GOVERNMENT has not lost any time to mobilise opposition to the time-honoured Ndebele monarchy. This follows the court dismissal of Bulelani Colin Khumalo’s coronation bid on March 3.
By Jonathan Maphenduka
It is clear that government’s mounting opposition to the idea of a Matabele king is motivated by historical factors.
In this regard, the people of Matabeleland have moved to announce that the king will enjoy no political office, but will play a major role in furthering cultural and traditional needs of the people.
A collision course with the government is that it has invoked a clause in the constitution that bars restoration of the monarchy in Matabeleland.
It will be argued, however, that historically the monarchy did not rely on a written constitution for its existence in the nation. The government can be expected to argue that Matabeleland is not a nation, but part of a nation.
It will further be argued, however, that the government of Zimbabwe cannot follow in the footsteps of a colonial government that destroyed the monarchy in the first place. The government, therefore, would be well-advised to desist from insisting that there can never be a king in Zimbabwe when next door in South Africa there is one and one that is not in conflict with the people’s government.
The people of Matabeleland are not opposed to the establishment of a king(s) among the region’s many constituents. The mambos (chiefs) of this region are one example of such a constituent.
- 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
If the government wants the people to make a constitutional approach, it shall be done. The government cannot afford to say “there shall be no king in Matabeleland” and thereby appear to be taking its cue from a colonial usurper.
The present situation under which the government contrived a constitution to deny the people their natural rights is totally and completely unacceptable.
The government must be aware that the current situation whereby traditional leaders are ear-marked to exclusively represent cultural values of the people is a political instrument to use chiefs for political gain. The chiefs, for all intents and purposes, are political servants of the ruling party and government.
The government, however, chooses to pretend that they are apolitical when they owe their daily bread and other benefits to the will of the government.
Even the most gullible observer of government machinations must raise eyebrows in amazement at the government’s dishonesty in this regard.
If the government insists on its stance on the king, this will sooner, rather later, expose government to national embarrassment. The government cannot follow in the footsteps of a colonial tyranny and get away unembarrassed. And the chiefs cannot avoid the same shame.
The chiefs come from a tradition of the monarchy but if they choose to side with government against the people in this regard, they shall suffer the same embarrassment. They cannot be seen to be coalescing with the government to destroy for all time the people’s right to have a king.
The chiefs occupy some protective space in the preservation of cultural and traditional values of the people. If they choose to side with the government in this regard, they will inevitably and unavoidably alienate themselves from the people’s respect which, without coercion, is due to them.
This is not a call for rebellion, but a proposal for them to use common sense to protect a value that cannot be politicised.
The chiefs are custodians of cultural values, not political stooges. They don’t want to be seen to be lending a hand in a process to suppress the people’s rights. It is incumbent upon them to declare — in unambiguous terms — their stand in this regard to avoid their being seen as supporters of the government in this regard.
Zimbabwe is an emerging democracy which enjoys absolute power. It needs some checks and balances for its commitment to democratic rule to survive and thrive. The chiefs can play a meaningful role in this regard to ensure that the government does not deviate away from the democratic path it has chosen to follow to earn the respect and support of all democracies in the world. There is no room for Zimbabwe to go it alone or introduce its own brand of democratic values.
There is an easy and legitimate way of resolving this threatening constitutional logjam. It is for the government to facilitate an amendment of the prohibitive clause in the constitution. The constitution needs to be silent on the question of a king.
There is, therefore, no need for the matter to be referred to the Constitutional Court. If the government refuses to recognise the right of the people to have a king, when there is a king in neighbouring South Africa, it will be seen as pursuing a desire to apply the same tactics that the colonial government used against the Matabele monarchy.
What about the much-vaunted slogan “Zimbabwe shall never be a colony again”? Can government apply colonial tactics against the people’s will when it suits its political purpose?
Zimbabwe’s proclaimed desire to be a democracy will fail and the country will revert back to the past if the government becomes euphoric because of the overwhelming support it enjoys.
The people of Zimbabwe will therefore be doing themselves a great favour if they refrain from joining the bandwagon of the unthinking that support absolute power.
Absolute power has no place in a democracy. This is particularly true where mob psychology often leads to undeserved association with a political movement. Have Zimbabweans learnt anything from their overnight defection from Robert Mugabe to President Emmerson Mnangagwa after blindly following Mugabe for a calamitous 37 years?
Mnangagwa’s government should play by the rules of democracy and not merely talk about them. For nearly 40 years, government has been applying a notorious policy of exclusion against the people of Matabeleland. Where does the anti-monarchy stand of the government leave the question of reconciliation?
