|
A woman in the community in which I experienced my formative years had an unpleasant reputation. It was generally believed that she had certain talents in the dark arts.
They said she was a witch. They said she was capable of many unkind deeds. We all grew up believing her to be a witch. That is what we were told. Most people accepted it to be the truth.
I do not know for sure if she was or if indeed, such dark arts exist at all. But that is beside the point. The point is that she was labelled a witch and that ugly label stuck with her all her life. I look back and wonder whether this labelling was fair. It’s an easy label to stick on someone but it’s hard to remove.
This woman’s circumstance represents an every day image of what can be observed in national politics.
You only have to stick a label on someone to discredit them and their views. And there are many labels at the disposal of those who wish to employ them. The trouble is that this labelling causes one and all to lose focus and concentrate instead on peripheral matters.
More importantly, labelling has an exclusionary effect, causing those so labelled or likely to be labelled to withdraw from national affairs. Labelling is an easy tool to silence people; to bully them into submission.
I attempt here to illustrate a few of these labels that have been and can be used to achieve these ends.
Mutengesi (A Sell-out): This is by far the most common label, easily targeted at those who otherwise differ from the majority or senior leadership.
Notwithstanding the rhetoric on democracy when it comes to application on the ground, people are generally sceptical of those who espouse different views.
They are perceived as agents trying to sell-out the “revolution”. It is an easy weapon, often employed to thwart rivals, often with tragic consequences.
A story is often told in my village how one elder met a cruel end during the liberation struggle.
He owned a bicycle. In the humble circumstances of village life, a bicycle was apparently, an item of status and prestige.
His ownership of a bicycle drew admirers as well jealous neighbours. It took one unkind soul to label him a “sell-out” for the elder to lose his life. It’s fair to say many people lost their homes, broke limbs, indeed lost lives simply because they were accused of being “sell-outs” before being tried before Kangaroo courts where they could never stand a chance.
Those who have written about their experiences during the struggle, like Fay Chung and Edgar Tekere in their recent autobiographies, talk about the reckless way in which the “sell-out” label was deployed within the movements. If you were an opponent or a perceived rival, you were simply labelled a “sell-out” — mutengesi.
There can be no worse accusation in a struggle. That’s because of the ruthless manner in which so-called sell-outs are treated. There may indeed have been sell-outs, as happens in war situations, but it’s fair to say the label was also misused and abused to settle personal scores or simply to endear themselves to the leaders.
I read an account the other day about a West African leader who was surrounded by a coterie of advisers who kept him busy with tales of complex conspiracies that were allegedly being planned against him. They would tell of how they had foiled the plots by the sell-outs. Not only did this make the leader more paranoid and therefore power hungry, it also meant he came to believe that these hangers-on were indispensable!
This label remains prevalent across and within political parties. It is employed from time to time to create an exclusionary effect — to undermine one’s credibility and legitimacy. It works negatively to stifle otherwise useful debate and democratic participation among ordinary people.
MuCIO (He’s a CIO): The mention of Zimbabwe’s dreaded Central Intelligence Organisation sends shivers down many a spine.
It conjures up images of men in dark glasses who do bad things to people. Whether or not this is a correct representation is neither here nor there.
The point here is that because of this negative reputation, if one is labelled “muCIO”, then you are more or less associated with the darker arts and therefore your credibility is undermined.
And it’s very easy for people to say, “muCIO uya hauzivi?” (Do you not know that he is a CIO?). It is stated in a matter-of-fact fashion, soon everyone nods in unison, agreeing that indeed, the person labelled is a CIO.
I remember the label being used very generously against certain students at university. It continues to be used. It’s a very cheap shot which is designed to undermine an individual’s standing and credibility.
MuRacist (He’s racist): In Zimbabwe, it seems there are two qualifications to attain the label of being a racist: you have to be white and take a different opinion from the majority.
You can say something that could otherwise be said by a black person but still be branded a racist! It’s hard to deny that our country has a messy history of racial discrimination.
A war was fought over this, among other concerns. So the feelings of animosity, especially among the older generation run very deep.
They are so deep that in recent years, there have arguably, been forms of reverse racism and any challenge on this ground is met by references to what happened in the past — a vicious cycle. Yet, notwithstanding the genuine need to deal with a dirty past and the continued existence of racist elements, the racist label has often been abused for selfish motives.
It’s not unusual for example, that when a white person expresses a different view or tries to be critical, even in quasi-opposition circles (“quasi-opposition” because they are not really in opposition given the GNU), there is a high likelihood that he will be labelled a racist bent on promoting white supremacy.
To my mind drawing the race card on occasions of difference is not only unfair but represents a sign a weakness.
In fact, it makes a mockery of all those people who have and continue to suffer actual racism.
Yet the purpose of employing this label is very clear: it is designed to silence. It doesn’t matter that the accuser has no evidence to support the labelling — drawing the race card serves the purpose of creating the division between them and us and because of the messy historical past of racial discrimination, the accused almost always has a mountain to climb to clear his name.
The option for many is to withdraw from public life and say nothing hence simply acquiescing to a situation that is otherwise untenable. These labels have an unnecessary exclusionary effect, thereby diminishing the force of citizen participation in national governance.
NdeweZanu (He’s Zanu): This is a common one in quasi-opposition circles particularly when someone expresses a view that appears to resonate with Zanu PF rhetoric on national issues. It represents a failure to distinguish the state from the party.
Zanu PF’s roots run deep into the era of liberation politics and as a party that led the struggle for independence, it is hardly surprising that its rhetoric is couched in nationalist and anti-imperialist terms. The ideas that it espouses centre on national sovereignty, empowerment, redressing colonial imbalances etc.
Now in principle, all these issues are relevant and make sense to many people. Where differences arise is in the methods of implementation.
So for example with regards to issues like the role of international financial institutions like the IMF/World Bank, there may be good ground to be critical of their prescriptions and methods in developing countries. There may indeed be good reason to challenge certain things done or said by the West.
However, because such views are likely to be shared by Zanu PF those in quasi-opposition may feel the need to distance themselves from such critical positions.
In the process what should be a national issue is relegated to party political squabbles and anyone who espouses an otherwise credible view, against sanctions, against exploitative structural adjustment programmes, etc is labelled “ndewe Zanu” (He is Zanu). It’s important to avoid this obsession with petty labels relating to party politics because they stand in the way of what is otherwise in the national interest.
One should be free to take a view and defend an idea without being labelled along party political lines; without being named a racist, indeed without being tagged a racist.
It is exactly this politics of labelling that dissuades many decent people from espousing their views publicly and therefore reduces the scope of citizen participation in national affairs.
A large part of repairing Zimbabwe’s politics is dealing with the political culture.
This politics of labelling is sadly, something that is part of this retrogressive political culture and to be sure, it is one that is prevalent within and across political parties.
Worse it is one that permeates the bulk of society. My friend and brother Brian Kagoro called it the art of kusvibisa – techniques of soiling someone’s image.
It has to change. Change of this nature is beyond the reach of the law. It’s about decency and common sense. It’s about people being more critical of those things that they are told.
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 |
Show/Hide comments
Show/Hide comment form
