I refer to a secretive correspondence sent to me by one Wallace, with threats to my person should I not stop commenting on the political situation in Zimbabwe. In that communication, Wallace takes issue with my contribution to newspapers about the role of the military in propping up the quasi-military regime in Zimbabwe, as well as my other contributions on the socio-economic and political situation in Zimbabwe. He however makes threats without revealing who he is or whom he represents.
It is an ugly sociological and political deformity in a country like Zimbabwe to have someone (or a body) that refuses to see the decay that has been inflicted upon fellow Zimbabwean by a group of bloodthirsty thugs claiming political legitimacy through manipulated electoral events and processes. By what logic would one argue in defence of such chicanery? Again, I ask if Wallace (whoever he is/or represents) is real. Or he is a masked stooge sent out to eliminate off the face of the earth constructive engagement on Zimbabwe?
While violence works well for the cornered, it does no justification for Zimbabwe, a country that has endured years of violence, plunder, looting and individual enrichment of a select few to the detriment of the majority. In Wallace’s myopic view, one voice eliminated by the regime he studiously supports is work done and objective achieved, yet what he and his ilk amazingly fail to realize is the need for change amid realistic promises of a better future. That is what people voted for and that is what people have always dreamt of.
The regime might torture, maim and kill people, as it has done without fail in the last 27 years, but it offers no alternatives to the suffering it has visited upon Zimbabwe. Eliminate people, as many as they can, but surely, that’s no solution to the present quagmire we find ourselves in. People are fed up and it is prudent for the regime to heed this and pave way for change, and better change. Killing those who offer constructive arguments and alternatives would require eliminating more than half of Zimbabwe and remain with the few sympathisers, who count to 43% of the electorate according to the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission’s dubious results of the 2008 poll.
In all honesty and sincerity, Wallace would not get away with the secrecy that characterises his professional life in a new Zimbabwe. In his email, he rightly notes that the dictator is going and the whole of Zanu (PF) is going and they will of course lose the run off. This statement shows his knowledge of the populace and conditions on the ground, yet unlike the dishonest steward in the gospels, he ignores the impeding end. His continued support of a system that is non-committal to any progressive idea is akin to flogging a dead horse, exemplifying total confusion! Why threaten constructive engagement towards a new and better dispensation? Of course Wallace is paid to do so, but life’s worth is not only measured in monetary terms or through acquisition of trinkets dished out by the regime in exchange for support. My very deep concern with Wallace is the mystery that surrounds his soul in the later life. God hears the cry of the oppressed, and the blood of the innocent cry up to heaven.
Lastly, Wallace, where is the heroism of our erstwhile liberators when more than 80% of the population ekes out a dire existence under conditions of extreme poverty, hyperinflation, mass emigration of professionals, collapse of the education and health system, unbridled oppression and corruption, and state-sanctioned violence?.
 Eliminating individuals as his threats suggest may eliminate the voice expounding particular thoughts, but the thoughts will not be eliminated, for they are societal thoughts triggered by merely observing the surroundings. Come out in the open and face the consequences, if you dare.
Post published in: Opinions