Sisi Nomazulu and brother Siqhubumthetho Ndlovu: We share a passion!

I am responding to the two separate articles that were run concurrently by this publication yesterday. Both articles addressed me specifically. The first is by sis Nomazulu Thata (http://bulawayo24.com/index-id-opinion-sc-columnist-byo-101679.html) and the second by Siqhubumthetho Ndlovu (http://bulawayo24.com/index-id-opinion-sc-columnist-byo-101678.html)
I thank you both, Mthwakazians.

I would have loved to have left your articles - and mine which I later posted before seeing both yours - to run for a few days to allow readers time to digest them all. However, I chose to weigh on the side of 'currency' and allow readers - and yourselves - the opportunity to engage the issues you raise while the articles are still current. I also thought it respectful that I reply to you timeously. This quickness is therefore no retort. I hope this is acceptable to you both.

In no particular order of preference, let me start by addressing sis Nomazulu.

Unfortunately, it is not clear from your article which particular recent article of mine you had in mind when you wrote, although I can see in the body of your article that you also make reference to two previous articles I wrote suggesting an 'alliance with Zanu-PF'. If you will allow me, I will address this latter point conjointly when I address brother Siqhubumthetho.
From your article sisNomazulu, I summarise your issues with me, as two. The first is that you prefer devolution, nothing else. The second is that you believe somehow that I am some suspicious character of sorts - "either G40 or Lacoste or a double agent of both factions", to use your own words. I trust my summary is correct.

Starting with the first point - that of devolution.

I will try and be brief, and again, please don't take brevity as rudeness.
See, devolution is just a description encompassing many things - decentralization, delegation, dispersal, distribution, transfer, surrender, etc. It doesn't in and of itself mean a particular thing until you have defined what you mean by it in particular circumstances. Do you mean decentralisation, delegation, transfer etc? The issue about devolution is where devolving power, as opposed to residual power, lies. In other words, who delegates or decentralises - and to whom? Once that is clear, you can then start talking of the mechanisms of that devolution.

The problem we have with this Shonaist and Gukurahundist state is that it has already - via Gukurahundi and other non-military activities associated with Gukurahundi - conditioned uMthwakazi to be permanent subjects of an undeclared but operationally present Shona Kingdom. In other words, uMthwakazi as consumers and recipients of Shona power. So, any devolved power will inevitably involve that same Shonaist and Gukurahundist state 'delegating' power (the delegating authority delegating only that which it wants and is prepared to give away) and retaining to itself real and effective political power. The current system of Provincial Ministers (and former Governors), is an example. And by the way, the current Provincial Ministers are part of the 'devolution' that came with the 2013 constitution which some of us opposed from start (ie, devolution). So, you already have devolution - a description - but people were blind as to what it would mean in mechanical and substantive terms, in practice.
Let me give a short example about the US Constitution. In the US Constitution, residual power is given to the Federal Government by the States, and not the other way round. In other words, the Federal Government is given by the States ONLY such power as the States want to give willingly to the Federal Government (foreign affairs, defence, health etc), but the rest of the powers are with the States. Carefully track the direction of movement of power!

This is what we have always hoped 'devolutionists' under present-day Zimbabwe would want. This of course, is a federalist model. The problem is that in negotiations you negotiate down and you are negotiated down, not up. So if you start by clamouring for a federal model you end up with decentralisation which is simply termed - catchingly - devolution.

A restorationist agenda operates completely outside these political risks and requires a completely different set of political skills and thinking. In the context of present-day Zimbabwe, there is no other way uMthwakazi can gain freedom and true independence other than in terms of a restorationist path. But political conditioning - deliberately inculcated by a Shonaist and Gukurahundist agenda - has meant that a lot of Mthwakazians have 'surrendered' themselves to the 'hopelessness' of fighting that condition as if it were unchangeable and as if this was the first ever thing to be seen in the world, hence the clamour for the 'more acceptable' things like 'devolution'. When you start political agitation or activism, you have to ask yourself the primary question: acceptable to who? If you get it all wrong from inception, the whole project is a complete waste of time and energy and you might just as well not start and accept bondage as rule and governance itself. But restorationism says uMthwakazi has been here before, and overcome, and there is no inherent impossibility about now which did not appear before and which uMthwakazi cannot overcome.

I therefore hope sisNomazulu I have gotten you thinking afresh about devolution and looking at it more critically. But even more importantly, I trust I have begun to make you look at 'restorationism' with a more sanguine eye than you may have done before. And by the way, 'restorationism' is about governance under a Mthwakazi, not identity of who governs - proper, living, and effective institutions of governance!

On the second point of my being some sort of suspicious character, no, sis Nomazulu, I am none of that. As I have said to you before, I am not Lacoste or G-40. I am just a Mthwakazian, eager and passionate about seeing uMthwakazi free after nearly 200 years of White racist rule and Black tribal rule.

I am real, a human … and a man or a woman! All I want to say in respect of this point is that you are one person I look forward to meeting in person, at the earliest. When I am ready, I propose to, so we can have a whole day or whole days of discussion right up to our hearts' satisfactions. I also keenly follow your writings you post regularly on this publication. Keep up the good work, especially as it relates to Mthwakazi matters!
And now to brother Siqhubumethetho Ndlovu!

I summarise your issues with me as follows: first, that - like in the case of sis Nomazulu - I am some sort of dubious character. Second, there are two substantive issues you have raised I would like to touch on briefly. The first one is your rejection that uMthwakazi Kingdom is a pre-colonial State now represented as Zimbabwe. And the second substantive point is that you say Britain has a 'colonial responsibility' over uMthwakazi.

Starting with my being a suspicious character etc, I would hope that what I have said to sis Nomazulu in relation thereto answers your question. However, I just want to join you and sis Nomazulu in making the further point about this alleged suspicion around me arising from two articles I wrote not so long ago about an 'alliance' with Zanu-F. Unfortunately, I can't remember how I titled one of those articles and can only find this one (http://bulawayo24.com/index-id-opinion-sc-columnist-byo-94320.html). I hope however that this article will suffice for now.

My suggestion about an 'alliance' with Zanu-PH, when I made it, was grounded specifically, and was in the specific context of two things. First, it was in the context of alleged 'alliance' between MDC-T and ZPF - both Shonaist and Gukurahundist parties. Second, it was in the context of the so-called #Tajamuka pseudo- revolution which I was at pains to ask uMthwakazi to keep away from as it was no revolution at all and uMthwakazi shouldn't participate in their mayhem and disorder. I have been vindicated in respect of this!

In relation to alliances - which I called 'endgames' - I said that uMthwakazi's sole and correct thing to do under those circumstances would be to align herself with Zanu-PF (in those specific circumstances) against a Tsvangirai-Mujuru pact, on the strong proposition that South Africa - the continental and regional power - would not allow Zimbabwe to fall to 'imperialist-sponsored' parties of that sort. You may recall that at that time, the South African International Relations minister then came out publicly to suggest that. My point was therefore that in the specific context of an 'endgame' of that sort ('regime change'), it would be totally unwise for Mthwakazi to rub a potential regional political sponsor like the South Africa, the wrong way.

With regard to the #Tajamuka's phony revolution - I think I called them the 'looteritariat - I was specifically pitting order against disorder, and in fact decried the fact that #Tajamuka had made me sick by making Zanu-PF a party of choice in that context. I said uMthwakazi stood to benefit politically from a un-collapsed Zimbabwe state than a collapsed one. To this day, I believe the #Tajamuka thing was and is controlled by successionist forces within Zanu-PF who cannot get power by any electoral and legitimate process and are bent on creating a political chaos which they will control from the shadows and benefit their way to State power that way. In that case, and in those circumstances, a Zanu-PF 'unholy' alliance would be better. Again, South Africa - as other regional states - would not allow such a disorder and so it made sense for Mthwakazi to be on the right side of South Africa's political preferences.

In relation to both positions, I therefore still stand by what I said, and will probably do to eternity. I hope this explanation makes sense and you can both put to rest your unfavourable judgments of me based on those two articles.

And now on the substantive points, brother Siqhubumthetho.
First, your assertion about uMthwakazi State is not only wrong, but wholly dangerous to the restorationist agenda you purport to defend. By the way, I warmly welcome you to that agenda brother! I would have loved to be detailed but time and space do not allow, so I will be brief.

You have confused political reality and the military strategy of the Pioneer Column, and the Mthwakazi State. The Pioneer Column completely surreptitiously and nocturnally avoided the Ndebele State (King) by making the quick dash for what later became Mashonaland. That action was about going to conscript Shona recruits and hoodwink the Shona against the Ndebele or Mthwakazi State. Be reminded there was nothing called Mashonaland and Matebeleland then, only the Ndebele State. This is true history. You get yourself muddled up by later, conquest events, such as the so-called Jameson Line and the Matebeleland Order in Council, both of which created artificial borders between Matebeleland and the Pioneer Column. (These would later be the pretexts for starting attacks on the Ndebele State).

Another important point is that in those days, defeat or conquest  - and therefore allegiance and homage - were not always the result of military conquest. If a people or tribe chose to pay homage instead of military defeat, rule over that tribe or people was thus established. So it was with the Shona under Kings Mzilikazi and Lobengula at the start of British colonial campaigns in the region. Of course, with the aggressive and Shonaist revisionism of Zanu-PF and Zimbabwe, you get this being denied, and even ridiculous claims now being made about the so-called 'Chimurenga'. We all know the truth about that, unless the Shona fight on the side of the British against uMthwakazi was a 'Chimurenga'.

On the issue of the British Government having 'colonial' responsibility over uMthwakazi, I am afraid, I have to simply say that is incorrect. I just want to suggest that these are the sorts of 'ignorances' that are unacceptable and harmful to Mthwakazi's restorationist agenda which I warn about constantly. The British Government does hold critical documents in its vaults which are critical to Mthwakazi's restorationist agenda and which uMthwakazi will be advised to try and access as she builds her political case earnestly, but that is all. I don't think I can say much in relation hereto without overkill.

So, if you were to ask me about what I think of you both sis Nomazulu and brother Siqhubumthetho, I would say I see two Mthwakazians devoted and passionate about uMthwakazi's freedom and independence. This is a devotion and passion I share, right to my marrow. But during that, and while on this journey, I wish to ensure that, by negligence, recklessness, sloth, and other bad human traits, we don't harm uMthwakazi's restorationist agenda and make of it a poisoned and soiled thing that no country of the world will want to be associated with. Strange as it may sound, winning Shona minds and hearts (in addition to Mthwakazi minds) is critical to moving the debate forward, rather than creating a premature fight, before we even start.

But the fact of these articles - on their own - suggests that the debate is now slowly circulating, even among our Shona brothers and sisters, as we have recently seen. If I appear to pretend to know more than others, then this is not the case. The articles are inspired by the fact that it is better to be wrong sometimes - as we all sometimes are - than there to be gravely silence over our own freedom. I know nothing, but I have the courage of my conviction to share the little I don't know. But I assume and claim no singular expertise.
Finally, brother Siqhubumthetho, you want me to come out and show my 'balls' like all those people you cite. But I want to make one small point, though.

Courage is a function of capacity and capability. Without these, it is just bombast and blast - even empty bravado. Folly! I just happen to think that at this stage uMthwakazi needs authenticity, pedigree, true courage, and the ability to build the capacity and capability to deliver on the promises of Mthwakazi freedom that uMthwakazi's political organizations make. Anything else, is fake.

And I believe that all the men you cite, brother Siqhubumthetho, were men possessed of these true Mthwakazi qualities, for which we would all remain indicted if we failed to live up to them today!