PREAMBLE
1. Following the 11th March police brutalization of opposition MDC leaders, Baffour Ankomah, the editor of New African, traveled to Zimbabwe in early April,
ostensibly to obtain the truth. Before he left he accused Western media and governments of partiality in the coverage of and pronouncements on the incident.
The journey, he wrote, would avail the key players, especially the pro-Mugabe camp, to tell their own side of the story. Mr. Ankomah’s report is detailed in theMay edition of the magazine of which it took 60% (87out of 116 pages, including Baffours Beefs – 2 pages,
presidential interview – 8 pages, sponsored supplementon Zimbabwe – 75 pages). Judging by the report, Mr. Ankomah came away from the trip a radical pro-Mugabe
activist or the President’s chief publicist-at-large. The report blames all except Dr. Mugabe for the troubles – in Zimbabwe. The guiltiest include the Western media who are blamed for their demonisation of the President and gratuitous exaggerations, and
Western leaders, notably Tony Blair and George Bush.These leaders are blamed for the so-called targeted sanctions that have rendered the country’s economy prostrate. The report says that while Zimbabwe is not a threat to international peace and security, and it’s troubles far less than in many other African countries, such as the DRC, Sudan and Somalia, the West has singled out Zimbabwe for special treatment.
The other guilty party is the opposition MDC, led by Morgan Tsvangirai. Mr. Tsvangirai is accused of betrayal in the face of Western imperialist onslaught. Dr. Mugabe is entirely innocent in the report’s view. He is portrayed as an unflagging anti-imperialist hero and a victim of Western –imperialist conspiracy. The report, notably, is in denial about the dire economic, social, political and security situation overwhelmingly reported in Zimbabwe – which were confirmed even by Mr. Ankomah’s interlocutors, including prominent members of ZANU – PF, the ruling party, holding key government appointments, as well as opposition leaders.
2. It would seem, judging by the SADC summit in Tanzania in late March, that African leaders are now taking events in Zimbabwe more seriously and would hopefully act more vigorously towards a resolution of the situation. This development, although seemingly prompted by the West’s apparently more potent intervention, is welcome. The summit has quite naturally revitalized the debate on Zimbabwe. It would therefore not be out of place to suggest that perhaps this is the appropriate time to offer a personal perspective on events there. A good debate on Zimbabwe, while and if there is time for it, would be good for any effort towards peace and security in the beleaguered country.
3. A good staring point would be to review the New African’s report in its May edition, which was quite wide ranging and the most comprehensive to date. Mr. Ankomah, Dr. Mugabe and other Zanu – PF spokespersons are angry that Zimbabwe is being singled out by the West. They say that in DRC for instance, more people are being killed routinely but no one appears to notice. They say that the West’s reaction to events in
Zimbabwe is entirely out of proportion to whatever is happening there. They charge that had the victims of the land reform policy in Zimbabwe not been white, the reaction of the West would have been different. The pro-Mugabe camp are unhappy that because Western diplomats, notably their ambassadors, and their governments have broken all protocol and international norms to provide overt support to the opposition, MDC,
thus violating the sovereign rights of Zimbabwe. They accuse the West, notably Britain and America of openly canvassing regime change in Zimbabwe. These allegations are genuine enough and can be verified but there is more to it than meets the eye. They raise some fundamental questions, which will be discussed shortly.
VISITORS TO ZIMBABWE.
4. In Mr. Ankomah’s reports, there are mainly four groups of interlocutors. The first group consists of men like Peter Mavunga, described as a Zimbabwean journalist based in London, the Rt. Rev. Nicholas Baines, a British clergyman who like Ankomah lead a
team on a fact finding visit to Zimbabwe. The next person in this group is a man described by Ankomah as a British engineer he met on the plane on the 13th of April while both were returning to London from Zimbabwe. The engineer was on his way from a holiday visit to a friend resident in Zimbabwe. The last person in this group is Baffour Ankomah himself. This group is distinguished by their common testimony that things are not as bad in Zimbabwe as the Western media make it to be. But the interesting thing about the group is that all were visitors to Zimbabwe and it is noteworthy that no resident of Zimbabwe including the President, Dr. Robert Mugabe is in such a denial mood. On page 18 of New African of May 2007, the President while being interviewed by Baffour Ankomah admitted: “Yes there are hardships…there are shortages of
drugs…” That’s as far as it could go, coming from the President himself. There are a number of reasons why people may take antipodean positions in situations such as this. They may be seeking the limelight, taking advantage of a situation in which Zimbabwe and its leader are weak and desperate. Louis Farrakan does that all the time, unashamedly. Professional people including journalists, clergymen etc are forever
looking for fast-track opportunities to enhance their careers. It may also be simple, plain charlatanism at work, with people seeking to ingratiate themselves with a weak and struggling leader. If someone visiting Zimbabwe is already biased it should not be difficult for him to contrive a guided tour and deliver a verdict already implanted in his subconscious, in the process readily rejecting any evidence that challenges
his cause. Compared with the West Robert Mugabe may seem like the underdog. But just being the underdog should not qualify a leader for automatic support of
kith and kin. Rational leaders should avoid working themselves into a corner, leaving no room for manoeuvre. If they must take irrevocable stands, they must make sure that the cause is just, that the whole nation is behind them and that there are no doubts in
the minds of the public that what is being done is in their best interests. If these conditions are met, the leader can be certain that his legacy is secure, even when the momentum of change sweeps him/her away from power. Otherwise a single policy error, in a proper democratic environment can often be fateful for the leader. A leader whose focus is the national interest can always manage to finesse foreign or domestic
conspiracy or propaganda where they exist.
5. Evidence around the world confirm that in politics, you are better off not starting something you cannot finish unless you are absolutely confident about the moral justification and eventual positive results. Mikhail Gorbachev supervised the explosion of the Soviet empire, to his eternal credit, because he sensibly chose to ride the wave of the political current of the day. It did not matter that once the breakup got underway, he had no control over events anymore. FW De Klerk made a conscious determination
that apartheid would have to end in the knowledge that once done, he and white South Africa would no longer be in charge, probably forever. His predecessor, Mr. PW Botha, ‘the groot crocodil’, could not muster the courage to do it. For both Gorbachev and De Klerk it must have taken some courage and commitment, regardless of any other pertinent circumstances. If a leader were unsure of the justness, probable outcome and the moral integrity of a cause, that project is probably not worth starting at all. I think it is a mistake for Dr. Mugabe to think that the situation in Zimbabwe today is somehow in the interest of the country. If all that the opposition MDC, lead by Morgan Tsvangirai has done is to tell Dr. Mugabe that he is wrong, it would have achieved its purpose.
6. Leaders around the world, everyday face important choices in their respective national interests. I think it is fair to say that on the African continent
Zimbabwe’s democracy has been one of the most progressive until recently. Till date, it still possesses an opposition that gives voters a real alternative and actually wins elections at almost every level. Rule of law and freedom of speech is much better than can be said of many African states. Combine these assets with the disproportionately high international visibility, which can actually be a good thing if properly harnessed, Zimbabwe has a potential to be one of the most envied on the continent. To me
the options before government were to develop through a gradualist, evolutionary process or through a radical, revolutionary trajectory. The Chagossians, who were ignominiously expelled from their archipelago decades ago when imperialism was rife have recently won a court battle to return to their native lands. Rather than resort to terrorism or other radical, coercive modus operandi, they chose to go to the courts, thus vindicating the fact that imperialism has lost currency around the world and so anti-imperialist rhetoric should therefore not be used to distract attention and mask the real issues. In resolving the land distribution problem Dr. Mugabe chose the radical, revolutionary approach rather than follow the evolutionary approach like the South Africans. The land problem in Zimbabwe is litigable in the world court or even in British courts. Zimbabwe could have opted for the stoop to conquer approach, so to say, by
exploring this option, which has a high probability of success together with attendant diplomatic goodwill the country would have received from around the world.
But having made a radical choice, not unexpected for a Marxist, he now finds himself unable to manage the fall out. For the sake of 13 million Zimbabweans and for the sake of the region, whose stability can be adversely affected by a regressing Zimbabwe, Dr.
Mugabe should do the right thing and leave.
7. African leaders, individually or as a group tend to go into denial when a policy error has been committed. This was as much confirmed by the communiqué from the
SADC Summit in Tanzania in March, which tended to accommodate Dr. Mugabe and sought the unconditional lifting of the targeted sanctions, although it did its
best to get the opposition involved in the Summit’s deliberations. In a proper democratic setting, a single policy error, domestic or foreign, is more
likely as not to spell the end and destroy the legacy of the incumbent administration. In politics perceptions are everything. Once a leader acquires a negative image he is as good as finished. Sometimes it comes in a tailspin, at other times its demise is
drawn out but the result, either way, is pretty much the same. For Mr. Bush 43, his undoing is the American involvement in Iraq and to lesser extent in Iran and Afghanistan. Ditto for Tony Blair of Britain. Mr. Bush’s demise is drawn out, obviously
helped by term limit provision in the American system. The lack of term limits in Britain also explains why Tony Blair’s exit was less drawn out than Mr. Bush.
One of the earliest causalities of the anti-terror/Iraq war was Jose Maria Azner of Spain. For Mr. Clinton it was Monica Lewinisky. The reason Clinton survived Monica – sort of – was the sheer weight of the President’s positive achievements in office, the perspicacity of the American people who could see that the hugely good side of Mr. Clinton was more important for them than his personal indiscretion – and of course, Clinton’s own phenomenal coolness under fire. The land reform issue is almost certainly going to be decisive for Dr. Mugabe but he is quite naturally refusing to accept it, like any unreformed Marxist demagogue is wont to. He would rather go down
fighting. The task before the world, particularly the AU and the SADC is to ensure that he does not take Zimbabwe with him.
8. Many Africans, including African groups, such as the SADC think it is unfair for the West to want Mugabe out. But it needs to be pointed out that a major policy error usually would not go unpunished in a Western setting. For the government and its top
leaders the system is unforgiving in such circumstances. In Western societies the media is unforgiving of political leaders and holds them to very high levels of accountability. If Zimbabwe were a Western nation Dr. Mugabe would have taken
responsibility and left. The reaction of the West should be understood from this perspective and should not be used as an excuse to keep him in power even
when in all probability there is a need for a new personality with a new style and new ideas at government house. Unlike some critics I have no difficulty separating Dr. Mugabe from the Zimbabwean people. There is ample evidence that there is a huge
gap between what Dr. Mugabe is doing and what the Zimbabwean people want or need. I do not believe that the lopsided land distribution in Zimbabwe is the one
thing that kept the country from moving forward in these past 27 years. The Zimbabwean people would love, like every other people, to move on and not get
stuck in their neo-imperial past. Robert Mugabe has been in power since 1980 and it has been a rather sanguinary experience for Zimbabwe. The blood of some 20,000 Ndebele, massacred in ’84 is on Dr. Mugabe’s head. Current newspaper reports indicate that the Ndebele are once again the target of ethnic cleansing in the public services. Leaving Dr. Mugabe in power may very well mean leaving Zimbabwe in a cruise towards another Rwanda’s ’94. I think it would be a bigger blackmail than anything the West has done to claim at this point in time that Robert Mugabe is the
only one fit to continue leading the long suffering people of Zimbabwe. The question of fighting Western blackmail must be weighed against the interest of Zimbabwe as a whole. If Robert Mugabe were to go war the emphasis should be that he left in the interest of Zimbabwe and not in submission to Western blackmail, just like Charles Taylor and Slobodan Milosevic, who all claimed, against all the odds, to be fighting fors
greater Liberia or greater Serbia, did. National and international peace and security often dictate such pragmatism as clearly illustrated above. Even a world power like Britain occasionally submits to blackmail and compromise institutional integrity as a pragmatic response in the national interest. Quite recently the British government had to call off a two and a half year old inquiry into a defence contract scandal in which a 60 million pounds underhand payout was made to facilitate an arms deal including the supply of 72 combat aircraft at 76 billion pounds to Saudi Arabia.
The action was in response to Saudi Arabia’s threats of consequences, diplomatic and economic. The official reason given was that the inquiry threatened 5000 British jobs; and for good measure, national Security and the anti-terror war-, which were all true enough. But in taking this line of action Britain had to livewith an apparent blackmail by the Saudi authorities and a historic compromise of the nation’s criminal justice system thought to be among the best in the world.
CYNTHIA MCKINNEY
9. Cynthia Mckinney’s Pro-Mugabe stand was reported in some detail in New African of May, 2006. As a staunch Mugabe advocate she belongs to a class all her own-and
it is indeed heartening that an African American law-maker and African Americans in general continue to take active interest in their home continent; following in the footsteps of M .L King Jnr., Leon Sullivan, Bayard Rustin and others. Her emotive anti-imperialist support for Mugabe’s government is evocative of the American Civil Rights movement in is halcyon days. But challenging Senate Law 494 on the basis of a historical injustice is one thing and resolving that injustice one hundred years later, in a poor African setting using facist methodology, quite another. Resolving such a conflict was bound to be complicated. By all accounts the white-skin farmers who bore the brunt to Dr. Mugabes land reform blitzkrieg were Zimbabwean citizens who deserved but were denied state protection. Their main sin, not their fault of course, was that they were ethnic whites, as one might speak of ethnic Chinese in Indonesia or Malaysia, ethnic Kurds in Turkey or Iraq or ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. They were not, as many
presume, representatives of the British government, the ex-colonialist power with whom the government of Zimbabwe disputed claims to the deeds of their real estates. But of course it cannot be denied that they inherited disputed property but that hardly changes
the moral and legal situation with regard to their rights as Zimbabweans. The state sponsored Ku Klux Klan or janjaweed style evictions violated universal human rights to shelter at the very least. There were several physical attacks and some fatalities. No
observer could have missed the spectre of a humanitarian calamity that loomed. There was therefore bound to be some justifiable response from sympathetic authorities around the world. Apart from the Western world Kwara State of Nigeria and Malawi came to the aid of the farmers. A thoughtful leader ought to have been more circumspect. The forceful evictions and violent attacks smacked of racism. I am sure that Ms Mckinney would be the first to admit, from the American experience, that racism in one direction does not cease to be racism if the direction is reversed. The land distribution dispute between Britain and Zimbabwe is entirely litigable in the World Court
system. The Chagossians who were expelled from their homeland in the sixties the have lately won back the title to their land in the British court system. Commendably, they apparently rejected the option of terrorism or other coercive means to pursue their
claims. A better use of sovereignty and leadership would have been to avail the land problem as an opportunity to build bridges across races as is being successfully done in South Africa where a gradualist, evolutionary approach rather than a revolutionary,
disruptive one has been adopted by the state. In SouthAfrica government sponsors the appropriate legislation, which includes the necessary affirmative action provisions. This approach would have won Zimbabwe world wide plaudits as well as keeping the
economy on a progressive trajectory, without so much as a dent on its sovereignty, of which so much is being made. The approach would also give time for the average Zimbabwean or the prospective land owners to whet and build up the necessary competitive entrepreneurial skills in economic land use, in particular, commercial farming and agribusiness. Merely throwing out the farmers and giving their
holdings over to other Zimbabweans, Idi Amin-Style, has created an entitlement mentality and the suppression of the competitive spirit every economy
needs. It should not be a surprise that most of the farms so taken over have fallen into disuse while the overall effect on the economy has been dismal.
THE TECHNOCRATS
10. The next group of interlocutors in the May, 2007 edition of New African includes such men as Dr. Gideon Gono, Governor of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe; Dr. Tafataona Mahoso, the head of Zimbabwe’s Media and Information Commission; and Godwin T. Mutanga DCP (operations)- a police officer. These are all highly placed technocrats in Robert Mugabe’s government and can therefore be presumed ZANU-PF supporters. But their candid and even-handed contributions were encouraging and does show that whatever is wrong with Zimbabwe is at the political level, not with the technocrats. It should therefore be a relatively simple matter to redeem Zimbabwe by giving it a new direction when it gets a new leadership. The sooner that gets to happen, the better for all stake holders, including not just Zimbabweans but also the SADC and the AU.
MDC MEMBERS
11. The last group of interlocutors in Mr. Ankomah’s report, besides Morgan Tsvangirai himself, consists mainly of prominent MDC (opposition) members such as Professor Arthur Mutambara, leader of the breakway faction of the MDC; Professor Welshman Ncube, former Secretary General of the MDC (before the breakup) and
a leading member of the Mutambara-led faction. Trudy Stevenson, the MDC MP for Harare North; and David Coltart, MDC MP for Bulawayo South. If the
contributions from these sources were meant to show that all was not well with the MDC it did the job rather effectively. Ms Stevenson’s account of her alleged assault by people believed to be MDC supporters on 22nd July, 2006 was taken from the website: newzimbabwe.com. David Coltart’s explanation of his disillusionment with the MDC leadership was reproduced from the same site. Morgan Tsvangiran’s account of his assault on 11th March was culled from aBritish daily, the Independent. Professor Ncube’sviews were reported in an interview he granted the Zimbabwe Sunday news. Professor Mutambara’s press conference on 2nd April after the SADC summit was also
a reproduction. While these reports did show that all may not be well with the MDC, it is remarkable that Mr. Ankomah did not find it necessary to speak directly to any of its members as he did to the members of the Mugabe camp. However, going by the report the MDC is evidently having teething problems. Part of the reason could be that Morgan Tsvangirai is becoming a victim of his own success in building a credible opposition
for the country’s political system that actually gives voters a real choice. The hope is that these problems will resolve themselves as the party and system matures. The evidence shows that there is more maturity already in the Zimbabwean system than can be said of several African countries and there can be no doubt that Morgan Tsvangirai’s MDC played a seminal role in this development.
CONCLUSION
12. At independence the colonialists left hurriedly. If Nigeria’s experience is anything to go by independence came 50 years (100 years by some estimates) sooner than was projected by Whitehall. In every case it was a struggle that turned nasty and violent sometimes. In India (‘47) and Congo (’60) nsomething close to civil war erupted within days of the colonial authority’s formal withdrawal. India recovered pretty quickly although there remain vestiges in the Kashmir region and in the prickly relationship with Pakistan but Congo has not. Nigeria’s eruption delayed a bit till January 1966, most probably because the British GOC and IGP did not leave with the colonial political establishment in 1960. Within six months of the GOC’s departure, however, in July 1965, the majors struck and a civil war followed within the year. At independence there
were many loose ends left untied. It is left for the inheritors of power in these sovereign states to do what is necessary to tie up these loose ends without regressing the status quo. Before independence, the dominions relied on the colonial power’s democratic
institutional resources to function and to guarantee law and order. In the case of Britain Whitehall and Westminster, as well as the Lord Chancellor (Chief Justice) and the Chancellor of Exchequer (Deputy Prime Minister responsible for the treasury and domestic policy) extended their influence to the colonies. At independence when these structural scaffoldings were withdrawn there was nothing to hold the new states in place for the systems to function. There was acute shortage of manpower in the new states. The newly minted African leaders were essentially on their own.
Their plight was compounded by the fact that these states were a patchwork of diverse ethnic, cultural and in some instances religious entities. Unfortunately, the new African leaders took the short-cut approach for regime survival. Instead of focusing on building virile institutions of state and the necessary manpower, such as effective and
independent judiciaries, legislatures, and public services that will deliver egalitarianism and offer equal opportunity across the length and breath of their lands, they chose to play on ethnic and other divisions as well as running errands – hosting proxy wars – for Cold War powers, leaving their countries essentially cheated out of world advancement for decades. Many used the gratuities from the cold war sponsors to suppress opposition at home. In many African countries the situation was often described as
internal colonialism. In Nigeria the word ‘hegemonism’ was sometimes used by critics. One result of this kind of politics, apart from the developmental regression, was that minorities in these countries were continually marginalized. What is happening in
Nigeria’s Niger Delta today is that such marginalized groups have slowly but steadily emancipated and radicalized, and taking advantage of global communications, are now ready to force the central government by all necessary means (militia, thuggery,
blue and white collar grand larceny) to redress these historical injustices. Previous governments in Nigeria, after 1966, have been continually perfunctory with minorities and in the particular case of the Niger Deltans have used brutal force many times to suppress opposition. This brutality did much to radicalize anti-government sentiments there. (It is heartening to note that President Yar’dua is on to a good start and is already demonstrating that he is in for serious change. His style evokes memories of the
late Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa of blessed memory. I wish him well but the task ahead is enormous and daunting. I think that a radical, comprehensive, constitutional review is extremely important, even imperative and ought to be a high priority.) All
around the continent these hitherto marginalized groups are now giving the mainstream behemoths a hard time, from the Congo to the Ivory Coast. In Rwanda such tensions resulted in the historic bloodiness of 1994. Some others such as Burundi, Angola and for that matter, Rwanda have come through the worst and are now firmly on a correction course, however slowly. In Zimbabwe the marginalized entities have evolved
into an effective political opposition but the head of the government who belongs to the old order is refusing to accept the inevitable, much like fellow travelers in Nigeria through a few governments back. In his Independence Day speech of 18th April 2007,
Robert Mugabe said inter alia: “ Congratulations Zimbabwe, on our refusal to be re-colonized! Let the sound of the celebrations of our 27th anniversary reach the ears of Britain and her allies, and let them know that we shall never, never, ever be a colony
again” I think it is rather sad that after 27 years of independence the major thing to celebrate is a demagogic anti-imperialist swan song. Everything known about Zimbabwe today indicates that there is not much to celebrate and the person most responsible for that situation is doing his earnest best to divert attention from this reality. The late Julius Nyerere, one of the few outstanding post-colonial African
leaders and an Independence hero too, may not have achieved all he set out to do for Tanzania, but what he did achieve, his candour, readiness to admit his own mistakes and his well known ascetism, has laid an exemplary legacy for his country which has thereby become one of the most stable and progressive on the continent. In Nigeria, particularly during the military era the federal government took to perennially issuing circulars directing that Independence Day celebrations would be ‘low key’. But while poor soldiers, civil organizations groups and peasantry marched and danced their hearts out past the reviewing dias at Eagle Square or Tafawa Balewa Square, as the case may be, some of the reviewing officers were actually mocking the parade in front of them and the nation at large by stashing billions of dollars of public money in numbered accounts around the Western World. One in particular, a self styled
president, was reportedly 9 billion dollars richer on stepping aside. His military successor was reported to have similarly stashed up to 5 billion dollars before he incidentally gave up the ghost during an indulgent orgy that mocked an impoverished and dispirited nation. Such was the spirit of an age that hopefully is now being consigned to history. The future of Africa belongs to those leaders who will focus on the national interest to legitimize their governments. Following the building of democratic institutions of state they would need to adopt developmental models which while taking special interest in those at the bottom of the economic pyramid will also work to ‘lift
all boats’ on the tide of transparent and accountable governance. The ANC government in South Africa, although not without problems, is a good example of
what governance in sub-Saharan Africa should be.
Abbreviations:
ANC : African National Congress
AU : African Union
DCP : Deputy Commissioner of Police
DRC : Democratic Republic of Congo
IGP : Inspector-General of Police.
GOC : General Officer Commanding
MDC : Movement for Democratic Change
SADC: Southern African Development Community
By:
Lt.Col. Peter-Egbe –Ulu (rtd)
Okokomaiko, Lagos.
August 2007.
