Title of Column: Mthwakazi Forum

With: Kernan Mzelikahle

Heading: Is Militant Separatism the Right Strategy for the Mthwakazi Question?

Over the years, we have seen an up-surge of activities that pronounce the Mthwakazi question in a number of ways. There is an angle that presupposes the importance of culture (Amasiko) and attempts to build modern organisational structures based on traditional structures. This angle can be discerned in attempts or activities such as the instalment of a traditional and ceremonial King. On the other hand, there is another angle that presupposes the need for an independent republic that satisfies the Mthwakazi needs. This angle can be discerned in activities such as protests and rallies aimed at promoting Mthwakazi republicanism. This article seeks to give an analysis as to the intrinsic values of both mechanisms, and perhaps identify limitation in either of them, if there are any.

Mthwakazi as a nation already exists, there is no doubt nor question about that. By definition, a nation is a conglomeration of peoples who share a common identity. By this definition, indeed a Mthwakazi nation exists. However, the problem at hand is that the Mthwakazi nation does not currently have a defined leadership structure and its interests have no place for deliberation. In my previous articles, I raised the need to have a local parliament where such matters can be deliberated. The aforementioned angles currently being employed, in my view, are methods for seeking some form of a stable leadership structure for the Mthwakazi nation. The challenge is that these methods have to fit into the puzzle of the Zimbabwean national dynamics, as well as international dynamics. We must understand that we live in the 21st century and certain methods and/or norms are expected of us. Let us analyse this.

States are not determined by historical rights nor by logical conclusions. States are determined by whomsoever holds military sway over a particular land swathe. The world does not quite care about who holds power in a given land. Rather, all the world cares about is peace and economic activities in a given land. Lack of peaceability is the reason why authorities like ISIL/ISIS are not given recognition by the world and they tend to make enemies with the Global World Powers that be. To buttress this point, the OAU and later-on the AU both recognise(d) bounderies that were created by colonialism, simply because there is a peaceable military power that holds sway in that swathe of land. The fact that the Venda people, for example, were torn into 3 different countries (South Africa, Zimbabwe and Mozambique) is of no consequence nor interest to the State World players. Less still is the Mthwakazi two State or Statehood question (born in 1893 by the Pioneer column invasion) of any interest to the world. By "the world" I mean Global World Powers or State World players. The world does not quite care about it. Look at Palestine that has even a broader and more recent (1948) question, still the world does not quite care. Israel continues to enjoy bi-lateral relations with the USA, and that suffices for it to keep bullying the Palestinians and Arab neighbouring states, while the world is watching from the terraces.

The point here is: The sooner the Mthwakazi leadership learns the grim reality that the world will not support a militant separatist movement, the sooner it realises the need for a STRATEGY, a non-militant strategy. Why? SADC will not support militant separatism because all SADC countries contain some old 17th and 18th century Kingdoms (remember Zambia with its Barotseland). So no neighbouring country to Zimbabwe would support militant separatism for fear of internal insurgence of the old kingdoms. Without these State alliances, the Mthwakazi leadership will find it difficult to raise resources and other necessities for the cause. So, if the Mthwakazi leadership is to push the militant separatism card, then it has to be aware that it will not find State allies from SADC countries because of two reasons: (1) All SADC States have undertaken to help one another in the maintainance of Sovereignty and indivisibility of member States; (2) Politically, no SADC member State wants to be offside and be found contributing to the break up of another. It is easy to read the mood of SADC countries on this matter, and an example can be seen in Mozambique, where Renamo continues to suffer from lack of allies to achieve its intended objectives.

Someone is already thinking that South Africa will assist. I say that we need to reconsider this assumption, and even assess the extent to which the South African government could go on to assist the Mthwakazi cause. Here are some points to note: (1) South Africa is a democratic State and its decisions have to be granted and/or ratified by their Parliament. If South Africa is to use State resources to support the Mthwakazi cause, then it has to be granted by their Parliament. To me, the success of this path is remote because the debate may not turn-out in favour of Mthwakazi in their Parliament. (2) The Zimbabwean State continues to have access to South Africa through many different fora where it can exert pressure for the decision not to turn-out overtly in support for Mthwakazi. These fora include business lines, Goverment to Government political fora, SADC meetings et cetera. All these points allow the Zimbabwean State to pursuade South Africa to stay away from an internal matter, which I think the South African government would agree to, because there are South African companies operating here. On the Mthwakazi leadership side, the South African government may continue to maintain a luke-warm shoulder which may be misinterpreted by the Mthwakazi leadership as supportive. What does this leave us with? What are my suggestions at this juncture? What is the best course of action?

One thing for sure is that Mthwakazi, as a nation, needs abled leaders who are capable of discerning the circumstances, and deciding out of pure factual grasp of the situation, and NOT from emotions. I have previously written an article exposing the limitations associated with emotional decision making. While the grievancies in Mthwakazi are genuine, the position Mthwakazi is at, right now, is for efficient organising without making overtly confrontational and militant demands. Well, in my view, militantism is to be avoided at all times. The advantages of peaceful organising are: (1) it is allowed by the Zimbabwean constitution, and therefore it can be fulfiled without unnecessary arrests; (2) it gives people (both within the Mthwakazi nation, and without), the time to learn about Mthwakazi and its objectives, without creation of harmful stereotypes and connotations; (3) it gives the international community an understanding of the cause and the direction of solutions; (4) it relieves fears held by peoples from other parts of the country, the fear they have always associated Mthwakazi and its peoples as violent. This means that the people (both within and without Mthwakazi) will get time to be educated about the cause hence they would be more likely to be understanding; (5) it reduces the risk of a hard-line backlash reaction from the Zimbabwean government, implying that this reduces the risk of Gukurawundi II. If this is successful, it is possible that whatever concerns the Mthwakazi nation has may be tabled, in due time, to a referendum and a new direction be taken.

This approach, I call a strategic path, may be interpreted as cowardice, or selling out (collaboration with a perceived enemy), but I dare to think that it is the only workable solution for the Mthwakazi cause. This is because, while the Mthwakazi cause and sentiment are strong, there is no cohesion between the many various groups pursuing the same cause. In fact, it can be said that the Mthwakazi peoples are fractured across many various contentious issues. If one wants to understand this, one would simply look at how the coronation of Kings went beginning in September 2017 until March 2018. In this period, 3 Kings contested for the position of the King and many of the things that transpired ended up giving a perception that the Mthwakazi nation is confused and fragmented.

It can therefore be concluded that militantism and militant separatism are not the best move(s) for the Mthwakazi nation. The best path is peaceful organising towards one common objective. The objective has to be defined within the framework of the constitution and respect internationally set norms for redressing such grievancies. Any method short of this, would bring unnecessary suffering to the Mthwakazi nation, and possibly the emergence of Gukurawundi II, which is uncivilised. The barrel of a gun is indiscriminant and it must be observed as the enemy to all, in this modern world. This does not mean that nations must not have defence mechanisms, rather the defence mechanisms need to be cautiously weld and maintained. The old adage was right in its time that "A nation is forged by iron and blood". Now I propose a new adage, if that ever makes any sense, that "A nation is forged by strategy, love and economic prosperity". Without having to narrate examples here, the logic of my adage is that in a civilised society, men are swayed by logical reasoning, not by intimidation.

Kernan Mzelikahle is an apolitical analyst, and may be contacted by cellphone on +263775195334, or by email on k.mzelikahle@gmail.com, twitter handle is @Mzelikahle. This article and others like it may be found on the Mthwakazi Forum website: sites.google.com/view/mthwakaziforum