FOR people to resort to violence, civilised communication would have broken down; something would have gone wrong.
Some violation will have taken place to disturb someone’s intrinsic value; someone’s self-worth.
Violence does not begin with fists, guns, batons, machetes or spears.
Violence begins when it is conceived that it is correct to abrogate another human’s intrinsic sense of self-worth.
It is therefore not surprising to witness the violence rocking the MDC-T in the aftermath of Morgan Tsvangirai’s death; it is not so uncharacteristic.
When Tsvangirai ensconced with the British’s Chatham House, he was enlisting into a very violent system that has traumatised Zimbabwe for at least 90 years; a system which embroiled us in a bitter war that cost us upwards of 60 000 lives, wreaked untold suffering and left many scarred physically and psychologically.
He took a decision to be part-and-parcel of this evil system, to further its goals in Zimbabwe, to perpetuate and perpetrate the heinous crime of subjugating us to itself despite the atrocities it had already committed against our people; the armed robbery of our land, the butcher of our people the total disregard of our humanity.
Tsvangirai saw no harm in this; saw no travesty and nothing troubled his conscience. He took a decision to be part-and-parcel of the British violence on Zimbabwe.
When the British decided to loot and plunder Zimbabwe as well as to butcher everyone who stood in their path in this process, they took an extremely violent decision. To declare war on an innocent people whose capacity to defend themselves was far below their capacity to annihilate them was genocidal.
It was diabolical.
Zimbabweans have resisted this evil from the days of King Lobengula, through the war of 1893, through the First, Second and Third Chimurenga and in the process they paid heavily.
So many of our people perished in defence of their motherland, Zimbabwe.
It was not correct for anyone to ensconce with the British to punish us for taking back our land — land which was originally ours anyway.
It is God-given land for which thousands have died, land for which the British were bound to pay for by law as part of their terms of surrender under the ‘Lancaster House Agreement’. Tsvangirai called for sanctions against his own people.
His voice was in unison with that of the British armed robbers and their European relatives. For him to say Zimbabweans must suffer for taking back their land in unison with the British, the Americans and their European relatives was extremely violent. It was more violent than his handlers because he was a Zimbabwean fighting his own kith and kin.
To say Zimbabweans had to suffer for taking back their land was to negate that the British were ever wrong in taking our land.
He was casting his lot with the British in traumatising us for almost a century; it was very violent for him to say this. It revealed an extremely violent state of mind and heart. The British sponsored him so that they could change leadership in Zimbabwe.
They wanted to install him as a puppet who would do their bidding.
They wanted a puppet who would allow unbridled looting and plunder of Zimbabwe’s wealth as they had done in the 90 years of robbery of our land until the gun threw them out.
They paid him to deliver the head of Zimbabwe on a platter, and Zimbabwe would be no more; Rhodesia would resurrect but with a face painted black, the way the Rhodies painted their faces black when they went to massacre those at Nyadzonia.
The Nyadzonia massacre, Chimoio massacre, massacres at Mboroma, at Mkushi, those massacres within Zimbabwe; none of them woke his conscience to the criminality of being a British puppet, a British instrument against his people — to him, there was nothing wrong.
The violence in him was at peace with what the British had done against our people in the past and now; he could put his hand to their plough without any compunction. When the British found such a man, they found something after their heart; they bankrolled him to work for them through the so-called MDC.
What is democratic about working to re-install the robbery of your land by foreigners?
What is democratic about foreigners being in-charge of your country?
What is democratic about foreigners re-possessing land which was never theirs in the first place, land for which they killed so many people, land which belonged to Zimbabweans.
What is democratic in enabling foreigners to loot and plunder your country’s wealth?
It is not democratic.
It is extremely violent to be a paid stooge by whose hand your own people are crucified. Thanks to the God of Zimbabwe, Musikavanhu, and the blood of all those who laid their lives down for Zimbabwe; thanks to all those heroic Zimbabweans who relentlessly fought against the puppet regime change project, Tsvangirai and his MDC’s violence did not succeed.
He died without delivering Zimbabwe’s head to the British.
The violence erupting in MDC following Tsvangirai’ death has always been there — it is nothing new.
The very seed of MDC was violent; its origins are the propagation and perpetuation of the British violence against our people.
His decision to be a paid instrument of the British to re-colonise Zimbabwe was the epitome of violence, thus there has always been violence in the MDC DNA, in its marrow, in its very heart.