ANAMALALA and the Political Fear of Difference in Mozambique

Alípio Freeman"

In times of deep institutional fracture and widespread disbelief in the democratic system, the decision by the Ministry of Justice, Constitutional and Religious Affairs to reject the name “Anamalala” as the name of Venâncio Mondlane’s new political party raises serious and grave questions. Not only because of its dubious legal nature, but because of the symbolism of a State that, under the guise of legality, seems to be embarking on yet another episode of exclusion and political manipulation.

The argument used by the authorities to justify the rejection is that the name "Anamalala", being an expression in the Mozambican language (Macua), violates the principle of national unity and could foment divisionism. This position does not stand up to the most basic constitutional analysis and reveals embarrassing, if not dangerous, contradictions. However, let us not lose sight of the fact that the expression ANAMALALA gave voice to the fight for electoral justice in what can be seen as the most violent and deadly post-election period, and that it is therefore understandable that the regime of the day does not feel comfortable in approving it, which is understandable when we accept that we are in a democratic system mixed with bits of authoritarianism whose characteristics are well known to Mozambicans.

The Constitution of the Republic of Mozambique, in its Article 9, enshrines the principle of national unity, but does so from the perspective of inclusion, valuing diversity and respect for the country's cultural and linguistic plurality. Furthermore, Article 118 of the same Constitution explicitly recognises the importance of Mozambican languages ​​and encourages their use and appreciation in the public sphere. Rejecting a name because it is in the Mozambican language is therefore a direct violation of this principle and constitutes an affront to the multicultural spirit of the Mozambican State.

It is a paradox that, in a country where decentralization and regional inclusion are being called for, a party whose name honors a local linguistic identity is considered a threat to national unity. It is even more curious — or revealing — that the proponent himself, Venâncio Mondlane, is from the south, while the name is of northern origin, evidencing a concrete effort to symbolically unite historically marginalized regions.

According to the usual procedure, the proponents of a political party start by reserving the name with the appropriate authorities. And, according to public reports, the name “Anamalala” had been previously accepted when it was reserved. So, how can it be justified that, after all the required documentation had been submitted, with thousands of signatures collected, the name was rejected? The timing of the decision is highly questionable and appears to serve a purpose that goes far beyond compliance with the law.

This administrative practice of approving first and then rejecting later can only be interpreted as a political trap, a move that highlights the fear of differences in a regime that claims to be plural. In a context in which the democratic space is increasingly suffocated, the rejection of the name seems to have less to do with the Constitution and more to do with fear. Fear of a new political force that legitimately challenges the status quo.

We cannot ignore the disturbing fact that the current Minister of Justice was one of the judges on the Constitutional Council that approved the 2023 election results, even in the face of multiple allegations of fraud, missing votes and falsification of notices. This same individual, now in the Executive, has the power to approve or reject the creation of new parties – an accumulation of functions that should cause scandal in a republic that claims to be democratic.

How can we trust the motivations of someone who was first a judge in one of the most controversial decisions in recent electoral history, and now appears as an agent of the Executive blocking the emergence of real political alternatives? What agenda does he serve? What interests does he defend? And who does he fear? These questions may seem rhetorical, but they demonstrate on a large scale the type of leaders we have, the way in which powers are controlled by the party in power, which ultimately catalyzes the visceral distrust that society has developed regarding national political procedures and institutions. The President of the Republic has repeatedly called for tolerance, dialogue and reconciliation, in an attempt to heal the wounds opened by the 2023 elections. However, decisions such as the rejection of the name “Anamalala” call into question any discourse of peace and reopening. What reconciliation is intended when the basic instruments of political participation are denied to a citizen who has sought, through legal and peaceful means, to place himself at the service of democracy?

This act is not just an attack on Mondlane or his supporters. It is a clear message: the system is afraid of those who challenge it through legal means. The rejection of “Anamalala” should be read as a symptom of the fragility of a political elite that, instead of competing on the ground of ideas, prefers to use the state apparatus to exclude and silence.

The “Anamalala” episode is not an administrative case. It is a political statement. It is yet another chapter in a democracy that refuses to mature, that uses the mechanisms of the State to protect private interests. If the Constitution truly applies to everyone, then linguistic plurality should be celebrated, not censored. And if the country wants to heal the wounds of the post-election period, it must first stop reopening them with acts of exclusion and manipulation.

Violence, whether symbolic or physical, cannot guarantee the long-term sustainability of a government.

The name “Anamalala” may have been rejected, but the idea it represents is already among those who believe in this project, that of a Mozambique that is not afraid of its diversity, that embraces its people and that firmly demands the return of its democracy. And against this idea, no ruling can prevail.

2025/12/3