A Critique of Jonathan Maphenduka’s THE RULE BY CONQUEST

News
While the book The Rule By Conquest: The Struggle in Mthwakazi by Jonathan Maphenduka is a must read for all those concerned with human rights and justice, it is important to observe certain undertones presented as uncontested facts; when in some cases these are suppositions and conjecture.

A Critique of Jonathan Maphenduka’s THE RULE BY CONQUEST: THE STRUGGLE IN MTHWAKAZI by Dr Samukele Hadebe

While the book The Rule By Conquest: The Struggle in Mthwakazi by Jonathan Maphenduka is a must read for all those concerned with human rights and justice, it is important to observe certain undertones presented as uncontested facts; when in some cases these are suppositions and conjecture.

:Ruled by Conquest" Book Cover
:Ruled by Conquest” Book Cover

The book draws from history, but I doubt whether it was written with the intention of being a history book. If it did draw its claims from research, even oral stories, it could at least have acknowledged those sources no matter how unreliable they could be. But alas, the potentially powerful work does not make reference to the litany of published work on the history of Mthwakazi, Zimbabwe, colonialism, decolonization process and the post-independence era in Zimbabwe.

If this was a deliberate omission on the part of the author and his editor then they did a huge disservice to their readership and undoubtedly a missed opportunity for the struggle in and for Mthwakazi. Perhaps, the author could have taken a leaf from another Zimbabwean writing almost 30 years ago from exile on almost related issues and he titled his seminal work; Nkomo: The Story of My Life. Once it is presented as someone’s story and his version then one can be forgiven for some glaring omissions.

Notwithstanding this book scores a first in many ways than one. Maphenduka is unapologetic in his stern condemnation of what he rightly describes as heinous crimes against humanity committed against the peoples of Matabeleland by both the British imperialists and the successor State of Zimbabwe.

He vividly depicts the meaning of rule by conquest as nothing but permanent servitude of the vanquished peoples of Matabeleland. This work is perhaps the first of its kind to reveal unambiguously that the Matabele nation has suffered two genocides in a century and the British hand is visible on both occasions.

Also, the book presents the strongest advocacy so far for the right to self-determination of Mthwakazi peoples. While many African peoples are still struggling to rectify the inconsistencies of the decolonization process, the case for Mthwakazi as presented by Maphenduka is very compelling indeed. Last but not least is the writer’s call for a peaceful resolution to the Matabeleland Question following international law and even suggesting that the UN oversee the process.

Book Title Whoever will read this book will likely ponder on the title ‘The Rule By Conquest’ which aptly sums up cruelty that characterized the subjugation of the vanquished Ndebele people. Pathisa Nyathi narrates this in ‘Uchuku olungebaliswe’ which depicts the sorry state of the defeated and dominated people. Noteworthy is that this so-called ‘conquest’ was conjured by dishonest men exploiting the services of mercenaries and other fortune seekers who were turned into the new masters to lord of the subjugated people.

The book title therefore captures the human rights excesses characteristic of the infamous ‘rule by conquest’ which the author claims has persisted since then.

The underlying theme on the Matabeleland Question In my view, the underlying theme of this book is the perennial ‘Matabeleland Question’ which is rarely talked about publicly but quietly influences most public decisions in Zimbabwe. For example, a simple local governance system like devolution was once fiercely resisted and even watered down during the constitutional reform process because it was falsely perceived as secessionist.

But like any country, Zimbabwe should foster national unity and cohesion while protecting its territorial integrity. That Zimbabweans of all ethnicities, races, classes and creed have achieved so much together is there for all to see.

Problems of inequalities are definitely a reality in a developing country like Zimbabwe. It often leads to unfair competition for economic opportunities among various ethnic and racial groups. Political violence and human rights abuses still resurface to distort the culture of democratic participation that all Zimbabweans strive for.

Maphenduka has belaboured the point on the treachery of the occupation of Matabeleland and its subsequent annexation. He narrates the pitfalls of the decolonisation process and how he feels it cheated the people of Matabeleland. The narrative creates a sense of victimhood and passivity on the part of the peoples of the region. This to me is an exaggeration, but that is not my point. The point is; why NOW? The writer, perhaps rushing to convey his message, paints whole communities with the same brush.

For example, his concept of Zezurisation is repugnant and not founded on facts, not to mention its misleading nuances. Zimbabwe’s ruling elite has never been exclusively Zezuru. Besides, even if it had been the case, the generality of people of Zezuru culture cannot be blamed for what a few opted to do or not do. Actually, prominent Ndebele people have always been club members of Zimbabwe’s ruling elite.

If indeed the people of Matabeleland are victims of ethnic segregation and domination, they cannot cherish nomenclature that views people in narrow ethnic lenses.

Back to the victimhood, the writer does not convince his readers about the reasons why the people of the region themselves struggled for decolonisation and not de-annexation. Of course, the then OAU had declared that colonial boundaries had to be sacrosanct, but even then, hardly were there voices for Mthwakazi’s sovereignty.

Even the venerable late Chief Khayisa Ndiweni did not espouse self-determination for Matabeleland, but a federal system in a single country. The dental surgeon, Dr Betrand, who was for Matabeleland was resoundingly rejected in 1980 elections. While Zimbabwe has its fair share of conspiracies, to think that ZAPU’s loss in 1980 was one such is stretching it too far. It is simplistic to think that tribalism could have been the mobilising ideology against Joshua Nkomo.

Maphenduka writes: ‘With the benefit of hindsight, it is now clear that Nkomo failed to exercise good judgment and discernment and that it is due to this failure that the people of Mthwakazi were thrown into the dark hole of tribalism that ZANU-PF has pursued relentlessly to deny them the basest human rights’[p54]. Here the writer contradicts himself from his avowed theme of rule by conquest.

How could Joshua Nkomo singlehandedly have turned Zimbabweans from pursuing their national objectives to venture into Mthwakazi issue which had not been raised at all? If Nkomo cannot be praised for his unparalleled commitment to true freedom for all people and his wise judgment to dissuade from plunging Zimbabwe into the barbarism of tribal conflict, then we remain an ungrateful people.

In any event, there is no precedent in Africa of a decolonization process that violated colonially created borders. Nkomo would have been out of step by calling for another Katanga or Biafra in Zimbabwe. Perhaps the writer is not entirely wrong on the conspiracy. Accordingly,

“There are at least four periods in the transition from Rhodesia to Zimbabwe during which the US and the UK offered opportunities to Robert Mugabe and his allies to attain power and then consolidate it” writes Timothy Scarnecchia in ‘Rationalizing Gukurahundi: Cold War and South African Foreign Relations with Zimbabwe, 1981-1983. This work and further reading including Vladimir Shubin (2008) ‘The Hot Cold War: The USSR in Southern Africa’ would help strengthen Maphenduka’s conspiracies on the powerful but invisible hand of neo-imperialism.

The point is that there were too many factors at play during and after the decolonisation of Zimbabwe for one to reduce it to simply tribalism. The writer seems to gloss over the colonial South African factor both at the initial subjugation of Mthwakazi and its undeniable complicity in the genocide by Gukurahundi. Remember Arch-imperialist Rhodes was a premier of Cape Colony in South Africa and his occupation company was British South African Company. Now I may answer the question, why now, which Maphenduka does not address to my satisfaction.

It is the socio-economic decline and the vulnerability of many ordinary people to joblessness and abject poverty that leads them to doubt their freedom in poverty.

The unresolved genocide by the State of Zimbabwe reinforces the impression and perception that perhaps the people of Matabeleland are not free from colonial bondage. Competition for limited economic opportunities worsens the situation as one ethnic group is perceived to be getting it all at the expense of those who perceive themselves as powerless.

Historical Justification for Self-determination As already pointed out, Maphenduka has overstretched the historical justification of the possible need for a decision on the self-determination of people of Matabeleland. Let me hasten to say, this question would not have arisen the way it has had a proper healing been done after the ethnic cleansing in Matabeleland. That there was once a sovereign Ndebele state in today’s Matabeleland is not an issue for debate. The debate then is: why were there no discernible efforts towards its revival?

Assumptions Needing Further Interrogation A number of assumptions made in this book may need further interrogation, not just as an academic exercise but to test the veracity of the claims advanced by the writer. The issue of dismissing colonial adventures on the one hand and on the other to draw upon the same colonially designed boundaries as justification for the Mthwakazi boundaries is contradictory.

Boundaries agreed to by King Lobengula and colonists are as suspect as the very so-called concessions purportedly granted by him. The writer says very little about Ndebele kings’ relations with their neighbours, an excuse that justified the destruction of the Ndebele State. It would be economic with facts if we were to claim today that those relations were cordial.

The other assumption one feels while reading the book is that only external forces were solely responsible for the end of the Ndebele State. This impression of a harmoniously united nation is contrasted to the numerous claims by both historians and creative writers. It is claimed, with some degree of exaggeration of course, that Ndebele social organisation was ethnically stratified with the minority AbeZansi dominating other groups.

It would be interesting for this book to have mentioned and even elucidated on the inkethabetshabi(tribalism) and how it created fractures in the nation. Since alleged tribal discrimination of Mthwakazi people is a dominant theme, interrogating the pre- colonial social relations would actually strengthen the claims the author seeks to advance. Tribalism or any form of discrimination is bad yesterday and today and should not be practiced at all.

This concern is related to the writer’s creativity with onomastics. Quite a number of place names are discussed, which perhaps need their own analysis. But we cannot ignore that of the name ‘Mthwakazi’ [see page 1]. It was not necessary for the writer to present this Queen Mu-Thwa myth as if it were a historical reality. For starters, we barely know about the San political organization let alone their supposedly 9th century dynasties. Would it not suffice to say the people of Matabeleland in their collective are sometimes referred to as uMthwakazi?

Perhaps, the writer could have said something about collaborators who have been an essential part of the subjugation and perpetuation of the humiliation of Mthwakazi people. Here one thinks of those chiefs who sided with colonial forces and even frustrated the continuation of the Khumalo dynasty after Lobengula.

Questions for Reflection Finally, there is an assumption that efforts have been made to bring up the Mthwakazi Question with the British. Furthermore, the writer suggests the case be heard at the United Nations. Of course, private letters to London can hardly constitute advocacy for self-determination. Two things happened simultaneously to Mthwakazi by that colonial conquest. One was the termination of the monarchy and the annexation of the country as it lost its territorial status as an entity and was reduced to a province.

Actually, the resolution of one issue does not necessary imply the resolution of the other. While pre-colonial Mthwakazi state was not a republic but a monarchy, there seems to be little enthusiasm for the restoration of the monarchy. Kings continued to exist under colonial rule elsewhere in Africa, and perhaps the restoration of the Khumalo dynasty is perceived as unlikely to change fortunes of Mthwakazi? A reader expected to hear that as well. Or better still, the advocates for Mthwakazi are only drawing selectively from Mthwakazi history to suit certain desires while banishing those realities that logically go along with any restoration.

Conclusion In my view, Maphenduka’s book is forward looking and re-kindling the Matabeleland Question which democratic Zimbabwe should not shy from facing and debating and even putting it to a plebiscite. The British recently conceded to the Scottish referendum for Independence which the people rejected. It is understandable, that the writer went to lengths to draw historical justification for a case that needs no such justification.

It is a brave attempt on a question that is normally whispered when it should be publicly debated. That Mthwakazi was conquered and annexed is never in dispute. That some citizens may prefer self-determination is their inalienable right that they are entitled to enjoy provided they have sufficient numbers to substantiate their choice.

Maphenduka further says this should be done peacefully. Indeed, such a development if it were to happen should be peaceful and based on the need for human progress rather than its stultification.