This is what he said: 'I will never, never, never, never surrender. Zimbabwe is mine, I am a Zimbabwean. Zimbabwe for Zimbabweans. Zimbabwe never for the British, Britain for the British.'

The concept of African citizenship is one that has confused many to the extent that even Mugabe with the benefit of leading a post colonial state for the last 28 years has not understood the concept in its proper context and the obligations it imposes on its intended beneficiaries.

Like Mugabe, I was born in Zimbabwe. Unlike Mugabe, I have had to accept that Zimbabwe like Africa belongs to all we believe in it and are willing to contribute in shaping its future. To Mugabe, the face of a Zimbabwean is black or what is commonly referred to as "mwana we vhu" meaning "son of the soil".

The connection between what Mugabe believes in as Zimbabwean and land is a direct and causal one helping explain why he holds the view that Zimbabwean land must permanently be attached to the true owners of Zimbabwe i.e. black Zimbabwean born like me.

To the extent that I have now acquired a foreign citizenship, albeit an African one, Mugabe would regard me as a traitor of the highest order. After all, he spent a greater part of his life fighting for what he believed to be the Zimbabwean cause to accept that taking a foreign citizenship does not injure any Zimbabwean interests.

Whose Africa is it anyway? The relationship between Africa and black people will remain a contentious issue but what is important is that existential capitalism will never advance the interests of Africa. The mere fact that blacks are attached to land will not necessarily result in farm output to feed the stomachs of the current generation.

If Mugabe’s construction of Zimbabwean citizenship is allowed to take root then the consequences are dire not least because there are many foreign born blacks who have naturalized as Zimbabweans whose future automatically becomes precarious as well as white Zimbabweans who over the last 28 years have believed that they also had a vested future in the country only to find that Mugabe does not accept their contribution and citizenship.

Imagine, for example, a white person who was so inspired by Mugabe’s speech on reconciliation in 1980 that he relocated to Zimbabwe bought a farm and naturalized as a citizen. He now is called names but the output produced by this farm was used to feed Zimbabweans.

It is also important to make the point that citizenship ought not to be reserved to only natural persons but also to juristic persons i.e. companies. There are many companies registered in Zimbabwe who may have holders of share certificates who are domiciled outside Zimbabwe. Such entities are in all respects Zimbabwean vested with the rights and obligations of citizenship.

Should the face of Africa be restricted to blacks and what would be the implications on economic progress? Unfortunately, capitalism has its own rules and is founded on a simple concept that human beings are rational and will pursue their own interests.

The experience of the last 52 years of post-colonial experience has shown that blacks are not as patriotic as people like Mugabe would like them to be for his own self-interest.

In fact, they have been known to pursue their own interests to the extent that many of them are now living comfortably in the diaspora. They have taken the choice to sell their time to the best bidder and in this case the time of professional blacks has found more value in other parts of the world than Zimbabwe or Africa in general.

Mugabe is not alone in holding the view that Zimbabwe should belong to black people and title to land must be reserved for sons and daughters of the soil. The same view is widely held in the rest of the continent.

Even after 28 years in power, Mugabe still continues to hold the view that any call for a change of leadership necessarily means the return of the British hegemony over land.

In making the case, Mugabe speaks for many who believe that Africa should rather be poor than its citizens continue to be alienated from the land. However, no attempt is made to explain how the mere transfer of title deeds to black born Africans will improve the standard of living of all of Africa’s citizens.

Mugabe should smart enough to know that Zimbabwe belongs to the people of Zimbabwe and last time they voted they genuinely wanted to see a different face in the statehouse.

I have made the point before that the election of Obama has opened a new window of hope for even white Africans to aspire to the highest office.

The Obama phenomenon has many enemies including Mugabe who hold the view that the concept of Zimbabwe should be a restricted one.

The statement made by Mugabe sums up what is at the root cause of Africa’s contemporary problems. The past is gone and the future can only be shaped by the decision made by this generation.

Any leader should look at government as an organ of the people to serve their interests. The state of Zimbabwe should ideally be a people’s project and the leader should know when it is time to go.

Mugabe’s views resonate with many Africans to give him confidence that he will not face any roadblock from any African head of state except a few who are easily labeled as agents of imperialism.

Human nature and mankind’s relationship to existence is more compatible with the life of a rational being.

If one assumes Africans are also rational and the only mechanism through which they can advance their interests is to put in place a system that recognizes value and allows for trading.

In the case of land, a person could perhaps be given a right for 99 years and can only proceed to add value to the land if he/she knows they can convert the land into some other asset class like cash in an open market system.

What Mugabe seems to advocate is a closed system whereby if a white person were to approach a black person who has been allocated land with an offer he/she cannot refuse, the black person would be condemned to only sell the right to one class of people i.e. blacks who may not have the cash by virtue of wrong policies put in place.

I have often made the case that white people are not successful as farmers in Africa merely because of skin color but because of the system that they put in place to promote and protect their interests. If blacks are against the capitalist system and wish to replace it with some kind of existential capitalism then poverty will remain part of the African story.

Without freedom, Africa’s future will remain compromised. One cannot deny that colonialism was a bad system and investing in the past will not feed Africa. A modern Africa will require that farmers look at land as just like any other asset class whose value is determined by what it can produce.

The Africa that we should want to see is an working Africa in which citizens, for instance, go to a supermarket to buy beans without caring about who produced the beans. They should be comforted by the fact that the price they pay reflects what they think the beans are worth otherwise they should have the option of buying the same beans from other farmers in the country or outside the country as they case may be.

The moment Africa retreats to a stage where, for example, it becomes important at the till to know who produced this or that product then Africa’s future will continue to be doomed less by the machinations of its yesterday enemies than by the rhetoric of its current leaders.

Mugabe has opened the great debate of our time and we should not be shy to engage in it. Is it correct to say that Zimbabwe should belong to a certain class of people and the market for Zimbabwean land should forever be restricted to such a class of people irrespective of the economic fundamentals at play?