Why I fully understand the secession viewpoint, yet still remain unconvinced: Ralph Mguni

I read with bemused interest, the attack on the interview I gave to the SW Radio a couple of days ago. A mere footnote to that discourse touched upon the issue of secession. I very much look forward to this very topical issue-taking centre stage in some of our future discussions in my Party, ZAPU.

It is true that extremism is the product of intolerance or a refusal to discuss issues, however unpalatable or abhorrent they may seem at the time. I think it is an error to simply label as extremists those that have, as a consequence of great frustration at working with people that have appeared to them impervious to reason, decided on a pathway to separation. A deaf ear approach will simply lead to turning up of the volume of the voice of discontent.

What I set out below is a personal opinion and should in no way be regarded the considered position of ZAPU. That will come soon. This is one of the privileges of membership of my Party which sets ZAPU apart. Guided by Party vision and policy members can set out ideas about issues of great importance without fear of "Big Brother is watching and monitoring your every movement!" Oh that such freedom of thought could descend and cleanse the stuffy, suffocating and claustrophobic political climate that currently grips our country!

Having said that I was rather saddened at the anger exhibited by comment arising from what the writer considered as my position on the issue of secession. The writer was obviously angry,anger which he then, unjustifiably I think, vented against my Party. At this moment I can only offer an apology if what I said was gave the impression that I nonchalantly dismissed out of hand the underlying reasons which lie behind the option for separate stateside as and which continue to fan the flames of division.

The firmly held belief in the withdrawal from the unitary state of Zimbabwe by individuals, groups of individuals and even formations does deserve a respectful consideration. I have no doubt that those who have arrived at such a conclusion have not done so as a mere knee jerk reaction,contrary to accusations from some quarters.

The member who wrote criticising the content of my interview did, and that was unfortunate, seem to wish to take the discussion down to a personal level, referring to me as a political upstart, which I may or may not be. I will not fall for the bait and respond likewise thereby reducing a potentially fruitful discussion to an unproductive level.

However it is only meet for me to just open a small window to my own personal experiences of untold suffering that I went through, the travails, the humiliation, the dehumanisation,  the roller-coaster emotions,  the anguish, the feeling of absolute hopelessness that took me to hell and back again until I arrived at to the point where I now stand. The object here is not to invite sympathy but to ensure that there is an understanding of contributory factors to the movement towards separation.

I arrived back in the UK from Zimbabwe in 1984 after losing my only brother at the hands of the Gukurahundi madness. I had not only lost the anchor in my life, I had also lost a soul mate, the only person who knew and had the ability to empathise with my innermost thoughts. At the time, my brother was, as they say the alpha and omega of my existence, the raison d'etre of my life! My world ceased to be on that fateful day that his life was cut short in its prime.

My whole persona became a maelstrom of emotions.The only people who can relate to these emotions are those who have been there, those who fully understand the meaning of the words: What good is life when all hope is gone? And there are many silent sufferers, the many who witnessed first-hand the barbaric acts that truncated the lives of their loved ones, when for them, suddenly the sun refused to shine! To those fellow travellers, many of them without an outlet for their emotions, I dedicate this article.

I tasted the bitterness of unbridled hatred. I hated everything but the thing I loathed most of all was myself. Why did I live to suffer the anguish that I felt? Why did he have to die to leave me in so much mental torture? The cry: "It should have been me" only compounded my anguish; I could find nothing whatsoever that could bring any comfort or solace for my tortured soul.Yes, the urge gripped me many times to rush at anyone I associated with Gukurahundi and die extracting vengeance for my brother.

Today I carry the scars of Gukurahundi everywhere. I have no doubt that I am not the only one so wounded. Every time when I return home fresh wounds are opened.Someone will, wittingly or unwittingly mention a name or an episode in the past and the horror of it comes tumbling down. The anger, the pain, the anguish! For those that would urge me to move on, I am sorry to disappoint but this is where I am.

Then, of course there are the hellish voices of the perpetrators dancing on the graves of our loved ones. Insult to injury! Who the hell do these people think they are, having caused so much harm, so much sadness to dare tell those that suffered to forget, to move on? As Lovemore would put it: "Ngobanilababantu? What dastardly arrogance!

Those that refer to Gukurahundi in the past need only go back to the scene of their crimes to witness the continuing scourge of their acts. The people are still dying as a consequence of the scars of Gukurahundi, some physical, others arising from the deep emotional trauma. Anecdotally only, my sister in law never recovered from the trauma of losing her husband at such a young age, she died only a few years ago, a totally broken woman.There is also of course, the savage destruction of communities, with the dispersal of the vanquished and dispossessed to many lands of exile where many live near meaningless lives.

As if this were not enough, the authors of the genocide then set about dismembering the fabric of society of those they had vanquished, running down all means of sustenance for the survivors and relegating the peoples of the regions to less than human inferior citizens of the unitary state of Zimbabwe.

 I will return, perhaps with a qualified apology to the use of the term, extremist. Of course one who resorts to the extreme solution of a problem is often referred to as an extremist. However, in the Zimbabwean situation, who is the extreme extremist? A government which, without provocation goes on a rampage killing and maiming its citizens at will or those who decide, enough is enough, I am out of here? There is a saying: extreme situations call for extreme solutions. Perhaps so!

Have I made the case for secession? The simplistic answer is "yes". However one must explore the consequences of such a precipitate action to understand the inherent flaws that such a move might present. To begin with, what would be the mechanism of separation? I am no history scholar but I think it is safe to suggest that it would be inconceivable to think of a bloodless secession. Consider immediate examples that come to mind: Israel, Biafra, the Balkans, the Tamils of Sri Lanka, India and Pakistan, the sad roll call continues. Think further and just imagine the very probable displacement of individuals that would result. Remember the Bosnian Serbs, Croatians, Albanians. Think back further to the separation of India and Pakistan. Responsible and mature politics requires joined up thinking, an ability to think with both the head and heart!

Rushing to secession could turn out to be the most reckless game of Russian roulette. The most unfortunate part is that even the non-partisan on the issue of secession would be end up embroiled in a bloodbath conflict of a magnitude almost impossible to foretell. There is nothing civil about a civil war. Of course the charge of "coward" could rush into some people's minds but conventional wisdom distinguishes between bravery and foolhardiness.

A related issue lies in the untested premise that all those who inhabit the lands targeted for secession agree with the proposed solution of separation as the elixir for all their suffering. What would happen to those opposed to separation? Would their rights simply be trampled as they were forced into a schism they had not been consulted about? I am not for once suggesting that there might not be a majority in favour of separateness but responsibility means catering even for the minority opinions.

There are many states in which citizens have at one time or other engaged in bloody conflict but who have remained as an entity. Accepted, the Zimbabwe situation is made the worse because it is the government of the day that went berserk on a rampage, massacring innocents and performing the most heinous inhumanities ever witnessed in the history of depravity by a government on its people. The problem is further exacerbated by the fact that the very same perpetrators of injustice are now positioning themselves as judges and jury in the crimes that they committed.

An issue that cannot be simply shunted aside is the fallacy that some Gukurahundi was genocide by people from one part of Zimbabwe rising up against peoples of another part. The authors of the genocide by their devious scheming wanted it to be presented as such; unfortunately to a large extent they succeeded, the deception worked.

However, a closer look at the acts of persecution does reveal that the depraved individuals from all parts of Zimbabwe were complicit in some way in the dastardly act. Victims of the barbarity are strewn across the whole of Zimbabwe. The target was simply the destruction and eradication of ZAPU and with it, the banishment of any aspiration by the people towards true independence. What gives credence to this belief are reports of truly blood curdling stories, perhaps not as well published, of acts of inhumanity in some areas of Mashonaland West together with the frequently reported such acts in Matebeleland and Midlands.

I think the best way forward is to allow debate of secession openly without resorting to preconceived ideas and labels. I would consider the mode best suited to map the way forward as enabling people to speak and determine the course of the future a lot more than what has happened until now.

The politics of a few individuals, however knowledgeable or experienced, assuming to know what the people really want is now out dated, patronising and will, in time be rejected by the people.

ZAPU believes that the only voice to determine the future of Zimbabwe is that of the people. For ZAPU, devolution of power means exactly that. The day of top down quick fixes, even on as sensitive a subject as secession has come and gone. Let the people speak. Zimbabwe has to move away from considering independence simply as a tool for getting people to vote electors into governments which then continue to dish dirt on them!When that objective is achieved, then all the peoples of Zimbabwe will determine whether Zimbabwe separates or stays as a unit.

R Mguni

Disclaimer: In this article I, Ralph Mguni, have sought to state a personal viewpoint. Any criticism of ideas contained here should be addressed to me personally and not to my Party ZAPU. In time, I will be able to consider my ideas against competing, and no doubt as compelling arguments that may come from other members, whose ideas will be of equal value to mine.