Zimbabwean President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s bid to seal his position in an election on July 30 is meant to mark a break with former Zimbabwean president Robert Mugabe’s violence-tainted rule, but massacres that took place decades ago are coming back to haunt him.
Mnangagwa, a longtime Mugabe lieutenant who took over after a coup last year, narrowly avoided a grenade attack last month that wounded one of his vice presidents and a minister at a rally in Bulawayo.
He was quick to absolve the locals of any blame, pointing a finger at disgruntled Mugabe loyalists instead, but the location was significant: Rights groups said that army offensives in the area in the 1980s killed 20,000 people and memories remain raw.
Mnangagwa was in charge of national security at the time of the assault in Matabeleland between 1982 and 1987, and analysts said that the Bulawayo rally blast could have been calculated to implicate Mnangagwa’s Ndebele opponents and stir up trouble.
Asked whether Bulawayo people were responsible for the blast, Mnangagwa told state television: “The people of Bulawayo? No. They love me. [It is] people outside Bulawayo.”
That helped ease worries of a security crackdown, but voters in Bulawayo remain distrustful of their new leader, who is known by his nickname “Ngwena,” Shona for crocodile, an animal famed and feared in Zimbabwean lore for stealth and ruthlessness.
Mnangagwa says he is soft as wool.
“It is good that Mnangagwa realises that people in Bulawayo are peaceful and will not use violence. I hope the government will not use this terrorist act as an excuse to target those who oppose this regime,” said Thamsanqa Dube, a 36-year-old resident of the Emganwini suburb in Bulawayo.
The army massacres, known as Gukurahundi, Shona for “early rain that washes away the chaff,” are a major reason that Matabeleland’s voters have rejected Mnangagwa’s ZANU-PF party in national elections since 2000. Many of them want an apology.
With no reliable polls, it is not clear whether the area’s 861,701 voters, 15 percent of the national total, will punish Mnangagwa any more than they did Mugabe in the past.
However, in an election under international observation for the first time in years, he might need them more than Mugabe did.
Mnangagwa’s role during Gukurahundi is not clear.
His critics have said that at the time, his security ministry passed on intelligence used by soldiers to target victims.
Officials did not respond to requests for comment.
At two consecutive rallies in the town of Gwanda and Bulawayo on June 22 and June 23, Mnangagwa did not mention the army crackdown. He instead cast himself as a reformer, promising to devolve more power and bring economic development to the region.
Although he is the front-runner in next month’s polls, he faces a substantial challenge from 40-year-old Movement for Democratic Change leader Nelson Chamisa.
An unofficial survey released in Bulawayo early last month by the Mass Public Opinion Institute put Mnangagwa at 42 percent and Chamisa at 31 percent, with 25 percent of respondents giving no preference.
That means that Mnangagwa could do with the Matabeleland vote to get the 50-plus-one percent required to win the first round.
In the previous election in 2013, Mugabe polled 25 percent of the vote in Bulawayo and 40 percent of the total Matabeleland vote.
Political commentator and ZANU-PF critic Ibbo Mandaza said that Mnangagwa is unlikely to fare better than Mugabe.
Mnangagwa lacks Mugabe’s charisma and could struggle to connect with voters, political analysts have said, adding that he lost to a little known opposition candidate in parliamentary polls in 2000 and 2005.
Desperate to end Zimbabwe’s isolation by Western powers, Mnangagwa has invited foreign observers, absent since 2002, and is not seen relying on the intimidation tactics and violence employed by Mugabe in the past to win the election. The run-up to the polls has been largely peaceful so far.
Mnangagwa’s spokesman George Charamba said that the promise of more power to provinces was no political gimmick and officials were working to produce a policy on how it would be shared.
“Expectations are that by the time elections are over, the national vision on decentralization will be presented to the new government as a blueprint for the next five years,” he said.
Devolution was made mandatory in the constitution in 2013, but ZANU-PF governments have resisted its implementation, saying that it would be costly for the country.
Mnangagwa’s officials declined to comment on how he would deal with Gukurahundi and did not respond to a written request to interview him.
The president’s loyalists say that he is a man of his word and point to his launch of a livestock program that gave villagers thousands of cattle in the cattle-ranching Matabeleland South Province as a sign that he cares about their welfare.
Mnangagwa has promised to reopen closed industries in Bulawayo and make it Zimbabwe’s industrial hub.
A hospital shut in 2004 in Bulawayo would be opened within weeks with help from Indian investors, he said, adding that he also commissioned construction of a stalled US$1.5 billion power plant in western Hwange town, which would create 7,000 jobs.
Despite the promises, to some, Mnangagwa remains defined by his role during Gukurahundi.
“Mnangagwa is the face of Gukurahundi, he can’t deny that. Mugabe was the body, but Emmerson is the face,” said Mbuso Fuzwayo, secretary of a Bulawayo-based group that seeks to preserve sites where massacres occurred.
The group is called Ibetshu Likazulu, Ndebele for “last hope.”
Mugabe has called Gukurahundi a “moment of madness.”
Asked about it at the Davos meeting of world leaders in January, Mnangagwa said: “What has happened has happened. What can we do about the past?
“Wherever wrong was committed, the government of the day must apologize. Wherever any community has suffered any injury, if it is that injury that has to be repaired, we do it,” he said.
Henry Khabo, 67, from rural Bubi, 70km from Bulawayo, wants an apology and reparations.
He said he was rounded up by Fifth Brigade soldiers in Bubi and airlifted to Tsholotsho, 200km away, where he was tortured for days and saw bodies being dumped in a huge pit.
On the final day, together with six other men, he was lined up naked for execution by firing squad, he said.
The last thing Khabo remembers is staring at the barrel of a gun and then waking up in a hospital three days later, he said.
He had been shot, but survived.
“I cannot vote for him,” Khabo said, fighting tears and pointing to a scar on his left cheek where a bullet entered and exited below the ear.
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
On the eve of the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe (VE) Day, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) made a statement that provoked unprecedented repudiations among the European diplomats in Taipei. Chu said during a KMT Central Standing Committee meeting that what President William Lai (賴清德) has been doing to the opposition is equivalent to what Adolf Hitler did in Nazi Germany, referencing ongoing investigations into the KMT’s alleged forgery of signatures used in recall petitions against Democratic Progressive Party legislators. In response, the German Institute Taipei posted a statement to express its “deep disappointment and concern”