 |
| The Ballot or the Bullet |
In
1964, Civil Rights activist Malcolm X made a seminal speech, which is generally
referred to as the “ The Ballot or the Bullet”. In the speech, he declared that
1964 would be the year of either the ballot or the bullet, and that black
Americans needed to make their choice from the two. Malcolm, who was the more
radical of the crop of Civil Rights activists at that time, made the case that
freedom for the black man needed to be attained by any means necessary. At that
time, the words he spoke transcended religion but were steeped in colour. The
reason why the speech was seminal then, and is today is because the relevance
of the question even after nominal freedom was attained for the black man on
the African continent.
In
2011, a number of countries on the African continent were faced with similar
questions around the ballot or the bullet. The unfortunate thing is that on the
continent this question is often a Hobson’s choice, a choice that is
non-existent as the answer has often enough proved to be both – the ballot and
the bullet. This unfortunate circumstance, which has seen a number of countries
being plunged into civil strife and prolonged fighting between siblings and
countryman has been largely as a result of recalcitrant, ruthless, brutal,
frugal and undemocratic regimes who deliberately place a low premium on the
ballot, using the bullet to supress it.
In
the recent past, cases in point from the continent would include but not be
limited to The Ivory Coast, Kenya, and Madagascar. In addition to these
countries, which answered, both, the continent is replete with countries in
which the choice is non-existent in real terms. The consequences of the absence
of regime change via the ballot have had dire consequences, and the countries
that were party to the Arab spring are testimony to this. Egypt, Tunisia, and
Libya for long periods of time were countries in which the option of changing
regimes through elections was non-existent, leaving people with limited choices
between, not the ballot or the bullet, but the bullet and the bullet, because
often enough a choice to protest even peacefully, as can be seen from the
Syrian experience is a choice of the bullet, with the protestor on the
receiving end.
In
the absence of the peaceful and constitutional contest for power through
credible elections, the other options, as can be seen by circumstances that the
“Arab Spring” countries find themselves in, are options that do not auger well
for peace, stability and even democratisation itself. While the revolutions in Libya
and Egypt are worth celebrating because of their ability to remove die in the
cast dictators, the on-going life of protest and the insecurity that comes from
having gun totting militants roaming free is not a choice that one takes
easily, and shows the extent to which people were desperate for a new political
order in these countries. While it is easy to talk revolution, and to salute
revolutionaries, it is clear that in the 21st century more civilised
means of attaining freedom have to be given prominence.
In
2012, Zimbabwe is faced with the question that Malcolm x posed in 1964. Is this
the year of the Ballot or the Bullet? On the strength of a lived reality by a
lot of Zimbabweans during the war of liberation where the bullet was left as
the only choice, and also the carnage that is currently taking place in Syria, the challenges faced by the people of Libya
and the instability in Egypt, it would seem like the ballot is the easy choice.
In fact, where Zimbabwe is concerned the ballot should be the only choice.
The
ballot, granted, was secured in 1980 through the bullet. The fact that the
bullet was used to secure the ballot as a reasonable choice of going about
political business shows how important the ballot is. Looked at in perspective,
the struggle for self-determination and one-man one vote in Zimbabwe is one
that a lot of people, some who are still in our midst, scarified a lot for. The
estimated costs in Human life of the struggle for liberation in Zimbabwe is put
at a conservative 30,000 while thousands came out of the war physically scared
for life through one form of disability or the other, the number balloons to
despairing levels if you include the mental scars of that revolution.
Having
cost so much, the right for Zimbabweans to choose their leaders in a
politically acceptable non-physical manner deserves to be protected. Common
sense would dictate that those who lived through the reality of war would
understand the value of protecting the gains of that struggle. But
unfortunately as is often said, common sense is not always so common.
Paulo
Freire put it nicely when he postulated that due to political socialisation,
there was always a danger that the liberator could easily become the next
oppressor, because he or she has not seen any other way of governing. He postulated
that for a lot of freedom fighters, “ to be is to be like, and to be like is to
be like the oppressor”.
However,
since the struggle for liberation was about liberating Zimbabweans, and
contrary to popular history, was waged in different ways, not just by President
Robert Mugabe and ZANU PF, but also by the generality of the black population,
it is the responsibility of every Zimbabwean to safe guard the supremacy of the
ballot. ZANU PF cannot be allowed to monopolise that history, and fighting
credentials. It cannot be allowed to preside over the cannibalisation of our
struggle through the process of allowing our 32-year-old revolution to consume
its own children.
The
struggle for liberation in this country, while being for land and empowerment
of the majority population, was also about the sacrosanctity of the vote. In
1978, the Commander of the Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army (ZANLA)
said, ‘Our demand is just and legitimate. We demand a free and fair election
where international observers will oversee.’ Most of those entrusted with
presiding over the new state in 1980 seem to be forgetting this, and need to be
reminded not just by those who fought side by side with them, but by every
Zimbabwean that we do not want the bullet in any way, shape or form as an
option in our politics.
It
needs to be unequivocal that the people of Zimbabwe, given a choice between the
ballot and the bullet, declare that the struggle over that choice was fought
and won in 1980, and that the Ballot is the only choice that will be
entertained.
