ALMOST every known definition of the word cadre suggests the presence of a group whose purpose is to learn political or other intellectual content and use that knowledge to influence another group of people.
It is akin to a revolving door or a college that has one group of people coming in to be educated or inculcated and another group leaving with practical knowledge to contribute to the world.
This definition does not allude to violence but speaks to a common ideology, purpose or manifesto, which cadres are knowledgeable about and able to share with none members of their movement.
The purpose of such a group, therefore, is to peacefully transfer expert knowledge about the principles of their movement to influence or recruit new members.
That said, politics is not a mild play field and power is rarely attained without some form of skirmish or physical confrontation between and among contestants or their supporters.
Power, whether its attainment or maintenance, is a seriously emotive issue that can verge on violence especially when the parties involved are critically opposed on all issues. This was usually the case with the fight for independence because those ruled over wanted their ideals and beliefs to be valued.
Those with power did not see the need to listen to, or obey the ideals of those considered inferior. In those instances, power needed to be taken with force; or a show of force was necessary to attain power. However, violence without purpose is an aimless waste of strength.
That is why liberation movements attached the idea of freedom and equality to their struggle. The idea of freedom was used to recruit new members and justify the battles as and when they occurred.
This strand of violence backed by ideals is common to many a freedom struggle; for instance, the independence of North America was won after a war lasting from 1775 to 1783.
The Cuban revolution (which could be construed as their fight for independence) was fought on the battlefield from 1953 until 1958.
In Southern Africa, two of the more fiercely combative political movements were the South West Africa People’s Organisation (SWAPO) which fought for the independence of Namibia and Mkhonto we Sizwe which was (or still is) the paramilitary wing of the African National Congress (ANC) in South Africa.
All these combatants engaged in unreservedly violent confrontations and similarly, all of them later formed government and imbued their reasons for the struggle into ideals and principles that became foundations for their respective governments.
These battles were revolutionary in that they led to actual social, economic and political changes. At such a stage, those in power began to educate the nation either through formal education or manifestos about their ideals. To continue any more violence would disrupt the very societies they were fighting to build.
Still, other nations, after attaining power took the option of eliminating their opponents like it was done in Cuba and other places. Overall, most nations chose to start the business of governing peacefully after independence.
Zimbabwe, Zambia and even the Republic of South Africa (RSA) are some fair examples of nations that embarked on educating citizens on the values of freedom and purpose for liberation. This is where the role of the cadre became essential and still is to this date.
As nations and politics evolved beyond political independence, it was not surprising to find differences of opinion and contestations for various positions.
Internal and external disagreements became part of the norm so that in time, some nations formed institutional guarantees to protect and encourage different opinions in a democratic environment.
Others chose the one-party or dictatorship option to muzzle competition, retain a tighter hold on the institutions of governance and numb the confrontation of ideas so that personality cults became the norm.
This is partly why modern politics make it a necessity to have front-runners for any high office confront each other in a debate so that leadership is instilled as a contest of ideas and solutions rather than fists and guns.
The torch-bearer of any movement must be the principal custodian of its manifesto and believe in its ideals to the extent of being able to confidently debate and defend those ideals.
The same leader must exemplify these ideals within their own movement or political party so that cadres mimic their leader’s belief in these core principles. In this respect, it is expected that cadres reflect the core principles of their movement, whether in power or opposition.
If cadres are violent or impatient for intellectual debate, then perhaps they have failed to internalise their leader’s teachings and the principles of their movement. Alternatively, it could be that their leadership has never been anchored on genuinely defensible principles so violence is a way of imposing their will and disguise their ineptitude. Even where people are forced to defend themselves, violence must never be excused for an ideal to the extent that violent groups are mistakenly called cadres.
In 1990 when the call to return multiparty politics became overwhelming, student leaders at the University of Zambia (UNZA) called the two frontrunners – Dr Kenneth Kaunda (then President) and Dr Frederick Chiluba (then opposition leader) – and made the two leaders commit to non-violent campaigns.
This initiative by the student leaders ensured that then president and his main opponent would, at the very least, be held personally accountable to any violence by their party members. It drove the point that no one is above the nation and that violence, under whatever guise, must not be politically protected by granting it decent labels like cadre.
Criminal behaviour must never be confused for political militancy and at every stage should be condemned in the strongest terms regardless of the political leaning of the perpetrators.
