If there was a coup our society will blame it on Chiwenga

The attacks on Professor Jonathan Moyo by the army man Constantine Chiwenga are symptomatic of a developing trend of a command and coercive doctrine within the establishment. Professor Moyo's views should be freely expressible as part of public discussion about projects purportedly initiated by the government without him being subjected to personal and slanderous abuse or threatened with violence. The process of public debate provides an opportunity for an evaluation of Moyo's views. While I disapprove of some of the ideas of Professor Moyo I however stand by him and I defend his  rights and freedom to express his views freely more so if we are true to ourselves by defining us as a democracy.

"There ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it might be considered." (John Stuart Mill on Liberty in Utilitarianism: London (1910)) In other words, when the enemies of freedom of speech and expression possess the liberties to abuse their position of power using catch phrases like command education, command agriculture, command transport, command economy, command currency, command ZANU PF rallies, command culture and command leadership, and by allowing and encouraging such behaviours of threats to harm others we are forfeiting the very essence of the freedoms and rights of our human existence. The word ‘command' donates to suppression of independent thinking, expression of views and opinions. It is worrisome to think of a society that is led by a doctrine of commands.

The attempt by Chiwenga to resort to aggressive and intimidating tactics towards Prof. Moyo presents of an impression that reason and logic are not his preferred source of strength. It will be grossly unfortunate to allow Chiwenga to step in and use combative (command) language to stifle debate on a twit by Professor Moyo that challenged the status quo regarding the financial beneficiaries of command agriculture, the funding models that goes with it and whether the public pursue is being abused for creepy motives disguised as providing food security in Zimbabwe. It is further suspicious that Chiwenga took it upon himself to have a telling off of Prof. Moyo. ‘Those who panic have something to hide' said Prof. Moyo. Think about this statement. There is more to it than  meets the eye.

Freedom of speech is not a preserve of Chiwenga alone; it is for everyone living on this earth. Chiwenga is struggling to unlearn some of the bad habits he has learned over years that when he shouts (commands) everyone runs. Freedom of speech is the single most important political and social right of citizens. Without free speech, no political action is possible and no resistance to injustice or oppression is possible. Without free speech elections would have no meaning at all. Policies of political contestants become known to the public and become responsive to public opinion only by virtue of free speech. Tyranny, commandeering and despot nourish where there is no freedom of speech. Zimbabwe seems to fall within this category. People must and need to freely express their opinions and views to help to restrain oppressive attitudes by people like Chiwenga. Without this freedom it is futile to expect political freedom or, consequently, economic freedom. People now want a change. People now want a political leadership that is open to constructive criticism and debates. Change is an inevitable consequence of existence that can take place within or external of any establishment. Chiwenga should acknowledge that he is part of the competing change agents holding divergent points of views and goals within or outside his own establishment. The government that muzzles free speech runs an unfortunate risk of destroying the creative instincts of its people.

It is only in civilian government of Zimbabwe where a soldier is allowed to meddle in politics unless it is now acceptable that Zimbabwe is a military state by default. The behaviour Chiwenga would have been treasonous if it were said by a junior officer or member of the opposition. His actions are suggestive of a soldier who has captured the state or is making preparations to do so.