By Jonathan Chando – Lawyer, Political Analyst and Commentator on International Law and Politics.
London. (News of The South)- I have been following the discourse on Chamisa’s dream or vision. I have read the defence and support he has received from those who believe in him. I have also read the criticisms to his vision.
I have also noticed that those who criticise this visionary rhetoric are instantly labelled old natured and backward in their reasoning. Mostly they are also either labelled ZANU PF functionaries or viewed as being limited thinkers who have no clue about the world’s current status.
I have read Alex Magaisa’s article in support of Chamisa and denigrating those who view it otherwise as ancient and devoid of modernity. Wow!
I have also just read Hopewell Chingono’s article in support of visionary Chamisa. Hopewell wrote about how visionaries in Martin Luther King, Patrice Lumumba, Tongogara, Thomas Sankara et al had visions and achieved them in their lifetime or had them achieved after their deaths. He also took note of how they were younger than Chamisa at their prime.
As much as I agree with Hopewell on the visions and achievements of these young men at their prime, I take an exception firstly in the comparison with Chamisa. Secondly I disagree in that the visions of these luminaries have been wholly achieved.
My first disagreement is based on logic and common sense. It is not a given that because these luminaries had visions and the visions may have come to pass, wholly or partially, during or after their life times, Chamisa’s vision will follow in the norm.
Secondly, Hopewell also mentioned that Martin Luther King’s vision was achieved by Obama becoming President. While Obama’s achievement was a milestone, it has in no way achieved Martin Luther’s vision.
America still lives in the same polarised environment left by King. Black Americans benefited nothing from Obama’s presidency, save for the gleeful feeling and euphoric experience that at least a black man was once a American president. The American Deep State remains intact and Obama instead of changing it, it cowed him into a puppet of the Establishment.
American blacks still suffer from the same discrimination they suffered in King’s era.
The vision of King is sadly yet to be achieved.
Patrice Lumumba was a young visionary, who dreamt of his fellow Africans living in a developed democratic and prosperous continent, independent of colonial dominance, but Africa is yet to achieve that. Looking at Chamisa’s vision and how he intends to achieve it, I don’t envision Lumumba’s vision being achieved either. Reading from the MDC blue print, their vision is to achieve this by aligning themselves to the former colonial masters we now call the West. They will help us achieve this vision Chamisa has given us. This vision will mortgage our nation back to the colonialists Lumumba was fighting in his prime.
So did Lumumba view Africa that way? Definitely not, he envisaged a Africa that had neither colonial inclination, nor domination, save for mere global interrelations on equal terns.
Lumumba was killed before achieving that and no one knows for certain, if he would have lived up to the ethos of his vision, if he had survived to live it.
Mugabe was a visionary in his prime, just like any of those quoted by Hopewell. But we all know the type of visionary he became when he was allowed to execute his dreams.
Thomas Sankara changed his country’s livelihood over a short space of time and partially achieved his dream for his country. Sadly he was assassinated before the dream was fully achieved. But there is something we will never know. If he had lived, would he have continued on the path he had started well, or would power have corrupted him like it did to our own Mugabe? Only the spiritual realm can answer that question.
The essence of my narrative is to highlight that because these visionaries had dreams, we must not be cowed into blindly accepting the visionary rhetoric we are being fed by Chamisa. We must, as a nation interrogate every word our politicians spit out. We have listened to many visionary promises for long.
Trains have been built between Harare and Chitungwiza and tram services have been planned throughout Harare environs, by visionaries past and present, but the reality on the ground today is a dilapidated road network, a highly dangerous and disastrous transport system, and no rail network to talk about.
We had visions spelt out in the same way by politicians. We have been told of urbanisation of growth points before, it’s not new. We have been told of the establishment of industries in rural areas before, it’s not new. We have been told of international airports in Mutare, Masvingo and Gweru before. It’s not new.
These visionary pronouncements by Chamisa may be new to the younger generation, but if older citizens reflect on the past pronouncements by politicians, there is nothing new here.
Promises are always made by politicians and are always broken.
Like Hopewell said in his article, visions are not meant to be achieved in one’s life time. But considering the state our country is at the present time, there is need for politicians to be realistic in their pronouncements.
Zimbabweans urgently need redemption from the quagmire that we find ourselves in, not bullet trains between Harare and Bulawayo and airports at Murewa.
Zimbabweans need programs that turn around their daily lives to enable them to live above the poverty datum line. They need programs that enable them to go to the bank and withdraw their hard earned cash. They need potable water and electricity supply. They need a road network and reliable transport network that enhances their health and safety. They need functional hospitals and health delivery. They need policies that enable them to sustain themselves without foreign or local aid.
Instead of these visionary pronouncements, Zimbabweans need programs that alleviate their current plight.
Chamisa is talking developed world politics, where Zimbabwe is supposed to be by now, not where it is now. It is well to do that, and he rightly says we should endeavour to achieve that. But I disagree with him in that he expects to quick-march us through that development process. We need to, as a nation, look at where we are and start by correcting the negative situation we have before dreaming of a First world infrastructural nation.
Instead of making these visionary pronouncements, I think politicians must give the people their vision on programs that will redeem Zimbabweans from the current horrible state.
They must be able to explain their national income and expenditure budgets to achieve their goals.
People cannot be told how development will be achieved in meteoric terms without being told the source of funding for such programs. As a nation we run the risk of having our heritage mortgaged for the sake of bullet trains and multiple airports which in the end will not benefit the ordinary citizens.
Zimbabwe is endowed with natural and mineral resources, but it is not the wealth we have that redeems us from our quagmire. It is how we will utilise and benefit from these resources as a people.
I have observed politicians talking much about how they will invite investors to come and exploit the resources and bring in the necessary capital. But how are Zimbabweans going to benefit? I am not convinced that investors will come and enrich our nation, at the pace our politicians are selling our resources to the fastest bidder. We only risk our resources looted without national benefit.
It reminds me of the quick entry , exploitation and quick exit of Australia’s BHP Billiton of the Chegutu Hartley Platinum fame. Did Zimbabwe really benefit from the platinum exploitation by BHP? Only in the short term, by the employment of citizens for that period. But they were left stranded at the end of the day. BHP had reaped its profits with little benefit to government by way of meagre taxes and royalties, and off it took its profits and capital back to Australia.
While visions and dreams are a good start, it is not being visionary that must be dwelt upon. It is the means of achieving the vision that should be analysed and interrogated against the visionary’s stand point.
By Jonathan Chando
Lawyer, Political Analyst and Commentator on International Law and Politics.
Comments
About Author
