Rungano Dzikira
Forgoing a former colony to manage its own affairs (politically, economically) remain a challenge to most former colonizers as they tend to feel the need to continue playing big brother and meddling into former colonies’ affairs.
The Central Africa Republic (CAR) has over the past years has its own share of ‘independence’ with harsh experiences of political instability (since the country has experienced at least ten military coup attempts in the past decade) army mutinies, and an almost constant state of rebellion and nationwide demonstrations every now and again, with clear traces of France’s involvement, their former colonizer.
Parallels can also be drawn on Britain’s continuous involvement in Zimbabwe’s affairs. Soon after Zimbabwe’s independence, the country enjoyed good relations with its former colonial master up until the 2000 land redistribution programme which saw British farmers being made to co-exist with newly resettled black farmers when land was redistributed to the majority; instantly relations soared. And have never been any better.
Whilst the opposition might find it commendable to have Britain’s involvement, it is somewhat worrisome that United Kingdom (UK) Member of Parliament (MP), Kate Hoey who is also chair of the UK all-party parliamentary group on Zimbabwe has come out guns blazing at the Zimbabwean Government and calling on the international community to suspend Zimbabwe’s re-engagement efforts, as well as calling on the imposition of a travel ban on President Emmerson Mnangagwa.
Such a recommendation, coming from such a person should certainly raise eyebrows considering that this is one person who has never had anything positive to say about the country’s reign since President Mugabe’s era and worst off after the inception of the new dispensation. So really why would we expect anything different now.
Speaking on the 2018 July elections which the Southern African Development Community (SADC) declared to have been fair, Hoey pronounced that they had been rigged, advising the British Government not to accept President Mnangagwa. In her very words, and without any evidence she claimed, ‘Without doubt the election has been cleverly rigged but even worse is the fact that it is the military that is behind the regime and they are now unleashing a similar fear and terror campaign on leading opposition activists and curbing all protests by killing and arresting innocent Zimbabweans.’
From there she went on to disparage efforts by the President to set up a commission of inquiry to look into the August 1 shooting incidents, claiming that there was no need for an enquiry since ‘evidence’ caught on camera saw soldiers shooting civilians hence the orders to shoot must have been given by the army commander. Another reckless statement which was based on her assumptions. Clearly such a person can’t be considered neutral to assess any situation on Zimbabwe considering her unwavering bias against the Zimbabwean Government.
Hoey is one person who lacks objectivity, has never given the Government a benefit of doubt, and will grab any opportunity to disparage the new dispensation. Likewise she has been on record saying that, ‘the UK government must take a lead to ensure that the Zimbabwean Government is seen for what it is: a mark to Mugabe regime and one that deserves no support whatsoever.’ NB, the meaning of the word whatsoever. What objectivity do we then expect from such a person?
Again, this Wednesday, Hoey took center- stage at their House of Commons urging the international community to suspend re-engaging with President Mnangagwa’s regime and that there was need for action against Zanu PF since it had used lethal force in a crackdown against Zimbabweans protesting against economic hardships. Once again persisting with her mantra!
The real question is; were the protests purely on economic hardships or a well-orchestrated plan to merely destabilize the country? And why is the focus being merely placed on the response to the protestors and not the nature in which the protests were being carried out which led to security forces intervention?
At the same time, if we are to give the benefit of doubt that the protests were due to economic hardships, then isn’t she then contradicting herself considering that the reason why the President is calling for re-engagement is that sole reason of re-igniting the economy, and ultimately leading to economic stability. Food for thought.
