Rotting head of an otherwise good fish

By Mcdonald Lewanika

‘It is unacceptable in a democracy to politicise the military, as it is to militarise political and civilian affairs and institutions. While the political leadership of the military is overtly partisan towards ZANU-PF, many soldiers in the rank and file are professional and non-partisan, aspiring to faithfully serve their country. It is a classical proverbial case of a fish with a rotting head. Major challenges of partisanship and political interference are with the military leadership and not with the bulk of the low ranking members.’

In June of 2011, The Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition released a seminal report on the ‘Military and Political Affairs in Zimbabwe’.

In that report there are several things that were highlighted, not least the above cited statement which argues, correctly, that the military is not homogenous, and that there is a clear disconnect between those who lead it, and those who make it up – a case of the fish with a rotting head.

After hearing out The Police Commissioner General, Augustine Chihuri, and the Zimbabwe Defense Forces Commander General, Constantine Chiwenga, over the last two weeks, the report immediately came to mind, amid reflections of the conundrum that has been the Inclusive Government and GPA Epoch.

The pronouncements, which were brought on by media reports of a “meeting” or meetings between “the Generals” and a representative of the MDC T, and Minister of Government, degenerated into a competition in expletives between the Commissioner General of Police and the ZDF Commander General.

Ministers of Government were called, ‘Malcontents’, and a whole Prime Minister of the country was called a ‘Psychiatric patient’. The Commissioner General of Police vowed that they were “too busy to engage confused malcontents”, while the ZDF Commander quipped “We have no time to meet a sellout. Clearly Tsvangirai is a psychiatric patient who needs a competent psychiatrist”.

The vitriolic responses by these two generals, served as a timely reminder that where the security sector is concerned – its respect, let alone subordination to civilian authority, is non-existent.

It showed that indeed, the more things change, the more they remain the same, and brought out in full color, the conflictual manifestations of change and continuity in Zimbabwe’s political narrative. But this is an easy conclusion to make, which in itself may not be accurate.

It has taken a great deal of courage for me to put these reflections in writing, because I am writing from Zimbabwe, and Zimbabwe is not a country where you can easily stand up to question, ponder for more than a moment, what the security sector does or says. It is “dangerous”.

But why should it be? The very same generals are quick to remind us of the Freedom and Democracy that they brought us through the liberation struggle, for which, as the Commissioner General of Police puts it correctly, a lot of Zimbabweans “dead and alive fought for”.

I am baffled by the fact that the Generals ‘meeting’ the Prime Minister of the country, can be construed as (in the words of General Chiwenga), “a mockery to the thousands of people who sacrificed their lives fighting for the country’s independence.”

One wonders what this means for the President of the Republic of Zimbabwe who meets Tsvangirai, almost every Monday, and all the ZANU PF Ministers who meet their MDC Counterparts almost every Tuesday.

Perhaps, I have a romantic notion about what the struggle for independence was about, because, as I am sure the ‘Generals’ and others in their ilk will be quick to point out, I was not there when the struggle was fought.

But I would like to believe the Commissioner General of Police, that the struggle was for Freedom and Democracy – of which the latter inevitably dictates that the security sector must subordinate itself to civilian authority and pay allegiance not to individuals but to the nation, the flag and the constitution.

Because of the major misunderstanding, between people like myself, a ‘Born Free’, and my fathers and liberators, as represented by the 2 Generals, clearly when they talk, they do not do so for me. There is a clear, generational disparity in thought and understanding of what freedom and democracy is about.

For me freedom is about liberty, and a sense of living devoid of fear and subjugation by anyone. For me democracy, is about freedom, self governance, respect for human rights, civility and supremacy of the people ( civilians).

I can see that we can use the same words, but judging from the conduct of the ‘generals’ we mean different things. So who do they speak for, and in such a callous and disrespectful manner?

On Thursday the 2nd of May 2013, a generational mate of mine, one Solomon Madzore who (unfortunately for him) is also the President of the Youth Assembly of the MDC led by the Prime Minister, was incarcerated for insulting the President. He is accused of having likened President Mugabe to a “limping donkey”.

Our Zimbabwean culture is rich with imagery, and any sane person can tell, that such a remark (if uttered) was meant to draw a likeness, and not necessary to call one such – as in, “ he is like a limping donkey” as opposed to “he is a limping donkey”.

But that is besides the point, the Army Commander actually said “Tsvangirai is a Psychiatric Patient” and the Commissioner of Police actually referred to a Minister as a “malcontent”.

I can guarantee that nothing will come to these two gentlemen, who unlike Solomon, with all his wisdom and clever attempts to simplify his narratives using imagery and likenesses, is paying with his freedom.

Those who wrote the story about the meeting, Journalists from the independent, Dumisani Muleya (editor) and Owen Gagare (reporter) – both of The Standard newspaper, spent almost a full day, detained and being questioned by Police over the story at Harare Central Police Station, on the 7th of May 2013.

But, I digress, the question, I had posed was who do the generals represent. It is easy to conclude that, they speak for the institutions they lead. It’s easy, but it may not necessarily be correct.

The security sector is made up of people, and indeed people from different generations, and in spite of whatever drilling may be attempted, people of varying political thoughts and inclinations.

The military and security establishment does not live a world apart from civilians, at distant army bases or isolated police camps. They live among the people.

The extent to which they are influenced by occasional visits by these “Generals”, and are constantly being drilled by their immediate superiors, maybe equaled by the extent to which they are influenced by their lived reality in society, the stories of their neighbors, and the experiences of their relatives.

The generals need to understand that, now more than ever before, the security establishment, are indeed like fish in water – they being the fish and the people being the water.

The fish is less likely to be influenced by the captain on a boat sitting on top of them and the water, than they are to be influenced by the very water itself from whence they derive shelter, food, company and camaraderie.

It brings to mind the words of Robert Oppenheimer, a leading American scientist, who during World War 2 led a refusal by scientists to make hydrogen bombs. His retort, is relevant for members of our security services today, and I am sure more than one are likely to think in the same way.

“We are not only scientists, WE ARE MEN TOO. We cannot forget our dependence on fellow men…These are the strongest bonds in the world, stronger than those that even bind us to one another, these are the deepest bonds that bind us to our fellow men.”

The generals may fail to see it, or may see it but decide to overplay their influence and control, but the reality, is that more than being the rotting head of an otherwise good fish, they may actually be a leadership that is less and less in control and influential on the bodies that they are supposed to be leading.

The disconnect between the Generals and those they lead, are not only a matter of conjecture, but are also reflected economically, generationally, and perhaps even politically.

There is very little doubt that the elites in the security sector, have secured their economic security, while the bulk of those they lead, live in the throes of poverty, barely getting by – a case which many have argued, is the reason behind rampant corruption in the police service.

While it is clear that the recent statements by the Generals are partisan and meant to shore up ZANU PF. In the same way that the Generals statements and positions may not be representative of security establishment in toto, they may also not be representative of ZANU PF, in toto.

In the Report alluded to at the beginning, Dr. Martin Rupiya, a security sector specialist, and former Colonel in Zimbabwean Army argues:

“In Zimbabwe’s dynamic political and electoral affairs since 2000, it is difficult to see the wood for the trees as it relates to the role of the military? And yet, we must remain clear, the use of violence–manifest through the role of the military in politics — is but a reflection of the dominance of an aggressive faction within ZANU (PF), one that has always had the propensity to kill, maim and torture political opponents and is now able to do so using armed state organs.”

So even in ZANU PF, these “generals” may actually represent, a faction and not ZANU PF itself.

What ever the case maybe, as we heard towards elections, it is clear that we will get into them with a partisan, unrepentant, and patently unprofessional security sector leadership.

In the final analysis, I believe that this is a security sector leadership that is smart enough to understand that ultimately it is the people, civilians, who will choose, who becomes the next President of this country.

They have made their preference clear, and should President Mugabe not be reelected, the good thing is that they are not forced to salute or serve a Tsvangirai, Ncube or Madhuku.

If the foregoing should prevail, I believe the affected Generals have already served their notice, and will retire to their business and farming concerns, which contrary to the popular narrative that they peddle, I am sure none will do much to interfere with.

Then, perhaps, we will get back to the pre-2002 security sector days, where professional security sector leaders could say, as did then Army Spokesperson, Major (now Brigadier General in charge of 4 Brigade) Chancellor Diye who in 2000, announced that;

“the Military was apolitical and would support any victor emerging from the electoral context.”