THE number of people said to have died in the aftermath of the just ended Zimbabwean elections is put at 25 and rising. The MDC has claimed that all the dead were MDC activists.
I mean no disrespect for the dead, and in no way am I condoning violence, political violence in Zimbabwe, but I think we need to talk about this. Yes, we must question why everyone killed thus far has been labelled ‘activist’. Yes, there is violence in Zimbabwe and it would only be fair to assume that it is coming from all sides and it would therefore mean we have victims from all parties — activists and non-activists.
Hence, the question is it only MDC activists who have been killed? What makes one an activist anyway? Does voting for MDC qualify one as an activist? Does voting for Zanu PF make one a Zanu PF activist? The choice of the term "activist" brings an immediate difficulty regarding definition. Generally, the term "political activist" has the connotation of a full time career in political campaigning and organisation.
But political activity, it can be argued, can take numerous forms not merely as actions taken by those who spend the most time debating, promulgating ideas and strategy-making for change. So, how and what makes these people activists? Is there political mileage gained by calling anyone who dies at the time an activist? Should the public not be told more about these activists?
At the end of the day, these to me are Zimbabweans dying for senseless reasons and in very violent ways. Violence brought about because of political differences, which in many ways is fanned by irresponsible leaders and to a certain extent divisive media coverage of political news in Zimbabwe, by a host of media organisation (electronic and print)—something that I can only describe as a shame in this day and age.
Nevertheless, I think labelling the dead as MDC activists is opportunism gone too far.
The MDC has been accused of claiming dead bodies and making unsubstantiated claims they have been challenged to report all these cases of deaths to the police, rather than to the media.
Just recently Zimbabwe’s Justice Minister Patrick Chinamasa accused the MDC of having a ‘macabre tendency to claim dead bodies’. “Even people who have died of natural causes are adopted by the MDC-T and the cause of death is subsequently attributed to State-sponsored violence,” Chinamasa argued.
Soon after the elections, the MDC reported that 10 of its activists had been killed in post election violence and that hundreds had been hospitalized. They also claimed that 3,000 people had been internally displaced.
However, Wayne Bvudzijena the Zimbabwe Police Commissioner put it that the MDC-T did not file all ten cases, of the ten that were said to have dead only four names were given Three of which were said to have had no basis whatsoever while the fourth was said to have been under investigation.
This then gives more reason why we need to have the names of those killed and places where this took place, otherwise questions will be asked and the sincerity of reporting/ publishing numbers of the dead to the media may be viewed by many as a political gimmick aimed at grabbing headlines and the attention of the West.
Inasmuch as we should condemn violent killings motivated by political differences, politicians must not take advantage of the dead in such a way.
They must not try to capitalise/ gain political mileage in the most despicable of ways such as this.
The MDC should be careful how they use and present these figures lest they be seen to use the dead for political mileage.
And when they use these figures to highlight the level of violence—the brutal and senseless killings that are taking place in Zimbabwe—it would even have more weight if they but have the names of those who have been killed, where they were killed and perhaps the roles that these ‘activists’ played in the party. It not only shows respect for the dead, but also vindicates the claims that the dead belonged to their party.
Brilliant Pongo
