A COLLEAGUE of mine was recently briefing me of challenges she was having managing her business enterprise.
In a firm and assured voice, she declared, “Handichadi zvechivanhu pabasa, ndaakuda kuita chirungu chaicho nekuti vashandi vaakundijairira.
“Ndikasadaro kambani inoparara.”
To save her business from collapse, she was giving up African approaches to management in favour of European managerial styles.
My colleague is a patriot and proponent for promotion of African values, chivanhu, in life in general.
Her new position confused me; it was very much against what I considered her principles.
I asked her to elaborate and after some intense discussion, I began to see her point.
In the end we agreed that in management chivanhu meant being polite, indirect, consultative and respectful while chirungu is about being forthright, and firm.
Chivanhu allows for the subordinate to think while in chirungu subordinate only follows orders.
In other words chivanhu is to be humane while chirungu is to be insensitive.
Clearly my friend’s experience had convinced her that in business there was no room for chivanhu.
That being the case, I wondered whether these attributes tended to be reversed when it comes to politics.
Generally our Western friends would want us to believe that democracy is a commodity that they bring to us.
We are reminded that prior to their triumphant entry into Indian Ocean water via the Cape, we were at the mercy of dictator kings/chiefs rulers.
Enter a host of crooked characters like traders, missionaries and colonial officers, and we were gradually introduced to basic tenets of democracy.
Several centuries later, we have a host of non-governmental organisations (NGOs), latter day missionaries, preaching to us democracy.
The question that remains unanswered is; why is chivanhu, with its humane attributes, autocratic and chirungu, insensitive and inhuman, democratic?
Chivanhu demanded that ruling be consultative, inclusive and considerate of available wisdom.
This manifested itself at mana or musha (village), dunhu and nyika levels.
Some of us had exposure to the former two levels as we grew up.
Male adults constituted the village dare.
Here they ate together and discussed clan issues including wayward behaviour like wife abuse.
It was a continuous learning platform on our humanistic attributes.
This informal village council allowed for consensus building in matters of concern to the village.
Village dare is a concept that is of some antiquity in our society.
The Portuguese, on arrival in the 16th century found the concept well established and have written extensively on it.
At the dunhu level, dare was a formal council presided over by Sadunhu.
It had the powers of a court of law.
Its membership included the Sadunhu’s counselors, close advisors, friends and wise men from the dunhu.
It met as an advisory council to deliberate development issues.
This dare also met as a court to try those accused of transgressing.
People who made frivolous contributions to this dare were usually assigned menial tasks under the, ‘kuvhuyiswa mbudzi’ concept.
My maternal grandfather was a Sadunhu and at his dare, as an infant, I eaves dropped theft, witchcraft, adultery and livestock management issues.
The highest dare was Dare renyika or raMambo, the chief/king’s court.
The Portuguese have described for us in detail the Mutapa’s dare/court.
This dare had the following offices; Nengomasha…governor of the provinces, Mukomohasha….Captain-General of the armies, Nyandovo.Chief musician, Nyarukawo……Captain of the vanguard in war times, Mbokorume…..Mutapa’s right handman, could be a group of them and were usually of mukuwasha or muzukuru status, Nehonho…..Chief door-keeper, Mangwende….Chief magician…n’anga, Netambe……Chief herbalist.
There were other lower ranking officers as well as some of Mutapa’s wives who were part of the court.
Vassals who had the status of kings did not attend Mutapa’s court.
Lower ranking vassals, in the Mutapa empire, usually only came to the Mutapa court for the Chivabvu ceremony in May.
During the war, the dare concept was popularised by ZANU’s Dare reChimurenga, the war council.
Thus even in times of conflict we believed in consensus building, negotiated outcomes.
When the war arrived in our village, a village court was established along dare lines.
At independence there was an attempt to push this democratic value into our judiciary through community courts.
Unfortunately the judiciary, full of conservatives, failed to accommodate this progressive contribution.
To the extent business requires an iron fist, as my friend has recently discovered, maybe chivanhu and its democratic tendencies has no role in business management.