So, Matebeleland Interest is 'Tribalism' & Mashonaland Interest 'Nationalism'?

Last week I blogged an article titled 'Why I am Card-holding Member of the MDC', and the first comment that was made on the blog posting inspired the present article. I had written in that article on why I am a member of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC, the other party being MDC-T). I presented the values, aims and objectives of my party as captured in its Constitution, and argued that they were the kind of values, aims and objectives of a political party that can take this country forward from its present crisis.

I also cited the recent Freedom House Report, Change and 'New' Politics in Zimbabwe, which showed a declining support for the MDC-T. I also pointed out that one of the reasons according to the report for the declining support is increasing corruption in the party. But in addition to that, I argued that mistake should not be made to think that MDC-T is now irrelavant. I argued that the party, together with MDC, had sacrificed a lot to attain freedom for the long-suffering people of Zimbabwe, though that goal is yet to be realized. I then presented the case for why I am a member of MDC, citing its founding values, aims and objectives.

But then, bang, the first comment was like: "??????? Tribalism?" In all honesty I still do not understand what it is in that article demonstrated tribalism, whatever the anonymous commentor meant by that. But I will assume that political tribalism (that is, politics according to tribal affiliation over and above everything else) is what was meant, and I am writing this present blog post with that definition at the back of my mind.

I firmly believe that this kind of thinking is one of the horrible legacies of Zanu PF rule in this country. Such a legacy, amongst many other aspects that define Zanu PF misrule, is the proposition that says anything and everything based in Matebeleland (historically and properly Bukalanga) is "tribalistic", and anything and everything based in Mashonaland is "national". It is my thinking that the commentor was simply touring this Zanu PF line.

There is a disturbing school of thought in Zimbabwe, no doubt pushed by the zealotic Zezuru nationalists who were behind the Gukurahundi Genocide, that nothing based in Matebeleland can ever be national, it invariably remains "tribal". Whether it be a political party, business, development project, language, culture, etc, it remains tribal, and therefore unworthy of national attention, debate, support or funding. This has been the basis of the marginalization of Matebeleland for the last three decades.

It is based on nothing but plain hatred for the people of Matebeleland who are seen as outsiders in the country worthy of shonalizing by all means or being "driven beyond the Limpopo where they came from." But the irony of it all is that these very Zezuru nationalists, if we are to read our history correctly, are themselves no more indigenous to Zimbabwe than the Ndebele and the Europeans. If anything the Europeans were in the land now called Zimbabwe 200 years before the Zezuru!

Yes, you heard me right. The Shona (Zezuru) arrived in Zimbabwe in the early 1700s, whereas the Europeans (Portuguese in this case) arrived about 1497. So they are actually more indigenous to Zimbabwe than the Zezuru, yet the Zezuru love to declare themselves more indigenous to this country than everyone else. Could the apparent tribalism and racism they display (and rush to accuse others of the same) be born out of fear that their position in the country is insecure as the second-latest arrivals before the Ndebele? For let us face it, the people of the land erroneous called Matebeleland, are Bukalanga peoples (which is why I call Matebeleland Bukalanga). They are Bakalanga, Vhavenda, Banambya, Babirwa, and of course the non-Bukalanga Tonga. The majority of the people called Ndebele are are originally Kalanga, and these are the people whose ancestors settled in Zimbabwe over 1500 years before the Shona, settling the land about 100 AD, with the Shona only arriving in the early 1700s. How is it then that these are the people accused of being tribalists when then demand self-determination, self-government, promotion of their linguistic and cultural interest, and most importantly, the development of their community? In what way is their interest "tribalistic"? If you find a man in his home, he hosts you, and you flourish in his home, do you turn around and accuse him of tribalism when he tells you that he wants to do things his way and promote his interest?

The Shona have some serious questions to answer here. What exactly makes things Shona "national", and things Bukalanga/Ndebele "tribal"? I ask again as I have asked before in previous articles: who is a tribalist one seeking justice for himself and one suppressing the other's rights and interest? Is this not like Ian Smith accusing our nationalists of racism for daring to fight for liberation from racist rule? Really, in what way does my belonging to the MDC and supporting Professor Welshman Ncube and campaigning for him to be President make me "tribalistic"? Is it tribalistic simply because he is not a Shona, or there is another definition of tribalism which equates to "belonging to Matebeleland"? For how exactly does everything Bukalanga/Ndebele become "tribal", and what standard is used that finds things Zezuru "national" and things Ndebele/Kalanga "tribal"?

Ok, perhaps because MDC draws the bulk of its support from Matebeleland, and is therefore "tribal". But does not Zanu PF draw much of its support from Mashonaland? Does not MDC-T have the bulk of its support amongst the Karanga (God bless them)? So why is it not deemed "tribalism" for the Zezuru to support Zanu PF and the Karanga to support MDC-T?

Surely, my fellow Zimbabweans, if this country that we all love and cherish is to live long in peace and develop fast, we need to accept one another as equals. A failure to do so may lead us to unnecessary expenditure on trying to contain a bloody insurgence because people will not long be treated as second-class citizens in the land of their forefathers. And to those arrogant Shonas that I have several times 'seen' exalting Gukurahundi on Facebook and claiming Part II will be on its way to contain and crush any insurgency, let me remind you this is 2012, not 1980. Ivory Coast and Lybia should be a reminder of what happens when political leaders slaughter innocents, and Syria may not be far from that day.

And make no mistake, today you may look at Bukalanga/Matebeleland as the "problem region", but be warned, not many years from now the people of Manicaland will be demanding not only control of their resources (an estimated $800 billion in diamond wealth) but their own state. And a look at West Africa (Siera Leone and Liberia) and the DRC should serve as a reminder of the horrors that can be unleashed through diamond-funded wars.

We surely need to accept that all of us are equal and all our interests are national interests. I certainly do not need to prove my Zimbabwean citizenship by speaking Shona or being Shona. Perish that desire on the part of a Shona or Zezuru zealot. As for me I am proudly Kalanga and nothing in this world will force me to be Shona, for my Zimbabwean citizenship has absolutely nothing to do with being Shona or speaking the Shona language.

I therefore reject in the most categorical terms the idea that my membership and support of MDC and Professor Ncube amounts to "tribalism". The real tribalists in this country are those who have monopolized power in Mashonaland for the last 30 years; those who have denied fellow citizens jobs and allocated them to their kith and kin; those who slaughtered over 30,000 innocents in their "moment of madness"; those who slaughtered some 200 people in 2008 for daring to demand their freedoms; those who have ensured every kind of meaningful development is channelled to their home provinces; those who continuously loot resources from Manicaland, Matebeleland, Maswingo and Midlands to develop their own imperial center. Those are the true tribalists, and they are the worst threats to the peace, unity, indivisibility and stability of this great country that we all love.

Such is my thought for the week my fellow Zimbabweans. Long live Zimbabwe, long live Bukalanga, long live all nations in this country. Someday not far I hope to live in a democratic Federal Republic of Zimbabwe which accepts all citizens as equals, living in peace, harmony and mutual respect. Thank you very much all, God bless you!