Guest column: Gibson Nyikadzino WHEN a President in the United States of America (USA) is set to address the nation, it is often reported that many citizens tend to go about their business and catch up with the address afterwards. However, in Africa, Zimbabwe in particular, when the President addresses the nation, everyone pays attention because what he says either builds or shatters a dream. That is the difference. There is an issue Zimbabweans are pinning hopes on, daily talks of and the media has always been setting an agenda for politicians with little progress — national dialogue. The issue of a national dialogue in Zimbabwe has been one set and deliberated from a tone of anger. While citizens recite platitudes of reconciliation, it sounds as hatred festers in many hearts because of a lack of national consensus. Surprisingly, instead of seeing happiness in dialogue, it is seen through the eyes of patriots against sellouts, the pious versus the profane. Historically, all wars end on the negotiating table and as South Africa’s late former President Nelson Mandela once remarked: “You dialogue with people you disagree with.” Zimbabwe’s independence was a holistic product borne out of the need to end animosity, hostility and rancour. Similarly, the post-independence challenges in Zimbabwe’s southern regions, though imperfect and defective in content and structure, were resolved to enunciate stability and an end to national repugnance through dialogue. The 2008 Global Political Agreement (GPA) negotiated between then President Robert Mugabe’s Zanu PF and two Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) formations led by Morgan Tsvangirai and Arthur Mutambara grasped dialogue through strenuous and intense commitment. In the case of Tsvangirai, he endured police brutality, harassment, torture and political persecution and desired to negotiate with his tormentors for the national good. Though he had been denied the right to the presidency, he looked at the issue of dialogue beyond the presidency. In an interview with James Lewis from the International Bar Association (IBA) in 2010 about the Zimbabwe-European Union (EU) strained relations, Tsvangirai argued in Zimbabwe’s corner: “We have got legitimate concerns from Zimbabwe, so let’s find a platform at which we negotiate.” Tsvangirai, unlike his “heir apparent” Nelson Chamisa, looked at dialogue from a broad sense of engagement. Circumstances Tsvangirai engaged in dialogue with Zanu PF were more burdensome than today, making him incomparable with the present, even outclassing the perceived heir. While Chamisa understands that dialogue is key in Zimbabwe, he has resorted to setting conditions from a minimalist point of view. He has continued to focus on dialogue mostly from the point of the presidency. In 2018 he said: “I will not be tricked into talking to (President Emmerson) Mnangagwa, he betrayed Tsvangirai for selfish reasons. “I do not know what they will be inviting me to talk about. This is a new ball game, this is a new direction.” The 2018 presidential legitimacy argume