Gandawa on Sikhala: protests risk agitating regime, prolonging detention

EXILED former Higher Education deputy minister Dr Godfrey Gandawa yesterday urged a de-escalation in the matter of CCC MP Job Sikhala who has spent nearly 70 days in captivity. The Zengeza West representative faces charges of inciting public violence and obstructing the course of justice. Gandawa’s 13-tweet thread is reproduced below verbatim:

As Sikhala spends his 68th day in prison, my sympathies go out to his family with hope for a speedy end to the misery he is suffering in difficult conditions. Yet his predicament also requires an introspection to avoid a repeat of this unfortunate episode.

There is a danger that his circumstances may be prolonged, if not find permanence, on account of ill-considered boisterous activism surrounding his case. The failure by leaders to temper emotions risks an escalation which may not be easily won.

Assuming determined protests could be mounted to demand his release, the prevailing authority would unlikely give in to the demands. Such a capitulation would only serve to further diminish the credibility of the justice system. Not impossible but unlikely.

Genuine grievances exist and these must certainly find expression. However, the nature of that expression requires a realpolitik consideration of power flow, regardless of the apparent injustice. This should set the tone for engagement.

While fiery rhetoric is good politics to rally the base, in some circumstances, there is a danger of exacerbating Sikhala’s predicament through confrontational utterances that cannot be backed up with substantive action.

Inflammatory language does little to help. Instead, it sets the stage for a contestation of egos, a fight that will be invariably won by those in control of the levers of state power. I hope sober heads prevail, and wisdom charts a way out for Sikhala.

My unsolicited, and possibly mistaken, view is that de-escalation is key to the desirable outcome in which Sikhala returns to his family and constituents who hold him in high regard as a kind and generous representative.

Without prejudice, I am not sure his interests are well-served by the current legal and political trajectory which risk culminating in a Marry Mubaiwa-type outcome. This is an unfortunate concession, but it is an honest reflection of the reality of our lived experience.

Leaders must actively work to restore civility to public discourse. Them and us narratives, coloured by demonisation of the opposition, or the prevailing authority, only widens the societal divide which has already reached dangerous levels.

This is not to suggest an acceptance of the status quo, merely a recognition of the reality and extent of its power. It is profitable for relations between contesting political forces to remain civil; the weight of this responsibility falls on leaders.

Sikhala’s predicament is unlikely to be aided by verbal combat; rather, by civil conversation. Tempering our rhetoric, to tones conducive to civility, could be helpful. An appeal to humanity, given in wisdom, can produce surprising results, as can a soft-spoken legal approach.

Riling public sentiment, urging street confrontations in protest, may be well intentioned but it is unlikely to help Sikhala. Instead, it may actually serve to agitate the challenged authority into prolonging his detention as a means to to demonstrate its dominance.

Dehumanising political opponents may provide some momentary catharsis but its blowback is expensive. By using indecent and violent language, we sow seeds of division exploited by the trigger-happy to justify treating us inhumanely. Best wishes to Sikhala.

About Post Author