By Prof Artwell Nhemachena
THERE was a flurry of media reports recently on the occasion of the Zimbabwean Parliament passing the Patriotic Bill.
As expected, there was opposition to the Bill but the opposition was premised on misinformation and lack of conceptual clarity about the objects of the criticisms.
When one opposes for the sake of opposing, one becomes sheer noise – a noisy variable in a context where we expect sanity, soberness and restraint.
There is a sea of a difference between being a noisy variable and exercising democratic rights.
Democracy doesn’t have to become noise.
Democracy is different from noise and from being noisy.
While other States, including the US, have quietly enacted their ‘Patriotic Acts’, strangely, some Zimbabweans become noisy variables when they are asked to be patriotic and when the State seeks to enact a Patriotic Bill.
In other words, some Zimbabweans want the equivalence of the US dollar in Zimbabwe but, ironically, they do not want the equivalence of the US Patriot Act in the country.
Put differently, they do not understand that the stability of a nation and of currency depends on the patriotism of its citizens.
Some Zimbabweans have become noisy variables who oppose progress for the sake of opposing.
Instead of correctly educating Zimbabweans that patriotism is exercised in relation to one’s country or State, some media outlets have reported that the Patriotic Bill is meant to protect government from criticism and stiffle the democratic space.
The media outlets fail to distinguish between Government and State, which is to say governments come and go but the State refers to the territory in which citizens live.
If the US Patriot Act has not been protecting a particular US government, why should the Zimbabwean Patriotic Act be interpreted as aimed at protecting a particular government?
There is a fundamental distinction between State and Government.
Laws that are meant to protect States are not necessarily intended to protect a particular government.
Zimbabweans have rights to accurate media reports and so, media houses must make all the necessary efforts to provide accurate information.
Just to provide a snapshot, in the flurry of media reports, The Telegraph’s headline was: ‘Zimbabwe outlaws criticism of government ahead of elections with sentence up to 20 years’.
The Guardian’s headline was: ‘Zimbabwe outlaws criticism of government before August elections’. Reuters’ headline read: ‘Zimbabwe ‘Patriotic Bill’ outlaws criticism of government before election’.
Times Live’s headline was: ‘Zimbabwe Parliament passes ‘Patriotic Bill’ outlawing criticism of government’.
News24, on the other hand, led with: ‘Zimbabwe passes ‘draconian’ Patriotic Bill ahead of elections’, while WION’s headline was: ‘Zimbabwe’s ‘Patriotic Bill’ forbids government criticism prior to elections’.
Not to be outdone was VOA which led with: ‘Zimbabwe opposition, rights groups bemoan passing of ‘Patriotic Bill’, while African News said: ‘Zimbabwe freedoms threatened by terrible new law’.
The point I am making here is that patriotism is not necessarily owed to a particular government but to a State, country or territory which exceeds a particular government.
If patriotism really threatens freedoms, then we would have seen this happening in other States, like the US, which have had similar Patriotic Acts for centuries. Patriotism cannot be antithetical to freedom only in Zimbabwe.
Indeed, we know that patriotism enables freedom – it is not antithetical to freedom.
Patriotism is similar to allegiance to one’s family or household.
It would be absurd to similarly claim that allegiance to one’s marriage or family is antithetical to freedoms, human rights and democracy.
The point in the foregoing is that those who oppose the Patriotic Bill would similarly oppose allegiance to one’s marriage and family.
Like patriotism, allegiance to one’s family or household is not reducible to allegiance to a particular individual even in the family or household.
Allegiance to one’s family or household does not translate to absence of constructive criticism directed even to the head of the family or head of the household.
Put differently, the Patriotic Act enjoins Zimbabweans to ensure that whatever they say and do is constructive and not destructive.
It is absurd to quibble that patriotism is antithetical to democracy or human rights.
One cannot logically have or demand democracy or human rights to destroy one’s own nation, State, family, marriage or household.
Democracy and human rights have limits.
They become anti-human when they become destructive to the institutions within which human rights and democracy are defined and understood.
Democracy, and indeed freedom, without responsibility equals anarchy
Allegiance to one’s family or household entails love, sacrifice, devotion and commitment to the integrity and sanctity of that family or household.
In other words, families and households do not need what I call fair-weather members who want to enjoy comfort but readily become noisy when they are called upon to sacrifice in times of trouble.
Similarly, nations or States do not need what I call fair-weather citizens who want to enjoy comfort in times of calm but become noisy when sacrifice becomes necessary.
One reason even African marriages and families readily break up is that they are constituted by what I call fair-weather spouses; spouses who want to enjoy every bit of the marriage and family but quick to become noisy variables once challenges necessitate sacrifices, however ephemeral.
Allegiance to one’s family or household has to withstand the test of time and troubles.
One cannot quietly enjoy the comfort of the family or household and then when the comfort dwindles or vanishes, one struts from street to street pillorying the family or household.
Similarly, nations provide comfort when everything is ok but they also demand sacrifices when trouble knocks on the borders.
Heroes, by definition, are those who sacrifice.
Those who prefer comfort only cannot be heroes or heroines.
It is sacrifice that distinguishes a hero from an opportunist, yet Western ideologists have taught Zimbabweans to become noisy variables in their marriages, families and territories when sacrifice becomes necessary.
The point here is that some citizens have become so opportunistic that they only want comfort even where sacrifice should precede the comfort.
The nation is replete with opportunistic citizens, opportunistic spouses, opportunistic family members and what not.
The opportunistic ones find patriotism and allegiance too exacting for the comfort they crave.
Democracy and human rights have to be consistent not only with the expectations of comfort in marriages, families and States, but they also have to be consistent with the sacrifices that become necessary to weather neo-imperial cyclones.
Patriotism and allegiance are beyond debate.
These are the missing ingredients in African institutions from States to marriages and families.
At about the time when I completed my secondary education, I have had the occasion to witness a spouse who, each time they had challenges, would run out of the house into the street and then she would begin to shout at her husband to a cheering crowd of township dwellers.
Inside the house, she would have taken to jumping on the marital bed until it broke to pieces – and she would have thrown pots and plates on the wall until they broke.
Once outside, she would shout at the husband saying for instance: “Ndosaka usina chomukati!” meaning that the husband was not wearing underwear.
And the festering crowd of township dwellers would cheer her up and laugh, until about dusk.
For her, this constituted freedom and democracy.
The spouse would ironically return into the house to stay with her husband at whom she had been shouting to cheering township crowds the whole day.
This is an example of what I mean by destructive criticism.
It has nothing to do with human rights and democracy. Instead it has everything to do with insanity.
The problem in Africa is that some so-called civil society organisations (CSOs) and NGOs cheer up those in our midst who engage in destruction of their nations.
They cheer up the fair-weather citizens much as they cheer up fair-weather spouses within marriages and families.
There is a fundamental distinction between insanity and freedom.
The Patriotic Bill does not prohibit freedom, it prohibits insanity and anarchy.
Everyone has a right to be free, but no-one has a right to be insane.
It doesn’t constitute good governance to breed insanity in Africa.
If, as is the case, even the Rhodesians were patriotic to the territory which they had stolen from Africans, it boggles the mind why Africans do not want to be patriotic to their own territories.
Zimbabweans should defend their nation as much as they defend their marriages and families.
Lack of patriotism is symptomatic in lack of allegiance to one’s marriage and family.
It is a cancer that eats away at the Zimbabwean society. Noisy variables are socially destructive.
The Patriotic Bill calls for mature, sane and constructive engagements among Zimbabweans.
It does not kill freedom.
Rather, it enhances freedom and the sanity that constitutes the foundation of every freedom.
