Locating the role of the Diaspora in the struggle for a democratic Zimbabwe.

After Morgan Tsvangirai was booed by his expatriate audience in the United Kingdom for calling on them to return home, there arose the need to identify the real role of the Diaspora in the struggle against the dictatorship in Zimbabwe.

The Movement for Democratic Change has grown so many tentacles that it now boasts of structures in all countries where Zimbabweans populate in large numbers like USA, UK, Canada and South Africa. This growth has come at a cost though: the South Africa branch was nearly brought down to its knees by allegations of tribalism while the UK branch had to be reconstituted after bickering.

There are numerous organisations in the Diaspora who claim to be fighting the against the Zimbabwe dictatorship. A number of coalitions have also been built within and outside Zimbabwe. There are also numerous newspapers and radio stations which operate from the Diaspora and have a huge followers within and outside Zimbabwe. Has the existence of all these entities added value to the struggle?

The strengths and weaknesses of the Diaspora.

Most of the people in the Diaspora have access to communication technologies that may still be out of reach for ordinary residents of Zimbabwe. These include Internet and mobile technology. These have assisted them in providing real-time, cross-sectional information about what is going on nationally and globally. This has allowed them to make informed decisions based on current trends and also to conveniently interact with one another without having to meet physically. We cannot therefore, ignore the role of the Diaspora in publicising the crisis in Zimbabwe and mobilising the international community to take a stance on the Zimbabwe regime.

There are many people in the Diaspora who are in formal employment. These people have ready access to finances which can be used to undertake programs that support the struggle. We have seen Zimbabweans contributing financially to the struggle. So the Diaspora remains a raw source of financial resources for the struggle.

What also makes the Diaspora fertile is the presence of intellectuals who are willing to tackle both the ideological and tactical challenges that the struggle faces. These are the people who can give a meaning and a vision to a feeling. It is also this intelligentsia that can shape the interaction between the resident fighter and the expatriate fighter.

The biggest limitation of the Diaspora is its inability to experience the struggle within Zimbabwe first-hand. They cannot tackle the Mugabe regime head-on. Firstly they are not able to vote, thus inline with the school of thought that favours democratic resistance; these people are not able to add value to the struggle because what counts at the end of the day is the number of votes that the pro-democratic forces garner. Secondly, they are not able to directly defend their fellows who may be in danger because what exists is a virtual link between the two fighters. Lastly, the Diaspora is not able to influence those who do not have access to technology.

Way forward

Having identified the strengths of the Diaspora, it can be extrapolated that their most strategic roles in this struggle involve publicity, fund-raising and advising. The execution of the struggle within Zimbabwe should therefore be left to those who are strategically placed to influence, participate and experience the action. This literally means those who are on the ground.

The Diaspora should continue to intensify the struggle by alerting the world to factual violations that are taking place in Zimbabwe. It should also continue to lobby amongst itself and other stakeholders to contribute financially towards the struggle. The finances should not be used to sustain organisations outside the country but to motivate the people in Zimbabwe. For example; people can contribute to meet tuition fees for expelled student leaders outside the country so that other students can feel the solidarity and come out to challenge the system.

Finally, disagreement within the pro-democratic family should not be ballooned extraordinarily as this tends to alienate other people from the struggle although their services would be valuable. Disagreement should be viewed positively as a way of building tolerance to diversity. In short, leadership within the Diaspora should seek to work together instead of competing for space!