The Issue Of Succession And Zimbabwean Journalism

The ZimJournalists Arise Team has published a number articles on the succession issue, as it believes Journos should closely examine the splits in the party more closely and its links to political jostling for Mugabe’s office. We stumbled on this article and thought it would be an interesting addition to some of the succession stories in the Zimbabwean media.

Zimbabwean journalists are indulging in a cheap and superficial kind of journalism that seeks to link everything to the question of who is to succeed President Robert Mugabe, no matter how tenuous the link, writes Geoff Nyarota in his column in the Financial Gazette.

After placing a lid firmly on any open discussion pertaining to his own departure and replacement as head of state, President Robert Mugabe set the ball of succession debate rolling back in 2003 when he said that such debate should be encouraged rather than have party leaders campaigning clandestinely.

He was addressing a Zanu-PF rally in Mount Darwin, 150 km northeast of Harare. He had then been in office for 23 years and many assumed their President was now tired of doing the same job for more than two decades without promotion.

The official Herald surprised its readers when it quoted Mugabe as stating publicly: “You must debate succession. We want to be true and open to each other and discuss as a united people.”

The succession issue has since that day spawned debate and strategies, while causing much grief, especially in the aftermath of the so-called Tsholotsho Plot, which saw a number of politicians ruthlessly marginalized on suspicion that they were plotting against the presidency, to use appropriate parlance.

A new variety of reporting has emerged in Zimbabwe. I call it succession journalism. In such journalism a succession angle, however remote, is introduced to every story, whether it be a sports report, a feature, a gender-related article, a political analysis, a business story or even a court case.

As a result, Zimbabwe’s long-suffering newspaper readers have become accustomed or, more appropriately, resigned themselves to story introductions such as: “In the latest episode of the succession campaign prosperous tycoon was arrested yesterday in connection with alleged massive fraud”. A variation would be, “Politician so-and-so of this or that succession faction seeks to divorce his wife. This is the latest development in the presidential succession saga.”

In many such articles the succession angle is usually not developed beyond the introductory paragraph. Almost invariably this paragraph is immediately followed by background material, some of it unrelated, to strengthen the dubious intervention of some so-called political analyst or observer. The stories are, as a matter of routine and ritual, characterized by such gratuitous statements as, “Emmerson Mnangagwa whose succession star is shining brightly again…”, or “Retired General Solomon Mujuru, who is on the ascendancy again . . .”. This practice leaves readers of perspicacity in doubt, whatsoever, that the articles are either planted by the succession combatants themselves or by agents acting on their behalf.

A variation of this perception is that the articles are penned by scribes with a vested interest in seeking to strengthen through their writings the prospects of one faction against the other.

Not wishing to be outdone, or shall I say, in keeping with the current practice of good succession journalism I approached the University of Zimbabwe, the main catchment area of succession analysts and unearthed one Augustine Hungwe, a political scientist. I was on the look-out for new blood, not the press-button analysts who have become household names in Zimbabwe.
Sounds Familiar
Such instant analysts will respond to press inquiries on every conceivable topic under sun. Towards production deadlines enterprising journalists, in desperate need of a story to submit to the news editor, will resort to the modern tool of journalism, the cell-phone, to place a call through to the analysts. In most cases they will not be disappointment. Some of the more accomplished analysts can be relied upon to comment upon subjects as diverse, for example, as the controversial adoption of poverty-stricken Baby Banda of Malawi by world-famous entertainer Madonna to the attributes of the latest Bentley Continental GT, without batting an eye-lid.

Experienced readers know in advance that the name of certain analysts is likely to crop into an article by the third or fourth paragraph.
My own political analyst, Hungwe, says the succession debate appears to have come to the rescue of some journalists, who on a hard day will turn any story, however remotely connected, into a succession scoop.
“Whatever the story, whatever the issue, journalists will find a link to the succession debate, however tenuous,” he says. “A succession debate syndrome has emerged and asserted itself on our journalism. Mugabe himself must laugh his head off at some of the succession headlines and linkages. But seriously this succession debate is getting out of hand.”
More Stories To More Confusion
Hungwe says the succession stories appear to be causing more confusion and generating more nationwide curiosity about the prospects of succession to Mugabe.
“The more the public reads about the succession controversy the less they seem to know about what is taking place,” he says.

Major victims of the succession debate include controversial businessman, John Bredenkamp, who the Criminal Investigation Department and Central Intelligence Organisation were said to be investigating for alleged economic crimes. Other notable victims are equally controversial entrepreneur Phillp Chiyangwa of Pinnacle Property Holdings and Justice Minister Patrick Chinamasa.
“The succession battle within Zimbabwe’s ruling Zanu PF party has claimed another victim with controversial businessman, John Bredenkamp, fleeing a probe into his companies,” one publication boldly pronnounced.

The pinnacle of succession journalism was reached by one online publication, which dutifully reported on the just concluded Chinamasa trial. This particular story captured the fanciful or fertile imagination of succession journalists. The Justice Minister was put on trial on allegations that he attempted to defeat the course of justice by using his powerful position to influence the course of a case involving fellow Manicaland politician, Didymus Mutasa. While entertaining self-confessed presidential ambitions Mutasa seems to have a proclivity for behaviour totally unbefitting for a presidential hopeful.

Chinamasa is said to belong to the Mnangagwa faction in the succession battle. In a curious twist of events, Attorney-General Sobuza Gula-Ndebele who, so succession analysts say, has effectively positioned himself in the Mujuru camp, arraigned his boss, Chinamasa, before the courts.

On the eve of judgement one online publication appears to have sought to help the prosecution by delivering a devastating blow on the accused. With little regard to issues of prejudice, the publication quoted an unnamed lawyer as saying, “If indeed, it is true, as it has been claimed, that the charges are designed to bury Chinamasa’s political career, he could be convicted.”

The unnamed lawyer was then miraculously allowed to proceed: “The prosecutor made a crucial revelation in court about Chinamasa’s dark history as a senator in Ian Smith’s government. Without questioning the prosecutor’s research skills, those details look very likely to have been provided by state intelligence because it has, in my knowledge, never been disclosed in public. If that’s the case, then Chinamasa should be worried.”

In their closing arguments, state prosecutors had apparently accused Chinamasa of trying to cloud the charges against him by introducing unwarranted political dimensions to the trial.
“The accused was not brought before this court to answer allegations that he joined the Zanu-PF youth wing in 1963. The accused is not here to explain how as a Zanu-PF candidate he ended up being elected or appointed into the Rhodesian senate in 1975,” the state said in its closing submissions.

Now, assuming it is true that Chinamasa joined Zanu-PF at the youthful age of 14 or 15 in 1963, why should this issue now be elevated to the status of an allegation, deserving of denial by the said Chinamasa. I first met Chinamasa at the University of Rhodesia, if you will excuse the pun, in 1971.

While he was two years my senior he did not look at that time as one who had been a member of Zanu-PF for seven years. I believe it is unadulterated nonsense that he joined Zanu-PF in 1963 or that Zanu-PF participated in any elections in 1975.
The allegation that Chinamasa was appointed to the Rhodesian Senate in 1975 is pure malice. While the minister is not one of my favourite politicians, I would place my neck on the block in his defence in the face of such malicious falsehood. I have consulted other people who were at the university at the time. They have no recollection whatsoever of Chinamasa ever gracing the Senate with his presence. If someone comes up with irrefutable evidence of Chinamasa’s alleged defection from Zanu-PF to become a Rhodesian senator in the 70s, I will tender my sincere and unreserved apologies to all concerned.

A friend of long-standing, who refused to be identified by name, had this to say: “Methinks Chinamasa is being mixed up with our learned Chief Justice, Godfrey Guwa Chidyausiku, who was definitely a Member of Parliament but not a Senator in 1975. You will, I’m sure, recall the occasion when Chidyausiku made a fool of himself by rocking up in Parliament bedecked in a gaudy psychedelic suit.”
Meanwhile, Chinamasa was duly acquitted, raising the ire of the Attorney-General who threatened to appeal against the judgement.

This particular episode of succession journalism brought back to my mind the media situation in Malawi at the time when former Life President the Ngwazi Dr Hastings Kamuzu Banda fell from power after his country’s first democratic elections in May 1994. The Life President’s term came to an end after three decades in office, as an absolute dictator most of the period.
Malawi was served for most of that time by one daily newspaper and one Sunday paper, both of which were published by Press Holdings, a company wholly owned by Banda. When the press was emancipated after a campaign by Malawian civil society, a total of 19 new newspapers literally sprouted from nowhere in 1993 and early 1994.

Many of the papers were owned by politicians seeking to succeed Banda. Both professional and ethical standards were abandoned as newspapers of different shades of political opinion vied to deliver devastating blows on rival politicians. In bold banner headlines politicians were labelled as murderers, crooks or rapists, without a shred of evidence being offered to support such allegations.

One Malawi Congress Party (MCP)-aligned newspaper constantly referred in headlines to the president of the United Democratic Front (UDF) Bakhili Muluzi, as “Wakuba”, or the thief. The MCP was Banda’s much feared political party.

The paper had discovered that as a junior civil servant in his younger days, Muluzi had misappropriated a few kwacha. He went on to become the next President of Malawi. Malawian journalists argued that there was no time to be wasted on journalistic niceties at such a crucial period. Banda succumbed to the onslaught of the hungry newspapers and duly fell by the wayside.

Many of the new papers also fell by the wayside with their victim. They had no other agenda apart from mounting a relentless campaign of attack on the ageing dictator.