3. Severe Conflicts: Frustration-Deprivation
4.1. Introduction
“You should hear what Ndebeles say about Shonas, you should hear what Shonas say about Ndebeles.”256
Human identity has multiple facets that determine and give meaning to the formation of individual and community awareness; including such identifiers as race, nationality, culture, language, religion, social and family roles, and educational or
professional qualifications. However, for purposes of this research chapter those elements that shape ethnic-identity257will be the focus of attention. Ethnic identity-forming
narratives are stories that people tell in order to describe and explain who they are. These ethnic-identity stories are transmitted from generation to generation and most often function as a stabilising source; grounding the individual as ‘self-in-community’ with a sense of belonging and recognition.
Yet these same stories can also be motivated and fashioned by traumatic violence, historical bias, political machinations as well as the natural morphing of memories that become increasingly exaggerated with each subsequent ‘telling of the tale’. As ethnic- identity discourses imbibe a life of their own they contribute to the social construction of reality; producing either a positive or negative sets of outcomes. If they are acted on in a destructive manner, they quickly overshadow the perceptions of the current reality and an imbalance in socio-political relations ensues. This phenomenon of negative identity evolution is exemplified in the following transcriptions describing the contrasting views of the Ndebele-Shona ethnic divide as a result of the Matabeleland violence. From one Ndebele perspective:
“The whole conflict was a historical one. Shona speaking people have never forgiven the Ndebele for years of humiliation and domination through Lobengula and others. The fact that the Ndebele speaking people are perceived as foreigners, and the fact that for years – up to 1963 – the liberation struggle was dominated by Ndebele leadership in the person of Joshua Nkomo. There are historical reasons
256 Interview: SM1, Durban, South Africa – 07/03/07 – (Ndebele teacher, researcher and university lecturer).
257 This study intentionally uses the terms ‘ethnic/ethnicity’ in place of ‘tribe/tribalism’. While these words can and are often used interchangeably in circles of academia, reference to ‘tribal’ or ‘tribalism’ especially in the African context still carries derogatory connotations; reminiscent of the not-so-distant colonial past where phrases like ‘native’ and ‘tribal’ were laden with prejudicial intent meant to dehumanize the African.
104 why the majority has always had this sense that ‘we must sort out those people’,
‘we must get our own revenge’…”258 From one Shona perspective:
“I don’t think its something that really carries weight to the extent of wanting to influence the events of today. I don’t think it got as far as that, but in some circles you’ll find that those are just stories that are thrown around, if not to ridicule the people of Matabeleland, they are also used by some people to say ‘well, this is being used by Shona people to get back to Ndebele people because they are still bitter that we took their cattle or we took their women’ and things like that. But honestly speaking, I don’t think that it’s anything that can be used to interpret events of today or of the 1980s…”259
In the case of these two narratives, danger looms when the ethnic conflict story of the past is maximised (overshadows) or is minimised (disappears) in the unfolding story of present relational interactions and in so doing eliminates the shared or preferred future view of a meaningful co-existence among diverse ethnic groupings. To avoid distortion in the current reality, the narrative scripts of the past and the future must be integrated with an equitable and complimentary grip on the story of the present. Indeed, these ethnic identity-formation texts (both past and future) do influence and can transform present conflict stories for better or for worse.
The role of ‘ethnicity’ in the Matabeleland conflict is complex and nuanced.
Accordingly, in certain corners ethnicity has been privileged as a central organizing factor in the analysis of the 1980s massacres. In other corners, the position of ethnicity has been relegated to a marginal, if not dismissive position in the scheme of the state- sanctioned violence that unravelled at that time. In short, there are three categories of theories that attempt to explain the prominent, yet contested role that ethnicity has played in the Gukurahundi disturbances of Matabeleland in the early 1980s.
First, there is the idea of ethnicity as a functional instrument utilized to attain political recognition and status. Proponents of this theory would argue that the ethnic division plaguing Zimbabwe today did not exist in the past and that it was contrived by opportunistic politicians who played the issue of ‘ethnicity card’ as an effective tool of
258 Yap, K. 2001. Uprooting the Weeds – Power, Ethnicity and Violence in the Matabeleland Conflict 1980- 1987. Stockholm: Elanders Novum, 276 – (An excerpt taken from an interview conducted by the author, K.
Yap with Paul Themba Nyathi, Director of Zimbabwe Project, Harare, 1 December 1993).
259 Interview: SD1, Johannesburg, South Africa - 18/08/06 – (Shona Human Rights Lawyer).
105 mobilization assisting them in the solidification of their power, the silencing of their opposition, and the justification of heinous acts of violence.
“It has come to be understood in this country that that’s how we have used ‘tribe’.
Not for tribe’s sake…let us go further and say ‘tribe for what?’ That’s the
question. Power, it’s all about power - everything must be reduced to one word – power and probably wealth because power begets wealth.”260
“I think the whole thing to my understanding was basically mostly contorted as tribal…I hesitate to say ‘tribal’…but I think it was tribal yet at the same time…I understand the tactics that Robert Mugabe was using, you know, in as far as achieving his own political [ends]. Yes, it was manipulated tribalism, if I can put it that way, or tribalistic wars.”261
“I strongly believe it’s the politicians that deliberately divided us or make us aware that we come from two different major tribal groups. Like in our suburbs here, a number of my neighbours are Shona-speaking, I’m Ndebele-speaking. We relate very well, we share salt, we share sugar; I go away and leave my keys to my house to my neighbour. They go out and tell me they are going out for so many weeks – ‘you are in charge’. They have weddings, they involve us…But it’s only when the politicians comes that we suddenly realise ‘I come from a different tribal group; they come from a different tribal group.’”262
Second, a contrasting notion purports that actual, ancient ethnic animosities have existed for over one hundred years now and that these bitter generational grudges were duly aroused, surfaced and heightened by the unfolding political events of violent power- struggle in the liberation movement and the subsequent independence period from 1980 to the present. This ethnic-conflict view insists that there is an ingrained historic
incompatibility (albeit it somewhat inexplicable) between Ndebele and Shona that dates back to pre-colonial times.
“…for me when I go back and look at it and read about it – it’s not different from the genocide in Rwanda. It was some kind of attempt at ethnic cleansing. So that’s the issue. I think it goes back to…it probably goes back to the 1800s.”263
“…and I believe that even to this day, ZANU-PF believes that the Matabeleland people are a nuisance in Zimbabwe. But let me go back to the origins of this
260 Interview: PN1, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe – 30/03/07 – (Ndebele historian, author, researcher and archivist).
261 Interview: DN3, Johannesburg, South Africa – 30/10/07 – (Ndebele NGO worker facilitating trauma healing and reconciliation among rural Matabeleland communities and survivors of Gukurahundi violence).
262 Interview: AN1, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe – 12/09/07 – (Ndebele Church Leader and Peace activist).
263 Interview: DL1, Johannesburg, South Africa – 11/08/06 - (Ndebele Journalist employed as a business editor for a prominent newspaper).
106 brutality, this animosity…I think during the course of the struggle it was never made clear that Mashonaland and Matabeleland which made Rhodesia then, Southern Rhodesia if you want to call it that – were never one country. And whilst the people were busy, the two forces fighting, they never really emphasized the fact that we are dealing with a pre-colonial era where there are two states and that they didn’t really reconcile the facts of history. So when Mugabe came to power, he was aware that in Matabeleland he had no mandate to rule them; they were supposed to resort back to their pre-colonial era status and govern themselves.”264 Third, there is the conception of natural ethnic cleavages that exhibited along the lines of geographical location (Mashonaland / Matabeleland) and political party affiliation
(ZAPU / ZANU). These ‘natural’ ethnic fault-lines are not perceived to be instinctual or intentionally constructed and as such could be understood to be neutral. However, they were capitalized on and accentuated for socio-political and economic gain leading up to and throughout the Matabeleland conflict.
“Unfortunately there was the overlap between the political party and the ethnic group. It wasn’t an absolute overlap because there were Shona people who supported ZAPU leaders. But that is the problem that many people saw it in ethnic terms rather than on political ideological terms. In other words they didn’t see that Mugabe's intention was to establish a one-party state, they saw it as the intention being to try to wipe-out Ndebeles.”265
“It’s very unfortunate that the events of the 1980s took place in the Matabeleland and the Midlands province, which happened to be a place which was
predominately occupied by people of a particular ethnicity. But if you want to read too much into that…to want to label it or want to equate it to an ‘ethnic cleansing’, I think to my knowledge it is far-fetched. I wouldn’t want to add too much into that. I think that the…at that particular time, the majority of the people who then were in ZIPRA – were from the Matabeleland region and even when the destabilization took place – that is the place that they retreated to.”266
To this end, it matters little which theory one may gravitate towards to explain the ethnic quagmire emanating from the Matabeleland massacres, the resultant outcome has been the production of a narrative of conflicting identities whereby the Ndebele and Shona populations are imagined to be irreconcilable.
264 Interview: CM1, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe – 29/03/07 - (Ndebele Traditionalist and Cultural Activist advocating for a separate Ndebele nation).
265 Interview: DC1, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe - 13/09/07 (White Zimbabwean Human Rights Lawyer and politician).
266 Interview: SD1, Johannesburg, South Africa – 18/08/06 – (Shona Human Rights Lawyer).
107 The ethnic-based conflict narratives that surround the Matabeleland massacres are nested in four primary historical contexts: the pre-colonial era; the colonial period; the liberation struggle years; and the state-sanctioned Gukurahundi violence of the early 1980s. Within each of these time periods certain salient themes have emerged pertaining to, and fuelling the discourse of ethnic relations in Zimbabwe. The recounting of pre- colonial history surrounding Shona-Ndebele relations has reinforced a divisive mentality of clear ethnic distinction between the offended and the offender. Capitalising on these apparent fissures, the colonial rule appropriated its empirical agenda by enforcing certain racial and ethnic prejudices which laid the foundation for a clear policy of splinter and subdue along tribal delineations. At the onset of the Zimbabwean liberation struggle a season of reprieve from ethno-politics surfaced with Shona and Ndebele linking together in pursuit of independence from white colonial rule. However, this unification was short- lived when the liberation movement experienced a number of tragic internal divisions with each subsequent formation bolstering their support base along the edges of ethno- geographical demarcations. Finally, under the siege of the Operation Gukurahundi the fatal fusion between narratives of ethnic hatred and narratives of traumatic violence was solidified as a predominantly Shona-speaking Fifth Brigade unleashed a reign of terror on a primarily Ndebele-speaking civilian population residing in the Matabeleland region.