A NEW ERA OR A FACADE? ZIMBABWE’S NEW PARLIAMENT AND THE QUESTIONS IT RAISES

The unveiling of Zimbabwe’s new Parliament building, financed by China and located in Mt Hampden, a few kilometers from the capital city of Harare, has ignited a complex mixture of anticipation and skepticism. This grand structure represents a fresh chapter for the ruling party, Zanu Pf, amidst a history marred by policies that have led the country from being the “breadbasket of Africa” to its “beggar.”

The construction of this modern and sophisticated facility raises more questions than it answers. Why has China invested in such a monumental project for Zimbabwe? Is this generosity free of strings? The history of China’s involvement in African infrastructure is checkered with instances of hidden motives, including the embedding of spyware in the African Union’s headquarters. This act of espionage was intended to monitor the continent’s political discourse, casting a long shadow of doubt over China’s intentions in Zimbabwe.

This skepticism is rooted in the murky waters of Zimbabwe’s political and economic landscape. The relationship between Zanu Pf’s political elite and Chinese emissaries is often criticized for being less about bilateral cooperation and more about the mutual benefits of illicit trade. The new Parliament, while a symbol of potential progress, is viewed by many as a monument to these questionable alliances, with fears that it might eventually serve interests that do not align with the welfare of Zimbabwe’s citizens.

Contrasting sharply with the national Parliament’s inefficacy, the traditional village court system, or Dare, stands out for its direct engagement with community issues, offering solutions that are both relevant and impartial. While politicians may use the new Parliament as a stage for opulence and rhetoric, the Dare remains a bastion of genuine societal progress.

The Zimbabwean populace is less concerned with the grandeur of where decisions are made than with the impact of these decisions on their daily lives. The quality of governance, evidenced through policies that address pressing societal needs, is the true measure of a government’s alignment with its people. Sadly, the legacy of the previous Parliament is one of missed opportunities and policies that have failed to uplift the masses.

The new Parliament building, therefore, symbolizes a broader issue within Zimbabwean politics: an inability to foster true development independently of foreign influence. It highlights a political landscape still dominated by aged leaders resistant to change, who prioritize personal wealth and power over the nation’s progress. These leaders exploit the state apparatus to maintain their grip on power, stifling dissent and hindering the democratic process.

Zimbabwe’s development dilemma is not just a matter of replacing old structures with new ones; it is about confronting and changing the entrenched attitudes and practices that have hindered the country’s progress. The challenge lies not in the physical edifice of the Parliament but in the mentality of those who occupy its chambers. Without a genuine shift towards policies that serve the public interest, the new Parliament risks being nothing more than a facade, masking the ongoing struggles of a nation yearning for substantive change.

As Zimbabweans look towards their new Parliament building, many are left wondering whether it will indeed herald a new era of governance or if it will simply be a monument to past failures and unfulfilled promises. Only time will tell if this structure will become a beacon of hope or a symbol of misplaced priorities in the heart of Zimbabwe.