|
Why Zimbabweans do not rebel: Part 2
In Part 1 of my contribution to the mystery of why Zimbabweans do not rebel, I anchored my argument in the proposition that Zimbabweans do not rebel largely (but not solely) because the Zimbabwean masses are a risk-averse people ruled by a risk-taking political elite. How this situation arose is the subject of this installment.Since Ian Smith captured power from the rather risk-averse Winston Field in 1964, Zimbabwe has been ruled by a risk-taking elite. It was not until a critical mass of a risk-taking Black Nationalist elite emerged to counter the White risk-taking elite and to mobilise the masses that mass action took place in the manner of the liberation struggle in its variegated forms. After independence, Zimbabweans recoiled into their shells like tortoises and have by and large remained in this situation since then, only occasionally and hesitatingly popping out their heads. The risk-taking behaviour displayed by Zimbabweans during the liberation war was a transient phenomenon and this transitory character serves to prove the fundamental and underlying political character of the average Zimbabwean; his/her subject orientation to authority, any authority. Moreover, this attitude is deeply embedded in the Zimbabwean psyche and it will take a painfully long time to unwind. And it is a product of more than a century of uninterrupted authoritarianism. Posted by: Pappy 2006-10-01 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=167370 |