IN DEFENCE OF THE MTHWAKAZI RESTORATION PHILOSOPHY

OPEN LETTER TO A
MR NGQABUTHO NICHOLAS MABHENA
POLITICAL ACTIVIST AND STUDENT OF MARXISM- LENINISM
FROM
DR MPIYESIZWE CHURCHILL GUDUZA
VICE PRESIDENT OF MTHWAKAZI LIBERATION FRONT AND MTHWAKAZIAN SCHOLAR
24thFebruary, 2017

Dear Mr Ngqabutho Nicholas Mabhena,
Re: Your Open letter In Defence of Dr Joshua MqabukoKanyongoloNkomo
1. Mthwakazi Restoration Greetings.
For the first time in a few days of continuous rainfall, we finally have sunlight shining over the horizon and I can indeed hear the birds singing again in my part of the world. In terms of which I am indeed honoured to receive an open letter from you Sir in your defence of the late Dr Joshua MqabukuNkomo.Without further a duo, let me respond as best l can.
2. Divergent Views
To begin with, there is no question that although we hold divergent political views, we do indeed come a long way as members of the human race who one way of the other have continuously engaged in the struggle for freedom. We have indeed accorded each other equal respect of human dignity throughout the yearswithin the context of the struggle for freedom.
But again there is no doubt that your interpretation of what the struggle for freedom entails is fundamentally different from the views I hold, yet it is the recognition of this dichotomy that has enabled us to respect each other. This of course is natural; we do not have to agree in order to respect each other. It is in this regard therefore that view your open letter as beneficial for us to continuously engage with regard to the political discourse that affects our people (I mean Mthwakazi people by the way) locally, regionally and internationally.
You have stated in your open letter that you find what you have termed our characterisation of Dr Nkomo shocking. It is difficult from where we stand to see what is shocking about our stance (and not what you refer to as insinuation) that had Dr Nkomo put the interests of his people, the people from Mthwakazi first before anybody else, as well as heeded the advice not only from Chief KhayisaNdiweni but from others within Mthwakazi, we would not have indeed found ourselves in this quagmire of suffering, whichever way one looks at it, politically, economically, socially, culturally and so on.
3. What constitutes a Restoration Agenda for Mthwakazi?
Unfortunately history constitutes facts in terms of how a series of events unfolded or transpired; under what circumstances in relation to what, where and why. What we do today in terms of ourown actions or otherwise undoubtedly will constitute history tomorrow. We cannot wish away historical facts because they do not suit us. And as such, there is no way here on earth or in any other planet any person can or could argue that if we had fought for and liberated Mthwakazithat we would have gone through hell inflicted by Zimbabwe and its regime on us. Not in a million years. That would not have happened.
It is in that regard that we did not insinuate anything but stated facts as they are. Added to that we did not write what you have referred to as a long article to the MRP. Rather we wrote an article stating the reasons why we as the MLF had no business in participating in an election of another country called Zimbabwe. Our article had nothing of interest to do with any political formation of Zimbabwe, but against any formation that seeks to identify with Mthwakazi but at the same time stating that it would participate in an election of Zimbabwe.
It was in that light that we vehemently denounced the activities of the so-called MRP, in that it purported to be pursuing a restoration agenda of Mthwakazi, but at the same time being a Zimbabwean political party. This by the way is a raging debate about what constitutes Mthwakazi and it restoration agenda. Therefore it cannot be reduced to anything that it is not, but a contestation of a body of ideas and setting out the direction that the restoration agenda must take to liberate Mthwakazi.
We have observed, for example, that the so-called MRP started by claiming that it was campaigning against Shona teachers in Mthwakazi, but today they are bowing down (as they prepare to take part in that countrys elections) before the very system that is deploying the same Shona teachers. To us that is hypocrisy, and this is not personal, neither is it anything else, but based on facts as they stand.This in a nutshell smacks of double standards; they appear not to know what it is they want. That submission therefore needs to be understood as comprising a series of debating and contestation points against any movement that employs double standards, instead a of firm and clear position. Hence we have said why dont they stop confusing people and come out in the open as the Zimbabwe Republic Party, which of course they really are.
4. Your defence of Dr Joshua MqabukoNkomo
With regard to Dr Joshua Nkomo; we have stated clearly that he preferred advice from the people who were not part of the fabric of Mthwakazi; the people who did not either share a similar history of a brutal annexation with Mthwakazi; the people who did not share the same cultural history and the people of Mthwakazi; and the people whose political outlook was clear from the outset of defining what kind of state they envisaged from which Zimbabwe derives its meaning.
5. The treaty of Versailles
With regard to the formation of states, it is noteworthy that the State of Mthwakazi predated the advent of European colonialism. What the Treaty of Versailles did in 1884 was to carve up Africa and its spoils among the white powers involving Britain, Germany, Belgium, Portuguese and so forth (during the scramble for Africa). These new boundaries were carved up arbitrarily to suit the interests of these European colonial powers and in so doing violated with impunity the existing boundaries of the African states. It does not mean therefore that they are acceptable and that they cannot be challenged with the specific purpose of reverting back to what they were before colonial penetration and conquest. To do so would render the whole struggle for freedom and justice irrelevant. As a matter of fact, it is the failure to address these imposed colonial boundaries that is at the heart of all conflict in Africa.
I am aware that any challenge to colonial boundaries at this time usually means either extending these boundaries by encroaching on neighbouring countries or bifurcating the existing unitary state into more than one new state. The pursuit of some form of a political structure that changes the form and structure of an existing unitary state is fraught with difficulties. In most instances, the groups that challenge the ruling regime usually arrive at such a juncture after genocide had been committed and demonstrable ethnic cleansing policies pursued by the ruling regimes, are seen and perceived to be inimical to the survival life chances of marginalised groups and nationalities such as Mthwakazi, in areas such as language preservation, education, access to employment and contracts, distribution of land, and the like.

I am also aware that the pressure to re-arrange the unitary state invariably has been met with strong arm tactics from the former European colonial powers, regional and the international community with vested interests. It is also met with plain rigid political thuggery from within the ruling regime of the country concerned that normally characterises long-serving dictatorships, aided by a compliant army and political party that is dependent on political patronage. However, for the people of Mthwakazi, the post European colonial years have been anything but daily contact with various forms of genocide, ethnic cleansing and various forms of internal colonialism.

What Dr Nkomo therefore failed to recognise Mr Mabhena, something which you have also failed to recognise as well, but which Chief Khayisa recognised was that:

A nation comprises a strong widespread feeling of identity and solidarity within a political community which equally embodies a sense of wellbeing,
Nationalism is characterised by widespread positive and negative perception of other political communities, and
Several states in Africa lack indisputable legitimacy as they are forcibly constituted by more than one nation.

You will Mr Mabhena agree with me that the Shona people have a natural widespread feeling of identity and solidarity within their political community, so are the people of Mthwakazi. Similarly, the Shona people whilst they express widespread positive perceptions amongst themselves, they equally and fundamentally hold negative perceptions about the people of Mthwakazi. Clearly therefore any country with these divergent positive and negative perceptions lacks indisputable legitimacy and must out of necessity for the ethnic groups or nationalities to co-exist, separate and revert back to what they were before European colonialism.

Mr Mabhena, it is fallacy to say and I quote: historically, the white minority regime used traditional leaders to divide our people. This is the strategy that the Mugabe regime has perfected over the years.The undisputed historical fact Mr Mabhena is that the people of Mthwakazi and those of Mashonaland had always been separate and divided. It is the white minority regime on the contrary who sought tounite them through violence under an imposed unitary state system. Mugabe on the other hand has never at any time tried to unite these two peoples. That is false. Your argument is not supported by a single shred of evidence. What Mugabe has tried to do and done long before he even became the ruler of Zimbabwe was to impose a superiority of the Shona people over those of Mthwakazi. I find your interpretation of history and analysis thereof highly misleading. I return to deal with this issue at great length below.

6. Your denunciation of Chief KhayisaNdiweni

The fact that Chief KhayisaNdiweniwas in Rhodesia as a Chief under the payroll of Ian Douglas Smith is neither here nor there, after all there is no chief even in present day Zimbabwe or for that matter anywhere else in Africa, including here in South Africa who is not under the pay roll of the ruling regime of government. We need to recognise too that not everybody in then Rhodesia was in Zapu or Zanu; others collaborated with the system whilst others did not.

The same situation applied here in South Africa, yet after post 1994 suddenly everybody was either or immediately associated with the African National Congress. In the case of South Africa prominent Chiefs like Bambatha were killed in 1906 supposedly for refusing to pay the poll tax, when in effect they were against the expropriation of their land. A few years after that the Union of South Africa was formed in 1910, incorporating Natal, Transvaal, the Orange River Colony and the Cape of Good Hope, various pieces of legislation were passed in the new Republic of South Africa which expropriatedland from the original inhabitants.The same situation happened in Mthwakazi. Not only were Chiefs forcibly used to collect poll tax, hut tax, dog tax, etc; but they were also used in the cattle destocking exercise (inkomozikondenywangabelunguemadibheni) in which millions of cattle were stolen from the people of Mthwakazi.

I am amazed that you locate the utilisation of Chiefs in advancing the interests of those in power only under then Zanu-pf regime. Just as Judith Todd in her book, Through the Drakness, A Life in Zimbabwe, showed how after DumisoDabengwa was humiliated by being imprisoned for no reason, he was later rewarded with bones to chew when he was appointed Minister of Home Affairs by his tormentor, Robert Mugabe. Similarly, after the destruction of the Mthwakazi state by European settler colonialists, some chiefs who did not tow the line were either killed or humiliated with bones. In most cases the original family tree of that chieftainship was totally replaced with a compliant one. President Zuma also does the same by awarding loyalty with cabinet posts; therefore it is not surprising that some so-called communists are in his cabinet. It happens all over the world. That is known as the politics of realism, for how can you have an adversary as your defence minister; that would be a blatant invitation to your own overthrow and demise.

Those Chiefs who did not cooperate were either killed or co-opted to serve the interests of the colonisers. There can be no doubt therefore that throughout Africa, just as in Mthwakazi, the ancient institution of traditional leadership and power was significantly violated, manipulated and altered. It is unfortunate that you try to draw parallels between Chief Khayisa and InkosiMangosutho Buthelezi without actually showing what Khayisa did that was anti the people of Mthwakazi. The reason you cannot do that is simply because Chief Khayisa did not at any time cooperate with the Smith regime to disadvantage the people of Mthwakazi.

To simply point a finger and say a person ngumthengisi without showing evidence ukuthiwathengisabani is unsustainable. In hindsight, it plausible to argue that Chief Khayisa could not join ZAPU because he knew very well that it was not advancing the interests of the people of Mthwakazi. This is perhaps the crucial reason why Chief Khayisa collaborated with the minority white regime of Ian Douglas Smith in pursuit of some kind of homeland for his people of Mthwakazi along the lines of South Africa. The fact this was not achieved has to be seen within the context of labelling considerations and the negative perception that Chief KhayisaNdiweniwas umthengisi.

Besides it important to recognise that at this time Nkomo was a towering political giant in the whole of Mthwakazi, an idol, a saint and a cult like figure whose support base would not hear nor see any evil necessitating them to ditch Nkomo and join Khayisa.The fact of the matter is that there are many instances in which Nkomo himself had been brought into negotiations with the white minority regime, at times such meetings were overt, at other times they were open. The overriding motivation for such meetings included the desire by the white settler regime to cut a deal with him in order to stop the war, but he would have none of it.

Negotiating with the enemy is not necessarily a bad thing. In South Africa we saw how Nelson Mandela took it upon himself to begin negotiating with the apartheid regime even before his own comrades knew about it, as a result of which he was called a sell-out, including from the sections of the communist party. In the case of Rhodesia, the white regime may have realised that handing over power to Khayisa who had no political base whatsoever was not worth the bother.

Yet Khayisa continued to make noises about Matebeleland throughout his tenure within the confines of the white regime.Chief Khayisa still recognised that the Rhodesian unitary state system was:

an imposter and distant;
that there was no legitimate agreement and consensus between state and nation
that the various ethnic groups that constituted Mthwakazi had been compelled through use of force to belong to Rhodesia, and that
the people of Mthwakazi could not continually being forced on the same path to belong to Zimbabwe.

Mr Mabhena, here is a so-called collaborator, Chief Khayisa, who recognised these critical variables in spite of the fact that he was not only a Chief under the payroll of Smith, but most importantly even when he was being denounced as a puppet, sell-out or whatever, he still could foresee that the Shona people and the people of Mthwakazi could only live together as neighbours, certainly not under one roof or country. The fact of the matter is that his views have been vindicated whereas those of Dr Nkomo have not. It is not imagination but a fact that the people of Mthwakazi have been decimated, inflicted with genocide and other horrors, for what, simply for who they are, period.

There can be no doubt therefore, that Chief Khayisa even as a puppet or whatever, like so many who collaborated with the Smith regime, he was able to recognise that the Shona people and Mthwakazi people could not be one nation under what circumstances for the simple reason that they did not share the following attributes that make up a nation:

Common language and religious beliefs,
Organising and acting collectively against other groups or the state nation,
Common ideology, and
Common symbols and attributes.

It is an undisputable fact that the people of Mthwakazi do not share the common language and religious beliefs with the people of Mashonaland, nor do they organise and act together against other groups, nor do they share the same ideology, symbols, etc. The adage that says that it is not what Chief KhanysaNdiweni was called, but what he answered to what matters most. It is in this regard that he did have the interests of the people of Mthwakazi at heart right until his last breath on earth. You all need to engage his son, who has since succeeded him on that throne to discover what he inherited from his late fathers wisdom, a real undisputed Mthwakazian son of the soil.

You see Mr Mabhena, we are not only shouting from the hip when we talk about the Restoration of Mthwakazi. We are researchers and thinkers at the same time, in terms of which we consult broadly with the political actors of Mthwakazi past and present. It is in that regard that we speak not only emotionally but also authoritatively on this matter as some of us actually interacted with Chief KhayisaNdiweni before he passed on, just as we did with the late Dr Joshua MqabukuKaNyongoloNkomo when he was alive.
7. Dr Joshua Nkomos attributes in relation to Mthwakazi

Mr Mabhena, Dr Joshua Nkomo could not recognise the above mentioned attributes of Chief KhayisaNdiweni. He could not when he ought to have had and I quote what you called him a Pan Africanist and Marxist-Leninist revolutionary’. Instead, he was surpassed by a so-called puppet, Chief Khayisa. This is in spite of the fact that early on from the time of the Southern Rhodesian African National Congress, right through to the National Democratic Party, the problems of identities were already a contested terrain within these political movements. RememberMr Mabhena, the idea of Zimbabwe was not born at this stage, it was simply not there yet for a long time it was being debated by these so-called nationalists of Southern Rhodesia.

Mr Mabhena, you need to put your heart, soul and imagination of what is being discussed by these so-called nationalists of Southern Rhodesia at this time, and who are the protagonists. Of course Joshua Nkomo is there, from Mthwakazi, but who else?????? The idea of Zimbabwe is not yet born.But what else is happening around them in the entire world during this period? The Second World War has just been concluded. Hitler is dead and Germany is powerless as it has been forced to surrender and disarm. Western countries are rapidly democratising, so is the rise of Russia which has swept countries of Eastern Europe into submission resulting in the birth of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR). There is also an arms race under way during this period between Western Countries led by the United States of America (USA) and the Eastern Countries led by USSR.

Next door to Southern Rhodesia, there is a mass movement led by nationalists of South Africa, notably the African National Congress (underpinned by the Communist Party remember, Abraham Fisher), the Pan African Congress, and others. Decision making which is decidedly influenced by a one man one vote (or so-called majority mechanism) is also new during this period. It is therefore not impossible to imagine that one of the names discussed for post a Southern Rhodesian dispensation,around that time was the Republic ofMatebeleland and Mashonaland. This in imaginary terms alone must have been shot down by those cunning Shona intellectuals, and again by a vote of hands. Whatever names were discussed, the name Zimbabwe was adopted.

Whatever the scenario was, Nkomo must have been outvoted as he was basically alone when the name Zimbabwe was tabled and adopted. It is inconceivable therefore Mr Mabhena that this name/concept or idea of Zimbabwe fell out of the skies. Somebody (obviously a Shona person) introduced it and I suppose other names may have been banded around, but what is indisputable is that Nkomo was alone at this gathering or meeting which endorsed the name Zimbabwe as the future identity of an imposed unitary state comprising Mthwakazi and Mashonaland.

From thence on the Zimbabwe African Peoples Union (ZAPU) is born. With that, the contestation of the leadership of the party is intensified resulting inevitably in the split and the birth of the Zimbabwe African National Union (Zanu) under NdabaningiSithole. By this time Nkomo had already pleaded with Robert Gabriel Mugabe was teaching in Ghana to join the so-called nationalist politics of Southern Rhodesia led by ZAPU.

But with the split, on grounds none other than, the grounds of ethnicity justified at the time in terms of a majority principle in that the writing again was on the wall. Mr Mabhena there is nowhere you can dispute this historical fact that ZANU split from ZAPU because the Shonas did not want to be led by a Ndebele-speaking person. This split actually set the tone to where we are today. Under line the wordsNational Unionfrom ZANU as opposed toPeoples Unionfrom ZAPU.

In 1963, Zanu split from Zapu. The major reason why Zanusplit from Zaputo chart a way forward that would result in the domination of the Shona people over the Ndebele people, was simply because they could not be led by a Ndebele person, from Mthwakazi, Dr Joshua MqabukoNkomo.That was the beginning of the road to genocide and ethnic cleansing by the Shona people led by none other than Robert Gabriel Mugabe. It is not surprising therefore that NdabaningiSitholewas thrown of ZANU and replaced by the power hose of this supremacist ideology Robert Gabriel Mugabe. And when Mugabe commented many years later not as leader of ZANU by as Prime Minister of Zimbabwe in the following words and I quote:
‘The solution in Matebeleland is a military one. Their grievances are unfounded. The
 verdict of the voters was cast in 1980. They should have accepted defeat then. The
 situation in Matebeleland is one that requires a change. The people must be reoriented;

He was simply COVERING THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF MTHWAKAZI DEAD OR ALIVE WITH CEMENT just like want the so-called MRP is doing now with the remains of the victims of Gukuranhundi, following on a process which he (Mugabe) begun, mastered and championed since the birth of ZANU in 1963. Mr MabhenaNOTICE that our EXISTENCE AS A PEOPLE OF MTHWAKAZI ON THIS EARTH WAS BURIED UNDER THE PRETEXT OF NATIONAL UNION by ZANU just as the so-called MRP is today BURYING EVIDENCE OF GENOCIDE UNDER THE PRETEXT OF BURYING SCATTERD BONES. You see Mr Mabhena your thesis of justifying the absurd by stating that and I quote: The revolutionary liberation movements understood clearly that, only unity of the African people across tribes, was key in the fight against colonialism and imperialism does not hold water.
One wonders what unity across tribes you are referring to when there is no evidence whatsoever to justify your assertion. It is a historical fact that since 1963 ZAPU and ZANU were never united. As a matter of fact they prosecuted the struggle differently as separate entities. Not only that, but even the political prisoners of these movements which by the way were never at any one point REVOLUTIONARY but mass movements, were not incarcerated together. The political prisoners of ZAPU for example were incarcerated at Gonakudzinkwa and Wha-Wha prisons whilst those of ZANU were at Goromonzi and elsewhere. They never shared the same prisons or same cells. These innate differences were recognised by the regime of Ian Smith. I personally grew up visiting those prisons holding ZAPU detainees because my father was incarcerated there and there were virtually no ZANU detainees in those prisons. It is not true therefore as you put it in your open letter that these differences emerged in 1980.
Similarly, in the case of South Africa, there never was any unity across what you refer as ‘tribes’, neither was there any unity between the African National Congress (ANC) and the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC). I find your argument very weak and without any substance that simply because the after event of the partitioning of Africa and the threat it posed, therefore our forefathers resolved, and I quote: the liberation movement would respect the new colonial boundaries without any changes to them.Sir where is that resolution and by whom was it resolved; where was the venue for this resolution; who participated in crafting this resolution; how was the resolution arrived at; what mechanism was applied to reach such a resolution (was it by a show of hands or what; and what date was it resolved?
What you refer to as ZAPU having to wage the struggle and I quote: from Zambezi to Limpompo, Ramquabane to the boundary with Mozambique was not Mr Mabhena as a result of the non-existent resolution that you referred to above, but it was natural and within the proximity of the people of Mthwakazi as we not only shared but continue to share boundaries as MTHWAKAZI with Zambia, Botswana and in the case of Mozambique through the Jameson Line which was signed into a Treaty Not by any Shona ruler leader, but by our own King Lobengula and Leander Starr Jameson.
 8. The Cessation of Zambia and Malawi from the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland
Just before the split between Zapu and Zanu happened there were a series of meetings in Salisbury, Zomba and Lusaka to Review the Federation, under the auspices of Britain, chaired by Rab Butler, the Foreign Secretary of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.These meetings were known as the Federal Review Council Meetings. African nationalist participants at these meetings were Joshua Nkomo representing South Rhodesia, Kenneth Kaunda and Henry Khumbula representing Northern Rhodesia and Kamuzu Banda representing Nyasaland. This was around the time when Africa had begun the decolonisation process with Ghana gaining its independence in 1957.
Among others also present at these meetings was Sir Roy Welensky, former Prime Minister they wanted, it was Kaunda and Banda who are reportedly to have been unequivocally and unambiguously clear about their quest to secede from the Federation, shouting independence now. In one meeting, Banda is quoted to have shouted cessation now three times.But when Joshua Nkomo was asked about what he wanted to be done about Southern Rhodesia, he is reported to have been equivocal and not clear as to what he wanted. (This information is captured from Sir Roy Welenskys book, 4,000 days, The Life and Death of the Federation, 1964).
If ever there was a classic case of seceding from the federation, this is it, as both Kaunda and Banda walked away with political independence of Zambia and Malawi respectively. Northern Rhodesia was thus named Zambia at independence while Nyasaland was named Malawi. Nkomo on the other hand is reported to have shunned meeting in the next round of scheduled talks with Rab Butler on grounds that Britain had not changed the constitution of Southern Rhodesia.
Dr Joshua MqabukoNkomo could have walked away with Southern Rhodesia then and renamed it whatever he so desired, but he did not. It took many more years and bloodshed to bring this conflict to end at Lancaster. The rest you know, it has been a roller coaster of subjugation, genocide, ethnic cleansing, and name it, anything under the Zimbabwe regime. Mr Mabhena, how then, do you compare this leadership style, vision, and direction of Dr Joshua MqabukoNkomo with how you characterisation of Chief KhayisaNdiweni as a collaborator?
This is around the time in which in the former Belgian Congo, MoiseTshombe had literally run away (seceded) with Katanga, and when the plane of the former United Nations Secretary General, Hammarskjorld was shot down between Katanga and then Northern Rhodesia when he was flying in there to seek to stop the secession of Katanga led by Tshombe. At the same time the United Nations troops had been deployed in the Congo to quell fires there, which also raised a lot of concern to the Southern Rhodesian security establishment.
 To sum up on Joshua Nkomos attributes, the fact of the matter is that it is the same Zambia (the former Northern Rhodesia in the Federation) which had only been granted political independence in 1964, that would both play a formidable role in the struggle for the liberation of Zimbabwe and, at the same time the one which was pressured primarily through the destruction of its meagre infrastructure as a result of unrelenting bombardments from the Smith regime to bring the war to an end.Effectively what this meant was that however bad the Lancaster House deal was, Zapu had to accept it as Zambia would no longer bear the costs of the war. This climate in turn provided an opportunity for Robert Gabriel Mugabe to inflict genocide on the people of Mthwakazi with impunity with full knowledge that Zambia would not under any circumstances render assistance toZapu.
9. The role of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) now African Union (AU)
On the question of the resolution of the OAU in 1963 which you have referred, which opposed the continued so-called minority rule in Southern Rhodesia, I have no bone to chew with you there. It is a factual statement of intent to support liberation movements including of course ZAPU which was led by Dr Joshua Nkomo. But you cannot therefore argue that because when this resolution was taken, the OAU did not subsequently support ZANU. As a matter of fact it was ZANU that received a huge chunk of support from the OAU than Nkomos ZAPU, and the reason for that was the animosity that Julius Nyerere had developed against Dr Nkomo. This again is a historical fact as told and witnessed by none other than Dr Nkomo himself in his book The Story of My Life which of course was banned at one time by Mugabe.
Mr Mabhena; where you are missing our argument as MLF is simply that there was never at any time in history where we were prevented of being who we are, not even by the colonialists or the OAU that you have referred to; but that the only people who have prevented us assuming our own identity are the Shona people led by ZANU since 1963.As a matter of fact colonialists recognised us, this is why you have schools and townships named after our heroes Njube, Lobengula, Mzilikazi and so forth, including of course the capital of the Kings itself, Bulawayo. ZANU on the other hand has sought to change everything and alter the names: of Bulawayo to Buruvayo; Gwelu to Gweru; Kwaduma to (I can even spell the word- Kadoma); Qweqwe to I dont know, and many other such instances, and then you think all this mess can be corrected by what you term Marxisim-Leninism, not in a trillion years Mr Mabhena. But let me return to your OAU theme now before of course dealing with Marxism-Leninism.
 Mr Mabhena, I do not think that the OAU is a good example to use especially when some of us are interrogating the question of such huge importance, the question of the restoration of our country Mthwakazi.It is a historical fact, Mr Mabhena, that in many African countries, perpetrators of genocide were and still can be chosen by their fellow despots to be Chairman of the OAU now African Union (AU). One remembers only too well how Idi Amin, Jean-BedelBokassa, Arab Moi , Gaddafi and Robert Gabriel Mugabe, have all been elected to this post.
The fact that the OAU/AU Charter had a clause prohibiting a member state from interfering in the internal affairs of another served all these despots well because they committed genocide, various other atrocities and ethnic cleansing on the poor with the full knowledge that other despots and dictators would never raise an objection. This says a lot about how far we have to strive to prevent those who have committed crimes against humanity in Mthwakazi from achieving the status of leading such a continental organisation as the AU.
This continental organisation is nothing but a mechanism that was set up to pursue the interests of European colonialism in the whole of Africa. Put differently, the former colonial masters continue to rule all of Africa by remote control. The AU is therefore not different to the Animal Farm of Zimbabwe as led by the so-called MRP. Just like this club called the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC), there is no basis within which they can be made reference to as both mechanisms are not only dominated by Shona personnel by are there to ensure that domination and the colonisation of Mthwakazi continues unabated.
10. The Notion/Concept of Kingdom of Mthwakazi versus Mthwakazi Republic Party
On the question of why we as MLF oppose the so-called MRP, referring to Mthwakazi as a Republic, you have stated that although you do not speak on their behalf, your interest is against the restoration of a Kingdom. You write: The two remaining Kingdoms in the SADC region, Swaziland and Lesotho, are known for political oppression (with respect to Swaziland), instability, corruption andall the ills you can think of. The assumption to believe that, the defeat of what you call Shonalism will result in the building of a better society, is a myth to say the least. If Kingdoms were the way to go, Swaziland and Lesotho would be an inspiration to all of us. The biggest challenge we have is the looting of our wealth by the greedy thieves in Harare.
Mr Mabhena, I find your thinking around this subject bereft of critical analysis. Your inferencethat all kingdoms are corrupt, and therefore must be rejected out of hand without any shred of evidence, is to say the least a very hollow argument. It is interesting that you only site two Kindgdoms of Swaziland and Lesotho.Why not contrast these two kingdoms with Republics, beginning with Zimbabwe and various others in the North, Central, East and West Africa which are as corrupt as anything ever experienced on this earth. As a matter of fact, Mr Mabhena, if you were to use your own index of ‘political oppression, instability, corruption and all the ills you can think of, to compare all the so-called Republics against Kingdoms, your argument is blown out of the water.

Furthermore, you cannot imply that because the Kingdom of Swaziland which you have singled out of the two, is corrupt therefore the Kingdom of Mthwakazi under both King Mzilikazi and King Lobengula was corrupt, and therefore the way forward would be what you term a ‘socialist Zimbabwe’. Besides, what you have missed from the argument as presented by the MLF is simply this, that the so-called MRP cannot distort history and fool people by implying or indeed stating that historically, Mthwakazi was a Republic. That is a blatant lie and no amount of justification can make it a fact.

With regard to what you are striving for in Zimbabwe; it is already there, a socialist Marxist-Leninist Zimbabwe under Robert Gabriel Mugabe and his Zanu-pf politburo. But to suggest that striving for the restoration of Mthwakazi is a myth is rather stretching it too far. What makes you believe that for the people of Mthwwakazi to exist in this world and therefore lead a better life they must perpetually accept to be dominated, subjugated, humiliated and brutalised by a Shona state? Is that what you envisage as a better life for the people of Mthwakazi? Why then do you think that by challenging this Rule by Conquest we are venturing into mythology or playing games? Do you really believe, Mr Mabhena, that the Rule by Conquest of the Mthwakazi people as perpetrated the Shona elite on behalf of Britain is the way to go?

11. Your Marxism-Leninism thesis

Let me turn now to respond to your thesis and I quote: Dr Nkomo as leader of a Pan Africanist, Marxist-Leninist liberation movement, ZAPU, understood the importance of unifying African people around a common agenda for liberating the oppressed African people and the need of building international support in engaging in the struggle against colonialism. This Mr Mabhena is very loaded. You cannot be serious really by saying Nkomo was a Marxist-Leninist. What informs that assertion?

It is a historical fact that Nkomo was a leader of a mass movement which was never at any time a Marxist-Leninist movement. It may have been perceived as such, but in reality it was not. It is a known fact that ZAPU receivedsupport from the former USSR and other so-called socialist countries, but that alone did not qualify Zapu and its leader to be a Marxist-Leninist movement. Rather it has to be understood within the context of the proxy wars that were fought and supported by the super powers at the time consisting of Western Countries led by the USA on the one hand and the USSR on the other. It is true that we in Zipra were indoctrinated with this baggage of Marxism-Leninism at the time as we were not at any time made aware of our historical beginnings. On the other hand as you may be well aware, Zanu received its support from Maos Zedongs China.

This in a nutshell was precipitated by the doctrine of intended and unintended consequences. The intended consequences in this case effectively meant that as Zapu was fighting against the so-called white minority rule, there was no way in hell Britain could render military support to groups that were fighting against the status quo. The unintended consequences in the sense that, what was being imported into the mass movement of Zapu (whether by way of what you call Marxism-Leninism or Socialism had never been implemented even in the USSR itself. It was simply a pie in the sky kind of poisonous ideology that had no practical applicability in reality.

As a Marxist-Leninist student yourself Mr Mabhena, you should know that it may have been the intention (consistent with the doctrine of intended consequences) of Vladimir Lenin to implement socialism or communism in Russia following the 1917 October Revolution which swept the Tsars away, but that changed in 1924 following the death of Lenin. The person who was supposed to have succeeded Lenin, Trotsky, and thousands of other Bolshevik revolutionaries found themselves being hunted down like dogs by Joseph Stalin. Some were exiled, but thousands, and thereafter millions were butchered by Stalin.

In order to spread this terror far and wide Joseph Stalin deified Lenin into some kind of God. Almost overnight the Statues of Lenin were developed and mounted all over the place throughout Russia; freedom of speech became synonymous with invitation to be shot; firing squads became the norm; the stench of death was everywhere, disappearances, torture and untold brutality as the concept of human rights had been outlawed with impunity. This modus operandi was exported and applied throughout all the countries that Russia had annexed or liberated such as Azerbaijan, Chechenia, Georgia, Ukraine, Estonia, Poland Hungary and so forth, following the defeat of Nazi Germany and death of Adolph Hitler. German itself was divided into east and west, and so of our comrades actually trained there in what was known as the German Democratic Republic.

In all these countries which became part of the USSR, Lenin was the tool that was invoked in order to instil in each and every soul the stench of death. Likewise liberation movements such as Zapu also employed those tactics, where any dissent was met with outright imposition of a death sentence or disappearance. This after all was what was called the vanguard of the proletariat. Almost every person in those so-called Socialist Republics of the USSR had a file on them; in terms of where they were going, who they talked to and why. This is the kind of system that Mugabe employed and applied in his country Zimbabwe as well as imposed by proxy in Mthwakazi. As a matter of fact Mugabes rule is defined by himself and others as Marxism-Leninism, hence his picture is everywhere: in the toilets, on trees, on walls, and virtually everywhere.

The difference with Josephs Stalins Russia or USSR is that Lenin was reproduced in statues, whilst Zanu could not afford such a colossal cost, hence pictures and frames of Mugabe were deployed everywhere, and that Mr Mabhena is still the case. Let us not forget that Zimbabwe continues to embody the Politburo Structure copied from the so-called communist countries. Is this the type of system that you envisage for the people of Mthwakazi in what you call a socialist Zimbabwe, Mr Mabhena? Genocide, ethnic cleansing and all the hell imposed on the people of Mthwakazi has been driven by these so-called Marxist-Leninist of Zimbabwe, so is the Grand Plan, and everything under the sun that the Zanu regime has robbed the people of Mthwakazi.

I am really amazed and extremely shocked Mr Mabhena, that you would wish for an oppressive system such as the one you purport to belong to and a student of, for the people of Mthwakazi. But most important of all, I am shocked to my knees that you would invoke a system like this one (Marxism-Leninism) as a justification not to play your part in the liberation of the motherland, Mthwakazi. What is even more shocking is to want to take cover under a system that does not recognise individual talents of human beings. How would, for example, Marxist-Leninist treat the inventor of a mobile or cell phone, what about of the internet with which I am communicating with right you right now, or a lap top would such a person have to share the wealth derived from any of his/her inventions with everybody else? What about a bottle of whiskey which is a darling of so-called communists?

What about pent houses, aeroplanes, cars, etc; all inventions that Karl Marx, including Lenin died without having been exposed to. How would you control the means of production of these products, including those that comprise the food chain in the supermarkets: yogurt, amahewu, pencils, rulers, books, matches, and so forth, just to mention a few? The point of the matter is that, today, all the products in the capitalist world are no longer labour intensively produced, but through some mechanisation processes and technological innovations.

This same production process has been embraced by former communist regimes such Russia, China and so forth, and as such capitalism and indeed its highest form, imperialism are effectively globalised without any exception. What about the thinking part of individuals that results in the production of what you call the means of production? Must that too be nationalised, communalised or socialised, whatever Marxist-Leninist terms are applicable?

Surely, to invoke Marxism-Leninism when communicating with me is to invoke a beast out me. I became a s-called Marxist more than 40 years ago, and within Zipra I am among the first critics of this dogmatic ideology as especially because it lacked relevance and applicability on the ground, unless of course you were imposing your will on others. It is an excellent song, but that brings about all hell when applied. There is basically no synergy between theory and practice; in other words where theory and practice meet they remain diametrically opposed to each other.

This is why even in the USSR this system finally collapsed in 1989 during the time of Michael Gorbachev, whowas himself rescued by Boris Yeltsin after an attempted coup de tat. Millions of people marched from Russia right up to the Berlin wall that had divided east and West Germany, with many countries along the way regaining their freedom, in Poland, Romania, and so forth. Is this the system that you want the people of Mthwakazi to be ruled under in your socialist Zimbabwe’? A system that has not be workable since 1917, a system that even Kruzhev, nor Brezhnev could not reconcile so as to remove the ghost of Stalinism and the stench of death from the entire Russia and the USSR; a system that was finally discarded after seven two (72) years of inflicting horror.

In Mthwakazi we are already 36 years into that hell hole under Mugabes Marxism-Leninism, half way to the years experienced by Russians. Are you saying that is not enough? Are you saying that we still need to experience more of the same, Mr Mabhena? Are you saying, the loss of our identity, our humanity, our land, our sanity, our future, our very existence can only be guaranteed under the continuation of such a brutal genocidal and ethnic cleansing environment?What you need to underline, Mr Mabhena, and perhaps this is the sole reason why the so-called community party can never ever be voted into power ever again in Russia or anywhere else (not that it ever achieved power through the ballot since the Bolshevik revolution) is because in most instances the millions of victims of Stalins death squads have still not found closure to this very date.

In a nutshell, therefore, before I turn to address some of your concerns Mr Mabhena, what transpired or was implemented not only in Russia but in so-called Marxist-Leninist countries including China, was and has always been STATE CAPITALISM, in which the apparatchiks, those with state power enjoy all the privileges of capitalism at the expense of the entire population at large. In any study of comparative communist systems there can be no other findings other than that these systems benefit only those at the top at the expense of everybody else, in ways far exceeding the normal capitalist systems which entrench individual freedoms, individual choice and so forth.

It is noteworthy in summary that before Karl Marx came up with the communist manifesto in 1848, he was first and foremost a German. He had an identity which the people of Mthwakazi lost in 1893 and which through the MLF the people of Mthwakazi are determined to restore. Besides when Karl Marx wrote and published that treatise (communist manifesto in 1848) Mthwakazi was already a fully-fledged sovereign state.Why then must the people of Mthwakazi pursue unworkable ideas at this stage, after more than a century under the Rule by Conquest first, before recovering their lost identity and country, Mr Mabhena? Why should we focus on ideas produced by a German who died before seeing their disastrous implementation in Russia and elsewhere in this world, which by the way will never ever see the light of day again in present Russia, than paying attention and struggling for our own survival, space and identity as the people of Mthwakazi, Mr Mabhena?

You also argue that the restoration of Mthwakazi does not mean that wealth will be fairly distributed among the working class and the poor. It is only when the working class controls the decisive means of production for it to drive back, the frontiers of poverty in our society. Unfortunately I do not know which society you are referring to. But I can surmise that you are referring to Zimbabwean society and not Mthwakazi because of your storyline throughout your open letter.You are indeed a Zimbabwean, but just like me aMthwakazian who is not recognised in your own country. If this is the reason why you think that in Mthwakazi we will not take care of our own citizens then you are indeed mistaken.

Mthwakazi is very rich. It has everything in terms of human and economic resources. It has basically everything for everyone, but it cannot be that we will promote laziness by seeking to grab other peoples’ ingenuity, creativeness and the like in order to reward those who are lazy or doing nothing. We will embrace the capitalist mode of economic organisation both in theory and practice. We will not act like so-called communists and socialists who preach socialism and communism but practice capitalism. We are not going to behave like Zanu-pf or China and preach socialism and communism when we own everything at the expense of the poor. We are not going to allow any practices of free riding at the expense of others. Therefore it will not happen that wealth will be shared equally, but like all developed economies, the State of Mthwakazi will have a responsibility of taking care of its citizens by any means possible.

Various models will be explored such as exist in developed economies, including of course a system of grants that is offered in South Africa. But it is worth pointing out Mr Mabhena, that Mthwakazi does not have what you would call a working class, neither does our neighbour Zimbabwe. The majority of the people not only in Mthwakazi, Zimbabwe and most of Africa, including in South Africa live in rural areas. They are basically what your socialist terminology terms peasants (povo in Portuguese or Spanish). How then do you realise a socialist Zimbabwe without a formidable industrial base and without a working class? At any rate an industrial base has long been overtaken by technological innovations of today, television, WhatsApp technologies and a multiplicity of others.

Those are the conditions for a take off to a socialist utopia. How do you industrialise Mr Mabhena without the means of production. In your Zimbabwe, you only have land, but do not have machinery and capital, and you do not yet have the requisite skilled labour force for the conditions of the development of a working class; how then do you achieve a ‘socialistZimbabwe’? Remember when Fredrick Angels examined the conditions of the working class in England more nearly two hundred years ago which were mainly characterised by squalor, your Zimbabwe has not yet reached that stage; how long do you think the conditions of a viable working class in Zimbabwe will take off? Is it is not a myth therefore to be talkin