Revisiting the Mugabe Saga
I N Mancho
(c) 2007
After years of bickering President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe was finally given an official invitation to attend the 2007 Africa-EU summit-with this, a place on the rostrum to address delegates. What was the rationale in the delay? Did the EU bow to threats of boycotts from African leaders to let Uncle Bob sit with the “righteous”? What lessons can be drawn from this in future African EU talks and relations?
There has been a continuous debate in this forum on Mugabe and the crisis in Zimbabwe. Mugabe’s legacy and the independence movement in Africa are symbolic of a continent’s defiance to western dictations and imposed standards of measure. To understand Mugabe’s present antagonism with the west it is important to trace its roots into the wars of liberation and Mugabe’s rise to power. The ZANU-PF party that led Zimbabwe into independence was built on a platform of liberation against white domination and economic empowerment of the masses. Their ideology was tied to socialism. Fighting against a minority white led government and threatening foreign interest alienated Bob from the central and conservative western political-aristocracy into closer ties with the Kremlin and Cuba. His stance against the power sharing arrangements under the March 3rd 1978 agreement in Governor’s Lodge in Salisbury endeared him to more nationalist heroes and intensified nationalist campaigns for total liberation.
The central issue however, are the mining concessions granted the British South African Company (under Cecil Rhodes) by HM government and the subsequent encroachment and expropriation of native lands that is at the centre of today’s crisis.
Many would argue that the land redistribution has been used as a pretext to further political gains. However, it must be understood that land redistribution was at the centre of the ZANU and even ZAPU campaign promises during the liberation years. The non-redistribution or the delay in re-expropriation was as a result of the 1979 Lancaster House ceasefire arrangements that paved the way for the 1980 elections that saw the rise of Mugabe and Canaan Banana to the posts of prime minister and president respectively.
EU African relationship
Breaking the shackles over ties with the west seems to be something most if not some African leaders would have loved to do but lack the courage to do so. Robert Mugabe’s defiance of the west is a continuation of a revolution by a revolutionary leader. Mugabe argues yesterday at the Africa-EU summit that “Africa sets its own agenda, of its own free will” challenging the historical western rhetoric of equal rights and equal freedoms. Historically, Europe and the west have breathed down the neck of Africans and African leaders with stereotyped versions of human rights and freedoms and cooked up economic theories and experiments that do not take into consideration social, traditional and least of all the geo-political realities of Africa. They have repeatedly transcribed equal human rights and equality between races to mean sameness-yet at the same time treating our leaders as little school boys with nothing of their own but everything to learn from them the masters. For the first time in history, African leaders have shown a sense of oneness in the face of adversity, challenging the west and winning a highly mediatised war of slander against one of theirs. By challenging the west and by insisting that NI BOB must attend the summit African leaders (at least those who had their voices heard) established themselves as leaders by their right equal in stature to other European leaders.
The “sham” of a democracy
Britain and the United States of America have been quick to describe the elections in Zimbabwe as a “sham” and a disgrace to democracy. The rhetoric is an embarrassment to the UN’s non interference in the internal affairs of member states and is not driven by the quest to protect human rights but by a desire to foster capitalist gains. George “Hitler” Bush; Tony “Mussolini” Blair and Gordon “the clown” Brown have described Mugabe as the modern day dictator who uses violence and intimidation to rig elections.
A survey of Africa’s political leadership over the past 40 years will reveal that other dictators have not received the same media coverage as Mugabe. Ormar al Bashir has been in power in Sudan since 1989. He came to power through a military coup that has since resulted in deaths and suffering including Darfur, which cannot in any measure compared to Zimbabwe. Theodoro Obiang Ngeme Mbasogo has been president of Equatorial Guinea since 1979. He killed the former president, who happened to be his uncle, suppressed the opposition and rules the country like a feudal lord. Omar Bongo Odimba alias M’vengue al hadj has been in power since 1967. I don’t think the BBC or the CNN know anything about the misery and dictatorship in these countries. Next door is Cameroon where killings of armless street students and the arrest and detention of vocal public figures is a daily occurrence. Yet the CNN and BBC have not given these dictatorial regimes the same witch hunt coverage they have accorded Zimbabwe following the land reforms.
Furthermore, electoral malpractices are not unique to Zimbabwe and that even in America a president has been elected on “fictitious” ballots. The question I’d like to ask is why the recent obsession with Mugabe? In Cameroon, Nigeria, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Uganda, Sudan etc elections have not received the same scrutiny as in Zimbabwe in recent years.
As stated earlier the bone of contention between Mugabe on the one hand and Britain and America on the other hand is the land seizure that Mugabe initiated. To say that the campaign has been a success is a gross exaggeration and it is true that it has adversely affected the Zimbabwean economy. Though some will argue that Mugabe took out the policy for the wrong reasons or at the wrong time, I still believe it was a giant and bold step. Britain and America fear that a success in the land reform policy in Zimbabwe will spur similar policies in South Africa, Mozambique and Lesotho. Furthermore, Mugabe is paying for the price of foiling a military coup d’etat by an officer of the British Empire Sir Mark Thatcher against another African leader.
The present witch hunt launched by the CNN and the BCC is not different from that started before the British and US invasion of Iraq. The economic sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe do not affect the ruling class but is felt heavily by the citizens. If Britain, America and the European Union were interested in the welfare of the Zimbabwean people they would have considered making the land redistribution scheme more manageable and more successful so to alleviate the economic strain on the population. Their present approach to the crisis of bullying the political class of Zimbabwe into a regime change suggest that the plight of the people is just a pretext to foster their economic dominance over the country
Any Lessons for the future
Inflation in Zimbabwe stands at 8000% and unemployment at 85%, the highest in the world. Economic indices portray Zimbabwe as the poorest and the least economically disenfranchised on the old continent. The economic stagnation in Zimbabwe is not as a result of Mugabe’s land reforms but because of the imposition of economic sanctions by the west and particularly Britain. In the 1890s when Cecil Rhodes and the BSAC expropriated lands from Africans, HM government issued charters and signed protection treaties with the BSAC. However, when ZANU-PF re-expropriated the same lands they were called racist and terrorists. Instead of being a divisive element Mugabe’s land reforms should have served as a tool for empowering the masses. Though the process of land redistribution has been hasty and some what ill planned, the ideology or the idea of redistributing land to the locals is a laudable one. His land reform has brought more lands under the control of blacks than it was initially. With labour being something that largely available within traditional black families, they now have two major production factors that can help in the production of goods (if only food crops) to improve their livelihood. The present economic stalemate in Zimbabwe is meant to discredit Mugabe. It is intended to continue the racist doctrine that blacks are stupid, that when the whites owned the lands they could boost the economy but with lands coming into the possession of blacks they are unable to produce.
Mugabe is the elected president of Zimbabwe. He is endorsed with the same legitimacy as all other “elected dictators” in Africa supported by Britain, France and America. South Africa’s political class is sympathetic to Mugabe not because they enjoy the suffering of the Zimbabwean people but because they understand the reasons behind the hate campaign against Mugabe.
