Last week SW Radio Africa published the first in a six-part list of alleged CIO operatives. The original list contained names and addresses, while an amended list, published over the weekend only has names.

Responding to the public reaction to the list, SW Radio Africa Station Manager, Gerry Jackson wrote a statement saying: Experts say the CIO is the most powerful arm of ZANU PF’s security apparatus, the ‘brains behind the regime.’

According to the Council on Foreign Relations: ‘There is no public record of the CIO’s size, but it is thought to have thousands of operatives. Many Zimbabweans think the organization has a network of informers that extends into the Zimbabwean diaspora.

Jackson omits the part of the 2008 report, which states: Some analysts think the CIO’s ability to generate fear among Zimbabweans might exceed its true power.

Assuming the list is authentic, then what? How is releasing classified government information going to benefit the people of Zimbabwe?

In the article, SW Radio Africa discusses several people on the list and uses circumstantial and inconclusive evidence to link them to acts of violence and torture. Commenting on the article in NewZimbabwe Professor Tendi points out that the journalist concerned is hardly reliable: [he] once made an outlandish claim that UK-based public intellectual George Shire is Air Marshal Perrance Shiri’s brother. George suffered serious consequences, one of which was the desecration of his father’s grave, because of [his] fable.

I have several problems with SW Radio Africa publishing this list. First, it takes the CIO out of context. Gerry Jackson is right to assert that there is no legislative framework for the organization, but going by her statement one would be forgiven for thinking that the CIO was formed during the last decade to maintain ZANU PFs grip on power, but this is an institution that was inherited from the colonial government, and in fact Ian Smiths Chief of Intelligence, Ken Flower was retained by Our Dear Leader after Independence.  The CIOs lack of accountability, methodology and terror-tactics are characteristics of the Rhodesian era. In doing research for this blog I came across this quotation about the operations of the CIO:

“In the mid 1970′s, in the most closely guarded secret operation of the entire Rhodesian war, the CIO embarked on a programme of chemical and biological warfare. Doctors and chemists from the University of Rhodesia were recruited by the CIO and asked to identify and test a range of chemical and biological agents, which could be used in the war against the nationalist guerrillas. By 1975 clinical trials were performed on human guinea pigs at a remote Selous Scout camp at Mount Darwin in northeastern Rhodesia. The CIO provided victims from their detention centres, choosing little-known detainees who had been arrested on various security charges. In the secrecy of the camp, the doctors administered various chemical and biological agents to the prisoners, experimenting with delivery systems and dose levels. The local CIO Special Branch disposed of the bodies in local mine shafts.”

The bodies discovered earlier this year might very well be some of the victims of this brutal and inhumane programme.

My second problem is that publishing a questionable list of CIO operatives does nothing to address the deficiencies of the institution, and may contribute in exacerbating the situation for Zimbabweans who are being terrorized by CIO operatives. The fact of where the list is placed, online and outside Zimbabwe does nothing to help those people.

Finally, the list was published as a reactionary measure, rather than as a revolutionary one. It is conceivable that anyone in possession of that list in Zimbabwe, having taken the trouble to download and print it for local distribution, would be charged with treason. If Munyaradzi Gwisai and the 45 can be beaten, tortured and held for weeks without trial based on conjecture and rumour, then surely there are worse evils in store for anyone who actually has State Secrets on their person. It was done without thought as to objectives and consequences, as though placing information in the public domain is the end, rather than the means to it.

Rejoice Ngwenya, in XO2 this Wednesday, shares some thoughts on how “the people” are used in the political debate:

There are several things that National Constitutional Assembly’s Lovemore Madhuku and Paul Mangwana of COPAC inadvertently share.  Both men are chairpersons of constitutional research bodies, driven by a passion for constitutional law. They also have a sinister obsession with the phrase ‘people-driven’, albeit for different reasons. Their egos seem to thrive on incessant front page appearances.  In the quest to outdo each other for attention, the two lawmen insist that the current constitutional process is either people-driven [Mangwana] or not people-driven [Madhuku]. That leaves me and you, mere mortals, in a state of semantic quandary as to which people these learned men are grappling about.  As with literary tradition, I turn to Wikipedia that describes people as ‘a plurality of human beings or other beings possessing enough qualities constituting personhood.’

My prognosis is that one of these ‘qualities’ referred to above is the ability to think or reason independently. But because constitutionalism is fought in the realm of politics, I would assume Madhuku is more comfortable with ‘civil’ people than the ‘political’ people that Mangwana is accustomed to dealing with. If one probes further, Madhuku is convinced that Mangwana’s ‘people’ are prone to manipulation, since they are selected on partisan preferences, hence, in his view, the ‘illegitimacy’ of the COPAC process. Mangwana on the other hand will argue that because all people have a degree of intelligence, it is inconceivable that one can manipulate [all of] them, thus the legitimacy of the COPAC process.  As far as these two learned lawyers are concerned, the ‘COPAC referendum’ will be a battleground to determine which ‘people’ really matter in defining the destiny of Zimbabwe. For me, I would like to raise the argument on who the ‘real’ people are and why long before the bi polar plebiscite.

Let me start off with the marital institution I am familiar with – mine. I have four children – all boys – who I call ‘mine’, for genetic and legal reasons. However, my ‘possession’ is limited, if not situational because when the two boys are in a kombi, the driver calls them ‘my passengers’. At school, they are labelled ‘my students’ by their teacher while our pastor refers to them as ‘my church members’. In other words, ‘personhood’ is situational. My point is that both Madhuku and Mangwana are in fact talking about the same people, the difference being these humans assume certain qualities in different scenarios.

During the COPAC outreach, I met many ‘people’ who enjoy simultaneously multiple membership in NGO youth groups, the NCA, their professions, Movement for Democratic Change [MDC], ZANU-PF and several other social groupings. Some attended my meetings while other abstained because they said to me “we do not trust the other ‘people’ are at your meetings”. Nonetheless, at any one time, even a typical NCA member assumes ‘dual personhood’ that can be civil, professional or for that matter political.

Madhuku’s rational argument is two-fold: first, ‘political people’ like Mangwana cannot preside over a constitutional reform process without resisting the temptation to ‘unfairly influence’ popular opinion. Second, he argues COPAC audience was ‘people’, but attended either under duress, or some stayed away in fear of what Mangwana’s ‘political people’ would do to them before, during and after these meetings. Therefore the Madhuku conclusion is that even if it is ‘people’ that drive the COPAC process, they are not from the ‘right civic category’ in order to legitimise the process.

Mangwana’s position is predictably different, if not outright divergent. He argues that every, or at least most ‘people’ came to the meetings voluntarily. His party, ZANU-PF, invested time and energy to ‘explain’ to these people what to expect and how to respond because in a democracy, one is allowed to teach ‘one’s people’ what is good for them. This means that he is saying to Madhuku: “It would have been better to [also] teach ‘your people’ what was good for them rather than saying: “don’t go there because you will meet the wrong Mangwana people”.

My conclusion is therefore tinged with Biblical annotation. There is none but God who can designate people as ‘the right people’ or ‘the wrong people’. Those who stayed out of the COPAC process exercised their intelligent choice, while those that participated [either voluntarily or otherwise] had an opportunity to refuse. Whether you are NCA, ZANU-PF, MDC or ‘civil’, you are the ‘right person’ because of your citizenship. If you feel you were ‘excluded’ from the COPAC process, you will have an opportunity to ‘participate’ in the referendum. That makes you important to me.  Thus, in the final analysis, it will be interesting to see which ‘people’ will have the last laugh – Madhuku’s ‘civil people’ or Mangwana’s ‘political people’. Either way, it is the people that will speak!

XO2 this Wednesday may be your Extreme Opinion too!

My toes are individual points of cold pain at the end of my legs. I’ve even tried sitting on them, but my chair is fairly small and it all involves negotiating the winter belly (grown with simultaneous pride and disgust). Add the straining trouser buttons and jersey riding up the back and its all just too much effort. Which reminds me of living in Austria, where I would drink my coffee black and eat dry cereal rather than put on all those layers just to walk 2 blocks through the snow to buy a box of milk.

Winter is here.

Today started cold and overcast and windy but now the sun is back out, not a cloud in the sky and my autumn coat hangs uselessly on the back of my chair (having been pulled stubbornly from the cupboard for the first time in 3 years). Again, I am reminded of Europe, more specifically the UK, where people can have long conversations revolving entirely around the weather. But seeing as this particular blog is about winter, I don’t see what choice I have.

In summary then, my feet are cold. I don’t miss living in Europe (but would like to be able to afford a visit), the sun is out, and I really should be working.

This afternoon I am invited, without my pimple, to attend a parent-teacher meeting at my daughter’s school. I am already preparing myself (little under-the-breath pep talks) to control the natural aggression that comes seething up my chest and threatens to burst from behind my teeth at any criticism of my child.  It’s not that I think she’s perfect (I do), and it’s not that I expect her to excel in every aspect of life (I don’t) but I expect her to get credit for effort and improvement. If we don’t applaud our children for trying, why should they? Often I think the teacher’s shortcomings are projected onto the child. The teaching profession is no longer a vocation or a passion for the majority of teachers, but a paycheck and discounted school fees for their own brats. My advice to teachers?  If you are telling more than one parent their child is ADHD – it may well be that the content of your lesson, or its delivery, is BORING.

I also think that our schools have forgotten the fundamental importance of play and rest. 5 year olds are not designed to sit still for 2 hours at a time, and boys and girls ARE very different. Children are robbed of their freedom, their natural exuberance, their curiosity, and their right to question everything (including the teacher’s right to lead them). I am dreading the day my son starts school; then the feathers are really going to fly! I received his acceptance letter yesterday, and attached were the rules and various avenues of discipline at the school’s disposal. Can you believe he would be punished if I forgot to sign and return his communications folder? If I decided to put a Coke in his lunch box, he would be penalized, possibly with detention. How does a 5 year old control these things? Oh, and if he INADVERTENTLY breaks something, he will be punished, and I suppose expelled if he did it on purpose?

Clearly that is why I am in such a strop today. And I’m getting angrier as I write. It’s nothing to do with my daughter’s teacher, but rather, with the school.  Anyway, I’ll let you know how it goes. Whether everyone leaves the room alive, whether I am transformed into a red-faced harridan with spittle flying from my screaming mouth, whether my husband is spared the embarrassment of me losing my temper … so much responsibility to behave myself.

But someone once gave me fantastic advice – stick up for your child! If you don’t, who will?

Sinners is the story of three sex workers, who when business becomes slow, decide to exercise their entrepreneurial skills by harvesting sperm from unsuspecting men. Speaking to Zimbojam, Patrick Chasaya says he wrote the play after meeting a man who was traumatised after being abducted and raped by a gang of four women. The Herald’s review of the play titled ‘Explicit Sinners opens at Theatre in the Park’ implied that the actresses stopped just short of actually having sex on stage. I went with my wangu to get the male perspective on things. Although he had a good laugh during the play he was a little disappointed – it wasn’t as titillating as we had both been led to believe.

The play opens with each of the three protagonists describing how she became a sex worker. Chipo is the housewife whose husband left her without a penny, Samantha was raped at an early age by an unnamed relative, and Keresensia was orphaned and has to care for her younger brothers and sisters. The three women work on the same corner, watching and waiting for their male customers to show up. The actresses do an admirable job of drawing the audience into the play by treating them as customers, or in my case, hated competition. At one point, the police raid them. The youngest, Samantha services an officer in exchange for her freedom, while Chipo, who may be past her prime, is unable to negotiate and is forced to pay a fine.

Tired of scraping a living together especially as business is not going well, the three women hatch a plan to put their skills to better use.

The subject matter would have made excellent material for a tragicomedy, but ‘Sinners’ misses the mark. The skill of the actresses in bringing the characters to life cannot make up for their lack of depth and complexity. The script’s superficial treatment of the protagonists’ tragic back stories and circumstances detract from its comedic elements. It only glosses over the characters’ motivations for doing what they do in an attempt to lighten the subject matter.

The play picks up many interesting themes such as the long-term effects of child abuse, and the exploitation of sex workers by the police, but these are abandoned without warning or resolution. There are a lot of ironies too, like Keresensia being inspired by the Holy Spirit to harvest and sell sperm, or the trio praying before they embark on their enterprise, that are too under-developed to be fully appreciated. The play also ends abruptly, with the trio falling out in loud and emphatic disagreement about how the money they earned should be divided. At the end, we had a feeling that there should have been a message, but were unclear about what that message was.

It was refreshing to watch a play that wasn’t driven by a political or women’s rights agenda. It is not often that a story is told simply to be told in Zimbabwe. The playwright and director should be commended for trying to tackle such a difficult subject matter. It cannot be easy to walk the fine line between objectifying sex workers and turning them into victims. This play at least tries to depict them as real women with real problems.  Charity Dlodlo, Eunice Tava and Gertrude Munhamo portray Samantha, Chipo and Keresensia not as women who are at the mercy of men, but rather as women who show strength, resilience and even ingenuity in facing their difficulties. I believe that is something to be admired.

Upenyu’s writing resonates with many folks, and it is disturbing that such attitudes exhibited by the cop she mentions can still be found in the “locations,” many years into the age of enlightenment. A guy “grows up in the hood,” goes to varsity, and the chaps treat him as one they cannot “hang with” no more. A friend said it is important  for him  that “even though” he is pursuing an MA abroad, he can still come to the “hood” and hang out with the fellas and pass a calabash of opaque beer just like they did back in the day. It is important because it tells him that he has not changed. Obviously this self-consciousness is also for the benefit of childhood chums who have this thing in their heads and would not expect him to hang out with them simply because he has been out there getting an education. That’s how it is in the “locations,” “elokitshini,” kumarokesheni” as Winky D puts it.

That education makes you interpret “reality” – constructed or otherwise – differently is obvious despite of course there being some who think not, yet there are chaps who think because you do not see and interpret the universe through their lenses you are therefore placing yourself on a higher intellectual plane. Come to Bulawayo and just try and respond in English to a cop who addresses you in Shona! He expects you to understand him but not him you, and will tell you to your face “saka ndimi makafunda” (so you are the educated type!). I heard over the weekend a pirate taxi driver say to some student teachers from Hillside Teachers College: “phela abantu bengafunda bayahlupha” (educated people are troublesome) after they had asked him to drop them off near the college gate but claimed they did not have extra money (ZAR5) to pay for this convenience. It reminded me of the good old days in Zimbabwe when teachers were respected as part of the “educated middle class” but have over the years seen the profession being ridiculed because of poor salaries and working conditions.

Yet there are many more others who impose “erudition” on you. A few years ago, a friend’s wife asked me to tutor her on some subject I had no clue about, and her reasoning was that since I was at varsity therefore I had the knowledge therefore was supposed to assist her, thus went the logic. And yes she did not take kindly to my claims that I had no clue about what she was talking about: “if it was some salad chick you would have assisted her” – her exact words. And these are the folks who will be quick to remind you that you belong in the rut along with them so don’t imagine you are a better person because you went to varsity! Of course you wonder where the heck that is coming from? And that’s not to say anything about my wife who over the years had to deal with the whole neighbourhood as folks sought to be tutored on one subject or another, and woe betide her for claiming commitment to other issues. Why? Because she was at varsity! That’s just how folks view life, and that is where resentment of “privilege” and “education” is found in very generous servings. Like Upenyu says, you are expected to apologise even if you do not know what exactly you are apologising for.

Another friend who earned his PhD last year said to me he had learned to do things differently when we scoured the CBD looking for a decent joint where we could sit and catch up over a few beers. It was no longer about just seeing the neon lights of a pub and getting in, but being careful about the places one patronises. Thing is, he would be expected to hang around the corner with his old neighbourhood buddies, but you also have to imagine the conversation. He bought himself a decent home, and said to me, “when people see me walking and commuting, they will ‘say look at him, what did he bring from the Diaspora’!” He, like many returning or visiting from the Diaspora, would be expected to be driving and buying copious amounts of beer for old mates who still hang around the local “bottle store” waiting for anyone to buy them anything from a cigarette to beer, and hell, pilfer change from the money you give them to buy another round of beer!

That’s what we found older chaps doing back then when a childhood friend visited from Wenela or Goli, and they obviously left something for their younger brothers to emulate. Ah, this Diaspora and education thing, you have to be in the township streets to feel the pulse. It  is here where throwing in a few English words in the conversation is met with disgust because, as some put it, you are flaunting your education, you think you are smarter than everybody!

Perhaps Upenyu ought to say, “sorry, I’m not apologising!”