Thoughts on Mugabe - A side note on Zimbabwe
by Wangari Kebuchi on May 3, 2008 in Blog
It may be clear to the world that Mugabe has to be removed from office, but we must not assume that this clarity is shared by a large proportion of Zimbabweans in Zimbabwe. The winds of change are sweeping across the Zimbabwean landscape but the main question is: Does Zimbabwe have its sails up?
Robert Mugabe is one of Zimbabwe and Africa’s heroes. He fought against colonial powers for the liberation of Zimbabweans and is a passionate smart and tough man. Few Africans can boast of the impressive resume the Mugabe has. Not only was he a freedom fighter, he has five bachelor’s degrees, two masters degrees and fourteen honorary degrees including from universities like the University of Massachusetts. Yet despite his intellectual superiority and longing for a free Zimbabwe, Mugabe seems to have lost sight of his purpose and has instead become the instigator of suffering and political oppression in Zimbabwe.
In the elections held in March 2008, the most notable result could perhaps be that Mugabe was able to garner about half of the popular vote. Even taking into consideration that Tsvangirai, Mugabe’s main rival, is claimed to have won 50.3% of the vote, Mugabe has still retained 49.7% of his nation’s support. Do we find it strange that despite the suffering his policies have brought on, nearly half the population still want Mugabe as their president?
I can think of at least two reasons as to why this is not strange. Firstly for many Africans who still smart from scars of change in leadership from colonial times, the sentiment is more ‘better the devil you know’ than anything else. Secondly, in the face of the great economic divide between whites and blacks, many black Zimbabweans may prefer to be ‘white-free’ than to continue to watch this divide grow. Mugabe may still be fighting for his people, where the framework of ‘people’ in his mind does not include white Zimbabweans.
Why, several decades after independence, does Mugabe still seem to be fighting against the white minority? Perhaps it was in Ghana where he lived and studied in 1951 that he came to associate freedom from oppression with the removal of white presence. Perhaps it was the need for a heavy-hand in a sharply divided nation in 1980, that the idea of supreme control became central to Mugabe’s regime. Indeed Mugabe, a former cattle herder raised by a single mother, seems to have lost touch with the common Zimbabwean and has come to be ranked currently as one in the top ten of the world’s worst dictators.
Mugabe’s rule was not always as out of touch as it is now reported to be. In the early years of his presidency, Mugabe instituted many social programs including rural health centers, primary schools and improved access to roads for those in the rural areas. Quite progressively, early on he introduced laws giving women rights equal to those of men – something uncommon in the world at the time. He also worked with his staunchest rivals to come up with cooperative solutions to Zimbabwe’s problems most notably to promote racial equality amongst white and black Zimbabweans. But these were the early years.
In 2005, Mugabe gave a directive to appropriate white-owned farms and redistribute them to his political allies. It was then that Zimbabwe started making global headlines when the decline of these farms, which were operating at only 20% of their capacity under the new and inexperienced management, drove the economy into hyperinflation. Homelessness and poverty became the new context of Zimbabwe. Average life expectancy was halved within a decade, four million people now face famine and unemployment soars at 70%.
Even though, given these statistics, one would think that the average Zimbabwean is quite certain that their beloved hero Mugabe, has lost touch with their reality, many still cling to him tightly. It is this lesson that a new administration, should there be one, must take into account. Mugabe has for a long time represented, no matter how extreme, justice and equality for his people. This representation falls out of the realm of tangible economic benefits and takes more of a philosophical, emotional place in the hearts and minds of many Zimbabweans. Alongside economic recovery, a new administration must not take the easy path to meet this need this by disenfranchising the white minority, but must take the much harder path of formulating creative and cooperative policy that addresses the unique context of Zimbabwe. A new administration must formulate a policy that embodies Mugabe inasmuch as he responds to a need in half of the population in Zimbabwe.
This of course is easier said than done, but given the current situation in Zimbabwe, new policy to address justice for the average Zimbabwean must be the nation’s new freedom fighter.
Comments
One Response to “Thoughts on Mugabe - A side note on Zimbabwe”
Got something to say?
As a Zimbabwean myself, I agree with the side note that explains the specifics on Mugabe’s influence on Black Zimbabwean people; this is not just a black and white situation, there is a bit of grey. Although I was born after the country’s independence and was privileged to attend the most prestigious private schools in Zimbabwe, I am black Zimbabwean who witnessed and understood the gateways to opportunity President Mugabe gave my family. These gateways were almost impossible under the Smith regime. For that, I appreciate who he was as a civil rights leader.
However, (maybe some Zimbabweans may beg to differ on this) because the Zimbabwean constitution mimics the U.S. constitution, a leader chosen through democracy cannot bite the hand that feeds him. Eventually, even if not done non-violently, his stagnant position will erupt more turmoil than many will expect. The economic crisis in my home country has affected all its citizens, the wealthy and the not so wealthy (especially the latter of whom comprise the majority) the strength of a country’s economy determines whether there will be bread or butter on the table. Right now there is barely any bread let alone butter to spread on the bread. Therefore, what would a Zimbabwean’s main concern be in such a situation where he has no food? Is his concern his loyalty to a leader gone bad who once gave him freedom to buy as much bread as possible at only a brief time since his freedom? Or, is his concern really for his children to simply survive another day. Let us be honest here, there is no opportunity to even buy bread for many at the moment, so what does Mugabe represent now for its black people?
Although I do not want to compare and contrast another controversial topic with this, but to make my point clear, I feel I may need to:
Many Germans who lived during Hitler’s era appreciated how the new Deutschland was recovering after the 1st world war, despite some being well aware of Hitler’s anti-Semitic stances and actions. The point is Hitler took care of the majority which is why no one complained until someone questioned his ethics. In contrast, if Mugabe was still active in promoting black majority power and opportunity; and even if land reform was still incorrectly implemented, so long as there is my bread and butter, I do not think many blacks would have questions about his principles of equality between blacks and whites.
The real issue at hand about the Zimbabwe situation is its culture. The Shona people have historically been noted as hard working, humble but passive people who do not naturally revolt when it comes to disputes but only work harder in the toughest situations to resolve any issues. The Ndebele, descendents of the Zulu tribe are however a bit more aggressive in stating their rights and freedoms, none the less their numbers do not make them the majority in the country, making the culture of Zimbabwe one of passive acceptance. In Zaire, Mobutu Sese Seko was uprooted by his own people and managed escape, but I tell you now it will take a lot of anger to entice a Zimbabwean to revolt. Not to say it will never happen, but that it is only a matter of time.