commission be broadly representative of the cultural and linguistic communities of the Federal Republic; and that it broadly reflects the gender composition of the Republic too, for the battle against sexism is as important as the battle against ethnolinguistic domination, discrimination and the marginalization that goes with it.

Surely, any person who will stand opposed to these kinds of arrangements would be someone not only opposed to Ethnolinguistic Federalism but to freedom itself. Such will be someone who believes that somehow Zimbabwe belongs to them better than to others, and they would not share it with fellow citizens. Such are the real enemies of security, peace and freedom, unity and the indivisibility of this great country that we so love.

So, my fellow Zimbabweans, such is what the Federal Republic of Zimbabwe would look like. I surely would not understand why people in Manicaland, Maswingo and Midlands would be opposed to this kind of arrangement as Ethnolinguistic Federalism achieves. Even some of the people in Mashonaland itself who have shown a certain degree of resistance to any kind of federalism or devolution of power, they themselves would still benefit out of this kind of set-up in one way or another. Who in this world does not want government to be close to them and indeed to effectively work for them? Zimbabwe I invite you, let us unite and rally together behind the formation of the Federal Republic of Zimbabwe and seize on our rights and freedoms, build a better democracy, overthrow tyranny and imperial rule from Harare, ensure the unity and indivisibility of this country that we all love, avoid civil war, secure the peace, promote the public welfare and earn the unquestionable patriotism of all the citizens of this great country!

---------------------

Ndzimu-unami Emmanuel Moyo is the author of two books: The Rebirth of Bukalanga and Zimbabwe: The Case for Federalism. I can be contacted on ndzimuunami@gmail.com.