By Dr Masimba Mavaza | Social media and the some areas of the press were abuzz with the news that Chinamasa the acting ZANU PF national Commissair had erred in his press statement when he said the army is to assist the government and that there is a mutual understanding of the army and the ruling party. Many reporters reported that

“President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s ruling Zanu PF party yesterday said it would continue banking on the Zimbabwe National Army (ZNA) for political survival because the two are tied together by the liberation struggle.” This was from the Newsday.
Zanu PF acting political commissar Patrick Chinamasa was reported to have told journalists at a Press conference in Harare on the 24th June 2021 that the army was duty-bound to protect the country’s sovereignty and that there was an unbreakable continuity between the ruling party and its military wings during the liberation struggle.
The liberation wings, Zanla and Zipra, Chinamasa said, remain at the heart of the ZNA.

“Always be mindful that there is this unbreakable continuity between the liberation struggle and Zanu PF, between the armies of liberation Zipra and Zanla and the national army of independence,” he said.
“Any notion which seeks to break this bond should be rejected outright.”

“It speaks for itself who are the commanders of the army, who is the CDF [Commander Defence Forces], Cde Valerio Sibanda. Who was he? He was a leading general in Zipra. Who is the commander of the national army, Cde Edzayi Chimonyo? Who was he? He was a leading commander in Zanla. That culture of defending the sovereignty of this country will continue,” he said.
The outcry heralded by the press and social media is knee shaking. It is a situation where they have missed the point. The story of throwing away the bath water and the child.

The utterance of Cde Patrick Chinamasa have nothing wrong in themselves. It is the sexing of the truth by the opposition members and by Dr Garafa which was meant to magnify and misrepresent the truth.

It is very true that that the army is there to protect the sovereignty of the nation. It is there to protect the nation and the national interest.
In trying to please his handlers and bolted his asylum claim the fugitive from the Law Dr Godfrey Gandawa said on Twitter
“The question that arises is how Zimbabwe can escape from this criminal vice grip. By admitting that Zanu PF, a political party, is in fact working with the army, Chinamasa has confirmed that political contestation is meaningless as the army is the guarantor of power.”
This shows the confusion Gandawa and those backing him are swimming in.
It should be noted that the army is part of the government and the army is sworn to defend the the nation and safeguard its sovereignty.
It is true that Zimbabwe’s armed forces belong to the country’s ruling party and must prevent a regime change revolution” from overtaking the nation.
The armed forces must serve the nation and its leader Emmerson Mnangagwa because he cares for and leads them, he is the Commander in Chief.
“Every soldier is a member of the People’s Army and belongs to zimbabwe and its leader because he is the feeder, caretaker, commander and leader of the army. So trying to separate the army from the government is mischief.
“Any kind of i democratic regime change revolution absolutely must not happen.
Military policy is used to ensures the retention of independence in national development and the alleviation of hardships imposed from hostile and aggressive external actors. The Defence Ministry or minister is the primary decision-maker for the national military policy. The army is the part of a country’s military that fights on the ground. People in the army are called soldiers. … Soldiers do many things, from shooting enemies, to digging defensive trenches. They are used to defend their country, or attack another country’s army.
It should be understood that because the armed forces are paid through the national coffers, they must serve the nation.Zimbabwean armed forces and police forces belong to the nation and have duty to protect national sovereignty.
They do so without any apology.
There is always a call for military loyalty to the government and its leaders.
“If the opposition cannot get anything that benefits them, they claim this is not a democracy. If we cannot control democracy, it will become anarchy, Chinamasa was very right when he says the army is meant to protect the sovereignty. It is pervasive that some people find it offensive that Chinamasa simply states the truth.
An attempt by the opposition to create a bar between army and its government is obscenity and it must be known that this attempt is putting society in turmoil,” but that the armed forces “will absolutely protect the legal government.
The armed forces should remain vigilant against regime change proponents and show loyalty to the government and the party which controls the government.

Despite public criticism over strong ties between the ruling party and its military, the nation remains resolute behind the army.
We must realise that there is a changing dynamics of relations between ZANU PF and the Army. While the army remains politically loyal to the ruling party, there is evidence of important changes in the institutional relationship between the two institutions. The party- army relationship is no longer as intertwined and symbiotic as it has historically been; rather, there is evidence of a ‘bifurcation’ between the two. The catalysts for this change have been the professionalization and relative depoliticization of the military, as well as the leadership transition in the ruling party. These changes raise important and central issues for the future of Zimbabwe’s politics.

As the ruling Party has had to adapt to changes in Zimbabwean society during the post independence period it has also had to adjust and renegotiate its relationship with other key organs of state power.Among these has been the party’s relationship with the Army. Yet the renegotiated relationship has occurred not just between party and army, but also between both and a third party: the state.

It should mentioned that the Role of the Military in a Democracy is an ever-relevant concern which was already raised by Plato 2500 years.

The principle of political control of armed forces as we know it today is rooted in the concept of a representative democracy. It refers to the supremacy of civilian institutions, based on popular sovereignty, over the de-fense and security policy-making apparatus, including the military leadership.
Democratic control should always be a two-way process between armed forces and society. In a democracy, firm constitutional guarantees should protect the state – including the armed forces – from two types of potential dangers: from politicians, who have military ambitions, and from military with political ambitions.

There is no common model of how to establish armed forces in a democratic society and how to exercise control over the military. There is, however, a number of shared principles. They include indispensable prerequisites to organize and to guarantee a proper civilian direction and control of armed forces.
In Zimbabwe we have the existence of a clear legal and constitutional framework, defining the basic relationship between the state and the armed force. Chinamasa is a lawyer and a former minister of Justice he is aware of a significant role of parliament in legislating on defense and security matters, in influencing the formulation of national strategy, in contributing transparency to decisions concerning defense and security policy, in giving budget approval and in controlling spending using “the power of administration in issues related to “the power of the sword”
Cde Chinamasa is aware of the hierarchical responsibility of the military to the government through a civilian organ of public administration – a ministry of defense that is charged, as a general rule, with the direction and supervision of its activity. In this way it is naive of the opposition to think that Chinamasa is talking of political reliance on the army. The army has never and will never campaign for ZANU PF.

Zimbabwe runs the presence of a well trained and experienced military corps that is respected and funded by a civilian authority. It acknowledges the principle of civilian control, including the principle of political neutrality and non-partisanship of the armed forces. This does not mean the army has no force on the protection of our independence. Chinamasa has led and is alive to the existence of a developed civil society, with a clear understanding of democratic institutions and values, and, as a part of the political culture, a nationwide consensus on the role and mission of their military.
Zimbabwe presents a solid and comprehensive yardstick for the measurement of armed forces in a democracy and their political control, which allows us to turn from theoretical considerations to reality.
Those crying foul must know that the army in Zimbabwe
defend their own country and participate in the collective defense of the nation and its allies. They provide humanitarian aid as they did in Chimanimani. They perform search and rescue missions as they did during the floods.
They provide assistance in disasters. They provide assistance in accidents.
They participate in maintaining public order, with and without arms, by providing administrative assistance
performing protective functions
assisting the police in emergencies
To avoid any misunderstanding – in the latter case, armed forces are the ultima ratio when police force are not able to handle the situation in a common effort.
The Constitution explicitly prohibits any action, which could disturb the peaceful togetherness of nations or which supports the preparation of any aggression. Worth mentioning is also that the rules of the International Law predominate over the Basic Law. This results in specific responsibilities and obligations for the government, the citizens and especially the soldiers.
In summary, the roles and missions of the Armed Forces are clearly defined and put into a comprehensive legal framework. The integration of the military into state and society also follows strict rules and is covered by a far-reaching set of checks and balances.
According to the Constitution, the “Armed Forces” is embedded in the system of the separation of powers. As part of the executive, the Armed Forces are bound by law and justice, and the protection of the basic human rights.
So the attempt to vilify the army and demonise cde Chinamasa is unpardonable.
Chinamasa has said exactly what has to be said. Within the framework of the executive function of the state, the Armed Forces is subordinate to political leadership which is responsible to parliament and which is part of the Government as an organ of the state.
Our army is an outfit in a democratic pan. Like any other executive function of the state, they are subject to parliamentary control. So Chinamasa does not need to be taught that by Gandawa and the opposition.
Cde Chinamasa as a former minister of justice is aware that Like any other function of the state, they are subject to judicial control.
So the screams which are heard in the atmosphere are only meant to please the engineers and sponsors of the regime change. ZANU PF still respects the army and it can never alienate itself from the army.
One thing we must understand is that the people are ZANU PF ZANU PF is the people and the army belongs to the people and the people are ZANU PF simple. [email protected]