Unnecessary Struggles against MDC

This fallacy also extended to the state media which showed signs of reforming towards objective and inclusive coverage. Optimists thought Zanu (PF) had reformed and was therefore a faithful partner in the inclusive government, having learnt from its past experiences that a lot of time, energy and resources should be spent on solving issues that affect the country than on scolding and chiding the MDC and its alleged propaganda sheets, such as The Zimbabwean.

But pessimists rightly observed this was intended to court and co-opt the opposition to amend Zanu (PF)s messes in the service ministries whilst Zanu (PF) continued to enjoy power in the power ministries.

When life started to normalise, the MDC members ceased to be Cdes and President Mugabe was imbued with all the highest titles of power that can be found on mother earth: the Head of State and Government and the Commander in Chief of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces etc.

Hate speech

More phenomenal was the return of hate and unnecessary anti-MDC articles in the state media, particularly The Sunday Mail and The Herald. Those who have been patient enough to read it in the recent past would be aware the notorious conveyer belts of hate speech are none other than the most famous antagonists of media democracy on the continent: Dr. Tafataona Mahoso and Professor Jonathan Moyo.

Though their pan-African analysis is given acres and acres of space, what these two postgraduates have tried to argue in the past; and what they still struggle to prove in the present; and at least where they converge, is on the assumption MDC, and indeed non-state media, are puppets of imperialists and therefore are pursuing imperialist interest, including regime change.

These articles are not only violating Article XVIII (i) of the Global Political Agreement …refrain from using abusive language that may incite hostility, political intolerance…or unfairly undermine each other but their forceful imperialist argument is too old fashioned and irrelevant in the 21st century.

Globalisation, enhanced by advances in technology, for example, has reinforced what Dr. Mahoso and Prof. Moyo call imperialism, making it difficult for any acclaimed original identity such as Pan-Africanism to exist exclusively.

Dr. Mahoso and Prof. Moyo write their one sided analysis in English – the first language of the imperialists. There are no English speakers in Africa, but English learners. Dr. Mahoso and Prof. Moyos formal dressing, which did not originate in Africa, is typical Victorian/British: a jacket and a necktie.

IMF support

The implication is not the two learned men must move around naked or put on animal skins to reflect pan-Africanist values. However, they may not see they are conveyor belts of imperialism in much the same way they accuse others, but what is visible to the naked eye is while claiming to be pan-Africanists, the two postgraduates are symbols, or rather, national flags of imperialism.

At the national level, Dr. Mahoso and Prof. Moyos only argument does not make much sense because apart from using the United States dollars, the legal tender of the imperialist – even after claiming total independence – we are also asking for balance of payment support from the institutions that are dominated by imperialists: the World Bank and IMF.

Dr. Mahoso and Prof. Moyos imperialist argument is not only primordial, but it does not inform on timely and pertinent issues affecting the country such as how best we should integrate our domestic policies such as the land reform programme in the global political economy for the benefit of the country.

Like it or not, if we do not interact with the imperialist as did the East Asian miracle economies after Second World War; and if we keep to ourselves as we did in the last decade, the globalising world will not wait for us.

We will continue to sing the mantra of imperialism for donkey years whilst other developing countries such as China, through interaction with imperialists, have progressed to become technology experts.