HomeOld_PostsPolarisation: The enemy within

Polarisation: The enemy within

Published on

By Tafadzwa Masango and Dambudzo Mapuranga

WHILE the subject of media polarisation has been noted by several election observer missions in past elections, what has lacked is the articulation of why, how and who is polarising the country’s media. 

The greatest loser in the polarisation of the country’s media is the voting population, as a polarised media leads to a polarised nation. 

The degree of political polarisation in a society is a key variable that quantifies the extent to which public opinion is split into two extremes. 

This is a very important variable to take into account; the greater the polarisation, the more difficult it is to generate a broad consensus among groups with different views in order to undertake reforms that allow society to achieve progress. 

As such, a high degree of polarisation can lead to irreconcilable positions, making it difficult to reach consensus. 

Look at how this polarisation is making it difficult for those with a genuine love for this country to unite our people.

Spanish Caixa Bank research arm released a paper titled: ‘Political polarisation: The phenomenon that should be on everyone’s lips’ which notes that:

“Society has become notably more polarised in recent years. 

In the US, this manifests itself through a wider gap between the views of Republican and Democrat voters. 

In Europe, we have identified an increase in disagreements over fundamental issues such as immigration and European integration. 

Political parties have also become more polarised in advanced economies, most notably in the last decade.”

US political journal The American Interest identifies some of the major causes of political polarisation in the US and a close look at these causes and how they manifest in the US shows that Zimbabwe is headed down the same path. 

We could say the West, in particular the US, is exporting the worst of its ills to Zimbabwe. 

If there is one aspect of US politics that most of their leaders understand, it is that there is always need for ‘a global enemy to keep us united as we focus on a powerful and cohesive external threat’. 

Ever wonder why the US is constantly at war, constantly picking fights, constantly sowing fear and alarm in its citizens that the ‘American way of life is under threat’ from one enemy or another? 

Because such propaganda keeps the nation together – they put aside their political differences so they can tackle the outsider. 

In Zimbabwe, there is a clear external threat of foreign interference and endeavors to manipulate our political processes. 

However, instead of Zimbabweans coming together to fight these threats, some have chosen to be used and work for the very people who threaten to destroy our nation. 

Instead of Zimbabweans coming together and standing against sanctions, some Zimbabweans choose to support their imposition despite the sanctions causing immeasurable suffering to Zimbabweans from across the socio-economic and political divide. 

The Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the African Union (AU) have taken a stand against sanctions. 

Why is it that Zimbabweans cannot seem to agree on issues that other countries view as having national interest value? 

Key to failure by Zimbabweans to come together and coalesce around issues that would be defined as national interest is the continued abuse of the political space by the opposition. 

If Zimbabweans speak with one voice regarding the land issue, certainly no nation would continue to use the issue as a way to meddle in our affairs.   

After MDC leader Nelson Chamisa called those who took to the streets in August 2018, demanding for the release of the Presidential election results, ‘stupid’, there has been a growing sentiment within his party that the opposition leadership is a bunch of selfish individuals who will sacrifice supporters for their political expediency. 

Comparisons are now being drawn between this crop of opposition leaders and those of ZANU PF, who are part of the liberation struggle.  

One commentator said if Nelson Chamisa and his crop of opposition leaders had been the ZANU PF leadership pre-independence, Zimbabwe would still be Rhodesia because of their ineptness, pettiness and self-serving nature. 

Similarly, in the US, there is a new crop of petty, selfish and divisive political leadership, which is the complete opposite of the previous generation.  

David Blakenhorn laments what he calls the ‘passing of the greatest generation’ which he says is a generation of men and women whose values where forged in the trials of the Great Depression and the Second World War — including a willingness to sacrifice for country, concern for the general welfare, a mature character structure and adherence to a shared civic faith — reduced social and political polarisation. 

The difference in the politicisation of the old and new generation is exemplified by these two influencers:

“I didn’t vote for him but he’s my President, and I hope he does a good job.” — John Wayne (b. 1907) on the election of John F. Kennedy in 1960.

“I hope he fails.” — Rush Limbaugh (b. 1951) on the election of Barack Obama in 2008.

The use of social media to preach hate, spread lies, divide and conquer nations is at an all-time high. 

Anyone can publish anything that gains views and clicks on social media. 

In the US, we have a president who threatens, silences and attacks the media constantly: A leader who has no qualms with firing those who crititise and expose him. 

Social media has created celebrities out of people who do not have moral compasses, who will say and do anything for the high that comes with clicks and views of their posts. 

In a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace book titled, How to understand the Global Spread of Political Polarization, the authors, Thomas Carothers and Andrew ODonohue note that: “Amplifying the effect of these divisive figures is the technologically fueled disruption of the media industry, especially the rise of social media. 

Opposition leaders often fan the flames as well by responding with antidemocratic and confrontational tactics of their own.”

The amount of funding Western embassies are pouring into controlling and setting narratives on social media in Zimbabwe highlights the importance of cyber space in the regime change agenda. 

The traditional media has become too slow and narratives and propaganda can be corrected easily. 

Social media has no right of response. 

It has no retraction; anyone can say anything and by the time the lies are exposed, the damage will be done. 

The rise of these so-called social media content producers in Zimbabwe is not based on the need to grow the industry but their presence and function is to amplify the polarisation of our society through politics of hate under the guise of comedy. 

One of the most infuriating things for those fomenting polarisation is that President Emmerson Mnangagwa has risen above the toxicity in our political environment. 

President Mnangagwa is the antipathy of probably one of the more controversial figures in global politics, President Donald Trump. 

President Trump has proved to be divisive and Chamisa is modeling himself in the same manner; a motormouth who lies, incites and shows no remorse for his actions whose consequences negatively affect millions of citizens. 

While Chamisa preaches hate, President Mnangagwa has been preaching peace and unity. 

Chamisa tries by all means to gourd President Mnangagwa, but the latter has shown what it is to be a true Statesman, and chosen not to be drawn into petty childish squabbles, instead focussing on developing Zimbabwe. 

President Mnangagwa’s actions in refusing to be involved in a childish shouting match with Chamisa is but one of the many actions that, as Zimbabweans, we can take to depolarise our nation. 

Look at how polarisation in the West is damaging all institutions essential to democracy. 

Here in Zimbabwe, polarisation is feeding into the undermining of our Judiciary. 

Each time the opposition loses a case, they attack the judiciary, calling it all sorts of names, but when they win cases, suddenly the courts are independent.  

Such hypocrisy! 

This is unhealthy for a young democracy such as ours as it causes citizens to lose faith in the very systems that they should turn to.

Perhaps, most fundamentally, polarisation shatters informal but crucial norms of tolerance and moderation—like conceding peacefully after an electoral defeat—that keep political competition within bounds. 

Chamisa, who brought his case before the ConCourt, thereby, in essence, acknowledging that the Court would justly deal with his matter, and his about turn when he lost his challenge, is a typical example of a polarising figure. 

A man who has no qualms about poisoning the very fabric of our society and nation, all in pursuit of political power.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Latest articles

Musician pens seven books

By Fidelis Manyange CHITUNGWIZA-based musician, known in music circles as Gaban Kufemamoto Chebani Chedondo Chegwenzi...

A successful first quarter

THE first quarter of the year is done. As a people, we have not been...

FOZEU’s call for strike…an attempt at provoking anarchy

By Elizabeth Sitotombe IN an attempt to sow anarch across the country by calling for...

Chitepo’s fight for land

This story was first published on 21/03/2016 By Patience Rusare LAND ranked highest among the grievances...

More like this

Musician pens seven books

By Fidelis Manyange CHITUNGWIZA-based musician, known in music circles as Gaban Kufemamoto Chebani Chedondo Chegwenzi...

A successful first quarter

THE first quarter of the year is done. As a people, we have not been...

FOZEU’s call for strike…an attempt at provoking anarchy

By Elizabeth Sitotombe IN an attempt to sow anarch across the country by calling for...

Discover more from Celebrating Being Zimbabwean

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading