Tribalism is trivialism

TWO Government ministers are pushing the Zim-Asset programme in their own very special way. If it had nobility then it would have been called lady-like. But then the whole saga is pregnant with ignobility. It's just a mess.

There are accusations and innuendo of someone taking spliffs of "ganja". Someone else has gone tribal on the other. While it might provide free entertainment, the good people of Zimbabwe are not in the least interested.

What interests them are the more pressing national issues than who is the provincial godfather or godmother or tribal warlord.

Zimbabweans are least interested in some of the ego trips they are being taken on. Now the pettiness has gone even classless and trivial.

Two years ago, the people of Zimbabwe chose a Government to preside over their affairs in good faith.

They did not expect whole ministers to be calling press conferences to be telling them such triviality like so and so does not really come from Manicaland as her father came from Zimuto in Masvingo as a teacher and just settled in Manicaland.

Hence she cannot lay claim to be a child of the province. This type of pettiness should normally be ignored but it raises issues which people normally avoid confronting. Issues which in many cases remain an overwhelming elephant in a room: issues of tribalism and regionalism. To illustrate the point let's start with the accusation with the raised issue of this lady who is accused of not having her roots in this particular province.

This lady was born in Manicaland. Grew up in Manicaland, speaks the Manyika dialect. Possibly she has a Manyika mother. She represented Manicaland in everything she has ever done and probably identifies herself as a Manyika. Now, as if the country does not have real economic problems to deal with, it is told, well, actually she is not from there. Well unless one is a student of anthropology or is a family member tracing their roots, who cares?

Does that put bread on anyone's table? Isn't it good enough for one to simply be a Zimbabwean? This is how it has been. This has always been part of nation building.

During the liberation struggle, comrades from ZIPRA, whose home provinces were in Matabeleland operated around the Zambezi escarpment, all the way to Hurungwe. This is a predominantly Shona area.

Vice President Phelekezela Mphoko and his comrades operated around Sipolilo (Guruve) a predominantly Shona (Korekore area) and yet his own home area was Bubi in Matabeleland North. People like the Defence Forces Commander Constantine Chiwenga is from Mashonaland East. He operated in the districts of Masvingo. He was fed and fended for by the villagers of Masvingo. He was their son. Why? Because he was liberating Zimbabwe.

As long as an area was a part of Zimbabwe everyone was ready to sacrifice life and limb for it. That is nation building. Not this twaddle people are calling for press conference to share with the media.

This idea that someone can only represent an area they come from or district of origin is plainly wrong and cheap. The key thing is to understand the needs of the people one represents and finding resonance with their issues.

The Liberation struggle deployment detribalised people and made them Zimbabweans. The same principles should be applied in all spheres of Zimbabwean life bar a very few. For example, a person originally from Matabeleland has worked as a local Agricultural Extension Officer (mudhomeni) in Chivi for years. He is well known and familiar with the challenges of the area even much better than someone born in Chivi but raised in Harare, isn't it a travesty not to vote for them as an MP for the area just because of their surname and district of origin? Can we not call this bigotry?

The "tribe" is a social construct and therefore is being used loosely here. The point is that resentment of different tribes and dialects is powerfully divisive. A Karanga should be proud of their dialect. Somebody once said that the so-called standard Shona is only a written language spoken in Harare. Some people from Masvingo have lost their sense of humour because they have endured a lot of prejudicial dialectical and regional stereotypes. A normal joke is now provoking a disproportionate response.

Maybe it is because they had to contend with the retrograde connotation from being called a Muvhitori. After all their dialect is not only spoken in the former Fort Victoria in Zimbabwe. And of course how about all the Shanganis of Masvingo? Are they Mavhitoris as well?

There is a cliché that says that our strength is in our diversity. It shouldn't just be a cliché but an accepted reality.

This notion of several national languages is not restricted to Africa. Belgium, Switzerland and Canada each have more than one national languages.

Even the English of England have several dialects. Some even say that the so-called standard English is probably only spoken by the foreigners and at Westminster. Locals have different dialects and none of them is forced upon the other. The Scousers are never forced to speak in Cockney and a Geordie doesn't have to speak like a Scouser. With that everyone is employed anywhere and anybody can represent anyone and go and live anywhere. Likewise a Ndebele teacher should not feel like they need a work permit to go and work in, say Buhera.

People should not create unnecessary ethno-tribal issues. After all, recruiting anybody through tribal lines even if it were a quarter system sometimes promotes mediocrity. If a Kalanga or Tonga is competent to run the country and they are the best candidate, by all means people should support that. Someone out there is already saying that this is idealism and not pinned on reality. Well, we have shown it before. Masvingo had mayor called Aphiri and Kadoma also had one with the surname Phiri. Now Kadoma has an MP named Phiri. That's what we mean by deploying the best available talent regardless of ethnicity?

Is it the political elite that need education on the dangers of galvanising their political positions using pointless tribal divisions? People must be loyal to the State of Zimbabwe and not to their ethnic groups. There are no and should be no contradictions on this.

A Ndau person has a right to be Ndau-centric as long as it is not to the detriment of being Zimbabwean.

The same applies to everyone else out there.

Speaking in a strong Ndau dialect and accent should also not be interpreted as being tribal. It is simply being oneself.

There is nothing wrong with tribal consciousness and solidarity as long as it is not to the negation of anybody else from outside that grouping. But Zimbabweans have to live with the fact that there is no such thing as dialectical superiority.

A Karanga, Ndau, or Manyika or Korekore dialect is as great as a Zezuru dialect and vice versa. Once people have come to terms with this reality, then everyone can regain their sense of humour.

To be honest, tribalism and regionalism have never been known to benefit anybody but some unscrupulous political leaders.

Some campaign for leadership using divisive rhetoric of imagined marginalisation. Recently, someone wrote that people of Mashonaland East were marginalised as they were the only province without a University. Now you see? Any province can do its own knit-picking and come up with what would clearly look and sound plausible.

Any region that decides to play a victim would not lack some contrived evidence to buttress their point. They would accuse the tribe or region where the leadership comes from of resource distributive injustice as a reason to balkanise the country under the guise of devolution. In most cases, those calling for very autonomous regions are delving in parochialism.

But of course if inequitable distribution of public investment is real, then that should be rectified.

If it's imagined, bigots should never be given a chance to divide the people.

Zimbabwe has very few hardwired tribalists. Those that actually shade tears when their Shona son marries a Ndebele girl or vice versa. The rest of the people have started seeing beyond parochial ethnic lines.

It remains for politicians to stop playing the divisive role learned from the former colonial masters. The divide and conquer. It is only a politician with no programme to offer the people, no substantial policy who is also petty that would make someone's origin basis for a political attack.

If only one can show the people which part of Zim-Asset raises regionalism above nationalism.

Our dialects, tribes or regional loyalties should not be our faultlines. People are who they are. Of course no language or dialect in Zimbabwe should die.

It is always part of one's social identity but regional or ethnic consciousness should never come at the expense of national cohesion. We are Zimbabweans first and these other sub-national identities are secondary.