REGIME change ‘gods’ based in the West have a lot of their ‘priests’ and ‘pastors’ here in Zimbabwe and abroad.
These ‘clergymen’ of theirs preach devilish lies everyday, all intended to tarnish the good name of the ruling party ZANU PF.
For instance, they lie that ZANU PF has stayed in politics for too long.
Yes, that in so-called ‘democratic countries’ political parties do not stay in politics for a long time, but that they die, get buried and give way to new political blood.
They also preach the lie that in the so-called democratic countries, one political party does not dominate particular geographical locations like certain urban areas, rural areas or working class areas.
They say political parties in so-called democratic countries keep on changing constituencies every time there is a general election.
False!
It is the aim of this article to demonstrate that the regime change priests are lying when they preach all what we have just mentioned above.
In fact, ZANU PF is still very young on the political scene and so should be allowed to run the country since the people want them to rule.
Let’s look at one regime change priest based in the UK, Alex T. Magaisa.
He doesn’t want ZANU PF to control the rural areas and tells lies to the world that because the people in the rural areas always vote ZANU PF, they have without knowing become ‘prisoners’ of the revolutionary Party and need to be ‘emancipated’.
Said Magaisa: “Overall, the lifestyle in most rural areas in Zimbabwe is a dominated lifestyle.
The Party (ZANU PF) has a suffocating presence in the rural areas.
There is no single person it does not affect.
It is what children grow up knowing.
Their socialisation from the time they are born is heavily affected by ZANU PF.”
While the dominance of ZANU PF in rural areas is no secret, is it unique to ZANU PF that it dominates politically in a particular geographical area?
The answer is ‘no’.
Let us look at the US and UK, the two countries the regime change priests worship.
The American political system is dominated by two political parties: the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.
The Democrats are associated with the colour blue while the Republicans are associated with the colour red.
In the US, the ‘blue states’ are those traditionally won by the Democrats while the ‘red states’ are those normally controlled by the Republicans.
What the above tells us is that in the US, there are states which are always won by Democrats while there are also states which are always won by the Republicans.
Coming to the UK, we find the conservatives being dominant in certain areas election-after-election, while Labour too is dominant in other areas where the Conservatives are weak. Yes, you find certain geographical areas that are practically ‘owned’ by specific political parties — either Labour or Conservative.
It therefore only goes to show that the dominance of ZANU PF in the rural areas of Zimbabwe is not unique to ZANU PF.
In fact, the dominance by one particular political party in specific geographical locations is pretty common in the West. Now is the dominance of ZANU PF in the rurals of Zimbabwe peculiar?
Magaisa says it’s a very bad thing because the ZANU PF support is a result of them using alleged unorthodox means to gain support from people in the rural areas.
He goes on to say rural folks do not think for themselves when it comes to voting but are forced to vote for ZANU PF by visible and invisible forces.
Here he goes: “ZANU PF uses technologies whereby voters appear to act autonomously, exercising free will when in fact they would be responding to insidious forces.
There are various actors who make up the central authority which watches over the activities of rural citizens.
These actors include traditional leaders, members of the police, intelligence and military, civil servants in administrative structures and ZANU PF officers.
Together they perform the role of watchman, overseeing rural spaces and exercising disciplinary power whenever rural citizens do not conform to the rules.
All these actors represent the interests of ZANU PF and their task is to ensure that everyone complies – they are the enforcers.”
Now here is utter garbage dressed up as a work of academic research.
Which rural areas is Magaisa talking about?
In the 2008 general elections in Zimbabwe, the only province whose rural areas voted ZANU PF 100 percent was Mashonaland Central.
Every other province, except Harare and Bulawayo which are urban, had a lot of their rural constituencies voting against ZANU PF.
Some of them had all their rural constituencies voting against ZANU PF.
During Ndabaningi Sithole’s time and long after, Chipinge which is a rural area, voted against ZANU PF general election after general election.
Now if ZANU PF uses unorthodox methods and invisible forces, intimidation and what have you, which these regime change priests say enables it to always win the rural vote, why did ZANU PF in 2008 lose badly in the rural areas like Matabeleland North, Matabeleland South, Manicaland and to some extent Masvingo?
Why did ZANU PF lose consistently in rural Chipinge during the Sithole era?
The fact is ZANU PF fought the liberation war in the rural areas of the country.
People out there respect tremendously the political party’s impeccable liberation war credentials.
This is why they always vote the party into power.
It has nothing to do with the political mumbo jumbo Magaisa is preaching above.
Madzimbahwe, let us look further at Magaisa’s twisted logic. There are ‘blue states’ and ‘red states’ in the US.
Why are blue states voting for Democrats general election after general election?
Is it because of the influence of Democratic party’s ‘chiefs, intelligence and military and civil servants in administrative structures’?
Why are ‘red states’ always voting for Republicans?
Is it due to intimidation and invisible forces unleashed on them by the Republicans?
When the above questions are asked the regime change priests’ colonial mentality kicks in.
They answer that because the countries we are talking about here are white, therefore no nefarious activities ever take place there. And so the ‘red states’ and ‘blue states’ are creatures of the democratic process!
Shame on you regime change priests!
The control of certain geographical areas by particular political parties is a natural phenomenon in politics.
Then there is the falsehood that ZANU PF has stayed too long in politics.
Really!
How old is the Democratic party of the US, the Republican party and the Conservative party in UK.
The Democratic Party and the Republican Party are very old parties.
The Democrats go back to 1824 and the Republicans were founded in 1854.
The Conservative Party was founded in 1834.
These are the parties that have been in and out of power in their respective countries for decades, starting from ancient times.
Therefore to say ZANU PF has stayed too long in politics is false and is only meant to have a go at the revolutionary Party. Then there is this highly misleading lie by regime change priests that ZANU PF is the longest serving Party in Government in Africa.
The Botswana Democratic Party has been in power uninterrupted since 1964 and nobody says a word.
It is interesting to take note that ZANU was born, the very year the Botswana Democratic Party got into power in 1964. And to make the story more interesting, the Botswana Democratic Party has ruled their country since ZANU was born up to date.
Furthermore it is not the Botswana Democratic Party only that has been in Government longer than ZANU PF.
TANU in Tanzania, KANU in Kenya and FRELIMO in Mozambique have been in Government for much longer than ZANU PF.
Therefore, whenever you hear regime change agents talking about ZANU PF unfairly winning in the rural areas or having stayed too long in politics, they are merely talking down the revolutionary Party.
They are irked that the people still prefer ZANU PF to other ideologically bankrupt parties.