The Tribal Aspect In Zimbabwe’s Succession Politics.

“Nulla fides regni sociis omnisque potestas; impatiens consortis erit” - Marcus Annaeus Lucanus. [“There is no friendship between those associated in power; he who rules will always be impatient of an associate”].

The Vice President of the Republic of Zimbabwe, Comrade Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa.

Realities in the Post-Colonial African State have scant regard for the anthropologist's comfort. Just when my project of mapping all the tribes in Zimbabwe and assigning them their true interests was nearing completion, new tribes have just emerged there. In staying true to the anthropological spirit, I cannot, as yet, give them definitive names or descriptions since much further study is required. I cannot, as yet, enumerate them though I have observed two and can infer from these that other new tribes have also come into existence. I cannot, as yet either, say whether the two new tribes I have observed are mutually exclusive or not. 

But to understand alright what I mean by new tribes, we have to revisit what one respected intellectual observed about "tribes" in the 21st Century in, of all places, Washington DC. He observed that politics in the United States's seat of power followed the same dynamics followed by tribal politics in the most primitive stages of human history. Whatever new forms of affiliation we now have - guilds, ideology, similar pastimes - have replaced tribes as the new "tribes" in modernity. Wall Street is a tribe. 

The two new tribes that have emerged in Zimbabwe's succession politics thus are what we can provisionally call the "Corrupt Tribe" and the "Security Tribe." The "Corrupt Tribe" prefers the current rot to persist as it has guaranteed them a seat at the table that they couldn't possibly reach through merit. The "Security Tribe," on the other hand, want gradual change that takes into account national values and the realities of the globalised world. I surmise that there must be a "Human Rights Tribe," "Business Tribe," "Law Tribe" etc but I suspect, for now, that these other tribes can find their full expression in one of the two main tribes I have sketched out above. 

What Goods Do The Political Elites Really Manufacture?

"Suppose that France suddenly lost fifty of her best physicists, chemists, physiologists, mathematicians, poets, painters, sculptors, musicians, writers; fifty of her best mechanical engineers, civil and military engineers, artillery experts, architects, doctors, surgeons, apothecaries, seamen, clockmakers; fifty of her best bankers, two hundred of her best business men, two hundred of her best farmers, fifty of her best ironmasters, arms manufacturers, tanners, dyers, miners, clothmakers, cotton manufacturers, silk-makers, linen-makers, manufacturers of hardware, of pottery and china, of crystal and glass, ship chandlers, carriers, printers, engravers, goldsmiths, and other metal-workers; her fifty best masons, carpenters, joiners, farriers, locksmiths, cutlers, smelters, and a hundred other persons of various unspecified occupations, eminent in the sciences, fine arts and professions; making in all the three thousand leading scientists, artists and artisans of France.

These men are the Frenchmen who are the most essential producers, those who make the most important products, those who direct the enterprises most useful to the nation, those who contribute to its achievements in the sciences, fine arts and professions. They are in the most real sense the flower of French society; they are, above all Frenchmen, the most useful to their country, contribute most to its glory, increasing its civilization and prosperity. The nation would become a lifeless corpse as soon as it lost them. It would immediately fall into a position of inferiority compared with the nations it now rivals, and would continue to be inferior until this loss has been replaced, until it had grown another head. It would require at least a generation for France to repair this misfortune; for men who are distinguished in work of positive ability are exceptions, and nature is not prodigal of exceptions, particularly in this species.

Let us pass on to another assumption. Suppose that France preserves all the men of genius that she possesses in the sciences, fine arts and professions, but has the misfortune to lose in the same day Monsieur the King's brother, Monseigneur le duc d'Angouleme, Monseigneur le duc d'Berry, Monseigneur le duc d'Orleans, Monseigneur le duc de Bourbon, Madame la duchesse d'Anguoleme, Madame la duchesse de Berry, Madame la duchesse d'Orleans, Madame la duchesse de Bourbon, and Madame la duchesse de Conde. Suppose that France loses at the same time all the great officers of the royal household, all the ministers (with or without portfolio), all the councillors of the state, all the chief magistrates, marshals, cardinals, archbishops, vicars-general, and canons, all the prefects and sub-prefects, all the civil servants, and judges, and, in addition, ten thousand of the richest proprietors who live in the style of nobles.

This mischance would certainly distress the French, because they are kind-hearted, and could not see with indifference the sudden disappearance of such a large number of their compatriots. But this loss of thirty-thousand individuals, considered to be the most important in the state, would only grieve them for purely sentimental reasons and would result in no political evil for the State."

Notes:

Henri d Saint-Simon, The Organizer (1819).