Vice President Emmerson Mnangagwa had a press conference at the weekend in which he made strenuous efforts to disassociate himself from Lacoste, a ZANU PF faction that he has been accused of leading in the on-going battle to succeed President Mugabe. He accused his detractors of generating and spreading falsehoods against him. It was an uncharacteristic step for a man who has cultivated an impression of keeping stoic and calm even in the face of attack.
Language of the people
It is interesting to note that Mnangagwa chose to present his statement in both English and Shona. On closer analysis, although he was following the same script, the two versions are different. His Shona presentation is more authentic, more heartfelt and indeed, far more revealing of his state of mind and feelings than the English version in which he stuck largely to the written script. There is something that the native tongue communicates which cannot be captured by the dry formalism of an adopted language.
Secondly, Mnangagwa used Shona because he knows his audience is much bigger than the journalists who were in attendance or the English-speaking audience. Like his boss Mugabe, Mnangagwa knows that the critical constituency is in rural Zimbabwe, where 67% of the population lives. These were the people that he was addressing and it was strategic to speak in the language of the people. If he could speak Ndebele well enough, it is arguable he would have given a third version of the press conference, for the message to reach as many people as possible.
Strategic change
Mnangagwa is known to be a man of few words. It is not just because he does not possess the gift of eloquence which his boss is blessed with in abundance. This strategy of silence has served him well until now. The almost mythical character who exists in the public consciousness – the quietly fearsome hard-man – has been built around this strategy of silence; the man who acts as if he is not perturbed, even when attacked. Earlier in the week he had given just a few lines, in response to a question, in which he said he was not concerned by those who “bark” endlessly and that instead their “barking” gives him more energy. He must have been advised that this was not sufficient, and that he needed to step up his personal defence against the mounting attacks. But why the change in strategy?
Mnangagwa provides an innocent explanation, saying he is following an invitation by President Mugabe for leaders to respond and refute false allegations against them. He also says his silence all along was in accordance with party protocol and procedures. “A lot of things have been said about me. But I did not respond because that is not how we do things in ZANU PF. Leaders do not wash dirty linen in public. There are platforms for that – central committee, politburo … That is why I did not respond and kept quiet. However, President Mugabe exhorted leaders to respond when they are accused, to refuse false allegations so that people know the truth,” said Mnangagwa in the Shona version of his press conference.
This is a safe but woefully inadequate explanation. The fact is that Mnangagwa learnt from the way his predecessor, Joice Mujuru handled a similar situation two years ago. Mujuru chose to maintain a dignified silence in the face of a wave of attacks from Grace Mugabe and others. Mnangagwa knows this strategy did not work for Mujuru. Mnangagwa does not want to go the way, without a fight. The response shows it has now dawned on Mnangagwa that he is facing a similar onslaught and a serious crisis that could cost him his job and his presidential ambitions. He has chosen to fight back. The message to rivals is that he will not surrender meekly. Silence is no longer a strategic option.
Nevertheless, his rivals are unlikely to be disappointed by the fact that he has responded. If anything, it’s a good thing for them because they can now engage in the brawl they have always hoped for. It is considered embarrassing in politics when a senior politician is forced to respond to a very junior official in the party. It’s something that Mnangagwa would have wanted to avoid. Since he has responded, they can now counter-respond. Mnangagwa and his allies may have to brace themselves for more responses and fire-fighting now that the flood-gates are open. Sarah Mahoka and Mandiitawepi Chimene had the role of goading Mnangagwa into a brawl. Now they have it. Going forward, those behind the attacks will probably step up the onslaught.
Proximity and loyalty
One prominent aspect of Mnangawa’s response was a heavy emphasis on the proximity of his lengthy relationship with his boss, Mugabe. “I want to narrate my journey in the party, as a comrade for 54 years. I was appointed by the President as head of security, as SAP – Special Assistant to the President (SAP) in 1977 … The President is the only centre of power in the party. This is what we have always enforced since the days of the liberation struggle. Others rebelled – some were rehabilitated and others were imprisoned. I was the enforcer. At independence, I was entrusted with the Ministry in charge of State Security”. His written script has more details of his relationship with Mugabe”.
For readers who recall one Big Saturday Read which traced the “special relationship” between Mugabe and Mnangagwa they will have found the script narrated by Mnangagwa very familiar. The video shows Mnangagwa taking journalists through various portraits on the walls of his office, which show him with Mugabe. He uses those portraits as a way of explaining his closeness to Mugabe, which goes back a long way.
Mnangagwa’s message is directed at both Mugabe and his detractors in the succession battle. To Mugabe, he is saying we have come a long way. I have trusted and protected you in my role in security. I am loyal and I cannot betray you now. It’s almost a desperate plea to say, surely you remember where we have come from? To his detractors, Mnangagwa is boasting about the special nature of his relationship with a man he calls “father and principal mentor”. He is saying my relationship with Mugabe pre-dates yours.
Struggle credentials
A key feature of Mnangagwa’s presentation is the heavy emphasis on his struggle credentials. It is not only when he talks about his 54 years in politics, but when he shows pictures from the struggle, not just with Mugabe but with war heroes like Josiah Tongogara, Vitalis Zvinavashe, Ernest Kadungure and others. He also took the opportunity to re-tell his own narrative of the war and his heroics during the struggle. “I joined the struggle not in Rhodesia. I joined the struggle in Northern Rhodesia in 1959,” he said, referring to his long career in politics. He narrated how his family got expelled from Rhodesia.
This emphasis of the struggle has several meanings. First, it’s important for him to reaffirm his struggle credentials as a claim to leadership. The liberation war narrative remains an important basis to claim leadership in the ZANU PF narrative. By contrast, his rivals were not in the war and those who were, like Chimene, were very junior.
Second, the re-emphasis of war credentials reaffirms his war veteran status and identifies him with the war veterans. Therefore, while his written script chided rebellious war veterans, in the Shona video, while not naming it, Mnangangwa spends more time talking about G40 than castigating the war veterans. The subtle message to the war veterans in that video is “I am one of you and I am with you”.
Finally, heavy liberation war and military references also betray a mind that is in fighting mode. Mnangagwa is reminding his rivals that he is a fighter, has been in worse battles before and is ready to fight to the death for his political career. He will not give up easily.
Attacking G40
Mnangagwa does not name his detractors, but it’s obvious that he is referring to the attack by Chimene last week and by Mahoka in February. He also makes reference to Cabinet Ministers who have been attacking him and this is likely the likes of Prof Jonathan Moyo who has been openly critical of the Lacoste faction or “successionists”as he refers to them.
However, it is also clear that Mnangagwa sees characters like Chimene and Mahoka as mere proxies acting at the instigation of bigger players behind them. Denying allegations that he leads Lacoste faction, Mnangagwa indicated that the party had set up a committee to carry out investigations. “These facts will be disclosed. People might get embarrassed upon realization that they were wrong [about their allegations],” he said. Of interest is when he says using a Shona idiom, “Zvimwe unozowana kuti watsvaka n’anga yabata mai”. It is, of course, a figure of speech, which is the equivalent of saying you might end up being caught in your own trap. But there is a certain irony in that the G40 faction which is battling Mnangagwa is said to be led by Grace Mugabe, Mugabe’s wife who is often referred to as “amai” (mother). Indeed, T-shirts used by followers of the G40 faction often carry the message, “Munhu wese kuna amai” (Everyone must back mother).
It is clear that Mnangagwa has his eyes trained on the leadership of the G40, rather than Chimene or Mahoka, whom he sees as just an advance party. Of the collective, he refers to them as “chiGroup” – rogues, and says they are generating lies and falsehoods. “Zvavakananga handingazvizivi, kana kuti vatumwa nani, handizivi asi havangangomuki vachiita zvari kuita izvi, pane anovatuma. Zvose zvichabuda pachena kuti vanotumwa nani, kuti zvigodini, kuti vanoumbirei nhema” (I don’t know what their aim is or who is sending them but they cannot just wake up and start spreading these falsehoods. There is someone behind them. But the truth shall come out).
This is a message to his rivals in the succession race that he also has the capacity to embarrass them. He says the intelligence is involved in the investigation and given his long history in the security apparatus, he might have the means to present findings in his favour and against his detractors. For this reason, the next few weeks will be very interesting as the battle to succeed Mugabe escalates.
Mnangagwa’s media advantage
It is also becoming clear that unlike Mujuru two years ago, Mnangagwa has some leverage over his rivals in the state media. It is arguable that mass-selling Herald and Sunday Mail have long taken a pro-Mnangagwa stance. Even if they are not for Mnangagwa, indications are that they are certainly not against him. They have covered Mnangagwa’s woes in a more lenient and sympathetic manner, compared to the way they treated Mujuru despite both being accused of essentially trying to topple Mugabe.
One example of this bias is that when the video of Chimene’s diatribe against Mnangagwa last week was posted on YouTube by the ZimpapersDigital, it excluded words which categorically named Mnangagwa as the leader of Lacoste. In the original video, Chimene said, “Tsholotsho [Declaration] was led by Mnangagwa, Lacoste is also led by Mnangagwa”. But those words are missing in the video posted on The Herald. They have been deliberately removed. Clearly, there is someone powerful who controls state media who is batting for Mnangagwa. Of interest is that George Charamba, the Permanent Secretary of the Information Ministry, who writes under the alias Nathaniel Manheru in a weekly column for The Herald which routinely attacks Mugabe’s opponents, has for the past two weeks uncharacteristically skirted around the issue of the war veterans’ communique which attacked Mugabe and the fall-out from that event. Normally, the columnist would relish an opportunity to attack any critic of Mugabe, not least those from within the party. Yet Charamba has been unusually quiet about it so far. It should be remembered that Charamba was also attacked by Sarah Mahoka back in February, at the same time that she attacked Mnangagwa. Mahoka said Charamba was interfering in matters that did not concern him. Around the same time, Charamba was involved in a nasty verbal fight with Jonathan Moyo.
All this shows how strategic it was for Mnangagwa and his group to get Jonathan Moyo moved from the Information Ministry last year. If Moyo were still in charge of state media, then the onslaught against Mnangagwa would be relentless by now. Taking away the information portfolio seriously affected Moyo and the G40’s strategy. The transfer of the Chronicle editor, Mduduzi Mathuthu can also be seen in this context of removing any influence that Moyo and the G40 might have in the state media. Mathuthu was seen as Moyo’s appointee and it’s not surprising that Charamba made his move to replace him after Moyo’s departure. In the absence of any real influence in the state media, Moyo has had to make do with social media to challenge and mock the so-called “successionists”.
Conclusion
This was Mnangagwa taking the one step in defence which is more like a start in a long battle over the succession question. For too long, he had relied on the mystique built around his strategy of silence. But this was escalating and he needed to fight back, if anything, as a damage limitation exercise. Some may say he betrayed his allies, disowning his beleaguered war veterans. But owning up would be unstrategic on his part as that would play into the hands of his G40 rivals whose major object is to draw him into a brawl where he defends his presidential ambitions. For as long as Mugabe is there and unwilling to move, Mnangagwa is walking a tight rope.
Although there were a lot of words in his prepared statement, it was the presentation in the vernacular which was more revealing. Now that he has been drawn to speak out, G40 will continue goading him and his allies. Their aim is to get him angry and to lose his legendary cool and calmness. They know when that veil of calmness goes, he will be more reckless. But Mnangagwa still has the favour of the state media and quite possibly the military. It will not be easy to get rid of him as it was with Mujuru two years ago and this response shows both a desperation and a readiness to fight to the death.
But even though he said Mugabe was like his “father and principal mentor”, he knows surely that those words will not save him. They did nothing to save Mujuru two years ago and they won’t be enough for him. For the first time in this succession battle, the crocodile has taken the step of publicly defending himself. But does he have the energy, or better still, the bite to keep his rivals at bay?
waMagaisa
Reflections on a Trump presidency: Implications for Africa?