“The entitlement mentality is defined as a sense of deservingness or being owed a favour when little or nothing has been done to deserve special treatment. It's the “you owe me” attitude. Entitlement is a narcissistic personality trait.” - Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
As usual, I woke up this Monday and drank my self-made tea while sitting in bed reading the news and checking my favourite social media sites. Despite my mistrust in some of the BBC’s reporting out of habit, I always turn to its ‘World News’ page, and there it was: Biden had pardoned his son. I read not just for one misdemeanour but all those within the past eleven years, even those he pleaded guilty to. One was tax evasion, the very crime that Al Capone was jailed for no less. So here it was again, the ugly face of entitlement. No pardons for anybody other than a family member, be it on humanitarian grounds or armed force members, charged for overzealously carrying out their duties under challenging and dangerous circumstances, rather than only his son because he feels he is entitled to do so without any logical reason other than self-entitlement for himself and his family. No doubt, before his term ends, if he is fit enough, he will pardon others who feel entitled to or owed under the guise of some false deed of loyalty.
We have also recently seen politicians in the UK, even those representing the devolved countries' parliaments, feeling entitled to freebies and gifts. They are even happy for the state to pay the energy bills for their second homes while taking away the same from the aged, including those who cannot afford the cost.
“Entitlement in its greed has no moral conscience, nor is there ever a limit to its demands when it is allowed to exist. Without a moral conscience, it is impossible to set your moral compass.” - Peter McSporran
Much of our troubles in Zimbabwe can be traced back to self-entitlement of our present government and its echelons. First, we had ZANU-PF winning the election using intimidation and complicity of the British Government. While, in theory, they were sharing power following Independence after that, the so-called ‘Freedom Fighters’ felt they had the right to rule at the expense of all others, including short-lived allies, ZAPU and the other parties. In doing so, they felt they had the right to steal your vote when necessary as they entrenched themselves in their entitlement. After all, they controlled the courts, law enforcement agencies and military, who had the power to stop them? Only the people were thrashed into submission and, where necessary, even slaughtered. Every move or allegiance they have made has been and still is to ensure their hold over the country and what they see as their entitlement to rule and plunder the country’s wealth.
They did, however, feel there was the one threat to their entitlement, and that was their own ex-combatants, who somehow, over the intervening years, seemed to have both swollen in numbers and taken on a youthful look. We used to joke among ourselves that ZANU-PF must have had a navy, as many of those claiming to be war veterans were only ‘semen’ during the war.
Because the party hierarchy, few of whom carried arms in the war, have had to rely on the ex-combatants to ensure their entitlement, the ‘war-veterans’ in turn felt entitled for their support. Perhaps some of us forget, but shortly after independence, the war veterans got payouts and many were helped into businesses using grants in reward for their war efforts. Our local shop in Darwendale was just such a business, one that had thrived and served the district for many years. Once given to the war vets, it did not survive very long as all the shareholders felt entitled to help themselves from the till. Further, war veterans were also given priority to being part of the resettlement schemes, but it appeared this was not enough entitlement. Then, they went on to make further demands, resulting in huge payouts that bankrupted the country as currency was printed to pay them in 1997. When that ran out, in reality, all payments became worthless within a few years but they managed to squander these payouts before then. They then pressured a weak Mugabe, who had just lost a referendum and election, to give them the land for free, replacing the rightful owners, the majority of whom were white commercial farmers. Here, Mugabe thought he could kill two birds with one stone, that is get the war vets off his back and appease the voters at the same time by giving them land. It had the added attraction that the war vets could implement this policy for free by invading white farms using violence more often than not. To this day, forty-four years after independence, the ZANU(PF) elite believe they are entitled to rule and feel they are the only people with the ability to govern despite their disastrous track record.
“The Fast-Track Land Reform Program (FTLRP) in Zimbabwe was never about righting the historical (colonial) wrongs. Political survival drove it, fear even, helped along by greed and self-interest while also thought to be meting out punishment to the ‘Ma British’ white farmers (colonilists).” - Peter McSporran
In the old Compensation Steering Committee (CSC), we saw a microcosm of this entitlement, and it still exists in the Property and Farm Compensation Association (PROFCA). The leadership of the previous CSC before the Global Compensation Deed (GCD) thought they were the only people who had the right and ability to negotiate on behalf of the farmers. No worries about expired mandates, we are entitled to represent you. Further, in securing an agreement with the Government, they felt that as co-sponsors, they were entitled to tout the deal, although it was exceedingly flawed from its inception. Even worse, they continued their sponsorship after the Government broke its promises within the GCD agreement. Then, when they felt a democratic voice was threatening their entitlement, their greed drove them, no doubt with the government's full support, to create PROFCA. The only mandate that the PROFCA has is their self-entitlement and that of support of an entitled government, neither with any legitimate standing. It is easy to promise something. It takes honour to stand by that promise. More and more, politicians seem to think they are entitled to tell lies with no consequences.
“Do not think for a moment the government or their puppets, PROFCA, have any intention or means to ensure you will be paid the full compensation as promised under the umbrella of the Farmers Compensation Agreement. Those that feel entitled will give nothing for that entitlement, only take.” - Peter McSporran
While at the CFU, my routine was to attend the morning roll call and oversee farm orders for all the sections first thing in the morning before heading for the gym in Harare at seven am and then onto the CFU at eight am. The three exceptions to this were generally Monday morning, Saturday and Sunday when I would spend the first hours after roll call down at the pigs before visiting all the farms. The running of the farms was very much in the hands of the managers, with Ian Lindsay in charge overall supported by Choppy and Karen Steyn, all were honest to a fault, so I always knew they would treat the farm and its expenditure as their own with Diane there for significant crisis intervention if required.
One Sunday morning, looking over the wall at my pigs, contemplating my life and how I saw my future after the CFU, I concluded my home life was untenable. The farms would be fine, but I did need to spend more time there, and in doing so, I wondered if I would be happy after all the daily excitement of being in farming politics in Zimbabwe. Was it not time to look at other opportunities? Further, I would be dishonest not to say that Diane and our marriage home was not a place of tranquillity for some years. Much of this I can put down to my behaviour; it is not my place to make an excuse for the cause, but I felt that anything would be better than the ongoing squabbling. Was it not time to think about my future, not that of others? There it is again, a feeling perhaps of entitlement but, in this case, something more. That morning, I decided if I had to give up the farms so be it, but I could no longer see a future in Diane and I remaining together. There was no third party; it was more a parting of how we saw the world and our personal lives. It was not a snap decision but rather an accumulation of frustration over my private life. I knew it would cause huge pain to Diane and could well be the end of my ability to farm, but I decided there, and then divorce was the best option, just not for our happiness but also that of the children. I cannot speak for Diane, but she certainly said she was against divorce and wanted to try and salvage our marriage. I agreed to attend marriage counselling. Just this week, I read that marriage counselling is helpful to seventy per cent of married couples. It did not say if it saved their marriages. Unfortunately, it consolidated my view that divorce was best. Divorce is not an instant event, and although this was earlier in the year, it would be close to the end of 1996 when we would be legally divorced. I felt an abject feeling of failure, which was a significant dampener during the last few months at the CFU. Occasionally, I would find myself sitting in Tipperary’s, Sandro’s or the Red Lion, having a late-night drink on a Friday evening with some newly made acquaintance rather than going home—abysmal behaviour in hindsight.
“When any partnership, especially a marriage, comes to an end, it is very unusual for one party not to feel aggrieved. I am sure this was the same in my case, although I was not the aggrieved party.” - Peter McSporran
Disclaimer: Copyright Peter McSporran. The content in this blog represents my personal views and does not reflect corporate entities.
Comentários