Zimbabwe News and Internet Radio

A question for national dialogue

By Cont Mhlanga

A National dialogue for this country to find a ‘suitable political proposition’ for the Zimbabwean masses is necessary. In fact, it was necessary as far back as 1980 right after independence. Sadly, no such a national dialogue was held.

Cont Mhlanga
Cont Mhlanga

This village idiot will give thumbs up to anyone who is making efforts to put together a national dialogue for this country. Zimbabwe needs two separate and distinct national dialogues: A national dialogue for “national healing” and a national dialogue for “a suitable political proposition” for the masses.

This village idiot talks nonsense frankly and thus his trade mark. Let the village idiot be frank about the present and current political proposition for Zimbabwean masses. It is unacceptable, inyala-marara-rubbish.

This is why this country needs an urgent national dialogue, not to “discuss political power sharing” as in the past experience that landed the masses with that useless “government of national unity” but for the nation to come to a consensus on what the suitable political proposition for the Zimbabwean masses should be.

To guide the national conversations on such a national dialogue we would need a “national framework for dialogue”. Such a framework should be clear what national questions concerning the governance of this country does the national dialogue seek to answer.

In short let the Zimbabwean masses agree on the list of questions that the national dialogue seeks to respond to and find answers. Such national questions should form the main part of the framework for a national dialogue for this country, that is if one of the agendas of the national dialogue is to find a suitable political proposition for the Zimbabwean masses.

The village idiot would be more than excited if in that list of national questions for the national dialogue framework “three” questions for national dialogue are included. I have no space in this article to discuss and breakdown all the three questions as proposed by this village idiot, so I will only dwell on one of the three questions.

“Is Zimbabwe and its masses safe in the driving hands and leadership of its bush war fighters?” They fancy calling themselves “war veterans” and I am not sure were that was copied from given the nature of Zimbabwe’s liberation war where the biggest financiers and investors of that liberation war and struggle were ordinary Zimbabwean villagers. Even the ancestors of Zimbabwe through family and national spirit mediums were deeply involved in the composition of the Zimbabwean liberation struggle.

Even in the preamble of our Constitution it is put clearly that Zimbabwe does not have only one colonial resistance and liberation struggle. It has several of these, and yet those that got involved only in the last decade of the colonial resistance and struggle journey of this country now ring fence themselves as the only ones to be recognised and that their interests about Zimbabwe are more superior than all other interests.

It is for this reason that this village idiot wonders why one would create a class society of war veterans given such liberation war and struggle composition and background.

Is Zimbabwe safe in the hands and leadership of this self created class society from the wards level all the way to Senate, National Assembly and Central Government?

This is the biggest question for national dialogue if the nation seeks to find a suitable political proposition for the Zimbabwean masses.

The current political proposition in this country is only in the service and interests of this class society who think their contribution to the liberation struggle of this country is more superior than that of all other Zimbabweans since 1893.

There are many good reasons for putting this question on the national dialogue framework but two stick out for this village idiot. This village idiot likes the first five words that open the Preamble of our Constitution.

They go; “We the people of Zimbabwe”.This speaks to unity, collective, inclusive and equality of our desires as a people, yet this special society and social class of liberators have put themselves above all the “we the people of Zimbabwe” making themselves more equal than others in that only those from their social class can lead Zimbabwe.

This political proposition arose in 2000 as a reaction to the rise of the opposition party the Movement for Democratic Change and has been sponsored by this social class of liberators to this day. Is this what “we the people of Zimbabwe” want for this nation? Let’s dialogue this question.

In the same Constitution “we the people of Zimbabwe” list our founding values and principles and we state that we recognise the rights of the veterans of the liberation struggle.

We need to unpack these rights in some national dialogue because the way the current political proposition stands shows that this social class has a different understanding of these rights and their role in the politics and governance of Zimbabwe where they even claim that they are the only ones who have a right to defending the freedoms and liberation legacy of this nation and their way is the only right way for all of us “the people of Zimbabwe”.

Is this what “we the people of Zimbabwe want for this nation?” Let’s dialogue this questions.

If who ever and what ever national dialogue is not going to have conversations around this question, then this village idiot will note take any notice to any dialogue forum as it would just be about power sharing and trying to impress the world citizens were our politicians have fun as they go round begging for money in the name of Zimbabweans and having nothing to do with addressing critical issues that have dragged Zimbabwe backwards for so many years.

Then people can meet and dine on behalf of the suffering masses of Zimbabwe in the name of some national dialogue and life after such dialogue will remain the same for we the people of Zimbabwe, unaffordable and suffer continue.

Zimbabwe is for us all and not just the urban idiot with their social class of liberators. DailyNews