Kae Matundu Tjiparuro
Have the Southern African Liberation Movements (LMs) now passed their sell-by dates, run their course, served their purposes, and are no more relevant and/or of any consequence to their countries next phase?
These are pertinent questions, as these movements, most of them years after the political independence of their countries, have now just been running on the crest of their so-called liberation exploits, their claim to having brought, through the nominal political independence of their respective countries, albeit not singularly and solely, it must be said. But at best, having been to a great degree instrumental thereto.
For the lack of a better term, these former liberation movements are still calling and/or referring to themselves as liberation movements. Why defies logic. Because the mission for which they were established, one would assume, is far from accomplished. As only a part thereof has been achieved. Which is the attainment of political independence and/or the flag independence. But because they have been stuck between the achievements of nominal independence, which is the only tangible and visible thing and/or product they are marketing and selling to the people, they are still clinging to the liberation movement label. This, as years of ruling their respective countries since the attainment of nominal independence, is their only claim to fame. As civil liberties, hence liberation, are the only things they can show to have given their peoples, these civil liberties have been unguaranteed most of the time. Which, for many of them, have never actually liberated these people other than through Machiavellian intuition, the foreign countries that politically rule these countries retreating tactically and strategically to take backseat positions.
Having thus at best been pretending to the indigenous to take over the reins of power, the political is, for that matter, just symbolism. Designed and controlled by the colonialists to continue with the plunder of natural resources of the African countries. While literally just warming the political benches in the political corridor as proxies of the so-called independent African national governments colonisers. While the former African nationalists and patriots, Africa’s would-be liberators and freedom fighters, are now essentially “legitimately” in the continued serfdom of the former colonial masters, now neo-colonial masters in the service of capitalism.
While the colonial powers, through their proxies, remain in charge of the fundamental, which is the economic power. Either indirectly through presiding over the economy by exclusively owning the means of production by remotely controlling the African statespeople, the so-called representatives of the people, thereby keeping tabs on the natural resources of these countries through the multinationals. Resources that are no longer owned by these countries themselves, that are endowed with them but by investors through rights, deliberately designed and engineered variously by the colonialists, and imposed on the Africans. Ironically, with the Africans themselves embracing the so-called democratic political systems designed to perpetuate the plunder of the resources of their countries. If any better, most African statesmen and women, if not all, are and have been no more than copycats of colonial models of democracy and constitutionalism. The essence thereof is purely designed and meant to hoodwink Africans into a false sense of political self-determination. Beholden to capitalist interests.
Truth be told, the former colonisers have never stopped the scramble for Africa, and as much for Southern Africa, from which the said liberation movements summiting in South Africa recently hail. Swapo (Namibia); the African National Congress (ANC-South Africa); the Mozambique Liberation Front (FRELIMO); the Popular Front for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA); the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU-PF); and the Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM-Tanzania). Was this really a summit of and for renewal, reform, reinvention, recommitment, reprioritising, and reconnection? Or just a nostalgic retreat of former liberation comrades? Yours Truly Ideologically cannot but pose the question.
Political observers and analysts are hailing the summit as a departure from previous ones. If only in one aspect. That the political parties this time around engaged in serious introspection. Unlike in the past when they would trade solidarities. While their Southern African proverbial Babylons were burning and continue to burn.
Be that as it may, one can also not help but ask, what is there to revive and renew about these former liberation movements? Other than going to the base. Such being their ideological foundation, original and/or adopted one along the liberation path. Besides for their commonality, which was the quest for the liberation of their peoples, and thus their patriotism and nationalism. That most, if not all, of these former liberation movements touted at one point or another Marxist-Leninist ideology. Which inclined them towards a socialist dispensation once the first phase of the revolution, political independence, had been achieved. Freedom and independence in these countries have been achieved. The latest to attain such were Namibia in 1990 and South Africa in 1994. The rest earlier. Despite this, all, with no exception, are stagnated in the political freedom phase. With no sign of preparing the ground for advancement to the next level, be that level the maturity of the political attainment phase. Not as an end in itself but to prepare the ground and lay the foundation for the next phase of their revolutions. That is if they still believe in the next phase of the revolution, which is economic emancipation. Economic emancipation in the context of the ideology these parties once adhered to. That is if they still adhere to them. If not, then what is the use of summiting? Other than for self-preservation for its own sake but not for the sake of advancing the revolution.
Yours Truly Ideologically cannot agree more with the view in some quarters that indeed all of these former liberation movements have reached their expiry date. Independence in their countries was the cardinal, if not the sole, reason for their establishment. Besides, it has been becoming apparent that they never truly believed, that is, ideologically so, in the second phase of the revolution. Thus, how can they transition their countries to the second phase of the revolution? They are seeing for themselves the signs of the times. Which is that they no longer carry the confidence of the peoples of their countries to take them to the promised land of the revolution. Foremost because ideologically they do not believe in such a revolution. Talks of internal and external threats are just kicks of dying horses meant to galvanise sympathy and empathy among the people. While the people themselves very well know and are aware that they can no more be fooled by these political parties. Whose main occupation has become clinging on to power for their own enrichment and that of their cronies.
As F. Mandondo (African Teacher) reflected on the Summit and the lessons that must have been learnt from it, he says True Patriotism is Service not slogans; True Sovereignty is Empowering People to live in Dignity; True Leadership is Listening , Reforming and Delivering; True Legitimacy is Earned not Inherited; and lastly but not least, it is no longer about the Past but about Now and the Future.
