News / National
Open letter to Ngqabutho Nicholas Mabhena - In defence of the Mthwakazi restoration philosophy
25 Feb 2017 at 19:26hrs | Views
Dear Mr Ngqabutho Nicholas Mabhena,
Re: Your Open letter In Defence of Dr Joshua Mqabuko Kanyongolo Nkomo
1. Mthwakazi Restoration Greetings.
For the first time in a few days of continuous rainfall, we finally have sunlight shining over the horizon and I can indeed hear the birds singing again in my part of the world. In terms of which I am indeed honoured to receive an open letter from you Sir in your defence of the late Dr Joshua Mqabuku Nkomo. Without further ado, let me respond as best l can.
2. Divergent Views
To begin with, there is no question that although we hold divergent political views, we do indeed come a long way as members of the human race who one way or the other have continuously engaged in the struggle for freedom. We have indeed accorded each other equal respect of human dignity throughout the years within the context of the struggle for freedom.
But again, there is no doubt that your interpretation of what the struggle for freedom entails is fundamentally different from the views I hold, yet it is the recognition of this dichotomy that has enabled us to respect each other. This of course is natural; we do not have to agree to respect each other. It is in this regard therefore that I view your open letter as beneficial for us to continuously engage regarding the political discourse that affects our people (I mean Mthwakazi people by the way) locally, regionally and internationally.
You have stated in your open letter that you find what you have termed our 'characterisation of' Dr Nkomo 'shocking'. It is difficult from where we stand to see what is shocking about our stance (and not what you refer to as 'insinuation') that had Dr Nkomo put the interests of his people, the people from Mthwakazi first before anybody else, as well as heeded the advice not only from Chief Khayisa Ndiweni but from others within Mthwakazi, we would not have indeed found ourselves in this quagmire of suffering, whichever way one looks at it, politically, economically, socially, culturally and so on.
3. What constitutes a Restoration Agenda for Mthwakazi?
Unfortunately, history constitutes facts in terms of how a series of events unfolded or transpired; under what circumstances in relation to what, where and why. What we do today in terms of our own actions or otherwise undoubtedly will constitute history tomorrow. We cannot wish away historical facts because they do not suit us. And as such, there is no way here on earth or in any other planet any person can or could argue that if we had fought for and liberated Mthwakazi that we would not have gone through hell inflicted by Zimbabwe and its regime on us. Not in a million years. That would not have happened.
It is in that regard that we did not insinuate anything but stated facts as they are. Added to that, we did not write what you have referred to as a 'long article to the MRP'. Rather we wrote an article stating the reasons why we as the MLF had no business in participating in an election of another country called Zimbabwe. Our article had nothing of interest to do with any political formation of Zimbabwe, but against any formation that seeks to identify with Mthwakazi but at the same time stating that it would participate in an election of Zimbabwe.
It was in that light that we vehemently denounced the activities of the so-called MRP, in that it purported to be pursuing a restoration agenda of Mthwakazi, but at the same time being a Zimbabwean political party. This by the way is a raging debate about what constitutes Mthwakazi and its restoration agenda. Therefore, it cannot be reduced to anything that it is not, but a contestation of a body of ideas and setting out the direction that the restoration agenda must take to liberate Mthwakazi.
We have observed, for example, that the so-called MRP started by claiming that it was campaigning against Shona teachers in Mthwakazi, but today they are bowing down (as they prepare to take part in that country's elections) before the very system that is deploying the same Shona teachers. To us that is hypocrisy, and this is not personal, neither is it anything else, but based on facts as they stand. This, in a nutshell, smacks of double standards; they appear not to know what it is they want. That submission therefore needs to be understood as comprising a series of debating and contestation points against any movement that employs double standards, instead of a of firm and clear position. Hence, we have said why don't they stop confusing people and come out in the open as the Zimbabwe Republic Party, which of course they really are.
4. Your defence of Dr Joshua Mqabuko Nkomo
Regarding Dr Joshua Nkomo; we have stated clearly that he preferred advice from the people who were not part of the fabric of Mthwakazi; the people who did not either share a similar history of a brutal annexation with Mthwakazi; the people who did not share the same cultural history with the people of Mthwakazi; and the people whose political outlook was clear from the outset in defining what kind of state they envisaged from which Zimbabwe derives its meaning.
5. The treaty of Versailles
Regarding the formation of states, it is noteworthy that the State of Mthwakazi predated the advent of European colonialism. What the Treaty of Versailles did in 1884 was to carve up Africa and its spoils among the white powers involving Britain, Germany, Belgium, Portuguese and so forth (during the scramble for Africa). These new boundaries were carved up arbitrarily to suit the interests of these European colonial powers and in so doing violated with impunity the existing boundaries of the African states. It does not mean therefore that they are acceptable and that they cannot be challenged with the specific purpose of reverting back to what they were before colonial penetration and conquest. To do so would render the whole struggle for freedom and justice irrelevant. As a matter of fact, it is the failure to address these imposed colonial boundaries that is at the heart of all conflict in Africa.
I am aware that any challenge to colonial boundaries now usually means either extending these boundaries by encroaching on neighbouring countries or bifurcating the existing unitary state into more than one new state. The pursuit of some form of a political structure that changes the form and structure of an existing unitary state is fraught with difficulties. In most instances, the groups that challenge the ruling regime usually arrive at such a juncture after genocide had been committed and demonstrable ethnic cleansing policies pursued by the ruling regimes, are seen and perceived to be inimical to the survival life chances of marginalised groups and nationalities such as Mthwakazi, in areas such as language preservation, education, access to employment and contracts, distribution of land, and the like.
I am also aware that the pressure to re-arrange the unitary state invariably has been met with strong arm tactics from the former European colonial powers, regional and the international community with vested interests. It is also met with plain rigid political thuggery from within the ruling regime of the country concerned that normally characterises long-serving dictatorships, aided by a compliant army and political party that is dependent on political patronage. However, for the people of Mthwakazi, the post European colonial years have been anything but daily contact with various forms of genocide, ethnic cleansing and various forms of internal colonialism.
What Dr Nkomo therefore failed to recognise Mr Mabhena, something which you have also failed to recognise as well, but which Chief Khayisa recognised was that:
- A nation comprises a strong widespread feeling of identity and solidarity within a political community which equally embodies a sense of wellbeing,
- Nationalism is characterised by widespread positive and negative perception of other political communities, and
- Several states in Africa lack
Re: Your Open letter In Defence of Dr Joshua Mqabuko Kanyongolo Nkomo
1. Mthwakazi Restoration Greetings.
For the first time in a few days of continuous rainfall, we finally have sunlight shining over the horizon and I can indeed hear the birds singing again in my part of the world. In terms of which I am indeed honoured to receive an open letter from you Sir in your defence of the late Dr Joshua Mqabuku Nkomo. Without further ado, let me respond as best l can.
2. Divergent Views
To begin with, there is no question that although we hold divergent political views, we do indeed come a long way as members of the human race who one way or the other have continuously engaged in the struggle for freedom. We have indeed accorded each other equal respect of human dignity throughout the years within the context of the struggle for freedom.
But again, there is no doubt that your interpretation of what the struggle for freedom entails is fundamentally different from the views I hold, yet it is the recognition of this dichotomy that has enabled us to respect each other. This of course is natural; we do not have to agree to respect each other. It is in this regard therefore that I view your open letter as beneficial for us to continuously engage regarding the political discourse that affects our people (I mean Mthwakazi people by the way) locally, regionally and internationally.
You have stated in your open letter that you find what you have termed our 'characterisation of' Dr Nkomo 'shocking'. It is difficult from where we stand to see what is shocking about our stance (and not what you refer to as 'insinuation') that had Dr Nkomo put the interests of his people, the people from Mthwakazi first before anybody else, as well as heeded the advice not only from Chief Khayisa Ndiweni but from others within Mthwakazi, we would not have indeed found ourselves in this quagmire of suffering, whichever way one looks at it, politically, economically, socially, culturally and so on.
3. What constitutes a Restoration Agenda for Mthwakazi?
Unfortunately, history constitutes facts in terms of how a series of events unfolded or transpired; under what circumstances in relation to what, where and why. What we do today in terms of our own actions or otherwise undoubtedly will constitute history tomorrow. We cannot wish away historical facts because they do not suit us. And as such, there is no way here on earth or in any other planet any person can or could argue that if we had fought for and liberated Mthwakazi that we would not have gone through hell inflicted by Zimbabwe and its regime on us. Not in a million years. That would not have happened.
It is in that regard that we did not insinuate anything but stated facts as they are. Added to that, we did not write what you have referred to as a 'long article to the MRP'. Rather we wrote an article stating the reasons why we as the MLF had no business in participating in an election of another country called Zimbabwe. Our article had nothing of interest to do with any political formation of Zimbabwe, but against any formation that seeks to identify with Mthwakazi but at the same time stating that it would participate in an election of Zimbabwe.
It was in that light that we vehemently denounced the activities of the so-called MRP, in that it purported to be pursuing a restoration agenda of Mthwakazi, but at the same time being a Zimbabwean political party. This by the way is a raging debate about what constitutes Mthwakazi and its restoration agenda. Therefore, it cannot be reduced to anything that it is not, but a contestation of a body of ideas and setting out the direction that the restoration agenda must take to liberate Mthwakazi.
We have observed, for example, that the so-called MRP started by claiming that it was campaigning against Shona teachers in Mthwakazi, but today they are bowing down (as they prepare to take part in that country's elections) before the very system that is deploying the same Shona teachers. To us that is hypocrisy, and this is not personal, neither is it anything else, but based on facts as they stand. This, in a nutshell, smacks of double standards; they appear not to know what it is they want. That submission therefore needs to be understood as comprising a series of debating and contestation points against any movement that employs double standards, instead of a of firm and clear position. Hence, we have said why don't they stop confusing people and come out in the open as the Zimbabwe Republic Party, which of course they really are.
4. Your defence of Dr Joshua Mqabuko Nkomo
Regarding Dr Joshua Nkomo; we have stated clearly that he preferred advice from the people who were not part of the fabric of Mthwakazi; the people who did not either share a similar history of a brutal annexation with Mthwakazi; the people who did not share the same cultural history with the people of Mthwakazi; and the people whose political outlook was clear from the outset in defining what kind of state they envisaged from which Zimbabwe derives its meaning.
5. The treaty of Versailles
Regarding the formation of states, it is noteworthy that the State of Mthwakazi predated the advent of European colonialism. What the Treaty of Versailles did in 1884 was to carve up Africa and its spoils among the white powers involving Britain, Germany, Belgium, Portuguese and so forth (during the scramble for Africa). These new boundaries were carved up arbitrarily to suit the interests of these European colonial powers and in so doing violated with impunity the existing boundaries of the African states. It does not mean therefore that they are acceptable and that they cannot be challenged with the specific purpose of reverting back to what they were before colonial penetration and conquest. To do so would render the whole struggle for freedom and justice irrelevant. As a matter of fact, it is the failure to address these imposed colonial boundaries that is at the heart of all conflict in Africa.
I am aware that any challenge to colonial boundaries now usually means either extending these boundaries by encroaching on neighbouring countries or bifurcating the existing unitary state into more than one new state. The pursuit of some form of a political structure that changes the form and structure of an existing unitary state is fraught with difficulties. In most instances, the groups that challenge the ruling regime usually arrive at such a juncture after genocide had been committed and demonstrable ethnic cleansing policies pursued by the ruling regimes, are seen and perceived to be inimical to the survival life chances of marginalised groups and nationalities such as Mthwakazi, in areas such as language preservation, education, access to employment and contracts, distribution of land, and the like.
I am also aware that the pressure to re-arrange the unitary state invariably has been met with strong arm tactics from the former European colonial powers, regional and the international community with vested interests. It is also met with plain rigid political thuggery from within the ruling regime of the country concerned that normally characterises long-serving dictatorships, aided by a compliant army and political party that is dependent on political patronage. However, for the people of Mthwakazi, the post European colonial years have been anything but daily contact with various forms of genocide, ethnic cleansing and various forms of internal colonialism.
What Dr Nkomo therefore failed to recognise Mr Mabhena, something which you have also failed to recognise as well, but which Chief Khayisa recognised was that:
- A nation comprises a strong widespread feeling of identity and solidarity within a political community which equally embodies a sense of wellbeing,
- Nationalism is characterised by widespread positive and negative perception of other political communities, and
- Several states in Africa lack
Source - Dr Mpiyesizwe Churchill Guduza
