Where we ought to find ourselves and be found as Zimbabweans.

The argument has been diverted and hijacked in all major political outfits. 2020 needs the fundamental arguments to be addressed internally at micro levels, before re-engaging on the macro level politics of Zimbabwe. This is essential if we are to improve the dynamics of political competition and contestation in our country. This is the very reason that those calling for a certain dialogue might be surprised that to some of us this will be an unsurprising stalemate preceded by misplaced confrontational arguments in front of a very speculative but abdicating spectator public – the type only expectantly awaiting conclusions of an exclusive process that they outsource completely to politically animalistic neurotics. This might also be in front of very active vulture like international opportunists!



Here is where we are…


The ZANU PF view of ZANU PF v MDC

This has become an argument where ZANU PF sees the nation as overburdened by forces of sanctions and sabotage that are aligned to Western interests and totally against any progress to be delivered by the liberation movement. All this seen as the sponsors’ hellbent angling for unfair resource extraction from our motherland. They see an undue attention and exaggeration of human rights issues as a decoy tool for furthering external interests. There is citing of the unfair application of sanctions associated with this decoy tool when it comes to some countries that have glaring evidence of similar occurrence of abuses. These offences are deemed as more frequent and at higher magnitudes even in the countries who have directed their ‘more humane forces’ towards the dynamics upon and within Zimbabwe. Atop the antagonistic of forces, ZANU PF identifies the USA and its sanctions, Western governments and racist White people groupings being the hands behind the observed to be spanner that is seen as the MDC formation. ZANU PF sees an MDC that is focused on disabling the self-governance system as is allowed and available to any other country occupying a similar spot, one as its non-deviant position within the spectrum of statecraft types. ZANU PF is not fighting or fighting off Zimbabweans is one school of thought. ZANU PF as a necessary Pan-African defence against an adverse external influence that is misleading and misinforming the xenocentric segment of its citizenry is a corollary to that school of thought!




The MDC view of ZANU PF v MDC

This has become an argument of ZANU PF as a corrupt party that cruelly impoverishes its nation for the benefit of a few where there was and is an unantagonized opportunity to excel. The focus is on a select few of the party who are deemed to use the nation’s resources to service only their comfort. This is seen as building a narrative of the MDC party as regards the independence and fidelity of state institutions; the Judiciary, Electoral system, security sector and applied to gauge the magnitude of democratic inclination in any organisation that makes pronouncements on the political events. Churches, Labour Unions, Social and cultural outfits are included. The private citizen, especially the rural person in Uzumba Maramba Pfungwe might find their faculties inviting Intelligence Quotient ridicule as it is deemed logically irreconcilable that they could elect ZANU PF independent of; duress, or the relief of applied and/or threatened duress. This is a party that is seen as inviting nationals to seek recourse in the application of restrictions by external powers as a means serving and saving the citizens’ exclusive and shared international interests. International relations on agreeable terms with ZANU PF are seen as not interested in the welfare and human rights of ordinary Zimbabweans. ZANU PF is deemed incompetent by the MDC. ZANU PF can be said to be seen by the MDC and its followers as a party that cannot be or should not be a governing party in Zimbabwe.




The citizens’ view of ZANU PF v MDC and Zimbabwe solutions.

Very short and sweet! No! It is a damn shame! 


They say:
The individual principals have the solutions. The INDIVIDUALS -Chete chete or Pfee? Some say if they talk, the solution is there. Some say it is not there. Some go steps further. Shall we?



Healthy national conflict and compatibility for dialogic participation

Divergence brings complementary conflict(s)! Where conflict occurs is a requirement to address first a key fundamental. The key fundamental is addressed through a few questions that are not merely needing yes or no answers. These questions need in-depth analysis and the conclusions should have what can be called Patriots’ Cohesive Cogency (you heard it here first!).


Can the conflicting sides and ideas co-exist? Do they see each other as primarily focused on the country’s people and different nationalistic versions of inclusive priorities? Are they generating ideas that seek to improve people’s equity on the national resources in a sustainable way and on a growth curve? Does the country and its people retain both internally based and biased control towards the destiny shaped by their aspirations? Do the conflicting ideas and sides have shared thresholds for external power haemorrhage, and shared boundaries for adverse and risky inbound external influence? Do they even both have a mathematical intersection of what they deem friend or foe in their disparate sets of external links?  What (not who) is Zimbabwe’s friend, and what is an enemy to Zimbabwe’s progress from outside it? A wise and prevalent view of globalisation and even regionalisation is required. National integrity is the goal!


That is only one key fundamental exploration, but there is not much of future progressive internal kinetics if within the country, political manoeuvres inherently bear a tag of foreign adversity that is internally detached! Healthy national conflict is defined first by protecting the common denominator of co-operative competition. How much a party is a bigger factor in the multiplication of this common denominator defines its national dominance! Equations of political science! Some prefer 24 tweet threads as guiding principles. Choices ka...


Lest we forget… the better argument has been hijacked and put on the backburner in major political outfits!



Here is where we should be…

Both ZANU PF and MDC views of ZANU PF v MDC (almost the new name of our country) should be a clear ‘lane X’ versus ‘lane Y’ race to convincing the citizens’ view of an ability to raise its situation. From political competition views on who and how does one intend to take us further above the shared threshold of Zimbabwe’s foundations of being independent patriotic Zimbabweans should be obtained. Before a Mbeki type is invited in, we should have clear in-depth ideas and choices (that might as well make his coming unnecessary)!
  

The view should be clear on what the other political party's intentions are, or at least clarity on the ideological pronouncements that the other has as its defining tags. In some cases it has to be despite one not being adherent to associated prescriptions for the attainment of their ideology’s realities.

If ZANU PF says it is for land reform and intent on increasing mining equity for Zimbabweans, the MDC’s paramount argument is its own policy position on land reform and mining. The joint responsibility for the parties is to know iron sharpens iron; hence an imploration within political contestation that the main duty is competitive policy formulation and engagement! Argue numbers; job numbers, their time frames, outputs and economic impact of competing plans on e.g: Lithium mining, on formalisation of gold mining, on mechanising stated land areas; and all the while punching holes in the plans and proposed structuring by the other side. Show why you are or why you should be the alternative government! Losing bearings on the argument is when the other talks a plan and you do not even clearly review it for applicability, desirability, viability and feasibility; but instead to target individuals' stature in an irrelevant manner that does not show your policy and governance methods' better virility and potency.

Arguments are most often heard as follows: “They are very corrupt, and they should not be in office”. “We would do better if we were running those offices”.

It should be more often heard as follows: “We thank members of the opposite party for putting forward their plan (or alternative plan) in time for us to review and have credible debate. We however find issue with e.g: the costing and procurement strategy put in how our nation would acquire and improve deep mining equipment. Under our party X, this has mitigation and the efficiency is gained by ensuring miners can access these markets independently and cutting out bureaucracy in closing finance agreements and guarantees. We therefore can reach the US$12b revenue mark in quicker time. Our party is against the single mineral marketer for reasons 1, 2, 3 and 4”. Then after that, the character and track records can be integrated and argued considering the pace of building of institutions that ensure party positions and ideologies do not get overwhelmed and overshadowed by personality competitions. The arguments have instead been hijacked to focus on the latter. Great orators, similar shirts, diet, age etc. Makadzidza? (You are educated, you say?)

We are made to ignore that it is easy to find fault in the incumbent as there is evidence against them. We are made to forget that the absence of a track record, and hence no evidence against, is not automatic proof of better performance. We are made to forget that no one amongst humans is perfect, and instead made to associate perfection with the lack of a track record! Just like that? Abracadabra….kupusisa kana kupusiswa! That person was onto something! He is onto something I insist!

Substance is what we should focus on. Where there is substance is where we should be found. We will be found there if we take the road of in-depth evaluation of our options. We might first have to redefine what Zimbabwe is as a country through its people and what is found in its space. From there we will identify its STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES & THREATS. Zimbabwe and Zimbabweans; we will not be abused by anyone easily if we master the directions, intentions and interactions of forces within Zimbabwe, the FORCE FIELD. Institutions we build should guard us against THREATS wishing to manipulate us through our WEAKNESSES. That is a key incremental improvement goal. It starts in the political parties on messages each should outwardly project. Our job in Zimbabwe will internally become competing for a mandate to do better in widely acceptable upward directions and launch points. We have most of the structures and the brains now! The will? The leadership for competitive engagement? Your choice as previously made, and your choice as has to be made! Shepherd the politics I say! #KurongaKwawoMagamba