One United Africa is the solution to Africa’s problems – What Junk!!

Original Post Date: 2005-06-21 Time: 00:00:00  Posted By: Jan

[Here is a piece of junk written by one of these “Black African Intellectuals”. The following comments are from my old school Chum: TheBeardedMan. He writes:-

I dunno if you saw this – one of the most verbose, useless and politically paranoid pieces I have ever had the “joy” to read. Not only is it full of “factual innuendo” (and, to a very large extent, factually incorrect), but it entirely misses the point. Should somebody actually read through it, I fear that if they haven”t died of old age, they will no longer care one iota for Africa in general, or Zimbabwe in particular (out of sheer fatigue) as it reveals the true essence of black rule. To suggest that “United Africa” is the answer is ludicrous! In my mind, the author has never set foot in Zimbabwe and has relied solely upon supposition, lies and assumed fiction….

You can visit TheBeardedMan”s Blog at: http://thebeardedman.blogspot.com/where you will see other commentaries about Zimbabwe.

My own comments about the concept of the United Africa as a solution to Africa”s problems:

The United Africa is currently a big thing here in S.Africa. In fact, the “African Parliament” already exists here in Johannesburg – in MidRand to be exact. The AU – African Union – is a bigger and more complex White Elephant, than the OAU.

The OAU has a disastrous track record. The OAU”s real purpose, was to unite all of Africa to attack those nations still run by Whites. Other than that, the OAU served no purpose.

I am opposed to the whole AU concept. There is this “big dream” to unite all of Black Africa under one banner, and I doubt it will be achieved. But even if it is, I doubt, that it will solve this continent”s problems.

The person who wrote this, is merely trying to come up with various excuses for creating a United Africa. I actually fear a United Africa because the Dictators and the Marxists and the One-Party-States will end up dominating it. I fear that what little good is left in Africa will be squeezed to death by the evil.

In my view, a divided Africa would be better. If each Government were forced to spend all their time and effort working on the betterment of their own countries, rather than jetting around the world trying to play “Super power politics” – then Africa would be better off. Africa”s problems in part, come from the fact that African politicians want to engage in the excitement of First World politics while ignoring the problems at home. African Politicians should be sitting, day and night figuring out how to grow food and how to sort out things like building roads, etc. These are not “sexy” tasks. But Africa needs to do this before it tries bolder things. It needs to learn to walk before it can run.

But I see a general Black Political insanity taking root. They want to put the cart before the horse. They want to pretend that they are the equals of the G8. They, the rulers of tinpot nations want to emulate the successful Western and Eastern worlds – but as they strut the world stage, their people are dying, and wars rage on endlessly.

Uniting Africa will not solve any of its problems. The Blacks don”t need political solutions. There is already too many political thoughts. People need to spend more time WORKING, and less time talking.

My Tax Consultant was saying to me the other day: He sees prominent Black politicians on TV each morning talking about grandiose plans of how to solve this and how to do that… He sees these S.African Politicians with lots of rhetoric, and lots of hot air, talking BOLDLY about the future they are creating… and then, he remembers… but hold on… I heard the same guy… saying the same thing on Tv 3 years ago… and here he is again? Clearly, as my Tax Consultant observed, they are going nowhere – but heck – they sure are doing a lot of TALKING!!

And that”s it. Black African Politicians know how to talk. They can talk, and they are full of hot air and full of plans and ideas… but see how many… if any actually materialise.

Where, for example, is Mbeki”s much advertised “African Renaissance?” Huh? Do you see it anywhere? I don”t. Black Africans are excellent talkers… but when it comes to action, and getting things done… nobody can match or beat the record of White Africans. We didn”t talk so much, we spend our time focussing on making things happen. That”s why our stuff worked and their stuff never did. That”s why we succeeded and they never will.

Here is a lot of political hot air from a “Black African Intellectual.” Jan]

The United Africa Organization – UAO

Leading the match to African Unification and Democracy

June 2005

The Crisis in Zimbabwe

The solution is ..The United Africa

By Papa Yalae

1982 in Africa, another Traditional African State confronted another Modern African State and demanded genuine autonomy. An African Ethnic group challenged the omnipotent political power of a government of an African State and demanded “true” political justice. The Ndebele Ethnic Group of Matabeleland, a Traditional African State, demanded power-sharing with the Modern African State of Zimbabwe in order to protect their ethnic identity and share in the economic wealth of the State of Zimbabwe. Since then, the Modern African State of Zimbabwe has been thrown into serious political crises, a political situation quite characteristic of the Modern States of Africa. These crises emanate from genuine post-independent political disagreements between Traditional Africa and Modern Africa but reflect the historical political rivalry between dominant Ethnic Groups in the Modern African State. In Zimbabwe, the dominant Ethnic Groups are the Ndebeles and the Shonas. The Ndebeles, the Ethnic Group of Matabeleland in the Modern African State of Zimbabwe, questions the legitimacy of the political authority of the government of Zimbabwe, a government they believed is wholly controlled by the Shona Ethnic Group. In effect, the people of Matabeleland, since independence in 1980, have been demanding real autonomy and common control of the resources of their traditional lands. Like in many African States such legitimate political demands almost always result in political crises and military confrontations. According to reports from the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace in Zimbabwe and the Legal Resources Foundation of Zimbabwe, it can be surmised that the political demands of the Ndebele People unleashed a ferocious Shona-led military assault on the people of Matabeleland between 1982 and 1987 and as a result created an almost irreconcilable political disagreements between the Shonas and the Ndebeles of Zimbabwe. The rapidly deteriorating political situation of Zimbabwe is indicative of political impasse. The current political situation in Zimbabwe is so tense that one can only conclude that another military confrontation is imminent.

The question that always arises from such military confrontations in Africa is this: why is it that post-colonial political crisis is still a frequent occurrence on the Land of Africa. A careful analysis of the frequent crisis in Africa that at times leads to ethnic annihilation of an African Ethnic Group by an African Ethnic Group reveals that the seeds of political instability and ethnic destruction were sown into the African body politics in the colonial period, specifically by the inglorious partition of Africa. A careful analysis also reveals that the solution to such crisis in Africa is..The United Africa. The proposed United Africa nation is the one continental African nation that will certainly garner the capability and the willingness to end these crises permanently. Political crisis has become a sad feature of the African political landscape because post-colonial Africa has not established appropriate political structure, appropriate political system and an appropriate political ideology to neutralize the debilitating effects of the balkanization of Africa through the partition of Africa. To understand the true nature of the political crisis in Zimbabwe and its similarity to other African political crisis and to diagnose an appropriate remedy to eradicate this debilitating political disease afflicting Zimbabwe and Africa, one must take a critical look at history. Let us look at the history of Zimbabwe.

Political History of Zimbabwe

Ancient Zimbabwe

History tells us that the earliest settlers of the Modern African State of Zimbabwe are the Khoisans, which dates back to 200 BC. But, it is also believed that the original inhabitants of Zimbabwe were the San Bushmen who were displaced by the Bantu Migration about 1500 years ago. During the great Bantu migration of Africa, the Shona Ethnic Group finally settled in the eastern part of the Modern African State of Zimbabwe. The Shona were established as a social and political group for centuries in the present-day Zimbabwe when the Ndebeles arrived. In 1837, the Bantu Matabele People settled in southwestern part of Zimbabwe after a long migration from the south. Evidently then, the two major Ethnic Groups of Zimbabwe, who are fighting each other for political supremacy of the Modern African State of Zimbabwe, are indigenous Africans, the children of the Land of Africa, who migrated on their vast god-given land and finally settled on the African geopolitical territory now known as Zimbabwe. This is not unique to Zimbabwe. It is a common African historical event.

Pre-Colonial States of Zimbabwe

Before the arrival of the Ndebele Ethnic Group, the Shona Ethnic Group dominated the territory and controlled the coastal trade routes. The Shona People established strong identity and a system of government. Even though the Shona lived in dispersed settlements they created well organized political states as source of centralized power. Each Shona State was headed by a paramount chief who have a court that advised him about most important decisions. The head chief often received substantial payment in the form of tributes from his territory. Various Shona Empire arose and fell to other Shona States that became powerful during that period. But, the Shona Empire, which arose in the 17th and 18th century fell in the 19th century to the Ndebele Ethnic Group from the south.

By the mid-19th century the Ndebele Ethnic Group that migrated to this territory established a powerful kingdom and maintained control over the geopolitical vicinity until the European occupation in 1890. The Ndebele People, like the Shona People, maintained a highly political and effectively organized society. The Ndebele Kingdom had a hierarchical political relationship between the people and the kingdom and that gave the Ndebeles a strong sense of belonging to a socio-political group – The Ndebele Ethnic Group. This sense of belonging was greatly expressed through military prowess and it enabled the Ndebeles to conquer other groups who they integrated into Ndebele society and given a new identity. The strong sense of belonging indicates that the Ndebeles, like many other African Ethnic Groups, believe strongly that it is the socio-political group that will always protect them socially and politically. The African, including the Shona and the Ndebele, have a passionate feeling of belonging to the “Natural Group”, the social group that provides care and sharing and protection.

As can be seen, both the Shona Ethnic Group and the Ndebele Ethnic Group have their own strong social identities and effective systems of governance thus creating a political situation that requires the creation of appropriate political structure and appropriate political system to prevent political clashes. Appropriate political arrangements are essential to preventing extremist ethnocentric politicians from creating ethnic hegemony in the geopolitical area. Because of the current political structure and system, ethnocentric tendencies towards ethnic hegemony are prevalent in Zimbabwe and are fomenting ethnic hatred which then leads to ethnic clashes. Clearly, the pursuit of political supremacy in Zimbabwe that began before colonialism is creating the fear of ethnic hegemony among the people of the two major Ethnic Groups who live in close proximity. Clearly, the Shona and the Ndebeles are seeking to control the geo-political vicinity and since pre-colonial days, the two Ethnic Groups have been very much distrustful of each other because of the fear of domination. Though ethnic desire to grab political hegemony has been problematic in Africa even before colonialism, colonialism actually aggravated these knotty political situations by transforming ethnic mistrust into ethnic animosity.

Colonial Zimbabwe

Africa”s resources attracted colonialism and Zimbabwe was not spared from European encroachment. In the 19th century British and Boer traders, hunters, and missionaries started encroaching in the area now know as Zimbabwe. In the late 19th century the first European settlers arrived and in 1888 the King of Ndebele signed a concession giving mineral rights to the British South Africa Company, which named the territory Rhodesia in 1894. In 1889, the British South Africa Company gained a British mandate to colonize what became Southern Rhodesia and promoted the colonization of the region in order to control the land, labor, and precious metal and mineral resources. The Ndebele Ethnic Group, the indigenous African political power then, opposed the Europeans colonialism and rebelled but were defeated by the European settlers, who established European political supremacy over the Ndebele and the Shona Ethnic Groups. Both the Ndebele Ethnic Group and the Shona Ethnic Groups see colonialism as repulsive and being abhorrent to political domination and distrustful of the Europeans, both Ethnic Groups staged unsuccessful revolts against colonialist encroachment on their native lands between 1896 and 1897.

The British South African Company ran Southern Rhodesia until it became self-governing (under European settlers) in 1923, and became part of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland from 1953-63. In 1953, Britain created the Central African Federation, made up of Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), Northern Rhodesia (Zambia) and Nyasaland (Malawi). But the Federation broke up in 1963 when Zambia and Malawi gained independence. The demise of the federation meant that the Ndebeles, the Shonas and the European settlers have been incorporated into one geopolitical entity then called Southern Rhodesia, the government of which was controlled by the European minority.

So, Zimbabwe (formerly Southern Rhodesia) is composed of three major groups of people – the Ndebeles, the Shonas and the Europeans. The Ndebeles and the Shonas are the indigenous Africans and form the overwhelming majority of the people in the then Southern Rhodesia. The Europeans, which constituted the minority group, grabbed power and imposed minority rule and adopted the colonial tactics of playing one African Ethnic Group against other in order to disrupt the balance of power and to divide the Africans. Such tactics aggravated the fear of ethnic domination and resulted in great mistrust and even hatred among the Africans. In the then Southern Rhodesia, the Shona and the Ndebele Ethnic Groups were divided until the imperative need for an Africa unity front to overturn minority rule compelled political leaders from Shona and Ndebele Ethnic Groups to form one political group. Without a doubt, colonialism aggravated ethnic mistrust and provoked ethnic animosity but compelled “marriage of necessity” but not “marriage of sweethearts”. Colonialism, through its machinations, tactic and despotism did not create a “nation of goodwill” based on mutual trust among the Africans. On the contrary, colonialism and its successor global subjugating systems, seek to prevent African unity front in order to achieve the exploitative and dominating goals against least resistance.

By incorporating various Traditional African States and changing the balance of power and employing “divide and conquer” tactics, colonialism cultivated virulent ethnic animosity in Africa. Colonial tactics were attempts to prevent African unity front against European settlers. Colonial machinations were political ploys to eliminate any effective challenge to the colonialist objective of maintaining a permanent control of the resources of Africa. Undoubtedly, such political ploy, which has persisted to this day, has created ethnic enmity all across Africa even in many geopolitical areas where there were strong inter-ethnic affinities. Colonialism destroyed the African Affinity and replaced it with the African Enmity. Ethnic enmity has endured up to this day in all Africa and if these colonial structures are not dismantled ethnic animosity will endure forever much to the detriment of Africa.

Pre-Independent Zimbabwe The “marriage of necessity” compelled by minority rule created one multi-ethnic liberation movement. But, the loose political marriage between the Ndebeles and the Shonas, two rival Ethnic Groups of Africa, could not survive under the political reality of pre-independent Zimbabwe as it became too apparent before independence that the colonial political structure of Southern Rhodesia will not change and that the Ethnic Group that wins the first elections has the greatest chance of establishing ethnic supremacy.

Until 1963, there was one main liberation movement, known as ZAPU – Zimbabwe African Peoples Union. In 1961, after two multi-ethnic political groups have been banned by the European controlled minority government of Southern Rhodesia, ZAPU was formed by politicians from both Shona and Ndebele Ethnic Groups. At this time, all Ethnic Groups in the former Southern Rhodesia supported ZAPU. But in 1963 the “marriage” crumbled. ZAPU split along ethnic lines, a year after its formation. A splinter group, the Zimbabwean African National Union (ZANU) was formed by politicians from the Shona Ethnic Group, thus setting the stage for a fight for post-independent political supremacy between rival African Ethnic Groups, a rivalry pre-dating European colonialism.

At first, the two political parties were not ethnocentric as both parties had membership from all Ethnic Groups. However, over time, differences began to emerge. ZAPU recruited mainly from the Ndebele-speaking western region of Zimbabwe, and ZANU mainly from the Shona-speaking eastern regions. ZAPU created a military wing ZIPRA and trained them in Russia. ZANU created ZANLA, a military wing, and trained them in China. Like the political wing and the Ethnic Groups that control them, the two armies, ZIPRA and ZANLA, came to see each other as rivals. There were many battles between them when they met, both inside and outside Zimbabwe. In addition, ZIPRA and ZANLA competed with each other for territory and support and frequently fought and killed each other. Before Zimbabwean independence there was a clear indication of deep-seated mistrust and animosity between Shona and Ndebele.

Aside from ethnocentric ideologies, there were no major ideological differences that divide Shona-controlled ZANU and Ndebele-controlled ZAPU. ZANU was not formed because of policy or ideological differences with the ZAPU leadership. ZANU was formed purely on ethnic grounds. The Shona People could not accept an Ndebele led party and feared that Ndebele leadership of a dominant political party will lead to Ndebele political supremacy after independence is achieved. As a result of the political split, the fight against colonial domination took an ethnic turn with the Ndebele firmly in support of ZAPU and the Shona in support of ZANU. The formation of ZANU marked the first time in the history of the former Rhodesia, in which a political party was formed purely on ethnic grounds. The rivalry and the mistrust between ZAPU and ZANU were so deep that at independence, their two armies, ZIPRA and ZANLA could not be incorporated as one Zimbabwean army. Although, the campaign for independence gathered strength under these two political parties, the Shonas rallied around ZANU and the Ndebeles rallied round ZAPU in much the same way the Ndebeles had rallied around their traditional monarchical system. There were serious political rift between the Ndebeles and the Shonas but the political pressures by their respective political parties, ZAPU and ZANU and the military pressures by their respective military wings, ZAPRA and ZANLA, resulted in the dissolution of the Central African Federation in 1963.

In 1964 the Rhodesian Front, the European minority controlled political party, tried to persuade Britain to grant independence and when Britain refused, the party unilaterally declared independence in 1965 thus continuing with minority rule. This sparked international outrage and economic sanctions. The United Kingdom called the declaration an act of rebellion but did not reestablish control by force. The unilateral declaration intensified the guerrilla war against the minority rule, with rival ZANU and ZAPU operating out of Zambia and Mozambique respectively. In 1965 the European minority government, banned all African Political Groups, imprisoning the leaders from both Ndebele and Shona Ethnic Groups. When they were released, the leaders of the two ethnocentric political groups in the then Rhodesia formed the Zimbabwe Patriotic Front. They denounced any government that seek to perpetuate European domination and continued to lead the military wing of the party, the Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army, from bases in Mozambique. In 1974, the major African nationalists groups – the Zimbabwe African Peoples Union (ZAPU) and the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU), which split away from ZAPU in 1963 – were united again into the “Patriotic Front” and combined their military forces, at least nominally. Like events in other African States, colonialism created a temporary unity (” a marriage of necessity”) between rival African Ethnic Groups in the geopolitical area.

The political and military pressure of the Zimbabwe Patriotic Front and the international economic sanctions weakened the European minority government. In 1978, the European minority government yielded to the military and political pressures and opted for negotiated settlement. Elections for transitional legislature were boycotted by ZANU and ZAPU. The new government, Zimbabwe Rhodesia, failed to gain international recognition and the civil war intensified. In 1979 Britain decided to broker a peace agreement between all political factions in Southern Rhodesia. At a conference in London held by the British government an agreement was reached between the British government and all Rhodesia”s political organizations. The Lancaster House Agreement led to a peace agreement and a new constitution, which guaranteed minority rights. The agreement ended hostilities and sanctions and set the stage for pre-independence elections.

Elections were conducted in 1980 but like in other African States, the political group controlled by the majority Ethnic Group, in this case the Shona Ethnic Group, won convincingly and formed the next government. Despite the elections, Zimbabwe was a seriously divided African State at independence in 1980 because the importation of foreign majoritarian democracy granted the majority Ethnic Group, the Shona, inordinate political power much to the chagrin of the minority, the Ndebele. The unsuitability of foreign systems to the socio-geopolitical diversity of Africa became greatly manifested in Zimbabwe, just like in other African States, when soon after independence the new government began to have serious problems with the demands for power-sharing from the Ndebele of Matabeleland.

Independent Zimbabwe – The Period of Fear: Entumbane and Gukurahundi – 1980 to 1987

African History indicates that the fear of the African by the African was greatly manifested in post independent Zimbabwe. The fear of indefinite domination by the rival Ethnic Group, the Shona, led to political disturbances in the provinces of Matabeleland, the traditional territory of the Ndebele Ethnic Group. This fear was not eliminated after independence when a few cabinet positions were allocated to Ndebele politicians thus attesting to the fact that post-independent distribution of a few cabinet posts to the political leaders of disenchanted Ethnic Groups is not an acceptable power-sharing political mechanism that can sustain peace in Africa. Just like other African Ethnic Group (The Ijaw of Nigeria), the Ndebele People did not accept a few cabinet positions as enough power-sharing with the Shona People because it did not assure them protection of ethnic identity and sharing in the political power and the economic wealth of Zimbabwe. Distribution of cabinet post did not even mitigate distrust and animosity between Ndebele and Shona.

Distrust and ethnic animosity began to spread soon as after independence and made it very difficult to integrate the two liberation armies into the Zimbabwean army. Distrust and animosity did not dissipate after independence because the people of Matabeleland and the people of Shonaland have always existed in an uneasy political relationship before European encroachment. The uneasiness is due to the fear of ethnic domination which compelled each Ethnic Group to raise ethnocentric armies. From the first days of the war of independence, there were two separate guerrilla armies, one for each Ethnic Group. In 1980 when Shona-led ZANU assumed power in an independent Zimbabwe, many Ndebele were dissatisfied by their lack of political influence, and a number began to agitate for secession. As a result of the agitations borne out of fear, it was impossible to integrate the two liberation armies – ZIPRA and ZANLA. By the end of 1980, only a few ex-military cadres had been integrated in the Zimbabwean army. The remaining ex-combatants who could not be integrated were settled in the cities. Many ex-ZIPRA cadres were settled in Entumbane in Bulawayo, where they lived close to civilian suburbs. Their dissatisfaction became infectious and spread within the civilian and the ex military population in Matabaleland. Even cursory look at the post-independent Zimbabwean political situation indicates that the widespread dissatisfaction was due primarily to post-independent imposition of foreign political systems which are essentially a “winner-takes-all” political system. Ndebele dissatisfaction of the political system led to two periods of military confrontations between the Shona-contolled Zimbabwe government and the Ndebele People of the provinces of Matabeleland. The two periods are Entumbane and “Gukurahundi”.

Entumbane

The first military confrontation took place in Entumbane in November 1980 started by an uprising by ZIPRA, the ex -military wing of ZAPU, the party controlled by the Ndebele Ethnic Group, who resides predominantly in the Matabeleland provinces of Zimbabwe. The new Zimbabwean government controlled by the Shona Ethnic Group responded by instructing ZANLA, the military wing of ZANU, the political party also controlled by the Shona Ethnic Group, to destroy ZIPRA at Entumbane, Bulawayo, the traditional capital of the Ndebeles of Matabeleland. ZIPRA and ZANLA fought pitched battles. Even though two political parties fought militarily, in actuality, the fight was between two African Ethnic Groups – The Shonas and the Ndebeles. Again in 1981 there was another military confrontation in Entumbane which also in actuality was an ethnic fight to gain political supremacy for the Shonas but for the Ndeneles of Matabeleland it was an ethnic fight to gain maximum political protection from ethnic domination. Around the same time open skirmishes between ZANLA and ZIPRA also broke out in various integration camps throughout the country. An estimated 300 people were killed. Cessation to the hostilities was brought about when the leadership of both parties intervened. By the end of the military confrontation, a heightened fear of ethnic annihilation began to grip Matabeleland.

The military confrontation at Entumbane was the first indication of the new post-independent political reality of Zimbabwe. The reality is that the Shonas are effectively in control of the geopolitical area of the Land of Africa and it brought home to the people of Matabeleland that the Ndebele Ethnic Group, by losing the pre-independence elections, has totally lost the race to the political supremacy of the geopolitical area. Entumbane was a vivid indication that the power of a major Ethnic Group that used to be the controlling power in a geopolitical area, has been lost through the imposition of a foreign political system unsuitable to the political reality of Africa. The Ndebele Ethnic Group, being the dominating African political power of the geopolitical area before the advent of the Europeans, wanted to share power after independence, a political strategy that may have been dictated by population size. Contrary, the Shona Ethnic Group being the majority Ethnic Group of the geopolitical area wanted to either reverse the pre-colonial political power balance against the Shona by grabbing power with their majority population through elections. The Shona won the election and the Ndebele, being the minority African Ethnic Group in the area lost the pre-independence election because of population size. With the loss of this election, the Ndebeles have always felt a great threat to their ethnic identity and to their quest for maximum political protection from political domination. The Shonas, on the other hand, seem empowered and feel justified to monopolize and control all political jurisdictions, all political institutions and all political apparatus in Zimbabwe. Although the Ndebeles, like the Shonas, have contributed immensely to gaining independence for Zimbabwe they feel permanently powerless as a result of a loss of an election – the pre-independence election. The Ndebeles, like many African Ethnic Groups in similar situations all across Africa, feel politically decapitated by the loss of pre-independent elections. The loss of political power, the potential loss of ethnic identity and the fear of ethnic demolition has gripped Matabeleland since the military confrontation at Entumbane. The fear of the African by the African, which is epitomized by the fear of Ndebele or Shona by Ndebele or Shona in Zimbabwe, have unleashed a venomous political vendetta amongst Zimbabwe”s Ethnic Groups thus providing fertile grounds for frequent eruption of political instability in Zimbabwe. The eruption of “Gukurahundi” was therefore not surprising.

“Gukuruhundi”

The sense of fear of fellow Africans that gripped Zimbabwe after Entumbane did not mitigate political tensions but rather accentuated the historical ethnic mistrust and animosity between Ndebele and Shona and it led to the violent eruption of another political upheaval – “Gukurahundi”- meaning strong wind. In 1982, government security officials discovered large caches of arms and ammunition on properties owned by ZAPU and when the Ndebele cabinet members were dismissed, accused of trying to overthrow the constitution, political unrest broke loose in Matabeleland. The ouster of Ndebele cabinet members sparked fighting between ZAPU supporters in the southern Ndebele-speaking region of the country and the Shona ruling ZANU. As a result of what they perceived as persecution of leaders and of their party, ZAPU supporters, some of them deserters from the army, began a loosely organized and ill-defined campaign of dissidence against the government. The campaign centered primarily in Matabeleland, home of the Ndebeles who consitutes ZAPU”s main supporters. The dissidence continued through 1987 and involved attacks on government personnel and installations, armed banditry aimed at disrupting security and economic life in the rural areas, and harassment of ZANU-PF members. Occasionally, the dissidents demanded reinstatement of the cabinet positions of expelled Ndebeles. More frequently, however, they called for the return of farms and other properties seized from ZAPU.

By early 1982 there were groups of armed dissidents in Matabeleland killing, robbing, and damaging property. The government responded by declaring a curfew in areas of Matabeleland and sending in the army in an attempt to suppress dissidents. The North Korean-trained Fifth Brigade – the “Gukurahundi”, the strong wind, was deployed by the Shona-controlled government to blow the dissidents away into oblivion. The best trained army of Zimbabwe was call upon by the government of Zimbabwe to crush the rebellion by ex-guerrillas of ZAPU in the Midlands and Matabeleland provinces. The army attacked the dissidents as well as ZAPU and its unarmed civilian supporters, mainly in rural areas and at times in the cities. The “Fifth Brigade”, like a ferocious hurricane wind from the ocean, swept furiously through Matabeleland, arresting and interrogating anyone perceived to be pro-secessionist. The government felt that support for ZAPU meant support for dissidents. ZAPU denied it was supporting dissidents. Because the hurricane wind, the Fifth Bridge did not discriminate between a ZAPU supporter and a dissident a great many Ndebeles were killed during the period of “Disturbances.” Reports surfaced of widespread violence and disregard for human rights as the ferocious wind swept through Matabeleland. As a result of the activities of the security forces during these operations, the level of political tension rose in the country. According to a 2001 investigative report of the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace in Zimbabwe and the Legal Resources Foundation of Zimbabwe, between 1982 and 1983, the North Korean – trained Fifth Brigade – the “Gukurahundi”, composed of ethnic Shonas, killed between 2000 and 8000 Ndebele in Matabeleland. The violence of “Gukurahundi period was ended by the signing of the Unity Accord on 22nd December 1987. The intensity of the ferocious assault against Matabeleland reached a dangerous point and that compelled Ndebele leading politicians to seek peace. Ultimately, Ndebele leaders had no choice but to sign a peace accord in 1987, resulting in ZAPU”s merger in 1988 into the ZANU Patriotic Front – ZANU-PF. The peace accord merged the two parties to create ZANU-PF, leaving Zimbabwe effectively a one-party state. ZAPU was forced into a compulsory marriage with ZANU in 1987 to end a bitter anti-insurgency operation by the North Korean-trained Fifth Brigade, an operation aptly described as “Gukurahundi”, a ferocious strong wind that indiscriminately killed many innocent civilians in Matabeleland.

There are various explanations of why dissidence was widespread in the early 1980s in Matabeleland. The main reason for the spread of dissidence in Matabeleland was the historical deep-seated mistrust between the Ndebeles and the Shonas. The antagonistic ethnocentric emotions in Zimbabwe were unleashed by the Entumbane military confrontation. As a result of the great Shona-Nedebele mistrust, the government, controlled by the Shonas believed that the dissidents were active supporters of ZAPU, the party controlled by the Ndebeles. The government believed that ZAPU”s objective of supporting dissidence was to overthrow the government. Ndebele-ZAPU, on the other hand, was so distrustful of the Shona-controlled government that they believed the government was using the “dissident problem” as a ploy to crush ZAPU completely and create a one-party state. The Ndebeles believed the dissidence to be a genuine expression of dissatisfaction by the Ndebele populace and the empathy with the legitimacy of their cause fuelled resentment against the government that spread through Matabeleland. In the early 1980, ethnic mistrust and animosity were increasing so much that the fear of ethnic annihilation by the Ethnic Group that is in control of the political power of Zimbabwe gripped the people of the nation Ndebele and Shona alike. The Ndebele People believe up to this day that the military assault by para-military forces chosen exclusively from the ethnic group in power, and not bound by any military rules of conduct was indicative of ethnic nationalism and rampant fundamentalism to conquer and dominate the whole country, by eliminating genuine concerns of minority ethnic groups by any means even if it means committing genocide and ethnic cleansing. Their belief was learnt credence when the entire Shona national executive members of ZAPU, the political party dominated by the Ndebeles did not win even a single seat in the Shona provinces of Mashonaland and Manicaland in the 1985 elections. Shona-Ndebele Mistrust deepened and fear gripped all Zimbabwe. Fear of ethnic annihilation or domination was on the increase and it compelled the people of Zimbabwe to seek protection from within their Ethnic Group thus attesting to an African political fact that the African Ethnic Group believe sincerely that ultimately the security of the Ethnic Group rest solely on the unity of the Ethnic Group not on the magnanimity or the humanity of the government of the Modern African State. The ethno-military confrontations during the period of “Gukurahundi” have left a huge, raw, unhealed wound among the people of the Matabeleland since they are unwilling to forget. They believe it was a massacre of innocent Ndebeles. It is a sad outcome from the “Gukurahund” violence that the people of Matabeleland have come to believe that they are the target of a war not against dissidents, but against the Ndebele and their political party, ZAPU.

In the 1985 elections, during the “Gukurahundi” – the period of fear, the majority Ethnic Group, the Shona gave ZANU-PF increased majority in the elections, gaining 67 of the 100 seats thus signifying to the Ndebeles that the Shonas either condone or are apathetic to the militaristic policy of the government against the Ndebeles. The Ndebeles on the other hand overwhelmingly elected ZAPU in Matabeleland in the 1985 elections thus signifying to the Shonas that the Ndebeles support the terrorizing spree of the dissidents who have been eliminated by the strong military policy of the government. Despite the violence against the Ndebeles by the Shona controlled government, the people of Matabeleland were not kowtowed by the fear of annihilation to join the ruling political party but were instigated to vote against it. Fear has compelled all Ethnic Groups to seek protection from their political party, that is, from their Ethnic Group while at the same time intensifying resentment between them. Matabeleland”s lingering resentment was more than apparent in the 2000 election when every single parliamentary seat in the region went decisively to the opposition party. This result of post-independent elections in Zimbabwe is indicative of ethnic unity within the African Ethnic Group and it is also indicative of serious divisions among African Ethnic Groups, creating a political situation that always result in political impasse leading to tensions, instability and secessionist demands and in some instances to ethnic cleansing – the ethnic annihilation of one African Ethnic Group by another African Ethnic Group, Africans who have lived in close proximity for ages before the advent of colonialism.

The period of fear characterized by the military confrontation of Entumbane and Gukurahundi was a direct result of the inappropriateness of the political structure and the political system of Africa and African States. The military confrontations also attest to the ineffectiveness of the political formulae of allocation of a few cabinet positions to disenchanted Ethnic Groups in post-independent Africa, a political formulae often used to cultivate ethnic unity and to eliminate dissension. The distribution of political post to a few members of rival or disenchanted Ethnic Groups is politically ineffective as it does not dissuade disenfranchised and disillusioned Ethnic Groups from agitating for political and economic equality in the distribution of the national power and wealth. As the political impasse in Zimbabwe and in many Modern African States have vividly revealed, the allocation of political post is not a panacea to the problem of lack of equitable sharing of political power and economic wealth between Modern Africa (Shona-controlled Zimbabwe) and Traditional Africa (Ndebele-controlled Matabeleland). Entumbane and Gukurahundi are the result of the political failures of a political structure, system and formula embraced by the Modern African State of Zimbabwe. In a nutshell, the politically dangerous outcome from the military confrontation of Entumbane and Gukurahundi is due to the great Shona-Ndebele mistrust that has persisted because of the existence of defective political arrangements bequeathed to Africa by colonialism. Lack of trust led to Entumbane and to the infectious increase in the number of dissidents during Gukurahundi. Lack of trust made the government more ferocious. Lack of inter-African trust led to the killing of Africans by Africans. Without a doubt, the annihilation of an African Ethnic Group by an African Ethnic Group and the fear of the African by the African, a recent African political phenomenon, can permanently be prevented only by the existence of appropriate political structure and system in all Africa. Entumbane and Gukurahundi have left a deep scare on the face of Africa and must not happen anywhere in Africa again. To ensure that it does not happen anywhere in Africa again, the current political structure of Africa must be changed to suit the socio-geopolitical diversity of Africa.

Independent Zimbabwe – The Period of Monopoly & Consolidation: 1987 to 2000

The contemporary history of Zimbabwe indicates that after the period of fear that resulted in a coercive and involuntary unity of ZAPU (Ndebele-controlled) and ZANU (Shona-controlled) to create ZANU-PF (Shona-controlled), the government of Zimbabwe began to move quickly to monopolize and consolidate the power of the state in the hands of a sub group of the Shona Ethnic Group. In 1987, the posts of president and prime minister were combined into executive president and in 1989, a new constitution allocated the position of Vice-President to an Ndebele. Although there was a rejection of the proposed one-party state in a referendum, Zimbabwe, by its political structure and system of governance became effectively a one-party state as power was inordinately concentrated on a few people and a few political group within the Shona Ethnic Group. Like in many one party state the world has produced the party controlling the government keeps winning elections despite serious dissatisfaction with the government. ZANU-PF won the parliamentary elections of Zimbabwe in April 1995 which gave the ruling party a stunning victory with 63 of the 65 contested seats, and in 1996 the party won the presidency again for another six-year term, thanks to the votes of the majority Ethnic Group of Zimbabwe, the Shona. Monopolization of state power by the Shonas, permitted by the political structure and the political system, effectively marginalized the Ndebeles thereby augmenting the political concerns and intensifying the fears of the people of Matabeleland.

Emboldened by the success of the strategy of monopolization of power through military confrontation, the government of Zimbabwe plunged deeply into the politics of African conflicts. In 1999 Zimbabwe became militarily involved in the Democratic Republic of the Congo civil war. The political adventure became increasingly unpopular and precipitated the formation of a new opposition political party – Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). The 1998-2002 involvement in the war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo drained the coffers of Zimbabwe thus increasing the economic sufferings of the Zimbabwean People. The unpopularity of the military involvement in another African State and the inability to sustain the astronomical cost of the war doomed the strategy of extra territorial political expansion by the government of Zimbabwe. The political adventure in the Congo did not only fail at a great cost to Zimbabwe but more importantly it confirmed internal and external fears that the Shona-controlled government of Zimbabwe is not seeking maximum protection for the Shona Ethnic Group through monopolization and consolidation of state power but is seeking expansion of the territorial power of the Shona Ethnic Group. Rightly or wrongly, the Ndebele Ethnic Group became even more apprehensive of the political intensions of the Shona Ethnic Group and were more determined to resist what they believe is new-age colonialism by an African Ethnic Group. The strategy of Shona geopolitical hegemony devised by Shona-controlled ZANU-PF to extend Shona power beyond the borders of Zimbabwe unfortunately exacerbated the fear of perpetual Shona domination among the Ndebele People of Matabeleland. New-Age Colonialism in Africa, which is the 21st Century colonization of the African by the African is increasing the fear of the African by the African in Zimbabwe and in many part of Africa and is heightening political tensions between the African and the African – between the Ndebele and the Shona.

Independent Zimbabwe – The Period of Increasing Political Tensions: 2000 to 2005

Between the year 2000 and this month June 2005 a series of political and economic events have occurred that have contributed greatly to the heightened political tensions in Zimbabwe. Political tension in Zimbabwe is on the crescendo and that has caused many people within and outside Zimbabwe to surmise that another military confrontation may be imminent. The Zimbabwe People are apprehensive of the current political situation in Zimbabwe because of the politics of land, because of election disputes and because of succession maneuverings.

The Politics of Land – “Hondo yeminda”

The politics of land is increasing the hardship and aggravating the uncertainties of the Zimbabwean People. Squatters have seized hundreds of farms owned by European Africans in an ongoing and violent campaign to repossess the lands they claim were stolen by settlers. It is a popular consensus in Zimbabwe and Africa that land reform in Zimbabwe is long overdue in view of the fact that it is more than 20 years since Zimbabwe gained independence that ended European minority rule. But, the much awaited land reform has not yet been carried out. Redistributing land has been on the political agenda since independence, but more than 20 years has passed after the independence of Zimbabwe and the end of European minority rule and no effective land policy has been implemented to address the land problem. The current economic crisis, the worst ever, has fuelled even more hunger for land. Most indigenous African farmers are struggling to grow enough to eat on tiny plots, while the huge commercial farms growing tobacco, Zimbabwe”s largest export, are in the hands of European Zimbabweans. Lack of adequate land for the indigenous Africans to grow food, the result of the concentration of the best land in the hands of European Africans, who grow tobacco for export, has caused great economic hardship to many Zimbabweans and as a result discontent with the government”s rule is greater than ever before. Dire economic hardship has created great uncertainties in the countryside and is likely to foment more instability. As a result of the economic adversity there have been general strikes followed by arrests and beatings of hundreds of people. The government is ferociously cracking down discontented citizens. The leader of the Opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) was arrested twice in June 2003, amid a week of opposition protests and was charged with treason. In 2001 the Finance Minister publicly acknowledged economic crisis and stated that Zimbabwe”s foreign reserves have run out and warning that the country faces serious food shortages. In 2003, inflation hit 300%. The country is faced with severe food shortages because the farming system has been destroyed. In 2004, the IMF estimated that the country had grown one-third poorer in the last five years.

No-one in Zimbabwe is arguing about the need for land reform, since overwhelming number of Zimbabweans support land redistribution. Unfortunately, the government of Zimbabwe has decided to use the popular support for land reforms to reverse the dwindling political support for the government. The government of Zimbabwe is losing its grip on power due to intense political discontents and severe economic hardships and needs a popular political issue to reverse it political fortunes hence the use of the land reform as a political instrument to maintain power. Cognizant of the popularity of land redistribution, the government of Zimbabwe decided to forcibly evict European-Africans farmers from their land. The implementation of the land policy with force has indicated to the Ndebele People that the Shona-controlled government is unwilling to use negotiations to settle political and economic disputes but is quick to use force because of the overwhelming power bestowed to the Shona-controlled government by the political structure and the system of governance. The Ndebeles believe that the government is using another internal confrontation to boost the popularity of the ruling political party hence the resort to buy the confidence of the rural electorate through belligerent racial policies. Not only has the government land policy antagonized the European Community and the United States of America, two groups of foreign powers who are capable and may be willing to help Zimbabwe out of the economic doldrums, but more importantly has increased the wariness of the Nedebele People of the government”s propensity to use force to achieve political goals. Resorting to sheer political bravado against internal and external critics to sail through economic crisis is indicative of the existence of bad political arrangement that grants inordinate power and as a result inadvertently encourages irrational implementation of a good economic policy. The Ndebele People distrust the government intensions in the land policy. The Ndebeles believe that the Zimbabwean government of ZANU-PF hopes to gain political capitol by generating tensions between European Africans (particularly farmers) and impoverished rural Africans, by blaming their hardships on the Europeans.

It seems to the Ndebeles that because of the inappropriate political arrangement of Zimbabwe the Shona-controlled government is always empowered to use force. Even though the Ndebele support the land policy since it is an African empowerment program, many Zimbabweans are complaining that a well-intentioned plan to promote African economic empowerment has become a ZANU-PF vehicle for the enrichment of party supporters and officials. It is claimed that senior government, police and army officials have unashamedly helped themselves to the best farms, evicting ordinary people already settled on these properties. Undeniably, there is an urgent need for land re-distribution in Zimbabwe. Undeniably, the politicization of the process by ZANU-PF has condemned millions of citizens to starvation and death. Zimbabwe is in throes of pain because of bad implementation of a good policy. The economic empowerment of rural Africans is a good policy but it must not be implemented to the detriment of the people it is suppose to help – the citizens of Zimbabwe many of whom are starving to death. Many Ndebeles believe that as a result of bad implementation of a good policy the Shona Ethnic Group will disproportionately benefit since they constitute the ZANU-PF, the political party grabbing the best land for its members. Disproportionate allocation of the best lands to ZANU-PF supporters is aggravating the already worse political mistrust and animosity between the Shonas and the Ndebeles. To the Ndebeles, too much Shona power has encouraged the use of force as the only political and economic solution in Zimbabwe, the adverse consequences of which are overwhelmingly borne by the Ndebele People of Matabeleland. The land policy has added to the dismal plight of the Ndebele People of Matabeleland, who have been neglected for years by the government in the hope that residents of the region would realize their mistakes of supporting opposition to the ZANU-PF cherished dream of one-party-state. Undoubtedly, the land policy is worsening the plight of the Ndebeles and aggravating the already worse political situation in Zimbabwe.

Because of the implementation of the land policy, the good policy of empowerment of rural Africa may fail. Thus, “Hondo yeminda”, which refers to the land policy may suffered similar fate of Entumbane and Gukurahundi which like “Hondo yeminda”, were ill-fated political instruments of creating political crisis to consolidate power in the hand of the Shona-controlled government and to coerce opponents into submission. A dangerous political situation has been generated by the bad implementation of the land policy, a situation that has been exacerbated by the current severe economic hardship. Ironically, the economic hardship is strengthening the government because it is weakening the opposition, not the government, since the backbone of opposition support, young, educated, urban Zimbabweans are leaving the State. As a result of the economic situation the government and the opposition MDC are now pitted against each other in a low-intensity political fight. More than 20 years of monopolization of power by ZANU-PF has resulted in economic chaos, street protests and deep social divisions. These problems facing Zimbabwe may be indicating that ZANU-PF firm grip on power may be starting to slip and it may also be indicative of impending military confrontation as the people of Matabeleland are greatly disenchanted by the political and economic situation of Zimbabwe. Political crisis seems to loom dangerously on the political horizon of Zimbabwe. Political crisis resulting in economic hardship in Zimbabwe continues unabated and it continues to cause a great concern for the future political stability of Zimbabwe. Unquestionably the frequent crisis in Zimbabwe is the result of political monopolization of state power by a group of people within the Shona-ZANU PF, people who are unwilling to share power with any group in the geopolitical vicinity. Monopolization of political power has been permitted by the existence of inappropriate political arrangements and that is fomenting political crisis and creating economic hardship in Zimbabwe.

Election Disputes

Another series of events that are causing great concern and have a great potential to ignite another violent military confrontation are the frequencies of election disputes. With all the economic hardship and general strikes, the ruling party is still winning overwhelmingly in parliamentary and presidential elections. When the ruling ZANU-PF won two-thirds of the votes in parliamentary polls the main opposition party – Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) claims the election was rigged in favor of ZANU-PF. The opposition believes the election was rigged because of the magnitude of discontent that has arisen out of the severe economic hardship. Notwithstanding the economic hardship and uncertainty of Zimbabwe”s political future, the ZANU-PF still dominates what is virtually a one party state occupying 147 out of the country”s 150 parliamentary seats. In March 2002, ZANU-PF won the presidency for another six years term but the opposition claims that was also a blatantly rigged election whose results were coerced by the ZANU-PF militia. It is obvious that if these elections were free and fair then it was decidedly determined on purely ethnic grounds by the majority Shona Ethnic Group under the “winner-takes-all” political system.

Shona votes to keep the government in power but Ndebele votes to express discontent with the government. Due to government neglect of the provinces of Matabeleland, the Ndebeles of Matabeleland are always in opposition to the government of Zimbabwe and always vote against ZANU-PF, the political party controlled by the Shonas. Voting against ZANU-PF has resulted in government neglect of Matabeleland and as a result districts in Matabeleland, such as the rural trading station in Lupane, have become degenerated and desolated and have been in economic stagnation for years. To win Matabeleland in the next election, the government of Zimbabwe began a belated infrastructure development of Matabeleland after the 2002 elections. In spite of the government efforts to win Matabelaland in the next elections through provision of development projects such as the reactivation of the Zambesi Water Project and construction of a multi-million dollar university, the electorate of Matabeleland, again, overwhelmingly spurned ZANU-PF political party in the March 2005 parliamentary election although the ZANU-PF won overwhelming seats, thanks to the majority Shona Ethnic Group. The continuous rejection of the Shona-controlled government of Zimbabwe by the Ndebeles through elections attest to an African political fact that the political formula of granting development projects to disenchanted Ethnic Groups in a geopolitical area to display a sense of government concern each time an election is imminent do not gain political acceptance nor promote peace and unity. What the African Ethnic Group want, Ndebele and Shona included, is not pre-election political largess but durable maximum political and social protections and genuine sharing of the political power and the economic wealth of the nation.

Due to ethnic voting pattern in Zimbabwe many outsiders are convinced that, fraud and intimidation notwithstanding, ZANU-PF actually won a majority of votes in the recent election because of the great support from the majority Shona Ethnic Group who are prepared to keep the government in power no matter what. With large majority in parliament, Shona-controlled ZANU-PF has passed a law limiting media freedom to stifle criticism, another indication of the power of the political party in control of a one party state. As a result of this law, there is increasing fear of the loss of individual liberty in Zimbabwe and fear has heightened uncertainties about the future of Zimbabwe. Fear of the loss of liberty is contributing to the growing popular discontent. The mass discontent arising from political fears and severe economic hardships, which indicate that the majority of the people are willing to vote the government out of power and the ethnocentric voting pattern which indicates that the majority of the people are willing keep the government in power at all cost, is causing many election disputes. As a result of the disputes the political and economic uncertainties in Zimbabwe is increasing very rapidly. Clearly, political uneasiness has been mounting since the Zimbabwe parliamentary election. Not even the declarations of support from other African States in the region and a seal of approval from the Southern African Development Community is easing the growing political tensions in Zimbabwe. The Zimbabwe political situation, undoubtedly, is a clear testimony of an African political fact which states that the African Ethnic Group, Shona and Ndebele included, will not stop fighting for political and economic equality in the Modern African State even if the government of the African State has unflinching political and economic support from external powers, international or Africa.

Succession Tension

Contemporary African History tells us that ethnic politics is the norm in Zimbabwe. But recently sub-ethnic politics is featuring prominently in Zimbabwean politics and it is contributing to the escalating political tensions. Political tensions are mounting in Zimbabwe because of succession maneuverings within the Shona Ethnic Group. Political positioning to grab power subsequently is creating dissidence within the ruling ZANU-PF. A politician from the Karanga, the largest Sub-Ethnic Group of the Shona Ethnic Group, broke from the Shona dominated ruling ZANU-PF late 2004 and was then alleged to be plotting a palace coup. He had been tipped as a potential presidential successor and last year made an abortive bid for a vacant vice presidential post. The vice president post was given to a person from the Zezuru u, a smaller Sub-Ethnic Group of the Shona Ethnic Group. The President of Zimbabwe is a Zezuru, the group believed to be in total control of the government of Zimbabwe as they have accumulated inordinate political power in Zimbabwe.

The succession maneuverings is increasing the power of Zezuru at the expense of Karanga. The most senior representative in the Zimbabwean government of the Karanga Sub-Ethnic Group, the biggest group among the majority Shona Ethnic Group, and comprising over a third of the population, was relieved of his post. As a result, the Karangas now have almost no senior officials in the government while the president”s smaller Zezuru Sub-Ethnic Group, comprising around a quarter of the total population, has taken the top political and government positions. The demotion of all the top Karanga leaders in favor of people from the ZeZuru Group is beginning to cultivate dissidence and stir trouble within the ruling ZANU-PF. Though the Karanga leader has been offered another position the offer may be too little. The blatant political move to accumulate more power in the hands of the Zezuru has cause political chasm within the ruling ZANU-PF which was manifested by the collapse of the party congress. In the party congress ZANU-PF representatives from a smaller Ethnic Group – Mayinka who voted for the Karanga leader were expelled from the party along with five other non-Zezuru provincial chairmen for backing the Karanga leader. Such political move has created distrust within the ruling party. Grave political strains, which are becoming difficult to heal, has been created between the Karangas and Zezuru within the ruling ZANU-PF. The political maneuverings are adding to the political tensions that has gripped Zimbabwe due to the land reform, economic hardship and the state of belligerence between the Ndebele Ethnic Group and the Shona Ethnic. Political tensions are rising because the chasm within ZANU-PF may lead to a spin-off from the party which the ruling party may not be able to countenance and as a result may employ their strategy of violent confrontation to destroy the new party thus causing great political upheaval not only in the territories of the Shona Ethnic Group but also in the whole of Zimbabwe.

There has been speculation that two dissident ZANU-PF politicians, one from Karanga and one from Ndebele, who have lost their powerful positions within the government as a result of the succession maneuverings, are seeking to form a third political force between the current opposition – the Movement for Democratic Change and the ruling party – ZANU-PF . Since Karanga is the largest Sub-Ethnic Group of the Shonas and is politically valuable to the ruling party, a new political position has been offered the Karanga leader in an attempt to block the potential formation of a coalition political party between Karanga and Ndebele, the arch-rivals of the ZeZuru. Such an ethnic coalition between the Karanga and the Ndebele will certainly b

xxxxx Sign Up