Whenever the word revolution is used, usually the context refers to a turning point on something.
When people talk about the “industrial revolution” the turning point was the exploitation of African resources to feed the industries and factories of Europeans, and the subsequent division of African countries among colonial powers at the 1884 Berlin Conference.
Even so, the 1917 Russian “revolution” by the Bolsheviks changed the nature and course of the politics in Russia who bearing, influence and impact remain tremendously effective today the world over.
Historical turning points have also happened in Zimbabwe in 1966 (as Rhodesia) when people of peasantry backgrounds militarily fought the colonial regime to gain political power in 1980, and in 2000 when politically independent Zimbabweans claimed their economic freedom by reclaiming their land, a birth right that their forefathers had been illegally dispossessed of by the white colonists.
The essence of the two turning points or revolutions in Zimbabwe has been to empower the black majority with political and economic power that deracialised the ownership of the means of production from being historically dominated by the white, to transfer the power to the black majority.
From the industrial revolution in the 19th century to Zimbabwe’s agrarian revolution, it can be ascertained that “revolutions” are a central part to the formation of the modern world or modern state as each revolution replaced an old economic or political order to effect complete change in the fundamental institutions of society.
The new institutions created under a revolutionary process are radically different from the preceding ones because their establishment are transformative in nature.
It is because of ideals and values found in a “revolution” that the histories of Russia, China, Cuba and Zimbabwe remain relevant to the people of the developing world. For Zimbabwe, its post-millennium “revolution” has remained a fundamental compass that has influenced people in South Africa and Namibia on the need to see the power of economic transformation once their people are empowered by having control of the biggest asset and resource, that is the land. Revolutions safeguard what they fight for.
Such is the influence that Zimbabwe has under the Zanu-PF party, in that its espousing of ideological values can influence millions on the correct thing to do.
It is unforgettable that some notable political leaders in Africa have emphasised the need for Africans to own land after having critical and serious debates on ownership of means of production after interacting with Zanu-PF institution.
Revolution or movement?
There are varying dimensions in understanding what can be different between a political movement and a political revolution.
However, it is important to understand that a movement is largely an event on a micro-level and is exclusionary in its approach while a revolution is on a macro-level and is a force of inclusion.
Movements rarely galvanise the people. No wonder during the time of the “civil rights movement” in the US in the 1950s to 60s, or during the time of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) since the late 1990s, these two “movements” were short-lived in that their span was limited only to ideas that were driven by their leaders and not coming from the people.
Likewise, Zimbabwe’s Second Chimurenga was a process of revolution that, unlike a movement, was supported by the greater sum of society and the black majority, leading to the overthrow of a white political system and its replacement by an inclusive establishment.
It is also notable that there are revolutionary movements, but most movements are not revolutionary. Revolutions are supported and campaigned for by the people.
As can be testified, while the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s in the US resulted in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, there was, however, no real shift away from the racist, Eurocentric government and culture in the United States.
Because there has been no change at institutional level, new movements like the Black Lives Matter are emerging, but their strength can never shake the racist US foundations against the African-Americans.
It can only be a revolution, and not a movement, which carries an idea that literally changes the rules of the game of life, politics or the economy.
Why compare Zanu-PF with CCC?
The year 2023 is a crucial year for Zimbabweans at home and abroad. While the year has just started, it is not wrong to project that its end will leave many malevolent political actors and activists who make up the “movement” of what they term “citizens” more frustrated with what they will witness, especially after the elections.
On many occasions, Zimbabweans have developed a tendency to compare the governing Zanu-PF and the West’s failed democratic project, the Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC).
At times the people overestimate their imaginations by reflecting that the revolutionary Zanu-PF will lose the harmonised elections this year.
One cannot compare a dying movement with an ever-rising revolution. The successes that Zimbabwe has undergone under Zanu-PF as formed by the 1960s and post-2000s revolutions cannot be measured and compared only by what has been accomplished with a single swing but also based on the impact and influences initiated by Zanu-PF and how that will shape the future.
Zanu-PF is an institution whose longevity and existence is determined not only by its strength to embark on initiatives that recognise the equality of all towards economic empowerment, but by its ability to have values and ideas framed through the sacrifices of the founding fathers.
It is the only major political party that has not sought to reverse the foundational principles that make Zimbabwe strong as it is, unlike the CCC movement which has failed to move beyond a mere name. It was through a tumultuous period that the democracy enjoyed today continues to be nourished through Zimbabwe’s diversity.
A lifeless movement
Historically elections in Zimbabwe have been a two-horse race. There is little or no likelihood to have a third political way in Zimbabwe. But a two-horse race is also good because it gives voters the opportunity to vote while their intentions are clear.
Basing on what is on the ground, competitive politics if a two-horse race is unlikely. There are times in politics when an opponent appears formidable, but that is not happening at the moment.
The opposition in Zimbabwe is lifeless and in whatever circumstance, President Mnangagwa is guaranteed a second term.
No miracle can happen to resurrect the opposition, which remains a movement that has no alternative to get the buy-in of a people who trust the party of the “revolution”, Zanu-PF.
From now on, it will be important to remind the conscious citizen that voting for a ‘movement’ is voting for a few people who are engrossed with the politics of entitlement and are unwilling to serve the nation.
It is through the idea of the revolution that today Zimbabweans are politically independent and economically free that the year 2023 will be a year of hoisting revolutionary principles.
Zimbabweans, remember we are one. This is homeland! – The Herald
