Good Africans vs Bad Africans

By Dambudzo Mapuranga (05/10/09)

AN unhealthy fixation over Zimbabwe’s socio-political mechanisms created through various conduits and gradually moulded into what the media today calls the Zimbabwean story is the reason why some Zimbabweans continually need to be given a history lesson on exactly what is Zimbabwean.

It is a shame that even some of our MPs and Senators have made naive judgments and chosen to propagate deliberate lies to create an imaginary country that is quite parallel to the real Zimbabwe.

The so-called Zimbabwean story does not recognise Zimbabwe’s existence prior to 1998; instead Zimbabwe is characterised, as a place where good is fighting evil with the help of democratic nations like Britain, Germany and the US.

The imagined Zimbabwe is a place were President Mugabe and Zanu-PF who are the example of "bad Africans" are fighting hard to deny the rights of the MDC who are the "good Africans" who are against injustices like the land reform programme.

The face of this imagined Zimbabwe is of the good African who since 1998 has been fighting to remove Zimbabwe from the clutches of bad Africans like President Mugabe who preach about political and economic independence, who refuse to accept bigotry, racism and prejudice disguised as international concern, and who denounce selective application of international norms for the benefit of an elite that oppresses those in the developing world whose lands have three-quarters of the world’s natural resources.

The concept of the bad African and good African

I had a very interesting conversation with some film students about race in the movie industry some time ago. While they found my questions to be amusing and promised to take note of my observations I failed to get meaningful debate from them.

Instead they told me movies are there to entertain and people should not put much thought into them.

However, movies are the window to the outside world, people learn about other cultures and countries through this mode of entertainment and it should be taken seriously.

Ever wondered why in most movies the black character is the first to die?

Why the black bad guys are always on the extreme when it comes to being brutish and behave more like apes in their mannerisms than human? The movie Blood Diamond caused uproar over its portrayal of blacks in Sierra Leone.

The depiction of people of colour in Western movies is of faithful servants or assistants who provide comic relief through clownish behaviour otherwise they are the bad guys who kill, murder and kidnap innocent non-blacks.

I cannot say this depiction of blacks and people of colour is by design or just mere entertainment but it certainly reinforces stigmas that have been attached to people of colour dating back to the days of slavery. Such images dictate relationships among people and it is no wonder in Zimbabwe we can have nursery school children telling each other black boys are not allowed to hug white girls.

The good African is one who does as he is told and does not interfere with set norms no matter how greatly these norms might negatively impact his life. The concept of right and wrong is not defined by moral norms but is given to the good African by those who have accorded to him this title of good African.

In contrast the bad African is one who questions existing structures and seeks to define right and wrong based on moral norms as they apply to the establishment. The bad African is one who speaks up for his rights, one who refuses to serve but wants to be in control.

President Mugabe is the bad African because as the then chair of the Sadc Organ on Defence and Security Co-operation he did the right thing and chose to defend a democratically elected government in the Democratic Republic of Congo and stopped US-backed rebels from taking over diamond mines in that country and that he decided enough is enough and redistributed 95 percent of productive land that was illegally owned by 0,5 percent of the population — the white population.

Western world leaders are angry over the actions of President Mugabe and wish to make of him an example of what happens when one decides to go against their established norms of dominance.

When President Mugabe offered the hand of reconciliation at independence many of these people mistook it to mean that President Mugabe was going to be a good African and failed to realise that President Mugabe was no one’s lap dog and was actually extending to them African courtesy not an opportunity to be used and abused.

I find it amusing that the West and their kith and kin in Zimbabwe really thought Zimbabweans would interpret the removal of signs reading "whites only" as mission accomplished and that this was independence.

The war of liberation was not fought so that blacks could walk up and down First Street and not be asked by the police for a pass nor was it fought for them to have lunch in classy air-conditioned restaurants. President Mugabe and Zanu-PF after all their experiences pre-independence were not going to keep a system that catered for the prosperity and satisfaction of one race.

While others across Zimbabwe’s borders chose to become good Africans in order to be flooded with meaningless awards President Mugabe retained the birthright of his people. While others chose to ensure white prosperity and comfort at the cost of real empowerment, Zimbabwe went the other way and earned the respect of her continent.

One Bishop John Sentamu cut his dog collar on BBC as entertainment for his masters. Bishop Desmond Tutu was fed to us by CNN as the good African because he called President Mugabe a racist. Ian Khama boycotted the Sadc summit on August 16-17, 2008 to protest the outcome of the presidential run-off and was heralded as the new improved model of a good African.

On July 1, 2008, a week after speaking against President Mugabe at a party hosted by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Nelson Mandela was officially removed from the US Terror Watch List. In August this year Dr Wilmot James, MP and Kenneth Mubu, MP both from South Africa’s Democratic Alliance Party, released the report from their July 27, 2009 "Fact-Finding Mission Educational Mission to Zimbabwe".

Like good Africans their report was half fiction with malicious anti-Zanu-PF and President Mugabe undertones. The facts of this report are meant to ensure the reader and listener that President Mugabe has a hold on all aspects of life from politics, business and the general public and uses his power to punish those who refuse to see things his way. The report claims President Mugabe views the coming of MDC into government as a threat to his power and is now punishing those in politics and business whom he views as rivals.

The report accused the attack on the home and husband of Minister of Regional Integration and International Co-operation Priscilla Misihairabwi-Mushonga on Zanu-PF claiming the attack was meant to intimidate Minister Mushonga and have her relinquish her post in the inclusive Government because she is a political rival.

The two Honourable MPs claim to have met one of Zimbabwe’s success stories businessman Nigel Chanakira who they say has expressed relief over the new political dispensation, which he says has eased the climate of fear. According to their report Chanakira has "spent many bouts in jail" supposedly for his standing up against the Zanu-PF. I am still to find record of Chanakira being incarcerated for political or criminal activities.

The report also claimed that war veterans, and Zanu-PF machinery are being used as hit squads to suppress the opposition and that President Mugabe was in talks with Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea and South Africa to buy weaponry in order to wage a war on the people of Zimbabwe.

All this information is, of course, accredited to be from Justice for Agriculture who happens to be the very people who are involved in a massive decampaigning exercise against President Mugabe and Zanu-PF over the land reform programme. Surprising the two men on their educational tour and report never gave any indication that they approached President Mugabe and Zanu-PF seeking answers on these accusations they are now reporting as facts of what is happening in Zimbabwe.

This has been the direction that many of these so-called fact-finding missions on Zimbabwe have taken. Apparently one gets a hero’s welcome if they come to Zimbabwe, have some drinks with the "right people" and then produce a damning report of President Mugabe and Zanu-PF.

Lest we forget Human Rights Watch managed to produce a report based on hearsay and arm-twisted the Kimberley Process into sanctioning a fact-finding mission on the Marange Diamond Fields.

Zimbabwe’s judiciary has not been spared from this onslaught. The judiciary is accused of being biased, compromised and under the control of Zanu-PF whenever it passes judgment that is not favourable to good Africans.

However, when the State loses a case against a good African the judiciary is heralded as having stood up to the "repressive Zane-PF machinery" and of upholding the rule of law.

Judges in Zimbabwe were accused to have become an extension of the Zanu-PF machinery because they, like every other Zimbabwean who applied to be allocated land, were issued offer letters, and when the RBZ undertook to cushion sensitive sectors of the Government and industry through retention programmes and such the judges were further accused of being compromised.

When hospitals, and those in the medical profession were assisted with extra perks no one condemned them, when RBZ Governor Dr Gideon Gono introduced a scheme to kick-start industry no one condemned industry for taking money from oppressors, when Bacossi was introduced no one came forward and accused recipients that they were accepting bribes from their government.

One ex-Law Society of Zimbabwe president categorically stated that the administration of justice in Zimbabwe had been compromised because judges had applied for land and had been given offer letters by the Government and that they had been allocated houses by the RBZ.

Today she is one of the civil servants in the Prime Minister’s Office who are being paid a monthly salary that is equivalent to that of 70 teachers by Usaid courtesy of the World Bank.

The Prime Minister’s Office lacks transparency and has been heavily compromised by the extra legal monies that are being paid to the "civil servants" working from that office.

One wonders what really goes on in the office, public confidence has been eroded as such dealings have undertones of corruption and the Prime Minister loses the trust of Zimbabwe’s people.

We hope the lady lawyer and her colleagues realise that being a true Zimbabwean citizen comes before being a "good African".