A Mthwakazi Zimbabwean President is most dangerous for uMtwakazi's restorationist!

First, there are two misconceptions that need to cleared and gotten out of the way early, now that the cauasable-ness of uMthwakazi's restorationist agenda has taken shape and gained wide acceptance with all Mthwakazi groups, formations and platforms.

Firstly - and this is the most critical for Mthwakazians and Zimbabweans to understand and fully grasp from hereon: Zimbabwe will not and cannot grant uMthwakazi her independence and sovereignty as the independent and sovereign United Kingdom of Matebeleland.

This is both for reasons of capacity - Zimbabwe has neither the means to grant or stop uMthwakazi's freedom in institutional or power terms - and reasons of political/constitutional construction - uMthwakazi and Zimbabwe are two different and separate political states (at the moment), though not territorially (in the sense that physical borders have not been determined). In this latter political/constitutional sense, it's like England today saying it can grant Scotland freedom. England and Scotland can only negotiate terms of freedom. So, it is important for Mthwakazians and Zimbabweans not to confuse or conflate governmental/state power with constitutional existence or references. Those two are different. They only coincide (as an unchallenged State) where freedom meets legitimacy - both elements of which are absent in the case of Mthwakazi and Zimbabwe - hence both (freedom and legitimacy) forming the basis of uMthwakazi's now-ignited restorationist agenda. Both Mthwakazi and Zimbabwe, to the extent of uMthwakazi's restorationist agenda, now have to grapple with the twin issues of their freedom and legitimacy, by default.

Secondly, uMthwakazi and Zimbabwe are on political par in all and every respect, despite some Shonaists and Gukurahundists wanting to make the Shona believe (and mislead uMthwakazi into misbelieving) that the occupation of the presidency by a Shona (a Zezuru) at present, grants the Shona better or more powerful claim to the Zimbabwe State over uMthwakazi. Of course, we know that that has been the view - indeed the political misdeed - perpetrated and practised by the present Shonaist and Gukurahundist state. Nothing could be further from the truth! This fallacy has remained so only to the extent uMthwakazi has allowed it in the vain hope of political sobriety on the part of the rulers of present Shonaist and Gukurahundist Zimbabwe. UMthwakazi's restorationist agenda is therefore the game-changer.

What all this detail above is pointing to is that, as Mthwakazi and Zimbabwe, we face (not confront) each other today as political equals, over a new and different political struggle - separate and completely different from an anti-colonial struggle - that directly pits uMthwakazi against Zimbabwe, and vice versa, over the critical issue of freedom following a completely failed post-colonial experiment that purported to put uMthwakazi and Zimbabwe together under the seriously mis-termed, Zimbabwe. The game in town is now about freedom - uMthwakazi freedom - versus freedom - Zimbabwe's freedom, fought out or struggled out in terms of political statehoods, not some non-state phantasmagorical concept of a 'Black freedom' that informed the now dead and buried anti-colonial struggle. It's just Freedom versus Freedom in conditions where Zimbabwe's definition of freedom is not, and is even antagonistic to, uMthwakazi's definition of freedom, and where Zimbabwe cannot subsume uMthwakazi in its freedom, and vice versa.

But my point in this article today is to look at and unpack some of the dangerous misconceptions that could come with a Mthwakazian Zimbabwe president who could - potentially - come in any time. Ignore, Mthwakazi, Shonaism and Gukurahundism's fantasy walk of the past 36 years that says there cannot, and should not be, a Mthwakazi person running present-day Zimbabwe as its President because the Shona will not allow it. Absolute rubbish!

Developing the point, an Mthwakazian Zimbabwe president is the most dangerous outcome that Mthwakazians should not want or wish for now or any time in the near or long future. And for good reasons too!

First, an Mthwakazian Zimbabwe president - by its very nature - will mask and politically sanitize a political cancer that requires aggressive radiotherapy treatment soon, and totally, thus delaying uMthwakazi's freedom by that many more years. A Shonaist and Gukurahundist president is what uMthwakazi in fact needs to sustain the current and unfolding political momentum of Mthwakazi, because a Shonaist and Gukurahundist president fuels it, naturally and portentiously politically.

Second, an Mthwakazian Zimbabwean president can in fact be easily brought in as a political trap, offering a captured Mthwakazian Zimbabwe president who is neither a lame-duck president nor ceremonial president, but a total political mannequin controlled and manipulated by a carefully constructed power junta controlled by Zimbabwe's Shonaists and Gukurahundists. Both scenerios - singly or in combination - are as bad and dangerous to Mthwakazi's restorationist agenda as each other. Therefore, in the event of an Mthwakazian Zimbabwean president, uMthwakazi's restorationist agenda must vigorously interrogate such a present through re-doubled and revitalized efforts and actions of Mthwakazians. Such a president's INITIAL response or reaction to Mthwakazi will be critical to how uMthwakazi continues with her restorationist agenda. An Mthwakazian Zimbabwe president is the most dangerous, the one to be most 'feared', untrusted, and the one to be most un-hoped for and discouraged of any and all, post- the now expected and eagerly-awaited expiration and demise of Mr Mugabe.

Third, the Shonaist and Gukurahundist state is a real phenomenon that has been deliberately and consciously entrenched in the past 36 years, now headed for 37. An Mthwakazian Zimbabwe president - even with real political power - will need as much time and power - if not more - to undo and deconstruct the foundations and pillars of that state, and to do so, they will have to assume the political goodwill of Shonas, Shonaists and Gukurahundists they will be working with and under - a totally ridiculous utopian hope to hold. In addition, such a president would have to peel away - layer by layer, crust by crust - the kaleidoscope and weave of Shonaist and Gukurahundist gate-keepers built into, and working along, but complementarily with the present State, that exist in the form of informal, formless, a-state or quasi-State entities. These exist at different levels, straddling, personal, filial, nepotistic, regional, tribal, business, civic, criminal, death-squad groups, cartels, and other pieces of things reminiscent of a criminal and mafia State such as present-day Zimbabwe is, and is being run.

Operationally, a Mthwakazian Zimbabwe president is dangerous for two principal reasons.

Firstly, they will - particularly where they are manipulated from the shadows by a Shonaist and Gukurahundist junta - be powerless and a dangerous tool deployed against uMthwakazi as a 'pretty' and 'friendly' face for Mthwakazi to trust, when uMthwakazi should in fact fear it and attack it aggressively. Such a Mthwakazi Zimbabwean president also poses to Mthwakazi, the completely artificial and unreal question: "What else do you Mthwakazians want when a Mthwakazian is now in 'power' as Zimbabwe's president?"

Secondly - and again particularly where they are manipulated from the shadows by a Shonaist and Gukurahundist junta - an Mthwakazian Zimbabwe president will be under pressure to please his Shonaist and Gukurahundist hand-holders, and the ONLY way for him or her to do so will be to be as doubly ruthless and sadistic as Mr Mugabe and Mr Mnangagwa have been in their anti-Mthwakazi crusade to date. An Mthwakazian Zimbabwe president, viewed this way, is a political enemy of Mthwakazi to be aggressively tackled and brought down quickly, even if it means allying with disgruntled Shonaists and Gukurahundists of Zimbabwe angered by such a 'compromise' - of which there will be in the majority, and racuous.

Let not therefore uMthwakazi be blind to the lessons of history and fail to apply past experience solely because the experience happened in the past, in a different location, and in different political circumstances. Those Mthwakazians who were old enough by 1980, will know that - even outside Zanu-PF - the precursor to Gukurahundi is to be found in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia and Prime Minister Bishop Abel Muzorewa's paramilitary group, 'Dzakudzaku', or Pfumo Revanhu. And these are malcontents Zipra did not attack - arguing, rather peevishly, that 'they are our misguided small brothers' - when Zipra could have eliminated them in their numbers and dealt a closing chapter to that threat, and to what would later become Gukurahundi. Muzorewa of course tried to deny that his unit had been targeting uMthwakazi and Mthwakazians for killing, particularly in areas of the Midlands, but every Mthwakazian knew those denials were hollow. Mugabe and Mnangagwa - post-1980 - simply extended that work from Dzakudzaku, and committed what is now a known pogrom against uMthwakazi, known internationally as Gukurahundi genocide.

And by the way, for completeness, Zipra would make the same error in 1980, when with the capacity to completely neutralize Zanla and Zanu and their political mischief-making - and provided with all the opportunities - they pulled back and stopped prematurely (obviously, there were very crafty operators manipulating Nkomo psychologically - we know them). In the end, uMthwakazi got a genocide against her, in the place of a civil war that Zanla and Zanu had no fighting chance of ever winning, and in circumstances where it was always BETTER to have a civil war than a genocide. With the benefit of hindsight, we can and should make these observations as warnings to present Mthwakazi political fighters and leaders, not to make similar schoolboy errors with the political life of uMthwakazi and the United Kingdom of Matebeleland as they prosecute uMthwakazi's restorationist agenda.

And where is the similarity with Mthwakazi, I hear some ask?

Well, Bishop Abel and his paramilitary group - formed and armed by Rhodesia but with Muzorewa as its public face - was the 'acceptable' and 'pretty' face of Black Rhodesia, a Black Prime Minister. What else did Blacks now want (then), so the argument went, when a Black Prime Minister was now in power? Luckily for Rhodesia, the Ian Smith regime was already tired of war, and Zipra and Zanla also with no capacity at that stage to dislodge the Smith government militarily (Zipra's 'total strategy' which in fact led to Zimbabwe's independence was still a year or so away), all opted for a truce and political 'settlement'. Of course, various political bribes and political manipulations were offered to the likes of Zambia and Mozambique, with people like Julius Nyerere - that despicable small Tanzanian - selling-out openly and later becoming a vital cog of Gukurahundi genocide when it came.

So, where the Muzorewa regime 'pacified' 'Blacks', an Mthwakazian Zimbabwe president will 'pacify' Mthwakazians today. The crucial difference in time terms, will be that uMthwakazi is fighting a political struggle outside military cover, and therefore the implications of a delay and interruption induced by the advent of an Mthwakazi Zimbabwe president, will need to be factored in in the manner uMthwakazi will view and tackle its political struggle, then on. Not to be unexpected, the usual political by-line will be put out by uMthwakazi's assortment of collaborationists and outright sell-outs, that you need to give such an Mthwakazi Zimbabwe president a chance. The same was said of Muzorewa in 1980 and Shonas joined him and his party in droves. In fact, many Shonas, Shonaists and Gukurahundists - who have wreaked havoc in Zimbabwe and against uMthwakazi - are all 'former' Muzorewa supporters and activists. This is freely and openly admitted. UMthwakazi's new struggle is not one for lost chances, and is not kind to such reckless errors.

Any such political exhortations to give uMthwakazi Zimbabwe president a chance, uMthwakazi will have to resist and dismiss outrightly, unless such a chance is matched on the ground by concrete and real political steps that give power to Mthwakazi as Mthwakazi, in a manner that is demonstrated, verifiable, sustained, and consolidatable - where each such political step leads to the next, and next, incrementally towards uMthwakazi's freedom. Anything else will be selling out the cause to delay, political adulteration, sponsored fatigue, and even - potentially - failure, the last of which will always be Shonaist and GUkurahundist Zimbabwe's wish.

Clearly, therefore, a Mthwakazi Zimbabwean president - more than a Shona, Shonaist and Gukurahundist Zimbabwe president - if it came - must be even more watched and handled appropriately because his or her potential for lasting and telling damage to Mthwakazi's restorationist far surpasses that of the others.

Finally, there is something that intrigues me, as much as it intrigues many Mthwakazians, and it is this. Is it not peculiar and bizarre that it is mostly Shonaists and Gukurahundists who squirm, weep and throw dust over their heads at the mere mention of uMthwakazi separating from present-day Shonaist and GUkurahundist Zimbabwe, when, by their own political construction - and recently recited by the Linda Maisiris, Nathaniel Manherus, and Rutendo Matinyarares of our time - Ndebeles and Matebeleland are inferior and poorly-resourced, and the Shona and Mashonaland (Zimbabwe) are this smart and abundantly-resourced, and run the Zimbabwe State and rule over uMthwakazi?

Can someone out there - Mthwakazian or Zimbabwean - please help me square that mental circle? Am I missing something here or I am in fact seeing something?