Zimbabwe Diversity Enriches Our National Unity

23 December 2024

The Herald (Harare)

National Unity Day, which was celebrated yesterday, although the public holiday in lieu has been moved to today, has a double importance.

First to celebrate the end of a tragic period in our history when we saw what happens when we are not united on essentials, and secondly to recommit ourselves to preserving that unity forever, keeping our many differences of culture and opinion within the ambit of a united nation.

As President Mnangagwa noted, Zimbabwe is very diverse culturally, linguistically and even in religion. This is why we needed to set 16 official languages when we finally wrote and agreed on our new Constitution in 2013, so that everyone was included equally under the umbrella of that Constitution.

But at the same time, we have one country, one flag, one national anthem, one central Government and while there are 10 provinces and 92 urban and rural local authorities, these are geographical in scope, rather than defined culturally or linguistically.

Even when the majority in a district share a mother tongue, and that is not uncommon, every other Zimbabwean in that district is included and cannot be treated any differently.

While we might have linguistic majorities in a district, we do not have any homogeneous areas outside some villages made up of an extended family, and even there that is not guaranteed.

National unity is not a new concept. It was initially forged in the fire of the First Chimurenga. The British South Africa Company had invaded and conquered the areas that are now Zimbabwe.

The land grabbing that followed, with the invading forces paid off with large farms and far more land seized for sale to newcomers along with the forced labour and the imposition of high taxes to make the conquered pay for the conquest, with the whole directed by the imposition of a ruthless local administration, made it clear to all within our borders just what this invasion entailed.

In 1896 during the First Chimurenga, there was a concerted effort to throw off the yoke of the invaders and despite the linguistic difficulties and the lack of any central organisation, there was a remarkable degree of coordination.

The invading company and its settlers would, in fact, have been defeated, but for the decision of the British to commit large numbers of imperial troops to maintain the new imperial province in that age of empire. That initial national unity was never forgotten, even with the determined efforts of the colonial and settler authorities embracing the policy of divide and rule and doing their level best to try and make sure "Southern Rhodesian natives" did not develop any national consciousness, but rather had loyalties only to the smallest possible groups, which were to be kept in competition.

That policy failed as the rise of trade unions, and the common realisation that the overwhelming majority of the population were together treated as subservient people within their own country with almost zero rights.

By the 1950s this unity had solidified into the nationalist movement, although the formal parties established to direct the movement were frequently banned and leaders often restricted.

During one of these periods the nationalist movement split, but not on geographical or linguistic lines, or on the need for a democratic united country, but rather on the tactics to be followed to achieve this freedom. The split, regrettably, endured although it remained one over tactics with both sides having supporters everywhere.

The settler authorities obviously did all in their power to maintain the split, but there was a major and successful surge of a united approach to block the imposition of a British-backed deal with the settlers.

It was only a set of accidents, such as assignment of rear bases after the liberation war went into its continuous phase and became built around mobilising the whole population, that the split started bringing in geography, with the settler authorities really pushing this with deliberate efforts of making insincere offers to selected individuals.

The ideological split of the early 1960s had long been ended with the realisation by all that only an armed struggle would liberate the country.

After independence, another external influence appeared, with the dying apartheid regime in South Africa adopting a policy of trying to convert each of its neighbours into contending groups of bantustans that would be in eternal conflict, show the rest of the world how only the regime could impose order, and make sure that Angola, Mozambique and Zimbabwe were "failed states" not worthy of support.

So there was active leveraging of every possible difference, building on what the defeated Rhodesian settlers had been doing although at a whole order of magnitude worse.

There were inevitable errors in dealing with this, and these are largely admitted. But the final result was a determined decision to step back from the brink by all major political forces, and that resulted in December 1987 with the reunification of the old nationalist movement on lines that were both realistic and fair.

Opposition parties have arisen, and this is part of the democracy Zimbabwe has enjoyed, and while their policies seem woolly and their leadership in perpetual conflict with each other on personal grounds, they have all accepted that Zimbabwe is one country, they all wave the national flag, and all have been careful not to try and limit their appeal to one area, preferring to see if they can unseat Zanu PF everywhere, rather than wanting to split up the country.

That is to an extent a by-product of our Constitution, with a single winning Presidential candidate and a single Parliament needing a majority to rule.

Meanwhile, the Second Republic, as President Mnangagwa noted at the weekend, has pushed hard to make sure that the diversity within unity as guaranteed by the home-grown Constitution is made a practical reality.

A hallmark of President Mnangagwa's leadership has been to make sure that no one and no area is left behind, and that has seen special development efforts in areas that obviously were not fully included in some of the past growth, so they catch up quickly, making sure we move forward united and together.

At the same time decentralisation policies have been implemented, not breaking up the country, but trusting local communities will know more about what they need and want than some civil servant in Harare and so letting them make the choice over how central Government capital development funds are spent in their areas.

This is practical decentralisation under a unitary Government, stressing both fairness and local interests.

At the same time Zimbabweans are becoming proud of their diversity in culture and language, seeing this as enriching the country and making it stronger, as well as recognising that accepting all our fellow citizens means that they will in turn accept us and that we can all flourish together.

We learned the lessons of just how damaging disunity can be, and we have now recreated our country as a united country that not only accepts our many differences, but embraces them, as something that makes Zimbabwe unique and stronger.

Read the original article on The Herald.