Zimbabwe is no different and talk about tribe in politics dates back to the days of the birth of the nationalist movement. This debate, though clearly present in our sub-conscience, has been somewhat subdued in the last couple of years. This year, however, marked the dramatic return of this contentious issue in our body-politic with some political leaders pushing it hard.
Many scholars and social commentators have written about the complicity of tribe in our politics, usually with highly subjective pieces, which usually makes these writers appear as if they are writing about different countries. One of the most refreshing and interesting pieces of literature on the subject that I have recently come across is University of Leicester scholar John Day’s paper: The Insignificance of Tribe in the African Politics of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. Most literature that has been generated on such matters has shown some subjective leanings, probably driven by the scholars’ own ethnic loyalties.
What makes Day’s work slightly more objective is that he does not have the weakness of belonging to any of the country’s major contesting ethnic groups.
Many scholars have attributed the political conflicts and splits of political parties in the pre-independence era to ethnic rivalry. Day, however, brings a fresh perspective to the debate by arguing that the conflicts were more to do with disillusionment with individual leaders than with tribe. The split of Zanu from Zapu in 1963, for instance, is an area of fierce contestation.
While some scholars argue that Robert Mugabe and colleagues could not stomach being led by Joshua Nkomo of the minority Ndebele tribe, Day argues that these comrades were increasingly growing impatient with Nkomo’s leadership style. Their major qualms with Umdala Wethu were his over-reliance on international diplomacy. Nkomo would allegedly spend long periods of time outside the country canvassing for support for the struggle against colonial rule. This meant that he left the more difficult task of organising the movement to the other colleagues and thus created resentment from them.
There was also talk about tribal conflict in PF Zapu after the 1963 split. The feud was between James Chikerema and Alfred Nikita Mangena collaborating with Jason Ziyapapa-Moyo when Nkomo was in detention. They quarrelled about leadership style and who really was in charge in Nkomo’s absence. Chekerema eventually left the party with his counterparts to form Frolizi in conjunction with others who had crossed over to Zanu. While some argue that Chikerema grew tired of fighting for power in a “pre-dominantly Ndebele party”, Day argues that Chikerema and other colleagues were genuinely disappointed with the 1963 split and wanted to re-unite the movement.
Day makes the even more daring utterances that the historic Nkomo-Mugabe feud was non-ethnic. He uses the Zimbabwe Rhodesia days to strengthen his argument. This was at a time when the Smith regime had accepted that majority rule was inevitable. They then handpicked some “respectable” black leaders, Bishop Abel Muzorewa and Ndabaningi Sithole who formed a “legal” political party, the United African National Congress (UANC), which could conduct political business without being banned. This was a time when Nkomo’s PF Zapu and Mugabe’s Zanu PF were both banned and were operating underground from Zambia and Mozambique respectively.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
Nkomo and Mugabe briefly participated in this new formation but quickly abandoned it as the Geneva Conference drew closer. The thrust of Day’s argument is that the same Mugabe who abandoned Nkomo in 1963 is the same Mugabe who collaborated with Nkomo to desert the UANC, to pursue armed guerrilla warfare and render the “surrogate” leaders illegitimate.
While I appreciate Day’s clarity of analysis, relative objectivity and impersonal detachment, it is difficult to fully accept that tribe was really insignificant in the treacherous waters of Zimbabwe’s pre-independence contest to capture the state. The ethnicity debate is very much alive in Zimbabwe today and I shudder to think if Day would have the same perspective today that he had when he wrote his paper. The developments of 2011 are testimony to this.
Leaders of the smaller MDC formation have consistently cried foul about their leader being denied principal status in the coalition government. They have accused the other principals of deliberately marginalizing their leader because he is Ndebele. Earlier in the year, there was strife within the ranks of the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights when the organization declined to represent members of the radical Mthwakazi Liberation Front.
This led aggrieved Ndebele members of the organization to form the Abammeli Human Rights Lawyers Network as they felt that the organization was insensitive to the plight of the People of Matabeleland which motivates the formation of such radical movements.
