Life rotates on guidance or directions, human beings included, so it is in social and political life. Political parties and individuals are organized and guided by their ideologies or beliefs. It is therefore a prerequisite for a political party or an individual to stand firm for what he believes in. So, principled parties or individuals will stand while the spineless will fall or waiver. The fallen and spineless will, of course, end up in the pockets of others and be manipulated, used wittingly or unwittingly for their own interests, or they might end up behaving like misguided missiles. This is mostly reflected in expressions, actions, understanding of different situations, etc.
The point I am driving at is the recent accusations levelled against the Zimbabwe leader and the action taken by one of the Regional Councils against the imposition of the facilitator they were not comfortable with.
Human history is full of principled people, parties and states. Many of these principled people are today admired and hailed as heroes, martyrs, great men, etc. Even the Christian Bible itself teaches about people such as the apostle Paul who stood firm for what he believed in until the end.
In the contemporary history, we have countries in Asia and Latin America that stood for what they believed in and which are highly respected today. In our own Namibian liberation struggle, we have the Swapo leader who has been standing firm since he joined politics and who, because of his strong leadership, guided his party through challenging times. Of course, the course of events would be different had he not been a strongman and a man of his principles.
Now, on the Zimbabwe leader, the only sin he committed against the Western World is nothing other than his decision to distribute the land in order for all to benefit. Of course, he had to be punished, and therefore the aftermath is obvious.
My reaction is to one of the citizens’ comments in one of the talk shows on the situation in that country. According to the caller, the Zimbabwean leader should try and meet the requirements demanded. Apparently the caller means that the president should do what the West wants – maybe to give the land back to the former owners. Should the leader now give up what he believes in – his principles? What my friend should know is that people have principles. Giving up will be a betrayal of his cause.
On the issue of the refusal by one of the Regional Councils to attend a workshop because the facilitator was not welcome,t his is also a question of principles. People believe in what they believe in and are not ready to denounce their beliefs – it even falls within the sphere of their democratic right, like anybody else.
The argument that the decision was from the higher office, does not hold water since even the general public itself also registers its own dissatisfaction, say, on the laws made in the highest chamber of the State and sometimes even demands the repeal of the very laws or their amendments. Is this rebellion? No. It is democracy at work.