Reburials and atonement

Jonathan Moyo and Joice Mujuru share much more than the "Js" in the first names and a desire for atonement. Both have been senior ZANU PF officials and have once been thrown out of the party, with Mujuru failing to bounce back unlike the former. But for purposes of this treatise, I will zero in on atonement.
   
Take for instance the issue of Gukurahundi that has almost been taboo, not least because of emotions that attend the sad chapter in the history of our democracy but because of perception, rightly or wrongly, that whoever brooks the issue is a tribalist or divisive element bent on calamitous mischief.  

However, the family of Jonathan Moyo, the ZANU PF politburo member and Higher and Tertiary Minister, did just that when they approached the Tsholotsho district administrator (DA) seeking permission to reinter the remains of Melusi Job Mlevu, Moyo's father, who was killed during the height of the Matabeleland disturbances.

There are various schools of thought as regards the motive behind the Moyos' move, with some sections seeing this as a long overdue attempt by the family to honour a departed relative while others smell a gigantic rat of political mischief. Those that subscribe to political mischief point out to Moyo's past statements relating to reforming or destroying ZANU PF from within.  What these varying schools of thought have demonstrated is that this is an issue that cannot be wished away.

For her part, Mujuru has lined a visit to Britain at the invitation of Chatham House, following the quiet removal of her name from the travel ban, to drum up support for her Zimbabwe People First party. She is also scheduled to attend open meetings of the Zimbabwean Diaspora in Britain as well as field questions. She has broken ranks with ZANU PF policy where government has the sole responsibility of compensating white farmers for improvements on the farm by stating her willingness to compensate Adam Watson-Smith $1.47million for the compulsory acquisition in 2001 of Alamein Farm in Beatrice that she inherited and on which she continues to live and actively operate.

There are perceptions as well about Mujuru's motive. Some argue that she has been a willing vassal of western imperialism that had abated the regime change agenda by seeking to weaken ZANU PF through working with so-called moderates whereas condescending critics point to her moral values.

Yet in both Moyo and Mujuru instances, the question that begs answers is why now.  If Dr Mujuru's conscience and moral values are so strong, why compensate the farmer now instead of almost two decades later? Why not renounce title to renamed Ruzambo farm and avoid paying those millions that the late General Solomon Mujuru's estate is yet to deal with? In fact why not relinquish River Ranch mine and Khupukile Resources and interests   in many other companies, including the Zimbabwe Mining and Smelting Company (Zimasco) as most of these were obtained through hook and crook by the General. Whistle-blower website WikiLeaks revealed that former Zimplats CEO, Greg Sebborn, had told US embassy officials that Mujuru had tried to arm-twist the mining firm to choose him as its indigenisation partner in return for political protection. Proof for you!

But then, Mujuru is after power, the presidency and being a capitalist to the core that she is, she realises that the two are quite compatible and the respect one gets is only pocket deep. So, this entire charade about her shouting from the bottom of some rock that she has seen the light is just a personal fundraising gimmick to hoodwink gullible donors.

As for Jonathan Moyo and the "why now" theme, in response to a question posed by a private media journalist about the timing of the Moyo family request in light of the possibility of opening old wounds, the Professor opined that, "I'm, therefore, insulted by the suggestion that finally giving him a decent resting place at his homestead would open any wound".

Moyo has never minced his words, be it about himself, ZANU PF or relations with other politicians. He has taken ownership and responsibility for his reform statements about ZANU PF and when he was fired and readmitted, the party did so with its eyes open. His differences with Vice President Emmerson Mnangagwa are a matter of public record. This is the man who chided the VP ostensibly for enunciating party and government policy at his Sherwood block farm in Midlands as opposed to party of government offices.

So, is this part of his reform agenda, which in some quarters may be seen as in fact regime change agenda, where he plays the devil's advocate by bringing up issues that appear uncomfortable to the establishment of which he is part? Or the flip side: whether there is a right time to do the right thing and wrong time to do the same? I guess for the latter, that was the Professor's quoted response.

A colleague recently asked me what it is that Ndebeles wanted done when they raised the issue of Gukurahundi since it appeared as if there was deliberate selective amnesia with respect to the Ndebele raids into Mashonaland for cattle and ostensibly beautiful women in 1800s as well as white settler expropriation of indigenous land and resources during the same period. I threw back the question to him, enquiring what he thought needed to be done since he had also raised one black-on-black and another white-on-black commission and omission. The list would go on and on.

He opined that the more we talk about our differences, the more we narrow them until none exist. Mind you, Zimbabwe was the first country in the region to find come up with internal solutions to its challenges as evidenced by the Unity Accord and GNU. Whatever challenges, we surmount. After all, our diversity is our strength.